More Nazi loot found in Germany

[WJHopwood]

As reported in the NY Times today, BBC News and the German magazine,
"Focus," have disclosed that there were 1500 works of Art confiscated by
the Nazi's in the 1930's and 40's, discovered in Munich in 2011, but not
publicly reported until now.
Why the discovery was not reported at the time is a mystery. The
estimated value of the collection is $1.3 Billion, a rather significant sum
for the authorities in Munich to have kept quiet about for so long.
. The collection was discovered by accident after a warrant had been
obtained for a search of the home of an art dealer's son. It is alleged to
include works by Matisse, Picasso, and Chagall.
The U.S. Holocaust Mmorial Museum has estimated that there were
an estimated 16,000 works of Art seized by the Nazis prior to and during
WWII. Accordingly, this collection would be about 9% of the estimated total
Art works seized.


WJH

[dumbstruck]

Post by WJHopwood
As reported in the NY Times today, BBC News and the German magazine,
"Focus," have disclosed that there were 1500 works of Art confiscated by
the Nazi's in the 1930's and 40's, discovered in Munich in 2011, but not

Whoa, this does not appear to be primarily a case of confiscation BY the
nazis but FROM them. And not primarily FROM the Jews but TO one. There are
tantalizing twists to this story that should intrigue readers here that
know the contextual history, that seems to be garbled by a number of
contradicting reports in english... anyone able to read the german version?

A good place to start is the amazing story of the father of the recluse who
was found with the billion euros worth of paintings (in a squalid apt)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildebrand_Gurlitt was assigned to sell
"degenerate art" which was not necessarily confiscated or war related,
but in many cases were already German museum property. He was employed
by that whacko biggest-museum-in-the-world that Hitler was trying to
build near his hometown in Austria... I seem to recall Hitler slept late
the morning of D-day due to staying up all night refining it's design.

Anyway, while those paintings may have partly looted, partly paid for
under duress, and partly paid well for in earlier days... it seems clear
that Gurlitt stole them and passed them on to his now elderly son.
Gurlitt told the allies the paintings were lost in Dresden fire raid,
and that he had a jewish grandmother that nazis somehow didn't discover.
Oh, he is a victim, so they let him free. Recently his son is picked up
entering Germany from Switzerland, not breaking any laws but smelling
like a tax evader to the special enforcement teams which remind me a
bit of the nazi ones patrolling trains for regime enemies. Anyway the
paintings shown in the news articles look pretty hideous to me.

[Don Phillipson]

Post by dumbstruck
this does not appear to be primarily a case of confiscation BY the
nazis but FROM them. And not primarily FROM the Jews but TO one. There are
tantalizing twists to this story that should intrigue readers here that
know the contextual history, that seems to be garbled by a number of
contradicting reports in english

Standard histories (e.g. Lynn Nicholas' The Rape of Europa: the fate of
Europe's treasures in the Third Reich and the Second World War)
affirm that within general policies concerning "Aryan" art special
deals were negotiated (with payoffs to senior Nazi officials)
authorizing established art dealers (including a few Jews, German,
Dutch and French) to buy and sell both legitimate and looted art from
at least 1937 to 1945.

[Roman W]

Post by WJHopwood
Why the discovery was not reported at the time is a mystery. The
estimated value of the collection is $1.3 Billion, a rather

significant sum

Post by WJHopwood
for the authorities in Munich to have kept quiet about for so long.

Even today, getting the Germans to return anything which the nazis
have stolen during the war is always a long and arduous legal
struggle.

Not that the Allies didn't do their share of the looting, of course.

RW

[WJHopwood]

Post by Roman W

Post by WJHopwood
Why the discovery was not reported at the time is a
mystery....

Even today, getting the Germans to return anything which the nazis
have stolen during the war is always a long and arduous legal struggle.

This story has raised worldwide interest and there is apparently more
to it than first appeared. This is how I figure it out:

Early in the war, Hildebrand Gurlitt, a well-known
German art collector and father of the man in whose home the
paintings in question were found almost two years ago by
German tax authorities, was employed by the Nazis early in WWII
to locate and confiscate (presumably for destruction) any
paintings considered to be "degenerate" under Nazi art standards.
In carrying out this mission, Gurlitt ranged throughout
pre-war Germany, travelled to occupied Paris a number of times,
and searched in other German-occupied areas gathering up a large
number of paintings, apparently with little regard as to who owned
them or whether or not they met the Nazi degeneracy standards.
Of the paintings that Gurlitt senior had located for the Nazis,
it would seem that he may have quietly hidden a large number of them
for use in his own art gallery after the war. During the period of chaos in
Germany when the war was over, he apparently recovered the
paintings he had stashed, but before deciding what to do with them
he was killed in a car crash.
The paintings were inherited by Gurlitt's son who stored them
for years in his house and, it is believed, lived a comfortable life=style
probably off the proceeds of an an occasional sale of a painting. Howeve,
on a return train trip to Germany from Switzerland in 2010, he was
observed by a customs inspector to be carrying a large sum of money
which, although not illegal, aroused the suspicion of German tax authorities.
A warrant was then obtained to search the son's house, the search resulting
in the discovery of the some 1500 paintings. The discovery was kept quiet
by authorities for more than a year and only became public a week or so ago
causing an uproar among descendents of former Holocaust survivors over to
whom the paintings would become lawfully entitled.
As for who gets the paintings now, or the proceeds from any
sales thereof, who knows? According to legal authorities, the descendants
of persons from whom specific paintings had been confiscated by the Nazis,
will have little chance of making successful claims. But, not only did
appropriate statutes of limitations expire decades ago, but a determination
at this late date of who had been the previous owner, or whether or not the
discovered paintings had actually been seized by the Nazis would now be
impossible to ascertain with any reasonable degree of certainty, Stay tuned.

WJH

[dumbstruck]

Post by WJHopwood
This story has raised worldwide interest and there is apparently more
Early in the war, Hildebrand Gurlitt, a well-known
German art collector and father of the man in whose home the
paintings in question were found almost two years ago by
German tax authorities, was employed by the Nazis early in WWII
to locate and confiscate (presumably for destruction) any
paintings considered to be "degenerate" under Nazi art standards.

Did you not read my earlier reply posting, or are you denying it?
What are your references, and are you denying the one I posted? What
makes this story so fascinating is precisely because it is mostly the
opposite of the easy stereotypes. Confiscation was not the plan, aside
from his authority to clean out abandoned villas, and certainly not
destruction... even the Nazi's wanted monetization of degenerate art.
They mainly wanted it out of Germany, thus Hildebrand traded even
German owned modern art in France and Switzerland.

Like I said, an important clue of a bigger/different story comes from
how very contradictory the news reports are. But now we may be coming
to some convergence with the stunning disclosures just hours old. Some
of these paintings have toured the US in 1956, and at least one is
listed as owned by the US govt. A new stash was found just yesterday
at the home of a new player. Cornelius has been found... well he was
never lost. Follow the links embedded in this news story:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/10/nazi-art-hoard-mystery-gurlitt

My earlier wiki link describes Hildebrand buying a Cezanne that turned
out to be fake for 5million francs of nazi money, almost 100 times the
price of any real Cezanne at the time. He bought others at distress
prices, but that can be a blessing for a seller in need. Read one of the
most fascinating background books "Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics"
covering the weird twists in art... just because Goebbels the radical
burned books and maybe paintings didn't mean it became policy or was
condoned by others such as Goering. Goebbels destructive publicity
stunts often triggered emergency damage control meetings by other Nazis,
and his fiery and popular proposal for total war was simply ignored.

[WJHopwood]

Post by dumbstruck

Early in the war, Hildebrand Gurlitt, a well-known German art
collector.... was employed by the Nazis...to locate and confiscate
(presumably for destruction) any paintings considered to be
"degenerate" under Nazi art standards.

Did you not read my earlier reply posting, or are you denying it?

Yes, I read it. I don't agree with what you said. You wrote:

"Whoa. this does not appear to be primarily a case of
confiscation by the Nazis but FROM them..."

Where did all these alleged "degenerate" paintings that the Nazis
who engaged Gurlitt to market for them come from if they weren't
"confiscated" which means "taken," "seized," "stolen," "sold cheap
by the owner under duress,"

Post by dumbstruck
What are your references...

Recent New York Times stories. Here is one of them:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/arts/design/german-officials-provide-details-on-looted-art-trove.html?emc=edit_tnt_20131105&tntemail0=y&_r=0

Recent Wall Street Journal stories. Here is one of them:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303309504579185861314057386

Also wire service stories carried daily for over a week by my local newspaper.

Post by dumbstruck
and are you denying the one I posted?

I'm neither confirming nor denying it. What's your beef?

Post by dumbstruck
Confiscation was not the plan, aside from his authority to clean
out abandoned villas,

You seem to contradict the first paragraph of your own reference.
According to Wikipedia, "confiscation" was indeed involved. I quote:
"Hildebrand Gurlitt (15 September 1895 - 9 November 1956)
was a German art dealer and historian who traded in "degenerate art"
during the Nazi era.[1] In 2012, 1,406 stolen and confiscated works (by
Marc Chagall, Paul Klee, Henri Matisse, and Pablo Picasso, among others)
he had hidden were confiscated from his son, Cornelius Gurlitt.[2][3]"

Post by dumbstruck
...and certainly not destruction... even the Nazi's wanted monetization
of degenerate art.

I agree that my comment referring to "destruction" was too inclusive.
However, when possessing "degenerate" art becme illegal in Nazi Germany,
it's my educated guess that at least some of it may have been destroyed
until Goebbels realized that money could made from seizing what could be
located and selling it outside the country. Gurlitt, a well-respected German
art dealer, was thus employed by the Nazis to sell such art and was paid a
5% commission from the proceeds of each sale.
As it apparently turned out, after "obtaining" the paintings from
various sources, a number of those not sold ended up in Gurlitt's gallery.
After the war, investigations set up to determine what had happened to
missing art during the Nazi regime, interviewed Gurling a number of
times but no charges were made.
Gurlitt was killed in an auto accident, apparently while investigations
were still in progress. Gurlitt's wife was apparently questioned as she
wrote a letter of reply in which she claimed that a large number of the
paintings her husband had "obtained" had been destroyed during the
bombing of Dresden.

Post by dumbstruck
They mainly wanted it out of Germany,,,

Although one of the stories I read recently said
that Goebbels had given Gurlitt a document permitting him to
keep some of the "degenerate" paintings for his own collection.
Whether that was true or not, who knows?

Post by dumbstruck
... Some of these paintings have toured the US in 1956, and at
least one is listed as owned by the US govt. A new stash was
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/10/nazi-art-hoard-mystery-gurlitt

I don't see anything new in that source or its links of any value. So
Gurlitt Junior turned up after having never been missing at all. So what?

Each day the story unwinds there is more to be learned. Only today
The Wall Street Journal has a story from Berlin which goes into the German
legalities of the matter. In essence it says that the Germans are more
focused on the tax evasion angle than on the WWII history of the paintings
and since it is customary not to go public with cases under investigations
until they are over, prosecutors there couldn't care less about who owns
what and when after all the commotion being generated by this case fades
away as other such stories have before.

