Printable View
Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship, while technically legal, was clearly in no way democratic.Quote:
Yes, read the article you linked and then tell me how much of that was 'legal' or 'democratic'.
If you think what Hitler did after January 1933 counts as legal, well, I'm afraid I can't help you.
it depends whether you view a largely bloodless coup as a "legal" change of government or not. Mostly this comes under the old saw about treason never prospering.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
He was democraticslly ellected, that's a fact. That he killed it afterwards is something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
To those who believe that Hitler was "democratically elected":
1. Why do you believe that "Chancellor" was an elected office?
2. Why do you believe that the backroom dealings of German politicians of the era constitute a manifestation of the will of the people?
3. Why do you believe that the NSDAP achieved a majority win in one or more elections prior to Hitler's assumption of dictatorial power?
4. Why do you believe that the Reichstag fire was not a Nazi plot?
5. Why do you believe that it was "democratic" or "legal" for party paramilitaries to engage in political violence against the opposition?
6. Why do you believe that preventing all opposition politicians from participating in legislative proceedings counted as "democratic" or "legal"?
Sheesh...
HUURR DURR I READ IT ON AN INTERNET SITE THAT SPECIAZES IN DEBUNKING
Hitler was elected with the democratic rules of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
You can ***** and moan about it, but it wont change the facts. He also made no secret of wanting supreme power, so it's not like people didn't know what they voted for.
You can of course play the old "true Scotsman" fallacy, but you are smarter than that, no? It's like saying Bush II wasnt' really re-elected democratically as the majority didn't vote for him, and his own family controlled the outcome... Or you can just say he was elected and move on :shrug:
Nope.Quote:
Hitler was elected with the democratic rules of the time.
Some quick google double checking notes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Hitler was defeated in the only election for which he stood for office. Both rounds of presidential voting went to Hindenburg. Hitler's strong second place finish -- probably with a better percentage than he thought he might receive -- confirmed the growing power of the NSDAP and confirmed that the KPD had lost out.
In the Reichstag, the NSDAP was never a majority party, though in the last two elections prior to Hitler's seizure of power, the NSDAP were the largest single party in that body.
The strong showing in a race for the Presidency coupled with his being the leader of the plurality party in the Reichstag were factors that combined to propel him into the chancellorship -- to which he was appointed, not elected.
So, Hitler was never elected, but the electoral process was one of the stepping stones to power for the NSDAP.
well... rommel and napoleon were the invaders not the invaded. if u would make the ww2 comparison then he should be compared to zhukov i think.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
I am perfectly aware of the fact that I am dumb, I don't even know where I left my superior intellect. But kadagar is right about Hitler being elected. It kinda went wrong after that but what he says is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
eh... how can u still say that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I don't think that Hitler's rise to power was democratic, but my reasons are different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
1. Prime ministers and Chancellors (largely the same) are not elected as such, but approved by a majority of the legislature. So while technically Hitler was not elected in the capacity of chancellor, his appointment was legal on paper. As said, most of the things he did afterwards were unconstitutional.
2. See number 1. The conservatives approved his bid for chancellor because they didn't believe things would turn out that bad in practice. This isn't an unusual turn of events in parliamentary democracies today.
3. No argument.
4. I think that it's actually unknown what the truth is behind the Reichstag fire. It could be that it was a false flag operation orchestrated by the nazis, or it could have been a lucky turn of events that gave them the excuse they needed to cement their power.
5 & 6: I agree with you, and these are the reasons why I don't think that the rise of the nazis qualifies as "democractic".
The Weimar Republic never had one easy moment from its inception, and having paramilitary gangs like the SA mucking things up only made it worse. The various factions in the Reichstag were never able to form a coaltion to actually support a government, at least not for any meaningful amount of time. The only reason the administrations/cabinets functioned at all was because they used various "emergency clauses" to keep the daily operations of the state running. Which is one of the reasons why Hitler was able to shove aside the constitution so easily - because it never worked properly to begin with.
