Interesting analysis of al-Qaeda

[Eiru]

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

It's a long read but it definitely helped me to focus my views of the terrorist acts performed by al-Qaeda.

A pertinent point from the analysis:

"[S]uch Clausewitzian terror is quite remote from the symbolic drama enacted by al Qaeda on 9-11 — a great ritual demonstrating the power of Allah, a pageant designed to convey a message not to the American people, but to the Arab world. A campaign of smaller-scale acts of terror would have no glamour in it, and it was glamour — and grandiosity — that al Qaeda was seeking in its targets. The pure Islamic David required a Goliath. After all, if David had merely killed someone his own size, where would be the evidence of God’s favor toward him?

Are we at war?

If this interpretation is correct, then it is time that we reconsider some of our basic policy in the war on terror. First of all, it should be obvious that if our enemy is motivated purely by a fantasy ideology, it is absurd for us to look for the so-called “root” causes of terrorism in poverty, lack of education, a lack of democracy, etc. Such factors play absolutely no role in the creation of a fantasy ideology. On the contrary, fantasy ideologies have historically been the product of members of the intelligentsia, middle-class at the very least and vastly better educated than average. Furthermore, to hope that democratic reform would discourage radical Islam ignores the fact that previous fantasy ideologies have historically arisen in a democratic context; as the student of European fascism, Ernst Nolte, has observed, parliamentary democracy was an essential precondition for the rise of both Mussolini and Hitler."

Italics added.

[Swifty_Johnson]

parliamentary democracy was an essential precondition for the rise of both Mussolini and Hitler

False. Hitler and Mussolini's rise to power were the results of local conditions not caused by the local goverment. The world depression, threat of commies, and extream nationalism heralded thier rise to power. IF there was no depression, than neither would have amounted to much.

Swifty

[Sparky]

False. Hitler and Mussolini's rise to power were the results of local conditions not caused by the local goverment. The world depression, threat of commies, and extream nationalism heralded thier rise to power. IF there was no depression, than neither would have amounted to much.

Swifty

They wouldn't have had the ability to take power the way they did without parliamentary democracy opening the way.

[Eiru]

Swifty, for once, can you read the article and not throw out the baby with the bathwater because you feel one section doesn't match with your own analysis?

[Eiru]

False. Hitler and Mussolini's rise to power were the results of local conditions not caused by the local goverment. The world depression, threat of commies, and extream nationalism heralded thier rise to power. IF there was no depression, than neither would have amounted to much.

Swifty

Also, Swifty, if I do want point out one thing. The writer states that democratic governments can be a breading ground for "fantasy ideology", not that the ideology was a RESULT of the governments. Instead, we can place democratic government among a series of conditions which can lead to a national platform for proclaiming an fantasy ideology. You read the quote wrong.

EDIT: Oops. Sorry, Sparky covered that point. My mistake.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Swifty, for once, can you read the article and not throw out the baby with the bathwater because you feel one section doesn't match with your own analysis?

Huh? I commented on one part of the article that was grossly incorrect, and is has nothing to do with *my* analysis. I didn't comment on the rest as I have not studied the motivation of terrorists and have no opinion.

They wouldn't have had the ability to take power the way they did without parliamentary democracy opening the way.

They built up a base of popular support than they seized power. The fact that the goverments were parliamentary democracies is irrelvant. All that did was negate the need for a civil war. They were getting control of their countries becasue they wanted to.

Here is another "observation" from Ernst Nolte.

We should leave behind the view that the opposite of National Socialist goals is always good and right." He added that because Nazism was the "strongest of all counter forces" to Bolshevism, a movement with wide Jewish support, Hitler may have had "rational" reasons for attacking the Jews.

I don't think it takes much to refute this observation.

Also, Swifty, if I do want point out one thing. The writer states that democratic governments can be a breading ground for "fantasy ideology", not that the ideology was a RESULT of the governments.

That's like saying McDonalds is the breeding ground for fat people. the type of goverment is irrelvent to how radical ideologies get started and take over. Where did Osama find a breeding ground for his radical Islam? Afganistan. Now look at that place, poor, lacking many resources, and more importantly many under and un-educated people.

fantasy ideologies have historically been the product of members of the intelligentsia, middle-class at the very least and vastly better educated than average.

Yes, he has a valid point here, but the statement before,

if our enemy is motivated purely by a fantasy ideology, it is absurd for us to look for the so-called “root” causes of terrorism in poverty, lack of education, a lack of democracy, etc. Such factors play absolutely no role in the creation of a fantasy ideology.

This part is mostly incorrect. Poverty and lack of education are the breeding ground for those better educated people to plant the seeds of their ideology. These provide the foot soldiers for the better educated to carry out and spread their ideology.

Although I will add a bit of backround information that a friend from Peru gave me.

When Montezuma learned of Cortés’s arrival, he was at a loss to know what to make of the event. Who were these white-skinned alien beings? What had they come for? What were their intentions?

Actually Montezuma knew exactly what his arrival meant. You see, long before Columbus and Cortez an unknown white man arrived in south America. This strange man taught the local farmers better farming methods and other strange wounders from distant lands. This man left promising to return with others and teach them more.

Montezuma thought Cortez and his men was the promised return of the white man and his friends. Cortez soon dispelled that notion, but it was too late for the Aztec and Montezuma.

Hope you enjoyed that little bit of history.

Swifty

[Eiru]

1. The original quote said "essential precondition for the rise of both Mussolini and Hitler". The quote says nothing about democratic governments causing the rise of either Mussolini or Hitler. Causes create, conditions facilitate. The rise to political power of both men can be found in various preexisting causes and conditions. The nature of the government in both Italy and Germany was one of these preconditions.

2. The fact that the governments were parlimentary democracies is not irrelevent. If either Italy or Germany were dictatorships or monarchies, rest assured both Mussolini and Hitler would have been brutally crushed. Saddam kept the radical Shi'ites down even though they had cause to rebel.

3. Where on earth did that quote come from and how is it germain to the link I posted?

4. Your comparison is true to a point. Root causes create all sorts of ideologies. These ideologies flourish or die based on the current conditions in a society which facilitate or exterminate those ideologies. McDonald's is definitely a breading ground for obesity. Other conditions in the society, however, balance out the effectiveness of this breading ground.

5. Now you are the one who is simplifying. Here's a little more history. Cortez faced off a whole empire. How did he defeat them? Well, on the one hand we have Montezuma thinking that Cortez was the return of Quezalcoatle, the white man and hugely important god in the Aztec pantheon. The other side of the equation is that Cortez made immediate allies of those people under the brutal thumb of Aztec rule who felt that helping out these strange white men was infinitely preferable to having your heart cut out by your rulers while you're still alive. The precondition of a brutal empire facilitated the conquest of that empire. Here we have a perfect example of how a form of government can be a precondition for a dramatic change.

EDIT: For the record, Osama is from a highly placed, highly educate, highly rich family. He definitely falls under the rubric of the author I posted. Are you saying the fact that the Taliban (a radical Islamic fundamentalist government) was in power when Osama made Afganistan his base had nothing to do with where he decided to set up camp?

[Hammer]

The message that the root causes are irrelivant is a good one. I don't care why you want to do the things you do, just that you must be stopped from doing them.

Not sure about his Hitler/Mussolinni point though. How would he explain the rise of Communismin Russia? It was a monarchy. Hitler and Mussolini were able to rise with less bloodshed but it's clearly not the only path.

[Eiru]

Good question, Hammer. Right off the top of my head, I would suggest that there were many other conditions involved in the of the Soviet State out of Monarchist Russa. I think World War I played a huge part in the dissolusion of the Russian people. Before that war, the monarchy was doing an excellent job of keeping the Communists down.

[Swifty_Johnson]

The nature of the government in both Italy and Germany was one of these preconditions.

Again, wrong. That's like saying McDonalds is a precondition to being fat.

If either Italy or Germany were dictatorships or monarchies, rest assured both Mussolini and Hitler would have been brutally crushed.

