Expert: Michael FitzGerald - 3/5/2008

Question
Hi Michael,
Could i please ask your guidance on a modern history assessment. It is on Hitler's Nazi Germany from 1933-39 particularly on how Hitler was viewed. The task requires a half page of information on each and im finding it extremely difficult to find useful information anywhere on the internet or history books.
The task is to give a description (incl. historians views, quotes, etc) on the following:
Structuralist
Intentionalist  
Polycratic
Totalitarian
Strong leader
Weak dictator

Thank you, Emily.

Answer
Hi Emily,

In the first place I should like to apologise for not responding sooner. I have injured myself last week and spent some time in hospital and have only just picked up my e-mail messages.

I honestly feel that this is a homework assignment that you ought to be capable of finding out sufficient information. Hitler and the Nazi regime are hardly obscure or not well-documented and I do feel that with a little more work you could find the answers yourself.

Structuralism, in the Nazi context, refers primarily to a particular interpretation of the Final Solution. As you probably know, Hitler murdered millions of Jews on the basis of his racial 'philosophy;' as you may or may not know, he also murdered 800,000 Romanies (gypsies) and around a quarter of the population of Poland.

Structuralists believe that the idea for the Final Solution was not always Hitler's ultimate goal and that it largely arose out of the fact that the campaign in Russia became bogged down. Murdering the Jews and other ethnic minorities was an extreme response to an extreme situation rather than a deliberate and conscious policy.

Intentionalists believe that it was always Hitler's intention to exterminate 'inferior races.' They believe that he had planned it for years and only refrained from carrying it out earlier because he did not have the smokescreen of the war to hide behind.

In essence, the evidence of history suggests that both approaches are broadly true. Random massacres were undoubtedly carried out before Hitler gave his notorious order, and without his direct or indirect authorisation, on the commands of an SS lieutenant called Koch. However, when the news came to Himmler's attention, he asked Hitler what to do and Hitler retrospectively declared them to be legitimate acts of war.

On the other hand, the deliberate building of gas chambers with the sole purpose of killing could only have been authorised at the highest level. Both Himmler and Heydrich opposed genocide and were quite specific when they told their underlings that Hitler himself had given the order for the Final Solution.

Polycratic refers to the notion that Nazi Germany, far from being a totalitarian state, was a chaotic society in which rival 'warlords' competed for power and resources. It is a relatively recent line of approach by what continues to be a minority of historians.

My own view is that it is partly true but that the degree of chaos in Nazi Germany is now being as over-exaggerated as the degree of control used to be. The truth is that it is more accurate to call Hitler's state a totalitarian one than a polycratic one.

Was Hitler a strong leader? How does one define such a thing? He was arrogant, cruel, and convinced that he knew better than anyone else (and for 13 years he managed to convince millions of people that he really did). He repressed opposition ruthlessly and did not allow economic, political and military realities to interfere with his own dark 'vision.' If that is being strong, I prefer the words of Abraham Lincoln, 'strong government is no substitute for good government.'

Was he a weak dictator? Again, he certainly changed his mind and even backed down on one notorious occasion (1934). Does that make him weak? I think not.

To sum up briefly, I would lean towards a mixture of the structuralist and intentionalist views, predominantly favouring the intentionalist one; I would lean towards a mix of the polycratic and totalitarian interpretations, overwhelmingly favouring the totalitarian one; and I would argue that he was neither a weak nor a strong leader, but an inadequate man with some genuine gifts but that his faults greatly outweighed his defects.

I would recommend my own book: Adolf Hitler, A Portrait

Martin Brozsat, The Hitler State

and of course Ian Kershaw, Hitler: Hubris
                      and Hitler: Nemesis

I do apologise for the relative brevity of my answer but I am still not fully recovered from my spell in hospital. It was only today that I came off my medication and I am still in a great deal of pain.

I hope the above helps you.