6 ms·

Why did people support Hitler? Why do people support Trump? Why do people support Putin? Some people aren't very concerned with democratic principles; some p

Why did people support Hitler? Why do people support Trump? Why do people support Putin? Some people aren't very concerned with democratic principles; some people like the policy agenda and are willing to sacrifice democratic principles in order to get the policies they want; some people are gullible and believe scapegoat arguments; some people, particularly in times of insecurity, seek out a "strong man".

r00fus 10y ago
Or they see the coup as endangering the economic situation which could lead to more job-losses and the like. Let's be honest, would you support a coup in your country if that meant potentially years of unrest and economic crisis?
- tremon 10y ago
  In a way, 52% of British citizens would/did.
- pdx 10y ago
  > would you support a coup in your country if that meant potentially years of unrest and economic crisis Of course I would. Once you have children, you have a foot in the future. You look at what your counry will be like in 30 or 40 or 50 years. You don't focus so much on short term gains, but on long term gains. If you feel that your country is heading down the wrong path, and altering that path will result in a better life for your children in 20 or 30 years at the expense of short term pain, of course you support altering the path of your country. The people of the UK chose national sovereignty, at the risk of near term economic pain that the remainers shouted from the roof-tops, was sure to come. They did it anyway, because long term, they will be better off.
  - allendoerfer 10y ago
    >[…] at the risk of near term economic pain that the remainers shouted from the roof-tops […] >They did it anyway, because long term, they will be better off. You make it seem like a fact and not what the leavers were shouting from the rooftops.
  - zxcdw 10y ago
    > because long term, they will be better off. Because long term, they believe they will be better off. And really, many people cast their vote as a protest vote for the current politics, rather than as a genuine opposition to EU.
  - nothrabannosir 10y ago
    > Once you have children, you have a foot in the future. I appreciate the sentiment, but you risk alienating a lot of childless people with this rhetoric. I don't have children, but I like to think I care about the future of my continent, as well.
    - pdx 10y ago
      OK. I didn't mean to alienate. My brother-in-law, my sister, and pretty much all of our friends, are childless by choice or by circumstance, and past the point of having any. While they share our views, politically, it's not as personal to them. It's really hard to detect any level of fear or significant concern from them as to where the nation is heading over the next 30 or 40 years. They believe bad things will happen, but in a detached, non-emotional manner. That's not really surprising to me. I am certain that I would not feel as passionate as I do, if I didn't have kids. Many people have expressed the view the Angela Merkel would not be risking the culture of Germany or Europe, if she had children and grandchildren. My wife and I feel that way, to be sure.
- cperciva 10y ago
  Right, that's a different question. I was trying to answer why people might support Erdogan; it's entirely reasonable for people to oppose a coup d'état despite not supporting the current government, for exactly the reasons you mention.
hasenj 10y ago
It's not the policy per se as much as the agenda and the nationalism. Humans are tribal creatures.
pdx 10y ago
I support Trump. I have no problem with Putin. I find your equivalence of those two men to Hitler to be naive or intentionally inflammatory. Even given this, I do not, however, intend to quit using tarsnap!
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  Even though I do not share your political views, I am very disappointed that you got down voted for your opinion. This is a very subjective topic and no one should be downvoted for holding non-violent opinions on topics like this where there is no objective right or wrong. If you had been unnecessarily profane or such that would be a different story, but this is just sad.
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  All three are terrible populists. Two have fought offensive wars. Only one is responsible for a genocide. I am indecisive whether or not one should compare people other than Stalin and the like to Hitler. It intoxicates the whole conversation but if you focus on his roots it is a pretty good argument why populism in itself is always bad.
- ztratar 10y ago
  The comparison between Hitler and Trump is not naive in any way. There are very logical, direct comparisons: blanket generalizations of a specific minority group, quick rise-to-power from populist hate-centric rhetoric, and lack of political or governmental experience.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  > I find your equivalence of those two men to Hitler to be naive or intentionally inflammatory. >> Why did people support Hitler? Why do people support Trump? Why do people support Putin? This structure doesn't imply that the men are equivalent. It implies that the three questions share one answer. If I tell you that the reason we fine people for speeding is the same reason that mothers in Jonestown fed poison to their babies, I hope you won't think I'm equating the acts.
  - 10y ago
mikeash 10y ago
Note that the Nazis never had the support of the majority. It's a common myth that Hitler was elected, but he seized power at gunpoint after winning a minority of the legislature (albeit a sizeable minority). Putin is similar, with electoral fraud substituting for naked force. Trump remains to be seen. Erdogan, on the other hand, seems to legitimately enjoy the support of the majority. It may just be a quantitative difference, but it seems like an important one just the same.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- bjourne 10y ago
  That's how it works in multi-party parliaments. It's very rare for one party to get more than 50% so instead the largest minority party (or constellation of parties) gets selected to form a government. NSDAP was that party in Germany in 1932. It's only in the American and English systems where there are only two options to choose from that a leader can claim "majority" support.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Yes, but in those other systems, the government rules with enough support from parliament to form a majority, even if their party doesn't have a majority on its own. The Nazis just pointed guns at everyone and said, "give us unlimited power."
  - DasIch 10y ago
    No, it's not. In multi-party parliaments you have coalitions that together form a government. The NSDAP did not form such a coalition.
    - tremon 10y ago
      Still, it's usually the largest party (or the largest electoral winner) that gets first pickings to try to form a coalition.
oldboyFX 10y ago
Are you seriously comparing hitler with trump and putin? Holy crap some people are truly indoctrinated by their ideologies to the point of no return.
- personjerry 10y ago
  > Are you seriously comparing hitler with trump and putin? You're missing the point entirely. The parent post wasn't saying Hitler is like Trump and Putin, but rather uses them all as examples of charismatic political leaders. > Holy crap some people are truly indoctrinated by their ideologies to the point of no return. This seems like a rather extreme conclusion to jump to.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Before Hitler was Hitler he was just another demagogue. That said, Hitler is about as close to the personification of pure evil as you get in secular society. So it's an inept analogy.
  - tamana 10y ago
    Hitler was a bog standard 19th-20th century genocidist who had the efficiency of German engineering as a force multiplier. He wasn't so different from Andrew Jackson who conquered North America or Stalin who slaughtered his own Russia
chj 10y ago
If the word Hitler is frequently used to scare people, soon it will lose its scaring power, just like handing out Nobel peace prize randomly loses its credibility.
- DasIch 10y ago
  Soon? It has already lost it long ago.
- cperciva 10y ago
  I'm not trying to scare anyone. Hitler just happens to be a well-known example of someone who gained support through scapegoating.
dang 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12104307 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12104307 and marked it off-topic.
- cperciva 10y ago
  I agree that it's off-topic, but didn't the subthread become off-topic at the point that cesarbs asked the question rather than when I answered it?
  - dang 10y ago
    These calls are matters of degree. Although the original question was somewhat generic, Erdogan is pretty on-topic in a thread about Turkish politics. Throwing in Hitler, Trump, and Putin, on the other hand, makes it hopelessly generic and provocative to boot.
usrusr 10y ago
"Make ${country} strong again" Works best in countries that used to be empires. (Un)fortunately, at one point or the other in history, most were.

