Was Germany a Totalitarian State by 1939?

822 Words4 Pages
4) To what extent can Nazism in power be seen as totalitarianism in the period 1933-1939? There are many aspects that make up a totalitarian state, and a model totalitarian state, according to historians, has a single, charismatic leader, political power in the hands of ruling party, party ideology like a religion, state terrorism used to keep control, control of the media, all institutions and intrusion into all aspects of personal life. Hitler was ultimately responsible for the direction that Germany was headed in; however he did not fully achieve all aspects of the model totalitarian state, according to the historians’ definition. According to the historians definition of a totalitarian state, such as Ian Kershaw’s view, to be a totalitarian state there must be one total leader, who is usually charismatic, and doesn’t have to compete with anyone else. When these aspects are considered in relation to Hitler they are only partly true. Hitler was a charismatic leader, who was not necessarily competing with anyone else for his title as furher, however he is considered to have been lazy, not wanting to make decisions, and handing things down to the people below him. This shows that he did not lead on his own, but relied on the people around him to make decisions. This can lead to the conclusion that, although Hitler was charismatic and didn’t compete with anyone, he was not a total leader; he was more of a symbol, as if he was more concerned with his image as the furher, rather than the work behind the role. This shows that first part of the criteria, for Hitler’s Nazi regime to have been considered a totalitarian state, according to the view of historians, has only been partly met. This allows the conclusion, that in this aspect, Hitler’s Nazi state can’t be considered totalitarian, because it doesn’t meet the criteria, as defined my historians. Another thing
Open Document