Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

press.uchicago.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 426 posts

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#161

Post by bJGVygG7MQVF8c »

panax wrote: post #142

The most chilling part is "But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on th…

And of course no one bothers to ask what precipitate(d/s) the first steps, what gets the ball rolling down the slippery slope in the first place, because it's unacceptable to ask such questions.

We had better start asking those questions soon if we want to avoid the most tragic trajectories ahead but sadly I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#162

Post by nostrademons »

amirkdv wrote: post #121
awb wrote: post #105

> "How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice — ‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certa…

Genuinely curious: what are some historically significant examples of "false positives"? By which I assume you mean a time when people rose to resist something they didn't really have to.

To elaborate on aazaa's comment: think of the labels "patriot" and "terrorist" and think of how frequently they correlate with "winner" and "loser".

The Founding Fathers were patriots, because America is now the dominant world superpower. But there are a number of groups that attempted to do to America exactly what America did to the British. Daniel Shay, Tecumseh, Sitting Bull, the entire Confederacy, the Anarchist movement of the early 1900s, the Business Plot of 1933, McCarthy, Vietnamese nationalism, Osama bin Laden. How does history remember them now?

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#163

Post by jimbob45 »

jolux wrote: post #9
bmmayer1 wrote: post #6

This is a powerful piece about a time in Germany where people couldn't, to paraphrase, see where things could go, and so couldn't really understand when things have started. I suspect that readers will see this piece as a reflection of their greatest fears about our own Republic. Unfortunately, the message will be lost by those who are most in need of hearing it. That includes many of the readers of this piece who th…

Antifascists aren't holding rallies chanting "Jews will not replace us" and showing up to peaceful protests with weapons to kill protesters. The amount of paramilitary activity on the left is minimal, especially when compared to the right, adherents of which been caught in several (edit: at least one, Governor Whitmer, I can't find evidence of others right now) plots over the past few months to kidnap and even murder…

I’m not sure why you’re ignoring BLM. They’re the biggest terrorist organization of the last year, organizing riots and orchestrating widespread looting. How can you call the left peaceable after that?

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#164

Post by jolux »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #154
jolux wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do, because Ohio was a single state with apparently some irregularities in the vote, and the effort to challenge was not even broadly supported within the Democratic party. What is being alleged here is that Democrats "stole" the election. Nonsense.

I think we're talking across each other here. I'm not attempting to draw a strict equivalence; I'm not saying this year is as bad as that year, this side is as bad as that side, this argument is as bad as that argument. I'm just saying that the original claim - that only one part of the political spectrum attempts to dispute clear election results - is flawed.

I'm not talking about in general though, I am talking about this year. And moreover, one senator and one representative cannot be taken as representative of a whole side. One objection is an aberration. A whole party objecting is a political strategy.

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#165

Post by TT3351 »

OminousWeapons wrote: post #131
jolux wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What am I supposed to think about the intent of the other side when they're trying to get a legitimate election result overturned to support their preferred presidential candidate? Who isn't living in reality here? This is not a far left position, and it's not the left that is driving FUD about US election integrity.

I agree they are being sore losers, but you should think that they are exercising the legal rights they are entitled to in order to challenge what they perceive to be irregularities in the process. If irregularities are found (which they probably won't be) then cases should be heard by the courts. If they are not, Trump should ultimately concede or be forced from office. Be patient and let the process play out in a l…

There is no real right to file frivolous lawsuits (which the lawyers know in their hearts are frivolous, let's be abundantly clear), that is a complete myth.

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#166

Post by OminousWeapons »

jolux wrote: post #139
OminousWeapons wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree they are being sore losers, but you should think that they are exercising the legal rights they are entitled to in order to challenge what they perceive to be irregularities in the process. If irregularities are found (which they probably won't be) then cases should be heard by the courts. If they are not, Trump should ultimately concede or be forced from office. Be patient and let the process play out in a l…

Nobody's saying they don't have a right to challenge irregularities, but many government officials say this was the most secure election in American history and deny any evidence of systemic fraud: https://apnews.com/article/top-officials-elections-most-secu...