Again, wrong. Russia was a Monarchie, yet Lennin and Stalin flurished. Becasue of ecnomic conditions, both Hitler and Mussolini were able to convince the people that they were the ones to make thing better for them. In Germany, Hitler was also able to convince the military that he would right the wrongs of WWI, where the evil goverment stabbed them in the back. Once you have the population, and/or the military behind you, toppling the govement is eazy. The Shaw of Iran was also disposed by a radical movement that seized the goverment, saying a democracy is a precondition is incorrect.

Other conditions in the society, however, balance out the effectiveness of this breading ground.

Yes, and far less democratic goverements have been taken over by radical elements vs dictators. Democracy gives the people a voice in the goverment, and when they have this voice they are less likely to give it up unless there is a perceived threat to the general population.

3. Where on earth did that quote come from and how is it germain to the link I posted?

Both the " parliamentary democracy was an essential precondition for the rise of both Mussolini and Hitler" quote and "We should leave behind the view that the opposite of National Socialist goals is always good and right." He added that because Nazism was the "strongest of all counter forces" to Bolshevism, a movement with wide Jewish support, Hitler may have had "rational" reasons for attacking the Jews. " come from the same man, Ernst Nolte. This just gives insite into his thinking process.

Now you are the one who is simplifying. Here's a little more history. Cortez faced off a whole empire. How did he defeat them? Well, on the one hand we have Montezuma thinking that Cortez was the return of Quezalcoatle, the white man and hugely important god in the Aztec pantheon.

Of course I oversimplifed, it was alittle backround information. It's unfortuantly that some unknown missonary actually discovered America long before Columbus, but he appearently died on the way back and he will never be known, nor get the credit he deserves. :( The author of the artical was also ignortant of his tale and legacy.

Swifty

[Eiru]

1. McDonalds is a precondition to being fat. The presence of an abundant supply of cheap, fat laden food is a precondition for obesity in a population. Explain to me how this invalidates the argument that an existing form of government can be a precondition for radical change?

2. "In the May 5 elections of 1932, Hindenburg defeated Hitler 53% to 37% for the presidency, but there was no majority in the Reichstag for any party; in the July31 elections the Nazis won 230 seats with 37% of the vote and became the largest German party, but dropped to 33% in the Nov. 6 elections; Dec. 1, Kurt von Schleicher replaced Franz von Papen as Chancellor but instability increased." Where is the majority of people convinced by Hitler to "sweep" him into power? Sounds more like the electorate was split and as a consequence, the German government had no central majority controlling power. Hitler managed to weasle himself into chancelorship in this confused and chaotic malstrom. Once in power, Hitler began the moves that would eventually bring all the people over to his side. Are you still saying that the nature of the German government had nothing to do with Hitler's rise to power?

Many other conditions were involved in both the case of Russia and the Shah. As I mentioned in my reply to Hammer, the Tsar and the Duma were doing a great job of keeping the Commies down before WWI.

3. As we can clearly see from the example of Hitler, if people have a say in the government, they are more likely to put into power that person who will "protect" them from external threat, appeal to their cultural beliefs (ie. the "Volk") and stand up for them against percieved oppression (ie. refuse to honour the Versaille Peace accord). Now, let's keep something in perspective here. Nolte is talking about fascism in particular. Where else have we seen fascist governments establish themselves? I recall no fascist governments establishing themselves in dictatorships or monarchies. We have evidence and from this evidence we make conclusions. If Saudi Arabia evolved into a fascist government over the next year or two, I'll be happy to eat my words.

4. Indeed, doing a Google search for Nolte, I came across this article: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/aug2000/nolt-a17.shtml. It seems Nolte is a bit of a controversial figure. Bearing that in mind, we can certainly take his stance on the "Jewish question" as a point of departure for debate. I am not going to defend the man. The point referenced in the article, however, is well made. Again, can we come up with any other form of government which has submitted to and evolved into a fascist government?

5. Your history lesson is well taken. Which, however, was more important in the overthrow of the Aztecs, Montezuma's personal beliefs or the fact that so many Indians under the brutal yoke of the Aztecs decided that the arrival of Cortez was their chance to rebel?

