English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Or, did the Nazis use a frustrated populace as a resource for raising an amry?

2006-12-18 01:49:49 · 16 answers · asked by Overt Operative 6 in Politics & Government Politics

It's odd that some people think this question relates to Bush. This question relates to the group that is trying to dominate the world thru the Islamic faith.

2006-12-18 02:18:28 · update #1

16 answers

yes and no.. the people needed something.. they needed unity ... they needed hope and purpose.. and they needed it bad enough that they were willing to believe and love a mad man.. at the same time Hitler and his party took fool advantage of that need... Yes Hitler was the source of the evil and Hitler bears the largest part of the responsibility.. but that doesn't excuse those that helped him rise to power... though I know I could never judge them.. I can't imagine how it was... many cold and hungry.. and along comes a man that gives you hope and warmth... Hitler also gave them pride as he turned the nation into an industrial powerhouse... it's hard to say what any of us would have done in their shoes.

2006-12-18 02:00:35 · answer #1 · answered by pip 7 · 1 0

I wish this does not come throughout as simplistic to historical past buffs: The Nazi occasion was once one of the events in Germany on the time, the variety of presidency which the allied forces established after WWI induced the an identical of the congress to encompass the identical %'s of the unique events who we voted upon, and the occasion with the finest vote (even though that vote was once beneath 20% of all folks that voted) might be within the government department. Not being conversant in the name of the game ballet a avenue gang was once ready to robust arm the German folks into vote casting for them simply ample to enable them to get than mild margin. Since the German folks weren't used to democracy we installed a again door which allowed the canceller, or some thing Hitler was once referred to as, to claim a state of emergency and take manage of the federal government; and someplace in there he murdered the participants of the congress- or its an identical. After he took vigor, on the grounds that the person was once certifiable, a few think that this shaped a loss of robust important management allowed the regional hate organization to take over, whilst others think that the Nazi occasion was once constantly like that; whilst others think that he was once an empty go well with and that there have been no direct orders, and folks simply acted on his rants. So now not very a lot; it’s a rapid option to gloss over the parties w/o a lot element or primary classes.

2016-09-03 14:49:45 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Hitler was not a Jew.
Contrary to popular belief the Nazis never got a majority in elections. The most they ever had in free elections was 32% of the vote.

A right-wing conspiracy made Hitler Chancellor, and his party was so well organized and prepared that they managed to subvert (what they called "cleanse") the democratic institutions within 2 years.

After that the propaganda of state-monopoly radio made certain that people never heard a view that was not in agreement with the party line, liberal and left-wing newspapers were closed down, cinema was brought in line, and of course in time of war ist is hard to go against your gouvernment, even if you don't run the risk to be kidnapped and murdered, or later to be put in a concentration camp.

There were also the enthusiasts, just like in the US of today, who applauded the "Fuehrer" because he was "making Germany great again".

If you go through the press of the time the parallels to the US now are quite frightening.

2006-12-18 02:04:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

That is a good question. The Nazi party won something like 35% plurality in the 1932 election, riding the platform that Jews were responsibility for all of Germany's political and economic problems. Enough Germans believed it. I'll let you judge accordingly.

2006-12-18 01:57:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Modern societies have proven that your point is true, just as we are responsible for the rise of the Bushes and their NeoCon friends. It is our obligation to be well informed, educated and to participate in our society,or pay the consequences. Those that ran Germany in the 30's & 40's are the same families that are running us now. Preston Bush and his friends funded the Nazis. There are those that believe there is a sucker born every minute, and they are here to take advantage of us suckers for their own grand plans and profits.

2006-12-18 01:58:25 · answer #5 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 2 0

Yes they were responsible and the Nazis did use a frustrated populace..it is a reason why they could do it not something that takes blame away.
The German population turned a blind eye as their leaders did the things they did..they are to blame for not stopping it

Yes they were responsible..they have paid for it.

USA is responsible for the maniac we elected President as well...no matter why we did it..we are responsible for our actions

2006-12-18 01:55:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Look at ANY footage of Nazi Germany! Those people LOVED Hitler! The very few who spoke out against him were BEAT by the people in the crowds.
Hitler brought Germany out of a depression of sorts. He made their country powerful again, and no, the Germans DIDN'T like the Jews!
They were grateful to Hitler,
of course they felt all guilty after they figured out to what extent he was torturing and killing them,
But for most of them, all they cared about was that they LOST!
Hitler had LOTS of people working for him!!!!-Many went to live on very long, happy and productive lives in Germany and abroad.

"I was just following orders" doesn't cut it when the thousands of SS men and women took it upon themselves to rip children away from mothers and then murder all the children and babies.
They suck.

2006-12-18 01:55:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Without the support of the populace he could not have stayed in power.
P.S.
And yes it is the same with Castro. He came to power in a revolution supported by the population. And he is still supported in his own country.

2006-12-18 01:54:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

leef- there's only one problem with your little theory about the comparison to our system and the events of the past. Bush is only in office for another 2 years, so unless you think he's gonna get elected again, which he can't he's served 2 terms, there's gonna be someone else to blaim everything on.

2006-12-18 02:13:30 · answer #9 · answered by jasonzbtzl 4 · 0 0

Of course they were responsible. An organization like that can't come to power without popular support.

2006-12-18 01:52:26 · answer #10 · answered by ? 5 · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers