Ayn Rand on World War II

[JMeganSnow]

This is because, in the Weimar Republic, they didn't vote directly for Chancellor. The Chancellor was supposed to be a representative from the party with the most seats in their legislative body after an election.

The guy who appointed the Chancellor was approx. equivalent to the Senate Majority Leader here, and he IS directly elected because he had to be a member of the Legislative body.

So, when the National Socialists won the most seats, Hitler should have been Chancellor. There was something along the lines of a general election referendum on his appointment like, six months later (towards the end there they were holding elections like three times a year) and Hitler remained in power, shortly thereafter he eliminated elections. I know the . . . President? (I don't remember his title) resigned shortly thereafter.

There may be a few inconsistencies here, this is all from memory, but saying "Hitler was Freely Elected" is the literal truth.

[Strangelove]

The National Socialists won the most seats but did not win an actual majority in the Reichstag.

[JMeganSnow]

Well, yeah, considering that there were, like, eight parties at that point? Isn't that why Hitler didn't automatically assume control?

[jrs]

New elections saw the National Socialists emerge as the second largest party and with parliamentary co-operation withering, Brüning governed almost exclusively by decree. Influenced by his friends, Hindenburg forced excessive expenditure on the army and navy at the expense of more urgent considerations. Brüning's deflationist policies aggravated the economic difficulties and unrest mounted, fuelled by the Nazis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figu..._paul_von.shtml

On January 30, 1933, Papen again put together a cabinet, this time with Hitler as chancellor. Papen and other conservatives thought they could tame Hitler by tying him down with the responsibilities of government and transferring to themselves his tremendous popularity with a large portion of the electorate. But they proved no match for his ruthlessness and his genius at knowing how--and when--to seize power. Within two months, Hitler had dictatorial control over Germany.

http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/hi...ise_of_nazi.htm

Hindenburg remained in office until his death on August 2, 1934 at his home in Neudeck, East Prussia, exactly two months short of his eighty-seventh birthday. On January 30, 1933 he had appointed Hitler to become Chancellor of Germany.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Paul-von-Hindenburg

So, when the National Socialists won the most seats, Hitler should have been Chancellor. There was something along the lines of a general election referendum on his appointment like, six months later (towards the end there they were holding elections like three times a year) and Hitler remained in power, shortly thereafter he eliminated elections. I know the . . . President? (I don't remember his title) resigned shortly thereafter.

There may be a few inconsistencies here, this is all from memory, but saying "Hitler was Freely Elected" is the literal truth.

1. The Nazis never had the most votes until after their dictatorship was established.

2. Germany under the Weimar constitution had a parliamentary form of government. As usual in that form, the cabinet was formed as a coalition of parties.

3. President Hindenburg died in office. He did NOT resign. When Hindenburg died, Hitler as chancellor assumed his powers.

[Rob Bradley]

If a democratically elected, representative government positions Hitler (making him chancellor) to become prime minister then he did come into power via democratic processes. All parlementary democracies are vunerable to this. If a 40% party can create a coalition by aggreeing to things that there own constituents do not support but a 15% party wants, they will do it. Those opposed to the policies may very well amount to a majority. However, to say he was not elected almost denies the legitimacy all parlamentary actions.

The big lie is the whitewashing of the Europeans historical role embracing all that National Socialism represents. I have always believed that Europe's opposition to the presence of Mien Kamph springs from the fact that it advocates all of the socialist philosphy that has become doctrine to the European moral values. They need to whitewash their current politics and having that particular historic piece advocating one's political views might be embarrassing. Replace the Jew's with capitalists, corporations or businessmen and you have the secular european's bible.

Of course, nowadays, you do not even have to make the replacement. European policies toward Isreal amount to one thing: outsourcing the Final Solution to their Islamic friends in the middle east.

The only difference between Socialists and National Socialists is the state of the economy.

[Captain Nate]

If a democratically elected, representative government positions Hitler (making him chancellor) to become prime minister then he did come into power via democratic processes.  All parlementary democracies are vunerable to this.  If a 40% party can create a coalition by aggreeing to things that there own constituents do not support but a 15% party wants, they will do it.  Those opposed to the policies may very well amount to a majority.  However, to say he was not elected almost denies the legitimacy all parlamentary actions.

