Open main menu

Talk:Enabling Act of 1933

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3



This article is called "Enabling Act" with a capital A, while an article about Enabling Acts in general is called "Enabing act" with a small case a. I don't think this is a proper way to go. We should either rename the other article "Enabling Act (General)" or this one "Enabling Act (Germany)" or both. Any thoughts? Str1977 (smile back) 14:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it's fine the way it is now. Both pages have clearly visible links to the other at the top. Muad 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. They are merely distinguish by the capitalisation of a single letter. That is not enough. Str1977 (smile back) 23:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, Str. Move this to a more suitable name. —Nightstallion (?) 17:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Jewish boycottEdit

What is the reality of the Jewish boycott against Nazi Germany that the Daily Express reported about? Is it the same as the Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League one? What actual effect did it achieve? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

US Homeland SecurityEdit

Love how the only foreign 'See Also' is a link to US Homeland Security. I am sure someone will rationalize a reason for this to be here other than just as propaganda tool to associate the Nazi Enabling Act with US Homeland Security. Hate to tell you, but that's not very subtle and not fooling anybody as to NPOV. The bias is not even clever on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa now, calm down: it was added by an anonymous editor a couple days before you happened upon it. It's vandalism and it happens. Thank you for catching it and correcting it. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 05:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed a sentence in the introductory section which read (more or less) "Some have compared it to the Patriot Act." I have no problem with political debate, but I did this for three reasons: 1. It was obviously POV; 2. It was unsourced; 3. It has nothing to do with the article about the Enabling Act. But in addition to those things, the idea that these two things are similar is pretty obviously false: the Enabling Act -- by its own terms -- gave the German Cabinet power to pass legislation on its own, and sent the Reichstag home. There is nothing vaguely similar to this in Patriot Act, Congress is still very much in business, and last I checked, it overrode a Bush veto just this week. Democrat or Republican is not the issue here. This is a history article. This kind of obvious propaganda is just inappropriate (if someone wants to do a properly-balanced, sourced discussion of this in the Patriot Act article, that might be another matter). --BenRussell (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

but there are so many paralels —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Judicial review?Edit

This passage (of mine) got me thinking. Weimar_Republic#Aftermath

The constitution was never formally repealed, but the Enabling Act meant that all its other provisions were a dead letter. The Enabling Act itself was breached by Hitler on three occasions in 1934: Article 2 of the act stated that

'Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.'

The powers of the Länder (states) were transferred to the Reich, obsolescing the Reichsrat. A month later, the Reichsrat itself was dissolved. In August, President von Hindenburg died, and Hitler appropriated the president's powers for himself. The Enabling Act did not specify any recourse that could be taken if the chancellor violated Article 2, and no judicial challenge ensued.

1) Under the Weimar constitution, was it possible to challenge government actions in the courts, a la United States, on the grounds that they were unconstitutional?

2) If so, did it ever happen?

3) I'm assuming no-one was foolhardy enough to bring such a suit against Hitler's third reich, but could it have legally happened?

4) If you couldn't bring a constitutional suit, did they just trust that the gov would uphold the constitution? Or was there some other safeguard?

5) Hitler was not someone who respected legal proceedure for its own sake. But in the Enabling Act it says that "Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date".

Did Hitler actually bother to announce his laws in the Gazette once everyone was out of the way? And if he wanted to do something, he probably wouldn't bother to pass a law authorising it first (Night of the Long Knives, for instance). Does this mean that he was constantly breaking the law while he was in office, notwithstanding that it was extremely generous to him in the definition of his power? BillMasen (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, there was a somewhat weak constitutional court:ür_das_Deutsche_Reich
2. Yes, one example:ßenschlag
3. The Länder could have sued the Reich, the Reichstag could have sued the chancellor (Hitler) or the president (Hindenburg). But in reality, the constitutional court was dissolved immediately.
4. The basic idea was a balance of power between government, parliament, president and direct democracy. The conservative Carl Schmitt thought of the president as guardian of the constitution, the liberal Hans Kelsen preferred a stronger constitutional court.
5. Hitler was the law. Many orders by him ("Führerbefehle") weren't properly announced and often conflicted which each other, which made the legal situation rather confusing. In some way, this chaos was deliberate and part of the way the third reich worked. No clear rules = no security = even more terror. You should read "The Dual State" by Ernst Fraenkel (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

