Elmore- False Totalitarianism

To what extent did Hitler use Totalitarianism to maintain his regime?


Although the evidence would typically suggest that Hitler led one of the most powerful and influential totalitarian governments in history, the inquiries examined in class might suggest otherwise, namely at the question Coach Belk proposed...

"Could this all have happened without the consent of the people?"

As we all know, Hitler ascended to the position of chancellor and President in only a few short years, thus appearing to give him unlimited power. However, after careful examination of the interviews conducted in the video, alongside the new source 4, it would seem that Hitler was only as powerful as those who supported him. The notes even say it!

"However, in practice, no one man can control the whole state, and he requires subordinates that are willing to carry out his will."

Stepping back to the past, we can see that Hitler and the Nazis were not initially popular; this is presented from the statistics of election years, and it is common knowledge that the Nazis only gained support upon the failures of the Weimar Republic, thus allowing the need for change to overcome the extremist views of the party. But, if we all agree with this, are we not also agreeing that the people gave in to the radical views of Hitler and his party to acheive what they needed? Let's look at some of the things Hitler promised for the people that he *actually* followed up on: he supplied better educational standards for the children (although biased, but still...) raised national pride, and helped to restore the economy. Furthermore, he provided stability, allowing those who had lost their jobs under the previous government to once again have a better understanding of how their lives might play out; there would be no guessing about tomorrow. As we said in class, this meant that for the first time in years, people weren't concerned about the welfare of the government any longer. Wait a minute,... what?

Now that the basic needs of the people were supplied, they no longer had concern about the emerging totalitarianistic principles Hitler began to implement; i.e. laws that would impose harsh provisions upon scapegoats, i.e. the Jews, such as the Nuremberg laws in 1935. As our friendly rain-loving friend stated in the video, it was just something that one "went along with" as long as their necks were not on the line. The majority of the people were unaffected by the laws that specifically targeted minority groups, so therefore there was no opposition on a meaningful scale. Sure, if you were a Jew you might have your stores broken into and your families killed, so what if you are a handicapped person being murdered ruthlessly? You're a small 2% of the population, so who really cares? After all, everyone else is happy. As cited in the link below, this article details the belief that Krystallnacht (video notes) in particular was a turning point in the beginning of the Holocaust. Not surprisingly, it illicited little response from Germans.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?ModuleId=10005201


It was earlier stated that Hitler led a false totalitarianism. What exactly does this mean? Totalitarianistic governments are governments in which a single ruler has control on a scale beyond political; making radical social and economic changes that affect the lives of everyone, this is definitely true of Hitler, I do not refuke this. However, brute force is usually used to achieve this. Did Hitler necessarily have to use this in order to obtain power from himself? Not really. The German people, unsatisfied with their present condition, paid for Hitler's voucher into power, despite the remnifications for "lesser" groups of people. This would create a government that - to others - would resemble a strong autocracy, but the issue to consider is, would Hitler have been as successful had the people not desired change from the previous government? Would a radical liberal have been just as effective? The most important aspect to consider in analyzing Hitler is whether or not he was different in his tactics than most. The answer is a simple, "Yes." It is just as easy to give a baby candy as it is to take it away, and the Germans simply sided with Mr. Wonka.