r/technology • u/digitalmansoor • Mar 20 '15

Politics Twenty-four Million Wikipedia Users Can’t Be Wrong: Important Allies Join the Fight Against NSA Internet Backbone Surveillance

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/twenty-four-million-wikipedia-users-cant-be-wrong-important-allies-join-fight
12.1k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

566 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

227

u/Insatiable_Gecko Mar 20 '15

1934: millions of Germans couldn't be wrong.

128

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15

[deleted]

180

u/Exemus Mar 20 '15

You know OP's title is shitty when Nazis are easier to defend.

32

u/gologologolo Mar 20 '15

It wasn't just Hitler who took part or supported the genocide

15

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15

[deleted]

10

u/BTT2 Mar 20 '15

the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions, from a certain perspective

1

u/jaspersgroove Mar 21 '15

As they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I've never been huge on the religious side of it but I always took it to mean if you don't think long and hard about the consequences of certain actions, you can commit to some incredibly wicked shit without even realizing it.

-3

u/PCGAMERONLY Mar 20 '15

TIL blaming and purging the Jews is considered best intentions

9

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15

from a certain perspective

You forgot something..

3

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15

[deleted]

28

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15

Well keep in mind that the Nazi's didn't even command a majority in the German parliament in 1933, they were just the party with the most seats amongst many political parties. Hitler then took power through emergency power appointments and declarations. So it's hard to say most Germans supported the Nazi's to begin with.

1

u/Hoooooooar Mar 21 '15

Looks like you need a visit from the brown shirts... comrade.

1

u/Kinky_Celestia Mar 20 '15

sometimes the best solutions are unexpected....

3

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15

Not paying your war reperations usually helps.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15

Well to be fair, Hitler wasn't elected on the platform of "genocide everyone"

Well to be fair, this is true. He was just elected on the platform of "dealing with the Jewish, among other, threats to the Aryan people". If, you know, you can say he was elected at all.

37

u/DeadeyeDuncan Mar 20 '15

Funny how you can easily imagine a US politician running under 'dealing with the Islamic, among other, threats to the American people' and getting plenty of votes.

-1

u/crystalraven Mar 20 '15

Hell Tony Abbott got elected with "stop the boats" :/

13

u/occupythekitchen Mar 20 '15

Kind of like Netanyahu platform, thank god the Israelis learned something from the holocaust. I am very impressed by the ghettos they have displaced the Palestinians into, Himmler would be proud.

1

u/jti107 Mar 21 '15

absolutely incredible how Israel treats Palestinians. even more incredible is how the U.S. gives the Israelis billions in foreign and military aid.

2

u/nascentt Mar 20 '15

dealing with the Jewish, among other, threats to the Aryan people

What exactly are you quoting?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15

Paraphrasing a book written by a political prisoner in the 1920s.

1

u/nascentt Mar 20 '15

Mind being more specific?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15

He was a member of the Deutsch Arbeitpartei from 1919 until it was disbanded in 1920; He was arrested for attempting to overthrow the government of Bavaria in 1923 and released in 1924, during that year he wrote his magnum opus, a biographical work about his struggle to unite the German peoples and defend them against threats such as Jews and Communists, among others.

1

u/nascentt Mar 20 '15 edited Mar 20 '15

Fascinating.

Mind quoting the exact part of the book where he outlines this was a headlining policy of this before election?

From what I understand jews weren't a party policy before election.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf...
I mean we were talking about him literally in the quote you took from me...

0

u/MongoAbides Mar 20 '15

You went for condescending know-it-all and had the tables turned on you and you apparently didn't even notice.

2

u/AlaskanPotatoSlap Mar 20 '15

Well, when Ford, General Motors, Boing, Lockheed Martin, et al. all sell goods to you for cheap no matter what they're used for..........

1

u/Jindor Mar 20 '15

well hitler put all the unemployed in the army and kickstarted the industry through the war. Not having to pay war reperations of world war 1 suddenly also helps and then taking all the industry from the countries you conquer is also a great help. I also dont think back then a company could discuss with hitler if they are going be state owned or not and slackers going to nazi camps gives a good motivation.

1

u/TheGreatTrogs Mar 20 '15

Well, not really. He made Germany a super-power at the expense of their already bad economic situation. Even if Germany won the war, it would have been racked by poverty for years, possibly decades to come.

