Consensus of the People in Nazi Germany

Studies of the Holocaust have provoked passionate debates. Increasingly, they have become a central topic of concern for historians particularly since the early 1970s, as the Holocaust studies were generally limited. However, one of the most intense debates surrounding the role played by Hitler in the ’Final Solution’. That is, whether and when Hitler took a decision to initiate the extermination process. Of course, this issue has caused incredible controversy and naturally such a contentious topic of debate has radically produced large amounts of new data and literature. Conflicting, an interpretation has caused further disparities between historians over Hitler’s role in the Holocaust. For this

Hans Mommsen’s book, From Weimar to Auschwitz, presented an interesting look at Hitler within the Nazi Party. The overriding themes in the chapter “Hitler’s Position in the Nazi System” were the stubbornness and charisma of Hitler and the chaos within the Nazi Party. The weak leadership of Hitler along with the inability to concentrate power to one position helped lead the Third Reich to be a very frenzied and unorganized government.

Many people would willingly assist someone in danger, yet many German citizens sat idle as innocent people were slaughtered by the thousands. By the mid 1920s, Germany was plunged into a state of economic depression and people were desperately looking for someone to follow. Many people simply conformed to the ideals of others, despite their own thoughts and beliefs. Herd mentality is the subconscious adoption of the attitudes and behaviors of one’s peers. As a result of this ingrained disposition, people are more likely to “bind together in the wrong direction than to be alone in the right one” (Taleb 192). Through the use of propaganda, Hitler effectively targeted people’s innate need to conform to prevent the rapid decline in his following

Throughout the course of the early 1930's, the Nazi political party began to really rally support in the town of Northeim. At the end of the 1920's the Nazi party only received 123 votes but in 1932 the numbers had climbed to 4200 votes. The Nazi party was great at focusing in on those who were feeling that the Socialist Democratic parties were not reaching them. These citizens of the lower class and the middle class seem to drift more towards the Nazi party because of what they had to offer. The citizens seem to feel that with this

The debate as to whether Hitler was a ‘weak dictator’ or ‘Master of the Third Reich’ is one that has been contested by historians of Nazi Germany for many years and lies at the centre of the Intentionalist – Structuralist debate. On the one hand, historians such as Bullock, Bracher, Jackel and Hildebrand regard Hitler’s personality, ideology and will as the central locomotive in the Third Reich. Others, such as Broszat, Mason and Mommsen argue that the regime evolved out from pressures and circumstances rather than from Hitler’s intentions. They emphasise the institutional anarchy of the regime as being the result of Hitler’s ‘weak’ leadership. The most convincing standpoint is the

On The 30th of January 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor. In the 18 months succeeding this, Hitler became, essentially, a dictator. This essay will look at what a dictatorship is and how it operates, how the population is brought to a point where they accept a dictatorship, and examine and analyze the vital events that took place in Germany which lead to Hitler assuming dictatorial power: the Reichstag fire, the Emergency Decree, the Enabling Act, the banning of trade unions and other political parties, the Night Of The Long Knives, the death of President Hindenburg, and the German army’s oath of loyalty to Hitler. It will

The Holocaust took place during the late 1930s to the early 1940s, a time when many external and internal factors were affecting Germany and its people (Hill 1). Nevertheless Nazi leaders and common Germans killed almost two thirds of an estimated nine million Jewish people (Hill 2). One of the most puzzling questions about the Holocaust is why did common Germans take part? It is difficult to formulate an exact answer to the question because it deals with a whole nation, but many historians have hypothesized explanations related to the German’s unwilling and willing participation (Goldhagen 375).

In the book Ordinary Men, Christopher Browning tackles the question of why German citizens engaged in nefarious behavior that led to the deaths of millions of Jewish and other minorities throughout Europe. The question of what drove Germans to commit acts of genocide has been investigated by numerous historians, but unfortunately, no overarching answer for the crimes has yet been decided upon. However, certain theories are more popular than others. Daniel Goldhagen in his book, Hitler’s Willing Executioners, has expounded that the nature of the German culture before the Second World War was deeply embedded in anti-Semitic fervor, which in turn, acted as the catalyst for the events that would unfold into the Holocaust. It is at this

To fully answer this question one must look at the underlying philosophies behind Hitler’s leadership. What did he stand for and did his ideologies have any redeeming characteristics? Indisputably he had an ability to lead and motivate. He was revered with almost God – like fanaticisms by his people. This essay will set out to establish the basis of his leadership and within that framework, the nature of the man and his vision for the world.

In truth however, Hitler’s Final Solution was something peculiar in the fact that few people believed that in the 20th Century, when society had reached its intellectual and ethical peak, such genocide was conceivable. Public consensus, along with the media, reassured us that we could no longer return to the Middle Ages. However, the philosophers and prophets of Berlin, with their fine manners and high society, turned into the world’s greatest murderers. The world was silent. One may add, not only silent but in whole passive, sometimes comfortable with what

Even though Germany was left in a period of struggle and economic weakness after WW1, Adolf Hitler would take a stand by creating a party that would help refine the structure of the economy. This party, when abbreviated, was called Nazi, would also create harsh laws and unrelentless punishment. Due to the Nazi party’s quick growth, there was an immediate impact on lifestyle and politics for the people of Germany. The long term impact brought forth by the consequences or legacy of the Nazi party included a population decrease and an increase in deaths. To make both of these impacts, Hitler had to overcome many hard challenges.

He urged the people, “go into your churches, kneel before God, and implore his help for our brave army.”(25) This moment hinted at a more independent minded approach to traditional authority. When coupled together, the emotions of the crowds and the ability of groups like the Fatherland Party to find a footing in the political arena, gives reason to believe that the German people were ready to make a change that served their newfound interests. Fritzche explicitly makes this point, “the patriotism that Germans displayed was of their own making and suited to new conceptions of nation and citizenship which invited rather than discouraged public participation.” (66) At the conclusion of the war, millions of people were at a loss, and the Nazis stepped in to fill a void left by their opposition who had stoked the flames of nationalism but failed to capitalize on its apparent momentum. This included a strong message that laid blame for the German surrender at the feet of those in charge. Also, previous notions of class were turned upside down or, for the Nazis, right side up, making it possible for an illiberal, fascist community to become the norm. Simply put, “Basic elements of the Nazi message spoke to the political aspirations that burghers had held for more than ten years.” (192) Germans became Nazis by their own choosing, they were not forced to

When considering historians accounts on whether Hitler was a “Weak dictator.” due to his erratic ineptitude as a leader or whether he was actually “The Master of the Third Reich.”, it’s essential to look upon the historians argument and whether it’s credible or not. With a look at the differing historian’s views it’s evident that there’s clear difference between the historians viewpoints; some portray Hitler to be a lazy and reluctant decision maker and was merely “One extreme element of the extensive malevolence that was the Nazi system.” Whereas others argue that Hitler had reached a state of absolutism as he controlled all areas of Nazi government and thus tailored a social Darwinist bureaucracy which was driven to implement his world view” . Both sides of the argument can be divided into two different aspects: Some historians argue from an ‘Intentionalist’ viewpoint where Hitler had total control whereas others would argue from a ‘Structualist’ viewpoint thus suggesting Hitler didn’t have full control due to his poly-cratic style of leadership and there was more than one element of rule within Nazi Germany.

The rise and subsequent take-over of power in Germany by Hitler and the Nazi Party in the early 1930s was the culmination and continuation not of Enlightenment thought from the 18th and 19th century but the logical conclusion of unstable and cultural conditions that pre-existed in Germany. Hitler’s Nazi Party’s clear manipulation of the weak state of the Weimar Republic through its continued failure economically and socially, plus its undermining of popular support through the signing the Treaty of Versailles all lead to the creation of a Nazi dictatorship under the cult of personality of Hitler. This clear take-over of power and subsequent destruction of any

German history is seen as a ‘painful issue for thousands of Germans and other Europeans’ . However it has interested many historians over the years into inquiring how and why Hitler came to power and how much of this was to do with the failure of parliamentary democracy in Germany. To fully ascertain to what extent these events have in common and what reasons led to the fall of democracy and rise of the Nazis, each have to be looked at individually. Also it seems beneficial, to be able to evaluate these in the relevant context, to look at the situation in Germany was in prior to 1920.