The National Socialist Regime In Power - Essay Example

The National Socialist Regime In Power Charismatic Legitimation and Bureaucratic Rule: The NSDAP in the Third Reich, 1933-1945 Armin Nolzen (Ruhr-Universität Bochum This article concerns the history of the Nazi Party’s office of the Deputy Führer (leader), Rudolf HeB, which was later renamed to Party Chancellery and led by Martin Bormann. The structure and functions of the party are evaluated. It was an important party because of its “exclusive right to control government legislation”. The staff of the deputy Führer was established before 1935/36, and it comprised of “several offices which influenced nearly all processes of legislation and tried to introduce Nazi ideology into all sectors of German society”. This was accomplished through intense correspondence with the ministerial bureaucracy. Although this was done so in a “very bureaucratic manner’, the argument of this article is that “Max Weber’s concept of bureaucratic rule is not appropriate for analysing the radicalization of the Nazi regime throughout the Second World War”. After the National Socialist regime came to power, there was “an unprecedented process of bureaucratization” in which countless new administrative bodies were established. Thus the role of administrative policy grew in importance. Also, the National Socialist state is likened to a polycracy because although Hitler was the leader of the regime, more than one person effectively ruled it. Beneath Hitler “there was a plethora of departments and agencies, the structures and functions of which were in a perpetual state of flux”, and which were “sometimes vigorously at odds with one another”. Amongst these was the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) after the Machtergreifung. The article claims to the first systematic study of the whole institutions of the NSDAP. The Office of the Deputy Führer (Dienststelle des Stellvertreters des Führers), later the Party Chancellery however has been studied before. This department experienced constant tension between charismatic and bureaucratic authority, but it was nonetheless “one of the most significant bodies within the National Socialist state”. It played an important controlling and mediatory role. The various “organs of domestic administration, the armed forces, the economy and the NSDAP increasingly availed themselves” of specific services of this office, and thus its personnel apparatus expanded. The Office of the Deputy Führer was instituted by Hitler’s decree on 21 April 1933. He appointed Rudolph HeB as his deputy, vesting him “with the authority to make decisions in his name on all matters concerning the running of the party”. In effect, HeB’s role was declared “superior in rank to all other party functionaries”. HeB had the authority to issue political instructions to the entire NSDAP except for the Reich treasurer and regional leaders. Thus they applied “to the entire top-down structure of the NSDAP, which then comprised of 15 Reich leaders (Reichsleiter), 43 regional leaders (Gauleiter), over 800 district leaders (Kreisleiter), and over 30,000 party superiors (Ortsgruppenleiter). The latter had direct contact with the German population and were “responsible for integrating members into the party”. The higher level party apparatus at first considered themselves of equal status, so were reluctant to comply with HeB, but they soon gave in after HeB began exercising his powers of appointing, disciplining and dismissing. In addition, HeB introduced some bureaucratic procedures such as requiring the submission of annual personnel assessments and detailed monthly situation reports. It is said that by the outbreak of the war, at least half of all Reich citizens belonged to an organization controlled by the NSDAP making the state effectively a ‘national community’. The powers made HeB a ‘participating Reich minister’ in preparing draft legislation and legal ordinances. So he had “to be consulted over every piece of government legislation” and for example had the power to delay the adoption of any law if he so chose. In short, “the party organization expanded into a gigantic apparatus in order to be able to control the behaviour of the German population”, both through internal party personnel policy and through police like observation and supervision. This was known as Menschenführung. HeB sought to appoint and trustworthy people and engage them in tasks in an ad hoc manner. It was not until a year later (mid 1934) that the Office became a “predominantly bureaucratic institution” due to its role in the legislative process. The Office itself consisted of three large units viz. department for administrative matters, department for internal party affairs, and department for governmental affairs, which were also further subdivided. As at the start of 1936 more than 200 people were employed as HeB’s staff. By mid-1936, the body had become a ‘regular authority’ as far as Weber’s ‘ideal’ bureaucratic rule is concerned. A management structure existed, “within which each individual unit had its own designated title”, a standardized system was used to process the files, there were regular meetings, and so on. HeB’s staff therefore “operated in exactly the same way as a classic governmental authority”. HeB’s staff was an important communication and coordination tool as it also conveyed the party’s ideology. Following Robert’s mysterious flight to Britain, the new Party Chancellery replaced the Office of the Deputy Führer, and Marting Bormann was appointed as its head. But the way it “exerted its powers differed in an important respect from the way in which HeB’s staff had operated”, and Hitler became more involved with party matters than before. Its role was also affected by the developments of the war. Imparting ideology also gave way to ‘adjustment’ (Ausrichtung). Police repression was increased, and the NSDAP played its role in deporting Jews, and searching for escaped labourers and prisoners of war. The NSDAP also became more involved in military tasks, and organising the evacuation of civilians. The Party Chancellery coordinated the NSDAP’s work “and kept it under continuous review and adjustment”. In comparison to Robert HeB, whereas HeB had acted as a substitute leader, Bormann was unable to make speeches; had no ‘charisma’ and was merely a bureaucrat. The point of the article is that the exercise of authority of both the Office of the Deputy Führer and Party Chancellery were in Weber’s terms ‘bureaucratic rule’. Moreover, that the ‘association of rule’ gradually became more bureaucratically structured. Weber calls this process the ‘routinisation of charisma’. That is, “the NSDAP evolved from a charismatically constituted social movement into a bureaucratically constituted one”. Weber’s criteria defining a bureaucratic administration were conformed. Charismatic legitimation and bureaucratic rule were present in both institutions though HeB’s was “not purely bureaucratic”. This article has discussed the history and role of the organisation, and detailed at length its structure. The structure is analysed in terms of Weber’s concept of a bureaucracy. But the article highlights how this concept is not appropriate because “this Weberian ideal type tends to neglect social practices”. The same idea is put forward for the concept of ‘charismatic rule’ as it “only offers fruitful insights into the social relations between Hitler and his followers”. The author of the article makes extensive use of primary and secondary sources for historical information, theoretical references and to support his key argument. These include important previous works on the subject. For example, Jane Caplan’s 1988 study of the history of the German civil service from the Weimar Republic to the Third Reichm numerous works (see no. 6) on a study of NSCAP, and on Peter Longerich’s study of the Office of Deputy Führer/Party Chancellery (see no.7) The historical significance of the scholarly article is its thorough insight into the NSDAP, and in particular the Office of the Deputy Führer and Party Chancellor, especially how these institutions were structured and operated. We now have a better understanding how the Nazi’s managed their administrative affairs. For example, we know that the Menschenführung consisting of ‘guidance or leadership’ required a large number of collaborators to be successful. One historical aspect overlooked is explaining why the Office of Deputy Führer suddenly ceased to exist and was replaced by the Party Chancellor. That is, the purpose of Robert HeB’s flight to Britain on 10 May 1941 is not mentioned in the article but this was an important flight that could have changed the course of the war by ending the conflict. It also doesn’t delve in detail on the underlying reasons why there was an increasing process of bureaucratization. However, this was not directly relevant to the article whose focus was to simply examine the organisational structure and how it changed over time. Read More