Quite right about the Reichstag fire and the internecine murders that locked it down for Hitler. it is not an accident, I think, that the Nazi's only dared diddle the oaths after H passed on; he was the last symbol of Germany's imperial greatness, for all that he lost his war, and I suspect they were concerned the old war horse might object to what the Nazis had in mind for his beloved army. Speculation. It is certainly the case the Nazis treated H with great care. He was probably the only figure in Germany whose opposition could create any serious difficulties for them.
And we haven't seen the direct physical violence (yet) that characterized the politics of the collapsing Weimar state, and it's just a happenstance of history that in American the Republican night of the long knives is yet to come -- because Trump, in a strange way, is the Hindenberg of MAGA world. Trumps demise, which could come in the form of just turning into a sort of embalmed and sidelined Francisco Franco in office, wheeled out periodically for public display while around him the actual regime's henchmen execute the project of dismantling the former state and preparing for the intra-snakepit showdown knife fight after his final tweet.
As to Reichstag fires, one would think the Capitol insurrection, which is merely the visible fruit of Trump's long-term plot in 2020 to seize power regardless of electoral results, would be a parallel. And I think it probably will be, but not as the shock that returns a nation to sanity. More likely, the rioters will become the Horst Wessels of the re-magafied nation.
My point was not, what happens here will parallel the fall of Weimar, in the sense that there will be an event A that corresponds to the Reichstag fire, an event B that we will call the Enabling Act, and so on -- that's the armchair historian's idle hour recreation -- although I have also to say such parallels are distressingly available. My point is, the slide into tyranny can happen very quickly indeed. But perhaps it would be better to consider that this apparent rapidity is only because the visible events happen rapidly, but what made those events possible, and in fact inevitable, took a long time, and were less obvious to all but the most intense inspection.
Comparing the Reichstag Fire to Jan 6th - I don't know enough about the former, except that I know the Nazis blamed the Communists for it, and that justified the Enabling Act. But my question is was there an investigation of it that showed it was the Communists?
To any serious student of history, particularly history of Europe from the Napoleonic era to post WWII, it requires a profound exertion of will to seriously entertain the proposition that the Reichstag fire was not a false flag provocation. Certainly the Nazis played that game-- And one hallmark of such doings is that they seem almost invariably so ham-handed and obvious as to have been intentionally intended to strain credulity. The Gleiwitz incident, for example.
But at least some effort at historiographic self-restraint is not out of place here. History is replete with examples of random dumb jackasses playing with matches (in this case not even figuratively, but literally) in flammable surroundings. Lee Harvey Oswald. The Trump-addled mob of gulled ignoramuses on Jan 6. The imbecile "demonstrators" setting fire to property and screaming defund the police. And of course the prince of incompetent accidental historical tinder-lighters, Gavrilo Princip.
Who actually set the Reichstag fire is in a larger historical sense, irrelevant. The thing actually burned down was the Weimar republic and constitutional government in Germany. If in fact it was the hapless Marinus who made the spark, it was the totalitarians who actually had control of it.
So in answer to your question, was there an investigation, the answer is a qualified "yes" -- yes to the extent that the Nazis went to the trouble and motions of an investigation and trial. "No" if by "investigation" you mean an open minded forensic effort to find out what actually happened. Whether the Nazis did it themselves and just grabbed a random patsy, or set him up to commit the arson, or just took advantage of a lucky chance that came their way -- the outcome of the "investigation" was established before it started.
"Who actually set the Reichstag fire is in a larger historical sense, irrelevant. The thing actually burned down was the Weimar republic and constitutional government in Germany." Yes. Why was there no legal basis for preventing the fire as a pretext? That is my question.
Quite right about the Reichstag fire and the internecine murders that locked it down for Hitler. it is not an accident, I think, that the Nazi's only dared diddle the oaths after H passed on; he was the last symbol of Germany's imperial greatness, for all that he lost his war, and I suspect they were concerned the old war horse might object to what the Nazis had in mind for his beloved army. Speculation. It is certainly the case the Nazis treated H with great care. He was probably the only figure in Germany whose opposition could create any serious difficulties for them.
And we haven't seen the direct physical violence (yet) that characterized the politics of the collapsing Weimar state, and it's just a happenstance of history that in American the Republican night of the long knives is yet to come -- because Trump, in a strange way, is the Hindenberg of MAGA world. Trumps demise, which could come in the form of just turning into a sort of embalmed and sidelined Francisco Franco in office, wheeled out periodically for public display while around him the actual regime's henchmen execute the project of dismantling the former state and preparing for the intra-snakepit showdown knife fight after his final tweet.
As to Reichstag fires, one would think the Capitol insurrection, which is merely the visible fruit of Trump's long-term plot in 2020 to seize power regardless of electoral results, would be a parallel. And I think it probably will be, but not as the shock that returns a nation to sanity. More likely, the rioters will become the Horst Wessels of the re-magafied nation.
My point was not, what happens here will parallel the fall of Weimar, in the sense that there will be an event A that corresponds to the Reichstag fire, an event B that we will call the Enabling Act, and so on -- that's the armchair historian's idle hour recreation -- although I have also to say such parallels are distressingly available. My point is, the slide into tyranny can happen very quickly indeed. But perhaps it would be better to consider that this apparent rapidity is only because the visible events happen rapidly, but what made those events possible, and in fact inevitable, took a long time, and were less obvious to all but the most intense inspection.
Comparing the Reichstag Fire to Jan 6th - I don't know enough about the former, except that I know the Nazis blamed the Communists for it, and that justified the Enabling Act. But my question is was there an investigation of it that showed it was the Communists?
To any serious student of history, particularly history of Europe from the Napoleonic era to post WWII, it requires a profound exertion of will to seriously entertain the proposition that the Reichstag fire was not a false flag provocation. Certainly the Nazis played that game-- And one hallmark of such doings is that they seem almost invariably so ham-handed and obvious as to have been intentionally intended to strain credulity. The Gleiwitz incident, for example.
But at least some effort at historiographic self-restraint is not out of place here. History is replete with examples of random dumb jackasses playing with matches (in this case not even figuratively, but literally) in flammable surroundings. Lee Harvey Oswald. The Trump-addled mob of gulled ignoramuses on Jan 6. The imbecile "demonstrators" setting fire to property and screaming defund the police. And of course the prince of incompetent accidental historical tinder-lighters, Gavrilo Princip.
Who actually set the Reichstag fire is in a larger historical sense, irrelevant. The thing actually burned down was the Weimar republic and constitutional government in Germany. If in fact it was the hapless Marinus who made the spark, it was the totalitarians who actually had control of it.
So in answer to your question, was there an investigation, the answer is a qualified "yes" -- yes to the extent that the Nazis went to the trouble and motions of an investigation and trial. "No" if by "investigation" you mean an open minded forensic effort to find out what actually happened. Whether the Nazis did it themselves and just grabbed a random patsy, or set him up to commit the arson, or just took advantage of a lucky chance that came their way -- the outcome of the "investigation" was established before it started.
"Who actually set the Reichstag fire is in a larger historical sense, irrelevant. The thing actually burned down was the Weimar republic and constitutional government in Germany." Yes. Why was there no legal basis for preventing the fire as a pretext? That is my question.
thank you. he had a bad defense attorney?
Yes, he had the Nazi party controlling the trial, prosecution and defense.
A patsy, certainly; innocent, possibly.
so he had a bad defense attorney.