English expression for ErmächtigungsgesetzEdit

Is "Enabling act" really the correct translation? I'd rather rally for "Empowerment act". (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have a point, but the most common translation is "Enabling Act" and it's been called that for many years. Changing it would create confusion. Speaking of translation, I think the entire translation of Hitler's speech ("By its decision to carry out the political and moral cleansing...") is stilted and not very speechy-sounding, and I suggest that the German text be added to the article or a better translation be used. (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Eric
I agree the translation is faulty. "Ermaechtigung" is Empowerment, whereas "Enabling" would be "Ermoeglichung" or "Befaehigung". Should be changed in Wikipedia, with the note that "Enabling Act" is also in use.

Clearer understanding of the ActEdit

A clearer understanding edit. The current Article language misstates that Hitler became the "dictator" of Germany via this constitutional amendment. It is true and correct this was a one step of many to become the "legal" dictator" of Germany by August 1934; however, President Hindenberg, remained the Commander and Chief of the Weimar military post the passing of the Enabling Act until his death on August 2, 1934. And, from March - July of 1933, 56% of the seats of the Reichstag were held by opposition parties. Furthermore, the language of the Act itself makes clear there is a path of appeal and revision of any decree by the Chancellor. Indeed, the Nazi Party abused this Act on a number of levels. Once again, however, Hitler was still facing formidable, and potentially consequential, opposition from a number of sources until the Summer of 1934. --Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hitler did become dictator, though indeed only at Hindenburg's whim; the President could have dismissed the Chancellor at any time, rendering the Enabling Act unapplicable due to its Article 5. The opposition was far from having a Reichstag majority - Hitler's NSDAP/DNVP governing coalition already gained a majority in the March 1933 elections; and due to the banning of the KPD representatives, the NSDAP alone held a Reichstag majority. And no "path of appeal and revision" of laws (no longer decrees!) passed by Hitler's government is mentioned in the Act. In theory, the Reichstag could have replaced his laws by laws of its own, but the Nazi majority would have prevented that. The only potential legal opposition left to Hitler was from Hindenburg; but he seems to have supported Hitler fully. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

also in LänderEdit

In most of the Länder (and in all the big ones), a similar act was adopted by the state parliaments (those parliaments were reconstituted according to the federal electoral results - First Gleichschaltung Law of 31 March 1933) (dates acoording to [1]):

Bayern: 39.04
Thüringen: 16.05
Hessen: 16.05 (Hans Eichel, 50 Jahre Verfassung des Landes Hessen: Eine Festschrift, 2013, 46
Preußen: 18.05
Sachsen: 23.05
Mecklenburg-Schwerin: 01.06
Württemberg: 08.06
Baden: 09.06
Lippe: 21.06
Mecklenburg-Strelitz: 30.06
Schaumburg-Lippe: 14.07
Lübeck: 28.07

I have not found any reference to such an act for Hamburg, Oldenburg (only session on 23.05), Braunschweig, Anhalt or Bremen.Bancki (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Margin by which the Act passedEdit

I have been looking into this and, there seem to be some differences between articles on the number of votes against the act. I thought the no. to be 94, this is the number stated in the article on Reichstag (Nazi Germany). However, this article (Enabling Act of 1933) gives the number as 84. I have seen different sources giving both numbers. Is there a reason for this? Which one is correct? Willpep (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It was 444-94 says the original 'Protokoll' [2]----Bancki (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
That pretty much settles it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Return to "Enabling Act of 1933" page.