HISTORY ESSAY

TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE NAZI STATE 1933-39 DRIVEN BY THE IDEOLOGICAL BELIEFS OF NAZISM? Being appointed as the Chancellor on the 30th January 1933, Hitler then immediately launched a "campaign", a series of moves to consolidate his power and to expand the influence of the Nazi party. At the end of August 1934, Hitler officially became the all-powerful dictator of Nazi Germany - a Single-Party State. In this essay, the Nazi state from 1933 to 1939 will be closely examined and an analysis will be aimed at providing an answer to the question: "to what extent did the Nazi state 1933-1939 driven by the ideological beliefs of Nazism?" The question specifies that the ideology behind the Nazi machine is "Nazism", however there are intentionalists like Hugh-Trevor Roper who saw Hitler as the Master of the Third Reich and his will was what must be implemented as laws, policies so Nazism can be identified as "Hitlerism", in other words, how the Nazi state was and was set up reflected Hitler's personal beliefs and desires. Other historians in the structuralist camp, also known as functionalists believed that Hitler was one influential man but like many others - Napoleon, Stalin..., he was not everything. He too was a "victim" of circumstances and institutions that had already existed so "Hitlerism" was one thing and "Nazism" was another that cannot be confused over. Perhaps a complete argument can only arise from a synthesis of both views? No matter what different historians may believe, it is true that Hitler did set up the Nazi state to an extent that was desirable for him at least. Hitler was very cautious in dealing with the Army - the Wehrmacht because it had substantial power and could pose a threat to him and his regime if itself felt threatened as in the case of the "Night of the Long Knives" in June 1934. The Wehrmacht was under the command of old Prussian Junkers - the aristocratic class of men in old Germany. The structure of the army was left intact with no change in the beginning. However, Hitler did later on appoint the generals who were pro-Nazi and he did set up the SS to oversee the Wehrmacht thus acting as a counter-balance. The SS under Heinrich Himmler was a very dangerous but powerful institution in Germany. The SS and its infamous Gestapo were instruments of terror, used to intimidate and "neutralize" any opponents of Hitler or the state. The state must have complete control of its people in every aspect and the SS effectively does that so it does reflect Nazi and Hitler's ideology. However the role of the SS in the state was complex and even incomprehensive. It controlled firms and it was Hitler's body

guards, at the same time the Waffen-SS fought as a professional army as well so it was almost like "a state within a state". But most notably, it has a tool to attain "racial purity" through mass extermination of the inferior people and this clearly reflects the Nazi ideologies behind it. The Foreign Office was under the lead of Foreign Secretary von Neurath was an institution that existed before Hitler's rise to power. It was left untouched but it was rather powerless. Foreign policies were normally dictated personally by Hitler or other individuals who were close to him. Furthermore, Hitler set up a Bureau headed by Ribbentrop which also dealt with foreign issues and German foreign policy so there was competition among the institutions. The ministry of Propaganda was another extremely important part of the Nazi state. All of the Nazi social policies were aimed at controlling the population and transforming the people's consciousness and perhaps only propaganda could do that in the most effective manner. The ministry under the leadership of Joseph Goebbels indoctrinated the German population daily using all mediums possible: radio broadcasts, literature, news, ... Its sole aim was to promote the Nazi ideology and to make the people the servants of the state. Because it tired to control everyone and promoted ideas such as "superior race", "social purity", it definitely reflects an extreme Nazi ideal, not a Hitler ideal. But why? Hitler did not want to control everyone and everything as the intentionalists argue or he could not control them as the functionalists argue but he did not in any case. Gauleiters had enormous power and so did Hitler's ministers and chiefs like Himmler, Goring, Goebbels, Ribbentrop. It seemed that the Nazi state was running like a feudal system with Hitler as the King and the other as his barons and he let them compete with each other. There can be different reasons as to why it was like that. In this case, influence of ideology especially Nazism seems rather weak, the way this system runs reflects more of Hitler's personal needs and his personal ideology. But perhaps Hitler set up such a confusing system with overlapping instituions because he was incapable of controlling it or it might be that he intentionally forged rivalries to encourage efficiency and divert any potential challenge to his grasp on power. It could be that Hitler deeply believed in the idea of "the survival of the fittest" - a prominent idea in the Nazi ideology, that he applied it to his own state. The strongest of his sub-ordinates will win and in the end, Hitler himself and the state would benefit so it was a positive thing. HItler's "laissez-faire" style of ruling definitely had storng impact on how the state was run. But the overlapping institutions could also be Hitler's personal desire to gradually replace the old institutions that existed before the nazi era with his new SS office

and office headed by Ribbentrop. He could not remove the army and the Foreign Office maybe due to fear of a revolt so it was intention that the state should be run like that. The question remains is, to what extent did the Nazi state 1933-1939 reflect the ideological beliefs of Nazism and to what extent was it a reflection of Hitler's own vision? Did Hitler have his own ideology or "Hitlerism" and "Nazism" was the same? The answer is largely dependent on the perspective of the individual and probably a conclusive and satisfactory answer cannot be provided to the questions posed. If one is an intentionalist then the Nazi state was to a very little extent driven by Nazi ideology whereas if one is a structuralist then to a great extent, the way the Nazi state 19331939 was set up and run was a product of ideological beliefs of Nazism.