Why did other German political parties disband so fast when Hitler was appointed chancellor?Is the claim that...

Incorporating research and background: How much is too much?

Can we use the stored gravitational potential energy of a building to produce power?

Could a phylactery of a lich be a mirror or does it have to be a box?

Why do neural networks need so many training examples to perform?

How to prevent users from executing commands through browser URL

Which one of these password policies is more secure?

Why isn't there a non-conducting core wire for high-frequency coil applications

Porting Linux to another platform requirements

How much mayhem could I cause as a sentient fish?

Why is working on the same position for more than 15 years not a red flag?

How to remove lines through the legend markers in ListPlot?

Table formatting top left corner caption

Why do members of Congress in committee hearings ask witnesses the same question multiple times?

How do Chazal know that the descendants of a Mamzer may never marry into the general populace?

Difference between `vector<int> v;` and `vector<int> v = vector<int>();`

How long is the D&D Starter Set campaign?

Do authors have to be politically correct in article-writing?

Cat is tipping over bed-side lamps during the night

Blindfold battle as a gladiatorial spectacle - what are the tactics and communication methods?

Would a National Army of mercenaries be a feasible idea?

How to say "Brexit" in Latin?

How to solve a large system of linear algebra?

Am I a Rude Number?

Can you tell from a blurry photo if focus was too close or too far?



Why did other German political parties disband so fast when Hitler was appointed chancellor?


Is the claim that Hitler came to power democratically justified?Aside from the Jews, did Hitler have a final solution plan for other ethnicities/races in the Third Reich?Given Hitler's Austrian ancestry, why did he develop German nationalism rather than Austrian nationalism?Where and when did Nietzsche's sister meet Hitler?How did Hitler have his own private militia in 1923?Why did the Nazis guillotine criminals but mostly hang political enemies, and why were the White Rose group an exception?Why did Hitler treat the Slavs inconsistently?Did the Nazis identify as being Fascists? How exactly did they view themselves?When was the first usage of the slogan “Wer hat uns verraten…”?How did attitudes of German citizens toward Hitler and the Nazi Party change over the course of the pre-war and the post-war periods?













16















Not long after Hitler was appointed chancellor, opposition groups began to shut down. He, of course, had already criminalised the Communist KPD and alleged sympathisers, but I was astonished to learn that many other parties closed themselves voluntarily in the weeks before Hitler shut down opposition via legal edict.



The DDP, DNVP and DVP closed themselves down at the end of June and the Catholic Zentrum and its allies in the early days of July. The DNVP was fairly close to the Nazi agenda and the Zentrum also had sympathies in that direction and were apparently losing membership. However, in the election after Hitler had been confirmed as Chancellor, the Nazis still only won around 44% of the vote.



It would seem at this point, then, that there was still a significant number of Germans - perhaps close to half - who did not support the Nazis. Why, then, were other parties happy to close voluntarily? Was it fear of political violence, given that the Nazis essentially controlled the army and police as well as their own paramilitary wing? Was there a real sense that German political sympathy was shifting overwhelmingly behind the Nazis? Or something else?










share|improve this question



























    16















    Not long after Hitler was appointed chancellor, opposition groups began to shut down. He, of course, had already criminalised the Communist KPD and alleged sympathisers, but I was astonished to learn that many other parties closed themselves voluntarily in the weeks before Hitler shut down opposition via legal edict.



    The DDP, DNVP and DVP closed themselves down at the end of June and the Catholic Zentrum and its allies in the early days of July. The DNVP was fairly close to the Nazi agenda and the Zentrum also had sympathies in that direction and were apparently losing membership. However, in the election after Hitler had been confirmed as Chancellor, the Nazis still only won around 44% of the vote.



    It would seem at this point, then, that there was still a significant number of Germans - perhaps close to half - who did not support the Nazis. Why, then, were other parties happy to close voluntarily? Was it fear of political violence, given that the Nazis essentially controlled the army and police as well as their own paramilitary wing? Was there a real sense that German political sympathy was shifting overwhelmingly behind the Nazis? Or something else?










    share|improve this question

























      16












      16








      16


      4






      Not long after Hitler was appointed chancellor, opposition groups began to shut down. He, of course, had already criminalised the Communist KPD and alleged sympathisers, but I was astonished to learn that many other parties closed themselves voluntarily in the weeks before Hitler shut down opposition via legal edict.



      The DDP, DNVP and DVP closed themselves down at the end of June and the Catholic Zentrum and its allies in the early days of July. The DNVP was fairly close to the Nazi agenda and the Zentrum also had sympathies in that direction and were apparently losing membership. However, in the election after Hitler had been confirmed as Chancellor, the Nazis still only won around 44% of the vote.



      It would seem at this point, then, that there was still a significant number of Germans - perhaps close to half - who did not support the Nazis. Why, then, were other parties happy to close voluntarily? Was it fear of political violence, given that the Nazis essentially controlled the army and police as well as their own paramilitary wing? Was there a real sense that German political sympathy was shifting overwhelmingly behind the Nazis? Or something else?










      share|improve this question














      Not long after Hitler was appointed chancellor, opposition groups began to shut down. He, of course, had already criminalised the Communist KPD and alleged sympathisers, but I was astonished to learn that many other parties closed themselves voluntarily in the weeks before Hitler shut down opposition via legal edict.



      The DDP, DNVP and DVP closed themselves down at the end of June and the Catholic Zentrum and its allies in the early days of July. The DNVP was fairly close to the Nazi agenda and the Zentrum also had sympathies in that direction and were apparently losing membership. However, in the election after Hitler had been confirmed as Chancellor, the Nazis still only won around 44% of the vote.



      It would seem at this point, then, that there was still a significant number of Germans - perhaps close to half - who did not support the Nazis. Why, then, were other parties happy to close voluntarily? Was it fear of political violence, given that the Nazis essentially controlled the army and police as well as their own paramilitary wing? Was there a real sense that German political sympathy was shifting overwhelmingly behind the Nazis? Or something else?







      nazi-germany germany hitler nazism






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 18 hours ago









      Matt ThrowerMatt Thrower

      1,95442132




      1,95442132






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          27














          Three steps to observe:




          1. Hitler was given the chancellory

          2. Election in 1933


          3. Reichstag fire & Enabling decree


          First the really unwanted elements were beaten up, imprisoned or just killed. Then a lot of the right-wingers saw their wishes and chances and did not switch sides, to the contrary, they just switched the membership card. Then, after eliminating most of the legal options for opposition some parties were prohibited and many party members of those further down on the list had a sudden loss of membership as well.




          The election took place after the Nazis came to power on 30 January, when President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor. The latter immediately urged the dissolution of the Reichstag and the calling of new elections. In early February, the Nazis "unleashed a campaign of violence and terror that dwarfed anything seen so far." Stormtroopers began attacking trade union and Communist Party (KPD) offices and the homes of left-wingers.




          And then the enabling act, with regard to the Centre party:




          With the passing of the Enabling Act the Centre Party had set in motion its own demise. As promised during the negotiations, a working committee chaired by Hitler and Kaas and supposed to inform about further legislative measures, met three times (31 March, 2 April and 7 April) without any major impact.



          At that time, the Centre Party was weakened by massive defections by party members. Loyal party members, in particular civil servants, and other Catholic organisations were subject to increasing reprisals, despite Hitler's previous guarantees. The party was also hurt by a declaration of the German bishops that, while maintaining their opposition to Nazi ideology, modified the ban on cooperation with the new authorities.



          The issue of the concordat prolonged Kaas' stay in Rome, leaving the party without a chairman, and on 5 May Kaas finally resigned from his post. The party now elected Brüning as chairman. The party adopted a tempered version of the leadership principle; pro-Centre papers now declared that the party's members, or "retinue", would fully submit itself to Brüning. It was not enough, however, to relieve the growing pressure that it and other parties faced in the wake of the process of Gleichschaltung. Prominent members were frequently arrested and beaten, and pro-Centre civil servants were fired. As the summer of 1933 wore on, several government officials—including Papen—demanded that the Centre either dissolve or be closed down by the government.



          By July, the Centre was the only non-Nazi party that had not been browbeaten into dissolving itself (or had been banned outright, like the SPD). On 1 July, Papen and Kaas agreed that as part of the concordat, German priests would stay out of politics. Earlier, as part of negotiations, it was agreed that the party would dissolve as soon as the concordat had been concluded. As it turned out, the party dissolved on 5 July—much to the dismay of Cardinal Pacelli, who felt the party should at least have waited until after the conclusion of negotiations. The day after, the government issued a law declaring the NSDAP the only legally permitted party in the German state.







          from Q: … the Nazis still only won around 44% of the vote.
          It would seem at this point, then, that there was still a significant number of Germans – perhaps close to half – who did not support the Nazis.




          The communists were effectively structurally beheaded by that time and the fiercest opponents, even almost capable of offering armed resistance. While in that sorry state they still raked in 12.3% of votes, the social-democrats took 18.3%. Problem here is that only the SPD was against the nazis and actually for democracy. It's also quite the difference to see 44% of votes in staunch support of dictatorship tied to ony party and concluding that therefore 55% were opposed.



          In terms of ordering the political spectrum you would have to count the right-wing DNVP dominated KSWR with 8% towards the nazi seats, the Bavarian People's Party with another 2% as well, and while you're already close to the needed 2/3 dominance majority the rest of the parties were really insignificant by that time.



