9/11 and 2/27

Comments

8 comments posted
just a note

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).

Vireo Nefer's picture
Posted by Vireo Nefer (not verified) on 23 January 2005 - 11:50am
Jury still out

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.

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 24 January 2005 - 8:06am
I don't agree...

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."

Morgaine Swann's picture
Posted by Morgaine Swann on 23 January 2005 - 10:37pm
Excellent posting, just one thing to add

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.

veridicus's picture
Posted by veridicus (not verified) on 24 January 2005 - 8:57am
You hit on something

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.

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 24 January 2005 - 10:28am
My own leaning

...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.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 January 2005 - 5:48pm
Question...

I recently wrote to the Anti-Defamation League. Here's the text

Please believe that I do not take this issue lightly. I am very concerned about a pattern of Christian extremism in the Bush Administration’s actions and policies. I am dismayed at their assault on civil rights, on religious freedom, and their push to define America as a “Christian nation�. I am concerned that they are manipulating our media; that they believe they are fighting a “Crusade� in the Middle East. I am afraid that Michelle Malkin’s book “IN DEFENSE OF INTERNMENT: THE CASE FOR "RACIAL PROFILING" IN WORLD WAR II AND THE WAR ON TERROR� may presage a new wave of internments in the U.S. They’re already holding citizens for months on end without access to counsel or the courts. They’ve committed war crimes in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. The President was elected illegally twice, and his family fortune came from dealing with the Nazis.

Imagine how I felt when he, an American President, stated that my religion is not a religion. It is unbelievable.

These are just a few examples. When does it become comparable to the Nazis for you? Do they have to use napalm in America instead of Iraq, as they just did? What number of people have to be locked up without due process? They are systematically torturing people who may easily have no connection to Al Quaeda or the “insurgence� in Iraq. Women and children have been raped in U.S.-run detention centers. The point where they begin locking large numbers of people up because of who they are seems too late to me to sound the warning.

I understand that millions died under the Nazis – Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Gays, and pretty much anyone who wasn’t “with them�. I don’t want to see it happen again, especially since I believe I belong to one of the first groups the Neo-cons will go after.

Shouldn’t the ADL be the first to warn people of any resurgence of fascism?

Thanks for your help. I’ll await your response.

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."

Morgaine Swann's picture
Posted by Morgaine Swann on 24 January 2005 - 11:51pm
The word vs the idea

"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.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 25 January 2005 - 12:26am