[Swifty_Johnson]

McDonalds is a precondition to being fat. The presence of an abundant supply of cheap, fat laden food is a precondition for obesity in a population.

Do all fat people eat at McDonalds? No. So you cannot blame McDonalds for people being fat.

Where is the majority of people convinced by Hitler to "sweep" him into power?

After he was put into the Chancelorship there was the burning of the Reichtag that Hitler successsfully used to seige power, and a majority of the people supported him in that move becasue of the perceived threat.

Are you still saying that the nature of the German government had nothing to do with Hitler's rise to power?

I'm saying the goverment type is irrelvant. Hitler was taking power becasue he wanted to, not because of the goverment type. Germany could have been a dictatorship and Hitler still would have seized power, with differant methods. The type of Goverment as a precondition to the rise to power is incorrect.

Where else have we seen fascist governments establish themselves? I recall no fascist governments establishing themselves in dictatorships or monarchies.

That's becasue the people who were the major fascists just happened to be in democracies. Differant idelogies germinate in differant areas, fascism just appealed to the people in Germany/Italy/Spain more than anywhere else. There was a Nazi party in the U.S.A. and England before WWII, it just never took root. (where if you belive the essential precondition, we should have been all over fascism, esp England.)

Again, can we come up with any other form of government which has submitted to and evolved into a fascist government?

Irrelvant. Goverments get overthrown all the time, idelogy is not the important factor. The conditions before the overthrow is, and there were allot more important conditions to the rise of Hitler than the goverment type. Hitler's was only able to take power becasue he exploited the economic condiditons and put himself into the place that he was in because he convinced the German people that he was able to fix the country and get them jobs. When he did this, he had Germany hook line and sinker. Stalin was very much like Hitler, both had the desire to climb to power, and both attained it. Both salughtered millions while holding power.

The desire to seize power is not fueled but a countries' goverment type, it was fueled by the person's desire who than explotied the conditions of the country to attain power. The type of goverment just dictates what tactics to use. Stalin had a bloodier time to take power, that's becasue of the differant goverment type, he still attained it though.

Montezuma's personal beliefs or the fact that so many Indians under the brutal yoke of the Aztecs decided that the arrival of Cortez was their chance to rebel?

It wasn't just Montezuma's personal beliefs. EVERYONE in that area believed that these were the same peaceful whitemen returned to make their lifes better. Instead of the previous missionaries, they got Cortez, a man who's only intent was on making his life better. They left the yoke of the aztecs, and got the yoke of the spanish. Out of the frying pan and into the fire. Certanitly not what they'd thought happen.

Swifty

[spyder913]

There was a Nazi party in the U.S.A. and England before WWII, it just never took root. (where if you belive the essential precondition, we should have been all over fascism, esp England.)He didn't say that having a democracy->a rise of facism.
He said having a democracy->the ability for facism to rise.

True or not -- at least argue with what he was saying, not a different version of it.

[Swifty_Johnson]

He said the essential precondition of facism's raise was a parliamentary democracy, which is incorrect. That's like saying McDonalds is the essential precondition of being fat.

The key world is essential. As history has demostrated the type of goverment is irrelvant to the rise of radical idelogy. If the essential precondition if fasism is truely a parliamentary democracy, than England should have been flag waving fasicts just like Germany, Italy and Spain. Yet it never happened, nor was it even close. There are more important conditions than the goverment.

Swifty

[Eiru]

As much as I hate responding like this (I personally feel that if you can't respond to someone's post without interjecting your own thoughts, you really need to rethink how you post), maybe doing so will help straighten things out. I understand your point, Swifty. You are saying that if Hitler wanted to seize power, nothing would stand in his way. I am saying that you are probably correct but that there are certain factors about 1930s Germany that helped facilitate his rise to power. That being said, let's dig in, shall we?

Do all fat people eat at McDonalds? No. So you cannot blame McDonalds for people being fat.

I am not blaming McDonalds for people being fat. I never have. Not once in any post on this thread. I am saying McDonalds facilitates being fat. Remember, conditions are not the same as causes. Go back, read what I wrote and then answer the question: how does the fact that an abundant supply of cheap, calorie-laden food is a condition for obesity in a population argue against the idea that a government can be a precondition for a radical change?

