During the party's early years it couldn't get more then about 3% of the German vote, but when the Great Depression hit it's followers rapidly grew and in 1932 it came out of the elections with 40% of the votes, but later fell to 33% and in 1933 Hitler was elected chancellor. So no, it was >33% of the population that originally supported the Nazi's and even more as time moved on. A little article on that: http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007671

It looks like I'm late to the party, but I feel the need to respond to this.

Short answer: this is patently and utterly false. Furthermore, the comparison between a specific political programme of 20th Century Germany and a global system of religious belief is piss-poor, ahistorical hogwash.

Long answer: this statement is problematic on a number of levels. I will first turn to deconstructing the statement itself, before articulating reference-based evidence that directly contradicts it.

1) What constitutes "being a Nazi?"

This caption postulates that "only 8 percent of Germans were Nazi's [sic]." I have no idea where they're getting the 8 percent figure from, but as other users have pointed out, the voting statistics of Weimar Germany eliminate this as a valid statistic very quickly. The oscillation between 32%-40% of voter support throughout the 1930s speaks to this. Of course, many voters in Weimar Germany saw the Nazis as a protest vote, or as a counter-measure to a Communist takeover of the country; these voters were not necessarily Nazis, and may not have agreed with every aspect of Nazi policy.

But vote counts in one of the most politically fracturous systems of the 20th century are not necessarily the best barometer for popular support amongst Weimar Germany's citizens, nor do they account for public support after the elimination of other political parties from the electoral process. What happens when we leave the voting statistics behind?

We are left with what "being a Nazi" means - which is notoriously difficult to determine.

You can look at official NSDAP numbers to for answers here; but /u/panzerkampfwagen's statement that "not joining a political party doesn't mean you don't support it" hits the nail on the head. I would add to this the opposite: we are not able to determine the motivations behind a citizen joining a political party, including the NDSAP. Am I a career bureaucrat who wants to advance in my position? Do I wish to rise through the party ranks? Am I a vehement anti-semite? The question of motive makes using these statistics more complex.

Next, what do we assume with regards to citizens who tacitly accept Nazi rule. Is not speaking out the same as whole-heartedly agreeing with a political programme and helping carry it out to its logical conclusion? The same problem exists with scholarship on the Holocaust. Gaging the level of support is highly contingent on what you believe the appropriate answer to this question is.

2) Change over time

This is extremely important. History isn't a stagnant two-dimensional construct. The period between 1932-1945 saw peaks and valleys in the level of public support for Nazism.

On the one hand, early Nazi ideology did not use anti-semitism as a key point in its electoral programme. This is not to say that Nazi leaders were not anti-semetic - they undoubtedly were - but to say that in the early days, Nazi propagandists focused on issues far more important to the average German, such as cutting skyrocketing inflation, reducing unemployment, restoring the financial well-being of the middle and artisanal classes, and protecting Germany against the spectre of Communism. The invective against racial enemies gradually increased throughout the period of Nazi-rule, alongside the gradual erosion of political and minority rights in Nazi Germany.

To use a seperate but equally compelling example, we can examine attitudes in the Wehrmacht. Many high-ranking German military officials resented but begrudgingly accepted the Wehrmacht's allegiance to Hitler; but in the wake of the catastrophe at Stalingrad, the high-command's confidence in their political leadership continuously eroded. On the level of an average citizen, consider the difference between the mid-1930s (with economic recovery, a strengthened German military and restoration of face on the world-stage) with 1945 (mass casualties, cities reduced to rubble and starvation on the horizon). Clearly, these two situations contrast each other quite starkly.

3) Mass support of the Nazi movement

The Nazi movement was a mass-movement. This means it required a large pool of support (although not nessecarilly a majority) amongst the German population. William Sheridan Allen has demonstrated in The Nazi Seizure of Power how the movement's leadership relied on local/ground level support to construct bases of power. Average members, including young out-of-work working class men, church leaders and civil servants were essential here, and local leaders (or Gauleiters) weilded significant power and were afforded significant autonomy from the Nazi centre.

Furthermore, in "We Forgot All Poles and Jews," Elizabeth Harvey has postulated that German women, although subservient to men in the Nazi order of society, were able to construct significant avenues for weilding their own agency by employing Nazi racial hierarchy to their own ends. This raises interesting questions about the natue of subservience in the Nazi system, and pokes holes in the 'passive observer' theory.

There are two specific examples which strike me here. First, a recent study on the Gestapo (the title of which now eludes me, but I can find should it be of interest) argued that the secret police had far fewer resources in terms of finances and manpower than previously expected. The vast majority of cases the force dealt with were opened by neighbours and friends willingly denouncing their associates, rather than proactive investigations initiated by the Gestapo itself.

The second is the example of the Aktion T4, also known as the T4 Program. This was the policy of euthanizing German citizens with mental and physical disabilities, and served as the precursor to the mass annihilation of Jews, Roma, Russians, homosexuals and political dissidents in the extermination camps. After significant pressure from the civil service, church leaders, medical staff and German citizens who objected to the euthenasia of their family members, the program was halted completely. The fact that Germans were able to force the Nazis to buckle to internal pressure and cease T4 is another indication that popular approval was essential for the Nazi establishment.

Edit 1: formatting issues.

The number of Germans who ended up joining the NSDAP was around 8 million. Germany's pre WW2 population, which included annexed Austria, was around 80 million. The 8% figure doesn't seem too far off.

However, not joining a political party doesn't mean you don't support it.

What theyre trying to assert is that as only 8% of germans voted directly for Hitler then once a western country gets 8% muslims then it may be possible for the muslims to 'take over'. So its essentially an argument intended to create racist fear.

There are a number of issues with this, simple ones like not all muslims will vote, cos theyre children, thus you'd need more as well as more complex ones, as below.

Firstly the numbers '8%' as others are proving is not entirely true or accurate or even makes direct sense. You would probably need a lot more than that to directly vote in a purely islamic party into a western state.

The other is that every political situation is based on specific factors. The Nazis got power because they were they top voted party, and because non-Nazis accepted passively, albeit reluctantly, when they took full control. If... IF a country with 8% voting muslims suddenly found their govt had declared itself a strict Islamic state then its probable insurrection would occur and the new govt. would fall.

So even if the 8% were true, which its not, its unlikely that any such accidental coup could occur.

This is really an alarmist racist argument meant to incite anti-muslim feelings and is not accurate.