Why did Germans Follow Hitler? And Interesting Bio - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15089955
I thought this an interesting topic for @Rich and @Potemkin and others to explore.

What captivated me was the lack of love in the Hitler household and his many failures at attempts to be an architect and an artist.

Excessive nationalism of any kind is suspicious. I am just throwing that out there?


Hmmm. How is he very different from Donald J. Trump and also how is he similar eh?




Please watch the video before commenting.
#15089961
Hitler has absolutely nothing in common with Trump. It is simply retarded putting those two names together. You have more in common with Hitler than Trump.

As for why the Germans followed Hitler, I think the video says it well enough. Whatever his faults he was a talented orator and he was able articulate and channel German resentments following WW1. That and democracy was not a particularly comfortable concept for Germans at the time so his authoritarian positioning ticked a few more boxes for them. They wanted a "Dear Leader" and emperor and he alone put himself up for the job. Germany had been ruled by the kaisers for the longest time, and for the most part that rule was very effective while being on the political absolutist model. That came to an end with WW1 not even only two decades before Hitler's rise not so long ago. Authoritarianism was a well worn groove in the German psyche while the new democracy was not.
#15089986
SolarCross wrote: You have more in common with Hitler than Trump.


Way more. The nazis and the prog indentitarian extremists are kissing cousins. They both fetishize ethnic identity, they both demonize raical outgroups, they both rely on political intimidation and violence, and they both fully embrace totalitarianism fascism. They even share the same fanatical commitment to environmental extremism:

#15090000
@Tainari88

I think you are on to something here. I do believe that Trump has much in common with Hitler. Especially how you see his followers follow him blindly and cannot see the truth of the man. I personally would never want to make the Army a career. I enjoyed my time in, but it's not something I would want to do the rest of my life. I enjoy my freedoms as a civilian and to have my individuality which I couldn't enjoy as a soldier. I could NEVER and I mean NEVER be a politician. NO WAY IN HELL I could ever be a politician. I just want to live a simple life. To be a good husband to my wife, a good pet owner to my dog, a good son to my mother and a good caretaker of my father's grave as well as a decent computer professional. Those are my goals in life. I do not want fame or fortune. but I do want to live a comfortable life and remain just a common man.
#15090005
SolarCross wrote:Hitler has absolutely nothing in common with Trump. It is simply retarded putting those two names together. You have more in common with Hitler than Trump.

As for why the Germans followed Hitler, I think the video says it well enough. Whatever his faults he was a talented orator and he was able articulate and channel German resentments following WW1. That and democracy was not a particularly comfortable concept for Germans at the time so his authoritarian positioning ticked a few more boxes for them. They wanted a "Dear Leader" and emperor and he alone put himself up for the job. Germany had been ruled by the kaisers for the longest time, and for the most part that rule was very effective while being on the political absolutist model. That came to an end with WW1 not even only two decades before Hitler's rise not so long ago. Authoritarianism was a well worn groove in the German psyche while the new democracy was not.


No Donny and he do have two things in common for sure. Bad grades, not doing well in academics, lazy habits like watching TV or sleeping until noon. And playing the victim card of the nation. Example, America is being taken advantage of and Germany is being taken advantage of...going on whirlwind tours speaking to enthusiastic crowds in which he will fix what is wrong in Germany and using divisive politics to get a fanatical base to consolidate power around.

His struggle. Mein Kempf. Running around admiring authoritarianism and so on....Donald likes strongmen. His wife mentions him having a copy of Mein Kempf by the bedside. Master race theories he mentions often in his book "The Art of the Deal" he talks about genetics and so on....

Trump is called a political genius in cutting off opponents heads. Hitler did the same.

The authoritarian racists are all up in arms about the comparison. But they are deep down inside pro white power. Lol. See how I provoke?

Why did he despise the Jews so much? What was about his loveless childhood that would blame the Jews? His parents were Austrians with no love in their hearts?

It seems to me the lack of love was a big factor and the lack of being an artist.

SolarCross I am Hitler? Are you serious? The man can't dance salsa at all. I can. And he never spoke Spanish. That disqualifies me.

I think you and Sivad doth protest too much.You two love the short moustache man..... :lol: :D


SolarCross do you really think the Germans were authoritarians?

I think excessive nationalism was a characteristic of Hitler. A defining one.

People who start in with America is for Americans only and that means speaking English and being European got issues.....
#15090007
Sivad wrote:Way more. The nazis and the prog indentitarian extremists are kissing cousins. They both fetishize ethnic identity, they both demonize raical outgroups, they both rely on political intimidation and violence, and they both fully embrace totalitarianism fascism. They even share the same fanatical commitment to environmental extremism:



Basura. Basure. Trash.

I am not a fascist and you don't know what that is. You better start taking responsibility for the trash you choose to write.

Otherwise we all will think you are on something and need to get off the substance to start making sense.

Will you vote? Probably not. but you will have a lot of badly thought out opinion. Based on stuff you deny a bit later or run from a discussion when you got to debate with some work behind it.

You have the potential to be a great thinker Sivad. But without discipline and responsibility it becomes trash.

If you start to try to insult me? I will ignore you....you remind me of an immature petulant person with little maturity.

Discipline yourself mentally.

SolarCross is an adult man. You? Have a lot of growing up to do.

You are rude and obnoxious.
#15090012
Bankrupt and divided nation. Does that sound familiar to you?

Crisis and he is going to fix it? With what?

Nationalism. Excessive? See this is where CHomsky is right. Donald is not an ideologue. He is not capable of building a party up from scratch like Hitler. No. He just becomes a coman and decimates a weak one that already exists. That is a significant difference.
#15090014
Politics_Observer wrote:@Tainari88

I think you are on to something here. I do believe that Trump has much in common with Hitler. Especially how you see his followers follow him blindly and cannot see the truth of the man. I personally would never want to make the Army a career. I enjoyed my time in, but it's not something I would want to do the rest of my life. I enjoy my freedoms as a civilian and to have my individuality which I couldn't enjoy as a soldier. I could NEVER and I mean NEVER be a politician. NO WAY IN HELL I could ever be a politician. I just want to live a simple life. To be a good husband to my wife, a good pet owner to my dog, a good son to my mother and a good caretaker of my father's grave as well as a decent computer professional. Those are my goals in life. I do not want fame or fortune. but I do want to live a comfortable life and remain just a common man.


Politicians are for the most part good persuaders or manipulators. They tell people what they need to hear and might act in a way that is not transparent. Being too open about all that you plan to do is often not wise in politics.

The best politicians usually become politicians for two reasons only. Power. Or service. You need to decide which of the two you are going to do it for. if you pick power? Most probably will be a very bad politician and not good in a democracy. if you do it for service? You can be a good one. But you better make sure you survive the wolves who don't serve the office at all. The office serves them.

I never wanted to be a politician either. No privacy and too many shady people in that field. ;)
#15090015
Tainari88 wrote:Donald is not an ideologue. He is not capable of building a party up from scratch like Hitler. No.

So it pretty much nullifies any meaningful comparison to Hitler. Godwin's law...
#15090018
@Tainari88

Tainari88 wrote:Politicians are for the most part good persuaders or manipulators. They tell people what they need to hear and might act in a way that is not transparent. Being too open about all that you plan to do is often not wise in politics.


I would say politicians tell people what they want to hear on many occasions rather than what they need to hear. Nobody likes to hear what they need to hear, but they certainly like to hear what they want to hear.

The good politicians will tell people the truth which is what they need to hear even if the people don't like it and could very well cost them winning an election. The same goes with news sources. Fox News is pure propaganda. That station caters to a racist white audience and to a rich white audience and tells that specific white audience what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear. And what that white audience needs to hear is the truth which is not what they are getting from Fox News.

Tainari88 wrote:The best politicians usually become politicians for two reasons only. Power. Or service.


You hit the nail on the head here. Obama and McCain where people who ran for service reasons. Trump ran because he wanted to maintain his excessive power and privilege as a rich white person who saw Obama as a threat to his status and power. And many people who voted for Trump saw Obama as a status threat to their status and power in society.

Obama was pretty good at fighting the wolves in Washington DC who tried to come after him after he was elected not once but twice. Obama was no fool. Mitch McConnell is a prime example of one of those wolves who would want to stop politicians who run to serve the people and society rather than run for power.
#15090028
In a way, Trump is worse than Hitler, if we take into a consideration their respective historical setting.

In the early part of the last century antisemitism and racism were common. Churchill was a hard-core racist who didn't mind millions of "beastly" brown people getting killed and some like the Polish government hedged plans for deporting European Jews to Madagascar or other places before the Nazis ever thought of it. These sentiments were as common as Islamophobia and resentment against refugees today. Hitler was widely admired in the West and Western powers sanctioned his initial land grabs with the Munich agreement.

While Hitler was elected after what many felt to be the humiliation of Versailles at a time of great political and economic upheavals, in which many yearned for a strong man to bring back order, Trump was elected in the most powerful and prosperous nation on the planet. Thus, the phenomenon Trump is more reprehensible than the phenomenon Hitler.

Both obviously have different characters and family histories; however, there are some striking similarities.

Both operate by conspiracy theories. While the Nazis operated with a Jewish world conspiracy against Germany, Trump keeps on producing an endless series of conspiracies about climate change as a Chinese hoax to destroy America or the pandemic as a Democrat hoax, etc., which his henchmen have to somehow flesh out.

Both have also axed most competent experts to surround themselves with untalented yes-men who have to compete with each other for finding ways of implementing their leader's unrealistic ideas if they don't want to get axed.

Leaving aside differences in the historical context, political institutions and personal character, it is these last two points which result in the greatest similarities.

What would happen if Trump where to stay in power for 12 years like Hitler?
#15090036
Tainari88 wrote:
I am not a fascist


You are an identitarian extremist who routinely engages in racial scapegoating. You do support the use of violence and intimidation against legitimate political dissent. And you do want to impose a regime of totalitarian collectivism on the whole world. So you may not be a brown fascist but you are a kind of fascist and you're certainly about all the things that make fascism so exceedingly repugnant. Without those things fascism wouldn't be such a dirty word, it would just be liberalism with a lot of pageantry.
#15090037
Atlantis wrote:
operate by conspiracy theories.


progs operate by conspiracy theories, they mostly revolve around white supremacism and patriarchy.


climate change [...] or the pandemic


The Nazis also relied on politically motivated junk science to subjugate people and dominate society.
#15090038
His struggle. Mein Kempf. Running around admiring authoritarianism and so on....Donald likes strongmen. His wife mentions him having a copy of Mein Kempf by the bedside. Master race theories he mentions often in his book "The Art of the Deal" he talks about genetics and so on....


It's strictly about business deals he made successfully in the 1980s and he didn't play the race card at all in the entire book. Probably he didn't take a biology course in college, earning his degree in economics at Fordham College. Reading the book in detail is rather boring.

DEALING

A Week in the Life

IDON’T do it for the money. I’ve got enough, much more than I’ll ever need. I do it to do it. Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully on canvas or write wonderful poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals. That’s how I get my kicks.

Most people are surprised by the way I work. I play it very loose. I don’t carry a briefcase. I try not to schedule too many meetings. I leave my door open. You can’t be imaginative or entrepreneurial if you’ve got too much structure. I prefer to come to work each day and just see what develops.

There is no typical week in my life. I wake up most mornings very early, around six, and spend the first hour or so of each day reading the morning newspapers. I usually arrive at my office by nine, and I get on the phone. There’s rarely a day with fewer than fifty calls, and often it runs to over a hundred. In between, I have at least a dozen meetings. The majority occur on the spur of the moment, and few of them last longer than fifteen minutes. I rarely stop for lunch. I leave my office by six-thirty, but I frequently make calls from home until midnight, and all weekend long.

It never stops, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I try to learn from the past, but I plan for the future by focusing exclusively on the present. That’s where the fun is. And if it can’t be fun, what’s the point?

