Not really. Germans were mostly thoroughly enthusiastic, and this has been shown in several historical studies of the era.
Hitlers SA actions were about terrorizing communist and liberal dissent, not about terrorizing the large masses.
E.g:"Few twentieth-century political leaders enjoyed greated popularity among their own people than Hitler in the 1930s and 1940s. This remarkable study of the myth that sustained one of the most notorious dictators, and delves into Hitler's extraordinarily powerful hold over the German people"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Hitler-Myth-Image-Reality/dp/019...
"Daniel Goldhagen re-visits a question which history has treated as settled, and his research leads him to the inescapble conclusion that none of the answers holds true. That question is: How could the Holocaust happen? His response is an exploration of German society and its ingrained anti-semitism that demands a fundamental revision of our thinking about the years 1933-1945. The author marshals fresh, primary evidence - including extensive testimony from the actual perpetrators - to show that the killers were ordinary Germans who were not compelled to act as they did (they knew they could refuse without retribution) yet they killed willingly..."
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Willing-Executioners-Ordinar...
"From the Nuremberg Laws to the Olympic Games, Kristallnacht to the Hitler Youth, this gripping account shows how a whole population became enmeshed in a dictatorship that was consumed by hatred and driven by war."
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Third-Reich-Power-1933/dp/014100...
What do you mean Germans ? Austrians were pretty damn enthusiastic. New Yorkers were pretty enthusiastic (until the Poland invasion). Europeans were pretty enthusiastic (again, until Poland).
You might even say that the world was pretty enthusiastic. Well, only half of the rightist nut-cases, and only half of communists (Hitler managed to simultaneously introduce a crap-load of leftist advancements like pensions, right to a job, invalidity benefits ...) and fix the economic situation of the Weimar republic by threatening other leaders, although most was accomplished technically through "negotiation". This made him pretty fucking popular on the left, who saw it as vindication of their ideology (spend your way on social projects out of recessions) and on the right, who saw that he fixed the economy).
I realize this may be hard to believe, but Hitler had 75% of aisle firmly behind him right up till the day he invaded Poland, and after that it only dropped to 40-50% or so until the USSR declared war on him. Of course it varied from place to place and time to time, but if he wanted, he could probably have had himself elected major of Washington. Or Paris, for that matter.
There is a Moral Lesson to be learned from Hitler, but it isn't that functional democracies can just collapse due to a single election going the wrong way. It's that marginal democracies with severe internal problems can collapse if one gang gets more support from the establishment than the others, and if the establishment doesn't check the gang's powers quickly enough.