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