Was Hitler a Weak Dictator?

During World War I, Hitler had joined the army and his experience especially his injury was believed to be one of the main reasons for him being so eager to improve his country quickly. His emotions such as pain and hatred towards the army stimulated his hidden ambition. In Germany, Hitler used the power of enabling law to get rid of most things he didn?t want, for example he used his secret polices to arrest the opposition. On the other hand, under the influence of Marxism Stalin emphasized the idea of communism, where all citizens worked for the country is different from the concept of democracy where individuals have priority. In communism, a dictator leader is often needed in order to put the policies into practice, because other political parties cause the communism regime to fall apart, especially in undeveloped countries. The public needed to believe that communism was absolute and the only way to good life in order to make the system work smoothly. The similarities here were that they rejected all opposition political parties, but they used different concepts-Mussolini and Hitler did not introduce the communism idea.

Hitler was one of the most evil and well known tyrant in recent history. Hitler was a man that was born in 1889 in Austria and was appointed chancellor of Germany, by Paul von Hindenburg, in 1933. During Hitler’s 12 year reign of terror he was given power because they thought it was a good idea, he broke treaties for power, and he did bad things to groups of people.

Have you ever wondered how Adolf Hitler became the powerful and evil dictator he was? In todays society, no one is brought into this world as evil; everyone is born in the purest form of life. Something bad has to happen to someone that makes a person have so much hate. Therefore, in order to better understand what made Hitler so evil, people need to know that he was influenced by his relationship with his father, not being able to pursue his dream, and his beliefs.

Hitler was “content” with disputes between his subordinates and on occasion, “actively furthered rather than tried to hinder governmental chaos”. Bracher is correct in arguing, “institutional antagonism was resolved by the key position of the Fuhrer”. Through distancing himself from disputes, Hitler transcended governmental chaos and emerged as the ultimate decisive force. Rival agencies competed with each other to win Hitler's favour: the only source of political legitimacy. Furthermore, although leading Nazi figures were given considerable autonomy in creating policy, they were required to work within the framework of Hitler’s ideology and to remain loyal to him. As Overy maintains, power should not be confused with responsibility; although responsibilities were delegated to individuals, there were “no other power centres separate from the will of the central figure”. Hitler dealt ruthlessly with any threat to his position. Rohm, commander of the SA, was executed in 1934, whilst Goering was condemned to death by Hitler in the final days of the war, for suggesting that he should take over government. Although, Hitler distanced himself from daily administration, this apparent neglect stemmed not from an inability to do so, as Broszat suggests, but from a lack of interest in administrative affairs. Numerous examples prove the ultimate executive power of

Firstly, the USSR had already begun practicing Communism long before Stalin secured the post as the USSR’s absolute ruler (McAleavy, 2002). On top of that, Communism permitted the existence of only one political party (Dagger, 2014). This denotes that Stalin’s sole source of competition aroused from his own political party, the Communist Party (Waugh, 2001). Hitler, in contrast, faced stiff competition from different political parties during the 1920s (Waugh, 2001). The Great Depression and President Hindenburg’s complacency would consequently provide Hitler with a breakthrough (Waugh, 2001). The consolidation of power was complete when Hitler received enough national backing to pass the Enabling Act (Trueman, 2015a). This result a favor for Hitler in the political regime. Secondly, the affluent in Nazi Germany could manipulate political reforms for their role in providing the Nazis with finance (Waugh, 2001). Stalin on the other hand does not face such dilemmas as communism results in the division of wealth which would consequently prevent anyone from having the financial power to contest the state’s decisions (Waugh, 2001). Finally, Stalin prefers being addressed as ‘Uncle Joe’, as he believes that this title promotes the brotherhood shared by communists, whereas Hitler tends to get flattered when addressed as ‘Führer’ (Waugh,

Considering how harsh Hitler’s dictatorship was, it is hard not to wonder how and why the population accepted his dictatorship. Hitler brought the population to this point mainly by the use of propaganda, the manipulation and brainwashing of German youth, and, most importantly, the use of terror .

Historians are often divided into categories in regard to dealing with Nazi Germany foreign policy and its relation to Hitler: 'intentionalist', and 'structuralist'. The intentionalist interpretation focuses on Hitler's own steerage of Nazi foreign policy in accordance with a clear, concise 'programme' planned long in advance. The 'structuralist' approach puts forth the idea that Hitler seized opportunities as they came, radicalizing the foreign policies of the Nazi regime in response. Structuralists reject the idea of a specific Hitlerian ideological 'programme', and instead argue for an emphasis on expansion no clear aims or objectives, and radicalized with the dynamism of the Nazi movement. With Nazi ideology and circumstances in

Almost everyone knows what a monster Adolf Hitler was, but most people do not know that one of the great ally leader of World War II, Joseph Stalin, had committed even greater atrocities than Hitler. Joseph Stalin was a ruthless and yet diligent dictator of the Soviet Union, whose rise to power influenced a multitude of major events in his country’s history. Due to Stalin’s impactful reign, he made the Soviet Union become a global superpower, underwent difficult hardships such as the Great Famine in the Soviet Union, and after his death, caused the Soviet Union to go through a process known as de-Stalinization.

