8 ms·

As a German, I am generally cautious about drawing hasty parallels with the Holocaust, but I must admit: now that you mention it, the Sturmabteilung and the Sch

As a German, I am generally cautious about drawing hasty parallels with the Holocaust, but I must admit: now that you mention it, the Sturmabteilung and the Schutzstaffel probably began their work in the streets of the country in a similar way to ICE today. """ Sturmabteilung (SA) The SA was formed in 1921 as the paramilitary fighting organization of the NSDAP and protected party events. After 1933, under Ernst Röhm, it carried out street violence against Jews, communists, and trade unions, grew to millions of members, but was crushed in 1934 in the Röhm Putsch. Schutzstaffel (SS) The SS started in 1925 as Hitler's elite bodyguard under Heinrich Himmler and emancipated itself from the SA. From 1934, it took over police duties, concentration camp guarding, and from 1936, the Gestapo, directing deportations and the Holocaust. """ It sends a chill down my spine when I think about this comparison. I recently heard about an ICE agent who tried to drag an indigenous woman out of her car and said to her, “You're next!”

PurpleRamen 9mo ago
> As a German, I am generally cautious about drawing hasty parallels with the Holocaust, The drawings are not about the holocaust, but the fascism which has led to that point. The holocaust started nearly a decade after Hitler taking power. And I don't think anyone believes Trump or his puppet masters are seriously after an actual genocide; everything else and the victims they accept as "necessary" for their goals are the problem. History can repeat itself, but never in the same cloths. Some details are always different.
- watwut 9mo ago
  Anti jew laws and violence started literally as he took power. They did not had mechanics of it down yet, but the intention and first attempts were present.
benj111 9mo ago
I'm not drawing parallels to the holocaust per se. I don't think anyone in Germany voted for the mustachioed one expecting that. They had various grievances and wanted a 'strong' leader. The voting against democracy is the issue, not the thing that was voted for. The holocaust is just a very good example of why you shouldn't throw your principles out to vote for a 'strong' leader who will improve 'your' life.
- watwut 9mo ago
  Back then, yes, many voted for holocaust. It did not had a name yet, but they wanted exactly that. They also voted for military conquest, they celebrated start of the war. Including or even especially so young men seeking to prove their masculinity. They were not voting to just bring better conditions for themselves. They voted to bring glory and violent victories. They believed themselves to be strong dominant men who will bring good times to the aryan races.
  - benj111 9mo ago
    The 'final solution' hadn't been decided on, so no I don't think any Germans voted for that, were the Jews openly being vilified? Yes, but that's like equating ICE rounding up illegals, and Trump sending your neighbour to a death camp, because the imagined 'other' doesn't include your neighbour who technically is an other, but one of the good ones so will be fine. For the rest, you're forgetting how humans work. Do you think the average MAGA voting is voting to destroy someone else? Or do you think they're voting to improve their lot? Voting for expansionism doesn't necessarily mean voting for world war. I'm British, it's very easy to compartmentalise invading a country, from developing a country, civilising, being a net good, etc, etc. What did the average USian think Afghanistan was going to be? Or Iraq? Do the USians who want Greenland imagine that's going to turn into WW3? Nuclear war? The enemy are very rarely mustache twiddling baddies.
    - watwut 9mo ago
      I think that it is you who is ignoring all of the following: how humans work, historical record of Germany right before and after 1933 election and also actually what MAGA is saying they want now. Just for some background, jews were trying to emigrate away from jermany already before fairly violent elections of 1933. It was already bad, dangerous and getting worst. It was not just a rhetoric. > Trump sending your neighbour to a death camp It already happened, didnt it? The oppression is smaller then 1933 ... but this particular thing happened. > Do you think the average MAGA voting is voting to destroy someone else? Yes. They openly talk about it. And they openly talked about it. > Or do you think they're voting to improve their lot? Not much. They are willing to sacrifice own lot for their ideological goals. Per their own words. Also, their voting patterns are NOT consistent with someone who vote to improvw own lot. Their pattern is consistent with someone who vote by values - and value dominating and punishing lesser people.

PurpleRamen 9mo ago

> As a German, I am generally cautious about drawing hasty parallels with the Holocaust, The drawings are not about the holocaust, but the fascism which has led to that point. The holocaust started nearly a decade after Hitler taking power. And I don't think anyone believes Trump or his puppet masters are seriously after an actual genocide; everything else and the victims they accept as "necessary" for their goals are the problem. History can repeat itself, but never in the same cloths. Some details are always different.

watwut 9mo ago
Anti jew laws and violence started literally as he took power. They did not had mechanics of it down yet, but the intention and first attempts were present.

benj111 9mo ago

I'm not drawing parallels to the holocaust per se. I don't think anyone in Germany voted for the mustachioed one expecting that. They had various grievances and wanted a 'strong' leader. The voting against democracy is the issue, not the thing that was voted for. The holocaust is just a very good example of why you shouldn't throw your principles out to vote for a 'strong' leader who will improve 'your' life.

watwut 9mo ago
Back then, yes, many voted for holocaust. It did not had a name yet, but they wanted exactly that. They also voted for military conquest, they celebrated start of the war. Including or even especially so young men seeking to prove their masculinity. They were not voting to just bring better conditions for themselves. They voted to bring glory and violent victories. They believed themselves to be strong dominant men who will bring good times to the aryan races.
- benj111 9mo ago
  The 'final solution' hadn't been decided on, so no I don't think any Germans voted for that, were the Jews openly being vilified? Yes, but that's like equating ICE rounding up illegals, and Trump sending your neighbour to a death camp, because the imagined 'other' doesn't include your neighbour who technically is an other, but one of the good ones so will be fine. For the rest, you're forgetting how humans work. Do you think the average MAGA voting is voting to destroy someone else? Or do you think they're voting to improve their lot? Voting for expansionism doesn't necessarily mean voting for world war. I'm British, it's very easy to compartmentalise invading a country, from developing a country, civilising, being a net good, etc, etc. What did the average USian think Afghanistan was going to be? Or Iraq? Do the USians who want Greenland imagine that's going to turn into WW3? Nuclear war? The enemy are very rarely mustache twiddling baddies.
  - watwut 9mo ago
    I think that it is you who is ignoring all of the following: how humans work, historical record of Germany right before and after 1933 election and also actually what MAGA is saying they want now. Just for some background, jews were trying to emigrate away from jermany already before fairly violent elections of 1933. It was already bad, dangerous and getting worst. It was not just a rhetoric. > Trump sending your neighbour to a death camp It already happened, didnt it? The oppression is smaller then 1933 ... but this particular thing happened. > Do you think the average MAGA voting is voting to destroy someone else? Yes. They openly talk about it. And they openly talked about it. > Or do you think they're voting to improve their lot? Not much. They are willing to sacrifice own lot for their ideological goals. Per their own words. Also, their voting patterns are NOT consistent with someone who vote to improvw own lot. Their pattern is consistent with someone who vote by values - and value dominating and punishing lesser people.