How is that reasonable when you haven’t done so to support your own claims and position?

I mean I shouldn't need to cite it. Its literally history, and if you don't know these things, maybe you shouldn't be in this conversation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance_to_Nazism

And that's just one among hundreds or even thousands of other examples. Its practically all of history that agrees with what I'm suggesting: Effective resistance which begin early and use all tools at their disposal are more effective than ones which begin late and or arbitrarily hamstring the approaches they are willing to engage with. The very act of what you are doing now, this conversation we're having, a version of this played out among the Weimar political parties.

The civil resistance took too long to take the threat of Nazism seriously and allowed themselves their opponents to dictate the terms of engagement until it was too late to be effective. Nazism in Germany could have been stopped, but too many liberals either didn't take the threat seriously, or had the mistaken believe that the institutions of the republic would save them.

And

Anyway, I can come up with an example. The Nazi’s used violence of jews and political enemies (real and fake) to increase their grip on Germany. They used it to enrage their supporters and poison the public opinion against their opponents. The fire of the Reichstag and Kristallnacht come to mind.

That doesn't support your argument. If anything it undermines it. By not resisting earlier, and more fully and more directly, Jews and Communists became victims of the Nazis. If you wait too long to resist, the door closes. If you allow your opponents to become entrenched, you make civilian resistance untenable.