          In 1933 the army was full of sympathetic right-wingers, true. But to say that the nazis "controlled them" is far from the truth. To the contrary, the military elites were unsure of what to think of the Hitlerites and especially of the SA. By the end of 1933 the army was the only element left – short of a popular uprising – that could have stopped the fascists. But there were just no democrats to be found anywhere anymore. Also noteworthy is the fact that the Reichswehr was still at 115000 men. The SA by then had 2.9 million members.






          share|improve this answer

































            3














            People read the "handwriting on the wall."



            The Nazis spent the spring shutting down the opposition one by one. First the Communists, then the Socialists.



            It is important to know that "perhaps close to half that did not support the Nazis" was a fragmented, not unified block. Take out the "left" (Communists and the Socialists), and you are talking about less than a quarter.The "hard" opposition had already been shut down. The small center parties were far less determined in their opposition than the "left." They would rather "disappear" on their own than to have "enforcement" meted out to them.



            It was like France in 1940. At some point, it was easier to give up than to fight on. The operative motto was "sauve qui peut."






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1





              Having a bit of a problem here that SPD is called Socialists, like in Bismarck times. That element was largely gone and more importantly the SPD was part of the Weimar-coalition of 1919, meaning that SPD was far more centrist than left (without denying that tendency; and the typical right-wing view that they were far too left for their tastes already ;) Thing is that what was 'left' and 'center' then and is today was 'too left' for the nazis and their ilk in police and bureaucracy. For the rest it's +1 from me.

              – LangLangC
              10 hours ago






            • 1





              Ah. But I think that then conflates being 'left' with really opposing the new regime. The other centrist parties from said coalition, the Center-party and the DDP were weaker but also not really in favour of AH. The center with the SPD as part of it eroded. I think changing that bit or explaining the meaning of your quotes (I also struggle a bit to clearly differentiate 'left-wing' from 'left-over' in my ears) might be beneficial?

              – LangLangC
              10 hours ago






            • 1





              @LangLangC: I put "left" in scare quotes for just that reason. I referred to the socialists as "left" because they actually opposed the Enabling Act instead of supporting it. (The Communists would have done the same, if they could have). This is to distinguish both parties from the "center" which knuckled under.

              – Tom Au
              10 hours ago











            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "324"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51326%2fwhy-did-other-german-political-parties-disband-so-fast-when-hitler-was-appointed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            27














            Three steps to observe:




            1. Hitler was given the chancellory

            2. Election in 1933


            3. Reichstag fire & Enabling decree


            First the really unwanted elements were beaten up, imprisoned or just killed. Then a lot of the right-wingers saw their wishes and chances and did not switch sides, to the contrary, they just switched the membership card. Then, after eliminating most of the legal options for opposition some parties were prohibited and many party members of those further down on the list had a sudden loss of membership as well.




            The election took place after the Nazis came to power on 30 January, when President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor. The latter immediately urged the dissolution of the Reichstag and the calling of new elections. In early February, the Nazis "unleashed a campaign of violence and terror that dwarfed anything seen so far." Stormtroopers began attacking trade union and Communist Party (KPD) offices and the homes of left-wingers.




            And then the enabling act, with regard to the Centre party:




            With the passing of the Enabling Act the Centre Party had set in motion its own demise. As promised during the negotiations, a working committee chaired by Hitler and Kaas and supposed to inform about further legislative measures, met three times (31 March, 2 April and 7 April) without any major impact.



            At that time, the Centre Party was weakened by massive defections by party members. Loyal party members, in particular civil servants, and other Catholic organisations were subject to increasing reprisals, despite Hitler's previous guarantees. The party was also hurt by a declaration of the German bishops that, while maintaining their opposition to Nazi ideology, modified the ban on cooperation with the new authorities.



            The issue of the concordat prolonged Kaas' stay in Rome, leaving the party without a chairman, and on 5 May Kaas finally resigned from his post. The party now elected Brüning as chairman. The party adopted a tempered version of the leadership principle; pro-Centre papers now declared that the party's members, or "retinue", would fully submit itself to Brüning. It was not enough, however, to relieve the growing pressure that it and other parties faced in the wake of the process of Gleichschaltung. Prominent members were frequently arrested and beaten, and pro-Centre civil servants were fired. As the summer of 1933 wore on, several government officials—including Papen—demanded that the Centre either dissolve or be closed down by the government.



            By July, the Centre was the only non-Nazi party that had not been browbeaten into dissolving itself (or had been banned outright, like the SPD). On 1 July, Papen and Kaas agreed that as part of the concordat, German priests would stay out of politics. Earlier, as part of negotiations, it was agreed that the party would dissolve as soon as the concordat had been concluded. As it turned out, the party dissolved on 5 July—much to the dismay of Cardinal Pacelli, who felt the party should at least have waited until after the conclusion of negotiations. The day after, the government issued a law declaring the NSDAP the only legally permitted party in the German state.







            from Q: … the Nazis still only won around 44% of the vote.
            It would seem at this point, then, that there was still a significant number of Germans – perhaps close to half – who did not support the Nazis.




            The communists were effectively structurally beheaded by that time and the fiercest opponents, even almost capable of offering armed resistance. While in that sorry state they still raked in 12.3% of votes, the social-democrats took 18.3%. Problem here is that only the SPD was against the nazis and actually for democracy. It's also quite the difference to see 44% of votes in staunch support of dictatorship tied to ony party and concluding that therefore 55% were opposed.



            In terms of ordering the political spectrum you would have to count the right-wing DNVP dominated KSWR with 8% towards the nazi seats, the Bavarian People's Party with another 2% as well, and while you're already close to the needed 2/3 dominance majority the rest of the parties were really insignificant by that time.



            In 1933 the army was full of sympathetic right-wingers, true. But to say that the nazis "controlled them" is far from the truth. To the contrary, the military elites were unsure of what to think of the Hitlerites and especially of the SA. By the end of 1933 the army was the only element left – short of a popular uprising – that could have stopped the fascists. But there were just no democrats to be found anywhere anymore. Also noteworthy is the fact that the Reichswehr was still at 115000 men. The SA by then had 2.9 million members.






            share|improve this answer






























              27














              Three steps to observe:




              1. Hitler was given the chancellory

              2. Election in 1933


              3. Reichstag fire & Enabling decree


              First the really unwanted elements were beaten up, imprisoned or just killed. Then a lot of the right-wingers saw their wishes and chances and did not switch sides, to the contrary, they just switched the membership card. Then, after eliminating most of the legal options for opposition some parties were prohibited and many party members of those further down on the list had a sudden loss of membership as well.




              The election took place after the Nazis came to power on 30 January, when President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor. The latter immediately urged the dissolution of the Reichstag and the calling of new elections. In early February, the Nazis "unleashed a campaign of violence and terror that dwarfed anything seen so far." Stormtroopers began attacking trade union and Communist Party (KPD) offices and the homes of left-wingers.




              And then the enabling act, with regard to the Centre party:




              With the passing of the Enabling Act the Centre Party had set in motion its own demise. As promised during the negotiations, a working committee chaired by Hitler and Kaas and supposed to inform about further legislative measures, met three times (31 March, 2 April and 7 April) without any major impact.



              At that time, the Centre Party was weakened by massive defections by party members. Loyal party members, in particular civil servants, and other Catholic organisations were subject to increasing reprisals, despite Hitler's previous guarantees. The party was also hurt by a declaration of the German bishops that, while maintaining their opposition to Nazi ideology, modified the ban on cooperation with the new authorities.



              The issue of the concordat prolonged Kaas' stay in Rome, leaving the party without a chairman, and on 5 May Kaas finally resigned from his post. The party now elected Brüning as chairman. The party adopted a tempered version of the leadership principle; pro-Centre papers now declared that the party's members, or "retinue", would fully submit itself to Brüning. It was not enough, however, to relieve the growing pressure that it and other parties faced in the wake of the process of Gleichschaltung. Prominent members were frequently arrested and beaten, and pro-Centre civil servants were fired. As the summer of 1933 wore on, several government officials—including Papen—demanded that the Centre either dissolve or be closed down by the government.



              By July, the Centre was the only non-Nazi party that had not been browbeaten into dissolving itself (or had been banned outright, like the SPD). On 1 July, Papen and Kaas agreed that as part of the concordat, German priests would stay out of politics. Earlier, as part of negotiations, it was agreed that the party would dissolve as soon as the concordat had been concluded. As it turned out, the party dissolved on 5 July—much to the dismay of Cardinal Pacelli, who felt the party should at least have waited until after the conclusion of negotiations. The day after, the government issued a law declaring the NSDAP the only legally permitted party in the German state.







              from Q: … the Nazis still only won around 44% of the vote.
              It would seem at this point, then, that there was still a significant number of Germans – perhaps close to half – who did not support the Nazis.




              The communists were effectively structurally beheaded by that time and the fiercest opponents, even almost capable of offering armed resistance. While in that sorry state they still raked in 12.3% of votes, the social-democrats took 18.3%. Problem here is that only the SPD was against the nazis and actually for democracy. It's also quite the difference to see 44% of votes in staunch support of dictatorship tied to ony party and concluding that therefore 55% were opposed.



