[lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:44:10 -0700
Ah, so that is what you intended. Well there was a substantial Fuhrer
Movement or Cult supporting Hitler. In some Cities Hitler garnered 48-49%
of the vote. The Fuhrer movement gained with Hitler's success. Others who
didn't vote for Hitler still appreciated the idea that Germany needed a
great leader. After all Hindenberg was considered a great leader by many.
As Hitler moved on like the Pied Piper, those who wanted to follow a great
leader followed him. Their numbers and enthusiasm were enormous.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Judith Evans
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 10:15 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
LH>Hitler was not precisely elected.
I said "though he came to power by constitutional means he was not
voted in by a majority of the German people"
(in response to your
>They wanted a great leader to save their country
>from the people who "betrayed it."
LH>Hindenberg was re-elected in 1932, but Hitler received the next l
LH>largest number of votes. Hitler got 11.3 million votes
LH>to Hindenberg's 18.6 million votes. After Hindinberg died in
LH> 1934, Hitler succeeded him.
I was thinking of the votes for the NSDAP in the 1930 election,
when it became the second largest single party in Germany. But I agree,
Hitler came second in the Presidential Election of 1932. The important
next step is his appointment as Chancelor in 1933. But -- to return to
my major point -- even in the 1933 election, which should I suppose
be called "free" despite Nazi campaigning tactics, the NSDAP
did not gain a majority of the vote and so had to enter a coalition.
Hitler proceeded to abolish all opposition (that's not quite right, but
will do).
But if we agree that Hitler never obtained a majority of the German
vote then (sorry to be repetitive) any explanation of the form
"The Germans wanted a strong leader (i.e. Hitler) and hence Nazism
came to power" is simply wrong.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 5:55 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
Hitler was not precisely elected. Hindenberg was re-elected in 1932, but
Hitler received the next largest number of votes. Hitler got 11.3 million
votes to Hindenberg's 18.6 million votes. After Hindinberg died in 1934,
Hitler succeeded him. After the Reichstadt Fire Hitler was allowed to pass
the Enabling act that gave him dictatorial power.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Judith Evans
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 9:00 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
Just one more point
LH>Germany didn't feel they had lost WWI and they didn't'
LH> appreciate a government imposed upon them. They wanted
LH> a great leader to save their country from the people who "betrayed it."
1. though Hitler came to power by constitutional means he was
not voted in by a majority of the German people (did he even gain
a plurality of the vote? it's a while since I looked at this).
2. Reasons for voting for the NSDAP varied; see Heberle and
"Who Voted For Nazism" and -- and, the literature on this topic.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 4:10 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
Cough, couch, cough, "a beginning?" What are you talking about? Of course
there has been a beginning, a process, war after war among competing
systems, varieties of systems until in 1990 there remained only two
competing major systems; then in 1991 there was only one, Liberal Democracy.
It isn't a matter of taking it seriously, that is a simple fact. You can't
dispute it.
You mentioned China, but China following the lead of Hong Kong is
instituting many of the elements of Liberal Democracy. Can they retain some
control over the government and still reap the benefits of a free economy?
They are trying. They have had to give up one of the basic elements of a
Communist system, i.e., a state-run economy; so they don't meet the criteria
of Communism any longer. Few consider China the threat they were during the
Cold War.
I don't understand what you are saying about Brazil. They are a developing
liberal democracy. Remember, Liberal Democracies don't war with Liberal
Democracies.
As to Germany, Democracy was forced upon them after WWI and they resented
it. Even so, it might have caught on had it not been for the depression.
Germany didn't feel they had lost WWI and they didn't' appreciate a
government imposed upon them. They wanted a great leader to save their
country from the people who "betrayed it." They had major unresolved issues
after WWI that took WWII to resolve. Germany never met the criteria of a
liberal democracy until after WWII. No one thinks that they did, by the
way. There is no one saying that Weimer Germany means there was one
exception to the dictum that Liberal Democracies don't war with Liberal
Democracies. [I suppose I shouldn't be quite so absolute. There seem to be
people who will say the most absurd and impossible things; so there may be
people saying this as well.]
In the "Last Man" portion of The End of History and the Last Man, Fukuyama
does consider the possibility that there may in the future "End of History"
period arise an individual so charismatic and so imbued with unrelenting
thymos that he will, merely to avoid the boredom of Nietzsche's "Last Man,"
engage in some unique action that will start history all over again, but
Fukuyama seems not to have continued to pursue that possibility after
finishing his book.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 7:39 AM
To: lit-ideas
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
I guess if there's an end of history there has to be a beginning. History
is only in the last 15 some years. That explains a lot of things but it
also begs the question of how anyone can take this stuff seriously.
Of course there are challengers. What about China with it's evolving
Confucian Capitalistic Communism? They're predicted to be the superpower by
the year 2030. What about Brazil, even though Brazil's liberal democracy is
second or third after Iraq for hell on earth (my ranking on my personal Hell
on Earth Scale). China is evolving. We don't know how China is going to
shake out. Also, I have personally lived through so many predictions that
never panned out that predicting the end of history through an ascendency of
liberal democracy is down there with leisure suits and hot pants, a
political fashion, meaningless.
Also, Hitler arose out of the Weimar Republic, a democracy. He rose through
the system. There was no coup. He was elected and the country then went
fascist. I also said with the exception of Japan, WWII was fought in and
among liberal democracies. Germany's being a liberal democracy didn't stop
it from becoming fascist.
_____
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.4/424 - Release Date: 21/08/2006
_____
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.4/424 - Release Date: 21/08/2006
Other related posts:
