Spoiler
Evaluate Hitler’s role in the Nazi state between 1933 and 1939
Adolf Hitler’s impressive rise to power culminated in his appointment as Chancellor on 30 January 1933. Yet Hitler and Nazi Party were established as a party of negative consensus, a party built to come into power, but not one prepared to rule. It seems likely, then, that Hitler ruled Germany the only way he knew, as he ran the Nazi party; maintaining full authority and relying on public support, yet choosing to use it only when absolutely necessary or when he desired, increasingly rarely as time passed, as his focus shifted towards the establishment of “the greater German Reich”. Once in power, the establishment of the Führerprinzip, which characterised the state, the polycratic system of government, and the Führer Myth, combined with his foreign policy success all saw Hitler’s power and popularity soar as he maintained his position as dictator.
After Hitler assumed his position as head of the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP), the predecessor to the Nazi party, in 1921, he introduced the Führerprinzip into the party ideology. In essence, it gave the Führer the final decision in settling critical issues and gave Hitler the ability to create Nazi ideology. Once in power, this allowed Hitler the ultimate authority over any potential crisis that was occurring in Germany. Hitler used his position extensively in the consolidation of the party’s power, including in the draft of the Reichstag Fire Decree on 27 February 1933, which suspended key articles of the constitution that guaranteed the right to the freedom of speech. In response to the fire, the Volkischer Beobachter, the Nazi newspaper, declared that “the constitution is the will of the Führer”, a perfect example of the power Hitler’s position wielded. His power was reinforced through the Gauleiter system, which atomised society, and placed Hitler at the top of a chain of power that ran through each district, region, area and block. This ensured any decision Hitler made was effectively carried out throughout all of Germany, and gave his dictatorial position dictatorial power.
However, it was not in Hitler’s personality to take an active stance in the day-to-day running of the state, and instead he developed a system known as polycracy, where individuals and groups would be in constant conflict with other individuals and groups performing the same task. Whilst some historians interpret this system as a sign he was a “weak dictator”, the constant conflict actually enhanced Hitler’s position of power significantly, as Dietrich Bracher says “the antagonism between rival agencies was resolved solely in the key position of the Führer, which derived precisely from the complex opposition of power groups and personal ties”. Hitler’s lack of consistent and concrete beliefs also allowed individuals to interpret his statements in their own way and implement policy according to their beliefs, granting them further power, a process known as “Working towards the Führer”. One example is Philipp Bouhler’s policy of euthanasia, which came into being after he recognised Hitler’s views on race and belief in a world where the strong rule over the weak, and presented his idea to Hitler. The constant fighting between groups and the willingness of individuals to take governing into their own hands allowed Hitler to distance himself from government, and preserved his authority.
Yet according to Kershaw, the German people believed in Hitler as a man on a “historical mission to save Germany”, and thus his role in the Nazi state was not an “institutional one” but rather “charismatic”. And therefore in the eyes of the people, Hitler needed to be a man who was actively working to ensure the revival of German national sovereignty. The myth of Hitler as a hardworking leader was propagated in the Führer Myth by Joseph Goebbels, which he considered to be his greatest work. Goebbels portrayed Hitler as a man destined to rule over Germany, a man who gave up his family life for the service of a nation and a source of unification for an otherwise divided nation. Goebbels’ myth encouraged Germans to look at the harsh measures imposed by the regime and attribute them to Hitler’s subordinates and instead express a longing that “If only the Führer knew” everything would be alright. This was in deep contrast to the reality of Hitler, who was incredibly lazy, woke up at 11 am each morning and did little practical work in the running of the state, yet knew about everything that went on and cared little. The myth was so successful that even though Hitler contributed little to the everyday running of the state, his presence was vital for the popularity and survival of the regime, cementing his authority, which he rarely ever used.
As Hitler’s ultimate aim of creating a “greater Reich” became increasingly tenable, he began to use his power to engage in aggressive foreign policy. This is the area in which Hitler took the most interest in over the years from 1933 to 1939. He began first, in 1935, with a referendum in the Saarland on whether they wished to unite with Germany. The result was a 90% majority for affirmative, which boosted Hitler’s image as a man who was to restore German national honour. His successes continued with the “invasion” of the demilitarised Rhineland in 1936, which further emphasised Hitler’s ability to restore sovereignty. Hitler consistently portrayed himself as a man of peace to European leaders, but one that wished for a return of all the German people into one greater German Reich. This begun with the Anschluss with Austria in March 1938 and culminated in the Munich Conference in which Hitler was given access to the Czech Sudetenland later in 1938. For the German people, who had been so downcast by the diminutive Treaty of Versailles, Hitler’s actions in expanding the army and taking land for their nation gave him credibility and cemented his position further.
Therefore, it can be said that Hitler played an important role within the Nazi State from 1933 to 1939. Whilst he rarely played a role in the government of Germany, outside of pursuing foreign policy success, his position, heightened in power by the Führerprinzip and Führer Myth, gave him ultimate authority over the country.
Spoiler
Evaluate Hitler’s role in the Nazi state between 1933 and 1939
Adolf Hitler’s impressive rise to power culminated in his appointment as Chancellor on 30 January 1933. I would probably be careful using the word "impressive" to describe Hitler; whilst I don't necessarily disagree (on an objective level), let's not forget he was a bit of a dickhead. Maybe his "rapid and complete rise to power"? however, Hitler and Nazi Party were established as a party of negative consensus, a party built to come into power, but not one prepared to rule. nice It seems likely, then, that Hitler ruled Germany the only way he knew, as he ran the Nazi party; maintaining full authority and relying on public support, yet choosing to use it only when absolutely necessary or when he desired, increasingly rarely as time passed, as his focus shifted towards the establishment of “the greater German Reich”. Once in power, the establishment of the Führerprinzip, which characterised the state, the polycratic system of government, and the Führer Myth, combined with his foreign policy success all saw Hitler’s power and popularity soar as he maintained his position as dictator. Your use of historic language is phenomenal, and I really like your argument. I need you to make it a bit clearer though; was Hitler's role simply as a figurehead, a strong leader, or was it substantial? Was it a mix of both? You clearly understand the concepts, and are doing a great job of displaying your knowledge. but I need a single sentence that outlines your thesis in a clear, succinct way.
After Hitler assumed his position as head of the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP), the predecessor to the Nazi party, in 1921, he introduced the Führerprinzip into the party ideology. In essence, it gave the Führer the final decision in settling critical issues and gave Hitler the ability to create Nazi ideology. From memory, this was part of the 1921 25 point plan. See if you can get a bit more concrete here; find a quote, a proper date etc. Once in power, this allowed Hitler the ultimate authority over any potential crisis that was occurring in Germany. Hitler used his position extensively in the consolidation of the party’s power, including in the draft of the Reichstag Fire Decree on 27 February 1933, which suspended key articles of the constitution that guaranteed the right to the freedom of speech. In response to the fire, the Volkischer Beobachter, the Nazi newspaper, declared that “the constitution is the will of the Führer”, a perfect example of the power Hitler’s position wielded. His power was reinforced through the Gauleiter system, which atomised society, and placed Hitler at the top of a chain of power that ran through each district, region, area and block. This ensured any decision Hitler made was effectively carried out throughout all of Germany, and gave his dictatorial position dictatorial power. I need more here. This is really good, so I want to push you a bit further. Maybe you talk about it further below, but Hitler consolidated his power in many more ways than just the Reichstag Fire Decree. Think the Rohm massacre (I think it was Rohm, I could be wrong. A death toll of 200 comes to mind) in which the inner sanctum was culled, displaying the need for a SINGLE power etc. A few more examples would push this paragraph over the edge.
However, it was not in Hitler’s personality to take an active stance in the day-to-day running of the state, and instead he developed a system known as polycracy, where individuals and groups would be in constant conflict with other individuals and groups performing the same task. Whilst some historians interpret this system as a sign he was a “weak dictator”, the constant conflict actually enhanced Hitler’s position of power significantly, as Dietrich Bracher says “the antagonism between rival agencies was resolved solely in the key position of the Führer, which derived precisely from the complex opposition of power groups and personal ties”. I've always been a sucker for this argument; absolutely love it. Make your thesis clearer though: Hitler's role may have been one of a figurehead, but this was in no way any less calculated than the direct dictatorial power he exercised over Germany. Hitler’s lack of consistent and concrete beliefs also allowed individuals to interpret his statements in their own way and implement policy according to their beliefs, granting them further power, a process known as “Working towards the Führer”. One example is Philipp Bouhler’s policy of euthanasia, which came into being after he recognised Hitler’s views on race and belief in a world where the strong rule over the weak, and presented his idea to Hitler. The constant fighting between groups and the willingness of individuals to take governing into their own hands allowed Hitler to distance himself from government, and preserved his authority. Try to add some more specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples. Action T4 took a certain number of lives, over a certain period of time; It's also not quite clear how this links into your overall thesis (I understand how it does, but make it clearer to the marker). Were there squabbles between Party leaders? The answer is obviously yes; use those examples to your advantage. I don't remember who it was, but I'm recalling something to do with Himmler.
