Nazi politicking to get hitler eleted to reichtag

Although this is not a ww2 related question, can someone point me to any resoures that would give me an indepth understanding of the political activity that took place in the reichtag to get Hitler elected ??

I am specifically interested in the part that Hermann Goering played in negotiations with the Socialist and other parties.

'The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany' has a good insight into the rise of the Nazi party. Have a look on Amazon and you might find it

I would suggest Ian Kershaw's two-volume biography, Hitler. If you really want only the Reichstag events, then volume one, 'Hubris'.

all the best

I haven't read that one - but a book of a similar title is William Shirer's classic 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' which is one of the (in my humble opinion) essential works on the history of National Socialism.

It was first published in 1960 and definitely suffers from some inaccuracies that were thought true at the time [*], however it is overall an excellent work. It details the political maneuverings leading up to Hitler's assumption of the Chancellorship in January 30th, 1933 in great detail.

[*] The matter of Hitler's NSDAP membership number is a good example. Shirer incorrectly claims that Hitler weas the seventh NSDAP member as Hitler had long claimed that his party member card was number 7. However, his actual membership card (which was found after 1960 IIRC) showed that he was member 555. As the membership numbers started at 500 this meant that Hitler was party member 55, and certainly not the seventh member as he long claimed. Anton Drexler, the founder of the NSDAP, had written to Hitler to contest this issue on several occasions prior to his death in 1942.

Probably the best direct work on this is Henry Turner's 'Hitler's Thirty Days to Power: January 1933' published in 1996.

Eugene Davidson's revised edition of 'The Making of Adolf Hitler' is also supposed to be good, though it's based on an older (1977) original edition.

One thing to be born in mind is that there was a major upheaval amongst scholars on this subject in 1986, so things written prior to this date don't reflect the best current knowledge.

If it is not too much trouble, could you write a couple sentences about the pre-86, and post 86 views? Main changes and why?

I can endorse this. Prof Turner's account is excellent and is particularly good at highlighting the non-inevitability of Hitler's rise to power and the alternatives available.

I'm referring to what is called the Historikerstreit, which translates to 'Historians' Dispute'. To greatly simplify the issues involved, it was over how to treat the Weimar and Nazi eras, tied in with the evolving general dispute among historians about the roles of more traditional political, diplomatic and economic histories and the newer social histories. A central concern was whether to treat the Nazi era as an isolated but overwhelmingly important facet of German history or as part of the larger flow, particularly with regards to modernization.

Of relevance to the original question, there had been a lot of research beginning in the 1960s of social, economic and voting data which was used to determine where Hitler's support really came from, along with support for the other political parties, notably the Socialists and Communists. Prior to this point, many had assumed that the NSDAP, SPD and KPD drew on more-or-less the same general group of adherents. This turned out not to be true, beyond an amorphous mass of the discontented unemployed who bounced between political allegiances for more-or-less non-political reasons.

What the Historikerstreit led to was a better integration of the results of the new social historians with those of the more traditional. So the general histories of the Nazi era from the 1990s offer a more sophisticated and more correct (as far as we can tell) portrait.

Hitler did not get elected, but was appointed Reichskanzler by President Hindenburg on January 30, 1933.

Georg, I think your reasoning depends on a very narrow semantical point, and tends to mislead most readers.

The process of democracy, and elections, did play a major role in his rise to what we consider a dictatorship.

Hitler was certainly recognized as the leader and main public spokesman for the National Socialist Party (the Nazi Party). The party, and Hitler, gained support from numbers and thus 'respect' from other leaders.

Yes, on January 30, 1933 the 85 year old President Hindenburg did appoint Hitler as Chancellor. But his authority and power were still limited.

Soon after came the elections of 1933. Under Hitler's leadership and speeches the Nazi party got over 17,000,000 votes. This election elevated the Nazi party to the largest representation in the Reichstag. (288 seats, not majority but largest, Socialists had 118, Communists 81, Center had 73, + other smaller ones).

bargans and intimidations, the Nazi party was able to control, and on March 24, the Reichstag voted 441 to 94 to give Hitler complete emergency power for 4 years.

So, after Hitler wrote 'Mein Kampf', which to many of us clearly show many evil views, and while preaching it's message, Hitler's party went on to election victories. These gave Hitler power.

I feel 17 million German citizen's votes is a lot of votes. These citizens have then a tough time saying to me any thing like, 'We didn't know' or 'We weren't responsible.' Hitler's stance and views were quite clear.

Thank goodness for all the world, the post war period led to improvements in education, economy, trade, world views, and democracy.

<Snip good argument>

<Snip continues>

I also often suspect this argument usually comes from U.S. citizens unfamiliar with the Western European norm with a parliamentary system where the leading party almost never has an outright majority. I don't believe there's been one chancellor of post war Germany that hasn't belonged to a party that needed a partnership with another party for parliamentary majority, whether it's the CDU/CDP(?) union or SPD and now defunct FDP, or more modern partners of convenience. Weimar Germany's party system was was fairly chaotic with splinter groups all over the map, left and right. For Hitlers' party to have garnered such a large % of the vote under those conditions is not to be dismissed as 'less than a full majority'. That's simply ignoring the actualities of the time, place and form of gov't.