Machtergreifung
The term Machtergreifung ("seizure of power") was coined by germanophob propagandists during WWI and post-war leftist historians suggesting an aggressive, even violent Putsch-like coup d'état. Based on available historical evidence, including primary sources from 1933–1945, it is impossible to find definitive instances where the NSDAP explicitly used Machtergreifung in their official publications or speeches during this period. The term gained prominence in post-war historiography, particularly in West German scholarship (e.g., by historians like Karl Dietrich Bracher and Martin Broszat), to describe the "Nazi consolidation of power". Historians like Norbert Frei and Gotthard Jasper have noted that Machtergreifung was not a specific National Socialist term but became a post-war convention to "capture the coercive and transformative nature of the Nazi rise, despite its legal veneer". Thus, "seizure of power" appears to be a propaganda term, also used by those Germans who wanted to create the false impression that the majority of the people had not voted for the NSDAP. The term’s widespread use as a descriptor for 30 January 1933 therefore emerged post-war in academic literature.
History
Many sources allege, the NSDAP used the term Machtergreifung on 30 January 1933, when Adolf Hitler was appointed Reich Chancellor by Paul von Hindenburg, describing the Machtübernahme ("takeover of power") as an active, heroic act, free from resistance. They allegedly presented it as a necessary change desired by the population as the climax of the political struggle and rise (Kampfzeit).
Only a short time later, so the same post-war sources, only the term Machtübernahme or Machtübertragung ("transfer of power") was used to describe this completely legal process within the Weimar Republic’s constitutional framework. If Machtergreifung did not exist as part of the party or movement language during 1933–1945 and was not in use by the NSDAP or their contemporaries, it would be completely inaccurate to say, as some sources do, the National Socialists "deliberately avoided" it, as avoidance implies the term existed and was consciously sidestepped.
Hitler legally assumed government responsibility, the transfer of power was legitimate. The verb ergreifen also means "to grasp", and Hitler thankfully grasped the office which was transferred to him. On this day, Hitler took over the leadership of a coalition government of the NSDAP and national conservative allies (DNVP, Stahlhelmbund), in which initially only two National Socialists held government offices alongside him (Hitler Cabinet); these were Wilhelm Frick as Reich Minister of the Interior and Hermann Göring as Reich Minister without Portfolio.
Even the Völkischer Beobachter and other propaganda materials from 1933, such as those celebrating the Tag der nationalen Erhebung ("Day of National Uprising"), consistently use terms that describe the reality: a peaceful, legitimate transition. A specific search for Machtergreifung in German-language sources from 1933–1945, including digitized newspaper archives or speeches by Hitler, Goebbels, or other NS leaders, yields no use of the term by the NSDAP. For instance, Hitler’s speeches from 1933, such as his radio address on 1 February 1933, or Goebbels’ propaganda directives, emphasize the “national revolution” or “takeover of power” (Machtübernahme), not one source uses Machtergreifung.
Exiled German communists and socialists (SPD) in Prague, in their 1933 publications like Neuer Vorwärts, used Machtergreifung to suggest a violent and undemocratic rise of Hitler and the NSDAP. Foreign critics of Germany, such as British or French journalists, also used equivalent terms like “seizure of power” in their analyses, which may have influenced German exiles.
Post-World War II historians and scholars continued using Machtergreifung for many years to suggest a hostile seizure of power, this was adopted into historical discourse. Other historians, like Gotthard Jasper and Norbert Frei, have critiqued its use for implying a sudden coup, preferring terms like Machtübertragung to reflect the legal and gradual nature of the process.[1] Since the 1970s, Machtübertragung or Machtübernahme have become more common in academic writing to describe peaceful power transitions.
- Recent academic literature often places the term "Machtergreifung" in quotation marks. This term portrays the seizure of power as a kind of coup d'état in which the people played a passive role. In fact, however, the NSDAP enjoyed considerable popular support. Furthermore, conservative politicians and parties also participated in the transfer of power to Hitler, namely through Hindenburg's appointment of Hitler as Reich Chancellor, through their participation in the government led by Hitler, through the decrees of the Reich President, and through the approval of the Enabling Act in the German Reichstag in 1933. At the beginning of 1933, anti-communism was the link between the NSDAP and the conservative German National People's Party (DNVP) and the centrist parties (Centre, DVP, DStP). Hitler's accession to power was legal under Weimar Republic law, as were other elements of power politics, such as the Reichstag elections on 5 March 1933. However, this was interspersed with weeks of restrictions on freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. Because of this problem, several historians today speak of a “transfer of power” rather than a seizure of power.[2]
Reichstag elections (1922–1933)
.jpg)
November 1932 German federal election; parties with more than 1%:
- NSDAP 11,737,021 (33.09%)
- Social Democratic Party 7,247,901 (20.43%)
- Communist Party of Germany 5,980,239 (16.86%)
- Centre Party 4,230,545 (11.93%)
- German National People's Party 2,959,053 (8.34%)
- Bavarian People's Party 1,094,597 (3.09%)
- German People's Party 660,889 1.86
- Christian Social People's Service 403,666 (1.14%)
After the election, Franz von Papen (non-partisan) urged Reichspräsident Paul von Hindenburg (non-partisan) to continue to rule by decree, while at the same time attempting to form a coalition with the NSDAP. Negotiations failed and von Papen was dismissed by von Hindenburg, who replaced him with Reich Defence Minister Kurt von Schleicher (non-partisan). Since von Schleicher's ineffective rule was growing increasingly unpopular among German elites, von Papen convinced von Hindenburg to dismiss him and appoint Hitler (NSDAP) as Reich Chancellor on 30 January 1933, with a cabinet composed of NSDAP and DNVP politicians (under Alfred Hugenberg); the new government lacked a majority in the Reichstag, so a snap election was called and scheduled for March by von Hindenburg.
March 1933 German federal election; parties with more than 1%:
- NSDAP 17,277,180 (43.91%)
- Social Democratic Party 7,181,629 (18.25%)
- Communist Party of Germany 4,848,058 (12.32%)
- Centre Party 4,424,905 11.25
- Black-White-Red Struggle Front[a] 3,136,760 (7.97%)
- Bavarian People's Party 1,073,552 (2.73%)
- German People's Party 432,312 (1.10%)
Despite achieving a much better result than in the November 1932 election, Hitler was forced to maintain his coalition with the DNVP to control the majority of seats. The Communists (KPD) lost about a quarter of their votes, and the Social Democrats suffered moderate losses. Hitler needed a two-thirds majority to pass the Enabling Act, which allowed the Cabinet, and effectively the Chancellor, to enact laws without the approval of the Reichstag for four years. With certain exceptions, such laws could deviate from the Weimar Constitution. Hitler then obtained the necessary supermajority by persuading the Centre Party to vote with him with regard to the Enabling Act. The bill was passed on 23 March with 444 votes for and 94 against. Only the Social Democrats, led by Otto Wels, opposed the measure, which came into effect on 27 March.
See also
Further reading
- Friedrich Alfred Beck: Kampf und Sieg. Geschichte der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei im Gau Westfalen-Süd von den Anfängen bis zur Machtübernahme, Westfalen-Verlag, 1938
- Dieter Zinke: NS-Machtergreifung: Korrektur, 2008
References
- ↑ Frei notes that Machtergreifung became a historiographical term post-1945 to describe the process’s revolutionary and coercive character. Similarly, Gotthard Jasper’s work emphasizes that the term emerged in post-war literature to contrast the legal Machtübertragung (transfer of power) with the alleged reality.
- ↑ Institut für Zeitgeschichte, Agitation & Nationalpatriotismus (IZAN)
