Source skills 1. According to Source A, KDP’s performance in the elections between September 1930 until November 1932 is shown to be consistently rising indicating that the supporter of the KDP is growing steadily. Meanwhile, NSDAP’s performance is shown to rise drastically from 18.3% in September 1930 election, to 37.3% in July 1932 election. However there is a drop in numbers of votes by November 1932 election showing that the support for NSDAP has reached its peak. 2. The November 1932 election result shows shows that the KDP is slowly rising in popularity as indicated by Source A. ‘The communists have made gains everywhere’ and worsens ‘internal political disturbances’ according to Source F. This threatens businessmen and conservative politicians because they feel that the communists can threaten their positions. 3. The Zentrum party shows steadiness in support support as they are a party which represents the Catholics and the Bavarian people. According to source F, BVP is not against the Nazis nor with the Nazis, it simply is willing to collaborate with the Nazis and it is also against communism. Because they only appeal to such specific groups of people, anything they do will not affect the number of supporters they have. 4. Source B indicates that this is because the support for the party had reduced by ‘35 per cent’. The liberal Zeitung believed that the worries had passed because the Nazi’s ‘mass propaganda’ no longer appeals to the Germans. Harold Laski also believed that the reason was that the Nazi always gets the ‘major issues wrong’. While wrong’. While Source C shows that it is because the Party is having issues in the Reich and the continual economic ‘depression’ are the reasons why the support towards the Party had decreased. 5. Von Papen approached Hitler at this this time because he lost support from the people because his cabinet consists of aristocrats. Besides losing support, the election results show that communism was starting to gain popularity. Von Papen and other politicians are worried about the rise of the communists and are desperate for a suitable candidate who matches ma tches with them in terms of political ideas. Hence, to stay in control without sparking outrage from the people or a revolution, Papen, Hegenberg and Hindenberg approached Hitler in the notion that they are ‘taming and exploiting the totalitarian mass movement’ of the extreme Right, believing that they can control Hitler.
6. Source D discussed on how Hitler eventually was installed as Chancellor. The rise of communists had worried some politicians especially those who are at the top. As they have lost their support from the people, they wanted a candidate who can be controlled so that they can stay in power. Hitler was the candidate whom Von Papen insists to Hindenberg. Hence, they agreed on installing Hitler in the belief that they ar e ‘taming and exploiting the totalitarian mass movement’ without realising that they had been ‘careless’ in choosing him. This move is what installed Hitler as Chancellor of the German Republic hence giving him the final piece he needed to be in power. 7. The grouped aimed to take over the ‘mass movement’ that the Nazi had and use Hitler as their puppet to stay in control of the Reichstag. 8. ‘Ambitious self’assurance’ 9. Peukert believed that the strength of the NSDAP had reached its peak by late 1932 as it had ‘reached the limits of its electoral potential’ and that the reason Hitler became chancellor was due to the wrong decision of ‘the new governing elite consortium’ which is referring to Papen -Hugenberg-Hindenberg group. His view echoed the idea presented by Sources B and C as they both discussed how the Nazi party simply had reached its peak in popularity. Source D also echoed Peukert’s view as both considered NSDAP as a totalitarian movement and how a group of politicians made an unwise decision which caused Hitler ended up as Chancellor. 10. Peukert believed that the democratic government had ceased to exist effectively since after the 1930 presidential regimes which was the time of the implementation of rule by presidential decree. By this rule, the President and the top cabinet are allowed to make decisions without having to go through the Reichstag. This ruling by decree is an offset from democracy and as a result, its power was abused constantly. Hence, this as Peukert believed was the end of democratic government in Germany. 11. The phrase refers to the people in the top cabinet positions such as President Hindenberg, Von Papen and other top officials who had approached Hitler and collaborate with him and his party and also made him the Chancellor of Germany in 1933. 12. According to Külz the election result of November 1932 was the most obvious fact that the more than half of Germans voters no longer support the present government. The result shows increasing support to the extreme groups. The
KDP’s support was rising steadily, while even though NSDAP’s support was decreasing by the November election, it was still supported by the majority of German people. The support for both extreme radicalism on the Left and the Right, indicates that the people had ‘declared th emselves against the present state’. 13. Külz stated that the decrease of support for the Nazi was a ‘consolation’ in the November 1932 election. However, what worries the Republic was the rise of communists. Besides, the Republic faces another challenge in which its people were no longer supporting their government. 14. ‘Lesser of two evils’ means not as bad as the extreme Left or extreme Right. Külz believed that the possible solution for the continued political uncertainty was to implement control or otherwise ‘dictatorship’ by the present government. 15. According to Sources G and H, the ‘elites’(Source H) or ‘owning classes’(Source G) were to be blamed for the Nazi’s coming to power by 1933. Source G discusses how the upper class preferred Hitler imprisoned however they soon realised that they were then dealing with a lot worse people, the ‘gangster’. They had mistaken themselves and may have later developed the notion that Hitler was not so bad after all. In Source H, the selfishness of the elites that caused them to be ‘too fragmented’ and ‘too diverse’ and as a result, their decision to elect Hitler was described as ‘bankruptcy of their strategies’, suggesting how they believed he was their final ‘chance’ to stay in power. This event then led to Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor, signifying the coming i n power of National Socialism by 1933. 16. Their motives are to stay wealthy and powerful. Source G said that shows that the ‘owning classes’ disliked Hitler and had imprisoned him in the early 1932, yet they were still worried of the ‘gangster’ they hired a s these people had the capability of taking over their position. While in Source H, the elites were ‘anti democratic’ and were desperate to stay in power, but did not want like Hitler. However, as the election of November 1932 shows the steady rise of communism by November 1932,with their ‘overestimation of their own strength’ and ‘an underestimation’ of the new mass politics they had appointed Hitler as Chancellor in the belief that Hitler can be controlled. 17. AIZ may be closely linked to the communist party or other party which is against NSDAP. Its poster suggested that the Nazi are funded by the elites.
18. This photomontage may have been trying to influence the population of Germany that the Nazi party was a party funded hence controlled by the elites’ mone y, that it’s not fighting for what Hitler claimed to be. 19. He was referring to the elites, the rich businessmen and the upper class society. 20. The source could show how the party which opposes Hitler uses the idea that the elites are paying him to win the election to make the Germans vote against the Nazi. It shows just how much the Germans disliked the aristocrats during that time period. It also gives the idea that the rich are backing Hitler’s party. However, the limitation of this source is that it is an election poster which originates from party opposing the Nazi party hence is subjected to bias and exaggeration of information.
