Was Hitler Master Of The Third Reich Or A Weak Dictator?

[MrPresident]

Since the end of WWII there have been many a historian who has tried to find out how Nazi Germany actually worked. Did Hitler run everything with a master plan? Or was he a opportunist reacting to external events? Was he a dictator of a totalitarian state where has word was gospel? Or did he have to steer clear of certain groups of people to ensure the survival of power? Did he have to compromise or could he just demand? Was the plots against Hitler's life a signal that he didn't have complete power and there was an opposition? Or did the German people and Nazis really considered him the Fuhrer of Germany who could lead them to a new era of greatness?

 

[Richard III]

I voted master, but not because he personally read a file on everyone every day, but rather because he ran a political system that created a country where everything clearly depended on him to function. Hitler played a lot of divide-and-conquer politics with his various international institutions (e.g. army-ss-sa) and the result was a system that was usually forced to go to him for any decision as a form of conflict resolution - "dammit, if you try to have it your way, we'll have to go to the fuhrer."

So, I'd say he was in control, but by skill rather than by action. Unfortunately.

R.III

 

[CrazyDuck]

I voted for a bit of both

between 1933-39 he was the grand dictator of germany who could inspire his nation to great things with the help of his ministers

during the war years though and espically after 41 he was making bad decisions becuase of his insistance to run barbarossa by himself and not letting his generals take command. His rare public appearances after 44 showed a weak man

so really he was a weak leader at one point and a good one at another point

 

[dannyevilcat]

I also voted a bit of both, but not because he was more supreme in one period than another. Pre-war, he was quite careful about the military, had to wait for excuses (often staged) to take action. He also had to tip-toe around the other powers while hollering his rhetoric.
While the fortunes of war turned against him, he became more and more ruthless, but increasing numbers of Germans were turning against him, albeit very silently. The party itself became more fractured.

 

[Hitro]

He was a "master" of the country as far as you can get it. The question is not if he was ultimately succesful or if he did good.
He needed the help and support of certain groups within society to get to power (in particular the industry and other conservative interest groups) but after 1934 he had everything under his control (again, as far as it is possible). The Nazi system consisted of a huge number of various organizations which all desired the Führer's favour. Divide and conquer, as Richard III. said already.

And he had a "masterplan" (which failed, but still he had one). In fact everything he did was part of that plan. Anyway, I don't think that's very important in this sense.

There was an opposition throughout his reign, but that doesn't mean he wasn't the master. The army might have been a threat though in the late 30s if he hadn't been as successful in foreign policy as he was at that time. After that his control was almost complete until the last years of the war, after Stalingrad. But still then his power was immense (considering his constant failure and murdering) as the failed coup attempt of the 20th of July showed.

 

[Greadius]

A weak dictator topples when he is involved in a massive war. I don't think he could have kept power if he was weak. He was still ordering people executed who disagreed with him until the last days of his regime.

The least he had was an iron fist over the military and SS, which were the two most powerful arms of the German government at the time. I don't think its possible to say a weak dictator could have kept fighting a massive world war for 4 years. If he was weak, he would have been toppled from within.

 

[Ohwell]

"I don't think its possible to say a weak dictator could have kept fighting a massive world war for 4 years."

Correction: Six years

I voted master as well, all dictators have their enemies and disagreers. He kept Germany in the war for 6 years, though near the end the supplys were low. He brought the nation out of the slump of the thirties, and many people, including non-nazi's, supported him. He did an excellent job of keeping his "Final Solution" a secret.

What he failed at was his pure ignorance at military affairs. Had he and his high brass been effective, he would have lasted longer. I forget who his Airforce commander was, but he was a real idiot I know. The Germans failed to realize that they would better the use of their planes in defensive roles. And the conscripts of childeren and old men would have served better on defense of cities. They were wasted on offensive suicide strikes on the advancing Allied Force.

He was a ironfist dictator, but he was an idiot :crazyeyes

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Ohwell
I forget who his Airforce commander was, but he was a real idiot I know. The Germans failed to realize that they would better the use of their planes in defensive roles.

Hermann Goering. Idiot. He made promises he couldn't keep like the one at Stalingrad - "We can keep supplying the Sixth Army fr the air".

On-topic, Hitler's control of Germany was near-absolute I believe.

 

[Hitro]

"If one allied plane should reach Berlin, you can call me Meier!" - Hermann Göring

 

[Magnus]

Adolf Hitler was a master opportunist. Hewas as brilliant as he was depraved. What an amazing hiistorical anomaly that both he and his alter-ego Stalin were alive and in totalitarian power at the same time. No wonder Orwell was so depressed for our future.

 

[GeneralHotRod]

I think Hitler was a strong powered weak minded dictator. Here is an example. On the D-Day invasion there was an entire Panzer army in reserve waiting to counter attack the Allied invasion force.

1. The example of his power: When the invasion force landed the Panzer divisions had to wait for orders because no-one wanted to wake Hitler up to tell him of the invasion. He finally got up at one or two the next afternoon.

2. The example of his weak mind: Within 10 hours the allies had landed 7 or 8 divisions at normandy. Hitler would not release his Panzer Armies because he continued to wait for the "real" invasion force to land

What an idiot

 

[Panda]

Master. From the Night of the Long Knives to the end Hitler was the absolute Top Dog. Germany was brain washed into a person cult similar to Stalin in the USSR and Saddam Hussein today. He was susceptible to ass-licking, and may have on occassions appeared weak-willed, but had his master plan he was carrying out with absolute power.

The reasons why he seemed weak and had less public appearences after 1944 were the failed assasination attempt by Stauffenberg & Co, ever increasing allied air raids into Germany, and his disintegrating health (according to some speculations, Parkinson's disease).

 

[MrPresident]

Germany was brain washed

I am not so sure that the German people were brainwashed. Take for example the Gestapo (secret police) only 0.5% of their denuncations came from agents, the majority came of the public. It is debatable as whether or not the Nazis ever convicted the Germans of their anti-semitic ideology. In fact at election times Hitler usually toned down his anti-semitic views. With Hitler and the Nazis being such strong anti-semitics and this being so closely bound to their ideology it begs the question did the German people ever become Nazi supporters or were they allowing the Nazis power for difference reasons?

Hermann Goering. Idiot. He made promises he couldn't keep like the one at Stalingrad

It wasn't all Goering's fault. The army and the navy expected the airforce to completely knock out the RAF before they invaded Britain. Goering knew that relying too much on his airforce but as typical of Nazi Germany the different departments were left to fight it out.

The least he had was an iron fist over the military

Are you sure he had complete control the army. A reason for the Night of the Long Knives was because the army were increasingly worried about the role of the SA. Also many members of the 1944 Bomb Plot were officals in the army.

And he had a "masterplan" (which failed, but still he had one). In fact everything he did was part of that plan.

I beg to differ. Hitler certainly had a rough plan (he thought war with France would come in 1943 and a one stage wanted Britain as an ally). However his actions were not constrained to this plan. If an opportunity arouse he took it, as with Anschluss with Austria. Also many Nazi policies were not pre-planned but kind of snowballed into more radical policies. Take for example the Euthasia programme started by a letter sent to Hitler from a father asking permission to kill his disabled son. This letter was discovered by a junior minister and used to increase his own power. It lead to a child being killed if three doctors all marked a cross on their form. This quickly became a single doctor decising who will die and then telling their parents that they died of natural causes. Hundred of thousands of children were killed in this way. It is easy to see how policies such as the Holocaust came into existence.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by MrPresident
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And he had a "masterplan" (which failed, but still he had one). In fact everything he did was part of that plan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I beg to differ. Hitler certainly had a rough plan (he thought war with France would come in 1943 and a one stage wanted Britain as an ally). However his actions were not constrained to this plan.

Maybe my definition of masterplan is different. I meant he had a goal and everything he did was done to archieve that goal.
He wanted to archieve "Lebensraum" in the east through enslaving (and also killing) the "inferior" slavs. His vision was one of a "greater Germany" from the North Sea to the Ural. So everything, including the war, was done only for that purpose.
I agree that his planning wasn't the one of a master (after all it failed) but I meant masterplan more in the sense of a "plan behind the plans".

Anyway, as I stated already, this question doesn't answer the poll's question in any way. He had almost total control over Germany, no matter if he had a masterplan or not.
The cult around his person was unprecedented until then, and I think there has never been something like that again, you can't compare Stalin with it (although it was the same principle). But in the USSR there were still many who believed more in Communism than in Stalin, many of them ended up in Gulags of course, but still. And Saddam... well you must be kidding...

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Ohwell
"I don't think its possible to say a weak dictator could have kept fighting a massive world war for 4 years."
Correction: Six years

Someone had mentioned he was weak after 1941, I was calculating from that

Originally posted by Hitro
And Saddam... well you must be kidding...

