To what extent was Hitler's 'charismatic authority' the basis of Nazi control in the period from 1933 to 1939?

To what extent was Hitler's 'charismatic authority' the basis of Nazi control in the period from 1933 to 1939? Despite the general and traditional intentionalist or 'Hitlocentric' view of those such as Fest, that 'no one evoked so much rejoicing, hysteria, and expectation of salvation as he'1 or that 'Nazism was Hitlerism, pure and simple.'2 Adolf Hitler was indeed 'charismatic' as a leader but no distinctly authoritive. It is not plausible to maintain that 'to a virtually unprecedented degree, he created everything out of himself and was himself everything at once: (nor) his own teacher, organizer of a party and author of its ideology, tactician and demagogic saviour, leader, statesman and for a decaded the entire 'axis' of Germany.'3 Indeed, there were both numerous and significant factors equating to the success of Nazi control 1933-1939, 'he seemed to embody the very type of the 'agent,' one who acts for others.'4 Hitler's 'charismatic authority' and the establishment of the Fuhrer image functioned, 'in mobilizing the boundless energy and misplaced idealism of the fanatics and activists through orientation towards long-term 'cosmic' and 'utopian' goals.'5 Thus, 'Hitler's increasing aloofness from the State bureaucracy and the major organs of government marks, it seems, are more than a difference of style with Stalin's modus operandi.'6 Nazi Germany, however, politically

  • Word count: 1385
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

'It was rapid advances in technology which allowed Britain to turn the tide of the Battle of the Atlantic against Germany by mid-1943'. How far do you agree with this judgment?

'It was rapid advances in technology which allowed Britain to turn the tide of the Battle of the Atlantic against Germany by mid-1943'. How far do you agree with this judgment? The rapid advances in technology certainly played a large part in the turning of the tide against Germany, 4 major advances were made in 1942/1943; the Leigh Light, HF/DF, long range aircraft and hedgehog bombs which all contributed greatly to the effective detection and destruction of U-boats. Of course technology wasn't the only contributing factor to the turning of the tide; the appointment of Max Horton, the involvement of the USA from 1941 and axis complacency all contributed to the success of the allies in the Battle of the Atlantic. The effective advances in technology were made in late 1942; the Leigh Light which was attached to planes meant that the u-boats on the surface at night could be identified and attacked from the air; the u-boats had little warning so they couldn't submerge themselves quick enough to escape any bombs being dropped. Hedgehog bombs, which were used to destroy u-boats from ships in the Atlantic only detonated when they hit a solid object; i.e. A u-boat this development proved very effective as the hit rate rose from 7% to 25% once the Hedgehogs were introduced, again the enemy had limited time to launch a counter attack therefore the axis losses began to outweigh

  • Word count: 918
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

What is the disagreement between Lenin and Zinoviev/Kamenev? - Source based questions.

Source Questions . What is the disagreement between Lenin and Zinoviev/Kamenev? The disagreement between Lenin and Zinoviev and Kamenev was that Lenin believed that Russia was ready for a Bolshevik revolution, whereas Kamenev and Zinoviev did not. Zinoviev said that ' to stake on one card not only the fate of our party ... Russian and international revolutions.' Here he is saying that a revolution attempt at this time would in fact fail and that its failure would cause the Bolshevik and Marxist movement, not only in Russia, but also across the world to collapse. Lenin on the other hands says that ' they wish to secure ... one half of the votes plus one. Such a guarantee history has never proffered,' Lenin is suggesting that Zinoviev and Kamenev's view that the Bolsheviks had to have a majority of the publics votes before attempting a revolution was too cautious. He believed that they would have to risk a revolution failure to have any chance of gaining power because to have a majority of public support would not be possible. Lenin goes on to say that 'the majority of people began quickly to go over to the side of the Bolsheviks.' The Bolsheviks were becoming more popular after the 'July Days' revolution and Lenin states that the election results for Petrograd and 'borough councils in Moscow' demonstrated this. Lenin believed that the Bolsheviks were already popular enough

  • Word count: 1020
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

Why did Stalin rather than Trotsky emerge as the leader of the Soviet Union by 1929?