r00fus 10y ago

Or they see the coup as endangering the economic situation which could lead to more job-losses and the like. Let's be honest, would you support a coup in your country if that meant potentially years of unrest and economic crisis?

tremon 10y ago
In a way, 52% of British citizens would/did.
pdx 10y ago
> would you support a coup in your country if that meant potentially years of unrest and economic crisis Of course I would. Once you have children, you have a foot in the future. You look at what your counry will be like in 30 or 40 or 50 years. You don't focus so much on short term gains, but on long term gains. If you feel that your country is heading down the wrong path, and altering that path will result in a better life for your children in 20 or 30 years at the expense of short term pain, of course you support altering the path of your country. The people of the UK chose national sovereignty, at the risk of near term economic pain that the remainers shouted from the roof-tops, was sure to come. They did it anyway, because long term, they will be better off.
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  >[…] at the risk of near term economic pain that the remainers shouted from the roof-tops […] >They did it anyway, because long term, they will be better off. You make it seem like a fact and not what the leavers were shouting from the rooftops.
- zxcdw 10y ago
  > because long term, they will be better off. Because long term, they believe they will be better off. And really, many people cast their vote as a protest vote for the current politics, rather than as a genuine opposition to EU.
- nothrabannosir 10y ago
  > Once you have children, you have a foot in the future. I appreciate the sentiment, but you risk alienating a lot of childless people with this rhetoric. I don't have children, but I like to think I care about the future of my continent, as well.
  - pdx 10y ago
    OK. I didn't mean to alienate. My brother-in-law, my sister, and pretty much all of our friends, are childless by choice or by circumstance, and past the point of having any. While they share our views, politically, it's not as personal to them. It's really hard to detect any level of fear or significant concern from them as to where the nation is heading over the next 30 or 40 years. They believe bad things will happen, but in a detached, non-emotional manner. That's not really surprising to me. I am certain that I would not feel as passionate as I do, if I didn't have kids. Many people have expressed the view the Angela Merkel would not be risking the culture of Germany or Europe, if she had children and grandchildren. My wife and I feel that way, to be sure.
cperciva 10y ago
Right, that's a different question. I was trying to answer why people might support Erdogan; it's entirely reasonable for people to oppose a coup d'état despite not supporting the current government, for exactly the reasons you mention.

