interestingasfuck

Well that's what I mean by

Violence solves things. But by the powerless? No...

The countries that violently shut down Hitler were anything but powerless. But they were far from the first to try violence, and those attempts became part of Nazi justifications for their own violence. The whole "Seizure of Control" section of this wikipedia article is pretty good reading on that, but I'll quote specifically:

In his position of Reichstag president, Göring asked that decisive measures be taken by the government over the spate of murders of Nazi Party members. On 9 August, amendments were made to the Reichstrafgesetzbuch statute on "acts of political violence", increasing the penalty to "lifetime imprisonment, 20 years hard labour[,] or death". Special courts were announced to try such offences. When in power less than half a year later, Hitler would use this legislation against his opponents with devastating effect.

It's also worth noting that the Nazi party anthem, "Horst Wessel Lied" praises a Nazi who was assassinated by Communists. And of course the Reichstag Fire became a key part of Hitler's final seizure of power. Fascists are all about violence and using it to their political advantage, so if you're gonna use violence against them, you'd better have all the advantages and a really good plan.

How recent is recent? Tunisia, Egypt (well until the population turned out to be too dumb for democracy anyway) are examples.

It hasn't worked in the US because it's been too half-assed and the existence of democratic options lowers incentives. Contrast the successful civil disobedience during the civil rights era, where the right to participate in elections was one of the things being denied. But with the increasing signs that democracy is being controlled by a few billionaires, it may see a comeback.