Hitlers Seize To Power..speech...help!plz (1 Viewer)

[Julz_05]

HEY EEVRYONE LOL
i just need some help in gettin started i have to do a 8 mintue speech on this:

hitlers seizure of power was illegal.
to what extent do u agree with this
support ur answer with evidence from 1930-34

so far i have this

for the illegal things he did between this time ;
reichstag fire
night of the long knives
advantage of the vulerability of the german ppl after the collaspe
enabling act
emergency decree
oath of allegence


for the legal stuff i dont really have much just maybe
25 points
election votes
article 48 of the constitution...

though i dont have much evidence from 1930 , 31 , 32
does anyone know anything.. and am i on the right track or?
thanx

 

[Jennibeans]

a) It was never proven that Hitler had anything to do with the Reichstag fire
b) it isn't illegal to take advantage of vunerable people its just bitchy
c) The Enabling Act wasn't illegal - it was passed by the Reichstag before Hindenberg died. However, it did give him dictorial powers under the facade of legality
d) The Oath of Allegiance wasn't illegal either - Hitler knew he needed the support of the army & he played on their anti-Weimar perspective

Hitler made his way to power because his colleagues (Hindenberg, Bruning and especially von Schleicher) weren't all that intelligent. They thought they could manipulate Hitler and they couldn't. 'Hitler's success owed to luck and even more to the bad judgement of his opponents' (Alan Bullock)
Hitler used the Depression to his advantage - 'The depression put the wind in Hitler's sails' AJP Taylor
The conservatives were destroyed by undermining their power and independence - this isn't illegal
Once Hindenberg died nothing Hitler did was illegal because he made the laws
The Munich Beer Hall Putsch taught Hitler that he couldn't take power by force - so he went about it in a seemingly legal way instead.

 

[leetom]

Firstly, make sure you don't say 'seize to power', it sounds gay.

 

[Julz_05]

hitler legally rose to power

hitler legall rose to power between the years of 1930-34
i mean its hard to believe this but he did it all ligit
wat do u think of my arguement..

adolf hitler was a man who believed in the resurrection of germany . to resurrect germany hitler needed to rise to power in the riechstag, he needed to become Fuhrer- president. And he did in 1933. though the legality to hitlers road to power is questionable between the years of 1930-33

 

[rama_v]

hitler legall rose to power between the years of 1930-34
i mean its hard to believe this but he did it all ligit
wat do u think of my arguement..

adolf hitler was a man who believed in the resurrection of germany . to resurrect germany hitler needed to rise to power in the riechstag, he needed to become Fuhrer- president. And he did in 1933. though the legality to hitlers road to power is questionable between the years of 1930-33

Yeah its ok. defintely you can argue that what he did was totally legal. It just goes to show the weaknesses of the constitution if it allows a dictator to seize power legally, I guess..

 

[rama_v]

Ooh just remember to mention that the only reason Hitler wanted to gain power legally was that when he attempted to gain it illegally (i.e. the Munich Putsch) it failed, so he decided on a different course of action.

With your agrument, what are you going to argue? That it was totally legal or totally illegal, or a bit of both? I thin it would be easier to argue that it was almost totally legal, I dont think your statement clearly states which side you are going to take...

 

[leetom]

There was nothing illegal about Hitler becoming Chancellor, in fact, it was constitutionally incorrect of President Hindenburg and von Schleicher to withhold from Hitler the Chancellorship throughout 1932.

You said something along the lines of the Nazis acting in an illegal manner throughout 1930-33. Quite simply, the Nazis did nothing illegal in this period.

HOWEVER, once te Nazis came to power, they set about gradually disposing of the parliamentary system. This too though, was entirely legal. There was no outright denounciation of the constitution. You should focus on the Enabling Act, as this gave Hitler his dictator powers- legally.

If out-voting them takes longer than out-shooting them, at least the results will be guaranteed by their own Constitution!

-Hitler, on doing stuff legally following the repercussions of the Beer Hall Putcsh.

 

[Julz_05]

very helpful

hey guys thanx that was heaps helpful..


although the morality of his rise to power is questionable the legality of his actions to seize power between 1930-34 is undenyable.

b4 that i have a bit of an intro
though i start my first paragraph as followers..

hitler was a victorious man, a man who was undoubtbly a nationalist. he ultimately wanted the best for germany, he wanted to obtain the glorification of which germany deserved to have (make sense?)
hitler wanted to have the power of germany in his hands , he once attempted to do so in 1923 , the munich putch, though because he went about this illegally, he failed thus hitler had no choice but to go about with the second attempt legally to rise to power in germany. to hitlers advantage the law worked in his favor.


hitler was able to make an impact on the german public through a government decree in1930. the decree was issued by the president, hindenburg. it meant that hindeburg could alone decide to declare a state of emergency. the decrees 'had the force of law'meaning could leglislate law within the government. through this an election was held through the influence of the chancellor bruning.

hitler and his party the NSDAP were able to participate in the election legally. the NSDAP was an established party with many dedicated members and leader -hitler. the party effortlessly campaigned for votes doing everything possible to obtain votes from the german people - speeches, marches, posters, rallies - to not persuade the german public but to CONVINCE the german public that the party would revive Germany from the hardship suffered through the depression, republic and unemployment. if hitler didnt have a heart - he had determination which engaged people which furthered their support of him.

 

[rama_v]

I think your argument is pretty good. Try not to retell the story so much, concentrate on why what Hitler did was legal more than superfluous information such as what he wanted to do in Germany etc...

I think you should focus on saying why it was legal more than anything else and I think your line "although the morality of his rise to power is questionable the legality of his actions to seize power between 1930-34 is undenyable." does this quite well, so build from there. Remember to mention something about Article 48 which wa sin the consttitution - argue that it was within the constitution and it was used, and it had been used over 100 times in the early days of the Weimar Republic so there was no problem with the Preseidential Decree beign used again this time.

 

[leetom]

hitler was a victorious man, a man who was undoubtbly a nationalist. he ultimately wanted the best for germany, he wanted to obtain the glorification of which germany deserved to have (make sense?)
hitler wanted to have the power of germany in his hands , he once attempted to do so in 1923 , the munich putch, though because he went about this illegally, he failed thus hitler had no choice but to go about with the second attempt legally to rise to power in germany. to hitlers advantage the law worked in his favor.

You are mildy praising Hitler here. Try to comment on the events, not take a side on them ('...he glorification of which germany deserved to have' this in particular. You sound like a German Rightist!

This is my translation of your paragraph-

Hitler was an ultranationalist whose campaigns focused on appealing to German national pride. By doing so, he could transcend class differences and appeal to something all Germans had in common- concern for Germany's well-being. This explains to an extent the NSDAP's electoral success as a majority of Germans put their loyalty to their country before loyalty to ideology. Strong, centralised Government was ingrained in German culture and Hitler used this to his advantage. By 1929, Weimar Republicanism was fragmenting- just an endless repitition of unstable coalition after another. Hitler presented himself and the NSDAP as a party that would restore order and stability to German society and as a party that was genuinely concerned for Germany. The failed putsch of 1923 actually came to work to the Nazi's favour by the 1930's as it reinforced this image of a party determined to return Germany to the glory of it's pre-WW1 days, even if it meant illegalities.

Sorry, that doesn't really address your question, was just more of a personal rant. Just stress that Hitler's rise to power was done so legally, and any suggestion that it was done illegally is crap. You can however, point to the weakness of the Weimar Constitution as contributing to Hitler's success.

 

[rama_v]

which message??
EDIT: oh lol your referring to this thread...But yes I think what leetom said is good advice, so go from there..Have a clear structure about what your going to argue, what paragraph is going to argue which point, and stick to it...

 

[rama_v]

Well youve outlined the reasons there quite well. Now go into more detail. say WHY the consittuion allowed the presidential decrees that he got Hindenburg to use, say WHY it was politcally incorrect for Hindenburg to keep him away from power, say HOW the enabling act was totally legal and say WHY thus he became a 'legal dictator' etc. Go over all the events and say WHY they were possible and analyse the weaknesses that allowed it. At the same time KEEP REFERRING TO THE QUESTION, by saying why everything Hitler did was legal and not against the law.

 

[Jennibeans]

you can't seize to power
it just isn't grammatical
you can seize power
or
you can rise to power
Perhaps instead of saying "The question arises: Why was Hitler’s seizing to power legal?" you could say 'the question arises: why was Hitler's accession to power legal?"