What precisely went wrong in Nazi Germany? A psychological inquiry.

Great Debates
81

Believe me ladies and gentlemen, I’m a vehement opponent of nationalism. I’ve lived in Germany, surrounded by the imagery of its unfortunate past. But does this need to “scream, never shut up and yell twice as loud” mean we can invent parallels that are only there by a stretch of the imagination? Do the ends justify the means? Because regardless of what Simmons is saying, his posts do (without reading between the lines) prompt us to mentally juxtapose Washington 2003 with Germany 1933. We were discussing similarities (such as the Enabling Act and the Patriot Act). And my point is that the similarities even you edwino claim to see between here and the Weimar Republic are not at hand! Perhaps you need to look elsewhere for historic parallels. This thread was about what went wrong in Germany so that, in the short span of a decade, one of the worst democide in history was committed.

Sure, republics are always threated by power-hungry individuals. They were threatened in Rome, in Germany, during the Civil War, by Nixon. Comparing the threat the US Republic faces today to the threat faced by the Weimar Republic is like comparing the Roman Triumverate to Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld. Go ahead. Compare away. But all I can say is, polemics polemics polemics…anyway, what is history but a lie agreed upon?

82

Absolutely. I don’t think you have to stretch at all to see that I’m making a comparison in process and arguing that a mechanism has been put in place and a precendent established for the use of a future renegade.

But you had to read pretty deeply between the lines to write as you did:

*"But if you start compairing [sic] them to Hitler and his cronies … " *

and further on *"Ashcroft is not good news. But if you compaire [sic] him to Heydrich and Goering… " *

and again “Please, before you start pooring [sic] out these lascivious comments about the Bush/Hitler paradigm …”

I would prefer you comment on what is said, not what it is convenient for you to dispute.

And if is OK, and might even be legal, to disagree with me. There is at least a remote chance that I overstate the case. But I don’t think so or I wouldn’t make it.

Now as to the American people rising up to put down the persecution of a target group, you’ve got to be kidding.

For 100 years after the legal elimination of slavery, blacks in the US south were denied education, justice before the law and numerous other amenities enjoyed by the rest of us. Things like the ability to live where you want, eat where you want, and stay in certain towns after sundown. Did the people rise up en masse and demand that it be stopped? Most people don’t really worry about what happens to members of the group if the common view is that the group is “them” as opposed to “us.”

Where were the people in the US demanding that the internment of the US citizens of Japanese descent be freed? If you can propagandize a group into the class of “national enemies,” then hardly any repressive act is out of bounds.

It all goes to show, not that a repeat of Naziism is happening here but that it could happen here, and if the fear gets great enough the USA Patriot Act could very well be a convenient handle to use in its promotion.

Having said that I think the upshot is that, like with most Great Debates, we’ll just have to leave it in disagreement.

83

Simmons, it seems as if we have spun off into a polemic cycle maudit, casting one another as polarities. Let me try to break that spell.

When it comes to repeating history, I’m less worried about Patriot Acts that potential tyrants can start abusing then economic stabilty. I think legislative acts are worthless in and of themselves. What matters is the receptiveness (or rather lack of opposition) a Hitler-to-be will find amongst the gray mayority.

Hitler rose to supremacy by quasi legal means. And , when he was in a position of sufficient authority, gave the failing Weimar Republic its coup de grace: the Enabling Act. So what placed Hitler in such a position? Was it a flaw in German law? No. It was the socio-economic situation of 1929 - 1932. Most Western economies had just gone further south than the South Pole. Still faced with Reparations, Germany was in a massive whole of insolveable debt. The only remaining usefull function of the Reichsmark was to make neat little bonfires to keep freezing folk on street corners warm.

I think your eyes are pointing in the wrong direction. Sure, everything inside the Belt Way is very theatrical and exciting. But what really matters if we want to avoid genocide and tyranny and safeguard our Republics, is to be found 30 minutes from where I live: down at Wall Street.

84

Wow, your number is twice that of Goebbels’/Irvings’! :eek: No reliable historian puts the number of civilian dead past 130,000. General estimates these days are in the 40,000 range (roughly the same amount that died in the Nazi bombing of London, for comparison).

85

ethic

My worries are with exactly your point:

He used the systems in place to slowly erode the system. Again, I don’t think anyone here is comparing our present situation with the Weimar. The economic situation was horrible, we understand that. The Enabling Act does not equal the Patriot Act. And most definitely, Hitler and Bush are in no way comparable. I haven’t seen anyone trying to do this.

What I am trying to point out is that a scared populace is easily malleable with a little bit of fearmongering and a little bit of charisma. Measures which will reduce freedoms are sold as ways to increase security or power. That’s all I am saying. It happened in 1933 Germany, it could happen here. I take the fact that the Patriot Act passed without that much opposition as proof of this.

86

This, we are in total agreement about. If we were to hit economic hardships, we would be no less vulnerable than Germany to the death trap of simplistic political solutions. When the coffers get empty, the primal takes over and fanatics like the NSDAP get a chance to risk it all and save us from our “misery”. And, as we are very well equipped with defense mechanisms, our state of affairs is never of our own doing. It’s the jews, the muslims or the hindus. Never us, oh no, always them.

87

This is horrible, but right after 9/11, how easy would it have been to find Americans willing to get rid of the Arabs in this country by any means possilbe? Heck, some were doing it voluntarily. Remember the random acts of violence back then? Toss in some severe economic hardships and you’d have the same thing here.

88

I get the feeling thatWilliam Safire had some worries about the present national leadership. What he wrote about bin Laden has been overtaken by events, but gist of his article is that we shouldn’t consider that we must “burn down the village in order to save it.”

I guess I’m a little too easy on Bush, et. al.. When William Safire gets agitated against one of their methods of “fighting terrorism” it’s time to worry.