Hitler was OK Until He Globalized

What did you think when Clinton broke up Yugoslavia?

 

Today people see things so much differently than our grandfathers saw them in the 1930s.

 

That you are reading bad history.

The failing USSR empire and Yugoslavia broke up into ethnic parts.

Clinton and the good Americans were trying to keep them from killing each other.

 

That is probably true for every age. My grandfather said Americans beginning in 1935 began siding against Hitler more and more every year.

 

You answered your own question.

Nice!

 

Where are you drawing that conclusion from? Did she say that?

 

She said:

make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine,” ,

which to me implies she is okay with Hitler's looting and exiling of the Jews, which was a really integral part of what Hitler would have thought necessary to "making Germany great and having things run well", at least as far as Hitler outlined how he felt about these things in Mein Kampf.

 

So first you truncate her quote, and then you say "to me implies..."

So in other words you don't care about what she actually said, only how you feel.

Who cares?

 

Americans are no hero to the Jews. FDR kept them away from America. Did not want them coming here.[/QUOTE]

This ranks with killing and forcing the indians onto reservations. I remember when I first heard this, I could not believe it, this was back in the 60s when nothing anti-american was ever taught in school. This Jewish kid did a 10 min report in front of the class and I did not believe him, I guess I was in 7th or 8th grade. He told me his father said that Jews, even the rich ones that owned businesses were afraid of speaking out due to anti semitic feeling in the US during the 30s.

A black mark on our country for sure, regardless of our unemployment we should have sent ships to get them out. Hitler just wanted them out of europe at the time in the 30s, it wasn't until 5 years later he started jailing them in droves.

 

Thank you Captain Literal. Once again you save us from clear inference and obvious implication.

The Weasel Mobile is started and running

 

I don't want to be contentious but it would certainly be noticeable in the few countries the KIA were from; but globally, I guess you're right.

 

Actually I didn't write it, but it looks as if I did because I screwed up the formatting.

 

Just can't admit that you got it wrong, can you Robert. it is easy enough to say, and you were clearly incorrect, yet you just can't say it. Why not Robert? Why not just say 'I got it wrong'? Four little words

Close to 80% of Americans wanted NO Jewish immigrants. FDR let in 150,000, most of them after the danger from Hitler became clear. That sounds like leadership to me - going against popular opinion. Why can't you just admit that he did a good thing? Not as good as he could have done, but still a good thing. Is it just your fanatical anti-Democrat prejudice that stops you? Kinda sad really.

 

Actually, the figure is 150,000 up to Sept 1939 as per my link, but nice to see you have finally done a bit of research for a change. Keep it up, the quality of your posts will improve markedly.

 

Words have context. Words about Nazi Germany have a particular historical context. If you talk about Nazi Germany your words exist in that context. People don't get to pretend that context doesn't exist because it suits their argument or they just feel like it. If a person is too stupid or ignorant to realise that then they should use examples they do understand. That said, if a person does not understand the context in which comments about Nazi Germany exist then they probably should consider not speaking in public until they can work it out. Pretty straightforward as history goes.

She invoked Hitler & Nazi Germany 'pre-globalization'. While I am reluctant to try to comprehend the specific meaning of anything a person that stupid says, I'm going to assume this relates to activities outside invasion & annexation. That includes: setting up a totalitarian state; violently repressing dissent; imprisoning & murdering political opponents; stripping particular ethnic groups of citizenship & basic rights; forbidding inter racial marriage; mass murdering the mentally & physically handicapped; persecuting homosexuals & some religious groups (and 'persecution' here doesn't just mean saying nasty stuff); and unleashing a violent pogrom against Jews.

Probably missed some stuff there as it was 'top of my head', but that is the historical context in which praise of 'pre-globalization' Hitler exists. People don't just get to cherry pick unemployment, nice roads and punctual trains.

So, you can keep pretending the idiot's words don't have a context because you like her, or agree with her, or just want to play contrarian in a stupid internet fight, but the context is still there. You know it as well as the rest of us.

 

In Russia, where 25 millions of the dead were actually from it was a known thing that just about every family had at least one, and many had more, who had died in the Great Patriotic War. I don't know if that situation still obtains but, yes, WWII is still the greatest shaper of the modern Russian character.. OTOH it still remains that all that many dead still didn't put a real dent in the present world's population.

