QUESTION: How far was Hitler responsible for the triumph of the Nazis in coming to power in January 1933?


The 23rd of March 1933, and the Reichstag was on the verge of passing the Enabling Act, which would effectively surrender its political powers to the Nazi dominated cabinet and Hitler. The Centre Party and National People’s party capitulated, voting for the bill and thereby destroying the Weimar republic. The eighty-one Communist deputies were ‘absent’, on account of being imprisoned, assassinated, forced into hiding or exiled. Some of the Socialists had been taken into ‘protective custody’, but there were enough present to make the bill legal by the constitution, and not enough to oppose it effectively. Nevertheless the Socialists, who had been responsible in many ways for the collapse of the Weimar Republic, made a final gesture of defiance:
“We German Socialists pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No enabling act can give you the power to destroy such ideas which are eternal and indestructible” .

However well put this speech was, it did not fully represent the standpoint of the SPD (alias Socialists or Social Democrats), who had been the initiators of the doomed Weimar Republic. They had been ruthlessly suppressed before World War One, even though they were mostly benign trade-unionists. They were the main writers of the constitution, and they refused to side either with the pre-war Aristocracy or the radical revolutionaries. There position was strictly moderate, and they did little to change the traditional structure of Germany, except allow unions and increase spending on public services. Its failure to unite with either the far left or the other central parties made its resistance to the enabling Act academic.
The Communists or KPD had boycotted the first election, protesting that the general disorder after the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm had not turned into a German Soviet Revolution. It was very much an instrument of the Soviet Union and Stalin, with its significant paramilitary organisation das Rotfront (the Red Front). It, like the Nazi Party, lost out whenever there was economic prosperity, and gained when there was not. Its leaders were unable to oppose the enabling act because they had all been arrested.

The only other significant party of the left was the anarchist Independent Socialist Party, or USPD. It was originally the radical wing of the Socialist SPD, but it broke away and aided the Spartacist revolts in Berlin. Despite this, they chose to participate in the elections gaining eighty-four seats at their zenith in June 1920. They became a political obscurity after failing to get the 60,000 votes required for a single seat in the next election, probably losing votes to the Communists.
The Catholic Centre Party or ZPD was the backbone of most of the coalition governments, and being religiously orientated it maintained its support well. Although it never polled more than a fifth of the vote, it exerted an influence beyond its size on its coalition partners. This was because it was usually the only party reconcilable with the party that happened to be largest in the Reichstag, central as it was. It demanded equivocation in the enabling act and never received it, but proceeded to vote for it anyway.

The liberal Democratic Party or DDP was mostly a representative of big business. Although they were in favour of Democracy (insofar as it protected Capitalism from Communism and the greed of the Monarchs) they were not particularly impressed with the instability of the Weimar Republic. Its main desire was to have a system whereby a strong leader could maintain power for a number of years, and in its desperation it was prepared to sacrifice Democracy for this, which is why it eventually voted for the Enabling Act.
The conservative DVP occupied much the same position as the DDP, except that its leaders tended to advocate economic growth rather than protecting the free movement of capital. Perhaps it thought that economic stability was proving unattainable under democracy, but at any rate, the few representatives it had left voted for the Enabling Act.

The DNVP or Nationalist Party was little more than a democratic façade for an organisation which wished to restore the monarchy, and do away with the Constitution. It had no time for those who respected the rights of the poorer citizens or those who wished for progressive change, and it even looked down its nose at Hitler as an upstart when he first arose. However, it voted for his Enabling act to permanently abolish the constitution, and because it believed that it could use Hitler for its own purposes. It was proved wrong when Hitler purged the army and other institutions of conservatives and replaced them with fascists, or simply gave orders directly.
It could be asked what Hitler had that others did not. Even the SA and SS were not particularly remarkable, because most of the major parties had paramilitaries, even the moderate SPD. Nor were the other parties bereft of shrewd politicians, a good example being Gustav Streseman of the DVP. Hitler gives a clue to his own magnetism, saying that change could be brought about “…by the firebrand of the word hurled among the masses” . Joseph Göbbels expressed a similar sentiment in 1922: “Like a rising star you appeared before our wondering eyes… For the first time we saw with our shining eyes a man who tore the masks from the faces distorted by greed… of mediocre parliamentary busybodies… What you say are the greatest words in Germany since Bismarck” . These statements suggest that Hitler’s defining feature was his great oratory. Therefore, the final act of eloquence from the SPD is the key to Hitler’s success, even though he himself did not say it. It simply was too late to prevent him with public speaking, and before this point there had been no match for his oratorical abilities. This deficiency of orators in the other parties coupled with Hitler’s genius was a significant factor in the Fascist success.

