4 ms·

You don't care, doesn't mean you SHOULD not care. Public apathy from smart people was probably behind what happened in 1930s Germany.

tcpabc123 9y ago
zuckerberg is raised jewish don't throw around nazi facebook comparisons you're better than that
ekianjo 9y ago
no, that is not really what happened in 30s germany. You had a country in deep economical crisis, and huge political fight for power. Smart people were far from passive, on the contrary they took sides.
duncan_bayne 9y ago
Apathy? A lot of smart people were active supporters of the National Socialists, at least before they started losing the war. The Ominous Parallels[1] explores this, and the parallels with current American politics: The Nazis did not gain power against the country’s wishes…The Nazi party was elected to office by the freely cast ballots of millions of German voters, including men on every social, economic, and educational level. In the national election of July 1932, the Nazis obtained 37 percent of the vote and a plurality of seats in the Reichstag. On January 30, 1933, in full accordance with the country’s legal and constitutional principles, Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Five weeks later, in the last (and semi-free) election of the pre-totalitarian period, the Nazis obtained 17 million votes, 44 percent of the total… In 1933, when Hitler did establish the system he had promised, he did not find it necessary to forbid foreign travel. Until World War II, those Germans who wished to flee the country could do so. The overwhelming majority did not. They were satisfied to remain… [1] https://www.amazon.com/Ominous-Parallels-End-Freedom-America/dp/081282850X https://www.amazon.com/Ominous-Parallels-End-Freedom-America...
rhizome 9y ago
Ha ha, no. They were into it.
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
What? There were so many different reasons, and apathy definitely wasn't one of them. You know what was the main driving force though? Anger, anger and resentment. Germans felt treated badly after WWI, the war contributions were extremely high, people were starving, inflation was higher than in Venezuela today. These were the circumstances that shaped NSDAP. Apathy? No, many German smart people were in favor of changes at the beginning. I simply can't understand all these Nazi analogies all around, as if people had no idea what the Weimar Republic was and all their knowledge of the interwar period is based on some Hollywood movies.
- Khaine 9y ago
  It wasn't just anger. It was also forged by fear of the rising communists by the upper and middle class, and the political chaos of the times. The far right and far left would regularly be in street brawls. Regular people wanted peace and prosperity. The NSDAP promised law and order, and to improve the economy.
- lovelearning 9y ago
  I downvoted your comment, because it just summarily dismisses the role of apathy. No doubt many people supported the nazis for all the reasons you quote. But why weren't there mass protests or resistance of any note against all the book burnings and all the targeting of jews in the 30s? The absence of any notable resistance to nazi policies before the war is a strong indicator of apathy. As a resident of a country that is currently going through ultra-nationalist propaganda, brainwashing and violence against sections of our society, I strongly feel apathy of the masses towards persecuted countrymen is, and has always been, a factor in all such events and can't be so summarily dismissed.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > But why weren't there mass protests or resistance of any note against all the book burnings Why right now there aren't mass protests against free speech restrictions on university campuses? Because a) a lot of people agree with them and b) people that don't agree with them and want to protest get intimidated and scared into silence (ironically, often by being called "nazis") by threats ranging from being stalked, boycotted, forced out of the job, bullied online to the direct physical violence. See how "free speech week" in Berkeley worked out. You say "oh, that's different - now it's for the right cause!". Surely, the Germans thought exactly the same. Their cause was stability, economic prosperity, security and restoration of the pride and the glory of German nation. Why wouldn't one - without the knowledge of what followed - disagree with it? They weren't ignorant of the freedoms they are sacrificing - they thought the goal is worth it. Hopefully, now we know better. > all the targeting of jews in the 30s Louis Farrakhan is ranting about "the Jews" right now, all the time, has been doing the shtick for years. Still on Twitter and even has the blue checkmark, interviewed, hand-shaked, etc. People still go and take photo with him (yes, including Obama, in 2005). DC city council member just days ago ranted about "Jews controlling the weather". Still DC council member, and his half-hearted apology was shrugged off by his supporters as "we all talk about in private, why can't we talk about it in public?" Why there are no mass protests? Because people think nothing will come out of it, it's just some crackpots bullshitting. German people thought the same. They weren't politically apathetic, they just didn't see the threat and thought the good things Nazis promised (security, stability, order, etc.) are much more important than occasional crackpot mouthing off. They were very wrong, obviously, but they didn't know it back then.
projektir 9y ago
Almost by definition, for something of that level to happen, someone needs to be very not apathetic...
busterarm 9y ago
ahh, good ol' Godwin's Law. Politically apathetic people are just like nazis. Just like other non-progressives, right?
smsm42 9y ago
No, if you actually read about what actually happened in 1930s in Germany, the government disfunction led to people demanding more powers will be given to the government, to fix things finally and to end the instability and the economic woes. And the careful stoking of hostility between political tribes and fear of each other made people to seek the government as the ultimate arbiter and protector. Which proved to be spectacularly bad idea when it turned out the guy who ended up being appointed as the head of the government, in charge of fixing things, was Hitler, and instead used them to consolidate the power in his own and his party's hands and end the Weimar republic. People weren't passive or avoiding the politics. They just thought the right politics is to elect the right people to the government and give them all the powers. Which has a very spectacularly awful failure mode if after the powers were given turns out those people are not exactly right, but you can't take the powers back anymore.