WJH

[Rich Rostrom]

Where did all these ... "degenerate" paintings ...
come from if they weren't "confiscated"...

Already owned by German institutions,
including national and local museums.
Not all, but probably quite a few.

Under gleischaltung, they all became
the property of the state, regardless of
the previous status of the institution.

[WJHopwood]

Where did all these ... "degenerate" paintings ...
come from if they weren't "confiscated"...

Already owned by German institutions, including
national and local museums. Not all, but probably
quite a few.....they all became the property of the
state, regardless of the previous status of the
institution.

In other words, you are saying that they were indeed
"confiscated," which was the term being disputed by
a previous poster. Nazi confiscation of many if not
all of the paintings seems further confirmed today
In an Associated Press wire story datelined Berlin
which states in part:
"....(German) officials posted details Monday on
25 paintings that they said they strongly suspected
were looted by the Nazis....Of the collection of
roughly 1,400 artworks, 970 required investigation,
officials said, adding that 380 of them may be works
the Nazis deemed 'degenerate' art. They said 590
pieces would be researched as works possibly looted
by the Nazis....The moves by Germany's federal
government and regional authorities come amid
pressure ...from the U.S. State Department to take the
case from local authorities."

WJH

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by WJHopwood

Where did all these ... "degenerate" paintings ...
come from if they weren't "confiscated"...

Already owned by German institutions, including
national and local museums. Not all, but probably
quite a few.....they all became the property of the
state, regardless of the previous status of the
institution.

In other words, you are saying that they were indeed
"confiscated...

Not seized from individuals, which is the
usual meaning of "confiscated".

In many cases an entire institution was
taken over by the Nazis, with executive
staff either replaced by Nazis or joining
the party.

"Degenerate art" held by such institutions
would be discarded willingly. Not confiscated.

Some institutions, not directly controlled
by Nazis, might have "discarded" such works
under Nazi pressure, the works then being
collected for resale by the aforementioned
Nazi agent. That approaches confiscation.

Other works might be held by state operated
institutions. They were at the disposal of
the Nazis when they took over the state.
Not confiscated.

[WJHopwood]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by WJHopwood

Where did all these ... "degenerate" paintings ...
come from if they weren't "confiscated"...

Already owned by German institutions....they all
became the property of the state regardless of the
previous status of the institution.

In other words, you are saying that they were indeed
"confiscated...

Not seized from individuals, which is the
usual meaning of "confiscated".

I disagree. I guess we read from different dictionaries
but if you wish to pick nits, here is a definition from.
"dictionary.com" which seems accurate to me in the
situation we are discussing:
"con·fis·cate. 1. to seize as forfeited to the public
domain;appropriate, by way of penalty, for public use.
2. to seize by or as if by authority; appropriate summarily..."

I see nothing which mentions that the definition applies
only to actions confined against "individuals." It seems
quite clear by universal definition and common usage that
when the Nazi government, as the prevailing authority,
"seized" and appropriated summarily said works of art,
that the the word "confiscate" applied as it does to its
synonyms which include "taken," and "seized."

Post by Rich Rostrom
In many cases... an... entire institution was taken
over by the Nazis, with..."Degenerate art" held by
such institutions...discarded willingly. Not confiscated.

You missed a beat. If institutions which owned such
degenerate art were "taken over by Nazi's, obviously
the art went with the institution and, ipso facto, was
"confiscated" by the Nazis before being allegedly
"discarded." Discarded was not likely inasmuch
as the Nazis had hired Gurlick to sell such art.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Some institutions, not directly controlled by Nazis,
might have "discarded" such works under Nazi
pressure, the works then being collected for resale
by the aforementioned Nazi agent. That approaches
confiscation.

That not only "approaches confiscation," it, confirms it.
This from "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: "confiscation"
"In law, the act of seizing property without compensation
and submitting it to the public treasury...."

Post by Rich Rostrom
Other works might be held by state operated institutions.
They were at the disposal of the Nazis when they took
over the state. Not confiscated.

If the state operated institutions held property, namely
art works, which was under the control of and subject to
"disposal" by the Nazis by sale, any such property which
was reduced in value could be considered "confiscated."
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia;
"...Additionally, government action...that reduces the
value of property to an owner so as to make it nearly worthless
has been held to constitute confiscation."

Certainly when so-called degenerate art became illegal in
Germany, it could not be sold there and its value had thus
been devalued. This act of banning the degenerate art was
in itself, confiscatory.

WJH

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by WJHopwood

Post by Rich Rostrom
Other works might be held by state operated institutions.
They were at the disposal of the Nazis when they took
over the state. Not confiscated.

If the state operated institutions held property, namely
art works, which was under the control of and subject to
"disposal" by the Nazis by sale, any such property which
was reduced in value could be considered "confiscated."

So this property was confiscated by the Nazis
from themselves?

At the end of WW II, vast amounts of war materiel
owned by the United States military were scrapped.
Arms and other combat equipment were often destroyed.
This certainly reduced the value of the materiel.

Was this materiel confiscated?

When the Nazis came into control of the German
state, they came into control of German state
assets. To the extent that Nazi authority was
politically legitimate, Nazi control of such
assets was also legitimate, not "confiscation".

While the Nazi entry to power was in many
respects dubious **, the Nazis were universally
recognized as the legitimate government of
Germany. They could lawfully do anything a
legitimate government could do, including
sell off property of the government which
they didn't want to keep.

Goods which were transferred from the German
state to individual Nazis (such as Goering)
would be confiscations or looting. But that
was not the case with these works.

** The Nazi entry to power was more legitimate
than the Bolshevik Revolution, or Franco's
overthrow of the Spanish Republic, or
Mussolini's March on Rome, to name a just
a few of the government origins which were
accepted by the world of that period.

[WJHopwood]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by WJHopwood
If the state operated institutions held property, namely
art works, which was under the control of and subject to
"disposal" by the Nazis by sale, any such property which
was reduced in value could be considered "confiscated."

So this property was confiscated by the Nazis
from themselves?

Your point it well-taken as to state institutions but only
to state-owned assets therein prior to the Nazi take-over.
Not to assets therein which had been "consigned" by
private owners to such institutions as some museum
contents often are. And certainly not to assets owned by
private institutions which became "state controlled"
subsequent to the Nazi take-over of the government.
Any private assets in either case if and when "disposed"
of under Nazi direction were thus confiscated from
previous private owners.

Post by Rich Rostrom
At the end of WW II, vast amounts of war materiel
owned by the United States military were scrapped.
Arms and other combat equipment were often destroyed.
This certainly reduced the value of the materiel.
Was this materiel confiscated?

I assume you mean war material belonging to the former
enemy which became U.S. property. I would say it depends
on the terms and conditions by which such assets became U.S.
property. If by terms of an armistice or a peace treaty it
was not confiscated but taken by mutual agreement between
the U.S. and the former enemy. It taken otherwise, it could
meet the definition of confiscated, yes. As the old saying
goes: "To the victor belong the spoils."

Post by Rich Rostrom
While the Nazi entry to power was in many
respects dubious **, the Nazis were universally
recognized as the legitimate government of
Germany. They could lawfully do anything a
legitimate government could do, including
sell off property of the government which
they didn't want to keep.

Yes, they could also sell off any private property
which they had seized, looted, or confiscated in the
process of having taken control of the government.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Goods which were transferred from the German
state to individual Nazis (such as Goering)
would be confiscations or looting. But that
was not the case with these works.

Yes it was. In many cases it WAS taken by confiscation
or by looting whether or not it ended up as assets of
the Nazi government or subsequently as property
if individual Nazis with the OK of the Nazi goverment,
of which persons like Goering were a part.

WJH

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by WJHopwood

Post by Rich Rostrom
At the end of WW II, vast amounts of war materiel
owned by the United States military were scrapped.
Arms and other combat equipment were often destroyed.
This certainly reduced the value of the materiel.
Was this materiel confiscated?

I assume you mean war material belonging to the former
enemy which became U.S. property.

Why assume that? The scrapped materiel
included jeeps, Sherman tanks, B-29s,
Fairchild trainers, Browning machine guns,
damaged warships, and other materiel
purchased by the U.S.

Post by WJHopwood

Post by Rich Rostrom
[The Nazis] could lawfully do anything a
legitimate government could do, including sell off
property of the government which they didn't want
to keep.

Yes, they could also sell off any private property
which they had seized, looted, or confiscated in the
process of having taken control of the government.

Post-WW-II, the British government took over the
country's private hospitals to form the National
Health Service. Subsequently, the government sold
off some bits of land and buildings that were no
longer useful.

Confiscation?

Here's a small factoid. All property is ultimately
owned either by governments, by private citizens, or
by non-profit non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
(For-profit corporations own property, but they are
themselves owned.)

When _items_ of property are taken by the state,
that's confiscation. When a business enterprise
is taken over by the state from private owners,
that's confiscation.

But when an NGO is converted to a state agency,
is that "confiscation"? If the NGO is taken away
from some larger NGO - say, a school system taken
from a church - that feels like confiscation.

But if an autonomous NGO is taken over whole...

Who is it confiscated _from_? The former trustees?
If the trustees are representatives of some
definite particular group, perhaps.

What if the conversion to state control is
voluntary, perhaps in return for additional
funding?

The Gurlitt collection appears to include works
of such provenance.

[WJHopwood]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by WJHopwood

At the end of WW II...war materiel owned by the United
States military were scrapped...other combat equipment
...often destroyed. This certainly reduced the value of the
materiel. Was this materiel confiscated?

I assume you mean war material belonging to the former
enemy which became U.S. property.

Why assume that?

Because in my view to assume otherwise made your question
as to its "confiscation" incomprehensible. I was giving you the
benefit of the doubt.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Post-WW-II, the British government took over the
country's private hospitals to form the National
Health Service. Subsequently, the government sold
off some bits of land and buildings that were no
longer useful. Confiscation?

It could have been if the British Gov't did not compensate
the private owners, or didn't pay them enough. If such
had been the case and with the private owners under
the duress of a British equivalent of the U.S. "Eminent
Domain," take-over, such would have been confiscatory.
Since you didn't say how the take-over was carried out,
we don't know if it was confiscatory or not.

Post by Rich Rostrom
When _items_ of property are taken by the state,
that's confiscation. When a business enterprise
is taken over by the state from private owners,
that's confiscation.

If done without adequate and just compensation,
such is the case. You just answered your own
question above about the British National Health
Service take-over.

Post by Rich Rostrom
But when an NGO (Non-Gov't Organization) is
converted to a state agency, is that "confiscation"?

Yes, if it was taken over by seizure and not by payment
at fair value.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Who is it confiscated _from_? The former trustees?

Whomever legally owns it. Someone or some group does.

Post by Rich Rostrom
What if the conversion to state control is voluntary, perhaps
in return for additional funding?

It could be turned over to the state by the legally constituted
person(s) responsible for doing so, such as the registered
owner(s), partner(s), Board of Directors, or a designated
trustee.

Post by Rich Rostrom
The Gurlitt collection appears to include works of such
provenance.

Well, there's a problem there. It seems that Gurlitt senior
left a document before his death in 1956 which, as reported
in The Wall Street Journal of November 19, said that the
collection had come from "emigrating customers and friends,
and people who had the foresight to unload their pictures."
The WSJ went on to say that this "suggested that Gurlitt
(senior) was actively dealing in art with those fleeing the Nazi
regime. According to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in an
article on March 1, 2007 headed: Restitution of Holocaust-
Era Assets--Promises and Realities" the following:
"At most, 15 percent of Jewish assets confiscated from
1934 to 1945 were returned after the war to their owners, their
heirs, and Jewish organizations representing heirless claimants."
It would seem that Gurlitt, junior, will have a tough job
trying to prove that the entire collection is rightfully his.

WJH

[Bill]

Post by WJHopwood

Post by Rich Rostrom
Post-WW-II, the British government took over the
country's private hospitals to form the National
Health Service. Subsequently, the government sold
off some bits of land and buildings that were no
longer useful. Confiscation?

It could have been if the British Gov't did not compensate
the private owners, or didn't pay them enough. If such
had been the case and with the private owners under
the duress of a British equivalent of the U.S. "Eminent
Domain," take-over, such would have been confiscatory.
Since you didn't say how the take-over was carried out,
we don't know if it was confiscatory or not.

It wasn't.

The minister responsible is famously known to have said "I have
stuffed their mouths with gold."

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:18:47 -0500, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
** The Nazi entry to power was more legitimate
than the Bolshevik Revolution, or Franco's
overthrow of the Spanish Republic, or
Mussolini's March on Rome, to name a just
a few of the government origins which were
accepted by the world of that period.

I would argue it was every bit as legitimate as pretty much every
government in the EU in 2013 - the Weimar State was based on a
Reichstag elected by proportional representation which along with the
Westminster first past the post systems are the two means of electing
national houses of assembly almost universally in the EU, North
America and just about every other state in the world generally called
'democratic'.

Hitler in 1933 led what was the largest party in the Reichstag as
elected by the German voters and thus had the right to attempt to form
a ruling coalition. Only after he had tried and failed did the second
party have the right to attempt to form THEIR ruling coalition.

This is not all that different from how governments are elected in
Germany today.

If the argument is that the Nazi state was illegitimate because of
what happened later you may or may not have an argument but I simply
do not see that the method of Hitler's accession to power despite the
fact that he called it a "seizure of power" was fundamentally
different from any other Weimar-era German government and was in fact
well within the common usage of the day.

Please note I distinguish the events leading up to 30 January 1933
(the day he came to power) from what came afterwards. You Rich have
seen my postings for more than 10 years and know I'm no Nazi fanboi
unlike certain other posters here and in soc.history.what-if.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by The Horny Goat

** The Nazi entry to power was more legitimate than ...

I would argue it was every bit as legitimate as pretty much every
government in the EU in 2013 - the Weimar State was based on a
Reichstag elected by proportional representatiom...
Hitler in 1933 led what was the largest party in the Reichstag as
elected by the German voters and thus had the right to attempt to form
a ruling coalition. Only after he had tried and failed did the second
party have the right to attempt to form THEIR ruling coalition.

I don't think that there was any requirement
the largest party got to "form a government"
first.

However, the dubious aspects of the Nazi
takeover were:

Nazi violence against electoral rivals,
which I believe was a factor in the 1932
elections and certainly in the 1933
election.

Nazi use of state police power against
electoral rivals, which was certainly
a major factor in the 1933 election.

(One question, which I have never seen
addressed: did the Nazis engage in vote
fraud in the 1933 election? Or in the
earlier elections? By physical control
of polling places, they could count votes
to suit themselves. It seems likely that
they might. Suppressing Communist or
Social Democrat votes seems like something
they would do.

Could they get away with it before 1933?
Did they do it in 1933? It would seem
in character, and yet even in the 1933
vote they did not get a majority - so
they must have been somewhat restrained.)

Finally, the Enabling Act passed under a
tacit threat of revolutionary violence.
Was the Act even valid under the Weimar
Constitution?

[Michael Kuettner]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by The Horny Goat

** The Nazi entry to power was more legitimate than ...

I would argue it was every bit as legitimate as pretty much every
government in the EU in 2013 - the Weimar State was based on a
Reichstag elected by proportional representatiom...
Hitler in 1933 led what was the largest party in the Reichstag as
elected by the German voters and thus had the right to attempt to form
a ruling coalition. Only after he had tried and failed did the second
party have the right to attempt to form THEIR ruling coalition.

I don't think that there was any requirement
the largest party got to "form a government"
first.

The party selected by the head of state gets the mandate to form a
government.
Usually (even nowadays), the leader of the party with the most votes
gets the mandate.

A little link for the results of elections in the Weimarer Republik :

<http://www.bundestag.de/kulturundgeschichte/geschichte/infoblatt/reichstagswahlergebnisse.pdf>

Post by Rich Rostrom
However, the dubious aspects of the Nazi
Nazi violence against electoral rivals,
which I believe was a factor in the 1932
elections and certainly in the 1933
election.

Nazis and communists were both violent.
At least until 1932; 1933 were no free elections anymore.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Nazi use of state police power against
electoral rivals, which was certainly
a major factor in the 1933 election.

1933 was no election anymore ...

Post by Rich Rostrom
(One question, which I have never seen
addressed: did the Nazis engage in vote
fraud in the 1933 election? Or in the
earlier elections? By physical control
of polling places, they could count votes
to suit themselves. It seems likely that
they might. Suppressing Communist or
Social Democrat votes seems like something
they would do.

See my link.
The vote for the Nazis dropped from the first election
in 1932 to the 2nd election in 1932.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Could they get away with it before 1933?

Nope.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Did they do it in 1933? It would seem
in character, and yet even in the 1933
vote they did not get a majority - so
they must have been somewhat restrained.)

Look at the percentages. In 1933, they got away with it ..

Post by Rich Rostrom
Finally, the Enabling Act passed under a
tacit threat of revolutionary violence.
Was the Act even valid under the Weimar
Constitution?

Yes, it was valid.
The Weimar Constitution wasn't perfect; the Notstandsverordnung
was ratified by parliament ...

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Stephen Graham]

Post by Michael Kuettner
Yes, it was valid.
The Weimar Constitution wasn't perfect; the Notstandsverordnung
was ratified by parliament ...

Did you mean the Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich? That's
more usually termed the Ermächtigungsgesetz (Enabling Act). While it's
true that it passed the Reichstag with 444 votes, most historians would
be reluctant to claim that vote to be unbiased and fair. Something about
the presence of SA troopers in the chamber.

[Michael Kuettner]

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by Michael Kuettner
Yes, it was valid.
The Weimar Constitution wasn't perfect; the Notstandsverordnung
was ratified by parliament ...

Did you mean the Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich? That's
more usually termed the Ermächtigungsgesetz (Enabling Act).

Yes. Afterwards, Adolf could rule by Notstandsverordnungen.

Post by Stephen Graham
While it's
true that it passed the Reichstag with 444 votes, most historians would
be reluctant to claim that vote to be unbiased and fair. Something about
the presence of SA troopers in the chamber.

The question, which I answered, had nothing to do with "fair" or
"unbiased", but whether it was legal.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
I don't think that there was any requirement
the largest party got to "form a government" first.

The party selected by the head of state gets the mandate to form a
government. Usually (even nowadays), the leader of the party with the most votes
gets the mandate.

But there is no _requirement_. The exclusion of the
Nazis would have been constitutional. However after
both of the two 1932 elections, no government could
be formed without either the Nazis or the Communists.

Thus after July 1932, Germany was ruled
constitutionally.

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
Nazi violence against electoral rivals,
which I believe was a factor in the 1932
elections and certainly in the 1933 election.

Nazis and communists were both violent.

True, and had the Communists come to power, their
"legitimacy" would also have been questionable.
Though in fact the Communists rejected the very idea
of electoral legitimacy - parliamentary elections were
dismissed as a "bourgeois lottery", to be abolished
by revolutionary violence at the first opportunity.

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
Nazi use of state police power against electoral rivals,
which was certainly a major factor in the 1933 election.
did the Nazis engage in vote fraud in the 1933
election? Or in the earlier elections? By physical
control of polling places, they could count votes
to suit themselves. It seems likely that they
might. Suppressing Communist or Social Democrat
votes seems like something they would do.

1933 was no election anymore ...

March 1933 was certainly a _flawed_ election, but it
would appear that the vast majority of the votes were
correctly counted. The "legitimate" Nazi vote was
surely at least equal to the 11.7 M received the previous
November. The 22.1 M reported for other parties would
presumably all be legitimate. (It does not seem likely
there were any fraudulent votes for them.) That would
be 86% of the 39.3 M total vote, and probably more.

That's an election, not just a charade.

(Of the remaining 5.5M NSDAP votes (14%), some were fraud
or coercion. Some were new or shifting voters who chose
the NSDAP freely. Some were voters who were not coerced,
but were swayed by the absence of campaigning by the
suppressed opposition and Nazi campaigning with state
resources. This last group is problematic. An election
can be "stolen" by these means, but there is no concrete
act depriving the voters of their sovereign choice.)

Post by Michael Kuettner
See my link.

I will - but have no time to review the document now.

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
Could they get away with it before 1933?

Nope.

Even in the areas where they were politically and
physically strongest? What would prevent them from
intimidating registrars (or filling such posts
themselves) and observers, and cooking the counts
in their strongholds?

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
Did they do it in 1933? It would seem
in character, and yet even in the 1933
vote they did not get a majority - so
they must have been somewhat restrained.)

Look at the percentages. In 1933, they got away with it ...

Got away with what, though?

Post by Michael Kuettner
From November 1932 to March 1933, the votes changed

as follows:

Communists: -1.1 M
Socialists: +0.3 M
NSDAP: +5.5 M
Zentrum +0.2 M
DNVP: -0.8 M

Others: +0.1 M

Total +4.9 M

[Michael Kuettner]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
I don't think that there was any requirement
the largest party got to "form a government" first.

The party selected by the head of state gets the mandate to form a
government. Usually (even nowadays), the leader of the party with the most votes
gets the mandate.

But there is no _requirement_. The exclusion of the
Nazis would have been constitutional. However after
both of the two 1932 elections, no government could
be formed without either the Nazis or the Communists.

(a) There's also no _requirement_ for the queen to open
parliament after elections.
(b) Exactly. No government without Adolf.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Thus after July 1932, Germany was ruled
constitutionally.

Yes, but it wasn't ruled by Adolf until Jan. 1933.
See the governments of Brüning/Papen/Schleicher to
see how the "Zentrumsparteien" manged to dismantle their
parties because of internal power struggles.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
Nazi violence against electoral rivals,
which I believe was a factor in the 1932
elections and certainly in the 1933 election.

Nazis and communists were both violent.

True, and had the Communists come to power, their
"legitimacy" would also have been questionable.
Though in fact the Communists rejected the very idea
of electoral legitimacy - parliamentary elections were
dismissed as a "bourgeois lottery", to be abolished
by revolutionary violence at the first opportunity.

