Rise of the Nazi Party

The Nazis never won a national popular vote or legislative majority in any free election.

Click to expand...

It is standard operation in continental Europe (and perhaps now in the United Kingdom) that the head of government does not lead a political party with over half its members controlling the parliament. Rule is usually affected through coalitions.

But it would not matter if they did, because they were committed to obtaining a permanent, irreversible monopoly of political power. "Majority rule" in a truly democratic sense means that the majority recognizes the right of the present minority to win a majority in the future, and to govern in the future.

Click to expand...

Democracy deals with who rules; it doesn't deal with how that rule is effected. That's why the official names of countries like east Germany or North Korea were/are some variation of 'Democratic Republic" (the argument being that since the workers are the majority in any population and they now rule, it is thus a "democratic" community). There is no requirement for the majority to recognize the defeated minority.
However, should they, and its a systemic recognition, its reflecting how the majority is exercising its rule, and thus to what extent its supports freedom and liberty.

Oozlefinch said:

Slightly inaccurate, depending upon your definition.

In 1932, the National Socialist Party had more seats then any other party in the Reichstag, with 37.4% of the body. This was not a majority by itself, but when combined with the other anti-communist groups which they generally "caucused with", it did give them the majority and control of the body. It would kind of be like trying to claim the "Tea Party" never won a majority, but the fact that they caucus with the Republicans their platform starting next year is that of the majority in the United States.

So both true, but also inaccurate from your statement.

And the next election in 1933, the National Socialists had 43.9% of the seats. At this time the President was forced to create a coalition government, and appointed der paper hanger as Chancellor. But they did have a meteoric rise, in 9 years going from 6.5% to 43.9% of the legislative body seats. And only a fool would think that they would not become the majority the next election cycle.

With or without their use of power to suppress other parties. Or simply steal away their supporters.

One of the groups the National Socialists targeted was the German National People's Party, a moderate-right party which opposed Communists, but supported Nationalism and a return to a monarchy. But they were also a favorite target of the NAZI Party, as they were a leading party of the Weimar Republic. And the Populist stance of the Nazi's placed a lot of the blame of the ills of Germany on them. So they were rapidly loosing members every year.

Most people tend to forget that the National Socialists were very much a Populist Party, and did all they could to cater to the "majority".

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure SA actions and harassment wouldn't make the elections a "free" election.

Proud South Korean said:

I'm pretty sure SA actions and harassment wouldn't make the elections a "free" election.

Click to expand...

Actually, largely irrelevant. During the "Night of the Long Knives" in June 1934, the SA leadership was purged, and the organization was placed under the SS. After that, their primary role was agitating against Jews, not the rest of the German parties.

Oozlefinch said:

Actually, largely irrelevant. During the "Night of the Long Knives" in June 1934, the SA leadership was purged, and the organization was placed under the SS. After that, their primary role was agitating against Jews, not the rest of the German parties.

Click to expand...

I bet Rohm did Nazi that coming

Joking aside, the Machtergreifung was in 1933 while the Night took place in 1934, so it was after the grab of power. I'm not particularly well-versed on Weimar Germany but political paramilitaries roaming the cities and having street fights and threatening doesn't seem like the atmosphere for free elections.

Proud South Korean said:

I bet Rohm did Nazi that coming

Click to expand...

:mrgreen:

Proud South Korean said:

Joking aside, the Machtergreifung was in 1933 while the Night took place in 1934, so it was after the grab of power. I'm not particularly well-versed on Weimar Germany but political paramilitaries roaming the cities and having street fights and threatening doesn't seem like the atmosphere for free elections.

Click to expand...

They had started to grab power since 1923. And in 1933 they still did not get an overwhelming majority, they simply became the strongest party in a coalition government. And many saw the SA as a brutish organization that was hurting the image of the NAZI Party among more moderate Nationalists and Socialists. So the killing of the leadership and placing the SA subservient to the SS (and aiming it at Jews instead of all Germans they opposed) was done in the attempts to put a more friendly face on the National Socialist Workers Party.

It was not the political system that allowed Der Paper Hanger to become the leader of Germany, but the death of President Paul von Hindenburg. It was known by early 1934 that President von Hindenburg was dying, and the NAZI Party was rapidly working hard to soften it's image before that happened. People have to remember that Adolph Hitler was never elected into office, he was appointed to the position of Chancellor of the Weimar Republic (kind of a blend of Vice President and Prime Minister) by the President as a way to unify the government. And when the President died, Hitler called a plebiscite just over 2 weeks later which would merge the two offices (Chancellor and President) into a single office of Chancellor, with him remaining in that position.

If the SA had not been quashed and the NAZI Party not appeared to abandon it's past of violence in order to work within the system, he may or may not have won that plebiscite. Between 1933 and 1934 the NAZI Party had apparently gone from a bunch of unruly thugs who wanted to tear down the system, to a peaceful organization trying to work within the system to improve things for all Germans. The SA (Sturmabteilung - Storm Detachment or Assault Division) had to go, and was replaced by the more sophisticated and less antagonistic SS (Schutzstaffel - Protection Squadron) and Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei - Secret State Police). When taken out of the context that we now know those organizations to be, it does appear on the surface to be groups dedicated to security, not violent overthrow. And indeed, both organizations did indeed get a lot of law enforcement officers to join their ranks, not as violent thugs who smashed in doors in the middle of the night but as legitimate law enforcement investigators just trying to do their jobs in the "New World Order" of Germany in the mid-late 1930's.

The SA had outlived it's usefulness, and simply had to go. It could no longer work tearing down the complacent bourgeoisie, they had to work with them. So all appearances of "urban combat troops" was stripped away, and it's role taken over by organizations that appeared dedicated to ensuring peace and security inside Germany.

Oozlefinch said:

Slightly inaccurate, depending upon your definition.

In 1932, the National Socialist Party had more seats then any other party in the Reichstag, with 37.4% of the body. This was not a majority by itself, but when combined with the other anti-communist groups which they generally "caucused with", it did give them the majority and control of the body.

Click to expand...

This is incorrect. The Nazis and their closest allies, the German National People's Party (DNVP), did not have enough seats to form a coalition government after either of the 1932 elections.

Oozlefinch said:

It would kind of be like trying to claim the "Tea Party" never won a majority, but the fact that they caucus with the Republicans their platform starting next year is that of the majority in the United States.

Click to expand...

The Tea Party has never been a separate party distinct from the Republican party; it has always been a faction within the Republican party.

Oozlefinch said:

And the next election in 1933, the National Socialists had 43.9% of the seats. At this time the President was forced to create a coalition government, and appointed der paper hanger as Chancellor. But they did have a meteoric rise, in 9 years going from 6.5% to 43.9% of the legislative body seats. And only a fool would think that they would not become the majority the next election cycle...

Click to expand...

Hitler was appointed chancellor before the 3/39 elections, in which the Nazis again fell short of a majority, but were, finally, able to form a coalition with the (DNVP), for a governing majority.

USViking said:

The Tea Party has never been a separate party distinct from the Republican party; it has always been a faction within the Republican party.

Hitler was appointed chancellor before the 3/39 elections, in which the Nazis again fell short of a majority, but were, finally, able to form a coalition with the (DNVP), for a governing majority.

Click to expand...

The Tea Party has always been more Libertarian then Republican.

And did I not say he was appointed Chancellor after 1933? Being appointed Chancellor in 1939 would be a stupid claim, since that was when WWII started. Why you are trying to imply I said anything else is beyond me.

Oozlefinch said:

The Tea Party has always been more Libertarian then Republican.

And did I not say he was appointed Chancellor after 1933? Being appointed Chancellor in 1939 would be a stupid claim, since that was when WWII started. Why you are trying to imply I said anything else is beyond me.

Click to expand...

I meant to say he was appointed Chancellor before the 3/33 elections, specifically on 1/30/33.

spangledbanner said:

- The New Compendium of Modern History / George Bohman, B.A. / Shakespeare Head Press Sydney

Now I am sure that most are well aware of all of this..

Now I do not at all agree with some of the above opinion, however, the above does contain facts that many seem unaware of. It is important that we understand the reasons behind the rise of the National Socialist Movement so that we can prevent something similar from happening at any point in our future.

You may have noticed that the modern age that we exist in right now has many parallels with Germany under The Treaty of Versailles. The whole of Europe is facing challenges in relation to Democracy as European elections are producing no clear majority and at times absurd cobbled coalitions. Many in Europe are now considering the fact that alternatives to modern democracy may be well worth serious consideration.

We have also seen a rise in Nationalistic sentiment spread across the European continent in recent years due to the harsh austerity that has been forced on European populations due to the cold actions of the IMF Bank. The austerity is hurting the masses and there is a great deal of anger and rage being directed at the IMF and Bretton Woods Institutions.

Also, unemployment is again a colossal problem facing Europe since the USA caused the GFC. Youth unemployment in particular has become somewhat of a social emergency for Europeans and no genuine solutions have emerged to this serious problem.


Do you agree that things seem to be turning full circle?

Click to expand...

Actually a primary reason for the rise of gangs like the SA and Nazis and their Communist counterparts was the restrictions placed on the number of troops the German Army could keep in arms; it was limited to 100,000, which wasn't nearly enough to maintian law and order in the kind of chaos brought on by both losing WW I and then followed by the Great Depression. It was essentially an anarchy, a libertarian paradise of no effective government controls on mob rule, with the exception of some parts of Prussia, where a Kruppe henchman controlled the police force.