Former first lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the wreckage from another Trump presidency would be āalmost unimaginableā and likened the former president who beat her in the 2016 eleā¦
Yes, there was support in the population, but there was also a lot of violence to suppress dissent. The historical consensus, as I learned it, is to call it the āseizure of powerā (āMachtergreifungā in German), because Hitler wasnāt simply voted into power by a majority.
This somewhat misleading, Hitler and the NSDAP were indeed voted into the position to seize power by democratic means which they then abused, the voter supression mainly happened in later elections when the undermining of institutions and the consitution was already well underway. āMachtergreifungā is the propaganda term the Nazis used themselves to describe the process of what happened after the fact, which in reality was much more cloak and dagger-y than the term suggests.
P.S.: Germany didnāt have a two-party system, so having a majority wasnāt that important. You would form coalitions of parties after an election which then had a majority, or even form a minority government that then has to actively hunt for their missing votes from other parties to get any legislation passed.
That is not correct. Neither according to Wikipedia, not to what I learned in school. The term āMachtergreifungā was avoided by the Nazis, they used āMachtĆ¼bernahmeā as to not alienate their moderate conservative supporters. But āMachtergreifungā is much more fitting, when applying it to the process that was started in January 1933.
And yes, Hitler convinced Hindenburg to appoint him as the head of a coalition government, as the NSDAP had lost votes and came in āonlyā at around 33%. The normal rules of how to govern in a multi-party system donāt quite apply, because it was never Hitlerās goal to rule as part of a coalition, having to compromise.
They used both terms as well as āMachtĆ¼bergabeā (transfer of power) to refer to Hitler being appointed chancelor, but that was neither the beginning nor the end of the multi-step coup the Nazis enacted, which is what I wanted to highlight. The term makes it seem like a singular event, when in reality it was a longer process.
Yes, there was support in the population, but there was also a lot of violence to suppress dissent. The historical consensus, as I learned it, is to call it the āseizure of powerā (āMachtergreifungā in German), because Hitler wasnāt simply voted into power by a majority.
This somewhat misleading, Hitler and the NSDAP were indeed voted into the position to seize power by democratic means which they then abused, the voter supression mainly happened in later elections when the undermining of institutions and the consitution was already well underway. āMachtergreifungā is the propaganda term the Nazis used themselves to describe the process of what happened after the fact, which in reality was much more cloak and dagger-y than the term suggests.
P.S.: Germany didnāt have a two-party system, so having a majority wasnāt that important. You would form coalitions of parties after an election which then had a majority, or even form a minority government that then has to actively hunt for their missing votes from other parties to get any legislation passed.
That is not correct. Neither according to Wikipedia, not to what I learned in school. The term āMachtergreifungā was avoided by the Nazis, they used āMachtĆ¼bernahmeā as to not alienate their moderate conservative supporters. But āMachtergreifungā is much more fitting, when applying it to the process that was started in January 1933.
And yes, Hitler convinced Hindenburg to appoint him as the head of a coalition government, as the NSDAP had lost votes and came in āonlyā at around 33%. The normal rules of how to govern in a multi-party system donāt quite apply, because it was never Hitlerās goal to rule as part of a coalition, having to compromise.
They used both terms as well as āMachtĆ¼bergabeā (transfer of power) to refer to Hitler being appointed chancelor, but that was neither the beginning nor the end of the multi-step coup the Nazis enacted, which is what I wanted to highlight. The term makes it seem like a singular event, when in reality it was a longer process.