a
to
of
its 29
the By
the
the
idea
may
Nazi
From
in
to
and
than
Oxford
akin
behind
of
loyalty,
in
the Club
they
German
between
the
this
Potsdam Princeton
“national
my is
group
the
1934, at one.
of
York:
more
a
of
2, to
himself
Magic
no While powerful
down
Jersey:
Reich
fostered glance,
goosestep
a
ambition
(New
have
nationalism.
produced.
lay
Declaration
the
Commander
August
was
New
is relationship
process Nevertheless,
not
first
to
you
unconditional
in
of
Third them Hitler
celebrations
obedience the
At
of
Governance
unreasonable
had oath
of
established
generals
the
time
in
German 1640-1945
Services
When
friction
radical
of Adolf
Supreme
in
this rooms
they
of
each
Kaiserreich.1
any
(Princeton,
traditional
Hitler
if declaration
seems.
the Army
at
1934
and the
Rechtstaat.2
nationalist more
it
Armed
1933, the
altogether
men, chapter
2, declaration
Hitler as
bemedaled unconditional
and
an
ambition.
military,
ready
military
Hitler,
is
Prussian
Empire, much
occasionally
be
government 1840-1945
Question
and staging
the not
mirrors ambition,
the restatement German
a
yield
January
the
Forces
-German
August -Adolf
another the
a
of
of
in that
of
Adolf
will of in
the
and
upstanding
was
of
will
welcome
The
Nothing
it I of
characterized
I
barons than
than
Germany
princes,
and
will
Armed flag
many
Vollc,
maze
revival,”
that
Politics
had
of
soldier,
background
inevitable
1934,
the
and more
For
The
more
today.
The
white
is that
the
man
Modern
in protector oath,
no
it
characteristics a
Brandenburg-Prussia
are
brave
Monocled
of tie
Chancellorship
and
a Reich “national
both
and
four-square
place.
Craig,
point.
was
Steppenwotf:
through
Hohenzollem
as of
the
they Kaiser. both nothing
of
sacred
them
red
A.
Fuehrerei?
are
in
in
of
History
479-481. 726-727.
be
and
taking essential
this
with
me
personal or
saviour
assumption
novel
German
A
where
case account to
black,
Gordon
each personalities,
the
mirrors oath. journey
a
was the
assumed the
the
God
1964),
1969),
be
Socialism
government.
would-be
soldier
the
about
see
is
Kendricks
of naive
as
of
he
a
by
himself
this
and
not a
Hesse’s
Holbom,
and
Reich
thorough
of
Press,
Press,
men
appears
for
a
Wehrmacht,
Haller’s
powerful mind
above,
swear
been
Hajo outcome
Descrying
National
the I life fuehrer
The would of
personality, restoring
Gregory
smoke
1For moment
2
Fuehrerstaat Third
M.
authoritarian Harry
Hermann
regime bombast cited monarch have
resurrection that the associating and
the public
reconstruction”
tragic
University University 30
The Prussian Rechtstaat and the German Kaiserreich may have been characterized by authoritarian political systems, but their governance was, nevertheless, an affair that involved the interplay of traditional elites, powerful interest groups, and political parties. Developments in 1933 made it quite clear that the Third Reich would not be governed in the same manner. With the Enabling Act in March of that year, Hitler removed both Reich President and parliament from the legislative process. In April, the German Lander were placed under Reich control and the national civil service was “cleansed” of all undesirable elements, i.e., opponents of the regime and Jews. By May all trade unions had been abolished and in July the remaining political parties followed suit. At the end of this year of Gleichshattung (coordination), a law of “Guarantees for the Unity of Party and State” proclaimed an indissoluble link between the Nazi movement and the Reich government. With the amalgamation of the offices of Reich President and Chancellor following Hindenburg’s death, Hitler, in less than two years, had concentrated all political, legislative, and executive power in his hands and his hands alone.3 When the Armed Forces pledged themselves unequivocally to their new Führer on August 2, 1934, their oath was not to a state, a body of law or even to a monarchial figure (for even a monarch is bound by oaths, lawful obligations and traditions) but to a leader whose authority was extra-legal and unprecedented in German history. The only real link between the government of the Third Reich and its predecessors was the fact that they were German states. One thing, however, was certain; this new Reich was not, and would never be, the venerable Beamtenstaat of Frederick the Great. Like the rooms in the maze of the Magic Club, its nature remained something of a mystery. According to the popular perception, both in the 1930s and the present, Hitler had created a totalitarian machine state in which the policies of an omniscient Führer were carried out in an efficient, uniform manner by unquestioning, fanatically loyal lieutenants. Given Hitler’s extraordinary position of power as head of both party and state, the de jure centralization of the Reich government, and the slavish loyalty of many Germans to their new leader, this idea of a Führerstaat is not an outlandish one. Furthermore, the complexity of administering a modern state such as Germany, with its large population, vast transportation systems, centralized industries, extensive agricultural sector, and varied
The limitationsof this papernecessitatethe rathertersetreatmentof the Nazi Gleichschattung outlinedabove. Hitler’s‘legalrevolution’during1933-1934 touchedeveryaspectof Germanlifefrom agriculture toeducation.Foran excellent overview of this periodthereaderis directed to Holbom,Modern Germany, 724-750.Detailed, exhaustive accounts of the Nazireorganizationof theGermanstate can be foundin MartinBroszat,The Hitter State: The foundation and Development of the Internal Structure of the ThirdReich (London andNew York: Longman Group,1981),57-133andKarlDiethchBracher,The German Dictatorship: The Origins, Structure, and Effects of National Socialism (New York:Praeger Publishers, 1970), 199-247. 