AboutMichael FitzGerald Expertise I am an expert in German history between 1918 and 1945, particularly with regard to the Nazi era. I am also very knowledgeable about most areas of philosophy (I have an honours degree in the subject) and am able to answer questions on that subject too. In addition, I am very knowledgeable about poetry. One of my hobbies is also politics, mainly British and European though I follow the US political scene as well. Another one is the history of crime and punishment and British social history (the two often overlap!) I am willing to answer questions on all the above issues.
Experience Author of two published works, 'Storm Troopers of Satan,' an account of the lunatic fringes of Nazi ideology, and 'Adolf Hitler: A Portrait,' a biography of the German dictator. 'Adolf Hitler' was published in July 2006 by the top history publisher Spellmount and was named historical biography of the month by the Good Book Guide. I correspond with Ian Kershaw, Peter Stachura, Jeremy Noakes, Roger Moorhouse and Stan Lauryssens. I have undertaken research for radio, television, newspapers and magazines
Organizations Society of Authors
Education/Credentials I have an Honours degree in philosophy.
Awards and Honors LT prize for poetry
Historical Biography of the month, Good Book Guide
Expert: Michael FitzGerald Date: 8/31/2007 Subject: germany a totalitarian society in the period of 1933-1945
Question QUESTION: hi michael,
just needed some help on a modern history essay due next week,
the given question question worth 20 marks was:
"Evaluate the view that Germany was a totalitarian state/society in the period of 1933-1945"
any tips on how to also approach the question, along with some references and quotes too would be great
any form of advice would be greatly appreciated..
cheers
ANSWER: Hi Gerald,
In the first place I'd like to apologise for not getting back to you sooner but my computer crashed and it's taken me 3 days to get it up and running again! Sorry about the delay.
OK, this is a question that depends partly on how you define totalitarianism and also to some extent on the degree to which you take a simplistic attitude to Nazi Germany. As a professional historian, I have to tell you that the answer is complex. As someone whose name escapes me for the moment once said, 'the truth is never pure and rarely simple.'
The word 'totalitarian' was coined around the 1930s to describe the regimes of Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany and Stalin in Russia. Later it was also applied to Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Horthy's Hungary and Hirohito's Japan. In spite of the ruthlessness of the various dictators, only Germany under Hitler and the Soviet Union under Stalin really count as serious contenders for the title of totalitarian states. Mussolini, Salazar and Horthy were too inefficient and there supporters were too divided among themselves to make their rule ever genuinely totalitarian. The same is true of Hirohito, who in any case was motivated by purely Japanese concepts like Bushido rather than the Western notion of a totalitarian state.
The ideal of a totalitarian state is best summed up by the Italian Fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile, who once said 'Nothing beyond the state; nothing against the state; nothing outside the state.' In the case of Stalin's Russia, where the state was simply an extension of the Communist Party, this 'ideal' was probably achieved successfully, in spite of the constant problem of dissidents. It is far less clear that it was true within Nazi Germany.
To begin with, Hitler's Nazi Party competed with the state institutions that already existed, especially the Army, the Foreign Office and the police. The SD constantly tried to undermine the Gestapo; the Foreign Office constantly tried to get Ribbentrop (the Nazi Foreign Minister) to change his foreign policies; and the army remained deeply hostile to both Hitler and the Nazis throughout the regime's 12 years.
Secondly, individual Nazi leaders, particularly Himmler and Bormann, enjoyed autonomous powers that conflicted with both local interests and even countermanded Hitler's own orders. In addition, the ideal of the Nazi state was, at least in theory, a decentralised and locally based form of government in which Nazi ideals were the norm so central control - which Hitler deeply loathed - was almost unnecessary.
I will give you some references to help you:
1 Hannah Arendt. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt, 2001
2 Michael FitzGerald. Adolf Hitler: A Portrait. Spellmount, 2006.
3 Martin Broszat. The Hitler State. Longmans, 1981.
4 Jane Caplan. Government without Administration: State and Civil Service in Weimar and Nazi Germany. Clarendon, 1989
5 Ernst Fraenkel. The Dual State. Octagon, 1969
6 Peter D Stachura (ed). The Nazi Machtergreifung.,Allen and Unwin, 1983
Essentially Nazi Germany might have aspired towards being a totalitarian society but it was never able to do so. It had too many enemies - the army, the churches, the aristocrats, the communists, and eventually all the major world powers - for its dream (if it ever was a dream - Hitler's own political philosophy is far more like right-wing anarchism than anything else - if you take away the racism he often sounds like Ayn Rand!)