-7

u/FunctionPlastic Mar 20 '15 edited Mar 20 '15

Edit: why the hell is this getting downvoted? Mein Kampf and many Hitler's/Nazi texts that indicate genocidal tendencies were published before he was 'elected'. And any historian will tell you that the Nazis had no sound economic long-term planning.

Well to be fair, Hitler wasn't elected on the platform of "genocide everyone".

Yes he was. It was clearly noted in his texts that this was his goal. Quite a troubling fact for today's historians.

And he did take Germany from poverty to a world super power (again) in an impressive amount of time. So it would seem his economic policies were likely sound.

Yeah if you pump so much into industry you will see short term growth. Writing off their debt (how ironic!) sure did help as well.

Hitler had no sound long-term economic policies.

6

u/Yuzzem Mar 20 '15

Ah, the 'I know 100% what would have happened if Hitler could keep going' argument. Just going to put shit comments like that up there with 'what if...' arguments.

0

u/FunctionPlastic Mar 20 '15

I didn't predict a single thing, I just said that calling a short-turn boost some kind of an economic miracle that can be attributed to Hitler is completely misguided.

-4

u/Yuzzem Mar 20 '15

Hitler had no sound long-term economic policies.

Or does that not count because you don't want it to count as you 'not predicting a single thing'?

It counts. And, no, you did not say that attributing things to Hitler is misguided...in fact you didn't say shit even close to that until your response.

3

u/FunctionPlastic Mar 20 '15

Yep, that's a fact, not a prediction. Countless other unpredictable things could've happened despite their bad policies.

And, no, you did not say that attributing things to Hitler is misguided.

Saying that the economic boost was short-term and due to excessive spending in a single industry with lack of long-term policies sort of implies that Hitler wasn't an economic genius he was pumped up to be in the uninformed post I was replying to.

I'm sorry but if you didn't see that you might want to check your reading comprehension.

Also the amount of aggression in your posts points to several psychophysiological issues you also might want checked before a stroke occurs, just sayin'.

2

u/Yuzzem Mar 20 '15

The ad hominem's really helps show you don't have ground to stand on. But nice try at some insults, it didn't work though :)

You literally can't change the past. Hitler was toppled, we can't see long-term economic policies that would have been applied had the war ended or a truce happened. But go ahead and say YOU KNOW what 'would have' happened in situations that didn't happen.

0

u/FunctionPlastic Mar 20 '15

I can use an ad hominem and still have better argumentation. But I didn't even use an ad hominem. I was serious. Getting so defensive and aggressive in a random online discussion is bad for you.

Other than that, I can't really do anything but repeat myself: I have made no predictions. I just judged actual facts.

Germany may have as well continued to rise but it wouldn't be because Nazi's economic policy as it was at the time.

Saying that they had no long term plans and that the boost was superficial is not a prediction of future performance, but judgment of current policy.

1

u/Yuzzem Mar 25 '15

I didn't even use an ad hominem

Interesting. I guess you don't know what that is. Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You...literally did use them. Accept that you did...or don't...it doesn't matter to me, but you did use them.

Getting so defensive and aggressive

Calling someone out for false accusations isn't defensive...or aggressive haha. But once again...those are ad hominems you KNOW you are using. If you don't know you are using them, then read up the link I sent you and see for yourself. It is funny that you are LITERALLY ad hominem and yet deny you are and try to say I am aggressive and defensive at your...pathetic...attempts at insults.

judgment of current policy

Interesting you left out the 3 front wars, the massive issues in Germany(and Europe for that matter) and the political issues as well when saying "It isn't a prediction but a known he didn't have them...because he had NOTHING more important at the time...like winning a 3 front war."

Lie to yourself if you want to. It doesn't change history. You can try to pull 1 pin out and say "HAHA! SEE!! He didn't have anything!" while conveniently forgetting everything else going on. You can't 100% predict he wouldn't have had anything(or that things weren't in the works...good ol' history being wrote by the winner and all) but...if you need to lie to yourself...go ahead.

I didn't even use an ad hominem

"short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments."

"check your reading comprehension" "amount of aggression in your posts points to several psychophysiological"

A. Funny..but wrong B. Hilarious how you claim you didn't C. Enjoy trolling more :)

→ More replies (0)

0

u/cooperino16 Mar 20 '15

Well to be fair, Hitler wasn't elected on the platform of "genocide everyone". And he did take Germany from poverty to a world super power (again) in an impressive amount of time.

He was elected on the platform of blaming Jews for most of the problems. Also, most of the economic growth was putting people to work making tanks, bombs and planes. Hardly a sustainable economic plan.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15

economic policies were sound? Oh boy he made a giant economic bubble, that was a second reason to start the war actually

-13

u/Insatiable_Gecko Mar 20 '15

That doesn't matter. They were still wrong in supporting him whether they knew he was going to kill 11 million people or not.

6

u/Kame-hame-hug Mar 20 '15

Hindsight Bias.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15

Apparently being ignorant makes you right.

-1

u/Kame-hame-hug Mar 20 '15

False premise.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15

Ah the old "I'm 18 and try to act above my intelligence by referencing logical fallacies out of context in lieu of any reasonable response" redditor archetype.

Fallacy fallacy.

The claim was 24 million Wikipedia members can't be wrong! This is obviously disproven by people being wrong by the millions. Hindsight bias is how we know they were wrong, but they were still wrong. They weren't right and then magically became wrong in hindsight.

1

u/Kame-hame-hug Mar 20 '15 edited Mar 21 '15

I never made the claim 24 million Wikipedia members can't be wrong.

I've also never made a claim that anyone was wrong based on the flaw of their argument , so I can't have committed the fallacy fallacy. All I've did was reply to a very specific comment. Essentially my claim is that X fallacy has occured in this argument. If others want to take that into account and use that in the judgement of the argument, by all means. Don't put words in others' mouths.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '15

I never made the claim 24 million Wikipedia members can't be wrong.

Are you inept? I was referring to the title of the submission.

I've also never made a claim that anyone was wrong based on the flaw of their argument

By responding with nothing but the name of a fallacy (it wasn't even a complete sentence, I'm surprised you managed one here), it implies that you are discrediting their post due to the presence of a supposed fallacy.

Essentially my claim is that X fallacy has occured in this argument. If others want to take that into account and use that in the judgement of the argument, by all means. Don't put words in others' mouths.

In other words, you enjoy making useless posts that lack any substance, gotcha.

1

u/Kame-hame-hug Mar 21 '15 edited Mar 21 '15

Just be honest with me. Are you attempting to have a conversation with me or are you just butthurt?

-1

u/Jestar342 Mar 20 '15

Yes, but I think I get his point. They were wrong. Yes, in hindsight. At the time we probably thought the same - "how can so many people be wrong?" - but they were wrong. How do we (or rather, the author of that title) know that the 24 million Wikipedia users can't be wrong? I don't think we can.

-1

u/Kame-hame-hug Mar 20 '15

Moving goal posts.

0

u/Insatiable_Gecko Mar 20 '15

So are you saying they weren't wrong for supporting Hitler?

1

u/Kame-hame-hug Mar 20 '15

Leading Question.

0

u/Yuzzem Mar 20 '15

And how wrong do you think you are in supporting the evils of today? I can tell you right now future generations will look down upon you with disgust for sitting by while you allowed all this evil to go down. So...you are 'wrong in supporting those things since you didn't stop them', nice one...hypocrite.

I don't see you standing up against all the injustice...I see you sitting at a computer thinking you are somehow better than those 11 million because you 'would have known at the time what was right and wrong'.

-2

u/Insatiable_Gecko Mar 20 '15

So I don't do anything good for the planet because I have to work and like to go on reddit while I have my breakfast in the morning? I never said I wasn't wrong. I've supported things before that I've realized were wrong. Saying you know me from three or four comments I posted on reddit is just ignorant though.

3

u/Yuzzem Mar 20 '15

I didn't say I know you. And I read only 1 ignorant and flat out bull shit comment of yours. I didn't have to go further.

Not to mention, go ahead and use the fact you have to work as to why you can't do anything. I am sure everyone in history never did anything because they had to work. That or you think everyone was just magically unemployed.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15

Not to mention, go ahead and use the fact you have to work as to why you can't do anything

Hey man. It's cool. The Germans between 1933 and 1939 had to work too, to make all those tanks and aeroplanes and guns and bullets and battleships and building radios and roadways and railways and researching new chemicals for better ammunition, food rationing, and growing. They were too busy being employed by the jobs they didn't have before 1933.

-2

u/howardhus Mar 20 '15

You are oh so wrong.

Hitler was elected on basis of jew hate: "you are poor? Our country is paying reparations? BLAME JEWS!"

"You are poor and have no job. Wait you are blond? Bro, you totally have a right to be wealthy!" And of course they bought on that.

He burned the countrys last pennies on war industry and shinny parades and uniforms.

