The Sociological Aspects Of Hilter 's A Social Context

For Hitler, the communication gap and differences within the government deterred his followers from creating a solid opposition to his power. Mommsen stated, “The movement’s energies had to become totally absorbed in internal ‘disputes over areas of competency…’” (171). Another advantage Hitler had when dealing with people was his charisma. He was “uniquely talented in being able to change the minds” of officials who started to doubt the Hitler’s wisdom. Hitler had a habit of tirelessly trying to convince nonbelievers by persuasion. His behavior had people feeling that he was determined and had a sense of purpose. Along with Goebbels as Propaganda Minister, Hitler had the “fate of the nation” in him and Germany had never seen a leader like him (165). Hitler had “come to symbolize the unity and substance of the nation” (167). When complaints arose about the party and the Nazi regime, Hitler was exempt from them and citizens thought that if he only knew what was happening, then he would change it.

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 names Hitler and Mussolini strike a chord with anyone who has taken a world history class. These two names bring to mind great social changes. The political ideals and movements associated with these two historical figures attributed to their different lasting legacies. Images of a dictator controlling his army come to mind when either name is used. These two names have become synonymous with Europe’s history. Hitler and Mussolini attained complete social and political control through manipulation of the people of their countries. They succeeded in doing so by using unparalleled tactics and techniques.

Hitler impresses the Reichstag with the ethos, credibility, of his leadership. Referring to the success of his government, Hitler entreats, “Allow me now to give you a short excerpt from our economic life which proves in plain figures whether and to what extent National Socialism has solved these problems.” Hitler then presents a simple, yet powerful statistic: a tremendous rise in annual German births. Hitler does not pick this statistic blindly. He chooses a statistic that he knows will be important, impactful, and personal to his audience. Not only is a rise in births a sign of increased prosperity (for people are unlikely to have kids if they are not in love and with the means of supporting their children), but it is also a statistic dear to his audience’s heart. After World War I, so many loved ones died. Accordingly, the babies and new life mentioned in the statistic must have brought great joy to a hurting nation. Further, Hitler reinforces his ethos as a leader when he remembers, “It was as an unknown German soldier at the front that I put together this bold program, fighting for fourteen years…” Mr. Hitler is proving his credibility as a planner and a thinker, describing his process of invention, how he carefully came up with the idea while fighting at the front. The thoughtful and planned politicians of the German Reichstag surely appreciate the care and attention their leader invested in this program. For his audience, Hitler could have no better credibility than that provided by increased birth statistics and his claim of careful

Ulrich Herbert’s “Good Times, Bad Times” is about the contrast between the ways typical working Germans perceived the years before and during Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor, his rise to dictator, and during and after and World War II. The article cites a survey conducted by the Institut für Demoskopie (Public Opinion Institute) in 1949, as well as an oral-history project conducted at the universities of Essen and Hagen between 1930-1960. Both studies

Have you ever wondered how Hitler came to power? Have you ever wondered why people would join Hitler? Hitler’s leadership was successful because he started out as a Gefreiter, or Lance Corporal, in the Bavarian army during World War 1. In this piece, I will talk about Hitler’s rise up to take over Germany, how he expanded his reign out further to other countries, and how Hitler

Another one of Flenly's main point is that the effects of the First World War had left a vacuum in the German politics, one which required a strong leading figure. The emotional appeal of the Nazis was very strong, the Nazi ideology fitted with the traditional values like the role of men and women and family values. Only a small group of people would deny these ideas. The Nazis offered exactly what the people wanted and they extended conventional ideals and gave the people a leader which they longed for. Their “long tradition of obedience to authority and the retarded development of political and civil freedom” was a sign that was also spotted by William Shirer as he claimed “Acceptance of autocracy, of blind obedience to the petty tyrants who ruled as princes, became ingrained in the German mind.”[6] hence the immense support shown in the election results, in November election 1933, they gained 92.9% of the overall votes. This was “an achievement which cannot be credited solely to terrorism, still less to fraud.[7]” Flenly’s interpretation also points out that the people gave their approval

The economic misery, the belief that things would only get worse, as well as frustration over their government’s inability to manage the depression was the perfect breeding ground for the spread of Adolf Hitler’s fascism. He was an extremely powerful speaker, and had an ability to tap into the anger felt by a lot of Germans (“The Nazis Rise To Power”).

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.

Hitler’s time spent in the military in World War I and the Treaty of Versailles are also of great importance to the understanding of Hitler’s world view, which was invariably Darwinian and violent. He certainly shared the German sentiment that the terms of Versailles put unreasonable burdens on Germany and her people for the cost of World War I, and that the most concerning of the terms were those that reduced Germany’s size and restricted her right to maintain military forces. Hitler firmly believed that the doctrine of “survival of the fittest” applied to races in the same sense that it applied to species in the animal kingdom, and as such Germany’s post World War I situation placed her in a critical situation with only two perceivable outcomes; fight or perish. (Gregor, 40-41) The resulting decision to fight would achieve multiple goals for Hitler which

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

There are various elements to consider as to how Hitler maintained power between 1933 and 1945. Many historians argue that the most significant element was the consent of the German people. Others, however, suggest that factors such as: propaganda, force, opposition or economic factors, are accountable. By assessing these four passages, interpretations can be made as to which element was most significant.

In the following investigation, the following question will be addressed: In what ways did economic and political issues in Germany between 1922 and 1932 contribute to Hitler's rise to power? The scope of my research will fall between the years of 1922-1932, the start of Hitler’s attempt to run for office. A variety of primary and secondary sources will be used to answer the question. The bitterness caused upon the change of government systems in Germany will be analyzed, along with his childhood that all primarily drove Hitler to run for power. Then, the harsh effects World War I had on Germany along with the Great Depression that followed as a result will also be looked at. Finally, a conclusion will be reached.