Hitler and the Nazi's tried to give the impression of a highly organised and clearly strucutured regime, that were in complete control of Germany between 1933-1945. Indeed, Hitler was seen by some historians as an omnipotent dictator. More recent research has led historians to question this interpretation.
Does the nature of decision making in the Third Reich strengthen the argument that Hitler was 'Master of the Third Reich', or a 'weak dictator'? Watch the video below as a starting point, and then post your comments!
4 comments:
Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but I am most anxious to that folks in your wonderful school know about this:
For an exciting (and readable!) look at the consequences today of the Treaty of Versailles, do have a look at my wonderful new book -- "A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today" [ http://www.ashatteredpeace.com ] just published by Wiley.
And DO pass the word at your school....great for history class !! I'd be happy to talk to the class or school via webcam or fone hookup (I am veteran foreign correspondent for The New York Times and CBS News!)
Best,
David A. Andelman
There's no doubt that Hitler was the main authority in Germany in the Third Reich and that officials needed to gain his permission in order to pass policies. However, the way in which Hitler's approval was gained varied considerably, any opinion expressed by him through speeches or even passive comments being taken as a signal by ambitious Nazi's. Hitler's lazy personality as well as his philosophy of 'survial of the fittest' meant that he was willing to let this method of decision making continue, shown by the fact that he barely looked at the papers he was asked to sign. This encouraged the rivalry that was created by the co-existence of offices that were meant to perform similar or the same duties, Hitler believing that this would result in the 'fittest' ruling while it actually contributed to increasing chaos.
While it can be said that'there's no doubt that Hitler was the main authority', I can only agree with this to a certain extent.
Whether it was Volksgemeinschaft or the propaganda depicting the 'ideal' blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryan, Hitler's ideals influenced the beginnings of policy, or at least the 'face' of them. It seems only 'right' that his view of leadership also filtered through to policy and became the norm- a 'Darwinist jungle', where Hitler admired anyone who was 'fit' enough to gain power (because he initially did this himself). This, in conjunction with Hitler's 'lazy personality' meant that he maintained his power, but resulted in him no longer being the the main authority when it came to decisions.
He lost being the 'main authority' as soon as he stopped actively ruling (as soon as he consolidated his power), as once someone loses the reins of control and starts to enjoy a lifestyle of luxury, who wants to regain them?
While there was very much the 'myth' of Hitler being the all powerful saviour-like Führer, I would suggest that another Hitler myth originated in the Third Reich. This myth was the one where individuals believed they were working towards his 'patchwork will', when really it was the personal beliefs of some power-hungry radicals (influenced by Hitler, original Nazi policy and bitterness at past events) that were determining policy. The policy could either be applauded or ignored by Hitler (but he rarely ever took initiative to stop policies in their tracks). In this respect it was Hitler who apparently was like the bullet in the gun, but individuals who became the trigger.
Could the myth of Hitler (rather than him personally) instead count as the main authority even when it's not active?
(I apologise to anyone who tries to follow my mad Sunday night ramblings!!!)
While it can be said that'there's no doubt that Hitler was the main authority', I can only agree with this to a certain extent.
Whether it was Volksgemeinschaft or the propaganda depicting the 'ideal' blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryan, Hitler's ideals influenced the beginnings of policy, or at least the 'face' of them. It seems only 'right' that his view of leadership also filtered through to policy and became the norm- a 'Darwinist jungle', where Hitler admired anyone who was 'fit' enough to gain power (because he initially did this himself). This, in conjunction with Hitler's 'lazy personality' meant that he maintained his power, but resulted in him no longer being the the main authority when it came to decisions.
He lost being the 'main authority' as soon as he stopped actively ruling (as soon as he consolidated his power), as once someone loses the reins of control and starts to enjoy a lifestyle of luxury, who wants to regain them?
While there was very much the 'myth' of Hitler being the all powerful saviour-like Führer, I would suggest that another Hitler myth originated in the Third Reich. This myth was the one where individuals believed they were working towards his 'patchwork will', when really it was the personal beliefs of some power-hungry radicals (influenced by Hitler, original Nazi policy and bitterness at past events) that were determining policy. The policy could either be applauded or ignored by Hitler (but he rarely ever took initiative to stop policies in their tracks). In this respect it was Hitler who apparently was like the bullet in the gun, but individuals who became the trigger.
Could the myth of Hitler (rather than him personally) instead count as the main authority even when it's not active?
I apologise to anyone who tries to follow my mad ramblings
Post a Comment