As to your question on the fall of Weimar - multicausal and much too complicated to deal with in a blog comment. However, it certainly was a consensus belief that Weimar did fall at least in part due to a refusal to crack down hard against anti-democratic elements that used democratic freedoms to destroy democracy and freedom.

This quote is from a speech Adolf Hitler gave in 1932. I just wanted to point out the resemblance of the article's headline to National Socialist thought.

By the way: Comparing the US experience with terrorism with the Weimar Republic is, forgive me my wording, BULLSHIT. The whole approach completely blurrs the Weimar Republic's political history. The Weimar Republic did not lack legal instruments to fight its enemies. It lacked people within its legal system who were willing to enforce the existing laws against democracy's enemies. A comment is not the place to elaborate on this issue as it would be necessary, and it's midnight now and I have to go to sleep. So this advice has to do: Send Roger Köppel back to history class!

Utterly stupid editorial to repeat myself!

The Weimar Republic wasn´t doomed by its "adherence to the rule of law". It simply was founded during difficult times.

1. It was founded after the defeat in WW1 and the Versailles treaty so a lot of people didn´t really accept the Republic. Especially the conservatives and monarchists.
   
2. In the middle of the 1920s, the conservatives for a time did govern. Let´s just mention Stresemann. Unfortunately England and France were never that "generous" with him than they were later with Hitler.
   

Still, the Republic wasn´t doomed.

1. IIRC votes for the Nazi party in the last free election in late 1932 were going down. Not to mention that they never got a majority (>50%) in free elections.
   
2. In late 1932 the Nazi party according to the Goebbels diaries was almost bankrupt.
   
3. Look at Prussia, the biggest German state back then. For example they introduced todays German "no-confidence vote." Meaning that you can only change the government by voting for a new government leader at the same time. Since Communists and Nazis obviously couldn´t agree on that :), Prussia was politically remarkably stable.

Not to mention that the Weimar President had a lot, too much, emergency power not checked by parliament.

If the Republic had held out for a few more months it is entirely possible that the Nazi party would have imploded for lack of money. It´s possible that a somewhat authoritarian conservative government still might have come into power. That would have still avoided WW2 and the Holocaust.

In summary, I just fail to see how torture might have avoided Hitler. I mean he openly stated his claim to legally overthrow the Weimar Republic during court trials. You didn´t need to torture him to admit that.

So it´s either waiting a few more months in 1933.
Or a few more constitutional amendments during the 1920s.

1. Nobody can hold the post of President and Chancellor at the same time. (That really killed the Weimar Republic when Hindenburg died in 1934. Hitler declared himself - with the support of the then "cleared" parliament - Chancellor and President in the same person. Giving him control of the armed forces and making him head of the state too.)
   
2. Using the Prussian "no-confidence vote" system on the federal level to ensure that you can´t vote down a government without electing a new one.

As you already refuted the points he made, let me tell you a little bit about Roger Köppel himself: He's a big fan of being "against". Against the mainstream that is. If most journalists say A, he needs to say B. This can be very refreshing in some cases, but most of the time, it leads to strange pieces like this one.

He would even proove that black is white and that sqwirrels are a vegetable if he thinks he can provoke and highen the circulation of his paper.

Uh... eh... so, Herr Köppel, so you think al-Qaida and Taleban members and Iraqi guerillas are using US freedoms to turn it into a dictature from the inside?...

What a fricking idiot. What a little Goebbels.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

Wikipedia: Paul von Hindenburg

It was Schleicher who came up with the idea of "Presidential government" based on the so-called "25/48/53 formula". "Presidential governments" were governments in which the Chancellor owed his office to the confidence solely of the President rather the Reichstag. The "25/48/53 formula" referred to the three articles of the Constitution that made "Presidential government" possible.

• Article 25 allowed the President to dissolve the Reichstag.
  
• Article 48 allowed the President to sign into law emergency bills without the consent of the Reichstag. However, the Reichstag could cancel any law passed by Article 48 by an simple majority within sixty days of its passage.
  
• Article 53 allowed the President to appoint the Chancellor.
  

Schleicher's idea was to have Hindenburg appoint an man of Schleicher's choosing as Chancellor, have him rule via Article 48 and to have Hindenburg threaten to use Article 25 should the Reichstag vote to annul any laws passed under Article 48. Schleicher's intention was to gradually undermine democracy legally via "Presidential government" and ultimately create an authoritarian government. "Presidential governments" were legal within an strictly legalistic interpretation of the Constitution, but clearly violated its spirit. Hindenburg was not enthusiastic about these plans, but was pressured into going along with them by his son, Meissner, Groener and Schleicher.

The first attempt to establish a "presidential government" had occurred in 1926-1927, but had foundered by the unwillingness of any of the leading German politicians to go along with the scheme. During the winter of 1929-1930, Schleicher had more success.

By contrast with the violent elimination of political opposition as early as 1934, the antisemitic pogrom of  Kristallnacht happened only in 1938, and the "final solution" was hammered out in 1942 at Wannsee.

All this was possible because, at each stage, ordinary Germans could convince themselves that it wouldn't get any worse.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

All those measures are being applied against radical fundamentalist Muslims, in addition of course to normal criminal law enforcement against terrorists. The only loophole that existed was special protection for religious organizations, but that has been closed since 9/11. So frankly, Herr Koeppel is either being very disingenuous here, or he's just plain old stupid.

That said, I do find the concept of a Wehrhafte Demokratie quite interesting and worthy of discussion - it runs strongly against the liberal American understanding of democracy which espouses an absolutist conception of freedom of expression and (non-violent) political activity.  Anyone got some thoughts either way?

Would you have tortured von Pappen (who had a lot to do with the deal that brought Hitler to power)?

Would you have tortured Hindenberg who would have died in the process?

What about the Liberals who got handed the bag after the Kaiser cut and ran?

How about the Kaiser?

Look, the real problem was that times were bad enough -- people believed what they were told and the little corporal had a lot of charisma (as well as some brownshirts to back him up).  By the time people figured it out, it was very much too late.

Boy, I hope I'm not talking about the US, now.

Happy little moron, lucky little man. I wish I was a moron, my God, perhaps I am! -- Spike Milligan