3 ms·

>You know that Hitler was literally voted into power, right? He was not. This is a popular misconception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_

>You know that Hitler was literally voted into power, right? He was not. This is a popular misconception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power

AshamedCaptain 2y ago
What do you call being the majority party, winning referendums, etc? Certainly there is a lot of voter intimidation, control of the press, etc. behind it, but I think that's precisely what is being debated here.
- Clubber 2y ago
  >What do you call being the majority party, winning referendums, etc? Nazi's were not the majority party when Hitler ran for president, they were the largest party, but not majority. They weren't even a majority even when Hitler was appointed (not voted) chancellor by Paul von Hindenburg, the man who won the presidential election. There were a few more steps before he acquired absolute power, but none of them involved voting. It's interesting, read the article. Like I said, it's a common misconception.
  - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
    Well the largest party (as per HN rules please "use the best form of the argument", no need to nitpick), and not by a small margin -- at least 10% over the 2nd largest. And you'll still argue he did not "win" elections? (You could not "vote" a chancellor. In a lot of perfectly valid democracies, the PM position is always appointed, never directly voted, usually from the larger party or the at least the candidate most likely to pass a (constructive) motion of no confidence. So he was elected legally per the correct democratic process. Cleanly/Fairly -- that's another question. But would you really be surprised Hitler could win elections? He had pretty ridiculously good reputation in some circles. He would have likely polled pretty well even in the US.).
    - Clubber 2y ago
      >And you'll still argue he did not "win" elections? The Nazi party won elections, Hitler did not. >>You know that Hitler was literally voted into power, right? He was not. He lost the presidential election in 1932. He forcefully took the presidency after the Reichstag fire. He was appointed chancellor because the Nazi party won elections. He lost his. I can see where you think it is splitting hairs, but you specifically named Hitler and not the Nazi party. That might not have been what you meant to say, but it's what you said that I was refuting. Also, Hindenburg didn't have to appoint Hitler, he could have chosen another from the Nazi party. He certainly didn't want to appoint Hitler, but some backroom negotiations that he wasn't a part of ultimately led to Hitler's appointment. >So he was elected legally per the correct democratic process. This is like saying the SCOTUS is elected because the President that appointed them was elected. They are not, they are appointed. Hitler himself never won an election. FWIW, here are the 1932 election results: Hindeberg 53.05% Hitler 36.77% Other Guy 10.16% This would be considered an absolute blowout. Please don't feel like I'm scolding you, I really enjoy historical conversations, so thanks for this one.
      - markopolo123 2y ago
        I think that the journey Hitler undertook in 1924 is actually more useful as a comparison to Trump's story... The media and courts and the incumbent's/MSM's expectations verses the reality of how that would land with the volk. A tangent from the parent but they did say they enjoy historical conversations :D
      - gen220 2y ago
        People really don’t understand interwar period Germany, and helpfully pluck out a narrative that suits their interests today. Treaty of Versailles and “dolchstoss” myth included. Thank you for sharing the truth. It’s worth understanding why Hindenburg chose Hitler as Chancellor, too. Hitler was popular, and seen as a useful force that might be controlled by the conservative elements of the German political system. It didn’t work out that way. There’s no contemporary analogue to Hitler today in American politics. There’s no significant paramilitary force, for one. No true populist — in spite of trump’s rhetoric his policies don’t qualify. Ironically, the closest to fitting the mold might be Vance? Somebody unelected, young, brokered his own access to power in exchange for political support (via Elon, Thiel).

AshamedCaptain 2y ago

What do you call being the majority party, winning referendums, etc? Certainly there is a lot of voter intimidation, control of the press, etc. behind it, but I think that's precisely what is being debated here.

Clubber 2y ago
>What do you call being the majority party, winning referendums, etc? Nazi's were not the majority party when Hitler ran for president, they were the largest party, but not majority. They weren't even a majority even when Hitler was appointed (not voted) chancellor by Paul von Hindenburg, the man who won the presidential election. There were a few more steps before he acquired absolute power, but none of them involved voting. It's interesting, read the article. Like I said, it's a common misconception.
- AshamedCaptain 2y ago
  Well the largest party (as per HN rules please "use the best form of the argument", no need to nitpick), and not by a small margin -- at least 10% over the 2nd largest. And you'll still argue he did not "win" elections? (You could not "vote" a chancellor. In a lot of perfectly valid democracies, the PM position is always appointed, never directly voted, usually from the larger party or the at least the candidate most likely to pass a (constructive) motion of no confidence. So he was elected legally per the correct democratic process. Cleanly/Fairly -- that's another question. But would you really be surprised Hitler could win elections? He had pretty ridiculously good reputation in some circles. He would have likely polled pretty well even in the US.).
  - Clubber 2y ago
    >And you'll still argue he did not "win" elections? The Nazi party won elections, Hitler did not. >>You know that Hitler was literally voted into power, right? He was not. He lost the presidential election in 1932. He forcefully took the presidency after the Reichstag fire. He was appointed chancellor because the Nazi party won elections. He lost his. I can see where you think it is splitting hairs, but you specifically named Hitler and not the Nazi party. That might not have been what you meant to say, but it's what you said that I was refuting. Also, Hindenburg didn't have to appoint Hitler, he could have chosen another from the Nazi party. He certainly didn't want to appoint Hitler, but some backroom negotiations that he wasn't a part of ultimately led to Hitler's appointment. >So he was elected legally per the correct democratic process. This is like saying the SCOTUS is elected because the President that appointed them was elected. They are not, they are appointed. Hitler himself never won an election. FWIW, here are the 1932 election results: Hindeberg 53.05% Hitler 36.77% Other Guy 10.16% This would be considered an absolute blowout. Please don't feel like I'm scolding you, I really enjoy historical conversations, so thanks for this one.
    - markopolo123 2y ago
      I think that the journey Hitler undertook in 1924 is actually more useful as a comparison to Trump's story... The media and courts and the incumbent's/MSM's expectations verses the reality of how that would land with the volk. A tangent from the parent but they did say they enjoy historical conversations :D
    - gen220 2y ago
      People really don’t understand interwar period Germany, and helpfully pluck out a narrative that suits their interests today. Treaty of Versailles and “dolchstoss” myth included. Thank you for sharing the truth. It’s worth understanding why Hindenburg chose Hitler as Chancellor, too. Hitler was popular, and seen as a useful force that might be controlled by the conservative elements of the German political system. It didn’t work out that way. There’s no contemporary analogue to Hitler today in American politics. There’s no significant paramilitary force, for one. No true populist — in spite of trump’s rhetoric his policies don’t qualify. Ironically, the closest to fitting the mold might be Vance? Somebody unelected, young, brokered his own access to power in exchange for political support (via Elon, Thiel).