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

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:17:27 -0700

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. . . ."


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.





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


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?



----- Original Message ----- 

From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  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


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.  




Other related posts: