>>18133684
If anything that should tell you how rigged and bullshit parliamentary democracy is.

>>18133693
YES
I agree. It is a crazy game.
The majority wins, that is more simple.

>>18133684
>still on the podium though
jews will never recover from this lmao

>>18133699
Decades later, they managed to elect their own hitler

>>18133684
>conducts extremely rigged elections
>gets only 44% of votes
>chimps out, bans all parties
>conducts another elections, only allows NSDAP to enter (lol)
>gets 100% (lmao)
>declares that a win, conducts no elections ever since

>>18133708
lol he wishes
bibi is not even Streicher tier

>>18133684
>never won an election
Numerous elected delegates in the legislature.

Commies btfo at the only successful elected radical socialist government.

>>18133741
>extremely rigged
the absolute state of yid kvetching

>>18133750
>The election saw Nazi stormtroopers unleash a widespread campaign of violence against the Communist Party (KPD), left-wingers, 317 trade unionists, the Social Democratic Party and the Centre Party.

>>18133758
And nothing of value was lost

>>18133684
He did win, he formed a "coalition" with the DNVP. Note also the division between liberals, socialists and communists, with the communists hard abstentionists like NSDAP. So realistically only around a third of the vote could be rallied against NSDAP.

>>18133762
>First post: It didnt happen
>Second post: They deserved it

Funny how your attitude towards Hitlers "election" mirrors your atittude to the holocaust. Im starting to see a psychological pattern.

>>18133770
now now, let's not get ahead of ourselves
the holocauster is not the topic here
NSDAP did what it had to do to prevent bolshevik takeover of Germany
It takes two to tango, and it's not like commie scum were peaceful upstanding citizens
street brawls are not 'le rigged election'

>>18133763
He didnt win because it wasnt democratic.
The last real democratic election gave NSDAP 33% of the vote. The socialist parties combined got more.
Hitler became chancellor here but NSDAP and DNVP never got a majority to rule the parlament, that only happened because of the parlament fire and heavy political violence & intimidation in the next election.

>>18133741
>extremely rigged
>gets only 44%

Which is it anon?

>>18133779
I'm just pointing out the correlated autism of your "it never happen you kvetching jew" to "fuck it they deserved it" mentality.

>>18133791
Both are simultaneously true
if it happened to degenerate commies, nothing of value was lost so it's like it never happened
are we good now?

>>18133784
Hitler used executive power to btfo commies and socdems just like commies use extra legal or extra parliamentary powers all the time to intimidate their own views into legislation and power.

What the fuck if your problem dude? You don’t like Hitler? He likes you.

>>18133791
That happems in every thread of the semiserious boards here.
It is happening right now in biz in the thread about french cryptocoin taxes

>they are punishing people who add value
>crypto doesnt add value
>who cares if it doesnt add value, you communist?

Communication is impossible

>>18133800
If he likes me then why did he kill himself in a bunker

>>18133799
They used violence and intimidation on all socialist parties and even centrists.
They were literally watching what people were voting on your retard. Imagine if your opposition did that in your country. You would legitimize that election result.

If 1933 election is valid then most banana republic elections are valid as well.

>>18133800
Its not about liking. Its about being objective. History isnt a competition you monkey retard. You're supposed to look at it from a neutral perspective.

>>18133810
They did what they had to
Hitler got carried by the female vote you ahistorical dumb fuck
crack a book

>>18133820
Still wasnt democratic.
Which is exactly what we are discussing
Your whole "yes, but" is completely irrelevant.
The question has been answered.
Now Shut the fuck up.

File: 1759050142367.jpg (35 KB, 640x478)

35 KB JPG

>>18133823
that's like, your opinion man
Germans at the time loved him, especially the women

>>18133832
>Lets look at these selective footages of cheering crowds to forget the fact that NSDAP and DNVP got a minority vote

>>18133847
>goalposts moved a third time
>has no idea how German elections worked
the absolute state of hasbara Tay-Sachs

File: naziACK.png (1.29 MB, 1620x907)

1.29 MB PNG

>>18133832
>they voted for him
no refunds!

>>18133765
The communist party lost 5 seats to the NSDAP? WTF...

>>18133823
>still wasnt democratic

Versailles
Weimar degeneracy
Commie revolutions

These were all democratic?

>>18133894
Commies joined the NSDAP in large numbers bro and got what they voted for.
This is why the Allies hated Germany

File: 1734680995170.png (129 KB, 585x460)

129 KB PNG

>>18133867
>non sequitur
drecksjuden, are you feeling ok? Maybe you need to concentrate harder on the topic at hand

>>18133895
>Versailles
Yes, the parties voted into power agreed to the treaty and they were voted back into office in 1920, showing the majority of Germans supported Versailles (at least to the extent of it ending the war)
>Weimar degeneracy
Meaningless buzzwords. No one was forced into "degeneracy". But some people freely chose to do what they wanted under the civil rights the people voted for.
>Commie revolutions
No, and the democratic government violently opposed them and put them down with the military.
Also they were all long defeated by the time the Nazis were a force of note.

>>18134038
Germans agreed they were guilty of ww1 ?

Germans voted for this society?

The Freikorps weren't the original veterans that formed the opposition to communism on the streets?

File: ononono.png (541 KB, 859x1607)

541 KB PNG

>>18133684
ohnononono

File: yes.jpg (17 KB, 376x815)

17 KB JPG

>>18134514
>Germans agreed they were guilty of ww1 ?
Yes
>Germans voted for this society?
Yes
>The Freikorps weren't the original veterans that formed the opposition to communism on the streets?
What a stupidy phrased question, You've written it in a very deliberate way to get yes as an answer and to prevent me from saying government forces were sent in first. It's not even written in proper English ("the original veterans that formed the opposition"?, you mean "the veterans that first formed the opposition")
Ebert literally supported Freikorp groups, enlisting their help to defeat the commies. The Weimar Government supported the Freikorps.

>>18134553
Did the Freikorp agree that Germany should bear the burden of guilt for ww1?

Did the Freikorp love and support Weimar society?

The Nazis were the later fruit of these Freikorp men would you agree?

>>18134038
The fuck does any of this have to do with the fact that 1932 election was democratic but the 1933 election was not democratic you dysfunctional retard.

Nazis were the most popular, most voted for party in Germany at the time. His rise to power was legitimate.

>>18134578
No to the first two and yes to the third
But ultimately irrelevant to the point, the freikorp were a minority, and the majority of the German population clearly disagreed with them as shown by the results of the democratic process

>>18134590
I dunno, ask the other anon who brought them up in the first place

>>18134595
Still doesn't mean you win an election.
To win an election you need at least 51% of the vote. NSDAP + NVDP never got over 51% in a democratic election. The 1932 election was democratic. The 1933 election used methods commonly seen in dictatorships in Africa where polling stations are controlled by opposition brutes who 'controls' what people vote with physical violence and intimidation.

The next election only NSDAPA was allowed to run.
Curious.

>>18134617
They formed a coalition government with the conservative party, it was all completely normal and legitimate.

>>18134622
The Nazis and DNVP together still had less than 51% of the vote

>>18133789
I mean rigged in the sense that Nazis did their utmost to obstruct campaigns of other parties, discourage people from voting for them and encourage them to vote for Nazis instead. Maybe "rigged" isn't the correct term for that. Anyway their coercive methods still didn't yield them the absolute victory, which is why Hitler had to do some dancing around to pass the Enabling Act through Reichstag and conduct snap elections in November with all other parties banned to get that sweet 100% for NSDAP

>>18134596
Soooo most germans thought germany was to blame for ww1 ?

Are you serious?

File: The deceiver stays silent.jpg (291 KB, 1024x1024)

291 KB JPG

>>18134637
Sorry that was commies, the Nazis were and are the only people who can stop communists.

>>18134737
Yeah sure whatever pal

>>18134732
They certainly voted to sign a document that said as much

>>18134793
Do you think they actually thought that?

>>18134793
>t. disingenuous shill

>>18133684
No, he won a plurality of the votes which is what was necessary to win the election.
>>18133741
>extremely rigged
is there evidence of this?

