How Hitler Rose to Power

Wonderful analysis of Germany of the 1920's and Hitler's rise to power in the 1930's. I was thinking of writing something similar myself.

I saw the parallels to modern American politics, but I am glad you did not specifically mention any one of the candidates because as I saw there you were some pro-Trumpers trying to dismiss this connection; whereas, I don't think the message is exclusive to Donald Trump.

Germany was recovering during the late 20's. Hitler would rise to power and use propaganda to support the idea that the NAZI's were the sole reason of the recovery.

One addition I would like to add is that Hitler's rise to power was something of a strange mistake:

The trial of Adolf Hitler for high treason after the Beer Hall Putsch was not the end of Hitler's political career as many had expected. In many ways marked the true beginning.

Overnight, Hitler became a nationally and internationally known figure due to massive press coverage. The judges in this sensational trial were chosen by a Nazi sympathizer in the Bavarian government. They allowed Hitler to use the courtroom as a propaganda platform from which he could speak at any length on his own behalf, interrupt others at any time and even cross-examine witnesses.

Rather than deny the charges, Hitler admitted wanting to overthrow the government and outlined his reasons, portraying himself as a German patriot and the democratic government itself, its founders and leaders, as the real criminals.

"I alone bear the responsibility. But I am not a criminal because of that. If today I stand here as a revolutionary, it is as a revolutionary against the revolution. There is no such thing as high treason against the traitors of 1918."

Link

Finally, Trump is scary but it would be much more difficult for him to assume power here in America as easily as Hitler did in the weak Republican Government of Germany in the 1910's and 1920's. Hitler really just had the congress pass two laws that made him the full executor of the law.

Also have you read any of the time Magazine articles on him from when he was on the cover or man of the year. Once in 33 and again in 38.

Thanks again for the great and informative history!

originally posted by: mobiusmale
The early posters are either not getting...or preferring to ignore...your obvious attempt to draw a parallel between the rise of the Nazis and Hitler, and the current political climate in the United States.

The Republicans are not the Nazi Party, Trump is not Hitler, and Radical Islam is not Judaism.

Nice try though...

It is a comparison, the O.P. is showing how the circumstances between the two events are similar. It doesn't mean that Republicans are really Nazis or that Trump is really Hitler or that Radical Islam is really Judaism. That would be silly.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Yea, that's something that cannot be denied, but it shows that Hitler's rhetoric that got him elected didn't align with his goals and desires. It shows that he was willing to say what ever crap came to mind that would resonate with the most people. Once he was in charge, what were they going to say to make him follow through on words?

But isn't that true of all politicians. lol

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nice thread, but your commentary and implications are, while intentionally vague, missing the mark and being used only for a small current election cycle.

The reality of the situation is that this cycle can be related and equated to nearly every politician running for the presidency. To equate it to only one individual in one election cycle is a pretty half-hearted attempt to demonize someone.

A flag for the actual history part of it, though.

originally posted by: darkbake
It is a comparison, the O.P. is showing how the circumstances between the two events are similar. It doesn't mean that Republicans are really Nazis or that Trump is really Hitler or that Radical Islam is really Judaism. That would be silly.

But with comparisons come implications.

This cycle and rhetoric could be attributed to any candidate during any election, as they all pander without substance. This would have been a great comparison for Obama in 2008, too. Sadly, I fell for it back then.

I'm smarter, now.

Again, the usual bilge is vomited onto the internet.

There was a bit more to Hitler and his rise to power. I see what has not been mentioned:

1. The strength of the Reds in Germany at that time
2. The onerous burden of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles
a. Germany was separated from critical sources of raw materials
b. Her citizens were separated from the Fatherland in several areas
c. Socio-economic conditions as a result of A and B

Hitler promised and delivered, unlike other politicians of the time or in history.

While his legacy is difficult to defend, his goal was to ignite the national spirit to rebuild the nation and unite all the German volk. It was a dream many had had before him.

With that I leave you with one word – usury. Educate yourself. We are screwed as a planet because of this practice. In the US alone we have a national debt of 20 trillion, and that's just the government.

Read about the Federal Reserve - how it was established and what for and, by God, keep paying 20% interest on your $20,000 credit card debt.

And while you're at it – smile, sucker.

originally posted by: itsallmaya

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Yea, that's something that cannot be denied, but it shows that Hitler's rhetoric that got him elected didn't align with his goals and desires. It shows that he was willing to say what ever crap came to mind that would resonate with the most people. Once he was in charge, what were they going to say to make him follow through on words?

