was it fair to regard Hitler as a destroyer of peace ?

Doesn't that concept come from a similar place, and have as much legitimacy, as the obscenely obese American, the snaggle-toothed Limey, the miserly Jew, the stupid Negro, and the inscrutable Chinaman?

You should know that Foofie is a sock puppet for Miller, which allows her to post inflammatory rhetoric without having her name on it.

True; however, we were talking about Hitler and Germany. You point is that it could happen anywhere, but my point is that it would not happen everywhere. And, perhaps, as Jung pointed out, there is a "blond beast" within the Germanic collective unconscious archtype? So, it could happen there, and it did. Was Jung correct?

Not if one gives credence to Jung as being at a level of Freud, in that both brought psychoanalysis into the 20th century. You might be talking about stereotypes, rather than archtypes. However, I think of myself as a cheap Jew; does that count?

Ah, the old worthless ad-hominem argument. Glad to see you giving me the old Bronx cheer from the bleachers.

I know what the standard opinion happen to be in this area for a number of generations now and I know the demand for wealth that amount to half of the gold supply at that time was somewhat unreasonable on it face.

An of course the allies did not get anything near that amount even if they even went into Germany with troops and carry goods aways in an attempt to meet those payments one way or another.

Adolph was misunderstood. He was a troubled boy with an army. Had his adversaries responded with love and tolerance, it could have been so much different. Why, why, do we persecute those who are different in society?

Once more that is somewhat of a damn lied my support for pedophiles amount to agreeing with 70 percents of US federal judges that the federal sentencing guideline is way too harsh for trading CP and have result in the craziness of people receiving longer sentences for having illegal computer files then for raping children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Footnote for the most part I support the UK laws and enforcement in this area and as we all know that the English are strong supporters of pedophiles...LOL

Did Jung really say/write such? I know that this term was coined by Nietzsche [Nietzsche 7, 322 (1887)]:


I do know as well, however,that Jung was placed to Nazism only by misquotations, mistranslations and rearrangement of what he had written.

Since Hitler was not elected to any government post, please explain how he became a dictator thru " constitutional" means?

Well, mm, there really are different parliamentary systems than you've got in the USA. And different constitutions, too.

In Germany, we the Weimar constitution was different - no member of the cabinet is "elected" to a government post.

And today, our constitution is different as well - no member of the cabinet is "elected" to a government post.

In the German Federal elections of 5 March 1933, the NSDAP emerged as the largest party but as they failed to obtain an absolute majority they had to form a coalition with the DNVP. Hitler, Chancellor since 30 January – was able to pass the Enabling Act on 23 March, which effectively gave him the power of a dictator.

The final vote for the Enabling Act was 444 for and 94 against (only the Social Democrats votes against it). All the constitutional criteria for deputies being present were there (the Communist Party members were absent) and the Enabling Act was signed into law.

Voting results:

I really do not know the German language; you are wasting your time giving me quotes in German.

I only know what I read. Not that it is all correct. The term was ascribed to Jung's writing supposedly before WWI. Meaning, he might have had a prescient feeling about Germany, and interpreted it that way? I don't know.

Walter has laid out how this happened, but i'll append a few notes that might make it clear to you. In most constitutional democracies, a Prime Minister is elected to a seat in the legislature, whatever it's form, but is not elected nationally. So, Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada, even though he was not elected nationally, but only within his riding. This was not quite the same in Germany (and in several other countries), where the head of the party becomes the Prime Minister (or, in this case, the Chancellor) if his party takes the most seats--so to revert to the example of Canada, Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister because his party won the most seats.

Finally, in many (most?) nations, there are several political parties which qualify for national elections. In Canada, there are four, although one of them--the Bloc Quebecois--is not a national party. So the ruling party frequently just has the most seats, not necessarily a majority of seats. In Harper's first government in Canada, he did not have a majority, just the most seats. That means he had to form a coalition, get one or more other parties to support his legislative agenda.

Finally, when there are several parties, someone can "win" and form a government without having a won a majority of votes, just a significant fraction. So, to refer to the example of Stephen Harper again, in the last election, he won a "majority." That means the Tories won over 50% of the seats (just barely, 50% plus one)--but with several parties fielding candidates in each riding (voting district), the Tories got just less than 40% of the vote. If three or four candidates run in a riding, the one with the most votes wins, which is not necessarily 50% of the vote. This has an important effect on politics. Harper has a "majority" government, but he knows that the Tories aren't that popular. He largely won because the New Democrats gave the Liberals a drubbing. That means the New Democrats won an unprecedented number of seats--but it also means that the Tories won some ridings they had never won before because the NDP and the Liberals split the majority of the vote, leaving the Tories with the most votes, for any single party. So Harper has to be careful not to create a situation in which enough voters get disgusted with the Tories and desert them for the NDP or the Liberals.

So, back to Germany, 1933. Hitler only got 35% of the vote when he ran for President--and the NSDAP (the Nazis) got 35% in the Riechstag . That wasn't a majority, but it was more than any other party. After the Richstag fire, in the next election (Germany was having elections like NASCAR has races), the NSDAP got 45% of the vote (fractionally less than 45%, i believe), which meant they still had the most seats, but not a majority. Therefore, in order to govern, Hitler had to form a coalition. He formed a coalition with a right-wing party, the DNVP (which are the initials of the German words which mean German National Peoples Party).

Finally, he passed the enabling act, which gave him the right to legislate without reference to the Riechstag. This was, i believe, set up by Bismarck in the 1860s (Walter will know) to give the Chancellor necessary powers in time of emergency. To pass that enabling act, he needed a two thirds vote. He got the Centre Party (the national Catholic party) to vote with the NSDAP and the DNVP by promising reforms which would benefit Catholics, and end institutional discrimination against Catholics. Like a parcel of fools, they agreed--and the head of the DNVP had once been a prominent member of the Centre Party, which didn't hurt.

Hitler's rise to power was completely legitimate in constitutional terms.

Enabling laws ("Ermächtigungsgesetze") were introduced in 1914.
There had been a couple of those during the Weimar Republic time as well - though actually unconstitutionally, they were regarded by the constitutional law science of that period as being justified. (Mainly, because these laws needed the same majority as for changes in the constitution.)

Thanks, Boss--your knowledge of history is always appreciated by me, at least.

I can understand your post above in context of your non-friendly postings towards myself; however, what do you have against Miller, since she is a professional woman in the health care industry, I thought?

The fact that other posters continue to bond with you on A2K, in context of such less than friendly posts, makes me wonder if A2k is not the "community" that you have referred to recently, but possibly more like a "clannish neighborhood," a la NYC in its best days of the 1950's?

You're welcome ... but I did look it up, to be sure

What you thought about (re 1860) was related to the Prussian parliament (2nd chamber - "Abgeordnetenhaus"): it' the "Lückentheorie" ("gap theory")
(from wikipeadia)

It depends to me, the peace you have now is far greater for him, though it only swayed the problem temporarily.. 7 billion and climbing. Ignoring it cures zero.