Who preceded the Nazis as the cliched embodiment of evil?

pseudotriton ruber ruber · #1 05-31-2006, 10:20 AM

All of the Nazi-revival, swastika-lovin' threads make wonder: before the 1930s, when people wanted to evoke an embodiment of evil authoritarism ("Who do you think you are, honey, Adolf Hitler or somefin? I'll take the trash out when I'm good and goddamn ready") who did they pick? The Czar? The Pope? The titular head of the Republican Party?

I mean, we didn't just decide around 1933 that we needed a symbol of tyranny, did we? Or did we?

Wallenstein · #2 05-31-2006, 10:25 AM

the pope's always been popular

carnivorousplant · #3 05-31-2006, 10:25 AM

The Vikings were viewed as bad guys by the English as I recall.
The Monguls and the Huns were not highly thought of.

Mangetout · #4 05-31-2006, 10:32 AM

Anyway, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Ethilrist · #5 05-31-2006, 10:32 AM

Satan?

don't ask · #6 05-31-2006, 10:40 AM

The Huns or the Prussians.

Beware of Doug · #7 05-31-2006, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

I mean, we didn't just decide around 1933 that we needed a symbol of tyranny, did we? Or did we?

I dunno. In the years just before '33, a lot of people outside Germany were seriously considering authoritarianism and totalitarianism as an answer to the misery caused by the Great Depression. Fascist Italy was as much respected as reviled – maybe more so, because they had really cool uniforms and planes.

Colibri · #8 05-31-2006, 10:48 AM

The Bolsheviks would be another candidate.

Sal Ammoniac · #9 05-31-2006, 10:51 AM

If you're looking at a somewhat earlier day, Napoleon was quite the bogeyman, particularly in England. Parents used him to threaten disobedient children.

Nava · #10 05-31-2006, 11:18 AM

In Spain, the following are and continue to be popular:
Nero (as Real Evil Guy)
the Pope (as Absolute Power, no evil implied)
the King (again, Absolute Power but no evil implied)
the Goths (the tribe, not the ones who like black lipstick)
Attilah (sp?) and his Huns
Attilah's horse

The Goth Kings (of Spain) are both an example of "a thing you learn by rote" (although we don't any more) and of a real crazy bunch. Whomever had murdered the previous king became king. Real nice family, not.

Malienation · #11 05-31-2006, 12:45 PM

Genghis Khan, no question about it!

panache45 · #12 05-31-2006, 12:46 PM

My guess would be "Atilla the Hun" or "Ivan the Terrible."

RickG · #13 05-31-2006, 12:49 PM

The Jews? ;j

-Rick

chrisk · #14 05-31-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

All of the Nazi-revival, swastika-lovin' threads make wonder: before the 1930s, when people wanted to evoke an embodiment of evil authoritarism ("Who do you think you are, honey, Adolf Hitler or somefin? I'll take the trash out when I'm good and goddamn ready") who did they pick? The Czar? The Pope? The titular head of the Republican Party?

I mean, we didn't just decide around 1933 that we needed a symbol of tyranny, did we? Or did we?

As a slight hijack... did people REALIZE around 1933 that the Nazis would be referred to as a symbol of evil, authoritarianism, and tyranny for a long time?? If not... any idea when this started to sink in??

twickster · #15 05-31-2006, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nava

Attilah's horse

Is this a whoosh?

Ethilrist · #16 05-31-2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twickster

Is this a whoosh?

What, you've never heard of a threat based on "... and the horse he rode in on..."? Well, it's that horse.

Elendil's Heir · #17 05-31-2006, 01:35 PM

Well, a horse is a horse, of course, of course... even when it's Attila's.

Operation Ripper · #18 05-31-2006, 01:49 PM

I'd go with the Huns, they were still calling Germans "Huns" in WWI and WWII I believe.

CalMeacham · #19 05-31-2006, 02:18 PM

even before the Nazis, the Germans were good villains. Tarzan actually fights the Germans in books Burroughs wrote at the time of WWI (and then later fought them again in WWII -- Burroughs was still churning out the Tarzan books).

One of the more lamentable features of the 1920s and 1930s pulps was the frequent use of the "yellow peril" as the villains. Them evil Chinese heathen were just waiting to kill the round-eyed devils and take over the world. The depictions of oriental villains in the pulps and later in comics were scarily dehumanizing. The books and stories about Fu Manchu were of this sort, as were imitators like Robert E. Howard (with his "Skull Face" stories, and "Malik Tous", and others). There were entire pulp magazines devoted to Oriental adventure and Oriental villains. Downright racist, seen from the vantage point of today.

carnivorousplant · #20 05-31-2006, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Operation Ripper

I'd go with the Huns, they were still calling Germans "Huns" in WWI and WWII I believe.

