AHC: Hayek adopted by the Left

Wolfpaw

Banned
Britain was undemocratic then during the early days of Douglas-Home's ministry. Good to know;)
I don't know why you brought Britain up: I never said that Weimar Germany wasn't democratic, I said that its last HoG achieved office through non-democratic means.

While both Hitler and Douglas-Home's accessions to office were legal, neither was democratic, though in D-H's case he immediately sought to rectify this.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Now you're splitting hairs. I rest my case.
How am I splitting hairs? Can you seriously not distinguish between what is legal and what is democratic? All you're doing is trying to ignore your previous statement, which was:
Germany remains the only country where a fascist government came to power as a result of balloting.
Which is just patently false.
 
Last edited:
How am I splitting hairs? Can you seriously not distinguish between what is legal and what is democratic? All you're doing is trying to ignore your previous statement, which was:Which is just patently false.

It's not false though. The Nazis won a large enough share of votes cast to have their leader considered for government formation. That is democratic.
 
It's not false though. The Nazis won a large enough share of votes cast to have their leader considered for government formation. That is democratic.

And was von Schleicher's appointment democratic when he had no electoral constituency at all within the country? Or von Papen's? Hitler's appointment was due to short-term intrigue between members of Hindenburg's circle, not due to any conclusion that can be drawn from Weimar democracy.
 
And was von Schleicher's appointment democratic when he had no electoral constituency at all within the country? Or von Papen's? Hitler's appointment was due to short-term intrigue between members of Hindenburg's circle, not due to any conclusion that can be drawn from Weimar democracy.

The highlighted statement is only true if the statement "the Weimar REpublic was not a democracy" is also true. Hindenburg was within his rights as President of the German Reich to apoint a non-MP to the chancellery.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Hitler's appointment was due to short-term intrigue between members of Hindenburg's circle, not due to any conclusion that can be drawn from Weimar democracy.
This exactly. Hitler was invited in due to Papen and Schleicher's rivalry and the Hindenburg clique's enmity towards liberals and the Left, not out of any concern or regard for the democratic process.
 
No it's not. Hitler was only a plausible choice due to the electoral performance of his party.

The NSDAP gained a plurality in the Reichstag in September 1930 and it didn't affect government then. Hitler was appointed in January 1933 and the NSDAP's electoral performance declined in November 1932 after the success of July 1932. Electoral performance was irrelevant at this point, the country was increasingly being ruled through Article 48.

Hindenburg only chose Hitler because his two closest allies von Scheicher and von Papen had been discredited and were working against each other. Hitler's appointment as Chancellor was a result of von Papen's plan to secure power for himself by controlling and discrediting Hitler in office. Of course with the Reichstag Fire, things worked out differently...
 
The NSDAP gained a plurality in the Reichstag in September 1930 and it didn't affect government then. Hitler was appointed in January 1933 and the NSDAP's electoral performance declined in November 1932 after the success of July 1932. Electoral performance was irrelevant at this point, the country was increasingly being ruled through Article 48.
That would be like saying that a party leader whose seats are reduced following an election cannot become Prime Minister when reality suggests that the opposite can be and has at times been true.
Hindenburg only chose Hitler because his two closest allies von Scheicher and von Papen had been discredited and were working against each other. Hitler's appointment as Chancellor was a result of von Papen's plan to secure power for himself by controlling and discrediting Hitler in office. Of course with the Reichstag Fire, things worked out differently...
This in no means dimimishes the fact that Hitler is the only fascist who came to power as a result of balloting. Had the NSDAP been a nonentity in the Reichstag, then a Hitler chancellery would have bee implausible, and Schleicher or Papen may have had a popular mandate to be appointed chancellor instead.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
No it's not. Hitler was only a plausible choice due to the electoral performance of his party.
More falsehoods. Hitler was saved by Papen. By November of 1932 the Nazis' vote had shrunk (of note is the fact that the nationalist DNVP's vote actually grew), Strasser and other party bigwigs were exhausted by Hitler's all-or-nothing strategy and were openly flirting with Schleicher's government, and the Party treasury was almost empty.

