4 ms·

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 fough

by 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.
krapp 6y ago
>Also note that some US businesses where still trading with nazi Germany throughout the war. IBM selling tabulators to the Nazis, which arguably kicked off both the information technology revolution and the Holocaust, is one infamous example.
- the-dude 6y ago
  I think Ford is an even more convincing example.
- Fnoord 6y ago
  See the book "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation" [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
gwd 6y ago
> I learnt that the US (population and media) was mostly pro-Hitler at first. Ref? I just listened to "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", and that's not the impression I got. Hitler certainly had some support from people like Lindberg; but they seem to have been duped by his "We don't want war" rhetoric.
- sagonar 6y ago
  Support for Hitler was not uncommon, he seemed to get the economy re-started, build roads etc. If you ask for REF here.. then I think you ought to ask for REF when people say there were anti as well..
  - croon 6y ago
    That the US was anti-Hitler at least at one point is proven by the fact that it was politically feasible to go to war against Germany when they weren't a direct threat across the pond. If there is a suggestion that they were at some point pro-Hitler that needs to be supported by something. The alternative is otherwise the default assertion.
    - cafard 6y ago
      Quite, though in fairness one might add that Hitler declared war on the US. However, at that point there had been something close to war going on between the US and German navies for a while.
  - gwd 6y ago
    Sorry, I should have quoted more. There were absolutely Americans who were pro-Hilter. The reference I wanted was that people in America favored Hitler because "[the] idea of someone uniting Europe was appealing". I certainly think a lot of people thought the Versaille Treaty was unfair, and were in favor of Germany being rebuilt and so on. I have a hard time believing that there were many Americans who thought the German Empire of Europe would be a good idea.
thrpewr5432434 6y ago
Well, duh. Most of the Eugenics movt., and its proponents, were based in Cal and NY. The US (like UK, West) has always been a country of hypocrisy. They put Shumei Okawa to trial in Tokyo, for having the audacity to put forward pan-Asianism to liberate it from European clutches. Japan was put on trial for waging 'aggressive war' for monopolizing Asia, even while the Dutch, British, etc. had completely destroyed Asian economies only in the past century. The Japanese Imperial Army was no benign enterprise, but I'm sure the Europeans didn't win over Asia with flowers and chocolates. Little wonder, the Indian Justice dissented in the show trials of Tokyo. Now, if only the Indian state had the spine to withdraw these charges, at least for symbolic purposes. The fact that it won't says a lot.
- sn41 6y ago
  Justice Radhabinod Pal [1] has a monument in the Yasukuni shrine. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radhabinod_Pal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radhabinod_Pal [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni_Shrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni_Shrine
- jariel 6y ago
  "Japan was put on trial for waging 'aggressive war' for monopolizing Asia, even while the Dutch, British, etc. had completely destroyed Asian economies only in the past century." This is ridiculous - there is no comparison between 'The Dutch' and 'The Japanese' incursions into Asia. The Dutch were traders, with some geopolitical leverage, money and a few ships. The Japanese literally invaded and marauded most of E. Asia causing millions of casualties, literally destroying cities, taking sex-slaves on mass, i.e. 'Horrors of Mechanized 20th century' - on par with Nazis. Not some localized trade dispute with a pack of merchant marines firing on innocents, 'monopolizing trade of a few sectors'.
  - inawarminister 6y ago
    Hi, Indonesian here. The Dutch also marauded throughout Asia, to the point of genociding wnole populations of spice islanders just to keep controls on commodities https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/island-traded-for-manhattan https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/island-traded-for-manh... There are too many others sins of the VOC and Royal Dutch colonial authority for me to list still; regardless, no one is a saint. We hate both colonists equally - well, one colonised us for 350 years, the other for 3,5 years. But both are hated still.
simonh 6y ago
The German subsidiaries of those companies, in Germany run by German citizens, still traded in Germany yes.
- leipert 6y ago
  Potato - Kartoffel. In the end the subsidiaries still meant a profit for the main company/conglomerate.
  - simonh 6y ago
    So what? Subsidiaries of German company subsidiaries in the US still did business and even contributed to the US war effort. What else do you expect the US citizens working for them to have done? In general in war time the property of nationals of the country you’re at war with, in your country, remains their property. It can be frozen or confiscated or commandeered, sure, according to local law but confiscation is not the normal expectation. In Germany after WW2 the property of US companies was returned to their control, and vice versa for the assets of German companies in the US. You use the term profit, but we don’t even know if those subsidiaries even made a profit during the war. They may have come out of the war better off than they started I suppose in theory, but given the devastation of German industry during the war that seems unlikely. Do you have any evidence the value of those subsidiaries in Germany was higher at the end of the war than when it started? Even if it was, what would you propose be done about it?
    - leipert 6y ago
      Well, your comment was: > The German subsidiaries of those companies, in Germany run by German citizens, still traded in Germany yes. That sounds a bit simplistic, of course if the German government ceases their operation and severs ties to the US, there is not much to be done, on the other hand e.g. Ford employed slave labor even _before_ ties to the US company were cut [0]. While Nazi Germany is ultimately responsible for these atrocities; in my opinion: companies still have / should have a moral duty. Some companies are exploring their past, e.g. Coffee companies with their ties to human trafficking. I think we need more of that, even just acknowledging our past, because "with power comes great responsibility" and those large companies, more powerful as some smaller countries should be held accountable and should do everything to prevent abuse and exploitation. You seem to focus on the economics only, I agree profit might not have been the right term, but if a company actively exploited people it shouldn't matter too much whether they turned a profit. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Germany#Use_of_forced_labor_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Germany#Use_of_forced_lab...
pjc50 6y ago
Many of Hitler's ideas were lifted from the US, such as the system of racial discrimination embedded in law. https://www.timesofisrael.com/american-laws-against-coloreds-influenced-nazi-racial-planners/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/american-laws-against-coloreds... However, it wasn't really reciprocated; the "German-American Bund" managed a few rallies but did not acquire the support of the KKK.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  Hitler and indeed Germany society at the time that supported him, were inspired by the Australian experiment, considered successful by the British. See also, Boers.
occamschainsaw 6y ago
I went into a rabbit hole exploring race relations in US and Europe after watching this opening scene from Watchmen the TV show[1]. Powerful stuff. History being written by the victors and all that. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xijkosNCzTg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xijkosNCzTg
cafard 6y ago
"the US had not too long ago fought for independence against the Britain monarchy" Yet somehow we fought on the British side in 1917.