After he was put into the Chancelorship there was the burning of the Reichtag that Hitler successsfully used to seige power, and a majority of the people supported him in that move becasue of the perceived threat.

That was after he was in the Chancelorship. The point that Nolte makes, and that I agree with, is that the nature of German government was such that it facilitated Hilter's rise to power and grabbing of the Chancelorship.

I'm saying the goverment type is irrelvant. Hitler was taking power becasue he wanted to, not because of the goverment type. Germany could have been a dictatorship and Hitler still would have seized power, with differant methods. The type of Goverment as a precondition to the rise to power is incorrect.

Incorrect (to quote someone). Hitler already tried the coup. It was called the Beer Hall Putch and it failed. Reading up on German history, it lookes like there were several coup attempts by right- and left-wing groups during this period. They all failed. How did Hitler succeed? By campaigning and getting elected in a free an democratic way.

That's becasue the people who were the major fascists just happened to be in democracies. Differant idelogies germinate in differant areas, fascism just appealed to the people in Germany/Italy/Spain more than anywhere else. There was a Nazi party in the U.S.A. and England before WWII, it just never took root. (where if you belive the essential precondition, we should have been all over fascism, esp England.)

The English upper class were all over fascism. So were quite a few Americans. The question is, what did those fascists want to accomplish. Did they want to overthrow the English or American governments? The answer to that question seems to be "no". Now, that being said, would the election of a fascist in England or America be unthinkable? It depends on the conditions, doesn't it. The fact that a fascist could be elected certainly suggests that America and England would be susceptable to a fascist government. What other conditions prevented this from happening?

Irrelvant. Goverments get overthrown all the time, idelogy is not the important factor. The conditions before the overthrow is, and there were allot more important conditions to the rise of Hitler than the goverment type. Hitler's was only able to take power becasue he exploited the economic condiditons and put himself into the place that he was in because he convinced the German people that he was able to fix the country and get them jobs. When he did this, he had Germany hook line and sinker. Stalin was very much like Hitler, both had the desire to climb to power, and both attained it. Both salughtered millions while holding power.

If a government is corrupt, is that not a condition for it's overthrow? As I mentioned above Hitler tried the coup and failed. How did he succeed in gaining power? Yes, Hitler convinced the people that he was the man for them. What did they do? They elected him. After the people of Germany elected Hitler in a free and democratic way, then he began his abuse of power.

The desire to seize power is not fueled but a countries' goverment type, it was fueled by the person's desire who than explotied the conditions of the country to attain power. The type of goverment just dictates what tactics to use. Stalin had a bloodier time to take power, that's becasue of the differant goverment type, he still attained it though.

Again, you're confusing things. Let me restate for the umpteenth time: we are not saying a government causes a desire to seize power. We are saying a government can be a condition for a certain change. The existance of a brutal dictatorship can be a condition for rebellion. In this instance the ability to elect a fascist can be a condition for that fascist taking power. Note how in the example I used (the dictatorship), the condition created a different result. Nolte is saying a democratic government allows fascists to be elected. How those fascists appeal to the populace to gain election is a separate story. The fact of the matter is: Hitler and Mussolini were elected democratically. That is, the type of government of Germany and Italy facilitated their rise to power. It didn't cause their desire for power, it helped them gain power.

It wasn't just Montezuma's personal beliefs. EVERYONE in that area believed that these were the same peaceful whitemen returned to make their lifes better. Instead of the previous missionaries, they got Cortez, a man who's only intent was on making his life better. They left the yoke of the aztecs, and got the yoke of the spanish. Out of the frying pan and into the fire. Certanitly not what they'd thought happen.

Now you're conflating causes with outcomes. If the Aztec empire were not an empire based on violence and slavery, if instead it was a peaceful, well run empire, how would Cortez be greeted when it was revealed that he did not have the Indian's best interests at heart? I would submit that if the Aztecs didn't use terror to control their empire, if their subjects were loyal to their rulers, then as soon as Cortez revealed himself to not be the return of that white man, action would be taken to destroy him. Remember now, Cortez had a limited number of men. How did that limited number of men take over an empire of millions? With allies. Why did Indians ally themselves with Cortez? Because they were tired of Aztec rule. Once again, we see that a government can be a condition for radical change.

[spyder913]

The key world is essential. As history has demostrated the type of goverment is irrelvant to the rise of radical idelogy. If the essential precondition if fasism is truely a parliamentary democracy, than England should have been flag waving fasicts just like Germany, Italy and Spain. Yet it never happened, nor was it even close. There are more important conditions than the goverment.

SwiftyEssential does NOT mean that the outcome will happen.

It is an essential precondtion to having a heart attack that you have a heart. This does not mean that every person with a heart has had or will have a heart attack. Only that it is impossible without.

I am NOT arguing that the assumption is true. I'm arguing with your logic, which was incorrect.

[Eiru]

Yeah, I'm arguing that the assumption is true. :D

[Swifty_Johnson]

Essential does NOT mean that the outcome will happen.

Of course not, but is does mean that without it, it never would have happened, which is incorrect.

Yes, Hitler convinced the people that he was the man for them. What did they do? They elected him. After the people of Germany elected Hitler in a free and democratic way, then he began his abuse of power.

Hitler was never elected, he was apointed. He was only apointed becasue he had lots of support. This support was the essential precondition of his rise to power, not the type of goverment that was in Germany at the time. Without the popular support, Hitler would have been rotting in jail. It wasn't the nature of the goverment that had anything to do with his support base, it was the conditions in Germany at that time.

Again, histroy shows us that radicaly idelogy is independant of goverment type. No particular type of goverment will spawn a certain type of idelogy.

Swifty

[spyder913]

Of course not, but is does mean that without it, it never would have happened, which is incorrect.That is correct. You were saying differently before though.

[Eiru]

Of course not, but is does mean that without it, it never would have happened, which is incorrect.

Hitler was never elected, he was apointed. He was only apointed becasue he had lots of support. This support was the essential precondition of his rise to power, not the type of goverment that was in Germany at the time. Without the popular support, Hitler would have been rotting in jail. It wasn't the nature of the goverment that had anything to do with his support base, it was the conditions in Germany at that time.

Again, histroy shows us that radicaly idelogy is independant of goverment type. No particular type of goverment will spawn a certain type of idelogy.

Swifty

You're right. I'm sorry. Hitler wasn't elected. He was almost elected. When he lost the race for president the Nazi party members which WERE elected were part of the pressure on Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to Chancelorship.

Once again, you're confusing things. Nolte did NOT state that a democratic government SPAWNED fascism. He is stating that democratic government is essential to facilitating the rise to power of fascists. I would agree with that statement. You disagree. We have each presented evidence for our opinions. Let me make one thing clear, however. Because I agree with the statement and you don't agree with the statement doesn't mean statement right or wrong. As we can clearly see from this exchange, you have presented evidence to back up your assertion and I have done the same. At this point, we need to examine Nolte's arguments for his assersion. Examining his argument will allow us to understand WHY he is making this assertion. Examining his argument will allow us to view his evidence, assess it for ourselves and then make a judgement of how germain his statement is to the development of fascism in Europe.

I, by and large, will still assert that a particular type of government can be a catalyst for extreme change. Governments can also be a lid on change.

So, here we are, you saying it's not right and me - for the most part - saying you're confusing the issue. Without resorting to the WHY, we cannot resolve this. So, do you want to start reading Nolte or shall I?

[Eiru]

Interesting writings here to put the Nazi rise to power in perspective.

1. Up until a certain point, the nazis were just another band of loonies. This essay also suggests that the people must choose to be lead for fascism to work.
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/humanities/Roger/appnaz.html

2. Check out Proposition Three: Economic difficulty or failure crushes the democratic spirit
http://www.civiced.org/german_conference2000_schadler.html

3. Interesting time line that suggests that where the nazis failed with force, they succeeded with elections. Check the entry for 1928 May and then 1930 September 14
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-ger/

4. Political intricacies seemed to play more a role in Hitler's rise to power than out and out violent revolution. Note that throughout this document, it is the votes of the people that decide the outcome.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/collapse.htm

[Swifty_Johnson]

Ernst Nolte, has observed, parliamentary democracy was an essential precondition

Notice, what Nolte said here.

