-
Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this! Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Historians (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter username
- Start date
ChoppedLiver
Member
Intentionalist V's Structuralist
Intentialist Debate (in short)
Otherwise I'll summarise -
How Could A Situation Of ‘Institutional Anarchy’ Have Arisen In The Third Reich?
There are two main explanations or theories for the existence of ‘leadership chaos’ (Hans Mommsen) in the Third Reich:
1. Intentionalist
Intentionalist historians (e.g., Bracher, Hildebrand, Hillgruber) believe that Hitler designed the overt competition between the various agencies of state and party in order to strengthen his own unique position, in order to ‘divide and rule’ i.e., the absence of clear lines of competence meant individuals competed for the Führer’s approval and he could play them off against each other, thus confirming his own authority (see Source 142, p. 205, Noakes and Pridham).
What are the implications of the Intentionalist thesis for the policies and actions of the regime?
Intentionalists argue that the chaotic administrative system did not decisively affect the implementation of major objectives, i.e., Lebensraum, Jewish policy. However, the chaos may have affected the timing of the measures although not the nature of them. In addition they argue that since Hitler was less interested in domestic policy then more institutional chaos reigned in that field because Hitler directly intervened less.
2. Structuralism/Functionalism
Functionalists (e.g., Broszat, Mommsen) believe Hitler had less control of events. They argue that the administrative chaos was partly due to Hitler’s unstable, charismatic rule, i.e., Hitler’s wishes were often vague pronouncements which had a number of possible interpretations.
Hans Mommsen takes the argument a stage further arguing Hitler was indecisive, and was, in a sense, a weak dictator. For Mommsen Hitler was ‘reluctant to take decisions, often uncertain, concerned only to maintain his own prestige and personal authority, and strongly subject to the influence of his own environment - in fact, in many ways, a weak dictator.’ In short, Hitler was often loathe to intervene if there was a possibility his public prestige could be threatened, e.g., during the economic crisis of 1935-1936 when a shortage of raw materials and foodstuffs arose.
What are the implications of the Structuralist thesis for the policies and actions of the regime?
Structuralists maintain that many of the regime’s measures, including the Jewish campaign, were not, in fact, the result of long-term planning or even in some cases intention but were ad hoc responses to the pressure of circumstances by Hitler and the agencies acting autonomously, i.e., the state was not efficient at implementing the Nazi programme. This heavily influenced the way ideology was translated into policy. Mommsen argues that this led to a policy of ‘cumulative radicalisation’ - this process, he argues, partially explains the Holocaust, where competing groups seized on Hitler’s fanatical utterances as orders for action to prove their diligence and indispensability, i.e., individual Nazis adopted the radical alternative in a quest to please the Führer.
The structuralist thesis appears to have a lot going for it but it could be argued that in practice the policies and actions of the regime moved in the general direction wanted by Hitler and did not require his direct involvement. This suited his style of leadership since a charismatic system depends on aloofness, i.e., Hitler was not a weak dictator because he had no desire to get involved in the day-to-day administration of government. Hitler was most interested in foreign policy, rearmament and the Jewish Question and was able to implement these policies effectively so in this respect he was not weak. However, it is undoubtedly true that the regime was inherently unstable.
Why Was The Nazi Regime So Unstable?
Most historians (e.g., Noakes and Pridham) point to Hitler’s style of leadership and the nature of the Nazi movement as it developed before 1933. In order to appeal to a cross-section of Germans the Nazis needed a dynamic and charismatic leadership. That is, the movement was based on winning power not retaining it. Hitler was an inspirational propagandist not a bureaucrat - he was never interested in administration. This led to confusion and competition in administrative structures. The problem of ‘overlapping competencies’ was exacerbated by Hitler’s tendency to create new agencies. Hitler did not plan effectively so the different agencies went their own separate ways, e.g., there was no coherent armaments programme, producing an arms race between the three different branches of the armed services which overstrained the economy.
Whilst we’re on this topic, have you seen David Williamson’s excellent article in History Review (March 2002): ‘Was Hitler a Weak Dictator’?
