"Hitler was elected democratically"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2017, 09:44 AM
RE: "Hitler was elected democratically"
(17-05-2017 09:20 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  
(17-05-2017 08:56 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Hitler never won a single election to public office. The claim that Hitler was elected is 100% false. Hitler was appointed Chancellor.

The NaZis certainly used thuggery during the various elections before 1933, and during the plebiscites after that date. The NaZis were for a time the largest party in the Reichstag, but even so didn't hold a majority.

Wasn't it that the Nazi party, as a political party, got voted in and he took over them at a later date?

Not really. Hitler controlled NSDAP earlier than that and one could say that he was vital member of it's previous incarnation. His party had not insignificant support among populace it his his chancellorship that sealed the deal.

Reccomend Richard Evans and Ian Kershaw if you want to know more. For different perspective there is Martin Kitchen and Ullrich Volker.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Szuchow's post
17-05-2017, 09:46 AM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2017 09:57 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: "Hitler was elected democratically"
The topic is far more complicated than that. This is due to the different nature of the Weimar constitution and the role the Reichspräsident played (much more than the Reichskanzler!).

The short answer to your proposition is:
The problem was not that Hitler was appointed Kanzler by Hindenburg. The NSDAP *only* accumulated 33% during the last fair elections in 1932 and couldnt put up a majority in parliament by itself.

The real problem was:
#1 The people pulling the strings behind the curtains, particularly on the aging and already senile Hindneburg, thought they could *control* Hitler once appointed

#2 Hitler and the NSDAP were clever enough, once appointed, to make a law that (by Hindenburgs death in 1934, one year into Hitlers chancellorship) made him combine the office of präsident in combination with already being kanzler. This gave him powers to easily destroy this young democracy in its Tracks, from the inside, from his office desk as Reichspräsident and Reichskanzler.


The slightly longer answer is:
The most powerful man in Weimar was not the kanzler but the president. Particularly since, and this showed by 1930, the Weimar constitution had some serious loopholes which allowed the präsident to bypass parliament or stall it, and take control of government by appointing kanzlers to his liking and making decrees as he wished instead of laws (decrees? conincidence, coincidence). Sadly the präsident (Hindenburg) wasnt a fan of democracy himself and became increasingly senile during office (when elected Präsident in 1925, he already was 78!)

The loopholes were sought after and (ab)used after, in the late 20s, no workig majority in parliament could be formed after elections. Consequently, no Kanzler could be appointed to had the backup of the majority of parliament. To have a working government in this situation, the presidents powers of appointing Kanzler were used, in combination with decrees. Decrees could be revoked by parliament, but the President in return could, at any time, dissolve parliament and call out elections, which Hindenburg did once parliament tried to revoke his decrees.
Thus the "Präsidialkabinette" were formed, not supported by a majority of an elected parliamnet, but by the whim of the präsident, and like repeatedly pushing a "reset" button parliament was dissolved.

If Trumps situation currently can be compared to anything, its probably Hindenburgs position of the mentally unfit president, with People like Pence or Bannon (and/or who knows) trying to pull strings and get into position. We dont know who is going to be Hitler and getting into power, maybe this person doesnt exist. The names of trumps potential "camarilla" are very obvious and i dont have to present them.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 14 users Like Deesse23's post
17-05-2017, 11:49 AM
RE: "Hitler was elected democratically"
(17-05-2017 08:37 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  I might be like stupidly wrong, although my understanding was the the Nazi party came into power, with a lot of 'pro Germany' stuff, which was mainly aimed at the Jewish as they were the few people doing well despite an economical decline .

There are several reasons for them coming into power. You're not stupidly wrong, but viewing it in a too simplistic way.

Let's start with the general election of 1928 and compare them to the elections of 1932. I would have to look up the exact numbers, but in '28 the NSDAP got a whooping 2,6 percent, or something thereabouts. In '32 they were at 32 percents, if I'm not mistaken. In between lay 1929 and the start of the great depression. Damagogues always have an easier time when times are bad. People are more willing to listen to their easy solutions to complicated problems and they're eager to listen to their scapegoating. The jews, since that was the common narrative back then, were the easiest target. We can observe similar developments right now.

There are also other factors featuring into Hitler coming to power. Such as, also in the wake of the great depression, Germany was unstable. Governments changed rapidly without public elections. Most of all, the country was ruled mainly by presidential executive orders. According to the constitution of Weimar, the president was just as powerful, if not more powerful than the American president. There was a lot of fighting and rioting in the streets, since the extreme left and right sent their storm troopers out at each others.

And now comes the determining factor and a fundamental miscalculation by the German conservatives and nationalists (Not the Nazis, but the nationalists). That it would be the lesser evil to have Hitler as chancellor than to risk a communist takeover. Hindenburg, then president, was reluctant. He didn't like Hitler, and though a nationalist himself, didn't like what the nazis stood for. But his entourage, von Papen and Hindenburg's son, convinced him. So they formed a conservative coalition including the nazis. The whole cabinett had only two nazi members. One, Hitler as chancellor, and Frick. Also Göring as minister without portfolio. All the others were conservatives and nationalists.

There's that famous saying by Papen, along the lines of "we will paint him into the corner until he squeeks". Meaning that they would call the shots all along. They didn't take into consideration the recklessness of Hitler and his party during the ensuing months. Culminating in the enabling act in the wake of the Reichstags fire.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like abaris's post
17-05-2017, 12:10 PM
RE: "Hitler was elected democratically"
Yeah, von Papen told Hindenburg he could "handle the little Bohemian corporal". Goes down in history under "stupid shit people said."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gawdzilla's post
17-05-2017, 01:11 PM
RE: "Hitler was elected democratically"
Quote:According to the constitution of Weimar, the president was just as powerful, if not more powerful than the American president.

I think we need to elaborate a bit on this, in order to get a better understanding.
The Weimar präsidnet was never intended to have the role of a US president in a presidential democracy, nor was he intended to play the role of president/chancellor like in a parliamentary democracy.

In history his role often was portrayed as "Ersatzkaiser" (backup Kaiser).
Germany made a big (but understandable, this was the first lasting attempt of forming a democracy after the failed attempt of 1848) mistake. After getting rid of the kaiser and proclaiming a democracy on 11/9/1918, a role was formed that was too similar to the role (and power!) of the former kaiser. Now what was the role of the kaiser in the 2nd Reich (1871-1918). I am going to simplify a bit, but you may understand my point:

The Kaiser was head of the state, supreme commander, but he was basically not in charge of daily politics, especially in dealing with the parliament, creating laws, etc. He was a kind of overlord, appointing a chancellor (and no additional ministers!) who did all the stuff. This was Bismarck, until Willy II fired him. Of course the kaiser always had the power to take matters in his own hand if he perceived it necessary (state in dire condition). He was the ultimate authority. This latter part of his role was the problem that got carried over into the office of Reichspräsident. He was intended to be supreme commander and head of the state, but the kanzler was supposed to lead government with his ministers (hence the präsident was not allowed to appoint ministers, only the ones suggested to him by an acting chancellor). If the kanzler was the CEO and his ministers the (upper) management, the präsident was the supervisory board. Only when the state was in "dire condition" he was allowed to use additional special privileges by being able to make decrees without consent of a kanzler or the parliament. It was intended to be a last line of defense of the state against crisis and turmoil. This was called "Notstandsgesetze" or "Notstandsverordung". However it was intended to be only used in exceptional cases, it was actually applied in the late 20s (see my post above) when no parliamentary majority could be created and thus it was abused as a "regular" way of governing. It was never intended to be used like this, but not explicitly prohibited. That was the fatal flaw.

§48 intended that the präsident was authorized to use the military to *solve* internal problems (which is not allowed in postwar Germany! Only police forces are allowed to be used). He was also authorized to suspend basic freedoms and make decrees (as i explained above).

After the Reichstag burned in February 1933, Hitler managed to have Hindenburg sign such a decree on February, 28th suspending (originally intended to be only temporarily) basic freedoms. This enabled Hitler to significantly influence the upcoming elections on March, 5th. The result, with the NSDAP having >40% (>30% *only* in late 1932 elections!) on one hand gave him some *democratic* legitimation, while nearly dictatorial powers were given to him by Hindenburg, and even more so later when he adopted Hindenburgs office as präsident as well.

Weimars fate was sealed.

