The Structuralist view stresses that the economic conditions after the Great Depression and weaknesses of the Weimar Republic were the reason for the Nazi rise to power. Structuralists, such as Paul Johnson, claim that if it were not for the Great Depression, Hitler could not have gained the support he did. The economic crisis drove people away from the Weimar Republic as they were in fear of worsening conditions (Johnson, 280). As unemployment increased from 1930 to 1932, many of the unemployed being students, Hitler’s support among youth groups rose (Johnson, 281). Kershaw, disagreeing with Shirer’s opinion that “Hitler was an organizer as well as a spell-binder” (Shirer, 170), stated that “without the Depression, the worsening crisis of the government and state…this mass ‘market’ would not have become available and Hitler would have continued to have been an insignificant minority taste on the lunatic fringes of the political system” (Kershaw, 52). Fromm agrees with Kershaw by stating that the people were unhappy with the Weimar Republic’s failure to economically protect the middle class and any improvement and hope created was once again shattered by the Depression. The social conditions had not improved much since the end of WWI and the Germans were still unhappy with the terms of the Versailles treaty (Fromm). The economic decline of the middle class, accelerated by inflation, drove the young who had fought “bravely [in the war] and had reason to be ashamed” to ardently greet the Nazi ideology of “blind obedience to a leader and of hatred against racial and political minorities…” (Fromm). Those unhappy with the Weimar government turned to one of the two extremist groups, the Nazis or the Communists, and since Communism had split the working class, the Nazis gained more votes (Fromm). Although Johnson believes Hitler was put into power by fear through mass killings and propaganda, the political situation was also ideal in presenting the rise of the Nazis. President Hindenburg disliked the idea of democracy, a system that had previously failed in the Weimar Republic, and used his emergency power to defy the Reichstag and appoint a weak leader, Heinrich Brüning as Chancellor. Under the Weimar constitution, a Reich President was not forced to appoint the leader of the party that had won the most seats in a general election as head of government (Kershaw, 55). Hindenburg at first refused to appoint Hitler as Chancellor, prompting Goebbels to say in his diary “all our chances and hopes have quite disappeared.” The President then relented in the face of political pressure. Although Hitler’s appointment was more or less constitutional, his mass support alone had not been sufficient to bring him to power (Kershaw 54).
In conclusion, the rise of the Nazi regime can be explained through both the Structuralist and Intentionalist view, although a large majority of historians today prefer the Structuralist approach, as understanding of complex social factors contributing to governmental procedures has improved. Germany was losing all hope of regaining its footing after World War One and Hitler gave Germans an incentive to fight for her future (even if it was using the wrong methods). Hitler ended up raising the employment rate and promoting industrial growth through a party that to some had once seemed an “insignificant radical, revolutionary splinter group that is incapable of exerting any noticeable influence on the great mass of the population or on the course of political developments” (Kershaw, 56).
Annotated Bibliography
Primary:
Goebbels, Josef, Goebbels Diary, 1945?
This source is an accumulation of extracts from several diary entries. Its purpose is to provide key dates and information about Germany in the 1930’s. As Minister of Propaganda, he was very close with Hitler and the source is therefore biased toward the “high time” for the Nazis. It is useful, however, to show what someone so close to Hitler thought at the time, helping historians understand the situation from an internal perspective. It is also limited in that it does not provide any background information about the situation and therefore would not be useful to readers who did not know about his role in the Nazi party. Additionally, it is limited because, by being a diary entry and the accumulation of Goebbels’ thoughts, it is often exaggerated or over-simplified.
Secondary:
Fromm, Erich, Escape From Freedom, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1941.