31 business interests, seems to necessitate a well-organized, competent government with clearly delineated areas of jurisdiction and authority. These considerations coupled with the stunning economic and military successes of the 1930s, as well as Germany’s ability to fight a world war on three fronts in the 1940s, has led many to conclude that the Third Reich was a centralized state govehied by a unified competent leadership. We know, however, from the memoirs of both Albert Speer and Joseph Goebbels that the government of this machine state was more aldn to the fractious courts of the absolutist monarchies than the bureaucratic regimes of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Within the quarrelsome circle of the Führer, intrigue, favoritism and corruption, usually for the purpose of personal aggrandizement, played a major role in the formulation and execution of government policies. On more than one occasion, as a result of the egoism and corruption of this circle, policies were formulated, which not only conflicted with Hitler’s aims, but contributed markedly to the final collapse of his state.4 Furthermore, the authority and jurisdiction of state and party offices and bureaucracies was never clearly defined, resulting in endless disputes, conflicting directives, and a loss of efficiency on all levels of government. This massive confusion was compounded by Hitler’s propensity for creating special agencies whose authority cut across, and overlapped with, the jurisdiction of other state entities.5 The resulting institutional “social Darwinism” has led many historians to liken the Third Reich not to a machine but to a morass. . Whether one sees the Third Reich as a monolithic Führerstaat or as a hydra-like Führerrej at war with itself, the question of its nature, i.e., the essential characteristics of the dictatorship, as well as how that nature manifested itself through the administration of the state, continues to intrigue historians. Three of the theories that have been advanced to explain the nature and practice of the German dictatorship deserve further examination: the theory that the Third Reich was governed by a unified leadership, which shared common social, political and economic goals; the idea of a unified, powerful dictatorship, which, nonetheless, had to share power with a pre-existing collection of governing elites; and, finally, an offshoot of this “dual state” idea, which suggests that the Third Reich was a polycratic or “weak” dictatorship in which authority was exercised by a plethora of individuals and groups, sometimes in unison, other times in conflict. By analyzing the
The backbiting,quarrelsand viciousinfightingthat characterizedthe daily routineof the Nazi leadershipthroughoutits twelveyearsin poweris extensivelytreatedin Albert Spear,Inside the Third Reich(NewYork: AvonBooks,1970),176-180,275-280,288-291,332-349.Seespecifically275-280 and 288-291 forexamplesof howtheegoismand selfishnessof Hitler’scolleaguesadverselyaffectedthe Germanwareffort. GoebbelswroteonMarch16,1943: “Weliveina statewhereareas ofauthorityhavebeenunclearly divided...theconsequenceis a completelackof direction.”JosephGoebbels,The Goebbels Diaries 1942- 1943 (London:HamishHamilton,1948),301. a
a
is
of
all
Of or 32 as
the
as
the of
the
$S
and
that
as
was that
than
is
of
an
other
is
rungs
ends,
classic rigidly such orders special
Hitler,
it such actually
a
of
sybaritic
of
its
idea society The groups
the
state
Reich
more
power
seizure
theoretical
Füherstaat
of
reveals
human.
wizardry
these
lower
question is
no were
ends
and
a the
paying Himmier’s
point,
intriguing he
apparatus
the this
the
as
Third Nazi
than
which
clearer
of
to,
by
vision
attain,
who
in a
Germany.
the
of
existence that
a the
the commands accounts,
oppressive
most
leviathan
with
however,
which
party them
to oligarchy’s
To
and a
the
the
the the
sees
of
in control
with
extermination.
ideological
this
these
occupying
ambiguous
was
generals
of
automaton
appears
loyal
pretended
more
the
attention
of
Jews.
and
In
each
it
coupled
as
throughout
analysis,
or
following
which
and
of
Reich
theories,
explanations,
perhaps
justifies
thought
emerge. and
the
more Reich
war
pawn
certain
in
determination
Even
under
of
is presented
state
of
Germans
seeing
on
film.
will
glance, the
these
hatred,
the
Closer
these
Third
existence
which
remains regime,
are
Third
worthy
that
of
scenes. structure
world
unified
of
bent
most
school
first
is
the
the
than a police
brought
the we
the
all
Reich
nightmare, attaining
masses.
the
industrialists
Lang’s
Führer,
is
At
is
to
of
state
with
One
on It
that
that
It
the
workers.
However,
Führer
boundless and more
Third
populace
privilege,
Fritz
extermination
leadership
of a
behind
no bent
his
gradually the
futuristic
in
model
supported
weaknesses group
and
by
theory party
the
state.
existing common
is
a
in
this aristocrats, pyramid
hapless
Reich.
all-pervasive
Metropolis, Rotwang.
from
this
of
was it
that
the
well-organized,
unrest
of and are
the really
and
only
an
Führer
the Metropolis.
the
a
Dr. Metropolis.
power
all,
as
of
obeyed
the
Rotwang-like
posits
that
of
in
the
a
machine
Everyone
The
inhabit
classic,
unlike
that
apparat
seen
by
Europe
government
After
hierarchical
constituted
oligarchy
importance
destroys Rotwang.
not government
who
control
film
scientist, villain
rationales, in
school
of behind be
instantly
command
established
as
of
elements
governs
permutations,
ladder. the
omnipresent
leadership
blindly.
real
lies
are
took
also
piece.
rigidly
his
oppressive
almost
an
protecting
a
Lang’s
party/state actually
the
those the
figure
scenario
at practice
which traditional
sthngs
the which
nihilistic
features, that and
can of as
characters commanded elite
by
is
to
various
Rotwang
a
a
that
hegemony
of
This
and the
Fritz
economic
had of
its
followed downplays
state
The
In
many
In
the
attention
essential nature
I
hierarchical,
the powerful science, villain demented
Rotwang oligarchy,
necessity privilege
malevolent
presents portrayed
of were construct
individuals determining Nazi
camp
pawns
pulling
governed
German
infiltrated Hitler
power. formation,
a is
as
SS
is
of
.is the
the
by
the
The
the the
33
the
has
had
men
in
both
that
Gerald
of
where
of
guards
model primal
With
correct
launch
designed
of
with
Company,
a
Hitter’s
jealously
state
Throughout Germany
fact Kogon, 32;
portrayed
Goebbels
traditional
of
this sanction
Man
soldiers
or
64,000
.The
authority
and
stated:
seems
all-pervasive camps
are
was
29,
of
40,000
The
the
the
individual
terrorizing
Nazi The
and
it
commanded
executor
authority
Eugen
Story
an 18,
Hitler!
film
servants
coupled
films,
they
all-embracing..
will
eventually
by
as
and
the
is
had
Walker
the
unfettered.8
The
was
that
by
labour
“the
and
Gestapo,
Reiches propaganda.
political
preserves
Kessel,
and
of
and
Reich:
whole
1950),
workers,
and,
and also
Party
living
not 160
fact
dutiful Movement...
