3 ms·

The Germans did not elect the Nazis into power. They lost in the 1932 elections by no small margin. Hindenburg got 53% of the vote, Hitler less than 37%. The Na

The Germans did not elect the Nazis into power. They lost in the 1932 elections by no small margin. Hindenburg got 53% of the vote, Hitler less than 37%. The Nazis would later cement their power after the Reichstag fire decree, banning most attempts at opposition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_German_presidential_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_German_presidential_ele...

throw9away6 3y ago
Boy history loves to rhyme doesn’t it…
hollerith 3y ago
Your URL doesn't support your position (emphasis mine): >Hindenburg's reelection failed to prevent the NSDAP from assuming power. Two successive federal elections later that year left it as the largest party in the Reichstag and anti-republic parties in the majority. Under this political climate, Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933. Upon Hindenburg's death in 1934 Hitler de facto assumed the presidency, which he combined with the chancellorship to become the Führer und Reichskanzler. >The NSDAP emerged from the Reichstag elections in July as the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote, while Papen's position was undermined. Papen dissolved the Reichstag again with elections in November, in which the Nazis lost seats but remained the largest party.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Subsequent elections weren't fair elections: in February of '33 the Nazis had already started to ban and persecute competing parties. I guess if you caveat the statement by specifying that they only won unfair, rigged elections then sure that isn't wrong. > Upon Hindenburg's death in 1934 Hitler de facto assumed the presidency, which he combined with the chancellorship to become the Führer und Reichskanzler. Hitler was appointed not elected. And assumed the presidency after Hindenburg's death, not by winning an election. > The NSDAP emerged from the Reichstag elections in July as the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote "Over a third" is nowhere near the majority. Remember Hindenburg ran as an independent and won over 50% of the vote. "Largest party" in a system with more than two parties and. And again, after February 1933 the Nazis had severely suppressed opposition parties. Subsequent elections are not fair elections, this is like saying Kim Jeong Un was democratically elected. Technically he was, with the little detail that there was just one party and one candidate to vote far.
  - hollerith 3y ago
    >in February of '33 the Nazis had already started to ban and persecute competing parties. Sure, yes, but that does not contradict the fact that in '32, the Nazis did so well in an election that they became (repeating myself) "the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag". Then they won another election in '32, (but by a slimmer margin) where here "won" means that they ended up with more seats than any other party. >Hitler was appointed not elected. Yes, but he was appointed mostly because the party he controlled became "the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote". >"Over a third" is nowhere near the majority. Remember Hindenburg ran as an independent and won over 50% of the vote. Here you are comparing elections for the Reichstag (a legislative body) with an election for the office of president. In the former, East Prussia votes for a legislator, Pomerania votes for a legislator, North Westphalia votes for one. I.e. they are not national elections, but rather regional ones similar to US elections for senators. That matters because it makes it practical for candidates without national name-recognition to run and to win. In contrast, doing well the election for the president requires strong national name-recognition. So, one possible explanation for Hindenberg's being able to get over 50% of the vote is the fact that there were fewer viable candidates for that office than there were viable parties contesting over seats in the Reichstag. This table lists 62 parties: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932_German_federal_election#Results https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932_German_federal_ele...
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      As per your own source, competing parties made up over 60% of legislators. The "largest party" is not much of a win when they lost the election for head of state, and non-Nazis won the majority of seats.
      - hollerith 3y ago
        The party in power since 2021 in Germany (the SPD) won only 25.7% of the vote, so by analogy with your position that "the Germans did not elect the Nazis into power," do you also hold that the Germans did not elect the SPD into power in 2021? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_German_federal_election#:~:text=With%2025.7%25%20of%20total%20votes%2C%20the%20Social%20Democratic%20Party%20of%20Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_German_federal_election#:... If not, what is the difference that makes them different for you?

throw9away6 3y ago

Boy history loves to rhyme doesn’t it…

hollerith 3y ago

Your URL doesn't support your position (emphasis mine): >Hindenburg's reelection failed to prevent the NSDAP from assuming power. Two successive federal elections later that year left it as the largest party in the Reichstag and anti-republic parties in the majority. Under this political climate, Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933. Upon Hindenburg's death in 1934 Hitler de facto assumed the presidency, which he combined with the chancellorship to become the Führer und Reichskanzler. >The NSDAP emerged from the Reichstag elections in July as the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote, while Papen's position was undermined. Papen dissolved the Reichstag again with elections in November, in which the Nazis lost seats but remained the largest party.

Manuel_D 3y ago
Subsequent elections weren't fair elections: in February of '33 the Nazis had already started to ban and persecute competing parties. I guess if you caveat the statement by specifying that they only won unfair, rigged elections then sure that isn't wrong. > Upon Hindenburg's death in 1934 Hitler de facto assumed the presidency, which he combined with the chancellorship to become the Führer und Reichskanzler. Hitler was appointed not elected. And assumed the presidency after Hindenburg's death, not by winning an election. > The NSDAP emerged from the Reichstag elections in July as the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote "Over a third" is nowhere near the majority. Remember Hindenburg ran as an independent and won over 50% of the vote. "Largest party" in a system with more than two parties and. And again, after February 1933 the Nazis had severely suppressed opposition parties. Subsequent elections are not fair elections, this is like saying Kim Jeong Un was democratically elected. Technically he was, with the little detail that there was just one party and one candidate to vote far.
- hollerith 3y ago
  >in February of '33 the Nazis had already started to ban and persecute competing parties. Sure, yes, but that does not contradict the fact that in '32, the Nazis did so well in an election that they became (repeating myself) "the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag". Then they won another election in '32, (but by a slimmer margin) where here "won" means that they ended up with more seats than any other party. >Hitler was appointed not elected. Yes, but he was appointed mostly because the party he controlled became "the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote". >"Over a third" is nowhere near the majority. Remember Hindenburg ran as an independent and won over 50% of the vote. Here you are comparing elections for the Reichstag (a legislative body) with an election for the office of president. In the former, East Prussia votes for a legislator, Pomerania votes for a legislator, North Westphalia votes for one. I.e. they are not national elections, but rather regional ones similar to US elections for senators. That matters because it makes it practical for candidates without national name-recognition to run and to win. In contrast, doing well the election for the president requires strong national name-recognition. So, one possible explanation for Hindenberg's being able to get over 50% of the vote is the fact that there were fewer viable candidates for that office than there were viable parties contesting over seats in the Reichstag. This table lists 62 parties: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932_German_federal_election#Results https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932_German_federal_ele...
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    As per your own source, competing parties made up over 60% of legislators. The "largest party" is not much of a win when they lost the election for head of state, and non-Nazis won the majority of seats.
    - hollerith 3y ago
      The party in power since 2021 in Germany (the SPD) won only 25.7% of the vote, so by analogy with your position that "the Germans did not elect the Nazis into power," do you also hold that the Germans did not elect the SPD into power in 2021? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_German_federal_election#:~:text=With%2025.7%25%20of%20total%20votes%2C%20the%20Social%20Democratic%20Party%20of%20Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_German_federal_election#:... If not, what is the difference that makes them different for you?