              In terms of ordering the political spectrum you would have to count the right-wing DNVP dominated KSWR with 8% towards the nazi seats, the Bavarian People's Party with another 2% as well, and while you're already close to the needed 2/3 dominance majority the rest of the parties were really insignificant by that time.



              In 1933 the army was full of sympathetic right-wingers, true. But to say that the nazis "controlled them" is far from the truth. To the contrary, the military elites were unsure of what to think of the Hitlerites and especially of the SA. By the end of 1933 the army was the only element left – short of a popular uprising – that could have stopped the fascists. But there were just no democrats to be found anywhere anymore. Also noteworthy is the fact that the Reichswehr was still at 115000 men. The SA by then had 2.9 million members.






              share|improve this answer




























                27












                27








                27







                Three steps to observe:




                1. Hitler was given the chancellory

                2. Election in 1933


                3. Reichstag fire & Enabling decree


                First the really unwanted elements were beaten up, imprisoned or just killed. Then a lot of the right-wingers saw their wishes and chances and did not switch sides, to the contrary, they just switched the membership card. Then, after eliminating most of the legal options for opposition some parties were prohibited and many party members of those further down on the list had a sudden loss of membership as well.




                The election took place after the Nazis came to power on 30 January, when President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor. The latter immediately urged the dissolution of the Reichstag and the calling of new elections. In early February, the Nazis "unleashed a campaign of violence and terror that dwarfed anything seen so far." Stormtroopers began attacking trade union and Communist Party (KPD) offices and the homes of left-wingers.




                And then the enabling act, with regard to the Centre party:




                With the passing of the Enabling Act the Centre Party had set in motion its own demise. As promised during the negotiations, a working committee chaired by Hitler and Kaas and supposed to inform about further legislative measures, met three times (31 March, 2 April and 7 April) without any major impact.



                At that time, the Centre Party was weakened by massive defections by party members. Loyal party members, in particular civil servants, and other Catholic organisations were subject to increasing reprisals, despite Hitler's previous guarantees. The party was also hurt by a declaration of the German bishops that, while maintaining their opposition to Nazi ideology, modified the ban on cooperation with the new authorities.



                The issue of the concordat prolonged Kaas' stay in Rome, leaving the party without a chairman, and on 5 May Kaas finally resigned from his post. The party now elected Brüning as chairman. The party adopted a tempered version of the leadership principle; pro-Centre papers now declared that the party's members, or "retinue", would fully submit itself to Brüning. It was not enough, however, to relieve the growing pressure that it and other parties faced in the wake of the process of Gleichschaltung. Prominent members were frequently arrested and beaten, and pro-Centre civil servants were fired. As the summer of 1933 wore on, several government officials—including Papen—demanded that the Centre either dissolve or be closed down by the government.



                By July, the Centre was the only non-Nazi party that had not been browbeaten into dissolving itself (or had been banned outright, like the SPD). On 1 July, Papen and Kaas agreed that as part of the concordat, German priests would stay out of politics. Earlier, as part of negotiations, it was agreed that the party would dissolve as soon as the concordat had been concluded. As it turned out, the party dissolved on 5 July—much to the dismay of Cardinal Pacelli, who felt the party should at least have waited until after the conclusion of negotiations. The day after, the government issued a law declaring the NSDAP the only legally permitted party in the German state.







                from Q: … the Nazis still only won around 44% of the vote.
                It would seem at this point, then, that there was still a significant number of Germans – perhaps close to half – who did not support the Nazis.




                The communists were effectively structurally beheaded by that time and the fiercest opponents, even almost capable of offering armed resistance. While in that sorry state they still raked in 12.3% of votes, the social-democrats took 18.3%. Problem here is that only the SPD was against the nazis and actually for democracy. It's also quite the difference to see 44% of votes in staunch support of dictatorship tied to ony party and concluding that therefore 55% were opposed.



                In terms of ordering the political spectrum you would have to count the right-wing DNVP dominated KSWR with 8% towards the nazi seats, the Bavarian People's Party with another 2% as well, and while you're already close to the needed 2/3 dominance majority the rest of the parties were really insignificant by that time.



                In 1933 the army was full of sympathetic right-wingers, true. But to say that the nazis "controlled them" is far from the truth. To the contrary, the military elites were unsure of what to think of the Hitlerites and especially of the SA. By the end of 1933 the army was the only element left – short of a popular uprising – that could have stopped the fascists. But there were just no democrats to be found anywhere anymore. Also noteworthy is the fact that the Reichswehr was still at 115000 men. The SA by then had 2.9 million members.






                share|improve this answer















                Three steps to observe:




                1. Hitler was given the chancellory

                2. Election in 1933


                3. Reichstag fire & Enabling decree


                First the really unwanted elements were beaten up, imprisoned or just killed. Then a lot of the right-wingers saw their wishes and chances and did not switch sides, to the contrary, they just switched the membership card. Then, after eliminating most of the legal options for opposition some parties were prohibited and many party members of those further down on the list had a sudden loss of membership as well.




