When Godwin Was Wrong

[RavenSky]

This is a review of recent book on Hitler.

In ‘Hitler,’ an Ascent From ‘Dunderhead’ to

Holy hell, you could switch out the names and be talking about Trump...

 

[SLD]

This is a review of recent book on Hitler.

In ‘Hitler,’ an Ascent From ‘Dunderhead’ to Demagogue - The New York Times

Mr. Ullrich, like other biographers, provides vivid insight into some factors that helped turn a “Munich rabble-rouser” — regarded by many as a self-obsessed “clown” with a strangely “scattershot, impulsive style” — into “the lord and master of the German Reich.”

• Hitler was often described as an egomaniac who “only loved himself” — a narcissist with a taste for self-dramatization and what Mr. Ullrich calls a “characteristic fondness for superlatives.” His manic speeches and penchant for taking all-or-nothing risks raised questions about his capacity for self-control, even his sanity. But Mr. Ullrich underscores Hitler’s shrewdness as a politician — with a “keen eye for the strengths and weaknesses of other people” and an ability to “instantaneously analyze and exploit situations.”

• Hitler was known, among colleagues, for a “bottomless mendacity” that would later be magnified by a slick propaganda machine that used the latest technology (radio, gramophone records, film) to spread his message. A former finance minister wrote that Hitler “was so thoroughly untruthful that he could no longer recognize the difference between lies and truth” and editors of one edition of “Mein Kampf” described it as a “swamp of lies, distortions, innuendoes, half-truths and real facts.”

• Hitler was an effective orator and actor, Mr. Ullrich reminds readers, adept at assuming various masks and feeding off the energy of his audiences. Although he concealed his anti-Semitism beneath a “mask of moderation” when trying to win the support of the socially liberal middle classes, he specialized in big, theatrical rallies staged with spectacular elements borrowed from the circus. Here, “Hitler adapted the content of his speeches to suit the tastes of his lower-middle-class, nationalist-conservative, ethnic-chauvinist and anti-Semitic listeners,” Mr. Ullrich writes. He peppered his speeches with coarse phrases and put-downs of hecklers. Even as he fomented chaos by playing to crowds’ fears and resentments, he offered himself as the visionary leader who could restore law and order.

• Hitler increasingly presented himself in messianic terms, promising “to lead Germany to a new era of national greatness,” though he was typically vague about his actual plans. He often harked back to a golden age for the country, Mr. Ullrich says, the better “to paint the present day in hues that were all the darker. Everywhere you looked now, there was only decline and decay.”

• Hitler’s repertoire of topics, Mr. Ullrich notes, was limited, and reading his speeches in retrospect, “it seems amazing that he attracted larger and larger audiences” with “repeated mantralike phrases” consisting largely of “accusations, vows of revenge and promises for the future.” But Hitler virtually wrote the modern playbook on demagoguery, arguing in “Mein Kampf” that propaganda must appeal to the emotions — not the reasoning powers — of the crowd. Its “purely intellectual level,” Hitler said, “will have to be that of the lowest mental common denominator among the public it is desired to reach.” Because the understanding of the masses “is feeble,” he went on, effective propaganda needed to be boiled down to a few slogans that should be “persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward.”

• Hitler’s rise was not inevitable, in Mr. Ullrich’s opinion. There were numerous points at which his ascent might have been derailed, he contends; even as late as January 1933, “it would have been eminently possible to prevent his nomination as Reich chancellor.” He benefited from a “constellation of crises that he was able to exploit cleverly and unscrupulously” — in addition to economic woes and unemployment, there was an “erosion of the political center” and a growing resentment of the elites. The unwillingness of Germany’s political parties to compromise had contributed to a perception of government dysfunction, Mr. Ullrich suggests, and the belief of Hitler supporters that the country needed “a man of iron” who could shake things up. “Why not give the National Socialists a chance?” a prominent banker said of the Nazis. “They seem pretty gutsy to me.”

Yup! I read that same review this morning and had lunch with a WW-II vet at a local book store where we found the book and made the very same point about Trump! Some old white dudes aren't totally stupid. He made an interesting point that they were more concerned about Mussolini in the thirties than Hitler. But all in all it seems obvious that his supporters have forgotten the thirties. They probably don't know squat about history - much like Trump.

SLD

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is a review of recent book on Hitler.

