You fail History 101 (congrats on your Godwin's Law achievement, too).
Hitler transitioned into a dictatorship. He also didn't exactly achieve power through democratic means, he coaxed the President into giving him power, then staged a false flag attack to attain the sum of all powers for indeterminate time. Find one mainstream history book which calls Nazi rule a democracy.
Really, this is getting silly: it's ok to overthrow dictatorships, it's not ok to overthrow democracies you don't like as long as they remain democratic. You have to wait your turn.
Hitler had a dictatorship, there was nothing democratic about his rule.
Hitler came to power on top of a democratic system, too (IIRC, by leveraging political alliances and grassroots violence in the pre-1933 parliamentary system). He surely improved the quality of life for the Nazi base in the mid-30s after he took power.
Didn't stop him from dismantling democratic institutions, eliminating all political rivals, invading his neighbors, and murdering millions of people.
Hitler wasn't democratically elected. The Reich Chancellor was appointed by the President. It just so happened that then president Paul von Hindenburg was convinced by people on his staff to form a coalition government with the NSDAP, which had around 40% of the popular vote.
Point is that, although people often point to the Nazis as some failure of democracy, they didn't sweep into power by a landslide election (Hitler ran for president against Hindenburg and lost). They were strong, but nowhere that strong. It took a lot of political maneuvering and dirty tactics until they finally seized power by exploiting the Reichstag Fire [0] in order to pass two decrees [1][2] which essentially made Hitler a dictator.
Furthermore, although Nazis were anti-intellectuals, I don't think that was the key to this whole process.
Hitler was democratically elected in the 1933 election with 43.9% of the vote (higher than the other 5 candidates). It doesn't matter if only 1/3 of the population supports a candidate; if your elections are first-past-the-post, then whoever wins the most votes wins the election. That's how democracy works. The US elections work much the same way now, with George W Bush winning the 2000 election with less than 50% of the vote (and if you believe Gore should have won, he again won less than 50% of the popular vote).
The simple fact is that Hitler did win the 1933 elections in a democratic system. And unlike sham elections like Saddam's where he won 99.9% of the vote, this isn't so obviously rigged.
Not disputing that. It's just important to know the historical context and not give the wrong impression when saying "he was democratically elected". He was, in the sense that in representative democracy a vote for a party often in fact is a vote for a particular politician. But he was not in the sense of a direct, personal democratic election.
It's also important to be aware that Hitler, at the point he became chancellor, had already served a prison sentence for high treason for trying to abolish parliamentary republic in the Munich putsch. Those were highly unusual and tumultuous times, after all.
Hitler wasn't elected, in fact the Weimar Republic was mostly incapable of forming a working government during the time it existed. Like many before him Hitler was assigned his position in the hope that his failure to uphold his promises would also cripple his support in the population. His biggest grab for power was underlined by armed SA troops in the Reichstag, a lot of imprisoned or outright missing politicians and Göring fudging the attendance count to meet the minimum requirements for a legitimate vote.
Actually his final rise to power came through back room shenanigans with Hindenburg when the popular support of the national socialist party was way below 50% of the voters.
Democracy ? mob rule.
reply