>>18133758
But that isnt election rigging and those parties all had their street militias as well.
Were the Nazis just better at politics or something?
>>18133784
>socialist parties combined
well its good the election isnt based on combined parties but on parties themselves.
He DID win the election.
33% was a plurality, that is still how it works in Germany today and many other countries.
>majority to rule
You dont need a majority to form an effective bloc.
also the NSDAP WAS a socialist party.

>>18134737
>the only people who can stop communists.
That was the United States of America. Nazi Germany was a tranny state that folded immediately after picking a fight with commies. I guess they were pretty good cannon fodder.

>>18135178
Aided by capitalism. Reactionaries had their chance to take on commies in a fair fight, they failed, Nazis didnt.

>>18133684
Lincoln didn't win the """Popular Vote""" either, so I guess he literally Hitler too. Actually, he's worse. Actual Hitler congratulated Ownes on his Olympic victory. That good goy, rich boy FDR did not. I guess FDR is literally Hitler too. Hey, FDR had 3 terms, so I guess Trump gets 3 also?

>>18134732
lol the "guilt clause" was deliberately mistranslated to the German people by the German government. It didn't actually say Germany was responsible for ww1, it said thr central powers were (Germany and her allies), and both Vienna, Budapest, Sofia and Constantinople were given the same wording of their country plus their allies being responsible.

The intention of article 231 was to give war reparations legal binding, not to humiliate Germany.
And before you start sperging about war reparations being unjustified: 95% of the war between Germany and the allies had been on allied soil, and Germany exit the war before a single soldier set foot on German soil.
Of those areas fought, France most industrialized regions had been there, and the Germans had pillaged and looted it during the occupation, it had been destroyed in the crossfire, and more importantly, the German army had scorched and looted it in the 1918 retreat specifically to make French recovery as difficult as possible.
It should also be said that Germany forced war reparations on France in their previous war that Germany had won, reparations that amounted to 5 billion francs and a German military occupation of French industrial area to force reparations.
It should also be said that even before Hitler came to power, the allies had lowered Germanys debts substantially several times and used their own credit to aid Germany repaying it, and ultimately said nothing when the Germans stopped paying, which again, started to happen even before Hitler came to power.

>>18133684
Who tf started the myth that he was elected democratically

>>18135354
>>18135354
Armistice turned into acceptance of defeat and guilt for war damage

How do allies defend this shit?

>>18135350
US election has a different system to European parliamentarism.
I'm not American but the electoral collage crowns the winner depending on the states that are won.
Here in Europe, parlament seats are given proportionally to the number of votes cast. You simply cannot win an election unless over 50% of the parlament supports the formation of the government.
Not going to adress UK system because not even Brits understands it.

>>18135393
>How do allies defend this shit?
By defeating Germany in a war Germany started.
And by that I mean for the very fact that France and Belgium were neutral when they were invaded, and it's far more easier for any courtroom to weigh against any "yes, but" arguments and interpretations that you're going to give as explanation to defend Germanys decision to invade them.

>>18135414
Why invade France if its neutral ? Belgium was a work around, you know that.

>>18135425
>Belgium was a work around, you know that
Is that supposed to be an argument?

>>18135414
God you fags are such liars. In the afterlife when we meet remind me to kick your teeth in for such blatant dishonesty for absolutely no reason

>>18135428
Yes its a clear and direct argument. The schlieffen plan wasnt made because they had a problem with Belgium.

>>18135433
Do you even know the definition of a sovreign state anon?

>>18135443
Yes do you know about the existence of tactics anon?

>>18135431
It was literally the reason why Italy defected, and Britain joining the Entente.
Wilhelm himself was furious that German dysfunctional pre-war planning that didnt match unfolding turn of events, had now framed Germany as the aggressor.

>>18135449
Ok then define the basic principles of a sovreign state.
After you've done that you can take your self-righteous tactics and shove it up your ass.

Also you clearly don't even understand the definition of tactics and what seperates tactics from strategy.

>>18135450
Still, Germany was going through the area - not on to Belgium - and Britain wanted its excuse to fight its rival power.

>>18135458
Defined borders etc.
Why shove tactics (or strategy) away? Theyre the crucial element here. You ignoring that is blatant dishonesty.

>>18135462
>>18135460
No they're not crucial elements you retard lmao. You can't claim that a crime you've committed was justified because it personally benefited you and it was indifferent to you, you dumb monkey.

Belgium became a frontline for 4 years with some of the worst destruction and pillaging during the entire war.

>>18135500
It's a war dufus, why would Germany spend men against fortified positions when they've got a work around? Allies invaded to go through other nations all the time. You think a police officer gives a fuck about your garden borders when he's chasing a burglar?

>>18135500
It's literally justified on that basis, that of self defence.

File: example.jpg (108 KB, 612x842)

108 KB JPG

>>18133741
You must be an American if you think 44% of the vote isn't a lot.
In Europe, we always have like 10 parties contesting the election, even the super-normie parties barely left or right of centre cannot possibly seize 44% of the vote on their own

>>18136313
>Union
Right-Wing
>AfD
Right-Wing
>Socialists
Left-Wing
So the split in actuality isn't really that far off from 44% because it's ultimately just a small handful of political coalitions under different meme parties

>>18136316
CDU/CSU is a centrist party that considers itself closer to SPD than AfD, at least in the words of their leadership.
Splitting them the way you did makes little sense.
Parties aren't either right- or left-wing

>>18136326
>CDU/CSU is a centrist party that considers itself closer to SPD
Alright
>Union
Liberals
>Socialists
Liberals
>Alternative
Right-Wing

There, same principles of my original post apply, you happy now anon?

>>18136313
44% is still not majority, and you need majority support from the parlament to form a government. What's so hard to understand?

And stop using the one election where they cheated as the premise of discussion. The last actial democratic election NSDAP recieved 33% of the vote. Substantial? Yes. Majority? No.

>>18136253
>>18136252
This form of self entitlement is exactly why the allies had no problem demanding war reparations.
I'm glad we cleared it up. Thanks for the debate. Retards.

>>18136330
You don't need absolute majorities in legislation bodies. They'd never get anything dont if you did. This goes back to Rome

>>18136336
And why germans had no problem interfering, obscuring, never paying and resenting the process.

You're welcome you fuckin dickhead.

>>18135067
I never said they thought that, I think that's irrelevant to your argument. They voted for it. Hence your claim that is is undemocratic is stupid.
>>18135109
I'm sorry that I'm not letting you more the goal posts anon
>>18136313
Being a citizen of a parliamentary country you are also no doubt well aware that 33% of the vote is still not a majority that would allow a single party to do whatever it wants. Even if we do add the 8% of their coalition partners, that's still not a majority.
You'll also be aware that the largest party does not necessarily get to be the government. (Though in this case that was as much the commies fault as anyone on the right)

>>18136339
The reparations were repeatedly lowered and eventually voided because the allies chose it, not because Germany chose it. Just keep that in mind next time.

The rampant self entitlement is also why the allies had no problem apply the "guilt clause", because in the end, both Belgium and France had been neutral when they were invaded.

>>18136337
You need majority support from the parlament to form a government. This is literally primary school knowledge. Stop being a retard.

File: 3f4g.jpg (75 KB, 1200x500)

75 KB JPG

>>18136337
>You don't need absolute majorities in legislation bodies. They'd never get anything dont if you did.
Nobody help him out, he's almost there.
Just a few more seconds until the realization kicks in

>>18136344
German chaos and intransigence decided events.
France was in a pact with Russia
>>18136350
Plurality gets you position which you use to get further influence. The nazis were just more determined than the communists or the reactionary elements.
>>18136359
Seethe

>>18136367
>Plurality gets you position which you use to get further influence.
The only reason there was a snap election in 1933 was because NSDAP couldn't get enough support to form a government from the 1932 election. Can you get this through your head?
You need majority support from the parlament to form a government. Hitler never achieved this.
So even the nazies "iron will" wasn't enough to win.

The only reason they won in 1933 was because they no longer played by the democratic rules while everyone else did. Policing polling stations and using violence and intimidation to manipulate voters, this is what most banana republics do to "win" elections.

