Hitler 's Theory Of Social Darwinism And State Authority

It is arguable that there was no need for Hitler to create such systemic problems of intrigue and competitive rivalry within the structure as they were already present for this reason the Nazi bureacaey has been described as a labyrinth of intrigue and problems amongst administrators. Others have argued that such competive rivalries of policy strategies; internal intrigues and jealsies; chaos and ambiguous b and this became extremely systemic

Throughout the span of Hitler’s rule, there was constant confusion within the Third Reich. Hitler’s government was not a monolithic government; instead, there were many different centers of power, including the different military branches and different ministries. The “administrative anarchy” led to constant

There have been countless atrocities committed throughout history. Most of these atrocities are justified and developed from ideas and false realities. The most infamous atrocity of all history, the holocaust is no exception. Adolf Hitler, the leader of Germany from 1933 until his suicide at the end of WWII, was directly responsible for the deaths of over 12 million people. Alan Bullock in his book Hitler a Study in Tyranny dispels any notion that any of Hitler’s ideas were original. Bullock proposes that Hitler and his rise to power was a product of other political ideas and a knack for exploiting the timing of events to extend his influence. According to Bullock Hitler’s coming to power was the product the political ideals of the late 19th and early 20th centuries which he was exposed to, the world post-WWI, and a knack for exposition events to his favor. He used his gifts of using propaganda and his organizational skills to use politics as a means to achieving power.

The Nazi regime was "Hitler's regime, it was Hitler's policy, Hitler's rule of force, Hitler's victory and defeat - nothing else" Hans Frank, Hitler's lawyer. If the regime was to be Hitler's and no one else's then he would need complete control over every aspect of German life, from schools, churches, courts, and people. This essay will examine each of the aspects of every day life, what the nazi's did to take control of it and how successful they were.

The efforts the Nazi party expended on carrying out their ‘final solution to the Jewish question in Europe’ involved changing the structure of a whole country’s economic, social, and military sectors; a mobilisation completed by many various competing and collating departments and agencies, all of which were expected by their superiors to show initiative in their operations. This mode of command lends plausibility to the theory that the ‘final solution’ of the holocaust was not necessarily a result of a direct command by the Führer (No records of any such order exist) but rather the culmination of the departments of the Nazi state vying for approval from their superiors by following the ideology to its ‘logical conclusion’ with Hitler’s approval. This could be seen to support Berghahn, as it was the confusion and rush to meet growing needs that drove the party to extermination over deportation. It also supports Kershaw, who

According to Fredrich’s “six point syndrome”, a totalitarian state must consist of an official ideology, a single mass party, terroristic police control, monopoly control of the media and arms and central control of the economy. During the Nazi Reich between 1933-1939, under Hitler as Fuhrer (supreme leader), the Nazi regime was able to successfully achieve aspects of totalitarianism by exerting tight control of the media and police; leading to control of certain aspects of German social, political, legal, economical and cultural life. However, there are significant features of the Nazi regime that simply fail to fit Friedrich's six, all encompassing concepts of totalitarianism.

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

The topic that I chose was “Identify Adolf Hitler and his role in the Third Reich.” Adolf Hitler was an Austrian born German politician that was also the leader of the Nazi Party. He was a decorated veteran of World War 1. Hitler joined the German Worker’s Party in 1919. Hitler had a side of him that was good and during his imprisonment in the mid 1920’s he wrote his memoir, Mein Kampf which means (my struggle). Hitler had gained his popularity from the support on attacking the Treaty of Versailles and promoting the Pan-Germanium for the Nazi Propaganda.

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.

Back in Nazi Germany, during the years 1934-1945, the Führer and Nazis controlled the German population to his will through various methods and means. This e6ssay will discuss and examine how significant oppression was in comparison to other methods of control such as propaganda, indoctrination in youth and the use of political laws. For us to fully comprehend how significant was oppression in the Nazi Germany, we must understand what oppression is.

He made us aware on how so many individuals knowingly participated in the atrocious acts of violence against humanity and without much hesitance. He provided us the formula and a clear explanation on Max Weber views and how it was all possible for the bureaucratic domination of Germany, and the consequences of such power. Max Weber “was convinced that political domination would rest with whoever controlled the bureaucratic apparatus because of its indisputable superiority as an instrument for the organization of human action”. (Rubenstein, 23) Nazi Germany mastered the use of power and the management principles, this can be observed in Hitler’s organization of the concentration camps. Hitler replaced the existence camps with a more impersonal, systematized terror” camps. (Rubenstein, 24) Hitler and Nazi Germany established order in the camps, by applying bureaucracy principles. They established specialization, providing a meaning of set task and responsibilities each office and individual will handle and follow, making their job simpler and more efficient in following directions. They appointed individuals to ensure the written rules and regulations installed were being followed. This assured that individuals knew their responsibilities and made it easier for their assigned task to be completed. This also created recordkeeping of the rules, procedures and disciplinary actions.

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.

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

Failing to include these important components in his own, personal beliefs may seem like Hitler did not use Darwin’s theories, therefore he could not have gained power due to Darwinism. However, this may not be the case. While he did not accept every aspect of Darwinism, he did accept the very simple idea of natural selection, which the people of Germany accepted as well. Hitler used Darwin’s terms and theories, without explicitly saying his name. Darwin believed that some races are stronger than others, and that the weaker races would die out – he did not specifically mean the exact targets of the Holocaust though. Hitler believed that the Aryans were the superior race; they were destined to rule the world after the destruction