Similarities Between Hitler And Martin Broszat

In the wake of the second world war, the consensus amongst historians was that the power of Hitler in the third Reich was that of omnipotent and outright, and his control over such was definitive. This has been reason of debate following the emergence of interpretation through revisionist Historians such as Martin Broszat. Broszat argues that Hitler was a weak and indecisive leader dependent upon the actions of his subordinates through which manipulated him by way of their competing and overlapping power structures. This has found its way to the conclusive ‘structuralist’ vs ‘intentionalist’ debate for which historians such as Karl Dietrich Bracher take acceptance to the fact of competition amongst rival power structures however lays greater

Therefore, suggesting Hitler to be that of a ‘weak dictator.’

The structuralist historian Martin Broszat coined the term ‘polycratic state’ in which denotes the idea that the Nazi state was not a monolithic or centralized dictatorship, but rather a network of overlapping and competing power centres, each with its own areas of authority and influence. Reasons for which give such an argument validity is that of the incredibly high-octane structures of the Third Reich one of which being the SS (Schutzstaffel). Originally created as a bodyguard unit for Adolf Hitler, the SS grew into a powerful force that encompassed many aspects of the Nazi state, including the concentration and extermination camps, the Gestapo (secret state police), and the Waffen-SS (combat branch). This organization was headed by Heinrich Himmler and the SS

This is perpetuated through the idea of ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’ The term 'Führerprinzip' translates to 'leader principle', and it referred to the idea that Hitler was the ultimate source of power and authority within the Nazi regime, and that all other leaders and officials were subordinate to him. Under the 'Führerprinzip', Hitler was seen as the embodiment of the Nazi movement, and all decisions and actions were expected to be carried out in accordance with his will. This meant that there was no real separation of powers or checks and balances within the Nazi system, as all authority flowed from Hitler himself. The 'Führerprinzip' was reflected in the organizational structure of the Nazi Party, which was highly centralized and hierarchical. At the top of the hierarchy was Hitler himself, followed by a small circle of close advisors and confidants. Beneath them were various party officials, leaders, and functionaries, all of whom were expected to follow Hitler's directives and maintain strict loyalty to him personally. This highly centralized and authoritarian system was intended to ensure that Hitler's vision for Germany and the Nazi movement could be implemented