>>18136380
>1933 election rigged by nazis
>Only get 44% of vote.

What kind of election intimidation is this?
Ya done goofed.

>>18136394
Am I supposed to respond to words you didn't actually quote from me but wrote yourself as a quote?

What's with the subversive tactics?

>>18136411
44% is mentioned in the discussion above and you're referring to the election held after Hitler took chancellor.

>>18136313
I'm European. The 44% percent is a symbolic number, just as it was symbolic for Hitler to call for elections in November 1933 with all parties banned to get 100% for NSDAP. 44% percent meant that the majority of the population didn't support Nazis and their policies, which would have been fine in a democracy but Hitler didn't want democracy, he wanted the ultimate mandate from the nation to do whatever he wanted and he didn't get it, so he had to keep the coalition with DVNP to form the government and later arrest KPD deputies just so that they wouldn't kill the Enabling Act

>>18136454
Im also European. Hitler once he got chancellor used every executive power to crush Germany's enemies no matter what any non nazi voting German thought. Since anti nazis have little regard for their nation being either communists or reactionary and had willingly given up their role in looking after German society despite years of power this is fair and simply reflects what all these parties want to do in similar situations. The difference was that because the nazis were radicalised nationalists they had the will to defeat communists and capitalists on th e streets and in the halls of power.

>>18136461
That's not really the topic of the conversation

>>18136461
Imagine projecting this much of your personal opinions into the debate. In any university you would have been immediately kicked out for writing something like this, not because you try to rehabilitate Hitler, but because you clearly are not mature enough to understand the core principles of studying history

>>18136461
Post war (Western-kek) Germany became a true powerhouse because it had nothing to do with nazi retardation
>Hitler wanted this and that
He also wanted to be a painter. He lacked skill for both painting and successfully running a country.

>>18136480
It is the topic. Its the rational for the nazis actions. Which are justified.
>>18136487
coping post
>>18136492
Seething post

>>18136497
melting post

>>18136499
Youve been melting that Hitler used legal means to crush commies since the thread started...

>>18136503
>legal means
kek
Btw, Stalin withdrew his support for German communists. Draw your own conclusions.

>>18136510
>chancellor uses legal powers
>nooooo! Not like that!

Kek

He knew the game was up, this wasn’t St. Petersburg 1917 where bolshies could take power. He was cutting his losses.

>>18136540
ok
>This man never won an election
tho

>>18136601
He won many elections.

>>18136610
You've basically admitted he didn't win the election, your effort was to justify why he took power regardless based oj personal opinions

>>18136736
His candidates won numerous elections. He didn't win overall clear majority but was picked for chancellor, which enabled him to force their way into further power and crush Germany's enemies.

I don't get what your problem is seing as that's legal. Do you think that is wrong? Commies should not be crushed and reaction cut off at the knees?

>>18137382
>He didn't win overall clear majority
Correct, so he never won the election because he never reached majority support from the parlament which is required to form a government according to the democratic process.
And in terms of actual support from the people he recieved 33%, which was actually a loss if support from the previous election.

>but was picked for chancellor
Not by the will of the people. Hindenburg bypassed the democratic process when he named Hitler chancellor, and the cabinet formed ruled entirely outside of the democratic process.

>I don't get what your problem is seing as that's legal
His way to become chancellor was legal but not democratic. The difference is important because most dictatorships like China, every ascension of power is also legalized which they can later say makes their position legitimate due to being in accordance with their states "democratic process", but which actual democratic countries scorn as being a farce.

He was smart enough to know how bullshit electoralism was and still took power without firing a single bullet, prior to gaining power and internally he was ironically the so called ideal socialist every single modern anti Stalinist western Marxist revolutionary dreams of.

>>18137909
>legalized which they can later say makes their position legitimate due to being in accordance with their states "democratic process", but which actual democratic countries scorn as being a farce

What authority do your actual democratic states have over these considerations?

>>18138046
Its not about authority retard.
It's about what is democratic and what isn't.

>>18138149
Yes. According to who? Are the uk and the USA the arbiters here?