quite good on the whole- clearly written with aprropriate level of sophistication. Use of historiography was accurate and insightful, though I thought was over relied upon. More dates, more stats, more events... in short, more specifics needed to lift your essay above a kind of introduction to an historical argument... obviously our knowlege is too limited to truly be in a position to argue a point using historical evidence, I just think it'll impress the examiners to use some really good specifics to back up the historiographical positions you refer to. For example, for the "duplication of function" quote, you could have evidenced that with the ministry of economics having it's functions overlapped with Gorings 4-year plan when it was introduced in 1936. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Really good and you clearly have a grasp on the concept and the level of expression required though I fear the examiners will be wanting more "examples" (events, laws, decrees, speeches, mein kampf, stats etc)