European Dictatorships 1918?1945 by Lee Stephen J

Author:Lee, Stephen J.
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Taylor and Francis

A Legal Revolution?

The political changes accomplished between 1933 and 1934 have often been referred to as a ‘legal revolution’. Part of the process was accomplished, technically at least, within the ambit of the constitution: this is considered to have made it legal. The results, however, were so devastating that they amounted to a ‘revolution’. There is much to support the use of this term as a description of Hitler’s overall approach in the opening years of his regime. He had already followed a strategy of legality after the failure of the Munich Putsch in 1923, achieving power constitutionally with the intention of subsequently introducing a ‘revolution from above’. This ‘revolution’ was now accomplished, step by step, within the literal terms of the constitution of the Weimar Republic.

There are several examples of this process. The Enabling Act, passed on 24 March, contained as part of its preamble the words ‘The requirements of legal Constitutional change having been met.’36 This was a clear reference to the achievement of the two-thirds majority required within the Reichstag for such an important amendment. The Enabling Act, in turn, became the vehicle by which the Chancellor used executive powers to modify the whole range of political functions within the Reich. The bureaucracy was brought into line with the new relationship between executive and legislature by the law of 7 April ‘for the restoration of the professional civil service’ which purged the bureaucracy of potential opponents and non-Aryans. The system of state government was reorganized by law of 31 March ‘for the co-ordination of the Länder of the Reich’. The whole concept of Gleichschaltung (‘co-ordination’) was therefore slipped through with at least a pretence at a legal basis. The NSDAP were given the monopoly of political power through the law against the new formation of parties, passed on 14 July 1933. Finally, the chancellorship and the presidency were combined on 1 August 1934, following the death of Hindenburg.

At first sight the extent of the constitutional changes introduced scarcely warrants the description ‘revolution’, especially by contrast with the changes brought by the Bolsheviks in Russia. After all, the Reichstag and the Reichsrat remained intact as legislative institutions. Lenin had, by contrast, taken the decision to remove any remaining connection with Western-style constituent assemblies and to substitute a legislative system based upon soviets. In Germany all of the previous ministries were retained. Indeed, the lists of official positions within Hitler’s cabinet were remarkably similar to those within the Weimar Republic: these included the Foreign Minister, Interior Minister, Finance Minister and ministers for Economics, Justice, Defence, Food, Posts, Labour and Transport. By this analysis the Nazification of the institutions of the Weimar Republic occurred in such a way as to minimize the chance of a sudden climactic break which might generate resistance. The process was done step by step, each depending on the one before. There was therefore a certain inexorable logic.

From another viewpoint, the concept of ‘legal revolution’ is paradoxical at the best of times. When applied to the development of Nazi dictatorship the paradox becomes perverse.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.