"Ze Germans" didn't rise up in anger. It was a particular subset of Germans called the Nazis. They were never a majority in Germany or Austria. But like their modern day brethren in Ukraine, they hold greatly outsized power compared to their numbers, for the very simple reason is that they were/are willing to commit violence to get what they want.
"Ze Germans" didn't rise up in anger. It was a particular subset of Germans called the Nazis. They were never a majority in Germany or Austria. But like their modern day brethren in Ukraine, they hold greatly outsized power compared to their numbers, for the very simple reason is that they were/are willing to commit violence to get what they want.
Are you saying that the 99% of votes for the Nazi Party in 1938 wasn't legitimately a measure of how Germans felt about the Nazi's?
The funny thing about "support", is that the numbers never really tell the truth. Even in the U.S., where an elected president often gets around 50% of the vote, at least 1/3 of people don't vote - most of which because they don't believe in any candidate. And, of course, of the votes that are counted, there's no way to know when it's fudged. That's true everywhere, and we should keep that in mind when hearing that a certain candidate or party is popular. We should ask ourselves "how many people voted?", "what were the choices, really?", "how many people felt pressured or were literally forced to vote a certain way?", "how do we know that the vote count is even remotely legitimate?"
I think the answers, examined rationally, would lead most people to realize that "popular support" is a theory, at best, and often quite plainly a fiction.
Yup, that is exactly what I'm saying. The "collective guilt" thing only goes so far.
I won't repeat what you wrote and only add to it. People also tend to forget how slowly information traveled, and how ephemeral it was back then. Any news that was not "world shaking" that was not printed in a newspaper was mostly lost immediately. If not, it was just anecdotal and easy to refute. No video journalism at all, let alone on cellphones. It is much easier to lie and manipulate when you can't be called out with video evidence.
I saw this play out perfectly in the 2016 election. Hillary was campaigning like it was 1992 when Bill won the first time. She would tell one story at a campaign stop, and then say something completely different two days later in another town. But in that second town she was shocked that some uppity college student with her phone was in Hillary's face confronting Hillary with her own words promising the opposite two days prior. Hillary did what Hillary always does and got super aggressive. That was also caught on camera.
That happened numerous times that I saw, and I wasn't spending loads of time searching for things like that. It had a cumulative effect. It certainly didn't lose Hillary the election on its own, but it definitely was a factor in proving that she is a serial liar with a super thin skin and mean streak a mile wide.
I can imagine that 2023 technology was available in 1923, the elections between 1923 and 33 would have gone very differently. Of course, the counter to that argument is what has been happening in Ukraine from 2013 to 2023. The huge differences there is that Germany was a major power for centuries in 1920, even after losing WWI. Ukraine is not. There was not global hegemon pulling the strings and controlling media like the US does in 2023.
OK, I'm rambling when I should be working. I wonder if some uni student has written a dissertation on this subject. That'd be interesting to read.
"Ze Germans" didn't rise up in anger. It was a particular subset of Germans called the Nazis. They were never a majority in Germany or Austria. But like their modern day brethren in Ukraine, they hold greatly outsized power compared to their numbers, for the very simple reason is that they were/are willing to commit violence to get what they want.
Are you saying that the 99% of votes for the Nazi Party in 1938 wasn't legitimately a measure of how Germans felt about the Nazi's?
The funny thing about "support", is that the numbers never really tell the truth. Even in the U.S., where an elected president often gets around 50% of the vote, at least 1/3 of people don't vote - most of which because they don't believe in any candidate. And, of course, of the votes that are counted, there's no way to know when it's fudged. That's true everywhere, and we should keep that in mind when hearing that a certain candidate or party is popular. We should ask ourselves "how many people voted?", "what were the choices, really?", "how many people felt pressured or were literally forced to vote a certain way?", "how do we know that the vote count is even remotely legitimate?"
I think the answers, examined rationally, would lead most people to realize that "popular support" is a theory, at best, and often quite plainly a fiction.
Yup, that is exactly what I'm saying. The "collective guilt" thing only goes so far.
I won't repeat what you wrote and only add to it. People also tend to forget how slowly information traveled, and how ephemeral it was back then. Any news that was not "world shaking" that was not printed in a newspaper was mostly lost immediately. If not, it was just anecdotal and easy to refute. No video journalism at all, let alone on cellphones. It is much easier to lie and manipulate when you can't be called out with video evidence.
I saw this play out perfectly in the 2016 election. Hillary was campaigning like it was 1992 when Bill won the first time. She would tell one story at a campaign stop, and then say something completely different two days later in another town. But in that second town she was shocked that some uppity college student with her phone was in Hillary's face confronting Hillary with her own words promising the opposite two days prior. Hillary did what Hillary always does and got super aggressive. That was also caught on camera.
That happened numerous times that I saw, and I wasn't spending loads of time searching for things like that. It had a cumulative effect. It certainly didn't lose Hillary the election on its own, but it definitely was a factor in proving that she is a serial liar with a super thin skin and mean streak a mile wide.
I can imagine that 2023 technology was available in 1923, the elections between 1923 and 33 would have gone very differently. Of course, the counter to that argument is what has been happening in Ukraine from 2013 to 2023. The huge differences there is that Germany was a major power for centuries in 1920, even after losing WWI. Ukraine is not. There was not global hegemon pulling the strings and controlling media like the US does in 2023.
OK, I'm rambling when I should be working. I wonder if some uni student has written a dissertation on this subject. That'd be interesting to read.