Dorothy on Adolf
March 12, 2016 1:53 PM   Subscribe

In 1931, journalist Dorothy Thompson interviewed Adolph Hitler, asking "Will Adolf Hitler come to power? And if he does--will it make any difference?" [PDF] and concluding that " If Hitler comes into power, he will smite only the weakest of his enemies. But perhaps the drummer boy has let loose forces stronger then he knows." Ten years later, after she became the first American journalist expelled from Nazi Germany and her prediction had proved rather spectacularly wrong, she asked "Who Goes Nazi?"

Thompson's article about her interview with Hitler, "I Saw Hitler," appeared in the March 1932 issue of Cosmopolitan:
"Millions of Germans follow Hitler because he has proclaimed war upon the banks, upon the trusts, upon the 'loan-capital.' He has asserted time and time again that he will abolish the rule of one class by another. What actually do these statements mean, in terms of practical politics?

I couldn't find out, and anyone who can is a better interviewer than I. When I dared to interrupt the stream of eloquence by bluntly repeating my question, he replied (rather coyly) that he didn't intend to hand his program over to his enemies (the German Chancellor) for them to 'steal.' . . . People who laughed at Hitler a year ago, now pull serious faces and say: 'There's a great deal to the man.' . . .

This social and economic theory is, to a halfway educated person a tale told by an idiot. . . . But reason never yet swept a world off its feet, and Hitler, an agitator of genius, knows this. Self-interest, expressed in the most pathetic terms, does. Hitler is the most golden tongued of demagogues. Don't bother about the fact that most of what he says, read the next day in cold news print, is usually plain nonsense. . . . This is the way Hitler writes--but he cannot write; his book is one long speech. Eight hundred pages of Gothic script, pathetic gestures, inaccurate German, and unlimited self-satisfaction. You must imagine the crowds he addresses. . . . Do you wonder that millions follow him? Listening to him they feel themselves exalted. Better times are coming. Just around the corner is the era of Race, when all good Teutons, just by reason of their being Teutons, will come into their own. . . .

Take the Jews out of Hitler's program, and the whole thing, both the economic program and the racial, collapses. The Jews are responsible for everything. In 'My Fight' I find that Mr. Hitler is capable of accusing them of the most contradictory impulses without turning a hair. They are worthless democrats and bloodthirsty plutocrats; they are shabby and given to oriental pomp; unimaginative rationalists and mystic international conspirators; ritual murderers and bloodless intellectuals; crass egotists and sentimentalists; their way is paved with corpses and they are the world's international pacifists; they are dangerous assimilationists, and a foreign element in the body politic.

It doesn't, you see, make sense.

But if you want to gauge the strength of the Hitler movement, imagine that in America, an orator with the tongue of the late Mr. Bryan and the histrionic powers of Aimee MacPherson, combined with the publicity gifts of Edward Bernays and Ivy Lee should manage to unite all the farmers, with all the white collar unemployed, all the people with salaries under $3000 a year who have lost their savings in bank collapses and the stock market and are being pressed for payments on the icebox and the radio, the louder evangelical preachers, the American Legion, the D.A.R., the Ku Klux Klan, the W.C.T.U., Mathew Woll, Senator Borah, and Henry Ford--imagine that, and you will have some idea of what the Hitler movement in Germany means."
In one of the great underestimations of history, she predicted that Hitler would falter:
"He needs money for this vast organization which he has built up--and banks and great trusts give it to him. . . . What becomes then of his brave words against them? Once in power, will he want to risk another French invasion? What becomes, then, of his sonorous calls to arms? He will have to maintain law and order. What becomes then, of his promises to a revolutionary working class? He has promised to win back all the Germans handed by the peace treaties to other countries. But diplomacy demands concessions . . . . And the Jews? Bismarck's first speech in the Reichstag was against the Jews. But he lived to have a Jewish banker as his most intimate advisor."
In 1934, Thompson was the first American journalist expelled from Nazi Germany.

Ten years after interviewing Hitler, Thompson reflected on the rise of Nazism in "Who Goes Nazi?"
Germans may be more susceptible to Nazism than most people, but I doubt it. Jews are barred out, but it is an arbitrary ruling. . . . Nazism has nothing to do with race and nationality. It appeals to a certain type of mind. . . .

It’s fun—a macabre sort of fun—this parlor game of 'Who Goes Nazi?' And it simplifies things—asking the question in regard to specific personalities.

Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi. They may be the gentle philosopher whose name is in the Blue Book, or Bill from City College to whom democracy gave a chance to design airplanes—you’ll never make Nazis out of them. But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success—they would all go Nazi in a crisis.

Believe me, nice people don’t go Nazi. Their race, color, creed, or social condition is not the criterion. It is something in them.

Those who haven’t anything in them to tell them what they like and what they don’t-whether it is breeding, or happiness, or wisdom, or a code, however old-fashioned or however modern, go Nazi. It’s an amusing game. Try it at the next big party you go to."
posted by sallybrown (54 comments total) 80 users marked this as a favorite
 
Sounds so... familiar.
posted by Splunge at 2:16 PM on March 12, 2016 [10 favorites]


I'm just getting into the meat of this, but this passage stood out for me (on pp. 13-14 of the pdf
He is formless, almost faceless, a man whose countenance is a caricature, a man whose framework seems cartilaginous, without bones. He is inconsequent and voluble, ill-poised, insecure. He is the very prototype of the Little Man.
Add a little orange in, and a pudgier frame, and you've got Trump. It's amazing to me that people can't see the insecure Little Man prototype that Trump is.
posted by dis_integration at 2:19 PM on March 12, 2016 [18 favorites]


It's incredibly spooky.
posted by sallybrown at 2:24 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


While there are certainly broad parallels, this says more to me about the spooky nature of confirmation bias than anything.
posted by ageispolis at 2:35 PM on March 12, 2016 [13 favorites]


In my humble opinion, even "broad parallels" between a potential leader of the world's most powerful military and motherfucking Hitler merit extreme concern.
posted by Behemoth at 2:38 PM on March 12, 2016 [47 favorites]


What I find frightening is not "Trump is going to be exactly like Hitler." Hitler was Hitler and Trump is Trump. But it's really troubling that one of the most incisive journalists in history interviewed Hitler face to face and underestimated the horror that was to come by failing to take him at his word and to some extent failing to understand how intensely people would embrace him. It's the "But he can't possibly / we won't possibly..." parallel that scares me.
posted by sallybrown at 2:48 PM on March 12, 2016 [84 favorites]


It's the "But he can't possibly / we won't possibly..." parallel that scares me.

sallbrown, I'm reminded of this quote:
“The trouble with Eichmann [Hitler] [Trump] was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together.” ― Hannah Arendt
posted by Fizz at 2:52 PM on March 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


"Confirmation bias" is an amusing trope to sling around. What refutes confirmation bias? Countervailing evidence that the bias systematically devalues, denies, neglects, or ignores.

So far the evidence likening Trump to an autocrat (not Hitler per se, but any autocrat) is only mounting, especially in the last week alone, not receding in the face of conclusive or even marginal evidence otherwise. Putting forward that evidence is not necessarily confirmation bias, or if it is (which is possible!), it is not yet countered by enough strong evidence to refute the bias.
posted by blucevalo at 3:04 PM on March 12, 2016 [14 favorites]


I am really obsessed with this era of German politics, and have been for a while. Thanks Dubya!

Anyways, I urge people to look beyond the really American cliche that USA!USA!USA! just swooped in kicked Hitler's ass or whatever. There is a really rich history and amazing stories of German recognition of fascism and resistance to it, but since it involves stuff like Communism and Socialism people in America turn off. There is a lot more to Nazi resistance than the fucking Tom Cruise movie.
posted by brainimplant at 3:19 PM on March 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


I just located a hidden cam of Trump supporters and protesters

posted by robbyrobs at 3:31 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


We are about a half-dozen Drumpf rallies away from an Altamont stituation (or worse). This is monsters from the id territory here, and the inflammatory words from the orange one are calculated to make it even more worse. The constant, free TV coverage can't help, either.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 3:36 PM on March 12, 2016 [9 favorites]


There is a really rich history and amazing stories of German recognition of fascism and resistance to it, but since it involves stuff like Communism and Socialism people in America turn off. There is a lot more to Nazi resistance than the fucking Tom Cruise movie.

