4 ms·

The interesting thing about this parallel, is that the "final solution" in Germany was final because it was not the original solution. Originally they wanted t

The interesting thing about this parallel, is that the "final solution" in Germany was final because it was not the original solution. Originally they wanted to, well, deport the undesirables to some far off country, initially to Madagascar if memory serves. Managing mass incarceration and deportation is a difficult task however, and these people (both then and now) are not exactly competent at anything beyond bravado. Watching this unfolding from afar is interesting, because I can do so with some healthy detachment. If I lived across the pond I would be pretty desperate right now.

watwut 2y ago
The end goal was world domination, as in owning whole world. So, they would eventually come to Madagascar too. Majority of Jews killed in Hocaust were not Germans. They were from conquered countries. So, while there was some Madagascar plans floating and while they tried to deport as many German Jews (majority of who were atheists, considered themselves Germans etc) in first stages, they were aware there is going to be showdown later on anyway.
xedrac 2y ago
[flagged]
- codewench 2y ago
  Seeing as how this article is talking about the deportation of US citizens, I'm going to question what exactly you mean by "here illegally". Expanding the argument: I've just decided that you are illegally, and will thus be deported. As there is no due process, my word is law, have fun wherever you end up I literally do not care. Does that seem fair? And before arguing "well this wouldn't happen, I'm not here illegally", again, this is an article about the deportation of US citizens. Children no less.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - rdtsc 2y ago
    > US citizens. Children no less. But their parents aren’t. Parents can be deported. So let’s imagine they did that. We’d have an article how cruel they stole / kidnapped a child from their parents. Would that be better? Having a child doesn’t automatically provide a legal cover for staying and not getting deported. Maybe that’s a risk the parents didn’t know about?
    - NemoNobody 2y ago
      I'm all right with changing that rule - anchor babies means we get two people and one them is brand new. Considering people are the most valuable resource, I think we should take all the potential anchors possible - let's give both parents citizenship automatically if they are parents of a citizen. Let's fast track Aunts and Uncles too - maybe we can get the whole family.
      - rdtsc 2y ago
        > let's give both parents citizenship automatically if they are parents of a citizen. Yeah that might work. Wonder if there is any legislative effort on that front. I guess with the current congress it won't happen, so perhaps nobody is trying.
    - heromal 2y ago
      What's the point in arguing about what-ifs? The children were deported. In real life. There's no need for hypothetical scenarios, focus on the actual point of the article and thread.
      - miltonlost 2y ago
        > What's the point in arguing about what-ifs? The children were deported. Anyone arguing in what-ifs agrees with the deportation but can't be that blatantly racist on here. Ignoring this specific case allows them to muddy the waters. Anyone playing Devil's Advocate consistently are usually part of the devil's party.
      - rdtsc 2y ago
- macintux 2y ago
  Really? Immigrants “poisoning the blood of our country” is straight from Hitler’s playbook, and it definitely wasn’t a Clinton who said that.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- kashunstva 2y ago
  > When Hillary called half the nation "deplorables", that was closer to Hitler rhetoric than anything I've heard out of this administration. Technically Secretary Clinton called half of her opponent’s supporters a “basket of deplorables.” So 0.25 of the voting population at most. But if that sounds worse than anything uttered by this administration, you’re not listening closely. I’m Canadian and we’ve been called “one of the nastiest countries.”
- krapp 2y ago
  >When Hillary called half the nation "deplorables", that was closer to Hitler rhetoric than anything I've heard out of this administration. Lol. That was three campaigns ago, and she was correct, and you guys are still whining about it like a bunch of snowflakes. Let it go. Hillary Clinton can't hurt you anymore.
- sriram_malhar 2y ago
