Can you offer up a comparison of similarities between Germany in the 30s and the US now?
What is a Nazi?
- Thread starter Hygro
- Start date
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
I don't think there are many (at least in the context of @raystuttgart's post) that was my piont
It's weird argument that WW2 would happen without Hitler anyway. It was far from being pre-determined even with Hitler. He could be stopped in 1938.
Without him, Nazis might never come to power, which would change the course of history completely.
Without him, Nazis might never come to power, which would change the course of history completely.
Zardnaar
Deity
I think the general belief is a non Hitler Germany would still likely want to fight Poland and France.
Russia may not have been invaded.
But they more or less had to invade because the economy would likely fall over 1940.
Lexicus
Deity
The main one is complete dysfunction of the Constitutional government.
I'd argue the better comparison for the current US is the late Roman Republic but that's a whole nother topic.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
I won't completely disagree with you (surprisingly
) but we might disagree why. Imho, presidents have been given too much power and congress is broken. Elected officials were supposed to compromise for the good of the country, not cling to extreme ideologies. My suspicion is your argument is not "because there isn't enough moderation"
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
This is interesting because there are so many ways things could have gone minus Hitler.
If Hitler is not in the picture, maybe Drexler stays? Strasser? Rohm? Goebbels too was initially on the left-wing of the party, and if those four had been in charge, the party never would have received the corporate backing it did—and nor would it have availed itself to the services of Schacht, who himself came up with the Mefo bill scheme.
But if you’re talking that Hitler bites the big one in like June 1939, then yeah, the German economy is going down das püper without a miracle.
Zardnaar
Deity
I was thinking if they never came to power.
raystuttgart
Civ4Col Modder
Trust me, it is not.
There are actually at least a few politicians out there that want to cooperate and do not always put their own interests first.
There are politicians out there that know that always only thinking about your own advantage is short sighted.
Just proving my point.
Everything we do not like about these leaders is declared "fake news".
As long as they serve our purpose we can justify everything like that.
Worse in what?
Worse in terms of moral, integrity and truth? Or simply worse for your own selfish benefits and goals?
Are you trying to tell me that Hillary Clinton is even more unscrupulous and an even bigger liar and criminal than Donald Trump?
Because that is actually kind of difficult to imagine ...
Let us please simply drop all that hypocracy and openly admit what most voters care about.
Let us openly admit that it is in most cases our own fault that such "rat catchers" rise to power.
-----
That is what I said myself:
But I also said this:
-----
Well I guess you are going to continue the long and rich history of voting unscrupulous leaders.
Since everything told about them can be so easily discharged as "fake news" I guess there is nothing you can do about it.
----
It is a pretty dark and grim world, where all our leaders are unscrupulous unless of course they tell exactly what we want to hear
and all our media is not turstworthy anymore unless of course it tells exactly what we want to hear.
In such a world everything is just about personal benefits and selfishness.
In such a world morals, integrity and truth have already been slaughtered.
In such a world we do not need to wonder if "rat-catchers" get continuously voted into power.
But of course it is also relieving to allow hate, fear, anger and frustration to roam freely on the steets.
Enjoy what you saw ...
Last edited:
raystuttgart
Civ4Col Modder
Actually there are a few.
They may simply not be as obvious as "Nazis hated Jews".
1. Discontent voters start to not care anymore about leaders having true morals or integrity or even simply being honest
2. People are looking for scapegoats that they can blame for their problems instead of tackling the problems themselves.
3. Media is discredited by the powerful and even by the voters that do not like what they hear - aka. "fake news".
4. Society starts to become more and more selfish, split, aggressive, fearful, paranoid, distrusting, isolationist, ...
...
That is simply how it starts ...
It may not end in a World War 2, but maybe think about it anyways.
Maybe take a look at your leaders and ask yourself:
- Is my leader actually doing someting against that because he understands that it is a problem?
- Or is my leader instead trying to even enfore it for because it serves his personal goals?
Nazis do not appear because of magic or because they were already born evil.
Nazis are created by an environment as described above.
