Alex Colosimo

To What Extent was Germany a totalitarianism society in the period of 1933-1939?

The term totalitarianism is a form of government in which the state controls all aspects of the lives
of its people. It was first used by Italian dictator, Mussolini in 1923 to describe the Fascist
Movement. The totalitarian regime was first created by historians like Carl Friedrich in the mid
1950s and was defined as a single party led by a charismatic dictator; state control over the
economy; state use of terror and repression; party control over the armed forces. To an extent, it
was initially believed that German society from 1933-1939 did come under the totalitarian regime,
however, later studies and research suggests that some aspects oft he Nazi regime did not fit the
entire criteria. The two areas to be argued are a single, charismatic dictator and ultimate political
power in the hands of the ruling party.
To an extent, German society from 1933-1939 could be considered as a totalitarian state.
Totalitarianism implies that the state occupies a charismatic dictator who personifies the nation.
Hitler was a strong leader and believed that his intentions should reflect upon German society. His
platform was helped raised by Goebbels propoganda pieces to seek himself as Fuhrer, where
eventually, the German people understood and perceived Hitler as a God-like figure. Grunberger
exclaims that there was little evidence that the German people felt any hatred for him, even in the
midst of destruction. After the Munich Putsch, Hitlers existence was becoming widespread and
evidently, not in a negative manner. Hitler was able to use his God-like figure to manipulate
Germany by directing strict order and reform, though eliminating Rohm and other threats in 1934,
thus facing no opposition. These strategies and movements to seek Hitler as Fuhrer are the trigger
points to proclaim Germany as a totalitarian state. This notion continued strong for a long time as
Hitlers political leadership remained unquestioned and unchallenged throughout the years of the
Third Reich.
This strong notion of Hitler as a charismatic and aware dictator is however, questioned though later
studies that imply the sugar coating of the years between 1933-1939. Historians like Karl Bracher,
known as internationalists seem to believe the Nazi regime was a chaotic, inefficient system with a
confused overlapping structure. Certainly other groups of historians shared a common viewpoint
such as the structuralists and to an extent, British historian, Ian Kersher, to believe that this chaotic
nature of the Nazi regime does not apply to the term totalitarianism. Totalitarianism would imply the
success of efficiency and organisation skills, components that Hitler supposedly lacked. He was
said to have avoided making decisions and allowed problems to float beneath him. These views
would than imply that the Nazi regime does not constitute itself to be a totalitarian state because its
weaknesses - chaos and disorganisation - over powered its strengths - ability to control and rise to
power with ease.

Alex Colosimo
One of the components in the totalitarian regime is that political power in the hands of the ruling
party doesnt allow any other active party. Throughout the years of 1933-1939, Germany can be
classified as a totalitarian state because the Nazi state were the only ruling party dominating
German society. After the death of President Hindenburg, Hitler corroborated with Goebbels,
together with persuasive propaganda and public address to finalise the consolidation of Hitler and
the Nazis power. Once Hitler possessed his desired power, he reformatted the leadership
positions, combing chancellor and president into one and disengaging all other parties except for
the National Socialist party. This enabled the Nazi party to be suggested as a totalitarian state.
Political power in the hands of the ruling party didnt allow any other active parties, but to what
extent did this suffice throughout the years of 1933-39 in Germany? Is true that there remained
only one party throughout these years? Yes, however, why is it that historians question this
ideology? The extent of total in totalitarianism is questioned to say that the Nazi regime , was not
in fact, total. It was investigated that the Nazi party heavily relied on non-Nazi institutions. This can
be seen when the bureaucracy and the diplomatic service were never totally Nazified and these
groups worked alongside similar Nazi services. Franz Nermann describes totalitarianism views as
Many have stressed the peculiar shapelessness of the totalitarian government which suggests
that the Nazi regime was no exception. To argue this case further, the chaos that occurred in the
regime also supports this notion to reveal party bodies of various activities. The German state
could not possibly be issued under the totalitarian regime, due to its flexible and loosely structured
system that was passive to smaller non-Nazi institutions and parties.
To define a totalitarian state would include key terms such as fixed structures, efficient organisation
and the ability to hold power with confidence. The German state to an extent followed this fixed
regime, however, further studies provide evidence to believe this type of regime was only a guide or
backbone. Hitler had the people running the country all through their support for him in amongst
the chaos within society that made him stand as a God-like figure. The idea that Germany between
1933-39 was a totalitarian state cannot be justified because evidently the people did not need Hitler
to maintain Hitlers power, Hitler needed the people.