"Mein Kampf" - back in Germany!

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by icenine

Just because you say there was a coup in 1930s Germany does not mean that there was one. I could say World War I ended in 1920...that does not make it true. When did I excuse political violence by the way.

What is your motivation for implying Hitler came to power during a coup when in fact he was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg, legal under Weimar, after winning a plurality of the German vote in an election?

You cannot change historical facts to fit whatever conceit you have about a particular issue, such as the election of Hitler. A plurality of votes is not a coup.

Ahem. This questioning of my motives is uncalled-for. My 'motivation' is to deny the Nazi's the status of a legitimate 'elected' government in the face of the illegitimate means they employed to gain power. The fruit of the poisoned tree is poison.

And I haven't arrived at my position without thought or in ignorance. If you want a catalog of facts to back up my position, that is, a list of Nazi terroristc acts and atrocities, say so and in a little while, I will provide.

(BTW, sorry you didn't get it. I indicated, I thought clearly, in my previous post that you didn't actually excuse political violence. My point was to compare the idea that you did to your own suggestion that I denied Hitler's popularity. I say both are equally bogus, see?)

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Good summary. I regard tha Nazi ascent as a coup, by stages, due to the continuous use of violence and terror.

Ascent

A coup by stages.

Why?

continuous use of violence and terror.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Ascent

A coup by stages.

Why?

continuous use of violence and terror.

You just make shit up as you please? At one point 14 million Germans voted for him in one of the elections.

I do not think you can point to street battles between the SA and the Communist party and others as an indication that normal Germans bore no responsibility for electing him, and moreover, letting him get away with the Enabling Acts. Remember Hitler was barnstorming all over Germany in a plane campaigning and kissing babies in a effort to win over voters. Plus he was making promises to both industry and the Army that they would not be hurt once he gained power.

[icenine]

http://www.historytoday.com/ian-kershaw/hitler-myth



Seems like he gained popularity as a law and order type vis-s-vis the left. Plus I think the Army and the business classes (like Krupp) knew they were safe.

[Pio1980]

Just finished watching "Triumph of the Will" subtitled. This is definitely a must see to the end experience if one has trouble getting the essence of the movement and where it was headed under A.H.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Pio1980]

Once the Nazis came to power and AH could rule by dictat with the compelled if not initial willing consent of a goodly number of the citizens, progress and recovery could go ahead without the quarreling and indecision elsewhere, not to mention the regime's ability to define what the terms meant and write blank checks to re-arm the country.
Compared to the ongoing dispair and lack of confidence elsewhere, this economic recovery and self-confidence would have looked pretty good inside Germany as well as elsewhere, and been a sort of excuse for the excesses that would soon become apparent. Apologists would say that the less palatable portions of Mein Kampf were just the venting of a frustrated defeated soldier and the Nuremberg laws were only propaganda for attracting the less savory elements to the regime's agenda of economic recovery.
Henry Ford was pretty much on board as a fellow antisemite, and Charles Lindberg was sufficiently impressed with the confidence and recovery to be on board for some time. Even Justice Felix Frankfurt didn't believe the stories of overt vicious oppression, as such an educated culturally grounded folk would surely be incapable of such repugnant behavior.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[donquixote99]

The highest vote percent the Nazis received in open elections was 37% in July 1932. They lost support in the subsequent November 1932 election, receiving 33% of the vote.

History at State: http://historyatstate.tumblr.com/pos...ermanelections

Shortly before the elections, von Papen repealed Brüning’s ban on the Nazi Storm Troopers, who had terrorized the Nazi’s political opponents. The ensuing crescendo of political violence perpetrated by the resurgent Storm Troopers further weakened parliamentary democracy in Germany. As a result of the July 31, 1932 elections, the Nazi Party became the largest party in the Reichstag, with 230 seats out of 608, winning over 37 % of the vote. Ambassador Sackett reported that “as a result of yesterday’s elections the new Reichstag will reflect the change that has taken place in German political life.” (August 1, 1932; Telegram from Berlin) Because the Nazi Party was unwilling to form a government coalition with its enemies, the Social Democrats and the Communists, the stalemate continued and von Papen governed by emergency decree.

In order to forestall a vote of no confidence against von Papen, Hindenburg called another election for November 6, 1932, which proved to be the last free and fair election before the Hitler’s seizure of power. The Nazi Party’s popularity was waning. It won only 33% of the vote and lost 34 seats in the Reichstag. However, Hitler convinced Hindenburg to make himself Chancellor and von Papen Vice-Chancellor. Hitler’s machinations, which culminated on January 30, 1933, became known as the Nazi Machtergreifung, or Seizure of Power. In order to neutralize all remaining opposition, Hitler convinced Hindenburg to call for another election, while, according to U.S. chargé d’affaires Kliefoth, “endeavoring to dispel the apprehensions which the formation of the Hitler Cabinet evoked among the republican elements and in the ranks of organized labor.” (January 31, 1933; Berlin 2163)

The Nazis violently suppressed the Social Democrats and the Communists, in part by burning down the Reichstag and arresting many Social Democrat and Communist leaders. However, Hitler’s attempt to blot out all opposition was not yet successful; resistance lingered and the Nazis failed again to win a parliamentary majority in the elections of March 5, 1933.

The March 5 1933 election is the one in which the Nazi's got 44%. But that election is considered blatantly outside the 'free and fair' description. Hitler was already Chancellor at that time, and Nazi violence against the left was mostly unchecked. The only surprise is that despite all the violent efforts to suppress their opponents, they still did not achieve 50% of the vote.

[icenine]

The millions of people who voted for Hitler maybe approved of the violence his party was committing against the So************************ts/Communists/etc?

The idea that the so************************ts/communists were the true majority in the country is not plausible. I think Hitler was given a chance despite his tactics. He maybe have been rabble rousing but he found enough voters to put him into office.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by icenine

The millions of people who voted for Hitler maybe approved of the violence his party was committing against the So************************ts/Communists/etc?

The idea that the so************************ts/communists were the true majority in the country is not plausible. I think Hitler was given a chance despite his tactics. He maybe have been rabble rousing but he found enough voters to put him into office.

We can say some Nazi voters approved of violence against the left, and some didn't. But without data, we can't assume how many approved....

I don't recall claiming that soçialists/communists were the majority. My claim is simply that the electoral process does not confer legitimacy on the Nazi regime, given everything they did. I say among other things that they stuffed the Reichstag with storm troopers and used the threat of Dachau (which by then existed) or political murder (which was rife, uninvestigated, and unpunished) to insure passage of the Enabling Act.

That there were millions of tru-believer nazi assholes in Germany in 1933 is not disputed. But even if the majority* in a country were to 'knowingly and rationally' support a change of regime, it still is not necessarily a 'democratic' change. It depends on how the thing is done. I argue that if the means are as compromised as those employed by the Nazis, it is not democratic. And I think 'coup' is a fair description of such a process, even if the process is more drawn-out, and more papered-over with 'legality,' than is typical of coups.


* I'm not saying the Nazis had a majority. They never got one until after they outlawed all the other parties.

[icenine]

For your revisionism to seem valid one would have to believe that unmolested the Social Democrats and the Communists would have defeated Hitler in the 1930s as the economic situation declined....a real stretch considering the huge vote he got in 1932. Plus those two factions would hardly work with each other.

But this is a bullshit discussion; what point are your trying to make by saying it was a coup. Devil's advocate: let us say it was a coup....so what does that mean? How is that significant? What does it change?

Of course it was not a coup unless you are a revisionist. Any legitimate historical works exist in the mainstream of historiography call his elevation to the Chancellorship a coup?

point me to one.