Other Parties were almost entirely devoid of any good orators, particularly the parties of the right such as the DNVP, something which Hitler noticed in Austria. In fact, talking about Austria in Mein Kampf, Hitler commented on the contrast between the Christian Social and the Social Democrat parties of the left, and the Pan-German National Party of the right. The dilemma Hitler faced was that, while he agreed with the ideology of the Pan-German National Party, he admired the tactics and successful campaigning of the leftist parties, particularly the Social Democrats.
He looked at the Social Democrats’ propaganda and parades, and decided that their success was due to their “physical and spiritual terror”. The “spiritual” terror it used was the unleashing of “lies and slanders against whatever enemy seems most dangerous” . The physical terror is the mass celebration when an enemy is defeated, a sense of “triumph of the justice of their own cause” which prevents further resistance. Hitler misunderstood the tactics of the Social Democrats, because he thought that the leaders of it were pursuing a different agenda to the one they claimed, and that the masses were a means to an end, but he certainly used the tactic as he saw it.

Hitler was to learn another important lesson, this time from the Christian Socialist Party and its leader Mayor Karl Lüger, the Bürgomeister of Vienna. There was little resemblance between the two politicians, but they shared the ability to use political ideas as means for an end. For example, Lüger was perfectly aware that anti-Semitism was a significant political movement in Austria, although he was not an anti-Semite himself. So he decided to appear anti-Semitic in his speeches, so that he could introduce socialistic programs and outmanoeuvre the right wing. Hitler realised the value of Lüger’s approach, and used it for reasons exactly opposite to the Viennese mayor.
Hitler saw what he thought were the deficiencies of the three major Austrian parties (Social Democrat, Christian Socialist and Pan-German). He then amalgamated the Socialism and Machiavellian tactics of Karl Lüger, the workers’ support of the Social Democrats, and the Nationalism of the Pan-German National Party. Possibly, this is what led him to name his new Party NSDAP or Nationalsozialistische Deustche Arbeiter Partei. This translates as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, or to give it its common name, the Nazi Party. Hitler’s observations in Vienna led to the creation of German Fascism, and the unification of all these methods and ideologies created an almost invincible party machine.

As well as the party’s (professed) ideology, which was a potent mixture of Nationalism and Socialism; its propaganda, a combination of Revolution and Reaction; its methods, terrorizing political opponents and using leftwing slogans as tools; there was the organisation of the Party itself. On his new state in Mein Kampf, Hitler had said
‘There must be no majority decisions, only responsible persons’. This Führerprinzip was echoed in the structure of the Party, for Hitler, and no-one else, was responsible for making policy decisions. Other parties were ill-disciplined and partisan, but the Nazi Party was united behind its Führer. It had a band of bruisers, the SA, and a bodyguard regiment, the SS. However, as has already been mentioned, almost every party had a paramilitary subdivision. Also, the Communists had a similar party discipline, except that it followed Stalin rather than Hitler. This party discipline, undoubtedly important, can nevertheless not be the main factor in their coming to power.

Although the Nazis and Communists were increasing their vote percentage by 1930, most of the major moderate political parties had dwindled into stagnation. The Socialist SDP had dwindled from 37% of the vote in 1919 to 24% in 1930; a loss of over a third of the 1919 election percentages. The DDP or democrats dropped from 18% in 1919 to 3% in 1930; a sixth of its original value. The DVP had peaked in June 1920, with 13.9%, but their support was steadily eroded to 4.5% in 1930. However, the ZDP or Centre Party maintained its support rather better from the Catholics. It had 13.6% in 1920 and 11.9% in 1930 . All moderate parties had the crippling weakness of being associated with the Treaty of Versailles, particularly the Socialists. With the exception of the ZPD, they all steadily suffered the consequences, a significant factor in the rise of the Fascists.
The Treaty of Versailles was a barely disguised act of revenge from the western powers for the First World War, mostly France. Germany was forbidden to unite with Austria or to put troops in the Rhineland. The land between East Prussia and the rest of Germany was made into a ‘Polish corridor’. Danzig was made a ‘free city’, administered by the League of Nations. Germany was to pay 6,600,000,000 marks in reparations and its army was reduced to 100,000 troops, its navy to 6 battleships and to eliminate its air force, but the most bitter pill was article 231. This was the War Guilt Clause: “…total responsibility for the war is accepted by Germany and her allies”. Since it was not even Germany who started the war, this was easily manipulated by Hitler.

All the far right parties, including the NSDAP, were not associated with the treaty of Versailles because they did not support the constitution. However, even when they were not allied with the Nazis like the DNVP were, they lacked the mass support to be serious rivals, for example the Agrarian League.
The DNVP had allied with Hitler, and its short-sightedness in this respect contributed to the success of Fascism. Even when the DNVP was not allied with Hitler, it was not a serious threat to his voting base. The DNVP drew its support from the huge landowners, who wished to see an end to Democracy in Germany, and it offered little temptation to middle or lower class voters, unlike the NSDAP.
On the other hand, the SPD had to fight hard against the KPD (and for a time the USPD) for the leftwing elements of the lower-middle class and the workers’ votes. They lacked appeal to youth which was a significant problem to the well-being of the Party. The USPD and KPD were unsuccessful in taking over the country, because they played down or even opposed the powerful campaigning tool of Nationalism, conforming as they did to Marxism. This would not usually have mattered, but because of it the Fascists were able to capitalise on the under-explored area of the nationalist parts of the working class, such as the rural labourers.
The DVP and DDP represented big business and the upper-middle class, so were easily demonised by their opponents. The shopkeepers and petty-bourgeoisie were not attracted by their laissez-faire approach to business, because it resulted in huge companies dominating the markets. There was consequently no rival for the NSDAP in obtaining the rightwing of the lower-middle class vote and the Nationalist agricultural workers, which it did by promising to break up large department stores and thereby aiding smaller shopkeepers, and by emphasising the importance of agriculture. Without any dangerous rivals in its political niche, the Nazi Party gained enough support to secure a workable coalition with the DNVP.

The system of proportional representation stipulated in the Weimar Constitution allowed any party with 60,000 votes to elect a ‘deputy’ to the German Reichstag, This resulted in an abundance of small parties and coalitions, and absolutely no majorities for any one party. The Constitution was written largely under the influence of the SPD, who were unwilling to abolish every last vestige of pre-Weimar federalism, such as the huge agricultural estates in the east of Germany. Proportional representation was only one example of the weakness of the Weimar Constitution, which somehow managed to be too democratic and not democratic enough at once. For an over-democratic example, all states were left virtually to mind their own affairs, as in Articles 12 and 14. However, Article 48 was extremely under-democratic, because it allowed the president to suspend the constitution and introduce martial law. The Weimar Constitution was thus flexible enough so that Hitler was able to grasp power after 1933.

Aside from the workings of the government and parties themselves, there were roots in German culture and history that aided Hitler to become the leader of Germany. The term Dolchschloss was derived from a famous German play, the Niebelungenlied, where the stereotypically German Siegfried was stabbed in the back. After the Peace of Westphalia there grew a tradition of blind acceptance of the master’s will, which Hitler capitalised on in his Führerprinzip. Bismarck’s method of conquering the rest of Germany, using ‘blood and iron’, was reflected in Hitler’s statement: “What [land] is refused to amicable methods, it is up to the fist to take” . But most importantly, the German people had accepted, since the social reforms of Otto von Bismarck, a trade-off between economic stability and political freedom.

Hitler’s success was partly due to his charisma. However, had he been ranged against the likes of Karl Lüger or any other brilliant orator, this would not have been as significant. Likewise, his Fascist party machinery was not the most important reason for coming to power, because it was nullified and nullified that of the communists. If the Fascists had been the only ones who had this organisation, then they would have been able to use violent revolution against the Weimar republic. The main reason that the Nazis came to power was that it was the only party that was able to combine the support of the workers with a raucous Nationalism, while at the same time defying Marxism to gain the support of businesses and the old guard officials in government. Therefore, Hitler was not supported by virtue of his own ideology or abilities. It would have been possible for others to do what Hitler did, considering the circumstances, because his strength lay in capitalising upon the weakness of his enemies. For example, if the Weimar constitution had allowed a more stable form of government, where small parties found it difficult to be elected, Hitler would never have gained a foothold. Oswald Mosley proves this, because although he was a great orator; the lack of a communist threat, anti-Semitic tradition, or disillusionment with democracy prevented him from coming to power. In a nutshell, Hitler was responsible for creating Nazism, the German variety of Fascism but he was not solely accountable for its success. Despite his genius of public speaking, he would never have gained power if it were not for the weakness of the other parties, the need for economic stability over political freedom, and most especially the cruelty of the Versailles treaty and the weakness of the Weimar constitution.

I think that Hitler was a brilliant politician and public speaker. Once he gained power he let his power go to his head. He let his predjudices and insane theories get in the way of ration and that is why he ended up loosing the war.

If Hitler could have dealt with the people of the occupied nations with more tact and humanity then he may have won the war.

Well, in my lifetime I can only speak of what I know of West Germany which is similiar in some repects to the former regionalistic political tendencies in the U.S., the southern part being essientially Catholic, the center industrialized, and the northern part rural.
My parents both came from large familys, my mother German, my father the son of Hungarian immigrants. Both sides fought against each other in the war and the only death I am aware of was one of my mothers brothers who died on the Bismark. Guess what I want to say is NEVER did Hitler ever come up in a conversation during the years I spent with either family growing up.
Hitler produced. He fulfilled the promises of his oratorys. Have you ever been to Nurenburg and checked out the stadium? Reminds one of Rome. And that is what Hitler truly did for the Germans..he gave them back an identity...and took advantage of it. Like every political leader does. I still wonder to this day what Germans REALLY think about Hitler...you know, the guy on the street, not the socialist one step from communisim. I should have asked. Power corrupts. Hitler was a perfect example.

Originally posted by RedLine99
I still wonder to this day what Germans REALLY think about Hitler...you know, the guy on the street, not the socialist one step from communisim.

What do you mean? Are you suggesting that my essay is invalid because I'm a socialist? Or the material I've used? Or am I completely misunderstanding

Originally posted by RedLine99
I should have asked. Power corrupts. Hitler was a perfect example.

DO you mean that Hitler was a sincere politician, who went barmy? I would have to disagree. Hitler claimed to want to conquer Russia, and France, and destroy the Jews, not mention persecute conservatives liberals and socialists as early as 1924.

Sorry...sometimes when I read posts I get sidetracked with personal thoughts:)

I thought you made an interesting presentation with regards to the transition of politics in Germany during that period. I learned alot.

No, I don't believe Hitler was a GOOD guy that went bad. I can see no way to excuse his direction or actions, but I can understand his success...if that makes any sense. Your essay explained to me how he managed this politically...well, "legitimatley"? Kinda like Saddam.

As to socialism, I believe the your intent was to show that the Nazis really weren't..even though it was in their name.

Originally posted by Criminal
I think that Hitler was a brilliant politician and public speaker. Once he gained power he let his power go to his head. He let his predjudices and insane theories get in the way of ration and that is why he ended up loosing the war.

So YOU think that he was a good guy who went barmy. I personally think that his ideas were always in force, certainly after he wrote Mein Kampf. I do agree however that he was a genius of oratry, diplomacy and military tactics. But he couldn't bear defeat or delay. That brought his downfall.

Originally posted by Criminal
If Hitler could have dealt with the people of the occupied nations with more tact and humanity then he may have won the war.
I eastern or Western Europe? Well, France and Britain were never going to take it lying down, because they felt hitler dragged them into the dirt. The contsituent parts of the USSR were another matter. If he had made them his allies instead of his slaves, he would have had an empire from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains..... and possibly more.

Originally posted by RedLine99
Sorry...sometimes when I read posts I get sidetracked with personal thoughts:)
I was probably being a little paranoid.

Originally posted by RedLine99
I thought you made an interesting presentation with regards to the transition of politics in Germany during that period. I learned alot.
Thankyou, I'm glad.