Now, as you stated before, the Nazis were not too well liked when they first formed. In order to get elected in a parliamentary democracy , one must have people vote for them. (unless it's based in Chicago.)

Now, there is one essential precondition, popular support with the people. Without support of the people, your radical movement isn't going anywhere.

So, how did a racist genocidel maniac get the support of the people?

This doesn't happen on a whime. People don't wake up one day and decide, "Hey, I'm going to vote for the party of the racist genocidel maniac!"

That's leads to another essential precondition, economic factors. If the current parties are screwing the pooch and people are loosing jobs, than people will vote for change. If the current parties have everyone happily employed, than no change is needed, therefore the people do not vote for it. As long as people feel insecure, than they will seek to vote in security.

BUT, if the economic conditions are correct, and the genocidel maniac is charasmatic enough, he can force a change to the goverment, REGUARDLESS of the govemrent type.

That is why the type of goverment isn't relavant.

Swifty

[Sparky]

This doesn't happen on a whime. People don't wake up one day and decide, "Hey, I'm going to vote for the party of the racist genocidel maniac!"


They didn't vote for a genocidal maniac. He blamed all the problems of the country on the jewish, created a common enemy (the easiest way to unite people) and went from there. Because of the way our goverment is set up the president could never get away with dissolving congress no matter how charismatic he is or what 'reasons' he has.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Because of the way our goverment is set up the president could never get away with dissolving congress no matter how charismatic he is or what 'reasons' he has.

I'm shure the Germans in the 30s thought that way too. Yes, it can happen here, harder but with the sheep that are walking around this country nowdays, yes it can happen here.

They didn't vote for a genocidal maniac. He blamed all the problems of the country on the jewish, created a common enemy (the easiest way to unite people) and went from there.

That's only part of the answer, he also offered to restore the German image and create jobs.

Wait, Kerry is blaming all of American's problems on Republicans, says he'll restore American's image and create jobs!!!!!

My god, he's the next genocidel dictator!!!! :)

Swifty

[Eiru]

So, Swifty, we've found that Nolte contradicts himself in quotes. At this point, what do we do?

[Swifty_Johnson]

Going over some of Nolte's work, I'd say the man isn't a credible source, almost an apolagetic for what happened in WWII.

Is the case of Nazi Germany, you really can't point the finger at one factor and say "That's it!" For something like Nazi Germany to happen, it takes several factors, and goverment type really isn't any sort of essential precondition. Goverment type merly dictates the methods one uses to take over it. A democracy lets someone take over a goverment and bypass the old method of bloody civil war.

ONE thing we should all be aware of, the next Hitler can rise to power anywhere, yes even here in the United States of American. While goverment type isn't a preconditon to the rise of a dictator, it also isn't a protection from it either.

It is the duty of "we the people" to keep America strong and dictator free. We must not just blindly state, that cannot happen here. We must be active and take part in the goverment. You realise that less than 50% of American's vote! So what would it take for a ruthless dictator to seize control of the U.S.A.?

About 25% of Americans supporting him.

Hitler had 37% of Germans supporting him.

Swifty

[Eiru]

I see your point, Swifty. My problem is that the more I read about the rise of Hitler, the more convinced I become that the state of German democracy was an essential precondition of his rise to power.

All of the documentation I've read points to the fact that (a) the nazis basically immitated other political parties of the time with mass rallies and marches for support; (b) the Weimar Republic was always seen as a foreign impossition by the German public; (c) Hitler's rise to Chancellorship was more due to the political machinations behind the scenes than his support by the general populace; (d) Hitler at one point was depressed that he didn't have the Chancelorship and the nazi party almost fell apart.

