Why did so many Germans support Hitler?

[AllieBaba]

Fear.. In my opinion is the number one reason.
He made them fear the opposition through propaganda and lies. Sound familiar?




And I think it is funny you started this topic, I just picked my new sig yesterday. lol

Do you know anything about any subject?
The German people weren't afraid of Hitler. They EMBRACED him. They loved him. He made them feel better about being (assholes) German and promised to re-establish Germany's standing in the world.

 

[Bfgrn]

That's a fairly good summation of events leading to Hitlers election HellBitch. What I always tell people who want to know how Hitler got into power is a couple of things.

Socialism and Communism were gaining popularity in post WWI Europe and during the great depression in America. America had quite a large American Nazi Party itself. And that yes, Hitler was popularly elected but the people also stood by as Hitler consolidated power for himself.

Is this something you learned listening to rodeo clowns like Glenn Beck, or do you just 'feel' that is what happened?

Because the OPPOSITE is what really happened...

After the First World War right-wing German and Italian critics abused the governments of Weimar Germany and pre-Mussolini Italy for their commitment to social welfare, which their critics linked to an unwillingness to use force in international relations. To use Robert Kagan’s expression, the Weimar Republic could only do the dishes, not prepare the feast.

German and Italian critics of liberalism—writers such as Ernst Jünger and Giovanni Gentile—longed for the military spirit that allegedly typified the “front-fighter” generation that had lived through the horrors of trench warfare during World War I. The experience of war, they said, could redeem the anti-national Weimar Republic and the spineless decadence of Italian liberalism by reintroducing them to the necessity of using force—which would mean a much more ready resort to military power and a reorientation of government to promote its use. Both men and nations could thereby reestablish their virility.

Extreme right-wing theoreticians—for example, German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt—believed that the European states in general had to choose between defending the interests of their national communities—at the end of the day by force—and sustaining a debilitating commitment to popular welfare, which more and more absorbed the energies of a weak-kneed liberalism that precariously clung to power in many European states. Schmitt believed that the state existed exclusively to oppose the enemies of the national community and ensure domestic order. Politics, he famously said, is founded on the friend-enemy polarity. Liberals had embarked on a fruitless crusade to escape inevitable political conflict within their societies by expanding the welfare function of the modern state to appease the demands of the masses, and thereby weakening its “executive function.”

The proximate causes of this revulsion against liberalism in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere are not far to seek. And the underlying anti-liberal logic was more cultural than political-economic. After defeat in World War I neither Germany nor Italy was able to advance its interests effectively in Europe. The Italians were widely regarded as pathetic soldiers. “The Italians,” Bismarck said, “have such large appetites and such poor teeth.” Giovanni Gentile, subsequently a Fascist minister for Mussolini, lamented the dolce far niente (“sweet do nothing”) that he found characterized the Italians as a nation. As for the Germans, they had of course lost the war, but they were encouraged to believe that their armies and fighting men had not been defeated on the battlefield but had been betrayed by an unpatriotic cabal of Jews, Francophiles, liberals, and socialists.

So for these men and like-minded others, there was a necessary connection between reviving militarism and imperialism and curtailing the state’s commitment to popular welfare. Only a new political elite—battle-hardened, ruthless, and devoted to authoritarian government—could achieve the reforms needed to restore these states to the ranks of the European powerful. The new governments would not be parliamentary: talk shops never get anything done. In Italy the Fascist elite developed an imperial ideology focusing on Rome; in Germany, too, there was an imperial element—the “Thousand Year Empire”—although we correctly understand the racism of the National Socialists to have been their most memorable contribution to the horrors of the 20th century.

The Hard Road to Fascism

 

[MikeK]

The influence of Lutheranism and Catholicism in Germany contributed to a powerful subliminal authoritarian orientation, which enabled the persecution of Jews and homosexuals and facilitated the rise of the Third Reich. Interestingly, the same influences are operating in a significant percentage of the U.S. population.

Anyone who thinks it couldn't happen here should look more closely. It is happening. Just more slowly.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

They would fall for anything after 8 years of GW Bush.

 

[Zona]

I think it was the mustache.

And the really cool uniforms.

 

[B. Kidd]

germans are just natural born assholes.

I think the genes that make them think they're genetically superior also make them fucking insane killing machines.

As far as insane fukin' killing machines go, Koreans have it hands down.
Remember the Rodney King riots(?), when the police cordoned off neigborhoods where they feared to tread?
Korean storekeepers made all the 'Death Wish' movies rolled into one, look faggity!

 

[Luissa]

Fear.. In my opinion is the number one reason.
He made them fear the opposition through propaganda and lies. Sound familiar?




And I think it is funny you started this topic, I just picked my new sig yesterday. lol

Do you know anything about any subject?
The German people weren't afraid of Hitler. They EMBRACED him. They loved him. He made them feel better about being (assholes) German and promised to re-establish Germany's standing in the world.

Do you know how to read? I never said they were afraid of Hitler.

 

[rikules]

I thought this might be a good topic of discussion

this question is far broader than just hitler and the nazis

the real question is;

why are there SOOOO many stupid, ignorant people upon whom hate, lies and fear work so well!?

 

[Luissa]

Fear.. In my opinion is the number one reason.
He made them fear the opposition through propaganda and lies. Sound familiar?




And I think it is funny you started this topic, I just picked my new sig yesterday. lol

Do you know anything about any subject?
The German people weren't afraid of Hitler. They EMBRACED him. They loved him. He made them feel better about being (assholes) German and promised to re-establish Germany's standing in the world.

And after your Kent State thread, you really shouldn't throw stones.
But way to make yourself look like an idiot, once again.

 

[Tom Clancy]

No I telling the truth.

The republicans hate gays , brown people who fight against discrimination, democrats and anyone else they dont agree with.


I see it here every day.

Then you're obviously very stupid..

1st: I don't hate Gays. I say let them to whatever, I don't approve of em nor em I against them, But it's Discrimination to not let them Marry just because they're different. Simple.

2: I don't hate Brown people.. Here we go with the Strawman tactic once again... Who told you people on the right hate Blacks who fight against Discrimination?

3: Same thing could be said about you TM.. You hate Republicans, Conservatives, Classic Liberals.. Em i right? (see how i played your game there?) Or, is hate just something the Right made up?

4: I don't hate anyone who doesn't agree with me, that's stupid.. I have a diverse family. (Brother: Anarcho-Communist, Sister: Die hard Liberal. and one of my best friends is a Liberal.) You think i hate them just because they're different?

What a sad person you are..

Shame, shame..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The funniest thing is how "Progressives" keep calling Hitler a "right winger" LOL

He's a National Socialist, a Leftist, Obama's spiritual father

 

[Bfgrn]

The funniest thing is how "Progressives" keep calling Hitler a "right winger" LOL

He's a National Socialist, a Leftist, Obama's spiritual father

Yea, 'Old dolf' as us socialists warmly referred to him was the true bastion of socialist beliefs...He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

The funniest thing is how "Progressives" keep calling Hitler a "right winger" LOL

He's a National Socialist, a Leftist, Obama's spiritual father

Frank, I'm sure you know that what you're saying is just silly. Nazism was a far-right ideology, and it stood in direct opposition to the left wing socialists and communists in Germany: in fact, when he was appointed Chancellor, he became head of a coalition of the Nazis and the National-Conservative Party. And you know what, just because Hitler was a right-winger and he governed thanks to a coalition with a conservative party STILL does not mean that Hitler is the Republicans' spiritual father, because that'd be a claim almost as absurd as the above.

Claiming that National Socialism is Socialism is virtually the same as claiming that the Democratic Republic of Algeria is democratic. It isn't. It's just a name.

 

[strollingbones]

if one looks at the history...yes nazis were after more than the jews...but in reality the jews were the main targets....easy to blame the jews for all the hyper inflation and social problems.....look at the locations of the death camps.....they put them in an area where they knew the common people where extremely prejudice and would not cause an uproar.

as far a nazis being left or right....you do understand the nazis believe in mystic powers etc. a dictator is just that....short and simple...the death camps were the result of several years of studying how to rid germany of jews....the cheapest and most effective ways.

i am not a supporter of zionist but you cannot deny what was done to the jewish people....it was done without remorse or shame.

 

[strollingbones]

one thing that has always amazed me...is the refusal of the west to use the information discovered by the medical experiments of the nazis.

 

[Ringel05]

That's a fairly good summation of events leading to Hitlers election HellBitch. What I always tell people who want to know how Hitler got into power is a couple of things.

Socialism and Communism were gaining popularity in post WWI Europe and during the great depression in America. America had quite a large American Nazi Party itself. And that yes, Hitler was popularly elected but the people also stood by as Hitler consolidated power for himself.