As did the Nazis. After the failed putsch of 1922 they
decided to walk through the "demokratischen Affenzirkus".
(roughly "democratic mumbo-jumbo").
Meaning : Whether Adolf or the Commies came to power, both would
try to do away with that "democratic foolishness".

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
Nazi use of state police power against electoral rivals,
which was certainly a major factor in the 1933 election.

Btw. : The Nazis couldn't use "state police power" before
Adolf formed his cabinett; that would have only been
possible in Prussia, where Göring held power.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
did the Nazis engage in vote fraud in the 1933
election? Or in the earlier elections? By physical
control of polling places, they could count votes
to suit themselves. It seems likely that they
might. Suppressing Communist or Social Democrat
votes seems like something they would do.

1933 was no election anymore ...

<snip>

Look at my link.
It shows the votes for each of the parties of Weimar
from 1919 until 1933.

Post by Rich Rostrom
That's an election, not just a charade.

See above.

<snip>

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner
See my link.

I will - but have no time to review the document now.

We'll talk when you've had time.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
Could they get away with it before 1933?

Nope.

Even in the areas where they were politically and
physically strongest? What would prevent them from
intimidating registrars (or filling such posts
themselves) and observers, and cooking the counts
in their strongholds?

What would prevent them ?
Maybe that the time was too short and they were just the
junior partner of shifting coalitions until 1933 ?
See Brüning/Papen/Schleicher to get some notion of how
the Nazis rose from junior partner to government.

<snip>

Post by Rich Rostrom
Got away with what, though?

Look at the link.
1932 : First 37,4, then only 33,1 percent of the votes in 1932.
In 1933, suddenly 43,9 %. Smells a little iffy, doesn't it ?
It might play a role that the SA became semi-legal when the
Nazis became juniot partners in the 1932 governments.

<snip>

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:06:37 -0500, Michael Kuettner

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner
The party selected by the head of state gets the mandate to form a
government. Usually (even nowadays), the leader of the party with the most votes
gets the mandate.

More precisely the party chosen get to TRY to form a coalition first.
No doubt other parties are dickering to see if a coalition led by them
is possible.

Obviously there is no assurance that the party that is TRYING to form
a coalition will succeed in doing so. This is why there have been so
many Italian governments in the postwar era. (The Italians are not
unique in this respect so please don't think I'm picking on them)

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
But there is no _requirement_. The exclusion of the
Nazis would have been constitutional. However after
both of the two 1932 elections, no government could
be formed without either the Nazis or the Communists.

(a) There's also no _requirement_ for the queen to open
parliament after elections.
(b) Exactly. No government without Adolf.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Thus after July 1932, Germany was ruled
constitutionally.

Yes, but it wasn't ruled by Adolf until Jan. 1933.

January 30th 1933 - I am not big on memorizing dates but when
something major happens the day one of your parents is born one tends
to remember. (Ironically my late father had less than zero interest in
history)

I think I've demonstrated over enough years that I'm no Nazi fanboi
but there seems little doubt that legally at least Hitler did come to
power legitimately.

As for legalities afterwards - well not so much but certainly
electorally...

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
Nazi violence against electoral rivals,
which I believe was a factor in the 1932
elections and certainly in the 1933 election.

Nazis and communists were both violent.

Well this was the major argument about the party militias - whether or
not they actually committed violence was not nearly as intimidating as
the implied threat.

Post by Michael Kuettner
Btw. : The Nazis couldn't use "state police power" before
Adolf formed his cabinett; that would have only been
possible in Prussia, where Göring held power.

This of course is why Goering's cabinet position was so important.

Post by Michael Kuettner
Look at the link.
1932 : First 37,4, then only 33,1 percent of the votes in 1932.
In 1933, suddenly 43,9 %. Smells a little iffy, doesn't it ?
It might play a role that the SA became semi-legal when the
Nazis became juniot partners in the 1932 governments.

Swings of that order aren't that rare in western governments from
election to election - certainly not in a way that would automatically
cause a 'fishy smell'.

The sort of party militias that existed in Weimar Germany existed
solely to intimidate - they weren't primarily about "getting out the
vote" and several parties had them. No way were the SA or the
Stahlhelm or others about 'getting little old ladies to the polls on
election day' as campaign workers in western democracies routinely do
today.

I'd argue that intimidation was always a factor - and one of the
reasons I have loathed the provincial NDP in my part of Canada was
that the provincial speaker was seen by reporters attending a union
rally in his riding (Nanaimo, BC) carrying a baseball bat one-handed
in the horizontal position which has always been how baseball bats are
wielded as weapons rather than sporting gear. Hecklers (which have
always been a feature of Canadian politics) were intimidated and there
was no party discipline of the Speaker thus tacitly approving these
tactics.

It was 15 years ago but still leaves a foul taste in my mouth.

[Michael Kuettner]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:06:37 -0500, Michael Kuettner

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Michael Kuettner
The party selected by the head of state gets the mandate to form a
government. Usually (even nowadays), the leader of the party with the most votes
gets the mandate.

More precisely the party chosen get to TRY to form a coalition first.
No doubt other parties are dickering to see if a coalition led by them
is possible.

That's the same thing formulated two ways.
But to expand a little for our Anglo-Saxon friends with their
two-party, winner takes it all system :
The party with the most votes gets the mandate to form a government.
As our horny correspondent has said, then they TRY to form a government.
If they fail, the next party gets the mandate and TRIES to form a
government.
If all fails, new elections will be held.

Post by The Horny Goat
Obviously there is no assurance that the party that is TRYING to form
a coalition will succeed in doing so. This is why there have been so
many Italian governments in the postwar era. (The Italians are not
unique in this respect so please don't think I'm picking on them)

Ah, Italy is special in that regard...


<snip>

Post by The Horny Goat
I think I've demonstrated over enough years that I'm no Nazi fanboi
but there seems little doubt that legally at least Hitler did come to
power legitimately.

Hitler did come to power legitimately; but not because the majority
of people voted for him. He raised through coalitions ...
That's what most Anglo-Saxons with their two-party "democracies"
don't understand.
And please no political correctness in here; we're a historical
newsgroup, not a political one.

Post by The Horny Goat
As for legalities afterwards - well not so much but certainly
electorally...

Afterwards the legalities were cut down by Notstandsverordnungen ...

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
Nazi violence against electoral rivals,
which I believe was a factor in the 1932
elections and certainly in the 1933 election.

Nazis and communists were both violent.

Well this was the major argument about the party militias - whether or
not they actually committed violence was not nearly as intimidating as
the implied threat.

Well, the threat wasn't merely implied; but mostly they hit each other.
Voter intimidation wasn't really their business.

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Michael Kuettner
Btw. : The Nazis couldn't use "state police power" before
Adolf formed his cabinett; that would have only been
possible in Prussia, where Göring held power.

This of course is why Goering's cabinet position was so important.

Exactly.

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Michael Kuettner
Look at the link.
1932 : First 37,4, then only 33,1 percent of the votes in 1932.
In 1933, suddenly 43,9 %. Smells a little iffy, doesn't it ?
It might play a role that the SA became semi-legal when the
Nazis became juniot partners in the 1932 governments.

Swings of that order aren't that rare in western governments from
election to election - certainly not in a way that would automatically
cause a 'fishy smell'.

Not automatically, no. But if you look at the link, you'll see that
the votes for _all_ radical parties went down in 1932.
Why ? Economy began to rise again. People tend to vote for radical
parties in times of crisis; the crisis began to pass in 1932.
At the same time the Nazis became weaker but were in the government.
No new crisis between 1932 and 1933; but suddenly they get 10 % more ?
It's a little fishy.

Post by The Horny Goat
The sort of party militias that existed in Weimar Germany existed
solely to intimidate - they weren't primarily about "getting out the
vote" and several parties had them. No way were the SA or the
Stahlhelm or others about 'getting little old ladies to the polls on
election day' as campaign workers in western democracies routinely do
today.

Yes. But the brutality of the SA became semi-legal while the commie -
formations became illegal.
No one forced little old ladies to the polls; but one only saw the
SA marching in those times.
One got the impression that only the NSDAP was a stable factor;
especially after the fast change of governments between 1930 and 1932.
There was too much backstabbing and internal powerfights in the
conservative parties; Versailles was universally hated by all but the
ComIntern - parties.
But all that doesn't explain _all_ of the plus-votes in 1933 ...

Post by The Horny Goat
I'd argue that intimidation was always a factor -

<snip>
Intimidation or felt intimidation ?
That's really the difference ...

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 15:16:33 -0500, Michael Kuettner

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:06:37 -0500, Michael Kuettner

Post by Michael Kuettner
The party selected by the head of state gets the mandate to form a
government. Usually (even nowadays), the leader of the party with the most votes
gets the mandate.

More precisely the party chosen get to TRY to form a coalition first.
No doubt other parties are dickering to see if a coalition led by them
is possible.

That's the same thing formulated two ways.
But to expand a little for our Anglo-Saxon friends with their
The party with the most votes gets the mandate to form a government.
As our horny correspondent has said, then they TRY to form a government.
If they fail, the next party gets the mandate and TRIES to form a
government.
If all fails, new elections will be held.

Post by The Horny Goat
Obviously there is no assurance that the party that is TRYING to form
a coalition will succeed in doing so. This is why there have been so
many Italian governments in the postwar era. (The Italians are not
unique in this respect so please don't think I'm picking on them)

Ah, Italy is special in that regard...

Actually the United States is pretty much the only Westminster style
system that has strictly two parties.

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by The Horny Goat
As for legalities afterwards - well not so much but certainly
electorally...

Afterwards the legalities were cut down by Notstandsverordnungen ...

Exactly my point. What they did AFTER gaining power was far more
problematic than how they took power. The "Nazi Seizure of Power" is a
misnomer - one may as well talk of "David Cameron's Seizure of Power"
- he has a minority government and rules by the grace of his coalition
partners.

The difference is that no one expects Cameron to pass an Enabling Act
nor to say the sorts of things about the Labour Party Hitler was
saying against the SPD and others in 1933-34.

Post by Michael Kuettner
Well, the threat wasn't merely implied; but mostly they hit each other.
Voter intimidation wasn't really their business.

Again my point - SA violence was mostly directed at other political
militias most particularly the communists.

Post by Michael Kuettner
Not automatically, no. But if you look at the link, you'll see that
the votes for _all_ radical parties went down in 1932.
Why ? Economy began to rise again. People tend to vote for radical
parties in times of crisis; the crisis began to pass in 1932.
At the same time the Nazis became weaker but were in the government.
No new crisis between 1932 and 1933; but suddenly they get 10 % more ?
It's a little fishy.

Given it was the beginning of the Great Depression and governments
were falling all over Europe and North America around that time I tend
to be a bit less critical. Had that sort of thing been happening say
around 1962 I'd be more skeptical.

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by The Horny Goat
The sort of party militias that existed in Weimar Germany existed
solely to intimidate - they weren't primarily about "getting out the
vote" and several parties had them. No way were the SA or the
Stahlhelm or others about 'getting little old ladies to the polls on
election day' as campaign workers in western democracies routinely do
today.
I'd argue that intimidation was always a factor -

<snip>
Intimidation or felt intimidation ?
That's really the difference ...

Too true.

