Freedom of press.

[Dill]

(03-07-2017, 08:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In your example the Jewish person was responding to violence with violence. 

The utter lack of faith you have in your own argument is displayed by your failure to address salient points.  I'll reiterate, again.  Hitler was not appointed Chancellor by the people, his party was in decline.  He was foisted upon the German people by the machinations of von Schleicher, von Papen and the acquiescence of a weak Hindenburg.  His ideology was losing, his arguments were being defeated, the counter arguments were working.  He was backdoored into the office by a bitter von Papen.  Kindly stop wasting my time with endless regurgitation that ignores salient points.

Here is one of your "salient points": "his party was in decline." And here is me addressing it. The Nazi party got the majority of the popular vote in March of 33, increasing its representation in the Reichstag, the last free election under Weimar.  Now that is at least the second time I have done that. If you just repeat again that "his party was in decline" without explaining why the NSDAP's vote total increased from November of '32 to March of '33, the last election, then you are the who is "failing to address salient points." 

In my example, a Jewish person would not be a thug if he responded to Nazi words with violence, after counter arguments did not work and Nazi arguments defined him as a non-citizen. Such a person would not have only himself to blame if Nazi arguments led to winning a plurality in the Reichstag. 

Or are you saying that Nazi words themselves were violence--the arguments they made in newspapers and on the radio, and which brought them into political power? Do you refuse to grant that winning a majority in the Reichstag is winning political power?

A simple yes or no question--are you saying a Jew would be a "thug" if he responded to Nazi words with violence, after counter arguments did not work, etc.?  Don't try and spin this as if violence were all Jews had to respond to. It was words, not violence, which gave the Nazis their plurality.

No one was appointed chancellor by "the people" in Weimar Germany.  One of the president's functions was to choose the chancellor, customarily the leader of the party with the largest number of seats--which Hitler was. And a party gets the largest number of seats democratically, by persuading the largest number of people to vote for it, which the Nazis did.

You appear to think that if Hitler were not directly elected by a popular majority, then my argument that Nazi's won their plurality by persuading more people to vote for them than other parties did, is vitiated.  That's why you keep claiming that Schleicher and Papen "backdoored" Hitler's Chancellorship. That's why you think this a "salient point."

But Schleicher and von Papen did not just pluck Hitler from off the streets. If Nazis don't win a plurality--and keep winning it across three elections, Hitler has no power and legitimate claim to the Chancellorship.  For Hitler to be in position to be appointed Chancellor, his party had to win more votes than any other. And they had to win more votes than any other by persuading people to vote for them--by arguments.  Once he had the plurality, Nazis then had to persuade other parties to support them--parties which had the free choice to support or not--and they eventually did.

If you can show that the NSDAP did not have to persuade voters to get its plurality--the plurality which was the legal basis of Hitler's appointment--then you do have a "salient point." But until then, you do not. And claiming Nazi ideology was declining in appeal wouldn't help you, even if true. They persuaded when they needed to.

Your other "salient point," that the elections were marked by violence, is also no point at all unless you can show how incidental violence prevented people from hearing the arguments of the SPD or Zentrum or other parties. Vague references to generalized violence do not secure your point.