Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire It is not just cops

Quote: "Perhaps the likely fate of a former LEO sentenced to jail for child molestation had something to do with it."

Huh? I don't get what you mean. Are you saying that the potential danger for the convicted LEO going into jail would convince a judge not to send him there? Any reasonable judge should say: "You make your own bed, you lie in it."
Again, if there was a conviction of child molestation, then certain MINIMUM sentencing has to be followed, which are dictated by law (state law I believe). I am not aware of any state that does not have some jail time as an absolute minimum for the charges discussed here.

Quote: "As to subsequent civil actions, I do not believe the offenders committed these offenses in connection to their duties."
Okay, think about what you said there. The LEO part had nothing to do with the crime. What you have is a person with some poor judgement who happens to be an LEO, not the other way around.
Again, I ask: What would you do to improve the situation? Judging from a lot of responses in this thread, people are upset that not every last LEO in this country is a saint who never does wrong. Please, I am not standing up for the wrong things committed, nor for the perpetrators. All I am saying is that that's how the cookie crumbles, people will make mistakes, be it due to bad character or poor judgement or whatnot.
How do you prevent LEOs from making bad decisions? How do you prevent ANYONE from making bad decisions? You can offer guidance and proper training, but you will still have flukes. What we see here is just a prominent and visible sign of the overall decay of our society.

Birdy, I think your truisms are more current and applicable than the ones that Haggis gave.

If one percent of cops are "proven" lawbreakers, doesn't that fall pretty much in line with society as a whole? This says more to me about the selection process than the officers themselves.

BTW, I have warm feelings for Texas - but you're reminding me how glad I am to be here and not there.

Ahhh.......we're just now having our first snow here. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Anyway - thanks for keeping a cool head about this thread.

-FreeMe

You could probably train the coppers to be a bit more sensitive to the emotional needs of others...
You just have to ask yourself WHY oh why are they "always prepared", "just in case", "armed to the teeth"....
I would like to think that crime has been steadily increasing over the past 50 years, especially gangrelated crime in metropolitan and even urban areas. The cops had to adapt, both to fight crime and to survive, physically and emotionally.
This culture bred a different generation, which is now admitting some of its own into the force.
So, I theorize that the drastic change you see in the force in big cities is due to larger, more complex social and demographic changes in our society. I would also state that you cannot ask the coppers to be more understanding, softer, and all that, while their opponents stay at the same level they were at before. Remember, these cops are trying to fight crime in some very tough areas, and very tough times. Some of you are asking them to drop their guards. I understand the problem of innocents getting killed, harrassed, misjudged by the legal system. And yet, this is a result from increased crime and much lowered moral values in our society. This is a much more complex problem than "ugh! Cops are brutal and all bad!"

Pedestal, I like the way your nephew thinks. Is he a fan of Teddy Roosevelt? ("Speak softly...")

I think you have a firm grasp of this issue.

-FreeMe

So why do these guys carry ARs? Well, one possible explanation is that they grew up with seeing those types of guns, instead of lever actions 30-30s.
Another possible explanation would be that the criminals carry assault guns. I wouldn't want the bad guy to be outgunned if I was the cop, either. I think the LEOs are trying to match what is being thrown at them.

