We started this lesson by finding out "What happened to the traditional power structures" ( H&H P193)
Following the idea of Nazis as gangsters, we found out how they gained power over the original government.
The exercise on p193 explained how the Nazis took over each section of the government legally (apparently) so as not to arouse any suspicion that they might not be law-abiding:
The Reichstag lost its role in government, since Hitler created decrees, rather than voting on new laws in the Reichstag. After 1933 it rarely met, and only contained Nazis.
The Cabinet was kept by the Nazis, but fell into disuse. it was mostly made up of Nazis, but not completely. this showed how unimportant Hitler thought it was, since he did not make it entirely Nazi.
Local Government Hitler promised not to abolish them, but they were taken over by centrally appointed officials.
Civil Service was made up of conservative, anti parliamentary beaurocrats, who eventually had to convert to the Nazi party.
The Foreign Office was initially kept by the Nazis, but Hitler bypassed it, and the staff were eventually replaced with Nazis.
The Courts & Legal System had been independent, but any Judges who opposed Nazi rulings were bypassed and the rest had to act according to Hitler's beliefs & policies.
The Army had originally been a threat to Hitler, and he did not attempt to reorganise it until he was securely in power in 1938.
The Reich Chancellery was essentialy a beaurocratic machine, dealing with the masses of paperwork necessary to keep a dictator in power...
One key question is "Who had the most power?" (H&H P206)
Which policies became law largely depended on who had access to Hitler, since he would approve them and make them decrees. Ths meant that Lammers had a lot of power since he controlled access to Hitler.
P206 Discusses how best to describe the Nazi government:
Polycratic means that there were many overlapping bodies. Hitler would often make a new body to deal with a particular problem, or to bypass an existing one.
Feudal could describe the Nazis, with dominant leaders at the head of different agencies. They were all loyal to Hitler, but would often argue among themselves.
Chaotic could also describe the Nazi government. the multiple overlapping agencies caused chaos where there was doubt over which had authority.
There are conflicting interpretations of the government at this time:
Intentionalists say that significant events occurred because of the will of the powerful leaders such as Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini.
Structuralists claim that the circumstances at the time, such as the state of the economy, determined how events occurred.
In this lesson we also watched a video: Chaos & Consent.
This documentary explained how the Nazis were obsessed with order, as shown by their well organised parades. However, behind the scenes there was very little order - the governmet was in chaos.
The film also contained details of how Rohm attempted to integrate the SA into the Army, and to gain control of the Army. Hitler wanted to curb the power of Rohm and the SA, and to appease the Army. So, obviously he had Rohm killed, then made the soldiers swear an oath of loyalty to him.
We also saw how the will of Hitler was of paramount importance. Witnesses interviewed in the film said how people would overhear Hitler saying something, then they would enforce it as the will of Hitler, corrupting the government further.
The film explained that Hitler focussed the economy on rearmament, in order to bring Germany into a more powerful position, rather than focusing on consumer goods.
Sunday, 18 November 2007
Saturday, 17 November 2007
Somerset's Modus Operandi
Somerset had was a difficult person to get along with because he was very aloof. He frequently ignored advice from his supporters and from the Privy Council, particularly Paget, and in doing so isolated himself from his political allies. Somerset's wife was thought to be obnoxious and she encouraged his extravagance and arrogance.
He has been accused of stealing £14,000 worth of silver bullion from Henry VIII on his deathbed. Whilst the veracity of this accusation is doubted by many, he certainly appropriated the title of the Duke of Somerset for himself.
He bulit himself a palace, Somerset Place (now known as Somerset House) which was fit for a prince, extravagance in rulers was the norm at the time, and began to hold his own personal court there using his household servants to administer royal government.
Even though he had been elected as "primus inter pares" within the Privy Council, Somerset began to rule as a monarch in his own right; using the seal of the Privy Council whenever he wished and even minuting meetings which never took place. However, this autocratic approach meant that Somerset had individual responsibility for any failures of government policy and the fact that Edward was not involved in policy making meant that the policies did not have the authority of the king behind them.
In fact, Somerset ignored Edward almost completely and Edward began to resent the way he was being used as a political human shield. He is also said to have felt scared and angry, because he was treated like a prisoner.
All this meant that when Somerset set himself up for a fall nobody saved him because nobody wanted to. His enemies were happy to see him go and he had become too isolated from his erstwhile friends for them to care.
He has been accused of stealing £14,000 worth of silver bullion from Henry VIII on his deathbed. Whilst the veracity of this accusation is doubted by many, he certainly appropriated the title of the Duke of Somerset for himself.
