I'm praying you're correct because that's pretty much what I did (although you did have some more intelligent lines of argument in yours!).I did the Germany part a question, think I stuffed it up by taking a negative line to it though saying it was only true to a 'small extent':l
I talked about how opposition was present in the beginning-> talked about the Beer Hall Putsch, how the army oppossed Hitler's plans/showed that their was still overall support for democracy. (democracy successful and provided opposition during the golden period, as the elites dealt with the middle parties when the situation was acceptable)
Then I talked about Hitler's involvment in the anti-young plan causing him to become more prominent, historian quote in here.
Talked about the impact of the great depression and how this caused political polarisation and the rise of support for extremist parties (stats on the KPD, communists)
Talked about his campaign before the election where he flew to 50 cities to gain support. This having to be done indicates the opposition present and how he had to convince people of the Nazi cause.
Stats where he gained 37.5% of seats the in Reichstag in 1932, which can be seen as a majority but the issue of proportional representation meant many parties were getting seats and therefore the amount of opposition was small yet it still exisited.
The deal with Hitler, papen and Hindenburg that led him being elected as Chancellor.
Talked then about how before he became Fuhrer he abolished all opposition through the use of intimitation (SA) and taking advantage of teh Reichstag fire to play up the threat of communism.
Then concluded that to take power he had to defeat his opponents, and the lack of oponents was only present after he became Chancellor and that the lack of opposition was more signifianct in relation to him maintaining power rather than gaining it.
I'm wrong aren't I?