Intentionalist or Structuralist

An overview of the basic arguments by Mrs. D. Grimmond

3 plus 1: the main arguments!

There are 2 main arguments:

intentionalist v structuralist The third way:Compromise or synthesis Kershaw agrees with certain aspects of both arguments. Marxist view- Nazis capitalist by proxy Hitler was controlled by industrialist and as such was a weak dictator: a pawn of big business

Intentionalist
Stress role of Hitler He was concerned Point to Mein Kampf

as a blue print
with maintaining his own authority
Deliberately adopted a

chaotic system

Intentionalist views
Bracher: Hitler remained aloof from the

struggles between his officials and this allowed him to occupy the key position of Fuhrer. the dictator held the key position precisely because of the confusion of conflicting power groups

 Hildebrand argued that constant conflict

meant that Hitler had to take decisions in disputes and that this was the foundation of his power Hitler liked the disagreements as it neutralised potential threats Hitlers approach prevented serious rivals and reflects Hitlers view of Social Darwinism

Structuralist (functionalists)
Stress the influence of Hitler was

political factors, individual leaders are constrained by forces outside their control Chaos was unintended and was brought about by confusion and neglect

incompetent and administratively weak

Hitler was reactive,

responding to events rather than shaping them

Structuralist view
Brozat- Hitler made decision on an ad hoc

basis and was unclear in his decisions The authoritative Fuhrers will was expressed only irregularly, unsystematically and incoherently.. Mommsen- Hitler did not have a balancing role, acting on impulse. Hitler delayed important decisions to disrupt the conduct of affairs..

The third way!

Lee- Hitler tried to
Kershaw-argues the

fragment opposition and therefore he allowed a certain amount of chaos in order to keep his subordinated in check

rivalries enhanced Hitlers personal power Hitlers subordinates were seeking to fulfil Hitlers aims and wishes rather than implement opposing policies. Hitler only had to establish general aims and direction

Know your argument!

Strucuralist, intentionalist, synthosis
Hitlers subordinates were seeking to fulfil Hitlers aims and wishes rather than implement opposing policies the dictator held the key position precisely because of the confusion of conflicting power groups Hitler was incompetent and administratively weak

Hitlers approach prevented serious rivals and reflects Hitlers view of Social Darwinism

Fuhrers will was expressed only irregularly, unsystematically and incoherently.

Strucuralist, intentionalist, synthesis

Hitlers subordinates were seeking to fulfil Hitlers aims and wishes
rather than implement opposing policies Synthosis confusion of conflicting power groups

:Kershaw

the dictator held the key position precisely because of the

intentionalist Hitler was incompetent and administratively weak structuralist

Social Darwinism

Hitlers approach prevented serious rivals and reflects Hitlers view of

Fuhrers will was expressed only irregularly, unsystematically and incoherently. stucturalist

intentionalist