This source is an extract from a book published in 1941 written by Erich Fromm. The purpose of the source is to present the Structuralist view of the rise of the Nazis, highlighting how the conditions were responsible for the rise. The source is useful to an historian trying to explain the rise of Hitler in that it presents the reader with several social and economic conditions in Germany that led to the rise. It is presented in an organized way and even gives a short outline of what it presents as the main conditions, making it easy to understand. It was published in 1941, while Hitler was still in power in Germany, which means that the rise had just recently happened and Fromm was able to pull from his own experiences, being German. The source is however limited for the same reason, Fromm did not have a chance to holistically look back at the rise and assess all possible reasons it occurred. He is also Jewish which means he was probably biased towards Hitler and therefore did not present his tactics as important, although his bias is still clear with his use of phrases like “petty bourgeois.” He also does not really include political conditions. Since it only presents the Structuralist view of the rise it is also limited in not presenting all of the possible explanations for the rise.
Shirer, William, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Ballantine Publishing Group, 1960.
This source is an extract from a book published 1960, although it is a reissue of a book published in 1950, by William Shirer, who was an American reporter during the rise of Hitler. The purposes of the source are to present Hitler’s tactics as a reason for the rise of the Nazis, as well as argue that Hitler took advantage of Germany’s traditions and beliefs. The source is useful to an historian trying to explain the rise of Hitler as it gives statistics of the actual increase in party member of the Nazi party from 1925 to 1929. It also gives detailed parts of Hitler’s tactics and strategies that it argues were essential in his rise. Shirer uses personal opinion as well, which could give the historian a sense of the feelings people had about his rise outside of Germany. Its original publishing date of 1950 and Shirer actually being an eyewitness to the rise are also useful as he was able to draw his own conclusions. This is however also a limit because he did not have time to fully step back and assess the situation. The source is also limited because it is biased and Shirer injects his opinion several times. He does not present reasons other than the German traditions and Hitler’s tactics as reasons meaning he does not show all explanations. He has also been criticized for ignoring totalitarian trends at the time as well being ignorant of Nazi scholarship.
Johnson, Paul, Modern Times, Harper Perennial, 1992.
This source is an extract from a book published in 1992 by Paul Johnson. The purpose of the source is to present the economic and political conditions which led to the rise of Hitler and chronicle his rise. The source is useful to an historian trying to explain the rise of the Nazis as it gives several facts and statistics about the rise with detailed facts about German income levels, unemployment, votes cast in the Reichstag and members of the Nazi party progressing from 1924 – 1933 when Hitler was appointed Chancellor. It is quite unbiased in its presentation, Johnson does not add his own opinion, however, it is limited because it only presents the economic and political conditions that led to the rise, not the tactics or social conditions. The source is also useful in that it was published many years after the war and rise of the Nazis so Johnson had a chance to look at several opinions and fully assess the situation before forming his opinion. The source is however limited because Johnson was not alive during the rise and therefore is only a secondary source.
Kershaw, Ian, Hitler, Longman, 1991.
This source is an extract from a book published in 1991 written by Ian Kershaw. The purpose of the source is to strongly argue that it was not in fact Hitler’s tactics and oratory, but only due to the conditions and the people that Hitler was able to rise to power. He often belittles Hitler’s role in his rise. The source is useful to an historian trying to explain the rise of the Nazis because it gives a strong opinion about why it occurred and gives strong facts to back up the claim. Its publishing date of 1991 makes it more reliable as Kershaw was able to fully assess the situation and look back on everything before forming his opinion. The source is however limited due to its strong use of opinion and due to the fact that it does not present opposing opinions that Hitler’s tactics were important.
Hite, John and Chris Hinton, Weimar and Nazi Germany, John Murray, 2000.
This source is an extract from a book published in 2000 by John Hite and Chris Hinton. Its purpose is to present Hitler’s tactics as the main reason for his rise to power, while still showing how the conditions influenced it. The source is useful to an historian trying to explain the rise of the Nazis, as it is very detailed about what it feels are Hitler’s important tactics, which it outlines at the beginning. It is also useful because it was published in 2000 and therefore the Hite and Hinton could look back and assess the situation before presenting the information. The information presented is trying to be unbiased in its argument because it does present some conditions it attempts to show both sides while arguing one. It is however limited because it does argue that the tactics were the most important instead of presenting both sides equally.
by
hannaewell (student)
