Completely false. Most of them were not open to Hitler's brand of fuhrerprinzip. The only contention, in many cases, was merely over who was the "right strongman" for the job. True, Hitler and the Nazis were a political joke before he was appointed chancellor, but afterward, somebody consented to his government and the hard core Nazi "inner party" members were not numerous enough to build and man all of those camps and enforce their will on a majority of the population all by themselves. The Germans may not have thought Hitler was the right man for the job, but he said things that many of the people wanted to hear such that if the alternatives were putting up with Hitler being the top dog and Germany not recovering its prosperity, its "national greatness," and obtaining a more "fair deal" in the arena of international relations, they would take Hitler. The same phenomenon is playing out among the major political party followers and the people who actually get into office. Many of the Progressives understand that Obama has betrayed the supposed principles for which they stand, that in many ways he has outdone Bush at being Bush, but they will vote for him anyway, because their entire identity is entangled with their nominal political affiliation and in many cases, whatever "power" they have is dependent upon that affiliation. Arthur Silber, a self-identified man-of-the-left, writes of this phenomenon often. (http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/05/choosing-sides-ii-killing-truth-and.html)