hasenj 10y ago

It's not the policy per se as much as the agenda and the nationalism. Humans are tribal creatures.

pdx 10y ago

I support Trump. I have no problem with Putin. I find your equivalence of those two men to Hitler to be naive or intentionally inflammatory. Even given this, I do not, however, intend to quit using tarsnap!

ajmurmann 10y ago
Even though I do not share your political views, I am very disappointed that you got down voted for your opinion. This is a very subjective topic and no one should be downvoted for holding non-violent opinions on topics like this where there is no objective right or wrong. If you had been unnecessarily profane or such that would be a different story, but this is just sad.
allendoerfer 10y ago
All three are terrible populists. Two have fought offensive wars. Only one is responsible for a genocide. I am indecisive whether or not one should compare people other than Stalin and the like to Hitler. It intoxicates the whole conversation but if you focus on his roots it is a pretty good argument why populism in itself is always bad.
ztratar 10y ago
The comparison between Hitler and Trump is not naive in any way. There are very logical, direct comparisons: blanket generalizations of a specific minority group, quick rise-to-power from populist hate-centric rhetoric, and lack of political or governmental experience.
thaumasiotes 10y ago
> I find your equivalence of those two men to Hitler to be naive or intentionally inflammatory. >> Why did people support Hitler? Why do people support Trump? Why do people support Putin? This structure doesn't imply that the men are equivalent. It implies that the three questions share one answer. If I tell you that the reason we fine people for speeding is the same reason that mothers in Jonestown fed poison to their babies, I hope you won't think I'm equating the acts.
- 10y ago

mikeash 10y ago

Note that the Nazis never had the support of the majority. It's a common myth that Hitler was elected, but he seized power at gunpoint after winning a minority of the legislature (albeit a sizeable minority). Putin is similar, with electoral fraud substituting for naked force. Trump remains to be seen. Erdogan, on the other hand, seems to legitimately enjoy the support of the majority. It may just be a quantitative difference, but it seems like an important one just the same.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bjourne 10y ago
That's how it works in multi-party parliaments. It's very rare for one party to get more than 50% so instead the largest minority party (or constellation of parties) gets selected to form a government. NSDAP was that party in Germany in 1932. It's only in the American and English systems where there are only two options to choose from that a leader can claim "majority" support.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Yes, but in those other systems, the government rules with enough support from parliament to form a majority, even if their party doesn't have a majority on its own. The Nazis just pointed guns at everyone and said, "give us unlimited power."
- DasIch 10y ago
  No, it's not. In multi-party parliaments you have coalitions that together form a government. The NSDAP did not form such a coalition.
  - tremon 10y ago
    Still, it's usually the largest party (or the largest electoral winner) that gets first pickings to try to form a coalition.

oldboyFX 10y ago

Are you seriously comparing hitler with trump and putin? Holy crap some people are truly indoctrinated by their ideologies to the point of no return.

personjerry 10y ago
> Are you seriously comparing hitler with trump and putin? You're missing the point entirely. The parent post wasn't saying Hitler is like Trump and Putin, but rather uses them all as examples of charismatic political leaders. > Holy crap some people are truly indoctrinated by their ideologies to the point of no return. This seems like a rather extreme conclusion to jump to.
Spooky23 10y ago
Before Hitler was Hitler he was just another demagogue. That said, Hitler is about as close to the personification of pure evil as you get in secular society. So it's an inept analogy.
- tamana 10y ago
  Hitler was a bog standard 19th-20th century genocidist who had the efficiency of German engineering as a force multiplier. He wasn't so different from Andrew Jackson who conquered North America or Stalin who slaughtered his own Russia

chj 10y ago

If the word Hitler is frequently used to scare people, soon it will lose its scaring power, just like handing out Nobel peace prize randomly loses its credibility.

DasIch 10y ago
Soon? It has already lost it long ago.
cperciva 10y ago
I'm not trying to scare anyone. Hitler just happens to be a well-known example of someone who gained support through scapegoating.

dang 10y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12104307 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12104307 and marked it off-topic.

cperciva 10y ago
I agree that it's off-topic, but didn't the subthread become off-topic at the point that cesarbs asked the question rather than when I answered it?
- dang 10y ago
  These calls are matters of degree. Although the original question was somewhat generic, Erdogan is pretty on-topic in a thread about Turkish politics. Throwing in Hitler, Trump, and Putin, on the other hand, makes it hopelessly generic and provocative to boot.

usrusr 10y ago

"Make ${country} strong again" Works best in countries that used to be empires. (Un)fortunately, at one point or the other in history, most were.