Quote:If my email is any indication, a goodly number of folks wonder if they're living in America in 2003 or Germany in 1933.
Yes, lots of people wonder this. Lots of people also wondered if Clinton was going to be Stalin - both are stupid.
Quote:All this emphasis on nationalism, the militarization of society, identifying The Leader as the nation, a constant state of fear and anxiety heightened by the authorities, repressive laws that shred constitutional guarantees of due process, wars of aggression launched on weaker nations, the desire to assume global hegemony, the merging of corporate and governmental interests, vast mass-media propaganda campaigns, a populace that tends to believe the slogans and lies it's fed without asking too many questions, a timid opposition that barely contests the administration's reckless adventurism abroad and police-state policies at home, etc. etc.
This is new how? This is nothing more than simply swapping the sides. Look at the number of conflicts that Clinton took on - he toppled a few sovereign weak nations (remeber milosivic) with about the same support we have for Iraq. It wasn't heppening then, it's not now.
Quote:The parallels are not exact, of course; America in 2003 and Germany seventy years earlier are not the same, and Bush certainly is not Adolf Hitler. But there are enough disquieting similarities in the two periods at least to see what we can learn - cautionary tales, as it were - and then figure out what to do with our knowledge.
This is a good statement. The parallels are FAR from exact. And -as he said - bush is not Hitler. But it is always good to try and learn from the past.
Quote:The veneer of civilization is thin. We know this from our own observations, and various writers - from Shakespeare to Sinclair Lewis (It Can't Happen Here) - have shown us how easily populations can be manipulated by leaders skillfully playing on patriotic emotion or racial or nationalist feelings.
Fiction does not equal reality. Everyone repeat after me until you realise this.
Quote:Whole peoples, like individuals, can become irrational on occasion - sometimes for a brief moment, sometimes for years, sometimes for decades. Ambition, hatred, fear can get the better of them, and gross lies told by their leaders can deceive their otherwise rational minds. It has happened, it happens, it will continue to happen.
correct
Quote:One of the most outrageous and horrific examples of an entire country falling into national madness probably was Hitler's Germany from 1933-45. The resulting world war was disastrous, leading to more than 40,000,000 deaths.
possibly, though there are some worse people out there - just not at that scale
Quote:Lots of stuff about how brilliant dude is and how great his book is
I can't comment, never read the book. OTOH it is generally unwise to base too much from just a few sources, let alone one. Though the guy could be dead on.
Quote:Haffner makes occasional broad pronouncements about German character traits ("As Bismarck once remarked in a famous speech, moral courage is, in any case, a rare virtue in Germany, but it deserts a German completely the moment he puts on a uniform"), but he devotes a good deal of his attention to the question of personal responsibility. If you read ordinary history books, he says, "you get the impression that no more than a few dozen people are involved, who happen to be 'at the helm of the ship of state' and whose deeds and decisions form what is called history.
This I very much disagree with it. It smaks of racism - one of the acknowledged driving forces of WWII. I never got impression about the scope of involvement - but then maybe I am not a moron such as the author. In fact, I have always found it amazing that so many people followed. As for the courage, hatred, racsim, nationalism do not preclude courage or intelligence. The ideas are orthogonal. Many Mant germans were very courageous even though they were on the wrong side, Many americans were scared shitless even though we were on the good. That's life with many million people.
Quote:"According to this view, the history of the present decade [the 1930s] is a kind of chess game among Hitler, Mussolini, Chiang Kai-Shek, Roosevelt, Chamberlain, Daladier, and a number of other men whose names are on everybody's lips. We anonymous others seem at best to be the objects of history, pawns in the chess game, who may be pushed forward or left standing, sacrificed or captured, but whose lives, for what they are worth, take place in a totally different world, unrelated to what is happening on the chessboard.
"...It may seem a paradox, but it is nonetheless the simple truth, to say that on the contrary, the decisive historical events take place among us, the anonymous masses. The most powerful dictators, ministers, and generals are powerless against the simultaneous mass decisions taken individually and almost unconsciously by the population at large...Decisions that influence the course of history arise out of the individual experiences of thousands or millions of individuals."
This is both correct and wrong. Should the masses decide otherwise the leader is fucked. But should, as hitler was, the leader be absolutely gifted at pushing his populace to where he wants them then they do become pawn like in thier status. What would you say happened then? Germany just, through thier collective conscience, decided Jews needed to be extermanated? no - they were pushed. The leaders of the time bear the ultimate responsibility.
Quote:Haffner tries to solve the riddle of the easy acceptance of fascism in Hitler's Third Reich. In March of 1933, a majority of German citizens did not vote for Hitler. "What happened to that majority? Did they die? Did they disappear from the face of the earth? Did they become Nazis at this late stage? How was it possible that there was not the slightest visible reaction from them" as Hitler, installed by the authorities as Chancellor, began slowly and then more quickly consolidating power and moving Germany from a democratic state to a totalitarian one?
