Part 7 (1/2)

The Fuhrer Principle

The second pillar of the n.a.z.i state is the Fuhrer, the infallible leader, to whom his followers owe absolute obedience. The Fuhrer principle envisages government of the state by a hierarchy of leaders, each of whom owes unconditional allegiance to his immediate superior and at the same time is the absolute leader in his own particular sphere of jurisdiction.

One of the best expositions of the n.a.z.i concept of the Fuhrer principle is given by Huber in his _Const.i.tutional Law of the Greater German Reich_ (doc.u.ment 1, _post_ p. 155):

The Fuhrer-Reich of the [German] people is founded on the recognition that the true will of the people cannot be disclosed through parliamentary votes and plebiscites but that the will of the people in its pure and uncorrupted form can only be expressed through the Fuhrer. Thus a distinction must be drawn between the supposed will of the people in a parliamentary democracy, which merely reflects the conflict of the various social interests, and the true will of the people in the Fuhrer-state, in which the collective will of the real political unit is manifested ...

The Fuhrer is the bearer of the people's will; he is independent of all groups, a.s.sociations, and interests, but he is bound by laws which are inherent in the nature of his people. In this twofold condition: independence of all factional interests but unconditional dependence on the people, is reflected the true nature of the Fuhrer principle. Thus the Fuhrer has nothing in common with the functionary, the agent, or the exponent who exercises a mandate delegated to him and who is bound to the will of those who appoint him. The Fuhrer is no ”representative” of a particular group whose wishes he must carry out. He is no ”organ” of the state in the sense of a mere executive agent.

He is rather himself the bearer of the collective will of the people. In his will the will of the people is realized.

He transforms the mere feelings of the people into a conscious will ... Thus it is possible for him, in the name of the true will of the people which he serves, to go against the subjective opinions and convictions of single individuals within the people if these are not in accord with the objective destiny of the people ... He shapes the collective will of the people within himself and he embodies the political unity and entirety of the people in opposition to individual interests ...

But the Fuhrer, even as the bearer of the people's will, is not arbitrary and free of all responsibility. His will is not the subjective, individual will of a single man, but the collective national will is embodied within him in all its objective, historical greatness ... Such a collective will is not a fiction, as is the collective will of the democracies, but it is a political reality which finds its expression in the Fuhrer. The people's collective will has its foundation in the political idea which is given to a people. It is present in the people, but the Fuhrer raises it to consciousness and discloses it ...

In the Fuhrer are manifested also the natural laws inherent in the people: It is he who makes them into a code governing all national activity. In disclosing these natural laws he sets up the great ends which are to be attained and draws up the plans for the utilization of all national powers in the achievement of the common goals. Through his planning and directing he gives the national life its true purpose and value. This directing and planning activity is especially manifested in the lawgiving power which lies in the Fuhrer's hand. The great change in significance which the law has undergone is characterized therein that it no longer sets up the limits of social life, as in liberalistic times, but that it drafts the plans and the aims of the nation's actions ...

The Fuhrer principle rests upon unlimited authority but not upon mere outward force. It has often been said, but it must constantly be repeated, that the Fuhrer principle has nothing in common with arbitrary bureaucracy and represents no system of brutal force, but that it can only be maintained by mutual loyalty which must find its expression in a free relation. The Fuhrer-order depends upon the responsibility of the following, just as it counts on the responsibility and loyalty of the Fuhrer to his mission and to his following ... There is no greater responsibility than that upon which the Fuhrer principle is grounded.[46]

The nature of the plebiscites which are held from time to time in a National Socialist state, Huber points out, cannot be understood from a democratic standpoint. Their purpose is not to give the people an opportunity to decide some issue but rather to express their unity behind a decision which the Fuhrer, in his capacity as the bearer of the people's will, has already made:

That the will of the people is embodied in the Fuhrer does not exclude the possibility that the Fuhrer can summon all members of the people to a plebiscite on a certain question.

In this ”asking of the people” the Fuhrer does not, of course, surrender his decisive power to the voters. The purpose of the plebiscite is not to let the people act in the Fuhrer's place or to replace the Fuhrer's decision with the result of the plebiscite. Its purpose is rather to give the whole people an opportunity to demonstrate and proclaim its support of an aim announced by the Fuhrer. It is intended to solidify the unity and agreement between the objective people's will embodied in the Fuhrer and the living, subjective conviction of the people as it exists in the individual members ... This approval of the Fuhrer's decision is even more clear and effective if the plebiscite is concerned with an aim which has already been realized rather than with a mere intention.[47]

Huber states that the Reichstag elections in the Third Reich have the same character as the plebiscites. The list of delegates is made up by the Fuhrer and its approval by the people represents an expression of renewed and continued faith in him. The Reichstag no longer has any governing or lawgiving powers but acts merely as a sounding board for the Fuhrer:

It would be impossible for a law to be introduced and acted upon in the Reichstag which had not originated with the Fuhrer or, at least, received his approval. The procedure is similar to that of the plebiscite: The lawgiving power does not rest in the Reichstag; it merely proclaims through its decision its agreement with the will of the Fuhrer, who is the lawgiver of the German people.[48]

Huber also shows how the position of the Fuhrer developed from the n.a.z.i Party movement:

The office of the Fuhrer developed out of the National Socialist movement. It was originally not a state office; this fact can never be disregarded if one is to understand the present legal and political position of the Fuhrer. The office of the Fuhrer first took root in the structure of the Reich when the Fuhrer took over the powers of the Chancelor, and then when he a.s.sumed the position of the Chief of State.

But his primary significance is always as leader of the movement; he has absorbed within himself the two highest offices of the political leaders.h.i.+p of the Reich and has created thereby the new office of ”Fuhrer of the people and the Reich.” That is not a superficial grouping together of various offices, functions, and powers ... It is not a union of offices but a unity of office. The Fuhrer does not unite the old offices of Chancelor and President side by side within himself, but he fills a new, unified office.[49]

The Fuhrer unites in himself all the sovereign authority of the Reich; all public authority in the state as well as in the movement is derived from the authority of the Fuhrer.

We must speak not of the state's authority but of the Fuhrer's authority if we wish to designate the character of the political authority within the Reich correctly. The state does not hold political authority as an impersonal unit but receives it from the Fuhrer as the executor of the national will. The authority of the Fuhrer is complete and all-embracing; it unites in itself all the means of political direction; it extends into all fields of national life; it embraces the entire people, which is bound to the Fuhrer in loyalty and obedience. The authority of the Fuhrer is not limited by checks and controls, by special autonomous bodies or individual rights, but it is free and independent, all-inclusive and unlimited. It is not, however, self-seeking or arbitrary and its ties are within itself. It is derived from the people; that is, it is entrusted to the Fuhrer by the people. It exists for the people and has its justification in the people; it is free of all outward ties because it is in its innermost nature firmly bound up with the fate, the welfare, the mission, and the honor of the people.[50]

Neesse, in his _The National Socialist German Workers Party--An Attempt at Legal Interpretation_, emphasizes the importance of complete control by the party leaders.h.i.+p over all branches of the government. He says there must be no division of power in the n.a.z.i state to interfere with the leader's freedom of action. Thus the Fuhrer becomes the administrative head, the lawgiver, and the highest authority of justice in one person. This does not mean that he stands above the law. ”The Fuhrer may be outwardly independent, but inwardly he obeys the same laws as those he leads.”[51]

The _leaders.h.i.+p_ (_Fuhrung_) in the n.a.z.i state is not to be compared with the _government_ or _administration_ in a democracy:

_Fuhrung_ is not, like government, the highest organ of the state, which has grown out of the order of the state, but it receives its legitimation, its call, and its mission from the people ...[52]

The people cannot as a rule announce its will by means of majority votes but only through its embodiment in one man, or in a few men. The principle of the _ident.i.ty_ of the ruler and those who are ruled, of the government and those who are governed has been very forcibly represented as the principle of democracy. But this ident.i.ty ... becomes mechanistic and superficial if one seeks to establish it in the theory that the people are at once the governors and the governed ... A true organic ident.i.ty is only possible when the great ma.s.s of the people recognizes its embodiment in one man and feels itself to be one nature with him ... Most of the people will never exercise their governing powers but only wish to be governed justly and well ... National Socialist _Fuhrung_ sees no value in trying to please a majority of the people, but its every action is dictated by service to the welfare of the people, even though a majority would not approve it. The mission of the _Fuhrung_ is received from the people, but the fulfilment of this mission and the exercise of power are free and must be free, for however surely and forcefully a healthy people may be able to make decisions in the larger issues of its destiny, its decisions in all smaller matters are confused and uncertain.

For this reason, _Fuhrung_ must be free in the performance of its task ... The Fuhrer does not stand for himself alone and can be understood not of himself, but only from the idea of a work to be accomplished ... Both the Fuhrer and his following are subject to the idea which they serve; both are of the same substance, the same spirit, and the same blood.

The despot knows only subjects whom he uses or, at best, for whom he cares. But the first consideration of the Fuhrer is not his own advantage nor even, at bottom, the welfare of the people, but only service to the mission, the idea, and the purpose to which Fuhrer and following alike are consecrated.[53]

The supreme position of Adolf Hitler as Fuhrer of the Reich, which Huber and Neesse emphasize in the preceding quotations, is also stressed in the statements of high n.a.z.i officials. For example, Dr.

Frick, the German Minister of the Interior, in an article ent.i.tled ”Germany as a Unitary State,” which is included in a book called _Germany Speaks_, published in London in 1938, states: