Cambridge International A Level 9489
Paper 4: Hitler’s Germany (1929-1941)
Question: “Hitler’s consolidation of power between January 1933 and August 1934 was
achieved primarily through legal means.” Assess this view. [30]
Hitler’s consolidation of power between January 1933 and August 1934 was achieved to a large extent
LY
through ostensibly legal means. However, these measures operated alongside intimidation, political
repression and outright violence.
The most important legal step was the Reichstag Fire Decree (Reichstagsbrandverordnung) of 28
February 1933. Following the Reichstag fire on 27 February, Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to
R
invoke Article 48, suspending fundamental civil and political rights. The decree permitted arbitrary arrest
and greatly restricted freedom of speech, assembly and the press. Although formally issued through
constitutional emergency powers, its purpose was to destroy the political capacity of the KPD and
intimidate the wider opposition before the March election. Around 10,000 communists were arrested in
TA
the weeks following the fire. Thus, the measure was technically legal but democratically destructive. Hitler
exploited the existing constitution to eliminate the freedoms upon which that constitution depended.
The Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz) of 23 March 1933 was even more significant. It allowed
Hitler’s government to make laws without Reichstag approval and, crucially, without reference to the
AS
constitution for four years. The vote was 441 to 94, with only the SPD voting against, while Communist
deputies had already been arrested or excluded. SA men were present around the Kroll Opera House, where
the vote took place, intimidating deputies. Hitler therefore obtained extraordinary legal powers, but the
circumstances surrounding the vote reveal that legality and coercion were inseparable. The Act provided
the formal authority through which the seizure of power could become permanent. In this sense, the
consolidation of power can legitimately be described as a legal revolution, but only if the coercive conditions
that made that legality possible are recognised.
Hitler then used these powers to establish Gleichschaltung, bringing German political and social
institutions into line with Nazi objectives. On 2 May 1933, trade union offices were occupied and union
leaders arrested. The independent trade unions were subsequently replaced by the German Labour Front
(DAF). On 14 July 1933, the Law Against the Formation of New Parties formally established Germany as
, a one party state. The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service of 7 April 1933 permitted
the removal of political opponents and many Jewish officials from the civil service. These measures
demonstrate that Hitler did not need to abolish every institution through physical force. He could use
legislation to impose Gleichschaltung and establish the Führerstaat through apparently legitimate
administrative mechanisms.
However, the extent to which this was genuinely a legal process is questionable. SA violence was central to
the seizure of power in 1933. SA members intimidated political opponents, disrupted Communist and Social
Democratic activity and were responsible for widespread assaults and killings. Cambridge’s indicative
content notes estimates of approximately 500 murders by the SA in 1934 and around 100,000 arrests
LY
by the end of 1933. Concentration camps, beginning with Dachau on 22 March 1933, provided a further
mechanism for suppressing opponents outside normal judicial procedures. The practice of protective custody
(Schutzhaft) allowed individuals to be imprisoned without normal legal safeguards. Therefore, the legal
measures of 1933 were underpinned by a parallel system of terror. The laws did not independently produce
Nazi control. They formalised a political situation increasingly created by intimidation.
R
The Night of the Long Knives, from 30 June to 2 July 1934, provides the clearest evidence against the view
that consolidation was primarily legal. Hitler ordered the SS to eliminate Ernst Röhm and the leadership
of the SA, alongside other perceived political enemies. Former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and Gregor
TA
Strasser were among those killed. The purge removed the possibility that the SA could challenge Hitler or
alarm the Reichswehr further, while simultaneously demonstrating that Hitler could use lethal force
against his own supporters. The murders were subsequently given a retrospective legal justification
through the Law Regarding Measures of State Self Defence, passed on 3 July 1934. The regime presented
the operation as suppression of a supposed Röhm Putsch, even though the alleged coup was largely a
AS
pretext. This is particularly revealing because the regime used legislation after the violence to legitimise
acts that had not themselves been conducted through normal legal procedures. Consequently, the Röhm
Putsch demonstrates that legality was often a mechanism for legitimising coercion rather than its
alternative.
Nevertheless, the purge was strategically important because it secured the cooperation of the Reichswehr,
which Hitler needed if he was to become completely secure. Röhm’s ambitions for the SA to become the
basis of a revolutionary national militia threatened the army’s position. By eliminating the SA leadership,
Hitler reassured the Reichswehr and removed a potential source of internal opposition. When President
Hindenburg died on 2 August 1934, Hitler combined the offices of President and Chancellor and assumed
the title Führer and Reich Chancellor. On the same day, members of the armed forces swore a personal
Paper 4: Hitler’s Germany (1929-1941)
Question: “Hitler’s consolidation of power between January 1933 and August 1934 was
achieved primarily through legal means.” Assess this view. [30]
Hitler’s consolidation of power between January 1933 and August 1934 was achieved to a large extent
LY
through ostensibly legal means. However, these measures operated alongside intimidation, political
repression and outright violence.
