The Student Room Group

Hitler: Absolute Dictator or Weak Dictator?

In recent times a certain amount of historical revision has taken place as to the extent of Hitler's real control over the Nazi Party, German State and Wehrmacht.

The rank corruption, inefficiency and generally disorganised nature of the German war effort during WW2 is increasingly evident. The extent to which petty personal struggles, the carving of personal political empires and the conflict between the 'Nazi generals' and the traditional General Staff affected the eventual outcome of WW2 is interesting. It also gives rise to the question, was Hitler actually the absolute strongman he is often portrayed as, with an iron grip on party, military and state, or actually a weak dictator who was lucky to keep a partial lid on the viciously partisan nature of his party for as long as he did before the military situation deteriorated to the inevitable given the dispersion of effort and opinion, especially regarding operations on the Eastern Front?

Many historians argue that Hitler was indecisive, divorced from many aspects of the Third Reich, and overly influenced by his numerous cronies. Himmler effectively wielded far more power than Hitler, and it could be said that Bormann was far more influential regarding the civil administration of Greater Germany.

So, was Hitler actually the controlling strongman, or rather a weak dictator who only just managed to dampen the nihilistic and destructive psychology of his party?

Scroll to see replies

There are certainly hundreds of theories as to who, ultimately, decided the fate of the Jews, and most of them don't include Hitler at all. Certainly we know that the holocaust was their their original objective. The "Jewish Question" had a few possible solutions - like Madagascar - that simply couldn't work, and others that they started to implement, but there were obvious flaws - such as sending them to Eastern Europe. This proved a problem when they... took over Eastern Europe and realised, "*******s, here are the Jews again." The holocaust - that is, the destruction of the Jewish people in massive numbers - was more out of lack of alternatives and panic.

Indeed, we can see the numbers of Jews dying, month by month, altering dependent on the success of the German war effort. When it looked like Germany was going to take over Russia, less Jews were killed when it became more likely that they could just shove them the other side of the Urals. As they got beaten back, "production" increased, partly due to the aforementioned lack of alternative, but also so that, were their camps over run (many of which, of course, were not actually in Germany), there would be no jews to tell the tale...

There's a lot of debate about who actually gave the order. Certainly, no direct order from Hitler has ever been discovered or reasonably attested to, though perhaps it was just too secretive. There's the issue of the Wanssee conference, where a bunch of people who weren't Hitler decided the fate of the Jews (though the outcome of the meeting - ie, slaughter - was generally believe to be pre-conceived and so possibly from someone higher up). Some blame the church for not intervening, some the the SA and SS, etc etc.

But the idea of Hitler being in charge of it all is certainly not definitive in any way. That said, he was notoriously unofficial in his orders, so it's possible he was in charge, just without the paperwork to back it up, though if this is true, we'll probably never know. And this is only relating to the holocaust, but much of Germany's actions in this era are marked by the same questions and uncertainty of power and authority.

Imo.
Reply 2
I did this in some detail for my A Level course, and I assert witht he likes of Bracher, Burleigh and Kershaw, that it would be a pretty wilful assessment that concludes that Hitler was a "weak" dictator. I know it's the obvious answer, but it seems to be the truest to me. People like Mommsen over emphasize the structural aspect of institutional decision making, but I suggest that even the most powerful dictators are affected by institutional limitations. Indeed, Hitler's unofficial style of government helped more than it hindered. At a stroke, he changed German foreign policy in 1933, against all advice from the army and the Foreign Office. He almost always got what he wanted, when he wanted it. He wa given to indolence also, but I see this as no handicap. If your country continues to run at your ideological whim while you watch movies all day and wake at noon, and party at night, I suspect you must be doing something right.
Reply 3
Hard to say he was weak, when you consider that he managed to fool an entire nation into following his insane notions. He was a poor military leader, certainly, and made several completely stupid moves, but as a controller of people, he was very strong indeed. The Nazis went from having less support than the BNP do today to seizing power, in less than a year, all because Hitler gave them a vision - a dangerous vision, but one which he made them believe, all the same.
It's difficult to say. Certainly towards the end of the war his moves were becoming more desperate and rash, and when he would meet people they would comment on how much of an old man he looked and how weak he seemed in comparison to the Hitler they had imagined..... but I think he must have been pretty strong to do what he did. Not just anyone could have convinced an entire nation (whether they wanted to be convinced or not) that Germany had actually won WW1 and were stabbed in the back.
Reply 5
Gilliwoo
I did this in some detail for my A Level course, and I assert witht he likes of Bracher, Burleigh and Kershaw, that it would be a pretty wilful assessment that concludes that Hitler was a "weak" dictator. I know it's the obvious answer, but it seems to be the truest to me. People like Mommsen over emphasize the structural aspect of institutional decision making, but I suggest that even the most powerful dictators are affected by institutional limitations. Indeed, Hitler's unofficial style of government helped more than it hindered. At a stroke, he changed German foreign policy in 1933, against all advice from the army and the Foreign Office. He almost always got what he wanted, when he wanted it. He wa given to indolence also, but I see this as no handicap. If your country continues to run at your ideological whim while you watch movies all day and wake at noon, and party at night, I suspect you must be doing something right.


