[The E]

You fail history. Forever.

In the elections on 6th of November, 1932, the NSDAP became the strongest party in the Reichstag, with 33.1 percent of the votes. Chancellor von Papen resigns. Lieutenant General von Schleicher takes the post, and tries (unsuccessfully) to break up the NSDAP.
On January 15, 1933, the Landtagswahl in Lippe is won by the NSDAP with a clear majority. This increases the pressure on the Schleicher Government.
On January 28, 1933,  Chancellor Schleicher resigns, because President Hindenburg refuses to accept his plans for a minority government.
On January 30, 1933, Hindenburg asks Hitler to form a new Government.

All of this was perfectly legal. Hitler was in a position to form a new Government because his party was the majority leader in the Reichstag. They were elected. Simple as that.

If you have proof otherwise, please show it to me. Please note that anything AFTER January 30th doesn't really count as democratic anymore. After they had the power, they used it to ensure that they wouldn't lose it again, but that doesn't change the fact that they WERE elected legally.

[McCall]

*points to the exit polls of EU Parliament votes*

We've pretty much finished getting the local election results, and the current UK government has been pretty much wiped out, even in strongholds like the places I grew up in. The map's gone pretty much all blue in England now:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/local_council/09/map/html/map.stm

The Euro results start coming out over the weekend, so it'll be pretty interesting to see how that compares with other European countries who have also gone to the polls.

It'll be a slightly odd situation if there is a high euro-sceptic return, as we'll have a bunch of people who are supposedly opposed to expanding European integration and influence sitting in the European Parliament... not quite sure how that's meant to work out. 

[Mikes]

You fail history. Forever.

In the elections on 6th of November, 1932, the NSDAP became the strongest party in the Reichstag, with 33.1 percent of the votes. Chancellor von Papen resigns. Lieutenant General von Schleicher takes the post, and tries (unsuccessfully) to break up the NSDAP.
On January 15, 1933, the Landtagswahl in Lippe is won by the NSDAP with a clear majority. This increases the pressure on the Schleicher Government.
On January 28, 1933,  Chancellor Schleicher resigns, because President Hindenburg refuses to accept his plans for a minority government.
On January 30, 1933, Hindenburg asks Hitler to form a new Government.

All of this was perfectly legal. Hitler was in a position to form a new Government because his party was the majority leader in the Reichstag. They were elected. Simple as that.

If you have proof otherwise, please show it to me. Please note that anything AFTER January 30th doesn't really count as democratic anymore. After they had the power, they used it to ensure that they wouldn't lose it again, but that doesn't change the fact that they WERE elected legally.

Quite obviously, you can't and couldn't "form government" with a party holding merely 33% of the votes. They never had sufficient votes nationwide
And forming government together with another party would never have given them the free reign they needed to turn the country into a policestate.
More importantly, they did NOT have a willing coalition of parties assembled that would have been able to form government.

And again, Hitler himself was never "elected" by the public, he was "appointed" by Hindenburg, at a time that he could otherwise have not assumed power and only because Hindenburg saw himself under pressure from all sides and unable to solve the problems of the troubled republic. (which the instigatiors of the NSDAP party in the streets were certainly at least partly responsible for, see how that worked ?)

What came afterwards, was a strategic dismantling of the republic and its democracy including said terror campaign on the streets which also served as justification to pass "emergency laws" so they could ultimately assume power that the democratic system would never, could never, have granted to them .

Clear enough ?

[Uchuujinsan]

You fail history. Forever.

I would be a little careful with such comments.

On January 30, 1933, Hindenburg asks Hitler to form a new Government.

At that moment, Hitler did NOT have a majority in the parliament!
His party had the most seats, but no absolute majority, and no coalition which would allow such a majority.

Then he changed a lot of laws via "Notstandsverordnung" (sth like "emergency law") from 4.2.1933 to 5.3.1933, then was a reelection and only then he got an absolute majority (with a coalition).
While there was significant support for him (note that in the election before he got into power his party dropped(!) from 37% to 33%), saying he was "elected democratically" is just wrong.

[The E]

Quite obviously, you can't and couldn't "form government" with a party holding merely 33% of the votes. They never had sufficient votes nationwide
And forming government together with another party would never have given them the free reign they needed to turn the country into a policestate.

And again, Hitler himself was never "elected" by the public, he was "appointed" by Hindenburg.

What came afterwards, was a strategic dismantling of the republic and its democracy including a terror campaign on the streets, threaths and extortion, so they could ultimately assume power that the democratic system would never, could never, have granted to them .

Clear enough ?

Put that way, I would have to agree. Please forgive any slurs on your understanding of history.

[Kosh]

Quite obviously, you can't and couldn't "form government" with a party holding merely 33% of the votes. They never had sufficient votes nationwide

They were by far the largest party in 1932, and considering that all the other strong parties were practically communists Hindenburg didn't really have a choice.

[Uchuujinsan]

Of course he did, he didn't even have to appoint a member of ANY party as chancellor, what also happened before.
There also was the "Zentrum" - center party, which certainly wasn't communist.
The reason Hitler was appointed was because it was planned to control the NSDAP and the radicals that way. They held the believe Hitler would be controllable in that post when surrounded by moderates. They obviously were wrong.

