Topic: The rise of fascism in Germany in the 1930s (Read 7014 times)

Demosthenes · « **on:** September 29, 2004, 04:30:53 PM »

Some of you may find this to be a good read.

I particularly found this passage to be of interest:

Quote

Nazi propaganda, policies and terror had broken down traditional support-networks. You couldn't be sure whom to trust. Everyone could be on the government payroll, or could turn into informants to save their skins. And so arms went out in Nazi salutes, militarist songs were sung at rallies and on the streets, "each one of us the Gestapo of the others." In fear, individualism was crushed, leaving most citizens to relate only to The Leader, or to their military units, the comradeship offered by fascism.

The mother of all "slippery slope" arguments.

xolik · « **Reply #1 on:** September 29, 2004, 05:50:19 PM »

I do hope you're not implying that the U.S. is on this track.

avalanche · « **Reply #2 on:** September 29, 2004, 06:15:41 PM »

Quote

repressive laws that shred constitutional guarantees of due process

RICO act?

Quote

a timid opposition that barely contests the administration's reckless adventurism abroad and police-state policies at home

Thats not exactly how I would describe politics today.

I'm not going to worry about it. After all, John Titor said we'll all be dead soon, any way.... or something like that. I wasn't paying close attent... ohhhhh shiny!

Dark Shade · « **Reply #3 on:** September 29, 2004, 06:34:42 PM »

Quote from: xolik

I do hope you're not implying that the U.S. is on this track.

Hate to say it, but it has relevance.

What with Bush and his 'movements' and all, this could become a reality. Some could argue that it already is.

xolik · « **Reply #4 on:** September 29, 2004, 06:40:36 PM »

Quote from: Dark Shade

What with Bush and his 'movements' and all, this could become a reality. Some could argue that it already is.

I'm sorry, but I would be questioning the mental stability of anyone who honestly thinks modern day America is anything at all like Nazi Germany was.

Dark Shade · « **Reply #5 on:** September 29, 2004, 11:50:56 PM »

Quote from: xolik

Quote from: Dark Shade

What with Bush and his 'movements' and all, this could become a reality. Some could argue that it already is.

I'm sorry, but I would be questioning the mental stability of anyone who honestly thinks modern day America is anything at all like Nazi Germany was.

Not that I would agree with one who would think that, but I believe the possibility does exsist.

Not necessarily what some pertain as 'Nazi Germany', but perhaps some forms of propaganda, fascism and the like. Small increments/doses, mind you, but it may exsist.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #6 on:** September 30, 2004, 08:45:21 AM »

Of course not.

For one thing, the US of today and the Germany of the 1930's are worlds apart in most respects.

But Bush and Co. are fascists, or at least close, by most definitions. Authoritarian, racist, irrational, bound and determined to merge corporate and government and blur the individuality of the US citizenry in a haze of fervent nationalism and rabid self-righteous moralism.

Will it lead to a fascist state like Germany did?

Probably not. Too many folks are wise to that now.

But it's there. And the apathy of the citizens of this country to our loss of liberties and individual rights is appalling.

Right now that apathy, combined with a monopoly of power in the hands of two parties that have politics pretty much sewn up (and have no intention of ever relinquishing any of it) makes for a very dangerous situation.

Historically speaking, it never leads to positive ends.

And I'm not only talking about Republicans... they just happen to be in power right now. The Democrats are just as bad.

xolik · « **Reply #7 on:** September 30, 2004, 02:00:55 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

Of course not.
But Bush and Co. are fascists, or at least close, by most definitions. Authoritarian, racist, irrational, bound and determined to merge corporate and government and blur the individuality of the US citizenry in a haze of fervent nationalism and rabid self-righteous moralism.

Racist, you say? I would love to see an instance of Bush referring to a group by a less than respectful name. Bonus points if the word 'darkie' is mentioned.

Note I'm not asking for evidence of: Authoritarian, irrational, etc... I can find that on my own!

avalanche · « **Reply #8 on:** September 30, 2004, 02:07:49 PM »

They must be racists. They only put token blacks in positions where they can't do any harm, like Secretary of State and National Security Advisor.

And, George is the ONLY president to fully fund stem-cell research.

Rico · « **Reply #9 on:** October 04, 2004, 02:01:08 AM »

Oh come on, now! I'd hardly call Bush racist. A Nationalist, maybe. We're descriminating against people who come from certain countries, I'll admit that, but it hardly goes by race. That's like saying the DEA is racist because most of the people they target are Mexican, Colombian, or something like that.

Besides, you want to see what REAL racism is, ask an Albanian what they think about Serbs, or even visa versa. Now THAT's racism. Maybe take a look at all these programs, scholarships, grants, ect. that are for one race or religion over another.

hackess · « **Reply #10 on:** October 04, 2004, 07:32:21 AM »

Quote from: Rico

Oh come on, now! I'd hardly call Bush racist. A Nationalist, maybe. We're descriminating against people who come from certain countries, I'll admit that, but it hardly goes by race. That's like saying the DEA is racist because most of the people they target are Mexican, Colombian, or something like that.

Besides, you want to see what REAL racism is, ask an Albanian what they think about Serbs, or even visa versa. Now THAT's racism. Maybe take a look at all these programs, scholarships, grants, ect. that are for one race or religion over another.

Huh. You must have missed avalanche's so-obvious-he-didn't-need-to-post-it Sarcasm Flag™.

Law · « **Reply #11 on:** October 04, 2004, 08:57:07 AM »

Quote from: Rico

We're descriminating against people who come from certain countries, I'll admit that, but it hardly goes by race.

Um, huh?

Quote

Maybe take a look at all these programs, scholarships, grants, ect. that are for one race or religion over another.

Yes, and who funds them?

Rico · « **Reply #12 on:** October 06, 2004, 01:09:55 AM »

Quote from: catwritr

Huh. You must have missed avalanche's so-obvious-he-didn't-need-to-post-it Sarcasm Flag™.

Quote from: Demosthenes

But Bush and Co. are fascists, or at least close, by most definitions. Authoritarian, racist, irrational, bound and determined to merge corporate and government and blur the individuality of the US citizenry in a haze of fervent nationalism and rabid self-righteous moralism.

Law, race and nationality are two different things. Neither is a good way to judge them, but then when you're fighting a people, it's difficult not to suspect others of the same nationality. Where race doesn't really effect a people's beliefs and reactions, their nationality easily can make a difference.

...and as far as special intrest groups go. If some one were to put together a group that offered help to only white males, they'd be run out of town. Prime example would be the Sons of the Confederacy. Most people think it's an organization catering to racism, which would be equal to calling the NCAAP a group filled with criminals. The only difference is that saying one will be ignored and saying the other will immediately cause people to call you a racist.

Racism won't stop until we cease to define ourselves by color, or allow the government to. Bill Cosby has given some really good speeches on the subject at various colleges.

Law · « **Reply #13 on:** October 06, 2004, 08:46:59 AM »

Quote from: Rico

Law, race and nationality are two different things.

Thanks for the lesson, chief. I was pointing out the total logical fallacy that if you discriminate against someone, you're bothering to check their passport first. If someone is racist they judge by color and appearance. No thought is given to what country the person is from, just that they look like the "enemy." The fact is you can't judge a person by their race or by their nationality and trying to argue that someone isn't racist because they are only discriminating against certain nationalities is just plain stupid.

Anonymous · « **Reply #14 on:** October 06, 2004, 08:52:10 AM »

Quote from: Rico

when you're fighting a people, it's difficult not to suspect others of the same nationality

So if a Canadian tries to smuggle bombs across the US borders, then all Canadians must be planning to smuggle bombs across the border right?

Dark Shade · « **Reply #15 on:** October 06, 2004, 09:02:59 AM »

Quote from: TheJudge

Quote from: Rico
when you're fighting a people, it's difficult not to suspect others of the same nationality

So if a Canadian tries to smuggle bombs across the US borders, then all Canadians must be planning to smuggle bombs across the border right?

Not sure if that's what he was going for, Judge.

It's more that when you're 'at war' with a people, or a people are 'the enemy', it's difficult to not suspect others of the same nationality as said person or people of doing similar acts, or being 'the enemy'. Even if those people are completely innocent, suspicion probably still exists.

Anonymous · « **Reply #16 on:** October 06, 2004, 09:23:49 AM »

Oh I know. But when you are engaged in a war with a country, there are rules you must play by. You must make a distinction between civilian and combatant for one. You can't just point to a country and say "These are all my enemies". Also, once a combatant is injured and no longer poses a threat, then he is no longer a combatant. You have a legal obligation to assit him.

It's funny because I was watching footage from the US army on the news. They were shooting people from an helicopter and the whole thing is video tapped. A person was hiding under a truck so they shot the truck. Then, you saw the person crawling out in the open and he was clearly injured. The soldier asked his commander if he should continue to fire and he was told "yes". So he killed him. Acording the the Geniva convention, that would be a criminal act. Maybe these things happen because of this suspicious attitude, which is irrelevant in this context.

