This unusual system of administration led to an unusual structure of individual power blocks, all fighting for superiority. This system led to a limitation to the party's control. The individual power blocks did not cooperate or communicate with each other, and although the SS and the Gestapo were effective units of repression, they were not as dominant in Germany as is often thought. It was the reports given by the people of Germany that allowed the Gestapo to make arrests and maintain effective repression. Through encouraging the unsubstantiated gossip that spreads in any community and taking this as concrete evidence, the Nazi party and more particularly the Gestapo were able to maintain a degree of control over people's everyday lives. However, I would argue that the system was only partially efficient as the reliance on unsubstantiated gossip and a lack of real facts must inevitably lead to the conclusion that there were things that the gossip missed within any community. The degree of control of people's lives, therefore, was extremely limited. However, the state certainly did set out to control every aspect of people's lives.
The control the Nazis exercised in other areas was also limited. The education system introduced by the Nazis was unusual. The emphasis upon physical excellence and militarist drill was resented by many, along with the blatant attempt by the party to indoctrinate Germany's youth through emphasising nationalist principles and showing the party in a wholly positive light. The Hitler youth was often seen as positive, but in fact it has been shown that education standards fell in Germany due to the increased emphasis on the physical aspect. Although in many ways there was a strict control of the education system by the Nazis, the ability of the system introduced to indoctrinate the youth of Germany was limited, and in many cases succeeded only in isolating the new generation, the control here was limited.
The economic ideas held by Hitler, in general, lacked direction and purpose. He had no clear economic aims and ambitions. He concerned himself little with economic matters; he was more concerned by ensuring that the country was ready for war. However, initially he did have the insight not to attempt to run the economy himself and left it up to the president of the Reichsbank, Schacht to fulfil this role. It is ironic that the area in which the Nazi party itself had little or no input into was the area in which they had the greatest success. It was Schacht who engineered the economic recovery of 1933-36, his policy of encouraging public investment whilst lowering interest rates and taxes laid the foundations for economic recovery. His later 'New Plan' solved the problem of increasing debts due to greater imports than exports. It was his insight and expertise that allowed the economic recovery to take place; Hitler's later policies were not as successful. Schacht made the economic improvements possible, however, the recovery in Germany was aided by a recovery worldwide after the Wall Street crash of 1929. At this stage, the economy was controlled by the Nazis, but through non-Nazi management. However, although the better economical management aided the Nazis in their objectives, they were not essential to success. Hitler essentially was willing to ignore economical matters during the war as he felt that if he could gain enough territory, Germany's economic difficulties would cease to be a problem as he would be able to drain capital from the territories that he intended to gain. The introduction of 4 year plan showed that it was the war rather than the economy that was the Nazis first priority. Essentially, Schacht had glossed over the real economic problems through a series of financial tricks, in order to address the real problems the government needing to raise taxes and more importantly, cut expenditure, and with a growing military deemed vital to the survival of the Third Reich, the good of the economy was of secondary importance. The result was that the economy after temporary recovery was managed in a fairly shambolic manner after the resignation of Schacht in 1937.
The one area in which the Nazis were in complete control was in the area of the media. Goebbles was instrumental in the rise of the Nazis and in the manipulation of public opinion whilst they were in power. His censorship of the media and the propaganda pumped out by his organisation was essential in the manipulation of public opinion to be favourable towards the Nazi party. His total control of the media was vital in the total control of Germany. In short, his ability to organise and distribute propaganda was an essential factor in the maintenance of Nazi control.
It is interesting to note that under these criteria, Nazi Germany can certainly be considered to be a totalitarian sate to a certain extent. The State, under Nazi rule, attempted to control every element of the lives of its people through brutal repression of certain types of people. The allegations had very little substantial evidence in support of them, however, through encouraging idle gossip and treating it as factual evidence, the Gestapo were able to arrest many people that may have resisted Nazi policy. Furthermore, the Nazis encouraged the Arian race to interbreed to make a superior race whilst discriminating against homosexuals and Jews. This again shows an attempt at control. The Nazis, despite measures such as these, were not wholly successful in their control of people's lives and there remained resistance to Nazi rule among the people of Germany. If this resistance was limited, it was due to the fact that the Nazis appeared to be bringing prosperity back to Germany when it was needed most whilst inspiring the German patriotism that had been lost in the wake of Versailles. It was from this that Hitler's popularity stemmed. However, on the whole, people supported Hitler out of free choice rather than through oppression and fear. Furthermore, in education and the economy, the Nazis attempted complete control, but in many ways, despite their best efforts, complete control was never obtained due to difficult circumstances. In the case of education, the indoctrination became increasing obvious and people rather than submitting to it, became actively opposed to it. In the case of the economy, despite Schacht's best efforts to hide the problems, increased expenditure meant that the Nazis lost control. The media, however, remained firmly under the control of Goebbles. In addition to these factors, Nazi Germany was violently Nationalist, very militarist and concerned with patriotism. Nazi Germany was led by one party in the Nazi party, all opposition having being abolished, and one strong leader in Adolf Hitler. Under the criteria set out by Fredrick then, it is clear that one can conclude that the Nazi party set out to achieve a totalitarian state, and although they were largely successful, there were elements of Nazi rule that were far from totalitarian due to a lack of unity and purpose within the party, the desire of the party to stage a European war at all costs and the people's resistance to the totalitarian system due to a lack of control over peoples lives.
However, it is difficult to define a totalitarian state. The phrase came into being during the cold war, when sweeping statements defined Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia and Mao's China as 'totalitarian' states. The meaning of the word is ambiguous and at the beginning of this essay, two examples were given of slightly differing definitions. Under the second definition, the Nazi party could not be described as 'strong central rule' as their was limited unity of purpose, but in so far as there was one leader who controlled the policies, the rule was centralised and to a certain extent strong. The Nazi party certainly attempted to use coercion and repression to control people's everyday lives and Hitler was an extremely charismatic leader who gained much popularity within Germany. Therefore, under this definition, the Nazi state can be considered totalitarian to a greater extent.
If one takes the definitions as correct, then the Nazi rule was partially totalitarian and certainly set out to be so. However, the phrase a 'totalitarian state' is too general and too vague to be a satisfactory definition of Nazi Germany. It would perhaps be better to look at Nazi Germany as a regime and analyse it in that respect rather than attempting to force it into a mould for a certain type of state. In this way Nazi Germany was different from anything that had been before and different again from anything that has come since, and therefore deserves to be analysed as a state in its own right rather than being but in the 'box' of 'totalitarian states'.
