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.
Moderate reform played a small part in keeping power in the hands of the Kaiser but its limited scope together with the lack of any real success show that it may have been other factors that kept power in the hands of the Kaiser. This is clearly shown in the lack of substance inherent in Bulow’s and Hollweg’s reforms to placate the socialists together with the failure of Hollweg’s reforms to reform the constitution. On the surface it would appear that Bulow’s reforms to solve the socialist threat show that it was actually reform that maintained power in the hands of the Kaiser, these include the laws to extend accident insurance, to give longer and more generous hours to workers in poor health and those to reduce the amount of factory work. In actual fact, the introduction of a tariff law in
Tom Andrews ‘The political establishment in Germany succeeded in maintaining the political status quo through a policy of moderate reform.’ How far do you agree with this judgement? The political establishment in Germany succeeded in maintaining the political status quo through a series of moderate reform to a … extent however there were other factors which allowed the political establishment to be maintained, such as the safeguards within the constitution, the voting system and the adventurous foreign policy. In order to answer this question, one must understand that the ‘political establishment’ during this period was the overruling power of the Kaiser and the individual power of the Chancellor and the Army who were directly responsible to the Kaiser, with all major powerbases dominated by Prussians and the wealthier classes and also the hierarchy within Germany with workers at the bottom and the Junkers, Army, Chancellor and Kaiser above them. Therefore ‘maintaining the political status quo’ suggests that the current political establishment did not differ substantially from the system formed during the unification of Germany in 1871 and any ‘moderate reform’ should not unbalance this. This is supported because during this period there were limited reforms which had any dramatic change on the political establishment.
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.
Whereas what works best for the German culture is a multi party dual executive form of government where a majority of the power is located in the chancellor and the other branches are not quite as important but still serve their rolls to help the government to move forward. Ultimately, the distinguishing features of the two governments may seem small but they are actually quite significant and are the result of the two nations drastic difference in the way their relative histories progressed. The American presidential system is the result of the breaking away from the Great Britain; and the German presidential system is a direct result of the fall of Hitlers Nazi Germany. Both forms of democracy rose as a solution to tyranny and oppression and consequently produced two of the worlds front running
To what extent was Germany a totalitarian state between 1933 and 1939? The Nazi state possessed elements of totalitarian power; however, it lacked dominance in Germany and was therefore not a totalitarian state. Totalitarianism refers to a system of government whose power is determined by terror and force over their state, and who controls all social, economic and political aspects of the state. Whilst the Nazi regime reflects some aspects of totalitarianism through its control over the media and the single party state, the Nazi state required the support of the German population to maintain its power. This highlights that the population was not terrorised into supporting the regime, but persuaded through manipulation by the Nazi government.
In a political sense, it ‘got his foot in the door’, so to speak. It came about largely due to problems with Weimar democracy and weak decisions; there were serious miscalculations in the appointment of Hitler. Many of the elite, particularly Papen, became intrigued and willing to co-operate with Hitler (even settle for a Hitler government), as they wanted his huge support base to further their own power ambitions and counter the rise of communism. He had the support required to solve Germany’s parliamentary crisis, and crucially he had the reluctant backing of Hindenburg, a nationalistic president who also feared a Bolshevik revolution and believed the Nazis could protect Germany from this. Despite the efforts of many to encourage Hitler’s appointment, there was no intention of forming a permanent leadership with him; the elite groups around Hindenburg planned to use Hitler to gain his support base, then abandon him when he was no longer needed.
Assess the effectiveness of the Nazi party in creating changes in German society in the period 1933 -1939. The Nazi party was considerably effective in creating change in German society over the period of 1933-1939, by effectively rebuilding social opinions and creating Volksgmeinschaft within German society. The role of Hitler in creating this state is largely authoritative, with his ministers and lower officials each desired to link their ideals with the ideology in Mein Kumf, thereby constructing the basis of Germany law, and resulting in a state being allied with totalitarianism. Essential to this was the indoctrination of the younger generation, hence the establishment of youth groups, which were aimed to hold conformity and remove individualism. Women were encouraged bear children and spend their lives in devotion to “Kinder, Kuche and Kirche”.
One of the ways how Stalin defeated the left side of the party was to make an alliance with Bukharin. This ended with Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev losing their power bases. This gave Stalin a lot more power and meant there was no real threat left. I know from my own knowledge that Trotsky formed the alliance with Zinoviev and Kamenev because Stalin was a big threat. Stalin was more popular because of Trotsky’s “political paralysis” he couldn’t be a good public speaker.
1. Explain the origins of the Cold War. The United States and the Soviet Union were uneasy allies; their collaboration was really the result of a mutual fear that the Nazis would gain control over Europe, not based on any ideological commonality. Because of this, after the war was over and the restructuring of Europe began, a power struggle developed between the Soviet Union (who wanted Germany to be Communist) and the United States and Britain (who wanted democratic rule.) However, you shouldn't make the assumption that devotion to ideology was all that was behind Cold War animosity; countries tend to be more complaint trading partners with countries that share their political systems and both Stalin and the Cold War Era presidents in the US knew this.