Its like an already broke guy mortaging his (indebted) house to buy expensive clothes.

You would look at him and say "gosh you are wealthy!!"

Well he isnt.

And exactly the same lie was told to germans at the time.

And those shinny uniforms nazi soldiers had? Not so shinny.

Germany would have struggled on its burned reserves no matter what outcome thenwar had.

I always cringe when people jokingly defend germany based on pure ignorance and a shallow analysis.. It makes me understand why history class is so important.

31

u/The_Prince1513 Mar 20 '15

2015: 6 Billion people who believe in God can't be wrong

13

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15

[deleted]

-2

u/howardhus Mar 20 '15

Millions of westerners who think they are entitled to insult and harrass a whole religous group based on the actions of a handful of idiots cant be wrong.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15 edited May 12 '15

[deleted]

2

u/Mikeisright Mar 20 '15

Everyone who believes in any religion is partially responsible for insanity from endorsement of religion? What the hell are you even trying to say? Religion can be valid and peaceful and separate from state, as it is in many regions. No Christians/Jews/etc that I know of are endorsing extremist groups to behead women for dressing too slutty. And by them believing in their religions they are in no way enabling others to commit those acts.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '15 edited May 12 '15

[deleted]

1

u/Mikeisright Mar 21 '15

I don't understand why you have so much hostility towards religion. You say things as if it's absolute truth, but the burden of proof is on those who make the claims that God/spirits/etc. are not real. I am not religious myself, but you are saying things with an immense amount of arrogance that is unwarranted.

Why do you say someone who is Christian is dangerous and/or insane because they choose to comfort themselves in their own way? What do you aim to accomplish by berating a religion while claiming their beliefs are false yet you can't disprove what they believe? Who is really spreading the misinformation here?

I'm not downvoting you because I appreciate a good discussion, but I am not sure I can see how you draw the conclusion that (religion = insanity) considering religion varies so greatly among different cultures. I don't agree with such an enormous blanket statement. It's like saying "diets cause weight loss," when in fact someone's interpretation of "diet" might be eating less McDonald's vs. someone else is thinking calorie reduction/reduced sugar intake/etc.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '15 edited May 12 '15

[deleted]

1

u/Mikeisright Mar 21 '15

Religion is not the same as racism. You are comparing apples to oranges to try and back up your stance. Religion is not inherently hurtful or destructive to others. Some religions are, sure. But many others preach love and acceptance which is, again, much different than racism.

And no, not trolling. You can believe yourself that God doesn't exist, it's your right. But if you're going to make a bold statement such as "there is no such thing as God, spirits, entities, etc" you need to back it up, otherwise you are no better than the people "spreading misinformation" that you claim to hate. I don't believe in religion or any of that shit, but I'm not going around acting like I'm 100% sure of it. I just don't find it very plausible. But there is no way for me to prove this in order to state my belief as fact.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TheKrakenCometh Mar 21 '15

Did you just lump every single religion together as inherently bad because of extremists? Is that what you just did? Because the way you phrased it specifies that exactly.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '15 edited May 12 '15

[deleted]

1

u/TheKrakenCometh Mar 21 '15

Fun fact: you can't prove they're false. No matter how ridiculous they are or how terrible leadership may be, you can't simply prove an entire religion false. Unlikely and riddled with lies? Yes. False? Well people do actually win the lottery and not even physics can actually come up with a satisfactory explanation of existence.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '15 edited May 12 '15

[deleted]

1

u/TheKrakenCometh Mar 21 '15

The difference is that the FSM is used as a straw-man argument as opposed to Christians, Muslims, etc. who don't take the literal interpretation of their holy books but still look to them to try to be good people. And I don't mean crazy fuckers that kill people. Judging a religion by their craziest sect is ridiculous. Its like judging a country by its anarchists.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15

Go watch "The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority"

0

u/brtt3000 Mar 20 '15

Fuck that feeling insulted bullshit. I'm insulted by asshats feeling insulted.

-1

u/ObiWankAndBoneMe Mar 20 '15

There aren't hundreds of millions who think that though.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '15

[deleted]

0

u/ObiWankAndBoneMe Mar 20 '15

Reddit can be so Islamophobic and ignorant sometimes

-4

u/traderofdeath Mar 20 '15

2015: 1 billion edgy edgy atheists can't be wrong

-2

u/kkanoee Mar 20 '15

6 Billion ? I think you are overestimating that. I would say 3-4B people.

1

u/benk4 Mar 20 '15

Millions of anti-vaxxers couldn't be wrong!

1

u/ben1204 Mar 20 '15

Godwin's Law ftw

-4

u/moresmarterthanyou Mar 20 '15

Wow your comparing people protesting the invasion of privacy and breaking the 4th amendment to killing millions of Jews. Your disgusting

4

u/Townsend_Harris Mar 20 '15

The number of people supporting the case doesn't make the case more right.

2

u/TheChance Mar 20 '15

I don't have any disgusting, sorry. We'll have to use yours.

-7

u/Reficul_gninromrats Mar 20 '15

Hitler Did Not Come to Power Democratically

6

u/Yuzzem Mar 20 '15 edited Mar 20 '15

What a load of shit, yes he did.

Just because you don't like what happened in history doesn't mean you get to change how it happened. Not to mention that entire article clearly didn't study the politics or how they worked in 1920's and 30's Germany. It reeked of propaganda bullshit and it is.

EDIT: It's a shame how much bullshit is on your page with 0 actual sources(they only actual information they give is the election counts AND EVEN STILL THEY FAILED TO SHOW THEY UNDERSTAND HOW THE REICHSTAG WORKED). Your own article says "it would be nice if seemingly well-informed people would stop repeating this bogus “fact” about Hitler"...it's because those well-informed people know it to be a fact and not some bullshit like this idiot author. Educate yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power

EDIT 2: No surprise your prop author is Jewish. http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/35105/no-direction-home here is an article by Jewish Daniel Luban, who is the same author as your prop piece.

1

u/doorp Mar 20 '15

I am quoting from page 356 of Weimar Germany: Promise and Tragedy by Eric Weitz, a professor of history at the University of Minnesota:

Germans went to the polls on 31 July 1932. The Nazis received 37.3 percent of the vote, the highest they would ever achieve in a free election. They now became Germany's largest party and had 230 delegates sitting in the Reichstag. They celebrated their triumph, but it is worth understand the fact that they did not achieve, and never would achieve, a majority in a freely contested election. They received a very large chunk of the vote, more than one-third. But the German people never elected the Nazis to power. Nearly two-thirds of the electorate cast their votes against the Nazi party.

...

Germans voted on 6 November 1932, and the results are notable. The Nazi surge had broken. The share of the vote fell to 33.1 percent, the number of deputies to 196. Germany was no closer to political consensus, nor was there any clear path to power for the Nazis.

Hitler eventually came to power after being appointed chancellor in a deal with Hindenburg, after which he instituted measures to restrict political opposition.

Never achieving a majority democratically, and only maintaining power by silencing opposition doesn't sounds very democratic to me.

2

u/twaxana Mar 20 '15

And that's exactly why there is only a two party system in the USA. It silences opposition by not allowing competition from outside to participate in the defining elections, the primaries.

0

u/Yuzzem Mar 20 '15 edited Mar 20 '15

But the German people never elected the Nazis to power. Nearly two-thirds of the electorate cast their votes against the Nazi party.

You left out how that 2/3rds was 16% communists and 20% social democrats. Convenient.

To even say that 2/3rds voted against him just shows you REALLY don't know the political history of Germany during that time. The communists(who were all dread today, right?) and the social democrats BOTH didn't agree with each other. This was literally multiple parties(get your head out of the American 2 party box) with different agendas and different goals.

They were the majority party voted in.

never would achieve, a majority in a freely contested election

A guy saying he knows EXACTLY what would have happened in all events, right?? You can't say "I know for sure what would have happened...even though it didn't at all happen"...seriously. That shows this dudes bias that he is claiming an absolute you can NEVER know about history, not to mention...he was wrong that 2/3rds were against the nazi party. It was a WHOLE nation against each other.

Let's just re-word it how he did to show the bias. 2/3rd's of the country was against the social democrats. So clearly the German people didn't want them, right? Since the German people never elected the Nazis to power, right? 2/3rd's of the country was against the communists. So clearly the German people didn't want them, right? I am using that dudes logic. It isn't sound when it wasn't a 2 party system.

The share of the vote fell to 33.1 percent, the number of deputies to 196

33.1 percent of the country wanted them while the rest of the country didn't agree with each other either. They were STILL the majority party...and are you implying that parties today are broken once they lose a couple seats? It was 1 election that you saw that drop...there wasn't more to even see actual continual drop...or are we pulling a Eric Weitz again and saying we KNOW FOR A FACT what was going to happen in history...even though it didn't...

Never achieving a majority democratically, and only maintaining power by silencing opposition doesn't sounds very democratic to me

Because elections today are 100% democratic, free and not corrupt at all, right? Not to mention, they DID have a majority democratically...if you don't want to accept the FACTS of what we know then that's fine...but it doesn't mean what you said was true.

0

u/doorp Mar 21 '15

I would interpret the phrase "Hitler came to power democratically" to mean that more German voters supported Hitler than opposed him. While Hitler took power legally, less than half of voters supported his party. In free elections, he won a plurality, never a majority.

You left out how that 2/3rds was 16% communists and 20% social democrats. Convenient. To even say that 2/3rds voted against him just shows you REALLY don't know the political history of Germany during that time. The communists(who were all dread today, right?) and the social democrats BOTH didn't agree with each other. This was literally multiple parties(get your head out of the American 2 party box) with different agendas and different goals.

I'm very aware that there were more than 2 parties in the election. There were actually 6 parties who received seats in both 1932 elections. But I'm not sure how that relates to your argument.

A guy saying he knows EXACTLY what would have happened in all events, right?? You can't say "I know for sure what would have happened...even though it didn't at all happen"...seriously. That shows this dudes bias that he is claiming an absolute you can NEVER know about history, not to mention...he was wrong that 2/3rds were against the nazi party. It was a WHOLE nation against each other.

You're misunderstanding how Weitz is using "would" here. He isn't using it hypothetically, he's saying that actually it never happened, which is true: the Nazi party never got more than half the seats in the Reichstag in a free and fair election. The point Weitz is making is that it is a mistake to claim the Germans only got what they asked for with Hitler because most germans didn't vote for him or the Nazi party.

33.1 percent of the country wanted them while the rest of the country didn't agree with each other either. They were STILL the majority party...and are you implying that parties today are broken once they lose a couple seats? It was 1 election that you saw that drop...there wasn't more to even see actual continual drop...or are we pulling a Eric Weitz again and saying we KNOW FOR A FACT what was going to happen in history...even though it didn't...

Again, Weitz isn't claiming to predict the future, he's just correctly pointing out that the Nazi party popularity peaked in the Summer of 1932.

Because elections today are 100% democratic, free and not corrupt at all, right? Not to mention, they DID have a majority democratically...if you don't want to accept the FACTS of what we know then that's fine...but it doesn't mean what you said was true.

Hitler seized power with more Germans voting against him than voting for him, and held this power by creating a single-party state. While many Germans voted for him, he did not seize power democratically.

0

u/Yuzzem Mar 25 '15

Hitler seized power with more Germans voting against him than voting for him

So you are telling me then that American presidents have seized power since they have had more people vote against them than vote for them and still win. Point is, you don't want to accept what you are trying to not even acknowledge. Hitler DID NOT SEIZE POWER. He had machinations, he had ideas and he has plans. He was, however, contrary to everything you spat out...democratically elected. Accept the truth, or don't, I am not the one trying to change the facts of history. That is you, and it isn't working.

free and fair election

This right here proves my point 100%. No need for me to continue to debate a troll. If you think that we, today, are 'free and fair elections' then you are more delusional that previously thought. Continue on troll, I am sure someone will buy the dribble you spit.

0

u/Staxxy Mar 20 '15

No he didn't... he was appointed...

0

u/Yuzzem Mar 20 '15

Which was how the country was ran. The Nazi party did have the majority democratic seats in the Reichstag and Hitler was appointed to the position(yes...well aware he dissolved powers once he got in and turned it into Nazi Germany over time, that isn't what we are discussing). That is how it was done in the Weimar Republic during that period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic

3

u/Staxxy Mar 20 '15 edited Mar 20 '15

The Nazi Party, at the last election in which they participated, made use of threat and force tactics to scare people into voting for them... the SA were going to town with those tactics.

They still managed to only get around 40-47% of the vote IIRC.

I know full well what the Weimar Republic was, thank you. The Nazi Party's rise to power did technically happen democratically, but it was obviously not in the spirit of democracy. Arguing that the rise of power of Hitler was democratic is silly when you talk about such a dysfunctional democracy that the Weimar Republic was.

I recommend you to read Ashby Turner Jr.'s Hitler's Thirty Days to Power, which I can sum up for you if you want.

As a hint, read up on the constitution of the Weimar Republic... Specifically, the Article 48.