Why did Stalin rather than Trotsky emerge as the leader of the Soviet Union by 1929? Trotsky was the most well-known replacement for Lenin as he was the only member who could rival Lenin in intellect and his writings on Marxist theory. Trotsky's impressive revolutionary record saw him make an invaluable contribution to the rise of the Bolshevik party between 1917 to 1924, yet it was Stalin, a man called upon by Lenin in his testament to be sacked through his rude nature and lack of tolerance who succeeded Lenin in a long hard-fought battle for leadership of the Soviet Union. There are numerous factors which contributed to the recognition as Stalin as leader, including Trotsky's weaknesses, Stalin's tactical and ideological manoeuvring and his own skilful personal qualities. However I believe the most significant reason to Stalin's emergence as leader was his control of key institutions the Communist Party which stripped his opponents of power and left him as the only candidate left undefeated. The most important reason as to why Stalin emerged as leader was because he held key positions within the three most significant institutions within the Russian government, the Politburo the main organ of power, Orgburo which made important decisions about organizational work in Russia and arguably most importantly General secretary which meant he was able to appoint his own supporters

  • Word count: 1652
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

Why was the Battle of Stalingrad a turning point in the war against Germany?

Why was the Battle of Stalingrad a turning point in the war against Germany? Background information- The battle of Stalingrad was fought for a mixture of military and political reasons. Germany needed to capture Russia for its plentiful raw materials, this would help to support the country's population and their army's needs in weaponry. The Caucasus contained an abundant supply of natural mineral wealth, especially oil a crucial requirement for the German war machine. Also wheat was in the Ukraine. But Hitler also believed that the Russians were an inferior race and were only good enough to be under his laws, working as slaves in the future German empire presently being built. Furthermore the Russians had done quite badly in a previous battle against Finland 1939 - 1940. Hitler assumed that because the Soviet Union had been beaten so easily, it would take an army of his to defeat Russia in approximately just four months. Additionally Stalin had shot 35,000 officers (43 % of all his officers) in the Red Army. Hitler believed that Stalin's army was now plotting against him and that the army was now weaker and vulnerable to attacks. A perfect time to invade. June 22, 1941 The Nazis attack Russia. June 22 1941."Operation Barbarossa" begins. Over 3 million German soldiers and 3300 tanks cross the Russian border. The Wehrmarcht (German

  • Word count: 2291
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

" It seems that Mussolini from the outset was determined to retain power in his hand; but he was uncertain of the method to be employed towards the other political parties and their leaders, towards the press, and towards parliament"

Emily Taylor " It seems that Mussolini from the outset was determined to retain power in his hand; but he was uncertain of the method to be employed towards the other political parties and their leaders, towards the press, and towards parliament" (F.L. Carsten, an academic historian and specialist on European Fascism, The Rise of Fascism, (1967) How valid is this interpretation of Mussolini's consolidation of power between 1922-25? In 1922 Mussolini had just been appointed Prime Minister after the fascist march on Rome. However his position as PM was very unstable there were lots of problems that needed to be overcome in Italy in order for Mussolini to secure his position of leader. The source suggests that Mussolini wanted to become a dictator, however he didn't pre-plan his methods with regards to other political parties and their leaders, towards the press, and towards parliament. He was an opportunist; he made decisions as different circumstances arose. In this essay I will be looking at whether or not this is a valid interpretation. The first thing that agrees with the first part of the interpretation, that Mussolini wanted to retain power, is his definition of what a fascist state should be, fascism is based upon there being one dictator who is strong and powerful. The Emergency Law of 1922 also agrees with the source. The Emergency Law gave Mussolini complete

  • Word count: 1229
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

"Although Nazi government was confused and chaotic, it worked because it was guided by one ideology and because Hitler always retained ultimate control." Examine the validity of this statement.