It was under the duress of these departments that opposition was destroyed and support was bolstered, at times out of awe and at times out of terror. “As Hitler’s reflections on propaganda make very clear, he did not see the strength of the state as residing in terror alone. Its strength lay in a combination of its ability to mobilize and to suppress.” (Gregor, 109)

Hitler is one of the worst rulers the world has every seen. There are plantable reasons why Hitler was such a terrible ruler. One reason was because of the bad influences in his childhood. Adolf was the fourth of six siblings of whom only Adolf and his younger sister Paula reached adulthood. His father was abusive to him, his siblings and his mother. That made Adolf hate his father. Hitler was an oppressive dictator affected by abusive parents, rejected twice by the Academy of Fine Arts, and he rebelled against his father.

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.

It may seem that the functionalists are forfending Hitler from all the abhorrence but they are just placing him in the 1930’s where anti-Semitism was prevalent and the conception of liberating Europe from the Jews was not a unique conception or plan. Hans Mommsen was recognised as a leading expert on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust who is a functionalist and strongly believes the functionalist viewpoint. Mommsen believes Adolf Hitler rather than acting decisively, reacted to various social pressures. Mommsen was also opposed to the notion of the Nazi Germany as a totalitarian state. He was best known for arguing that Adolf Hitler was a “Weak Dictator” thesis as he quotes “Adolf Hitler was unwilling to take decisions, frequently uncertain, exclusively concerned with upholding his prestige and personal authority, influenced in the strongest fashion by his current entourage, in some aspects a weak dictator”. Functionalism analyses the occurrence of the Holocaust from two perceptions and sanctions the audience to understand that it is crucial to pinpoint the time period and to understand the reasons why such a horrible event

This is evident as on February 1st 1933 Hitler (through mediums such as the radio) broadcasted his “Appeal to the German People” and the SA began to attack the enemies of National Socialism. As a result of this terror and encouraging the use of violence, twenty one days later the police were reinforced with the SA. This was significantly important in the Nazi consolidation of power as it removed threats and made people support the Nazis and Hitler even if the support was drawn out of fear of them being targetted through means of violence and terror, thus increasing support for them. Hitler stressed the issue of the Communist threat which was more important as it meant that more people would oppose them and even go as far as supporting Hitler to effectively legalise violence which their voters believed was needed in order for them to consolidate power and put a stop to the supposed threat. An example of this is that the Reichstag Fire allowed the police to legally arrest suspects without reference to the courts. Another way that the Nazis consolidated their power through violence was at the appointment of 50,000 SA, SS and Stahlhelm members on 22nd February 1933 to create a wave of violence against communists and SPD supporters. There was a failure on the left which weakened the importance of the terror in violence in consolidating power. This is because, the communists and the SPD didn’t believe that the Nazi

Hitler as a Totalitarian Dictator Before I begin to answer the question, "to what extent was Hitler a totalitarian dictator", I must first expand on the meanings of these two widely used political terms. In the "Reader's Digest Great Encyclopaedic Dictionary", the definition of totalitarian dictator is as follows: "Totalitarian (adjective). Of, pertaining to, régime which permits no rival loyalties or parties and arrogates to itself all rights including those normally belonging to individuals. "

Hobbes believed that in a totalitarian government where individuals could sacrifice their civil liberties for safety and stability; he believed in a government that could only maintain its power if it was serving the common good, the people. Karl Marx also argued that the common good could only be met by a strong, dictatorial government. His idea of a transitional, authoritarian regime of the proletariats severely affected Russian politics for many decades. As history has shown us, the removal of civil liberties centralized under the power of a single authoritarian identity helps solidify stability by allowing the state to act swiftly and powerfully to terminate potential crisis. However, while such a style of political rule has been temporarily set up in Russia and Germany, both Countries failed at serving the common good. Millions of Russians were killed ruthlessly in Soviet concentration camps, Gulags, and many others through persecution and the widespread purges of dissidents. Soviet workers were forced into laborious work days which were inherently dangerous. While Lenin initially allowed an election as soon as he took power, he immediately abolished the results after losing to an opposing party. Instead of following the wishes of his people, he removed political opposition to strengthen his control. Similarly, Nazi Germany was being ruled by a strong and unquestionable leader at the time. While Hitler was able to stabilize his State, he failed at serving the common good. Millions of Jews were executed or sent to labour camps through Nazi eugenics. While ‘pureblood’ Germans saw some minor benefits during Nazi control, the gain of these few fall drastically short when measured against the suffering felt by people globally caused by Nazi policy. In no sense were either of these states