Jeremy Stangroom

What's the alternative? Surrender without a fight? No thanks.

You do know the history of the Weimar Republic, yes? That Hitler deliberately provoked street fights (because he knew it'd make authoritarian government more attractive).

Hitler didn't get into power because of street fights. He got into power because the people at the top kept ceding ground to him.

Don't be silly. There's no single reason why anybody gets into power. The street fighting, and desire for authoritarian crack down, was absolutely part of the story. (As was, for example, endemic anti-Semitism; corporate Capitalism; economic disaster; etc).

If Van Papen and co. hadn't decided that the Nazis--who never had a popular mandate--deserved a slice of power and a seat at the table, the rest of that stuff would have been moot. So I don't think it's unreasonable to blame capitulation and political maneuvering.

Well, if that's true, it's a necessary but not sufficient reason. You can't discount the causal background just because you've got necessary conditions. And, at any rate, there were other necessary conditions (e.g., the anti-Semitism).

I'm not discounting them, I'm saying the one crucial factor that allowed Hitler to take power was the middle-of-the-road politicians thinking they could appease and/or manipulate the Nazis instead of taking a firm stand against them.

There's no reason, as far as I know, that Von Papen and Hindenberg *had* to appoint Hitler as Chancellor. The Nazis didn't have a majority. It was a political move that they thought would satisfy them and bring "unity". Sound familiar?