Pdf

Was Hitler a ”weak Dictator” ?
In this assignment I am dealing with the political Structure of the Third
Reich to explain why I am convinced that Adolf Hitler was not a weak
Dictator as it is sometimes suggested, but a very strong and powerful leader.
First I am going to look on some facts that in my oppinion could suggest that
Hitler was not the Dictator that had controll abut everything, then I am going
to confront these suggestions with an possible explanation for the ”political
confusion” in the third Reich.
Finally I try to explain why, if you consider all the facts I have mentioned,
you should come to the conclusion that Adolf Hitler was ”the master of the
Third Reich”.
1. Hitler, the weak Dictator ?
If You consider the political situation in Germany during the Third Reich as
not merely and pay more attention to the background, it is obvious that it was
not such a monolith block as the Propaganda tried to show it, it was a
confusing existence of rival hierarchies and competing centers of power at
the same time.
A very good way to describe this is to look on the letter that the Gauleiter
(Gauleader) of Munich - Upper Bavaria, Adolf Wagner, wrote to the
Minister of the Interior, Frick in June 1934 : ” According to the actual legal
Position, the Reichsstatthalter are under your control as you are the
Minister of the Interior of the Reich. Adolf Hitler is Reichsstatthalter in
Prussia. He has delegated his rights to the Prime Minister of Prussia,
Goering. You yourself are at the same time Minister of the Interior in
Prussia. As a Minister of the Interior of the Reich, Adolf Hitler and the
Prime Minister of Prussia are under your control. But as you are Minister of
the Interior in Prussia at the same time, , you are under the control of the
Prime Minister of Prussia, and so you are under your own control as a
2
Minister of the Interior of the Reich. Now I am not a jurist, but I do not think
that such a Construction has ever existed before.”1
Or as Joseph Goebbels wrote into his Diary on the 10th of February 1940
:”General Dissagreement. Ley is arguing with Kerrl against Rosenberg etc..
And this right now in the war, and everybody refers his position to the
Fuehrer.”2
If you compare the two following diagrams, it is easy to see that the structure
of the third Reich was a kind of "Doppelstaat"(Double - State) with the
traditional Bureaucracy on the one hand, and the Party - Apparatus on the
other hand .
3
In this Diagram, you can see the structure of the state in the Third Reich. At first it
seems to be as clear structured and organized as the NSDAP; but there were rivalries
between the State - Bureaucracy and the Party - Organizations.
1
Informatinen zur politische Bildung, Heft 123/125/127, Bonn 1991,P.75
N.B. As all the Qoutes were in german, I translated them by myself; on
Page 11/12 you can find the Quotes in their original Language.
2
Informationen zur politischen Bildung,Heft 123/125/127, Bonn 1991,
P.75
3
Informationen zur politischen Bildung,Heft 123/126/127, Bonn
1991,P.30
3
4
This Diagram shows the structure of the NSDAP as created from Adolf Hitler after
1923. The Party was based on absolute loyalty towards the Fuehrer. There where
many Departments which where direct Rivals to the power of the traditional
Bureaucracy.
The demise of an centralized government with clear divisions of the areas of
responsibility led to the situation that something like a coordinated policy did
not take place, each ministry worked independent by its own; at the same
time there were a lot of crossings with the Party - Apparatus, but to make this
Chaos complete, there where even some ”Sonderbeauftragte” (special emissary) which had gained their mandate on direct order of Hitler. If there
where rivalries about one topic between all these, Hitler often waited to
decide right in the end, when it already was clear which side would have
more support.
Adolf Hitler did not like to take part in Conferences, he preferred to talk in
private1; Meetings of the Cabinet did not take place regularly, the last
Meeting of the Cabinet took place on the 5th of February 1938, but the
”Reichsregierung” had lost its power as early as 1935. The only
Representative of the State - Bureaucracy, Hans Heinrich Lammers was
asked to report to Hitler the last time on the 29th of September 19445.
4
Informationen zur politischen Bildung, Heft 123/126/127, Bonn 1991,
P.30
5
Ruck, M., Fuehrerabsolotismus und polykratisches HerrschaftsgefuegeVefassunsstrukturen des NS Staates, in : Deutschland 1933-145, Neue
4
This construction led to a lot of conflicts and caused delays with regard to
responsibility areas between the traditional Ministers and the new Party - I
Instances. One reason for this was, that the allocation of responsibilities
between the traditional Bureaucracy and the Party was not very clear; e.g. the
Gauleiter of the Party where direct rivals of the Reichsstatthalter, the foreign
office had its equivalent in the "Diensstelle Ribbentropp" (department
Ribentropp of the NSDAP), the Police had their rivals in the SS, the Justice
in the "Volksgerichtshof" (People's Court), and even Adolf Hitler had three
different chancelleries of the Party with nearly similar areas of responsibility
at the same time.6
Some Historian stress the fact that there are only a few direct of direct
”Fuehrer Befehle” about important topics, but as Hitler said in a secret
speech to party leaders in 1937 ”Never give a written order if you can give a
oral order, never!”7; or as the State Secretary in the Foreign Office Ernst von
Weizsaecker said ;” Ministerial skill in the Third Reich consisted in making
the most of a favorable hour or minute when Hitler made a decision, this
often taking the form of a remark thrown out casually, which then went its
way as an Order of the Fuehrer”8.
I think if you use this as a proof for Hitler’s weakness, you have to be
carefully with your conclusions of describing the Political Figure Adolf
Hitler, because sometimes the missing of written orders is used as a kind of
excuse for the terrible events that took place during the third Reich. A good
example for this is the British Historian David Irving, in his Hitler Biography
he tries to show that the Holocaust went on without knowing of Hitler, at
least until 19439
But nevertheless some historians conclude out of the facts I have mentioned
above, that Adolf Hitler was not a strong dictator, and sometimes it is even
suggested that Adolf Hitler was not working towards the goals he had laid
down in ”Mein Kampf”, and that he was more a umpire than a leader that
Studien zur nationalsozialistischen Herrschaft, Bonn 1992, P.56
6
Knopp, G., Hitler-Eine Bilanz-, Berlin 1995, P.206f
7
Knopp, G., Hitler-Eine Bilanz, Berlin 1995, p.289
8
Bullock,A. Hitler-A Study in Tyranny,1962,P.730, in : Simpson,
William, Hitler and Germany, Cambridge1994,P.83
9
Irving, D., Hitler’s War, London 1977, P.71ff.(In newer editions of
his book he modified some passages of it, as he now totally denies the
ecistence of eamination camps)
5
sanctioned policy rather than initiating it.10
2. Adolf Hitler, the ”Master of the Third Reich” ?
To explain the construction of the Third Reich and Hitler’s Role in it, it is a
good start to go back to the origins of his political career.
When he joined the "DAP”(German Workers Party) in September 1919, the
first thing he did subsequent to being elected as the Head of this Party on the
29th of July 1921, after he had been working for this position with
determination, was to change the Party in that way, that he was the one and
only man with absolute power; the executive of the party wrote ”The
committee is willing ,..., to give you dictatorial authority...”11. After the failed
Putsch of 1923 he refunded the ”NSDAP” on the 26th of July 1925 and
organized his Party as an effective Instrument by introducing of the "Fuehrer
Prinzip" which gave absolute Power to him.
After the Elections of 1932 it seemed that the Party would loose Power,
because Hitler was not willing to join a cabinet as a minister, he wanted
"everything or nothing".
During this period the left wing of the Party under Georg Strasser was
speaking up against him, because they wanted to take part in the Government
in a Coalition; after Hitler had found out that Strasser already was in secret
negotiations with Kurt von Schleicher (former Reichskanzler) about joining
the Government, he was able to overcome the opposition and this last try to
limit his power failed.
After he was chosen as "Reichskanzler"(Chancellor of the Reich) on the 30th
of January 1933, he followed the legal way, but on the 1st of February he
convinced the Reichspraesident von Hindenburg to send new elections on
the way.
In the period up to the election day , the 3rd of March, Hitler showed very
clear that he was looking for more power and showed that he was able to use
10
Simpson,W.,Hitler and Germany, Cambridge 1994, P.80
Steffahn, H.,Hitler Biografie Von Braunau nach Berlin, in : Bild der
Geschichte, Hitler, Hamburg 1989, P.19
11
6
every chance that seemed useful to him. After the Reichstag was burned on
the 26th of February 1933, Hitler reacted at once, and on the next Day the
”Reichstagsbrandverordnung” was signed by the Reichspraesident. These
”Notverordnung” limited certain ”basic - laws”(like freedom of speech,
freedom of assembly, freedom of the press,..., ), it has been suggested that the
NSDAP was involved into the burning of the Reichstag, but it seems that
Marinus van der Lubbe was the only one involved. (This Question is of no
real importance, the important thing is how Hitler was able to use this
incident). I would say that it was right at this point where Hitler transferred
from a ”Reichskanzler” into a Dictator12. The ”Ermaechtigungsgesetz” from
the 23rd of March was only a way to legalize the Dictatorship that already
was existing13
The first thing that followed was that the structure of the state was changed
during the ”Gleichschaltung”(7.4.1934), and the political Situation in the
Laender was transferred over to the ”Fuehrer - Prinzip”.
This structural change was never completed, but it is fair enough to say that
if Hitler really would have wanted such a change, he would have ordered it14.
A very good example that shows that Hitler was willing to react as brutal as
necessary to preserve his power is the killing of the Leader of the SA, Ernst
Roehm, and the whole leadership of the SA in the Night of long knives on
the 30th of June 1934, as a reaction to what the Goebbels - Propaganda
called the ”Roehm - Putsch”. Recent research has shown that there never was
a serious attempt of the SA for a Coup d ‘Etat15, the only reason was that the
SA wanted more influence and Hitler was not willing to give them more
Power; from now on the ”Machtergreifung” was finished, as no opposition in
his own party or in the state System existed anymore or had any power.
From now on Hitler was the the powerful dictator of a Terror - Regime.
In the part of the practical politic it has been shown that Hitler used his
power totally to influence the actions in his way. Till the Collapse of the
Third Reich Hitler was able to preserve his position within the Regime as the
central ”Bezugspunkt”(~ point of reference), as a Fuehrer with unquestioned
and practically undisturbed Power. How strong Hitler’s position was
12
13
14
15
Knopp, G., Hitler-Eine Bilanz-,Berlin 1995 P.183f.
Knopp, G., Hitler-Eine Bilanz-, Berlin 1995, P.187.
Kershaw, I., The Nazi - Dictatorship, London 1989, P.72.
Knopp, G., Hitler-Eine Bilanz, Berlin 1995, p.197
7
becomes very clear when you remember that Hitler ignored all the warnings
of his Generals who wanted him to order a retreat of the German troops in
Russia to stabilize the front, and instead ordered the ”Geheime
Kommandosache Nr.1736/41”(~ Secret Order ) which had the essential, that
the Officers and Commanders had to force their troops to fanatic resistance
in their positions. With this order Hitler finally took complete Control over
all the military decisions, and after he had changed all the important
positions with loyal people, no one tried to did resist him.16
3. Conclusion
Directly after the second World War the large majority of historians and
people, but especially the people who had been prosecuted during the 12
years of the National-Socialist-Dictatorship had the impression that the Third
Reich was a rational organized, perfect System of a Terror - Dictatorship; but
these Idea was changed partly as it became clear that it was instead a
existence of rivaling Departments in the State and Party17.
In this Chaos Adolf Hitler was the integrating and with unquestioned power
leading Person. Of course, there cannot be a one and only answer, it always
depends on which school the author is writing for.
As early as 1956 Karl Dietrich Bracher said ” The antagonism of the
Powerpositions is only in the omnipotent Keyposition of the Fuehrer
abolished. Exactly in this Fact, and not in the working of the State per se,
lies the deep Idea of the not at all perfect Gleichschaltung. Because the
Keyposition of the Dictator is founded especially in the confusing existence
of several powergroups at the same time and the personal loyalty.”18
16
Knoop, G., Hitler-Eine Bilanz, Berlin 1995, P.262 ff.
Hildebrand, K., Monokratie oder Polykratie? Hitlers Herrschaft und
das dritte Reich, in : Nationalsozialistische Diktatur 1933-1945 - Eine
Bilanz, Bonn 1986, P.73
18
Hildebrand, K., Monokratie oder Polykratie? Hitlers Herrschaft und
das dritte Reich, in : Nationalsozia listische Diktatur 1933-1945 - Eine Bilanz, Bonn 1986, P.73.f.
17
8
If you look on the Documents about the National-Socialist Intervention in
the Spanish - Civil War it becomes very clear, that not Goering, Ribbentrop
or Hess had the last word; Hitler listened to their Arguments but decided
absolutely by its own. And their is not a slightest idea that Hitler’s Orders, or
something that Hitler wanted was delayed or not followed. In this Context
the delaying of the Fuehrer - Order to destroy the German - Economy and
everything that could be of use for the ”Enemy” (19.3.1945) by Albert Speer
can certainly not be used as a example for the ”weakness” of the Dictator, as
at this time the whole state was already collapsing.
