To What Extent Could Nazi Germany Be Considered A Totalitarian State In The Period 1933-45?

Any consideration of the extent to which Nazi Germany could be considered a totalitarian state in the period 1933-45 involves the application and evaluation of political models or ‘typologies’ to Nazi history. It is important to acknowledge that there are a number of totalitarian models, and that these theoretical descriptions attempt to emphasize certain characteristics and features of the Nazi dictatorship. This analysis will consider two theories of totalitarianism: the six point ‘syndrome’ developed by Friedrich and Brzezinski ; and, Karl D Bracher’s notion of totalitarianism as a revolutionary form of authoritarianism. It will be argued that the former typology has conceptual limitations and has been substantially disputed by subsequent historical research. However, Bracher’s notion of totalitarianism remains an important contribution to Nazi histiography and is particularly relevant to the radicalization of the Nazi state following 1942. Bracher’s approach provides a valuable insight into key aspects of Hitlarian domination - aspects that were clearly totalitarian.

It is appropriate to commence an evaluation on th

Research by structuralist historians such as Broszat and Mommsen has demolished this assumption. These historians have emphasized the divided, fragmentary and chaotic institutional structure that persisted long into Nazi history. D.G Williamson summarises this research by describing the regime as “a bedlam of rival hierarchies, competing centers of power and ambiguous chains of command.”

There is little doubt that the rapid rise of the SS-Gestapo-SD complex after 1934 produced a dreaded internal security apparatus that fulfilled this terrorist function. One way of assessing the brutal effectiveness of the SS apparatus is by considering the almost complete absence of resistance that threatened Nazi rule. As Michael Balfour has argued “The awesome power of the SS meant that any active resistance could only be carried out from within an organisation sheltered by the apparatus.” The power of the SS expanded as the regime developed and radicalized until it emerged as a ‘collateral’ state.

For most of its history the Nazi regime was characterized by powerful Cartels or blocs (like the NSDAP, the SS, the army, big business), which competed amongst each other to expand their undefined jurisdictions. This structural feature gravely underlines the monolific assumption of Friedrich’s model, and most intentionalist structures.

Through a variety of institutional arrangements, the Nazi state required a monopoly over information flows in Nazi Germany. Goebbels’ initial staff of 350 trebled by 1939, and V. Berghahn has noted that other government departments and agencies developed their own propaganda units (the NSDAP had 14000 people on its patrol by 1934). Laws like the Reich Press Law of 1933 enabled Goebbels to ‘synchronize’ all media and Cultural outlets. Consequently several of the features identified by Friedrich, which comprise a Totalitarian State, were clearly present in the State constructed by Hitler. However, Historical research (particularly by structuralist historians) has exposed serious problems with the application with the remaining features of the six-point syndrome.

There is a controversy amongst historians concerning the extent to which the Wehrmacht were controlled by the Nazi regime. On the one hand, the oath of allegiance to Hitler and the events of the Blomberg-Fritsch affair would suggest that the army was under Hitler’s control. On the other hand, the bomb threat of 1944 revealed an attempt by seniour members of the Nazi party to assassinate Hitler and seize his position of power. This illustrates an obvious lack of control, to an extreme measure. It can also be argued that Hitler’s demolition of the SA, on the night of the

Some topics in this essay:
Nazi Germany, Friedrich Brzezinski, Karl Bracher’s, NSDAP SS, German Police, Eberhard Jackel’s, Third Reich, Unlike Friedrich’s, Michael Balfour, DG Williamson, nazi germany, nazi regime, friedrich’s model, six-point syndrome, single mass, single mass party, mass party, nazi history, centralized beurocratic control, beurocratic control, power ss, bracher’s notion, bracher’s notion totalitarianism, significant concerning application, application friedrich’s model,