Skip to main content

View Diary: Ion Sancho - Election official hammered for telling the truth. Enter the lawyers... (269 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Um (4.00)
    I'm a modern European historian, and the Nazi period is my area of specialization. I've forgotten more about that period of history than you'll ever know.

    The 1934 elections came AFTER the Nazis had banned the Social Democrats and the Communists, and "encouraged" all the rest of the independent parties to disband "voluntarily." The August 1934 vote was a plebiscite, not an election--it was Hitler going to the voters and asking them to rubber-stamp his decision to abrogate the Weimar Constitution and illegally combine the powers of the presidency and the chancellorship. They did not "elect" him Führer--he appointed himself to that post and asked "permission" later.

    Nor was Hitler elected to the post of Reichskanzler that put him in a position to create himself Führer after von Hindenburg's death in 1934. He was appointed to that post, by von Hindenburg (albeit reluctantly).

    Have you ever taken a history course?

    •  i guess i'm wrong.. (none)
      ..if i'm arguing with a history buff but it appears to me that there was an election after Hitler was appointed to Chancellor....
    •  however... (none) appears that Bush's rise to power somewhat resembles that of Hitler, per election 2000:

      On January 30, 1933, Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor. As Hitler historian Alan Bullock put it:

      "Hitler came to office in 1933 as the result, not of any irresistible revolutionary or national movement sweeping him into power, nor even of a popular victory at the polls, but as part of a shoddy political deal with the 'Old Gang' whom he had been attacking for months... Hitler did not seize power; he was jobbed into office by a backstairs intrigue."

      •  A point (4.00)
        I've made myself, numerous times, both here and elsewhere. Still doesn't mean that Hitler was elected to office (or that Bush was, for that matter). In both cases, I would say that the means of seizing power were technically legal but highly constitutionally questionable.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (129)
  • Community (55)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (29)
  • Environment (26)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Media (18)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Labor (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • GOP (16)
  • Law (16)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Marriage Equality (14)
  • Racism (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site