  How do you know they are "illegally" shielding people? Was there any kind of process to figure this out? Also, a few days back, you made the same point and someone furnished you links where legal migrants are being caught in a net. This is not an argument in good faith.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  > We're not deporting "undesirables", just those who flooded in here illegally. Ironically you say that in the comments section of a US citizen being held prior to deportation. Maybe those pesky children are flooding in there illegally? > if we didn't have people trying to illegally shield them from ICE. If only those annoying people weren't trying to hide Jews from the SS back in the day eh? > Equating that to Nazi Germany is disingenuous and completely off the mark. By all means, proceed. I am watching from afar with amusement as the US descends into banana Republic status with a sprinkle of old school European fascism now that the ICE is basically acting like Stasi or Gestapo from years past. I wonder what you would consider to be enough for the comparison to not be disingenuous anymore. Perhaps when the ovens are burning in some Central American death camp.
- acdha 2y ago
  > When Hillary called half the nation "deplorables", that was closer to Hitler rhetoric than anything I've heard out of this administration. Here’s Trump straight-up uding white nationalist rhetoric: > Nobody has any idea where these people are coming from, and we know they come from prisons. We know they come from mental institutions [and] insane asylums. We know they're terrorists. Nobody has ever seen anything like we're witnessing right now. It is a very sad thing for our country. It's poisoning the blood of our country. It's so bad, and people are coming in with disease. People are coming in with every possible thing that you could have. (https://thenationalpulse.com/analysis-post/watch-the-national-pulse-interviews-president-donald-j-trump/ https://thenationalpulse.com/analysis-post/watch-the-nationa...) Now, it’s telling that you’re pretending not to have heard your guy say things like that while his administration is sending people to concentration camps without due process but are still upset about something from a decade ago which you are misrepresenting. Here’s the full quote, which is notable because she identified the specific behaviors she considered deplorable AND explicitly called for sympathy for the large group of people who are motivated by problems in their lives rather than bigotry. Also note that she’s talking about half of the third of the country which votes for him. > You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America. > But the "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCHJVE9trSM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCHJVE9trSM That makes quite the contrast where he looks worse the more of his speech you read while her speech looks better in context and makes it clear that while he hates people based on who they are, she reserved judgement based on what they do.
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  Why then are people with legal visas being detained or having their visas revoked if it is just those who "flooded here illegally" under threat? Clinton said that many Trump voters were deplorables. Trump said that many immigrants are not human. Now I know which sounds more like the Nazis to me.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    > Trump said that many immigrants are not human. I am very much not a Trump fan, but I need to see a source for that claim.
    - lawn 2y ago
      "Alien" is something Trump has said multiple times. The first I heard it was in the debate with Harris (that she "wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in jail").
      - UncleMeat 2y ago
        I agree that "alien" is a fairly dehumanizing term, but this isn't what I am talking about. Trump said "No, they're not humans, they're not humans, they're animals." This isn't a quibble about technical language.
    - UncleMeat 2y ago
      https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-expected-highlight-murder-michigan-woman-immigration-speech-2024-04-02/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-expected-highlight-mu... > "The Democrats say, 'Please don't call them animals. They're humans.' I said, 'No, they're not humans, they're not humans, they're animals,'" said Trump, president from 2017 to 2021.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
afpx 2y ago
Unfortunately, if this follows history, the safest thing to do is to not do anything, blend in, and wait for external help. Afaik, only a handful of Germans who resisted survived. But, I don’t see any help for us coming anytime soon.
- ohgr 2y ago
  I suspect it won’t come. The US embedded itself in everyone else’s business and is now withdrawing so we all have our own problems to deal with.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  Then honor demands that we die. I think there are still other outcomes possible but if that's how it is that's how it is.
