Hitler? Democratically elected? Have you been glue-sniffing? Elected just like those creatures of the US like President Marcos of the Philippines, Papa and Baby Doc of Haiti or well yes Saddam Hussein of Iraq. If you really think you have to dive into history look at this site, it tells you something about how Hitler was "elected": http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/enabling.htm That should set your mind right. And perhaps remind you that democracy is not manifested by some due process - important as that may be - but by the contents of the policies of a democratic state. Just because you get a State full of Timothy McVeighs who vote for white supremacy does not make them democrats: "Eat shit! Millions of flies can't be that wrong" :eek:
The point is that "democracy" can take many forms. Technically, Hitler was "elected" because the system of government required the Reichstag with their coalition politics to make someone chancellor. He then pushed through the Enabling Act, effectively making him a dictator (he only needed a 2/3 vote). So, you're absolutely right, Hitler was made chancellor by democratic rules and under the laws of the constitution at the time. However, it's widely believed that the Weimar constitution was one of the weakest in the history of Western government. And as for the Timmy comment, they'd most likely be Louisiana republicans if they voted that way, not democrats
subtlety won't get you far here. nor will alluding to shades of grey or recognizing that more than one point of view may exist. try ratcheting your writing level down to somewhere between Bill O'Reilly and MTV News, at most. then, taking a cue from current events, pick one position and repeat it ad nauseum. soundbites are best. insult when you can, especially a poster's patriotism, faith, etc. eventually others will be driven away in disgust, making you the de facto winner.
Hitler was not "elected" but appointed Reichskanzler on January 30, 1933 by Reichspraesident von Hindenburg - in accordance with articles 48 and 53 of the "Verfassung des Deutschen Reichs", the so-called "Weimar" constitution. German original: http://www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar... Der Reichspräsident und die Reichsregierung English translation: http://menic.utexas.edu/~bennett/__344/ge-Weimar-Const.pdf
Sorry picknclick, I don't want to appear nit picking, but there was a bit more to this enabling law: Hitler needed a two third majority to temporarily amend the constitution: that law gave him powers which were downright unconstitutional. Any Chancellor or President of modern day Germany would be out of office within days if he tried. But how did the Nazis get that 2/3 majority? By ensuring that only a handful of opposition members came to that crucial session of the Reichstag: almost everybody else was either dead = murdered!!!, in a concentration camp or simply too frightened to attend. The Reichstag building had been destroyed a few weeks earlier and the Reichstag met in an opera in Berlin, apparently the only suitable venue in those days. What an irony that Germany's first attempts at democracy came to an end in an opera house! The building itself was surrounded by SS and SA men, the Nazi paramilitary organisations, they even lined the aisles of the building physically threatening every opposition Member of Parliament who dared open their mouth. So much for Hitler's respect for due process. And for democracy! All one can say is that in those days he still needed that token appearance of a democratic politician. After all, his party's name was "National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei" (NSDAP), and the word "socialist" still had some vague democratic meaning to it. Sorry if I offended any Democrats here by putting them in the same gutter with Timothy McVeigh: that was not my intention.
man, i thought only conservatives use that line. according to that definition, then, there are NO "true" democracies in the world. which is ok, i guess. but it's not what is commonly understood. and yep, W wasn't, strictly speaking, 'democratically' elected. no doubt about that.
A better way to vote: Why letting the people themselves take the decisions is the logical next step for the West The most clear-cut example is Switzerland's system of direct democracy. In Switzerland it is possible to insist, by collecting a modest number of signatures, that any law proposed by the government must be submitted to a vote of the whole people. Even better, you can also insist (by getting more signatures) that a brand-new idea for a law must be put to the people even if government and parliament are against the idea. http://www.vote.org/economis.htm Political rights in the Swiss Confederation There is scarcely any other country in which the people have such far-reaching rights of co-determination as in Switzerland. A long democratic tradition, the comparatively small geographical and population size and, last but not least, a high level of literacy and the extensive choice of media play a decisive role in ensuring the proper functioning of this particular form of State. http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/pore/index.html
for the West, yes. perhaps. i'd be a little more skeptical about applying that thinking to EVERY country, however.
All I'm saying is that the Reichstag was so fragmented at that time that they had to appoint a chancellor, and the appointment was the de facto electorial process of the Weimar Republic once the citizens of Germany elected their representatives. It's sort of like giving the Senate or House majority leader the power of the presidency. You are correct about the details.