But isn't that true of all politicians. lol

True, but for the most part, politicians, despite our complaining about them DO honor campaign promises for the most part. Heck Obama's track record as far as promises he kept is sitting at 45%.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

No, see there are some CLEAR similarities between this particular candidate and Hitler. Other candidates may have some similarities here or there, but often fall short of the whole package (this includes other GOP candidates by the way), but THIS guy is taking things to the next level. His rhetoric and approach are close to mirror images of Hitler's rise to power.

Though like you said, there are similarities to many different politicians. I just don't see them as thoroughly as I do. In fact, he is the reason I wrote this thread. I normally HATE comparing future political candidates with Hitler.

a reply to: 123143

I don't think you read the thread very carefully. I touched on just about all of those things. Maybe not the communist part as extensively as I could have, but it's all there.

a reply to: hubrisinxs

Naturally, and here is where you must be careful when you take cues from the past to get a feel for the present, at no point in the past will things align 100% with how they are aligning in the present. Hitler WAS dealing with a different political climate and a MUCH weaker central government. He also had some SUPER luck on his side in several key instances that propelled him to notoriety.

But here's the thing, we still must analyze these parallels, so that we don't let ourselves be tricked by the same mistakes. As all it took was luck to make Hitler into a madman, any of today's politicians could come across the same luck and be propelled into the circumstances similar to Hitler. You never know. That is why it is IMPERATIVE to vet the candidate you are voting for and not just vote for him because he says stuff you agree with.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So what's your point?

This is a very interesting thread, S&F.
My favourite author on the subject, himself a survivor from Auschwitz, Primo Levy is well worth reading. If you get the chance, I would recommend 'If Not Now, When?' and 'If This Is a Man'.

He offers some words which I think are pertinent to your excellent thread.

The world in which we Westerners live today has grave faults and dangers, but when compared to the countries and times in which democracy is smothered it has a tremendous advantage: everyone can know everything about everything.
Information today is the “fourth estate.” In an authoritarian state it is not like this. There is only one Truth, proclaimed from above. The newspapers are all alike; they all repeat the same one truth. Propaganda is substituted for information. It is clear that under these conditions it becomes possible (though not always easy: it is never quite easy to do deep violence to human nature) to erase quite large chunks of reality.

New Republic

I know that his circumstances don't mirror exactly the circumstances of Hitler, but when so many things align so nicely like this it is VERY worrying. So think about the things you are saying, the words you are speaking, the rhetoric you believe, you MAY be being duped.

What you say here becomes of critical importance, because we are allowed to speak our minds and to write to each other from different continents. We have to keep doing this and share news, opinions and stories in order to preserve the 'fourth estate'. Should that be eroded, then there becomes a reason to worry.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The problem with the parallels you are trying to draw don't take into account some key differences. First, we have what amounts to a two party system in the states which doesn't allow for the vote to get split or require cooperation with third party. Secondly, we don't have a party that mirrors the Nazis in this country.


Now if you wanted to argue that the current administration is incompetent and people are desperate for change I would agree, but that is where the parallels end.

I actually know this story well as my grandparents on both sides are German immigrants and spoke often on this subject. They were always very opposed to a third party gaining power in the United States as they believed this is what ultimately led to Hitler's rise to power.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Maybe.

But to be fair, it's all rhetoric across the board. It's what each individual does (or tries to do) while in power that is the reality. I'm no soothsayer, so I'll just ride along and see what happens.

So basically you are emphasizing how Hitler blamed Jews for something they did not do. They were not a real threat.

On the other hand, Muslim terrorists are blamed for the terrorism they have committed countless times and continue to commit almost every single day. They are a very real threat.

What is your point exactly?

a reply to: Metallicus

There is a reason I put this at the end of the thread:

I know that his circumstances don't mirror exactly the circumstances of Hitler, but when so many things align so nicely like this it is VERY worrying. So think about the things you are saying, the words you are speaking, the rhetoric you believe, you MAY be being duped.

I really don't think that Trump's rhetoric in this day and age is going to work out with him becoming the next Hitler because of the reasons you state, HOWEVER his rhetoric and tactics are identical to Hitler's, so if given the opportunity, he very well could do these things. Or not. It's hard to predict what a lying narcissist will do or won't do once he has tricked everyone to vote for him.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
So basically you are emphasizing how Hitler blamed Jews for something they did not do. They were not a real threat.

On the other hand, Muslim terrorists are blamed for the terrorism they have committed countless times and continue to commit almost every single day. They are a very real threat.

What is your point exactly?

Looking at this post, I doubt I'd be very successful in explaining it to you since you literally just accused all Muslims of being terrorists.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Maybe.

But to be fair, it's all rhetoric across the board. It's what each individual does (or tries to do) while in power that is the reality. I'm no soothsayer, so I'll just ride along and see what happens.

Why should we wait until he is in power to start judging his actions? If we've seen these tactics used in the past, we can do the math to see the inevitable conclusion if allowed to foster.