(December 12, 2018 at 8:11 am)Amarok Wrote: Wrong in 1932 Hitler had his  ass handed to him by Hindenburg who appointed him chancellor through back door politics then  when the 1933 election rolled around the Reichstag fire(which Hitler may have had a hand in) and the Reichstag fire Decree suggested by Hitler himself who then used it to jail and suppress his opponents  his opponents and the Brown shirts and the SS went on campaign of terror and "monitor vote" even then he still had to rely on a coalition with the DNVP and then of course came the enabling act 

If you honestly think that is democracy particularly the later bit then you are insane and 


As for the Jews Hitler made it pretty damn clear he hated the Jews and the Nazi's pretty damn clear they hated the Jews 

And yet no were to be seen were these armed heroes ?

---

(December 12, 2018 at 7:30 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Not exactly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Germa...l_election

He lost the first election then was appointed by the guy he lost too . Then used a fire he may very well have started too suggest a law to suppress and jail his opponents and he still lost and had to join another coalition 

Anyone who thinks that fair or free democracy is nuts

If it's legal, it's valid. Welcome to Weimar. 1930's Germany was no picnic. If you understand the political players it's pretty easy to understand why Hitler jailed his political opponents. They were just as bad as he was, and they were well armed. You might call it a case of bad guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns.

As valid as you want that part of your argument to be, there are other circumstances. The German communist party (KDP) had been running around since 1919 with WW1 era weapons causing all kinds of problems. By 1932 they had a well documented history of armed conflict for political purposes. The KDP was every bit as aggressive and loathsome as the Nazi party. The Nazi's were just able to become the more popular group of human garbage and ended up with the support of the people. 

1n 1932 Germany the majority of the people believed anyone NOT taking their marching orders from Stalin was the better choice. The socialist party (SDC) was out of favor, which is actually a bad thing because they were relatively sane compared to the Nazis and the Commies.  No matter how you parse it, the fact remains that Hitler was, in the end, voted into power under the democratic procedure in Germany at the time. 

This cannot be stressed enough. His position as Chancellor was validated by the German people in an election AFTER being appointed to the post. You can cry "foul!" as much as you like, but the fact remains that Hitler was elected democratically.

Quote:If it's legal, it's valid. Welcome to Weimar. 1930's Germany was no picnic. If you understand the political players it's pretty easy to understand why Hitler jailed his political opponents. They were just as bad as he was, and they were well armed. You might call it a case of bad guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns.

As valid as you want that part of your argument to be, there are other circumstances. The German communist party (KDP) had been running around since 1919 with WW1 era weapons causing all kinds of problems. By 1932 they had a well documented history of armed conflict for political purposes. The KDP was every bit as aggressive and loathsome as the Nazi party. The Nazi's were just able to become the more popular group of human garbage and ended up with the support of the people. 

1n 1932 Germany the majority of the people believed anyone NOT taking their marching orders from Stalin was the better choice. The socialist party (SDC) was out of favor, which is actually a bad thing because they were relatively sane compared to the Nazis and the Commies.  No matter how you parse it, the fact remains that Hitler was, in the end, voted into power under the democratic procedure in Germany at the time. 

This cannot be stressed enough. His position as Chancellor was validated by the German people in an election AFTER being appointed to the post. You can cry "foul!" as much as you like, but the fact remains that Hitler was elected democratically.

And no matter how bad his opponents were using terror and force to win is not democratic So no he didn't win democratically he won by thuggery and back door politics . That's not democracy let alone a lawful or valid democracy .

The inconvenient truth for your case is that Hitler did not intimidate voters directly, only his political opponents. The Nazis were everywhere in Germany kissing babies, handing out balloons with little swastikas on them, marching in parades, etc. winning hearts and minds.

Look.... do the math.

The final vote to combine the posts of Chancellor and President in the person of Adolf Hitler occurred in 1933. 88% of the eligible public voted. The Nazis won by 43.9%. The SDP received 18.3% of the vote. The KDP received 12.5% of the vote. Even if the 12% that did not vote had cast ballots for anyone other than the Nazis, no other party would have been able to win the election.

Some people use the claim that the Nazis were intimidating voters at the polls because they monitored the voting process. Maybe that happened in small numbers, but if it did then they weren't very effective since over 56% of the votes were cast against the Nazis. Hitler was reportedly disappointed at the results of the election because twin campaigns of violence against the KDP and SDP while wooing the public failed to give him enough a victory over 50%. More to the point though, stories of the Nazis engaging in massive voter intimidation never came out after the war was over.

The German people absolutely elected to make Hitler their Fuhrer of their own free will in a democratic election. The election was legal, because it had been made so.

(December 13, 2018 at 5:26 am)Maketakunai Wrote: The inconvenient truth for your case is that Hitler did not intimidate voters directly, only his political opponents. The Nazis were everywhere in Germany kissing babies, handing out balloons with little swastikas on them, marching in parades, etc. winning hearts and minds.

People who tried to shop in Jewish shops were confronted by SA thugs in uniform. Object lesson for potential dissenters.

(December 13, 2018 at 7:06 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(December 13, 2018 at 5:26 am)Maketakunai Wrote: The inconvenient truth for your case is that Hitler did not intimidate voters directly, only his political opponents. The Nazis were everywhere in Germany kissing babies, handing out balloons with little swastikas on them, marching in parades, etc. winning hearts and minds.

People who tried to shop in Jewish shops were confronted by SA thugs in uniform. Object lesson for potential dissenters.

I'd call it more of a lesson for his political opponents, because his supporters were probably anti-semites as well. Mein Kampf came out in 1925, so his anti-semitism was already well documented by his own hand. 

Hitler was in power from 1933 to 1945. In all that time there were only 5 attempts on his life. One was by a foreign student. One was by a former KDP member. The other 3 were attempts by his own officers in the latter part of WW2. That doesn't like there was a whole lot of dissent...

Bill Clinton had 5 credible attempts on his life in 8 years. 
Bush 43 had 2
Not counting silly things like ray guns, Barack Obama was in office 8 years and there were at least 4 serious attempts on his life. People were taking pot shots at the White House.
Donald Trump has been in office less than 2 years and has had 2 attempts on his life.

4 assassination attempts by his own citizens in 22 years doesn't sound like there was much dissent against Hitler at all...

(December 13, 2018 at 8:55 am)Maketakunai Wrote: I'd call it more of a lesson for his political opponents,

LOL. It was meant to be intimidation of the public and it worked. Enjoy your waffles.

Quote:Hitler was in power from 1933 to 1945. In all that time there were only 5 attempts on his life. One was by a foreign student. One was by a former KDP member. The other 3 were attempts by his own officers in the latter part of WW2. That doesn't like there was a whole lot of dissent...

Wikipedia lists (and sources) at least 25 attempts on Hitler's life from '33 to '44. That breaks down to about one every 21 weeks.
Boru

There were probably hundreds if you count these.....

Why didn't people have more dances during the Third Reich?

Because Hitler only had one ball.

(December 13, 2018 at 5:26 am)Maketakunai Wrote: The inconvenient truth for your case is that Hitler did not intimidate voters directly, only his political opponents. The Nazis were everywhere in Germany kissing babies, handing out balloons with little swastikas on them, marching in parades, etc. winning hearts and minds.

Look.... do the math.

The final vote to combine the posts of Chancellor and President in the person of Adolf Hitler occurred in 1933. 88% of the eligible public voted. The Nazis won by 43.9%. The SDP received 18.3% of the vote. The KDP received 12.5% of the vote. Even if the 12% that did not vote had cast ballots for anyone other than the Nazis, no other party would have been able to win the election.

Some people use the claim that the Nazis were intimidating voters at the polls because they monitored the voting process. Maybe that happened in small numbers, but if it did then they weren't very effective since over 56% of the votes were cast against the Nazis. Hitler was reportedly disappointed at the results of the election because twin campaigns of violence against the KDP and SDP while wooing the public failed to give him enough a victory over 50%. More to the point though, stories of the Nazis engaging in massive voter intimidation never came out after the war was over.

The German people absolutely elected to make Hitler their Fuhrer of their own free will in a democratic election. The election was legal, because it had been made so.

Which doesn't change my point in the slightest

---

(December 13, 2018 at 9:01 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(December 13, 2018 at 8:55 am)Maketakunai Wrote: I'd call it more of a lesson for his political opponents,

LOL. It was meant to be intimidation of the public and it worked. Enjoy your waffles.

And even doing it to his opponents taints the election but nice too see he's at least consistent in his belief that thuggery and anti democratic tactics are a valid strategy to win