How do dictators take over?

[GUBU]

He talks like a five year old, ok?

You're giving him too much credit. My friend's youngest is 18 months and can string together a more coherent string of words than Trump can.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Once this goes into the subject of prayer and god's love, it's useless, but the first half of this bears reading. From 1938:



Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

[CapnAwesome]

This is something I've been thinking about for a while now.

I remember, over the course of the last 8 years, the Tea Party and Faux News were constantly telling us all how Obama is going to turn America into an Islamic, fascist, communist dictatorship (which, I know, doesn't make any sense, but bear with me).  Thing is, none of that actually ever happened.  We still have elections, private property still exists.  Sharia law isn't civil law and Christianity is still the dominant religion in the Americas.  

But now, the shoe's on the other foot.  Trump is president and the GOP has the majority in both houses of congress.  I hear a lot of progressives, liberals, talking about fascism taking over, about Trump being a dictator.  Hell, 1984 has become a best seller because of the cheeto-faced twat and I've heard a lot of people rightly compare him to Brave New World as well.    Part of me certainly wants to agree.  His governing via executive order leaves me uncomfortable, as do his cabinet choices, but his attacking of the media is where it really scares me.

But, it does leave me to wonder?  How are the worries of the left any different from the worries the right had?  I mean, they were firmly convinced Obama would be the next Hitler; is it any more true that Trump will be some kind of horrible dictator?

Then I've also heard people say that we're too civilized, we're too advanced, we're too educated for a dictator to take over the United States.  I strongly disagree.  I think the people of Germany, USSR, Italy, France and China all saw themselves as great and advanced and civilized when dictators took over their countries.  Gotta take off those rose colored glasses when you look at yourself critically.

So, that's what I wanted to go over.  Historically speaking, what are the conditions that lead to a dictator taking over?  What would such an administration look like?  And, maybe the most alarming, has anyone else noticed any parallels  between modern politics and what we saw when other great nations fell into insanity?

Not sure how old you are, but after every two term president the other side says that the president will try to stay in power and become a dictator. The right said it about Obama, like you said, but the left said it about George Bush, which also wasn't backed up by anything at all. Before that the right said that Clinton would try to get a third term. None of it is based on anything. Trump obviously won't stay a 3rd term, much less become a dictator. The people would riot and throw him out, also he'll be like, 1000 years old.

The countries that you mentioned largely had a history of dictators. When Germany elected a dictator, they knew what they were getting. Hitler ran on the platform of being a dictator. Also that time period, there were tons more dictators. Europe was mostly dictators.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hitler was not elected. He never won a single election to public office in his life.

[CapnAwesome]

Hitler was not elected. He never won a single election to public office in his life.

What? The Nazi's won the plurality of votes in 1932 with Hitler as the clear head of the party. I think what you mean is that he never won a majority vote, but he obviously was elected. German democracy in the 30s wasn't the same system we use in America today.

[abaris]

If noone had be willing to enter into a coalition, he wouldn't have the power to take over.



That was the system and the conservatives made sure that the ensuing 12 years happened.

It's also interesting to compare that to 1928. Hm, I wonder what's similar to our times. What could possibly be in between?



And that's 1933. Still no majority, alothough communists and SPD were already barred from campaigning.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hitler was not elected. He never won a single election to public office in his life.

What? The Nazi's won the plurality of votes in 1932 with Hitler as the clear head of the party. I think what you mean is that he never won a majority vote, but he obviously was elected. German democracy in the 30s wasn't the same system we use in America today.

No. I said what I mean: Hitler never won a public office by election. You said that he did, and that is not factual.

You wrote, "When Germany elected a dictator ..." but Germany never did such a thing. Hitler was appointed to office, the NaZis didn't have the Parliamentary votes to seat him, and the only reason he was appointed Chancellor was because of intrigues by both Schliecher and von Papen. Hitler could not have been voted Chancellor because the Wiemar Constitution stipulated that that was an appointed position.

I know that this wasn't the same system we use today here, thank you. That matters not. He never ran for Chancellor. He ran for President in 1932 (Hindenburg's position) and lost by a wide margin. The NaZi position in the Reichstag had already started ebbing by the end of 1932, with the party losing seats; but that matters not, because the Reichstag didn't elect Hitler, either.

I think what you mean is that you thought he was elected by some means or another because you've heard it bruited about so often. He wasn't. Hitler never one a single election, and the NaZis never held a clear majority of the Reichstag.

[abaris]

Hitler was appointed to office, the NaZis didn't have the Parliamentary votes to seat him, and the only reason he was appointed Chancellor was because of intrigues by both Schliecher and von Papen.

Leave Schleicher out of this. He wanted none of that. It was because of von Papen, his conservative entourage and Hindenburg's son that made it possible.

Schleicher was gunned down along with his wife the very next year in the purge.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hitler was appointed to office, the NaZis didn't have the Parliamentary votes to seat him, and the only reason he was appointed Chancellor was because of intrigues by both Schliecher and von Papen.

Leave Schleicher out of this. He wanted none of that. It was because of von Papen, his conservative entourage and Hindenburg's son that made it possible.

Schleicher was gunned down along with his wife the very next year in the purge.

Oh, I know he fell to a Long Knife. But wasn't his intrigues in Dec of '32 that set up the whole mess?

[abaris]

Oh, I know he fell to a Long Knife. But wasn't his intrigues in Dec of '32 that set up the whole mess?

I would have to look up the details, but I remember he was between a rock and a hard place. He was appointed by Hindenburg to follow Papen as chancellor and could only rule through the backing of Hindenburg who made full use of his presidential powers, issuing executive orders by the numbers. Schleicher trusted Hindenburg, being a former general an all, but from all I do remember, he was installed as being the fall guy (if that's the correct term). I don't think he set anything in motion to lead to Hitler. At least not willingly and knowingly. That was largely Papen's doing, supported by a group of very influential Conservatives and nationalists. Among them the Murdoch of Germany, Alfred Hugenberg, who used his papers to incite the public.

Edit: I looked it up. He tried everything to prevent Hitler from taking over. Using dubious means, that's for sure, since his last idea was to dissolve the Reichstag without announcing new elections. So kind of a dictatorship, ruling only by issuing executive orders without parliamentary support. Hindenburg refused. Before that he tried to unite all parties against the Nazis, which didn't work either. After both attempts failed, he resigned, two days before Hitler got appointed. The fault for Hitler certainly doesn't lie with him.