The most important legal step was the Reichstag Fire Decree (Reichstagsbrandverordnung) of 28
February 1933. Following the Reichstag fire on 27 February, Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to
R
invoke Article 48, suspending fundamental civil and political rights. The decree permitted arbitrary arrest
and greatly restricted freedom of speech, assembly and the press. Although formally issued through
constitutional emergency powers, its purpose was to destroy the political capacity of the KPD and
intimidate the wider opposition before the March election. Around 10,000 communists were arrested in
TA
the weeks following the fire. Thus, the measure was technically legal but democratically destructive. Hitler
exploited the existing constitution to eliminate the freedoms upon which that constitution depended.
The Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz) of 23 March 1933 was even more significant. It allowed
Hitler’s government to make laws without Reichstag approval and, crucially, without reference to the
AS
constitution for four years. The vote was 441 to 94, with only the SPD voting against, while Communist
deputies had already been arrested or excluded. SA men were present around the Kroll Opera House, where
the vote took place, intimidating deputies. Hitler therefore obtained extraordinary legal powers, but the
circumstances surrounding the vote reveal that legality and coercion were inseparable. The Act provided
the formal authority through which the seizure of power could become permanent. In this sense, the
consolidation of power can legitimately be described as a legal revolution, but only if the coercive conditions
that made that legality possible are recognised.
Hitler then used these powers to establish Gleichschaltung, bringing German political and social
institutions into line with Nazi objectives. On 2 May 1933, trade union offices were occupied and union
leaders arrested. The independent trade unions were subsequently replaced by the German Labour Front
(DAF). On 14 July 1933, the Law Against the Formation of New Parties formally established Germany as
, a one party state. The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service of 7 April 1933 permitted
the removal of political opponents and many Jewish officials from the civil service. These measures
demonstrate that Hitler did not need to abolish every institution through physical force. He could use
legislation to impose Gleichschaltung and establish the Führerstaat through apparently legitimate
administrative mechanisms.
However, the extent to which this was genuinely a legal process is questionable. SA violence was central to
the seizure of power in 1933. SA members intimidated political opponents, disrupted Communist and Social
Democratic activity and were responsible for widespread assaults and killings. Cambridge’s indicative
content notes estimates of approximately 500 murders by the SA in 1934 and around 100,000 arrests
LY
by the end of 1933. Concentration camps, beginning with Dachau on 22 March 1933, provided a further
mechanism for suppressing opponents outside normal judicial procedures. The practice of protective custody
(Schutzhaft) allowed individuals to be imprisoned without normal legal safeguards. Therefore, the legal
measures of 1933 were underpinned by a parallel system of terror. The laws did not independently produce
Nazi control. They formalised a political situation increasingly created by intimidation.
R
The Night of the Long Knives, from 30 June to 2 July 1934, provides the clearest evidence against the view
that consolidation was primarily legal. Hitler ordered the SS to eliminate Ernst Röhm and the leadership
of the SA, alongside other perceived political enemies. Former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and Gregor
TA
Strasser were among those killed. The purge removed the possibility that the SA could challenge Hitler or
alarm the Reichswehr further, while simultaneously demonstrating that Hitler could use lethal force
against his own supporters. The murders were subsequently given a retrospective legal justification
through the Law Regarding Measures of State Self Defence, passed on 3 July 1934. The regime presented
the operation as suppression of a supposed Röhm Putsch, even though the alleged coup was largely a
AS
pretext. This is particularly revealing because the regime used legislation after the violence to legitimise
acts that had not themselves been conducted through normal legal procedures. Consequently, the Röhm
Putsch demonstrates that legality was often a mechanism for legitimising coercion rather than its
alternative.
Nevertheless, the purge was strategically important because it secured the cooperation of the Reichswehr,
which Hitler needed if he was to become completely secure. Röhm’s ambitions for the SA to become the
basis of a revolutionary national militia threatened the army’s position. By eliminating the SA leadership,
Hitler reassured the Reichswehr and removed a potential source of internal opposition. When President
Hindenburg died on 2 August 1934, Hitler combined the offices of President and Chancellor and assumed
the title Führer and Reich Chancellor. On the same day, members of the armed forces swore a personal