                The election took place after the Nazis came to power on 30 January, when President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor. The latter immediately urged the dissolution of the Reichstag and the calling of new elections. In early February, the Nazis "unleashed a campaign of violence and terror that dwarfed anything seen so far." Stormtroopers began attacking trade union and Communist Party (KPD) offices and the homes of left-wingers.




                And then the enabling act, with regard to the Centre party:




                With the passing of the Enabling Act the Centre Party had set in motion its own demise. As promised during the negotiations, a working committee chaired by Hitler and Kaas and supposed to inform about further legislative measures, met three times (31 March, 2 April and 7 April) without any major impact.



                At that time, the Centre Party was weakened by massive defections by party members. Loyal party members, in particular civil servants, and other Catholic organisations were subject to increasing reprisals, despite Hitler's previous guarantees. The party was also hurt by a declaration of the German bishops that, while maintaining their opposition to Nazi ideology, modified the ban on cooperation with the new authorities.



                The issue of the concordat prolonged Kaas' stay in Rome, leaving the party without a chairman, and on 5 May Kaas finally resigned from his post. The party now elected Brüning as chairman. The party adopted a tempered version of the leadership principle; pro-Centre papers now declared that the party's members, or "retinue", would fully submit itself to Brüning. It was not enough, however, to relieve the growing pressure that it and other parties faced in the wake of the process of Gleichschaltung. Prominent members were frequently arrested and beaten, and pro-Centre civil servants were fired. As the summer of 1933 wore on, several government officials—including Papen—demanded that the Centre either dissolve or be closed down by the government.



                By July, the Centre was the only non-Nazi party that had not been browbeaten into dissolving itself (or had been banned outright, like the SPD). On 1 July, Papen and Kaas agreed that as part of the concordat, German priests would stay out of politics. Earlier, as part of negotiations, it was agreed that the party would dissolve as soon as the concordat had been concluded. As it turned out, the party dissolved on 5 July—much to the dismay of Cardinal Pacelli, who felt the party should at least have waited until after the conclusion of negotiations. The day after, the government issued a law declaring the NSDAP the only legally permitted party in the German state.







                from Q: … the Nazis still only won around 44% of the vote.
                It would seem at this point, then, that there was still a significant number of Germans – perhaps close to half – who did not support the Nazis.




                The communists were effectively structurally beheaded by that time and the fiercest opponents, even almost capable of offering armed resistance. While in that sorry state they still raked in 12.3% of votes, the social-democrats took 18.3%. Problem here is that only the SPD was against the nazis and actually for democracy. It's also quite the difference to see 44% of votes in staunch support of dictatorship tied to ony party and concluding that therefore 55% were opposed.



                In terms of ordering the political spectrum you would have to count the right-wing DNVP dominated KSWR with 8% towards the nazi seats, the Bavarian People's Party with another 2% as well, and while you're already close to the needed 2/3 dominance majority the rest of the parties were really insignificant by that time.



                In 1933 the army was full of sympathetic right-wingers, true. But to say that the nazis "controlled them" is far from the truth. To the contrary, the military elites were unsure of what to think of the Hitlerites and especially of the SA. By the end of 1933 the army was the only element left – short of a popular uprising – that could have stopped the fascists. But there were just no democrats to be found anywhere anymore. Also noteworthy is the fact that the Reichswehr was still at 115000 men. The SA by then had 2.9 million members.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited 12 hours ago

























                answered 17 hours ago









                LangLangCLangLangC

                24.7k580125




                24.7k580125























                    3














                    People read the "handwriting on the wall."



                    The Nazis spent the spring shutting down the opposition one by one. First the Communists, then the Socialists.



                    It is important to know that "perhaps close to half that did not support the Nazis" was a fragmented, not unified block. Take out the "left" (Communists and the Socialists), and you are talking about less than a quarter.The "hard" opposition had already been shut down. The small center parties were far less determined in their opposition than the "left." They would rather "disappear" on their own than to have "enforcement" meted out to them.



                    It was like France in 1940. At some point, it was easier to give up than to fight on. The operative motto was "sauve qui peut."






                    share|improve this answer



















                    • 1





                      Having a bit of a problem here that SPD is called Socialists, like in Bismarck times. That element was largely gone and more importantly the SPD was part of the Weimar-coalition of 1919, meaning that SPD was far more centrist than left (without denying that tendency; and the typical right-wing view that they were far too left for their tastes already ;) Thing is that what was 'left' and 'center' then and is today was 'too left' for the nazis and their ilk in police and bureaucracy. For the rest it's +1 from me.

                      – LangLangC
                      10 hours ago






                    • 1





                      Ah. But I think that then conflates being 'left' with really opposing the new regime. The other centrist parties from said coalition, the Center-party and the DDP were weaker but also not really in favour of AH. The center with the SPD as part of it eroded. I think changing that bit or explaining the meaning of your quotes (I also struggle a bit to clearly differentiate 'left-wing' from 'left-over' in my ears) might be beneficial?

                      – LangLangC
                      10 hours ago






                    • 1





                      @LangLangC: I put "left" in scare quotes for just that reason. I referred to the socialists as "left" because they actually opposed the Enabling Act instead of supporting it. (The Communists would have done the same, if they could have). This is to distinguish both parties from the "center" which knuckled under.

                      – Tom Au
                      10 hours ago
















                    3














                    People read the "handwriting on the wall."



                    The Nazis spent the spring shutting down the opposition one by one. First the Communists, then the Socialists.



                    It is important to know that "perhaps close to half that did not support the Nazis" was a fragmented, not unified block. Take out the "left" (Communists and the Socialists), and you are talking about less than a quarter.The "hard" opposition had already been shut down. The small center parties were far less determined in their opposition than the "left." They would rather "disappear" on their own than to have "enforcement" meted out to them.



                    It was like France in 1940. At some point, it was easier to give up than to fight on. The operative motto was "sauve qui peut."






                    share|improve this answer



















                    • 1





                      Having a bit of a problem here that SPD is called Socialists, like in Bismarck times. That element was largely gone and more importantly the SPD was part of the Weimar-coalition of 1919, meaning that SPD was far more centrist than left (without denying that tendency; and the typical right-wing view that they were far too left for their tastes already ;) Thing is that what was 'left' and 'center' then and is today was 'too left' for the nazis and their ilk in police and bureaucracy. For the rest it's +1 from me.

                      – LangLangC
                      10 hours ago






                    • 1





                      Ah. But I think that then conflates being 'left' with really opposing the new regime. The other centrist parties from said coalition, the Center-party and the DDP were weaker but also not really in favour of AH. The center with the SPD as part of it eroded. I think changing that bit or explaining the meaning of your quotes (I also struggle a bit to clearly differentiate 'left-wing' from 'left-over' in my ears) might be beneficial?

                      – LangLangC
                      10 hours ago






                    • 1





                      @LangLangC: I put "left" in scare quotes for just that reason. I referred to the socialists as "left" because they actually opposed the Enabling Act instead of supporting it. (The Communists would have done the same, if they could have). This is to distinguish both parties from the "center" which knuckled under.

                      – Tom Au
                      10 hours ago














                    3












                    3








                    3







                    People read the "handwriting on the wall."



                    The Nazis spent the spring shutting down the opposition one by one. First the Communists, then the Socialists.



                    It is important to know that "perhaps close to half that did not support the Nazis" was a fragmented, not unified block. Take out the "left" (Communists and the Socialists), and you are talking about less than a quarter.The "hard" opposition had already been shut down. The small center parties were far less determined in their opposition than the "left." They would rather "disappear" on their own than to have "enforcement" meted out to them.



                    It was like France in 1940. At some point, it was easier to give up than to fight on. The operative motto was "sauve qui peut."






                    share|improve this answer













                    People read the "handwriting on the wall."



                    The Nazis spent the spring shutting down the opposition one by one. First the Communists, then the Socialists.



                    It is important to know that "perhaps close to half that did not support the Nazis" was a fragmented, not unified block. Take out the "left" (Communists and the Socialists), and you are talking about less than a quarter.The "hard" opposition had already been shut down. The small center parties were far less determined in their opposition than the "left." They would rather "disappear" on their own than to have "enforcement" meted out to them.



                    It was like France in 1940. At some point, it was easier to give up than to fight on. The operative motto was "sauve qui peut."







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 10 hours ago









                    Tom AuTom Au

                    76.8k11184406




                    76.8k11184406








                    • 1





                      Having a bit of a problem here that SPD is called Socialists, like in Bismarck times. That element was largely gone and more importantly the SPD was part of the Weimar-coalition of 1919, meaning that SPD was far more centrist than left (without denying that tendency; and the typical right-wing view that they were far too left for their tastes already ;) Thing is that what was 'left' and 'center' then and is today was 'too left' for the nazis and their ilk in police and bureaucracy. For the rest it's +1 from me.

