Hitler's Management of the Germans: Coercion, Compromise and the View from Washington?
"How much power did Hitler have, really? We are approaching this question by asking how did Hitler manage dissent? Dissent occurred only after manipulations had failed, and the immediate choice was whether to use force or to make some compromise, at least for the moment. The regime always wished to prevent dissent, whether through deceptions, camouflage, propaganda. The terror-system, always formed a backdrop to the Third Reich. And of course, Hitler and the Nazis did not change their ideology. It seems to me, however, that party leaders, and in particular Hitler, were opportunistic about the tactics they used. They tried to match their methods with the immediate circumstances in light of long-term goals, established by ideology. Thus, Hitler did not rule through charisma and terror alone.
But under what circumstances did Hitler use compromise as a tactic for coming out on top, rather than resorting to instrumental force? For what reasons and to what extent? How significant are these compromises for understanding Hitler’s system of leadership? This is a discussion of what we know with a focus on compromises Hitler made to stay in step with the Germans. A relevant image is of a dance, with Hitler the malevolent leader of the dance conducting the people across the floor from their traditional beliefs to exclusively Nazi perspectives."