You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
It is tempting to imagine the Third Reich as the archetype of the totalitarian state — a smoothly functioning machine in which a single will was transmitted without friction from the leader to every corner of national life. The reality was far stranger and, for the historian, far more interesting. Beneath the propaganda of unity lay a tangle of overlapping party and state agencies, rival jurisdictions and personal empires, all competing for the leader's favour and pulling against one another, yet all ultimately subordinate to Hitler's will. Understanding how this paradoxical structure actually worked is essential both for evaluating the true nature of Hitler's power and for assessing the scope, and the limits, of opposition to the regime. This lesson examines the machinery of the Nazi state, the apparatus of terror that sustained it, and the varieties of resistance it provoked, and it engages directly with the great structural debate that runs through all serious study of the dictatorship: was Hitler a 'strong' dictator directing events from above, or a 'weak' one presiding over a chaos from which radicalisation emerged?
Key Question: How was power actually distributed and exercised in the Nazi state, and what does the structure of the regime — and the character of the opposition to it — reveal about the nature of Hitler's dictatorship?
Key Definition: The Fuhrerprinzip ('leader principle') held that authority flowed downward from an all-powerful leader whose will was law; at every level subordinates owed unconditional obedience upward and exercised delegated authority downward. Applied to the whole state, it dispensed with collective decision-making and located ultimate legitimacy in the person of the Fuhrer.
This lesson addresses the structure of the Nazi state, the machinery of terror and the nature and extent of opposition within Part Two of Option 2O: Democracy and Nazism: Germany, 1918–1945, the Paper 2 Depth study. It follows the consolidation of power and underpins the study of how the regime functioned down to its collapse.
The single most important insight of modern scholarship on the Third Reich is that it was not a streamlined totalitarian monolith but a polycracy — a system of multiple, overlapping and competing centres of power. Several features produced this 'institutional anarchy'. The old state bureaucracy continued to exist alongside, and in rivalry with, a parallel structure of party organisations; new agencies were created without abolishing the old, so that responsibilities overlapped and clashed; and Hitler habitually granted the same task to more than one subordinate, or appointed personal plenipotentiaries who cut across the existing chain of command. The result was a welter of jurisdictions — ministries, party offices, the SS empire, the Four-Year Plan organisation, regional Gauleiter, special commissioners — whose boundaries were undefined and whose holders competed ceaselessly for resources, authority and the leader's approval.
Key Definition: Polycracy ('rule by many') describes the multiplicity of rival party and state agencies, with overlapping and undefined competences, that characterised the government of the Third Reich, in contrast to the orderly hierarchy implied by the term 'totalitarian'.
At the apex of this confusion stood Hitler, but his style of rule reinforced rather than resolved the chaos. He worked irregularly, disliked paperwork and committee government, was reluctant to adjudicate between his lieutenants, and increasingly absented himself from the routine of administration. After 1938 the cabinet effectively ceased to meet. Far from imposing order, the leader floated above the fray, his interventions sporadic and unpredictable, his authority untouchable precisely because it was rarely exercised in the dull business of government.
The decline of the cabinet did not leave a vacuum but a contest, for access to the leader became the supreme political resource, and several rival 'chancelleries' competed to mediate it. The Reich Chancellery under Hans Lammers managed the formal business of state; the Presidial Chancellery handled honours and appointments; and, most consequentially, the Party Chancellery under Martin Bormann grew into a formidable power. Bormann, who controlled Hitler's diary and the flow of paper to and from the leader during the war, used his proximity to make himself, by 1943, an indispensable gatekeeper whose endorsement could make or break a policy or a career. His rise embodies the central truth of the polycracy: in a system where the leader's will was law but his will was rarely expressed in writing, the power to interpret and transmit that will, and to decide who reached the Fuhrer at all, was power of the first order. The competition between Lammers, Bormann and the heads of the other chancelleries was not an aberration but the very mechanism of government in a state that had abolished collective decision-making.
