Now, now j-damn. Go back and look, and you'll see. From the beginning this exchange I SAID Hitler was APPOINTED chancellor after his party was ELECTED with 43% of the vote.
*Are you going to rationally dispute my statement that Hitler's Nazis first came to power more-or-less legitimately, having received about 43% of the vote in 1932 -- or are you just going to fire away with a constant barrage of insults?*
The stupidity in this thread deserves insult. We have read the following from more than one poster:
[Hitler was] appointed after his party won a majority. That was how a Parliamentary system often works.
Hilter was elected with a small percentage. They were liberal Christians or as we say today, piss poor Christians.
This dope can’t even spell Hitler. And what’s a “small percentage”? What does that even mean?
Some here have commented that Hitler used intimidation after his party 'won' the plurality, granted. However, anyone who'd deny that the Obama campaign just as surely intimidated both an already compliant media and any mere citizens who might criticize the new order simply does not understand the differences of both time and place.
Give me a break. The brownshirts had been cracking skulls—literally—in the streets for over a decade before the election of 1933. People had been murdered. Comparing this to Obama’s supposed “thuggery” makes conservatives look stupid.
Another doozy:
He was appointed chancellor but when the offices of chancellor and president were combined he received the support via plebiscite of 80% to 90% of the voters. Does that count as an election?
No one was running against him, so no. The question at hand was did Germans approve of Hitler’s actions in combining powers of Chancellor and Reichspresident. 84.6 percent said yes…but after the Night of the Long Knives, when Hitler proved he would kill his own comrades, who would vote no?
-------------------------------------------
You still have not admitted that you were completely wrong nor that you have very little idea about what you are talking. If this were a court of law a jury would laugh at you as you cannot even get the most basic of facts correct.
I have rationally disputed your statement over and over again. The Nazis did not come to power “more-or less legitimately”. Hitler was appointed, the enabling act was passed and all other political parties eventually banned. The Nazis never gained a majority of seats legitimately nor were they ever able to build a ruling coalition of seats.
*Now, now j-damn. Go back and look, and you'll see. From the beginning this exchange I SAID Hitler was APPOINTED chancellor after his party was ELECTED with 43% of the vote.*
Nope, right up above in post 107 you clearly typed:
I SAID, Hitler was first ELECTED to the German parliament, and eventually APPOINTED chancellor. Yes, I understand that parliamentary systems work different from ours. But why make a big deal of such technicalities? What's the point?
In yet another thread you clearly state:
Germans of the 1920s & 1930s considered him [Hitler] German enough to elect him to their parliament.
You seem to have a good grasp of the history of the Great War. In one thread you seem as exasperated with the idiots therein as I am with you, now. Clearly, anything that happened after 1919 is not your strong suit.
Neither is admitting that you are wrong—but then again, that’s a failing that most people share.
I’ll be here all day long until you admit that you were wrong and stop trying to cover it up with flimsy excuses and “hurt feelings” at being “insulted”.
If you want to explain to everyone -- nicely!! -- why Hitler did not serve in the Reichstag,
Why don’t you go find the answer yourself. It will take all of five minutes. Sheesh. Then you can humbly apologize for being incorrect and wasting my time.