Hitler - one of the most prominent figures in WW2. It is widely assumed by the public that he was a strong dictator; he successfully organised and implemented the Holocaust, had total control over Nazi Germany, and his subordinates. However, if he was defeated in the end, how strong of a dictator can he be? Historians have analysed the structure of the Third Reich, as well as Hitler himself, to determine the breakdown of the Third Reich. From this there have been differing conclusions in the extent of Hitler's power.
To understand the extent of Hitler’s power in relation to whether he was a strong or weak dictator, first we must understand what defines a strong dictator. Is a dictator considered strong if they have total control? If so, how …show more content…
H. Gann. Housden, being an intentionalist, believed Hitler was a strong dictator. He quotes Hitler’s own personal qualities, as well as the efficiency of his regime - not only in terms of implementation of his ideas, but also in removing those opposed to him. Mommsen, on the other hand, was a functionalist. He held the general view that Hitler wasn’t actively involved within state politics, was vastly disorganised, and frequently reacted to outside pressures. Lastly, Gann was a firm believer in Hitler as strong leader. He emphasises the consequences of his success, as well as his massive external and internal support. Although, as emphasised by Mommsen, even though the Third Reich was successfully portrayed as successful, “the reality, however, was far more complex.” This briefly highlights the complexity of the argument. There are many different interpretations and viewpoints relating to different aspects of Hitler’s leadership. Therefore, it’s very difficult to conclude that one argument is totally …show more content…
He uses the example of Hitler in the 1920s characterising himself “as only a ‘drummer' for the volkisch movement.” He also mentions Hitler claiming he was “paving the way for a more major figure to follow." This suggests that Hitler hadn’t planned to become the totalitarian leader from the start of his political career. Because of this, you could argue that Hitler was not the master of the Third Reich; he had no plans or long term goals as a leader. Mommsen extends this view further by suggesting Hitler merely adapted himself to the role of a strong authoritarian leader through the establishment of the Hitler Myth. This view is supported by Professor Richard Evan who claims Hitler’s rise to power was due to “subordinates who bolstered his confidence and persuaded him that he was the man to lead Germany in the future”, rather than his own
To understand the extent of Hitler’s power in relation to whether he was a strong or weak dictator, first we must understand what defines a strong dictator. Is a dictator considered strong if they have total control? If so, how …show more content…
H. Gann. Housden, being an intentionalist, believed Hitler was a strong dictator. He quotes Hitler’s own personal qualities, as well as the efficiency of his regime - not only in terms of implementation of his ideas, but also in removing those opposed to him. Mommsen, on the other hand, was a functionalist. He held the general view that Hitler wasn’t actively involved within state politics, was vastly disorganised, and frequently reacted to outside pressures. Lastly, Gann was a firm believer in Hitler as strong leader. He emphasises the consequences of his success, as well as his massive external and internal support. Although, as emphasised by Mommsen, even though the Third Reich was successfully portrayed as successful, “the reality, however, was far more complex.” This briefly highlights the complexity of the argument. There are many different interpretations and viewpoints relating to different aspects of Hitler’s leadership. Therefore, it’s very difficult to conclude that one argument is totally …show more content…
He uses the example of Hitler in the 1920s characterising himself “as only a ‘drummer' for the volkisch movement.” He also mentions Hitler claiming he was “paving the way for a more major figure to follow." This suggests that Hitler hadn’t planned to become the totalitarian leader from the start of his political career. Because of this, you could argue that Hitler was not the master of the Third Reich; he had no plans or long term goals as a leader. Mommsen extends this view further by suggesting Hitler merely adapted himself to the role of a strong authoritarian leader through the establishment of the Hitler Myth. This view is supported by Professor Richard Evan who claims Hitler’s rise to power was due to “subordinates who bolstered his confidence and persuaded him that he was the man to lead Germany in the future”, rather than his own