York:
the
state
this
Head:
which
it
the
Führer
celebrations total leaders
of
Third
of
murdered.9
apparatus, Joseph
in
the
the
The
private “The
and
is
the
(New
enforced fact,
propaganda
because
country
the
is
5;
ploy,
and
Warburg, followers, no
party Death’s
In paradigm
that
by
on
so
Socialist
the
overriding
place therefore
of
&
opposition
was
by
4.
behest the
example
the
State
respectful,
a
camps
is
these is
reel
security but
1953),
Führer
of
Grossdeutschen
all
(Ordnungspolizei), 5$
are
as
nationalist
employees
his
a
works mass of
Führer.
rearm
was
1961), first
countless Seches
at
at
the
of
classic
des
the This
sees
brutalized
and
National
to
Reich a Order
particular
propaganda
State,
of
their
of
crush In
the
such
least
authority
and is
police
and
Mitchell,
one
of
the
of
to
The
independent,
the
Solution.6
able
this
number
Cudahy,
the
Norden,
amorphous
Votksgemeinschaft. mere
portrayed
circumscribed
that
a
Wilt,
concentration
end
&
Germany
a
name
films
an
and
officials
able
is
from
in
people’s
Führer.” Anatomy
was
Führer
regular
the
Not
why
shadow
Final
as
it the
authority Valentine
Hoehne,
Heinz
his
entity,
he
al.,
of
new
the free
at
the
was
Straus
the
always
the
2.
in
commanded
systematically
twenty
Party.
Socialist
et.
is
Verfassungrecht
in
The
in
45,000
the
of
individuals
themselves.
Heinz
it
of
expressed
and
elites, of
goal
emanates
his
reasons
appeal.
law
were portrayed
in lost
Farrar,
(London:
controls;
were
(London:
Triumph
that only
2,800,000
propaganda
Führerstaat in
statement
of
by
been are
old
a
or
Nazis
in
impersonal
Socialist
tights;
National
state
people.
Hitler The
found
mass
York:
Krausnick,
authority film,
of
Hell
idea
a
Führer
the
all-embracing”
Books,1969),
authority
servants
have
an
ultimate
organization,
of
the are Hess’s
Solution
Huber
the
the
people
operations
the
comprised
the
checks
millions)
(New
idea
its
by
to
into
number
order.
and
Adolf
of
of
by
“the
Helmut
of
a
the
as
no
National dutiful
final
exercise
sanctioned
this
political
in
not
individual
new
Moreover, was
Ballantine
coopting to
numbers
Rudolf
German
home
(later Practice
but
will
sentiments
to
the
Hands
are Riefenstahl’s
The
had
than
“total
the
for
network
office
Himmler’s was
the
and
and
credibility
of
128.
Sicherheitspolizei,
favored
and
Quoted
that Leni
These
York:
Ernst
submerged oversaw more 8
‘
6These
subject
guarded This
wielded united
term State”
The
Nor
party.7
film,
There
the
lend
war
1965),
(New
to
service little
the Hitler!”
Theory
Reitlinger,
who thousands
dictatorship Miraculous
security
of
law.
the Hitler
been representatives
community
hammered
continued
a much
masses through 34 enormity of the crimes committed against humanity by Himmier’s SS and Gestapo, led many at the end of the war to conclude that Goebbels’propaganda was a precise statement of fact. Without calling into question either Joseph Goebbels’ skill as a propagandist or the crimes of his contemporary Heinrich Himmier, the fact remains that the portrayal of the Third Reich as a leviathan Nazi party state is an illusion. Noticably lacking in this scenario are two of the prerequisites for such a state: a tireless leader attentive to all the details of government and a unified party capable of governing. While Hitler was capable of indefatigable efforts, particularly during the struggle for power, his style of leadership is reputed to have been characterized by indolence, disdain for administrative procedure, and a hatred for any and all detailed government paperwork. His preferred method of governing was to avoid decisions where possible and when he did take action it was usually in the form of an oral directive handed down at the spur of the moment. The results of this “intuitive leadership” style were uncertainty and confusion at all levels of both party and state.10 As for Hitler’s party, it was neither unified or capable of governing. It would actually be more correct to speak of Hitler’s “parties.” Although the left wing of the NSDAP (National Socialist German Worker’s Party), was forcibly suppressed during the “Night of the Long Knives” in June 1934, there still remained Frick and his statists, Rosenberg, Darre and the völkish mystics, Himmler’s SS “knights,” the “old fighters” who governed the Gaue and opposed centralization, and the more traditional technocratic elements personified by Albert Speer. All of these groups viewed themselves as the heart and soul of National Socialism and they fought against each other’s “heresies” with varying degrees of viciousness and success. Hitler made himself accessible to all of the different factions and, at one time or another during the history of the regime, they all enjoyed his favor.11 None of them, however, ever exercised anything approaching his authority. Wilhelm
10 SpeerquotesHitler at length on his disdain for paperwork and administrative routine. He also points outhow Hitler’s amateurish approach to governance worked initially in hisfavorbut: ‘Thegreater the failures became, the moreobstinately his incurable amateurishnesscame to the fore. Thetendency to wild decisions had long been his forte; now it speeded his downfall.”Speer,Inside, 6$, 306. For a description of Hitler’s bohemian attitude toward his job see John Toland, Adolf Hitter (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1976), 375. Regarding his tendency to issue oral directiveson the spur of thesee Edward N. Peterson, TheLimits of Hitter’s Power (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1969), 14-16. The literature regarding the various factions in the Nazi Party is extensive: Joseph Nyomarkay, Charisma and Factionalism in the Nazi Party (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1967) is an excellent account of Hitler’s conflicts with the leftwingoftheparty; DonaldM. McKale, The Nazi Party Courts: Hitter’s Management of Conflict in His Movement, 1921-1945 (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1974), 65-171 provides details of variousintraparty conflicts that were brought before Buch’s party courts; Peterson, Limits, 16-17, 35-66, 433-435 covers many of the divisions between party members in the Reich government. 35