Is this something you learned listening to rodeo clowns like Glenn Beck, or do you just 'feel' that is what happened?

Because the OPPOSITE is what really happened...

After the First World War right-wing German and Italian critics abused the governments of Weimar Germany and pre-Mussolini Italy for their commitment to social welfare, which their critics linked to an unwillingness to use force in international relations. To use Robert Kagan’s expression, the Weimar Republic could only do the dishes, not prepare the feast.

German and Italian critics of liberalism—writers such as Ernst Jünger and Giovanni Gentile—longed for the military spirit that allegedly typified the “front-fighter” generation that had lived through the horrors of trench warfare during World War I. The experience of war, they said, could redeem the anti-national Weimar Republic and the spineless decadence of Italian liberalism by reintroducing them to the necessity of using force—which would mean a much more ready resort to military power and a reorientation of government to promote its use. Both men and nations could thereby reestablish their virility.

Extreme right-wing theoreticians—for example, German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt—believed that the European states in general had to choose between defending the interests of their national communities—at the end of the day by force—and sustaining a debilitating commitment to popular welfare, which more and more absorbed the energies of a weak-kneed liberalism that precariously clung to power in many European states. Schmitt believed that the state existed exclusively to oppose the enemies of the national community and ensure domestic order. Politics, he famously said, is founded on the friend-enemy polarity. Liberals had embarked on a fruitless crusade to escape inevitable political conflict within their societies by expanding the welfare function of the modern state to appease the demands of the masses, and thereby weakening its “executive function.”

The proximate causes of this revulsion against liberalism in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere are not far to seek. And the underlying anti-liberal logic was more cultural than political-economic. After defeat in World War I neither Germany nor Italy was able to advance its interests effectively in Europe. The Italians were widely regarded as pathetic soldiers. “The Italians,” Bismarck said, “have such large appetites and such poor teeth.” Giovanni Gentile, subsequently a Fascist minister for Mussolini, lamented the dolce far niente (“sweet do nothing&#8221 that he found characterized the Italians as a nation. As for the Germans, they had of course lost the war, but they were encouraged to believe that their armies and fighting men had not been defeated on the battlefield but had been betrayed by an unpatriotic cabal of Jews, Francophiles, liberals, and socialists.

So for these men and like-minded others, there was a necessary connection between reviving militarism and imperialism and curtailing the state’s commitment to popular welfare. Only a new political elite—battle-hardened, ruthless, and devoted to authoritarian government—could achieve the reforms needed to restore these states to the ranks of the European powerful. The new governments would not be parliamentary: talk shops never get anything done. In Italy the Fascist elite developed an imperial ideology focusing on Rome; in Germany, too, there was an imperial element—the “Thousand Year Empire”—although we correctly understand the racism of the National Socialists to have been their most memorable contribution to the horrors of the 20th century.

The Hard Road to Fascism

Abbott Gleason eh? Interesting source you've chosen and the worst aspect is you probably believe his philosophical, revisionist spoon bending as opposed to real, concrete history. You need to read a lot more historical documentation. There are about 10 books I could recommend off hand.
By the 30s Russia had finally succumbed to Bolshevism, in the 20s Europe was in the throws of political upheaval due to the world-wide great depression. In most European countries pitched battles were being fought in the streets between socialists, communists and fascists with the traditional imperialist monarchists mostly caught in the middle and except in Spain trying to stay in the background while plying one off the other. The Fascists in Germany finally won out over the socialists and communists after Hitler and the main Nazi cabal eventually used the legal system (and force in the streets against political opponents) to gain seats in the government then finally take over completely.
The vast majority of Germans went along with the Nazis, to a degree, because they had ended the uncertainty and brought economic, social and political stability to the country, Germans love order and the Weimar Republic was blamed for allowing the economic social and political chaos attributed to the Untermensch to continue and grow.
German however did not initially buy into the Nazi propaganda. Even during the supposed countrywide boycott the Nazis called down on Jewish businesses the majority of German citizens opposed the Nazi program and many even continued to defy the Nazis and patronize their Jewish neighbors businesses. The Nazis where forced to take it "underground" for the time being.
Before Kristallnacht Hitler had already distanced himself from the excesses of the Brown Shirts so the citizenry blamed them for the rampage, not Hitler. It was also one of the stepping stones Hitler used to rid himself of the radical elements of the SA. Hitler was, at first, always able to distance himself from the excesses of those who actually served him by allowing his lackeys to build up individual fiefdoms following his "divide and rule" policies which had the appearance of him being above the fray and not accountable for the actions of his subordinates.
If Hitler had died in 1939 before he invaded Poland he would to this day be revered by the German peoples as one of the greatest leaders of all time.

 

[Bfgrn]

That's a fairly good summation of events leading to Hitlers election HellBitch. What I always tell people who want to know how Hitler got into power is a couple of things.

Socialism and Communism were gaining popularity in post WWI Europe and during the great depression in America. America had quite a large American Nazi Party itself. And that yes, Hitler was popularly elected but the people also stood by as Hitler consolidated power for himself.

Is this something you learned listening to rodeo clowns like Glenn Beck, or do you just 'feel' that is what happened?

Because the OPPOSITE is what really happened...

After the First World War right-wing German and Italian critics abused the governments of Weimar Germany and pre-Mussolini Italy for their commitment to social welfare, which their critics linked to an unwillingness to use force in international relations. To use Robert Kagan’s expression, the Weimar Republic could only do the dishes, not prepare the feast.

German and Italian critics of liberalism—writers such as Ernst Jünger and Giovanni Gentile—longed for the military spirit that allegedly typified the “front-fighter” generation that had lived through the horrors of trench warfare during World War I. The experience of war, they said, could redeem the anti-national Weimar Republic and the spineless decadence of Italian liberalism by reintroducing them to the necessity of using force—which would mean a much more ready resort to military power and a reorientation of government to promote its use. Both men and nations could thereby reestablish their virility.

Extreme right-wing theoreticians—for example, German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt—believed that the European states in general had to choose between defending the interests of their national communities—at the end of the day by force—and sustaining a debilitating commitment to popular welfare, which more and more absorbed the energies of a weak-kneed liberalism that precariously clung to power in many European states. Schmitt believed that the state existed exclusively to oppose the enemies of the national community and ensure domestic order. Politics, he famously said, is founded on the friend-enemy polarity. Liberals had embarked on a fruitless crusade to escape inevitable political conflict within their societies by expanding the welfare function of the modern state to appease the demands of the masses, and thereby weakening its “executive function.”

The proximate causes of this revulsion against liberalism in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere are not far to seek. And the underlying anti-liberal logic was more cultural than political-economic. After defeat in World War I neither Germany nor Italy was able to advance its interests effectively in Europe. The Italians were widely regarded as pathetic soldiers. “The Italians,” Bismarck said, “have such large appetites and such poor teeth.” Giovanni Gentile, subsequently a Fascist minister for Mussolini, lamented the dolce far niente (“sweet do nothing”) that he found characterized the Italians as a nation. As for the Germans, they had of course lost the war, but they were encouraged to believe that their armies and fighting men had not been defeated on the battlefield but had been betrayed by an unpatriotic cabal of Jews, Francophiles, liberals, and socialists.

So for these men and like-minded others, there was a necessary connection between reviving militarism and imperialism and curtailing the state’s commitment to popular welfare. Only a new political elite—battle-hardened, ruthless, and devoted to authoritarian government—could achieve the reforms needed to restore these states to the ranks of the European powerful. The new governments would not be parliamentary: talk shops never get anything done. In Italy the Fascist elite developed an imperial ideology focusing on Rome; in Germany, too, there was an imperial element—the “Thousand Year Empire”—although we correctly understand the racism of the National Socialists to have been their most memorable contribution to the horrors of the 20th century.

