The debate as to whether or not Adolf Hitler possessed absolute power within the Third Reich no doubt began stirring controversy long before the question was ever put to A-level historians. Tradition has seen Hitler play the role of an "evil genius" - a man of decisive action and meticulous planning that master minded his own rise to power and subsequently came closer to world domination than no other for millennia. Others, however, are not convinced. Recent decades have seen historian question the degree of Hitler's power in an increasingly cynical light. But what can the facts tell us?.
The majority of historians in the years immediately following World War II seemed to agree that Hitler was not only the central figure in Nazism, but also go as far as to claim "Nazism was Hitlerism". These historians, such as Trevor-Roper and Bullock, have been branded "intentionalists" - believing that each and every controversial issue arising in Nazi Germany was the deliberate intention of Hitler. .
This was indeed a bold claim as controversial issues under the Fuhrer were great in number. While chaos may have appeared to reign supreme on the surface, intentionalists believe that a deeper look proves the strength of Hitler's rule. For instance; Hitler may have been criticised as shirking decision making for lack of knowledge or fear of failure but intentionalists believe that this was down to the "Fuhrerprinzip" - Hitler was above normal politics and deliberately shirked decision making so as to be un-associated with unpopular policies (such as the decline of consumer goods). Overlapping government agencies were the by-product of Machiavellian "divide and rule" policies designed to ensure infighting between rival power bases (such as Rohm and Himmler) nullified the threat of a serious challenge to his leadership from within. Hitler also showed a ruthless ability to eradicate political opponents.