Nazi consolidation of power 1933-1934: HSC Modern History Core Study

A band 6 response for 8 marks needs four substantive stages and at least one historian.

Reichstag Fire (27 February 1933)

Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch communist, was arrested at the scene. The Reichstag Fire Decree (28 February 1933), issued under Article 48, suspended civil liberties and allowed mass arrest of KPD deputies. This crippled the opposition before the March election.

Enabling Act (24 March 1933)

Formally the Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich. It allowed the Cabinet to enact laws without Reichstag approval for four years. Passed 444 to 94 after SA intimidation and the support of the Catholic Centre Party in exchange for a Concordat with Rome (July 1933).

Gleichschaltung (coordination), 1933-1935

Trade unions were dissolved (2 May 1933) and replaced by the German Labour Front under Robert Ley. The SPD was banned (June 1933). The Law against the Formation of New Parties (14 July 1933) made the NSDAP the only legal party. The Law for the Reconstruction of the Reich (January 1934) abolished the Landtage.

Night of the Long Knives (30 June 1934)

Hitler ordered the SS to murder SA leader Ernst Rohm and at least 85 others, including former Chancellor Schleicher. The army stood aside; on Hindenburg's death (2 August 1934), every soldier swore a personal oath to Hitler as Fuhrer.

Historian

Ian Kershaw (Hubris, 1998) describes "self-coordination" by institutions anticipating Nazi wishes. Karl Dietrich Bracher (The German Dictatorship, 1969) calls the process a "legal revolution." Markers reward dates, the legal instruments, and a named historiographical position.

A 5-mark response needs three significances developed with evidence.

Removal of the SA threat

Ernst Rohm and the SA (3 million members by 1934) demanded a "second revolution" and the absorption of the Reichswehr into the SA. This alarmed both the army and conservative elites. Rohm's murder removed the most radical wing of the Nazi movement.

Army loyalty

The Reichswehr provided weapons and transport for the purge. After Hindenburg's death (2 August 1934), every soldier swore a personal oath of loyalty to "the Fuhrer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler." This bound the army to Hitler personally until 1945.

Legal endorsement of murder

The Law Concerning Measures of State Self-Defence (3 July 1934) retrospectively declared the killings lawful. Justice Minister Franz Gurtner endorsed it. The state had openly become a murderous instrument.

Rise of the SS

Heinrich Himmler's SS, previously subordinate to the SA, became the dominant security organisation. This established the SS as the institutional backbone of the racial state.

Kershaw describes 30 June 1934 as the moment the regime "tore up the rule of law in plain sight." Markers reward all four points and at least one historian.

A 4-mark "outline" wants a sequenced, accurate account, not a single sentence. Markers reward correct date, the legal mechanism, and a stated consequence.

Model answer. The Reichstag building burned on the night of 27 February 1933 and Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch communist, was arrested at the scene. The next day, 28 February 1933, President Hindenburg signed the Reichstag Fire Decree (the Decree for the Protection of People and State) under Article 48 of the Weimar constitution. It suspended freedom of speech, assembly, and the press and permitted indefinite detention without trial. This allowed the mass arrest of communists (KPD) and social democrats, crippling the opposition before the 5 March 1933 election and providing the climate of emergency in which the Enabling Act would pass three weeks later.

What earns the marks. 1 mark: correct date (27/28 Feb 1933). 1 mark: the legal instrument (Article 48 emergency decree). 1 mark: the specific effect (civil liberties suspended, mass arrests). 1 mark: the consequence for consolidation (KPD crippled before the election / paved the way for the Enabling Act).

A 4-mark response wants two developed reasons that distinguish the two instruments, not a narrative.

Model answer. First, the Reichstag Fire Decree was an emergency measure that suspended rights but left the Reichstag and the constitution formally intact; the Enabling Act (the Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich) transferred the actual law-making power from the Reichstag to the Cabinet, in practice to Hitler, for four years, including the power to pass laws that breached the constitution. Second, the Fire Decree could in theory be revoked by the President, whereas the Enabling Act gave the regime a self-renewing legislative base that made future parliamentary opposition pointless; every later step of Gleichschaltung was enacted under its authority.

