Chelsea
New Member
yeah exactly what he/she said!
Totalitarianism (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter lane
- Start date
-To be a member of the army you did not have to be a party member
-Bloomberg was a non party cabinet minister up untill 1938
-The ideology was not singular or even choherent
-The Gaulitiers were many , too many
-Departments overlapped creating confusion often
-The economy was not centralised
-It was not regulated even though unions were banned
-There aws no offical religon or offical refutement of religon
the chatholic and protestant church existed independently of the state even though a wing of the protestant church reformed into the Confessinol Church though stats show that numbers for the offical party church was below when compared to the other denominations.
My point....these are just some of the many many points for my case that the Reich was not totalitariet
-Bloomberg was a non party cabinet minister up untill 1938
-The ideology was not singular or even choherent
-The Gaulitiers were many , too many
-Departments overlapped creating confusion often
-The economy was not centralised
-It was not regulated even though unions were banned
-There aws no offical religon or offical refutement of religon
the chatholic and protestant church existed independently of the state even though a wing of the protestant church reformed into the Confessinol Church though stats show that numbers for the offical party church was below when compared to the other denominations.
My point....these are just some of the many many points for my case that the Reich was not totalitariet
Chelsea
New Member
OK Lane opinion accepted. The point is that you began this thread with the question of how do you answer the totalitarian question. Well I've told you how I would - I really think that this is the easier way. I think that you are making it way too hard for yourself!!
By the way (I really did try to resist the urge to write this, but what the hell!) I hope you know that syllabus has 2 l's and 1 s!! Sorry!
By the way (I really did try to resist the urge to write this, but what the hell!) I hope you know that syllabus has 2 l's and 1 s!! Sorry!
hmm, I think its easier to argue that it wasn't a totalitarian society.
Sure they had some aspects of totalitarianism but as peakin@bondi said earlier if your using Friedrich's 6-point model Germany doesn't qualify as a true totalitarian society. eg. for point one 1 of Friedrich model it does not have an elaborate ideology.
okay, I'll shutup now, because Im probably confusing people.
That's my argument that the Friedrich 6 point system for totalitarianism is anachronistic. It was made AFTER the fall of Nazi Germany, and, as each period fo history needs to be studied on it's own terms, we are applying a new historical definition of totalitarianism on an era where totalitarianism as a concept wasn't even invented.
What has been done, instead of letting the event shape the concept, the concept is shaping the event.
What has been done, instead of letting the event shape the concept, the concept is shaping the event.
sif not 99
Member
Sure u need to take into account that we are applying our values now onto a time over 50 years previous but on the other hand you need to remember that historians who have been writting about this issue 20,30 years onwards or more have access to MORE information than those writting at the time of the event. AJP Taylor and the 30 year rule is a prime example of this where after 30 years in Britain all of the secret war documents were released and as a result of which he revised his history.
Dude dont be too harsh on historians writting after the event, sure they are applying their own belief system, context or whatever onto the period but is that such a bad thing? In many cases they also have access to information which wasn't available at the time but then again on the other hand sometimes they dont, but then again thats why they like us to use primary and secondary sources =)
That's just the line I take in most of my essays on tot. especially on historians who claim Nazi Germany wasn't a tot. state. My own thoughts (and somewhat bias as I have an enormous amount of respect for Hitler's methods) lead me to think that the people who are in agreement with Friedrich are trying to undermine Nazi Germany by saying it wasn't a totalitarian state.
All historians (including myself) apply their own system of beliefs, either conciously or unconciously when they write history, regardless of who, what, when, where or how.
All historians (including myself) apply their own system of beliefs, either conciously or unconciously when they write history, regardless of who, what, when, where or how.
I do not think Nazi Germany was a true totalitarian state (by Friedrich's definition anyway - And I am only using his definition because it seemed easier to construct an essay from it) but in no way does that undermine Nazi Germany.
I think it rather enhances Hitler's methods because people in most cases were not forced into believing a set of ideals. Its incredible to think that even though Hitler used terror and oppression that people still believed in the Fuhrer.
Meh, I should stop talking about this and try to write an actual essay on it.
sif not 99
Member
the structuralist argument rocks anybody who believes that it was a totalitarian regime.
Zenithliza
Member
I think the best way to tackle this question is to show both sides. That way you can demonstrate more knowledge and also have alot more content.
Chelsea
New Member
To Lane
Well done!!!! You're spelling is improving! Good luck for Monday, Wednesday, Friday and so on . . . .
To Zenithliza
I advise you not to write about both sides in an essay as you really don't have enough time to cover both adequately. Our teacher said that if you really don't know which side is right, pick one and BRIEFLY mention the other - DON'T discuss both!
Well done!!!! You're spelling is improving! Good luck for Monday, Wednesday, Friday and so on . . . .
To Zenithliza
I advise you not to write about both sides in an essay as you really don't have enough time to cover both adequately. Our teacher said that if you really don't know which side is right, pick one and BRIEFLY mention the other - DON'T discuss both!