Something else I would like to point out: What are cops to do? Relax, don't be so uptight about things? Don't arrest people for speeding, drug offenses, etc? Don't go try to stop drug dealers, pot growers, etc?
I have seen societies that choose to handle their crime by legalizing criminal actions and being "relaxed". I grew up in Germany.
It is customary with some LEOs there to carry unloaded guns, sometimes no guns at all. Long guns? Nope. Shotguns? Nope. They are very cordial most of the time. Criminals will not get the crap beat out of them. Juveniles don't go to jail. Innocent bystanders do not get shot, not run over by a speeder chase.
What's the trade off?
Drug trafficking is rampant, and so are drug related crimes. The answer: Legalize pot and decriminalize minor drug offenses. Is that really an answer? Me thinks not. I believe it will further aid in the rapid decline of moral values, which in turn will fuel more crime.
Police in Germany do not have near the powers they have here. What's the trade off? Criminals run free. Juveniles committing felonies are set free and NOT (!!!) convicted of anything. If you are under eighteen, you cannot be convicted of crimes. So, there is kids out there that steal cars everyday. Every day they get picked up by the cops. They are taken to the station, their parents are notified, and then they are let go. Hardly a solution to a growing problem.
But hey, at least you don't have newspapers whining about cops harrassing juveniles, right?
Cops overthere do not expect armed conflicts and gunfights. (I admit, this is in large part due to far fewer guns in society. Gun control, anyone? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />) But what happens when they do encounter armed criminals? Typically, they are shot dead. But hey, at least they aren't harrassing me, right?
Criminals get away with a lot there, folks. Major felonies are punished by a couple of years in jail. What kind of deterrent is that? I am here to tell you, we are headed that way. What we have here is a decline in moral values. I believe that to be the cause of our problems.
And if you now think Germany is bad (I do), Holland is much worse. To all the folks that are screaming "Legalize Pot"! I have this to say: Legalizing pot and other minor drugs and making them publically commercially available solved absolutely nothing for the Dutch. Go take a walk in Amsterdam. At every street corner, some kid is trying to sell you Coke and worse things. I have never seen a worse drug problem than there. And this includes drug-related crimes and major major drug trafficking. Holland is THE hub for any kind of drug in the western Hemisphere. (I know, it has a little bit to do with Holland's international shipping ports.)
Also, the dependence of individuals on Government-funded social programs and social money is enormous in European countries.
I much prefer the US of A.
Let's work on making it better.
Relaxing on crime is NOT the thing to do. Get tougher, that's what. You gotta be smarter about it, too, though.

Joe, when I first started reading your posts on this subject I thought this guy must be on the outside looking in but the more I read what you had to say the more I realized you weren't some hate monger with with a hard on for the police and I began to see your side. It made me search my memory a little bit and I thought about Waco and how the authorities had to save those followers and their children from David Karesh (whom I believe was mislead and was misleading others) but to kill them all, and for what? And further back I remember the police shoot out with the SLA (simbianese liberation army) in L.A. If anyone can remember the movie the Gauntlet where Clint Eastwood and Sandra Locke were surrounded in the house in Hendersen, Nevada by the police, this is what the house looked like in L.A. when the police got through with it. Every day on the news the police surround a home whose occupant has done nothing but threaten to take his own life or just refuses to go outside so they shoot in the tear gas and flash bang grenades, which in 90% of the cases burns down not only the house of the man whom they are trying to save but half of the neighborhood. And what about the farce at Ruby Ridge? Yeah Joe, I'm willing to see your side and feel your feelings without any name calling and I think you might be right in a lot of what you had to say.

He does have some valid points. Power leads to corruption. An interesting, terrifying, and unpreventable phenomenon.
I think that the instances mentioned (SLA, Waco, Ruby Ridge) could have been handled better at a higher level. I don't think it is fair to blame individual "low-level" LEOs for it.

Matthias I do believe what your saying that these events could have been handled better at a higher level but doesn't there come a point where individual low level officers MUST except at least some of the responsibility? There will come a day when we all must stand before our Redeamer and give an account of those things we have done and there sure won't be any buck passing on that day. If we didn't get fired or sent to prison for our actions we have the mistaken belief that we got away with it.

I partially agree with you.
Here's what I take issue with: It is extremely difficult for an individual - in a group of people - to break free of the collective mind thing. Why did hardly anybody in Hitler's Germany stand up and resist? It would not have taken that many people. Surely there must have been lots and lots of good souls in the SA/SS and Wehrmacht? Breaking out of a group setting like that is very difficult. So, it may be easy to say: Surely these individual LEOs could have refused orders?
But it ain't that easy. Think about it. (Keep in mind, I agree with you)
You brought up the bible and our creator, plus disobeying authority. Is that really in line with the good book? Didn't God teach us to obey the law of the land? To give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's? I can't point my finger on a specific passage, but it seems the bible encourages respect of authorities and compliance, lest we be viewed as unkempt rebels (No offense Haggis <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />).
Again, I agree with you, but had to throw my two cents in there. In the end we will have to explain every unjust action. Personal responsibility my friend. That's the key phrase.

If you compare work-a-day small town and county cops to the JBT's of the Fed that did Waco, Ruby Ridge and some others not mentioned. You are doing a diservive to thousands of Honest, hard working men and women!

The JBT's are still the exception to the rule, it's like saying humanity is rotten to the core and God should wipe it out and start over!