Below: results of the "last free elections" in 1932, and the March 1933 elections. I think you understand better now.
March 1933 compared to November 1932 NSDAP gains 11%, her worst enemies, social democrats and communists lose 6,5%, for a total shift of balance of 17,5% within 4 months.
[Image: reichtstagswahl+M%C3%A4rz+1933+NSDAP.JPG]

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Deesse23's post
17-05-2017, 01:27 PM
RE: "Hitler was elected democratically"
(17-05-2017 01:11 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  March 1933 compared to November 1932 NSDAP gains 11%, her worst enemies, social democrats and communists lose 6,5%, for a total shift of balance of 17,5% within 4 months.

What's often forgotten is that communists and socialists weren't even allowed to campaign for the election of '33. Their representatives already were behind bars or had fled the country to a large part. And still they managed to get respectable results. Between them they were nearly as strong as the NSDAP. Both stronger than the Catholic Zentrum.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like abaris's post
17-05-2017, 01:44 PM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2017 01:59 PM by Szuchow.)
RE: "Hitler was elected democratically"
(17-05-2017 01:27 PM)abaris Wrote:  
(17-05-2017 01:11 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  March 1933 compared to November 1932 NSDAP gains 11%, her worst enemies, social democrats and communists lose 6,5%, for a total shift of balance of 17,5% within 4 months.

What's often forgotten is that communists and socialists weren't even allowed to campaign for the election of '33. Their representatives already were behind bars or had fled the country to a large part. And still they managed to get respectable results. Between them they were nearly as strong as the NSDAP. Both stronger than the Catholic Zentrum.

But thanks to Stalin policy there was no between them - socialists were deemed social-fascists by communists.

Edit: Nazis got 43.9%, (nazis and nationalists got 51.9%) communists 12.3%, social democrats 18.3%, centrum 11.2%. [R. Evans, "The Coming of the Third Reich", p. 436, 437 Epub 2004 edition]

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Szuchow's post
17-05-2017, 03:10 PM
RE: "Hitler was elected democratically"
(17-05-2017 01:27 PM)abaris Wrote:  
(17-05-2017 01:11 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  March 1933 compared to November 1932 NSDAP gains 11%, her worst enemies, social democrats and communists lose 6,5%, for a total shift of balance of 17,5% within 4 months.

What's often forgotten is that communists and socialists weren't even allowed to campaign for the election of '33. Their representatives already were behind bars or had fled the country to a large part. And still they managed to get respectable results. Between them they were nearly as strong as the NSDAP. Both stronger than the Catholic Zentrum.
IIRC it wasn't illegal to be a communist when they were being rounded up. It was just ordered and done.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2017, 03:19 PM
RE: "Hitler was elected democratically"
(17-05-2017 03:10 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  IIRC it wasn't illegal to be a communist when they were being rounded up. It was just ordered and done.

They weren't allowed to campaign in any case. But still, quite a number of people voted for them. Which wasn't what the nazis intended. They also failed to get an absolute majority.

The absolute power only became a reality when Hindenburg died and Hitler took the office of president along with his chancellorship in 1934.

Also, the constitution of Weimar was still in effect until 1945. The nazis never abolished it. It was only ammended by the enabling act, which rendered the articles about checks and balances ineffective. That they were able to enact the ammendment is largely down to the Catholic Zentrum party, which voted in favor of it. Otherwise it wouldn't have got the necessary votes.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like abaris's post
17-05-2017, 06:20 PM
RE: "Hitler was elected democratically"
(17-05-2017 08:56 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Hitler never won a single election to public office. The claim that Hitler was elected is 100% false. Hitler was appointed Chancellor.

The NaZis certainly used thuggery during the various elections before 1933, and during the plebiscites after that date. The NaZis were for a time the largest party in the Reichstag, but even so didn't hold a majority.

Hitler was elected President of Germany on August 19, 1934, after his appointment as Chancellor. Source: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-histo...of-germany

The parallels between the ascendancy of Hitler and the rise of Trump are too numerous - and terrifying - to mention.

Hitler had the Brownshirts. Trump has the alt-right.

Hitler promised to shake up Germany and "restore Germany to its rightful place". Trump promised to "Make America Great Again."

There's plenty more: Donald Trump using Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' playbook

and

Expert on Nazism explains the shocking similarities between Trump and Hitler’s propaganda tactics

Usually, Godwin's Law prevails: using Hitler as a comparison negates the argument.

This is different. This is all too real.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heath_Tierney's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: