To what extent did Hitler use Totalitarianism to maintain his regime?
The time period under which Hitler and the National Socialist Nazi Party had control in Germany is undoubtedly a terrible time period of oppression and cruelty for Germany and the rest of the world. Further, it is indisputable that Hitler's regime was a dictatorship. Hitler and the Nazi party also strived to control the lives of the people of Germany. However, it is difficult to say that his methods and goals rendered a completely totalitarian society in Germany.
Totalitarian rule is defined as a political system of government where the state, usually under the control of a single political organization, faction, or class domination, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. In essence, a totalitarian ruler is the supreme rule in all cases, does not care what anyone thinks, and has no limit to their rule. This definition is an exact fit for Hitler in the majority of the cases. He eliminated democracy, took control of life's day to day functions, decided the fate of Germany, began a revolution against an entire ethnic group of people, as well as many other things. However, it must not be ignored that Hitler's methods were not one hundred percent totalitarian in nature. It is critical to first look at the method of which Hitler came to power. Hitler and the Nazi party gained their positions in the German Government through a completely Democratic process. Hitler was first given the position of Chancellor to meet the demands and pleas to put him into power. Then when the President died of natural causes, Hitler was given that position as well. Never once did he seize power through unlawful means. History renders very little examples of a totalitarian ruler being given power through a democratic and/or lawful manner. The definition of a totalitarian ruler shows that the people have no say in the government. If Hitler achieved his position of power only through the support of the people, how can it be said that the people of Germany have no say in the situation? The fact is that without the people of Germany, Hitler would not have risen to power. Next, it must be kept in mind of how Hitler actually was influenced by the people. In one particular instance he allowed a letter from an individual allow him to carry on with his plan to eliminate all of the handicaped people in Germany. The letter was from a man begging for his son to be taken out of his misery. This situation shows a weakness in the argument that Hitler was a totalitarian leader due to the fact that he allowed someone else to influence his decisions. Another important thing to look at is that the definition of totalitarian says that the ruler takes control of all assets of life. This includes but is not limited to the economy, foreign affairs, and even the types of cinematography and news the citizens are exposed to. It is a falsity to say that the Nazis did not carry out each of these characteristics. However, Hitler himself did practically nothing. Everything that happened in Germany during Hitler’s rule happened as a result of Hitler’s officers supposedly carrying out “the will of the Fura.” The officers would constantly accompany themselves with Hitler and listen to his ideas and goals. They would then put together a plan of action to carry out his will. Hitler himself did very little. He made many powerful speeches and somehow influenced his officers that his ideology was the best thing for Germany. Nevertheless, he did not have one hundred percent control.
Adolf Hitler was indiputably a dictator in every sense of the word. He was a single party ruler who brought about radical social, political, and economic change to Germany and to much of the world. However, to one cannot say that Hitler's rule was one hundred percent totalitarian in nature.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that this is a great blog post, mainly because it agrees with my own to an extent. the only point that my view differs from yours is that although Hitler didn't use totalitarianism his party, the nazis, did. A question i'd like to raise though, comes from where you say the fact that Hitler took power legally means that he can't be a proponent of totalitarianism. I think the means by which a leader comes to power may, but doesn't always reflect his style of rule. For example Charles Taylor, the Liberian ex-president, is now standing trial for being a tyrant both in his own country and in those neighboring liberia (sound familiar?). Like Hitler Taylor was elected or supposedly so by his people. However, once he was in power he committed horrible genocides that his people never could have foreseen. Therefore you can see how being "chosen" doesn't really affect what you do after you're in power.
ReplyDelete