Originally posted by RedLine99
No, I don't believe Hitler was a GOOD guy that went bad. I can see no way to excuse his direction or actions, but I can understand his success...if that makes any sense. Your essay explained to me how he managed this politically...well, "legitimatley"? Kinda like Saddam.
You mean his intellectual success rather than his moral one? I see what you mean. His coming to power is often called a "legal revolution".

Originally posted by RedLine99
As to socialism, I believe the your intent was to show that the Nazis really weren't..even though it was in their name. Yeah, I hate to discuss the topic sometimes. So many have usurped the name of Socialism for their own ends that it becomes trite and cliched to say "that's not real socialism".

Originally posted by Cynic
I do agree however that he was a genius of oratry, diplomacy and military tactics. But he couldn't bear defeat or delay. That brought his downfall.

Actually, Hitler knew next to nothing about military tactics, timetables, or logistics. The Bavarian Corporal was just that... a Corporal, and not a very good one at that; if we are to believe his military records. If not for men like Erwin Rommel, who WAS a brilliant tactician, or Generalleutnant The Baron Von Wachstein, who was a Logistician's dream, Hitler likely would have never even conquered Poland, let alone half the hemisphere.

An opportunistic politician? I'll buy that, within reason. But; even in Germany, if not for the "education" of the youth, and Gestapo tactics IN the fatherland, Hitler likely wouldn't have controlled Germany more than 5 years. Able administrator? That I will agree with. Hitler knew how to find peoples' strengths, and put them to use. He also was adept at manipulating people with power and or money, and the less mentally alert. Spoiled Brat? That one I can really agree with, because he had no patience at all... Wars are not won overnight, and the only way to hold conquered territory is to occupy it. At the rate he was pushing, he rapidly exceeded the capabilities of his military machine. Had he taken the time to consolidate, and convert the people of the countries he was overthrowing, he may have built an empire a million times larger than that of Rome.

IMHO, the reason that Hitler had as much success as he did, was just this one thing: The world's political powers were so busy vacillating, that he ran roughshod over half of them before they could make up their minds.

QH: I wasundser the impression that Hitler had invented the BlitzKrieg etc.

One techique Hitler used to manipulate Germans was indoctrinating youth, massive lying and using the SS to fabricate outside threats against the German people. The Reichstag fire, fake attacks by Poland reported actually perpetrated by the SS, lies that Poland are sabatoging everything and the lie that Poland refused a peaceful settlment in late 1939 were some of the early fraudulent activity.

He was not the first or last politican to manipulate people in such a manner.

Originally posted by Cynic
QH: I wasundser the impression that Hitler had invented the BlitzKrieg etc.

Although given personal credit for it, it was actually the brainchild of Erwin Rommel, modified form the earliest cavalry tactics of Speed, Shock, and Power. These are still the preferred tactics of even our own military. The earliest KNOWN examples of these tactics can be found in The Art of War (sp)Tsun Tzu(sp) used by the earliest heavy cavalry, and by the Romans in their conquest of Europe. (I think) I am far from a military historian, I am merely a lay person with an avid interest.

thanks for the info QtrsHm.

My knowledge of histroy is mostly political, as you can see.

Originally posted by Cynic


So YOU think that he was a good guy who went barmy. I personally think that his ideas were always in force, certainly after he wrote Mein Kampf. I do agree however that he was a genius of oratry, diplomacy and military tactics. But he couldn't bear defeat or delay. That brought his downfall.


I eastern or Western Europe? Well, France and Britain were never going to take it lying down, because they felt hitler dragged them into the dirt. The contsituent parts of the USSR were another matter. If he had made them his allies instead of his slaves, he would have had an empire from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains..... and possibly more. I would never say that Hitler was anything other than a lunatic. I do think there was a method to his madness however.

I would agree with the second statement. The fact that thousands of Russians volunteered to serve in Hitlers armed forces gives evidence to how popular Stalin really was. The invasion of Russia was met with much support among common people. The problem was that Hitler and his people had no desire to win the hearts and minds of the Soviet people.

What about economically?

what's ur question exactly corporate avenger?

Was Hitler the sole source of success for the Third Reich?

Of course not.

I agree, but that's a rather crap essay unx!