[Mario]

Post by Michael Kuettner
Hitler did come to power legitimately; but not because the
majority of people voted for him. He raised through
coalitions...
That's what most Anglo-Saxons with their two-party
"democracies" don't understand.

In UK there were coalition governments, as the one in charge
today is.

Their electoral system doesn't guarantee neither a single party
government, nor a two-party parliament; f.ex. when there are
strong local parties (SNP).

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by The Horny Goat
The sort of party militias that existed in Weimar Germany existed
solely to intimidate - they weren't primarily about "getting out the
vote" and several parties had them. No way were the SA or the
Stahlhelm or others about 'getting little old ladies to the polls on
election day' as campaign workers in western democracies routinely do
today.

But the party militia was not the party. The SA was
in many respects a distinct organization from the NSDAP.

The NSDAP Gauleiters and local secretaries _were_
(I'm sure) responsible for "getting the vote out".
(If the NSDAP organization didn't bother with that,
they were profoundly stupid - which I don't believe.)

The NSDAP nearly ran out of operating money in the
winter of 1932-1933. But when Hitler became Chancellor,
that presumably solved the problem. The NSDAP could
then resume paying its local operatives - who did
things like get voters to the polls.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 23:27:25 -0500, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by The Horny Goat
The sort of party militias that existed in Weimar Germany existed
solely to intimidate - they weren't primarily about "getting out the
vote" and several parties had them. No way were the SA or the
Stahlhelm or others about 'getting little old ladies to the polls on
election day' as campaign workers in western democracies routinely do
today.

But the party militia was not the party. The SA was
in many respects a distinct organization from the NSDAP.
The NSDAP Gauleiters and local secretaries _were_
(I'm sure) responsible for "getting the vote out".
(If the NSDAP organization didn't bother with that,
they were profoundly stupid - which I don't believe.)

Oh I'm sure the NSDAP had all kinds of people who did what we in the
west would call 'campaigning'. I'm equally certain that that was not
primarily what the SA was all about. While they may have been more
tightly linked to Rohm rather than the NSDAP hierarchy no one suggests
they were not loyal to Hitler.

Post by Rich Rostrom
The NSDAP nearly ran out of operating money in the
winter of 1932-1933. But when Hitler became Chancellor,
that presumably solved the problem. The NSDAP could
then resume paying its local operatives - who did
things like get voters to the polls.

This is what Hitler was distancing himself from the SA at this time -
they needed the money and were trying to appear as a 'legitimate
party' - not one which used violence to achieve their ends

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Michael Kuettner
(a) There's also no _requirement_ for the queen to open
parliament after elections.

If the queen does not open Parliament, the
entire system ceases to function.

Now suppose there is election in Fredonia,
and the results are (in seats won)

69 - Federalists
63 - Labor
30 - Reform
22 - Orthodox
17 - Republican

Is the head of state obliged to call on the
Federalists first? What if the incumbent
premier is a Laborite, who had been ruling
in coalition with Reform and the Republicans?

Does the system cease to function if the head
of state does not call on the Federalists
first?

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
Thus after July 1932, Germany was ruled
constitutionally.

My bad. I intended to write "extra-constitutionally";
the constitutional process was in abeyance after July.

Post by Michael Kuettner
As did the Nazis. After the failed putsch of 1922 they
decided to walk through the "demokratischen Affenzirkus".
(roughly "democratic mumbo-jumbo").

Good point. I like the phrase.

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
Nazi use of state police power against electoral rivals,
which was certainly a major factor in the 1933 election.

Btw. : The Nazis couldn't use "state police power" before
Adolf formed his cabinett; that would have only been
possible in Prussia, where Göring held power.

Prussia at the time was about half of Germany,
so the Nazis had plenty of scope for that abuse.

Post by Michael Kuettner
Look at my link.
It shows the votes for each of the parties of Weimar
from 1919 until 1933.

Post by Rich Rostrom
I will - but have no time to review the document now.

I have looked at the document (a PDF). That
data is avoilable at
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/g/germany/reichstag.txt
the website of Professor Alan Carr. His data
includes vote numbers, not just percentages.
He had associated pages with the result of
German presidential elections in Wwimar and
electoral maps.

I downloaded the file and have examined the
data years aog.

Post by Michael Kuettner
We'll talk when you've had time.

I'm not sure what you think this document shows.

Post by Michael Kuettner
Maybe that the time was too short and they were just the
junior partner of shifting coalitions until 1933 ?

AFAIK the Nazis were not port of any coalition.

And I don't see how that would affect Nazi
vote stealing.

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
Got away with what, though?

Look at the link.

: 1932 : First 37,4, then only 33,1 percent of the votes in 1932.

Post by Michael Kuettner
In 1933, suddenly 43,9 %. Smells a little iffy, doesn't it ?

Not especially. The Nazis, having control of
the state, now had increased available funds to
operate their party apparatus. Also having
gained power, they attracted many opportunists
and those who gravitate to a winner.

The DNVP was clearly going nowhere.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 02:36:43 -0500, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner
(a) There's also no _requirement_ for the queen to open
parliament after elections.

If the queen does not open Parliament, the
entire system ceases to function.
Now suppose there is election in Fredonia,
and the results are (in seats won)
69 - Federalists
63 - Labor
30 - Reform
22 - Orthodox
17 - Republican
Is the head of state obliged to call on the
Federalists first? What if the incumbent
premier is a Laborite, who had been ruling
in coalition with Reform and the Republicans?

In Canadian practice the outgoing Government would have first chance -
though if the Federalist leader thought he had the numbers to win a
non-confidence motion he would no doubt communicate that to the LG or
GG and request an immediate non-confidence motion in the House.

Generally the ONLY time a non-confidence motion would create a change
of government without a new election would be immediately after an
election when a government tried to continue without having the votes
to do so. This is the ONLY case where a government in Canada would
change hands without a new election. (This is what happened with the
Ontario provincial Conservatives under Frank Miller and more recently
with the present provincial government which rules as hung a
parliament as you're likely to see.)

Post by Rich Rostrom
Does the system cease to function if the head
of state does not call on the Federalists
first?

As anyone who has watch Yes Minister would know the civil service
continues regardless of who if anybody its political masters might be.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner
Maybe that the time was too short and they were just the
junior partner of shifting coalitions until 1933 ?

AFAIK the Nazis were not port of any coalition.

They had coalition partners following their accession to power; they
were not part of any coalitions before then.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner
Look at the link.

: 1932 : First 37,4, then only 33,1 percent of the votes in 1932.

Post by Michael Kuettner
In 1933, suddenly 43,9 %. Smells a little iffy, doesn't it ?

Not especially. The Nazis, having control of
the state, now had increased available funds to
operate their party apparatus. Also having
gained power, they attracted many opportunists
and those who gravitate to a winner.
The DNVP was clearly going nowhere.

That's a fair assessment of the situation - by 1935-37 several high
ranking DNVP members had joined the NSDAP and people like the DNVP's
Alfred Hugenberg remained members of the Reichstag until 1945.

One can only speculate how much influence they might have had
particularly after the war began - my guess would be very little.

[Michael Kuettner]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner
(a) There's also no _requirement_ for the queen to open
parliament after elections.

If the queen does not open Parliament, the
entire system ceases to function.

Yeah, sure. Dream on.
All the good ol' boys will just touch their forelock
and kneel in the dust.
Where is the _requirement_ that the queen opens parliament ?

Post by Rich Rostrom
Now suppose there is election in Fredonia,
and the results are (in seats won)
69 - Federalists
63 - Labor
30 - Reform
22 - Orthodox
17 - Republican
Is the head of state obliged to call on the
Federalists first? What if the incumbent
premier is a Laborite, who had been ruling
in coalition with Reform and the Republicans?

In any civilized country the party with the most
votes gets called to form a government.
Be it Germany, Israel, Austria, Itlay, etc.
The only exceptions to that are the USA and their
lapdog, the UK. Although there are parties nowadays
in the UK beside the Tories and the Whigs.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Does the system cease to function if the head
of state does not call on the Federalists
first?

Since the head of state is not allowed to be partisan
(in civilized countries the president is not head of state)
he would be required to call the party with most of the votes first.
Contrary to the USA, Bundespräsident and Kanzler are divided;
no President who really is an emperor.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
Thus after July 1932, Germany was ruled
constitutionally.

My bad. I intended to write "extra-constitutionally";
the constitutional process was in abeyance after July.

No, it wasn't.
It was ruled like the USA this year.
The states were governed normally; the government was rather
shaky.
Or would you claim that states of the united states were
governed extra-constitutionally while the tea-party blocked
Obama ?

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner
As did the Nazis. After the failed putsch of 1922 they
decided to walk through the "demokratischen Affenzirkus".
(roughly "democratic mumbo-jumbo").

Good point. I like the phrase.

That's just one of the difficulties back then.
When the economy was bad, both radical parties (Commies and Nazis)
grew stronger. And even those who didn't vote the extremes were
against Versailles.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
Nazi use of state police power against electoral rivals,
which was certainly a major factor in the 1933 election.

Btw. : The Nazis couldn't use "state police power" before
Adolf formed his cabinett; that would have only been
possible in Prussia, where Göring held power.

Prussia at the time was about half of Germany,
so the Nazis had plenty of scope for that abuse.

Yes, but the bureaucrats of Prussia didn't do anything for
the Nazis at that point.
There's a little difference between being Prussian and
being Nazi ....
The "Gleichschaltung" came some years after 1933 ...

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner
Look at my link.
It shows the votes for each of the parties of Weimar
from 1919 until 1933.

Post by Rich Rostrom
I will - but have no time to review the document now.

I have looked at the document (a PDF). That
data is avoilable at
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/g/germany/reichstag.txt
the website of Professor Alan Carr. His data
includes vote numbers, not just percentages.
He had associated pages with the result of
German presidential elections in Wwimar and
electoral maps.
I downloaded the file and have examined the
data years aog.

Post by Michael Kuettner
We'll talk when you've had time.

I'm not sure what you think this document shows.

It shows that we use the same data when discussing the vote.
It would make little sense discussing the vote when both parties
had different data, wouldn't it ? ;-P

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner
Maybe that the time was too short and they were just the
junior partner of shifting coalitions until 1933 ?

AFAIK the Nazis were not port of any coalition.

Of course they were.
Not federal, but in many states of Germany.
Like Prussia.

Post by Rich Rostrom
And I don't see how that would affect Nazi
vote stealing.

Well, local propaganda would be stronger.
AFAIR, even dead people were alowed to vote for G.W.Bush.
And he won by 5 -4 with some judges ...

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
Got away with what, though?

Look at the link.

: 1932 : First 37,4, then only 33,1 percent of the votes in 1932.

Post by Michael Kuettner
In 1933, suddenly 43,9 %. Smells a little iffy, doesn't it ?

Not especially. The Nazis, having control of
the state, now had increased available funds to
operate their party apparatus.

Nope. Their party apparatus were the SA (which wasn't really
party) and SS, which wasn't strong enough to take out Röhm, who
was only called back from Mexico in 1932, AFAIR.
The real base of power was formed in 1934.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Also having
gained power, they attracted many opportunists
and those who gravitate to a winner.

