The myth that "Hitler was elected" is a dangerous myth

[buritobr]

Sometimes, we hear that Hitler rose to the power through the popular vote, that the democracy allowed Hitler to become the chancellor.
But actually, Hitler lost the presidential election in 1932. In the parliamentary election of November 1932, the NSDAP had only 1/3 of the votes. The sum of the votes for the conservative parties (all the parties except SPD and KPD) was ~60%, but we don't know if the voters of the non-NSDAP conservative parties really wanted Hitler to become the chancellor. Hindenburg invited Hitler to establish a government under a NSDAP + other conservative parties coalition because the top capitalists requested. In the election of March 1933, when the SA was free to use all kinds of violence and the police forces were already under the control of the nazis, the NSDAP still failed to reach >50%.

This myth is dangerous because some people use this myth to say that "Weimar Republic failed because it was too democratic" or "the democracy should not be very democratic in order to protect itself against populists who become authocrats through democratic ways".

[rob in cal]

I've thought about this question a lot. Had Hindenburg not run again in 1932 and Hitler faced a pro Weimar moderate (say someone from the Center Party like Bruning) I think it would have been a pretty close election in the presidential race.
  In terms of the Reichstag and a working parliamentary majority, its clear that a broad right wing thru to the Bavarian People's Party coalition wasn't happening, but yes the question is how did voters of the smaller parties like the StaatsPartei and the People's Party as well as the bigger parties like the DNVP and the Bavarian People's Party or for that matter the Center Party feel about Hitler?  My guess is some of them were supportive, a big chunk not supportive. There was a Reichstag majority for electing Goering as Reichstag President, but that same majority couldn't be used for electing Hitler chancellor.

[Badger]

Sometimes, we hear that Hitler rose to the power through the popular vote, that the democracy allowed Hitler to become the chancellor.
But actually, Hitler lost the presidential election in 1932. In the parliamentary election of November 1932, the NSDAP had only 1/3 of the votes. The sum of the votes for the conservative parties (all the parties except SPD and KPD) was ~60%, but we don't know if the voters of the non-NSDAP conservative parties really wanted Hitler to become the chancellor. Hindenburg invited Hitler to establish a government under a NSDAP + other conservative parties coalition because the top capitalists requested. In the election of March 1933, when the SA was free to use all kinds of violence and the police forces were already under the control of the nazis, the NSDAP still failed to reach >50%.

This myth is dangerous because some people use this myth to say that "Weimar Republic failed because it was too democratic" or "the democracy should not be very democratic in order to protect itself against populists who become authocrats through democratic ways".

Hindenburg invited Hitler to form a government as a direct result of the election. This simply can't be discounted. Your paragraph I absolutely agree with your analysis, though that it is foolish to say Hitler Rose to power because of too much democracy.

[Beet]

I think this is a good argument that 'the majority of Germans never concretely expressed a desire for Hitler to become Chancellor', not that he did not become Chancellor due to elections. Elections do not always produce a result desired by the majority of voters, let alone the population.

[RINO Tom]

Sometimes, we hear that Hitler rose to the power through the popular vote, that the democracy allowed Hitler to become the chancellor.
But actually, Hitler lost the presidential election in 1932. In the parliamentary election of November 1932, the NSDAP had only 1/3 of the votes. The sum of the votes for the conservative parties (all the parties except SPD and KPD) was ~60%, but we don't know if the voters of the non-NSDAP conservative parties really wanted Hitler to become the chancellor. Hindenburg invited Hitler to establish a government under a NSDAP + other conservative parties coalition because the top capitalists requested. In the election of March 1933, when the SA was free to use all kinds of violence and the police forces were already under the control of the nazis, the NSDAP still failed to reach >50%.

This myth is dangerous because some people use this myth to say that "Weimar Republic failed because it was too democratic" or "the democracy should not be very democratic in order to protect itself against populists who become authocrats through democratic ways".

Hindenburg invited Hitler to form a government as a direct result of the election. This simply can't be discounted. Your paragraph I absolutely agree with your analysis, though that it is foolish to say Hitler Rose to power because of too much democracy.

Exactly.  Mainstream conservatives and liberals in this era were TERRIFIED of radical movements on both sides, and they were desperately ready to appease to stave off revolution, from my understanding.  It obviously didn't work.

[Alcibiades]

Sometimes, we hear that Hitler rose to the power through the popular vote, that the democracy allowed Hitler to become the chancellor.
But actually, Hitler lost the presidential election in 1932. In the parliamentary election of November 1932, the NSDAP had only 1/3 of the votes. The sum of the votes for the conservative parties (all the parties except SPD and KPD) was ~60%, but we don't know if the voters of the non-NSDAP conservative parties really wanted Hitler to become the chancellor. Hindenburg invited Hitler to establish a government under a NSDAP + other conservative parties coalition because the top capitalists requested. In the election of March 1933, when the SA was free to use all kinds of violence and the police forces were already under the control of the nazis, the NSDAP still failed to reach >50%.

This myth is dangerous because some people use this myth to say that "Weimar Republic failed because it was too democratic" or "the democracy should not be very democratic in order to protect itself against populists who become authocrats through democratic ways".

