On August 19, 1934, the funeral of democracy--which signified freedom, liberty, and equality--took place in Germany. The passing of the system was not a difficult experience but in fact expected. And, intimate friends gathered to bid farewell to democracy by casting votes. Ironically and unfortunately, the cause of the death was democracy itself, an election was held to dismantle the system. However, how could people silenced their own voice in how their country should be governed? With a disgraceful defeat in 1919, Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles thus ending World War I but also igniting hatred, vulnerability and a dictator. With the litany of restrictions and reminders of their downfall, Germans became outraged at their government. In addition to the loss, the Weimer Republic, the government system postwar, could not control an inflation wiping out the people’s life savings and respect. Germans started to distrust their government system; the citizens thus saw a resolution named Adolf Hitler. Hitler comforted the citizens and promoted ways to improve Germany. Yet Hitler became in power because of fear, violence and trickery. It was from then on that democracy crumbled and dictatorship elevated. The only controversy is who or what is responsible for the death of democracy and the rise of a totalitarian regime. Many may blame the citizens for in fact voting to lose their right, or Hitler himself for using devious strategies, punishing people, and being too persuasive. However, the true people who deserve the responsibility for the death of democracy and the rise of dictatorship in Germany is the parliament because they failed to do their duty. They didn’t help Germany develop, they didn’t use their power and they made horr...
... middle of paper ...
... alive. The parliament is responsible for the death of democracy and the rise of a dictatorship in Germany. They did not fulfill their duty thus making them lose the support of the people, which later transferred to Hitler. The parliament was then subjected to please Hitler by putting him in power and with the fear he installed in the members there was nothing holding him back to become ultimate ruler of Germany or better known as the Furheer. The parliament should have done their job properly postwar and perhaps democracy could have been saved. Yet, perhaps, the entire experience that Germany endured with its government system suggests that democracy is only a dream. Democracy can ever be obtained due to corruption, manipulation and failure to do what is right. Perhaps democracy is truly about the majority deciding on what the majority does not know what to control.
Gottfried, Ted, and Stephen Alcorn. Nazi Germany: The Face of Tyranny. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century, 2000. Print.
Hitler blamed the Jews for the evils of the world. He believed a democracy would lead to communism. Therefore, in Hitler’s eyes, a dictatorship was the only way to save Germany from the threats of communism and Jewish treason. The Program of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was the instrument for the Nazis to convince the German people to put Hitler into power. Point one of the document states, “We demand the union of all Germans in a great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.” 1 This point explicates the Nazi proposition that Germany will only contain German citizens and also, that these citizens would display his or her self-determination towards Germany to the fullest.
The historical field concerning the Weimar Republic, Germany's parliamentary government during the interwar years, is not only an extremely sophisticated area of study, but an extremely competitive one as well. In the early eighties, a much heated and unprecedented scholarly dispute arose surrounding The Collapse of the Weimar Republic, written by David Abraham - at the time, a fledgling historian and assistant professor at Princeton University. Nazi seizure of power from the Weimar Republic has long intrigued scores of historians. Various models have been constructed in an attempt to explain how an entity such as the Nazi movement came to power over such an industrially, culturally, and socially advanced society such as Germany's (Notes from Jamie van Hook 2/14).
About the Author - Daniel Jonah Goldhagen is Assistant Professor of Government and Social Studies at Harvard University and an Associate of Harvard's Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. His doctoral dissertation, which is the basis for his book "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust," was awarded the American Political Science Association's 1994 Gabriel A. Almond Award for the best dissertation in the field of comparative politics.2
“On 2 August 1934, President Hindenburg died. Within an hour of his death Hitler announced that the offices of chancellor and president were to be combined and that he was the new head of state. Hitler’s adolescent dream of becoming Fuhrer of the German people had been realized” President Hindenburg’s death marked the official end of the Weimar Republic, a democratic ‘experiment’ that had lasted since 1918. The causes of the dissolution of the Republic are wide ranging and numerous, as was explained in the articles of both Richard Bessel, and John McKenzie. The two author’s agree on the sequence of events which led to the dissolution of the Republic, however, they disagree on what exactly caused the transition from Weimar to the Third Reich. The author’s disagreement stem from a differing view of the fundamental cause, political structure versus political leadership.
In conclusion, I would say I disagree with the quote. Within the legal system there exists numerous ways for the judicracy to induce change in law, whilst not as directly as parliament, this is obviously a nessacary in democracy. Law-making can be de facto done in the courts. Their descisions when not contrary to parliament set predicedent, which might be legislated. The courts are able to react ahead of legislation as social, technological and politcal trends change and enforce clarifications in further similiar cases using predicedent set before them. So whilst Parliament does technically make the laws, the judicracy, as any other part of a democratic society is able to effect changes in the law.
