Quote:
Originally Posted by TSGracchus
Hitler's title of "Fuhrer" was NOT military. His only military title was "corporal" (or whatever the German equivalent is -- somethinggruppenfuhrer, I think), which is the rank he earned in World War I. His standing in German society came entirely from German civilian politics, not the military.
|
Hitler made all military decisons. PERIOD. He wore his military jacket. He was the final say in military decisions. His title of Furher was self-applied. IT was quasi civilian and quasi military.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSGracchus
No, here we disagree. No government EVER rules its own people solely by force. A conquered other people, yes, sometimes, but its own, never. It's not possible. Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence only got it half right. Governments derive their powers, just or unjust, from the consent of the governed, or at least of enough of the governed to constitute a working consensus.
What happens when a government, even a nondemocratic, autocratic police state, loses the consent of the governed? See the Soviet Union in 1991 for an example.
|
Did they ever have the consent of the governed? Are you arguing that it is impossible for a government to rule solely by force? Or that just never happens? I think you are giving an enlightenment theorist a tad too much of the benefit of the doubt. I consider the whole consent of the governed thing to be a bit of an idealistic theory. Did the peasants of Ukraine who were systematically starved by the SU give Stalin their consent? How do we know the fall of the SU was not simply a failure by a government who never had the consent of its people to continue imposing its will through force?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSGracchus
The German people supported Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Their party was voted into a plurality in the Reichstag and put a working coalition together with a couple of other small parties, which is standard procedure in parliamentary democracies when no party has an outright majority. Hitler became Chancellor according to the terms of the constitution, and then assumed dictatorial powers again according to the terms of the constitution after the Reichstag fire.
|
correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSGracchus
Although there were no more elections after that, the indications that Hitler continued to have strong public support were there, until the Germans began to lose the war.
|
So are the one's who never supported Hitler responsible for his actions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSGracchus
Yes, the German people of the time were to blame for putting Hitler in power. He could not have done it alone.
|
Way too simplistic. Hitler was not voted Furher. He was not voted Chancellor. He was appointed chancellor by democratically elected leaders, yes, but those democratically elected leaders did not will him to be Furher, and intened to use him as a pawn. Happenstance, propaganda, and timing won him the title of Furher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSGracchus
You have to qualify the blame when it comes to the Holocaust, which was carried out in secret, but less-drastic antisemitic measures did have public support. (I'm thinking the Holocaust would not have, or it wouldn't have been secret; Hitler was no political dunce.)
|
All of the public? Or just segments? This is the weakness of your argument. You are failing to explain how those who never supported Hitler period fit into this analysis and argument.