Well it's simply trueQuote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Edit, Krazilec is better at it. But Kadagar isn't wrong here. You don't have to like it, but he isn't.
its not true lol? didnt u read a word that seamus wrote? or pay attention during history classes.
what exactly was he elected for/to?
in any case i dont see why it is relevant, because he changed the rules after he became chancellor and while we can argue all day if it was legal or not, im quite sure we can all agree that it was not democratic.
hitlers office of chancellor was largely ceremonial, he was appointed to it by president hindenburg who disliked hitler but feared his growing power and tried to appease him. hitler then orchestrated or conveniently used the fire in the reichstag to gain more power, effectively making him omnipotent for 4 years. when hindenburg died he made himself fuhrer, which ruled for life. so what was he elected to.
Krazilec explained it just fine. That Hitler abused the system, alas. What Kadagar says is still true thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
kadagar isnt right. hitler wasnt elected, this doesnt mean that his appointment as chancellor was undemocratic. however what the office was, and which he was appointed to by the rules of the time, is not the same office which hitler made it to be, which he did by changing the rules of his time...
if the majority of the people of germany at that time wanted hitler to be their president then he wouldve won the election (assuming it wasnt rigged). but he didnt win, hindenburg became president.
Well, that was the point of my previous post.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
His appointoment as chancellor was legal on paper. Which is a weak argument considering the situation that Germany was in. But it's technically true.
...and that's where it ends, really - his decision to usurp Hindenburg's powers after his death (into a combined office of chancellor/president that he called "Fuhrer") was clearly illegal, as were most of the other things he did.
Yeah he did that. That is where things got wrong he was a dictator who immediatly scrapped everything that didn't fancy him. But he was in fact elected by the rules at the time, wasn't a very good idea in hindsight.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
except that he wasnt elected... but appointed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
consider this situation, the "voorzitter van de 2e kamer" (president of the house of representatives) stages a coup and becomes the next leader and dictator of the netherlands. however this person has been appointed to his office by political "backroom" talks and not by any direct form of democratic election. so while the appointment is a legal decision by the democratic government, you cant say that person was elected as if it was the "will of the people" which seems to me what kadagar is trying to do when he is saying that hitler was elected. that the german people got what they wanted and deserved, what they voted for etc etc...
It still works like that here in the NetherlandsQuote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Frags, I have to admire your tenacity. It's a tad quixotic, but therein lies your unique appeal.
Oh shoo ;)
So he was democratically appointed, not elected...?
That's what the fuss is about?
By such standards we must hold Stalin to be just as "democratic" as Hitler...
lol. It's just how it works. The national-socialists won the elections and Hitler was made top-dog. If you compare that to Russia I have no other choice than calling your mother and tell her that she failed to teach you basic history and political theory. Among others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
While history didn't actually proceed as laid out here, I will concede that Fragony is correct as he almost always is about such things (i.e. all things).Quote:
The national-socialists won the elections and Hitler was made top-dog.
Thanks for setting the record straight Frags. Though I actually agreed with you the whole time - after all, one must be well-prepared to even consider contradicting Fragony - it is totally understandable that you would rebuke me for my errors. Not being nearly as articulate or coherent of thought as you are, Fragony, I ended up writing a crappy and sycophantic post that did no more than ride on the coattails of the excellent work advancing your thesis you had heretofore produced in the thread. I can see now that you didn't really misunderstand my post, but were instead employing your wisdom to teach me a fine lesson in argumentative writing, critical thought, and historiography.
I must simultaneously thank and apologize to you, the one for setting aside some of your valuable and ever-reflective time to educate one so hopelessly callow, nescient and unrefined as myself, the other for ultimately having caused you to expend your precious resources in vain on my unworthy character.
Just know that, for whatever it's worth, you continue to inspire me and countless other inferior specimens on these Web boards as well as in the disconnected realms, by your shining intellectual example.
Shine on, you beautiful star.
:bow:
You are really good at saying 'you suck', I usually keep it to the words itself, I am a purist. Your more baroque aproach is certainly refreshing.
So is beer by the way I think I'll have one cheers mia muca
Open Request for Moderators:
We have no passed through the Godwin zone and into the Godwin/Soviet interface.
Thread is tired and needs a nap.
Preparing to breach the Godwin/Soviet interface!
Jettisoning logic modules and readying emoticons!
Full speed ahead!!!
:on_void: