Posted on 11/13/2008 8:40:57 AM PST by fightinJAG
Economy in a freefall. Political rhetoric. An apathetic electorate dismayed by the slide of their country into irrelevence. Theological liberalism. Doctrinal indifference.
America, 2008?
No. Germany, just before electing Adolf Hitler to lead their country, with the apparent support of the majority of those who considered themselves Christians.
We're rereading a book []by Erwin Lutzer []. In it Lutzer looks at the holocaust and the rise of Hitler and asks the question: where was the Church? This book is a fascinating read, particularly in this time of economic upheaval and election year rhetoric.
[snip]
Did you know that Hitler was elected to power through a democratic process? He only became a dictator after he had risen to power through the voting process. And the people elected him in large part because they were convinced he would fix the deteriorating economy and restore Germany to the prominence and prosperity it had once enjoyed. Writes Lutzer:
...he would give the appearance of being one of the masses, but in reality he would be quite another...At times he could be charming and forgiving...Privately (and sometimes publicly) he prided himself in his honesty, yet often he reveled in his abilty to deceive. "The German people must be misled if the support of the masses is required," he mused.
And
Hitler holds a fascination for us because his dictatorship enjoyed such wide support of the people. Perhaps never in history was a dictator so well liked. He had the rare gift of motivating a nation to want to follow him. Communist leaders such as Lenin or Mao Tse-tung rose to power through revolutions that cost millions of lives; consequently they were hated by the masses. Hitler attracted not only the support of the middle class but also of university students and professors.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.worship.com ...
You back again? And still gnawing on that dry bone, eh?
Have at it.
I’ll be here until you dimwits admit that Hitler was never elected to anything.
O.K., if anyone ever needs anything from you they’ll know where to find you.
Of course you are arguing a technicallity, and what's the point?
Everyone knows, Hitler's Nazi party gained increasing shares of the German vote, from the mid-1920s to 1933. In the last more-or-less legitimate election of 1933, they got around 43%, making Nazis the largest party in the German parliament.
Since it was Hitler's party, it's pretty legit to say that Hitler got 43% of the German vote -- by the way, about the same as our own Billy Clintoon in 1992.
At that time, Paul Hindenburg was president and didn't much like Hitler, but apparently couldn't find anyone else to do the job, so he appointed Hitler chancellor.
Once in power, the Nazis quickly made certain they would not be voted out again.
These are not disputed facts. Do you disagree?
*”I’ll be here until you dimwits admit that Hitler was never elected to anything.”
Of course you are arguing a technicallity, and what’s the point?*
A techni-freakin’-cality? You either are pregnant or you aren’t? You are either are elected or you aren’t. He wasn’t. Just admit it.
*In the last more-or-less legitimate election of 1933, they got around 43%, making Nazis the largest party in the German parliament.*
Which was still not a majority and did not control the Reichstag on their own. The majority of Germans DID NOT VOTE FOR THE NAZIS.
*Since it was Hitler’s party, it’s pretty legit to say that Hitler got 43% of the German vote — by the way, about the same as our own Billy Clintoon in 1992.*
No, it’s not “pretty legit”, because the Weimar elections didn’t work the same way ours do. The Germans actually did vote for the other guy [Hindenburg] at a higher rate. Goodness, you are dense.
*These are not disputed facts. Do you disagree?*
You are disagreeing with undisputed facts in your own post!
Indeed you are absolutely correct.
My guess is, you're so excited, you can't even think straight. So first, calm down. Now, just what in the world do you THINK you are arguing about?
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?
I said Hitler's Nazi party received about 43% of the vote in 1933, making them the largest party. Of course, LARGEST did not equal MAJORITY, but its ultimately why Hitler was appointed chancellor.
These FACTS are not in dispute. What are YOU trying to say?
*I SAID, Hitler was first ELECTED to the German parliament, and eventually APPOINTED chancellor.*
Oh, that’s rich. And what area of Germany was Hitler representing in this Reichstag seat you have magically given him? Hmm?
Hitler never ran for election to the Reichstag. Why don’t you do a little research and tell us why? He did run for President in 1932 to Hindenburg and was trounced. Again, why don’t you do some research and tell us why Hitler suddenly did run for an elective office in 1932?
*These FACTS are not in dispute. What are YOU trying to say?*
Your facts ARE NOT FACTS. That’s what I’m trying to say. This is like arguing with an semi-illiterate over what the second letter of the alphabet is.
“About the same percentage that blindly votes Democrat.
