You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Between January 1933 and August 1934, Hitler transformed Germany from a fragile democracy into a one-party totalitarian dictatorship. The speed of this transformation — barely eighteen months from Hitler's appointment as Chancellor to his fusion of the offices of Chancellor and President — has long fascinated historians, because it was achieved not by a coup or a seizure of power in the classic sense but through a combination of legal manoeuvre, intimidation, opportunism and the active or passive collaboration of established elites. Understanding how a constitutional state dismantled itself so rapidly, and why so little organised resistance emerged, is central to this Paper 1 breadth study.
For the long 1871–1991 arc, the Nazi dictatorship represents the most extreme point on the spectrum between authoritarianism and democracy that this course traces. Many of the structural features that recur across the breadth study — the weakness of parliamentary tradition, the survival of authoritarian elites, the army as a 'state within the state', the practice of governing against designated enemies — reached their destructive apogee under National Socialism. Yet the regime was not simply a continuation of Bismarckian or Wilhelmine authoritarianism: it was a genuinely novel form of rule, combining mass mobilisation, charismatic leadership, racial ideology and modern technology in ways that earlier German states had not. The central question is therefore double-edged: how was the dictatorship consolidated so rapidly, and to what extent did ordinary Germans consent to, resist, or simply accommodate the regime?
Key Question: Was the Nazi state a monolithic totalitarian machine driven by Hitler's will, or a chaotic 'polycracy' of competing agencies whose cumulative radicalisation produced outcomes no single person fully directed?
Key Definition: Gleichschaltung ('coordination' or 'bringing into line') describes the process by which the Nazis systematically brought all institutions, organisations, and aspects of public life — federal states, trade unions, professional bodies, the press, cultural life — under party control between 1933 and 1934.
This lesson sits within Paper 1, Option 1L: The Quest for Political Stability: Germany 1871–1991, a breadth study assessing change and continuity across a long chronological span. The Nazi dictatorship falls in Part Two of the specification ('A Nation Brought Low? Germany, 1914–1991') and addresses the key content area on the establishment and consolidation of the Nazi regime and its impact on Germany to 1939.
The assessment objectives carry the following weight across the qualification, and shape how this period should be approached:
| AO | What it rewards | How this lesson builds it |
|---|---|---|
| AO1 (largest) | Accurate, detailed knowledge and analysis framed by second-order concepts | Precise narrative of consolidation, dated legislation, named figures, and analysis organised around causation, change and significance |
| AO3 (Section A headline) | Analysis and evaluation of differing historical interpretations | The intentionalist–structuralist debate on the nature of the Nazi state, evaluated through named historians |
| AO2 (transferable across papers) | Analysis and evaluation of primary sources in context | Worked evaluation of the Enabling Act as a source, by provenance, purpose and content-in-context |
The change-and-continuity threads to hold in view are: the collapse of the rule of law and constitutional government; the relationship between charismatic leadership and bureaucratic administration; the interplay of terror and consent in securing stability; and the way economic policy was harnessed to ideological and military ends. None of these can be understood in isolation from the 1871–1932 background or the 1939–1945 catastrophe that followed.
When Hitler was appointed Chancellor on 30 January 1933, he led a cabinet in which Nazis held only three of eleven posts. The conservative elites who had engineered his appointment — Franz von Papen as Vice-Chancellor foremost among them — believed they could 'box him in' and use his mass following for their own ends. Papen's notorious boast that within two months 'we will have pushed Hitler so far into a corner that he'll squeak' epitomised this fatal miscalculation. Within eighteen months, every institution capable of restraining Hitler had been neutralised.
On the night of 27 February 1933, the Reichstag building burned. A young Dutch council communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, was arrested at the scene and later executed. Whether the Nazis set the fire themselves, whether van der Lubbe acted alone, or whether the truth lies elsewhere remains debated, but the regime's response is what matters historically: it exploited the fire ruthlessly to portray an imminent communist uprising.
The Reichstag Fire Decree ('Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State', 28 February 1933) — issued under Article 48 of the Weimar constitution and signed by President Hindenburg — suspended civil liberties indefinitely:
Key Insight: The Fire Decree is arguably more important than the Enabling Act because it was never repealed and provided the permanent legal basis for the police state. Throughout the Third Reich, the regime governed under a continuous 'state of emergency' that suspended ordinary legal protections.
In the atmosphere of the decree, the regime arrested thousands of Communists and Social Democrats, smashing the organised left before the election of 5 March 1933. Even so, with the apparatus of the state behind them and the SA on the streets, the Nazis won only 43.9 per cent of the vote — a majority only in coalition with the conservative DNVP. Free elections, even rigged ones, were never held again.
The Enabling Act (Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich — 'Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich') gave the cabinet the power to enact laws, including laws deviating from the constitution, without the Reichstag or the President, for a period of four years:
Martin Broszat argued that the Reichstag effectively 'committed suicide' — democratic institutions used their own legal mechanisms to destroy democracy. This 'legal revolution' was central to the regime's strategy: it lent a veneer of legitimacy that reassured conservatives, the civil service, the judiciary and the army, all of whom prized legality and order.
With dictatorial powers secured, the regime moved to 'coordinate' German society, eliminating every independent centre of organisation:
| Action | Date | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| State governments brought into line | March–April 1933 | Reich governors (Reichsstatthalter) appointed to override the federal states |
| Trade unions abolished | 2 May 1933 | Offices occupied; leaders arrested; replaced by the German Labour Front (DAF) under Robert Ley |
| Political parties dissolved | June–July 1933 | SPD banned (22 June); others 'self-dissolved'; the Law Against the Formation of New Parties (14 July) made the NSDAP the only legal party |
| Civil Service Law | 7 April 1933 | 'Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service' dismissed 'non-Aryans' and political opponents — the first explicitly anti-Semitic national legislation |
| Book burnings | 10 May 1933 | German Student Union staged public burnings of 'un-German' books in university towns |
| Concordat with the Vatican | 20 July 1933 | The regime secured international respectability and Catholic acquiescence in exchange for guarantees it soon violated |
Gleichschaltung was not imposed wholly from above; in many professions and localities, individuals and institutions rushed to conform — a process of self-coordination (Selbstgleichschaltung) that historians see as evidence of widespread accommodation.
By 1934 the chief threat to Hitler's position came from within the movement. Ernst Röhm, chief of the SA, commanded a paramilitary force of some two to three million men and demanded a 'second revolution' that would absorb the army and overturn the social order. This alarmed the army leadership, big business, and the conservative elites — and Hitler needed all three, especially with the ageing Hindenburg's death imminent. In a purge codenamed 'Operation Hummingbird', the SS murdered Röhm and the SA leadership along with old political enemies, including former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and his wife, and Gregor Strasser. At least 85 people were killed, and likely more. The purge:
When Hindenburg died on 2 August 1934, Hitler merged the offices of President and Chancellor, becoming Führer und Reichskanzler. A plebiscite on 19 August endorsed the move with 89.9 per cent approval. Crucially, the armed forces immediately swore a personal oath of loyalty — not to Germany, the constitution, or the office of head of state, but to Adolf Hitler personally. This oath would psychologically bind the officer corps and make future resistance extraordinarily difficult, a dilemma that would haunt the conspirators of 1944.
The image of the Third Reich as a smoothly functioning totalitarian machine, projected by Nazi propaganda and accepted by some early historians, has been substantially revised. Beneath the appearance of monolithic unity lay a chaotic 'polycracy' of overlapping party and state agencies, personal fiefdoms, and special commissioners, whose jurisdictions clashed constantly. The traditional ministries of the Weimar state survived, but they were duplicated and undercut by new party organs, by the special plenipotentiaries Hitler appointed for particular tasks, and by the swelling apparatus of the SS. Hitler governed by a kind of feudal grant of authority, frequently leaving rivals to fight out their differences and intervening only erratically. Far from being a sign of weakness, historians increasingly argue, this institutional Darwinism was functional to the regime: it concentrated ultimate arbitration in Hitler's person and drove the cumulative radicalisation of policy.
The concept of charismatic authority, borrowed by Kershaw from the sociologist Max Weber, is central to understanding how this system cohered. Hitler's legitimacy rested not on constitutional office or bureaucratic rationality but on the popular faith in him as a heroic, redemptive leader — the 'Hitler myth' that propaganda assiduously cultivated and that was, for much of the 1930s, widely believed. This charismatic bond detached Hitler personally from the regime's failures and frustrations, which were blamed on subordinates ('if only the Führer knew'), while crediting him with its successes. It also meant that, in the absence of clear orders, ambitious officials sought to divine and pre-empt the leader's wishes, generating initiatives 'from below' that pushed policy in ever more radical directions. The regime's dynamism, on this reading, was inseparable from its disorder: a settled, rationalised bureaucracy could not have produced the escalating radicalism that culminated in war and genocide.
One revealing test of Gleichschaltung was the regime's uneasy relationship with the Christian churches, which it never fully coordinated. The attempt to create a unified, pro-Nazi 'German Christian' movement within Protestantism provoked the breakaway 'Confessing Church', associated with figures such as Martin Niemöller and, later, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The Catholic Church, despite the 1933 Concordat, came into conflict with the regime over its anti-Christian elements, the 'euthanasia' programme and youth policy. Church opposition was largely defensive — concerned to protect its own institutions and doctrines rather than to challenge the regime as such — and did not amount to systematic resistance. But the persistence of partly autonomous religious life illustrates the limits of coordination and qualifies any picture of total control.
A worked example shows how an exam source — here, the Enabling Act of 23 March 1933 — should be evaluated for AO2 by provenance, tone, purpose and content-in-context rather than merely paraphrased.
Provenance and nature. The Enabling Act is a statute, the formal product of a Reichstag vote. As a legal text it carries authority and precision: it tells us exactly what powers the cabinet claimed. But its status as 'law' is precisely what an evaluator must interrogate, because it was passed under coercion.
Tone and language. Its title — a 'Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich' — adopts the reassuring language of crisis management and national renewal, not of revolution. This careful framing is itself evidence: the regime wished to present radical change as legal continuity.
Purpose. The Act's purpose was to provide a constitutional facade for dictatorship, reassuring the conservative establishment, the judiciary, and the army that order and legality were being preserved. Its four-year sunset clause and references to the President's continuing rights were window-dressing designed to secure Centre Party and conservative votes.
Content in context. Read against the Reichstag Fire Decree of three weeks earlier and the arrest of KPD deputies, the Act's true significance emerges: it was not the source of the regime's coercive power but its legal capstone. A strong AO2 answer would note that the source's usefulness lies less in its literal provisions than in what its existence reveals about the regime's strategy of 'legal revolution' — and would weigh its formal authority against the manifestly unfree conditions of its passage.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.