Matthia;
I don't know if you've been paying attention, but all of the problems that you cite as being a result of the decriminalization of drugs are already happening. I grew up in Detroit, where crack was king. In the neighborhood where I lived, you could see the crack houses sprouting up daily. Dealers were everywhere, and pot smokers smoked it like it was legal out in the open. I personally called in several "crimes in progress" and the entire neighborhood went to a community policing meeting to report the addresses of the crack houses, yet nothing was done. Why? Because the cops were on the take. The cruiser would pull up, someone would run out, toss an envelope in the window, and the cruiser would leave. I know this because I saw it.

The war on drugs was never about drugs, it was about circumventing the Constitution to give greater powers to the fledgling police state. The assault weapons used by drug dealers were never intended to be used on the police. Heck, everyone knew that the dealers would be back on the street before the cops were done with their paperwork! The assault weapons were to be used as protection from other drug dealers.

The most frustrating thing is that we already have an historical model for what happens when you outlaw a substance; Prohibition. Prohibition gave rise to organized crime, government and police corruption, and the Kennedys <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> All things that could have been avoided if the temperance nuts had just left well enough alone.

Each generation has a President that declares war on some social ill. The 60's had Johnson declare war on poverty, the 70's had For declare war on inflation, the 80's had Reagan declare war on drugs, the 90's had Clinton declare war on "militia groups" (and common decency), and here at the dawn of the 21st century, we have W declaring war on terrorism. The problem with all of these wars is that whenever the government sought to fight these wars, the problem got worse.

Militarizing the police hasn't done anything but get people on both sides killed. The recent confrontation in South Carolina is but another symptom of the disease. The chasm between the police and the policed is growing wider. If this trend continues, the end result will be a police state where violence is seen as the only recourse for the average individual. The courts aren't upholding the Constitution, judges and bureaucrats invariably are siding with the government that pays them, the politicians have lost sight of the fact that they are our employees not our rulers, so they strut around and enact laws that restrict our freedoms, secure that they, the anointed ones, won't fall subject to those laws, and the LEO's from the local sheriff on up to the Fibbies are being trained to be soldiers for the state. The public has been conditioned to accept the violent death of dissenters and those that the government deems as "fringe".

When the Philadelphia police dropped a satchel charge on MOVE, destroying an entire city block in the process, heads rolled, the public was outraged, and jobs were lost. There was protest, and inquiries made. The end result was a copmplete reorganization of the administration of the Philly Police Dept. 20 years later, 80 men, women, and children are besieged, tormented and eventually immolated in a government sponsored raid, and people barely gave notice. The cover-up that followed was so amateurish and blatant that there should have been rioting in the streets over the insult to our intelligence, but nothing was done. It was smoothed over and forgotten.

It's no wonder, then that Law Enforcement Bureaucrats don't respect the Constitution, why should they when the great body of the American public doesn't?

Matthias it was never my intent to try to have you or anyone else agree with me or believe what I do, the truth has been written on our hearts and it is up to every man to search his own heart for the truth. I was just letting Joe know that he was not alone in some of the things he feels and if I'm alone in some or all of the things I feel then that's quite alright too. If you are satisfied with the status quo then I'm happy for you and anyone else who feels that way. I never meant to start a debate on who is right or wrong. Take care and have a great day and don't forget to get a flu shot.

Flu shots are just a plot from our evil government! They are laced with dog hormones, to make us all obedient and grovel! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

EBD: So what is the answer? Ignore the problem and turn the other way?

What I am telling you is this: Ignoring it or decriminalizing it will not work. Whatever is bad now, will get much worse.

Just because evil seems to have the upper hand doesn't mean that we can quit fighting it and hope it will disappear.

One reason for the failure of prohibition was that alcohol was already widely accepted in society, and then outlawed. Illegal drugs have always been illegal and should stay that way. If you make it legal, or decriminalize it, what are you really saying? "It's okay, it's really not that bad. Go ahead, if it feels good do it." This kind of attitude is exactly what leads to our general decay of good moral values.

It will get us nowhere. I don't know what the correct answer is. I do know what the wrong answer is.

Like I have stated before: This country is on the way down and will not get back up to its past glory. But I will not go down with it. I refuse to quit fighting, and I refuse to believe that there aren't lots of decent people out there.

I said I was done, but I guess I can't resist. I am gratified to see that there are a few people who see what I am saying.

People need to read the great works of literature and study history. Read 1984 or Animal Farm. In 1984 the government was in a constant state of war against an enemy who was characterized by the government as the epitomy of evil. Periodically, a former enemy would become an ally against an enemy who was once an ally. All of this was the backdrop against and the framework for an enormous police state. Does any of this sound familiar? Today we fighting and indefinitely long war against implacably evil terrorist. The leading terrorist was once our ally against the implacably evil Communist Russians. The Russians, lead by a former head of the KGB, are now our allies against the terrorist. Don't get me wrong, I am not a conspiracy theorist. If there were as many conspiracies as some people think there are, I figure I would have gotten to be in on one by now. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> But what some don't seem to realize is that it doesn't take a conspiracy or a bunch of evil plotters for things to go to hell in a handbasket.

How do LEOs play into all of this. Our government is becoming increasingly distant and authorative. New laws are constantly being made and the penalties are becoming increasingly stiff. Acts that were not crimes a short time ago are now serious felonies. Simultaneously, the Police are trained to become increasingly violent. The so-called "War on Terror" has lead to talks of repealing the Possee Commitatus law and allowing the military to take an increasing role in law enforcement. The lines are already stretched with the military providing training and equipment to the police. The police also have a much more militaristic attitude.

Increasingly, police see lawbreakers as "them" or "scum" or some other unsavory adjective. They are trained to use overwhelming force to intimidate and to protect themselves. Increasingly, the laws they are enforcing are more restrictive and their methods more harsh.

Listen, I don't know about you, but I do not believe that a state that uses its officers to intimidate its citizens into obeying laws is compatible with true freedom. I suspect many of the opinions on this board are based on the fact that the police are not busting into your house and you have no reasonable expectation that they ever will. If they were, then your opinions would be greatly different, I suspect. As gunowners, most of us on the board should be aware of the possibility of becoming instant outlaws. It could just as easily happen with some other law.

Now, I will address the individual attitudes of the police themselves. Many police are fine individuals. But as I stated earlier, many of the SS and the Polezei in Nazi Germany were as well. In the Nazi system, they defined the Jews and the criminals as "Untermenschen" or sub-human scum. These characterizations allowed them to commit these horrible crimes because the scum "deserved", if not for their acts, then for what they were. I see the same kinds of adjectives being applied to drug criminals and others today. By dehumanizing the criminals and other enemies, it allows LEOs or others to treat them with extreme force, because, after all, they are scum. Am I saying our LEOs are like Nazis? No, of course not, but I see some of the same trends occurring now that occurred then.

Now comes the definition of criminals. We all admit that many things are crimes that didn't used to be and that there are new crimes created every day. Pair this with the attitude that all criminals are scum and it becomes very clear that there is a widening gulf between the LEO and the average guy. What if there is a major terrorist strike here (WMD or something) and some sort of marshall law is imposed and (for instance) it becomes a crime to be outside of you home after dark in some areas. Do you think that LEOs with their training in the use of force, and their attitudes towards criminals will give you a chance to explain that your car broke down before you could get home and stranded you out in the city after curfew before they break your skull. All of this seems increasingly less far fetched.

One last story I forgot to relate earlier. When I was in law school a fellow student related that his father was on the FBI HRT and that he had been at Waco. This student thought it was just hilarious that after the fire, the HRT guys had T-shirts made that said something to the effect that, "I was at the great Waco Weenie-roast". I have no way of knowing if he was telling the truth, but if he was, the fact that Federal agents would joke about the deaths of over 80 women and children in a cauldron of fire... well... I think all hope is gone anyway.

These are my fears. Laugh if you want, but everything I see shows us going deeper into the abyss. If we are to become a police state, then the LEOs will be our keepers. I see it heading that way and I see a divided system developing with our masters, the LEOs, doing what they please,from driving 90 down the interstate but giving you a ticket if you do, to much more serious corruption.

As a Christian and someone who believes in individual accountability, I absolutely reject the notion that LEOs are not responsible for their training or their enforcement of current laws. We hung concentration camp guards who were just following their training and were following orders and the laws in force. Remember, Hitler was elected. Everyone must take a stand and be on the side of right and wrong and good and evil. If an LEO shoots someone wrongly because he was trained to act overly aggressively, he will answer to God for his crime in the end. If he shoots someone whose only crime was to have joint or something else, he will answer to God in the end. Most LEOs are not bad people but the system is bad and is getting worse. In the end, you will be held accountable for being part of an increasingly bad (if not evil) system. We all have freewill and individual choice.

Well, no. Hitler was not elected. He was nearly elected, but not quite. He was very close. He seized power.
I am splitting hairs here, sorry about that.
Joe, I think we are somewhat in agreement. I agree with your dark vision of the future. What I don't agree with is your statement that you "despise all LEOs" and they are all the scum of the earth. I have an even bigger problem with Haggis' statements. At least you are open to some reasoning.
I think we can both walk away from this argument in good faith.

Actually, no, Hitler's party won a plural majority in the Reichstag and he was appointed Chancellor according to Parlimentary rules. Therefore, he was elected. He later seized complete power when he named himself Fuehrer for life.

If you beleive me when I characterize my belief that the system is increasingly evil, corrupt, and unnaccountable, then you shouldn't have much problem understanding why I don't have a very high opinion of someone who voluntarily decides to become part of such a system. And if you share my dark vision for the future, then you need to reexamine you belief in the basic goodness of someone who voluntarily chooses to become part of that system. And for the good LEOs out there, I ask that you reexamine your part in the increasingly evil, corrupt, and distant system with the sure and certain knowledge that someday you will be held accountable, if not by man, then by God.

So far some folks have insulted my nickname, of which I am very proud, my ethnicity, of which I am very proud, called me a �sociopath�, called me, a veteran, a hater of America, and a score of other personal insults; but hey, if that�s all you�ve got�, go with it.

The cops say they have taken an oath to defend the laws of the land, and then turn around and say they are a brotherhood and have to stick together, and while some of the cops are bad guys, not all are. Okay, if you are in a brotherhood with bad guys and backing them up; you�re a bad guy. If a cop is enforcing the laws of the land, then enforce them on everyone. If the cop is only enforcing them on people who are not part of the brotherhood, then the cop is saying his group is above the law and violating his first oath.

As long as the cops consider themselves a brotherhood and allow bad guys into their group they are supporting breaking the law. This makes them all party to any crime committed by any of their club members. This makes them all villains.

None of the LEOs on this board will back those bad guys up.
There are unfortunate examples of this happening in the real world. I still refuse to generalize every last cop out there into an evil puppet of the evil system.
What do you propose? Shoot em or just get rid of em?
Who will do their work? I hear a lot of complaining from you guys. What I don't hear is solutions.

Um, no. Hitler never had plural majority. Check your facts.

Here's some history:

Myth: Democracy elected Hitler to power.

Fact: Hitler used backroom deals, not votes, to come to power.



Summary

Hitler never had more than 37 percent of the popular vote in the honest elections that occurred before he became Chancellor. And the opposition among the 63 percent against him was generally quite strong. Hitler therefore would have never seen the light of day had the German Republic been truly democratic. Unfortunately, its otherwise sound constitution contained a few fatal flaws. The German leaders also had a weak devotion to democracy, and some were actively plotting to overthrow it. Hitler furthermore enjoyed an almost unbroken string of luck in coming to power. He benefited greatly from the Great Depression, the half-senility of the president, the incompetence of his opposition, and the appearance of an unnecessary backroom deal just as the Nazis were starting to lose popular appeal and votes.



Argument

Critics of democracy often claim that Hitler was democratically elected to power. This is untrue. Hitler never had the popular votes to become Chancellor of Germany, and the only reason he got the job was because the German leaders entered into a series of back-room deals. Some claim that Hitler's rise was nonetheless legal under the German system. The problem is that what was "legal" under the German system would not be considered legal under a truer and better-working democracy. In a democracy along the lines of the United States or Great Britain, Hitler could have never risen to power.

The background to Hitler's rise to power

The German Weimar Republic was doomed from the start. (1) Germany had no democratic tradition, and in fact many parties were deeply opposed to the creation of a democracy. These included old monarchists, the Army, the industrialists, the Nationalists and several other conservative parties. Many, like the Nazis to come, were not so much members of the Republic as they were conspirators to overthrow it. When it came time to create the Republic, the conservative parties took no part in the process. They left that responsibility to the Social Democrats, who were not enthusiastic about building a Republic either, but did so anyway, by themselves.

Yet this would allow the conservative parties to blame the Republic and the Social Democrats for all of Germany's future problems. The new government, led by the liberal parties, inevitably had to sign Germany's surrender documents and terms of peace. Unfortunately, the punitive Treaty of Versailles humiliated Germany before the entire world. This event was really beyond Germany's control, but conservative parties would blame liberals and the Republic forever afterwards, calling it a "stab in the back" by the "November criminals." To be loyal to the Fatherland, conservatives often said, one had to be disloyal to the Republic. Hitler himself would rely heavily on this very rhetoric.

The constitution of the new Republic was also doomed from the start. On paper, it seemed like one of the most liberal and democratic constitutions of Europe at the time. It called for the government to be led by a president with limited but sometimes strong constitutional powers. The Reichstag, or parliament, would be filled with a varying number of elected representatives (usually about 600). These representatives would in turn elect the Reichstag's chancellor and cabinet, which would remain in power only as long as they commanded majority approval in the Reichstag. In the event that no single party or candidate commanded a majority, then coalitions would have to be forged.

Unfortunately, the constitution also contained several fatal flaws. One of the worst was Article 48 of the constitution, which granted dictatorial powers to the president in times of national emergency. Unfortunately, the president would frequently evoke this clause, and it ultimately proved the downfall of the Republic.

Another flaw was an elaborate and complex system of proportional voting and voting by list, intended to give minorities the fairest possible representation. This is a laudable goal, of course, but other democracies use different methods to achieve it. Germany's approach had the practical effect of splintering the parties; by 1930, there were no less than 28 parties competing for election. This made it virtually impossible to establish a majority in the Reichstag, and led to instability and frequent changes in the government. What made this worse is that Germany's middle class was too small, and there were too few middle-class parties to stabilize German politics. With Communists on one side, and Nazis on the other, there was little room for compromise and coalition-building.

Finally, the constitution created a government that was not sufficiently centralized. Many of the German states retained a high degree of autonomy under the new government. This was not the original intention of Professor Hugo Preuss, the constitution's chief architect. He had called for states like Prussia to be turned into provinces under a unified German state. But his suggestion was rejected, creating a situation where strong German states would endlessly squabble for power.

In addition to these constitutional defects, there were two other problems that weakened democracy in Weimar Germany. One was the advanced age of its president, Paul von Hindenburg, a strong-willed field marshal and war hero. Unfortunately, Hindenburg would be in his middle 80s and partly senile by the time Hitler started achieving real power. Although he personally detested Hitler, he made many costly blunders and miscalculations about him, thinking he could easily control him. But by then the aged field marshal had lost much of his competence.

The second problem was that the Army was not subordinated to the government, but was a strong political player in its own right. By the time Hitler started his final rise to power, the Army's most influential political figure would be Lieutenant General Kurt von Schleicher, who was a close personal friend of Hindenburg and other government leaders. He would emerge as a major power broker -- and an undemocratic one -- in the power struggles that erupted in the early 30s. Of course, Hitler had long made sure to cultivate his alliances with the Army.

These were the conditions under which Hitler began his political career.

Hitler's rise to power

Like all mass movements, Nazism only thrived in times of great national distress. However, it is important to note the significant limits of Nazi popularity even then. After World War I, Germany lay defeated, humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles, its industrial regions occupied by foreign powers, saddled with enormous war reparations, and with no military to defend itself. Yet throughout the 1920s, Hitler could not exploit these setbacks to achieve political power. As late as May 1928, the Nazis had obtained only 12 seats in the Reichstag.

It took the Great Depression -- which hit Germany harder than any than any other nation -- to turn Nazism into a true mass movement. But even then, the Nazis never gained a majority of the people's vote. Nazism generally appealed to only a third of the German people, and these came from its lower classes, armed forces and war industries. Nearly two-thirds of Germany were opposed to Hitler, and adamantly so. There was never any hope that Hitler could have won their support. It goes without saying that if the German Republic had been truly democratic, it would have survived even the test of a depression.

Still, the Great Depression gave Hitler a chance to blame the status quo, and he expertly exploited the people's misery to increase his political power. In elections held on September 14, 1930, the Nazis won 18 percent of the vote, increasing their seats in the Reichstag to 107. Overnight they went from the ninth to second largest political party in Germany.

