[lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you delighted you no longer have a Hitler problem?

  • From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 13:34:38 -0400

I said you were a Monday morning quarterback for what you would have done 70 
years ago, which I hope you didn't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back 
for.  I notice you didn't answer the question about the United States of North 
America.  Instead, you are concentrating on the Islamist stuff.  Hmm, maybe 
there is something to the idea of using terrorism as a distraction?  BTW, 
Arnove (among others) says the intention of invading Iraq was to occupy it to 
have a presence in the ME because of the oil.  No chance, right?



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Lawrence Helm 
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 6/24/2006 12:53:58 PM 
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you delighted you no longer have a Hitler 
problem?


Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Does that sound like bells, Irene?  I was not a Monday 
morning quarter back on the invasion of Iraq and can prove it.  What an abysmal 
memory you have.  I read several books, the chief of which was the excellent 
The Threatening Storm, the Case for Invading Iraq, by an out-of-work Clinton 
administration person, Kenneth M. Pollack.  He has a great number of reasons 
for invading Iraq.  I discussed them when I read his book back prior to the 
invasion.  

And you misunderstand, misunderstand, misunderstand.  I will repeat:  What I 
did was take the climate of Leftist Opinion (witnessed here on Lit-Ideas) and 
project it back into the 30s.  Given the Leftist views as voiced on countless 
occasions here on lit-ideas, I observe that the Leftists (retaining their 
current climate of opinion) would have opposed the war against Hitler.  Do you 
think I?m wrong?  You guys would have been saying that Roosevelt was cooking up 
reasons for going to war against Hitler as a smokescreen for his acquisition of 
dictatorial powers ? or something like that.  

And then, by the same token, given the climate of opinion of Eric and I who are 
not Leftists, if we project ourselves back into the American 30s, we would have 
been in the minority that supported a war against Hitler.  Do you think that?s 
wrong?

Do you agree that Saddam Hussein was a fascist-type dictator?  

Lawrence




From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 9:01 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you glad you no longer have a Hitler problem?

---- Original Message ----- 
From: Lawrence Helm 
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 6/24/2006 11:17:18 AM 
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you glad you no longer have a Hitler problem?

Ring any bells?  Nice try Simon: trying to find a parallel between Hitler and 
Bush rather than dealing with the obvious parallels.  But you are quite wrong.  
Hitler never argued that they were under attack  or rather not the sort of 
attack you imagine.  In 1936 on May 1 once an international day of celebration 
of labouring people, now redubbed National Labour Day  he posed the 
rhetorical question: I ask myself, he declared, who are then these elements  
who wish to have no rest, no peace, and no understanding, who must continually 
agitate and sow mistrust?  Who are they actually?  Immediately picking up the 
implication, the crowd bayed: The Jews.  Hitler began again: I know . . . , 
and was interrupted by cheering that lasted for several minutes. . . .


A.A. And Lawrence immediately bays, "The Islamists ..."



Hitler never argued that Germany was under attack other than by the Jews.  In 
regard to external nations, he wanted Germany to be strong so it could gain its 
needed living room.


A.A.  Remind me again why we invaded Iraq?   You are a talented Monday morning 
quarterback, Lawrence.  Given how well you judge what you would have done 70 
years ago, what do you think of the current merging of Mexico with the U.S into 
a United States of North America?   Anthony Arnove (CSPAN Book TV) makes the 
point that threat of attack is a smokescreen for a lot of things.  Think it 
might be a way to deflect attention away from this fundamental change, among 
other things?   






Lawrence




From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 6:53 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you glad you no longer have a Hitler problem?

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

Other related posts: