Hearts of Iron IV - 34th Development Diary - 20th of November 2015

[Adonnus]

For the fourth time in this thread, the two elections in the Weimar Republic in 1932 are considered fair and free by historians. NSDAP were not responsible for women suffrage, but Hitler generally got more electoral support from women than men so one can hardly say they considered it a huge problem. Quite frankly, they seem to have had less problems with it than the political elite in the freedom fighting country of France, which in no election prior to the war allowed woman suffrage.

And in 1933? IIRC by that time Hitler was Chancellor (by March elections) and SA ruffians outside polling places were common, as well as special powers being held by key cronies of Hitler, Goering as Minister of the Interior for Prussia and Wilhelm Frick as a security chief for example using these powers to help the Nazis.

That's right, they would have abolished voting altogether, given they had won the election in the first place.

Really a voting system with strong state intimidation was better for propaganda purposes since it allowed them to claim legitimacy from a popular vote.

I can give you some book recommendations.

Please do.

Yes, this is typically called winning. If you too, wanna call it something else when people you don't like win, be my guest.

Merkel formed a coalition which resulted in government, Hitler in 1932 didn't. So I'm not sure what your point is.

The problem was that all of the discussion has revolved around when the Weimar Republic still existed. So it's a bit confusing when you enter the debate and say that Hitler won elections in the Weimar Republic because they were held in a totalitarian state,

Never said this?

 

[Had a mom]

And in 1933? IIRC by that time Hitler was Chancellor (by March elections) and SA ruffians outside polling places were common, as well as special powers being held by key cronies of Hitler, Goering as Minister of the Interior for Prussia and Wilhelm Frick as a security chief for example using these powers to help the Nazis.

The 1933 election was not free and fair, at least not as much as the 1932 ones. Was it less free and fair than the elections of "the lifeboat of democracy", or in "the arsenal of democracy " though? That's debatable. Would anyone else have won if the 1933 election was as free and fair as the elections won by Hitler in 1932, most likely not.

Really a voting system with strong state intimidation was better for propaganda purposes since it allowed them to claim legitimacy from a popular vote.

You got it. that's how it's always been and always will be, also in the so-called liberal democracies. Why do you think liberal democracies no longer allow the existence of far right parties, or deny the people the right to vote over actually important matters, such as mass immigration?

That said, the Weimar Republic didn't have a voting system with strong state intimidation.

Please do.

Will send you a PM within 24 hours.

Merkel formed a coalition which resulted in government, Hitler in 1932 didn't. So I'm not sure what your point is.

My point was that Märkel was defined as the winner despite only gaining some 41,5% of the vote, not the majority that is. The party with the most votes, wins the election. Hitler got the most votes three times in a row, he won.

Never said this?

I thought your point was all along that Hitler won his elections because of totalitarianism...

 

[loup99]

So yeah, the NSDAP would most likely win a free election in 1936, at which point Hitler's popularity was at an all time high after the creation 6 million new jobs.

Are you serious? Hitler had to massively kill communists and socialists to get power and launch street-fights to even be able to do so. Without his machinery and plots to burn the Reichstag, he would had failed. He was far from winning any elections, only totalitarian measures saved him from being crushed by the communist party of Germany, which was more ideologically coherent, had more skilled leaders and actually were close to reality. You are glorifying what in reality was a disastrous situation for him politically, and to say the least incredibly unpopular. The only thing that kept Nazism alive was that it was anti-. It was an ideology of hatred, and being against things, not in favour. That saved Hitler and co from utter failure.

 

[Had a mom]

Are you serious? Hitler had to massively kill communists and socialists to get power and launch street-fights to even be able to do so.

Are serious? The communists were engaged in massive violence and brutality against NSDAP members, and still they were unable to halt their popularity. As I'm sure you know, the 100 000 strong Roter Frontkämpferbund and similar organizations did not stand by the whole time. In fact, communist leaders such as Ernst Thälmann even advocated the violent overthrow of Hitler's democratically elected government in 1932.

Without his machinery and plots to burn the Reichstag, he would had failed.

