The key reason for Hitler becoming Chancellor in 1933 was Bruning’s failures in the years
1930 to 1932.’
A key debate in history is the rise of Hitler to chancellor and who or what is to blame. One
argument is that a key reason was chancellor Heinrich Brunings failures in his years of
leadership in 1930-1932. Reasons for this such as his unpopular persona and policies, his
election calling and reliance on presidential decree. Although, this is disputed by historians
claiming it was down to external factors beyond his control such as the economic and political
climate of the crisis years, the appeal of Hitler or even other key figure. In this essay I will
conclude that while Brunings failures have a part to play, they are not the key reason in the
rise of Hitler.
One reason in agreement to the statement is that Bruning was known as ‘the Hunger
Chancellor’, during his years in power. This is because his government focused on
deflationary policies to deal with the Depression, cutting government expenditure on welfare
benefits, reducing the number of civil servants, cutting wages and increasing taxes. These
policies caused many German people to starve and adopt ‘poverty diets’. These diets
consisted of low energy foods such as two potatoes a day for a family and some cabbage, this
malnourishment and social unrest came to be associated with Brunings power. in addition his
policies were deeply unpopular across the political spectrum. Left-wingers argued that
restricting benefits was against their fundamental beliefs in equality. Right-wingers were
equally opposed as they deplored the payment of benefits to those who were unemployed
and despised the increase in tax. This meant gridlock in parliament and Bruning alienating
both sides of the Reichstag. Furthermore these policies were also seen as worsening
unemployment – by Feb 1932 unemployment surpassed 6 million under his government – as
unemployment increased, so too did electoral support for the Nazis and KPD, and the level of
street violence rose too with regular battles between the NSDAP SA fighters and the red front
fighters league leading to a SA ban in April 1932. Later, by the spring of 1932, there was
growing alarm among the middle and upper classes that Germany was descending into chaos
and that a communist revolution was a real possibility, this further increased Nazi electoral
support this can be seen in July 1932 a few months later, when the Nazis became the largest
party in the Reichstag with 37.5% of the vote.
However, labelling Bruning’s policies as ‘failures’ could be seen as harsh. He was in charge
during the worst phase of the Depression, the German economy had entered the depression
with such severe weaknesses from the 1920s and it is hard to know what would have been a
better policy, many historians such as Sebastian Haffner would argue that he was a victim to
circumstance, and that any politician in his position would’ve had to make tough and
unpopular decisions but given the economic and political climate he could not have done
much better. In addition he did try to deal with the spiralling violence by banning the SA in
April 1932. Although this did lead to Schleicher withdrawing his support and inevitably leading
to his downfall.
Another reason that Brunings failures in leadership lead to Hitler becoming chancellor is
Bruning had no Reichstag majority and had to rely on Article 48 consistently to pass anything,
for example to pass his finance bill in 1930. This undermined political legitimacy and lost a lot
of the German peoples support in the government, calling it an ‘elective dictatorship’. He
relied on Hindenburg for his political survival and on other members of the elite such as von
Schleicher. Once this support was removed, it brought Hitler closer to power as the leader of
the biggest party he had much more power and control over his actions. As the Reichstag
became unmanageable, its proceedings became increasingly irrelevant. It did not meet at all
between February and October 1931, and, even after that, its sessions became shorter and
more infrequent once again proving to voters that democracy was not working under the
current government, and furthermore playing into the extensive propaganda perpetuated by
the Nazi party. Political power in Weimar Germany was moving toward the right- wing as they
posed a better option of leadership, a strong and stable autocratic rule, the opposite of what
Bruning currently presented.
1930 to 1932.’
A key debate in history is the rise of Hitler to chancellor and who or what is to blame. One
argument is that a key reason was chancellor Heinrich Brunings failures in his years of
leadership in 1930-1932. Reasons for this such as his unpopular persona and policies, his
election calling and reliance on presidential decree. Although, this is disputed by historians
claiming it was down to external factors beyond his control such as the economic and political
climate of the crisis years, the appeal of Hitler or even other key figure. In this essay I will
conclude that while Brunings failures have a part to play, they are not the key reason in the
rise of Hitler.
One reason in agreement to the statement is that Bruning was known as ‘the Hunger
Chancellor’, during his years in power. This is because his government focused on
deflationary policies to deal with the Depression, cutting government expenditure on welfare
benefits, reducing the number of civil servants, cutting wages and increasing taxes. These
policies caused many German people to starve and adopt ‘poverty diets’. These diets
consisted of low energy foods such as two potatoes a day for a family and some cabbage, this
malnourishment and social unrest came to be associated with Brunings power. in addition his
policies were deeply unpopular across the political spectrum. Left-wingers argued that
restricting benefits was against their fundamental beliefs in equality. Right-wingers were
equally opposed as they deplored the payment of benefits to those who were unemployed
and despised the increase in tax. This meant gridlock in parliament and Bruning alienating
both sides of the Reichstag. Furthermore these policies were also seen as worsening
unemployment – by Feb 1932 unemployment surpassed 6 million under his government – as
unemployment increased, so too did electoral support for the Nazis and KPD, and the level of
street violence rose too with regular battles between the NSDAP SA fighters and the red front
fighters league leading to a SA ban in April 1932. Later, by the spring of 1932, there was
growing alarm among the middle and upper classes that Germany was descending into chaos
and that a communist revolution was a real possibility, this further increased Nazi electoral
support this can be seen in July 1932 a few months later, when the Nazis became the largest
party in the Reichstag with 37.5% of the vote.
However, labelling Bruning’s policies as ‘failures’ could be seen as harsh. He was in charge
during the worst phase of the Depression, the German economy had entered the depression
with such severe weaknesses from the 1920s and it is hard to know what would have been a
better policy, many historians such as Sebastian Haffner would argue that he was a victim to
circumstance, and that any politician in his position would’ve had to make tough and
unpopular decisions but given the economic and political climate he could not have done
much better. In addition he did try to deal with the spiralling violence by banning the SA in
April 1932. Although this did lead to Schleicher withdrawing his support and inevitably leading
to his downfall.
Another reason that Brunings failures in leadership lead to Hitler becoming chancellor is
Bruning had no Reichstag majority and had to rely on Article 48 consistently to pass anything,
for example to pass his finance bill in 1930. This undermined political legitimacy and lost a lot
of the German peoples support in the government, calling it an ‘elective dictatorship’. He
relied on Hindenburg for his political survival and on other members of the elite such as von
Schleicher. Once this support was removed, it brought Hitler closer to power as the leader of
the biggest party he had much more power and control over his actions. As the Reichstag
became unmanageable, its proceedings became increasingly irrelevant. It did not meet at all
between February and October 1931, and, even after that, its sessions became shorter and
more infrequent once again proving to voters that democracy was not working under the
current government, and furthermore playing into the extensive propaganda perpetuated by
the Nazi party. Political power in Weimar Germany was moving toward the right- wing as they
posed a better option of leadership, a strong and stable autocratic rule, the opposite of what
Bruning currently presented.
