• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    31 year ago

    Hitler lost, and was later appointed to Chancellor unilaterally. So idk wtf she’s talking about.

      • @Jonna
        link
        3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, it’s worth noting that it was lesser evil voting in a sense that got Hitler appointed. The Social Democrats blocked with the Conservative Hindenburg, who won. Hindenburg then appointed Hitler Chancellor.

        One wonders what would have happened if the Social Democrats had blocked with the Communists in a left slate, or at least gotten concessions from the Conservatives.

        Edit to add link to 1932 election. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_German_presidential_election

        • phillaholic
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          I’d need to have much more of a background in that era of Germany to start speculating like that. We might as well talk about Hitler being accepted into Art School or whatever that butterfly effect idea was.

          • @Jonna
            link
            21 year ago

            Choosing to support the right wing guy, Hindenburg, that didn’t really believe in democracy who in less than 2 years later appoints the guy who ends democracy is not a big stretch of cause and effect.

            • phillaholic
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              I’m saying I am not familiar enough with the party structure and how collations needed to be formed to be comfortable to speculate. You may be right, you may be wrong. I don’t know. You’re not the first person I’ve seen say it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        No, it’s not. Being appointed and being elected are fundamentally different. One implies a Democratic process, the other does not.

        • phillaholic
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          His party was democratically elected to gain enough power to get appointed. That’s the point.