Talk:Adolf Hitler's rise to power

Edit Request: Benno Reifenberg quote ascribed to Theodor Wolff

> It is a hopeless misjudgement to think that one could force a dictatorial regime upon the German nation. [...] The diversity of the German people calls for democracy.

> — Theodor Wolff in the Frankfurter Zeitung, Jan 1933

This seems to be a quote by Benno Reifenberg given the source:

> Wie Theodor Wolff **bezeichnete es Reifenberg als** [quote follows]

> Like Theodor Wolff, ***[Benno] Reifenberg described it as*** [quote follows]

Additionally, "German" does not appear in the source: "...our Nation [unserer Nation]..." A more accurate translation might be:

> "It is a hopeless misjudgment to believe that a dictatorial regime could be imposed on of our [German] nation. [...] The diversity of the German people demands democracy." - Benno Reifenberg, 1933

(Another source ascribes the [It is], even though it does not appear in the given citation: https://books.google.com/books?id=6LAqt94JWHcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (page 11). This entry does not appear to mention Theodor Wolff, and also gives the "The diversity..." part as a single quote.)

Citation link: http://www.zeit.de/2017/05/adolf-hitler-reichskanzler-ernennung-jahrestag/komplettansicht

Relevant except: In der Frankfurter Zeitung äußerte der für die Innenpolitik zuständige Redakteur Benno Reifenberg Zweifel an der "menschlichen Qualifikation" Hitlers für das Amt des Reichskanzlers, schloss aber nicht aus, dass er sich mit der Verantwortung wandeln und Respekt verschaffen könne. Wie Theodor Wolff bezeichnete es Reifenberg als "eine hoffnungslose Verkennung unserer Nation, zu glauben, man könne ihr ein diktatorisches Regime aufzwingen": "Die Vielfältigkeit des deutschen Volkes verlangt die Demokratie."

Google Translation: In the Frankfurter Zeitung [times], the editor responsible for domestic politics, Benno Reifenberg, expressed doubts about Hitler's "human qualifications" for the office of Reich Chancellor, but did not rule out that he could change with the responsibility and gain respect. Like Theodor Wolff [who is mentioned in the previous paragraph], Reifenberg described it as "a hopeless misjudgment of our nation to believe that a dictatorial regime could be imposed on it": "The diversity of the German people demands democracy."

Thank. Aethelfox (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

improvement

I would change "Hitler merged the Chancellorship with the Presidency and became the Führer of Germany." to "Hitler merged the Chancellorship with the Presidency and became the Führer of Germany after executing former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and putting former Chancellor Franz von Papen under house arrest."

Hitler wanted to execute von Papen too, but as a personal favor to President Paul Von Hindenburg Hitler put von Papen under house arrest instead of executing him. HistoryAndPoliticalAnalyst (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not accurate. Those things happened in the Night of the Long Knives and were not related to Hitler's combination of the two offices two months later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The illness of Von Hindenburg, the murder of Von Schleicher, and the attempt to remove Von Papen in July of 1934, and Hitler's seizure of control of the German government while Von Hindenburg was ill definitely made it possible for Hitler to merge the Chancellorship and Presidency when Von Hindenburg died. Hitler was in control in July and Von Hindenburg was too weak to stop him. Von Hindenburg could only temporarily protect Von Papen and did so by removing the Gestapo guards holding him under house arrest and replacing them with regular army guards which he ordered. HistoryAndPoliticalAnalyst (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a counterfactual, but to me it's clear that Hitler would have merged the offices whether or not von Schleicher was dead and von Papen under house arrest, since they had very little power or infliuence by then. If you want to include this, you must present citations from very reliable sources that explicitly (with evidence) that Hitler had von Schleicher killed and von Papen sidelined because he thought he could not take over Hinderberg's powers if they weren't. Only such citations will be sufficient for your theory to be added to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Improvement 2

Replace the November 1932 election results with results reported by the Associated Press November 7, 1932.