[Mobius]

*points to the exit polls of EU Parliament votes*

We've pretty much finished getting the local election results, and the current UK government has been pretty much wiped out, even in strongholds like the places I grew up in. The map's gone pretty much all blue in England now:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/local_council/09/map/html/map.stm

The Euro results start coming out over the weekend, so it'll be pretty interesting to see how that compares with other European countries who have also gone to the polls.

It'll be a slightly odd situation if there is a high euro-sceptic return, as we'll have a bunch of people who are supposedly opposed to expanding European integration and influence sitting in the European Parliament... not quite sure how that's meant to work out. 

I voted about two hours ago. I hope I made the right decision, I chose two noticeable people (a man and a woman) with a comforting curriculum.

Sadly, I'm afraid the leading government would send a lot of bad individuals to the EU Parliament... I hope they won't make Italy look like a country of idiots.

[vyper]

I like trading with Europe. I like seeing cooperation on things like border controls (so long as that cooperation is sensible). I like going on holiday to Europe, especially the Spanish and Greek islands. I like some French and Austrian wines, and I really like Italian cars (not just Maserati or Ferrari, but Fiat). But I consider myself to be a British subject, not an EU citizen. I do not like the way the EU is run, or the way legislation can be written and enacted into law even if not ratified by our elected MEPs. These ideas and opinions are not incompatible with each other.

We can be friends, trading partners and allies without creating a superstate that will undermine not only democracy in member states, but also the civil liberties of the individuals residing in those states.

[Mikes]

We can be friends, trading partners and allies without creating a superstate that will undermine not only democracy in member states, but also the civil liberties of the individuals residing in those states.

It's ironically the very same conundrum that the United States faced since its formation and you will find a lot of similar sentiments when you look at history - or even present day.
The handling of Federal interests vs. State interests is a conflict that could almost be said to define what the United States of America actually are.

The problem with the ongoing economic globalisation however is that nations and national politics are becoming less and less significant.
Without the formation of credible political bodies as a counterweight, "decomacry" will become meaningless over time, as it won't be citizens or voters of any local nation who decide who shall be in power and make decisions,
but rather transnational concentrations of financial power that can easily apply pressure on any single nations policies.

[Scotty]

United nations!

[vyper]

We can be friends, trading partners and allies without creating a superstate that will undermine not only democracy in member states, but also the civil liberties of the individuals residing in those states.

It's ironically the very same conundrum that the United States faced since its formation and you will find a lot of similar sentiments when you look at history - or even present day.
The handling of Federal interests vs. State interests is a conflict that could almost be said to define what the United States of America actually are.

Except as has already been pointed out the individual states of the USA are not countries with individual histories stretching back hundreds, sometimes thousands of years.

[Mobius]

China is playing a dirty game. That country is full of internal differences, but the main government is trying to replace them with "the" Chinese culture.

I hope the EU will not do the same. I'm always ready to become a terrorist if that crappy language that English is will be supposed to take over Neolatin languages. 

 

[colecampbell666]

Would you say that Deutsche is a crappy language as well?

[Ziame]

Mobius - in the other thread you criticized people that they shouldn't be too harsh when critizing/comenting other people's work. And now you just insulted many millions of people just because you think that English is crappy. Watch your words please, that was very inapriopriate (sp?)

[colecampbell666]

So the Pirate Party won a seat.

[Mikes]

China is playing a dirty game. That country is full of internal differences, but the main government is trying to replace them with "the" Chinese culture.

I hope the EU will not do the same. I'm always ready to become a terrorist if that crappy language that English is will be supposed to take over Neolatin languages.  

 

English already has become the new "lingua franca" of the scientific discourse and de facto also of "the world" to a large extent.

Why that is so has to do with a lot things, but mostly because it is a) very very very easy to learn in comparison to either German, Chinese or Japanese and b) because it is already incredibly widespread.


Don't try to make this into some kind of convoluted politcal argument when it is really mostly about linguistics. There isn't anyone "forcing" anyone to speak a certain language, not in Europe and not in the US (which coincidentially has large Spanish speaking communities instead of just English speakers).

The EU won't force you to learn a language (LOL)... but just maybe... finding a common language in a multinational environment which includes German, French, Spanish, Greek, Polish et cetera... isn't that bad of an idea huh ? English fits that bill for above mentioned reasons. It's serving a function: Allowing people from different nations to easily communicate, and it is economical because it is one of the easiest to learn languages. It is a question of linguistics and pragmatism more than it could ever be of politics lol.

Und übrigens: Das ist die Meinung eines deutschen Muttersprachlers
(For the nongermans, just saying that i'm actually a german native speaker myself lol.)

It's a global world... and we need to communicate and for that we need to speak the same language. Common sense dictates that people will gravitate towards an easy to learn language that is already widespread and not to a language only spoken by comparably few people mostly situated in a single nation... that is frigging hard to learn to boot lol.

[colecampbell666]

It's especially easy to learn coming from German-root languages as they all share common roots.

[Mikes]

It's especially easy to learn coming from German-root languages as they all share common roots.

German on the other hand... is not easy to learn and as such i am actually quite glad that german is my native and english my 2nd language.


P.S. The ordeal that learners who are confronted with German go through has been illustrated in a very funny/satirical way by Mark Twain: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/twain.german.html

[Kosh]

German vocabulary is farily easy, but the grammar is hard. I don't believe that one language is overall more or less difficult than another, just that some points about it might be more or less difficult.