...policy made the people despair over the inefficiency of the government, and article 48 caused the people to lose their faith in a democratic system wholly. These two deciding factors propelled the people to submit themselves to more radical ideologies, all of which finally brought an end to the floundering democratic constitution in the 1930s. Even though external threats such as anti-Weimar sentiments spread by opposing parties also played a prominent role in the eventual distrust of the WG, they were not the root cause of the failure of the WG, their prosperity was only made possible by building on the already-existing profound internal failures of the government.
Hitler had a lot to do with Germany and he was remembered but not because of anything positive, but because he was one of the worst coldhearted dictators Germany or the world could’ve experienced. My view and Topic is worth consideration by the reader because it will inform them more about Hitler’s actions in 1933 and so on.
MODERN HISTORY – RESEARCH ESSAY “To what extent was Nazi Germany a Totalitarian state in the period from 1934 to 1939?” The extent to which Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state can be classed as a substantial amount. With Hitler as Fuhrer and his ministers in control of most aspects of German social, political, legal, economical, and cultural life during the years 1934 to 1939, they mastered complete control and dictation upon Germany. In modern history, there have been some governments, which have successfully, and others unsuccessfully carried out a totalitarian state. A totalitarian state is one in which a single ideology is existent and addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal, government is run by a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support.
Within Nazi government, Hitler acted as the final source of authority, which serves as evidence against the notion that Hitler was ‘weak’. Having consolidated power by 1934 Hitler was, at least theoretically, omnipotent, being Chancellor, Head of State and “supreme judge of the nation”. However, the notion that Nazi government systematically pursued the clear objectives of the Fuhrer is challenged by the reality of Nazi government structure. It has been widely accepted by historians that the Nazi State was a chaotic collection of rival power blocs. Mommsen’s explanation that this was the result of Hitler’s apathy towards government a...
Around the 20th century, the end of the First World War cleared the way for the formation of democratic regimes. Why they had not been successful, why the people didn't use the opportunity to establish a democratic political system and why did the dictatorships appear, is still unclear, but it is a very discussible subject. The decisive role in these processes was the human being. It was the object of the cause, but on the other hand he was also the subject - executor of all the problems as well.
"Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe.
Back on the night of the 27th of February 1933, what pulled down Germany to its democratic government was eradicated as the flames devoured the structure of the German parliament. This point in history is known to as “the Reichstag fire”. Even though a series of accusations where thrown to frame the communist party and Van der Lubbe (Dutch communist) who was caught red handed on the day of the fire, Historians still struggle and disagree to decide who was to blame for the Reichstag fire. This event is unclear and brings uncertainty, its is obvious that this event was crucial on Hitler’s road to power, how ever, there are other events to consider such as the night of the long knifes, the enabling act and Hindenburg’s death.
What is “The German Question”? This is a question that has been posed by many analysts over the years, each having their own views on what fulfills this question. However, each agrees that it is a question of high complexity. According to Constantin Frantz, “The German Question is the most obscure, most involved and most comprehensive problem in the whole of modern history”. What makes Germanys’ question so difficult to pinpoint is the fact that for all of its existence, until 1871 and again in 1990, it has struggled to unify a nation into a single state. As history shows, the German nation has struggled to create its own nation-state. Unlike France and Britain, Germany was a nation before it was a state. That is, its people had a strong sense of nationalism and common identity as a social entity but they were lacking a strong state, or a form of political organization that claims the exclusive right to govern a specific piece of territory. As Dahrendorf states; “We want to find out what it is in German society that may account for Germany’s persistent failure to give a home to democracy in its liberal sense”. But can we really analyze the problem in this way? It has not always been the same “persistent failure” hindering Germany from giving a home for democracy, but rather the problems faced by Germany throughout history.
The foundation of the modern political system was laid in the times when the world was strangled in slavery. In those moments, enlightened minds in Greek came up with the new system that was there to remain for the next thousands of years. This system, now known as democracy, is a form of government in which supreme power is vested to the people themselves. People have the right to elect their leaders directly or indirectly through a scheme of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. A new democratic government is usually established after every 4-5 years, and it is trusted with the responsibility to cater to the needs of all the people irrespective of the fact that they voted for them or not. Although the minorities may not be very pleased with the idea of democracy, however, a democratic government is certainly the best because it establishes social equality among people, reduces the conflicts in the state to a minimum, gives the chance to vote repeatedly, and creates patriotism.