23 January 2005 - 8:45am
9/11 and 2/27
On February 27, 1933, a mad man set fire to the German Parliament Building, the Reichstag, shocking the German nation. The arsonist was proclaimed a Communist and as everyone knows, Godless Communism was a threat to peace loving Christian Nations -- like Germany.
The leader of Germany at the time was Adolph Hitler.
Contrary to what many people have been lead to believe, Hitler did not become dictator through a coup d'état. He came to power through strictly democratic means. He asked for special powers to deal with terrorism and the German people, reeling with shock, granting him powers to deal with the crisis -- powers he never relinquished.
George W. Bush is no Hitler, but the parallels of a nation surrendering its liberties to a government is not new.
Who can blame the German people? The Reichstag was akin to Capitol Hill's House and Senate, although not on nearly so grant a scale, yet the psychological dagger went into the heart of the German people. The reaction of the German people ought to be understandable to Americans who went through 9/11. And as far as the Reichstag goes, rumor has it that the fourth hijacked plane that went down in Pennsylvania was headed either for the Capitol Rotunda or even the White House, itself. If the White House was knocked out, the President could have alternatively gone to the Pentagon and we know the hijacked DC plane that circled for about an hour was crashed right at the helicopter pad where Bush's chopper would have brought him in case of that. This 9/11 plot was dark indeed.
Homeland Security was important in the Fatherland. Instead of the Patriot Act, the Germans pushed through The Enabling Act and gave up freedoms that were not restored until after the Second World War was over and Germany had invaded any number of countries to protect its security.
In the meantime, Germans openly vented hatred toward Communists and passed legislation against non-Christian minorities, especially Jews, and homosexuals. Today we see states attempting to pass legislation against homosexuals and proclaiming a national agenda the pushes Christian values ahead of citizens who do not share the vision of the fundamentalist who hold sway over the Republican Party.
The point is not to say Bush is any Hitler. Rather, it is for us to pause and think how it happens that people give up their freedoms to a leader who says he needs special powers to deal with a crisis.
But terrorism is real, say some. The President needs to deal with this threat. It is for a good reason that we surrender our liberties.
Can you think of anyone ever surrendering their liberties for a bad reason?
Matsu
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
As far as i know, the Reichstag was torched by the National Socialist party members, the Nazis. It was blamed on the communists. This was part of a larger campaign against democratic forces of all kinds.
Hitler had already had lots of help in inflaming the public due to the Treaty of Versailles and the hardships imposed by that, the worldwide economic depression, other factor, including, perhaps, the tendancy of Germans to consider themselves superior to other folks (not that this is confined to Germany, by any means).
You may be right. Perhaps we'll never know. The alleged arsonist was Marinus van der Lubbe who seems to have confessed either freely or under torture that he set the fire although he did not crack under torture and admit Communism.
Perhaps he was innocent and the Nazis did set the fire.
The public perception was that the German nation was in danger and the government needed special powers.
that Bush is no Hitler. It's only a matter of degree. Hitler killed millions, Bush has killed around 100,000 in Iraq for no reason. What will be the total if he goes into Iran next? US troops are committing war crimes. This administration has gutted the Bill of Rights.
I think the biggest mistake the Left is making is not calling them out for their fascism. Being afraid to used the word makes it possible for them to take hold. We have to stop being diplomatic with people who sneer at diplomacy.
We need to get serious before our crazy little savior starts building the internment camps his crew are contemplating.
Morgaine-ism© #8
"A Woman's Sexual and Reproductive Autonomy is Sacred and Absolute."
Excellent, excellent posting. It's probably the most thoughtful blog post I've read in many months. There's just one factor you left out.
The rise of the Nazi party was very much do to the after-affects of World War I. Germany felt somewhat oppressed by the surrender agreement and was suffering financial hardships. There was a lot of animosity toward the rest of Europe in addition to the humiliation of defeat. This set a mood where a very strong leader promoting a sense of nationalism could rise.
Fortunately the US was not in such despair pre-9/11. Your points are all still valid. But the general mood of the German people before the terrorist attack were very instrumental to Hitler and the Nazi party's rise.
I think you made a very good point about German shift toward National Socialism in the aftermath of the First World War and I had not paused to consider that as fully as I might have until you got me thinking.
Probably most of us all will agree, not as severe, American went through their own humiliation.
1. After a huge national anguish over Vietnam, the American pulled out in what amounted to a defeat that's celebrated by the "inverse" monument on The Mall. I think Americans are still working through this with their almost maniacal rhetoric about "supporting our troops."
2. The Arabs economically "humiliated" the United States with the oil embargo, when part of OPEC showed its power. It lead to double-digit inflation and drove Carter from a possible second term when Reagan asked if the American people were better off. Reagan promised that although the United States might not be liked, the United States would be "respected." The need to be respected comes after being humiliated.
Some can rightly argue that Vietnam and the oil embargo stemmed from other factors, but for the average person, the gut feel is probably close to what I suggested above and would motivate the average person to go along with an "America right or wrong, but strong" policy.
...is that using the f-word (fascist) tends to make the eyes glaze over for anyone who might otherwise listen. It's a loaded label that brings up images of the Holocaust. Better to focus on the losses of what many people take for granted -- civil rights, human rights -- and the positive message that offers an alternative to the false security the corporatocracy offers.
The parallels are scary -- not just with Germany, but with Italy and Franco's Spain.
Yet when the #1 concern for most people seems to be having a nice tv to watch the Super Bowl, I don't know whether in-your-face rhetoric would convince the listener or marginalize the message.
I recently wrote to the Anti-Defamation League. Here's the text
I'm still waiting. Now, I ask the same question here. At what point does it become acceptable to you? Molly Ivins has used the term fascism to describe the administration's refusal to abide by the decision of the courts. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has a book out where he talks about lessons the Bushistas have learned from the Nazis. The buzz has already started on the Right in favor of the use of internment camps for Muslims.
They count on that tendency for people to roll their eyes. They depend upon the assumption that it can't happen here. It can and it is. Not saying it allows it to happen.
If you need more evidence, read: Yes, it can! Why I won't Apologize for Calling Bush a Fascist - not that anyone has asked me to...
You might also want to check out:
A Crash course in the Christian Supremacist Movement
Morgaine-ism© #8
"A Woman's Sexual and Reproductive Autonomy is Sacred and Absolute."
"At what point does it become acceptable to you?"
The word has become meaningless in our culture. Most people don't even know what it means -- but I would bet most of those people think they know what it means.
I'm just suggesting the possibility that the idea -- the argument -- is lost by using a hot-button word like fascism. "Fascism" is a label of convenience at best. And since most people don't know what it is, the label has little meaning.
As far as I know, "fascism" does not appear in the US Constitution. I don't see the importance of using that word. It's not a legal claim, whereas laws and actions that violate the Constitution are legal claims.
On the issues, I'm in 100% agreement. I just don't think the word helps.
My own take.