They gained power by coalitions in the states of Germany.

Post by Rich Rostrom
The DNVP was clearly going nowhere.

Yes; self-destruction ..

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner
(a) There's also no _requirement_ for the queen to open
parliament after elections.

If the queen does not open Parliament, the
entire system ceases to function.

Yeah, sure. Dream on.

Under present British law, if the monarch
doesn't show up, for the opening,
Parliament cannot meet. It would be a
constitutional crisis. No monarch in
centuries has even considered not showing
up, so the problem has never arisen. If
some future monarch obdurately refused to
show up, the crisis would almost certainly
be resolved by extra-constitutional means.

In other words, the constitutional system
would cease to function.

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
Now suppose there is election in Fredonia,
and the results are (in seats won)
69 - Federalists
63 - Labor
30 - Reform
22 - Orthodox
17 - Republican
Is the head of state obliged to call on the
Federalists first? What if the incumbent
premier is a Laborite, who had been ruling
in coalition with Reform and the Republicans?

In any civilized country the party with the most
votes gets called to form a government.
Be it Germany, Israel, Austria, Itlay, etc.
The only exceptions to that are the USA...

The U.S. is not a parliamentary state and there
is no "formation of a government". The same is
true in all other "presidential/congressional"
states - including every country in Latin America,
the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia,
South Africa and 18 other African countries
countries, Cyprus, and some others.

Post by Michael Kuettner
and their lapdog, the UK.

A pointless insult.

Post by Michael Kuettner
Although there are parties nowadays
in the UK beside the Tories and the Whigs.

The "Whigs" haven't existed for a long time,
though the present "Liberal Democrat" party
is nominally a successor to the Liberal Party
which the Whigs formed. There are in fact 10
parties represented in the present parliament;
six are minor regional parties.

Post by Michael Kuettner
(in civilized countries the president is not head of state)

So none of the presidential/congressional states
listed above are civilized countries?

Germany is not a civilized country? Because
the head of state is Federal President Joachim
Gauck. Nor France, Italy, Ireland, India,
Israel, or indeed any country which is not a
monarchy.

Post by Michael Kuettner
he would be required to call the party with most of the votes first.

Is there is a provision of the German constitution
to that effect?

There was none in the Weimar constitution.

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
Thus after July 1932, Germany was ruled
extra-constitutionally"; the constitutional
process was in abeyance after July.

No, it wasn't.
It was ruled like the USA this year. The states were
governed normally;

On 20 July 1932, Schleicher proclaimed martial law and
used Reichswehr troops to oust the elected government
of Prussia. Was that "normal"?

Post by Michael Kuettner
the government was rather shaky.
Or would you claim that states of the united states
were governed extra-constitutionally while the
tea-party blocked Obama ?

This reflects rather severe ignorance
of both the U.S. Constitutional system
and recent American political events.

Under the Constitution of the Weimar
Republic, the Reichskanzler was appointed
by the Reichsprasident. The Reichskanzler
had to be approved by (or not rejected by)
a majority of the Reichstag. But nothing
constrained the President's choice.

In August 1932 through February 1933, there
was no Chancellor who had the approval of the
Reichstag.

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
Nazi use of state police power against electoral rivals,
which was certainly a major factor in the 1933 election.

Btw. : The Nazis couldn't use "state police power" before
Adolf formed his cabinett; that would have only been
possible in Prussia, where Göring held power.

Prussia at the time was about half of Germany,
so the Nazis had plenty of scope for that abuse.

Yes, but the bureaucrats of Prussia didn't do anything for
the Nazis at that point.

Goring's authority in Prussia compelled Prussian
bureaucrats to assist the Nazis. Or enabled;
Many Nazis were appointed to positions in the
Prussian police agencies, many Nazi sympathizers
were promoted or appointed.

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
That data is avoilable at
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/g/germany/reichstag.txt
the website of Professor Alan Carr.

It shows that we use the same data when discussing the vote.
It would make little sense discussing the vote when both parties
had different data, wouldn't it ? ;-P

Professor Carr's data is drawn from the
same authoritative sources, and he includes
additional information, such as the vote
numbers, not just the percentages.

In any case, I would still like to find out what
point you think the voting results demonstrate.

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
And I don't see how that would affect Nazi
vote stealing.

Well, local propaganda would be stronger.

That has nothing to do with vote _stealing_.

Post by Michael Kuettner
AFAIR, even dead people were alowed to vote for G.W.Bush.
And he won by 5 -4 with some judges ...

Another pointless insult.

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner
1932 : First 37,4, then only 33,1 percent of the votes in 1932.
In 1933, suddenly 43,9 %. Smells a little iffy, doesn't it ?

Not especially. The Nazis, having control of
the state, now had increased available funds to
operate their party apparatus.

Nope. Their party apparatus were the SA (which wasn't really
party) and SS...

The NSDAP was a political party; its _party_
organization included Goebbels' propaganda
organization, HItler's staff, the Gauleiters,
their staffs, district leaders, their staffs,
and thousands of canvassers. The SA was a
separate affiliated organization; the SS was
a special-purpose component of the Party.

The _party_ organization had many full-time
workers, hundreds of offices, and produced
vast amounts of printed propaganda. All this
had to be paid for. In late 1932, the NSDAP
ran out of money, and was literally reduced
to begging on street corners. (That is, Nazis
stood on street corners with collection cans,
soliciting coins from passers-by.) The wealthy
(and middle-class) supporters who had been
funding the NSDAP had mostly become unwilling;
they were discouraged by the failure of the
Nazis to win outright majorities or get into
the ministry.

When Hitler became Chancellor, that situation
changed. Also, many people, especially
businesses, donated money as "insurance" -
they didn't want to be seen as refusing the
party in power.

In addition, the Nazis were able to give
state jobs to many of their activists.

All this greatly improved the Nazi financial
position and their ability to turn out votes
by legitimate means. In addition, with Hitler
having actually attained power, many voters
now thought he could actually deliver on
promised policies they liked.

Aggregate votes increased by 2.5M above the
previous high on 31 July 1932. 0.5M new voters
were enrolled. Turnout peaked at 88.7%, compared
to 84.1% in July. The NSDAP vote increased by 3.5M.
The KPD and SPD were down 1M from July. The minor
parties both gained and lost. There's no obvious
"smoking gun" to indicate that the NSDAP committed
large scale vote fraud.

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 16:46:56 -0500, Michael Kuettner

Post by Michael Kuettner
Since the head of state is not allowed to be partisan
(in civilized countries the president is not head of state)
he would be required to call the party with most of the votes first.
Contrary to the USA, Bundespräsident and Kanzler are divided;
no President who really is an emperor.

Why are you picking on the United States? On paper a British
(substitute Canadian, Aussie, New Zealander etc.) prime minister with
a comfortable working majority such as Canada has now and Britain
USUALLY does though not at the moment is unfettered by the 'checks and
balances' the President of the United States is and on paper can
pretty much do what he/she wants. If anything, the Canadian PM is
stronger than the British PM since he is elected by his party at large
or in convention and can only be removed by them whereas a British PM
can be removed by the parliamentary caucus which is how Thatcher left
office. (Well technically she resigned when facing a vote she knew
would go against her but it's the same thing)

Even an American president of the same party of both houses of
Congress doesn't have everything his own way.

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Michael Kuettner
Btw. : The Nazis couldn't use "state police power" before
Adolf formed his cabinett; that would have only been
possible in Prussia, where Göring held power.

Prussia at the time was about half of Germany,
so the Nazis had plenty of scope for that abuse.

Exactly - the other Lander didn't have that much scope for doing their
own thing.

Post by Michael Kuettner
Yes, but the bureaucrats of Prussia didn't do anything for
the Nazis at that point.
There's a little difference between being Prussian and
being Nazi ....
The "Gleichschaltung" came some years after 1933 ...

Of course but it was clear which way the wind was blowing in Germany
long before 1939.

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by Rich Rostrom
I have looked at the document (a PDF). That
data is avoilable at
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/g/germany/reichstag.txt
the website of Professor Alan Carr. His data
includes vote numbers, not just percentages.
He had associated pages with the result of
German presidential elections in Wwimar and
electoral maps.

There's a German-language site (whose URL I can't find at the moment
but which I've saved ... somewhere) which gives pretty much the same
info but broken down by Lander. Somehow amongst moving between web
browsers I've mislaid it.

[Michael Kuettner]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 16:46:56 -0500, Michael Kuettner

Post by Michael Kuettner
Since the head of state is not allowed to be partisan
(in civilized countries the president is not head of state)
he would be required to call the party with most of the votes first.
Contrary to the USA, Bundespräsident and Kanzler are divided;
no President who really is an emperor.

Why are you picking on the United States?

<snip>

I'm trying to point out the differences of the systems.
The concept of coalitions is unknown in the USA with
their "winner-takes-it-all" system.
Many of the posts here show that the posters don't get
that difference.
Plus : The difference between Reichskanzler and Reichspräsident
doesn't seem to be fully understood.
It's like me asking why noone made a coalition with Nader ...

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Michael Emrys]

I'm trying to point out the differences of the systems. The concept
of coalitions is unknown in the USA with their "winner-takes-it-all"
system.

While true in the sense that there have not been formal coalitions on
the European model, it has not been at all unusual for Presidents to
reach across party lines to select members of his cabinet. Outstanding
wartime examples were Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, and Frank Knox,
Secretary of the Navy, both Republicans and both serving under Franklin
Roosevelt, a Democrat.

Also, it is not particularly unusual for bipartisan coalitions to form
in the Congress behind specific pieces of of legislation. Again, not on
the European model, but it should not be held that party membership is
always the only thing that counts.

Michael

[Mario]

Post by Michael Emrys

I'm trying to point out the differences of the systems. The
concept of coalitions is unknown in the USA with their
"winner-takes-it-all" system.

While true in the sense that there have not been formal
coalitions on the European model, it has not been at all
unusual for Presidents to reach across party lines to select
members of his cabinet. Outstanding wartime examples were
Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, and Frank Knox, Secretary of
the Navy, both Republicans and both serving under Franklin
Roosevelt, a Democrat.
Also, it is not particularly unusual for bipartisan coalitions
to form in the Congress behind specific pieces of of
legislation. Again, not on the European model, but it should
not be held that party membership is always the only thing
that counts.

The electoral system has little to do with the form of
government (f.ex. USA compared to UK or France)

The "winner-takes-it-all" electoral system is only valid inside
an electoral college and it doesn't guarantee a two-party
parliament/congress.

UK has a coalition government just now, and a
more-than-two-party Parliament.

Germany had both coalition and single-party governments with a
quasi-proportional electoral system.

France has a semi-presidential government and a double-ballot
electoral system.

[Joe keane]

Post by Michael Emrys
While true in the sense that there have not been formal coalitions on
the European model,

That's wrong. (Garner, for one.)

President Obama is free to say that he would prefer Nancy Pelosi to be
the Speaker of the House, instead of John Boehner.

The House of Representatives is free to ignore what he says.

The President of the United States can not be the same person as the
Speaker of the House.

In fact, he can not be a member of a federal or state legislature.

The President of Germany can not be the same person as the Chancellor.

