Does he go on to discuss Hindenburg? The problem for his argument, obviously, is that Hindenburg was the president of the Wiemar republic for the ten or so yea

Does he go on to discuss Hindenburg? The problem for his argument, obviously, is that Hindenburg was the president of the Wiemar republic for the ten or so years that were the meat of the Nazi's rise to power, and he was far more of a hero to the 'strong elements' (far right / conservatives) than the monarchy ever were. (Obviously, there's a second problem, which is that it's unclear to me if a lack of respect for 'democratic and Parliamentary processes' was the problem with the Nazis. They were voted in, and elections were suspended during wartime, which is normal in a democracy, and were by all accounts very popular throughout the war and after[0]. They also did not substantially alter or suspend the constitution: rather, they used emergency provisions and broadly interpreted resources that were already there). [0]: Notably, many of the laws they authored, many of the companies and people they elevated or created, went on to successful post-war careers.