Some historians argued that the Nazi regime might have been too chaotic to be considered totalitarian:
Martin Broszat in "The Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing"
Hans Mommen (same book)
Ian Kershaw in "The Nazi Dictatorship Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation"
Why did they suggest this? Because the Nazi leaders encouraged competition in all aspects of life, like in business, and this signifies a lack of social cooperation?
Heinz Hohne discusses this in his great classic: The Order of the Death's Head (Der Orden unter dem Totenkopf, 1966; English edition in 1969 under Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd, and Penguin in 2000) to some degree. Throughout his work, he points out the purposeful redundancy between agencies, authority figures, and perhaps most specifically within Fuhrer orders during the third Reich. He offers that Hitler used competition to keep his position secure and as a kind of fitness and loyalty test of his subordinates. One thing that I think must be considered is the Fuhrer Principle and Hitler at the top of the pyramid. Sure, there was a kind of barbaric rule of the jungle between agencies and luminaries of the Reich, but with Hitler ever present, watching, and waiting to strike down anyone who overreached; with Bormann's party apparatus, the Heidrich/Himmler/Mueller RSHA, and Canaris' Abwehr (until '44) always competing to gather dirt and report on their competition to Hitler like jealous children. All authority stemmed from one source until Hitler's death. That certainly bares resemblance to a totalitarian regime. I wonder if the analysis is meant to describe the apparatus of state or the chain of command. On one hand, we have a highly (and consciously) redundant collection of state agencies and authority figures, but then we have such a vertical chain of command that it potentially crippled the Whermacht at certain points. Under that latter view, we can see totalitarianism and it's banality on grand display.