To what extent did Hitler achieve authoritarian control over Germany between 1933-1945?

Hitler’s infamous rule over Nazi Germany remains a matter which historian have long picked
apart; its roots, its systems, and its leader were carefully analyzed in an attempt to explain the
atrocities that ensued. Hitler came to power in 1933 when Weimar’s President Hindenburg
handed him the chancellorship in a final attempt to stabilize an increasingly desperate politico-
economic situation. From there, Hitler consolidated his power through treachery and violence
before establishing state policies that revolved around much the same. Authoritarian control was
defined by Friedrich and Brzezinski in their model of a totalitarian system, creating a criterion for
what an authoritarian regime would resemble. Their model can be utilized to help determine
whether Hitler fit into that model as strong leader with totalitarian control. To the most significant
extent, Hitler achieved authoritarian control because he was able to control the means of
communication and the economy. However, the influences of other high-ranking members of Nazi
Germany were significant all be it relatively minor in comparison.

Firstly, a major aspect of any state is communication and Hitler took full advantage of every mode
of communication, censoring, regulating, altering and otherwise controlling so that it would
coincide with the messages of the party and shape society in the image of fascist ideology.
Newspapers, the primary sources of information regarding current events, were censored and
their publishers violently threatened were they to print anything that would damage the image of
the regime. Just in 1935, over a thousand newspapers were abruptly shut down and their
journalists discreetly scared into silence. The rest of the operating papers were filtered by Nazi
officials. Similarly, radios and the cinema were placed under the close watch of Nazi officials who
censored undesirable messages. According to Friedrich and Brzezinski, a totalitarian leader
controls the media through systems of terror. Indeed, Hitler utilized all available systems such as
the gestapo to gain control of the sources of information that society is exposed to. This helped
shape people into the ideal that Hitler originally envisioned, helping increase the control he
personally had over the populace, as the information that was being droned out to the masses
helped mold people into a certain adoration for Hitler. Just as Friedrich and Brzezinski explained,
media was utilized strategically and with great effectiveness.

Additionally, another important mode of communication that became integral to Hitler’s

authoritarian control was strategic propaganda. Hitler clearly states in Mein Kompf that
propaganda was an important means through which an idea could be ingrained into people’s
heads through conciseness and repetition. As a leader, he made the emphasis on propaganda a
central goal of the party in retaining control over Germany and appointed Goebbels in charge of
all aspects of propaganda. Just like Friedrich and Brzezinski Hitler clearly understood the power
of propaganda and utilized it to reinforce fascist ideology, so repetitively and convincingly, that it
is only logical to expect that these ideas became entrenched in people’s minds, to the point they
believed they were their own. Granted, much of Nazi ideology was rooted in already well-
established concepts, but the ability to bring these qualities out through control of propaganda
proves that Hitler had deep grasp on individuals and the system.

Secondly, Hitler’s expansive grasp on the direction of the economy is once more reflected in what
he intended to achieve and what carried through in terms of policies. It was a central fascist belief
shared by Hitler that Germany should seek war in order to redeem herself and to gain lebensraum.
In order to achieve this, the economy had to be in close synchronization: in the mid-1930s
Germany increased military spending at a faster rate than anyone else at the time. Also,
everything in society became economically related to the war effort: factories were reorganized
so as to produce mass weapons and other military materiel whilst slave labor was exploited
through concentration camps. These efforts clearly reflect Hitler’s goals for Germany in this
period, demonstrating that although there were many actors involved in the Nazi elite who
oversaw the economy, it was Hitler’s vision which was carried out. In connection to Fredrich and
Brzezinski, Hitler evidently embodied a key ideal of an authoritarian leader: the economy was
under his direction (this can be inferred since his wishes for the economy were carried out even
when he wasn’t directly overseeing these changes) and state planning occurred on an
administrative level.

However, some historians assert that Hitler was heavily influenced by other elites of society such
as Big Business and Army officials. East German historians extended the structuralist argument
even further: they asserted that Hitler’s rule had been nothing more than the manifestation of
capitalism in crisis condition. They emphasized that Hitler was simply the “tool” of Big Business,
part of the menaced capitalist machine. To come to power Hitler necessitated the aid of these two
groups especially, one for funding and to win over the upper class, and the second to maintain
control once in power. This meant that right from the beginning of Nazi Germany there were
established actors who shared some influence over Hitler, as they provided an important
backbone without which the system would fall apart. As such, some interests of Big Business
were protected by Hitler’s regime in order to retain stability and cooperation. As to the Marxist
perspective, whilst there are some aspects of truth in this, such as that Hitler needed and retained
the support of elites of the banking, landowning, factory-owning sectors, their influence was much
smaller than that originally believed. Mostly, the upper class shared a common fear of communism
and saw Hitler as a means of preventing it. Whilst they aided the Nazi cause through various
means and definitely had some influence of the party leader, their importance is largely
overstated. Moreover, the argument presented by the Marxist historians is founded on the
principle of defending an ideology and justifying its establishment, which clearly corrupts this
viewpoint’s perception of the systems of Nazi Germany.

In conclusion, Hitler can be said to have achieved authoritarian control over Germany. He
strategically controlled the systems of communication which helped mold the populace into
members of a fascist community. He also took control of the economy and his state planning led
to identifiable changes which can be directly connected back to his original intentions. Lastly,
whilst other elite actors in the society certainly played important roles in influencing Hitler’s
decisions, their power is relatively significant when compared to that of Hitler as previously
discussed. Whilst they may have secured positions of power within Nazi Germany it remained
under one Furher who’s goals and ambitions were clearly carried out fully. As to the Fredrich and
Brzezinski model, Hitler clearly aligns with the criteria of an authoritarian leader, making the
arguments of economic and media control more significant than that of elite power.