Just this past winter I started to read Richard J. Evans's first book: The Coming of the Third Reich, the first in a trilogy, and I found it very informative. At times it might be considered too dry and academic, but the detailed history of the various party politics of Germany in the lead-up to Hitler's power is fascinating. It has very much been on my mind this past election cycle. Well worth a read if the parallels are interesting to you.
posted by Fizz at 3:39 PM on March 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


politics of Germany in the lead-up to Hitler's power is fascinating
I have read literally dozens on this subject. How was the Gestapo able to detect the smallest signs of non-compliance with Nazi doctrines--especially "crimes" pertaining to the private spheres of social, family, and sexual life? How could the police enforce policies such as those designed to isolate Jews, or the foreign workers brought to Germany after 1939, with such apparent ease? I have just finished The Gestapo and German Society: Enforcing Racial Policy 1933-1945 And yes there were blacks in Nazi Germany. I highly recommend this read
posted by robbyrobs at 3:45 PM on March 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump is a classic, top to bottom fascist and it's really on now.
posted by colie at 3:51 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


I have read literally dozens on this subject. How was the Gestapo able to detect the smallest signs of non-compliance with Nazi doctrines--especially "crimes" pertaining to the private spheres of social, family, and sexual life? How could the police enforce policies such as those designed to isolate Jews, or the foreign workers brought to Germany after 1939, with such apparent ease? I have just finished The Gestapo and German Society: Enforcing Racial Policy 1933-1945

That kind of thing you really have to worry about with Cruz as well. There's plenty of conservatives ready to bring back "moral order" to the United States and if they have to bring it back with the help of Christian Dominionism so much the better.

Keep in mind if he picks up appointing Scalia's seat, RBG, possibly Kennedy, possibly Breyer. All of these justices are well over 75. RGB is 82. A president could easily bring in Christian fascism under the guise of three or four "originalist" justices and their accompanying bullshit mental gymnastics.
posted by Talez at 3:52 PM on March 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


it's really troubling that one of the most incisive journalists in history interviewed Hitler face to face and underestimated the horror that was to come

Even afterwards, she does. "nice people don't turn Nazi". A lot did. It's easy to pontificate your moral superiority until you're part of a society pushing you in a different direction.

I would love to be confident that I wouldn't turn Nazi, but the reality is I just don't know. No one does know, until they're in it.
posted by smoke at 5:21 PM on March 12, 2016 [13 favorites]


I can't decide if Trump is more like Hitler or Berlusconi. Either is awful and frightening.
posted by pjsky at 5:46 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


And meanwhile Obama (!) is arguing against encryption, so the federal government - whoever is in charge - can't be denied access to everything on your phone...
posted by twsf at 6:22 PM on March 12, 2016


...not yet countered by enough strong evidence to refute the bias.

I wonder how much evidence would be required to counter this concern. I've been trying to ignore Trumpf because I don't think he or the situation are like Hitler or Germany in the 30s (what I know little about), and I don't live in the US. But what's scary is how easy it is to sit back and think, "He doesn't have a chance...". I'm not sure America has a great recent history of protecting the integrity of its elections.

Also this guy from a Trump event sucker-punching a protester yesterday refuted much of my bias.

(Also for relevance and being well put together, this is one of my favourite FPPs.)
posted by sneebler at 6:22 PM on March 12, 2016


I would love to be confident that I wouldn't turn Nazi, but the reality is I just don't know. No one does know, until they're in it.

Think about how some people view vegans or runners or people who don't vaccinate their children. I've seen how passionate and visceral people's dislike are with regard to these types of individuals. It's not hard at all to think about how easy it would be to devolve into some other form of hatred or bigotry.
posted by Fizz at 6:32 PM on March 12, 2016


or people who don't vaccinate their children.

