How far do you agree with interpretation 2 about the consequences of the 1923 Munich

putsch?

I don’t agree with the approach taken by interpretation 2 about the consequences of the
Munich putsch being a success, as it could also be interpreted to be a failure due to the
aftermath of the march, when ‘the Nazi party was banned’. They initially failed to capture
the support of Kahr and the army, two major reasons for the lack of success in this instance.
Having the support of the army, would ultimately be able to have changed the events of the
putsch, as they typically they are able to keep order when it comes to major political events.
The word choice ‘banned’ fully encapsulates the idea that the Nazis no longer had a voice,
due to the chaos caused at the putsch of 1923. Interpretation 1 also states “16 Nazi’s where
killed” during the march, again rejecting interpretation 2’s views of it being a success. The
Nazis were killed in an ‘open fire’, ultimately loosing support, as the Nazis would have had
16 less vital men on the force.

I do think however, that interpretation 2 offers valid viewpoints, and that the Munich putsch
wasn’t all a failure due to the change of tactics the failure encouraged Hitler to undergo.
After failing to win over support, getting banned and 16b Nazis being killed, Hitler realised
that as oppose to attempting to come into power by illegal marches, he would opt for a
legal approach, trying to win seats in parliament. The interpretation states that Hitler could
‘ease his way into political supremacy by legal means’. Words ‘legal means’ correlate to the
idea of how known Hitler desired to be in the political world.

Interpretation 2ncarries on portraying the Munich putsch as a success due to the media
coverage that rapidly spread throughout Germany. He turned the situation around and
managed to turn it into a propaganda success, using it to attack the Weimar, his biggest
threats, and provide him with nationwide publicity. Interpretation 2 describes the ‘headlines
throughout Germany’ and describes it to be a ‘brilliant achievement’. Word ‘brilliant’ used
by the writer suggests the true meaning of his achievements.

Finally, in juxtaposition to the previous idea, it is further presented to be a failure due to the
arrest of Hitler in the putsch when the interpretation states that ‘Nazi leaders were arrested
for high treason Hitler was arrested on the 11 November when the march took place for
high treason.’ For anybody else, they would typically be given the death penalty, yet Hitler
once again turned the situation around and labelled himself to be the Weimar’s official
opposition. Thanks to this, he managed to get a 5-year minimum sentence, of which he only
served 9 months. During his time hr was given special treatment, including unlimited visits
and nice food. Critically, Hitlers time in prison provided him with the time to write his book
‘Mein Kampf’, which stated his political ideologies to the public, and sky rocketed the Nazis
supporter.

Ultimately, in my opinion I think that interpretation 2 offers a more valid interpretation of

the Munich putsch, making it a success for the Nazis, due to their increased recognition, yet
also due to the way Hitler turned his failures around, such as his time in prison.