The Hard Road to Fascism

Abbott Gleason eh? Interesting source you've chosen and the worst aspect is you probably believe his philosophical, revisionist spoon bending as opposed to real, concrete history. You need to read a lot more historical documentation. There are about 10 books I could recommend off hand.
By the 30s Russia had finally succumbed to Bolshevism, in the 20s Europe was in the throws of political upheaval due to the world-wide great depression. In most European countries pitched battles were being fought in the streets between socialists, communists and fascists with the traditional imperialist monarchists mostly caught in the middle and except in Spain trying to stay in the background while plying one off the other. The Fascists in Germany finally won out over the socialists and communists after Hitler and the main Nazi cabal eventually used the legal system (and force in the streets against political opponents) to gain seats in the government then finally take over completely.
The vast majority of Germans went along with the Nazis, to a degree, because they had ended the uncertainty and brought economic, social and political stability to the country, Germans love order and the Weimar Republic was blamed for allowing the economic social and political chaos attributed to the Untermensch to continue and grow.
German however did not initially buy into the Nazi propaganda. Even during the supposed countrywide boycott the Nazis called down on Jewish businesses the majority of German citizens opposed the Nazi program and many even continued to defy the Nazis and patronize their Jewish neighbors businesses. The Nazis where forced to take it "underground" for the time being.
Before Kristallnacht Hitler had already distanced himself from the excesses of the Brown Shirts so the citizenry blamed them for the rampage, not Hitler. It was also one of the stepping stones Hitler used to rid himself of the radical elements of the SA. Hitler was, at first, always able to distance himself from the excesses of those who actually served him by allowing his lackeys to build up individual fiefdoms following his "divide and rule" policies which had the appearance of him being above the fray and not accountable for the actions of his subordinates.
If Hitler had died in 1939 before he invaded Poland he would to this day be revered by the German peoples as one of the greatest leaders of all time.

Abbott Gleason eh?...Yea, asshole, where's your source?

Abbott Gleason

Professor:
History, Slavic Languages, Watson Institute
Phone: 863-2326
[email protected]

Biography

Abbott (Tom) Gleason's areas of interest include the history of the Cold War and national identity in Russia/the Soviet Union and the United States from 1830-1930.

A Brown professor for over 30 years, he is the former chair of the University's History Department.

He has been a long-time member of the Watson Institute's administration and faculty, having served as the Institute's director from 1999 to 2000, among other positions including associate director, director for university relations and special projects, and senior fellow. He is currently an adjunct professor.

He is also a former director of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC.

His is editor of A Companion to Russian History (Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 2009) and author of a memoir, A Liberal Education (TidePool Press, 2009).

He co-edited with Martha Nussbaum Nineteen Eighty-Four: George Orwell and Our Future (Princeton University Press, 2005) and Nikita Khrushchev (Yale University Press, 2000), with Sergei Khrushchev and William Taubman.

 

[Ringel05]

Is this something you learned listening to rodeo clowns like Glenn Beck, or do you just 'feel' that is what happened?

Because the OPPOSITE is what really happened...

After the First World War right-wing German and Italian critics abused the governments of Weimar Germany and pre-Mussolini Italy for their commitment to social welfare, which their critics linked to an unwillingness to use force in international relations. To use Robert Kagan’s expression, the Weimar Republic could only do the dishes, not prepare the feast.

German and Italian critics of liberalism—writers such as Ernst Jünger and Giovanni Gentile—longed for the military spirit that allegedly typified the “front-fighter” generation that had lived through the horrors of trench warfare during World War I. The experience of war, they said, could redeem the anti-national Weimar Republic and the spineless decadence of Italian liberalism by reintroducing them to the necessity of using force—which would mean a much more ready resort to military power and a reorientation of government to promote its use. Both men and nations could thereby reestablish their virility.

Extreme right-wing theoreticians—for example, German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt—believed that the European states in general had to choose between defending the interests of their national communities—at the end of the day by force—and sustaining a debilitating commitment to popular welfare, which more and more absorbed the energies of a weak-kneed liberalism that precariously clung to power in many European states. Schmitt believed that the state existed exclusively to oppose the enemies of the national community and ensure domestic order. Politics, he famously said, is founded on the friend-enemy polarity. Liberals had embarked on a fruitless crusade to escape inevitable political conflict within their societies by expanding the welfare function of the modern state to appease the demands of the masses, and thereby weakening its “executive function.”

The proximate causes of this revulsion against liberalism in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere are not far to seek. And the underlying anti-liberal logic was more cultural than political-economic. After defeat in World War I neither Germany nor Italy was able to advance its interests effectively in Europe. The Italians were widely regarded as pathetic soldiers. “The Italians,” Bismarck said, “have such large appetites and such poor teeth.” Giovanni Gentile, subsequently a Fascist minister for Mussolini, lamented the dolce far niente (“sweet do nothing&#8221 that he found characterized the Italians as a nation. As for the Germans, they had of course lost the war, but they were encouraged to believe that their armies and fighting men had not been defeated on the battlefield but had been betrayed by an unpatriotic cabal of Jews, Francophiles, liberals, and socialists.

