10 ms·

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

101 points by haltingproblem 6y ago

roenxi 6y ago
> Now, Brown's sources in all likelihood did tell him that Hitler's anti-Semitism was for show. That is scarier than the alternative of Hitler being a true believer. What Jew would feel comfortable would want to live in a country where a cynic would choose to attack Jews because it played well to the mob?
- mtgx 6y ago
  "Hitler was just joking about that!"
- muzani 6y ago
  In modern politics, it would be dismissed as a vocal, extreme minority. And if such a person won elections, they'd be accused of gerrymandering and such.
  - throwaway2048 6y ago
    A few bad apples
- brobdingnagians 6y ago
  There is audio recording of Governor Cuomo telling Orthodox Jewish leaders in New York that his restrictions on their religious activities are driven by fear (i.e. political) not science. Would that qualify?
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  By and far the scariest thing about Hitler’s rise to power is not the small minority of true believers, but rather the large masses of the population that weren’t true believers but went along with it for one reason or another. Perhaps they wanted career advancement, perhaps they feared communists and trade unionists more, or maybe they thought they could do more good on the inside. Whatever the personal reason, tons and tons of perfectly reasonable, nice Germans voted for, joined, or stood by as the Nazis took power and plunged the world into war and committed mass murder.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Eh, look at the modern attacks on white males. Mainstream politicians give speeches where they denounce white men and say things like, "women are better than men" (Obama), "women are the primary victims of war" (Clinton), "It's an English jurisprudential culture, a white man's culture. It's got to change" (Biden). They do it because it their base loves it, it plays well to "the mob" (though of course calling it that won't win me any favours here on HN), discrimination and effective banning of white men from being appointed to top positions is widespread behaviour throughout the west at this point, and so on. There seem like two big differences. One is that - so far at least - the politicians doing this don't call for actual violence against white men. However, it's starting to get close. In places where BLM is active people scrawl on their storefronts that they're black, in an attempt to avoid the violence and damage dished out against any business not perceived as 'allied'. Prominent politicians conspicuously avoid condemning the violently racist behaviour of these rioters. The other is that Hitler genuinely hated Jews as a race. He didn't have any concept of 'allied' Jews. Modern racial hatred often comes across as not especially genuine because it's full of white men condemning "white men", and people demanding women /blacks/black women be put into powerful positions ... unless they're the wrong kind of minority, i.e. conservative, in which case they are treated in exactly the same way as the "white men". Scott Alexander has written eloquently about the way these labels, which on the surface appear to have clear racial or gender-based definitions, have been effectively adopted and rewritten within certain subcultures to be code words for conservatives. This doesn't seem to precisely parallel what happened in Nazi Germany where, for all you can say about him, Hitler said exactly what he was going to do and then did it. Although Goebbels was well known for his ideas on propaganda, the regimes most famous for screwing with their citizens minds were all communist. Orwell's 1984 was inspired by socialism and not the more obvious and immediate example of Nazi-ism for that reason.
  - jgwil2 6y ago
    cf. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” White men in 21st century America are still at the top of the totem pole; their situation is nothing like that of Jews in early 20th-century Europe. Perhaps you should spend a little more time worrying about the most vulnerable members of our society, who are also targeted by political speech, ostensibly just to rile up the "masses." Let's not forget that there are now 500 children separated, perhaps permanently, from their parents, as a result of the policies of the man who spoke the words above.
- scatters 6y ago
  You just described more or less every country in Europe (if not the entire world) at the time. Zionism came out of a desire for Jews to have a country where they could feel comfortable that demagogues wouldn't fire up the mob against them.
cies 6y ago
I learnt that the US (population and media) was mostly pro-Hitler at first. They idea of someone uniting Europe was appealing, the US had not too long ago fought for independence against the Britain monarchy, and Hitler was a strongly anti-commie/anti-union/pro-capital. It was only later that the picture changed, largely by the US media portraying Hitler as evil, opening the way for a joint intervention. Also note that some US businesses where still trading with nazi Germany throughout the war.
- ido 6y ago
  1776 was a long time before the 1930s.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    The revolutionary war ended in 1783, the war of 1812 actually ended in 1815 (Washington DC was burned in 1814). And of course there were many conflicts between Britain and America in the intervening years, at the time there was no special relationship (more like a special enmity), whereas Germany was a fairly new country and thus did not have this history of enmity in the U.S where people hearing about something Germany did could call on old prejudices. on edit: should also note that for many countries a long time ago is not 147 years (1783 to 1930)
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      Of course my reading of the relative position of Germany in public perception after WWI might be wrong, but my understanding from the record is that it was still relatively considered ok, and that there was lots of public sympathy for Germany due to the feeling that the Treaty of Versailles had been unfair. So my feeling in the 30s a German / British comparison in the American imagination would not have been so favorable to Britain and so antipathetic to Germany as it would be today.
  - yodelshady 6y ago
    About the same timeframe as the US civil war -> now. You really think those wounds are gone? Pardon the cultural stereotypes but only in the US is 100 years considered a long time. Half the planet has tribal divisions dating back millennia. See, er, this article. Bit more on topic: certainly, most of the West was more concerned about Communism than they were a Hitler. Not exactly a methodology we've abandoned since... waves generally at Middle East. And who in 1900, 1910, even 1930, would have put money on Germany being the European country to engage in a genocide notorious even by 20th century standards? Not me. Which I guess is the point of the article.
spats1990 6y ago
edit: disregard, article pdf available upthread - vox's link to the archived NYT article is broken because most archived NYT stuff is behind the paywall now. if anyone else wants to read the full article, someone has reproduced the entire thing here with helpful wikilinks added: https://medium.com/@marcslove/new-popular-idol-rises-in-bavaria-c62b856fd660 https://medium.com/@marcslove/new-popular-idol-rises-in-bava...
- kuu 6y ago
  Another condition favorable to the outburst of the movement is the widespread discontent with the existing state of affairs among all classes in the towns and cities under the increasing economic pressure. Sounds familiar...
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  As usual in modern-day journalism, the truth is paywalled while the lies are free. I suspect that's going to become a bit of a problem at some point.
shureluck 6y ago
This is another one of those articles where the author is condescendingly trying to fearmonger to a segment of the US population. It is so obvious. Lets be fair. If NYT supported Hitler, should we cancel the NYT for supporting systemic racism in the past? Im so exhausted of these condescending and self-righteous articles.
- krapp 6y ago
  That's not at all related to any point the article is trying to make.
  - shureluck 6y ago
    Im not the only one who noticed.
    - krapp 6y ago
      Yes, they too jumped to incorrect assumptions based on reading their own political biases into the article rather than the content of the article itself.
jariel 6y ago
It's stunning in retrospect, but 1922 was really early, and Mr. Bad still a relative nobody. A lot of people around the world were saying crazy things at the time. The Weimar Republic was dominated by feuding between the relatively normal Social Democrats who held power, and the more radical German Communist Party who were directed and funded by Stalin, who had a considerable share of the popular vote, and who regarded 'all parties to the right of them to be fascists' - and of course the Social Dems (nominally left of centre) to be the 'worst fascists'. The 'far right' were a weird fringe group that were even used as stooges by the Communists when their objectives aligned i.e. to overthrow the incumbent Social Dems. There were street/youth/thug parties of all stripes. Remember this is the time of Universal Suffrage, the rise of Unions, literally just a few years post Russian Revolution. And of course, there were all sorts of other Germany-specific issues such as hyperinflation etc. - which by some measures is happening right now (real estate, stocks, other assets) and our governments faced with COVID are going to be spending 20 years of deficits in 1 year etc.. The Weimar Republic [1] is a fascinating episode in contemporary history we should really spend more time looking at. By the time Hitler came to power, the cards were in play, so in a way, the 1930's are not nearly as interesting. Hitler did not just magically come out of a bottle in 1932 and take over - really it was the result of complicated set of factors in the 1920's. We should pay more attention there, but it's complicated, and doesn't make for great, populist filmmaking. Edit: 1924 Election results [2] 1932 Election results [3]. You can see this early, the Nazis & Co. were not important until later. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1924_German_federal_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1924_German_federal_electi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932_German_federal_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932_German_federal_elect...
- poisonborz 6y ago
  > We should pay more attention there, but it's complicated, and doesn't make for great, populist filmmaking. I would say otherwise. Watch the first season of Babylon Berlin.
  - jariel 6y ago
yamrzou 6y ago
Here is a PDF of the original article: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1922/11/21/98786796.pdf https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1922/11/21/987.... Also available on archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20181104231809/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1922/11/21/98786796.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20181104231809/https://timesmach...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
danoloan 6y ago
> "Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded." This attitude was, apparently, widespread among Germans at the time; many of them saw Hitler's anti-Semitism as a ploy for votes ... > Watch: Donald Trump's rise is a scary moment in America every single time. if you can't see what's going on here, you wouldn't even if i explained.
- lultimouomo 6y ago
  The article is from November 2015. It might have been written as propaganda against the future POTUS, but it would have been quite the foresight, as Trump wasn't even a credible candidate until the Iowa primary in February 2016.
  - abc-xyz 6y ago
    The time the article was written, and the purpose for which it was written, is irrelevant. What’s relevant is the fact that it’s now being used to not-so-subtly attack Trump. Maybe it’s a coincidence, or based on keywords in the article, or perhaps an editor carefully picked this specific video to prominently display below the article. Guess we’ll never know. But it is quite telling that an article about Hitler/concentration camps focus on Trump rather than Xi Jinping/Xinjiang.
- shureluck 6y ago
  100% They try to act like it isnt a propaganda piece but it is so obvious.
kortilla 6y ago
The article ends with the expected (it’s vox) comparison to Trump. One thing I don’t understand in these comparisons is that Hitler was openly antisemitic very early on (as this article points out). Who is Trump openly against? All of his “obvious racism” is poorly thought out off-the-cuff remarks that he then backtracks later. If Trump is Hitler 2.0, who are the Jews?
- gwd 6y ago
  Huh? Trump isn't mentioned in the article at all.
  - pmachinery 6y ago
    It's a video underneath the article, about Trump's rise to power. To be honest I didn't notice it either (I'm quite pleased I now have such a blind spot for videos) until Trump supporters started complaining about it here. To be fair, I think they have a point. Comparison of [current politician] to Hitler is just shit for the birds. Edit: Obviously quite a few birds here.
