Changes

You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a  very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a  very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:*''where did I use Nazi rhetoric? ''

:*''where did I use Nazi rhetoric? ''

::*In the Nazi view, the [[Treaty of Versailles]] was Jewish conspiracy that destroyed the monarchy, dismembered Germany, and estagblished a Constitutional Republic.  This "Jewish Consonsiracy", in the Nazi's view, dictated ''who'' the administrative powers in Germany would be, and what German domestic armament policy, and foreign policy would be.  The Nazi's viewed themselves as "siezing power" from this Jewish-Illumanati International bankers conspiracy when Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933.  However, the Nazi's were not strong enough to win the Chancellorship and Parliamentary elections, so it was done in a coalition with other parties, some democratic.

::*In the Nazi view, the [[Treaty of Versailles]] was Jewish conspiracy that destroyed the monarchy, dismembered Germany, and established a Constitutional Republic.  This "Jewish Consonsiracy", in the Nazi's view, dictated ''who'' the administrative powers in Germany would be, and what German domestic armament policy, and foreign policy would be.  The Nazi's viewed themselves as "siezing power" from this Jewish-Illumanati International bankers conspiracy when Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933.  However, the Nazi's were not strong enough to win the Chancellorship and Parliamentary elections, so it was done in a coalition with other parties, some democratic.

:::In the Nazi view, there was a second "seizure of power" after the Nazi's "seized power" from the International "conspiracy" that "dictated" who would govern Germany; power was siezed away from the Nazi's coalition partners when the parliamentary rule was ended.

:::In the Nazi view, there was a second "seizure of power" after the Nazi's "seized power" from the International "conspiracy" that "dictated" who would govern Germany; power was siezed away from the Nazi's coalition partners when parliamentary rule was ended.

:::When the Nuremberg Tribunal met, Prosecutors brought forward some of the Nazi's own rhetoric, how they had "seized power" in violation of both International conventions under Versailles, and the Wiemar Constitution.  Charges of "conspiracy" were leveled, that all involved had violated International conventions under Versailles, and the Wiemar Constitution in the Nazi's assent to power in 1933.  The Judges, including Soviet Judges, soon realized, that to render this verdict would be to rubber stamp the validity of Nazi propaganda.  That to adjudicate the Nazi regime as illigitmate from day one would be to validate the Nazi claim that foreigners and International agreements such as Versailles were indeed the controlling instruments that stripped Germany of its soveriegnty.

:::When the Nuremberg Tribunal met, Prosecutors brought forward some of the Nazi's own rhetoric, how they had "seized power" in violation of both International conventions under Versailles, and the Wiemar Constitution.  Charges of "conspiracy" were leveled, that all involved had violated International conventions under Versailles, and the Wiemar Constitution in the Nazi's assent to power in 1933.  The Judges, including Soviet Judges, soon realized, that to render this verdict would be to rubber stamp the validity of Nazi propaganda.  That to adjudicate the Nazi regime as illigitmate from day one would be to validate the Nazi claim that foreigners and International agreements such as Versailles were indeed the controlling instruments that stripped Germany of its soveriegnty.

:*''why should we care what Wikipedia says.''

:*''why should we care what Wikipedia says.''

::*A few years ago I commented in Wikipedia on the large volume of material being brought over from the German Wiki that persistenly referred to the "Nazi siezuere of power."  The Nazi's in fact did not sieze power in January 1933, they came to power under provisions of the legitimate Wiemar Constitution.  The Nazi's ''did'' sieze power from their democratic coalition partners when the ended parliamentary rule.

::*A few years ago I commented in Wikipedia on the large volume of material being brought over from the German Wiki that persistently referred to the "Nazi siezuere of power."  The Nazi's in fact did not sieze power in January 1933, they came to power under provisions of the legitimate Wiemar Constitution.  The Nazi's ''did'' sieze power from their democratic coalition partners when the ended parliamentary rule.

:::Contemporary Germans have maintained the that they, too, were victims; that the Nazi's came to power illigimately, when in fact they were supported at the ballot box by many Germans.  They were victimized later, when parliamentary rule ended, and the Nazi's "siezed power" from thier coalition partners ''after'' January 1933.

:::Contemporary Germans have maintained the that they, too, were victims; that the Nazis came to power illigimately, when in fact they were supported at the ballot box by many Germans.  They were victimized later, when parliamentary rule ended, and the Nazi's "siezed power" from thier coalition partners ''after'' January 1933.

:::The bottomline, while maintaining the fiction that the Nazi's "siezed power" in January 1933 is comforting to absolve complicity among democratic forces that were coalition partners, it really is nothing more than the Nazi POV.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::The bottomline, while maintaining the fiction that the Nazi's "siezed power" in January 1933 is comforting to absolve complicity among democratic forces that were coalition partners, it really is nothing more than the Nazi POV.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 27 August 2007 (EDT)