After the end of WWI, Germany sought solutions to fix their many problems that were a result of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Many parties tried to take advantage of this and try to take over Germany and bring it back to its former glory. However, the conditions in Germany in the 1920s/ early 1930s helped make the methods used by a certain party leader, Hitler of the Nazi party, more efficient in rising to power.
One thing many party leaders did to gain support was promise answers to the many problems the German people were experiencing. Hitler was different. He chose to not make promises to the people and told them so in his speeches and campaigns. Under normal situations, this approach would probably yield little or no support. People want to know what the government is planning to do. However, the German people were already promised answers to the rapid inflation, the unemployment rate, the economic stability and bank crashes, and the impact of lossing so much of their population that they were experiencing. This was all promised by the Weimar government, who by accepting the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were limited in the extent at which they could fulfill their promises. The treaty limited the amount of soldiers the government could use to enforce its authority and fix Germany's problems. Then the government signed plans like the Locarno Treaty of 1925 and the Berlin Treaty that while helped Germany re-enter into the global society, it showed the government's continued effort to accept the terms of the TOV whcih was not making the conditions of Germany better. Without the ability to enforce authority, no efforts could be made to fulfill promises.
The only way for a government to be able to have any power at all, it would need to go against the terms of the treaty. The condition of the government having no power to do anything to help out their country without being envaded led to more support for the Nazi party and Hitler. Hitler opposed the terms of the TOV. American loans to Germany to help pay war reparations were the only thing keeping the German economy from total collapse. When the Great Depression began in America and the American economy collapsed, it left them with no means to give out loans to Germany. Germany still had a huge debt to pay and now had no means to pay it. The Young and Dawe's plan failed and this forced Germany into an even worse state of depression. Hitler supported putting an end to all of this by simply refusing to pay the reparations. With the people in desperate situations from the depressions, this seemed like the best solution, gaining Hitler even more support.
Another of Hitlers methods to gain power was to make it evident that he disliked Jews. This political method to gain support from the people was only successful because it was already rumorred that the war ended so abruptly because the people on the front line were betrayed by Marxists and Jews. Also Jews were associated with Bolshevism and communism because many of the leftwing party leaders were Jewish. Hitler took advantage of all of this and used Jews as a scapegoat for all of Germany's problems. It was easier for the German people to put all the blame for their problems on one group of people. In making Jews a scapegoat, Hitler created a common enemy that united the German people and gained support for the Nazi party that was against Jews even being consistered as German citizens.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There is good, extensive research in this essay. You show a strong understanding of Hitler's rise to Germany and the reasons behind it. Not only do you supply strong evidence, but you back your evidence up with detailed analysis. I like how you tie in the fallacies of the Weimar government and the after effects of World War II to show how Hitler was given a perfect opportunity to rise to power. From the evidence and analysis you provided I would give you a 16.
ReplyDeleteThe post was well done and researched. It was organized and structured. The analysis represented a majority of the response. The methods used by Hitler were explicitly addressed; the conditions were not as much. There was also not a clear concluding statement. But overall the post was effective in its goals. I would give it a 15.
ReplyDeleteBased on the IB markband, I would have to agree with Chris and give this a 16. You did a really good job at effectively and relevantly addressing the demands of the question. Your paper was also very organized and easy to follow along. Your answer to the question is clearly supported by many facts and also a well thought out analysis. However, I think that the last paragraph could be extended a little bit more about Hitler not liking Jews. And then add a conlusion to summarize your findings.
ReplyDelete