The Reichtag was burned down by a Dutch-Jewish communists. Typically, communists deny this and instead still cling to conspiracy theories.

He was far from winning any elections, only totalitarian measures saved him from being crushed by the communist party of Germany, which was more ideologically coherent, had more skilled leaders and actually were close to reality.

For the fifth time in this thread, the two elections of 1932 in the Weimar Republic, that Hitler won, are considered free and fair by historians. Also, the Weimar Republic was not a totalitarian state.

What saved NSDAP from the communists was that they were able and willing to defend themselves physically during the Weimar Republic. What made Hitler and the National Socialists win over the communists was to a large extent a result of that they were far more popular, obviously also indicating that NSDAP's leaders were more skilled than the communists.

You are glorifying what in reality was a disastrous situation for him politically, and to say the least incredibly unpopular.

Being the most popular party in the country is hardly disastrous. Rather, it was a disastrous period for the German communists. No, a political party that wins three elections in a row, two of which are considered free and fair, is not incredible unpopular.

Now, it's obvious that you hold vile hatred against the National Socialists, I'm not doubting that for a minute. But please don't mix those feelings up with history.

The only thing that kept Nazism alive was that it was anti-. It was an ideology of hatred, and being against things, not in favour. That saved Hitler and co from utter failure.

Hitler and the National Socialists were seen to be pro-German and in favor of the German people, hence their popularity.

 

[loup99]

Are you kidding me? The US used no violence against blacks to keep them from the ballots? The French and the British used no violence thought their colonies to keep their subjects from getting basic liberties?

Are you kidding with me? I'm not talking about any other countries. I'm talking about Hitler and his party. This is a clear straw-man.

Also, you are implying that it was exclusively Hitler that launched street fights and engaged in violence. Because sure, the 100 000 strong Roter Frontkämpferbund and similar organizations stood by and watched the whole time. In fact, communist leaders such as Ernst Thälmann advocated the violent overthrow of Hitler's democratically elected government in 1932.

What saved NSDAP from the communists was in fact that they were able and willing to defend themselves physically during the Weimar Republic. What made Hitler and the National Socialists win over the communists was to a large extent a result of that they were far more popular, obviously also indicating that NSDAP's leaders were more skilled than the communist leaders.

And for the fifth time in this thread, the two elections of 1932 in the Weimar Republic, that Hitler won, are considered free and fair by historians.

Yes, Hitler created 1 000 000 organisations, and his party had since day one a clear goal of being anti. The communist side did the contrary. They wanted change and had a positive vision. In the end the negative anti side won. This is because Hitler used the same arguments as you do here. He mentioned x and y 100 00 strong communist gards and posed them as threats. Ernst Thälmann of course advocated that, as much as Hitler planned on killing all socialists and communists, as soon as he could secure key positions and invent a good Cassus Belli. As a skilled orator, he used exactly what you said now, to advocate for the killing and deportation of all communists and socialists. The communist leaders were a lot more skilled than nazis, because their ideas had actual roots in reality, and they had clear support from workers, as well as had no need to trick anyone of what their aims where. That made it easier for Hitler, as he wanted to hide his ambitions and slowly but surely build up after he had understood that his first strategy with the coup did not work.

In this context of argumentation don't care about whether the elections Hitler won were democratic or not. As the communists and other understood, Hitler's goals were not.

 

[Skelbaek]

This is going to be so awesome

 

[Had a mom]

As a result of that you completely overhauled your post, I had to do the same. I'm going to respond to this anyways.

Yes, Hitler created 1 000 000 organisations, and his party had since day one a clear goal of being anti. The communist side did the contrary. They wanted change and had a positive vision.

The communists also created 1 000 000 organisations, and their parties had since day one a clear goal of being anti. Anti-liberal, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, anti-national-socialist etc. While Hitler and NSDAP wanted change (class cooperation, animal welfare, a welfare state etc), the communists wanted to revert back to the ideology that had been so disastrous for the Russians and the Ukrainians in Eastern Europe.

In the end the negative anti side won. This is because Hitler used the same arguments as you do here. He mentioned x and y 100 00 strong communist gards and posed them as threats.

In the end the National Socialists won. This is because the communists always use the same techniques you use here, for example portraying themselves as a victims when people can easily expose them as liers.

Ernst Thälmann of course advocated that, as much as Hitler planned on killing all socialists and communists, as soon as he could secure key positions and invent a good Cassus Belli. As a skilled orator, he used exactly what you said now, to advocate for the killing and deportation of all communists and socialists.

Communists do exactly what you do here. Justify whatever they want by claiming that that the other side is mean and nasty, at the same time as they are raping entire countries when nobody are looking.

The communist leaders were a lot more skilled than nazis, because their ideas had actual roots in reality, and they had clear support from workers, as well as had no need to trick anyone of what their aims where. That made it easier for Hitler, as he wanted to hide his ambitions and slowly but surely build up after he had understood that his first strategy with the coup did not work.

Hitler and NSDAP were a lot more skilled than the communists. That's why the won the trust of the German people and gained control over Germany.

In this context of argumentation don't care about whether the elections Hitler won were democratic or not. As the communists and other understood, Hitler's goals were not.

Well, it's not a surprise that communists like yourself don't care about democracy. Many people of the era understood this, as well as the goals of communism in general, and today we know that no other ideology has caused more suffering to humanity.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

Looking forward to crushing Spanish Republicans again, 10/10 will crush Catalonia gain.

 

[Thure]

The Reichtag was burned down by a Dutch-Jewish communists. Typically, communists deny this and instead still cling to conspiracy theories.

Dutch-Jewish communists...? I would like to see your source for this. You seem to be very sure about this.

 

[Adonnus]

Why do you think liberal democracies no longer allow the existence of far right parties, or deny the people the right to vote over actually important matters, such as mass immigration?

Do you seriously miss the demise of the far-right in Europe? There is a reason they are not missed - excepting France where the NF is popular. Fascism/Nazism like communism brought nothing but ruin and misery to Europe. Btw the BNP and National Front in France are both not banned. They are far right. And people are allowed to vote against mass immigration by voting for those parties.

 

[Had a mom]

Dutch-Jewish communists...? I would like to see your source for this. You seem to be very sure about this.

Absolutely. Here for example. Guess I could also add this from Wikipedia:

According to Ian Kershaw, writing in 1998, the consensus of nearly all historians is that Van der Lubbe did, in fact, set the Reichstag fire.[7] Although Van der Lubbe was certainly an arsonist, and clearly played a role, there has been considerable popular and scientific debate over whether he acted alone. The case is still actively discussed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinus_van_der_Lubbe

Concensus in mainstream media, Hollywood and among communists - evil Nazis did it. Consensus among historians - Dutch-Jewish communist did it.

Do you seriously miss the demise of the far-right in Europe? There is a reason they are not missed - excepting France where the NF is popular. Fascism/Nazism like communism brought nothing but ruin and misery to Europe. Btw the BNP and National Front in France are both not banned. They are far right. And people are allowed to vote against mass immigration by voting for those parties.

Well, they must be missed since they are becoming so overwhelmingly popular all over the Western world, it's not only in France. And they will be missed even more as it becomes more obvious that American style liberalism is bringing nothing but ruin and misery to Europe. BNP and National Front are not banned but they are being legally persecuted all the time. Le pen is in court right now, for "speaking in an illegal way". People are allowed to vote for parties wanting to restrict immigration, although at the end of the day the judiciary in Western countries will deny them that anyways because it is "illegal" by some law created by liberalists. We were allowed to vote over the EU, mass immigration - never.

 

[Porkman]

I once got a ton of flack by saying that the worst thing about the HOI forums was that you would occasionally find closet fascists.

That said, why has the debate about German elections in 1932 (before the game period) been allowed to go on?

Seriously.

I want to know what happens to colonies in the event of a civil war or government change. Say French colonies after Vichy for example... Or British India.... My personal feeling would be to have them be vulnerable to their own internal independence movements

 

[Had a mom]

I once got a ton of flack by saying that the worst thing about the HOI forums was that you would occasionally find closet fascists.

Agreed. But don't you see, you are the fascist. I support self-determination, free speech, democracy and most importantly, the right for all individuals to speak their mind on a forum, no matter what ideology they belong to. Since you seem to have a problem with the last part, it is not far fetched to say that you would also have a problem with self-determination, free speech and democracy, if what Porkam considers to be [insert political derogatory term] are allowed to exist.

Wait a second. I'm not communist, and I don't have the pretention to be one either. That does not prevent me from criticizing Hitler or the NSDAP being less skilled than the communist party. Anyway, this is heavily OT, so we can stop here.

You are obviously on the far left, but that's fine. Unlike Porkman, I want everyone to be able to speak. But we can call it a day here, fair enough. Have a good day Frenchie.

 

[Porkman]

Agreed. But don't you see, you are the fascist. I support self-determination, free speech, democracy and most importantly, the right for all individuals to speak their mind on a forum, no matter what ideology they belong to. Since you seem to have a problem with the last part, it is not far fetched to say that you would also have a problem with self-determination, free speech and democracy, if what Porkam considers to be [insert political derogatory term] are allowed to exist.

You are obviously on the far left, but that's fine. Unlike Porkman, I want everyone to be able to speak. But we can call it a day here, fair enough. Have a good day Frenchie.

I support such talk on the political forums... If we were talking about the rise of the Blue Shirts within the KMT in China which happened in the game's time period, that would also be acceptable.

But here it's like having cupcakes on top of my pizza.

There is a pretty clear, "no cupcakes" policy on the HOI4 forum.

i.e. While the debate about the finer points of political intimidation and participation in 1932 Germany has been going on for 5 pages, the more important issue of what happens to colonies in the event of a civil war has gone unaddressed.

 

[Had a mom]

I support such talk on the political forums... If we were talking about the rise of the Blue Shirts within the KMT in China which happened in the game's time period, that would also be acceptable.

But here it's like having cupcakes on top of my pizza.

There is a pretty clear, "no cupcakes" policy on the HOI4 forum.

i.e. While the debate about the finer points of political intimidation and participation in 1932 Germany has been going on for 5 pages, the more important issue of what happens to colonies in the event of a civil war has gone unaddressed.

Alright Porkman. You put it well and I will now pull out of this thread.

 

[Adonnus]

Well, they must be missed since they are becoming so overwhelmingly popular all over the Western world, it's not only in France. And they will be missed even more as it becomes more obvious that American style liberalism is bringing nothing but ruin and misery to Europe. BNP and National Front are not banned but they are being legally persecuted all the time. Le pen is in court right now, for "speaking in an illegal way". People are allowed to vote for parties wanting to restrict immigration, although at the end of the day the judiciary in Western countries will deny them that anyways because it is "illegal" by some law created by liberalists. We were allowed to vote over the EU, mass immigration - never.

Thanks for revealing your true colours closet fascist. Glad to know you are to GTFO of the thread.

 

[Had a mom]

Thanks for revealing your true colours closet fascist. Glad to know you are to GTFO of the thread.

Thanks for revealing that you are a hateful far left extremist that consider the biggest political party in France to be "fascist". Not that I never knew, lol. As mentioned, I support self-determination, free speech and democracy, for everyone. Far left fascist bigots like you do not. In fact, during this whole debate it has been evident that you are uncomfortable with it.

 

[PanosB3]

I honestly dont care what you think of each other, what are your political views and not many people watching this thread do, so could you both please settle down your arguments in another thread? Whether that's political views of present/past or elections of Germany in 1933, the first one definitely doesn't belong here and the 2nd has its own thread so please move this argument somewhere else.

 

[misterbean]

I honestly dont care what you think of each other and not many people watching this thread do, so could you both please settle down your arguments in another thread? Whether that's political views of today/then or elections of Germany in 1933, the first one definitely doesn't belong here and the 2nd has its own thread so please move this argument somewhere else.

Let me second that. I've had quite enough of this as well, thank you very much.

 

[Fulmen]

How well can a nation combat foreign influence? In HoI3 it is ridiculously easy to get your party support in another country. So easy in fact, that you have to make house rules against it.