Papen hated Schleicher for taking his place, so he secretly arranged a deal whereby Hitler would be chancellor and Papen would deputy chancellor--a position from which Papen expected to run things. Hindenburg, meanwhile, was convinced by his son and other courtiers that Schleicher was planning to depose him and install a military dictatorship. Papen then proceeded to convince Hindenburg that no other conservative option remained (which was a lie). So, Hindenburg appointed a Hitler-Papen government.

Democratic my ass.
 
Last edited:
Just noting the debate on this thread for awhile now has had literally nothing to do with the OP...

I'd love to discuss the merits of the OP, but given the whitewashing going on in this thread, such a possibility seems difficult at best:(

More falsehoods. Hitler was saved by Papen. By November of 1932 the Nazis' vote had shrunk (of note is the fact that the nationalist DNVP's vote actually grew), Strasser and other party bigwigs were exhausted by Hitler's all-or-nothing strategy and were openly flirting with Schleicher's government, and the Party treasury was almost empty.

THat sounds like the typical manouvering inherent in many multiparty systems. I guess none of them are democracies either.
Papen hated Schleicher for taking his place, so he secretly arranged a deal whereby Hitler would be chancellor and Papen would deputy chancellor--a position from which Papen expected to run things. Hindenburg, meanwhile, was convinced by his son and other courtiers that Schleicher was planning to depose him and install a military dictatorship. Papen then proceeded to convince Hindenburg that no other conservative option remained (which was a lie). So, Hindenburg appointed a Hitler-Papen government.
Intrigue is all too rife in modern democracy
Democratic my ass.
If Democracy=always good and never bad, then yes, otherwise, grow up.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
That sounds like the typical manouvering inherent in many multiparty systems. I guess none of them are democracies either.
:confused: I never said anything like this. I was pointing out that you are wrong in saying that Hitler got to power through the ballot.

Intrigue is all too rife in modern democracy
I don't believe that anybody said anything to the contrary. What purpose did this statement serve?

If Democracy=always good and never bad, then yes, otherwise, grow up.
I never said that democracy was always good, but thank you for such a charming reply.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I'd love to discuss the merits of the OP, but given the whitewashing going on in this thread, such a possibility seems difficult at best:(
What whitewashing? Or do you just play the victim and dismiss people's arguments when you can't refute them?
 
:confused: I never said anything like this. I was pointing out that you are wrong in saying that Hitler got to power through the ballot.
I've repeatedly established why you're wrong. Now you're going in circles.
I don't believe that anybody said anything to the contrary. What purpose did this statement serve?
You have insinuated the contrary repeatedly, unless of course you're admitting that you've been wrong to suggest what you have to this point.
I never said that democracy was always good, but thank you for such a charming reply.
Could have fooled me. All you have argued as evidence against my contention is that a backroom deal was made. In arguing that this was not democratic, I pointed ou that for you to be correct, you would have to redefine democracy to be without its uglier aspects.
What whitewashing? Or do you just play the victim and dismiss people's arguments when you can't refute them?
Actually, I've refuted your points repeatedly, and all you've done is ignored parliamentary practices, made excuses, and redefined terms to fit your worldview.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I've repeatedly established why you're wrong.
Where? Was it the part where you were unable to differentiate between "legal" and "democratic"?
You have insinuated the contrary repeatedly, unless of course you're admitting that you've been wrong to suggest what you have to this point.
Where did I do that?

All you have argued as evidence against my contention is that a backroom deal was made.
...During a constitutional and civil crisis in a state where democratic institutions hadn't played a role in governance for three years and legislation was being enacted through what can only be described as executive ukase.

More than that, it was a backroom deal in wherein only a single participant (Hindenburg) had been given power through democratic process. All of the other conspirators were appointees. Papen actually got to office through both non-democratic and illegal means.

All you've done is ignore the situation on the ground and continually shown an inability to distinguish between what is legal and what is democratic. Balloting was a factor in why the Nazis were let into government, but it wasn't why they came to power; that was due to intrigue between a half-dozen insiders.
In arguing that this was not democratic, I pointed ou that for you to be correct, you would have to redefine democracy to be without its uglier aspects.
What interpretation of democracy condones the head of government not being an elected official?
 
Last edited:
If you're not bothering to read your own posts at this point, then their's no reason for me to continue this discussion. Also, coming to power "as a result of" balloting does not mean that one has the clear mandate to lead, but that one is a plausible choice to lead based on party electoral performance. Now you're being deliberately obtuse.
 
Top