著者

田野 大輔

出版者

京都大学

雑誌

京都社会学年報 : KJS

巻号頁・発行日

vol.3, pp.57-76, 1995-12-25

---

This study surveys the historical debate on the character of the Third Reich and analyzes the mechanism of the "polycracy" in this regime. In former period Hitler's state appeared to be a rational and well-organized system of a totalitarian nature, but subsequent historical research has revealed a more complex picture. The traditional view as propounded by K. D. Bracher and others was criticized by the "functionalist" school of M. Broszat and H. Mommsen, who drew attention to the disorganized character of the regime. The political system, they insisted, was by no means totalitarian but rather chaotic : a ruthless competition and rivalry among the various institutions for power and influence. Amplifying this view, I proceed to apply the concept of "polycracy" to the power structure of the Third Reich. The polycratic structure of the NS regime composed of more than one power center contrasted strikingly with the totalitarian and monocratic nature of the ideology. This study places special emphasis on this peculiar ambivalence, on the dynamic interaction between ideology and organization. In the main part of this article, I examine the constituents of the Nazi ideology, namely the concepts of "Volksgemeinschaft", "Fuhrer" and "Kampf", so as to show that nothing but these factors gave rise to the polycracy in the Third Reich. I also show that the polycratic structure of the regime helped to consolidate and enhance Hitler's power. There is no contradiction between his supreme power and a polycratic and altogether disintegrated system of government : both conditioned and enforced one another. This mechanism of "polycracy", however, developed a momentum of its own which it was difficult to control, and sparked off the energy of destruction and ultimately of self-destruction too. In conclusion, I insist that this process of "cumulative radicalization" which ended in total war and genocide should not be portrayed as the work of a deliberate dictatorial will, but rather as the consequences of the polycracy, of the way in which political power was organized in this regime. The historical assessment of the Third Reich cannot conveniently be reduced to the role of Hitler who is a singular phenomenon unlikely to re-emerge in the future. The conditions and structure which allowed him to gain overall control of a modern society have not changed that much and are therefore a more worthwhile topic for further scrutiny.