Hitler dismantled a democracy in 53 days through constitutional means
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
If you look at the schooling of the ruling class, history is one of the most important subjects. And I am not talking about pilgrims and the Louisiana purchase. If you want to understand where you are, how you got there and where things are going there is no better way than to learn from the people before you.
One way to pique your interest is to listen to podcasts and lectures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardcore_History
It seems he hasn't tackled Israel/Palestine on his podcast but so i had to make do with whatever tweets i could find :
https://xcancel.com/HardcoreHistory/status/17111815214603635...
https://xcancel.com/HardcoreHistory/status/17121572074864849...
His few tweets and replies are pro-israeli apologia (whose facade has become thinner and indefensible in the past year) with zero incorporation of the palestinian side and glaring misrepresentation and omission of facts. I am sorry but i can't trust him to speak honestly and fairly on the other parts of history i am unfamiliar with.
His analysis of lead up to the start of WWI ws engaging and accurate given what I know.
What he offered to me was a way to look at historical events and break them down and see the knock on effects.
In a much more profound and connect way, James Burke did this with his Connections Series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(British_TV_series...
I'll note that the (unfortunately few) Palestinian peace activists I know and appreciate are all incredibly hostile to Hamas and echo a very similar sentiment to much of those tweets.
Edit: I'll also note that I think this is an especially terrible way to pick people to listen to. "Forget what other people say, let's see if they agree with my political ideas about a complicated situation. Oh, they don't? I'll ignore them" is a recipe for never learning or growing in your beliefs.
See the Great March of Return or Freedom Flotilla.
As for why his tweet is ignorant, it is devoid of any analysis of Israel’s actions the last 50 years or any attempt to understand why Hamas did their military operation.
Addressing all the issues i have with that thread would require a post longer than that.
For now, i will focus on one :
> The reaction by Israel now will be exactly what ANY NATION ON EARTH would do in like circumstances (and Hamas knows this). When you look at what this leads to in reaction go tell your people then "well at least we killed some of them too". It's sick. And counterproductive
Like Israel has no choice but to massacre 100,000 civillians (the 50k official figure is in all likelihood a steep undercount), rape palestinian prisoners (as a matter of prison policy), massacre more children than in any other conflict this century , demolish every hospital, college and university in the gaza-strip, starve the entire population in to submission, drop 2000-pound warheads on residential buildings, densely packed neighbourhoods and refugee camps (For comparison the FAB-3000s the Russians have been using lately to devastate Ukrainian front-lines contain 1500-pound warheads). This according to Dan is something that 'ANY NATION ON EARTH' would do under similar circumstances. I know he didn't have the benefit of hindsight but it is not the kind of assertion that is to be expected from a student and teacher of history or anyone who knows anything about Israeli conduct.. Indeed Dan is pre-emptively justifying and rationalizing Israel's brutal calculus - "We must kill 100x Palestinians in retaliation to Hamas's atrocities as a deterrence"
>what Hamas did will make things worse for Palestinians.
For the 2 million Palestinians today in Gaza? Undoubtedly. For the 3 million or so Palestinians in the West Bank? They were already living under progressively worsening conditions before October 7, what with ever-increasing persecution and brutalization by the IDF, forced evictions and demolitions, settlement expansion, suffocation by IDF security cordons, checkpoints, outposts and increasing attacks by emboldened settlers. Things were already coming to a head with Israeli provocations and aggressions not limited to incursions into the Al-Aqsa Mosque and increasing calls for its destruction by Israeli extemists including members of Netanyahu's cabinet. (That is one of the key events leading up to October 7 and it is the kind of context you would expect a historian to give). What about the 5 million or so Palestinian refugees living in camps in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and registered under UNRWA (which Israel and its allies are working so hard to dismantle ) plus the Palestinians in Israel and the wider diaspora? That remains to be seen. As low as their expectations are of realizing their dream of a Palestinian state, it is still higher than what it was on October 6. Even Dan admits putting millions of people to live in perpetual state of oppression and humiliation was not a sustainable strategy. And Israel and its backers did not leave any other levers for the Palestinians to use to make themselves heard.
>I'll also note that I think this is an especially terrible way to pick people to listen to. "Forget what other people say, let's see if they agree with my political ideas about a complicated situation. Oh, they don't? I'll ignore them" is a recipe for never learning or growing in your beliefs.
You are right about this in general and as it pertains to politcal commentary, but this is supposed to be a history podcast where the listener is often uninformed and impressionable. Good historians should treat the subject with an unbiased perspective and give a fair and balanced accounting of events. Otherwise its not history but a form of propaganda.
Honestly, I've kind of wondered why there isn't a real university for people older than 20 you could return to for decent classes on things like history, or woodworking, or health management, or exercise. Like continuing education but university level.
If the people really believe in a system of government, then you don't need any words-on-paper constitutions or laws or stuff.
If the people have really lost faith in the system (generally because it repeatedly failed to meet their basic needs), then all the pieces of paper and fancy-looking buildings and robed officials in the world don't count for shit.
Hitler was a really smart guy, young and energetic at this time, evil yes, but he definitely had plans, not sure the USA has one right now though...
I'm sure there is one. It is just that the Zaphod-like (though devoid of his sense of style) two-headed mess that is President Shart and Rabid Lapdog Musk are doing a good job of being a distraction from the people with the plan.
America is addicted to blowback.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
[1]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/08/trump-projec...
[2]https://www.afge.org/article/new-trump-administration-packed...
I find it hard to imagine Hitler behaving in the same way. I'm sure he took advise, but yeah, seemed very hands on and strategic and idealistic.
Edit: Just reading the section there on nuclear proliferation, man, we're not going to make it are we? Right wing people think Biden was going to start WW3, I can't thin k of a better way to provoke even our allies than going through with that plan.
I think the lesson that gets lost with Hitler analogies is that authoritarianism, when it arises, does so in a unique cultural context. I can see Trump kind of being a figurehead and patsy for the more organized and directed forces around him, depending on how well he can be manipulated. History doesn't have to repeat but it can rhyme.
It's like this nonsense with Greenland and Canada. It should be too ridiculous to take seriously, and yeah it probably won't come to anything, because Trump and Musk talk shit all the time, but then we live in a time where the most potent political force in the Western world started as a 4chan shitpost and Elon Musk is basically co-President who knows what the parameters of reality even are anymore?
[0] "The Soviet Collapse: Grain and Oil By Yegor Gaidar" https://tamilnation.org/intframe/070419collapse_of_soviet_un...
During the downhill slide, the Romans tried to codify loads of their previously unwritten rules - about how gov't officials were chosen, what they were allowed to do, etc. That really didn't help.
I think it is no longer relevant. How much of the needs are met is decided by the social media now.
I personally know people making life altering decisions based on the fake news. Their world is detached from the reality in such a way, that they don't believe their own eyes.
People now see a world mostly thought the screen of their phone.
> I think that is no longer relevant.
Try reading some of the NYT's long-running coverage, about how life has gone down, down, downhill for "the other half" of America, over the past half-ish century.
Or read some of the backstory on the 1994 Contract with American/Republican Revolution, and think about why huge numbers American voters - most of whom had historically voted democratic - were so unhappy that they switched to the Republicans.
Or check out some of the US Govt's stuff on that - say, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2019... (2019)
Things were going to hell, for a whole lotta Americans, long before there were smart phones.
My point is that it is the natural consequence of people losing the ability to agree on what is actually going on.
When you lose grip on reality, you lose the ability to make any meaningful change.
"Things are going okay for me, and mine, and the folks I care about". Which is all about PoV, not some objective facts.
And when people are really hurting and angry - their words and actions will be all about voicing their painful emotions and acting accordingly. Not ivory-tower truths.
Have things improved? If not, perhaps they need to consider another tactic than voting for Republicans.
As demonstrated by a lot of dictators, when people fail, no amount of laws, no matter how clever will protect the state. Every generation again, young people believe differently. The "overwhelming force" of the law is just people. People that can be convinced to ignore or violate the law.
I would argue that these days the police ignoring the law (due to lack of personnel and funds) is on full display in almost 100% of the world, though some places are worse than others.
In German, I'm sure it's been translated but I link to the original.
Fortunately, the event most similar to the Reichstag fire - January 6th - did not in reality lead the US down that kind of path.
(Article 2 Section 3)
A Reichstag Fire would be an inciting event early in the next term, committed by a member of a regime out-group, used to justify radically increasing authoritarian and prejudicial rule.
Given the events of the last few weeks, it feels like there will be plentiful opportunities if wanted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/10/politics/supreme-court-sp...
One, the Nazi (or rather, the nationalist coalition) was on the decline, as were the conservatives in power, and were set to loose multiple seats in the next elections. Seizing power, fast, was needed.
Two, Hitler used laws set in by the radical center and the conservatives to take power. Yes, he used violence, but the holes that allowed the takeover were set before, by judges and previous governments.
The Republicans are going to run the US into the ground in the next couple of years. Midterm elections are 2026.
Does anyone have a source of him saying it or writing it?
I opened this post hoping to find some discussion of Gödel's Loophole which I think is an interesting topic, Trump notwithstanding.
While I don't find the Trump innuendo ridiculous, I understand why some people would. The thing is, the article itself doesn't 'go there', and is interesting. If the post attracts annoyingly political comments that do 'go there', people can always flag the those comments.
The article probably shouldn't be here just because HN users won't respond to it with the sort of discussion that is wanted on HN, but it's about history and the functioning of systems of government and these are definitely not topics that are "far removed from HN stuff".
The discussion on the post is not even about Trump, people are making some interesting points about the historical fact.
There's still a few pro-Trump holdouts, and HN gets extremely weird about politics. But like every discussion of Trump it turns into a content free flamewar.
(hi jgrahamc, I'm #22 by karma on this site, god help me)
And that's assuming it is an intentional link anyway, article was interesting, doesn't mention Trump, and is timed to anniversary of Hitler's ascent to power.
The article itself isn’t political, but I recognize that, on a day when the news is full of Trump taking over Greenland, this might be insensitive. Still, the article is worth reading.
Some days, there are political threads here on HN that are as high quality as one can find online. Other days it all goes wrong, and dang steps in.
My feeling about this article, which, as far as I noticed, does not even allude to current events, is that it's worth reading regardless of who happens to be president, and that we ought just to flag any dumb comments it attracts, if it does attract them.
[1] wolf="Hitler!";
if you don't think this article is related to the Trump presidency
The first sentence even suggests the reason the author is publishing it now is because Hitler was appointed chancellor this month in 1933. Is that the real reason? Probably not - probably the inspiration was Trump - but that fact is couched deeply enough, and the article is interesting enough, that the article, imho, avoids turning into rage-bait.
(Not to single you out too much - I've become more and more sensitive to people who are here in "transmit-only mode". They won't listen, they won't have an actual discussion, they will only argue for their viewpoint, they won't concede or accept any of the other side's points, and they won't shut up, ever. It's completely antithetical to what HN is supposed to be, and I'm seeing it more and more, and it's really getting under my skin. It's making a site that I really like into something that I like a lot less - into just another battleground for a bunch of shouting people.
So, hagbard_c, you're getting an over-reaction because of a bunch of pent-up frustration at people who are not you. But you're trending in the same direction, and you're doing it while complaining about the way political discussions happen here.)
I am here for the same reason as you are and I voice my opinion on 'political' subjects just like you do, we just happen to be on different sides of the political divide in at least some areas. The mere fact that you do not agree with my stance does not mean I am in 'transmit-only mode' (whatever that means). To solve the problem of polarisation it is necessary to first recognise it exists which includes looking at your own position and recognising it as being not the centre of truth but a point somewhere on the plane of the allowed discourse. This goes not just for you but for everyone, myself included. It does not mean you need to relinquish your position as soon as someone voices disagreement or starts labelling you in some way - *-ist, *-phobe or some of the more creative ones popping up every now and then. This goes for everyone as well, what you consider to be existential truth is probably hogwash to some others out there and vice-versa.
So, AnimalMuppet, we both peruse this site for our own purposes and may meet again, may this be in the spirit of constructive dialogue and not in one of bitter resentment versus those who dare to disagree. An open mind for a different view, and nothing else matters after all?
Rather, my complaint is the way you (and others) are talking - the argumentativeness, and the stridency of the language. That kills a curious conversation. It at least gives the impression that you are there to do battle, and are not going to listen. So people (who are people, even on HN) decide that giving battle in return is the appropriate response.
You may not be trying to do that. But it seems to me that your language is tending that direction.
Can you give an example of the 'strident language' I used? While I don't tend to gild the lilly I'm not wont to start 'fights' (for lack of a better term) but neither do I avoid them. This is a discussion board after all, not an NPR program or New Yorker/Atlantic piece where we need to sound 'cultured' and 'measured'. I much prefer honesty in language over the verbal equivalent of the slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick [1] which tends to be used in 'cultured' discourse. A spade is a spade just like a rose is a rose and the former can come in handy when dealing with the latter so just call it by its name?