He bulit himself a palace, Somerset Place (now known as Somerset House) which was fit for a prince, extravagance in rulers was the norm at the time, and began to hold his own personal court there using his household servants to administer royal government.
Even though he had been elected as "primus inter pares" within the Privy Council, Somerset began to rule as a monarch in his own right; using the seal of the Privy Council whenever he wished and even minuting meetings which never took place. However, this autocratic approach meant that Somerset had individual responsibility for any failures of government policy and the fact that Edward was not involved in policy making meant that the policies did not have the authority of the king behind them.
In fact, Somerset ignored Edward almost completely and Edward began to resent the way he was being used as a political human shield. He is also said to have felt scared and angry, because he was treated like a prisoner.
All this meant that when Somerset set himself up for a fall nobody saved him because nobody wanted to. His enemies were happy to see him go and he had become too isolated from his erstwhile friends for them to care.
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Novembe 12th 07. PN
First of all, I, Phil, would like to apologise for the excessive number of undoubted spelling mistakes that will be sure to follow. It is not through a lack of effort… but merely through a certain level on incompetence when it comes to spelling!
Herman Goering: by all means, a ‘gangster’
The youtube clip showed us a contemporary view of Goering:
He looted museums and galleries.
‘the Number 2 Nazi had the blood of thousands on his hands’.
Goering blamed everything all on ‘his old pal Hitler’.
With no experience, why was Herman allowed to become responsible of the German Economy?
Goering and Hitler were ideological allies, both wanting the same things from foreign policy, so Hitler wanted to appoint him. Hitler would not be forced to alter his foreign policy plans to fit in with the economy. Focusing on rearmament and construction in order to help the economy, and prepare for war was what both wanted. ‘Guns not butter’ said fat man Goering.
Nazi economy (like all Nazi policies) was full of corruption – shown by the looting for example. For this reason, Goering was a suitable gangster for the job.
----
1933 – 1934; Hitler may have been thinking that economic recovery and political stability go hand in hand, so construction, means people are at work, which is likely to lead to a more political situation for Hitler. However, later, the dictatorship of Hitler means this is less important as a motive for Hitler.
----
Four year plan:
Page 378 Hite and Hinton, source 20.4, Extract from Four Year Plan 1936.
Shows how ideologically driven economic policy is.
Desire to make economy strong in order for rearmament/ preparation for war.
Towards the later part of pre–World War II, Goering given consent from Hitler to whatever necessary to reach ideological aims.
All of this power, responsibility with a difficult job before him, and Goering has no experience of such things.
So why did he take it?
He was head of the German Air force, so to add economic dictator to this, makes his very powerful. He may also have been thinking of succession to Hitler, or if not, at least he will make a good living out of politics.
How did they go about trying to achieve the Four Year Plan?
If a segment of industry would not co-operate, then the state took them over.
Wage Control.
Became an offence to raise prices without checking with the 4 year plan office.
It was a Military Command Economy.
Goering’s predatory nature:
All foreign currency and precious metals confiscated by the state in 1936, ‘compensated’ by German marks. It was a capital punishment to any who tried to withhold from this, and 4 received such a punishment.
Nationalised Iron Ore fields, making people in that sector buy German Iron. If they did not, then they were publicly tarnished as being against Germany’s interest.
1938 – confiscation of Jewish wealth.
Even gold teeth off corpses at concentration camps were taken.
This was a policy of war and race, full of criminal activity.
Therefore, Goering was pretty perfect for the job…
What a not very nice gangster.
Phil
Herman Goering: by all means, a ‘gangster’
The youtube clip showed us a contemporary view of Goering:
He looted museums and galleries.
‘the Number 2 Nazi had the blood of thousands on his hands’.
Goering blamed everything all on ‘his old pal Hitler’.
With no experience, why was Herman allowed to become responsible of the German Economy?
Goering and Hitler were ideological allies, both wanting the same things from foreign policy, so Hitler wanted to appoint him. Hitler would not be forced to alter his foreign policy plans to fit in with the economy. Focusing on rearmament and construction in order to help the economy, and prepare for war was what both wanted. ‘Guns not butter’ said fat man Goering.
Nazi economy (like all Nazi policies) was full of corruption – shown by the looting for example. For this reason, Goering was a suitable gangster for the job.
----
1933 – 1934; Hitler may have been thinking that economic recovery and political stability go hand in hand, so construction, means people are at work, which is likely to lead to a more political situation for Hitler. However, later, the dictatorship of Hitler means this is less important as a motive for Hitler.
----
Four year plan:
Page 378 Hite and Hinton, source 20.4, Extract from Four Year Plan 1936.
Shows how ideologically driven economic policy is.
Desire to make economy strong in order for rearmament/ preparation for war.