In fact, he can not be a member of a federal or state legislature.

Unless he's Hitler, then he can.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Michael Emrys

I'm trying to point out the differences of the systems. The concept
of coalitions is unknown in the USA with their "winner-takes-it-all"
system.

While true in the sense that there have not been formal coalitions on
the European model, it has not been at all unusual for Presidents to
reach across party lines to select members of his cabinet. Outstanding
wartime examples were Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, and Frank Knox,
Secretary of the Navy, both Republicans and both serving under Franklin
Roosevelt, a Democrat.
Also, it is not particularly unusual for bipartisan coalitions to form
in the Congress behind specific pieces of of legislation. Again, not on
the European model, but it should not be held that party membership is
always the only thing that counts.

Certainly things are much looser in the US Congress than in the
Westminster style parliaments (UK, Canada, Ireland, Australia, NZ etc)
where there is a whip system which I've heard is tightest in Canada,
loosest in Oz with Britain and NZ somewhere between.

The American 'division of powers' concept makes for a weaker Executive
branch than would be the case in most Westminster / First Past the
Post systems. (Yes I'm aware NZ is no longer FPTP)

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:48:28 -0500, Michael Kuettner

Post by Michael Kuettner
<http://www.bundestag.de/kulturundgeschichte/geschichte/infoblatt/reichstagswahlergebnisse.pdf>

I am frustrated as I previously had a web link with these numbers
broken down by Lander - it's a German language site (though any
English speaker who knows the German names of the parties should be
able to figure it out) - do you know the one I mean?

I'm going from memory here but Nazi support 1930-33 was absolutely NOT
evenly distributed throughout Germany.

[news]

Post by The Horny Goat
I'm going from memory here but Nazi support 1930-33 was absolutely NOT
evenly distributed throughout Germany.

My sister in law was a young girl in Austria during the war. She is the
only person I have ever spoken with who acknowledges that she, her
family and friends were all Nazi supporters. She said he was their hero
because he had taken them out of their financial crisis and made them
prosperous. She was too young to have been active but her admission is
refreshing in view of the number of Germans who deny that they or their
families were Nazis. Hitler and his party were voted in with an
overwhelming majority, but at the end of the war there was an amazingly
high percentage of the population who denied being Nazis or supporters.

[GFH]

Post by news
Hitler and his party were voted in with an
overwhelming majority, ....

Not a majority, but a not overwhelmimg plurality.

GFH

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 16:35:32 -0500, "news"

Post by news

Post by The Horny Goat
I'm going from memory here but Nazi support 1930-33 was absolutely NOT
evenly distributed throughout Germany.

My sister in law was a young girl in Austria during the war. She is the
only person I have ever spoken with who acknowledges that she, her
family and friends were all Nazi supporters. She said he was their hero
because he had taken them out of their financial crisis and made them
prosperous. She was too young to have been active but her admission is
refreshing in view of the number of Germans who deny that they or their
families were Nazis. Hitler and his party were voted in with an
overwhelming majority, but at the end of the war there was an amazingly
high percentage of the population who denied being Nazis or supporters.

I understand your point (though obviously Austria wasn't included in
the website I refer to which dealt with electoral returns in the
Weimar republic) but despite possible sketchiness with some of the
actions of the SA (and the SA was far from the only political militia
in the era 1918-1933) the plain and simple fact is that a plurality of
Germans voted for Hitler in 1933 and if the Nazi electoral victory is
illegitimate then so is the election of MOST governments involving
proportional representation systems in Europe from 1945-the present
day. Since few victorious parties ever got 50% + 1 of the popular vote
and thus pretty much every non-Westminster system in Europe has
depended on electoral coalitions.

Plain and simple fact is that the electoral system of the Weimar
Republic was not seriously out of step with most of the proportional
representation systems in place today and this includes France,
Germany, Italy and many lesser states.

Now I don't know of ANY European governments post-1945 that brought in
legislation that bore any kind of resemblance to the Nazi Enabling Act
within a year of coming to power - and strongly suspect the
post-January 1933 career of the NSDAP is a strong dis-incentive to any
European ruling party even fantasizing such a thing but the selection
of Hitler as Reichskanzler in January 30, 1933 was not out of tune
with the usual European standards then or now.

Equally obviously several million Germans voted for the NSDAP several
times between 1930-33 and if few will admit to it post-1945 one can
hardly blame them but clearly they did. Equally clearly some Lander
were more strongly in support of the NSDAP than others -
mathematically how can it not be?

This is why I'm particularly keen to find again the site with the
Weimar results by Lander. Quite apart from anything else I'd love to
work out whether the Lander that comprised the future (i.e. future
from 1933) supported the Nazis more or less than the general German
population.

[GFH]

Post by The Horny Goat
This is why I'm particularly keen to find again the site with the
Weimar results by Lander. Quite apart from anything else I'd love to
work out whether the Lander that comprised the future (i.e. future
from 1933) supported the Nazis more or less than the general German
population.

There is an excellent six volume history of Germany
from the German Empire through the end of WWII. he
last volume covers the last 100 days of the Third
Reich.

Published in 1965-66 by Verlag Kurt Desch GmbH,
München.

The third volume, on the Weimer Republic, will
have most of the information you are looking for.

For example:
The election results for the NSDAP:
12/7/1924 14
5/20/1928 12
9/14/1930 107
7/31/1932 230
11/6/1932 196
3/5/1933 288

Yes, it is in German, but OTOH the
books are more then 50% pictures,
graphs, and tables.

GFH

[GFH]

Post by The Horny Goat
This is why I'm particularly keen to find again the site with the
Weimar results by Lander. Quite apart from anything else I'd love to
work out whether the Lander that comprised the future (i.e. future
from 1933) supported the Nazis more or less than the general German
population.

I should have mentioned the excellent German
equivalent to AbeBooks: booklooker.de.

GFH

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by news
Hitler and his party were voted in with an
overwhelming majority

The Nazis never got a majority of the vote in
any contested election. In the last such election
(March 1933) the NSDAP got 43.9%, which is not
even a majority, much less an "overwhelming majority".

That election was only partially free - the Nazis
had partial control of the state, and used police
power to harass and suppress the opposition parties.
Most of the Communist Party leadership was arrested
for alleged complicity in the Reichstag Fire; the
rest went underground. The Social Democrats were
subjected to physical harassment by SA goons, with
the tacit permission of the Nazi-controlled police.

Even so there was no Nazi majority.

Post by news
but at the end of the war there was an amazingly
high percentage of the population who denied being
Nazis or supporters.

I have a WW II day-by-day book which includes among
its squibs some items described as internal Nazi
memos and reports.

One of these reports the following joke circulating
in 1943:

Any Party member who recruits five new Party members
gets to resign from the Party.

Any Party member who recruits ten new Party members
gets a certificate saying he was never in the Party.

[Michael Kuettner]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:48:28 -0500, Michael Kuettner

Post by Michael Kuettner
<http://www.bundestag.de/kulturundgeschichte/geschichte/infoblatt/reichstagswahlergebnisse.pdf>

I am frustrated as I previously had a web link with these numbers
broken down by Lander - it's a German language site (though any
English speaker who knows the German names of the parties should be
able to figure it out) - do you know the one I mean?
I'm going from memory here but Nazi support 1930-33 was absolutely NOT
evenly distributed throughout Germany.

Here you go :

<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergebnisse_der_Landtagswahlen_in_der_Weimarer_Republik>

Is that what you were looking for ?

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 16:54:59 -0500, Michael Kuettner

Post by Michael Kuettner
<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergebnisse_der_Landtagswahlen_in_der_Weimarer_Republik>
Is that what you were looking for ?

It isn't (for one thing it doesn't include all the elections) but is a
big step forward from what I had without my 'missing link' which was
everything by Lander from 1919 forward whereas the Wiki is a digest -
but still a pretty good one.

[GFH]

Post by The Horny Goat
It isn't (for one thing it doesn't include all the elections) but is a
big step forward from what I had without my 'missing link' which was
everything by Lander from 1919 forward whereas the Wiki is a digest -
but still a pretty good one.

You should add information to the Wiki entry. Save others
from the need to search for the information. (Don't forget to
include the reference link.)

GFH

[Michael Kuettner]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Where did all these ... "degenerate" paintings ...
come from if they weren't "confiscated"...

Already owned by German institutions,
including national and local museums.
Not all, but probably quite a few.
Under gleischaltung, they all became
the property of the state, regardless of
the previous status of the institution.

The new developments :

The first 300 paintings go back to the owner.
The state attorneys from Augsburg got their asses whipped.
The state "hopes for cooperation", meaning :
The confiscation of the collection was illegal.

Should the owner choose to employ a good lawyer, the state
will have its ass sued off.
The only hope of the German state is that the owner doesn't hire
a lawyer ...

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[WJHopwood]

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 1:49:09 PM UTC-5,

Where did all these ... "degenerate" paintings ...
come from if they weren't "confiscated"....
Under gleischaltung, they all became
the previous status of the institution.

Reminiscent of "gleischaltung" (meaning,in English: "coordination
of everything into Nazi ideals") today comes a news report from
Berlin tbat U.S. and Israel are pressuring tbe German gov't for a
more open and expeditious policy with regard to claims for
restitution for art work which may have been seized by the Nazis
and which may today be part of exhibits displayed in current
German "state-owned" museums.

U.S.and Israeli officials are said to have complained that the
German gov't position with regard to claims to such artwork have
called for a change in that country's current laws to facilitate
conformance with the 1998 Washington Principle on the Return
of Nazi-Seized Art to which Germany was a signatory.

It was pointed out that whereas both Austria and Russia,
have "enshrined" the Washington agreement into the current laws
of their countries, (Austria alone having processed some 300
art-restitution claims since the agreement), and that although
German law presumes that all sales of art works by the Jews to
the Nazis was under duress, the German BADV office in charge of
restitution claims, along with the German state-owned museums
have refused to mediate any claims before the special Limbach
Commission which Germany set up for that purpose but won't use.
So far since the Washington agreement, Germany has processed
only seven such claims.

One case, which seems to have demonstrated a contemptuous
attitude toward the whole restitution process, involved the Munich
museum. When asked why the museum declined to mediate a claim
involving six paintings by the Expressionist Max Beckman (which before
seizure by the Nazis had been owned by a prominent Jewish art dealer
named Alfred Fletchheim), a spokesman for the museum responded
that there was "no need" to do so because Fletchheim's descendents
making the claim had "no receipt" documenting that there had been a
"forced seizure" of the art works.

WJH

[WJHopwood]

CORRECTION TO QUOTED MATERIAL

On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 5:16:50 PM UTC-5, WJHopwood wrote:

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 1:49:09 PM UTC-5,

Where did all these ... "degenerate" paintings ...
come from if they weren't "confiscated"....
Under gleischaltung, they all became
the previous status of the institution.

PART OF THE ABOVE QUOTED MATERIAL WAS INCOMPLETE.
THE ENTIRE QUOTED MATERIAL SHOULD HAVE READ AS FOLLOWS:

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 1:49:09 PM UTC-5,

Where did all these ... "degenerate" paintings ...
come from if they weren't "confiscated"....