People are not the borg. People make individual choices. One can never assume anything.

hackess · « **Reply #17 on:** October 06, 2004, 09:25:54 AM »

Legal obligation? Under whose law?

Anonymous · « **Reply #18 on:** October 06, 2004, 09:45:00 AM »

EDIT: My mistake. I initially posted the incorect article. But I found what I was looking for.

Quote from: from the first geneva convention

Art. 12. Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article *, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.

They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.

*The following article (13) lists various individuals who qualify under the clause.

Quote from: from the first geneva convention

Art. 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany. (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law. (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

ivan · « **Reply #19 on:** October 06, 2004, 04:20:54 PM »

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it.''

GW Bush, Washington , DC, 7/26/01

The Patriot Act is a step towards a police state, not away.

However, having said that, look to another direction for the real threat: our old friend, xenophobia. Right-wing and/or self-styled populist pundits are foaming at the mouth over the "illegal alien problem". Every social ill under the sun is blamed on illegal aliens, from rising health-care costs to urban decay to the threat of future terrorist attacks. This is neither a Democratic or Republican affliction. Our fear and loathing of the illegal alien unites us -- and that is the greatest possible threat to our democracy right there, and is a chilling parallel to what happened in Germany in the '30s. Watch for new calls for a National ID -- most probably in the form of a standardized state driver's license. Watch for the erosion of privacy and constitutionally protected rights of citizens, all in the name of rooting out the aliens among us. You might not be feeling this foment where you are living, but here in Southern California you can taste it in the air. Angry mobs are antithetical to democracy, and are, indeed, a very slippery slope to fascism.

Law · « **Reply #20 on:** October 06, 2004, 09:49:18 PM »

J. Gresham Barrett is here to save us!

Demosthenes · « **Reply #21 on:** October 07, 2004, 08:29:25 AM »

Oh ferfucksake.

ivan · « **Reply #22 on:** October 07, 2004, 11:36:33 AM »

Nice one, Law.

You know, in my radical lefty years, I was really frustrated by the Bill of Rights, and the general spirit that it fostered and was fostered by. Marx' prophesy of capitalist societies being torn apart by their own inherent contradictions just never materialized here, mainly because of the Labor Union movements early last century, the Civil Rights movements of the 60s, and the tenacious adherence to the spirit embodied in the Bill of Rights. Why do you think communist parties are able to topple governments elsewhere, while here in the US they never graduated above the status of a social club? It's because the hope they hold out to oppressed people elsewhere is realized within the US system.

So, in my frustration, I came to the conclusion that if I want to accelerate the progression from capitalism to socialism and, ultimately, to a communist utopia, I need to squash this annoying tendency towards personal freedoms.

So I arrive at the odd conclusion that every red-blooded commie should vote for Bush and pray that Ashcroft sticks around for a few years.

Politics are weird.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #23 on:** October 07, 2004, 12:19:45 PM »

Quote from: ivan

Why do you think communist parties are able to topple governments elsewhere, while here in the US they never graduated above the status of a social club? It's because the hope they hold out to oppressed people elsewhere is realized within the US system.

So, in my frustration, I came to the conclusion that if I want to accelerate the progression from capitalism to socialism and, ultimately, to a communist utopia, I need to squash this annoying tendency towards personal freedoms.

So I arrive at the odd conclusion that every red-blooded commie should vote for Bush and pray that Ashcroft sticks around for a few years.

Translation: "Shut up, or I'll give you something to CRY ABOUT!"

Rico · « **Reply #24 on:** October 09, 2004, 09:08:46 AM »

Judge, I think you left something out:

Article 14: Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the wounded and sick of a belligerent who fall into enemy hands shall be prisoners of war, and the provisions of international law concerning prisoners of war shall apply to them.

...besides, what were they going to do? Land, climb out and then help him? I guess leaving him laying there bleeding and without a limb would have been the kinder thing to do. Either way, the Geneva Convention didn't apply in that case because the men in question were not POWs.

Notice, it doesn't say anything about BEFORE they fall into belligerent hands. These rules only apply AFTER you have captured an enemy combatant. There are more rules that go along with them, such as the legal definition of POW. Should an enemy soldier be laying on the ground, he is not considered a POW until you step past him. That's why it's common practice for all parties of the Geneva convention to fire on anyone that moves prior to their passing through. Of course, raising your hands in surrender, or putting your open hands out on the ground will spare you.

It's not pretty, but war sucks. People die on both sides, and all you can really do is try not to be one of them. The times of melee combat and honor are sadly gone. We can't really afford to be as merciful as we once were, though we do try to do our best, when safety permits.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: The rise of fascism in Germany in the 1930s (Read 7014 times)

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

ivan

ivan