CL
Intentialist Debate (in short)
Otherwise I'll summarise -
How Could A Situation Of ‘Institutional Anarchy’ Have Arisen In The Third Reich?
There are two main explanations or theories for the existence of ‘leadership chaos’ (Hans Mommsen) in the Third Reich:
1. Intentionalist
Intentionalist historians (e.g., Bracher, Hildebrand, Hillgruber) believe that Hitler designed the overt competition between the various agencies of state and party in order to strengthen his own unique position, in order to ‘divide and rule’ i.e., the absence of clear lines of competence meant individuals competed for the Führer’s approval and he could play them off against each other, thus confirming his own authority (see Source 142, p. 205, Noakes and Pridham).
What are the implications of the Intentionalist thesis for the policies and actions of the regime?
Intentionalists argue that the chaotic administrative system did not decisively affect the implementation of major objectives, i.e., Lebensraum, Jewish policy. However, the chaos may have affected the timing of the measures although not the nature of them. In addition they argue that since Hitler was less interested in domestic policy then more institutional chaos reigned in that field because Hitler directly intervened less.
2. Structuralism/Functionalism
Functionalists (e.g., Broszat, Mommsen) believe Hitler had less control of events. They argue that the administrative chaos was partly due to Hitler’s unstable, charismatic rule, i.e., Hitler’s wishes were often vague pronouncements which had a number of possible interpretations.
Hans Mommsen takes the argument a stage further arguing Hitler was indecisive, and was, in a sense, a weak dictator. For Mommsen Hitler was ‘reluctant to take decisions, often uncertain, concerned only to maintain his own prestige and personal authority, and strongly subject to the influence of his own environment - in fact, in many ways, a weak dictator.’ In short, Hitler was often loathe to intervene if there was a possibility his public prestige could be threatened, e.g., during the economic crisis of 1935-1936 when a shortage of raw materials and foodstuffs arose.
What are the implications of the Structuralist thesis for the policies and actions of the regime?
Structuralists maintain that many of the regime’s measures, including the Jewish campaign, were not, in fact, the result of long-term planning or even in some cases intention but were ad hoc responses to the pressure of circumstances by Hitler and the agencies acting autonomously, i.e., the state was not efficient at implementing the Nazi programme. This heavily influenced the way ideology was translated into policy. Mommsen argues that this led to a policy of ‘cumulative radicalisation’ - this process, he argues, partially explains the Holocaust, where competing groups seized on Hitler’s fanatical utterances as orders for action to prove their diligence and indispensability, i.e., individual Nazis adopted the radical alternative in a quest to please the Führer.
The structuralist thesis appears to have a lot going for it but it could be argued that in practice the policies and actions of the regime moved in the general direction wanted by Hitler and did not require his direct involvement. This suited his style of leadership since a charismatic system depends on aloofness, i.e., Hitler was not a weak dictator because he had no desire to get involved in the day-to-day administration of government. Hitler was most interested in foreign policy, rearmament and the Jewish Question and was able to implement these policies effectively so in this respect he was not weak. However, it is undoubtedly true that the regime was inherently unstable.
Why Was The Nazi Regime So Unstable?
Most historians (e.g., Noakes and Pridham) point to Hitler’s style of leadership and the nature of the Nazi movement as it developed before 1933. In order to appeal to a cross-section of Germans the Nazis needed a dynamic and charismatic leadership. That is, the movement was based on winning power not retaining it. Hitler was an inspirational propagandist not a bureaucrat - he was never interested in administration. This led to confusion and competition in administrative structures. The problem of ‘overlapping competencies’ was exacerbated by Hitler’s tendency to create new agencies. Hitler did not plan effectively so the different agencies went their own separate ways, e.g., there was no coherent armaments programme, producing an arms race between the three different branches of the armed services which overstrained the economy.
Whilst we’re on this topic, have you seen David Williamson’s excellent article in History Review (March 2002): ‘Was Hitler a Weak Dictator’?
CL
sNiPeR_24
Fo' shizzle
You must be really into your history to spend so much time typing that up! :S
ChoppedLiver
Member
No, it's different when you teach it as against having to learn to apply it......
I wish you success.
CL
I wish you success.
CL