I think the 'problem' - if there is one, really - is not related to 'argumentativeness, and the stridency of the language' but to the narrowed window of allowed discourse on this and other similar sites (lobste.rs etc) which in turn is most likely related to the fact that most the people frequenting these sites passed through academia and later workplaces populated by similar people who all learned to keep their noses pointed mostly in the same direction even if they privately preferred the view from another side. When you're used to consensus - no matter whether it be true or false consensus - it becomes harder to deal with opposing views. This is one of the reasons why the ideological monoculture which is found in academia and many workplaces is such a negative development (no matter which ideology rules the roost) since it weakens what I for a lack of a better term will call the cultural immune system of its inhabitants who will, just like the biological namesake, start to overreact to the slightest insult (in immunological terms). Just like an under-exercised biological immune system leads to allergies an under-exercised cultural immune system leads to overreactions to normal variations from the established normal.
[1] https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Pan_Galactic_Gargle_Blas...
In the post I first replied to: "same tired tropes" and "tottering pile" specifically. There's something about both those phrases that just screams "I'm here to score points, not to have a discussion". They read like press releases from some propaganda office - they're reaching for emotional impact, but they're not how human beings actually talk. Or at least that's how they strike me.
As I said, you're getting the spillover of my frustration from a number of people posting this way. It's not just you.
You're bringing external baggage into this discussion. The problem is, we all have different types of baggage. You may have "dared to venture outside of the desired narrative" but not everyone had, or maybe they had discussed these matters in private chats and forums and are only now talking about them online. I find that keeping personal beefs out of reactions helps keep comment quality high.
Though you make me curious. Is the appeal of HN to you when discussing these matters that it censors less?
FWIW I think it's already happened. The site has always been trending in that direction, but I think the Reddit and Twitter exoduses last year just hit the nail in the coffin. My guess is that a lot of the most argumentatively passionate folks from those sites are the ones that left. They saw HN as a last bastion for people who share their "values" and brought their argumentative culture onto this site.
I find most posts here these days that aren't strictly technical (and even then, hot button technical topics too) have comment sections indistinguishable from those on any other big news/social media site like Reddit or The Verge. I'm glad there are old users on the site here who still want to keep HN curious, but I've mostly thrown the towel in.
In all fairness there's nothing wrong with that. The only constant in life is change. Maybe our time has come and it's time to duck out of the Conversation into group chats like many before us.
[1] if and when that party gets rid of the autocracy which is the current DNC I may return to writing their name capitalised and without quotation marks but as long as that is not done the label does not fit the contents and those quotation marks are necessary in the spirit of 'truth in advertising'.
(I did the 1st Comment, and was really tempted to bash The Atlantic for that. Maybe if I had, the discussion could have been positive, and the article not flagged? But given the provocative title, I'd bet not.)
In fact, a reader who is invested in current-day politics could mine it to support an argument either for or against Trump. And a reader who is of two minds about Trump, could read the article to form their own opinion.
There are many political articles that don't belong on HN but this particular one isn't polemical or ideological enough, imo, to warrant pissing anyone off.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/20/godwins-l...
Taking basic similarities between virtually all politicians on how they lie and become popular doesn’t make Trump Hitler.
"Mass deportations, detention camps, troops on the street: Trump spells out migrant plan" — https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/03/trum...
"Trump has made more than 100 threats to prosecute or punish perceived enemies" — https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/nx-s1-5134924/trump-election-...
"Trump says ‘violent day’ of policing will end crime" — https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/29/trump-violent-day-p...
"Trump said Hitler ‘did some good things’ and wanted generals like the Nazis, former chief of staff Kelly claims" — https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-said-hitler-did-...
Hand a charismatic egomaniac absolute power and he can accomplish some truly depraved things. Hitler wasn't a particularly special breed of monster, I'm afraid.
Whatever Trump is, he’s not Hitler. Just like Obama wasn’t Stalin.
Repeating myself, Hitler did not campaign on war and genocide. (In fact, the war was propagandized in Germany as a defensive act.) But by the time a 1933 Hitler becomes a 1939 Hitler, it’s too late to do anything about it.
Incidentally, here's what an actual Holocaust survivor[2] has to say on the matter:
> The woman who was forced to listen daily to Adolf Hitler’s lunatic rants on the radio for seven years in the 1930s was blunt: “When I hear Trump speak, I hear Hitler again. When I see his rallies, it’s like what I saw in Nazi Germany”.
[1]: https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2024/01/29/trump-knows-exactly...
[2]: https://forward.com/community/455507/100-year-old-holocaust-...