In ‘Hitler,’ an Ascent From ‘Dunderhead’ to Demagogue - The New York Times

Yup! I read that same review this morning and had lunch with a WW-II vet at a local book store where we found the book and made the very same point about Trump! Some old white dudes aren't totally stupid. He made an interesting point that they were more concerned about Mussolini in the thirties than Hitler. But all in all it seems obvious that his supporters have forgotten the thirties. They probably don't know squat about history - much like Trump.

SLD

If they were at one time more concerned about Mussolini that Hitler, I think that was corrected with the invasion of Poland and Britain's declaration of war on Germany.

 

[iolo]

Sorry - Double (at least double -see below) posting

 

[iolo]

Yup! I read that same review this morning and had lunch with a WW-II vet at a local book store where we found the book and made the very same point about Trump! Some old white dudes aren't totally stupid. He made an interesting point that they were more concerned about Mussolini in the thirties than Hitler. But all in all it seems obvious that his supporters have forgotten the thirties. They probably don't know squat about history - much like Trump.

SLD

If they were at one time more concerned about Mussolini that Hitler, I think that was corrected with the invasion of Poland and Britain's declaration of war on Germany.

[/B]

Yup! I read that same review this morning and had lunch with a WW-II vet at a local book store where we found the book and made the very same point about Trump! Some old white dudes aren't totally stupid. He made an interesting point that they were more concerned about Mussolini in the thirties than Hitler. But all in all it seems obvious that his supporters have forgotten the thirties. They probably don't know squat about history - much like Trump.

SLD

And the loathsomeness of Hitler was much more immediately evident. Lots of tories (including Churchill, I seem to remember) flirted with Mussolini, but only the real nasties backed Hitler. To be fair to the likes of Chamberlain. the problem of the British boss class was that they wanted to protect the Empire, and the US prevented them from making their 'natural' alliance with Japan, making a quarrel with both Germany and Italy as well suicidal while the US itself was in an isolationist phase.

If they were at one time more concerned about Mussolini that Hitler, I think that was corrected with the invasion of Poland and Britain's declaration of war on Germany.

And the loathsomeness of Hitler was much more immediately evident. Lots of tories (including Churchill, I seem to remember) flirted with Mussolini, but only the real nasties backed Hitler. To be fair to the likes of Chamberlain. the problem of the British boss class was that they wanted to protect the Empire, and the US prevented them from making their 'natural' alliance with Japan, making a quarrel with both Germany and Italy as well suicidal while the US itself was in an isolationist phase.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is a review of recent book on Hitler.

In ‘Hitler,’ an Ascent From ‘Dunderhead’ to

Holy hell, you could switch out the names and be talking about Trump...

The extracts are far too generalised.
In fact the following can be applied to almost any politician seeking leadership

• Hitler was an effective orator and actor. CLINTON/TRUMP etc
• He assumed various masks, feeding off the energy of his audiences. CLINTON/TRUMP etc
• He specialized in big, theatrical rallies staged with spectacular elements borrowed from the circus. CLINTON/TRUMP etc (at least circus like)
• He adapted the content of his speeches to suit the tastes of his lower-middle class, nationalist-conservative, ethnic-chauvinist listeners. CLINTON/TRUMP both are seeking votes across the spectrum though CLINTON etc is LEFT WING AND TRUMP MORE RIGHT WING
• He peppered his speeches with coarse phrases and put-downs of hecklers. CLINTON/TRUMP etc
• He offered himself as the visionary leader who could restore law and order. CLINTON/TRUMP etc

ETC refers to other politicians in the US and other countries.

Still no clear talk about political issues.

 

[RavenSky]

Holy hell, you could switch out the names and be talking about Trump...

The extracts are far too generalised.
In fact the following can be applied to almost any politician seeking leadership

• Hitler was an effective orator and actor. CLINTON/TRUMP etc
• He assumed various masks, feeding off the energy of his audiences. CLINTON/TRUMP etc
• He specialized in big, theatrical rallies staged with spectacular elements borrowed from the circus. CLINTON/TRUMP etc (at least circus like)
• He adapted the content of his speeches to suit the tastes of his lower-middle class, nationalist-conservative, ethnic-chauvinist listeners. CLINTON/TRUMP both are seeking votes across the spectrum though CLINTON etc is LEFT WING AND TRUMP MORE RIGHT WING
• He peppered his speeches with coarse phrases and put-downs of hecklers. CLINTON/TRUMP etc
• He offered himself as the visionary leader who could restore law and order. CLINTON/TRUMP etc

ETC refers to other politicians in the US and other countries.

Still no clear talk about political issues.

yeah.... no

You cherry pick phrases from the list Blastula posted, and even with that half don't fit Clinton at all.

 

[iolo]

Holy hell, you could switch out the names and be talking about Trump...

The extracts are far too generalised.
In fact the following can be applied to almost any politician seeking leadership

• Hitler was an effective orator and actor. CLINTON/TRUMP etc
• He assumed various masks, feeding off the energy of his audiences. CLINTON/TRUMP etc
• He specialized in big, theatrical rallies staged with spectacular elements borrowed from the circus. CLINTON/TRUMP etc (at least circus like)
• He adapted the content of his speeches to suit the tastes of his lower-middle class, nationalist-conservative, ethnic-chauvinist listeners. CLINTON/TRUMP both are seeking votes across the spectrum though CLINTON etc is LEFT WING AND TRUMP MORE RIGHT WING
• He peppered his speeches with coarse phrases and put-downs of hecklers. CLINTON/TRUMP etc
• He offered himself as the visionary leader who could restore law and order. CLINTON/TRUMP etc

ETC refers to other politicians in the US and other countries.

Still no clear talk about political issues.

You're saying, basically, that TV has replaced radio, film and public meetings, which requires a different kind of mind-fixing, which Trump is trained at. Back in those days, capitalism was under serious threat - now it is just collapsing unchallenged, so the need for exactly the same kind of 'politics' as then is less evident, though the anger of the mugs who aren't allowed to look at real alternatives is equally great.

 

[blastula]

Holy hell, you could switch out the names and be talking about Trump...

The extracts are far too generalised.
In fact the following can be applied to almost any politician seeking leadership

• Hitler was an effective orator and actor. CLINTON/TRUMP etc
• He assumed various masks, feeding off the energy of his audiences. CLINTON/TRUMP etc
• He specialized in big, theatrical rallies staged with spectacular elements borrowed from the circus. CLINTON/TRUMP etc (at least circus like)
• He adapted the content of his speeches to suit the tastes of his lower-middle class, nationalist-conservative, ethnic-chauvinist listeners. CLINTON/TRUMP both are seeking votes across the spectrum though CLINTON etc is LEFT WING AND TRUMP MORE RIGHT WING
• He peppered his speeches with coarse phrases and put-downs of hecklers. CLINTON/TRUMP etc
• He offered himself as the visionary leader who could restore law and order. CLINTON/TRUMP etc

ETC refers to other politicians in the US and other countries.

Still no clear talk about political issues.

Thank you, Neville Chamberlain.

 

[Elixir]

You begin by pandering to the military and domestic law enforcement. Start with something relatively innocuous like, say, stop-and-frisk. Browbeat and threaten any opposition, appoint a few "justices" from your set of buddies (Ayles, Bannon etc.) who will fully back your declarations of martial law and give a pass to unconstitutional legislation, then distract the populace with some urgent manufactured threat that requires immediate transfer of all power to the executive branch, and you're on your way. Use law enforcement and military if necessary to purge the undesirables, and set out to rule the world.

That's the Trump agenda in a nutshell.

 

[whichphilosophy]

An effective orator and actor.
Essential for any speaker. An ineffective one would not have impact (affect, excite or move the audience)

assumed various masks, feeding off the energy of his audiences.
This could also be phrased as interacting with the audiences and appealing to their expectations as to what to say. It is important for any speaker to ignite the audience passions so as to be more effective. This requires good coaching so as to tell the audience what it wants to hear.

He specialized in big, theatrical rallies staged with spectacular elements borrowed from the Circus.
CLINTON/TRUMP etc (at least circus like). No need to borrow from a Circus because all the key politicians are key performing apes hoping for more than just a banana at every appause. However the bigger the applause, the bigger the banana. The audience needs humour, antics and something to stop them getting bored.
A good orator provides that. Sometimes this can be used to distract the audience from their own poor arguments.

He adapted the content of his speeches to suit the tastes of his lower-middle class, nationalist-conservative, ethnic-chauvinist listeners.

The speech writer and publicist will target whatever voter is likely to vote for the speaker. The speaker will use his/her skills on this list
He peppered his speeches with coarse phrases and put-downs of hecklers.
Normal and with humour also, a good speaker will simply stop the person(s) with a smart reply
He offered himself as the visionary leader who could restore law and order.
Normal
I will add two more

WAFFLING.
This is a skill where a politician will appear to ‘beat about the bush’ and one British minister (whose name I don’t recall) explained that in response to a difficult question he would talk in circles giving him time to look at the question and come back with an answer.

ATTACKING the candidate not their policies.
Normal though it should not be.

 

[Tristan Scott]

 

[Jarhyn]

So, as if my argument needed any more support, how about that direct confession that he would use the power of his office to crucify Hillary, regardless of her guilt. For the record, that's what Hitler called the Secret Service. If he is really willing to use his power to take out his opponent, do you think for one second he won't continue his agenda of silencing his detractors in the media with threats of lawsuits (for which there is a long and well established record)?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Torture! Torture! Torture! Trump will legalize waterboarding and worse than waterboarding. Trump vows we must be more savage than the radical Islamicist savages. Kill families of Islamicists. Trump is a moral danger if he can sell this set of policies to millions of Americans.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, as if my argument needed any more support, how about that direct confession that he would use the power of his office to crucify Hillary, regardless of her guilt. For the record, that's what Hitler called the Secret Service. If he is really willing to use his power to take out his opponent, do you think for one second he won't continue his agenda of silencing his detractors in the media with threats of lawsuits (for which there is a long and well established record)?

Do you really think that Donald Trump gave that much thought to the implications and consequences of what he said?

Fascism requires commitment, effort and energy. Trump has none of those. If he somehow manages to become President, he'll have small doses of fascism here and there, of course, but mostly he won't take the trouble to bother.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Torture! Torture! Torture! Trump will legalize waterboarding and worse than waterboarding. Trump vows we must be more savage than the radical Islamicist savages. Kill families of Islamicists. Trump is a moral danger if he can sell this set of policies to millions of Americans.

I thought the US is using waterboarding anyway if not officially. I doubt if this would ever be legalized, but that does not exclude the possibility of it being used.

 

[Jarhyn]

You say that now, and people said the same about Hitler. He wasn't taken seriously, but the fact of the matter is, he is as serious as he needs to be; if he has momentum, he will just keep going, as has been seen often in history. Sure, he was just saying it idly NOW, but given a SCOTUS full of cronies, and his sycophant supporters most any idiot would be able to say 'Well, why not?' and just keep going as long as he can.

Your problem is that you don't understand that in the context of a national mandate and the power to actually accoumplish megalomaniacal goals, a bully and a cheat can quickly turn into a fascist dictator.

As others in this thread have already pointed out, Hitler was much the same.

 

[Elixir]

So, as if my argument needed any more support, how about that direct confession that he would use the power of his office to crucify Hillary, regardless of her guilt. For the record, that's what Hitler called the Secret Service. If he is really willing to use his power to take out his opponent, do you think for one second he won't continue his agenda of silencing his detractors in the media with threats of lawsuits (for which there is a long and well established record)?

Given the chance I'm certain he'd do just that. In reality only about a third of the electorate wants to empower him to lock up Hillary and prosecute Judge Curiel for shedding light on his habitually fraudulent business practices.

Personally I am hoping that his brand is taking such a beating that soon after losing the election, he will run out of other people's money with which to pay lawyers to bully people.

 

[ZiprHead]

Maine Gov. Paul LePage stood by Donald Trump in a radio interview on Tuesday, saying that the United States might need someone like the GOP nominee to show "authoritarian power," and dismissing concerns over an audiotape leaked last week that showed Trump describing how he forces himself upon women.

"Sometimes, I wonder that our Constitution is not only broken, but we need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country and bring back the rule of law because we've had eight years of a president, he's an autocrat, he just does it on his own, he ignores Congress and every single day, we're slipping into anarchy," LePage said on Maine radio station WVOM.

The current president is too autocratic, and to correct the country, we need someone even more autocratic?

Is there any other way to interpret LePage's quote?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/politics/paul-lepage-authoritarian-power/index.html

 

[Elixir]

Is there any other way to interpret LePage's quote?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/politics/paul-lepage-authoritarian-power/index.html

A political suicide note?