Summations Only

A quick Google gives a couple of indications:

quote:

---

However not enough people supported this reasonable Republic, the first democratic state in German history. link

---

quote:

---

The lack of support from the people due to the fear of communism and their attitude towards the socialists led them to support Hitler.... link

---

I'm glad you can tell at a distance what my statements are based on.

Yes, of course, that isn't uncommon in parliamentary forms of government. So with his 40% of the vote, would you say that "hardly anyone objected" to Justin Trudeau's becoming Prime Minister or any of his actions since? Hitler never suspended the German constitution. As I said later, Hitler kept the constitution in place and used it to provide his dictatorship a veneer of legitimacy. A great many people in pre-WWII Germany were very concerned about Hitler's rise to power. If you're just using a turn of phrase to say that not enough people were willing to risk opposition to Hitler's ruthless power grab, fine, but if you're standing by your original "hardly anyone objected" then history plainly says you are wrong. Not on history, certainly, and it would make no sense taking refuge in the baseless nature of your assertions. Even your post facto Googling for support doesn't support your statements that "hardly anyone objected" and "The German people tacitly, if not downright vociferously, wanted a dictator." Not only do those links not support you, the second is only a creditable attempt at history by a high school student, Harshana Senarath, Grade 11. Great Googling by you.I've been focused on your unfounded statements, but your links do remind me that it's very much worth remembering that Hitler's ability to exploit post-WWI economic and political turmoil was another significant factor in his rise to power.You were originally trying to make a point about constitutions not acting as a restraint upon government, and as an example you used Hitler, and as I've said before, I think that's a good example of a head of state flouting a constitution. But when it comes to statements that he was virtually unopposed in his rise to power or that the German people "vociferously" wanted a dictator, these are unequivocally historically false. You might be thinking of what came later, the near adoration of Hitler within Germany after its economic revitalization and early military successes, but even then he was not without detractors.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Minor clarification.

quote:

---

....but even then he was not without detractors.

---

Albeit very carefully treading detractors.The last thing anyone at that time wanted was a visit from the Gestapo about voicing anything other than admiration and fervent loyalty.

Ringo's original statement was (approximately) that having a government blindly following the constitution was stupid. Given that, what kind of example is Hitler anyway? Surely we are not talking about emulating Hitler.It's possible that I'm linking together things that ringo did not intend to link, but if you unlink those things, what the heck point remains? Surely within this country there is substantial opposition to gun control. I'm not sure we should assume that nobody would react badly to attempts by the government to impose gun control illegally and unconstitutionally given the ability to at least vote the bastids out the next time.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm reacting off-topic and will drop it. I was just correcting the misimpression that nearly all Germans enthusiastically embraced Hitler's rise to power. I thought it would be a one-post thing.The Supreme Court already doesn't blindly follow the constitution. When the court was liberal it managed to find a penumbra of rights derived by implication, and when the court was conservative it managed to find a right to absurdly gerrymandered election districts and another right to unencumbered gun ownership.Ringo's recent posts have been too brief for me to get a clear idea of his meaning.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

If a bunch of us order pizza and the topping I wanted is voted down, no, I wouldn't say I objected to the resulting pizza. He didn't have to. He just ignored the parts he didn't like - just like American governments do with the Second Amendment.

Uh, okay, I hope you enjoyed the pizza. So when Justin Trudeau honored the Canadian arms deal with Saudi Arabia and 48% of polled Canadians called it a bad decision, you feel it would be accurate to characterize that as "hardly anyone objected," and "The Canadian people tacitly, if not downright vociferously, wanted to honor the Saudi Arabian arms deal"? Well, yes, of course, that's what "providing his dictatorship a veneer of legitimacy" plainly implied. I was just responding to where you said, "The German people were perfectly willing to have somebody suspend the constitution," which isn't true since the constitution was never suspended by Hitler (abused, yes - suspended, no), and since the German people never indicated by any vote or plebiscite any willingness to have the constitution suspended.These may seem like minor details to you (and this really belongs in one of the primaries threads), but the important point here is that when maniacs like Hitler or kooks like Trump gain power, it isn't because "hardly anyone objected," but in spite of objections. And now we're back to the topic. In response to a question about certain future plans, a CEO where I once worked said at a company meeting: "It isn't a matter of whether it's legal. We're going to do it. The question is what is the most legal way we can do it." In the same way, constitutional interpretations are invariably viewed malleably. American administrations in general exhibit no special qualities among the world's nations in seeking constitutional interpretations favorable to their policies and goals. The Supreme Court's most recent position on the 2nd amendment may seem like an outlier, but I think not, something you should agree with given your recent statement about how shabbily constitutions are often treated ("Constitutions are suspended every day.").--Percy

I think the point here, is that a poll saying X is a bad idea is an objection. Obviously a vote or survey answer saying I hate something counts as an objection. But if I vote for Clinton, that does not necessarily mean that I have any objection in particular to Sanders. A vote for Hilary certainly could not be said to be a repudiation of any particular policy Bernie pushes.Similarly, a vote that is not for Hitler does not show that you objected to any one single Hitler policy, and it is possible that such a vote is no more an indication of objection than is a vote for anchovies an indication that you object to Canadian bacon.

Of course Hitler had a lot of internal support, but many, if not most Germans were terrified. The speed at which he and his Brown Shirts mobilized took everybody by surprise. He enacted rules banning private ownership of arms and created a sense of distrust among the populace. There was a very strong anti-Nazi sentiment in Germany, but most people didn't feel comfortable openly discussing that because they could not know who was secretly working for the SS, as any opposition to Nazism was labeled as seditious and they were summarily executed to send a clear message to any would-be resistance.As to your point, which I can only assume is that the Constitution is a bauble, I agree up to a point. The reverence the Constitution has over Americans does not seem to be the case in many other nations with their respective constitutions, but Americans by and large view the Constitution as sacred and thereby treat it very seriously. It has surely stopped all kinds of fuckery by the government (not to say that the US government hasn't violated it on occasions, because they have).Perhaps you really mean to say that it is the People that hold them accountable, and I certainly agree, but it is only so through the lens of the Constitution

I'm making a sensible inference and you're saying, in essence, "But you don't have proof." But any reasonable person would make that inference, and anyway, a quick Google tells me the inference is correct.In the same way, I think anyone looking in from the outside and seeing a US poll about the Supreme Court's decision on gun control would reasonably conclude that "hardly anyone objected" is not a remotely accurate characterization, let alone that the American people were "vociferously" supportive in wanting less encumbered access to guns.I do agree with Ringo that constitutions are less a restraint than one might hope. An obvious interpretation to some is often flawed reasoning to others.--Percy

Not true. Under Nazi's laws on gun ownership were loosened, except for the jews. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it.

I don't think you have made a reasonable inference. Voting for a person, particular if he did not announce policy X ahead of time, is not evidence that people wanted policy X. But the inference you are making, namely that voting for the other candidate means disapproval of policy X is a far shakier argument. luCute. People who disagree with you are unreasonable. There is no reasonable opposing position.If your Google search confirmed your inference (rather than you conclusion), that is because your Google search turned up facts that you did not use in your argument. As for your conclusion, history tells us that your conclusion is correct and that there were complaints about Hitler's excesses regarding the constitution. But being correct is not a validation of your actual argument.Hitler did a bunch of bad stuff. It would be simplistic to count every vote against him in that election, as opposition to every bad thing he ended up doing. People vote for and against candidates for lots of reasons, only one of which might have to do with abusing the constitution. You cannot tell just from a cast vote how much the German folks loved or did not love their constitution without ruling out other concerns. Sometimes the choices are more similar to the choices between pizza toppings.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Wrong, maingly because you're confusing two different arguments. My inference from the poll was eminently reasonable, and as it turns out correct. You're misinterpreting something, though I can't figure out what. I wasn't trying to be cute - I was just stating the obvious. I stated a very reasonable inference, one anyone would make (you don't make clear why you think it unreasonable), then in response to your post did a little Googling and found that it was also a very accurate inference. Who supports what they think are obvious statements with facts? How would I know ahead of time that you were going to question the obvious? My being correct is a much better validation of my argument than it is of yours. You're responding to a running discussion that took several turns, and since you don't quote anything specific I can only guess that you're again confounding different parts of the discussion. Most recently it was Ringo who claimed that, "The German people were perfectly willing to have somebody suspend the constitution," and I who objected that, "The German people never indicated by any vote or plebiscite any willingness to have the constitution suspended." If you're talking about another portion or mixing them up then you'll have to explain.--Percy

If you look back you will see that I agreed with your inference regarding the poll. I continue to disagree that your poll results are analogous to the election voting for Hitler.Showing that an inference is correct requires showing a connection between the voting percentages for and against Hitler, and your conclusion because those relative percentages are the only thing you cited. Simply showing by any other means, that Germans were in opposition to Hitler's abuse of the constitution does not validate your reasoning. Such research simply validates your conclusion. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

First you agreed, then you disagreed. Most recently you seemed to be disagreeing. Then here you make the interpretation that I was drawing an analogy, which is incorrect: I never drew that analogy. I was trying convince Ringo of the illogic of his position. Ringo brushed aside one argument with an absurd analogy to a disagreement about toppings for a pizza, forcing me to find a different way to make the same obvious point, that in groups as large as countries there will always be strong and vocal disagreements about controversial issues, whether it's Hitler, the German constitution, Saudi arms sales, or gun control.Thus, it's obvious that among the 52% in Germany who didn't vote for Hitler that there must have been significant opposition, just as there was among the 48% in Canada who thought honoring the Saudi arms deal a bad idea. That Ringo's statement that "hardly anyone objected" to Hitler's rise to power is wrong is obvious (and even more obviously his claim that, "The German people tacitly, if not downright vociferously, wanted a dictator"), and even for those who want to insist it isn't obvious, it's also wrong when you examine the evidence in detail. This is something that's just definitionally true about controversial issues, else they wouldn't be deemed controversial (of course, controversies disappear from public expression under certain circumstances, such as the Hitler police state that later emerged). Now if Hitler's rise to power wasn't controversial within Germany then you might have an argument, but it was and you don't.Finding odd and unintended interpretations and subjecting messages to minute and detailed analysis is a distraction that takes discussion down ratholes. Why are you doing this? Ringo has a point about constitutions being open to interpretation (I know he didn't say it that way), but one of his supporting examples involving Hitler was incorrect, and as a WWII buff I couldn't let it slip by. He wanted to insist he was right, I tried to convince him he wasn't, you're flaw-hunting through my posts because, well, I guess just because, and now the topic is becoming forgotten.--Percy