I understand that Hitler wasn't democratically elected at first because we has simply appointed Chancellor by the current President, but was he ever elected democratically after that for multiple terms? Every website says something different, so I figured I'd ask her. If not, what other well-known 'evil' leaders have been democratically elected? I'm doing a presentation, and I'd like to put have a visual of a terrible ruler elected in a democracy.
The Nazi Party was elected to the largest plurality of seats in the Reichstag in the 1932 election. They did not have an absolute majority, but since the other parties were all ideologically opposed to each other and could not possibly form a coalition government, the President of Germany had no choice but to name Hitler the chancellor of the government.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Lincoln, FDR, and Wilson are evil leaders who have been democratically elected as have Obama and Bush.
I don't know if Adolf Hitler was ever democratically elected, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was.
Actually he was elected, and had huge popular support, he could have won any election any time. He achieved big success for Germany: -Reuniting millions of Germans separated under different countries as revenge in Versailles. -Protecting Europe for the Soviet Union of which the europeans were afraid, under Versailles the allowed army was a joke and germany would have been overrun by the soviets. -Offering peace and alliance to Britain to defend Europe against the proven incoming Soviet Assault. -Getting out of the unjust Versailles Treaty without War, he reconquered german lands and ethnic germans with very few bloodshed, none at all in the French occupied german zones, none at all in Austria and relatively few in the East, where Germans had been suffering revenge for decades in allied-protected countries. -When Britain declared war on Germany, he order his navy and air force not to attack or initiate any hostilities and he tried to negotiate peace again and again, saying to his military that he would never fight the British, only Churchill kept the war alive and started shooting the moment he got in power. -He captured Paris and almost all of France intact, he saved millions of lives by taking France fast and negotiating a honorable peace, he didn't even demand the navy because he believed he hadn't earned it, he only ask it to be dismantle or used for their colonies only. -He created the first Autobahns, highways. -He lived a modest life, unlike previous politicians and army. -He tried to find an answer to the jewish question (what to do with a foreign ethnic minority that does not integrate) by proposing them a whole country for them (Madagascar, more than twice the size of Great Britain for fewer people). -After the 24 March of 1933 when Judea declared War on Germany, he detained only a part of them in concentration camps legal under international law, more during the war and with the objective of sending them when possible to their new country when international negotiations secure one for them. Later when French and British made Madagascar impossible or refuse to offer any place, he decided East Europe, in the mean time some of them worked in factories, camps were visited by Red Cross, and photographed by the allies. During Kristalnacht, he personally ordered the police to go to protect the jews immediately. There is absolutely no evidence of him ordering more than their internment in camps and their relocation later to Eastern Europe. During 1942 when the first propaganda of gas chambers appear, British Intelligence recommended not to use it as they know it was false and that supporting that falsehood would be their losing in the propaganda war, as they loose propaganda war in WW1 by statements like the germans made butter out of belgians and cut their hands which was too exaggerated and unproven and make them liars in front of the world community. -He maintained Geneva Conventions during the whole war, breaking them only second, against the soviet which didn't respect them. -He refused to firebomb civilians and make excuses not to attack Britain, believing the clever people would realize the threat and brutality of the Bolsheviks and accept a common front against them in Europe. Many were in favour or peace inside the military, royalty, government, media, but Churchill detained them by suspending common law and becoming dictator (Regulator 18B, about 2000 detained without trial or charges). So answering your question, Churchill and Roosevelt were evil and won elections. -He refused to use the advantage Germany had in industrial/chemical production when his generals suggested it. -He stood for years the clear violation of americans and their the-facto entry into war, he tried to avoid a world war, his objective uniting Germany and protecting it against the bolshevik menace. (Which Britain and US financed and helped to ruin Europe and slave it for half a century). -His worst were his rude internal anti-dissident policies and his optimism that clever British could be able to overtake the Churchill/Banking clique that was bent on war, had it succeed, he would have won a Nobel price for getting out of Versailles avoiding another war and rallying a common front against Bolshevism. I don't see how the circus of voting would mean anything, democracies go to war all the time everywhere and voting doesn't influence any of the big decisions that are already made. I fail to see the reason for that fetishism and naive hope, what cares are rights and quality of life, that what should be analyze in a country, even in such a difficult time as a war one. But if you need to know he got more than one third of the vote and organized several referendums which he won with overwhelming majority. But he was not the 'evil' leader of that time, Churchill and Roosevelt were, that has to be 100% clear.
salvador allende.
http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/for/chile-73.htm
Player: Actually he was elected, and had huge popular support, he could have won any election any time. He achieved big success for Germany: -Reuniting millions of Germans separated under different countries as revenge in Versailles. -Protecting Europe for the Soviet Union of which the europeans were afraid, under Versailles the allowed army was a joke and germany would have been overrun by the soviets. -Offering peace and alliance to Britain to defend Europe against the proven incoming Soviet Assault. -Getting out of the unjust Versailles Treaty without War, he reconquered german lands and ethnic germans with very few bloodshed, none at all in the French occupied german zones, none at all in Austria and relatively few in the East, where Germans had been suffering revenge for decades in allied-protected countries. -When Britain declared war on Germany, he order his navy and air force not to attack or initiate any hostilities and he tried to negotiate peace again and again, saying to his military that he would never fight the British, only Churchill kept the war alive and started shooting the moment he got in power. -He captured Paris and almost all of France intact, he saved millions of lives by taking France fast and negotiating a honorable peace, he didn't even demand the navy because he believed he hadn't earned it, he only ask it to be dismantle or used for their colonies only. -He created the first Autobahns, highways. -He lived a modest life, unlike previous politicians and army. -He tried to find an answer to the jewish question (what to do with a foreign ethnic minority that does not integrate) by proposing them a whole country for them (Madagascar, more than twice the size of Great Britain for fewer people). -After the 24 March of 1933 when Judea declared War on Germany, he detained only a part of them in concentration camps legal under international law, more during the war and with the objective of sending them when possible to their new country when international negotiations secure one for them. Later when French and British made Madagascar impossible or refuse to offer any place, he decided East Europe, in the mean time some of them worked in factories, camps were visited by Red Cross, and photographed by the allies. During Kristalnacht, he personally ordered the police to go to protect the jews immediately. There is absolutely no evidence of him ordering more than their internment in camps and their relocation later to Eastern Europe. During 1942 when the first propaganda of gas chambers appear, British Intelligence recommended not to use it as they know it was false and that supporting that falsehood would be their losing in the propaganda war, as they loose propaganda war in WW1 by statements like the germans made butter out of belgians and cut their hands which was too exaggerated and unproven and make them liars in front of the world community. -He maintained Geneva Conventions during the whole war, breaking them only second, against the soviet which didn't respect them. -He refused to firebomb civilians and make excuses not to attack Britain, believing the clever people would realize the threat and brutality of the Bolsheviks and accept a common front against them in Europe. Many were in favour or peace inside the military, royalty, government, media, but Churchill detained them by suspending common law and becoming dictator (Regulator 18B, about 2000 detained without trial or charges). So answering your question, Churchill and Roosevelt were evil and won elections. -He refused to use the advantage Germany had in industrial/chemical production when his generals suggested it. -He stood for years the clear violation of americans and their the-facto entry into war, he tried to avoid a world war, his objective uniting Germany and protecting it against the bolshevik menace. (Which Britain and US financed and helped to ruin Europe and slave it for half a century). -His worst were his rude internal anti-dissident policies and his optimism that clever British could be able to overtake the Churchill/Banking clique that was bent on war, had it succeed, he would have won a Nobel price for getting out of Versailles avoiding another war and rallying a common front against Bolshevism. I don't see how the circus of voting would mean anything, democracies go to war all the time everywhere and voting doesn't influence any of the big decisions that are already made. I fail to see the reason for that fetishism and naive hope, what cares are rights and quality of life, that what should be analyze in a country, even in such a difficult time as a war one. But if you need to know he got more than one third of the vote and organized several referendums which he won with overwhelming majority. But he was not the 'evil' leader of that time, Churchill and Roosevelt were, that has to be 100% clear.
Nonsense. Read Carthaginian Peace: Or, Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes by Mantoux, E. as regards Versailles; and Unbound Prometheus by Landes, D. and Mises' Planned Chaos for clear understanding of Nazi's economic policies, for starters. As for how nice he and his buddies were to the French and the Jews... is this a joke?
I'm pretty sure he wasn't democratically elected. I know 100% that he was appointed at first. I asked for someone to find me evidence of voting polls or something but I can't.
But he was not the 'evil' leader of that time, Churchill and Roosevelt were, that has to be 100% clear.
Is this post even serious? All of the things you listed are things that could have easily happened in the free market. Just because he didn't abuse the statist power of bombing civilians, that is make us supposed to respect him or something? It's 100% clear that Hitler was evil and Stalin perhaps even more so, and we know that Churchill and Roosevelt weren't innocent by all means either, but to stand up for Hitler is stupid. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Based on a lot of your points, it seems like you're a Holocaust denier. If you have some kind of proof or source for what you're saying, post it.
is it not possible to condemn hitler as an artful demagogue, a racist practising "ethnic cleansing", and a socialist, albeit one who didn't totally crush civil society like the bolsheviks, and also not believe in the holocaust? hitler's economy policies would have ended in ruination even without the war. and it was a police state.
there were no mass rapes, killings or looting when the germans occupied paris. german reprisals against innocents only began in earnest after the alliance with stalin broke down, and the communist resistance commenced attacks on members of the german armed forces. people like sartre, camus and chanel, whose sympathies were distinctly not with the nazis weren't rounded up and shot.
yes, hitler came to hate jews, whom he identified as the cause of germany's woes, along with the allies' imposition of the nuremburg treaty, post world war I. i'm not sure there's any trace of that animosity in the early hitler. my understanding is that as a young man he rather admired jewish racial integrity and wished germans were similarly focused on bloodlines.
chavez might also appear in the rogues' gallery of despotic democrats.
"Just because he didn't abuse the statist power of bombing civilians, that is make us supposed to respect him or something?" Yes. Are you really libertarian? Theory of Just War as opposed to Churchill Total War? Innocent civilians / military separation? Are you aware with those concepts? "It's 100% clear that Hitler" So clear that if you don't agree you end in jail. (During 1993-2003 there were 100.000 Inquisition Political Pre-determined 'trials' where defending yourself or presenting evidence gets you more time in jail) Do you choose only the part of libertarianism that you like so you can still believe the anti-german propaganda you were fed since school? Britain and America were the war-mongers and the genociders, read the Morgenthau Plan, they were going to ethnically annihilate the germans and convert it into farm land. Only the cold war that only the nazis predicted way before forced them to alter their plans. Why do you have to defend nuker Roosevelt? Or civilian-burner Churchill? Can't you have a serious debate on historical facts without patriotism and "my country was right, not yours! We were the good ones!" I'm neither American, British or German, I'm an outsider who looks at the facts and says who started the war (Britain) and what false propaganda they fabricated. So yes, I want a Europe without Inquisition, without with-hunts, with Free Speech and I blame the Jews for putting thousands of political prisoners in jail, whose only crime is having the courage to stand up for the truth and say the emperor is naked, the victors rewrote history and are feeding anti-german war-propaganda at gun-point.
"you're a Holocaust denier"
You are a flat-earth denier! It's "common accepted knowledge" the Earth is flat. You will be burned at the stake.
Medieval Inquisition.
You're a Holocaust denier! It's "common accepted knowledge" the Holocaust happened. You will be jailed for years!
XXI century Inquisition.
'He captured Paris and almost all of France intact, he saved millions of lives by taking France fast and negotiating a honorable peace, he didn't even demand the navy because he believed he hadn't earned it, he only ask it to be dismantle or used for their colonies only.'
How benevolent. He captured a country but at least he did it quickly. The same with Poland. I guess libertarians have an issue with this because it violates basic NAP. It doesn't matter if he captured it quickly or not.
' During 1942 when the first propaganda of gas chambers appear, British Intelligence recommended not to use it as they know it was false and that supporting that falsehood would be their losing in the propaganda war, as they loose propaganda war in WW1 by statements like the germans made butter out of belgians and cut their hands which was too exaggerated and unproven and make them liars in front of the world community.'
So were the gas chambers not actually real? Just wondering.
'He maintained Geneva Conventions during the whole war, breaking them only second, against the soviet which didn't respect them.
-He refused to firebomb civilians and make excuses not to attack Britain, believing the clever people would realize the threat and brutality of the Bolsheviks and accept a common front against them in Europe. Many were in favour or peace inside the military, royalty, government, media, but Churchill detained them by suspending common law and becoming dictator (Regulator 18B, about 2000 detained without trial or charges). So answering your question, Churchill and Roosevelt were evil and won elections.'
It's actually funny that you put these two together because while Hitler didn't firebomb Britain ( like the US did to Japan ), he actually shot V2 rockets into London and tried to bomb the city indiscriminately that is of course unless you can prove that the Nazis were just dropping teddy bears.
'He stood for years the clear violation of americans and their the-facto entry into war, he tried to avoid a world war, his objective uniting Germany and protecting it against the bolshevik menace. (Which Britain and US financed and helped to ruin Europe and slave it for half a century).'
He avoided war by conquering countries? Such an odd strategy. That is like avoiding diabetes by eating donuts. While I am no friend to Bolshevik ideals, it seems rather absurd to protect Germany against Bolshevikism by embracing socialist ideals and conquer foreign countries that could possibly work with Germany or at least act as a buffer between Germany and Bolshevikism.
Are Churchill and Roosevelt bad men? Absolutely but so is Hitler. All 3 were mass murders, Hitler was just more discriminatory about it.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Nope.
'Nope.'
Really? So...was it 'Jewish Propaganda'?
Soviet and Allied propaganda. Air-raid shelters were converted to look like gasing chambers after the war. This is documented fact (see David Cole's video on Auschwitz). Yet, [Holocaust] historians hate to mention the fact of already existent delousing chambers used throughout the war for inmates and people passing through (visiting officials) and guards.
'Soviet and Allied propaganda. Air-raid shelters were converted to look like gasing chambers after the war. This is documented fact (see David Cole's video on Auschwitz). Yet, [Holocaust] historians hate to mention the fact of already existent delousing chambers used throughout the war for inmates and people passing through (visiting officials) and guards.
So individuals who admitted to gassing Jews were..delusional? I understand there are delousing chambers but the delousing agent is so toxic that it can be used to kill humans too.