  - afpx 2y ago
    Yeah, there are some possibilities. For example, if a strong resistance leader emerged. But, are there any good candidates for that role? I can't think of any.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      Things like this are stopped by movements, not individual heroes. There are almost certainly organizations in your area already working against this. No one is coming to save us. But if anyone does it is the people who were already trying to, bolstered by people like you who see it now. Get in there.
      - afpx 2y ago
        (Edited based on comment below) I recognize the optimism, but realistically, without a strong and strategic leader, coordination will collapse into disorganization and infighting. Historical examples like Occupy Wall Street demonstrate that leaderless movements tend to self-sabotage and generate instability without achieving meaningful outcomes.
southernplaces7 2y ago
>Managing mass incarceration and deportation is a difficult task however, and these people (both then and now) are not exactly competent at anything beyond bravado. The holocaust also required mass incarceration and deportation, except that the huge undertaking of deportation was towards death camps in occupied territories instead of some foreign land. On the first point above, I caution against thinking that it would be much easier; it wasn't really, they just decided that they wanted to kill the people they considered undesirable after all. On the second point, it's worth noting that the efforts at expulsion partly failed because many other countries, despite knowing of the brutal repression being suffered by the jews (and others but the jews in particular) decided to stonewall most avenues of exit from Nazi domains. Deportation would have still been terrible, but at least it would have put millions of eventual victims outside the reach of gas chambers and death squads. Such as it was, a sort of tacit complicity of indifference didn't allow that to happen, by others who weren't even necessarily supporters of the Nazis. In either case, be careful about calling evil people practicing evil ends incompetent. In so many ways they were very competent at far more than simple bravado, and underestimating the capabilities of barbaric monsters is always dangerous for future lessons.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  > be careful about calling evil people practicing evil ends incompetent. The Nazi were a mess, plagued with infighting, and completely incapable of measuring the strength of their opponents, which eventually led to their downfall. Incompetent evil people can still do a lot of harm until they screw up for good. This doesn't stop them being incompetent.
  - southernplaces7 2y ago
    >The Nazi were a mess, plagued with infighting, and completely incapable of measuring the strength of their opponents, which eventually led to their downfall. no the Nazis weren't entirely a mess or completely incompetent. There was lots of infighting, partly deliberately designed to be that way by Hitler's tactics for organizing his own subordinate leadership levels, but there was also a massive amount of military, industrial and logistical competence and a robust amount of cohesion and careful, powerful cooperation on fundamental aims. Had there not been, the Nazi's never would have risen to power so effectively, formed their dictatorship so effectively or managed a colossal war against multiple enemies for so many years so effectively, and only been defeated at such a gargantuan cost in lives and resources. The Nazis underestimated the military strength of their enemies, but not nearly so badly as to not wage very effective war and pose a very, very serious threat to these enemies for several years. I really suggest a book called "The Wages of Destruction: the making and breaking of the Nazi Economy" by Adam Tooze, as a nice basic primer on how wrong these ideas of supposedly incompetent Nazis are. The above is all deviating a bit from the topic at hand but with this sidestep into a look at the Nazis, you're working from a simplistic caricature view of a more complex situation with complex evil people, and I fear that this is also all too common when many critics today view the Trump government. It's not staffed entirely by caricaturesque evil idiots. Many of its supporters are intelligent and cohesive in their guiding methodologies. (Also, no, the above isn't to compare the bad actions of Trump's government to the completely unrestrained monstrosities of the Nazis. I'm comparing defects of external analysis)