Fallacy: abstaining from the vote does not mean you disagree with it. Maybe the majority agreed with him, but ultimately didn't care (as is the accepted view of that period in history).
Quote:All along the way, Hitler would propose or actually promulgate regulations that sliced away at German citizens' freedoms - usually aimed at small, vulnerable sectors of society (labor unionists, communists, Jews, mental defectives, et al.) - and few said or did anything to indicate serious displeasure. In the early days, on those rare occasions when there was concerted negative reaction, Hitler would back off a bit. And so the Nazis grew bolder and more voracious as they continued slicing away at civil society. Many Germans (including some of Hitler's original corporate backers) were convinced Nazism would collapse as it became more and more extreme; others chose denial. It was easier to look the other way.
This is gernally refered to as "acquiescence". It could also be written as follows (and is probably about as accurate):
After each more agressive move Hitler made to secure his political agenda acceptance from the population indicated that he was on the correct track. This allowed Hitler to persue his agenda while keep[ing the populaces ideas in mind. Occasionally he stepped too far in a direction that they did not like, and as a leader following both his peoples wishes and his own, backed off.
Quote:Haffner saw what was starting to happen, but retreated into his law studies. Even while the Brownshirts were beating and killing people in the streets, the courts with which he worked remained a solid bulwark in defense of traditional democratic principles. And then one day, the Nazis simply marched into the Berlin court buildings and took over Germany's judicial system. Haffner was shaken to the core, but continued studying for his final exams.
I doubt that the courts were the last bastions of the "good" in Germany - I find it hard to believe that an accurate portrayal is that all of germany were raving Nazis except the courts who saw the moral outrage being commited. He is trying to make himself sound better.
Quote:Shortly thereafter, he and his fellow students were dispatched to a kind of boot camp for ideological and military training. Haffner, a Christian anti-Nazi, found himself, to his astonishment and horror, wearing jackboots, a swastika and learning how to kill.
This, is most likely, very accurate. Many people had no real choice as they were an EXTREME minority in Germany.
snipped personal thoughts as there was little wrong with them - see above comment.
Quote:Then there was the economic factor, the terror associated with having no money with which to live. One reads Haffner's description of the hyper-inflation crisis, but it's difficult to accept or understand:
Not really sure why it is so difficult - lots of people believe this.
Quote:snip on how bad things were
Interestingly enough (since the author has not made his original case - i'll move back to it), the republicans are trying to say everything is fine (and it is doing pretty well, just not compared to the Dot Com bubble years - the dow reached over 9000 on NON-inflated stocks for a bit there). It is the Liberal leftist using this tactic to try and sway the population into believeing that the republicans are evil and taking away thier food.
Quote:There were other ingredients that went into the bubbling fascist vat: the humiliating terms of the Versailles Treaty that were placed on defeated Germany after World War I; the unceasing propaganda barrage in the mass media, helping citizens to agree with the government; the martial mentality that pervaded society:
This is very correct. The govt basically controlled the media and the populace was seething over a great defeat. This is actually much more similar to Muslim countries (look up Thomas Friedman's speeches). Basically a group of people led to believe that they are invincible and have a manifest destiny were shown, in the largest way possible, that they sucked. That's rough - most people would rather blame some other group than themselves (similar to why Islamic extremeist blame the west for them not being the major world powers)
Quote:"From 1914 to 1918 a generation of German schoolboys daily experienced war as a great, thrilling, enthralling game between nations, which provided far more excitement and emotional satisfaction than anything peace could offer; and that is where [Nazism] draws its allure from: its simplicity, its appeal to the imagination, and its zest for action; but also its intolerance and its cruelty toward internal opponents...Ultimately, that is also the source of Nazism's belligerant attitude toward neighboring states. Other countries are not regarded as neighbors, but must be opponents, whether they like it or not."
I can't say for sure since I wasn't there, but I find it difficult to believe that they really had that view as towards the end of the first world war they were getting pounded pretty hard. I believe that it was portrayed as such, just not that people really took that to heart when they were getting killed.
Quote:And then there is the inexplicable mystique that surrounds such men as Hitler, that mesmerizes and lures millions into their web:
"If my experience of Germany has taught me anything, it is this: Rathenau [who led a progressive government in 1921-22, and was then assassinated by anti-Semitic thugs] and Hitler are the two men who excited the imagination of the German masses to the utmost; the one by his ineffable culture, the other by his ineffable vileness. Both, and this is decisive, came from inaccessible regions, from sort of 'beyond.' the one from a sphere of sublime spirituality where the cultures of three millenia and two continents hold a symposium; the other from a jungle far below the depths plumbed by the basest penny dreadfuls, from an underworld where demons rise from a brewed-up stench of petty-bourgeois back rooms, doss-houses, barrack latrines, and the hangman's yard. From their respective 'beyonds,' they both drew a spellbinding power, quite irrespective of their politics."