This leads to a phenomena which many of our apocalysers don't seem to realize. Even if we were to kill 75% of the world's population somehow that still leaves us with approx 1.75 billion which is about what we had in 1900 and, more importantly, something like 10x the population that existed on the Earth though all but a very tiny part of all human history

 

As I mentioned, during & after the war no one wanted to be in any way associated with Hitler. To this day anyone who states anything positive about him stands accused as a "Nazi lover" etc. so she has a motive to "clear her father's name" in a way.

I simply believe the eyewitness accounts related in the Wikipedia excerpt I cited because of their credibility, the absence of that bias and based on other information I've read about the incident.

 

You have taken her comments out of context

Since liberals do often misunderstand things here is her clarification:

“Asked by The Daily Beast to explain her remarks, Owens called Hitler a “homicidal maniacal globalist” and claimed her response was simply “about why Americans WRONGLY equate the word ‘nationalism’ to Hitler.”

 

I'm just pointing out that she said one thing, and you heard something totally different.

 

Well you are right about one thing. Words do have context. So...what was the context of her statement?

Now I could pull a bit of the ole Socratic method, allowing you to answer that question and on and on, but you seem boring so I'll just cut to the chase. As I said back in post #2, it sounds like she was addressing the canard of nationalism=Hitler. In an environment in which reasoned discourse was the rule, rather than whatever you and multiple others were doing, that would be the start point of the discussion. Instead it's an ignored point in order to says "SKKEEEEEE! Hitler!!!"

So if you have something to say in the context she made her statement, go ahead and let's reason together. Otherwise; yawn...

 

She ran a stupid straw man argument using the worst possible example. Either she does not understand what Hitler's plans were and what his regime was like or she agrees with them. With someone this stupid there is no way to be sure which. If you want to try to create a defence for that then that is on you. I suspect you think you are 'sticking it to the left' or some other foolish thing. Maybe you agree with her about how great Hitler was 'pre-globalization'. You wouldn't be the only one around here.

 

She wasn't talking about Hitler's plans and I don't think I'm sticking anything to the left. It seems they've had a full week of doing that to themselves. In fact, I would avoid Hitler analogies all together except after 3 plus years of Trump, Republicans, and nationalism are "LITERALLY HITLER," there doesn't seem to be a way around it if the topic is, Nationalism: Hitler or just Nazi?

But like I said, in an environment in which reasoned discourse was the rule, we could discuss these issues. As you've made clear, we can't.

 

As I said, in 1936, Hitler was not seen as the threat to Europe. England did not believe he was going to get aggressive. People in the USA did not either. As I read up on this tale, Hitler departed the stadium prior to Jesse running. I wonder how they managed to get together then.

 

Stories of Jesse Owens shaking Hitlers hand in a way are boring.
First the era. Hitler was bringing Germany out of the worst depression in modern history. The country was ruined beyond belief by the Allies WW1 rules against Germany. They were demanded to pay an extreme cost for WW1 and they had no way to pay. Allies were warned at the end of WW1 not to go to such extremes.

I advise readers to study the book called the Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes. Any solid history book of the German plight post WW1 will explain the dire circumstances that existed in pre Hitler Germany.

Suffering people tend to like those who lift the suffering. If Owens shook his hand, it did not have to be that he foresaw WW2. Adolf had a lot of things concealed underground.

Take the airport at Schweinfurt I was based at for a few months.

At the airport, I recall a large fenced off area. I never tried to cross the fence to see what it was fencing off. I assumed it was to fence off the airfield. Anyway, I was in Amsterdam sitting with a German pilot who got chatty. He told me he flew fighter planes out of Schweinfurt in WW2 and that it had a huge underground hangar system and runways leaving from gopher land to the surface. I never saw them myself. I was told we had nuclear weapons in the fenced off area. I recall seeing what we called POL as I recall this. It was fuel. I think it means Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants now that I am thinking of this. It has been since 1964 that I thought of that term.

Anyway, Owens would not be raising eyebrows if he shook Hitler's hand. But Hitler was no fan of black people. Why he would shake a blacks hand puzzles me. Do they want us to see Owens or Hitler as non racists?

Somebody tried to make a point about this. I don't get it at all. I suspect if the statement had been that Owens was a true fan of Hitler and wanted to spend time with him, the spin would be totally different.

 

It's not a matter of big or small government but having GOOD government, as Obama said. And for the life of me I can't see why that's so hard to do. Don't have a government that robs you blind and dont have one that does nothing for you and don't have one that violates your rights, that seems simple to me. And since WE are the government I can't figure why that just isn't done as a matter of course.