Jeremy Stangroom

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?

I don't see how any of this relates to the issue of whether fighting running street battles with the Nazis played directly into their hands in terms of wider support for an authoritarian government. Basically, I'm not sure what point you are making!

You dont? It's not complicated. "Street fighting" didn't lead to the Nazis getting power. Capitulation and a desire to keep things "civil" did. Whatever support the Nazis enjoyed, it wouldn't have gotten them into power if Von Papen et AL hadn't handed it to them.

Oh for God's sake, you really don't understand what necessary but not sufficient means, do you? Anyhow, if your thesis is correct, there's no need to challenge Nazis on the streets, because so long as political elites make right decisions, they're not going to get into power.

I know what it means, thanks. I haven't seen any evidence from you whatsoever that "street fights" had anything to do with Hitler's rise to power, or that pushing back against modern fascists is in any way undesirable.

It seems like the historical lesson of the Nazis is that if you give them an inch, they take a mile, not that pushback somehow "plays into their hands", despite your attempts to argue otherwise.