re: History Buffs...why didnt the Axis seek out US's help in WWII?

quote:

---

In the 1920s and 30s, the “politically correct” view of the day was that of the nazis. Hitler laid that out plain as day.

That was the “correct” view in Germany at the time. As fascist, they silenced any and all opposition to that “politically correct” view.

That’s kinda the move of fascist.... our view is right, any dissent will be met with force....

Kinda like today’s politically correct left and their use of force and intimidation against any and all they see as “incorrect” in their views

---

You missed the part where the Nazis views included committing genocide, imprisoning and/or torturing people for political or religious beliefs, imposing a dictator, and conquering most of the world by force. But yea, pretty similar otherwise

quote:

---

ideologically the US was closer to these countries than the Allies

---

And they say there's no such thing as a dumb question

quote:

---

They don’t contradict. It took time for the nazis to gain enough power to implement their ideology. Just because the Nazis didn’t strike before they had the power to consolidate doesn’t mean they were complicit nor agreed with homosexuality nor the prevalence of gay night clubs. That is why the Nazis were successful, they were able to hold back the flood til the opportune moment.

---

But Hitler was utterly explicit during the whole Weimar era. There was skepticism that he would actually follow through, but saying that the Nazis "held back" misunderstands the skepticism certain sections had, including German militarists, nationalists and monarchists who buttressed support for the Nazis after the 1928 elections, when people like Kurt von Schleicher was convinced that the SPD could not take power.

Again, the idea that "political correctness" had a major role in the Nazi's rise doesn't seem to have support in the literature.

The US was never going to play along with the Axis Powers, but there was some definite pro-Axis support in this country at the time.

Henry Ford in particular lobbied Washington hard for that consideration.

Prior to finishing undergrad I was assigned a paper to supplement the reading of "Silencing the Past" by Michel-Rolph Trouillot. The book deals with, among other things, the subjective interpretations and conclusions of historical events (to fit one's biases).

I used "The Man in the Hightower" for comparative purposes and delved into the Nazi party of America. This led me to GL Rockwell. He's a peculiar historical figure.

George Lincoln Rockwell interview

If you go even further you will see that Prescott Bush wanted to oust FDR and establish a fascistic gov't in the image of Nazi Germany. American Nazism is not a new thing and I'm sure - in some clandestine manner - there were plenty of collaborators in USgov during the mid 20th century.

In regards to the war, the US maintained an isolationist demeanor until the Reich attacked American ships. I don't think you can commiserate and fight on behalf of a literal combatant.

quote:

---

Yes, there was. And the good people on one side sat silent and watched evil take over their world through politically correct speech, demonizing a group, violence, rioting, coercion, propaganda, and fear tactics without raising a hand to stop it. And, as a result, all good people paid the price....history has a way of repeating itself from time to time.

---

I wish people like you would stop placing Trump as Hitler.

quote:

---

Which is exactly my point.

---

Doesn’t change the fact that it fits the description though.

quote:

---

Why not blame political correctness for the Hep-Hep riots? Why not blame it for the Circassian genocide?

---

One certainly can.

quote:

---

Who do you think will write it?

---

Who knows. Could be written tomorrow. Could be in 500 years.

There are modern works that put modern descriptors on events all the way back to the dawn of man.

quote:

---

Give me your guess from your "whole bookshelf."

---

Well, I’d say that particular argument would be more likely to come from the “political” side of my book shelf, rather than the “history” side. So, to be honest, most likely some grad student in some bumbling peer reviewed scholastic article.

But, I’d like to think Churchill would be a wonderful commentator on the politics of 2020, and I do have his 6 part megalith on the Second World War.

quote:

---

Fify

---

ISWYDT

quote:

---

And to your other point, I can say pretty decisively that I would never put myself in a position where the need to commit genocide arises

---

Of course, neither would I.

But, if you had a gun to your head that said “press button A and your mother dies, press button B and 10 random pick a marginalized class dies, if you don’t pick you die”

10 out of 10 times you’re hitting button B. Why? To save yourself and to save your mother.

You wouldn’t kill yourself. You wouldn’t kill your mom. You’d kill the ransoms you have no connection with.

There is a reason we call someone a hero when they sacrifice themselves. Because that IS NOT human nature. That goes against what it is to be human.

And sure. You can say you’d sacrifice yourself. But.... deep down inside you know you wouldn’t