by cies 6y ago

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.

krapp 6y ago

>Also note that some US businesses where still trading with nazi Germany throughout the war. IBM selling tabulators to the Nazis, which arguably kicked off both the information technology revolution and the Holocaust, is one infamous example.

the-dude 6y ago
I think Ford is an even more convincing example.
Fnoord 6y ago
See the book "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation" [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

gwd 6y ago

> I learnt that the US (population and media) was mostly pro-Hitler at first. Ref? I just listened to "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", and that's not the impression I got. Hitler certainly had some support from people like Lindberg; but they seem to have been duped by his "We don't want war" rhetoric.

sagonar 6y ago
Support for Hitler was not uncommon, he seemed to get the economy re-started, build roads etc. If you ask for REF here.. then I think you ought to ask for REF when people say there were anti as well..
- croon 6y ago
  That the US was anti-Hitler at least at one point is proven by the fact that it was politically feasible to go to war against Germany when they weren't a direct threat across the pond. If there is a suggestion that they were at some point pro-Hitler that needs to be supported by something. The alternative is otherwise the default assertion.
  - cafard 6y ago
    Quite, though in fairness one might add that Hitler declared war on the US. However, at that point there had been something close to war going on between the US and German navies for a while.
- gwd 6y ago
  Sorry, I should have quoted more. There were absolutely Americans who were pro-Hilter. The reference I wanted was that people in America favored Hitler because "[the] idea of someone uniting Europe was appealing". I certainly think a lot of people thought the Versaille Treaty was unfair, and were in favor of Germany being rebuilt and so on. I have a hard time believing that there were many Americans who thought the German Empire of Europe would be a good idea.

thrpewr5432434 6y ago

Well, duh. Most of the Eugenics movt., and its proponents, were based in Cal and NY. The US (like UK, West) has always been a country of hypocrisy. They put Shumei Okawa to trial in Tokyo, for having the audacity to put forward pan-Asianism to liberate it from European clutches. Japan was put on trial for waging 'aggressive war' for monopolizing Asia, even while the Dutch, British, etc. had completely destroyed Asian economies only in the past century. The Japanese Imperial Army was no benign enterprise, but I'm sure the Europeans didn't win over Asia with flowers and chocolates. Little wonder, the Indian Justice dissented in the show trials of Tokyo. Now, if only the Indian state had the spine to withdraw these charges, at least for symbolic purposes. The fact that it won't says a lot.

