It seems bizarre to me how American conservatives began to make very specific arguments about how National Socialism, or Nazism, stemmed from leftwing ideology and politics. They always tend to say the same thing, too. They point out the "socialism" part of the National Socialist party, and sick to that. They do that almost to the point where they fail to recognize that there is any difference between Nazis and, say, Communists.
Honest, I'm not kidding! I remember seeing a post on Facebook once where people were making that same argument. And I reminded them that apparently the memo of how similar to identical Nazis and Communists were never reached the Germans or Soviets during World War II. After all, they literally fought the bitterest part of World War II between each other. In fact, the war on the eastern front is widely regarded as the deadliest, nastiest war in all of human history, and that's saying something.
And they fought that way even though they were on the same team? Really? Is that what you people actually believe?
For the most part, the responses were laughter emojis. I might have been called brainwashed, or at least it was implied at some point. They dismissed me as a rube, as a moron and a sheep. Mind you, they did that without actually arguing or even acknowledging the merits of my arguments, or explaining why Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fought so long and so extremely bitterly - again, it was the deadliest war in human history - against one another, if they shared so many of the same beliefs. They just laughed and figuratively swept me aside.
And that pretty much ended that discussion. That was fine by my, because it frankly hardly felt worth the effort. Just another reminded of the pointlessness of debating with strangers on social media, which was a lesson that I already pretty well knew at that point, although clearly this lesson had been forgotten at least temporarily. At least on that day, anyway.
The thing is, these ideas keep persisting. And again, it seems to be all about the "socialist" part of the National Socialist party.
That Nazism did implement some socialist reforms was true. But it was on a much more limited basis than most conservative-leaning Americans pretend it was.
In fact, the Nazis hated the Communists. As I understand it, the first real victims of the new Nazi regime in Germany were Communists, who were the earliest group of "undesirables" to be sent to concentration camps. Also, let's not forget that towards the end, when the war was going very badly for Nazi Germany, some leading officials - including but not limited to Hitler - thought that the West would eventually come to their senses and join Germany in fighting the Godless Commies in the Soviet Union, once they finally recognized that they were the far bigger threat. Germany, in their opinion, had been fighting an existential war to save Western Civilization, after all. Inevitably, the West would come to recognize this and join the fight.
Of course, that never happened. But that's not the point. The point is that the Nazis themselves surely saw themselves as having very different ideas and values than the Soviets. Clearly, the feeling was mutual, too. The one thing that Communists stood opposed to right away were the fascists. Often times during the Cold War, the Soviets at least insinuated that the West leaned in favor of fascism.
Here's the thing: the Communist regime of Stalin and the Nazi regime of Hitler did have some things in common. Both regimes were bullies, preying on and ultimately invading weaker nations. Both believed in purging their nations of "enemies" and outsiders, people who just did not fit in with their version of utopia. Both had massive detention center (whether gulags or concentration camps or even the German death camps) systems. In both countries, millions of people were brutally exterminated.
Both of them also adhered to the idea of praising to the point of worshiping a Dear Leader. The cult of personality in the Soviet Union was Stalin, while it was Hitler for Germany. Both of these men ruled absolutely, with an iron fist.
So yes, there are similarities between the two.
But not so much in their professed ideology. Hitler and the Nazis believed in the superiority of the Aryan race. Other races should either be subjugated and made to serve the Aryan race, or they might simply be liquidated, exterminated. In Mein Kampf, Hitler foresaw a German empire that would expand to the east, at the expense of the inferior Slavic people. He had his sights set in particular on the Soviet Union. He did not view himself as their liberator. He viewed them as people fit only to serve the best interests of the Master Race.
Now, let's get back to American conservatives and their desire to make it seem like Hitler and the Nazis came from leftist, progressive ideology. In what way, exactly, did Hitler come from a progressive mindset? Perhaps he foresaw a Nazi German state which was in control of everything? There might be some truth to that. But the thing is, wealthy German capitalists supported Hitler and funded the Nazi German empire which Hitler and the Nazis built.