Towards the later part of pre–World War II, Goering given consent from Hitler to whatever necessary to reach ideological aims.
All of this power, responsibility with a difficult job before him, and Goering has no experience of such things.
So why did he take it?
He was head of the German Air force, so to add economic dictator to this, makes his very powerful. He may also have been thinking of succession to Hitler, or if not, at least he will make a good living out of politics.
How did they go about trying to achieve the Four Year Plan?
If a segment of industry would not co-operate, then the state took them over.
Wage Control.
Became an offence to raise prices without checking with the 4 year plan office.
It was a Military Command Economy.
Goering’s predatory nature:
All foreign currency and precious metals confiscated by the state in 1936, ‘compensated’ by German marks. It was a capital punishment to any who tried to withhold from this, and 4 received such a punishment.
Nationalised Iron Ore fields, making people in that sector buy German Iron. If they did not, then they were publicly tarnished as being against Germany’s interest.
1938 – confiscation of Jewish wealth.
Even gold teeth off corpses at concentration camps were taken.
This was a policy of war and race, full of criminal activity.
Therefore, Goering was pretty perfect for the job…
What a not very nice gangster.
Phil
Saturday, 10 November 2007
Did Economic Crisis in 1939 Push Germany to War?
Mason vs Overy
Tim Mason has argued that rearmament and public construction works put a heavy strain on the German economy in this period. He has argued that the only way the Nazi government could release this pressure was to expend the armaments they had produced by going to war. In this way, he argues, it was the economy that drove Germany to war and not Hitler's foreign policy goals.
However, Richard Overy has challenged this interpretation of what drove the country to war. He has stated that although Nazi Germany did indeed face economic problems in 1939, they were not severe enough to drive the nation to war. Instead, he argues, it was the ideology of the Nazi leadership and their aims in foreign policy that led to German aggression.
The Four Year Plan: Success or Failure
The office of the Four Year Plan was established in 1936 in order to ensure that Germany would be ready for war by 1940. However, this does not necessarily mean that Hitler was aiming to start a war in 1940, only that he wished to be prepared for one.
The creation of the office meant that Goering, already the head of the resurrected Luftwaffe, became an extremely powerful figure as the office eclipsed the ministry of economics under Dr. Schacht who was seen as too cautious.
One of the key aims of the plan was to bring about autarky (economic independence) as it was vital to guarantee that Germany could support herself if she entered a war whilst remaining a pariah state with no real allies. However, since it is virtually impossible for a country to become a true autarky, the four year plan aimed instead to reduce Germany's dependence on imports by maximising the use of ersatz (substitute) commodities, for example producing oil from coal.
However, the plan failed to reach its targets and soon turned to another method of bringing about autarky, invading other states and seizing their resources.
Essay Title: "To What Exten Did Nazi Foreign Policy Drive German Economic Policy"
Tim Mason has argued that rearmament and public construction works put a heavy strain on the German economy in this period. He has argued that the only way the Nazi government could release this pressure was to expend the armaments they had produced by going to war. In this way, he argues, it was the economy that drove Germany to war and not Hitler's foreign policy goals.
However, Richard Overy has challenged this interpretation of what drove the country to war. He has stated that although Nazi Germany did indeed face economic problems in 1939, they were not severe enough to drive the nation to war. Instead, he argues, it was the ideology of the Nazi leadership and their aims in foreign policy that led to German aggression.
The Four Year Plan: Success or Failure
The office of the Four Year Plan was established in 1936 in order to ensure that Germany would be ready for war by 1940. However, this does not necessarily mean that Hitler was aiming to start a war in 1940, only that he wished to be prepared for one.
The creation of the office meant that Goering, already the head of the resurrected Luftwaffe, became an extremely powerful figure as the office eclipsed the ministry of economics under Dr. Schacht who was seen as too cautious.
One of the key aims of the plan was to bring about autarky (economic independence) as it was vital to guarantee that Germany could support herself if she entered a war whilst remaining a pariah state with no real allies. However, since it is virtually impossible for a country to become a true autarky, the four year plan aimed instead to reduce Germany's dependence on imports by maximising the use of ersatz (substitute) commodities, for example producing oil from coal.
However, the plan failed to reach its targets and soon turned to another method of bringing about autarky, invading other states and seizing their resources.
Essay Title: "To What Exten Did Nazi Foreign Policy Drive German Economic Policy"
Tuesday, 6 November 2007
Welcome
The purpose of this blog is to allow pupils at King Edward's School to check and update their notes from lessons. In turn, every pupil will update the blog using the minutes they made during the previous lesson. In this way, a record of the whole week, term and year can be kept, added to and used for revision etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)