sn41 6y ago
Justice Radhabinod Pal [1] has a monument in the Yasukuni shrine. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radhabinod_Pal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radhabinod_Pal [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni_Shrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni_Shrine
jariel 6y ago
"Japan was put on trial for waging 'aggressive war' for monopolizing Asia, even while the Dutch, British, etc. had completely destroyed Asian economies only in the past century." This is ridiculous - there is no comparison between 'The Dutch' and 'The Japanese' incursions into Asia. The Dutch were traders, with some geopolitical leverage, money and a few ships. The Japanese literally invaded and marauded most of E. Asia causing millions of casualties, literally destroying cities, taking sex-slaves on mass, i.e. 'Horrors of Mechanized 20th century' - on par with Nazis. Not some localized trade dispute with a pack of merchant marines firing on innocents, 'monopolizing trade of a few sectors'.
- inawarminister 6y ago
  Hi, Indonesian here. The Dutch also marauded throughout Asia, to the point of genociding wnole populations of spice islanders just to keep controls on commodities https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/island-traded-for-manhattan https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/island-traded-for-manh... There are too many others sins of the VOC and Royal Dutch colonial authority for me to list still; regardless, no one is a saint. We hate both colonists equally - well, one colonised us for 350 years, the other for 3,5 years. But both are hated still.

simonh 6y ago

The German subsidiaries of those companies, in Germany run by German citizens, still traded in Germany yes.

leipert 6y ago
Potato - Kartoffel. In the end the subsidiaries still meant a profit for the main company/conglomerate.
- simonh 6y ago
  So what? Subsidiaries of German company subsidiaries in the US still did business and even contributed to the US war effort. What else do you expect the US citizens working for them to have done? In general in war time the property of nationals of the country you’re at war with, in your country, remains their property. It can be frozen or confiscated or commandeered, sure, according to local law but confiscation is not the normal expectation. In Germany after WW2 the property of US companies was returned to their control, and vice versa for the assets of German companies in the US. You use the term profit, but we don’t even know if those subsidiaries even made a profit during the war. They may have come out of the war better off than they started I suppose in theory, but given the devastation of German industry during the war that seems unlikely. Do you have any evidence the value of those subsidiaries in Germany was higher at the end of the war than when it started? Even if it was, what would you propose be done about it?
  - leipert 6y ago
    Well, your comment was: > The German subsidiaries of those companies, in Germany run by German citizens, still traded in Germany yes. That sounds a bit simplistic, of course if the German government ceases their operation and severs ties to the US, there is not much to be done, on the other hand e.g. Ford employed slave labor even _before_ ties to the US company were cut [0]. While Nazi Germany is ultimately responsible for these atrocities; in my opinion: companies still have / should have a moral duty. Some companies are exploring their past, e.g. Coffee companies with their ties to human trafficking. I think we need more of that, even just acknowledging our past, because "with power comes great responsibility" and those large companies, more powerful as some smaller countries should be held accountable and should do everything to prevent abuse and exploitation. You seem to focus on the economics only, I agree profit might not have been the right term, but if a company actively exploited people it shouldn't matter too much whether they turned a profit. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Germany#Use_of_forced_labor_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Germany#Use_of_forced_lab...

pjc50 6y ago

Many of Hitler's ideas were lifted from the US, such as the system of racial discrimination embedded in law. https://www.timesofisrael.com/american-laws-against-coloreds-influenced-nazi-racial-planners/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/american-laws-against-coloreds... However, it wasn't really reciprocated; the "German-American Bund" managed a few rallies but did not acquire the support of the KKK.

fit2rule 6y ago
Hitler and indeed Germany society at the time that supported him, were inspired by the Australian experiment, considered successful by the British. See also, Boers.

occamschainsaw 6y ago

I went into a rabbit hole exploring race relations in US and Europe after watching this opening scene from Watchmen the TV show[1]. Powerful stuff. History being written by the victors and all that. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xijkosNCzTg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xijkosNCzTg

cafard 6y ago

"the US had not too long ago fought for independence against the Britain monarchy" Yet somehow we fought on the British side in 1917.