Hindenburg invited Hitler to form a government as a direct result of the election. This simply can't be discounted. Your paragraph I absolutely agree with your analysis, though that it is foolish to say Hitler Rose to power because of too much democracy.

Exactly.  Mainstream conservatives and liberals in this era were TERRIFIED of radical movements on both sides, and they were desperately ready to appease to stave off revolution, from my understanding.  It obviously didn't work.

Yep, Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor because he thought he could keep him under control that way.

[AtorBoltox]

Hitler was appointed chancellor after the Nazi party vote had decreased in the most recent elections.

[Motorcity]

Hitler wasn't elected, but this is what happens when the democratic process is too complicated and have too many loopholes

Legally, Hitler was appointed despite not having a majority of the vote

Legally, Trump was elected despite not having a majority of the vote.

[Samof94]

Hugo Chavez, a better parallel to Trump, was elected and we all know how well that went. Venezuelans were leaving as early as 1999, in which he wrote a new constitution which held ideals close to Fidel Castro with an extremely politically lopsided system that gave his opponents severe disadvantages. He was overwhelmingly elected in a three way election where his opponents had just decided to give up.  I always found the tragedy of Venezuela a more relevant story for the scenario. The country had a dysfunctional democracy built around oil that had violent revolts known as the Caracazo(named after the capital city). He threw a failed coup and was pardoned for it. Like Trump, he made outrageous statements and both he and his successor have been misogynistic and hypermascule. Maduro once used a homophobic slur while saying he had a wife.

[SInNYC]

I dont know, although popular to say that Hitler wasnt legitimately elected, it seems to me that Hitler was the one who should have been appointed chancellor given the 1932 election results:
  248  Nazis+DNVP
  133  SPD
    89  Communist
    90  CDU/CSU predecessors
  584  total
Nazis+DNVP got 42.5% (compared to 44% in the first 1932 election)

This leaves 3 choices:
  SPD, CDU/CSU, and Left are willing to form a  coalition. They kind of did for a short period
  Hindenburg rules by decree: not really democratic
  Hitler appointed
They kind of tried the first 2 without much success before resorting to the third. What else could they do? So, I dont think Hitler's appointment as chancellor was unreasonable based on election results (I'm obviously not even remotely supporting Nazi ideology or Hitler).

Now imagine what happens if Qanon wins 30%, Ds win 48%, and other Rs win 22% of the electoral vote under our system.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Well, Hitler was appointed Chancellor because he had been the leader of the largest party in the Reichstag. That set him apart from his two immediate predecessors as Chancellor, Papen and Schleicher, who had been non-partisan independents leading Cabinets consisting mostly of non-partisans without any direct backing from Parliament. Without the NSDAP's electoral successes, nobody would have ever considered appointing Hitler to anything. (And technically, under the Weimar Constitution all Chancellors were appointed by the President instead of being elected.)

[Sailor Haumea]

I disagree with OP here. Hitler absolutely rose to power due to having the support of a plurality of Germans. This isn't a case of "too much democracy," however. It's a case of "German society was systemically antisemitic and racist and happily voted in Nazism because they wanted it."

[H. Ross Peron]

I disagree with OP here. Hitler absolutely rose to power due to having the support of a plurality of Germans. This isn't a case of "too much democracy," however. It's a case of "German society was systemically antisemitic and racist and happily voted in Nazism because they wanted it."

Germany was not uniquely anti-Semitic compared to most other European countries nor was anti-Semitism their main appeal to most of their voters (as opposed to a core base of ideologues and true believers).

[Middle-aged Europe]

I disagree with OP here. Hitler absolutely rose to power due to having the support of a plurality of Germans. This isn't a case of "too much democracy," however. It's a case of "German society was systemically antisemitic and racist and happily voted in Nazism because they wanted it."

Germany was not uniquely anti-Semitic compared to most other European countries nor was anti-Semitism their main appeal to most of their voters (as opposed to a core base of ideologues and true believers).

For some it was a case of "who cares if Hitler is an antisemite, me and my family have been out of a job for three years now (and everything was better when we still had an Emperor)" though.

Which essentially boiled down to: "A dictatorship? What could possibly go wrong?"

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

And it's not like Weimar had been a democracy since Bruening started to rely on extraordinary powers.

[Georg Ebner]

Some cannot imagine, that liberalism and democracy, liberty and egality, aren't the same...

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

I disagree with OP here. Hitler absolutely rose to power due to having the support of a plurality of Germans. This isn't a case of "too much democracy," however. It's a case of "German society was systemically antisemitic and racist and happily voted in Nazism because they wanted it."

Germany was not uniquely anti-Semitic compared to most other European countries nor was anti-Semitism their main appeal to most of their voters (as opposed to a core base of ideologues and true believers).

This is true. Wilhelmine Germany in the early 20th century was fairly tolerant of Jews; it was not Germany but Russia that was the home of terrible pogroms and persecution. My great-grandfather was a German Jew who served in World War I and won medals (the Iron Cross), something that would not have been possible for the Russian Jewish side of my father's family.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I disagree with OP here. Hitler absolutely rose to power due to having the support of a plurality of Germans. This isn't a case of "too much democracy," however. It's a case of "German society was systemically antisemitic and racist and happily voted in Nazism because they wanted it."

Germany was not uniquely anti-Semitic compared to most other European countries nor was anti-Semitism their main appeal to most of their voters (as opposed to a core base of ideologues and true believers).

This is true. Wilhelmine Germany in the early 20th century was fairly tolerant of Jews; it was not Germany but Russia that was the home of terrible pogroms and persecution. My great-grandfather was a German Jew who served in World War I and won medals (the Iron Cross), something that would not have been possible for the Russian Jewish side of my father's family.

Protocols of the Elders of Zion was forged by Russian intelligence, and we know who all were influenced by that from the Nazis, to Henry Ford, to the Middle East.

[Spark]

Hitler got himself elected by fooling everybody.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Hitler got himself elected by fooling everybody.

In a way the whole of NSDAP was basically a plot by middle class nationalists to fool working and lower middle class voters and lure them away from Marxist socialism by scapegoating the Jewish People. In the end I agree with the videos by the Time Ghost YouTube channel as they described Nazi Germany as a purely criminal regime that basically amounted to internal chaos with multiple actors and agencies competing for the same resources to accomplish the same objective to please Hitler the most and in the process of doing so stealing and pocketing as much as possible along the way like the stolen art pieces, gold, wine collections and many other articles of wealth.

[buritobr]

OK, it is correct to say that Hitler became the chancellor through a legal way, because his rise to power was allowed by the Weimar constitution. But his victory was possible because the Weimar constitution had loopholes.
It was not a classic coup like the one which happened in Chile in 1973.
On the other hand, it would be a misleading view to say that Hitler won a free and fair electoral process, like the modern ones, in which all the parties are free and safe to make the campaigns, the leaders of the parties are free to choose the coalitions. It was not like Merkel's victories, in free and fair elections, in which all the parties try to convince the voters, the plurality decides for the CDU and the parties learder are free to build the coalitions.

Germany was already not living in a normal democracy in 1932, when Hindnburg and Von Papen had special powers. The SA was already on the streets using fear as a strategy. The police force of Prussia (republic's largest state) was already controlled by the far-right since July 1932.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

OK, it is correct to say that Hitler became the chancellor through a legal way, because his rise to power was allowed by the Weimar constitution. But his victory was possible because the Weimar constitution had loopholes.
It was not a classic coup like the one which happened in Chile in 1973.
On the other hand, it would be a misleading view to say that Hitler won a free and fair electoral process, like the modern ones, in which all the parties are free and safe to make the campaigns, the leaders of the parties are free to choose the coalitions. It was not like Merkel's victories, in free and fair elections, in which all the parties try to convince the voters, the plurality decides for the CDU and the parties learder are free to build the coalitions.

Germany was already not living in a normal democracy in 1932, when Hindnburg and Von Papen had special powers. The SA was already on the streets using fear as a strategy. The police force of Prussia (republic's largest state) was already controlled by the far-right since July 1932.

Goehring was already in charge of Prussia correct?

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

OK, it is correct to say that Hitler became the chancellor through a legal way, because his rise to power was allowed by the Weimar constitution. But his victory was possible because the Weimar constitution had loopholes.
It was not a classic coup like the one which happened in Chile in 1973.
On the other hand, it would be a misleading view to say that Hitler won a free and fair electoral process, like the modern ones, in which all the parties are free and safe to make the campaigns, the leaders of the parties are free to choose the coalitions. It was not like Merkel's victories, in free and fair elections, in which all the parties try to convince the voters, the plurality decides for the CDU and the parties learder are free to build the coalitions.

Germany was already not living in a normal democracy in 1932, when Hindnburg and Von Papen had special powers. The SA was already on the streets using fear as a strategy. The police force of Prussia (republic's largest state) was already controlled by the far-right since July 1932.

Goehring was already in charge of Prussia correct?

No, Göring was appointed as in charge of Prussia after Hitler was appointed as chancellor.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

OK, it is correct to say that Hitler became the chancellor through a legal way, because his rise to power was allowed by the Weimar constitution. But his victory was possible because the Weimar constitution had loopholes.
It was not a classic coup like the one which happened in Chile in 1973.
On the other hand, it would be a misleading view to say that Hitler won a free and fair electoral process, like the modern ones, in which all the parties are free and safe to make the campaigns, the leaders of the parties are free to choose the coalitions. It was not like Merkel's victories, in free and fair elections, in which all the parties try to convince the voters, the plurality decides for the CDU and the parties learder are free to build the coalitions.

Germany was already not living in a normal democracy in 1932, when Hindnburg and Von Papen had special powers. The SA was already on the streets using fear as a strategy. The police force of Prussia (republic's largest state) was already controlled by the far-right since July 1932.

Goehring was already in charge of Prussia correct?

No, Göring was appointed as in charge of Prussia after Hitler was appointed as chancellor.

For some reason I thought it was before. I always get the timely mixed up.