There’s no doubt that the National Socialists came to power democratically and constitutionally, and continued to rule until 1945 without ever actually violating the Weimar constitution. Had Germany used the British ‘first-past-the-post’ electoral system, the national Socialists would almost certainly have commanded an overall majority in the Reichstag.
These facts seem to me to be an argument against placing too much reliance either on democracy or on constitutions, to protect you from despots. In my view, law, tradition, monarchy and heredity, combined with independent professions and a strong and prosperous middle class, are more reliable guarantees.
Would I have supported a mob overthrow of Hitler? I can’t see why not. By 1934, he had clearly closed off, through the Brownshirt terror of 1933 and the later night of the long knives, any possibility that he might be removed by constitutional or lawful methods . Constitutional as it regrettably was the Hitler state had no freedom of speech or the press, no freedom for opposition parties. Under these circumstances, extra-constitutional action becomes, I think, permissible