In order by number of seats in the Reichstag. 305 was the number needed for a majority. The Nazi Party decreased their delegation from 230 to 195. The Social Democrats (SPD) decreased their delegation from 133 to 121. The Communists increased their delegation from 89 to 100. The Centre Party decreased their delegation from 75 to 70. The Nationalists increased their delegation from 37 to 51. Other parties 67 seats after November 6, 1932.

Source Associated Press Article November 7, 1932.

From a political scientist's point of view a socialist dictatorship was almost inevitable because prior to the Nov 1932 election the Nazi party and SPD held a 363 majority if they collaborated, and after the Nov 1932 election they held a 316 majority if they collaborated. (They didn't but could have)

The Nazis combining with the Communists before or after the November 1932 elections would have been a majority too.

The Social Democrats and the Communists only needed 83 more votes to have a majority so they could have reached a majority without the Nazis by getting other parties in a coalition. Since they were both socialist too a socialist controlled majority was inevitable.

The Nazis combined with the Centre Party prior to the November election would have had a majority without any other parties, but neither of those two parties would agree to a coalition with the other as lead before or after the November 1932 election.

With the 1933 election results, the Nazis didn't need the Centre party to reach a majority of course they never really did. HistoryAndPoliticalAnalyst (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, contemporaneous press reports are not superior to analyses by reputable historians based on in-depth research. They are WP:PRIMARY sources whose reliability is unknown at this distance in time, whereas we prefer WP:SECONDARY reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Improvement 3

German President Paul Von Hindenburg always gave his selected Chancellor an order dissolving the Reichstag to carry with them at all times when they were over at the Reichstag according to reliable sources. None of the Chancellors appointed by Paul Von Hindenburg had a majority coalition in the Reichstag. In fact, that's why Von Hindenburg was the person appointing them. If there had been a majority coalition, Von Hindenburg wouldn't have had the power to appoint the Chancellor. The majority in the Reichstag would have elected the Chancellor. I think Von Hindenburg wished the Reichstag would elect a Chancellor and he even tried to get them to do so. HistoryAndPoliticalAnalyst (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

What is the improvement you're suggesting? it's not clear from your comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Barely a mention of the Jewish people

One cannot say that Dachau was built for “communists and other political opponents” choosing not to include the intent to imprison and murder Jews. Erasing the history of the Jewish people and the atrocities of the Holocaust is partly to blame for the meteoric rise in antisemitism we see today. 2601:41:C300:9030:B14A:2648:B553:13DA (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The Holocaust did not even start did not even start until 1941, and is clearly irrelevant to the period covered in the article (1918-1933). Also we are experiencingh a period of rising Islamophobia, not antisemitism. Dimadick (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Renaming from Nazi seizure of power to Adolf Hitler's rise to power

I see that the article has been moved/consolidated from Nazi seizure of power to Adolf Hitler's rise to power. I think this is a serious mistake; obviously Hitler was the single most important person among the Nazis but their rise to power was bigger than just him. Have a look at the interwiki links for the translations of de:Machtergreifung here: [1], and note that English is the only one which is a redirect. Was this even discussed? --Saforrest (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:Nazi seizure of power#Is this article redundant and/or misleading? — Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible grammatical mistake

“Upon its failure Hitler was arrested and put on trial.” should be “Upon its failure, Hitler was arrested and put on trial.”

The sentence is missing a comma Chottiwatt (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Write a bit about the aftermath

Write something about the aftermath. I know it seems unnecessary, but write a bit about how Jews’ and other undesirables’ businesses were seized, how they were treated unfairly, how they were forced to renounce their citizenship(im not sure about the last part but its truth anyway). I know its kind of unnecessary, but it will add a but of knowledge. HistoricalWarGeneral (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This content is not necessarily appropriate for his rise to power. There are plenty of articles in Wikipedia covering this matter, to include the general Nazi Germany article, Responsibility for the Holocaust, the main biographical page of Adolf Hitler, the one on The Holocaust, and many others. --Obenritter (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)