It is not as easy as it seems to decide what you take as essential for a
”strong/weak” dictator, but if you look at all the different facets of the
Structure of the Third Reich I think that it is very clear, that the one figure
that was in the center of all the political action and decisions who had the last
word in the important decisions was Adolf Hitler, and that he indeed was
”the Master of the Third Reich”.
The German Historian Rainer Zittelmann wrote to this Topic : ” Before you
decide about Hitler’s strength and weakness the standards which are used to
measure Hitler’s power and his limitations should be laid down and also
compared with other Dictators. Then you probably could consider e.g. Stalin
as a weak Dictator with the same right.”19
Quotes in their original Language
19
Zittelmann, R., Hitler Bild im Wandel, in : Deutschland 1933-1945,
Bonn 1992, P. 500
9
Page 2 :
1 : ”Nach der heutigen Rechtslage unterstehen Ihnen als dem
Reichsinnenminister die Reichsstatthalter. Adolf Hitler ist Reichsstatthalter
in Preussen. Er hat seinen Rechte an den preussischen Ministerpraesidenten
Goering deligiert. Sie selber sind aber auch preussischer Innenminister. Als
Reichsinnenminister unterstehen Ihnen also rechtlich Adolf Hitler und der
preussische
Ministerpraesident. Da Sie personengleich mit dem
preussischen Innenminister sind, unterstehen
sie wiederum dem
preussischen Ministerpraesidenten und sich selbst als Reichsinnenminister.
Ich bin zwar kein Rechtsgelehrter, glaube aber, dass es einen solche
Konstruktion kaum jemals gegeben hat.”
2 : ”Allgemeine Uneinigkeit. Ley kracht sich mit Kerrl (Reichsminister fuer
Erziehung, Wissenschaft und Volksbildung) gegen Rosenberg etc. Und das
mitten im Krieg, und jeder beruft sich auf den Fuehrer...”.
Page 3 :
8 : ”Der Ausschuss ist bereit, ..., Ihnen diktatorische Machtbefugnisse
einzuraeumen.”
Page 4:
12 : ” Was man muendlich mitteilen kann, soll man nicht schriftlich tun, nie
!”
Page 5
17: ” Der Antagonismus der Machtfunktionen ist einzig in der omnipotenten
Schluesselstellung des Fuehrers aufgehoben. Gerade darin, nicht im
Funktionieren des Staates per se, liegt die tiefste Absicht der keineswegs
perfekten Gleichschaltung. Denn die Schluesselstellung des Diktators ist
gerade in dem unuebersichtlichen Neben- und Gegeneinander der
Machtgruppen und persoenlichen Bindungen begruendet.”
10
Page 6
19 : ” Bevor ueber Schwaeche und Staerke Hitlers befunden wird, sollte man
also die Mass-staebe offenlegen und dabei Hitlers Macht und ihre Grenzen
auch mit der anderer Diktatoren vergleichen. Dann wuerde sich vermutlich
herausstellen, dass sich mit dem gleichen Recht beispielsweise auch Stalin
als schwacher Diktator bezeichnen liesse.”
N.B. All the Sources of these Quotes are mentioned in the Footnotes !
References
11
Bracher, Karl Dietrich / Funke, Manfred / Jacobsen, Hans-Adolf(Hrsg) :
Deutschland 1933 - 1945, Neue Studien zur nationalsozialistischen
Herrschaft, Bundeszentrale fuer politische Bildung, Bd. 314, Bonn 1992
Bracher / Funke / Jacobsen(Hrsg), Nationalsozialistische Diktatur 1933 1945, Eine Bilanz, Bundeszentrale fuer politische Bildung Bd.192, Bonn
1986
Bundeszentrale fuer politische Bildung, Informationen zur politische
Bildung Bd. 123/126/127 Der Nationalsozialismus, Bonn 1991
Irving, David : Hitlers’ War, London 1977
Kershaw, Ian : The Nazi Dictatorship - Problems and Perspectives of
Interpretations, London 1989
Knopp, Guido : Hitler, Eine Bilanz, Siedler Verlag, Berlin 19
Zentner, Christian(Ed.) : Bild der Geschichte, Hitler, Hamburg 1989