• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

The government of the n**i state was chaotic and lacked coherence in the years 1933 to 1939

Extracts from this document...


'The government of the n**i state was chaotic and lacked coherence in the years 1933 to 1939' How far do you agree with this opinion? Explain your answer, using the evidence of Sources V, W and X and your own knowledge of the issues related to this controversy. Sources W and X agree with this suggestion as the n**i state was extremely chaotic there was 'no fundamental disagreement over the fact that the government of n**i Germany was chaotic', Source V differs from this thought as it suggests that the characteristics of Nazism does not define chaotic nature, however what it does consent to is the idea portrayed in all three sources that the n**i state lacked coherence and consistency, and this therefore could explain why people saw and believed the n**i state to be chaotic. Source V suggests that the government was characterised with 'incoherence' suggesting that it lacked consistency, this is further reflected in Source X whereby it states that there was a 'lack of coordination' in the third Reich. ...read more.


any modern governmental system' suggesting that all government are chaotic, however they were not to the extremes they were in n**i Germany. Source X then implies that there was a 'lack of coordination in the internal administration' The third Reich was 'conflicting' and 'contradictory' and these existed to such 'an extreme degree' that when evaluating the 'spheres of authority' the n**i state can be labelled as 'chaotic'. Mommsen and Broszat further stress that the power structures in the n**i State evolved and changed partly because of poorly defined roles of both agencies and individuals within the n**i State; for example in the economic sphere. Yet, this contradicts Source V, whereby it states that it does not explain the chaotic nature of the n**i state 'characteristic of Nazism also typifies many other government, then this alone can hardly explain a regime rare of destructiveness'. Structuralist historians have certainly succeeded in highlighting a lack of planning and organisation on Hitler's part they proposed that Hitler had very little to do with the day to day running of the n**i State. ...read more.


Instead subordinates sought a verbal agreement or a nod of the Fuhrer's head. Sometimes contradictory orders led to confusion, and it therefore can be said that the n**i state was chaotic, however did not lack coherence, everyone had their own view of working towards the F�hrer and within that everyone interpreted it in different ways. Arguably, the n**i regime was chaotic as Hitler was unwilling to regulate or create an ordered system of government as there was a lack of clear planning and direction, which is clearly portrayed in sources W and X. Yet, it can be suggested that Hitler's chaotic structure was purposeful and it was an intentional divide and rule policy. However although it was chaotic, it did not lack coherence, as portrayed In source W, everyone had their own view of working towards the F�hrer and within that everyone interpreted it in different ways. It also is possibly wrong to suggest that this meant that little was achieved as by 1935 Hitler had made many strides for Germany in its foreign policy, this therefore provide various evidence revealing executive power of the Fuhrer and the achievements of the system, thus suggesting that there must have been some levels of coordination and coherence. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Hitler and the Nazi Regime - revision sheet.

    He encouraged people to report Jews, Communists, homosexuals, and other people that he disliked to the Gestapo. Then he would put the reported people into concentration camps. He also replaced anti-n**i teachers with Nazis to ensure that the students were being taught the n**i ideals.

  2. To what extent was the authoritarian nature of the Nazi regime an aberration in ...

    Reichstag can amend constitution * Opposition was allowed and nothing was done to suppress opposition power 1933-45: * Nazis fully exploit Article 48 to ban opposition parties, political meetings and newspapers * Hitler casually approves and disapproves of legislation * Chaotic government structure allows Hitler to remain the clear source

  1. Soviet State

    Stalin conceived a third strategy which contained elements of both right and leftwing strategies, but applied them with a brutality that would have appalled most participants in the debates of the 1920s. * Problems with the NEP began to accumulate rapidly from 1926-27.

  2. To what extent was Hitler's 'charismatic authority' the basis of Nazi control in the ...

    Adolf Hitler's 'charismatic authority' perceived as omnipotent and therefore overwelming, is limited in its significance of n**i control in the period 1933 to 1939. However 'there was the sheer impossibility of one man keeping abreast of, let alone controlling, everything that was going.'8 Hitler is indeed 'charasmatic' but not as authoritive to the extent that Noakes states.

  1. "Although Nazi government was confused and chaotic, it worked because it was guided by ...

    However, on the other hand it could be argued that, even though Gobbles was the brains behind the operation, his power saw limited by his need for Hitler's support. The fact that Goebbels sort "Hitler's approval", before the implementation of Kristallnacht serves to reinforce this notion.

  2. To what extent was Wilhelmine Germany an entrenched authoritarian state?

    However, the Kaiser?s over reliance of Weltpolitik being the answer for Germany undoubtedly stopped his rule from becoming an entrenched autonomy, as there would always be substantial opposition who could veto his proposals. Nonetheless, it was the Kaiser?s advisors who were flattering him into believing that he was making the decisions.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work