Frick, for example, basked in Hitler’s good graces when he took measures to “purify” the Interior Ministry and subordinate the state governments to the Reich government. However, his effort to create a legally based, authoritarian state, which would be governed from his Ministry of the Interior by well-trained Nazi civil servants, did not meet with Hitler’s approval. The price for his indiscretion was the loss of all influence and authority within the state.’2 Even Himmier, the dark eminence of the Reich, had to contend with opposition from both traditional and party authorities. Although he ultimately succeeded in creating a unified police apparatus under his control, it was a long and arduous process marked by frequent clashes with his nominal superior, Frick, and the Minister of Justice, Franz GUnner. Furthermore, the success of Himmier’s police was ultimately dependent on the degree of support they received from the local Gauteiters, who, by and large, resisted any and all directives from Berlin. Finally, even Himmler’s SS elite was characterized by many of the same factions and conflicts that characterized the more traditional party membership.13 Ironically, with its rivafries and ideological conflicts, the party was as fractious an affair as the “chaotic” Republic it helped to overthrow. If not for the existence of the traditional governing elites in the bureaucracy, industry and military, it is doubtful if the Nazi regime would have survived. The party leadership was overwhelmingly lower middle-class in origin and completely lacking in the education and skills necessary to govern a modem state. 14 Even though Hitler and his Gauteiters despised and distrusted the German Beamten and the upper classes, they simply did not have enough trained party personnel to run the ministries of the Reich and Land governments.15 This was borne out by the dismal performance of the Gauleiters who were left in control of their districts by Hitler. Most of these self-styled fUhrers were crude, abusive, corrupt and completely indifferent to the fate of the areas assigned to their care.16 Therefore, while the party, in theory, commanded the state, in reality, the the day- to-day affairs of government continued to be handled by the old elites that had, ostensibly,
12 For a detailed accountof Frick’seffortsto createan authoritarianstate basedon a Nazifiedcivil serviceseeJane Caplan,“ThePoliticsof Administration:TheReichInteriorMinistry and the German CivilService,1933-1943,”The Historical Journal, 20,3 (1977), 707-736. 13 Hoehne,Order, 12-15.See also Peterson,Limits, ,125-133, 277-285, regarding the battle between Frick and Himmier forcontrolof thepolice and the clash betweenJulius Streicher, Gauleiter of franconia and the Gestapo/SS. ft provides the reader with some idea of the strained relationship between police and Gauleiters. 14 On the social composition and education of the Nazi Party leadership see Michael H. Kater, The Nazi Party: A Social Profile of Members and Leaders 1919-1945 (Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 1983), 229-233 (Also see his Tables 1-13 and Figures 1-12). Broszat, Hitler State, 33; Bracher, German Dictatorship, 274. 15Holborn, Modern Germany,730-731;Peterson,Limits, 16-17. 16 Kater, Nazi Party, 209-212; Peterson, Limits, 433-435; Speer, Inside,292,359,362,374,405- 408,441, 502,505-506.
F
a
a
of
the
to
the
that
the
the
and
the
for
the
36 their (New
was
this
were
case.
quite
on
of
of Franz
not
Nazis,
both
Jewish
industry
was
Wilhelm
madman
the
Approach,
many
as
control
enamored
National
industries
party
the
efficiency.
giving
the
of
“it
critics,
“merely were
violence
led
sensible
not
usual.”
not
the
his
of
effect
1933-1944
that
explains,
seize
such
Industry,
consideration
its
and
Germany
as
responsible
that
German
As
it
right;
that
was
and
were
governance
62.
by
street
messianic
into
narcotization
and
a
East
founders,
direction
dictatorship.
could
bureaucracy,
the
this
hand
directed
the
effect,
Solution
certainly
Socialism
chiefly will.
the
affairs
in The
Hitler
take
the
1986):
that
contends
the
“business
in
achievements
effectively
discipline
one
of
end
viewpoint,
for
his
fact,
Republic.19
whose
nationalist
decisions
that were
not
Final
were
for
If,
idea
German
the
to
armies,
of
under
Capitalism)
and
National
the
these
state
his
could
militarists”
the
class
same
the
idea
that
they
of
state,
does
On
influence included
the
(September
SA
war.
and
Prussian
it
of
facade for
Perspective:
this
and
Weimar
and then
point
historians,
the
incompetents,
the
a
25
and
Army,
that
as
is
ruling
In
the
Hitler,
was
Nazi
by
Practice
leadership the
world
than
troublesome in center
Monopoly
It
movement
Marxist
the
well
Republic,
much
practice
Books,
two-fold. a
the
power
and
in
monolithic
Junkers,
however,
Marxist
the
the
as
of
by
and
is
Adolf
class.
a
commanded
coalition
the
of
more
1932,
figurehead
and
mass
out
of
a
Kaiserreich,
(State
by on hold
a
to
469.
activity
old-fashioned
to
explanation
had
in
was
leaderships.”18
governed
than War,
launch
History
the
sound,
Review
put
of
Structure
ruling
nature
revolution. who
removes
of
stamp
parties
nothing
1944),
approach
who
1928
measure four
and
York
The
hostile
but
may to
a
Reich
the
rather
favored
population
World
monopolists,
show
electoral
the
German
also
basically
partners
the
Nazi
was
to
anti-modern
1942,
of
of
New
its of
“Stamokap”
offices
From
German
427-453.
were
ostensibly
people
the
Party
in
effort
Third
was
much
historians
recovery
junior
Second puppet
by
the
at.,
among
theoretical the
Press.
years
bend
Behemoth:
review
the
a
Army,
as
army
Nazi revolution
peculiar
supported
et.
capitalism,
of
explanation
creation
the
by
Hitler
Stamokap/oligarchy
this
explanation
last
that
spirited
and
anti-liberal,
the
of
führerstaat
and
than country,
Craig,
only
the
of
a
government
Socialism.
this
run Nazi
Nicknamed
the
the
an
a
this
A.
the
a
Prussian
University
Neumann,
economic agents
largely
as
but
to
the
of
state
grant
variables
Dorpalen,
superfluous
more
“was
of
Non-Marxist
made
monopoly
interpretation,
being
that
compromises
of
appeal how
military.
industry
Franz
Craig,
maintains
hand,
of Oxford
head
of
Reich
National
little
19
18
made t7Gordon
chosen
the
staffed
Central
The
Andreas
prolongation
This
the
modern
York:
by
other
characterized
with
the While Gröner,
“scientific”
number
a
at
and Furthermore,
actually products
neatly,
remarkable
and
result
Neumann, Third
were masses.
theory
question.”17
the
Socialism forces
conclude been
a
in
to
of
to
of
the Big the
37
the been
Voted
were Hiden
these
1937,
as
with
would
secure
Batsford
them
Plans
General autarky.
that in
wrote
resulted
between
cabinet.
business had
1933-1939
for speak
Who
John to
Turner,
income
“corporate
Germany’s
(additional
firms
traditional
of
that
the
government
431-432.
see
corps
cent
and
was,
can
of
Nevertheless,
the
paid
Frick
comprised
of
the
and
went
Papen
it (London:
cent which
Ashby
be
per
obvious
class enterprises
Germany
one
conflicts
policy
of
policy
cent Hitler,
Hamilton,
the
that
Four-Year
to
per
German
subordinate
30
officer taxes.
F.
6
cent, to
Reich
rates)
was military lucrative
Henry
per
that Nazi
money
though his
also
had
to
the
Wilhelm it
in
1933-1939
per
and
1936,
(73
parties
and
that later Third
Votedfor
business
economic
that
with
Richard
process, 23
were
in
cohesiveness
principles power
the interest
1985).
unprofitable
when belated
and
eventually from
Status government
Who
true
of
over
see
business trade
the
flooded
of
one, the corporation
restricted is
and
cent
and
ruling
ahead low
and
the
and
In
There
of such it
Press,
a cuts
Reich
1932,
per
their
steep
in
were
1982),428-430
support,
rearmament
depression.24
centrist/right
over
outside
Hamilton, of
Class
in
seizure
25
movement
ideals
fixed, forged
Third
as
example,
salary
of
While
on
to see
government Historians
the
Reichstag,
this
generals
rates
bureaucracy,
rather
the
Press,
the imagine University
Nazi
for
Nazi
hikes
the
a with
144-145.
the
the
such
thirties Also
that
the
to
Hitler
1934
1939/40.”22
the
dividends
of
in
the
elections
disintegration
self-sufficient.
movement.20 during
within
cliques.
726-727.
in
share for in Oxford
Revolution:
for
a
coalition late
Bruning army, Germany:
1966),
top
annual
bonds
aims,
divide
dependent
his
University
to
As
after
party
the
the
not
the the
131-151.
cent
on
world),
low-interest
to
power,
assumes
cent
difficult
Reich
Inc., sometimes York:
Social
debates
ruling
to
and
led
in
was
of
support
hefty
their
of
is Hitler’s
and
per
Reich
did of
until
per
cent
legislative
with
1983),
of it
(New
in
Hitler
first
20
and
Princeton
Third
these government
481-496.
price,
40
party
not
majority that
Hitler’s
Hitler
per
a
and
Administration,”
Goring.23
for
Company,
Ltd.,
business
the
for industry
NJ:
the
for shares of
and
the from
& explanation
Hitter
of
discussion was
Army, expansion
Explaining
also
inevitably, of
number
profits
thirties
industrialized assumption
of
14-16
It
invested
a
Hindenburg
easier
and
this
Bruning
on
the
was
it
1938, Germans
Rise
be of
rapid
fell
This,
benefits “Politics
early
Nazi
support
German
the
question become Educational
Schoenbaum,
Concurrently,
excellent in
Prussian
(Princeton,
to purchase
the
of
Doubleday
presidential
increased
with
the
the
economy an
there
the
The
by
made
and
leaders
to
attained cabinet. Farquharson,
and
controls
in
the
had
cent class”
David
Caplan, On
Craig,
For
the
would though
was
were
York:
servants and 24 23 21 22 20
John
will.21
Hitler?
Furthermore,
per
re-election substantial
Academic (New
and
imposed civil
Business
make
35 trade required business
Reichswerke-Hermann
taxes Even support
Staff
his profits
following
benefits. for
contracts,
“ruling
Reichswehr.
interests
in
Bruning
the
support Nazis During a
a
as
of
38 its
for
his
the
the
the
sing their
coup
None
three
every
for York: sense
of 1933. Hiden
of
taking
was
morale
of
and
ago,
in
and
on
the
economy.
30, frenzy
monopoly
the
with
outside
successful (New
surrounded
governance
some
a
provisional
long
party
a
power the
party
executed
without
in word
are the
industrialists
state
coming
..and
of
terms,
close of
intolerable,
hold his
beginning
the
the
l920’s
beautifully
damage.”25
January
of
last
and
and to
silence...
the
ends operated
of
and in
Reich
the Chancellery
and
on
initiated
in
head
the
cleverly
in
decline.
Clearly,
which
the
a
came
direction
to uncertain
spite revolutionary
night the
them in
signal
been
camps
Third of
had
of
a
summarized
masses
windows
no
irreparable In the
Berlin
as
policeman
to
aristocrats of
they
is
inauspicious of
the
and class.”
Rechtstaat.
of
in
or
shoulders
the the
have
front
of
oppressive
the
of
not
fruits.,
threaten
the
to cabinet in
suffer
my
some cells
model
Chancellorship
more
a
of
leader the
Hitler.
close
to
ultimately
miraculous than seemed
“ruling
more
on Portrait
a
should
of
the
stand
A
captures,
he
eventually,
We activities
posts
to
address day
This
actors;
more
likely
Adolf
still
rearmament,
hands
the
governance
head
satisfaction and,
is
Himmier’s and
enjoying
of
government,
of
of
this
so-called
becomes
acclaimed imagine
diaries
on
his
short
Deluge:
the
empty.
job
a
to
state
the
people the is
class
nothing
Führer.
pace
lays opposition,
Stamokap/otigarchy
offices
and improvement]
of
alike,
servants as
number appointment
begun!’27
German
appointed the
the
the
servants
explain
reported
a
deliver
Before
popularly
pay their democrats.
square
of
ruling
Goebbels’
personality to I
414-415.
German
has
führer
civil difficult
the
a
and
thousand
of
the
civil the
faithful of is
[i.e.,
to Hitler’s
legally
traditional 153-170.
reform,
efficiency social The
ten
as
of
1972),
it
Gestapo validity
face
Joseph
Song.’
discounted
Friedrich,
involved
or
the
and
the
entered
length
party
point representatives
be
the
yet,
in enigmatic
traditional
impossible
as
Otto
Revolution
service from
plight
At
character
in
silence.
over
band
the
is measures
Hindenburg
midnight
the
the Wessel Explaining,
Reich
increases,
surrounded
Publishers,
of
but
it
And
the party Hitler
from
Himmier’s
others
of
civil
and
for
728.
and
debate it after
that
examples his Row
German passage
day
“These
communists
‘Horst
Third
absolute
be
Ibid.,
Quoted
The and
distinguished
account
by
as
can
strength
Finally,
the Long cheers by enthusiasm.