watwut 2y ago

The end goal was world domination, as in owning whole world. So, they would eventually come to Madagascar too. Majority of Jews killed in Hocaust were not Germans. They were from conquered countries. So, while there was some Madagascar plans floating and while they tried to deport as many German Jews (majority of who were atheists, considered themselves Germans etc) in first stages, they were aware there is going to be showdown later on anyway.

xedrac 2y ago

[flagged]

codewench 2y ago
Seeing as how this article is talking about the deportation of US citizens, I'm going to question what exactly you mean by "here illegally". Expanding the argument: I've just decided that you are illegally, and will thus be deported. As there is no due process, my word is law, have fun wherever you end up I literally do not care. Does that seem fair? And before arguing "well this wouldn't happen, I'm not here illegally", again, this is an article about the deportation of US citizens. Children no less.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rdtsc 2y ago
  > US citizens. Children no less. But their parents aren’t. Parents can be deported. So let’s imagine they did that. We’d have an article how cruel they stole / kidnapped a child from their parents. Would that be better? Having a child doesn’t automatically provide a legal cover for staying and not getting deported. Maybe that’s a risk the parents didn’t know about?
  - NemoNobody 2y ago
    I'm all right with changing that rule - anchor babies means we get two people and one them is brand new. Considering people are the most valuable resource, I think we should take all the potential anchors possible - let's give both parents citizenship automatically if they are parents of a citizen. Let's fast track Aunts and Uncles too - maybe we can get the whole family.
    - rdtsc 2y ago
      > let's give both parents citizenship automatically if they are parents of a citizen. Yeah that might work. Wonder if there is any legislative effort on that front. I guess with the current congress it won't happen, so perhaps nobody is trying.
  - heromal 2y ago
    What's the point in arguing about what-ifs? The children were deported. In real life. There's no need for hypothetical scenarios, focus on the actual point of the article and thread.
    - miltonlost 2y ago
      > What's the point in arguing about what-ifs? The children were deported. Anyone arguing in what-ifs agrees with the deportation but can't be that blatantly racist on here. Ignoring this specific case allows them to muddy the waters. Anyone playing Devil's Advocate consistently are usually part of the devil's party.
    - rdtsc 2y ago
macintux 2y ago
Really? Immigrants “poisoning the blood of our country” is straight from Hitler’s playbook, and it definitely wasn’t a Clinton who said that.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
kashunstva 2y ago
> When Hillary called half the nation "deplorables", that was closer to Hitler rhetoric than anything I've heard out of this administration. Technically Secretary Clinton called half of her opponent’s supporters a “basket of deplorables.” So 0.25 of the voting population at most. But if that sounds worse than anything uttered by this administration, you’re not listening closely. I’m Canadian and we’ve been called “one of the nastiest countries.”
krapp 2y ago
>When Hillary called half the nation "deplorables", that was closer to Hitler rhetoric than anything I've heard out of this administration. Lol. That was three campaigns ago, and she was correct, and you guys are still whining about it like a bunch of snowflakes. Let it go. Hillary Clinton can't hurt you anymore.
sriram_malhar 2y ago
How do you know they are "illegally" shielding people? Was there any kind of process to figure this out? Also, a few days back, you made the same point and someone furnished you links where legal migrants are being caught in a net. This is not an argument in good faith.
surgical_fire 2y ago
> We're not deporting "undesirables", just those who flooded in here illegally. Ironically you say that in the comments section of a US citizen being held prior to deportation. Maybe those pesky children are flooding in there illegally? > if we didn't have people trying to illegally shield them from ICE. If only those annoying people weren't trying to hide Jews from the SS back in the day eh? > Equating that to Nazi Germany is disingenuous and completely off the mark. By all means, proceed. I am watching from afar with amusement as the US descends into banana Republic status with a sprinkle of old school European fascism now that the ICE is basically acting like Stasi or Gestapo from years past. I wonder what you would consider to be enough for the comparison to not be disingenuous anymore. Perhaps when the ovens are burning in some Central American death camp.
acdha 2y ago
> When Hillary called half the nation "deplorables", that was closer to Hitler rhetoric than anything I've heard out of this administration. Here’s Trump straight-up uding white nationalist rhetoric: > Nobody has any idea where these people are coming from, and we know they come from prisons. We know they come from mental institutions [and] insane asylums. We know they're terrorists. Nobody has ever seen anything like we're witnessing right now. It is a very sad thing for our country. It's poisoning the blood of our country. It's so bad, and people are coming in with disease. People are coming in with every possible thing that you could have. (https://thenationalpulse.com/analysis-post/watch-the-national-pulse-interviews-president-donald-j-trump/ https://thenationalpulse.com/analysis-post/watch-the-nationa...) Now, it’s telling that you’re pretending not to have heard your guy say things like that while his administration is sending people to concentration camps without due process but are still upset about something from a decade ago which you are misrepresenting. Here’s the full quote, which is notable because she identified the specific behaviors she considered deplorable AND explicitly called for sympathy for the large group of people who are motivated by problems in their lives rather than bigotry. Also note that she’s talking about half of the third of the country which votes for him. > You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America. > But the "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCHJVE9trSM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCHJVE9trSM That makes quite the contrast where he looks worse the more of his speech you read while her speech looks better in context and makes it clear that while he hates people based on who they are, she reserved judgement based on what they do.
UncleMeat 2y ago
Why then are people with legal visas being detained or having their visas revoked if it is just those who "flooded here illegally" under threat? Clinton said that many Trump voters were deplorables. Trump said that many immigrants are not human. Now I know which sounds more like the Nazis to me.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  > Trump said that many immigrants are not human. I am very much not a Trump fan, but I need to see a source for that claim.
  - lawn 2y ago
    "Alien" is something Trump has said multiple times. The first I heard it was in the debate with Harris (that she "wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in jail").
    - UncleMeat 2y ago
      I agree that "alien" is a fairly dehumanizing term, but this isn't what I am talking about. Trump said "No, they're not humans, they're not humans, they're animals." This isn't a quibble about technical language.
  - UncleMeat 2y ago
    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-expected-highlight-murder-michigan-woman-immigration-speech-2024-04-02/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-expected-highlight-mu... > "The Democrats say, 'Please don't call them animals. They're humans.' I said, 'No, they're not humans, they're not humans, they're animals,'" said Trump, president from 2017 to 2021.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

afpx 2y ago

Unfortunately, if this follows history, the safest thing to do is to not do anything, blend in, and wait for external help. Afaik, only a handful of Germans who resisted survived. But, I don’t see any help for us coming anytime soon.