To be fair, infectious diseases have killed more people than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined...
posted by Talez at 6:40 PM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]


I have never been so worried about a U.S. election as I have about this one.
posted by Multicellular Exothermic at 7:03 PM on March 12, 2016 [9 favorites]


The biggest difference between Hitler and 'Drumpf' is that the latter has been famous and not infamous in our culture for many more years before his attempted rise to power. You could sat that Der Fuhrer caught a lot of Germans by surprise, but we have known The Donald way too well for decades. If America were not already totally screwed up, he would have become an asterisk in economic history two bankruptcies ago. Instead, he has become the perfect candidate to appeal to the largest growing segment of American voters: sociopaths.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:20 PM on March 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


Think about how some people view vegans or runners or people who don't vaccinate their children.

One of these things is not like the others...
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:25 PM on March 12, 2016 [9 favorites]


Ha ha, it's great to stop by me-fi and find many others have revived and are reading these articles and finding the exact same parallel as I did when I first read Who goes Nazi. No doubt had Louis C.K. read them he would be right here with us, drawing parallels between Drumpf and Schicklgruber.

Thanks!
posted by halatukit at 7:26 PM on March 12, 2016




smoke: "Even afterwards, she does. "nice people don't turn Nazi". A lot did. It's easy to pontificate your moral superiority until you're part of a society pushing you in a different direction. "

Yeah, I really dislike this "Who goes Nazi?" article. Not only is it rather vulgarly black and white in its moral condemnation, it's nationalistic and deeply conservative. Particularly bad is her depiction of the labor leader:

He agrees with the very largest and most powerful industrialists in the country that it is the business of the strong to boss the weak, and he has made collective bargaining into a legal compulsion to appoint him or his henchmen as “labor’s” agents, with the power to tax pay envelopes and do what they please with the money. L is the strongest natural-born Nazi in this room. Mr. B regards him with contempt tempered by hatred. Mr. B will use him. L is already parroting B’s speeches. He has the brains of Neanderthal man, but he has an infallible instinct for power. In private conversation he denounces the Jews as “parasites.” No one has ever asked him what are the creative functions of a highly paid agent, who takes a percentage off the labor of millions of men, and distributes it where and as it may add to his own political power.

It's not so much her unflattering depiction of the 'labor tyrant' that I dislike as much as her complete rewriting of history. German labor leaders didn't support Hitler. On the contrary, in the real Nazi Germany "unions were dissolved, their assets were confiscated, their offices were occupied and their leaders were arrested. Hitler then outlawed strikes, abolished collective bargaining and established the German Labor Front, a corrupt party organization."

What does it mean to 'go Nazi' if it doesn't even actually describe the kinds of people who supported real Nazis and who didn't? Sounds like this is really just a vehicle for Thompson to advocate for her own political views and call the opposite 'going Nazi.' And what are those views? She puts them in the mouth of the ideal German immigrant:

[She] believes that America is the country of Creative Evolution once it shakes off its middle-class complacency, its bureaucratized industry, its tentacle-like and spreading government, and sets itself innerly free.

I don't know what 'Creative Evolution' or being 'innerly free' means but I'm pretty sure I don't like it.
posted by crazy with stars at 8:08 PM on March 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


"Creative evolution" and "innerly free" sound like libertarian code words, IMO. But I wasn't able to make it through the article, since the whole "nice people don't become Nazis!" just sounded so... wrong. UGH.
posted by suburbanbeatnik at 9:30 PM on March 12, 2016


2016: The year everyone was really interested in understanding how Hitler rose to power, for some reason.
posted by ckape at 9:32 PM on March 12, 2016 [9 favorites]


I've stood up to intense social pressure before. Doesn't end well. I wouldn't blame any of you if you went Nazi.
posted by gehenna_lion at 9:48 PM on March 12, 2016


Mr L takes his cereal without milk. He goes Nazi. Shit, even the Nazis think he's a bit much.
posted by um at 1:05 AM on March 13, 2016


Content aside, I love her writing style. Almost hard to believe these were written in the thirties, the journalism seems not at all dated.
posted by iotic at 1:11 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Just this past winter I started to read Richard J. Evans's first book: The Coming of the Third Reich, the first in a trilogy

I really loved that book. I learned quite a bit from it. All three were good. The second one is difficult going, it's kind of an academic slog through the bureaucracy of the Nazi state. The third is about the war and the Holocaust.

