Against Normalization: The Lesson of the “Munich Post”
lareviewofbooks.org
lareviewofbooks.org
>I wrote about this fallacy extensively in Winter is Coming and elsewhere, but am happy to recap it here. Of course Putin isn't Hitler, and Donald Trump isn't even Putin—no matter how much he would like to be. The point is that no one is making comparisons to the monster Adolf Hitler became in the 1940s. But in the 20s, even for most of the 30s, Hitler wasn't Hitler either! There could be no more important lesson to understand than how a race-baiting demagogue came to power in an educated and liberal country like Germany and how he transformed that nation into a fascist death machine capable of World War and unimaginable acts.
-- Garry Kasparov
http://www.zeit.de/wissen/geschichte/2017-02/adolf-hitler-ch...
They describe how journalists, even big liberal newspapers, big-business representatives, and conservatives had all the same illusion that Hitler would be something that could be managed and lived trough. Business leaders and conservatives aligned with him because there seemed to be some common interests they could work trough together.
""In the Frankfurter Zeitung, politics editor Benno Reifenberg expressed doubt Hitler had the "social competence" for the office of chancellor, but didn’t think it was out of the question that the responsibility of his office might transform him in ways that could earn him respect. Like Theodor Wolff, Reifenberg described it as "a hopeless misjudgment of our country to believe a dictatorial regime could be forced upon it." "The diversity of the German people demands democracy," he wrote.""
Hitler needed only five months in power to change everything.
Are you suggesting that Trump intends to abolish democracy or commit genocide?
Personally, I don't think history repeats itself like that, I rather believe he is the second coming of Berlusconi - someone who is rich from the beginning and wants to corrupt the country, intimidate or buy out the media and have coke parties with underage hookers, while filling his coffers.
But I wouldn't be surprised if he started a war with eg. China just to rally the country behind him. And something like that can get out of hand quick.
He don't even know what that is. He has already demonstrated that he was surprised that he can't rule the government as a CEO-king. Bannon believes in big war that cleansing the system, so maybe he does. Attorney General Sessions has shown clear contempt against civil rights.
>or commit genocide?
Of course not. Fascism is not equal to genocide. He want's to kill families of those who he opposes. So he is probably with some mass murders, but I don't think it's on the top of his mind.
Compare two fascist states in Europe, Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini. They took two different paths. In Germany fascism developed without restraints into self destructive expansion. In Italy fascism turned into normal authoritarian rule and dictatorship under Mussolini.
If the assumption is that comparisons to fascists and Hitler all suggest some kind of holocaust, they are meaningless.
They are meaningless.
The Holocaust is the reason everyone still talks about Hitler 70 years later, the reason people still compare politicians they don't like to Hitler.
If you merely wish to discuss "normal authoritarian rule" there are hundreds of other leaders to whom you could make less emotionally charged comparisons.
But I'm curious, now that you've said Trump doesn't know what democracy is and offered a comparison with "normal authoritarian rule and dictatorship under Mussolini" ...
Do you think we'll still hold elections 4 years and 8 years from now and Trump will resign peacefully when his term ends?
That's vulgar comparison for uneducated people. If the only difference between Hitler and some other dictator is genocide, we haven't learned anything from history.
All fascist movements, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco etc. used similar methods that made fascism different from other dictatorships and authoritarian moments.
Suggested reading: The Anatomy of Fascism, Robert O. Paxton. In that book Paxton rescues the fascism as a concept from a insult into meaningful concept.
What do you mean to imply by that?
Good for him on calling out purveyors of Fake News such as CNN.
Where is Trump's attempted coup? Where is Trump's Mein Kampf talking about living space in Eastern Europe and the greatness of Germany and his hatred of Jews? Where is Trump's paramilitary? That was all in place prior to 1930.
Hitler rose to power in a populace that wasn't just "liberal and educated" but had also been ruled by a jingoist elite since the Prussians came to power. Hitler was an ass but Wilhelm was just as bad in various ways and preceded him. The Wiemar Republic was a shaky government crushed by defeat and a broken economy. That's not America circa 2017.
What's comparable?
I don't dispute that Trump is full of hate and is self-serving and manipulative. I don't dispute he lacks tact and even a proper understanding of politics. But if you are going to pull up history, at least treat it with respect. Put it within it's context.
What scares me is if a politician did the exact thing Trump is doing but did it with more tact and with lies that were harder to point out, we'd applaud them. Play governments off of each other and play up identity politics of various kinds and lie to citizens for decades (as has been the American way) and nobody really complains, but someone comes to power who lies to your face instead of behind your back and he's Hitler? Bomb the hell out of countries and destabilize them and it is politics as usual but refuse those same countries entry and now we care?
Politically United States is extremely divided. Roughly 20-25 percent of Americans are very supportive to Trump. Among them are far right Christians who look up to Pence.
Trump has no need for goons on the street. Trump needs only one third of senate on his side and he can break all rules all the time with no consequences. Impeachment and Section 4 of the 25th Amendment rules both require 2/3 majority to remove the president. As long as DHS and major law enforcement organization choose WH over court decisions, Trump can enforce his rules despite constant constitutional crisis.
I think its unlikely that Trump goes this path and win, but I think that changes are hihg he might try (P=0.5) and there is real change that he may succeed for some time (P=0.2). When some terrorist attack or other crisis happens, Americans provide more support to their president than he deserves.
And Trump/Putin are not profiling people by their race all the time.
Mussolini is much better comparation, but not as punchy.
Trump does not advocate genocide, but enforcement of existing laws (mostly setup by democrats). And author should look where Mein Kampf is bestseller...
To compare it with 1920 Germany, would we have to frame it around the emotional state of both sides. Did the Weimar Republic focused their politics on their hatred for Hitler and his voters? In contrast to the US election, not only did that not happen but when Hitler got elected as Chancellor he did so as part of a minority coalition (41%) where the Nazi party held a meekly three out of eleven seats in the Papen-Nationalist-Hitler coalition. Voter focus seems (as far as historians seems to imply) to be on the treaty and difference between the four political parties.
For example, consider the group UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks called:
> more than 100 armed individuals clad all in black who utilized paramilitary tactics to engage in violent, destructive behavior designed to shut [Milo's speech] down.
http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/02/campus-condemns-violence...
(But I'd rather we avoid Nazi comparisons altogether. They can be an effective way for an author to get attention but they can be used by both sides and they rarely lead to useful discussion.)
> [makes Nazi-comparison]
Edit: Parent changed
> Downvoted without response? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, groups that resort to tactics like those at Berkeley are hardly above trying to silence discussion here with downvotes.
into
> (But I'd rather we avoid Nazi comparisons altogether. They can be an effective way for an author to get attention but they can be used by both sides and they rarely lead to useful discussion.)
The latter I can agree with.
I'd rather not have it at this level but c'est la vie.
Response to update:
> The latter I can agree with.
Are we still flagging political posts here?
Perhaps we could agree to flag Nazi-comparisons, at least.
In that spirit, it's fair to downvote my Nazi-comparison, but only if you also flag the main post.
> UC Berkeley Police Chief Margo Bennett said Wednesday night [after the incident described above] she wasn't aware of any arrests by the department.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/protests-violence-prompt...
Imagine:
> more than 100 armed individuals clad all in black who utilized paramilitary tactics to engage in violent, destructive behavior
No arrests?
But thank you for illustrating another drawback of Nazi-comparisons: they're almost always inaccurate.
It isn't about that, though: it's about very specific events and the overall relationship between media and government. It's a fairly interesting article that will, unfortunately, be dismissed by a lot of people because Nazi-comparisons are almost always ridiculous.
> the November 1923 Munich “Beer Hall Putsch,”
> the Munich Post found and published a Nazi party document planning a “final solution”
> the Reichstag Fire and Hitler seizing the opportunity to institute martial law and crush electoral democracy
And so on.
It's an interesting history lesson for those who don't already know these facts, but the author fails to make any substantial connection between these events and Trump.
The history is interesting, or the author's unfounded speculation about potential similarities is interesting?