Bootstrap wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:06 am
In 1932, a German could have voted for Paul von Hindenburg, who won, or for Hitler or Ernst Thälmann. Given the choice, I would have voted for Paul von Hindenburg because I think the other two choices were much worse.
In the end, it was Hindenburg who appointed Hitler as Chancellor, so he did not stop Hitler from gaining power. But I still think I would have voted against Hitler. Why would that have been wrong?
From what I understand Hitler’s party was voted to the majority and it was customary to appoint Hitler.
Would voting against Hitler have changed the outcome?
You don’t vote for Hitler, instead you voted in the guy who appointed Hitler.
Next, you don’t know the outcome of Hitler and the length he went at that time you voted.
Your guy you voted in then proceeded to enable Hitler’s agenda and implement what Hitler wants. Not only that, your guy dissolved their lower house and basically had served as a defacto dictator during WW1.
Would you really have voted for him? Hitler campaigned on good things or at least what appeared good things.
Reagan was a very popular candidate for the Christian Right at the time, yet according to what I’ve heard, most of the “good” changes he made received such backlash that the next president undid them and made things worse or better depending on political leanings.
You are highly educated and have advantages of historical record you would not have had back then.
The average person then who wanted to learn what the candidates believed to make an educated choice could do what? Listen to campaign speeches, read historical record if they had access to it… they had less access to research then you do today.