                      – LangLangC
                      10 hours ago






                    • 1





                      Ah. But I think that then conflates being 'left' with really opposing the new regime. The other centrist parties from said coalition, the Center-party and the DDP were weaker but also not really in favour of AH. The center with the SPD as part of it eroded. I think changing that bit or explaining the meaning of your quotes (I also struggle a bit to clearly differentiate 'left-wing' from 'left-over' in my ears) might be beneficial?

                      – LangLangC
                      10 hours ago






                    • 1





                      @LangLangC: I put "left" in scare quotes for just that reason. I referred to the socialists as "left" because they actually opposed the Enabling Act instead of supporting it. (The Communists would have done the same, if they could have). This is to distinguish both parties from the "center" which knuckled under.

                      – Tom Au
                      10 hours ago














                    • 1





                      Having a bit of a problem here that SPD is called Socialists, like in Bismarck times. That element was largely gone and more importantly the SPD was part of the Weimar-coalition of 1919, meaning that SPD was far more centrist than left (without denying that tendency; and the typical right-wing view that they were far too left for their tastes already ;) Thing is that what was 'left' and 'center' then and is today was 'too left' for the nazis and their ilk in police and bureaucracy. For the rest it's +1 from me.

                      – LangLangC
                      10 hours ago






                    • 1





                      Ah. But I think that then conflates being 'left' with really opposing the new regime. The other centrist parties from said coalition, the Center-party and the DDP were weaker but also not really in favour of AH. The center with the SPD as part of it eroded. I think changing that bit or explaining the meaning of your quotes (I also struggle a bit to clearly differentiate 'left-wing' from 'left-over' in my ears) might be beneficial?

                      – LangLangC
                      10 hours ago






                    • 1





                      @LangLangC: I put "left" in scare quotes for just that reason. I referred to the socialists as "left" because they actually opposed the Enabling Act instead of supporting it. (The Communists would have done the same, if they could have). This is to distinguish both parties from the "center" which knuckled under.

                      – Tom Au
                      10 hours ago








                    1




                    1





                    Having a bit of a problem here that SPD is called Socialists, like in Bismarck times. That element was largely gone and more importantly the SPD was part of the Weimar-coalition of 1919, meaning that SPD was far more centrist than left (without denying that tendency; and the typical right-wing view that they were far too left for their tastes already ;) Thing is that what was 'left' and 'center' then and is today was 'too left' for the nazis and their ilk in police and bureaucracy. For the rest it's +1 from me.

                    – LangLangC
                    10 hours ago





                    Having a bit of a problem here that SPD is called Socialists, like in Bismarck times. That element was largely gone and more importantly the SPD was part of the Weimar-coalition of 1919, meaning that SPD was far more centrist than left (without denying that tendency; and the typical right-wing view that they were far too left for their tastes already ;) Thing is that what was 'left' and 'center' then and is today was 'too left' for the nazis and their ilk in police and bureaucracy. For the rest it's +1 from me.

                    – LangLangC
                    10 hours ago




                    1




                    1





                    Ah. But I think that then conflates being 'left' with really opposing the new regime. The other centrist parties from said coalition, the Center-party and the DDP were weaker but also not really in favour of AH. The center with the SPD as part of it eroded. I think changing that bit or explaining the meaning of your quotes (I also struggle a bit to clearly differentiate 'left-wing' from 'left-over' in my ears) might be beneficial?

                    – LangLangC
                    10 hours ago





                    Ah. But I think that then conflates being 'left' with really opposing the new regime. The other centrist parties from said coalition, the Center-party and the DDP were weaker but also not really in favour of AH. The center with the SPD as part of it eroded. I think changing that bit or explaining the meaning of your quotes (I also struggle a bit to clearly differentiate 'left-wing' from 'left-over' in my ears) might be beneficial?

                    – LangLangC
                    10 hours ago




                    1




                    1





                    @LangLangC: I put "left" in scare quotes for just that reason. I referred to the socialists as "left" because they actually opposed the Enabling Act instead of supporting it. (The Communists would have done the same, if they could have). This is to distinguish both parties from the "center" which knuckled under.

                    – Tom Au
                    10 hours ago





                    @LangLangC: I put "left" in scare quotes for just that reason. I referred to the socialists as "left" because they actually opposed the Enabling Act instead of supporting it. (The Communists would have done the same, if they could have). This is to distinguish both parties from the "center" which knuckled under.

                    – Tom Au
                    10 hours ago


















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51326%2fwhy-did-other-german-political-parties-disband-so-fast-when-hitler-was-appointed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    is 'sed' thread safeWhat should someone know about using Python scripts in the shell?Nexenta bash script uses...

                    How do i solve the “ No module named 'mlxtend' ” issue on Jupyter?

                    Pilgersdorf Inhaltsverzeichnis Geografie | Geschichte | Bevölkerungsentwicklung | Politik | Kultur...