On numerous occasions, Papen underestimated the power of the Nazis and Hitler in general, ceding more and more power to them. Under Papen, Hindenburg (who at the time was beginning to become senile) signed an order to suspend the constitution. Again, as in the case of Bruning, Schleicher persuaded Hindenburg to ask Papen to resign. Schleicher then took the role of chancellor for a very short time, and was unable to accomplish anything. Hindenburg, then had no other option, he declared Hitler as chancellor, not entirely realizing what the decision would end up causing. McKenzie argues throughout his article that it is the political leadership, which caused Hitler to gain power. The combined actions of the various ineffective chancellors and President Hindenburg led a direct path to Hitlers rise to power.Instead of regarding the Weimar Republic as a brave experiment gone wrong, more appropriate might be to consider Weimar as a gamble which stood virtually no chance of success. This quote sums up the differing views of the two authors in my opinion. Bessel views the Weimar Republic as a state that was doomed before it began, whereas McKenzie views it as a state that was horribly mismanaged. The difference between their views is that McKenzies article leaves the option open, that if different leaders had been in place, the Republic could have survived. However, I tend to agree with Bessel.The Weimar Republic was born in a time of massive change. The First World War was more then most people at the time could comprehend. The destruction it caused was greater then anything that had ever been seen before, and the people of Germany were not exactly prepared for it. At the same time, there was much political turmoil in all of Europe. The people had just witnessed the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and the quick decay of Austria-Hungary. Personal thoughts and views had begun to change, almost as if the war had brought in a new or...
