The Nazi State Hitler – “Master in the Third Reich or weak dictator?”

The Debate Until fairly recently historians have viewed Hitler as an all powerful Dictator in complete control of Germany. Until fairly recently historians have viewed Hitler as an all powerful Dictator in complete control of Germany. This belief has been successfully challenged This belief has been successfully challenged

The Evidence Hitler’s rule has been called a “mixture of chaos, confusion and consent” (Kershaw) There were five different government agencies- all claiming to represent Hitler Hitler often gave the same job to different people. “That way, he used to say, the strongest does the job”

Hitler’s style of rule Hitler did not take an active role in the day to day running of the government. He was basically lazy, not getting out of bed until lunchtime and keeping in touch by reading press cuttings. Hitler was like some medieval king holding court with his barons

So how were decisions made then? Apart from foreign policy, decisions were made by ambitious Nazis who were close to Hitler and knew what he wanted. This was called the “Will of the Fuhrer”

The Current Argument -1 Hitler was all powerful, made all the important decisions and deliberately created competing individuals and agencies to preserve his own power. “It was intentional” (Dietrich) “institutional Darwinism” (Schonbaum) These historians are called the intentionalists. Bracher, Rich, Hildebrand

The Current Argument -2 Hitler was a weak dictator. He rarely took decisions and left government to anyone else. “Unwilling to take decisions, frequently uncertain” (Mommsen) “Polyocracy” (Broszats) These historians are called structuralists. Neumann, Mason

The Synthesis This has largely been provided by Ian Kershaw in his book “Hubris” “…fragmentation of government as Hitler’s form of personalised rule distorted the machinery of government into competing and overlapping agencies dependant on the will of the Fuhrer”