From what I've read, it seems there were several big things that turned the tables towards Hitler: (1)the Great Depression causes people to lose faith in the Weimar Republic which lead to the (2) polarization of the German public into fringe parties (both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis benefited from the loss of support in the Reichtag) which allowed (3) the Nazis to gain a foothold in the government. Before that, they were just another fringe party no one paid attention to.

The actual transfer of the Chanselorship was really based on the political machinations of folks who wanted to be Chanselor and who thought Hitler was a convenient political tool to use to get what they wanted. All their efforts crapped out, however, paving the way for Hitler.

Ideology is not created by a particular form of government. I never claimed it was. I was perhaps too gung-ho in defending Nolte's assertion, however. Be that as it may, I cannot say with any certainty that the then-current German government wasn't a key factor in the rise of Hilter. If anything, after the failure of the Putch, Hitler agressively persued power through conventional means. I suppose once the revolution failed, Hitler basically said, ok, let's get it the old fashioned way, let's get voted in.

So like I said, I can certainly see your point that the government may not be an essential precondition; but in this case, it seems to my reading (at least) that it was one of the preconditions. I've been known to be wrong before, however.

Let's suggest an alternate scenario. Let's assume that the Weimar Republic was able to provide for the citizens through the Great Depression. Let's assume that the Nazis stayed a fringe party. Would they have siezed power anyway? I don't think so. From what I've read, Hitler was keenly aware that the army could easily come down on him and his party if things got out of hand. Support from the army was key to keeping power. If the state of Bavaria could put down the Putch, how much more able would the state army of Germany be at putting down a general Nazi uprising?

So, while I can agree with you that democracy may not be an essential precondition for the rise of fascism, it still looks to me like a government can be an essential precondition for radical change. We need only look to my example of the Aztecs to see how their political structure eventually spelled their doom.

Or let's look at it from another point of view. If the British government agreed with the colonists that taxation without representation was too onerous a burden and gave the colonists an increase in control of their own affairs, would the American Revolution have happened?

[Swifty_Johnson]

Actually, the thinking at the time Hitler was apointed Chancellor, was that it was an easy was to appease his followers, AND keep an eye on him. Little did the people in power know at the time, how far Hitler was going to go to seize total power.

If the great depression did not happen at the time, than there was zero chance of the Nazi party getting any foothold at all. Also, if Germany didn't recover well, he was out on his keister. :)

Hitler was keenly aware that the army could easily come down on him and his party if things got out of hand.

This is why he did lots of sucking up to the Military, promising rebuilding, ect. Hitler was good at one thing, playing to the audience. He knew what to say and when to say it.

Swifty

[Popo]

any of you guys read political blogs? if so pls post which :P

[Eiru]

Actually, the thinking at the time Hitler was apointed Chancellor, was that it was an easy was to appease his followers, AND keep an eye on him. Little did the people in power know at the time, how far Hitler was going to go to seize total power.

This website seems to indicate that Hitler got the chancelorship be default when everyone else fell through. It also suggests that Germany was already heading down the path towards totaletarianism with just about everyone and their dog declaring a state of emergency. Care to comment?

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/collapse.htm

[Swifty_Johnson]

That article didn't go into the reasons why Papen and Hindenburg gave Hitler the Chancelorship. Both Papen and Hindenburg believed that they could control Hitler, watch him, and though him get to his followers. In reality they never realised how much Hitler played them to get what he wanted.

Swifty

[Eiru]

Very interesting. Can you point me towards some resources for more information on that?

[Swifty_Johnson]

If you get the history channel, in their specials on brutal dictators they go over it well, my of my books are still boxed from when I moved in 1999, so I can't give any referances until I dig them out.

Swifty

[Eiru]

You, personally, don't think that von Papen played along with Hitler, convincing Hindenburg that he could control Hitler in order to get Hitler into power and assure a place for himself in the government?

[Swifty_Johnson]

Remember at that point, Papen went from a somebody, to a nobody. This was his only chance back into power. Papen figured he and Hindenburg could reign in and control Hitler, and get the support of the Nazis. Unfortuantly Hitler played Papen and Papen didn't realize it until to late.

Swifty