This consolidation of personal and party power went hand in hand with the steady erosion of the traditional civil service and the rule of law. The career bureaucracy, which the conservatives who had brought Hitler to power expected to constrain him, was progressively subordinated: it was purged of Jews and opponents by the Civil Service Law of 1933, bound by the personal oath to Hitler, and increasingly bypassed by the proliferating special agencies and plenipotentiaries who answered to the leader rather than to the law. The rule of law itself dissolved as the regime elevated the will of the Fuhrer above legal norms. Jurists such as Carl Schmitt provided theoretical justification, and the courts were nazified, with the People's Court (Volksgerichtshof), established in 1934 for political offences, becoming a notorious instrument of terror under Roland Freisler. The distinction between the punishment of crime and the persecution of the regime's enemies collapsed, and 'protective custody' allowed the SS-police apparatus to imprison without trial or judicial review. The German legal scholar Ernst Fraenkel, writing as a contemporary observer, captured this duality in his concept of the 'dual state': a 'normative state' of laws and regulations governing ordinary life persisted alongside a 'prerogative state' of unrestrained discretionary violence wherever the regime's political and racial purposes were engaged, with the second always able to override the first.
This structure gave rise to the central interpretative controversy of Nazi historiography, which turns on how to read Hitler's role within the chaos he presided over.
Intentionalists, among them Karl Dietrich Bracher and Lucy Dawidowicz, regard Hitler as a 'strong dictator' who directed policy from above in pursuit of a fixed programme; on this view the institutional chaos was a deliberate strategy of 'divide and rule', keeping subordinates in competition so that all power flowed back to the leader, who arbitrated as he chose. Structuralists (or functionalists), pre-eminently Martin Broszat and Hans Mommsen, regard Hitler instead as in important respects a 'weak dictator' — Mommsen's deliberately provocative phrase — who avoided clear decisions, allowed his lieutenants to fight out policy among themselves, and reacted to situations rather than commanding them; on this view radical policy emerged from below, through 'cumulative radicalisation', as rival agencies outbid one another in militancy.
| Feature | Intentionalist reading | Structuralist reading |
|---|---|---|
| Hitler's role | Active, directing, programmatic | Disengaged, reactive, decision-avoiding |
| Policy-making | Top-down directives from the leader | Bottom-up competition between agencies |
| The institutional chaos | Deliberate 'divide and rule' | Genuine administrative anarchy |
| The road to genocide | Long planned and intended | Evolved cumulatively through radicalisation |
Ian Kershaw has offered the most influential synthesis of these positions through his concept of 'working towards the Fuhrer'. Hitler, Kershaw argues, rarely issued detailed orders; instead he set the broad ideological goals, and his subordinates, eager to win his favour, competed to anticipate and realise what they believed he wanted. The system thus combined a 'weak' dictator in the administrative sense with an immensely powerful one in the ideological sense: radicalisation was driven from below by officials striving to fulfil the leader's presumed wishes, so that the very chaos of the polycracy became an engine of escalation rather than a brake upon it.
A worked evaluation of this debate must do more than catalogue the two camps; it must weigh their explanatory power against the evidence. The intentionalist case, articulated by Karl Dietrich Bracher and, in his classic biography, by Alan Bullock, draws its strength from the undeniable centrality of Hitler: his fanatical and consistent ideology, his unchallengeable authority, and the fact that the regime's most radical departures — rearmament, the gamble on war, the racial programme — all moved in directions he had long proclaimed. Against the structuralist suggestion of a 'weak dictator', the intentionalists point out that on the questions Hitler cared about he was anything but weak, and that to dissolve his agency into the workings of the system is to lose sight of the individual without whom the catastrophe is unimaginable. The structuralist case, made by Martin Broszat and Hans Mommsen, draws its strength from the documented reality of the regime's administration: the absence of a clear chain of command, the rarity of written Fuhrer orders, the genuine confusion of overlapping jurisdictions, and the way radical policy demonstrably emerged from the initiatives of subordinate agencies rather than from comprehensive directives at the centre. Mommsen's provocation that Hitler was in some respects a 'weak dictator' was never a claim that he lacked power, but a claim that he did not govern in the manner the intentionalist model implies — that he avoided decisions, reacted to situations, and left his lieutenants to fight policy out among themselves.
