Even though this is really an attack masquerading as a question, I will still answer in good faith.Just to clarify, you're suggesting the German man, more precisely an Austrian, was... right? or excused?
Please.
I am suggesting that the rise of extremism in Germany was caused by the combination of economic hardship, infighting between more moderate political parties, and corruption and general ineffectiveness of the government of Weimar Republic. People were unhappy with the situation and did not trust the government (which was very far from being perfect or efficient), the media (every newspaper was little less than a propaganda platform for whatever political or influential group paid their bills) or the established political parties. So they turned to the extremists who offered simple fixes to the complex problems, and simple, easy to understand groups of scapegoats "responsible" for these problems.
The Nazis ended up getting upper hand, but if you study German history, it could end up with the Communists winning that race. Still would have been a race to the bottom.
So when you say "right", what exactly do you mean? Were they right when they pointed their fingers at the real problems of Weimar Republic? Or were they right when they placed the blame and offered their solutions? Because both the Nazis and the Commies used the same objective problems and failings of the Republic to promote their ideologies. Which weren't all that different - they just targeted different groups.
Last edited: