- Study Sources C and D
Compare these Sources as evidence for Hitler’s methods of ruling Nazi Germany.
Source C has several references to Hitler’s methods of ruling. First thing that needs to be taken into account is the reliability of the sources. Source C was written by Hitler’s Press Chief, from this I know from my own knowledge that he would have been able to gain access to Hitler’s post and other personal objects, therefore we would expect him to have in-depth knowledge of Hitler and other Nazis. However because of the time period that the source was written in, we must acknowledge that Nazism was being denounced and that no one would talk of it with a positive tone at this time (after the war.) In this Source Dietrich states: ‘Hitler produced the biggest confusion in government that has ever existed in a civilised state.’ ‘He removed all clarity of leadership and produced a completely obscure network of responsibilities.’ From this it is clear to see that Dietrich is not currently in favour of the Nazis and their regime. However, simply because the source was written in 1955 would almost certainly mean that the source would not contain anything that may be interpreted as being supportive of the Nazis would be outlawed and condemned. Basically after the war was lost and the war criminals were convicted and all the Nazi atrocities had come to the surface, no one showed anymore support for the Nazis. Their previous masses of support and thriving popularity had almost vanished after the war. Source C also talks about how Hitler ‘systematically disorganised the upper levels of the Reich in order to develop and further the authority of his own will until it became a tyranny.’ From this Otto Dietrich was trying to make it evident how Hitler sabotaged the entire Nazi party simply to boost his own popularity and power.
Source D was written by a modern historian, Ian Kershaw. Since it was written fairly recently we would expect the Historian to have used all the sources he had at his disposal and to have researched it properly. It states that due to Hitler’s personal rule radicals were invited from below. It also talks about how Hitler’s ruling made it easier for these people to get the things they want to be done, carried out, simply because they could make it seem that they were working towards the Fuhrer. This was very easy at the time because a lot of internal policies were not conducted by Hitler but by other Nazis below him who could make their wishes seem to be those of the Fuhrer’s. ‘Initiatives were taken without the dictator necessarily having to dictate.’ Unlike the previous source we would not expect the author of this source to be biased towards any side because he was not emotionally attached or under pressure from society or anyone to influence the content of the source.
Both sources confirm that Hitler’s style of ruling made it easy for radicals and other less conservative members of the Nazi party to come into power and are therefore similar in that way. However source C makes it seem that the Nazi party were completely corrupt and that there was absolutely no sense of authority or leadership apart from Hitler. While source D makes it seem that Hitler simply wanted to have a system, which was completely different and unique from the Weimar days, and therefore via his personal power and authority he made sure that this was the case.
- Study all the sources
Using all these sources and your own knowledge, examine the view that Hitler’s personal rule led to a weak dictatorship in Germany.
Source A gives the opposite impression; it gives a sense of belonging, belonging to a strong Germany and being part of a society who all have a common goal which is to work with and for the Fűhrer to build a strong Germany. From my own knowledge I know that this was a popular feeling and that many Germans did want a strong leader to follow. Many remembered the times of the Kaiser and thought of that as the peak in German society. Also I know that many people liked the idea of a strong German society as they joined youth groups and party organisations in order to be a part of the Nazi faction. The main reason why it gives such an opposing view is because it is a piece of propaganda and therefore will not show Hitler in a negative way.
Source B gives the same type of impression, that Hitler was the ‘bearer of the people’s will’, this meant that he had the same ideas and views and beliefs as the people and that what he said and did was simply because of his love for Germany and its people. Also it talks about how Hitler was only bound ‘by laws which are inherent in the nature of his people.’ This might show Hitler as a bit of a liability because the people apparently controlled his power. This shows weakness because dictators are supposed to be strong leaders who do what they want not necessarily what the people want. However this source was written by a Nazi who would have wanted to portray Hitler as best as possible; as a fair and caring man. Because of this, this source must be handled with caution.
Source C gives a very different view to the previous two sources. Here we see Hitler’s Press Chief blatantly criticising Hitler and his method of ruling. He is deliberately saying that Hitler was a major liability to the Nazi dictatorship. He claims that ‘Hitler produced the biggest confusion in government that has ever existed in a civilised state.’ This is a pretty drastic statement, which really does condemn Hitler as a failure and a weak dictator. He talks about how Hitler and the Nazis had no organisation and that there were many conflicts over responsibility due to this. This shows Hitler in a weaker position then sources A and B. From my own knowledge I know that this is true but just as it says in the source it was intentional. Hitler meant to have squabbling and rivalry below him, not only to secure his own position but in order to always having the groups below him alert and willing to fight for their places. This was mainly due to Hitler’s belief in ‘the survival of the fittest.’ This source was written by a silent opponent of Hitler after Hitler’s death. Since it was written after Hitler’s death and the Germany’s loss in the war it is very unlikely to have been supportive of Hitler and the Nazis so it should be believed that this source was written with bias.
Finally, Source D is by a modern historian so we would expect it to be unbiased and well researched. Ian Kershaw talks about how Hitler’s method of dictatorship ‘invited radical initiatives from below,’ this is not necessarily a bad thing because these radicals were completely loyal to Hitler and therefore this emphasised his power and efficiency as dictator. Finally it says, ‘initiatives were taken without the dictator necessarily having to dictate.’ This shows Hitler’s great strengths as a dictator because he can make decisions happen without even needing to do anything.
My final conclusion on this is that Hitler’s personal rule did not lead to a weak dictatorship but instead led to a strong leadership where everyone was always in competition with each other to please Hitler. Also I believe that having Hitler as a leader and dictator was very good at bringing the whole country together to work for a stronger Germany. Some of Hitler’s methods may have seemed to be a bit weak but simply because he seemed to have complete loyalty from everyone made him and his methods successful.