Hitler was clear and absolute in his stated political ideology. He and the Nazis made no secret of the people he hated, and that they would be automatically sent to concentration camps and/or exterminated. There were the superior Aryans, and then there were the lesser races in the Nazi racial hierarchy. Hitler was adamant that pure Aryan blood was the best, and he was wary of "polluted blood" from intermixing of races, especially Jews. It was on this basis that Hitler enslaved, as well as exterminated, those considered inferior races. He also promoted German culture and distrusted any outside influence or "pollution." He talked about the sacred blood of the German Volk. All of these things that I am saying are part of historical record, by the way. You can check them for yourselves.
There is one American conservative in particular who recently suggested, apparently with a straight face, that progressivism produced the horrors of Hitler and the Nazis. That would be Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Now, when he's not too busy fighting charges of blatant corruption targeted either at his wife or himself, he seems to actively be a cheerleader and enabler to Donald Trump. And let's remember that Trump has outright borrowed some language used by totalitarian regimes, including those of Stalin and Hitler. Trump referred to the media as "enemies of the people," just as both Hitler and Stalin did. Trump talks about the "blood" of Americans being "polluted" by outside elements, particularly useless immigrants, similar to what Hitler suggested. Like both Stalin and Hitler, Trump bullies weaker nations and has talked openly of expanding at the expense of other countries. That is why he has stated that Greenland is, by right, an American territory. That is why he spoke of taking back Panama. That is why he refers to Canada as the "51st state" and seemed to insinuate that it was just a matter of time before Canada joins the United States. Trump also uses the same kind of violent rhetoric to promote his political aims that Hitler used. Like Hitler, he has enabled his own secret police force, and trampled on traditional American freedoms, such as freedom of speech and of the press.
Also like Hitler, Trump likes images of himself portrayed as some kind of a hero. Hitler tended to have these be more serious portraits, showing him as a traditional Teutonic knight, or in a situation where he appears almost as a divine figure. Trump has not done the Teutonic knight thing (yet). But he has posted images of himself as a divine figure (the recent Jesus posts) as well as a muscle head kicking some ass, or as a pilot of a fighter jet spraying literal crap on a crowd of Americans below. That seems to suggest the times we are living in, when people seem to gravitate towards immature jokes and images and such. Clearly, Trump is very much a part of that immature culture.
But I digress...
It sure seems like Thomas has turned an all too convenient blind eye towards what actually produced Hitler, just as he also conveniently seems to sweep over the fact that he is a major and vocal supporter of the closest thing that the United States has produced to Hitler and Nazism. After all, so far as I can tell, it wasn't the avocado toast crowd that stormed the Capitol on January 6th. Nor was it the transgender people who cheered Trump when he suggested that parts of the Constitution might need to be suspended. It's not the liberal elite who populate Trump rallies, and it's not liberals who bend over backwards to empower Trump's inevitable and endless power grabs or bullies other countries or tramples on the civil liberties which are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and traditional American democratic institutions. It's not images of Obama or Biden that were posted on buildings in Washington or, more recently, on passports. All of that is Trump and MAGA. And yes, that is one thing that they have with dictatorships of the past, whether or not they like that comparison.
So with all of those similarities to Hitler, it is rich that Thomas, who obviously is a major Trump supporter, is trying to blame progressives for Hitler and the Nazis. In fact, it feels distinctly like an attempt to try to redefine historical truths.
Frankly, Clarence Thomas might be covering for the fact that he himself seems to throw his full support to a fascist political movement that bears an alarming resemblance to Hitler and the Nazis far too frequently. And they have gained power in this country, frankly, because of people like Clarence Thomas himself.
What a joke.
Clarence Thomas blames progressivism for Hitler. Historians aren’t having it Story by CK Smith • 6d • 2 min read
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/clarence-thomas-blames-progressivism-for-hitler-historians-aren-t-having-it/ar-AA21d8gp?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=7e6c39f3ca304c88b858d33051ff3661&ei=21
Clarence Thomas blames progressivism for Hitler. Historians aren’t having it
No comments:
Post a Comment