When the Nazi’s solidified their position in 1933, it would mark the beginning of a period of destruction. The loss of life, oppression and sheer barbarity that followed would force society to question the very fabric of its endurance and morality. As a consequence of this it is imperative to inquire as to the possible reasons that explain the Nazi’s rise to power. In this regard there are several key themes which can be determined. It was Germany’s own circumstances prior to 1933 that paved the way to eventual success for Hitler and the Nazis. The state of the Weimar Republic after WWI, ideas of nationalism and a desire for both stability and dignity, all played a role in establishing the official Nazi ideology and eventual strategies for seizing control. Had Germany managed to recover economically in the 1920’s and thus begin rebuilding both a nation and a sense of national pride, it is possible that the sphere of influence of any Nazi party would have been minimal . Essentially this rise to power was not inevitable but rather a consequence of a variety of factors. Hitler’s personal political skills were another; they included propaganda, organisation, public speaking and the ability to recognise when to change tactics. Despite all of the divisions between the German people, what culminated in the success of establishing the Third Reich was the power of Hitler’s ‘world view’. The need for competent leadership and a return of national dignity, this was arguably the mantra of the Nazi party and what ultimately led to their rise in power.
An explanation of the Nazi’s rise to power would be inadequate without some attention given to the origins of Hitler, the Nazi party and the world views which would eventually shape the foundatio...
... middle of paper ...
...acy of WWI aided Hitler and the Nazis was through the spread of the popular basis for ‘revenge politics’ . The psychology of German politics and nationalism was one harboured by a desire for revenge on those who had imposed unnecessary hardships on the people after the war. These sentiments were marked by “willingness tolerate and support politicians who advocated the injustice of a supposedly unfair and dictated peace settlement. ” These harsh and militant politics was a reflection of a society in which millions were baring war scars that were both physical and psychological. The Nazi party was able to harness this resentment and bitterness and mould themselves into the poster child for not only economic stability and military strength but also revenge. In doing so this initially made the “crude politics ” of the Nazi party more acceptable to the German masses.
The main political changes that the Nazi Party or the NSDAP endured during the period of November, 1923 until January 1933 was its rise from a small extreme right party to a major political force. It is vitally important that the reasons behind this rise to power also be examined, to explain why the NSDAP was able to rise to the top. However first a perspective on the Nazi party itself is necessary to account for the changing political fortunes of the Nazi Party.
How the Nazis Gained and Maintained Power in Germany Why did no one succeed in stopping Hitler? * 37% of votes in July * Higher than any other party * Good reason for Hitler to take control and power * Hitler had learnt the only way to achieve real power was through democracy thanks to the Munich Putsch. * Hitler established a secure position very quickly once he came to power * Papen and the other Weimar politicians believed that the constitution would stop revolutionary movements. Hitler turned down the position of vice-chancellor, good move, he. wanted to become the chancellor, which would give him far more power.
Gottfried, Ted, and Stephen Alcorn. Nazi Germany: The Face of Tyranny. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century, 2000. Print.
The main purpose of the book was to emphasize how far fear of Hitler’s power, motivation to create a powerful Germany, and loyalty to the cause took Germany during the Third Reich. During the Third Reich, Germany was able to successfully conquer all of Eastern Europe and many parts of Western Europe, mainly by incentive. Because of the peoples’ desires and aspirations to succeed, civilians and soldiers alike were equally willing to sacrifice luxuries and accept harsh realities for the fate of their country. Without that driving force, the Germans would have given up on Hitler and Nazism, believing their plan of a powerful Germany...
The vast literature on Nazism and the Holocaust treats in great depth the first three elements, the focus of this book, is t...
Gesink, Indira. "Fascism, Nazism and Road to WWII." World Civilizations II. Baldwin Wallace University. Marting Hall, Berea. 3 April 2014. Class lecture.
The debate as to whether Hitler was a ‘weak dictator’ or ‘Master of the Third Reich’ is one that has been contested by historians of Nazi Germany for many years and lies at the centre of the Intentionalist – Structuralist debate. On the one hand, historians such as Bullock, Bracher, Jackel and Hildebrand regard Hitler’s personality, ideology and will as the central locomotive in the Third Reich. Others, such as Broszat, Mason and Mommsen argue that the regime evolved out from pressures and circumstances rather than from Hitler’s intentions. They emphasise the institutional anarchy of the regime as being the result of Hitler’s ‘weak’ leadership. The most convincing standpoint is the synthesis of the two schools, which acknowledges both Hitler’s centrality in explaining the essence of Nazi rule but also external forces that influenced Hitler’s decision making. In this sense, Hitler was not a weak dictator as he possessed supreme authority but as Kershaw maintains, neither was he ‘Master of the Third Reich’ because he did not exercise unrestricted power.
These actions gave Germans a sense of extreme nationalism and confidence. ”From this we can see how some may believe that the rise of dictators and totalitarian regimes contributed to the onset of World War II. From this document we can see how Hilter forced his way through to become the dictator of Germany, through promises and spreading false promises. He obleterated his power by spreading his ideologies and blaming Germany's conflicts on the Jews, which caused conflict to become more
Historians are often divided into categories in regard to dealing with Nazi Germany foreign policy and its relation to Hitler: 'intentionalist', and 'structuralist'. The intentionalist interpretation focuses on Hitler's own steerage of Nazi foreign policy in accordance with a clear, concise 'programme' planned long in advance. The 'structuralist' approach puts forth the idea that Hitler seized opportunities as they came, radicalizing the foreign policies of the Nazi regime in response. Structuralists reject the idea of a specific Hitlerian ideological 'programme', and instead argue for an emphasis on expansion no clear aims or objectives, and radicalized with the dynamism of the Nazi movement. With Nazi ideology and circumstances in Germany after World War I influencing Nazi foreign policy, the general goals this foreign policy prescribed to included revision of Versailles, the attainment of Lebensraum, or 'living space', and German racial domination. These foreign policy goals are seen through an examination of the actions the Nazi government took in response to events as they happened while in power, and also through Hitler's own ideology expressed in his writings such as Mein Kempf. This synthesis of ideology and social structure in Germany as the determinants of foreign policy therefore can be most appropriately approached by attributing Nazi foreign policy to a combination as both 'intentionalist' and 'structuralist' aims. Nazi foreign policy radicalized with their successes and was affected by Hitler pragmatically seizing opportunities to increase Nazi power, but also was based on early a consistent ideological programme espoused by Hitler from early on.
The foreign policy of Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945 was different than any other country during that era. Their distinct approach to ruling came from the nation’s many diverse philosophies. Furthermore, every basis of motivation and control came from the beliefs in which they so strictly followed. Many aspects, such as, communism, fascism, and nationalism, influenced these ideologies.
Through the manipulation of information and people the Nazi party succeeded in making the German people complicit in their plans. By surrounding everyone with the same ideas and ideals independent thought was effectively removed and the only choice was an acceptance of the Nazi’s and an acceptance of their beliefs. Film and radio showed the people what to think and the ‘Hitler myth’ bred by Goebbels gave them someone to lead, it was not until the war had ended and Germany was exposed to the world once more that it was possible how far from their principles they had erred.
Many might wonder how Hitler was able to do this so quickly, especially if you are looking at a time line, but in fact, Hitler did many “behind the scenes” work to help the Nazi party gain politic...
was not allowed to put any defences or troops on the east bank of the
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.
The dualism of Nazi Germany makes it difficult to ascertain the level of Nazification present in state-level institutions prior to 1935. John Herz writes that the ‘underlying purposes and tendency of the originators and leaders of the Nazi regime was to create a completely party-dominated and party-permeated state and society’. However, Herz argues that completely restructuring and reorganising existing government institutions and personnel was soon recognised as being detrimental to the plan to rapidly gear Germany for war. Therefore, the Nazi leadership chose ‘to use, modify, and adapt existing institutions to its specific purposes and policies, while profiting from their efficiency and technical skill.’ As a result, a ‘dualism’ between the