Nazi power flowed through party position, not ministerial office

Evidence

Characteristic is a memo of Minister of the Interior Frick, who resented the fact that Himmler, the leader of the SS, should have superior power. See Nazi Conspiracy, III, 547.—Noteworthy in this respect also are Rosenberg’s notes about a discussion with Hitler in 1942: Rosenberg had never before the war held a state position but belonged to the intimate circle around Hitler. Now that he had become Reichsminister for the Eastern Occupied Territories, he was constantly confronted with “direct actions” of other plenipotentiaries (chiefly SS-men) who overlooked him because he now belonged to the ostensible apparatus of the state. See ibid., IV, 65 ff. The same happened to Hans Frank, Governor General of Poland. There were only two cases in which the attainment of ministerial rank did not entail any loss of power and prestige: that of Minister of Propaganda Goebbels, and of Minister of the Interior Himmler. As regards Himmler, we possess a memorandum, presumably from the year 1935, which illustrates the systematic singlemindedness of the Nazis in regulating the relations between party and state. This memorandum, which apparently originated in Hitler’s immediate entourage and was found among the correspondence of the Reichsadjudantur of the Fuehrer and the Gestapo, contains a warning against making Himmler state secretary of the Ministry of the Interior because in that case he could “no longer be a political leader” and “would be alienated from the party.” Here, too, we find mention of the technical principle regulating the relations between party and state: “A Reichsleiter [a high party functionary] must not be subordinated to a Reichsminister [a high state functionary].” — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 2721

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies the party-state shadow apparatus distinction: real power accrued to party functionaries, and formal state rank actually diminished influence.
• XREF: This dual-state structure anticipates Arendt’s later analysis of totalitarian rule undermining all stable hierarchy — connects to the ‘second state beside the state’ framing.