He could forma coalition with the Socialists, but they pushed for an agrarian reform that would have taken power away from landlords/landowners in east germany, which was the conservative base of power.

It was a choice: Socialists, Nazis or communist, and as always "Plutot Hitler que le Front Populaire", the extreme center choose fascism. The more thing changes, the more they stay the same.

There were votes involved (and Nazis pointed out after the war that in a First Past the Post system like the UK they had enough votes for total power) but, like Charlie Kirk, Hitler and the Nazis had the backing of the rich and the powerful.

That's why both of them managed to get their message out to so many people. That might then convert to votes, but are the voters that believed the propaganda at fault as much as the people who paid for it, those who created it, and those that spread it?

Oh I agree, I don't think the Republican agenda reflects some sort of authentic "will of the people." It's produced as much by propaganda as anything else.

Nevertheless, it's propaganda that many Americans have swallowed, and those people then go on to put Republicans in power year after year. I can't fault Democrats for their bitterness towards Republican voters.

I’m not aware of any rigorous modelling that supports what Goering argued though. It’s certainly possible but it’s also not a given by a long shot. FPTP in the UK is not based on the popular vote, it’s essentially the outcome of 650 mini-elections. If Nazi support was efficiently distributed, there’s a good chance they’d have won a strong majority, but if support was focused geographically, they might have ended up with fewer seats.

If you’re aware of any more accurate modelling, I’d be super interested though!