Ian Kershaw's 'Working Towards The Fuhrer'

In his piece “Working Towards the Fuhrer”, Ian Kershaw details Adolf Hitler’s regime as being one of “charismatic authority”. Sociologist Max Weber defined this concept as "resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him”. Over the course of his interpretation, Kershaw locks in on the concept that, unlike Stalin’s Russia, Nazi Germany could not exist without Hitler. To establish his point, Kershaw had to balance between some long held theories regarding the ruling style of Hitler. As noted in class, history has taken to describing Hitler as being uninterested in the daily affairs (particularly related to domestic ones) of Germany, at times being described as a lazy dictator and by Hans Mommsen as a “weak dictator”. While Kershaw’s piece does establish that he agrees with the depiction of Hitler being indifferent about daily affairs, it is clear that he does not support the notion that Hitler’s rule was weak in any way.
To delineate the concept that Hitler was not interested in the daily affairs that typical authoritarian rulers might have, Kershaw uses several examples.
Kershaw states “after 1933, as head of government he scarcely put pen to paper himself other than to sign legislation put in front of him by Lammers” (head of the Reich Chancellery). Another excerpt summarizes a day in the life of Hitler, essentially stating that he did not appear before lunch, only to review a few articles, then after lunch he would move on to recreational activities (films, walks) prior to and after dinner. Also included in this excerpt is Hitler’s disdain for paper work and more importantly,
bureaucracy. Based on the above, one might wonder how any argument can be made to show Adolf Hitler to be a strong leader. The answer, according to Kershaw resides in the concept of “Working Towards the Fuhrer”. Beginning with the following quote from one of Hitler’s former adjutants, Kershaw begins to establish his point:
“He took the view that many things sorted themselves out on their own if one did not interfere”. This philosophy runs parallel to many of Hitler’s other ideologies, all in some way rooted to Darwinism. In this case, Kershaw points out that Hitler’s non-interventionalist style as a dictator led him to wait for the best decision to come to the forefront from those who worked for him. Kershaw states that due to “his instinctive Darwinism”, Hitler was unable to choose a side in a dispute until a winner emerged. By using this concept, along with a comparison between Germany and Russia, Kershaw begins to establish his belief in Hitler’s tenure as one of “Charismatic Authority”.

Kershaw is extremely effective in proving that Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia were more different than alike. To do so, he cites the “system” that was in place with Stalin. This system can be briefly described as having traditional bureaucratic qualities, clearly defined and logical goals, and the potential for a successor to be named after Stalin.
In stark contrast to this, Germany under Hitler lacked any traditional bureaucratic qualities, an inability to settle into a conservative authoritarian state, or cease its need to dominate (among a string of goals that lacked boundaries). All of the above begin to shape Kershaw’s argument that Nazi Germany was incapable of reproducing itself without Hitler at the helm. It can be argued that Germans were more tied to Hitler than Germany itself. The country began to pursue the realization of ideological aims that were located within the person of Hitler. The fact that Nazi Germany lacked any structural order only served to advance the personal goals of Hitler. Essentially Hitler’s desire for radicalization became policy once those below him were given autonomy to carry out his will. As discussed in class, essentially everyone in Hitler’s regime reported directly up to him. Hitler encapsulated this by saying “For us the Idea is the Fuhrer, and each Party member has only to obey the Fuhrer”. As a byproduct of this, these individuals were given a certain level of autonomy in satisfying the Fuhrer’s demands. Hitler’s refusal to give edicts led to the concept of “Working Towards the Fuhrer” as a means to keep Germany in lockstep with the wishes of its leader. Werner Willikens, State Secretary in Prussian Agricultural Ministry, established this concept, stating that one should not wait for orders to come down from leadership. Instead, it is the duty of the individual to attempt to work towards the Fuhrer with Hitler’s spirit in mind. This level of autonomy is the impetus behind the extreme acts committed by Nazi Germany. Set out with a goal of national redemption achieved by racial purification and expansionism, those who worked to carry out Hitler’s will were given the power to do so by any means necessary. Just as Hitler’s goals were limitless, so too were the powers allowed to those attempting to achieve them. By 1938, Hitler became a force that could not be stopped due to his role as “Charismatic Authoritarian”. Essentially Germany became “the mission” and Hitler was the embodiment of “the mission”, as this concept “did not exist as a doctrine independent of the leader”. With those who supported him left to their own means to please him, one could argue that there were some elements of a polycratic agencies being employed to achieve Hitler’s goals. This led to further radicalization of Nazi policies, as all who worked toward the Fuhrer were left to interpret what means should be used to carry out their duties. Within the framework of the statement above, Hitler took on the role of indirect leader of the radicalization. Being the only common link between its various parts, Hitler was the lynch pin of the entire system and was almost deified for it. Hitler took on a three-pronged role in this process: 1. Unifier: the common bond amongst all who sought to do his bidding 2. Activator: His “utopian” vision served as the catalyst that all underneath sought to achieve 3. Enabler: Hitler gave such vast autonomy to those working for him provided a rubber stamp and sanctioned any action taken that would be aligned with the ultimate goal, regardless of how inhumane or barbaric * As time progressed, Hitler became more of a symbol for the radicalization of policy, with those who “worked towards him” becoming the driving force. This concept is one of the vital conclusions that Kershaw makes to justify his point that, although not involved in day-to-day activity, Hitler should never be classified as a weak dictator. His charisma became the driving force for a legion of followers to do his bidding, even without the aid of direct orders other than to satisfy the mission. In addition to this, one could even argue that Hitler’s unwillingness to engage in daily affairs only enhanced his position by providing the autonomy he did to those who worked towards him. This created a feudal quality among those who competed for his attention, a Darwinist battle for who could achieve his goals more efficiently. * Based upon all of the above, it is difficult to disagree with Kershaw’s argument. His use of countless sources and documents to support his theory on every level make for a compelling argument, particularly related to the idea that Nazi Germany could never replicate itself without Hitler driving it. This to me is the essence of “Charismatic Authority”, the point that as the charisma dissipates, so too would the regime. * * * * * * *