Saddam admires Hitler... that mustache isn't just for looks. There are actually many striking similarities between the way Saddam used the Baath party and Hitler used the Nazi party, the purges of competition, the scape goats for the people's misery.
The only difference is Saddam had oil.

 

[Hitro]

The main difference is the influence of the outside world. Saddam's rule is by far not as widely admired as Hitler's was, mainly due to foreign "propaganda" (from Saddams persepctive).
The big similarity is the anti-semitism and the use of fascism to control the people. But still Saddam is no second Hitler or something like that. In fact there are alot of Saddam-style dictators in the world, this one happens to be anti-American, that's why he is demonized more than the others.

 

[Panda]

I'm willing to admit that Hitler might have been more widely appreciated by the Germans in the 1930s than Stalin by the Soviets since Hitler terrorized minorities and Stalin terrorized and butchered just about everyone. Still, Stalin's leadership was similarily absolute and combined with a person cult, just like Hitler.

Regarding Saddam -

I'm not demonizing Saddam, he does a pretty good job demonizing himself, no need for me to do that. Neither did I compare Hitler's and Hussein's world wide influence or how they respectively are perceived by the rest of the world.

Adolf Hitler / 3rd Reich: One party dictatorship (NSDAP), absolute leader, leader cult, persecution of minorities (Jews, gypsies, homosexuals etc.) and their eventual mass murder with poison gas (Zyklon B).

Saddam Hussein / Iraq: One party dictatorship (Baath party), absolute leader, leader cult, persecution of minorities (kurds, shia muslims, homosexuals etc.) and their mass murder with poison gas (Mustard gas).

And judging from 2nd hand information, both Adolf and Saddam are equally bad writers

 

[willemvanoranje]

I voted weak dictator. I agree with the people that say he started as the master, I even think it lasted 'till summer 1940. His first error/mistake (start bombing London) is for me the moment where luck turns against him and his tactical failure starts to show. Of course he was weak before too, he originally planned WWII for 1943/44, and he would probably have won, or at least the war would've lasted longer: he estimated that the German army would be even more superior to the other nation's armies, but started the war in 1939 because he was afraid he wouldn't live to complete his dreams.
In the end, he's a weak dictator because he ruined his great position and power by being paranoid about a possible death, instead he should've found himself a great follower that could do what he wanted in case he would die. Weak dictator.

As mentioned before by me and others, he had a masterplan, but his big fault was he did not have a backup-plan. He wanted England as an ally, they refused......no backup plan. Ribbentrop told him the allies wouldn't declare war if he'd attack Poland...they did.....no backup plan. Japan would attack Russia eventually, they never got to that.....no backup plan. Yugoslavia was filled with partisans who faught for independence......no backup plan. Italy sucked in North-Africa, not in the masterplan, costs troops......no backup plan.

 

[Vrylakas]

I vote for master. Hitler was in charge as much as any dictator anywhere was. There were events beyond his control and he did have to resort to manipulation occasionally but ultimately he was the sine quo non of the whole Nazi movement anmd World War II; none of it would ever have come together without him and he planned it all. That it spun out of control in the end shouldn't be surprising, rather that Hitler or anyone was able to maintain the control they did for so long is the true wonder.

GeneralHotRod wrote:

The example of his weak mind: Within 10 hours the allies had landed 7 or 8 divisions at normandy. Hitler would not release his Panzer Armies because he continued to wait for the "real" invasion force to land.

To be fair though Hitler was also kept in the dark by his generals; several had instructions to the effect that they could request the use of the reserve armor by directly contacting Hitler, but at least one refused on the grounds that he, a decorated general, would never descend to the level of asking permission from an Austrian corporal (Hitler) to use his own tanks.

 

[allhailIndia]

I voted a bit of both.

Basically, at one point of time, he was all but invincible. THe German public adored him, neighbouring countries shivered in their boots at the mention of his name and even great powers were unable to stop him. But, when real greatness was required or when his mettle was tested, he crumbled. He came into power not through a mass uprising, but ruthless political intrigue. His victories(save a few ) were won by treachery and against weak nations (horses vs. Tanks ).

However, when the defeats started to tell, when his people saw thru his mask of invincibility, he was scared and running. Several of his close officers describe him in the latter stages of the war as being almost senile and totally dependent on others for advice.
So my vote goes to a bit of both