But as soon as he achieved the position of power (perhaps 90% through legitimate means, not counting the thuggery he used to get support), he dismantled the Constitutional and democratic structure of the state. In that regard, he became a dictator.

But you're right about the system's vulnerability to abuse. It's one of the reasons I dislike Parliamentary systems, especially ones so easily amended and altered.

Edited August 15, 2005 by Captain Nate

[Rob Bradley]

Aye, Captain, he did dismantle the democratic process once in power. (Although I find the distinction between his dismantling and a system where the party in power throws an election when ever the poll numbers are good to be a bit thin.)

But I see in 20th centrury history that democracies have a disturbingly consistent track record of doing the very same thing. Academia would have us believe that Hitler is an exception when really, he was quite typical of how the "people" will make demands of their government that only be delivered by draconian action. This embrace of utilitarianism by the people is why Hitlers spring from democracies like Jacks in Boxes. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" chapter on why the worst ones always get into power shows very clearly the path from the people in democracies demanding bread and circuses to electing a totalitarian nightmare. One follows the other like night follows day.

Rand, from what I have read, recognized the false dicotomy of a left/right distinction that resolved merely two extremes of collectivism. The only thing Hitler was ever "to the right of" was communism. For the most part, he was a garden variety socialist who allied himself with other socialists to fight the common enemy, capitalism.

Depressingly, I believe that Tocville was right when he proclaimed that democracy could only be a temporary form of government that will collapse as soon as the people realize that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasure. (He was, of course, sugarcoating the truth which is "realize they can cannibalize their neighbors via the vote".) It was FDR that show the US people how the tap the veins of the nations most productive and valuable people. I am still proud of the US resistance to this inclination, but its progress down that slope is clear.

All democracies are not just vunerable to this conversion to totalitarian state; they appear to be inclined to do it and constitutions seem incapable of preventing it. It took the Great Depression to spawn the monstrosity of Nazism out of an industrialized, seemingly rational nation that was Germany. In regions where the economy is in the toilet and the people are barely literate, the conversion will be instantaneous.

When we let the people of the hook for these atrocities, these treasons against freedom and individual, that came directly from the philosophies they support, we miss the point. Further, we sanction it.

Hitler was playing to the crowd and Miem Kaumph was his love letter to the German people. The Holocaust was the circus that the German people were demanding. The stars and tatoos were for the entertainment, amusement and catharsis of the German (and much of Europe) people was just the first act.

The politics of Europe today is evidence that the soul of National Socialism is alive and well and merely operating under another names in benevolent conditions.

[JMeganSnow]

All democracies are not just vunerable to this conversion to totalitarian state; they appear to be inclined to do it and constitutions seem incapable of preventing it.  It took the Great Depression to spawn the monstrosity of Nazism out of an industrialized, seemingly rational nation that was Germany. 

A democracy IS a totalitarian state, if by democracy you mean unlimited majority rule. The U.S. was not originally envisioned by the Founders as a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. The term "democracy" as it is used today is an execrable package-deal equating liberty and unlimited majority rule, two completely incompatible concepts.

The Constitution is the ONLY thing that has successfully prevented statism long-term in the history of the world; sadly it's confusions and contradictions have brought it low. It can, however, be corrected.

I wouldn't call the Great Depression the major factor in encouraging the spread of National Socialism in Germany. It was A factor, but a relatively minor one. Of much greater impact was Germany's lengthy history of racism, religious persecution, and rabid irrationalism, all of which stem from philosophy, specifically the ethics of altruism. If you haven't already read it, Leonard Peikoff's Ominous Parallels is an excellent look at the state of the Weimar Republic just before the collapse.

[Inspector]

Leonard Peikoff's Ominous Parallels is an excellent look at the state of the Weimar Republic just before the collapse.

I object to that recommendation: it is not merely excellent, it is completely essential! The cause of Nazism is correctly identified by that book and, to my knowledge, ONLY that book.

Edited August 17, 2005 by Inspector

[erik]

This is an interesting debate. Things would far different if the USA had not entered WWII. That is about all I can say. There are too many variables involved to do anything other than create works of fiction.