Which isn’t that much of an irony. You would expect a politician like Hitler to have political sense, and generals to have millitary sense, rather than the other way around.
I think the irony he was referring to was that Hitler took personal control of the military conduct of the war while leaving politics to others (once he became Fuhrer).
I had in mind that Hitler is usually credited for the military successes that Germany had while his political maneuvering before the war is downplayed, or just ascribed to his megalomania.
It’s the other way around. Hitler’s military successes mainly consisted of overrunning unprepared areas. Prior to that, his political gains had returned everything lost in WWI and had placed him in control of all Central Europe. Had he stopped there, Germany could have grown in power for decades. Instead, he lost everything.
I still don’t understand how we can interpret it any other way. Deeg said that people have the power to fool themselves when their perceived prosperity is at stake, and Balthisar gave as examples Bolivia (Morales), Venezuela (Chávez), the US (Obama?) and said Mexico was saved by “a statistical anomaly” (presumably this was Calderón’s victory over López Obrador). In Canada, on the other hand, the voters didn’t “fool” themselves and reelected the conservative government.
If this isn’t what Balthisar meant, what is it?
Not to thread hijack, but as long as you all went first: perhaps the most racist U.S. President of the 20th Century was Woodrow Wilson. Not only sympathetic to the Klan, he and his administration were eugenicists.
See here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-09-14-book-usat_x.htm
And, of course, the excellent-yet-always terminally misunderstood Liberal Fascism. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385511841/ref=cm_rdp_product
There was just something in the water back in the early part of the 20th century, no matter which country you lived in-- fascism and communism (but I repeat myself) was all the rage across the world, and racism was often a major component of each of these movements (insofar as each “ism” thrived when “the other” was targeted-- whether they be American blacks, German Jews, Russian kulaks, Italian monarchists, etc).
数据库修复
mdf修复
mdf恢复
sql server修复
sql server恢复
Oracle修复
Oracle恢复
上海数据恢复
上海硬盘数据恢复
上海 数据恢复
数据恢复 上海
Yes, but I didn’t want to bring a debate in GQ whether we picked Obama because he was preferred vs. McCain, or whether it was a reactionary choice against the status quo in all of the other examples. Canada was mentioned to point out balance in the status quo. It’s obvious in all of the cases that the person was chosen by popular vote (“preferred,” duh), but it has everything to do with the reasons, which is very much a fair response to the quote I cited. The risk is there are genuine Democrats who don’t recognize the reasons for Obama’s election, and will separate the United States versus all those far away poor countries without recognizing that the reasons are the same.
So when gays and immigrants are the targeted other, is it fascism or communism or both?
Is generic authoritarian nationalism an allowable option?