Hitler’s authority was derived from his personal qualities as opposed to being vested in the office which he held. “All authority within the Party was ultimately concentrated in the hands of the leader, Hitler.” The party was organised around the idea of the Fuhrerprinzip. This laid down that power was concentrated in the hands of one leader and that his authority was absolute. This gives the impression of a very ordered power structure, but in reality it was more complex. Even before 1933, the Nazi Party leadership, Hitler aside, was undermined by its inability to exert control over the regional Gauleiters, who saw themselves as Hitler’s personal representatives responsible only to him.
Source A is about removing opposition and the use of propaganda to control what the population thought and did this is challenging the question as the consent is not given but actually forced out of the none Arian people of Germany. The source suggests that the Nazis removed the peoples basic rights like freedom of speech because they feared that the people would speak out against the laws that had been created to keep them under control. This is a strong argument against the Germans giving support towards the regime because it suggests that the Germans. Source A also suggests that after the war Germany still wasn’t ready politically so Hitler had an easy task in taking power the
He did not let anything stand in his way; unfortunately, the S.A was in the way. Hitler had many goals for Germany, and was able to succeed but he was only able to do that because he got rid of the S.A. Once he gained absolute power World War 2
However structuralists have argued that mass political movements in Germany were on the rise and did in fact influence politics. The power the Kaiser has was overwhelming because he didnt have to answer to neither the reichstag or the bundesrat, he ultimately has complete utter control over domestic and foreign policy. This would suggest that Wilhelmine Germany was an authoritarian state under the kaisers rule, but many historians such as Wehler suggested his own version of the argument which states that Wilhelmine Germany was in fact shaped by the elites (junkers) and the army which simply controlled the Kaiser from the shadows. In this essay i will discuss these interpretations offering the view that Wilhelmine Germany was an 'authoritarian' state under the rule of elites and ultimately the kaiser. Kaiser Wilhem II was an unpredictable, intelligent man with a poor judgement, hardly the kind of person you would give almost unchallenged political powers.
The Reichstag Fire led to the Enabling Act because Hitler had managed to convince Hindenburg that it was a ‘communists uprising’. This manages Hitler to prove to Germany that communists were bad people and he would have get more votes, in the next elections. However, I also disagree with the statement ‘the Reichstag Fire more important than the Enabling Act in allowing Hitler to consolidate power’ because of other several reasons. Firstly, the Enabling Act made a Hitler a virtual dictator. Nobody could stop him, even Hindenburg.
The Weimar Government, whilst built in opposition to the wartime ideologies, was unable to detach itself from the power of the German military between the years of 1919 and 1934. The Weimar Republic was formed in 1919 after the abdication and exile of Kaiser Wilhelm II left the country leaderless and the Reichstag switched from imperial politics to democratic politics, a form which the German army famously did not support. As such the impact of the German Army upon the Weimar Republic was largely to support their own political – generally right-wing – agendas. This can be directly linked to the interference of military groups and military groups in the political sphere of Weimar Germany. The involvement of the German Army and other military groups in Weimar politics served to strengthen the Republic in the early years but later lead to its downfall.
Wilson stated, “No people must be forced under sovereignty under it does not wish to live. (Wilson, p. 71)” However, for Wilson’s plan to work scores of Germans in Prussia and in the West had to be displaced. Even though some areas were given plebiscites, he still had forced his vision on them. The creation of Yugoslavia out of many small ethnic states created a potential powder keg. As well, the only way that the Wilson plan would have survived the political intrigue of the Europeans was either through a league that had real teeth, or a super power willing to intervene as a worldwide police officer.
The Kaiser of Germany, who was the King of Prussia, could be the main reason why Germany was conceived as an authoritarian monarchy, due to the Kaiser having such a powerful constitutional position that no-one could challenge him. Kaiser Wilhelm II was not elected as Emperor of Germany but was automatically selected which instantly shows signs of an authoritarian state, rather than a democratic one. On top of this Wilhelm II had the power to appoint to and dismiss the Chancellor; which he exercised 5 times including on Bismark (1890) and Bulow (1909) these did show signs of power from the Kaiser but also a weakness in the structure of Germany as the Kaiser was not able to choose a Chancellor that would provide leadership and loyalty to him. The Kaiser was also given the power direct Germany’s foreign policy and command all armed forces in peace and war which does show incredible amounts of dictatorship like qualities. However, it could be argued that because Germany was so widespread with many class divisions it was almost an impossible task for Kaiser Wilhelm to please everyone causing groups like the ‘middelstand’ to join
Adolf Hitler, from Germany, took his chance at creating an empire with his own type of government. He had very anti-Semitic views. He felt the German main race was far superior to others and slowly built up his army. They started to move outside of Germany taking over the surrounding areas. Americans were not too eager to jump into the battle that ensued overseas.
These included the industrialists and the army. Although Nazi Germany has totalitarian features, it may no longer be completely appropriate to see Hitler’s Germany as totalitarian. According to an Historian Nazism is best understood when it is seen as the German example of fascism. Fascism was a movement that rejected the idea of democracy and parliamentary government. It emerged in countries such as Italy and Germany where