-----
So you still have a chance to prevent a situation where Nazis or other extremists really rise to power.
But to do so you need to understand the root causes and the social conditions that allow such "rat catchers" to rise.
-----
Or to answer the question "What is a Nazi?" otherwise:
A Nazi is most likely shaped in a social environment as described above.
Most recent:
US takes down dozens of Iran-linked news sites, accusing them of disinformation
US authorities have seized a range of Iran’s state-linked news websites, which they accused of spreading “disinformation” on Tuesday, a US official said, a move that appeared to be a far-reaching crackdown on Iranian media amid heightened tensions between the two countries.
Most significantUS authorities have seized a range of Iran’s state-linked news websites, which they accused of spreading “disinformation” on Tuesday, a US official said, a move that appeared to be a far-reaching crackdown on Iranian media amid heightened tensions between the two countries.
Trump is copying the Bush censorship playbook. Scientists aren't standing for it
During the [George W Bush] Administration, political appointees censored climate science reports from government agencies, and mostly got away with it by gagging the scientists. A survey found that nearly half of 1,600 government scientists at seven agencies ranging from NASA to the EPA had been warned against using terms like “global warming” in reports or speeches, throughout Bush’s eight-year presidency.
Perhaps assuming those tactics would work again, the Trump Administration has copied the Bush scientific censorship playbook. They issued de facto gag orders to government science agencies like the EPA and USDA, ordered that the EPA take down its climate webpage, and have mandated that any studies or data from EPA scientists must undergo review by political appointees before they can be released to the public.
Quite famouslyDuring the [George W Bush] Administration, political appointees censored climate science reports from government agencies, and mostly got away with it by gagging the scientists. A survey found that nearly half of 1,600 government scientists at seven agencies ranging from NASA to the EPA had been warned against using terms like “global warming” in reports or speeches, throughout Bush’s eight-year presidency.
Perhaps assuming those tactics would work again, the Trump Administration has copied the Bush scientific censorship playbook. They issued de facto gag orders to government science agencies like the EPA and USDA, ordered that the EPA take down its climate webpage, and have mandated that any studies or data from EPA scientists must undergo review by political appointees before they can be released to the public.
Export of cryptographic technology and devices from the United States was severely restricted by U.S. law until 1992. The law gradually became eased until around 2000, but some restrictions still remain today.
This side of the pond (we also have boomers)
An essay by a prominent leftwing academic that examines the ethics of socialist revolution has been targeted by a leading university using the government’s counter-terrorism strategy.
Students at the University of Reading have been told to take care when reading an essay by the late Professor Norman Geras, in order to avoid falling foul of Prevent.
Students at the University of Reading have been told to take care when reading an essay by the late Professor Norman Geras, in order to avoid falling foul of Prevent.
Last edited:
aelf
Ashen One
There are more boomers than in America.
Besides, who are the folks in politics looking to ban abortion over there?
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
I'm doubt you'd prefer to die in a Nazi camp vs a Soviet prison, but they were nevertheless distinct things.
What you're describing is general authoritarianism, not Nazi stuff. No solace to those losing their freedom, but it's best to identify and oppose things as they are. Calling these actions Nazi acts is a disservice. People will look at it and say "that doesn't look like 1930s Germany", and think less of the danger. Even though the danger is still there.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
While I agree the OP situation is cruel and has fascist structures, I don't think it's productive to call it Nazism, which is a particular subset of fascist ideology. Nazis in the States can be demonstrated, but say, while alt-right is a fascist movement, it's not a Nazi one. I say this as someone that abhor the US police system and would prefer it completely reformed, if I had any say in it, particularly due to deep ingrained fascist and racist structures and lack of repercussions for horrendous actions. I just think it productive to be as clear as possible with terminology, particularly because terminology, even when correctly applied, often make the political centre go "wat" to begin with.