The most defensible judgement recognises that the two readings capture different and complementary truths, and that Kershaw's synthesis is powerful precisely because it reconciles them without collapsing one into the other. Hitler was administratively disengaged yet ideologically dominant; the chaos was real, not a calculated stratagem, yet it served the leader's purposes because it generated radicalisation in the directions he desired. 'Working towards the Fuhrer' explains how a regime could be simultaneously anarchic in its structure and monolithic in its drive, and how genocidal policy could emerge without a single founding order — a question that bears directly on the historiography of the Holocaust examined in a later lesson. The strongest answers therefore neither crown Hitler the omniscient planner of intentionalism nor reduce him to the cipher that a caricatured structuralism implies, but show, with Kershaw, how the leader's ideological supremacy and the system's administrative anarchy worked together to drive the regime ever further into radicalism.
Key Definition: 'Working towards the Fuhrer' is Kershaw's concept that, in the absence of detailed orders, officials competed to implement what they believed Hitler wanted, driving cumulative radicalisation without the need for explicit central direction.
If polycracy describes the regime's structure, terror describes one of its essential instruments, and here the dominant institution was the SS (Schutzstaffel) under Heinrich Himmler. Beginning as a small bodyguard, the SS expanded after the Night of the Long Knives into a vast, semi-autonomous empire that progressively absorbed the policing functions of the state. Its principal branches each performed a distinct role.
The rise of Himmler illustrates the dynamics of the polycracy with unusual clarity, for the SS empire was built not by formal grant of authority alone but by the relentless accumulation of overlapping competences at the expense of rivals. Himmler's decisive advance came through the fusion of party and state policing: appointed head of the Bavarian political police as early as 1933, he gradually took control of the political police forces of the other German states, and in June 1936 was made Chief of German Police within the Interior Ministry, uniting in his own person the leadership of the SS, a party organisation, with command of the entire police apparatus of the state. This merger of party and state machinery in a single subordinate, cutting clean across the established jurisdiction of the Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick, is a textbook example of how the Nazi system dissolved the boundary between government and movement and concentrated coercive power in the hands of those most ideologically committed. Beneath Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich rose to comparable prominence as head of the SD and, from 1939, of the new Reich Security Main Office (RSHA), which welded the Gestapo, the criminal police and the SD into a single centralised security empire. The SS thus became a 'state within the state', escaping the controls of ordinary administration and law and answerable, in practice, only to the Fuhrer himself.
| SS branch | Function |
|---|---|
| Allgemeine-SS | The 'general' SS: political surveillance and the administrative core of the order |
| SD (Sicherheitsdienst) | The party intelligence service, under Reinhard Heydrich, gathering information on the population and opponents |
| Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei) | The secret state police, hunting political and racial 'enemies', with powers of arrest and 'protective custody' |
| Totenkopfverbande | The 'Death's Head' units that guarded the concentration camps |
| Waffen-SS | The armed, combat formations that fought alongside the regular army during the war |
A striking feature of the system, illuminated above all by Robert Gellately, is that the Gestapo was remarkably small — only some 32,000 officials for a population of around 66 million, and in many districts a mere handful of officers. It could exercise such pervasive control only because it relied heavily on denunciations volunteered by ordinary Germans, who reported neighbours, colleagues and even relatives for political offences, racial 'crimes' or private grudges. The implication is profound: the terror was not simply imposed by an external machine upon a cowed population but was sustained, in part, by the active participation of that population — evidence, Gellately argues, of significant popular complicity rather than universal victimhood.
The concentration camps formed the other arm of the terror. Dachau, opened near Munich in March 1933, was the prototype and the training ground for the camp system and its personnel. Through the 1930s the camps held, alongside political prisoners, an expanding range of those the regime classified as 'asocial' or racially undesirable; by 1939 a network of major camps held in the order of 25,000 prisoners, serving purposes of punishment, deterrence, forced labour and racial persecution. During the war the system would expand monstrously and merge with the machinery of genocide.
Given this apparatus of terror, and the regime's substantial popularity, organised opposition was extraordinarily difficult and dangerous; it is best understood as a spectrum running from open resistance, through non-conformity, to mere private grumbling. It is important neither to exaggerate it — there was no mass movement against the regime — nor to dismiss it, for it existed in many forms.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.