Shelley Michaels 8/11/03 "Although Nazi government was confused and chaotic, it worked because it was guided by one ideology and because Hitler always retained ultimate control." Examine the validity of this statement. By 1945 there is no doubt that Hitler " had produced the biggest confusion in government that has ever existed in a civilized state", by establishing a Nazi Political system with no bureaucratic chain of command or defined areas of responsibility. However, whether Hitler was a masterful schemer who encouraged administrative chaos to enhance his own power, or a weak dictator, and at best a good opportunist is debatable. The Validity of this statement is support by the traditional interpretation of Hitler as a strong leader, who retained ultimate control through the use of his "omnipotent power of the Führer, abrogating all state and legal norms and sanctioning all deeds". However, it could be argued that the traditionalist interpretation of Hitler was nothing more than an myth, enhanced by propaganda, which served to reinforce the German tradition of an authoritarian leadership. Moreover, it could be argued that Hitler's role in the third Reich was synonymous to that of a Monarch's. He offered his subordinates an overall vision of his aims, and left the interpretation and implementation of those aims to them. Hitler had effectively reduced his

  • Word count: 1339
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

"Britain's appeasement policies in the years 1933 to 1939 were well-intentioned, but totally ineffective in preventing war." Assess the validity of this judgement.

"Britain's appeasement policies in the years 1933 to 1939 were well-intentioned, but totally ineffective in preventing war." Assess the validity of this judgement. Whether Britain's appeasement policies were effective in preventing war depends on how far one expected them to prevent war - on how temporary the policy was meant to be, and whether Britain saw appeasement as a real solution to the problems facing Europe during the 1930s. Early examples of "appeasement" were quite effective at preventing war, simply in that "appeasement" meant a lack of military action on some issue or other (for example, on Abyssinia or remilitarisation of the Rhineland), which, if it had happened, could have resulted in war; and when war did eventually happen its timing was largely because there was a limit to the extent to which Britain -would- appease Hitler, and to the extent to which Britain saw that appeasement was an appropriate policy for preserving European security. Appeasement, then, was effective at preventing war for as long as the British (and French) wanted it to be, and no longer. The fact that Hitler was convinced that Britain would not declare war when he invaded Poland meant that he, at least, was persuaded of the lengths to which the policy could be carried. One could argue further to that that it was a failure to act according to the policy which instigated general war when

  • Word count: 942
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

"Debates about party policy were more important than personalities in deciding the outcome of the struggle for power in the USSR in the years 1924 to 1929." Assess the validity of this judgement

"Debates about party policy were more important than personalities in deciding the outcome of the struggle for power in the USSR in the years 1924 to 1929." Assess the validity of this judgement. [20 marks] The incidence, expression and outcomes of debates about party policy were decided primarily by the personalities and decisions of their participants (for example, Trotsky's reluctance and refusal to take up Lenin's recommendations on the Georgian question against Stalin, which meant a missed opportunity to oppose him publicly), rather than the functional content of the debates themselves. The debates about party policy were less important in themselves than the loyalties and power relations they represented - Stalin's attacks on "Comrade Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution" were not meant to discredit the theory (much less were the attacks, for example, by Trotsky upon Zinoviev and Kamenev's record especially concerning the October Revolution, being attacks on people rather than their arguments), but were meant to discredit the person. The forming of the triumvirate, for another example, against Trotsky, was not done primarily because Trotsky's views on policy were vastly divergent from the rest of the party's or the Stalin, et al themselves, but because they (Zinoviev and Kamenev especially) considered Trotsky a "Bonaparte" figure whose personality - decried

  • Word count: 908
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

In what ways did the careers of Stalin and Trotsky differ in the years 1917 to 1924?

Ben Allmond 2nd GCSE 2004 History Coursework Question 1 Subject: In what ways did the careers of Stalin and Trotsky differ in the years 1917 to 1924? Between 1917 and 1924 there was political unrest and uprisings all over Russia. Two main figures in these conflicts were Trotsky and Stalin. Trotsky was in New York, where he wrote for a Menshevik newspaper, when the March revolution of 1917 started. Stalin had always been in Russia and he was editing a Bolshevik newspaper called "Pravda" (meaning truth in Russian). At this point both of these men did not have greatly different job, they were both working in Russian newspaper companies. When Trotsky arrived back in Russia in May 1917, he quickly assumed leadership of the independent Left Social-Democratic Interdistrict Group, and joined the Petrograd Soviet. Within weeks, he had gained great popularity as the most eloquent agitator of the Soviet left. Stalin came into the limelight on the 12 of March 1917 when the Russian Bureau of the Central Committee co-opted him as one of their members. They only gave him a consulting vote because they thought that he was a rough diamond, just as Lenin believed and wrote in his "Testament". Trotsky had also been elected into the Central Committee; however, he had received a full vote. This showed

  • Word count: 1339
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay