• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How far do you agree that Hitler became Chancellor primarily due to political intrigue?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How far do you agree that Hitler became Chancellor primarily due to political intrigue? The Nazi party was the largest political party in the Reichstag after the July 1932 elections; their influence and foothold in Germany could not go unnoticed. Hitler was an excellent public speaker who was able to influence those he wanted to, and Nazi party member Goebbels was running a massive propaganda campaign to increase Hitler's popularity further. But, August-December 1932 was a difficult period for the Hitler's Nazi party - more radical members were becoming restless as although their party was popular throughout Germany and Hitler looked certain to be the next Chancellor, they did not have the majority vote yet and legally there was no clear path into the German government, especially as the current president did not trust him. At the time, Germany was led by President Hindenburg. The President was elderly and relied on his aides and colleagues, Chancellor Von Papen and General Schleicher, to guide him in difficult political decisions. ...read more.

Middle

Hindenburg eventually conceded that Schleicher had failed and on the advice of Von Papen, Hitler should be appointed chancellor in a Nazi-conservative coalition government. From this we can see that Von Papen's actions in trying to get back at Schleicher for his apparent treachery led to Hitler becoming chancellor & thus political intrigue got him into power. However, it could be argued that Hitler could have gotten into power anyway. Regardless of the fact that the Nazi party had dropped votes in the November 1932 elections, the Nazi party was the biggest party in the Reichstag with 230 seats and was very much the dominant political force in Germany. Goebbels' propaganda was a powerful tool in establishing Hitler as the only man who could take Germany forward. Many people were still bitter about the outcome of World War One (including Hitler himself) and his image as a strong, independent leader appealed to all classes and social standings. ...read more.

Conclusion

It can be said that another reason for Schleicher's actions, bar just being nervous about Von Papen's capability as Chancellor, was so that he himself could seize power and align himself as a hero who brought about national reconciliation. Schleicher ultimately failed and this was favourably received by Von Papen, who convinced President Hindenburg to tell him to step down. Perhaps if Schleicher was successful in stabilising the country Hindenburg would not have listened to Von Papen but in reality the tables were turned and Von Papen had Schleicher removed from power. Hitler was brought into power by the apparently jealous & bitter Von Papen. Had Schleicher been successfully able to appoint Strasser as Vice Chancellor, perhaps the rift in the Nazi party may have gotten so large that the party folded. Hitler became Chancellor due to the mass support the Nazi party had and also due to the failings of Von Papen and Schleicher, but primarily it was because the political backhandedness and power-hungry deviousness of Von Papen. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

3 star(s)

The strength of this essay is in its structure which clearly examines a range of factors and uses excellent detail from the period to support and exemplify the points.

It could have been tightened up by actually labelling the main factors at the start and by developing the argument to focus on the links and relationships between the factors to build on the ideas that they all played some part in Hitler's rise to power. ***

Marked by teacher Kate Forbes 01/03/2012

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    To what extent does Stalin deserve the title of Red Tsar when assessing his ...

    5 star(s)

    Although it is unfair to say there was no famine was suffered under Lenin or Khurschev, especially as millions died during the Civil War. Around 20 million Russians died during Stalin's rule, 1.5 million executed, 2 million died in camps, and 7 million died in famine29.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    The Weakness of the Directory was the main reasons for Napoleons rise to Power. ...

    5 star(s)

    simple things such as people's names which inspired confidence amongst the men. Napoleon was lucky that the revolution happened because under the Ancien Regime he would not have been able to rank as highly as he did in the army.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Assess the view that Stalins suspicions of his western allies between 1941 and 1945 ...

    4 star(s)

    In his writing, Fitzgerald says, "there was discussion over the boundaries of post-war Poland, in effect, Poland was moved westward"3 and that Poland would be, "compensated by receiving territory on her western border from Germany."4 Historians Jeremy Isaacs

  2. Free essay

    Was Stalin the most successful ruler of Russia in the period 1855-1956? Explain with ...

    The tsars, however, had a paternalistic, autocratic and spiritual interpretation of welfare and generally ended up with no real distinction between them. As they were seen as the 'little father', they did not have to look after the welfare of the people as tradition meant that the people would still support them.

  1. Assess the view that the holocaust was due to a long term plan of ...

    .Detlov Peuket of [Interpration B] states that there was community aliens and that the Jew were only part of this as others were also targated.

  2. Assess the view that the Holocaust was mainly a result of a long term ...

    came to see the Jewish Problem as one which must be solved by any means. Passage B insists upon the importance of the popular view in German society geared toward the "eradication of those of 'inferior value'". There are a few key weaknesses in the case presented by the author,

  1. The Holocaust was the result of Hitlers long held grand design to pursue a ...

    the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devilsâ. Much of Lutherâs writing and other 15th century works are eerily resonant of the racial policies in Nazi Germany. A concrete example of the Internationalistâs' interpretation of history is their reading of Speech

  2. Assess the view that Stalin's policy in Eastern Europe was motivated more by spreading ...

    This defensiveness is shown also in Interpretation D which demonstrates how little the author thinks that Stalin's policy had to do with Communism, by comparing it with fascist Nazi Germany's policy in controlling the economies of central Europe in the 1930's.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work