Already owned by German institutions,
including national and local museums.
Under gleischaltung, they all became
the property of the state,regardless of
the previous status of the institution.

My apologies.

WJH

[Michael Kuettner]

Post by WJHopwood
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 1:49:09 PM UTC-5,

Where did all these ... "degenerate" paintings ...
come from if they weren't "confiscated"....
Under gleischaltung, they all became
the previous status of the institution.

Reminiscent of "gleischaltung" (meaning,in English: "coordination
of everything into Nazi ideals")

<snip>

(a) it's Gleichschaltung
(b) it means that the leading political party managed to get control
of all state institutions (iurisdiction, iurisprudence and executive
power) and thusly also of most of the private live.
Another example for Gleichschaltung would be Russia under Lenin and Stalin.
Maybe you should get a better dictionary.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Michael Kuettner]

Post by WJHopwood
As reported in the NY Times today, BBC News and the German magazine,
"Focus," have disclosed that there were 1500 works of Art confiscated by
the Nazi's in the 1930's and 40's, discovered in Munich in 2011, but not
publicly reported until now.
Why the discovery was not reported at the time is a mystery. The
estimated value of the collection is $1.3 Billion, a rather significant sum
for the authorities in Munich to have kept quiet about for so long.
. The collection was discovered by accident after a warrant had been
obtained for a search of the home of an art dealer's son. It is alleged to
include works by Matisse, Picasso, and Chagall.
The U.S. Holocaust Mmorial Museum has estimated that there were
an estimated 16,000 works of Art seized by the Nazis prior to and during
WWII. Accordingly, this collection would be about 9% of the estimated total
Art works seized.

No, "Focus" didn't report "Nazi loot". That's Anglo-Saxon "journalism".
Some facts :
(a) The collector was partly Jewish (rather dangerous back then)
(b) He was a museum director favoring modern (later "degenarate") art
and bought some of the works which he later had to sell
(c) When the Nazis came to power, they defined what was "degenerate
art". As many museums owned those paintings, the Nazis ordered to sell
those works outside of Germany. Our collector was one of 5 art-dealers
who got the commission to sell them. So, no - no "Nazi loot" here.
(d) This collection was seized by US troops after WW II. Most of the
paintings were returned to him by the Americans.
(e) The whole legal construct is rather iffy. It looks like the German
state is trying to make some bucks.
(f) Roughly 500 artworks will be posted online; just in case. The rest
has been acquired legally.

Let's wait for further developments ...

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[WJHopwood]

Post by Michael Kuettner

Post by WJHopwood
As reported in the NY Times today, BBC News and the German magazine,
"Focus," have disclosed that there were 1500 works of Art confiscated by
the Nazi's in the 1930's and 40's, discovered in Munich in 2011, but not
publicly reported until now.

No, "Focus" didn't report "Nazi loot". That's Anglo-Saxon "journalism".

I haven't seen a German translation of the "Focus" report, but
"loot," or whatever word(s) in German might be its equivalent, is
said to have been mentioned by German authorities themselves.
As The Wall Street Journal said in a story datelined Berlin on
November 13:
"Of the ...roughly 1400 artworks, 970 require investigation,
officials said, adding that 380 of them may be works the Nazi's had
deemed 'degenerate,' art, (and) another 590 pieces would be
researched as works possibly 'looted' by the Nazis."
One, not a journalist but a professor of history, agrees.
Jonathan Petropoulos, of Claremont McKenna College in California,
who authored "The Faustian Bargain: The Art World in Nazi Germany,"
called the trove "..the most important discovery of Nazi-looted art
since the Allies discovered the hoards in the salt mines and the
castles." [Quote from the New York Times--Nov. 06]

Post by Michael Kuettner
(a) The collector was partly Jewish (rather dangerous back then)

Correct but apparently not held against him by Goebbels, et al.
when he was hired to be a Nazi salesman of confiscated art.

Post by Michael Kuettner
(b) He was a museum director favoring modern (later "degenerate")
art

I haven't seen any information to confirm that he "favored" degenerate
art over any other kind but maybe so. I believe he was employed by the
Nazis because he knew his way around the international art world and
was considered well-qualified to handle the sale of the "degenerate"
works they wanted to get rid of.

Post by Michael Kuettner
and bought some of the works which he later had to sell

One of the recent press releases said he was given a document
by Goebbels which allowed him to retain some of the art works
in his own possession. After his death, his widow claimed that
most of that art had been destroyed in the bombing of Dresden.
Perhaps it could have been that the deal with Goebbels may
have been payment to him as all or part of the 5% commission
he was supposed to get from the Nazi government from his sales
of "degenerate paintings."

Post by Michael Kuettner
(c) When the Nazis came to power, they defined what was
"degenerate art". As many museums owned those paintings, the
Nazis ordered to sell those works outside of Germany. Our
collector was one of 5 art-dealers who got the commission to
sell them. So, no - no "Nazi loot" here.

Sure it was. It all became "loot" as loot is defined. With the ban on
so-called degenerate art in effect, when they took control of the
government, the Nazi's had taken over the public museums and,
in effect, the private ones as well, along with the art contained therein.
The right of ownership and control had been assumed by the Nazis
and was lost to former private owners of the museums and to those
others who had consigned art works to them. Thus, by definition
the art works became valueless to their former owners by reason
of Nazi confiscation (or looting, taken, seized--the meanings are
synonymous in circumstances such as this).

Post by Michael Kuettner
(d) This collection was seized by US troops after WW II. Most of the
paintings were returned to him by the Americans.

Are you sure the whole of this collection had been once seized by
U,S. troops? If so, the "Monuments Men" must have missed
something because now there are descendents of some former
owners who are showing up and documentation of ownership
is appearing with proof that some of these specific paintings had
been taken, seized, confiscated, looted (take your choice) by the
Nazis.

Post by Michael Kuettner
(e) The whole legal construct is rather iffy. It looks like the German
state is trying to make some bucks.

Making some bucks was certainly true with regard to the Nazis when
it came to the so-called "degenerate" art. As for now, it appears that
the German gov't is only interested in collecting some taxes which
may not have been unpaid by the Gurlitts. But for descendants to
prove rightful ownership, you are right. It will be a nightmare of legal
construct.

Post by Michael Kuettner
(f) Roughly 500 artworks will be posted online; just in case. The rest
has been acquired legally.

I think your figure is too low. See the numbers in my first paragraph
above. Of the some 1400 paintings 960 (not 500) are still under
investigation by a recently created German task force.

Post by Michael Kuettner
Let's wait for further developments ...

We don't have to wait long. More information comes out every day.

WJH

[WJHopwood]

WJHopwood wrote: long lines

...the NY Times today, BBC News and the German magazine,
"Focus," have disclosed that there were 1500 works of Art
confiscated by the Nazi's in the 1930's and 40's, discovered
in Munich in 2011, but not publicly reported until now.

No, "Focus" didn't report "Nazi loot"....no "Nazi loot" here.
...This collection was seized by US troops after WW II. Most
the paintings were returned by the Americans....

An update: To be released early in February is a new movie
title "The Monument Men" starring George Clooney and Matt
Damon which tells of the work of the post-war American unit
whose job it was to try to locate and return art works which had
been stolen by the Nazis or otherwise involuntarily separated
from the rightful owners.

Today's New York Times carries an interesting story on this
subject in their "Art Beats" section under the title of "Museums
follow the Call of a Clooney Movie."

WJH

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by WJHopwood
An update: To be released early in February is a new movie
title "The Monument Men" starring George Clooney and Matt
Damon which tells of the work of the post-war American unit...

The unit was _not_ "post-war" - it was operational
during the war. Its functions included retrieving
art that had been moved during the war (not
necessarily looted - much art was relocated from
urban museums to rural sites to avoid damage from
bombing). Also, working with combat forces to protect
museums and famous buildings from gratuitous damage;
and providing immediate support to preserve buildings
and museum collections in after-battle conditions.

[WJHopwood]

Post by Rich Rostrom

....To be released early in February is a new movie
title "The Monument Men"...which tells of the work of the
post-war American unit...

The unit was _not_ "post-war" - it was operational
during the war....

Correct, as I should have noted. As far as I've been able to
ascertain the unit was established in 1943 in Washington. First
known as the Roberts Commission, it was later designated as
the Commission for the Protection and Salvage of Artistic and
Historic Monments in War Areas. It originally recruited a team
of some 30 art experts, men and women from museums, academia,
and from wherever else such experts could be found (some already
in the armed forces). This group was then formed into an Army
unit called the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives section (MFAA).
Early on, MFAA was engaged in the preparation of lists of sites
and objects of artistic, historic, and/or cultural value which were
to be considered for protection from war damage without hindrance
to the Allied war effort. The preparation of the site lists took time
and the first "Monument Man" to go into action in Europe was Harvard
"classicist" Mason Hammond, who arrived in Italy in 1943 with only a
tourist guide to go by.
According to Ms. Lynn H. Nicholas, author of "The Rape of
Europe: The Fate of Europe's Treasures in the Third Reich and
the Second World War," the WFAA group ultimately numbered
about 400 people, including many art experts from other nations
who participated in the effort to locate and return art works to
their rightful locations. As relocated items were discovered,
paintings, Jewish ritual objects, books, etc, taken from their
countries of origin were taken to collection points for distribution
to legitimate claimants wherever possible. In France alone over
60,000 artworks were recovered.
It was not until 6 years after the surrender of Germany that
items at the collection points had been examined by experts from
countries from which items had been,removed during the war. Those
which could be returned to their countries of origin or to their rightful
private owners had been largely terminated. Yet, even today, as with
the Gurlitt situation in Munich covered ealier in this thread, works of art
thought to have been taken by the Nazis, or with other unsure
backgrounds continue to surface and the search for rightful owners
continues.

WJH

[dumbstruck]

Post by WJHopwood
An update: To be released early in February is a new movie
title "The Monument Men" starring George Clooney and Matt

Try this talk by the author of that book instead
http://www.booktv.org/Program/10855/The+Monuments+Men+Allied+Heroes+Nazi+Thieves+and+the+Greatest+Treasure+Hunt+in+History.aspx

The movie will likely pander to the same stereotypes that is
too prevalent in this thread. For a little more understanding,
see another author talk on the attempts by both the US and
German sides to protect Italian art during the clash there.
Sure Goring had a few choice items set aside, but even after
Italy left the Axis, the focus was more on saving than looting:

http://www.booktv.org/Program/10855/The+Monuments+Men+Allied+Heroes+Nazi+Thieves+and+the+Greatest+Treasure+Hunt+in+History.aspx

I would like to know which side destroyed the unbelievable
Roman pleasure barges that Mussolini had recently excavated
(by draining the entire lake that held them!). They were
Caligula's marble palaces upon wooden barges, burned during:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemi_ships#Destruction

[dumbstruck]

Post by dumbstruck
see another author talk on the attempts by both the US and
German sides to protect Italian art during the clash there.

Correction, the author talk video on saving art in the Italian theatre is:
http://www.booktv.org/Watch/14528/Saving+Italy+The+Race+to+Rescue+a+Nations+Treasures+From+the+Nazis.aspx