So for these men and like-minded others, there was a necessary connection between reviving militarism and imperialism and curtailing the state’s commitment to popular welfare. Only a new political elite—battle-hardened, ruthless, and devoted to authoritarian government—could achieve the reforms needed to restore these states to the ranks of the European powerful. The new governments would not be parliamentary: talk shops never get anything done. In Italy the Fascist elite developed an imperial ideology focusing on Rome; in Germany, too, there was an imperial element—the “Thousand Year Empire”—although we correctly understand the racism of the National Socialists to have been their most memorable contribution to the horrors of the 20th century.

The Hard Road to Fascism

Abbott Gleason eh? Interesting source you've chosen and the worst aspect is you probably believe his philosophical, revisionist spoon bending as opposed to real, concrete history. You need to read a lot more historical documentation. There are about 10 books I could recommend off hand.
By the 30s Russia had finally succumbed to Bolshevism, in the 20s Europe was in the throws of political upheaval due to the world-wide great depression. In most European countries pitched battles were being fought in the streets between socialists, communists and fascists with the traditional imperialist monarchists mostly caught in the middle and except in Spain trying to stay in the background while plying one off the other. The Fascists in Germany finally won out over the socialists and communists after Hitler and the main Nazi cabal eventually used the legal system (and force in the streets against political opponents) to gain seats in the government then finally take over completely.
The vast majority of Germans went along with the Nazis, to a degree, because they had ended the uncertainty and brought economic, social and political stability to the country, Germans love order and the Weimar Republic was blamed for allowing the economic social and political chaos attributed to the Untermensch to continue and grow.
German however did not initially buy into the Nazi propaganda. Even during the supposed countrywide boycott the Nazis called down on Jewish businesses the majority of German citizens opposed the Nazi program and many even continued to defy the Nazis and patronize their Jewish neighbors businesses. The Nazis where forced to take it "underground" for the time being.
Before Kristallnacht Hitler had already distanced himself from the excesses of the Brown Shirts so the citizenry blamed them for the rampage, not Hitler. It was also one of the stepping stones Hitler used to rid himself of the radical elements of the SA. Hitler was, at first, always able to distance himself from the excesses of those who actually served him by allowing his lackeys to build up individual fiefdoms following his "divide and rule" policies which had the appearance of him being above the fray and not accountable for the actions of his subordinates.
If Hitler had died in 1939 before he invaded Poland he would to this day be revered by the German peoples as one of the greatest leaders of all time.

Abbott Gleason eh?...Yea, asshole, where's your source?

Abbott Gleason

Professor:
History, Slavic Languages, Watson Institute
Phone: 863-2326
[email protected]

Biography

Abbott (Tom) Gleason's areas of interest include the history of the Cold War and national identity in Russia/the Soviet Union and the United States from 1830-1930.

A Brown professor for over 30 years, he is the former chair of the University's History Department.

He has been a long-time member of the Watson Institute's administration and faculty, having served as the Institute's director from 1999 to 2000, among other positions including associate director, director for university relations and special projects, and senior fellow. He is currently an adjunct professor.

He is also a former director of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC.

His is editor of A Companion to Russian History (Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 2009) and author of a memoir, A Liberal Education (TidePool Press, 2009).

He co-edited with Martha Nussbaum Nineteen Eighty-Four: George Orwell and Our Future (Princeton University Press, 2005) and Nikita Khrushchev (Yale University Press, 2000), with Sergei Khrushchev and William Taubman.

Russian studies makes him and expert in discussing fascism. Suuuuurrrreeee, right!
World War Two through German Eyes James Lucas (a prolific historical author concerning many aspects of WWII Germany and it's peoples), The German Army, 1933 - 1945, It's Political and Military Failureby Mathew Cooper, An Illustrated History of the Gestapo by Rupert Butler, Before the Deluge by Otto Friedrich, Warfare and the Third Reich by Christopher Chant, Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer, A History of the Weimar Republic by Erich Eyck and probably the most comprehensive book covering the 1930s world wide The Dark Valley, a Panorama of the 1930s by Piers Brandon just to name a few. All these Books contain either tombs or random snippets of information concerning this subject though in most the exact history is discussed in detail and none agree with your authoric saint who views this period of history though the prism of modern norms and obvious "liberal" bias. Shall I continue or would you simply decide to take the courses and do the readings and research I have done before you continue your hoof-in-mouth routine.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am surpriused at the responces thus far. Impressed with some of the comments.

 

[Bfgrn]

Abbott Gleason eh? Interesting source you've chosen and the worst aspect is you probably believe his philosophical, revisionist spoon bending as opposed to real, concrete history. You need to read a lot more historical documentation. There are about 10 books I could recommend off hand.
By the 30s Russia had finally succumbed to Bolshevism, in the 20s Europe was in the throws of political upheaval due to the world-wide great depression. In most European countries pitched battles were being fought in the streets between socialists, communists and fascists with the traditional imperialist monarchists mostly caught in the middle and except in Spain trying to stay in the background while plying one off the other. The Fascists in Germany finally won out over the socialists and communists after Hitler and the main Nazi cabal eventually used the legal system (and force in the streets against political opponents) to gain seats in the government then finally take over completely.
The vast majority of Germans went along with the Nazis, to a degree, because they had ended the uncertainty and brought economic, social and political stability to the country, Germans love order and the Weimar Republic was blamed for allowing the economic social and political chaos attributed to the Untermensch to continue and grow.
German however did not initially buy into the Nazi propaganda. Even during the supposed countrywide boycott the Nazis called down on Jewish businesses the majority of German citizens opposed the Nazi program and many even continued to defy the Nazis and patronize their Jewish neighbors businesses. The Nazis where forced to take it "underground" for the time being.
Before Kristallnacht Hitler had already distanced himself from the excesses of the Brown Shirts so the citizenry blamed them for the rampage, not Hitler. It was also one of the stepping stones Hitler used to rid himself of the radical elements of the SA. Hitler was, at first, always able to distance himself from the excesses of those who actually served him by allowing his lackeys to build up individual fiefdoms following his "divide and rule" policies which had the appearance of him being above the fray and not accountable for the actions of his subordinates.
If Hitler had died in 1939 before he invaded Poland he would to this day be revered by the German peoples as one of the greatest leaders of all time.

Abbott Gleason eh?...Yea, asshole, where's your source?

Abbott Gleason

Professor:
History, Slavic Languages, Watson Institute
Phone: 863-2326
[email protected]

Biography

Abbott (Tom) Gleason's areas of interest include the history of the Cold War and national identity in Russia/the Soviet Union and the United States from 1830-1930.

A Brown professor for over 30 years, he is the former chair of the University's History Department.

He has been a long-time member of the Watson Institute's administration and faculty, having served as the Institute's director from 1999 to 2000, among other positions including associate director, director for university relations and special projects, and senior fellow. He is currently an adjunct professor.

He is also a former director of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC.

His is editor of A Companion to Russian History (Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 2009) and author of a memoir, A Liberal Education (TidePool Press, 2009).

He co-edited with Martha Nussbaum Nineteen Eighty-Four: George Orwell and Our Future (Princeton University Press, 2005) and Nikita Khrushchev (Yale University Press, 2000), with Sergei Khrushchev and William Taubman.

Russian studies makes him and expert in discussing fascism. Suuuuurrrreeee, right!
World War Two through German Eyes James Lucas (a prolific historical author concerning many aspects of WWII Germany and it's peoples), The German Army, 1933 - 1945, It's Political and Military Failureby Mathew Cooper, An Illustrated History of the Gestapo by Rupert Butler, Before the Deluge by Otto Friedrich, Warfare and the Third Reich by Christopher Chant, Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer, A History of the Weimar Republic by Erich Eyck and probably the most comprehensive book covering the 1930s world wide The Dark Valley, a Panorama of the 1930s by Piers Brandon just to name a few. All these Books contain either tombs or random snippets of information concerning this subject though in most the exact history is discussed in detail and none agree with your authoric saint who views this period of history though the prism of modern norms and obvious "liberal" bias. Shall I continue or would you simply decide to take the courses and do the readings and research I have done before you continue your hoof-in-mouth routine.

Hey fuck face...I'm not impressed. Why? Probably because you are a right wing pea brain. Why don't we take a real hard look at some major underlying causes that created the climate for Hitler's rise. The Treaty of Versailles. It has to do with that age old George W. right wing philosophy of PUNISH; Revanchism. ‘The Tiger’ Georges Clemenceau won out in his desire the terms of Versailles smash Germany, where Wilson and even David Lloyd George realized that when you smash a country, you are smashing the people, and you open the door for future conflict by creating hated foreign enemies to rally that hatred around...

BTW, do you dispute the influences of Ernst Jünger, Giovanni Gentile and Carl Schmitt?

Hey, get back to me when you can borrow a liberal's brain.