That was because of an idiotic remark by Kaiser Wilhelm to his troops. Somthing about, "being as feared as the Huns".

Stranger On A Train · #21 05-31-2006, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mangetout

Anyway, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Sanitation,
medicine,
education,
irrigation,
public health,
roads,
a freshwater system,
baths, and
public order.

But aside from that, not much.

My vote for 19th century Europe would be Napoleon and the Frenchies.

Going back a bit further, the Spanish Inquisition was pretty unexpected, too.

Stranger

carnivorousplant · #22 05-31-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

even before the Nazis, the Germans were good villains. Tarzan actually fights the Germans in books Burroughs wrote at the time of WWI

There is a scene in one of the Lost World novels where the entire crew of the German sub finds an Englishman asleep and manages to overpower him.

handsomeharry · #23 06-01-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

Sanitation,
medicine,
education,
irrigation,
public health,
roads,
a freshwater system,
baths, and
public order.

But aside from that, not much.

Stranger

I WAS going to say, but what have they done for us lately.
Also, let us remember the Turks. I believe "the Arabs" oculd have worked as well.
hh

astro · #24 06-01-2006, 09:24 AM

White Slavers

Dr. Rieux · #25 06-01-2006, 09:26 AM

Anarchists

Jonathan Chance · #26 06-01-2006, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant

That was because of an idiotic remark by Kaiser Wilhelm to his troops. Somthing about, "being as feared as the Huns".

I think this sets the stage. The German's, who were getting playful and LOOKING to be thought of as terrifying conquerors were thinking they needed to be perceived as 'hun-like' to be properly scary.

Qadgop the Mercotan · #27 06-01-2006, 10:01 AM

Cossacks.

Irish immigrants in the US.

Injuns (the native american kind.)

Exapno Mapcase · #28 06-01-2006, 10:12 AM

Communists have been used as villains since the days of Marx. All union and progressive causes were tainted by the use of communist as a smear against them.

Before WWI there was a huge genre of invasion books in England, using the Germans or even the French as invaders across the Channel.

For the hundred years before that, Napoleon was the symbol of invasion across all Europe outside of France.

For at least 50 years after the Revolution, the British were the symbol of all that was evil in much of America.

The Pope may have been used earlier as a joke, but Catholics were hated and feared for hundreds of years after the Reformation across Protestant Europe.

Barbarians of all sorts were symbols of devastation after the fall of Rome. Not just Huns, but Goths, Vikings, and others.

Western Civ is one long roster of demonizing the enemy. The Greeks thought everyone else were barbarians. That and not Plato is our real heritage.

Guinastasia · #29 06-01-2006, 10:16 AM

The German Kaiser was pretty reviled, although he wasn't seen quite as evil as Hitler, but more of an evil, incompetant bufoon.

What about Otto von Bismarck? He was pretty nasty.

mack · #30 06-01-2006, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisk

As a slight hijack... did people REALIZE around 1933 that the Nazis would be referred to as a symbol of evil, authoritarianism, and tyranny for a long time?? If not... any idea when this started to sink in??

Very roughly speaking, the Night of The Long Knives in 1934 put many people on alert, so to say, and Kristallnacht in 1938 removed any doubt about where things were headed. The invasion of Poland soon followed in 1939. People trickled out of Germany all through the '30s.

OtakuLoki · #31 06-01-2006, 10:42 AM

Hmm... shortly before, say, 1933, I'd say that the Red threat was the biggest international boogeyman.

Prior to that, and continuing for much of the same time, was the Yellow threat that CalMeacham already mentioned.

Other epitomes of omnipotent evil would be (in no particular order)

The Okrahna (The secret police of the Czars, and the people who originally faked up The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.)
The Spanish Inquisition
The Jesuits
The Knights Templar
The Huns
The Mongols
The Goths

saoirse · #32 06-01-2006, 10:43 AM

Don't forget the Jesuits. Anyone who can steal days is pretty fearsome.

Askia · #33 06-01-2006, 10:47 AM

American Negroes. Especially if white women were involved.

:: Looking around. :: Hey, where they at, anyway?

pseudotriton ruber ruber · #34 06-01-2006, 10:52 AM

OP here. Were any of these groups or individuals actually used (in literature, say) as examples of evil authority? IOW, did the whole Godwin's Law meme begin with the Nazis? Did people employ any handy embodiment of evil that sprang to mind, or were any of these in actual use generally?

saoirse · #35 06-01-2006, 11:38 AM

Following the "Germanic babbarians as embodiment of evil" line, if someone did a lot of property damage, he would be called a Vandal. I can rememeber a character in a movie calling a young hoodlum a "Visigoth." Perhaps this was used, too. Aside from that, I can't think of anyone who would be used as a to undermine someone's argument through comparison, with the possible exception of George III in the Federal Era. Most of the others were either disorganized hordes, or else had workings supposedly so secret that no one knew what they really did.

I guess the Terror in France would be a government that would be characterized by measures that were antidemocratic, or betrayed individual liberty. "That's just the sirt of thing Robespierre wanted to do." Maybe?

Fish Cheer · #36 06-01-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

What about Otto von Bismarck? He was pretty nasty.

Actually, I don't think so. Can you provide a cite?

In his day, I doubt that he was seen much different than other aristocratic statesmen in Europe.

Don't get him mixed up with that Kaiser Wilhelm II / Great War business.

Fish Cheer · #37 06-01-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

IOW, did the whole Godwin's Law meme begin with the Nazis?

Of course. It was only coined in 1990.

scm1001 · #38 06-01-2006, 12:45 PM

mexican immigrants

oh wait you mean before

jimmmy · #39 06-01-2006, 06:26 PM

When in doubt I would always go Lincoln - or at least offer it to the conversation:

As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it, "All men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read, "All men are created equal except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some other country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy

A. Lincoln in an 1855 Letter to J. Speed

Miller · #40 06-01-2006, 07:03 PM

No love* for the Turks in this thread? They had the better part of Europe quaking in fear for a century or two there.

_{*So to speak.}

Jet Jaguar · #41 06-01-2006, 07:30 PM

I've been reading a lot of 19th-century "travel/adventure" type literature lately, and savage natives seem to be a fairly stock villain.

Argent Towers · #42 06-01-2006, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickG

The Jews? ;j

-Rick

This was probably taken as sort of a joke by most people, and forgotten, but I think this answer is the winner. The Jews were indeed the embodiment of evil in most of Europe for the longest time - to the point of being blamed for all kinds of ridiculous things, "blood libels," well poisoning, not to mention economic trouble, and perpetually hated as Christ-killers. Whether or not they actually were evil is beside the point - they were universally reviled. Add to this the "protocols of the elders of zion" bullshit and the common perception that the Jews were in control behind the scenes, and the "authority" stipulation of the OP is fulfilled as well. I don't think any of the other answers given come as close to the mark as the Jews.

Johanna · #43 06-01-2006, 09:05 PM

I was going to say Turks. Their starring role as bogeyman/embodiment of evil, from western Europe's point of view, came during the 16th and 17th centuries when the Ottoman Empire was already big and kept on expanding.

Agnostic Pagan · #44 06-01-2006, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miller

No love* for the Turks in this thread? They had the better part of Europe quaking in fear for a century or two there.

And the Moors had their back, or was it vice versa? Definitely a vice though.

Agnostic Pagan · #45 06-01-2006, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

This was probably taken as sort of a joke by most people, and forgotten, but I think this answer is the winner. The Jews were indeed the embodiment of evil in most of Europe for the longest time - to the point of being blamed for all kinds of ridiculous things, "blood libels," well poisoning, not to mention economic trouble, and perpetually hated as Christ-killers. ...<snip>... I don't think any of the other answers given come as close to the mark as the Jews.

Sorry to double post, but overlooked this. This is sadly true as well. I don't believe the general public had any problems with the portrayal of Shylock and similar characters until after WWII, and too many still don't.

Speaker for the Dead · #46 06-01-2006, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmmy

When in doubt I would always go Lincoln - or at least offer it to the conversation:

As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it, "All men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read, "All men are created equal except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some other country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy

A. Lincoln in an 1855 Letter to J. Speed

To me, that doesn't read so much as "I'm a black-hating autocrat-wannabe" as "look at the sorry state of our country, where we ignore the first principle of its founding! At least in Russia they're not hypocrits--they outright state that men aren't all equal in their society."

pseudotriton ruber ruber · #47 06-02-2006, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speaker for the Dead

To me, that doesn't read so much as "I'm a black-hating autocrat-wannabe" as "look at the sorry state of our country, where we ignore the first principle of its founding! At least in Russia they're not hypocrits--they outright state that men aren't all equal in their society."

Uh, I think that's the point. The Russkies bite, and everyone knows they bite.