Traditionalist historians would agree with this interpretation of Hitler's Germany, viewing it as a totalitarian state supported by terror and repression. Undoubtedly, one of the most powerful instruments of this policy was the SS, created in 1925 as Hitler's personal bodyguard. This role expanded as the Schutzstaffel developed into a mass organisation under Heinrich Himmler's careful leadership and grew to represent one of the most powerful and feared tools of the Nazi State with 240,000 members by 1939, allowing it to achieve dominance in the Third Reich.Under Hitler's authorisation, the SS became an auxiliary police force and was able to take suspects into 'protective custody.
' This allowed the Nazi's to target any opposition and by 1939, approximately 385,000 German's had been convicted and imprisoned for political crimes without trial. This is one example which illustrates the power the Nazi's imposed through their stringent policy of terror. Their persecution of non-conformists allowed Nazism to increase its hold over Germany with little opposition.It is this role which has led to historians describing the mass organisation of the SS as a virtual state within a state.
As the American historian Sax describes, 'The SS evolved from a police organisation operating within an administrative whole to become an independent organisation. ' While it could be argued that this demonstrates Hitler's power over Germany in that Hitler was at the head of this mass organisation, revisionist historians such as Kershaw have used the SS as an example of the polycratic rather than the totalitarian nature of the regime.They argue that Hitler himself was not necessarily the exerciser of all power in Germany and that there were many different bodies which all made their own decisions. Using the SS as an example, Sax also says that they 'made all decisions of any political importance ' and created policy 'beyond the limits of legitimate state activity.
' Ultimately, he asserts that they were able to use the Volksgemeinschaft to justify any policy making.This could be used to illustrate the structuralist view that Hitler didn't hold as much sole power over Germany as had previously been thought and that major decisions were influenced more by the structure of institutions and general trends and events in the course of German history than by Hitler himself. Another interpretation, which suggests that the SS isn't an example of the total power that Hitler held over Germany, is that it was a feudal regime. Kershaw stresses the importance of key party leaders such as Himmler and the increase in cumulative radicalism in policymaking rather than the influence of Hitler himself.This again is a structuralist view in that Kershaw is stressing the importance of broader context and structures in the operation of the Nazi state suggesting that the power came from below Hitler.
However, despite this, he doesn't deny the influence of Hitler over Germany, just the fact that perhaps it wasn't a smoothly run efficient structure. While the above interpretations look at whether Hitler did really have power over Germany and ultimately, whether or not the SS illustrates this, there is also evidence to show that perhaps the Nazi party didn't have total control over the state.The Alltaggeschicte approach that looks at newly released local studies has released evidence to show that not only did most Germans support the regime, but that many did not encounter repression and believed that which did occur was generally justified. Many supported their policies and their nationalistic approach to government and in some cases; the German people actually assisted repressive agents in their work. This evidence would suggest that the German people were not completely empowered and some supported the Nazi's through their own free will rather than as a result of the power which they held in Germany.Further studies of dissenters would also suggest that the Nazi's policy on terror was not completely suppressive in that some people did protest and escaped punishment.
This illustrates from the point of view of the policy of terror, that perhaps it wasn't all-powerful as not all non-conformists were successfully targeted. Ultimately, there are two ways of examining this question. One is to look at whether or not the SS did exercise total power over Germany. The evidence I have cited above would suggest, to some extent that this is not the case.Despite this, I believe that Hitler's regime was based on a mixture of popular support and co-operation as well as on an intrusive and arbitrary employment of terror. In most cases, the SS managed to quell opposition thus increasing the Nazi's power over Germany.
On the other hand, whether or not Hitler really did hold total power over Germany is also heavily debated. Nazi Germany was certainly dominated by Hitler but the power was spread out among his key leaders with much policymaking power passing below.Although intentionalists would disagree with this arguing that Hitler was firmly in charge of all major decisions, he didn't hold total power over Germany, particularly from the point of view of Nazism and terror, as the SS established a vast power base through which it created it's own 'order. ' This demonstrates that the SS does not illustrate Hitler's immense power over Germany as although it was a Nazi organisation of which Hitler was the key activator, he did not specifically initiate all policy and did not intervene in all areas.
