Thursday, January 21, 2010

Lowder- to what extent did Hitler use totalitarianism to maintain his regime?

The answer to the question "To what extent did Hitler use totalitarianism to maintain his regime?" depends on who you are specifically referring to. If you are referring to Hitler himself, the answer is not much despite popular opinion. However, if you are referring to the nazi's as a whole, then totalitarianism was a key to the nazi's rise and rule.
Totalitarianism is a form of rule in which a single person or party has complete control in every aspect of government. There is often a strong monarch or dictator at the head that is the end all be all although he may have subordinates to help him(dictionary.com).

Through propaganda the Nazi's portrayed Hitler as such; a fearless leader, all knowing, and even super human(vn), but far from this ideal picture of Hitler was the real Adolph. Recent research has shown that the Fuher was an extremely unorganized man, who was really quite lazy(vn). He took a laid back approach towards life and government, believing that if left alone "things would work themselves out"(vn). He also was opposed to ever developing any real detailed platforms to achieve the goals he set for Germany(vn). Doesn't exactly sound like the tyrannical dictator of a totalitarian regime does it? In fact, it sounds more like the majority of my friends than a real leader at all. But if all of this is true then, why would the Nazis make hitler look so hardcore? I believe its because they were playing to the desires of the people. Older Germans had been raised on strong leaders like Bismark and Wilhelm the 2nd, during whose reign Germany prospered. They had also seen the problems that the bureaucracy of the Weimar's were unable to solve. Therefore the Nazi's needed Hitler to look strong like German leaders of the past, because this would go along way to win over the support of the people who were crying for an end to the confusion of democracy.

Also another key part of totalitarianism that Hitler missed out on is the fact that he was supposed to be the decision maker. We know from our notes that Hitler never developed a detailed strategy for success and liked to let things sort themselves out. This led to much confusion and a lot of room for interpretation on the part of his underlings (vn). In fact the majority of Nazi policy didn't come from Hitler at all, but instead came from suck up subordinates that were trying to win his favor(vn). They based their policy loosely on the opinions that Hitler seemed to hold (vn). This goes along way to show how Hitler wasn't a true totalitarianist, because he didn't nor did he care to make the decisions concerning the empire that he was trying to run instead he just preferred to let others make decisions for him.

With close examination of the ruling practices of one of the greatest conquerors of all time its hard to see how he was able to achieve and maintain such vast amounts of power. However, I believe it is due to the fact that although Hitler himself didn't use totalitarianism, his followers did. They ruled Germany ruthlessly as a single party state and stamped out all opposition, therefore ensuring their views and their policies would be the official ones of the German people.

2 comments:

  1. Though I agree with the fact that the party had more control over Germany than Hitler did in reality, it doesn't take away from the fact that he did go along with it. He was still the one who gave the speeches, spoke to the soldiers, got the people hyped up. HE still maintained his regime through the face that Germany saw. They knew him, listened to him, and did what he said. Though his followers may have put the paperwork together, did he not still have the ability not to sign? Even through indifference and uncaring feelings towards the specifics of his country's laws and workings, he still let it happen. He isn't any less responsible because he is lazy. His name can't be taken out since he was still the ruler, even if he really only held the seat. He still had opinions though, he did not like Jews.

    Are people not susceptible to the power of his words? If he doesn't believe what he is saying, why would he yell it so much?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like your beginning to your essay. Not only do you define totalitarianism, but you look at Hitler's and the Nazi's approach to totalitarianism in two ways. You analyse Hitler's and the Nazi's use of totalitarianism separately. The beginning has strong content and flows nicely with a body. In your analysis, you ask questions. Not only are you stating your side and making a strong argument to the information, but you are making the reader think for himself about his or her own side to the information.

    Very well written!

    ReplyDelete