I'm not so sure that Lawrence is applying the right similarities. Hitler advocated a new reich. To achieve it he had to do two things. Reduce and eradicate the democratic process in Germany, whilst also persuading the German populous that they were under attack. Ring any bells? Simon ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence Helm To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 2:46 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you glad you no longer have a Hitler problem? Very good Omar. I wondered what you would do to turn the tables. Because Eric and I recognize the Islamist threat and oppose it, this grants us no bone fides when transported back to the 1930s. It shows that we are warlike and likely to support any war for any reason. I transported us back to the U.S., our own nation, but you transport us to Germany and make us Germans and have us support Hitler. Very clever. But is not what you have argued consistent with what Neville Chamberlain did? He assumed that any sort of war should be avoided. Peace should be obtained "at any price." There is no difference between fighting for the U.S. against Fascism and fighting for Hitler for Fascism. War is war and peace is peace. We should seek peace at any price. There are, after all, parallels between the 30s and now. Islamism is fascistic in nature as the Lebanese scholar Youssef M Choueiri argues in his Islamic Fundamentalism. That is why Islamists and Saddam Hussein could declare common cause so often. They wanted the same sorts of things. They had the same enemies. Hitler, the Japanese, Mussolini, Quisling, and others declared common cause in the 30s. And the Nazis recognized that American-style democracy was anathema to their cause; just as Islamists and Islamist sympathizers recognize that very same thing today. So they argue that their murderous excesses are to be excused whereas our attempts to combat them are to be condemned. They are being defensive when they blow up innocent women and children. We are being offensive when we bomb Islamists and some innocents die in the process. They are good. We are evil. And I notice no Lit-Idea protests, at least not so far: no one else saying, "I would have been in the minority back then. I would have seen the danger of Hitler and fascism and opposed them." Just Omar saying that since Eric and I oppose Islamism and an Islamic fascistic dictator we would have supported Hitler back in the 30s. Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Omar Kusturica Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 11:16 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you glad you no longer have a Hitler problem? --- Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Question: I think Eric and I have enough bone fides > to indicate that we > would have been in the American minority that > "recognized the terrible > danger of Adolf Hitler." After all we now > "recognize the terrible danger > of" Islamism and so would very likely be of a mind > to recognize the danger > of Hitler. *It does not follow that because you and Eric think that you perceive a terrible danger of Islamism, you would therefore have recognized the real danger of Hitler. Hitler did not mount a terrorist attack in New York, so Eric would probably have gone on biking in Manhattan cheerfully and wouldn't have worried about the Holocaust. Also, Hitler was a white man, European, of Christian origins, secular, all of which lead me to suspect that you and Eric would probably have been more sympathetic to him. He was also a militaristic strongman, something you two obviously find appealing. The real question is, what would you Eric and think if you were living in Germany in the 1930s ? I have little doubt that you would have been in the front raws of that crowd frentically cheering Hitler. O.K. __________________________________________________ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html