Martin Broszat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Martin Broszat | |
| Born | August 14, 1926 Leipzig, Germany |
|---|---|
| Died | October 14, 1989 (aged 63) |
| Nationality | German |
| Occupation | Professor |
| Known for | Argued against characterizing Nazi Germany as a totalitarian regime |
Martin Broszat (August 14, 1926 – October 14, 1989) was a West German historian. Broszat was born in Leipzig, Germany and studied history at the University of Leipzig (1944-1949) and at the University of Cologne (1949-1952). He married Alice Welter in 1953 and had three children. He served as a professor at the University of Cologne (1954-1955), at the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich (1955-1989) and was a Professor Emeritus at the University of Konstanz (1969-1980). He was head of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte between 1972-1989.
Contents |
[edit] Work
From 1960, Broszat examined Nazi ideology, which he regarded as incoherent. For Broszat, the constants were anti-communism, anti-semitism and the perceived need for Lebensraum. In Broszat's view, these were a cloak for the essence of National Socialism, irrational emotions: an intense desire to realize the "rebirth" of "the German nation"; the need to "act" and irrational hatred directed against those considered Volksfeinde (enemies of the German People) and Volksfremde (those foreign to the German "race"). Broszat saw the primary supporters of the Nazis being the middle classes, who turned to Nazism to alleviate their anxieties about impoverishment and "proletarianization" in the wake of hyperinflation in the early 1920s and the mass unemployment that began with the Great Depression at the end of the decade.
At the 1963-1965 Auschwitz Trial in Frankfurt, Broszat together with other experts from the Institute of Contemporary History such as Helmut Krausnick, Hans-Adolf Jacobsen and Hans Buchheim served as expert witnesses for the prosecution. The report that they complied for the prosecution served as the basis for their 1968 book Anatomy of the SS State, the first comprehensive study of the SS based on SS records.
Broszat argued against characterizing Nazi Germany as a totalitarian regime and criticized Karl Dietrich Bracher and Ernst Nolte for advancing such a notion. During the Historikerstreit of 1986-1988, Broszat again strongly criticized Nolte's views and work. With Hans Mommsen, Broszat developed a "structuralist" interpretation of Nazi Germany. Broszat saw Nazi Germany as a welter of competing institutions, putting forth the thesis that this internal rivalry, not Adolf Hitler provided the driving force behind Nazi Germany. Hitler, in Broszat's controversial view, was, to use Mommsen's phrase, a "weak dictator"; as such, the Third Reich was not a monocracy (rule by one man), rather a polycracy (rule by many).
Broszat pointed out that the Nazi State was dualistic; the normal institutions of the German state, theoretically Nazified, operated parallel to institutions of the Nazi Party, which was a rival power structure. Broszat was able to prove that beneath the public veneer of Nazi unity, there were endless power struggles between the revolutionary institutions of the Nazi Party and the organs of the traditional German state. In Broszat's view, these power struggles formed the dynamics and structures of the Nazi state, which were the driving forces behind Nazism. Broszat argued these power struggles constituted a Darwinian competition in which the "fittest" were the most radical elements of the Nazi movement, leading to "cumulative radicalization", to use another of Mommsen's phrases describing the Nazi state.
The first part of Broszat's argument, that the Nazi state was a jumble of competing bureaucracies in perpetual power struggles, has been widely accepted by historians. The second element, that Hitler was a "weak dictator," has been generally criticized on the grounds that although Hitler did not involve himself much in daily administration, this apparent neglect stemmed not from an inability to do so (as Broszat suggests) but a lack of interest in the quotidian.
Broszat was a Functionalist on the origins of the Holocaust question. Broszat argued that the Nazis wanted to have "revolution in society" but because they needed the co-operation of the traditional elites in business, the military and the civil service, they turned their energy and hatred on those groups such as Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and the mentally ill that the traditional elites did not care about. These groups were subjected to increasing persecution in the 1930s, beginning with internment in concentration camps (which were not initially death camps) and the euthanasia program (murder) of the mentally retarded, escalating into the genocide of the Jews in 1942. Broszat argued that aggression abroad was part of the same process of lashing out against Volksfeinde and Volksfremde caused by the Nazi failure to achieve the sort of comprehensive revolution they sought in German society. After all, Hitler had frequently spoken of nationalizing not industry (as conventional socialists wanted) but the people.
In his 1977 essay "Hitler and the Genesis of the ‘Final Solution’: An Assessment of David Irving’s Theses", Broszat criticized David Irving's argument in his book Hitler's War that Adolf Hitler was unaware of the Holocaust but did accept Irving's argument that there was no written order from Hitler for the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question". In his essay, Broszat argued that the radical Anti-Semitism of the Nazis had led them to embark on increasingly extreme attempts to expel the Jews of Europe and after the failure of successive deportation schemes the lower officials of the Nazi state had started the progress of extermination on their initiative. In Broszat's opinion, Hitler subsequently approved of the measures initiated by the lower officials and allowed the expansion of the Holocaust from Eastern Europe to all of Europe.
Broszat was a pioneer of Alltagsgeschichte (history of everyday life). To pursue this aim better, he led the "Bavaria Project" between 1977-1983, which was intended be a comprehensive look at Alltagsgeschichte in Bavaria between 1933 and 1945. Through his work on the "Bavaria Project", Broszat came up with the concept of Resistenz (immunity), which is not to be confused with resistance (in German Widerstand). Resistenz referred to the ability of institutions such as the Wehrmacht, the Roman Catholic Church and the bureaucracy to enjoy "immunity" from the Nazi claims to total power and to basically function according to their traditional values. Broszat used the Resistenz concept to advance the view that at the local level, there was far more continuity than discontinuity in Germany between the Weimar Era and the Nazi era.
He was best known for arguing in a 1986 essay that Nazi Germany should be treated as a "normal" period of history. His call for "historicization" of the treatment of Nazi Germany was controversial, as Broszat called for historians to cease judging the period in overtly moralistic tones and to embark instead upon scientific, dispassionate analysis, as they would for any other time. In particular, Broszat's call for the "historicization" of the Third Reich as opposed to the “demonization” of the period, involved him in a vigorous debate with the Franco-Israeli historian Saul Friedländer.
Broszat saw his work as kritische Aufklärungsarbeit ("critical enlightenment work") and criticized his colleagues for adopting what he perceived as an ahistorical, moralistic approach to history. Broszat often attacked historians such as Klaus Hildebrand, Andreas Hillgruber and Eberhard Jäckel for concentrating upon Hitler and his beliefs as explanations for Nazi actions. Broszat saw professional history as a social science that should examine society and culture rather than an individual in explaining the past. Though in disagreement with some of Broszat's conclusions, the British historian Sir Ian Kershaw is Broszat's leading disciple.
[edit] Publications
- Der Nationalsozialismus: Weltanschauung, Programm und Wirklichkeit ("German National Socialism, 1919-1945"), 1960. ASIN B0006BOO64
- co-written with Ladislaus Hory, Der kroatische Ustascha-Staat (The Croatian Ustascha state), 1941-1945, 1966.
- Der Staat Hitlers: Grundlegung und Entwicklung seiner inneren Verfassung ("The Hitler State: The Foundation and Development of the Internal Structure of the Third Reich"), 1969. ISBN 0-582-48997-0
- Bayern in der NS-Zeit ("Bavaria in the National Socialist Era") (editor), 4 volumes, 1977-1983.
- "Hitler und die Genesis der "Endlösung". Aus Anlaß der Thesen von David Irving", pages 739-775 from Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Volume 25, 1977, translated into English as "Hitler and the Genesis of the ‘Final Solution’: An Assessment of David Irving’s Theses"" pages 73-125 from Yad Vashem Studies, Volume 13,1979; reprinted pages 390-429 in Aspects of the Third Reich edited by H.W. Koch, London: Macmillan, 1985, ISBN 0-333-35272-6.
- Die Machtergreifung: der Aufstieg der NSDAP und die Zerstörung der Weimarer Republik ("Hitler and the Collapse of Weimar Germany "), 1984. ISBN 0-85496-517-3
- Nach Hitler: der schwierige Umgang mit unserer Geschichte ("After Hitler: difficult handling our history"), 1987.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- Lorenz, Chris "Broszat, Martin" pages 143-144 from The Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing, Volume 1, edited by Kelly Boyd, London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1999.
- Henke, Klaus-Dietmar & Natoli, Claudio (editors) Mit dem Pathos der Nüchternheit: Martin Broszat, das Institut für Zeitgeschichte und die Erforschung des Nationalsozializmus (With the Pathos of Soberness: Martin Broszat, the Institute of Contemporary History, and the Research of National Socialism), Frankfurt: Campus, 1991.
- Kershaw, Ian The Nazi Dictatorship : problems and perspectives of interpretation, London : Arnold ; New York : Copublished in the USA by Oxford University Press, 2000.
- Marrus, Michael The Holocaust in History, Toronto : Lester & Orpen Dennys, 1987.
- Pätzold, Kurt "Martin Broszat und die Geschichtswissenschaft in der DDR" pages 663-676 from Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, 1991.
