Weber's Theory Of Bureaucracy To The Holocaust

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

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.

While Hitler was the leader of the Third Reich, the functionalists believed that the ‘road to Auschwitz’ was characterized by an indirect unplanned path that was defined by cumulative radicalization of the Nazis due to the prevalence of chaotic decision-making processes that were a major feature of the polycratic system of governance. Additionally, this system was characterized by the elimination of individuals considered as destructive to the Nazi movement, leading to the creation of a movement that was ready to do anything to achieve a ‘final solution’ to the ‘Jew problem’. Karl Schleunes falls in this school of thought. Karl Schleunes argument, like that of other functionalists, was cemented on institutions and structure of the Third Reich. With the intentionalists arguing that the Holocaust was the fulfillment of Hitler’s plan hatched in the 1920s, their argument was summer up as the ‘straight road to Auschwitz.’ For functionalists, however, the path to the Holocaust was not straight, a reason why Karl Schleunes labeled his book The Twisted Road to

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.

While reading The Cunning of History by Richard L Rubenstein you can sense current things that the author applied Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy to the Holocaust. Bureaucracy is a system in the government where state officials make most of the important decisions rather than by elected representatives. Bureaucracy is impersonal and fair. Max Weber argued that there are characteristics that modern bureaucracy functions in a current approach.

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 investigation assesses the Nazi regime from 1933 – 1945 in regards to the totality of their actions. In order to evaluate the Nazi regime on whether or not they were more evil than other genocidal regimes, the investigation evaluates how the Nazis controlled their country. The investigation will start in the early years of the Nazi regime in how they set up their totalitarian government and how they expanded their control. Then the Holocaust will be looked at for how the Nazis treated those they were exterminating. Accounts from soldiers and Jewish people who lived through the Nazi control will be mostly used to evaluate if the Nazis were more evil than other genocidal regimes. Two of the sources used in this essay, “The Liberation of Dachau” by Chuck Ferree, and “Fate did not let me go” a letter by Valli Ollendorff are then evaluated for their origins, purposes, values and limitations.

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.

Functionalism versus intentionalism is an ongoing historical debate about the origins of the Holocaust. The two questions that the debate centers around on are; was there a master plan by Adolf Hitler for the holocaust? The intentionalist argument is that there was a ‘master plan’, while functionalist’s ague that there was not. The second question is whether the initiative for the Holocaust and the Final Solution come from Adolf Hitler himself, or from lower ranks in the Third Reich. Both side agree that Hitler was the supreme leader, and was responsible for encouraging the anti-Semitism during the Holocaust, but intentionalists believe that the initiative for the final solution came from above, while functionalists argue that it came from the lower ranks within the bureaucracy.

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

<br>The Holocaust is the most horrifying crime against humanity of all times. "Hitler, in an attempt to establish the pure Aryan race, decided that all mentally ill, gypsies, non supporters of Nazism, and Jews were to be eliminated from the German population.He proceeded to reach his goal in a systematic scheme." One of his main methods of "doing away" with these "undesirables" was through the use of concentration camps. "In January 1941, in a meeting with his top officials, the 'final solution' was decided". The Jewish population was to be eliminated. In this paper I will discuss concentration camps with a detailed description of the worst one prior to World War II, Buchenwald.

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.

Hitler cultivated his own army to destroy selective demographics, he wanted to create a world where his concept of ideal was the only one that existed. As a dictator he was able to constitute laws, anyone who chose to disobey these laws would be executed. The laws that are put into place can define success through evil acts. The Holocaust is a direct example; Hitler knew he would be able to brainwash human beings to obey his commands contributing to the success of his dehumanizing scheme.