Not quite a “Republic without Republicans”, but the political naivety of both parties and individuals in failing to cooperate was a considerable factor in Nazi success. Specifically, the SPD’s refusal as one of the strongholds of democracy: in November 1932 the left combined had 13.5 million votes, whereas the right had 12 million. By uniting, the Communists and Socialists had potentially the ability to overrule the Nationalists. Stalin’s preference of Hitler over the SPD, who he believed were the real enemy, ensured complete disunity. Arguably a more decisive factor was Von Papen’s active role. His plan to “frame in” the Nazis to utilize their mass support and then dispense with Hitler was short-sighted and naïve. Meeting with Kurt Von Schröder, Papen not only in turn helped solve the Nazi financial debts to ensure the continuation of the party, but presented an opportunity to Hitler which he otherwise would not have been offered. Papen convinced Hindenburg the Nazi support could be harnessed and that its ambitions and extremist policies contained through safety features. The President agreed to only meet with Hitler when the Vice Chancellor, Von Papen, was present. Only two cabinet ministers were included. By offering this, Von Papen made perhaps the most fatal underestimation of the 20th century. He had had the responsibility of being …show more content…
Hitler’s opportunism, vehement desire for power and ability to manipulate people was crucial for his success. Meeting with Von Papen in December 1932, he resolutely demanded the Chancellorship. Whereas Strasser faltered in making botched agreements with Von Schleicher for a lesser position, Hitler held out against odds. Additionally Hitler’s chameleon nature meant that he was successfully demanding with Von Papen, yet very respectful with Hindenburg, bowing down to him publicly. Popularity got Hitler through the door, but Hitler’s opportunism and manipulation brought his