‘the Government of the Nazi State Was Chaotic and Lacked Coherence in the Years 1933-9’. How Far Do You Agree with This Opinion?
The system in Nazi Germany has been suggested to have a adopted a stance of divide and rule, which results in power struggles between senior Nazi’s, in the attempt to grab Hitler’s attention. Source W says ‘once they had survived struggle by battle, they would serve him loyal’, this encompasses the belief Hitler had, which was that the strongest would come out on top, allowing them to show their full loyalty to the Fuhrer. However, Carr disagrees with this idea, seeing as this illogical idea would just result in utter chaos.
Carr however, rightly agreed with the view that the whole structure of Government was an ‘authoritarian anarchy’. There was a struggle for power between different groups; this was defined by the idea of dualism. State and party institutions were working towards a common goal; however, they were fighting for total control over that area, this could be found within the civil service. It could be said that the ill-defined roles of each individual in the Nazi regime, was something that Hitler had intended on, however, by no one having a set role in society, this would lead to a state of utter confusion and disarray. On the other hand, evidence has shown that unclear positions within the Nazi state improved efficiency. Bormann a bureaucrat at the heart of the administration, despite not having a clear position of power within the party managed to increase the efficiency of the state. He set of the Department for Internal Affairs, which co-ordinated what the party did and the Department for State Affairs, which defined how the party was to be involved in the state. Both these lead to increased party efficiency within Germany, proving that Hitler’s ideas benefited the regime rather than leading to chaos.
In Source V, Burleigh outlines thinking of some historians, which is that the Nazi regime by definitions is chaotic and confused. However, he also puts forward his view that even though there was chaos and coherence in the Nazi regime, this
Carr however, rightly agreed with the view that the whole structure of Government was an ‘authoritarian anarchy’. There was a struggle for power between different groups; this was defined by the idea of dualism. State and party institutions were working towards a common goal; however, they were fighting for total control over that area, this could be found within the civil service. It could be said that the ill-defined roles of each individual in the Nazi regime, was something that Hitler had intended on, however, by no one having a set role in society, this would lead to a state of utter confusion and disarray. On the other hand, evidence has shown that unclear positions within the Nazi state improved efficiency. Bormann a bureaucrat at the heart of the administration, despite not having a clear position of power within the party managed to increase the efficiency of the state. He set of the Department for Internal Affairs, which co-ordinated what the party did and the Department for State Affairs, which defined how the party was to be involved in the state. Both these lead to increased party efficiency within Germany, proving that Hitler’s ideas benefited the regime rather than leading to chaos.
In Source V, Burleigh outlines thinking of some historians, which is that the Nazi regime by definitions is chaotic and confused. However, he also puts forward his view that even though there was chaos and coherence in the Nazi regime, this