The Social Democrat and Communist parties failing to make an anti-Nazi coalition: man, did they have opportunity to regret that! I blame the Communists especially for this, as they considered the SD party to be merely a benign face of capitalism (they called them "Social Fascists"), and also held a delusional belief that Nazi rule would simply heighten the contradictions and bring the barricades out to the streets faster.

It's also very useful to know that someone saying "Hitler was democratically elected" is a tell that they have no actual historical knowledge (Hitler was part of a coalition government installed by back room deals, and parleyed that quickly into becoming dictator, mostly by political terror and violence).

Creative Evolution
Maybe this reflects the popularity of the book by Henri Bergson.
posted by thelonius at 1:58 AM on March 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


Hitler was part of a coalition government installed by back room deals, and parleyed that quickly into becoming dictator, mostly by political terror and violence

Is that not how democracy works?
posted by iotic at 3:29 AM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's also very useful to know that someone saying "Hitler was democratically elected" is a tell that they have no actual historical knowledge (Hitler was part of a coalition government installed by back room deals, and parleyed that quickly into becoming dictator, mostly by political terror and violence).

For anyone that is interested:
He [Hitler] ran in two national elections in 1932. In the first, he got 30.1 percent of the vote, and no one got a majority. In the resulting runoff election, he increased his votes to 36.8 percent, while his opponent, World War I hero Field Marshall Hindenburg, got a majority. via: wiki
posted by Fizz at 4:35 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Social Democrat and Communist parties failing to make an anti-Nazi coalition: man, did they have opportunity to regret that! I blame the Communists especially for this

I really hope you aren't suggesting that that Communists would have been better than National Socialists.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:45 AM on March 13, 2016


Given what followed the Nazis' rise to power, it's hard to see how the Communists could have been worse.
posted by sneebler at 7:40 AM on March 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


Believe me, nice people don’t go Nazi.

I can sadly report that she is wrong about this too. I used to have an older coworker, since retired, who had one of the nicest families you could imagine. They were secure, sons were both successful, house paid for, wife had a lovely obsession with Christmas and kept Yule decorations up all year. They had never missed a payment, gone without insurance, or wondered where their next meal would come from. But get any of them started on the Muslims... (And while I don't know for sure, I would bet a large pile of money there is a Trump sign in front of their house right now.)
posted by Bringer Tom at 8:04 AM on March 13, 2016


Also this guy from a Trump event sucker-punching a protester yesterday refuted much of my bias.

Speaking of that sucker punch, TRUMP to @MeetThePress' @ChuckTodd: "I've instructed my people to look into" paying legal fees for man who threw suckerpunch on Thurs #MTP.

Are we appropriately through the looking glass yet?
posted by Talez at 9:00 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


A seminal piece covering the early, fast rise. I'd say required reading.

The array of journal pieces from both sides up to September 1939, are filled with amazing pieces by certain folks who suspected or curious about hitler and propaganda from the axis. Like Lloyd Zeitung magazines, phasing in soft pictures of Goring, multi-national advertisement.
Liberty and HG Wells predictions in '39.
An odd magazine I found Correct English, Oct. 35', pg. 196. Italian-Ethiopian War Names.
Duce- doo' chay (leader,chief)
Fascist- fash'ist (a bundle of rods)
posted by clavdivs at 11:59 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Even afterwards, she does. "nice people don't turn Nazi". A lot did. It's easy to pontificate your moral superiority until you're part of a society pushing you in a different direction.

I think it also understates the number of people who never become enthusiastic Nazis but went along with some horrible things in one way or another.
posted by atrazine at 12:06 PM on March 13, 2016


Yes, chilling parallels. The Nazis would go to other political rallies and shut them down violently. They'd go see speakers they disagreed with and 'no-platform' them into silence. They'd demonize their opponents as evi subhumans. I sure hope the Nazis don't win this time around.
posted by stavrogin at 2:17 PM on March 13, 2016


Well Trump is blaming Bernie for shit going down at his rallies.

Because, when you have people literally comparing you to Hitler your next action should be to blame a Jew!
posted by Talez at 2:49 PM on March 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


In an odd way, that's how Nixon felt about Goldwater, Rockefeller, Kennedy,Wallace, McGovern, Reagan, Stevenson...Harvard...small pets...
people.
posted by clavdivs at 3:18 PM on March 13, 2016


Talez: "or people who don't vaccinate their children.

To be fair, infectious diseases have killed more people than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined...
"

Sorry, couldn't help but think of the Mr. Show sketch where Bob Odenkirk/Dr. Ken said "This generation is worse than the hippies, the nazis and the flappers combined!"
posted by symbioid at 3:50 PM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]



Speaking of that sucker punch, TRUMP to @MeetThePress' @ChuckTodd: "I've instructed my people to look into" paying legal fees for man who threw suckerpunch on Thurs #MTP.

Are we appropriately through the looking glass yet?


Quite a bit earlier, Trump said he would do this (pay the legal fees if someone beat up a protester), and now he is doing it.

I'm still not sure how this isn't somehow against the law; incitement to violence or the like, but I've read that it isn't.
posted by Juffo-Wup at 7:41 PM on March 13, 2016


Vox: The New York Times' first article about Hitler's rise is absolutely stunning

It's very much worth reading the PDF linked from the article. The usual lesson is that we shouldn't dismiss politicians' rhetoric as being just for show: whether they "really" mean it or not, it shows where they're willing to go. But if you read the article, it wasn't just rhetoric: Hitler's followers were organised, and armed, and it describes Hitler travelling to Regenburg with
"three special trainloads of Munich admirers for the purpose of holding a series of reactionary inflammatory meeting and incidentally to beat up protesting Socialists and Communists with blackjacks if any dare protest..."
So you have Hitler travelling around with literally trainloads of armed, uniformed, paramilitary thugs, and staging pitched battles. And, the article says, "the keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism." Jews were already making plans to leave - incidentally, this is why a greater percentage of German Jews survived the Holocaust; they were forewarned and left before the borders closed with WW2. None the less, the NYT cheerily finishes with
[...] several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.
This is what political subordination looks like. Don't worry about the racist violence; it's just tactical! It's not the main part of his program!
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:22 PM on March 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


A lock of lank hair falls over an insignificant and slightly retreating forehead. The back head is shallow. The face is broad in the cheek-bones. The nose is large, but badly shaped and without character. His movements are awkward, almost undignified and most un-martial. There is in his face no trace of any inner conflict or self-discipline.

And yet, he is not without a certain charm. But it is the soft, almost feminine charm of the Austrian! When he talks it is with a broad Austrian dialect.
What an odd, almost phrenological way of describing someone--"the back head is shallow"? Who does or ever did do that?
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:25 AM on March 14, 2016


My guess was it's meant to evoke the way Nazis talked about peoples' features (the obsession with measuring and classifying physical features as "belonging" to Aryan vs not)?
posted by sallybrown at 10:50 AM on March 14, 2016


Speer noted the bumbling, self-deprecation Austrian voice before launching into a tirade. He noted that a Prussian could not speak this way and gather support from a broad spectrum of German society.
posted by clavdivs at 2:58 PM on March 14, 2016


I'm still not sure how this isn't somehow against the law; incitement to violence or the like, but I've read that it isn't.

North Carolina is thinking about prosecuting, apparently.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:03 PM on March 14, 2016


North Carolina is thinking about prosecuting, apparently.

Damn. Apparently they're not going to.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:04 PM on March 14, 2016


People following this discussion may be interested in this related AskMe.

(I can't believe I hadn't heard of the White Rose movement before that!)
posted by sallybrown at 7:00 PM on March 14, 2016


It's also very useful to know that someone saying "Hitler was democratically elected" is a tell that they have no actual historical knowledge (Hitler was part of a coalition government installed by back room deals
Hitler's party won by far the most seats in the federal elections in 1932. I feel that by saying that he wasn't democratically elected and that it were just back room deals got him the power it erases the fact that a whole lot of people voted for the Nazi party and that they did democratically get the plurality of seats in the parliament.
posted by blub at 3:17 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


« Older Another one bites the dust   |   Why do lesbians and bi women always die? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments