To what extent did Hitler achieve authoritarian control over Germany between 1933-1945?

Hitler’s infamous rule over Nazi Germany remains a matter which historian have long
picked apart; its roots, its systems, and its leader were carefully analyzed in an attempt to explain
the atrocities that ensued, especially in regards to the Holocaust. Hitler came to power in 1933
when Weimar’s President Hindenburg handed him the chancellorship in a final attempt to stabilize
an increasingly desperate politico-economic situation. From there, Hitler consolidated his power
through treachery and violence before establishing state policies that revolved around much the
same. Authoritarian dictatorship has been defined by Friedrich and Brzezinski as the single leader
of a “crisis state”. Their model of such a system creates a criterion against which authoritarian
regimes can be compared, including a leader who controls aspects of state policy under an
extremist ideology, restricts and violently eliminates opposition, and injects ideology into all
aspects of society through propaganda. Hitler achieved authoritarian control over Germany
between 1933-45 because he brutally squandered opposition and ensured that the Nazi ideology
(much of which had been personally developed) was incorporated into all aspects of society
through propaganda. In this way, Hitler is interpreted as a strong leader who made controlled
Germany through these factors. However, an alternate viewpoint is that Hitler didn’t achieve
authoritarian control, and instead aspects such as the Holocaust were results of aspects such as
societal ideas and political systems which went beyond Hitler. This viewpoint is ultimately trumped
by the fact that although such structuralist circumstances were necessary for the later outcomes
of Nazi Germany, it was Hitler who rallied and took advantage of the situation, leading the way
for the Holocaust to occur.

Firstly, Hitler achieved authoritarian control after consolidating power by violently riding
Germany of potential and apparent opposition. During the years of Weimar, specifically the 1920s
and early 1930s, economic collapse led to the rise of extremist ideas. Whilst the NSDAP was one
party propagating such extremist ideas, the KDP was another, equally and often more powerful
political party. The communists of Germany were ideological enemies of the Nazis and remained
so throughout the rule of Hitler. Hitler demonstrated authoritarian power by eliminating this
competing force of communism in Germany both legally and physically. In March 1933, after
blaming a communist for the arson of the Reichstag, the communist party was banned from the
elections and dozens of its lead members were arrested. Furthermore, Hitler used the SA to
intimidate potentially disruptive leaders of other political parties. In effect, it became apparent to
the populace that with Hitler in power it was very dangerous to be identified as a communist. This
demonstrates Hitler’s authoritarian control primarily in terms of Friedrich and Brzezinski’s model
because according to them a leader of an authoritarian state eliminates the possibility of
opposition. This ties into the idea of a strong leader in that such individuals reject all examples of
democratic election (at least in practice). For Hitler, the goal was total control over the state, and
to achieve this power needed to be not only centralized but stable. If communists were allowed
to participate in fair elections, or opposing parties were allowed to hold rallies, Hitler’s power and
position would have been threatened. Additionally, for a stable political position to be achieved,
Hitler recognized that it was necessary to eliminate those that could not have been converted. On
July 2nd 1934, this persuasion was taken a step further. On this day, Hitler ordered the SS to purge
another branch of the Nazi party the SA, who Hitler had grown suspicious of. This further
demonstrates that Hitler intended for no opposition to exist outside or within his party, and
although he was encouraged by advisors such as Himmler and Goring, it was ultimately Hitler’s
personal anxiety that gave the green light to the operation. Hitler recognized that Rohm had
gained a dangerous amount of political power and had control of an increasingly unstable branch
of the party. The fact that Hitler was willing to eliminate a branch of the Nazi party to further
centralize his control over Germany demonstrates his clear authoritarian control. As Friedrich and
Brzezinski outlined, Hitler’s use of force was abundant and his willingness to eliminate potential
checks to his power is what makes him an authoritarian leader.

Just as Hitler believed that force should be used to control the populace and rid it of threats
to his power, he also recognized that incentive and indoctrination through propaganda was
essential to establishing authoritarian control. Propaganda, according to Hitler in his Mein Kompf,
should repeat a concise message over and over until it has been drilled into a person’s brain to
the point that they believe it is the truth. Propaganda became such a constant in Nazi Germany
that it existed in all forms: Nazis dictated what was to be written in newspapers, said over radios,
published in literature, and posted in the form of colorful images on the walls of every street. In
terms of the message it was a constant reinforcement of the power of Hitler and his party;
propaganda consistently deified Hitler as a savior and father to all Germans. The emphasis on
the individual is especially evident in propaganda, as it reinforced into people’s minds the
furherprinzip: the Nazi ideology of a single leader, at the top of state, ruling in the name and for
the best interest of all Germans. Once more, this relates to Friedrich and Brzezinski’s that an
authoritarian state should take control of communication within a state and drill personal ideology
into the minds of the populace, in order to establish a sense of worship. Indeed, historian Lucy
Dawidowics views Hitler as a leader who by censoring and redirecting the message that reached
Germans, furthered the personal control he had over Germany. She postulates that Hitler attained
total control by reinforcing ideas of his clear plan for Germany through propaganda. Dawidowics
states that Hitler had planned the Holocaust even before attaining power, and when he did he
utilized propaganda to further rally ideas of hatred for Jews and communists through reinforced
and consistent propaganda. She further explains that the ideas that reached the people of
Germany, after censorship and strict propaganda programs, were the direct products of arguably
personal ideology, developed by Hitler and referenced constantly in his book. She sees Hitler as
having been constructed, in the public’s eye, as god-like ruler who with clear persuasion and
manipulation led the way for later atrocities to be perpetuated. This is an extreme intentionalist
view, which although valid in some respects, is limited in others. Indeed, Hitler was made into a
god through the media, and his personal ideology certainly drove the message published to the
masses, but he himself didn’t have a concrete plan for the future; his general hate for certain
minorities and vague dreams for the future of Weimar were clearly apparent in the propaganda,
but were not necessarily planned out. In this sense, Dawidowics is limited in her purpose: as a
historian, she gravitated towards the common position of her time, blaming a single person for
the outcomes of the Nazi era. This extreme intentionalist view is therefore restrictive, although
the general idea that Hitler was at the center of the Nazi ideology and propaganda remains valid.

However, other historians such as Steven Lee have taken the revisionist approach of
seeing Hitler not as the authoritarian leader in control of society, but as the result and tool of social
circumstances. This interpretation places special emphasis on the ideas prevalent in Germany
long before Hitler, such as a general hate for Jews and fear of communists, as well as a mass
yearning to return to authoritarianism. This view is valid in some senses: Hitler did not imagine
racist ideology out of thin air – they existed and were strongly rooted in Germany long before his
time. Also, the fear of communism arose after the Bolshevick revolution in Russia scared many
elites in Germany (including the Junker class) who perceived these changes as threats. Granted,
Hitler did not discover these ideas and shrewdly hypnotize the masses to believe them; he did
however, take a stance of opportunism and manipulate these concepts into usable propaganda.
His personal oratory talents helped present vague fear and anger as driving forces, exploiting
them to the benefit of the Nazi party. In this sense he can be seen as an authoritarian leader
because he was able to manipulate popular feelings to centralize his own power. He vilified
opponents and presented himself as a savior. He took advantage of instability and uncertainty to
gain power through an almost personal connection with the German populace.

In conclusion, Hitler can be said to have achieved authoritarian control over Germany. He
strategically controlled the systems of communication which helped mold the populace into
members of a fascist community. He eliminated threats or checks to his power, centralizing it.
Lastly, whilst it may be said that Hitler was a product of circumstance and that his power was
simply a manifestation of these emotions and popular feelings, his personal opportunism in
harnessing these circumstances only reinforces the intentionalist position.