soc.history.war.world-war-ii

wrote
> I'm currently studying history - more specifically Germany from
> 1918-39. We are currently looking at hitler's rise to power, and I was
> wondering if there were any turnout percentages from the 1932
> elections in Germany, as we are told that 37% of Germans voted Nazi,
> but that does not reflect turnout figures.

Being at the moment, perhaps a bit too lazy to draft a post
specificly and entirely "on target", I'll post a repost of mine
(believe not all perfect, but from this you can take an
excerpt, go google groups, and see all discussion.):

"I think many are unaware (or chose to forget)
about the role that the German people, as expressed in
their elections, played in bringing Hitler to power.
The voters did play a role.
Hitler was not a political unknown selected by President
Hindenberg to be Chancellor.
Hitler was not a general that suddenly seized power.

I have cut and pasted this from an previous
post on another newsgroup, so it may wander a bit!


The process of democracy, and elections, did play a
major role in his rise to what we consider a dictatorship.


Hitler was certainly recognized as the leader and main
public spokesman for the National Socialist Party
(the Nazi Party). The party, and Hitler, gained
support from numbers and thus 'respect' from other leaders.


Yes, on January 30, 1933 the 85 year old President
Hindenburg did appoint Hitler as Chancellor.
But his authority and power were still limited.


Soon after came the elections of 1933.
Under Hitler's leadership and speeches the
Nazi party got over 17,000,000 votes.
This election elevated the Nazi party to
the largest representation in the Reichstag.
(288 seats, not majority but largest,
Socialists had 118, Communists 81,
Center had 73, + other smaller ones).


>From this 'democratic' base, through
bargains and intimidations, the Nazi party
was able to control, and on March 24, the
Reichstag voted 441 to 94 to give Hitler
complete emergency power for 4 years.


So, after Hitler wrote "Mein Kampf", which
to many of us clearly show many evil views,
and while preaching it's message, Hitler's
party went on to election victories.
These gave Hitler power.


17 million German citizen's votes is a lot of votes.
These citizens have then a tough time saying to me
any thing like, "We didn't know" or "We weren't
responsible." Hitler's stance and views were quite clear.


Thank goodness for all the world, the post war
period led to improvements in education,
economy, trade, world views, and democracy.


And someone responded to above with the fact that
17 million votes was about 44%.


So I clarified, Thank you for your points and information.
We both agree, the Nazi party led by Hitler, who had
written Mein Kaumpf, did draw over 17 million votes.
I note for equivalent reference, in the USA, in the 1932
election, FDR got 22.8 million votes,Herbert Hoover got
15.7 million votes. Again, 17.3 million votes, is a lot.


As I stated, and you agree, this was not a majority,
But it was the largest vote for any party and gave
the biggest representation in the Reichstag.
That was "democratic" (We certainly agree - other
despicable acts, after the election, were done to seize
emergency powers.


You call it "minority", and I accept that it was indeed
not a majority. But nearly 44%, is certainly not a
'small minority'. It is a very substantial plurality.
Not a majority, but certainly not a 'out of touch fringe movement'.
Once a leader is in office, wither they had 99% or 35% of
the popular vote, they make many decisions for the whole country.
In 1940 FDR got about 54% of the vote. War happened.
It affected the entire country. It effects all citizens, those who
voted with the 54%, and also those who voted with the 45%
You can not decline the draft just because your
choice was not elected, and is not in charge.
If you die in the war, you are dead, no matter how you
voted. Claiming "I told you so" does not give a free pass.
That thought process leads to anarchy.
Truman was not elected to POTUS, yet he made
the decision to use the A-bomb. It was done. In his election,
he got under 50% of the popular vote. But he was still elected
and continued to make post-war decisions for the US.


I believe a bit of 'time drift' should be allowed here to explain
how important 44% is. Many world leaders including UK PMs
have gained office with under 50%


In the US election for POTUS, in 1968, Nixon got under 44%
in beating Humphrey and Wallace.
In 1992, Clinton got under 44% in beating GHWBush and Perot.
I would really question if any US citizen used the 'under 44%
argument', to say they were not,and should not be responsible
for the actions of POTUS Nixon or Clinton.


I believe citizens are responsible for, and to, the government
they have. If 44% wins, the rest of the country can not
easily claim 'victimization', or 'it wasn't us.'
If a people allow a power hungry blood thirsty
dictator to control their country, many countrymen,
and other world citizens may die before things get better. "



> I've also been told that my great grandfather never voted for any
> political parties to avoid allegiance to them, was this a common
> occurrance? --- thanks.

In my humble opinion, that is a cheap cop out to try to
avoid responsibility for any results.
Choosing to not vote, just leaves it to others to decide.
Choosing to not vote for anyone connected with a party,
might make sense if (very rare) you have some real serious
non-partisan candidates, that have somehow in some way
demonstrated that although they do not have a "party"
that they still can get others to work with them.
Governing well, requires real team work.