They were beginning to doubt that Germany had any pride left. Historian R.Landau writes in his book (The Nazi Holocaust) that the ‘Nazi party was appealing’. This demonstrates that Hitler and the Nazis were a modern and plausible option for the public. Many of the middle class and other highly regarded sections of society were also drawn to the Nazi’s. Therefore, strengthening Landau’s view and the above argument that Hitler became leader of Germany as he was leader of the most popular parties.
Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will: A Work of Art Leni Riefenstahl’s Nazi documentary, Triumph of the Will, however technically dazzling and artfully made, contradicts the sinister and inhumane actions of the Nazi regime the film celebrates. This propaganda film commissioned by Adolf Hitler, documents a 1934 Nazi Rally in Nuremberg, Germany. The film inventively presents the rally’s grandeur, swastika banners waving gaily, thousands of German people eager to see and hear Hitler’s address. Under Hitler’s authorization and Riefenstahl’s direction this film glorified and mysticized the Nazi party. The film was used to legitimize the Third Reich, thus gaining support for action by the German people.
The ailing President Hindenburg, Germany's highly-revered military hero, sent a telegram expressing his "profoundly felt gratitude" and he congratulated Hitler for 'nipping treason in the bud'. General von Reichenau went so far as to publicly give credence to the lie that Schleicher had been plotting to overthrow the government. The army's support for the purge, however, would have far-reaching consequences for the institution. The humbling of the SA ended the threat it had posed to the army but, by standing by Hitler during the purge, the army bound itself more tightly to the Nazi regime. One retired captain, Erwin Planck, seemed to realise this: "if you look on without lifting a finger," he
Communists or the KDP also saw the opportunity that Hitler saw but with the democracy on its way out there was only room for one government, and Hitler new this. The ploy had so many advantages to Hitler that it would be hard to see how Hitler could not have been involved. This one event allowed him too effectively dishevel his main adversary, the foremost blockade that stopped Hitler’s dictatorship. How he went about “blaming” the communist for the event and thus eliminating them, was also a catalyst for all the events to come. By convincing Hindenburg that there was a large communist threat the country was put into a state of emergency and, with Hindenburg’s backing, Hitler was allowed to pass decrees to govern Germany anyway he liked, with the financial backing of krupp and bosch etc, which in this case is fortunate for the question at hand.
Although I do not agree with what he did it was successful. He stopped a conspiracy and made it absolutely known that he alone was the supreme leader of Germany. He succeeded in killing the SA’s power and striking fear into everyone. On the other hand I think the Tet Offensive was successful in some ways, but not in others. One reason I believe it was successful was because the U.S. thought that they had the war close to winning or maybe even won already.
The part of the given statement to which many historians take particular issue with is that “…[Riefenstahl] intended to glorify the Nazis”. The Hull2 school contends that the Nazi cinema was an ideological free trade zone - as long as films were popular and stayed away from overtly political topics - thereby labelling Riefenstahl an artist only. Popular opinion labels Riefenstahl a propagandist. In 1947 the French classified her as a Fellow Traveller – A Nazi sympathiser. More recent schools of thought such as that expressed by Linda Schulte-Sasse3 suggest that filmmakers including Riefenstahl were indeed propagandists, but that this is justifiable in context, therefore that they also ought to be praised for their contribution to culture.
As a ruler, Adolf Hitler of the Nazi party had numerous successes but he also had he fair share of failures. At the beginning of World War II, Hitler was seen as a savior to the German nation because of his oratory skills, appeal to the people and his successes. One of his first successes came when he fulfilled his promises to the German people and reversed the Treaty of Versailles. After the death of Hindenburg in 1934, Hitler was seen as the successor. The German public saw Hitler as god-like with his vast power and glorifying the German race as being the “master race.” When he finally reversed the power of the Treaty of Versailles and rebuilt Germany’s armed forces, the German nation basically did as he told them to do.
How similar were the dictatorships of hitler and stalin? However much they disliked each other, Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin were actually very similar people - they were both ruthless and amoral, and drove their countries to greatness (albeit this statement does depend on your idea of greatness). These men were persistent and they obsessed over making sure their countries were the ideal world in their minds. They focused on breeding hard working, ‘perfect’ people to live in their countries, while getting rid of anyone who didn’t fit their ideals. Rise to power Josef Stalin was a keen, intellectual man who knew how to make sure he was viewed well by the public.
It is undoubtable that the consolidation of power in 1933 could not have taken place were it not for the underlying threat, and use of, terror and violence. However, the use of legislative means of achieving power within the Nazi state must not be understated, nor can the perceived threat of Communism be ignored as a means of bolstering Nazi power after 1933. Moreover, the manipulative power of the well oiled propaganda machine spearheaded by Josef Goebbels allowed for the Nazi to ideologically win over much of the German people. Hitler’s use of legislative means to achieve Nazi power gave the regime a degree of legitimacy that was hard for the German people to call into question. Indeed, Hitler did not act unconstitutionally by declaring himself Fuhrer as the enabling act gave him dictatorial power via democratic means.
The main reason that Hitler was able to move from Chancellor to Fuhrer was because he had the consent of the German people. How far do you agree with this statement? Hitler became Chancellor of Germany on the 30th of January 1933, causing mass celebration in Berlin. Just 18 months later, on the 2 August 1934, he had worked his way to becoming Fuhrer. Some historians say it was the consent and willingness of the German people that took him to Fuhrer but there are other strong arguments such as the Enabling Law, the demolishment of other political parties and trade unions, his agreements with the church, media and industrialists and the Night of the Long Knives.