‘The Hitler
This
these the
25 26
27
farquharson,
drama
1938:
indebtedness
day and of
d’etat.26
into opponents issue,
capitalism. well Nor framework
most of
formations,
II.
of To
Millenium.
revolution. government; insurrectionary
and
Harper 39 minority. If indeed a German revolution had begun, it was one in which the governmental machinery and personnel of the deposed order remained in place. Even after the passage of the Enabling Act and the death of Hindenburg, attempts by members of the party to replace both the constitution and state offices of the Weimar Republic were blocked by Hitler. Furthermore, with the exception of the removal of Jews and Social Democrats from the civil service, there was no great blood purge of the government as in the Soviet Union under Stalin. Gauteiters became Reich Governors, auxiliary party formations such as the $5 acquired near absolute power in the conquered territories, and certain party officials created semi-independent satrapies, but the state remained an uneasy partner in the governance of the Third Reich up until the end of the regime. The Third Reich was not a monolithic state in which either the Nazi Party or the traditional elites exercised absolute power. As early as 1941, German emigres were calling attention to this peculiar aspect of the Nazi revolution. One such emigre, Ernst Fraenkel, coined the expression “dual state” to describe the anomalous administrative situation then existing in Germany. According to Fraenkel, government in the Third Reich was divided between two states. The first of these, which he termed a “normative” state, was staffed with the career civil servants, Junkers and military men of the Kaiserreich and governed through the established administrative procedures and institutions of the Prussian Rechstaat. This normative state carried on the daily routine of government, oversaw the expansion of the Army, and protected the property and interests of the old elites. Hitler’s office, the police apparatus, and the Nazi Party comprised the other center of authority in the Third Reich, the “prerogative” state. Operating outside of traditional administrative and legal norms, the prerogative state was a “governmental system which exercised unlimited arbitrariness and violence unchecked by any legal guarantees.”28 The prerogative state had eliminated the nemeses of its normative ally, i.e., the unions and parties of the Weimar Republic. Though these two states were uneasy partners in government, and, after 1936, the prerogative wing was on the way to becoming the dominant center of power in the Reich, neither could do without the other. The dual state was a symbiotic affair in which the prerogative half maintained an authoritarian order while the normative side made the trains run on time. This theory of the dual state takes into consideration the extraordinary power of the Nazi dictatorship without discounting the influence and importance of the old ruling elites. It also implies that, following Hitler’s assumption of the chancellorship, there was a conscious division of administrative spoils between the Nazi Party and its right wing allies,
28 ErnstFraenkel,The Dual State (O.U.P.,1941), xiii. 40
which resulted in an oligarchic consular style government along Roman lines. Each party could veto the actions of the other and government, as in the days of the Roman Senate, was carried on by committee, e.g., affairs of the Armed Forces were handled by the Defense Ministry and police affairs by the Interior Ministry. This was certainly the kind of “cabinet government” that Papen and Hugenburg had in mind and, initially, Hitler’s actions appeared to support this interpretation.29 The period from 1933 to 1936 was one of dual state quid pro quo. In exchange for conservative support of the Enabling Act, the Nazis effected the expeditious and thorough destruction of the left parties and their trade union allies. Hitler’s purge of the SA was rewarded with militaiy support after Hindenburg’s death. Schacht’s objections to the “socialist” activities of Ley and his German Labor Front resulted in the Führer’sreaffirmation of the industrialists’right to run their factories as they saw fit.3° Furthermore, within their areas of expertise, each Ministry was allowed a degree of autonomy, which remained untouched by Hitler.31 Nevertheless, this quid pro quo of the early years of Hitler’sregime might also be seen as nothing more than a facade. As recounted in the introduction of this paper, within a matter of months after the passage of the Enabling Act, the Nazi offensive against the parties of the left was directed against those of the right. Hitler’s actions against the left wing of his own party conveniently eliminated the threat of a second revolution, while solidifying his support among those groups whose expertise would supply him with armies and armaments. Even if one accepts that there was a Roman Reich of sorts at the beginning of the dictatorship, and, as can be seen, this is a debatable point, its founder soon crossed the Rubicon. For a dual state theory to be viable there would have to have been some kind of effective collegial government. Under the Weimar constitution and the Enabling Act, government was centered in such a collegial body, the Reich Cabinet, which was required to meet, debate and decide by majority vote the legislative proposals that were put forward by the various ministers. The number of these cabinet meetings declined from a high of 31 in February and March of 1933, to 12 in 1934, 4 in 1936, 6 in 1937 and 1 (the last) on February 5, 1938. This decline mirrored Hitler’s growing inclination to exercise his “prerogative”to rule by degree, first as chancellor and chief executive of a defunct Republic and later as President and Fuehrer of a new Reich.32 As Hugenburg and Papen belatedly
29 Fora succinctdescriptionof theassumptionsbehindtheconservativedecisionto bring Hider into the governmentas wellas thewheelinganddealingthatled to the Hitler-PapenCabinetsee Holborn, Modern Germany,707-710. 30 Broszat, Hitler Stare, 151-153. 31 Ibid., 262-263. 32 Ibid., 280-281.
a
a
a
it
of
is of
and
by
the
the
41
the
the
fact
both
these
these
of
rested is
makes
chosen
whose
turn
of
all
spheres
state
the
Victory
much
“office”
it
rational,
officials
nature
of
a
“from
in
identify
delineates are
of
However,
Nyomarky
to
prescribed
an
so Economy
phenomenon.
of
to
1934
jurisdictions,
to
into
any
which,
offices
within
guaranteeing
part
not
both
which
the
that
leader
characterized of
956-958.
which
not Weber,
terminology,
and
governance.
player.
at
embodiment
Furthermore,
is
the
authority Chancellor,
emanated
Volk
the
messianic
was
“overlapping
relationships
share non-rational
129-133.
of
defined
judicially
and
hierarchy
it,
Max
a
the
on one
1968),
of
position
thereby
in
history
that
the
lead
opposed
legal
as
stated
not
Reich
then
form
state,
representatives.”35
these
authority,
any
to in was
theory
important
neatly
allegiance as
Press,
lead movement,
to
Anatomy,
This
of
institutions his
defined
he
did
unique
outlined
the
clear-cut
state
to
regulations.
learned,
right
sharply
German
as
charismatic,
their
led
are
most
his
agreement
within
are
that
of
in
understood
law.
