However, this was not manifested in reality, in which Hitler maintained power through his Kommandogewalt and appeal to the German public. This is highlighted in Kershaw’s statement that Hitler’s “power was charismatic, not institutional”. Hitler’s self-appointed omnipotence was only feasible due to his popular support from the German Volk and not any leadership structure. Hitler’s capacity to control a totalitarian state was also undermined by the nature of his rise to power. The Hitler Myth, which depicts Hitler as Germany’s saviour from the “ruin” following World War 1 and the Treaty of Versailles, undermined his ability to lead the Nazi state through means of violence and terror because his power
Despite these threats ultimate power remained in the hands of the Kaiser in 1914. Some would argue that this retention of power was a result of the moderate reform put in place in order to placate the parties in the government enough that they would not challenge the status quo. It cannot be denied that a small amount of moderate reform played a small role, there is evidence to suggest that other factors played a larger, more important role. The sense of nationalism and patriotism that gripped the country at the time as well as the disunity of the political parties meant that there was never any real threat to the Kaiser and his autocratic rule. 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.
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 did succeed in maintaining its power through a policy of moderate reform; however, it can also be argued that this was also achieved by using extreme reforms as well for instance the suppression of the SPD. The moderate reforms gave a small power to the Reichstag which looked great but as a whole it was completely useless in the part of the Reichstag because of the Kaiser’s power to easily dissolve it. Bismarck who recognised the appeal to Germany's growing working classes, initiated a "carrot and stick" approach of simultaneous repression and an overt effort to acquire popular support.
Von Papen therefore offered to bring Hitler into his new government by giving him the Vice-Chancellorship. However, Hitler was not tempted and reiterated his desire for the Chancellorship, and would accept nothing less as his aim was complete power, not the sharing of power. When Von Papen put these demands to
Once Hitler had passed the enabling act, he then introduced new laws to consolidate his power. He created a law against the establishment of new parties which effectively made Germany a one party state and a dictatorship. This shows that Hitler now had massive power in Germany. Hitler and the Nazis did consolidate their grip on power very successfully through the changing in law and constitution because he now has absolute power due to the passing of the enabling act and he could make any laws he wanted to suit him and give him more
His major problem was that he tried to stand above politics and rally support from issue to issue in the Reichstag. He wanted the members of the Reichstag to act more selflessly and although this seems admirable, it did not work. Political parties put their own interests ahead of national interests, particularly the Conservatives. The first problem faced by the government under Caprivi was the tariff policy. Ever since 1879, Germany had upheld a policy of protection for both agriculture and industry.
Hindenburg couldn't oppose against the public's choice otherwise he would be going against the democratic ‘Weimar republic’ regulation of including the people’s views. Overall, Hitler’s popularity with the nation was one of the main reasons why he was appointed as chancellor. He promised things to a variation of people that not many other politicians had offered. Secondly, because of the propaganda that was responsible for the change of peoples view's of the
The Liberals were not very big supporters of the Monarch and wanted the Monarchy out of the political area and it just to be solely the government. The Liberals wanted reform, especially the Radicals. If you compare this to the beliefs of the Conservative party who generally believed in One-nation Conservatism/Toryism. This phrase came to light by the Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, His conservatism had proposed a society with the social classes intact but with the working class receiving support from the government. Disraeli emphasised the importance of social obligation rather than
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.
It can be argued that the ’Weimar Republic’ , the outcome of the revolution was a facade of the old authoritarian regime, carrying out change under false pretences of a democratic institution, with the Right Wing Conservatives still in control. This essay will look at the revolutionary movement and to what prevail they fought their battle for a more democratic Germany. Some would dismiss M.Hughes claim as they believe the German revolution ultimately resulted in a shift of power. The years of Autocracy were over and the dynasty of Kaisers would no longer be at the head of German politics. William Carr states ‘ A revolutionary situation did exist in 1918 as long as the people were no longer prepared to obey the old rulers’ This highlights the disruption amongst the people, an awareness that there was a shift of power but whether this new awareness constitutes a revolution can be questioned.