MONDAY

9:00 A.M. My first call is to Alan (“Ace”) Greenberg, on the trading floor of Bear Sterns, a major Wall Street investment banking firm. Alan is the CEO of Bear Sterns, he’s been my investment banker for the past five years, and he’s the best there is. Two weeks ago, we began buying stock in Holiday Inns. It was selling in the 50s. As of this morning, Alan tells me, I own just over one million shares, or slightly more than 4 percent of the company. The stock closed Friday at $65 a share, mostly, Alan says, because word is out on the street that I’ve been a big buyer, and there’s speculation I am planning a run at the company.

The truth is I’m keeping my options open. I may ultimately go for control of Holiday, which I think is somewhat undervalued. At the current stock price, I could get control for less than $2 billion. Holiday’s three casino-hotels could be worth nearly that much—and the company owns another 300,000 hotel rooms besides.

A second option, if the stock price goes high enough, is to sell my stake and take a very nice profit. If I did that today, I’d already be up about $7 million. The third possibility is that Holiday may eventually offer to buy back my shares, at a premium, simply to get rid of me. If the premium is big enough, I’ll sell.

In any case, I enjoy seeing the lengths to which bad managements go to preserve what they call their independence—which really just means their jobs.

9:30 A.M. Abraham Hirschfeld calls me, looking for advice. Abe is a successful real estate developer but he wants to be a politician. Unfortunately for Abe, he’s a far better developer than politician.

This fall, Abe tried to run for lieutenant governor against Governor Cuomo’s hand-picked candidate, Stan Lundine. Cuomo led a court fight to get Hirschfeld off the ballot on technical grounds, and sure enough, halfway into the campaign, the court ruled Hirschfeld out. Abe knows I’m friendly with the governor, and he wants my advice now on whether he should endorse Cuomo or switch parties and endorse Cuomo’s opponent. I tell him it’s a no-contest question—stick with a winner and a good guy at that.

We set a meeting for Thursday.

10:00 A.M. I call Don Imus to thank him. Imus has one of the most successful radio shows in the United States on WNBC, and he’s been helping to raise money for the Annabel Hill fund.

I’m amazed at how this has snowballed into such a media event. It began last week when I saw a national news report by Tom Brokaw about this adorable little lady from Georgia, Mrs. Hill, who was trying to save her farm from being foreclosed. Her sixty-seven-year-old husband had committed suicide a few weeks earlier, hoping his life insurance would save the farm, which had been in the family for generations. But the insurance proceeds weren’t nearly enough. It was a very sad situation, and I was moved. Here were people who’d worked very hard and honestly all their lives, only to see it all crumble before them. To me, it just seemed wrong.

Through NBC I was put in touch with a wonderful guy from Georgia named Frank Argenbright, who’d become very involved in trying to help Mrs. Hill. Frank directed me to the bank that held Mrs. Hill’s mortgage. The next morning, I called and got some vice president on the line. I explained that I was a businessman from New York, and that I was interested in helping Mrs. Hill. He told me he was sorry, but that it was too late. They were going to auction off the farm, he said, and “nothing or no one is going to stop it.”

That really got me going. I said to the guy: “You listen to me. If you do foreclose, I’ll personally bring a lawsuit for murder against you and your bank, on the grounds that you harassed Mrs. Hill’s husband to his death.” All of a sudden the bank officer sounded very nervous and said he’d get right back to me.

Sometimes it pays to be a little wild. An hour later I got a call back from the banker, and he said, “Don’t worry, we’re going to work it out, Mr. Tramp.” Mrs. Hill and Frank Argenbright told the media, and the next thing I knew, it was the lead story on the network news.

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books ... 96/excerpt
#15090043
The whole question reeks of anti White racism. Our modern society is so drenched in anti White racism that like the fish we can no longer see the water. Every time this question is asked it is a racist attack on White People, on Gentiles and early twentieth century Germans. I utterly reject the whole racist assumption that underlies it, as if Germans Gentiles or White people have got something to answer for. As if we've got something to apologise for. How often do you hear the question?