I agree it was a secure election. What I mean to say is that this is a perception issue. There is a belief along many on the right that elements of the civil service, the media, and the educated classes are strongly biased against Donald Trump and would like to undermine him. To be honest, they are probably right (although I would argue that the bias is warranted given Trump's abysmal job performance). They therefore think that the left would try to undermine the electoral process to remove Trump at all costs and that their intent is fundamentally malicious. The way you deal with this problem is through transparency and patience. You allow Trump unencumbered access to the largely republican courts and if any irregularities exist Trump is allowed his day in court. Once that is over, you then say we have dealt with you in good faith and you can see we weren't trying to screw you over. We now expect the same from you. This gives you the moral high ground and makes you look reasonable. If Trump refuses to cooperate you can then say he is breaking the law and remove him.

There will be some on the right that will never be convinced that this election was legitimate, but this pacifies the more reasonable people on the right. Trying to kick the Republicans while they are down , chastising them them for using legal means to fight the outcome of the election, or engaging in grievance politics just further reinforces the perception that the left isn't operating in good faith.

Remember once all of this is over we still have to live with these people.

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#167

Post by laszlokorte »

tines wrote: post #140
laszlokorte wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that I am downvoted and I guess it is because my comment has been very simplistic and not explained well. I will try (in a perspective here from Germany): In general nothing here is really bad, nobody is killed or deported. So of course a comparison to the linked article is an exaggeration. But nonetheless since April the general mood in the country is be-surprised-and-accept driven: Businesses are closed on sh…

I appreciate your clarification, and for the record I am not one of the ones who downvoted you. I agree that police being free to enter your house without probable cause of a crime is not good, and I'm not sure how many people are arguing that those who violate the quarantine should be put in psychiatric care. That just seems like nonsense, I'd have to have proof that someone is seriously advocating that before opini…

Regarding psychatric care it was at least discussed in april but then discarded due to harsh critique [1].

In general I agree with you and would not take an extreme position to deny the goverment everything in a crisis situation.

But on the other hand there are people (medical experts?) arguing that in the coming years or decades there will be many new viral deseases to encounter. So espacially with all this worldwide awareness and fear I find it easy to imagine that there will be an increased afford to detect virsus leading to maybe one new virus in focus every few years keeping the whole system in an alarmed state (including all the "special" [reading the permanent] laws) active for the whole time. Generations growing up from now on may not even know the times before. Same as with the "terror" theme now. Every few month there are reports about terrorist attacks and the whole thing becomes a meme and is used to justify anything.

[1]: https://deutsch.medscape.com/artikelansicht/4908831

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#168

Post by jhayward »

jhayward wrote: post #137
acqq wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mueller said explicitly they found evidence Instead of reading what "he said" I'd appreciate reading what the evidence is and what it shows. I'd honestly like to learn. Edit: just checked, the linked Time's "debunking" confirms that there was no evidence of collusion: the best that they can come to is to claim: "But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was accepta…

You can start with Time's debunking[1], but really should read what Mueller has written and said, both the report and following articles and interviews. [1] https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/ Edited in response to Parent's edit: "While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.” You don't appear to be having an honest conversation, so I'll bid y…

2nd edit: what the heck, let's just quote justsecurity.org's summary of the Mueller report[2]:

"1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration."

[2] https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-repo...

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#169

Post by TT3351 »

jolux wrote: post #55
stickyricky wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not contradict my point.

You're saying he shot someone. That was alleged, and he was never arrested or charged. Like I said, some leftists are believers in armed self defense. I am not. But the fact of the matter is we will never know the full details of that case. I condemn bringing weapons to protests as fully as I condemn equating the role of violence on the left and the right in America right now.

I loathe this online obsession with painting an amorphous group of "leftists" with the largest, most inaccurate brush known to man.

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#170

Post by at_a_remove »

Tostino wrote: post #160
at_a_remove wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, you think Obama and the Clintons would have minded terribly if it turned out that way? Anyway, we're not shifting the goalposts to the leaders, we're talking about the people , which is the subject of the article. The people of the left were completely down with the faithless electorate concept, whoopie! And somehow you missed this point. Which leads me to a question: why? Perhaps you didn't hear about it. Perh…

You can find people of any background who will spout contradictory rhetoric. I don't think you're making this argument in good faith. 2016 was a whole lot closer than 2020, and Clinton conceded and there was no serious calculated attempt to overturn the election results by either the public at large, or people who had any power to do so. Equating that with what's going on now does not seem like an argument made in go…

I was hanging out in lefty circles in 2016; the faithless electorate idea was wildly popular, as was the "the popular vote should win." These were the last hope for many who were previously so confident.
Post reply on HN