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
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!