Between 1931 and 1933, vicious power struggles would break out between rival political parties. The power brokers in these struggles were Hindenburg and Schleicher. The problem during this period was that no party even came close to achieving the majority required to elect its leader Chancellor. Coalitions were either impossible to build, or were so transient that they dissolved as quickly as they formed. Ambitious leaders from every party began maneuvering for power, striking deals, double-crossing each other, and trying to find the most advantageous alliances. Hitler himself would ally the Nazis to the Nationalist Party. "The chess game for power begins," Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary. "The chief thing is that we remain strong and make no compromises." (2)

In 1932, hoping to establish a clear government by majority rule, Hindenburg held two presidential elections. Hitler, among others, ran against him. A vote for Hindenburg was a vote to continue the German Republic, while a vote for Hitler was a vote against it. The Nazi party made the most clever use of propaganda, as well as the most extensive use of violence. Bloody street battles erupted between Communists and Nazis thugs, and many political figures were murdered.

In the first election, held on March 13, 1932, Hitler received 30 percent of the vote, losing badly to Hindenburg's 49.6 percent. But because Hindenburg had just missed an absolute majority, a run-off election was scheduled a month later. On April 10, 1932, Hitler increased his share of the vote to 37 percent, but Hindenburg again won, this time with a decisive 53 percent. A clear majority of the voters had thus declared their preference for a democratic republic.

However, the balance of power in the Reichstag was still unstable, lacking a majority party or coalition to rule the government. All too frequently, Hindenburg had to evoke the dictatorial powers available to him under Article 48 of the constitution to break up the political stalemate. In an attempt to resolve this crisis, he called for more elections. On July 31, 1932, the Nazis won 230 out of 608 seats in the Reichstag, making them its largest party. Still, they did not command the majority needed to elect Hitler Chancellor.

In another election on November 6, 1932, the Nazis lost 34 seats in the Reichstag, reducing their total to 196. And for the first time it looked as if the Nazi threat would fade. This was for several reasons. First, the Nazis' violence and rhetoric had hardened opposition against Hitler, and it was becoming obvious that he would never achieve power democratically. Even worse, the Nazi party was running very low on money, and it could no longer afford to operate its expensive propaganda machine. Furthermore, the party was beginning to splinter and rebel under the stress of so many elections. Hitler discovered that Gregor Strasser, one of the Nazis' highest officials, had been disloyal, attempting to negotiate power for himself behind Hitler's back. The shock was so great that Hitler threatened to shoot himself.

But at the lowest ebb of the Nazis' fortunes, the backroom deal presented itself as the solution to all their problems. Deal-making, intrigues and double-crosses had been going on for years now. Schleicher, who had managed to make himself the last German Chancellor before Hitler, would eventually say: "I stayed in power only 57 days, and on each of those days I was betrayed 57 times." (3) It's not worth tracking the ins and outs of all these schemes, but the one that got Hitler into power is worth noting.

Hitler's unexpected savior was Franz von Papen, one of the former Chancellors, a remarkably incompetent man who owed his political career to a personal friendship with Hindenburg. He had been thrown out of power by the much more capable Schleicher, who personally replaced him. To get even, Papen approached Hitler and offered to become "co-chancellors," if only Hitler would join him in a coalition to overthrow Schleicher. Hitler responded that only he could be the head of government, while Papen's supporters could be given important cabinet positions. The two reached a tentative agreement to pursue such an alliance, even though secretly they were planning to double-cross each other.

Meanwhile Schleicher was failing spectacularly in his attempts to form a coalition government, so Hindenburg forced his resignation. But by now, Hindenburg was exhausted by all the intrigue and crisis, and the prospect of civil war had moved the steely field marshal to tears. As much as he hated to do so, he seemed resigned to offering Hitler a high government position. Many people were urging him to do so: the industrialists who were financing Hitler, the military whose connections Hitler had cultivated, even Hindenburg's son, whom some historians believe the Nazis had blackmailed. The last straw came when an unfounded rumor swept through Berlin that Schleicher was about to attempt a military coup, arrest Hindenburg, and establish a military dictatorship. Alarmed, Hindenburg wasted no time offering Hitler the Chancellorship, thinking it was a last resort to save the Republic.

