Modern History essay (Please mark it) :)

[Chadi]

Using Sources B and C and your own knowledge, account for the rise of the Nazi Party (10 marks)


The consolidation of Nazi power mainly relied on the symbiosis of Hitlers diverse rhetoric and his cult of personality. He was able to change his speaking style to convince every social class that voting for the Nazis was the most advantageous option respectively, while simultaneously achieving his own agenda.

Hitler joined the party (originally a gang of unemployed soldiers) in 1919, and through his emotional and captivating speeches, it grew to 3000 members by the end of 1920. It was recognised very hastily that as Ian Kershaw mentions in Source B ‘His main ability by far … was that in the prevailing circumstances, he could inspire an audience which shared his basic political feelings, by the way he spoke, by the force of his rhetoric’. Over the next decade - Hitler's speeches would be the main asset of the party, him becoming the face of the Nazis. The first attempt to consolidate power occurred in 1923 in the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler attempted to rise to power, but demonstrators were shot at by the state police and Hitler jailed for 9 months, in which this was the time he scribed his ideologies into his book - ‘Mein Kampf’.This was when Hitler realised that the only way to achieve power over Germany was through legal means. Source C depicts a rally in which Hitler is driving in a car while thousands of his supporters try to shake his hand while hailing him, this depicts his powerful cult of personality, thus elevating his place in the party fro the leader to a father figure. In 1933, Von Schleicher was serving as chancellor, who was decidedly unsuccessful in the position, was replaced by Hitler after Franz Von Papen was able to convince Hindenburg. Von Papen assured Hindenburg that since Hitler was new to the game of Politics, he would be easy to manipulate, he also argued that Hitler was unpredictive and should thus be contained by serving in the government instead of fighting against it. The night Hitler was appointed chancellor, he declared ‘The new Reich has been born’ from atop the balcony of the chancellery. In Feburary 1933, an unidentified individual tried to burn down the Reichstag building. Hitler immediately took advantage of this by labeling the arson as ‘Communist outrage’. Under Hindenbergs approval, he issued the enabling act (Reichstag fire decree)- which gave him the power to suspend civil rights and, to make and enforce laws without consulting the Reichstag. He arrested 4000 communists and blamed them for planning the fire, effectively wiping out most of his opponents in the Reichstag. Hitler's next order of business in order to ensure his position was to wipe out any military threats that he had. He gathered all the high ranking officials of the SA and got the SS to purge them. This elevated Hitler in the eyes of the public and also Hindenberg as they were discontent with the SA’s thuggish behavior. Ian Kershaw expresses the importance of the Night of The Long Knives in Hitlers uprise as /The bloody repression of his own movement was a critical moment in the consolidation of Hitlers power’. When Hindednberg died the next year - in 1924 - Hitler combined the role of chancellor and president and pronounced himself Fuhrer of Germany. He had now at this point become the dictator of Germany - all through legal means.

Hitler’s powerful public voice and cult of personality assissted him in gaining the publics support for the Nazi party. And the actions he conducted regarding the Reichstag fire decree and the Night of the Long Knives elevated him the the legal dictator of Germany.

[darcyynic]

Hi there!

Great work on your 10 marker so far. I think you have some brilliant ideas and you really understand the content well.

I have written some feedback in the spoiler below. While I didn't do the new syllabus, I did study Nazi Germany so hopefully my advice is of use.

Spoiler

- I think your thesis is good! You have identified two very important factors in the rise of the Nazi Party, but I wonder if perhaps it's a little too narrow? I haven't seen the two sources, so I don't know if there was room to discuss it (and obviously this is subject to interpretation), but one of the most important factors was actually the contextual problems that Hitler made use of, such as the Great Depression. Perhaps if you could have woven that into the thesis (maybe in the second sentence) it would have demonstrated your depth of understanding more.. For example, you could have argued that he used his excellent control of rhetoric to capitalise on the worsening conditions that Germany was facing, which consequently gave rise to public support for the Nazis.)

- As for structure – because it's a 10 marker which asks you to deal with TWO sources, I would suggest having two body paragraphs. One discussing his rhetoric (Source B) and one discussing his cult of personality (Source C). Your argument will seem much clearer and easier for the marker to give you the marks you deserve.

- While your first sentence of the body paragraph shows your extreme wealth of knowledge (you've included some great detail) I always recommend that you start with a topic sentence. For example, "Hitler's effective use of rhetoric and propaganda was a fundamental factor which contributed to the rise of the Nazi Party." Then, you would include your first sentence, "Hitler joined the party..."

- I like that you've integrated Ian Kershaw's argument as your own. It shows sophistication that you were able to use it to back up your own argument rather than just including it because you had to. I would draw it into your argument a little more by continuing with something like, "The importance of Hitler's rhetoric in the gaining of support, as proven in Source B, is further seen in ...." Here, you would include some more of your own knowledge and more facts. I would definitely suggest building on this first argument about rhetoric some more, seeing as you should be splitting this one big paragraph into two – one about rhetoric and one about cult of personality.

- I don't think your argument about cult of personality is as strong as your point about rhetoric, as you only really mention it once and then move on to describe Hitler's legal consolidation of power, not rise to power. I don't think that argument fits the question (or your thesis) as much, so perhaps you should write some more about Hitler's cult of personality (which seems to be demonstrated in Source C) and analyse some relevant detail about that instead.

- Your use of detail is really great! You include lots of dates (but I do think that Hindenburg died in 1934, not 1924, that must have just been a typo!) and have lots of knowledge about the actual events. My suggestion is to just clarify your argument more and use the great amount of detail you have to analyse, not just describe.

Overall, great effort! You should be commended for doing practice responses in the holidays! Nice job.

If you need any more help, please feel free to let me know.
Darcy