collegial be
subordinates
and
Weberian
any
statutory
was
the
power
a
position
Weber
an
the
this
and be emphatically
Bedminster
and... “normative”
Krausnick,
whose
only
of of
can
of
Fuehrer
these,
swore
the
place
.The
a
so
using
charismatic
rules
charisma
Max only
also
a
In
of
on and
York:
the
convey
rules;
Hitler
they
prerogative
lack
kind
government
as
followers,
mission,
who,
See
Hess can
routine, required
26.
of
make
was
Among
“Führer”
the
his
(New
time.33
constitutional
that rules
groups...
was
The
unprecedented
it complexity
leader’s
limits
a
game some
constitutional
state,
functioning
or
by
so
government as
19-26.
to
and
A
the
state the
Rudolf
over historic
on
the
adequately
official
bureaucratic
Wittich of
movement
institutions,
or
everyday
and but
general Nyomarkay,
and
As
enough
features.
or
authority.”34
certain
Hitler’s
shared
not
natural of Factionalism,
his
government
movement
based
legitimated
Claus
and
vast
Hitler’s
absurd.
these
modem
domination.
and
Reich
Joseph
was
Army
and
relations,
so
the
does
partake
continuity
and
are
of
administrative
precluded
of
institutions
general
Factionalism,
of
realm
the
granting
observe
positive,
of
and
and
was
Volk.
on Roth
“prerogative” and
constitution
and
the Third
Hitler
discernable
collegial
world
state
which
to
of
model
a
bureaucracy
movement.”
areas
set
Charisma
a
bureaucratic
private
German
a
hierarchies
position
Even
the
a or
that
and
functions
and
legal
state
the
in
necessity, the
or
charismatically
Nuremburg,
grounds
characteristics
borders
Guenther
German
may
Charisma
expertise
of
law
authority
is
“outside parties
case
of
and
in
a
concepts
so-called
Socialist
realize,
of that
dual
as
the
outlined
eds.,
prerogative
distinct
purity
conviction,
state in
This
These Nyomarkay,
on
to
are,
a
of
particularly
The
The
jurisdictional
Hitler’s competence,
personal his
Nyomarkay,
government convincing
Society,
on
and of
government clearly
characterize
defines
Congress
will
racial
based on
National
characteristics.
measure remains
boundaries
the rules
existence
certain rooted
with
acceptance
governing
Hitler’s came
a
of
to
his
the
not
42
one
had
they
of
State
style
elites
elites
equal
Every
leader
due
insofar
are
Hitler’s
and
realized
Helmut
monster,
center
example
been
possible.
Socialist
away
historians
and
theocracy
of
Hydra
be which
a
only
the
Party,
fascist
untrammeled
had
Reich.
demand in
figure
to
at
a
The
Ebert
expression those
party
traditional
the
must to
sweep
dreaded
extreme
Gauleiters,
it
National
historian,
there
of
anti-modern
the
akin
and
to
ways
Third
character
an
put
almost
that
government” the
elites
of
tolerated
of
forth
as
the
Hydra.
of
the
plagued
be
was
messianic
were
more
Rather
with
where
of
in
these
a
which
unique
be
establishing
German
has
State.36
Bismark
spring
exercise
aim
be
consider
merely
formations
numerous
would
the
to
battle
practice
on
place
the
place
to
to
the
fearsome
his
power.
both government
the
more
its
of
his
would
the
upon
able
fail
As
the
of
to
bent
government
hand,
manifestations
situation
In
Theories,
then
in
government
and
which
two
be
of
requirements
obscure
of
himself
of
state
Reich
but
to
looked
polyglot
other
the
same
authority
seen
revolutionary
a
if
power
power.
would
Germany
the
slaying
party
the
the
so
club,
has
Third
out,
to
governmental
believed,
and
immortal.
individual serve
practice
of a
movement
emerged.
envision
on
the
Paradigms,
of
the
formations.
consideration
his
be
the
as
its
and
the
was
Führer,
Much
only
claim wherewithal
its
to of
turned
was
and
statist
made
with
nor
indeed
one
centers
authority
state
the
“its
Reich
a
are
“mullahs”
and
of
transcending
did
that
adequate
forth.
comprehensible
authority.
as
the
events
the
adversaries,
power
then
heads Reich.
132.
messianic of
concentration
middle
Reichsfuehrers
of
structure,
Hercules
aspects
party
to
explain
As
give
state
modern
center the
government
Hitler
of
state
the
such,
the
sprang
to
concept
and
and
to
these
the
in
If
the
state
Nazism
therefore
the
one
As
claim
it
with
off
by
measure
Anatomy,
Führer-related
general
of
ones
are
all.
labors
novel
a
which
abandoned,
former
dual
needed.
pronouncements
at
neglect
light,
with
is a
the
of
state. the
and
position
thoroughly
noted:
Explanations
new
Generals,
attempted
idea
struck
in
a
pinpoint
of
this
Their
were
Nazism’s
and
and
Krausnick,
dual
to
the
two
exploited
intensification
in
have
association
heads,
a
exercised
“novel”
picture, 36
One
If
that
completely
domination of
Neither
they
the together
still were
power
head, attention.
who
effort
nine
Ministers, III. Hercules
as
than
Seen power. required
their
anti-modern
that present
Kaiserreich
Krausnick, traditional
in
a
to
all
of
to
of
its
the
the
43
all-
one
276-
him
The
not,
gave
Nazi
of
from
state
Nazi
state,
state.
set
Frick,
as
and
found
central
destroy
wanted.
the
paid
the
is
the
than
leaders.39
way.
lack
attempt
portray
the
Farquharson,
process
became
Police
intelligence
decision
235-236,
administrative
charismatic
of
to
of
a
the
would
modern
process
administrative
of
the
decisions,
corps
and
often
their
Führer centers
party
within
a
This
Wilhelm
of
Nevertheless,
many
whereby
interference
bureaucratic
discemable
that
got
the
of
as
information,
plain
a German 232-233,
the
Hiden
more
instead
local
power
surfeit
any
conscious
in
of
in
a
Führerrei.
the
government
arbitrary
just
altogether
by
individuals
a
directives
Reich.
what
effort
a
such
of
clearly
centers.
divisions
process
diplomatic
of
presence
or
of
of
a notions
64-66.
