How valid is the assessment saying that Hitler's rise to power was a legal/political revolution

Firstly we must consider what is meant by revolution. Usually it will refer to 'fundamental change-an overturning of existing conditions'. In this essay, I will weigh up the factors to decide how far it can be said that Hitler's rise and consolidation of power was firstly political and secondly a revolution.

In 1933, the Reichstag elections were called 24 hours after Hitler became Chancellor. The methods used by the Nazi party were illegal and undemocratic, featuring terror and violence from the SA.

Following this, the Enabling Act was obtained politically due to the 2/3 majority and ensured that it was passed. The development of these laws also gave the Nazis justification for the 'development of the regime and order' that would be seen in acts of violence, most notably the Night of the Long Knives.

Gleichschltung or co-ordination was a means of Nazification of the state. This can be argued to be revolutionary because it sought to overturn what already existed in Germany.

However it is important to remember that although the Nazis co-ordinated clubs and trade union under the DAF and KdF the big businesses, Church and the Army (until 1938) were left alone. The Nazis were dependant on their support and left them alone.

Also, although new laws and law courts were introduced, the Nazis did not completely change the legal system but rather adapted it to suit themselves and their requirements on an ad hoc basis.

On the other hand, the consolidation can be argued to be a political revolution because a law was passed on the 14th of July banning other political parties and cementing Germany as a one party state.

However, in some respects, it can be said that Hitler did not believe in a 'revolution' as his speech at the Nuremburg Rally in 1934 called for evolution rather than revolution. As well as this, Hitler's contrasting view with Rohm and the SA about a revolution from below is worth taking into consideration when considering 1933-38 as a whole.

The Night of the Long Knives is important because it demonstrates Hitler's reluctance to take the fully radical and revolutionary route but also in some sense, take radical action against members in his own party to prevent potential revolution.

In this, he was able to legalise murder and appear heoric for having saved Germany from socialism.

The death of Hindenburg was valuable because it demonstrates Hitler as a successful politician because he was able to smoothly merge the positions of Chancellor to President to become the Furher.

It can also be said that the Blomberg-Fritsch crisis in 1938 was revolutionary because Hitler was successful in finally controlling the army.

In conclusion, I think that to define Hitler's consolidation of power as purely revolutionary and political in nature is not accurate to be taken as face value. It can be argued that individual aspects are more so but as a whole, I do not agree with this view.

23/30