Martin Broszat

Martin Broszat (August 14, 1926-October 14, 1989) was a left-wing 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 the Institute of Contemporary History between 1972-1989.

Related Topics:
August 14 - 1926 - October 14 - 1989 - Left-wing - West German - Historian - Leipzig - Germany - University of Leipzig - 1944 - 1949 - University of Cologne - 1952 - 1953 - Munich - 1955 - University of Konstanz - 1969 - 1980 - Institute of Contemporary History - 1972

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From 1960 onwards, Broszat examined Nazi ideology, which he regarded as an incoherent jumble. For Broszat, the only constants were anti-communism, anti-semitism, and the perceived need for Lebensraum. But in Broszat's view, these were a cloaking for the real essence of National Socialism--namely, 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 as being the middle classes, who turned to Nazism to alleviate their anxieties about impovershment and "proletarianization" in the wake of hyperinflation in the early 1920s and the mass unemployment that began with the onset of the Great Depression at the end of the decade.

Related Topics:
1960 - Anti-communism - Anti-semitism - National Socialism - Hyperinflation

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Broszat argued against characterizing Nazi Germany as a totalitarian regime and criticized Karl Dietrich Bracher and Ernst Nolte for advancing such a notion. Together 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 rivarly, not Adolf Hitler himself, provided the real 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 actually not a monocracy (rule by one man), but rather a polycracy (rule by many).

Related Topics:
Nazi Germany - Totalitarian - Karl Dietrich Bracher - Ernst Nolte - Hans Mommsen - Adolf Hitler - Third Reich

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Broszat pointed out that the Nazi State was actually a duallistic creation; the normal institutions of the German state, theoretically Nazified, continued to operate alongside the institutions of the Nazi Party, which formed a parallel and rival power structure. Broszat was able to prove that beneath the public veneer of Nazi strength and unity, there were endless, chaotic power struggles being waged 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 in their turn 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 the "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 locked into perpetual power struggles with one another, has been widely accepted by historians. The second element, that Hitler was "weak dictator," has been generally criticized on the grounds that although it Hitler did not actually involve himself much in daily administration, this apparent neglect stemmed not from an inability to do so (as Broszat suggests), but rather due to 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 targeted 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 for the mentally retarded, and escalating into the genocide of the Jews after 1942. Broszat argued that aggression abroad was part of the same procress 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 nationalizing not industry (as conventional socialists wanted), but rather the people themselves.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Broszat was a pioneer in Alltageschichte (History of everyday life). To pursue this aim better, Broszat spearheaded the "Bavaria Project" between 1977-1983, which was intended be a comprehensive look at Alltagsgeschichte (history of daily events) in Bavaria between 1933 and 1945. Through his work on the "Bavaria Project", Broszat came up with the concept of Resistenz, which is not to be confused with resistence. 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 continue to 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 then discontinuity in Germany between the Weimar Era and the Nazi era.

Related Topics:
1977 - 1983 - Bavaria - 1933 - 1945 - Wehrmacht - Roman Catholic Church - Weimar Era - 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 very controversial, as Broszat called for historians to cease judging the period in overtly moralistic tones and to embark instead upon more scientific, dispassionate analysis, as they would for any other given period of history. Broszat always saw his work as kritische Aufklärungsarbeit ("work of critical enlightenment") and criticized his colleagues for adopting what he perceived as an ahistorical, moralistic approach to history. Accordingly, Broszat often attacked historians such as Klaus Hildebrand, Andreas Hillgruber and Eberhard Jäckel for focusing excessively upon Hitler himself and his beliefs as explanations for Nazi actions. By contrast, Broszat saw professional history as a social science that should examine society and culture, rather than a sole individual, in the quest to explain the past. Though in disagreement with some of Broszat's conclusions, British historian Sir Ian Kershaw is Broszat's leading disciple.

Related Topics:
Klaus Hildebrand - Andreas Hillgruber - Eberhard Jäckel - Ian Kershaw

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~