Why did so many Africans follow Shaka kaSenzangakhona?
#15090046
Do you know what Chávez, Hitler and Pinochet have in common?

Image

Chávez and Hitler: more similar than you think
Image


1. According to Bravo, Adolf Hitler was a person with very high self-esteem. However, the leader of Nazi Germany needed to be admired and supported by his nation to strengthen that personality trait. The late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, explained Bravo, also needed the support and admiration of his people when he gave his speeches.

For the psychologist, this behavior is a clear symptom of a narcissistic personality disorder. This is a mental disorder that "refers to a dominant pattern of greatness, the need for admiration and the lack of empathy."

In addition, both had great charisma at the time of relating to the people of their respective peoples. You only have to watch the videos in which Hitler and Chávez appear, where the charisma they projected is evident, which made men and women of all ages follow them and receive them through tears and smiles.


2. According to Bravo, Hitler and Chávez used the same method to generate a feeling of apparent well-being among the inhabitants of their countries. On Hitler, the psychologist stated that "In each of its manifestations, speeches or events he distracted the attention of the nation through events, parties, folklore shows among other things, which gave the people a sense of totalitarian well-being."

This is something that Chávez also did in Venezuela, with the difference that the deceased Bolivarian leader participated in the folklore shows. In fact, in a video Chávez is watched at a party, singing along with several Venezuelan musicians. This is something that the ex-president used to do frequently, which generated that sense of well-being among his people.

3. In an article of the Jorge Tadeo Lozano University, it is also evident that both leaders used the media in their favor. Hitler, for example, used the radio and the newspaper to expand his voice and "spread fanatic extremism everywhere." It states that "nowhere is Hitler's character revealed more clearly than in his speeches, radio broadcasts, and writings."

Before his death in 2013, Chávez also made use of the media, such as television, radio, the written press and even social networks such as Twitter. This with the aim of spreading his ideology to all the corners of his nation, just as Hitler did in his time.


And what about Augusto Pinochet?

"Pinochet begins his seizure of power through seduction, he gives the idea of wanting to save his nation and later he goes on to aggression," said Bravo. She then pointed out that the Chilean dictator had an antisocial personality. According to her, this "is a pattern of inattention and violation of the rights of others." But what do Pinochet, Hitler, and Chávez have in common?

According to Bravo, this behavior associated with Pinochet was also projected by both Hitler and Chávez. Hitler, for example, told the Germans that he would get them out of the economic crisis they were in and that he would make Germany great again. Chávez, on the other hand, presented himself as a savior in the face of the bad government that Venezuela was living, according to him.
#15090049
Hitler: No sense of humour (like a libtard that way)
Trump: Spontaneous wit

Hitler: Socially awkward loner probably a bit autistic (again like a libtard)
Trump: High end social machine, gregarious and comfortable engaging with any kind of person of any nationality. A natural for the hotel trade.

Hitler: Low self-esteem but in denial about it (again like a libtard)
Trump: High self-esteem.

Hitler: Frowny face, never happy, prone to tantrums (L I B T A R D)
Trump: Expressive face frequently smiling, seemingly very happy in disposition.

Hitler: Idealist (libtard)
Trump: Pragmatist

Hitler: Self-crafted public persona over a shallow to the point of non-existent personal self (libtard!)
Trump: Public persona is a direct and unfiltered transmission of his personal self, what you see is what you get.

For his psychological profile Hitler would have to be classed as a libtard. If he were alive today he would certainly be channelling all the libtard's bizarre autistic hatreds and all the libtards would worship him like he was the second coming of Jeremy Corbyn for articulating, normalising and validating their inner malevolence. Instead of gassing jews he would be gassing zionists and white people but the rest would be the same.
#15090062
SolarCross wrote:Germany had been ruled by the kaisers for the longest time, and for the most part that rule was very effective while being on the political absolutist model. That came to an end with WW1 not even only two decades before Hitler's rise not so long ago.

I broadly agree with that statement and permit myself to expand upon it for the sake of this thread.

Germany (or rather, the German lands) underwent considerable political changes following the Napoleonic wars, from the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire to multiple confederations until being partly united under Prussian supremacy. The German empire itself didn't last half a century. While it is true that during most of the time that is relevant to us the Germans have lived in a monarchic system, one must be careful as to when it is appropriate to call the power of the supreme ruler absolute and whether or not most Germans culturally considered the supreme ruler a primary leading figure in politics. Nevertheless, I will agree that the political dynamics of the late German empire did favour the kaiser and that, by the time of the Weimar republic, nostalgia probably got the best of the German people as regards to accurate historical remembrance.

However, a more important factor in my opinion would be the very context of the birth of the German empire: The Franco-Prussian war. By 1871, not only did the Germans defeat the French with an unprecedented swiftness, but they established themselves as a military and economic powerhouse that took a Franco-British alliance to defeat, itself being unprecedented in terms of scale. Taking this into account, the turmoil of advancing through French territory in 1914 seems almost nonsensical. They are indeed sound geopolitical, technological and military reasons for the way the Great War turned out to be, but these don't hold a candle to the romanticism of patriotism.

I insist on this point because these brutal shifts in the balance of power at the end of the Pax Britannica are consequential to the moral and economic collapse of most of German lands in the early twentieth century and are therefore a central reason as to why the Germans followed Hitler. The United States never experienced such profound economic and political changes and therefore a majority of the American people is insensitive to most of the associated populist narrative archetypal of Hitler's rhetoric. "Make X great" is more in line with a series of economic reforms aimed at industrial and financial prosperity than it is with a bellicose idea of continental domination. It can be argued that both seek to bolster nationalistic sentiment, but I believe the profound contextual differences are enough to properly dissociate Hitler from Trump. At this point the only things they would have in common are political practices that are far from being exclusive to them. And, while I do agree that antagonizing political opposition and catering to a misinformed populace (be it due to actual ideals or for strict political gains) is dangerous in itself, it is still far from turning an Ad hitlerum argument into something productive. It is another story when it comes to a more general anti-populist argument, though.

Another very important point is the economic factor. The Germans did not only inherit a debt considered unfair by many (and especially them), it was also ridiculously large. There are political reasons for this, and surely debt repayment has been remodeled with the Young Plan, but it was still a powerful nationalist argument on the political scene of the Weimar Republic. The Great Depression also contributed to an overall negative sentiment regarding foreign powers, especially through the Smooth-Hawley Act. While it is true that the fear of external economic intervention during the inter-war period was not exclusive to Germany (the French for example had some resentment regarding the UK's alleged manipulation of exchange rates), the German situation was the most exceptional. Yet again, the United-States never experienced such turmoil and the American people are largely insensitive to the economic threat a foreign power could pose. Such cases exist: Russia and China specifically. And though overall Chinese opposition is a consensus in US policy-making I believe it is still nowhere near the levels reached in pre-WWII Europe. Yet again Trump's position can hardly be compared to that of Hitler, their attitudes also differ: Trump's concerns over foreign powers is for the most part limited to the reformation of international trade the US engages in.

I will conclude by saying that both characters differ greatly in terms of context and policy. I will not venture into talking about their psychology but what I have read of Hitler and seen of Trump does not lead me to believe they are alike. I do consider the rise of Hitler to power an interesting topic for this thread but resent the idea of furthering the comparison with Trump.
Last edited by D.U.I. on 08 May 2020 13:41, edited 2 times in total.
#15090063
Although he's got Bavarian origins, Trump should be compared to Mussolini rather than Hitler, but Mussolini's not even a thing for Tainari I guess. She could even come up with Thomas Mann's Mario and the Magician then, which is an analogy in which he describes (Italian) Fascism as a con and Fascist leaders (Mussolini) as con men.

Image
It's also interesting to see how someone's self-confidence grows with his/her growing dumbness.

Trump's looting/shooting tweet is maybe the most […]

I do think though that YouTube should have to be c[…]

I have to point out that these were *political* t[…]

Let's just start with this: 1 : any of various […]