The Nazis felt like this political group was trying to undermine their “people’s community”. Hitler made it very clear that he did not want the communists in his people community when he and the Nazi party realised their 25 point programme of 1920.However the Nazis also portrayed the socialist and any other party of which had taken part in coalition governments during the Weimar republic as they collaborated with communism and Jewish democracy. Hitler wanted to introduce the policy of volksgeminschaft in this case because if he could eliminate the communists and the other parties who were associated as collaborating with them, the Nazis could then get their votes as they had a high amount of supporters, which would mean them having the majority and coming into power. Anybody who the Nazis believed that represented a threat to the racial purity of which Hitler wanted would come under the socialism categories. This included, Jews, gypsies and those who were seen as mentally or physically unfit.
‘Nazi consolidation of power in 1933 was primarily due to the use of terror and violence how far do you agree with the judgement?’ To a certain extent the Nazi consolidation of power in 1933 was due to the use of terror and violence. However the terror and violence was very limited this is because they weren’t in a strong enough position to exert terror and violence. However Nazi propaganda against the communists made the Germans despise the Nazis therefore allowing Nazis to consolidate power. On the other hand the Nazi party’s policy of legality and the threat of communism are important in explaining how the Nazis were able to destroy political opposition and become dominant and consolidate power in 1933. Legality was a policy where Hitler’s objective was to legally consolidate power which was suitable and pleased most of the German people.
Many people believe another fault of the League of Nations that contributed to war was; how they appeased Hitler by letting him have Czechoslovakia. They did this because they thought it would reduce chances of war, yet Hitler soon broke the agreement they had made and war started. Although many people would argue that the above cause was the fault of the League of Nations, I disagree because, if Hitler had not been so aggressively demanding, they would not have needed to appease him. However, the League of Nations is not completely without fault, Italy was disappointed by the League of Nations as she was denied territory promised by Britain and France. This lead Mussolini and Italy to join forces with Germany, making them bear resentment and wanting war.
This made people give up hope on the democracy as it was not working and caused people to resort to extremist groups which made the Nazis seem like they were the solution to the problem. This links to Germans viewing the Nazis as an alternative party to support. The rise in unemployment and a renewed fear of communist uprisings gave Hitler’s messages a new importance which increased the support for the Nazis. They had Hitler, someone who could be seen as strong party leader, to be seen as being someone who could prevent a similar crisis from happening again. The Nazi’s had also made promises to solve the problems and promised most groups in Germany what they wanted such as being promised jobs, employers having restored profits, farmers higher prices and shopkeepers protection against competition.
The fact that Germany was an autocracy, meaning they were ruled by one single leader, meant that decisions were only made by the Kaiser and this was due to the fact that the Kaiser had the power to override the decisions of the Reichstag. This caused a massive rift in the political system, as with the Kaiser being the main figure of power the Reichstag feared opposing the Kaiser in fear of being tarnished unpatriotic and so as a result would often support the decisions of the Kaiser, even if in their heart of hearts they disagreed with the decision made. A prime example of Kaiser dominance can be found during the Zabern Affair, when a German army officer offended the locals of Zabern and even went as far to assault an old, crippled man, this sparked an uproar in Zabern to which the Kaiser did not even react to and instead passed off the
However, ironically, the rare ones who spoke honestly were put to death. In the Brave New World, the government also strategically uses this fear to elevate their control. People of the Worldstate do not fear things we tend to fear such as death or unemployment, instead, they fear isolation. Those who are considered a threat to the “stability” of the society are isolated as a consequence, the example being Bernard. The Salem citizens and the Worldstate citizens, in a way, are similar to the Germans of the 1935.
Assess the view that the most important element in maintaining Hitler’s regime in power between 1933 and 1945 was the consent of the German people. Interpretation D and to some extent A argue that the German people supported the regime while B and C suggest that other factors such as repression, propaganda and economic conditions played a vital role in Hitler’s maintenance of power. The German nation as pointed out in source A (“A”) had a “long tradition of obedience to authority” so we can assume that the circumstances that were created in the 1920-1930s led to the willing establishment of a new regime. This is supported by the argument that the people gave their vote to Hitler and his followers repeatedly, as argued by Flenly in “A.” Historical evidence has shown us that Hitler gained support even from Germans living outside Germany. His occupation of Austria was an outstanding achievement as Austria welcomed their German neighbors and 200,000 Austrians gathered to welcome Hitler and hear his speech.
In addition, while the SPD would retain power through much of the Weimar period, the division of the two "working class " parties divided their influence and made it easier for the Nazis to claim that the democratic system was unworkable while dividing the votes of the two leftist parties making it easier for Hitler to take power. Another way the Weimar republic was threatened by political extremists is by the right wing terrorists and the Kapp-Putsch incident. The Kapp-Putsch occured when two Freikorps (mercenaries) refused to disband, as required by the Treaty of Versailles. This group consisted of members of the paramilitary Freikorps and had the support of many army officers. Kapp was a right
The most popular methods were propaganda and some forceful coercion and many historians see these as the most significant factor with Hans Rothfels stating “hundreds of thousands were defenceless and without legal remedy” suggesting that many Germans had succumbed to the regime purely down to fear and not due to them believing in the viscous Nazi policies, other historians justify this view such as Hinton and Hite they argue that “the night of long knives showed how brute force was used to maintain power by eliminating the potential threat of the SA leaders" this is pointing to that if a threat was seen it was eliminated before it could grow and challenge the regime which is showing how effective coercion and force can be in maintaining power. But on the flip side of the argument historians such as Ralph Fleny state that consent was the major element in the maintenance of power as they were giving the regime “vote after vote of overwhelming confidence” and also down to tradition through the previous authoritarian state so they were seen as “meek before authority”, the latter statement here is inferring that the German public seen the authoritarian way of life as more beneficial due to the failings of the war, being blamed on the Weimar republic and this shown democracy in a bad light and less favourable, because when under control by the emperor Germany was very
However, was this new constitution bound to fail as it had been born from the humiliating defeat of the war? Previously Germany had been extremely authoritarian dominated and were therefore not suited to this to the new democratic constitution which was another aspect to its weakened prospects. The new constitution itself posed certain problems such as continued political uncertainty and instability. Moreover, did the limited nature of the German revolution cause political problems for the government and damage the new democracy. The first key issue I would like to discuss is the limited nature of the German revolution and how this damaged the prospects of German democracy.