I agree. I think one of the main hinderments of the Third Reich in military terms was the 'structure' of the Nazi state, and indeed this structure was convoluted to say the least.

I have to disagree with the second statement however. As you've pointed out Hitler often ruled via unofficial dictate and suggestion. Combined with the rife internal power struggling, this often resulted in extremely inefficient actions, such as the division of eastern industry between the Reichskommissariats, SS and Goering's four-year plans. The conflict of personalities, especially the mutual dislike between Himmler and Rosenberg, meant that these potentially contributive industries never even got off the ground. Whilst Lohse complained of shortages of skilled labour in the Baltic, the SS was busy rounding up all said skilled workers and shooting them.
Reply 6
Dionysus
Hard to say he was weak, when you consider that he managed to fool an entire nation into following his insane notions. He was a poor military leader, certainly, and made several completely stupid moves, but as a controller of people, he was very strong indeed. The Nazis went from having less support than the BNP do today to seizing power, in less than a year, all because Hitler gave them a vision - a dangerous vision, but one which he made them believe, all the same.


I suppose I meant more in terms of within the Nazi Party, though I agree with your point. Hitler often comes over as, whilst being the ultimate wielder of authority, someone who was near incapable of making a decision and required others to actually act for him. As Gilliwoo has pointed out he was very lazy, rising late and working seldom, spending much of his time watching films and generally bumming about. Alot of evidence points to him having numerous addictions after 42/43, especially to cocaine and morphine?

The more I read the more I envisage a drug-addled old maniac, as opposed to the demonic strongman he is often portrayed as. I wonder why he is most often painted in such a fashion?
Hard to say he was weak, when you consider that he managed to fool an entire nation into following his insane notions.

I think Goebbels may also have had something to do with that.
Reply 8
TML
I think Goebbels may also have had something to do with that.

Funny thing is that, contra the traditional view, the Germans weren't necessarily even "fooled" by Hitler. They wanted Hitler when he came. If he was the awaited Messaiah, his coming was a self-fulfilling prophecy. I suspect that propaganda had a limited effect on how people lived and thought, though it certainly did restrict the flow of information severely in that society. It's pretty easy to live a quiet life even in a brutal dcitatorship.
Reply 9
From the little I know it does seem somewhat incongruous to suggest that Hitler was not really in charge but was told what to do or overly influenced by others around him. Wasn't it Hitler who called off the invasion of Britain against all logic. Wasn't it Hitler who insisted that the invasion of Russia go ahead even though the timeline had been delayed by two months?

And just on the isolated case of the Holocaust. I have heard people try to argue that Hitler didn't know what was going on. Even if we suppose that he was a "weak" dictator it seems even harder to accept that he had no knowledge of the concentration camps and gassings.
Reply 10
UniOfLife
From the little I know it does seem somewhat incongruous to suggest that Hitler was not really in charge but was told what to do or overly influenced by others around him. Wasn't it Hitler who called off the invasion of Britain against all logic. Wasn't it Hitler who insisted that the invasion of Russia go ahead even though the timeline had been delayed by two months?

And just on the isolated case of the Holocaust. I have heard people try to argue that Hitler didn't know what was going on. Even if we suppose that he was a "weak" dictator it seems even harder to accept that he had no knowledge of the concentration camps and gassings.


It isn't that Hitler wasn't in charge, but rather that the administration of the German state was so corrupt he was rendered somewhat less powerful than perhaps it is often suggested he was.]

As for operation barbarossa, whilst it was theoretically delayed the late thawing of the winter weather in 1941 would not actually have allowed for large-scale armoured operations until early June anyways and realistically speaking the offensive was about a week late and accomplished its objectives to the letter. Though I agree in the main, in that the way in which Hitler rigidly enforced his opinion (not easily and seldom changed) over military matters, in particular on the eastern front, certainly went a massive way to hindering the German war effort.
Reply 11
Weak dictator/strong dictator = goes to sleep. There's no agreement on terms of reference between the opposing sides and it just becomes polemic as otherwise sensible historians go to the extremes, based on political views (Marxist / liberal-bourgeois).

Hitler was an incompetent demagogue who enjoyed giving orations on ideological things. His subordinates took these and, as he became a recluse, radicalised the policies to try and gain his favour.
Gilliwoo
Funny thing is that, contra the traditional view, the Germans weren't necessarily even "fooled" by Hitler. They wanted Hitler when he came. If he was the awaited Messaiah, his coming was a self-fulfilling prophecy. I suspect that propaganda had a limited effect on how people lived and thought, though it certainly did restrict the flow of information severely in that society. It's pretty easy to live a quiet life even in a brutal dcitatorship.

Indeed, life was good under the Nazis if people just kept their heads down and their mouths shut.
Gilliwoo
Funny thing is that, contra the traditional view, the Germans weren't necessarily even "fooled" by Hitler. They wanted Hitler when he came.


Three cheers for democracy!
Three cheers for proportional representation, more like. :wink:
Reply 15
TML
Three cheers for proportional representation, more like. :wink:

Nope. Three cheers for democracy - since it was Hindenburg, elected with 55% of the popular vote, who put Hitler in power, and could have removed him at any time for 18 months up to his death on 2nd August 1934.

The power of the Pres included the issuing of emergency legislation under art 48 of the Weimar Constitution and appointing the Chancellor. So, given that Hindenburg didn't remove Hitler, Hitler would have had the same powers, just indirectly exercising them through the body of the President - like the 3 previous chancellors.

And, importantly, Hitler came second in that 1932 Presidential election - so in the absence of Hindenburg, he obviously would have soaked up the nationalist vote to destroy Thalman, the Communist candidate.
Reply 16
thermoregulatio
Nope. Three cheers for democracy - since it was Hindenburg, elected with 55% of the popular vote, who put Hitler in power, and could have removed him at any time for 18 months up to his death on 2nd August 1934.

The power of the Pres included the issuing of emergency legislation under art 48 of the Weimar Constitution and appointing the Chancellor. So, given that Hindenburg didn't remove Hitler, Hitler would have had the same powers, just indirectly exercising them through the body of the President - like the 3 previous chancellors.

And, importantly, Hitler came second in that 1932 Presidential election - so in the absence of Hindenburg, he obviously would have soaked up the nationalist vote to destroy Thalman, the Communist candidate.


The fact that Hindenburg was democratically elected does not make his appointee, Hitler, democratically elected. Surely you are not actually trying to suggest he had a legitimate mandate?
Dionysus
The fact that Hindenburg was democratically elected does not make his appointee, Hitler, democratically elected. Surely you are not actually trying to suggest he had a legitimate mandate?


That's like claiming that although Blair was elected, Brown wasn't.

Democracy =/= elections.
The Nazi party got 37.4% of the vote in July 1932, IIRC. 2% more than Labour got in 2005...
Reply 19
Dionysus
The fact that Hindenburg was democratically elected does not make his appointee, Hitler, democratically elected. Surely you are not actually trying to suggest he had a legitimate mandate?

Yes, he did have a "legitimate mandate."

Hitler led the biggest party in the Reichstag - in Britain, that would qualify him for being the senior party, at the very least in a coalition. Indeed, in the March 1933 elections, he won a higher percentage of the vote than Labour in the 2005 general election - so if Hitler didn't have a mandate to rule, then the present government certainly doesn't.

But sticking with Germany - the President was elected democratically, by a majority of the popular vote. It was the prerogative of the President to pick the Chancellor, and to pass legislation by decree according to article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. So Hindenburg picked Hitler, and, as with his predecessors, Hitler ruled only with Hindenburg's consent. There are, of course, some practical issues around the extent of Hindenburg's senility in mid 1934, but in principle, he could have removed Hitler if he wanted to, or overturned any of Hitler's legislation by use of article 48. That he chose not to (since he retained the power to) shows that the democratically elected leader, Hindenburg, approved of Hitler's policies - and thus, so did the people, through their elected representative.

And again; had Hindenburg not run in 1932, Hitler would have easily won. Given that the final three candidates were Hindenburg, Hitler and Thalman, who won 53%, 37% and 10% respectively, and that Hitler was a lot closely with his nationalism than Thalman was, Hitler would have soaked up Hindenburg's right-wing, Prussian support, in defence against Communism.