You actually outlined the Nazi party quite well, but on this particular point, I'm told it's more complicated. They didn't particularly like Christianity because of their misreading of idea of Nietzsche as foundational thought, but they did very much opt into Christianity as a building block, since it was an establishing force of what they perceived as German commonality. There's a lot of studies on Nazi relations to Christianity, and while it's not like they endorse it on principle, it's at worst an ambivalent relationship they had to it. Which is what happens when you have an end-justifies-the-means-of-murdering-undesirables ideology.
You actually outlined the Nazi party quite well, but on this particular point, I'm told it's more complicated. They didn't particularly like Christianity because of their misreading of idea of Nietzsche as foundational thought, but they did very much opt into Christianity as a building block, since it was an establishing force of what they perceived as German commonality. There's a lot of studies on Nazi relations to Christianity, and while it's not like they endorse it on principle, it's at worst an ambivalent relationship they had to it. Which is what happens when you have an end-justifies-the-means-of-murdering-undesirables ideology.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
AFAIK Hitler had no plans for France, but had plans for German central Europe and then hoped to destroy Slavs at large. So it's more that Hitler Germany wanted to fight Poland and Russia, in spite of the defensive pact. The war he got dragged into I do admit he probably didn't mind per se ideologically. But his goals was to conquer Poland and Western Russia because the arable land was excellent and the peoples were seen as undesirables that he planned to "cull". Maybe France had been an option in the future, but it was not his immediate intention.
raystuttgart
Civ4Col Modder
Sorry but that is absolutely wrong.
The military plans of the Germans are pretty well documented actually.
The German attack on France had been planned right from the beginning, just like a later attack on Britain in a phase two was planned as well.
France was a primary strategic goal to be conquered early on to serve as bastion and later as staging place for the also planned war against e.g. Britain.
German militaries knew that they had to avoid a long lasting 2 frontier war and knew that they would be fighting longer in the East against Russia due to the vast distances there.
Thus Germany had to conquer France as fast as possible to prevent France becoming a staging place for e.g. British troops and eventually other enemies.
Also German militaries wanted to take back the regions that Germany had lost to France in the treaty of Versaille and they also knew that Britain would not just look at this passively for long.
And of course France was also completely aware of all these things but had falsly relied on the "Maginot Line" as defense not considering the Germans to attack through neutral Belgium.
-------
Nazi miltiaries had always been planning to attack France right in the beginning of the War.
There simply was no reasonable other strategy to prevent being caught in a two frontier war.
Nazi militaries had planned to eliminate the other major powers in Europe to actually achieve real European dominance.
This of course included to attack and defeat the other 2 major Eurioean powers in Europe, which were France and Britain.
If the US had not joined the War on the West Front, Germany would most likely have been able to easily defend French coasts against Britain.
Without US support Britain might even at some point have been forced into an armistice or even a surrender.
But without Germany eliminating France from the equation, Germany would at some point have been crushed by France and Britain in the west and Russia in the east.
German militaries knew very well that Germany did not have the resources to fight a long lasting war, they needed to win the war fast or in the end lose just by lack of resources to continue fighting.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I think a lot of you are missing it. Again, we use the term Nazi because they exemplified The Thing, which is not limited to their being fascists, and there are those today that are also The Thing. We do not use Nazi because these people are Literal 1930s Nazi Party Members but because Literal 1930s Nazi Party Members are the thing that these people are as well, without The Thing being stretched to include more than that which the Nazis exemplified.
So the issue is not the name, however some of you are having trouble seeing it, so I'm hoping we can find some description for what is perhaps too plain for words at times.
So the issue is not the name, however some of you are having trouble seeing it, so I'm hoping we can find some description for what is perhaps too plain for words at times.
The Christian right has been behind the anti abortion movement for many decades and includes people of all ages in every generation. As one generation dies off the next in line takes over.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
It’s a hard one because on the one hand you have the rank-and-file Nazis who identify as Christians, Hitler who is often ambivalent and pragmatic, and hard ideologues like Goebbels who wanted to smash the church all the time.
Would anti-clerical be a better descriptor? I suppose rather than looking at it from ideological grounds, the structure of the party itself may have not opposed the idea of Christianity as a unifying force, but wouldn’t tolerate a parallel organization that could challenge the Nazi monopoly on power.
