From the November 2015 IBDP Paper 2 History Exam
The debate surrounding the extent to which Hitler's Germany can be defined as a totalitarian state has intrigued historians over the years. Some propose a strict adherence to the totalitarian model, while others highlight elements of deviation, thereby questioning the validity of such a label. Totalitarianism, as traditionally defined, comprises a political system in which the state maintains absolute control over every aspect of public and private life. Hence, this essay will critically analyse the proposition that Hitler's Germany was a totalitarian state by evaluating three critical dimensions of totalitarianism: political control, societal manipulation, and economic organisation.
Engaging in the realm of political control, it is unmistakable that Hitler's Germany exhibited significant attributes of totalitarianism. The Enabling Act of 1933 and the subsequent elimination of opposition parties fostered an environment of one-party rule, which is fundamental to the totalitarian model. Friedrich posits that the concentration of power and the suppression of opposition are indicative of totalitarian regimes. Notably, the Night of the Long Knives in 1934, which saw the purging of SA members, epitomised the extreme lengths taken by the Nazi regime to secure and consolidate power. Bullock emphasises the centrality of the Führerprinzip, which placed Hitler at the helm of an autocratic state. Hitler, as Führer, had unlimited authority, and his commands held the power of law. The institutionalisation of this principle through the "Law Concerning the Head of State of the German Reich" passed in 1934, signified the unravelling of constitutional order and the establishment of autocratic rule. The Reichstag, while still in existence, was marginalised and was merely a ceremonial body without the power to influence policy. The elaborate use of propaganda, surveillance, and fear by the Gestapo, Hitler's secret police, further underpinned the totalitarian nature of political control in Nazi Germany. The Gestapo could arrest citizens on suspicion and detain them indefinitely without trial, promoting a climate of fear which discouraged dissent. Kershaw suggests that the fear propagated by the Gestapo was critical in enforcing obedience and inaction, thereby enabling the regime's control over the population.
Cohen contends that the use of terror, a common feature of totalitarian regimes, was comprehensive in Nazi Germany. Hitler's Reich Security Main Office, the consolidation of the Gestapo, Criminal Police, and SD, served as a tool of state terror to thwart potential opposition. The establishment of concentration camps further evidenced this, with Dachau, created as early as 1933, operating as a prototype for other camps. Simultaneously, it's crucial to recognise the potential deviation from the totalitarian model in Hitler's Germany. Mommsen provides a counter-argument, emphasising a degree of anarchy and 'polycracy' within the regime. The principle of 'working towards the Führer', where initiatives were taken to please Hitler rather than following direct orders, contributed to conflicting policies and power struggles within the party. This complexity within the Nazi apparatus implies an element of chaos, undermining the traditional perception of the totalitarian state as streamlined and monolithic. Moreover, Evans underlines the limitations of the Gestapo due to their insufficient numbers, suggesting that complete surveillance and control were not always feasible. This limitation was somewhat mitigated by the populace's self-regulation and denunciations, indicating a more complex picture of control and compliance that went beyond straightforward coercion. In essence, while the political control in Hitler's Germany was vast and reached far into society's corners, it was not omnipresent or infallible. Therefore, in terms of political control, Hitler's Germany can be seen as exhibiting both significant characteristics of a totalitarian state and conspicuous deviations from the model.
The manipulation of society in Hitler's Germany through indoctrination and the control of culture is another facet to evaluate when considering the totalitarian nature of the regime. Hitler, aware of the power of belief, adopted comprehensive measures to shape public thought to align with the ideals of the National Socialist movement. Goebbels' Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda played a crucial role in managing public opinion and disseminating Nazi ideology. Through film, radio, press, and the arts, Goebbels created a controlled cultural sphere reinforcing the Nazi worldview. Mason argues that this systematic manipulation of culture and information was a vital instrument of totalitarian control, effectively limiting alternative narratives and fostering a homogenised public discourse. Institutionalised indoctrination was also pervasive in educational institutions. Nazi principles and racial theories were integrated into the curriculum, with Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls promoting loyalty to the regime among the youth. Burleigh suggests that the investment in indoctrinating the young underscored the regime's aspiration for total control, as it sought to mould future generations' ideological outlook. The propagation of anti-Semitic beliefs and the dehumanisation of Jews were integral parts of this societal manipulation. The Nuremberg Laws of 1935, followed by the nationwide pogrom of Kristallnacht in 1938, institutionalised and escalated anti-Jewish policies. Johnson posits that anti-Semitism was not merely a societal manifestation of the regime's totalitarian nature, but also a tool utilised for unifying the populace through the creation of a common enemy.
Contrary to the ideals of societal homogenisation, Peukert indicates that opposition and non-conformity persisted within German society. Groups such as the White Rose resistance movement, comprised primarily of students, sought to undermine the regime through the dissemination of anti-Nazi leaflets. Moreover, 'swing youth', who favoured American jazz over the Hitler Youth, signify an undercurrent of dissent and a rejection of Nazi ideals, although these phenomena were relatively limited in scale and impact. Griffin postulates that the Nazi regime's ability to control society was also compromised by its racial policies. The obsession with Aryan purity led to social divisions, and the exclusionary policies towards Jews and other 'undesirables' culminated in genocide, ultimately fostering domestic and international hostility. In addition, the exploitation of religion for political ends, highlighted by the Concordat with the Vatican in 1933, was not entirely successful in co-opting the Church's influence. The Confessing Church, established in opposition to the state-controlled German Evangelical Church, exemplifies a form of resistance to state manipulation. Evidently, while extensive, the societal control exercised by the Nazi regime was not absolute, providing a nuanced understanding of Hitler's Germany as a totalitarian state. Despite the calculated attempts to homogenise society and indoctrinate the populace, pockets of resistance and non-conformity persisted, subtly undermining the totalitarian claim.
Tooze highlights the conflictual relationship between the regime's economic ambitions and the reality of economic performance, suggesting a limitation of control. He argues that economic policies were often reactive, driven by immediate war needs rather than ideologically driven, systematic planning. This indicates a lack of absolute control over economic processes that deviates from the traditional understanding of a totalitarian economy. Moreover, Mommsen reiterates that internal contradictions and competition among various agencies, such as Goering's Four Year Plan Office, the Reich Ministry of Economics, and the Reichsbank, resulted in disjointed and sometimes conflicting economic policies. This 'fragmented' state, in Mommsen's terms, exhibits considerable deviation from the streamlined, monolithic structure typically associated with totalitarian regimes. In summation, the Nazi regime's economic organisation presents a mixed picture. While there was significant state intervention in the economy, aimed at autarky and war preparedness, elements of private enterprise persisted, and internal conflicts undermined the regime's control. Thus, from an economic perspective, Hitler's Germany exhibits elements of both convergence with and deviation from the totalitarian model.
Overall, Hitler's Germany presents a complex picture of totalitarianism, demonstrating considerable alignment with the model in its political control, societal manipulation, and economic organisation. Yet, it also exhibited discernible deviations, reflected in the 'polycratic' power structure, pockets of societal resistance, and the persisting role of private enterprise. While the Nazi regime certainly strived for total control and exhibited many totalitarian characteristics, it fell short of total dominance in every aspect of German life. This nuanced perspective validates the argument that while Hitler's Germany leaned heavily towards totalitarianism, it was not a perfect embodiment of the model, thereby underlining the complexities of historical categorisation. The debates among historians such as Friedrich, Bullock, Mommsen, Kershaw, and Tooze illuminate this complex picture, underscoring the necessity of a balanced and multi-faceted approach to this contentious historical question.
