Ka-pi96 said:
SuperNova said:
The NSDAPs percentage of votes rose over three elections in four years from a fringe party of about 2,5% to a mainstream Party of over 30%. This is largely atrributed to people being fed up with the established partys and searching for an alternative as well as voting fatigue. Tactic voting as a sort of wake up call to the established partys was going on as well. While it's true that they had a fair share of genuine supporters (so has Trump), there was a lot of chaos and opportunism going on in between the radicalization.
His spectacular economical success was largely based on printing money and declaring most of the richest people of the state enemies of Germany and dissapropriating their property. Among them, famously many Jews. At the same time he restructured German economy into a war economy wich promised large short term profits because of huge structural investments. This happened as soon as Hitler had the absolute power to do so, as early as 1933. While it is true that there was basically no unemployment, people lived on rations, far from prosperous. Hitler was never a great leader for Germany, he'd had the War planned from the beginning and did everything to achieve that goal.
Germany under Hitler was headed toward a giant inflation that was masked by using various financial tricks and could only be remedied by expanding germanys territory. The War, was by that point becoming a necessity by design. It's not that Hitler had a little slip, went to war and it was a great big oopsie, his whole game plan relied on it.
|
So basically people were fed up with the shitty situation their country was in and voted to change it? I don't really see how that is 'voting ironically'. While the German economy of that time may have been built based on a long term war plan there were calls to shift it's focus. If Hitler had done so after using the military focus to kickstart the economy things may well have turned out very different.
Up to a point he did a good job, but he wanted more and went way too far with it, that's true of both the economy and the war.
|
Maybe it wasn't voting 'ironically' exactly, but the whole premise of: I don't really agree with anything this guy says but lets vote for him anyways to make a statement and just see how it turns out, did happen. You can argue the term I choose to call it, but it's the same thing that happened back then.
Like I outlined in my post, a shift of focus wouldn't have been feasable, because Hitlers whole economical politics relied on massive territorial expansion of Germany in the not too distant future, from the very beginning. He was driving Germany further into bankruptcy and inflation from the moment he got into power. Then he obscured the numbers. That is not good leadership or a job well done. He never went power crazy or went too far with it, because it is clear by looking at his politics that the war was his plan from the very beginning. I'm sorry, but he never did a good job to begin with, and to anyone who has ever brushed with the subject that is painfully clear.
Also, ever since 1933 Germany was a de facto dictatorship. 'calls to shift focus' were answered with gunshots to the head way before the war ever happened, much to the horror of the rest of Europe at the time.