On January 30, 1933, Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor. As Hitler historian Alan Bullock put it:

"Hitler came to office in 1933 as the result, not of any irresistible revolutionary or national movement sweeping him into power, nor even of a popular victory at the polls, but as part of a shoddy political deal with the 'Old Gang' whom he had been attacking for months� Hitler did not seize power; he was jobbed into office by a backstairs intrigue." (4)
Hitler's deal did not even give him a majority in the Reichstag. His coalition of Nazis and Nationalists had only 247 out of 583 seats in the Reichstag, still not a majority. But Hitler wasted no time using his newfound powers to start eliminating his competition. New elections were scheduled for March 5, 1933. Goebbels was completely confident now of success. "Now it will be easy to carry on the fight, for we can call on all the resources of the State. Radio and press are at our disposal. We shall stage a masterpiece of propaganda. And this time, naturally, there is no lack of money." (5)

Hitler's opponents had brought him to power thinking that they could control "the Austrian corporal." Papen even boasted: "Within two months we will have pushed Hitler so far in the corner that he'll squeak." But they fatally underestimated him. On February 27, 1993, a fire engulfed the Reichstag -- Germany's symbol, if not actual center, of democracy. Hitler blamed it on the Communists, and used it as an excuse to begin a brutal crackdown. This he accomplished by drawing up an emergency decree "for the Protection of the people and the State." It read:
"Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed." (6)
And Hitler got the distraught and half-senile Hindenburg to sign it. Almost immediately, the Nazis initiated a wave of terror, murder and torture that effectively cowed thousands of their political rivals, almost all of them Communists, Social Democrats and other liberals. Herman Goering, now in charge of the police, replaced senior police officers with his own S.A. or S.S. leaders. He ordered them:
"Police officers who make use of fire-arms in the execution of their duties will, without regard to the consequences of such use, benefit from my protection; those who� fail in their duty will be punished�" (7)
The combination of political terror and state-run propaganda gave the Nazis their best election result yet. On March 5, 1933, the Nazis won 44 percent of the vote -- but still not a majority. The Nazis also secured 288 seats in the makeshift parliament -- again, still not a majority. Along with the 52 seats of the Nationalists, however, their coalition had obtained a majority of 16 seats. Yet Hitler now had a new goal: to obtain the two-thirds majority required to alter the constitution and give him dictatorial powers. He needed only 31 non-Nazi votes to get it.

Hitler planned on doing this by passing a bill entitled the "Enabling Act." It would transfer power from the Reichstag to the Reich cabinet for four years, including the power of legislation, budget, approval of treaties and initiation of constitutional amendments. The laws enacted by the cabinet would be drafted by the Chancellor and "might deviate from the constitution." In voting for it, the Reichstag would essentially be dissolving itself and making Hitler dictator.

In attempting to secure the votes, the Nazis made heavy use of terror, blackmail and empty promises. The Social Democrats adamantly refused to vote for the Enabling Act, but Hitler was able to win crucial support from the Catholic Center party, by lying to them about future concessions. On March 23, 1933, the Enabling Act came up for a vote. Nazi storm troopers encircled the Reichstag, and legislators had to pass through a ring of tough-looking, black-shirted Nazi thugs to enter the building. While legislators considered the vote, they could hear the storm troopers outside chanting:
"Full powers -- or else! We want the bill -- or fire and murder!"
Only one party went down fighting. Otto Wells, leader of the Social Democrats, told Hitler:
"We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No enabling act can give you power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible."
Hitler exploded with rage, shouting:
"You are no longer needed! -- The star of Germany will rise and yours will sink! Your death knell has sounded!" (8)
When the Reichstag voted on the Enabling Act, it passed 441 to 84. All 84 dissenting votes were Social Democrats. Not one member of the Catholic Center party voted against it. (9)

Conclusion

Can democracy be blamed for Hitler's rise? No. Other democratic nations around the world were also devastated by the Great Depression, but none converted to dictatorships as a result. Germany was the oddball among these nations, and an examination of its republic reveals its democratic and constitutional weaknesses clearly enough.

History reminds us that there is actually a spectrum of democracies, with strong democracies on one end, and weak democracies on the other. To the extent that democracies fail, it is because the will of the people is not being carried out. The U.S. offers this lesson itself. Blacks were forbidden to vote until 1870; women until 1920; poll-tax debtors until 1964; illiterates until 1965, young people until 1971. And how the U.S. treats its minorities today, as compared to 200 years ago, is like night and day. One remarkable fact remains: where there is a failure of democracy, there is usually a lack of democracy.