Hope this helps. Please feel free to ask me any more questions. Once again I apologise for the delay in replying to you. Hope you don't mind me plugging my own book too!
Kind regards
Mike FitzGerald
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: no worries,
thanks for that michael,
stuff happens,
my computer's crashed in the most unfavourable circumstances too..
i really like the given quotes and references
as to nazism not being so much as a totalitarian state..
infact, i was also given points by my teacher,
but im kinda lost and not sure how this could be applied to nazism NOT being totalitarian.
they are:
1) hitler was a weak leader, as the nazi state, although it appeared to be structured and organsied, was in fact chaotic and unorganised
2) the ideology of Nazism was vague, it was MORE a plan of action
any ideas?
i agree with you about nazism not being much of a totalitarian state at all...
but i was advised to also discuss about why it was even considered a totalitarian state..
any points for this view?
cheers
oh, and not at all,
plug as much books as u wish,please
its straight to the library and bookstore for me later this morning..lol
Answer Hi Gerald,
Hope you don't mind me beginning my response by stating that your teacher's points are somewhat oversimplified. Perhaps a more tactful way of putting it would be that they overemphasise one side of the equation.
To begin with, was Hitler a 'weak' leader? It depends on what you mean by weak. He managed to impose his own ideas on people who profoundly disagreed with him within his own party, including no fewer than four rival candidates for the leadership. Two were driven out of the party, one was murdered and the other became a disciple. He compelled the German Army to bend to his will, even on military matters where he was clearly in the wrong. He fought the Christian churches - both Catholic and Protestant - and also drove even the German Communists to collaborate with his regime. He imposed the Final Solution on an extremely hostile inner circle of Nazis, only Goebbels and Bormann supporting him in his acts of genocide. He managed to get his policy of mass murder given priority even over war necessities. No, I do not think Hitler was in any sense of the word a weak leader.
Was the Nazi State chaotic? In some respects, especially in regard to the outlying conquered territories such as France and Eastern Europe. Within Germany and Austria, the control of the party bigwigs in their local areas was pretty much complete. It is more a case of conflicting party bigshots, with Himmler and Goering, Bormann and Goebbels, Heydrich and Rosenberg, Ley and Darre, all competing with each other for Hitler's favour and for the imposition of their own particular views of National Socialism on the country.
Himmler, Bormann, Goebbels, Heydrich and Darre were all actually brilliant administrators. Goering was an arrogant fool, Ley a bullying drunk and Rosenberg an ineffectual intellectual, but even they had some control and influence.
With regard to the ideology of National Socialism, again the truth is rather different from the propagandist picture that has often been painted. For many years - basically from the 1940s to the early 1980s - the general view of the Nazis, even among historians, was dominated by the Marxist interpretation of the movement. From the 1980s onwards, it was at last possible to take a more objective viewpoint.
The facts are that, for instance, Hitler RAISED the wages of German workers by 15% when he came to power; he engaged in wholesale nationalisation of German industry; those firms who were not nationalised were subjected to a degree of State control only equalled by the Soviet Union; he gave German workers protection against unfair dismissal, to the fury of German employers; he engaged in extensive public works instead of cutting spending; and until 1939, Germany actually spent LESS on military expenditure than Britain, France, the United States or Italy. In 1939 the German people were the healthiest in the world. All these things were very much part of the Nazi ideology.
Secondly, anti-Semitism was always part of the Nazi weltanschauung and the policy was put into practice in spite of its obvious obscenity.
Thirdly, yes, Hitler made tactical adjustments, mainly to his foreign policy, but he always kept his core beliefs. There was a debate within the Nazi Party over the extent to which the 'socialist' side of National Socialism should be both emphasised and put into practice, but Hitler was always quite clear that he stood for the working classes and that he hated the monarchy and the aristocracy. Hitler, Goebbels and many other leading Nazis had formerly been members of the Communist Party and in essence they retained their Communist leanings throughout their lives. Himmler, Darre, and Ley were also strong supporters of what was known within the movement as 'national bolshevism.'
Why were the Nazis considered a totalitarian state? Partly because that is what they aspired to be; partly because the influence of Marxist interpretations of the movement still continues to affect both public consciousness and even the community of historians of the period.
