Working towards the Fuehrer Ian Kershaw has put forward the idea that Hitler came up with big ideas then left it to others to interpret and implement his ideas, sometimes to more than one other individual or agency. This meant Hitler could receive the plaudits if an idea was successful but had a scapegoat if it went wrong. Kershaw identified this compromise view based on a speech of Werner Willikens the State Secretary for agriculture in 1934 where he used the phrase “working towards the Fuehrer”. Hitler in charge of the big ideas but not of the detail – however all those below Hitler are trying to deliver what they think he wants.

Factors which suggest Hitler’s rule was chaotic Chaos resulted from the charismatic nature of Hitler’s leadership. Everyone relied on the leader with no clear power structures Power was concentrated in the hands of the Fuhrer, but beneath him there was a confusing array of state and party institutions cutting across each other’s jurisdictions but all seeking to ‘work towards the Fuhrer’ Just as barons owed loyalty to a feudal monarch so Nazi leaders owed loyalty to the Fuhrer. Hitler saw loyalty in personal not institutional terms so he did not mind Goering or Himmler building up great power so long as they remained completely loyal to him. The result was that the Nazi leaders constantly quarrelled with one another and the overall structure of government was reduced to a mess of constantly shifting power bases or warring factions This system created jealous rivalries, which served to enhance Hitler’s power but seriously undermined efficient government Although there was a complex police system its efficiency was dependent on the willing cooperation of millions of Germans.

Factors which suggest Hitler’s rule was to a degree efficient. Internal rivalries generated a degree of efficiency as rivals sought to outdo each other in pursuit of policies that Hitler would approve of The extensive police machine and the popularity of Hitler’s policies made opposition very difficult Hitler inherited and used effectively an already well-established administrative and industrial structure which he did not disrupt and which continued to function Traditional institutions such as the civil service cooperated with the regime The Nazi Party had a series of sections reaching right down to local block units seeking to ensure that all Germans complied with the regime. The key positions were the Gauleiter, at the top of the regional structure, and the block leader at the bottom. But although the component organisations of the party greatly expanded, the party’s power did not develop to pose any threat to Hitler.

Historiography Brozsat: The Hitler state was chaotic and polycratic and he had to operate against a background of changing structures and institutional circumstances Kershaw: Hitler’s was charismatic rule and though his personality should not be overrated it should not be ignored either. He was undoubtedly powerful, but his leadership also meant that government was unstable because it caused chaos and depended on continued successes and the avoidance of the usual routines of governing and government Kirk: Powerful leading figures in the party built personal empires, which were semi-independent of any other control than Hitler’s approval. The result was chaotic government characterised by internal rivalries and conflicts McDonough: In some ways Nazi rule was indeed remarkably efficient. So, for instance, the fusion of the SS and the police enabled fanatical SS leaders, who were imbued with the revolutionary Nazi spirit of the pre-1933 party, to build themselves an impregnable position within the state. They could now use the bureaucratic police apparatus to launch an effective and brutal campaign against the enemies of the Third Reich