I think you are focusing on the wrong issues. Both were given power to rule under back then conditions/laws without winning 50% of the popular vote (to cite irrelevant parallells...). Following Machtergreifung was the election of 33 following Reichstag fire, where the previous voting pattern was disturbed by more SA activity and Hitler gained 10% up from previous vote, but still needed coalition partners.

Directly after that followed the ban of all really opposing parties, a period of restructuring and external talks/deals up to Kristallnacht and the Poland invasion...

Now imagine a perfect storm of sinking a US flagged luxury liner, multi-pronged chemical attack in NYC metro or central station plus biological vector with long incubation period given as a surprize present to Disney park visitors in each park within a month of second term elections.

In a movie you would not balk ;-)

>FWIW, the Hilter comparison is quite a laugh. For a start, Hitler didn't win the Presidential election. Hindenburg did. Nor did Hitler's party win its elections. It lost twice, with fewer seats the second time around.
>
>Nevertheless Hindenburg was persuaded to appoint Hitler as Chancellor to mollify his violent supporters - which would be similar to Trump appointing Clinton as Secretary of State to mollify her peaceful "we won the popular vote" lighters of fires and beaters/pepper sprayers of women.
>
>Seems to me the comparison already is going badly wrong.
>
>Anyway, once Chancellor, Hitler's Antifa brownshirts contrived demonstrations similar to those in the document I provided you. They attacked and beat opponents, they shut down opposing viewpoints by lighting fires and smashing Starbucks windows, and they resisted and protested democratic government until they could contrive a win by stifling opposition..
>
>Oh, wait... you're right, I'm getting today's Fascists and haters mixed up with Hitler's. But you get my drift. ;-)