When Hitler's in-your-face brand of "beyond" power - with its meanness and arrogance and menace, throwing opponents in jail, beating them, even killing them - met the traditional democratic culture, those on the other end often had no tools at their disposal to combat the new hardball politics:
This is the point of view from someone who had an axe to grind (namely hated hitler). Hitler gave the German people an out from thier miserable lives. Both in that it wasn't thier fault and restoring a sense of pride. That, ultimately, is what won him power.
Quote:"It was then that the real mystery of the Hitler phenomenon began to show itself: the strange befuddlement and numbness of his opponents, who could not cope with his behavior and found themselves transfixed by the gaze of the basilisk, unable to see that it was hell personified that challenged them."
Typical crap - "everyone knows they are wrong - they just will not admit it". No, many actually agreed with those policies.
Quote:"What saved me was...my nose. I have a fairly well developed figurative sense of smell, or to put it differently, a sense of the worth (or worthlessness!) of human, moral, political views and attitudes. Most Germans unfortunately lack this sense almost completely. The cleverest of them are capable of discussing themselves stupid with their abstractions and deductions, when just using their noses would tell them that something stinks."
I'm betting that the other side felt the same. This type of discussion is best left for talking with like minded people as you come off as a pretentious asswipe. Maybe you do have that fine sense - at least this fellow seems not to have been taken in with hitler.
Quote:Given their built-in weakness and their willingness to swallow the most outrageous Big Lies emanating from the propaganda ministry and the media, most Germans were fruit waiting to be plucked by the Nazi harvesters.
This I tend to disagree with. Most people are willing to swallow half truths such as the ones Hitler used if it coincides with what they want. For Big lies (for our current raeders) see the Iraqi Propoganda Minister. For Hitleresque lies see Bill Clinton.
Quote:"They still fall for anything. After all that, I do not see that one can blame the majority of Germans who, in 1933, believed that the Reichstag fire was the work of the Communists. [The Parliament burned down and a convenient Communist arsonist was fingered, which the Nazis used as the excuse to unleash police-state tactics against all opponents.] What one can blame them for, and what shows their terrible collective weakness of character clearly for the first time during the Nazi period, is that this settled the matter. With sheepish submissiveness the German people accepted that, as a result of the fire, each one of them lost what little personal freedom and dignity was guaranteed by the constitution; as though it followed as a necessary consequence."
In short, what should have been a strong political and moral opposition movement to Hitlerian policies, meekly acceded to the destruction of their country's institutions of law and social harmony. The result in society was a clear leaning toward the dynamic, muscular policies advocated by the Nazis, and a seething "anger and disgust with the cowardly treachery of their own [opposition] leadership."
The two do not correlate. How does burning of the building and blaming it on the communists mean that? With no other way of knowing many probably thought it was the communists.
[snipped a lot of stuff - tired of doing this]
Quote:So, dear reader, examine the above descriptive passages from the Germany of the 1930s, when the Nazis were assuming full power, and see what lessons can be learned for our situation today.
As I write this, Ashcroft is telling the Congress that the Patriot Act - the same act that more than 100 cities have voted not to honor because of its numerous violations of rights guaranteed by the Constitution - does not give the Bush Administration enough police power and needs to be expanded. (This at a time when American citizens have been arrested, not charged and then stashed away on military bases, cut off from judicial protections; and hundreds of foreign prisoners are being held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo in violation of both the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva conventions.)
And notice, that recently, Bush has told him to back off - that's too far. As far as I can tell this is still less restrctive than pre-nazi germany was. We are used to some pretty hefty freedoms and don't like them infringed very much. Please re-read the above passages and tell me that this is what Ascroft wants? then you, my not friend, are delusional.
Quote:Demonstrable government falsehoods are being published by a compliant media, while that same media, owned by corporate giants, refuses to report factual information that is embarrassing to the Administration. And finally, the Pentagon is working on "contingency plans" for the next unilateral invasion of a sovereign state by the U.S. military.
point 1: no - they are not complient media. I see lots of talk about how horrid the Pres is. The media is no where near controlled by the conservatives (go look up the ration of liberals to conservatives in the media - I think you will get a little different view than what you think).
point 2: yes - the pentagon is. The pentagon has always done so since thier inception. That is what thier job is. This guy has a Ph.D - ****, we learned that in high school (1987) government class!