What earns the marks. 2 marks per reason: 1 for identifying the distinction (emergency suspension vs transfer of legislative power; reversible vs structural), 1 for developing why that mattered for the dictatorship. Top responses name that the Act passed 444 to 94 and required a two-thirds majority secured only with the Centre Party.

A 6-mark "explain" wants a cause-and-effect account across at least three institutions, with dates, showing how each step closed off a check on Hitler.

Model answer. Gleichschaltung ("coordination") was the process of bringing every parallel institution under Nazi control. The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service (7 April 1933) removed Jews and political opponents from the bureaucracy, universities, and judiciary, so the machinery of the state could no longer obstruct Nazi policy. Independent organised labour was destroyed when the trade unions were dissolved on 2 May 1933 and replaced by the German Labour Front (DAF) under Robert Ley, removing the unions as a base for resistance. Political pluralism ended when the SPD was banned (22 June 1933) and the Law against the Formation of New Parties (14 July 1933) made the NSDAP the only legal party. Finally the Law for the Reconstruction of the Reich (30 January 1934) abolished the state parliaments (Landtage) and placed the regions under Nazi Reichsstatthalter, ending federalism as a check. Each measure was enacted under the authority of the Enabling Act, so the destruction of rival institutions wore the form of law.

What earns the marks. 1 to 2 marks for defining Gleichschaltung; up to 4 for explaining at least three institutions (civil service, unions, parties, the Lander) with accurate dates and a stated effect on consolidation; a top response links the wave back to the Enabling Act as its legal engine.

A source-analysis "assess the usefulness" task wants origin, content, perspective AND a usefulness judgement weighed against own knowledge, not just a description.

Model answer. Source A is highly useful for showing the mechanism by which the army was bound to Hitler. Its origin (the official Wehrmacht oath sworn on 2 August 1934, hours after Hindenburg's death) is significant: previously soldiers had sworn loyalty to the constitution and to the office of President, but this oath names Hitler personally as "Fuhrer," fusing the headship of state with one man. The content demonstrates the regime's deliberate replacement of an institutional loyalty with a personal one, which own knowledge confirms was the pay-off for the army's complicity in the Night of the Long Knives (30 June 1934), when the SS murdered the SA leadership the generals feared. The oath's usefulness is partly limited because, as a prescribed formula, it records what soldiers were required to say rather than what they privately believed; it cannot by itself prove genuine loyalty. But for tracing how Hitler converted the army from a potential check into a personally bound instrument, and the timing on the very day Hindenburg died, it is a strongly useful source. Ian Kershaw argues the army's leaders willingly traded the rule of law for the destruction of their SA rivals.

What earns the marks. Markers reward source mechanics (origin/date/perspective), explicit use of own knowledge to corroborate (the Rohm purge, the merger of offices), a stated limitation, and a clear usefulness judgement that answers the exact question.

A 15-mark extended response wants a sustained, evidence-rich argument with historiography, not a narrative of the purge.

Thesis

The Night of the Long Knives (30 June to 2 July 1934) was decisive in the consolidation because it simultaneously removed the last internal Nazi rival, secured the army, and openly subordinated law to Hitler's will, completing the transition begun by the Enabling Act.

Argument lines + evidence

(1) It eliminated the SA threat: Ernst Rohm's three-million-strong SA was demanding a "second revolution" and the absorption of the Reichswehr, alarming both the army and conservative elites; murdering Rohm and at least 85 others removed the most radical wing. (2) It secured the army: the Reichswehr supplied weapons and transport for the purge, and after Hindenburg's death (2 August 1934) every soldier swore a personal oath to Hitler, binding the Wehrmacht institutionally until 1945. (3) It signalled the death of legality: the Law Concerning Measures of State Self-Defence (3 July 1934) retrospectively declared the killings lawful, and Carl Schmitt defended them with "the Fuhrer protects the law." (4) It elevated the SS: Himmler's SS, previously subordinate to the SA, became the dominant security organ and the backbone of the racial state.

Historiography

Ian Kershaw (Hubris, 1998) reads the episode as the moment the regime "tore up the rule of law in plain sight" and as the army willingly working towards the Fuhrer. A balanced response notes the limit of its significance: Karl Dietrich Bracher would stress that the constitutional break had already occurred with the Enabling Act (24 March 1933), so the purge consolidated rather than created the dictatorship.

Judgement

Significant as the capstone that secured the army and the SS and ended any pretence of legal restraint, but it confirmed a dictatorship whose legal foundation was already laid in March 1933.

Marker's note

A 15-mark answer must weigh significance, not just list consequences. The strongest scripts argue a clear "how significant" line, support every claim with a specific dated fact, and place at least one named historian in dialogue with a qualifying view.

A 25-mark essay is marked on a sustained, well-supported judgement that engages historiography and answers the exact wording (legality versus violence).

Band 6 plan.

• Thesis: The consolidation was a "legal revolution" - violence was real and essential, but it was the legal instruments (the Fire Decree, the Enabling Act, the Gleichschaltung laws) that gave the regime durable, unchallengeable authority, so legality was the more decisive method even though violence enabled it.
• Argument 1 (legality): the Reichstag Fire Decree (28 Feb 1933, Article 48) and the Enabling Act (24 March 1933, passed 444 to 94) transferred power within the constitution's own forms; Gleichschaltung (civil service law 7 April 1933, unions dissolved 2 May 1933, parties banned 14 July 1933, Landtage abolished 30 January 1934) all wore the form of law.
• Argument 2 (violence): the SA terror of early 1933, the wild concentration camps (Dachau opened March 1933), the intimidation around the 5 March election, and above all the Night of the Long Knives (30 June 1934) show coercion was indispensable; the "legal" forms rested on a base of force.
• Argument 3 (the two were fused): the Reichstag Fire Decree legalised arrests carried out by SA auxiliaries; the murders of 30 June 1934 were retrospectively legalised on 3 July 1934. Legality and violence were not alternatives but a single method - violence cleared the ground, law made the result permanent and respectable to conservative elites.
• Historiography: Karl Dietrich Bracher (legal revolution), Ian Kershaw (institutions "working towards the Fuhrer"), Hans Mommsen (cumulative radicalisation, polycratic chaos rather than a master plan), Richard J. Evans (the violence beneath the legal facade).
• Judgement: legality was the decisive instrument of consolidation because it secured the cooperation of the civil service, army, and Centre Party, but it is artificial to separate it from the violence that made the legal votes possible.

Model paragraph (Argument 3). The deepest weakness in the "legality versus violence" framing is that the Nazi regime fused the two. The Reichstag Fire Decree of 28 February 1933 was a lawful Article 48 emergency measure, yet the detentions it authorised were carried out by SA auxiliaries operating from improvised camps such as Dachau, opened in March 1933. The same fusion is starkest at the Night of the Long Knives: the SS murdered Rohm and at least 85 others on 30 June 1934, and three days later the Law Concerning Measures of State Self-Defence (3 July 1934) declared the killings lawful, with Carl Schmitt providing the formula "the Fuhrer protects the law." Karl Dietrich Bracher's phrase "legal revolution" captures precisely this paradox: the regime used the Weimar constitution's own emergency machinery to destroy constitutional government, so that violence and legality reinforced rather than opposed each other. To ask whether legality or violence mattered more is therefore to mistake a single integrated method for two competing ones.

Marker's note. Top-band essays sustain a thesis on the exact wording, deploy precise dated evidence in every paragraph, weave at least two named historians into the argument (not bolted on at the end), and explicitly evaluate - here, by problematising the question's own legality/violence dichotomy rather than simply choosing a side.