- PunchTornado 6y ago
  the immigrants
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- krapp 6y ago
  >. One thing I don’t understand in these comparisons is that Hitler was openly antisemitic very early on (as this article points out). Who is Trump openly against? Immigrants and "leftists", socially acceptable targets. As far as anti-semitism goes, politicians have learned not to be so open about it, although Trump has had his fair share of slip-ups in that regard[0], he's never so overt that people can't talk themselves out of believing he's saying what they think he's saying. >If Trump is Hitler 2.0, who are the Jews? Again, immigrants and "leftists," which thanks to the demonization of BLM as a violent "neo-marxist" organization, now includes any African Americans who openly object to systemic racism, although that's just part of a long American tradition of delegitimizing black activism. Also still the Jews. It's always going to still be the Jews, but you'll have to read between the lines when modern politicians complain about "globalist bankers" and "New York liberals" and "cultural Marxists" to get it. [0]https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/12/donald-trump-anti-semitic-remarks https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/12/donald-trump-anti-se...
Udik 6y ago
I don't see anything stunning in the NYT article- it is a very early view on an emerging political phenomenon on the other side of the ocean- certainly in a world pretty different from our own, one where open display of racism and political violence were just a cause for concern rather than absolutely unacceptable. On the other hand the world was just emerging from a war that had killed about 20 million people, while Russia had just gone through a bloody revolution that produced the first communist state- with all the hope and terror that that entailed- all followed by the Spanish flu just to to top it off (another 50 million deaths). In the context, the NYT article sounds actually pretty insightful; I find the expectation that a 1922 article would describe Hitler in the exact same terms of a 2016 one to be just deeply ignorant.
the-dude 6y ago
Hitler was not opposed and defeated because of the Holocaust. If Hitler had somehow conquered Europe and installed a stable power, the Holocaust probably would be a footnote.
- pmachinery 6y ago
  In that circumstance it wouldn't even be a footnote; nobody would even hear of it, except perhaps as a "conspiracy theory".
  - andromeduck 6y ago
    Eh, probably more like how the Holodomor is treated in Russia or Nanking massacre in Japan and the west for that matter: disputed by apologists in public, lauded by nationalists in private, denied by the people in power and mostly forgotten by the rest.
  - jondubois 6y ago
    Exactly. People can't wrap their minds around the fact that their own country is constantly peddling propaganda. I noticed this after I started travelling around the world working in different countries. Every single country is constantly pushing its own propaganda and they all have some element of truth mixed together with lies. Conspiracy theory is how governments hides aspects of the truth that they don't like.
  - the-dude 6y ago
    jon(dubois), you are dead & shadow banned.
    - jondubois 6y ago
      How can you see my comment? What do you mean dead? This better not be a death threat.
    - the-dude 6y ago
      Jon, shadow banned means you can only see yourself ( and us who have show dead on ). Log out or take an incognito-window : you will find your comment missing. If you want to correct this, contact HN ( see footer ).
andromeduck 6y ago
The history of the original Antifa and its founder Ernst Thälmann is also well worth a read. https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2018/10/how-left-enabled-fascism https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2018/10/how-left-e...
- the-dude 6y ago
  The article touches on the 'moderate left', which was seen as a bigger threat than the right ( were the Nazi's rightwing? I dare to question ). However, since the fall of the USSR, the 'moderate left' in Western Europe seemingly have lost interest in the classic ideals, bowed to neo-liberalism and found alternative ideals. So maybe he was not wrong after all. edit: posted under wrong parent before. I deleted and reposted.
  - 4ggr0 6y ago
    Why would the Nazis not be rightwing?
    - gerland 6y ago
      Depends how you define right wing. Were the nazis totalitarian? Yes, but so was the CCCP. Were they socialists. Definetely yes. Were they catholic, or even christian. Not at all. If you say that the republicans are right wing, then it's hard to put nazis on the same plate. The meaning of the term right-wing changed a lot in the last 100 years. If you trace back to Spain during the Franco reign, then you will quickly realize, that a lot of the people fighting for republic were in fact far left (including notably some anarchists). Basically the whole republic concept was considered to be a lef-wing thing (and it was for the time). Were nazis right-wing? At that time yes. Are nazis right-wing in the modern meaning of right-wing? Definitely not, those two have nothing in common.
      - 4ggr0 6y ago
        https://www.quora.com/Was-Hitlers-Nazi-party-left-wing-or-right-wing https://www.quora.com/Was-Hitlers-Nazi-party-left-wing-or-ri... https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-need...
scottlocklin 6y ago
The NYT also denied to communist atrocities in Ukraine[0]. Fuck the NYT. Also Vox, which is clickbait propaganda "what oligarchs wished you'd believe." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor
- Veen 6y ago
  Yes, and in 1932 Walter Duranty of the NYT won a Pulitzer for his fine work denying and minimizing Soviet atrocities, an award the Pulitzer comittee declined to revoke as late as 2003. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
harryf 6y ago
Not directly related but here's a crazy thing I ran into recently - Hitler and the Nazi's basically popularised Anti-Smoking - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_... > The German movement was the most powerful anti-smoking movement in the world during the 1930s and early 1940s > Adolf Hitler's personal distaste for tobacco and the Nazi reproductive policies were among the motivating factors behind the Nazi campaigns against smoking. > Even by the end of the 20th century, the anti-smoking movement in Germany had not attained the influence of the Nazi anti-smoking campaign. Ironically it may have had the opposite effect long term, at least in Germany... > It has been argued that the Nazi anti-tobacco campaigns delayed effective nicotine addiction reduction measures by decades. At the end of the 20th century, the anti-tobacco campaign in Germany was unable to approach the level of the Nazi-era climax in the years 1939–41, and German tobacco health research was described by Robert N. Proctor as "muted". Modern Germany has some of Europe's least restrictive tobacco control policies, and more Germans both smoke and die of it in consequence, which also leads to higher public health costs.
- andromeduck 6y ago
  His campaign was also one of the first to use airplanes to campaign, flying city to city to hold rallies often in the same day which made people feel closer to him. https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/hitler3.htm https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/hitler...
- mbroncano 6y ago
  They also popularized decaf https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/decaf-coffee-nazi-party https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/decaf-coffee-nazi-part...
- FeeJai 6y ago
  Ban smoking and caffeine and put populations on Methamphetamine. Interesting twist
  - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
JacKTrocinskI 6y ago
"Hitler is credited with having a rapidly increasing following among the workers disgruntled by the high cost of living". The situation of German workers doesn't seem too dissimilar to the economic unrest slowly mounting in the western world today.
rendall 6y ago
This fellow makes an interesting case that Nazis (i.e. National Socialists) were what it says right on the tin: socialists who swapped out class struggle in favor of an ethno-nationalist struggle but were otherwise identical. I don't agree with everything he rants about, but I do find interesting his discussion of the shrinking market theory https://youtu.be/go2OFpO8fyo https://youtu.be/go2OFpO8fyo Edit - those who downvote: I'm totally fine with a judicious downvote, but if you wouldn't mind leaving a comment about what it is that you disagree with or dislike? I'd especially love to hear from those who disagree that Nazis were socialists: Do you disagree with the video per se or something else? I'm eager to learn more!
- sofixa 6y ago
  I didn't watch the video because i don't want this type of nonsense in my viewing history and because the premise is inherently flawed. Socialism means something, and Nazi Germany and the NSDAP don't fit any of the criteria. Did the workers own the means of production ? Did the NSDAP even remotely move in that direction? No and hell no. The NSDAP worked closely with industrialists ( which helped finance their rise to power), destroyed unions, etc. Having a few national programs ( Volkswahen, the Autobahn, etc.) doesn't mean socialism. They were as socialistic as horses are fish. Yeah, they have two eyes, but that's about it.
  - rendall 6y ago
    "Did the workers own the means of production ? Did the NSDAP even remotely move in that direction?" The arguments in the video address everything you bring up, here. It would be lovely to have you refute those very specific arguments. My precis won't argue nearly as well: "Did the workers own the means of production ?" Nazis seized businesses, positions and property from Jews and absolutely handed them over to Germans, which is the Nazi analog of seizing the means of production "destroyed unions..." Destroyed communist labor unions in favor of Nazi labor unions, youth groups, etc "The NSDAP worked closely with industrialists..." I would imagine if you were one of those industrialists, and you didn't work closely with the Nazis, you would swiftly find your industry "nationalized" "I didn't watch the video because i don't want this type of nonsense in my viewing history" ... the fellow is decidedly anti-socialist, and if you're pro-socialist I can imagine you would find it upsetting. But, given that you know socialism intimately, you are the only one who can refute those ideas! It would be nice to know where he goes off the rails
baybal2 6y ago
> 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 I wrote on this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24881824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24881824 Yes, Hitler Adolf was not a compulsive paranoiac, and been noted by contemporaries as a shrewd political strategist. He committed his crimes in cold blood, and sane mind. But.... his anti-Semitism not being a product of a mental illness, or irrational hate doesn't make it less terrible. Were they rational from any viewpoint, serious, or not, it were these anti-Semitic policies which opened the road to the crime of genocide later in his reign. This also doesn't absolve the habitual anti-Semitism practiced by virtually every other political establishment in Europe prior to WWII from sins, or make it less bad as genocidal anti-Semitism of the late third reich. The persecution, whether is based on political rationale, or a maniacal tendency, is still persecution. I would say a crime like this becomes even more grave if it is done with some behind the curtain political rationale.
FeeJai 6y ago
I would like to add that Hitler was a severe Methamphetamine addict (yes, seriously). During that time, Chocolate was laced with Meth and packaged under the name Pervitin. That drug was the secret behind the success of the German Blitzkrieg against Poland, the soldiers just did not become tired. Of course it had the same side effects, that people became irrational and aggressive. What the NYT wrote might very well have been true in 1922, a severe meth addiction changes people and makes them more aggressive.
- andromeduck 6y ago
  Also fun, modern militaries kept using amphetamines in combat until a sleep deprived american in a F16 shot up a bunch of Canadians in Afghanistan. Now it's just Modafinil for NATO countries at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_pill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_pill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident Other drugs historically used as a stimulant in warfare include Khat in the horn of africa/persian peninsula and Betel nuts in asia, and various forms of I think fungi in the Americas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areca_nut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areca_nut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat
  - FreshFries 6y ago
    Do not for get Dutch courage! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_courage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_courage
amai 6y ago
A year after that article Hitler went to jail for a failed coup d'état : https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Beer_Hall_Putsch https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Beer_Hall_Putsch

> Now, Brown's sources in all likelihood did tell him that Hitler's anti-Semitism was for show. That is scarier than the alternative of Hitler being a true believer. What Jew would feel comfortable would want to live in a country where a cynic would choose to attack Jews because it played well to the mob?

mtgx 6y ago
"Hitler was just joking about that!"
muzani 6y ago
In modern politics, it would be dismissed as a vocal, extreme minority. And if such a person won elections, they'd be accused of gerrymandering and such.
- throwaway2048 6y ago
  A few bad apples
brobdingnagians 6y ago
There is audio recording of Governor Cuomo telling Orthodox Jewish leaders in New York that his restrictions on their religious activities are driven by fear (i.e. political) not science. Would that qualify?
ashtonkem 6y ago
By and far the scariest thing about Hitler’s rise to power is not the small minority of true believers, but rather the large masses of the population that weren’t true believers but went along with it for one reason or another. Perhaps they wanted career advancement, perhaps they feared communists and trade unionists more, or maybe they thought they could do more good on the inside. Whatever the personal reason, tons and tons of perfectly reasonable, nice Germans voted for, joined, or stood by as the Nazis took power and plunged the world into war and committed mass murder.
thu2111 6y ago
Eh, look at the modern attacks on white males. Mainstream politicians give speeches where they denounce white men and say things like, "women are better than men" (Obama), "women are the primary victims of war" (Clinton), "It's an English jurisprudential culture, a white man's culture. It's got to change" (Biden). They do it because it their base loves it, it plays well to "the mob" (though of course calling it that won't win me any favours here on HN), discrimination and effective banning of white men from being appointed to top positions is widespread behaviour throughout the west at this point, and so on. There seem like two big differences. One is that - so far at least - the politicians doing this don't call for actual violence against white men. However, it's starting to get close. In places where BLM is active people scrawl on their storefronts that they're black, in an attempt to avoid the violence and damage dished out against any business not perceived as 'allied'. Prominent politicians conspicuously avoid condemning the violently racist behaviour of these rioters. The other is that Hitler genuinely hated Jews as a race. He didn't have any concept of 'allied' Jews. Modern racial hatred often comes across as not especially genuine because it's full of white men condemning "white men", and people demanding women /blacks/black women be put into powerful positions ... unless they're the wrong kind of minority, i.e. conservative, in which case they are treated in exactly the same way as the "white men". Scott Alexander has written eloquently about the way these labels, which on the surface appear to have clear racial or gender-based definitions, have been effectively adopted and rewritten within certain subcultures to be code words for conservatives. This doesn't seem to precisely parallel what happened in Nazi Germany where, for all you can say about him, Hitler said exactly what he was going to do and then did it. Although Goebbels was well known for his ideas on propaganda, the regimes most famous for screwing with their citizens minds were all communist. Orwell's 1984 was inspired by socialism and not the more obvious and immediate example of Nazi-ism for that reason.
- jgwil2 6y ago
  cf. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” White men in 21st century America are still at the top of the totem pole; their situation is nothing like that of Jews in early 20th-century Europe. Perhaps you should spend a little more time worrying about the most vulnerable members of our society, who are also targeted by political speech, ostensibly just to rile up the "masses." Let's not forget that there are now 500 children separated, perhaps permanently, from their parents, as a result of the policies of the man who spoke the words above.
scatters 6y ago
You just described more or less every country in Europe (if not the entire world) at the time. Zionism came out of a desire for Jews to have a country where they could feel comfortable that demagogues wouldn't fire up the mob against them.

cies 6y ago

I learnt that the US (population and media) was mostly pro-Hitler at first. They idea of someone uniting Europe was appealing, the US had not too long ago fought for independence against the Britain monarchy, and Hitler was a strongly anti-commie/anti-union/pro-capital. It was only later that the picture changed, largely by the US media portraying Hitler as evil, opening the way for a joint intervention. Also note that some US businesses where still trading with nazi Germany throughout the war.

ido 6y ago
1776 was a long time before the 1930s.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  The revolutionary war ended in 1783, the war of 1812 actually ended in 1815 (Washington DC was burned in 1814). And of course there were many conflicts between Britain and America in the intervening years, at the time there was no special relationship (more like a special enmity), whereas Germany was a fairly new country and thus did not have this history of enmity in the U.S where people hearing about something Germany did could call on old prejudices. on edit: should also note that for many countries a long time ago is not 147 years (1783 to 1930)
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    Of course my reading of the relative position of Germany in public perception after WWI might be wrong, but my understanding from the record is that it was still relatively considered ok, and that there was lots of public sympathy for Germany due to the feeling that the Treaty of Versailles had been unfair. So my feeling in the 30s a German / British comparison in the American imagination would not have been so favorable to Britain and so antipathetic to Germany as it would be today.
- yodelshady 6y ago
  About the same timeframe as the US civil war -> now. You really think those wounds are gone? Pardon the cultural stereotypes but only in the US is 100 years considered a long time. Half the planet has tribal divisions dating back millennia. See, er, this article. Bit more on topic: certainly, most of the West was more concerned about Communism than they were a Hitler. Not exactly a methodology we've abandoned since... waves generally at Middle East. And who in 1900, 1910, even 1930, would have put money on Germany being the European country to engage in a genocide notorious even by 20th century standards? Not me. Which I guess is the point of the article.

spats1990 6y ago

edit: disregard, article pdf available upthread - vox's link to the archived NYT article is broken because most archived NYT stuff is behind the paywall now. if anyone else wants to read the full article, someone has reproduced the entire thing here with helpful wikilinks added: https://medium.com/@marcslove/new-popular-idol-rises-in-bavaria-c62b856fd660 https://medium.com/@marcslove/new-popular-idol-rises-in-bava...

kuu 6y ago
Another condition favorable to the outburst of the movement is the widespread discontent with the existing state of affairs among all classes in the towns and cities under the increasing economic pressure. Sounds familiar...
CamperBob2 6y ago
As usual in modern-day journalism, the truth is paywalled while the lies are free. I suspect that's going to become a bit of a problem at some point.

shureluck 6y ago

This is another one of those articles where the author is condescendingly trying to fearmonger to a segment of the US population. It is so obvious. Lets be fair. If NYT supported Hitler, should we cancel the NYT for supporting systemic racism in the past? Im so exhausted of these condescending and self-righteous articles.

krapp 6y ago
That's not at all related to any point the article is trying to make.
- shureluck 6y ago
  Im not the only one who noticed.
  - krapp 6y ago
    Yes, they too jumped to incorrect assumptions based on reading their own political biases into the article rather than the content of the article itself.

jariel 6y ago

It's stunning in retrospect, but 1922 was really early, and Mr. Bad still a relative nobody. A lot of people around the world were saying crazy things at the time. The Weimar Republic was dominated by feuding between the relatively normal Social Democrats who held power, and the more radical German Communist Party who were directed and funded by Stalin, who had a considerable share of the popular vote, and who regarded 'all parties to the right of them to be fascists' - and of course the Social Dems (nominally left of centre) to be the 'worst fascists'. The 'far right' were a weird fringe group that were even used as stooges by the Communists when their objectives aligned i.e. to overthrow the incumbent Social Dems. There were street/youth/thug parties of all stripes. Remember this is the time of Universal Suffrage, the rise of Unions, literally just a few years post Russian Revolution. And of course, there were all sorts of other Germany-specific issues such as hyperinflation etc. - which by some measures is happening right now (real estate, stocks, other assets) and our governments faced with COVID are going to be spending 20 years of deficits in 1 year etc.. The Weimar Republic [1] is a fascinating episode in contemporary history we should really spend more time looking at. By the time Hitler came to power, the cards were in play, so in a way, the 1930's are not nearly as interesting. Hitler did not just magically come out of a bottle in 1932 and take over - really it was the result of complicated set of factors in the 1920's. We should pay more attention there, but it's complicated, and doesn't make for great, populist filmmaking. Edit: 1924 Election results [2] 1932 Election results [3]. You can see this early, the Nazis & Co. were not important until later. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1924_German_federal_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1924_German_federal_electi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932_German_federal_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932_German_federal_elect...

poisonborz 6y ago
> We should pay more attention there, but it's complicated, and doesn't make for great, populist filmmaking. I would say otherwise. Watch the first season of Babylon Berlin.
- jariel 6y ago

yamrzou 6y ago

Here is a PDF of the original article: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1922/11/21/98786796.pdf https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1922/11/21/987.... Also available on archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20181104231809/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1922/11/21/98786796.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20181104231809/https://timesmach...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

danoloan 6y ago

> "Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded." This attitude was, apparently, widespread among Germans at the time; many of them saw Hitler's anti-Semitism as a ploy for votes ... > Watch: Donald Trump's rise is a scary moment in America every single time. if you can't see what's going on here, you wouldn't even if i explained.

lultimouomo 6y ago
The article is from November 2015. It might have been written as propaganda against the future POTUS, but it would have been quite the foresight, as Trump wasn't even a credible candidate until the Iowa primary in February 2016.
- abc-xyz 6y ago
  The time the article was written, and the purpose for which it was written, is irrelevant. What’s relevant is the fact that it’s now being used to not-so-subtly attack Trump. Maybe it’s a coincidence, or based on keywords in the article, or perhaps an editor carefully picked this specific video to prominently display below the article. Guess we’ll never know. But it is quite telling that an article about Hitler/concentration camps focus on Trump rather than Xi Jinping/Xinjiang.
shureluck 6y ago
100% They try to act like it isnt a propaganda piece but it is so obvious.

kortilla 6y ago

The article ends with the expected (it’s vox) comparison to Trump. One thing I don’t understand in these comparisons is that Hitler was openly antisemitic very early on (as this article points out). Who is Trump openly against? All of his “obvious racism” is poorly thought out off-the-cuff remarks that he then backtracks later. If Trump is Hitler 2.0, who are the Jews?

gwd 6y ago
Huh? Trump isn't mentioned in the article at all.
- pmachinery 6y ago
  It's a video underneath the article, about Trump's rise to power. To be honest I didn't notice it either (I'm quite pleased I now have such a blind spot for videos) until Trump supporters started complaining about it here. To be fair, I think they have a point. Comparison of [current politician] to Hitler is just shit for the birds. Edit: Obviously quite a few birds here.
PunchTornado 6y ago
the immigrants
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
krapp 6y ago
>. One thing I don’t understand in these comparisons is that Hitler was openly antisemitic very early on (as this article points out). Who is Trump openly against? Immigrants and "leftists", socially acceptable targets. As far as anti-semitism goes, politicians have learned not to be so open about it, although Trump has had his fair share of slip-ups in that regard[0], he's never so overt that people can't talk themselves out of believing he's saying what they think he's saying. >If Trump is Hitler 2.0, who are the Jews? Again, immigrants and "leftists," which thanks to the demonization of BLM as a violent "neo-marxist" organization, now includes any African Americans who openly object to systemic racism, although that's just part of a long American tradition of delegitimizing black activism. Also still the Jews. It's always going to still be the Jews, but you'll have to read between the lines when modern politicians complain about "globalist bankers" and "New York liberals" and "cultural Marxists" to get it. [0]https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/12/donald-trump-anti-semitic-remarks https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/12/donald-trump-anti-se...

Udik 6y ago

I don't see anything stunning in the NYT article- it is a very early view on an emerging political phenomenon on the other side of the ocean- certainly in a world pretty different from our own, one where open display of racism and political violence were just a cause for concern rather than absolutely unacceptable. On the other hand the world was just emerging from a war that had killed about 20 million people, while Russia had just gone through a bloody revolution that produced the first communist state- with all the hope and terror that that entailed- all followed by the Spanish flu just to to top it off (another 50 million deaths). In the context, the NYT article sounds actually pretty insightful; I find the expectation that a 1922 article would describe Hitler in the exact same terms of a 2016 one to be just deeply ignorant.

the-dude 6y ago

Hitler was not opposed and defeated because of the Holocaust. If Hitler had somehow conquered Europe and installed a stable power, the Holocaust probably would be a footnote.

pmachinery 6y ago
In that circumstance it wouldn't even be a footnote; nobody would even hear of it, except perhaps as a "conspiracy theory".
- andromeduck 6y ago
  Eh, probably more like how the Holodomor is treated in Russia or Nanking massacre in Japan and the west for that matter: disputed by apologists in public, lauded by nationalists in private, denied by the people in power and mostly forgotten by the rest.
- jondubois 6y ago
  Exactly. People can't wrap their minds around the fact that their own country is constantly peddling propaganda. I noticed this after I started travelling around the world working in different countries. Every single country is constantly pushing its own propaganda and they all have some element of truth mixed together with lies. Conspiracy theory is how governments hides aspects of the truth that they don't like.
- the-dude 6y ago
  jon(dubois), you are dead & shadow banned.
  - jondubois 6y ago
    How can you see my comment? What do you mean dead? This better not be a death threat.
  - the-dude 6y ago
    Jon, shadow banned means you can only see yourself ( and us who have show dead on ). Log out or take an incognito-window : you will find your comment missing. If you want to correct this, contact HN ( see footer ).

andromeduck 6y ago

The history of the original Antifa and its founder Ernst Thälmann is also well worth a read. https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2018/10/how-left-enabled-fascism https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2018/10/how-left-e...

the-dude 6y ago
The article touches on the 'moderate left', which was seen as a bigger threat than the right ( were the Nazi's rightwing? I dare to question ). However, since the fall of the USSR, the 'moderate left' in Western Europe seemingly have lost interest in the classic ideals, bowed to neo-liberalism and found alternative ideals. So maybe he was not wrong after all. edit: posted under wrong parent before. I deleted and reposted.
- 4ggr0 6y ago
  Why would the Nazis not be rightwing?
  - gerland 6y ago
    Depends how you define right wing. Were the nazis totalitarian? Yes, but so was the CCCP. Were they socialists. Definetely yes. Were they catholic, or even christian. Not at all. If you say that the republicans are right wing, then it's hard to put nazis on the same plate. The meaning of the term right-wing changed a lot in the last 100 years. If you trace back to Spain during the Franco reign, then you will quickly realize, that a lot of the people fighting for republic were in fact far left (including notably some anarchists). Basically the whole republic concept was considered to be a lef-wing thing (and it was for the time). Were nazis right-wing? At that time yes. Are nazis right-wing in the modern meaning of right-wing? Definitely not, those two have nothing in common.
    - 4ggr0 6y ago
      https://www.quora.com/Was-Hitlers-Nazi-party-left-wing-or-right-wing https://www.quora.com/Was-Hitlers-Nazi-party-left-wing-or-ri... https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-need...

scottlocklin 6y ago

The NYT also denied to communist atrocities in Ukraine[0]. Fuck the NYT. Also Vox, which is clickbait propaganda "what oligarchs wished you'd believe." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor

Veen 6y ago
Yes, and in 1932 Walter Duranty of the NYT won a Pulitzer for his fine work denying and minimizing Soviet atrocities, an award the Pulitzer comittee declined to revoke as late as 2003. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

harryf 6y ago

Not directly related but here's a crazy thing I ran into recently - Hitler and the Nazi's basically popularised Anti-Smoking - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_... > The German movement was the most powerful anti-smoking movement in the world during the 1930s and early 1940s > Adolf Hitler's personal distaste for tobacco and the Nazi reproductive policies were among the motivating factors behind the Nazi campaigns against smoking. > Even by the end of the 20th century, the anti-smoking movement in Germany had not attained the influence of the Nazi anti-smoking campaign. Ironically it may have had the opposite effect long term, at least in Germany... > It has been argued that the Nazi anti-tobacco campaigns delayed effective nicotine addiction reduction measures by decades. At the end of the 20th century, the anti-tobacco campaign in Germany was unable to approach the level of the Nazi-era climax in the years 1939–41, and German tobacco health research was described by Robert N. Proctor as "muted". Modern Germany has some of Europe's least restrictive tobacco control policies, and more Germans both smoke and die of it in consequence, which also leads to higher public health costs.

andromeduck 6y ago
His campaign was also one of the first to use airplanes to campaign, flying city to city to hold rallies often in the same day which made people feel closer to him. https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/hitler3.htm https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/hitler...
mbroncano 6y ago
They also popularized decaf https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/decaf-coffee-nazi-party https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/decaf-coffee-nazi-part...
FeeJai 6y ago
Ban smoking and caffeine and put populations on Methamphetamine. Interesting twist
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

JacKTrocinskI 6y ago

"Hitler is credited with having a rapidly increasing following among the workers disgruntled by the high cost of living". The situation of German workers doesn't seem too dissimilar to the economic unrest slowly mounting in the western world today.

rendall 6y ago

This fellow makes an interesting case that Nazis (i.e. National Socialists) were what it says right on the tin: socialists who swapped out class struggle in favor of an ethno-nationalist struggle but were otherwise identical. I don't agree with everything he rants about, but I do find interesting his discussion of the shrinking market theory https://youtu.be/go2OFpO8fyo https://youtu.be/go2OFpO8fyo Edit - those who downvote: I'm totally fine with a judicious downvote, but if you wouldn't mind leaving a comment about what it is that you disagree with or dislike? I'd especially love to hear from those who disagree that Nazis were socialists: Do you disagree with the video per se or something else? I'm eager to learn more!

sofixa 6y ago
I didn't watch the video because i don't want this type of nonsense in my viewing history and because the premise is inherently flawed. Socialism means something, and Nazi Germany and the NSDAP don't fit any of the criteria. Did the workers own the means of production ? Did the NSDAP even remotely move in that direction? No and hell no. The NSDAP worked closely with industrialists ( which helped finance their rise to power), destroyed unions, etc. Having a few national programs ( Volkswahen, the Autobahn, etc.) doesn't mean socialism. They were as socialistic as horses are fish. Yeah, they have two eyes, but that's about it.
- rendall 6y ago
  "Did the workers own the means of production ? Did the NSDAP even remotely move in that direction?" The arguments in the video address everything you bring up, here. It would be lovely to have you refute those very specific arguments. My precis won't argue nearly as well: "Did the workers own the means of production ?" Nazis seized businesses, positions and property from Jews and absolutely handed them over to Germans, which is the Nazi analog of seizing the means of production "destroyed unions..." Destroyed communist labor unions in favor of Nazi labor unions, youth groups, etc "The NSDAP worked closely with industrialists..." I would imagine if you were one of those industrialists, and you didn't work closely with the Nazis, you would swiftly find your industry "nationalized" "I didn't watch the video because i don't want this type of nonsense in my viewing history" ... the fellow is decidedly anti-socialist, and if you're pro-socialist I can imagine you would find it upsetting. But, given that you know socialism intimately, you are the only one who can refute those ideas! It would be nice to know where he goes off the rails

baybal2 6y ago

> 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 I wrote on this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24881824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24881824 Yes, Hitler Adolf was not a compulsive paranoiac, and been noted by contemporaries as a shrewd political strategist. He committed his crimes in cold blood, and sane mind. But.... his anti-Semitism not being a product of a mental illness, or irrational hate doesn't make it less terrible. Were they rational from any viewpoint, serious, or not, it were these anti-Semitic policies which opened the road to the crime of genocide later in his reign. This also doesn't absolve the habitual anti-Semitism practiced by virtually every other political establishment in Europe prior to WWII from sins, or make it less bad as genocidal anti-Semitism of the late third reich. The persecution, whether is based on political rationale, or a maniacal tendency, is still persecution. I would say a crime like this becomes even more grave if it is done with some behind the curtain political rationale.

FeeJai 6y ago

I would like to add that Hitler was a severe Methamphetamine addict (yes, seriously). During that time, Chocolate was laced with Meth and packaged under the name Pervitin. That drug was the secret behind the success of the German Blitzkrieg against Poland, the soldiers just did not become tired. Of course it had the same side effects, that people became irrational and aggressive. What the NYT wrote might very well have been true in 1922, a severe meth addiction changes people and makes them more aggressive.

andromeduck 6y ago
Also fun, modern militaries kept using amphetamines in combat until a sleep deprived american in a F16 shot up a bunch of Canadians in Afghanistan. Now it's just Modafinil for NATO countries at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_pill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_pill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident Other drugs historically used as a stimulant in warfare include Khat in the horn of africa/persian peninsula and Betel nuts in asia, and various forms of I think fungi in the Americas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areca_nut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areca_nut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat
- FreshFries 6y ago
  Do not for get Dutch courage! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_courage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_courage

amai 6y ago

A year after that article Hitler went to jail for a failed coup d'état : https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Beer_Hall_Putsch https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Beer_Hall_Putsch