The Nazi state idolized Hitler, centralising all powers in his hands. Propaganda was used to propagate the regime, however; much of it was based on Hitler himself, being quite effective in creating what historians called the ‘Hitler Myth’. With Hitler being a controversial character, most historians have come to believe that the Fuhrer of Nazi Germany was not a strong dictator at all but a weak one. Although this is not the case for all historians, with some believing Hitler was at the centre of the regime. Without Hitler’s massive personal popularity, the high level of ‘plebiscitary acclamation which the regime could repeatedly call upon’ (Kershaw), would have been unattainable.
Everything in history could have been different if the treaty of Versailles was different and Germany was not in despair and desperate for a proper leader. Hitler satisfies every criteria of a Great Man by Thomas Carlyle. Though the two key elements that stand out the greatest is, his personality and the circumstances that led him to extreme powers. Hitler was surely no good man though he was definitely a great man. Adolf Hitler had such a way with words that it gave hope to millions of Germans and led them to a belief in a new national, strong Germany.
Therefore by having Rohm killed in the Night of Long Knives, Hitler gained the support of the army as the army had gotten what they wanted. The support of the army helped cement Hitlers political power. By eliminating certain people Hitler could gain safety as some posed a threat to his life. Without Hitler of course the development of the Nazi state may well have ceased so it was important to eliminate threats. Not only did Rohm cause problems for Hitler in ganing the support of the army, he also was a threat to Hitlers life.
They were borne out of dismay at the defeat in World War One. They were opposed to the Treaty of Versailles and Communism. It was this party that Hitler joined initially as a spy. However, Hitler took an immediate shine to the founder of the D.A.P, Anton Drexler and his anti-Semitic, nationalist, anti-capitalist and anti-Marxist ideas. Hitler soon became one of the leading lights of the party, his inspiring enthusiasm for the cause propelling him to the leadership of the small party very quickly.
The Treaty of Versailles created an underlying bitterness , the Germans believe that they don’t deserve such the blame of war, even some believe they still have the power to fight back and win again. This created deep irritation about the First World War. In such desperate circumstance, people demand changes and a leader who can get them though the hardness, and to which Hitler’s viciousness and expansionism appealed, so they gave him support. Also, After the Wall Street Crash of 1929, unemployment grew, people are poor and starving on street, In the crisis, people wanted someone to blame, and looked to extreme solutions – Hitler offered them scapegoat(Jews and November criminals) Secondly, Hitler was an outspoken politician and passionate speaker, which had undoubted ability for public speaking and an understanding of ordinary peoples desires and capture voters and supporters. Hitler’s “political genius” also help him also in his rise of power.
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.
To what extent were the dictators Hitler and Mussolini responsible for the outbreak of WW2 in Europe Dictators Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini are largely responsible for the outbreak of WW2. This is due to the aggressive and dangerous foreign policies. It aggravated tensions between European powers and the Western Allies. Even though these two dictators played a major role in the outbreak of war, the little resistance from the Allies gave the dictators breathing room to enforce such heavy foreign policies and ultimately create fear and tensions between nations. Other influences include the League of Nations which failed the principle of collective security and the enforcements of demilitarisation.
Compare and contrast the aims, methods and success of the use of propaganda in two single party states. Essentially, both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler had the same fanatic desire to make their nations “Great” and gain considerable respect worldwide which would be determined by their economic might. Both leaders used various means of propaganda to achieve their ultimate aims. To what extend they were successful, however, is a debatable issue. Hitler could not achieve the solid control over the masses which he had, if he did not have the help of the so called powerful propaganda machine.
This is one of the reasons he was so successful in building such a loyal following in Germany. Hitler was charming and a great public speaker, but he was still a ruthless leader whose cruelty helped him maintain order. Machiavelli stated in the prince that a good leader will "find a greater security in being feared than in being loved," Machiavelli also described the different types of troops a prince can have. There are mercenaries, men who fight for money, auxiliary troops, men borrowed from another country, and native troops, a rulers own troops. Hitler did not use mercenaries, auxiliary troops or an army that combined all three types.
Source W suggests that Bethmann was a ‘sensitive, passive and Fatalistic man’ these claims further support the idea that Germany was dragged in to these political time bombs because of some in capabilities. Source W is clearly seen to be Intentionalist source where it’s referring Bethmann-Holwegg and his weaknesses. It’s evident that Germany was sort of dragged into these conflicts because of their commitments. The foreign policy they were following certainly did not help when it came to conflicts. Source W also tells us ‘German actions going back to the 1890s had done so much to create international tension’ further blaming German foreign policy for being the cause of the war.