Creepy.”
It is creepy. I am not into numerology but 43% seems to pop up with regularity. I believe Clinton won both times with 43% of the vote. There are others which I cannot think of right now. Anyway, good point.
BTW, your tag line is hilarious.
Let me first say this -- if you would scale back on the insults, and scale up the actual information, your posts would be more interesting.
Let's see if I understand what you are trying to say, minus the insults:
While Hitler's Nazi party drew increasing shares of the German vote from the mid 1920s on, and therefore increasing representation in the German Parliament (Reichstag), Hitler himself never served in the Reichstag.
When Hitler ran for President in 1932, he was defeated by Paul Hindenburg. But Hindenburg was unable to form a government without the Nazis, who now held 43% of the Reichstag seats, so in 1933 Hindenburg appointed Hitler to be the new chancellor.
Is that about it? Did you notice the absence of insults?
I notice you missed the part about apologizing for being entirely and utterly wrong about Hitler ever being elected to anything, which he wasn’t.
*When Hitler ran for President in 1932, he was defeated by Paul Hindenburg. But Hindenburg was unable to form a government without the Nazis, who now held 43% of the Reichstag seats, so in 1933 Hindenburg appointed Hitler to be the new chancellor.*
Irrelevant. Hindenburg had ruled through emergency executive powers and very strong Chancellors for nearly 3 years before Hitler was appointed.
How long shall we continue this? Some freepers are in the habit—as are a lot of ignorant people in the world—of claming that Hitler was elected. He was not. Ever. To any office.
All of this continuing bickering is idiotic because you and all these other ignoramuses are simply wrong. So acknowledge being wrong and move on. It’s simple, really, just type “I was wrong”.
Yes, but it is a simple fact that Hitler would not have been appointed chancellor, if his Nazi party had not been elected the largest party in the German Reichstag.
Those facts I well knew. The fact that Hitler himself did not serve in the Reichstag I had forgotten. But surely that was his choice? As his own party's leader, he could have any position he wanted, right?
But look, there's a larger historical issue here, which I doubt if anyone disputes. It's that Hitler's Nazi party originally rose to power by more-or-less legitimate constitutional & democratic means, receiving eventually about 43% of the German vote. This was not the first time, nor the last that a democratic government succumbed to dictatorship.
"Irrelevant. Hindenburg had ruled through emergency executive powers and very strong Chancellors for nearly 3 years before Hitler was appointed."
Irrelevant to what? If I remember, Hindenburg did not really want Hitler as chancellor, but appointed him anyway. Do you say different?
. German Catholics did not.
Contra: http://www.amazon.com/German-Catholics-Hitlers-Wars-Control/dp/026801017X
Of course, neither did Protestants who kept the faith follow Hitler, rather than becoming institutionalized. If most of Germany held to the stand of the true Confessing church leader - and above all to the N.T. -then there would be no Hitler and holocaust.
Hitler’s Germany is a testimony to what happens when a church and people take upon a form of Godliness but deny the power thereof, and which allows the carnal mind of man -whether it be atheistic with it’s allegiance only to their own reasoning, or religious, when the exalt another authority as equal or above the Scriptures - to work it’s ill in it’s lustful idolatrous pursuit.
*But look, there’s a larger historical issue here, which I doubt if anyone disputes.*
OH FOR PETE’S SAKE. JUST TYPE IT OUT. “I. WAS. WRONG.” Is anyone going to think any less of you if you just admit it?
*Those facts I well knew. The fact that Hitler himself did not serve in the Reichstag I had forgotten. But surely that was his choice?*
NO IT WASN’T HIS CHOICE. You didn’t “forget”—you never knew in the first place! Good God, just give it up. Admit you are in over your head and slink away.
*Irrelevant to what? If I remember, Hindenburg did not really want Hitler as chancellor, but appointed him anyway. Do you say different?*
It doesn’t matter why Hindenburg appointed him. We’re talking about whether or not Hitler was ELECTED—remember, fool? ELECTED. He wasn’t. EVER. Just admit you were WRONG.
What in the holy h*ll is wrong with you? Are you sick? Are you here ONLY to insult, or are you going to finally tell us something that matters?
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?
Of course, I would be interested to learn a fact or two from you, if you have any to contribute. If you want to explain to everyone -- nicely!! -- why Hitler did not serve in the Reichstag, that would be helpful information everyone will appreciate, I'm sure.
Go ahead, give it a try. Teach us something that matters. You might even like it! ;-)
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.