Hitler: ‘master in the Third Reich’ or ‘weak dictator’? Debate

The issues What is the role of the individual in shaping the course of historical development, as against the limitations on the individual’s freedom?

The issues  Debate focuses on ‘whether the terrible events of the Third Reich are chiefly to be explained through the personality, ideology, and will of Hitler, or whether the Dictator himself was not at least in part a (willing) ‘prisoner’ of forces, of which he was the instrument rather than the creator, and whose dynamic swept him too along in its momentum’. Kershaw.

The historiography The historiographical positions are graphically polarized in the frequently-cited comment of American historian Norman Rich – ‘the point cannot be stressed too strongly: Hitler was master in the Third Reich’, and in the diametrically opposed interpretation of Hans Mommsen, of a Hitler ‘unwilling to take decisions, frequently uncertain, exclusively concerned with upholding his prestige and personal authority, influenced by the strongest fashion by his current entourage, in some aspects a weak dictator’.

Hitler’s power: an evaluation  What were Hitler’s ‘strengths’ and ‘weaknesses’ within the ‘overall power constellation in the Third Reich?

Possible weaknesses (1)  Hitler was ‘weak’ in the sense that he regularly shirked making decisions, and was compelled to do so in order to protect his own image and prestige, dependent upon the Fuhrer remaining outside factional politics and unassociated with mistaken or unpopular decisions.

Possible weaknesses (2)  Hitler could be regarded as ‘weak’ if it could be shown that his decisions were ignored, watered-down, or otherwise not properly implemented by his subordinates.

Possible weaknesses (3)  It might be claimed that Hitler was ‘weak’ in that his scope for action, his manoeuvrability, was preconditioned and limited by factors outside his control but immanent to the ‘system’, such as the demands of the economy or fear of social unrest.

Chaos in government  No fundamental disagreement over the fact that the government of Nazi Germany was chaotic in structure. The fragmentation and lack of co-ordination in the internal spheres of authority can be aptly depicted as ‘chaotic’. The question is, what significance should be attached to this chaos?

Intentionalist  The confused lines of authority in the Third Reich was a reflection of a calculated policy of ‘divide and rule’.  This was testimony of Hitler’s pivotal role, his real power and his preconceived planning with a view to carrying out his long-term objectives.

v. ‘structuralist’  The confused nature of government was the inevitable product of Hitler’s charismatic leadership.  Hitler rejected the institutional and bureaucratic norms necessary for ‘rational’ government of a modern state in favour of dependence on personal loyalty as the basis of authority.

‘Structuralist’  Used propaganda to avoid any harmful inroads into the prestige and image of the Fuhrer and needed to remain aloof from interference in internal conflicts.  A lack of clear, rational ‘middle-range’ policies and a diminishing sense of reality all promoted instability of the political system and led to negative goals and cumulative radicalization.

‘structuralist’  Hitler’s personal scope for action was limited by the continued existence of other, real – if fluctuating – centres of power.

Your job  Evaluate the evidence for how Nazi Germany was run and decide which side of the debate you find most convincing. You will investigate:  Hitler’s personality – the ‘Hitler myth’  How decisions were taken in Nazi Germany.  The way in which policies were carried out – were they intentional, or a case of cumulative radicalisation?  Rival centres of power in the Third Reich e.g. traditional power structures; the Nazi Party; the SS and Gestapo