Urgent! History question (Hitler uprising)?

Question

Was politics or economics most important in making Hitler Chancellor?

Answer 1

In the end, Hitler did not TAKE power at all – he was given it.
http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar7.htm
Why did Hitler become chancellor in 1933?
http://www.coursework.info/i/9263.html
Hitler's rise to chancellor came about because of the political problems Germany faced rather than being elected for the position.
Why did Hitler come to power?
http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar7.htm
1. Long-term bitterness
2. Ineffective Constitution
3.Money
4.Propaganda
5.Programme
6.Hitler promised everybody something, so they supported him.
7.Attacks on other parties
8. Personal Qualities
9.Hitler was a brilliant speaker, and his eyes had a peculiar power over people. He was a good organiser and politician. He was a driven, unstable man, who believed that he had been called by God to become dictator of Germany and rule the world.

Economic Depression
After the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the US called in its loans to Germany, and the German economy collapsed.
Recruited by Hindenburg
..................NOTE...............................
TO:#6 who answered. The above is the money factor. Not the Jews.
You have your story/(history) all wrong!
...............NOTE...................................
#2 He was NOT elected ...He was appointed/given to him/demanded it
Franz von Papen (a friend of Hindenburg) was Chancellor, but he could not get enough support in the Reichstag. Hindenburg and von Papen were having to govern by emergency decree under Article 48 of the Constitution. They offered Hitler the post of vice-Chancellor if he promised to support them.

Hitler refused – he demanded to be made Chancellor. So Von Papen and Hindenburg took a risk. On 30 January 1933 Hindenburg made Hitler Chancellor. He thought he could control Hitler – how wrong he was.

Answer 2

Its definitely politics.

At the time, the Nazi party lost votes during the election, so it was clear they were losing power. However, the President of Germany had the power to appoint a Chancellor, and he chose Hitler. The German people did not choose him in the first place. So because he was appointed by someone who was scared of communists coming to power, Hitler was appointed.

Answer 3

Both, probably equally. Certainly economic conditions made Hitler look better than a lot of others, but he was pretty good at making even financially-secure people do what he wished.

Note that he was elected fair and square, a lesson to those who wish to spread democracy. Note also that he had a perfectly rational plan to solve all of the problems of Germany all at once. There are lots of these. Beware.

Answer 4

Both, it was the desire for power that they used false information (Jews are the cause of the economic slump of most Germans) and false sense of national pride (Arian Race is the dominant race) that they trick the desperate citizens to put them in political power in those economic slump.
But if you gonna look non of the citizen have improve their economic status except for the corrupt military, and political leaders. The made the people hate a race that only wanted to make a living doing business and isn't in the government position to make any significant economic change.
They not only fed their financial gluttony, but also fed their sadistic desire and their lust and hunger for power.

Answer 5

I say economics if I can choose only one. When people are hungry they'll believe most anything to improve their lot in life. But there is no denying he was charismatic and understood politics. So the truth lies somewhere in between. Neither arena can be exploited separate from the other.

Answer 6

i would say if you were to go back in time it would depend on what type of person you asked and their answers would not be either of those..... but it was more about pride an ego no matter how it goes(given that a large part of the population felt they were being punished to harshly by the treaty of Versailles) that aside if you start with either of those two choices (economics or politics) u always end up at the other choice anyway

Answer 7

politics -- the economy wasn't as bad as most people like to pretend. its a lot easier saying "oh we were starving when we got our bouts of fierce nationalism and hitler saved us from starvation" -- but its not accurate.

its kind of like if you blamed everything on illegal immigrants in the united states right now -- the economy isn't great but nobody is starving -- yet a lot of people stay overly focused on a group easy to scapegoat.

Answer 8

I would say economics followed by nationalism.