Yet according to Kershaw, the German people believed in Hitler as a man on a “historical mission to save Germany”, and thus his role in the Nazi state was not an “institutional one” but rather “charismatic”. If you think that you're "not too confident in terms of structure or content", you're dreaming; the structure and content has been fantastic so far. You clearly sum up what you're about to talk about at the start of the paragraph, lead into your thesis and bring it home with some gorgeously selected facts. I think, though, that given the nuance of this argument, you should critique each point a bit more. Agreeing with historians is easy; disagreeing is far more fun. Yes, Hitler had an actual role, a 'figurehead' role, and a 'charismatic' role, but is there a reason to think that any of these were not actually the case? You claim he took no heed of the day-to-day operations; are you sure about that? Are there ways to critique each of your thesis pillars, and thus make them seem stronger and more nuanced? I'm only suggesting this because this has been a great essay so far; extending yourself will only make it better. And 0o
therefore in the eyes of the people, Hitler needed to be a man who was actively working to ensure the revival of German national sovereignty. The myth of Hitler as a hardworking leader was propagated in the Führer Myth by Joseph Goebbels, which he considered to be his greatest work. Where did Goebbels paint this epic picture? There are some great stats about the number of televisions increasing exponentially from 1933-39, propaganda films released, etc. etc. Use those facts to your advantage.Goebbels portrayed Hitler as a man destined to rule over Germany, a man who gave up his family life for the service of a nation and a source of unification for an otherwise divided nation. Goebbels’ myth encouraged Germans to look at the harsh measures imposed by the regime and attribute them to Hitler’s subordinates and instead express a longing that “If only the Führer knew” everything would be alright. Use the Kristallnacht example (as it falls within your time period); despite mass outcry at the horrors commitment (or, more aptly, outcry regarding the property damage), the sentiment was defensive of the Fuhrer at every turn. Truly incredible, really. Disgusting, but incredible. This was in deep contrast to the reality of Hitler, who was incredibly lazy, woke up at 11 am each morning and did little practical work in the running of the state, yet knew about everything that went on and cared little. Given the high level of your use of historical language thus far, Hitler being described as "incredible lazy" was pretty jarring. Probably change that entire sentence, cutting it down to a few words if possible. Also, get a primary source quote, because this statistic sounds juvenile (not untrue, but like something you could have made up on the spot). The myth was so successful that even though Hitler contributed little to the everyday running of the state, his presence was vital for the popularity and survival of the regime, cementing his authority, which he rarely ever used.
As Hitler’s ultimate aim of creating a “greater Reich” If you know the relevant German, use that, and put the English translation in brackets. became increasingly tenable, he began to use his power to engage in aggressive foreign policy. This is the area in which Hitler took the most interest in over the years from 1933 to 1939. He began first, in 1935, Lots of things happened in 1935; the more specific the date, the better. with a referendum in the Saarland on whether they wished to unite with Germany. The result was a 90% majority for affirmative, which boosted Hitler’s image as a man who was to restore German national honour. His successes continued with the “invasion” of the demilitarised Rhineland in 1936, which further emphasised Hitler’s ability to restore sovereignty. Hitler consistently portrayed himself as a man of peace to European leaders, but one that wished for a return of all the German people into one greater German Reich. This begun with the Anschluss with Austria in March 1938 and culminated in the Munich Conference in which Hitler was given access to the Czech Sudetenland later in 1938. For the German people, who had been so downcast by the diminutive Treaty of Versailles, Hitler’s actions in expanding the army and taking land for their nation gave him credibility and cemented his position further. Not a massive fan of this paragraph. In all the others, you discuss facts/statistics, use them to build your thesis, and then support it with more facts/stats. I think here you've just really explained what happened. Instead, make an argument, and say something like "this is evident in the Anschluss with Australia, etc. etc. Also, emotive language like "downcast" doesn't have any place in History, unless you are quoting a historian. You can definitely find a quote somewhere, but don't get too teary eyed for the German people.
Therefore, it can be said that Hitler played an important role within the Nazi State from 1933 to 1939. Whilst he rarely played a role in the government of Germany, outside of pursuing foreign policy success, his position, heightened in power by the Führerprinzip and Führer Myth, gave him ultimate authority over the country.
You conclusion needs to actually sum up your argument, which is far more nuanced that two sentences can describe. Hitler was a man with many roles; authoritative, administrative, idolatry and adversarial. He played each role in a varying capacity, and Historians have long debated over which was most prevalent, or in any way purposive. Your essay is great, and I think the comments above are enough to turn this into something really really incredible. The only thing I think this is missing overall is a sense of debate among historians. You don't need to turn it into a historiographical study, but answering this question is one of the hardest things Modern Historians are faced with, and many disagree vehemently with each other. Bring that in; "A says this. B, in disagreement, suggests this" etc. Even do this a little, and the marker will be blown away. Congratulations on a great essay.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: Modern History Essay Marking (Read 120502 times)