ohgr 2y ago
I suspect it won’t come. The US embedded itself in everyone else’s business and is now withdrawing so we all have our own problems to deal with.
giraffe_lady 2y ago
Then honor demands that we die. I think there are still other outcomes possible but if that's how it is that's how it is.
- afpx 2y ago
  Yeah, there are some possibilities. For example, if a strong resistance leader emerged. But, are there any good candidates for that role? I can't think of any.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    Things like this are stopped by movements, not individual heroes. There are almost certainly organizations in your area already working against this. No one is coming to save us. But if anyone does it is the people who were already trying to, bolstered by people like you who see it now. Get in there.
    - afpx 2y ago
      (Edited based on comment below) I recognize the optimism, but realistically, without a strong and strategic leader, coordination will collapse into disorganization and infighting. Historical examples like Occupy Wall Street demonstrate that leaderless movements tend to self-sabotage and generate instability without achieving meaningful outcomes.

southernplaces7 2y ago

>Managing mass incarceration and deportation is a difficult task however, and these people (both then and now) are not exactly competent at anything beyond bravado. The holocaust also required mass incarceration and deportation, except that the huge undertaking of deportation was towards death camps in occupied territories instead of some foreign land. On the first point above, I caution against thinking that it would be much easier; it wasn't really, they just decided that they wanted to kill the people they considered undesirable after all. On the second point, it's worth noting that the efforts at expulsion partly failed because many other countries, despite knowing of the brutal repression being suffered by the jews (and others but the jews in particular) decided to stonewall most avenues of exit from Nazi domains. Deportation would have still been terrible, but at least it would have put millions of eventual victims outside the reach of gas chambers and death squads. Such as it was, a sort of tacit complicity of indifference didn't allow that to happen, by others who weren't even necessarily supporters of the Nazis. In either case, be careful about calling evil people practicing evil ends incompetent. In so many ways they were very competent at far more than simple bravado, and underestimating the capabilities of barbaric monsters is always dangerous for future lessons.

surgical_fire 2y ago
> be careful about calling evil people practicing evil ends incompetent. The Nazi were a mess, plagued with infighting, and completely incapable of measuring the strength of their opponents, which eventually led to their downfall. Incompetent evil people can still do a lot of harm until they screw up for good. This doesn't stop them being incompetent.
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  >The Nazi were a mess, plagued with infighting, and completely incapable of measuring the strength of their opponents, which eventually led to their downfall. no the Nazis weren't entirely a mess or completely incompetent. There was lots of infighting, partly deliberately designed to be that way by Hitler's tactics for organizing his own subordinate leadership levels, but there was also a massive amount of military, industrial and logistical competence and a robust amount of cohesion and careful, powerful cooperation on fundamental aims. Had there not been, the Nazi's never would have risen to power so effectively, formed their dictatorship so effectively or managed a colossal war against multiple enemies for so many years so effectively, and only been defeated at such a gargantuan cost in lives and resources. The Nazis underestimated the military strength of their enemies, but not nearly so badly as to not wage very effective war and pose a very, very serious threat to these enemies for several years. I really suggest a book called "The Wages of Destruction: the making and breaking of the Nazi Economy" by Adam Tooze, as a nice basic primer on how wrong these ideas of supposedly incompetent Nazis are. The above is all deviating a bit from the topic at hand but with this sidestep into a look at the Nazis, you're working from a simplistic caricature view of a more complex situation with complex evil people, and I fear that this is also all too common when many critics today view the Trump government. It's not staffed entirely by caricaturesque evil idiots. Many of its supporters are intelligent and cohesive in their guiding methodologies. (Also, no, the above isn't to compare the bad actions of Trump's government to the completely unrestrained monstrosities of the Nazis. I'm comparing defects of external analysis)