on
the
Hitler,
with
fighters”
chosen
and
and
“coordination”
the
the
important
free
interpretation,
the
competing
all in
which
head decisively
Dictatorship,
of
level
ignored
by
power
the
of
“old
extensively
by
have
in
itself
as
rested
this
act
and
Reich,
abandoned
without
essentially
ministers,
characteristic
the
saw
to policies
Explaining,
atomization
to
and
every
the centralization
German
any
Darwinism,”
was
extremely
have
a services
Left baliwicks
found
at
formations
an
the
interpretation operations
end,
discussed
Nazi to
polyocracy
position
of
in
inaction
refusal
competing
a
completely
Reich
routines
exemplified
the
own
encouraged
within
also
Reich
own
his
however,
or
dictatorship
effort and
Reich
Bracher,
is
this
in
is
which
and
the
Farquharson,
of
According
and
chaos.37 Hitler’s
historians
auxiliary
that
Third
the
collecting
in
their
their
of
resulted
Third
and
idea
but,
intelligence
“institutional
state
intelligence
essentially
beginning
all
to
the
antithetical
felt
“weak”
346-361;
in
authority
initiated
the
the
all
The
many
in
was
the
Whether
Reich
Hiden
bereft
or
affair.
Gauleiters,
Frick
Governors
was
regarding
offices,
task,
control
conflict,
as
and
structure
see
overlapping
over
duplication
belief
to
and
Reich
The
exacerbated
a
262-323,
polycratic
this
of
example,
according
ultimate
him
partially
governmental
same
137-140.
party
a
Reich
backed
authority
problems,
of
and
433-434.
right
Third
the
Führerstaat, Canaris
the
sincere
Hitler,
existence discussions
was
ix-xiv,
hydra-like
fragmented
a
acted
further
a
authority
around
such
either
“polycratic”
the
state
on
another
by
a
these
number
of
was
a
their result
Limits,
a
initially
authoritatively. autonomy.
of Anatomy,
very
for
that
a
of
was
administrative as
State,
result
he
more
various
example,
cite
were
bent
ministries,
swirled
Admiral
rule,”
Gleichschaltung
a
59-82.
was
act
As
to idea
corruption,
into
the
the
all
local
of
Instead
result
Hitler
For that
initiated
to center
Hitter
and
essentially
whose
a
was On
Peterson,
The
a
though
and
Krausnick,
confirmed
result
unquestioned
Evidence
various
heed.
As
stmggles
277;
Broszat,
agencies Explaining,
government him
no
state
Himmler,
that result
Berlin.
interpreted Abwehr
“divide Party.
norm.38
the
The
regime
pervasive
inability,
“warlordism” policies
Führer Even
refused
dissolved
constitutional
governance locate
r
a
on
SS
of
of
on
the
fit,
44
and
and
trip
was
took
49
their
the
Kube
and
Jews.
slavic
1933.
cause.
should
existed
he
saw
through
the
policies
European
conflicts
turn
and
Note
Neurath,
the
portfolio
House
defeat
territories
frequently
areas,
he
General
territory
May
not
had
that
of
center
to
see
Nazism
When
Ribbentrop,
and
the
von
as
in
a
these
his
Gauleiters
common
Moscow
Reichministers,
Central
that
these
was
involved
a
in
of
without
city
conquered
and
eastern
Authority
Germany,
under
with
Gau
both
in
in
affected,
Solution,
the
All
war
appalled
Even
the
viable.
the
lands,
(especially
London
his
Jews
toward
Commissar
press
be
in
so
“Local
regimes
to
of
the
toward
allies
lacked
the
from
extermination
run
Final
the
1939-1945,”
frequently
Concurrently,
of
ministers”
best
Germany
as
trip
him.41
was
than
to
215-221
in
authority
Kube,
that
the
and
occupied
Levine,
economy
he
competition
that
German
of
against
S.
could
object
State,
right Prussia,
clashes
in
treatment
elements
nationalities
favorably
receive
jurisdiction.43
“foreign
peoples
policy
local
the
his
attacked
aims
another.4°
to those
however,
ultimate
various
Wilhelm the This
his
Hitler
if
Herbert
Rosenberg’s
These
on
the
directed
government
the
race
Soviet
party
these
in
impure
one
the
contention
and
than
opinion a
himself
see
over
to
was
actions
exterminated,
for
refused Danzig-West
the
Broszat,
keep
with
these sound:
feud
apparent,
in
to
his
actions
efforts
Similarly,
various
overlords.
racially
to
public
insisting
of treating
found
“order”
indicate
lie
being
$5
infrequent.
bitter
quite
the
by
example more
Himmier
were
Policy
232-233;
the
jurisdiction
material
not of
this
sympathetic
efforts
but
British
were
was
remove
MacDonald
needed
block
German
Danzig,
such
put
of
only
this
with
effective
to
Weltanschauung:
was
conflicts
to
Ministry,
of
Reichministers
The
were
Jews
extermination
Germans.42 their
One
Not
claimed
were
Population
hostility
more
odds
warlordism
these
Dictatorship,
account
by
Minister
$5
brutality,
influence
all
who
1-335.
reasoning
Hitler’s 547-548.
419-422.
the
violent,
at
correlate
attempts
over
they
to
and
this
all
33
Foreign
ethnic
to
attempted
and
Generals,
or
German
jurisdictions Gauleiter
Goebbels.
matters.
to
Prime
then
German
Order,
Order,
Their
that
abetted
was
the
excellent
disastrous.
anything,
effort
that
(1969)
Conflict
but
and
war.
share
an
of
central
If
over
and
an
sometimes
sabotage
Rosenberg,
Himmler’s
to
2,4
organized
Forster,
themselves
Union,
the
The
for
Ruthenia,
it.
Bracher,
treatment Hoehne,
as
to
as
usually
worsened
were
grounds
42
40lloehne,
41
overlapping
head
Nowhere
Reichsfuehrers
aided
239).
better
State:
History,
p.
harsh
Soviet
be
such
steps populations.
found
the
discovered
blocked
property White
that
5$ conflict, Albert
during
direction.
a before
and
Commons,
only
Billed
Rosenberg
the were refusing 47 more it becomes apparent that old ideas and traditions persisted and new ones were born without reference to system and ideology.48
48 Gordon A. Craig, review, of Nach Hitler: Der Schwierige Umgang mit Unsere Geschichte: Beitrage by Martin Broszat,New YorkReview of Books , 15 (January 1987): 19.