tcpabc123 9y ago

zuckerberg is raised jewish don't throw around nazi facebook comparisons you're better than that

ekianjo 9y ago

no, that is not really what happened in 30s germany. You had a country in deep economical crisis, and huge political fight for power. Smart people were far from passive, on the contrary they took sides.

duncan_bayne 9y ago

Apathy? A lot of smart people were active supporters of the National Socialists, at least before they started losing the war. The Ominous Parallels[1] explores this, and the parallels with current American politics: The Nazis did not gain power against the country’s wishes…The Nazi party was elected to office by the freely cast ballots of millions of German voters, including men on every social, economic, and educational level. In the national election of July 1932, the Nazis obtained 37 percent of the vote and a plurality of seats in the Reichstag. On January 30, 1933, in full accordance with the country’s legal and constitutional principles, Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Five weeks later, in the last (and semi-free) election of the pre-totalitarian period, the Nazis obtained 17 million votes, 44 percent of the total… In 1933, when Hitler did establish the system he had promised, he did not find it necessary to forbid foreign travel. Until World War II, those Germans who wished to flee the country could do so. The overwhelming majority did not. They were satisfied to remain… [1] https://www.amazon.com/Ominous-Parallels-End-Freedom-America/dp/081282850X https://www.amazon.com/Ominous-Parallels-End-Freedom-America...

rhizome 9y ago

Ha ha, no. They were into it.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

What? There were so many different reasons, and apathy definitely wasn't one of them. You know what was the main driving force though? Anger, anger and resentment. Germans felt treated badly after WWI, the war contributions were extremely high, people were starving, inflation was higher than in Venezuela today. These were the circumstances that shaped NSDAP. Apathy? No, many German smart people were in favor of changes at the beginning. I simply can't understand all these Nazi analogies all around, as if people had no idea what the Weimar Republic was and all their knowledge of the interwar period is based on some Hollywood movies.

Khaine 9y ago
It wasn't just anger. It was also forged by fear of the rising communists by the upper and middle class, and the political chaos of the times. The far right and far left would regularly be in street brawls. Regular people wanted peace and prosperity. The NSDAP promised law and order, and to improve the economy.
lovelearning 9y ago
I downvoted your comment, because it just summarily dismisses the role of apathy. No doubt many people supported the nazis for all the reasons you quote. But why weren't there mass protests or resistance of any note against all the book burnings and all the targeting of jews in the 30s? The absence of any notable resistance to nazi policies before the war is a strong indicator of apathy. As a resident of a country that is currently going through ultra-nationalist propaganda, brainwashing and violence against sections of our society, I strongly feel apathy of the masses towards persecuted countrymen is, and has always been, a factor in all such events and can't be so summarily dismissed.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > But why weren't there mass protests or resistance of any note against all the book burnings Why right now there aren't mass protests against free speech restrictions on university campuses? Because a) a lot of people agree with them and b) people that don't agree with them and want to protest get intimidated and scared into silence (ironically, often by being called "nazis") by threats ranging from being stalked, boycotted, forced out of the job, bullied online to the direct physical violence. See how "free speech week" in Berkeley worked out. You say "oh, that's different - now it's for the right cause!". Surely, the Germans thought exactly the same. Their cause was stability, economic prosperity, security and restoration of the pride and the glory of German nation. Why wouldn't one - without the knowledge of what followed - disagree with it? They weren't ignorant of the freedoms they are sacrificing - they thought the goal is worth it. Hopefully, now we know better. > all the targeting of jews in the 30s Louis Farrakhan is ranting about "the Jews" right now, all the time, has been doing the shtick for years. Still on Twitter and even has the blue checkmark, interviewed, hand-shaked, etc. People still go and take photo with him (yes, including Obama, in 2005). DC city council member just days ago ranted about "Jews controlling the weather". Still DC council member, and his half-hearted apology was shrugged off by his supporters as "we all talk about in private, why can't we talk about it in public?" Why there are no mass protests? Because people think nothing will come out of it, it's just some crackpots bullshitting. German people thought the same. They weren't politically apathetic, they just didn't see the threat and thought the good things Nazis promised (security, stability, order, etc.) are much more important than occasional crackpot mouthing off. They were very wrong, obviously, but they didn't know it back then.

projektir 9y ago

Almost by definition, for something of that level to happen, someone needs to be very not apathetic...

busterarm 9y ago

ahh, good ol' Godwin's Law. Politically apathetic people are just like nazis. Just like other non-progressives, right?

smsm42 9y ago

No, if you actually read about what actually happened in 1930s in Germany, the government disfunction led to people demanding more powers will be given to the government, to fix things finally and to end the instability and the economic woes. And the careful stoking of hostility between political tribes and fear of each other made people to seek the government as the ultimate arbiter and protector. Which proved to be spectacularly bad idea when it turned out the guy who ended up being appointed as the head of the government, in charge of fixing things, was Hitler, and instead used them to consolidate the power in his own and his party's hands and end the Weimar republic. People weren't passive or avoiding the politics. They just thought the right politics is to elect the right people to the government and give them all the powers. Which has a very spectacularly awful failure mode if after the powers were given turns out those people are not exactly right, but you can't take the powers back anymore.