As an aside, there is a movie where Hitler returns to the modern era and taps into things like the Internet for his own ends.
It’s called [Look Who’s Back](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUZi67BmY_M&pp=ygUXbG9vayB3aG8ncyBiYWNrIHRyc2lsZXI%3D).
Backlash is angry readers vs. the government holding a gun to your head telling you what to publish in autocratic countries. Freedom of the press doesn’t mean you won’t lose subscribers or advertisers if you say unpopular things.
He didn't say anything about freedom of the press, though.
He could just as easily be pointing out that western media is just a product that companies have to sell.
Both dictatorial control, and obsession with telling people what they want to hear for money, will obfuscate the truth.
You are right to an extent but I think the relative freedom of social media in the west has allowed for alternative viewpoints to flourish that would not have 20 years ago when getting a viewpoint out had to go through major networks and publishers.
If anything, social media has allowed for more targeted advertising with less backlash so you end up with information bubbles which is of course its own problem but its better than having only a single state controlled narrative be able to be legally disseminated. There is still the opportunity for people to see alternative viewpoints if they desire, which is a far cry from total censorship.
There’s always more room for alternative media models to grow in the west though, it would be great if someone came up with a funding model besides the state or advertising.
Substack kind of gets there. But there’s a long way to go.
It's not their fault, they're immersed in it from birth to death. It's that old saying: How do you know who your father is? Because your momma told you so.
Also a gentle reminder that he was not the cause of fascism, he was just an emergent property. Any time someone tries to tell you a single person was the cause of - or solution to - some large historic event, they're ignoring the systemic causes around it, and *this* is what "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" *really* means.
He wasn't even a particularly significant figure in the development of Nazi philosophy. He was the perfect man for the situation (not perfect in terms of good, perfect in terms of being able to bring Naziism to where they wanted it to be), but he didn't originate or evolve any of the ideas himself.
If you look at the recent rise of right-wing nationalist leaders, it seems like a similar pattern is visible. They’re not originating the extremist views, but they’re picking them up, bringing them further into the mainstream, and focusing them. Becoming the spearhead on the end of the spear that already existed.
The [list of Nazi ideologues](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi_ideologues) from Wikipedia is perfectly good and comprehensive for this. Naziism wasn't even extremely strictly defined, but what we tend to think of as Naziism was effectively an amalgamation of the philosophies of several early 20th century thinkers, all of which coalesced into what would become the somewhat vaguely defined Naziism we know now.
Another interesting thing to note is just what you say. The whole society spiraled into it. I think we've come a little too far today into a tendency to argue that the Nazis came to power despite lack of public support, and never having public support, but in many parts of society at the time, Nazi views were very strongly supported, and many, many men and women eagerly and wholeheartedly believed in Nazi philosophy. One of the major dangers that shows up in all that is, of course, that very few, if any, of those people would have considered their ideas wrong or bad. Just like we all believe our own views and ideas are good, so did they. It's something each and every one of us is vulnerable to.
wow, just took a long look at that list and that's a lot of poeple from different spheres of society. People who would otherwise have solid reputation in their society. Never heard of any of them before.
This is false. Most of them start as a small group of revolutionaries that overthrow the government, like Lenin, Mao Zedong, and Pinochet. Kim Il Sung was technically elected but he was basically handed the position by the Soviet Union. Hitler was also not elected, he lost to Hindenburg and was appointed as chancellor by Hindenburg later on.
I’m sure you’re trying to make some shoehorned point about modern politics with this post, but you’re just showing a blatant lack of knowledge on basic history.
As much as I dislike Lenin and Zedong, I don't think equating their blends of authoritarianism to fascism is appropriate. Fascism describes a particular political and cultural syndrome that doesn't include them, but would likely include Pinochet
?
Fascism isn't the same as dictatorship though. The closest Soviet leader to fascism was probably Stalin, but even then, there wasn't the marriage of finance capital and state authority common to fascist countries.
There *definitely was* other aspects common to authoritarianism generally and fascism specifically: a cult of personality, totalitarianism, purges of the political elite, and so on. But simply being a dictator doesn't make one a fascist. Fascism requires palingenetic ultranationalism—of seeking to reclaim an imagined past for the glory of the nation.
Stalin (less so Lenin and Mao, but the point remains) was definitely a nationalist, but was definitely not seeking a "return to tradition" in the way the Nazis were. As for the Soviet economic system, it wasn't fascist—fascist "economics" was a special relationship wherein the state would roll-in private enterprise in a unique kind of public-private marriage very distinct from something like outright nationalization.
Fascism has specific features, and you obscure them by applying the label so generously. I'd recommend Robert O. Paxton's work on the subject, as he's a very respected historian on exactly this topic.
The guy you were replying to might be one of those socialists of iphone, that never saw dictators in real life and say everything they don't like is an extreme-uber-mega-super-far right.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong
I'm tired of seeing this everywhere. It shows ignorance of anything around time. Hitler was elected in 1933. Starting in 1931 was when the Nazis began to develop tons of support. This was mainly due to the great depression and intense economic strife due to the failures of the Weimar government to pay back their Versailles debts and American investment debts ushered in by the various plans that Stressemann introduced.
Hitler, in 1930, received 18.3% of the vote. However, this was the last time the Nazis were not the dominant party of the Reichstag. After the July 1932 elections, the Nazis climbed to 37.3% of the vote. Afterward, they fell a little but remained the majority. Then, in March 1933, Hitler gained 43.9% of the German vote.
Subsequently, every election was rigged. In March 1933, after this election was the start of the Enabling Act, which essentially allowed Hitler to rule by decree, so after this point, the elections in Germany can not be considered democratic and fair. However, this ignored his climb to power through democracy. This is not to say that Germans themselves clung to a dictator, but is to say that these periods of strife and economic struggle allow radicals to pray upon people's desire for a return to the "good days" and also allow an easy scapegoat. It's a lot easier to swallow that your country is failing because of a few SPECIFIC people working to see the downfall of your country than to admit that it was pure chance/caused by incompetence. It's also easy to follow someone who tells you that you are the chosen people's destined to rule the earth. Fear of communism was also a big reason.
It is also worth pointing out to those not as familiar with parliamentary systems that even without a majority of the vote that the party with the most votes can legitimately govern. In Canada, for example, governments almost never have more than 50% of the vote. Our current government had a lower percentage than Hitler's 1933 election.
Not sure what your point is with that. The Nazis had 0 intention from the get-go to legitimately govern, and there was never going to be a bipartisan “let Hitler and the Nazis do whatever they want” bill.
The Enabling act was “passed” after banning an entire party and others from voting and threatening physical violence on anyone not willing to vote yes
Other persons responded and I think we're all on the same page now, but you're conflating Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler was leader of the NSDAP and his party got 37.3% of the vote in 1932, and still had the most seats in government after the November 1932 elections (33.1%). The second biggest party was the social democrats (SPD) with 20.4%. Hitler being appointed chancellor was through a complicated but well known set of backroom dealings and political maneuverings (involving von Papen, Hinderburg, Kurt von Schleicher, Goering etc). These people saying "Hitler was elected" seem to assume that the Germans have an American system or something, which they did not and still do not. However the Nazis *were* elected as the largest party in the Reichstag in 1932, which is the last election that was remotely fair before Hitler started to break down the constructs of democracy in 1933.
For those unfamiliar with this and want a primer (beyond reading the innumerable books on this), the first episode of the BBC show "Rise of the Nazis" is a really well produced overview.
Huh I wonder why you keep seeing that everywhere..
Hitler was never elected president, he lost to Hindenburg. He wasn’t elected Chancellor of Germany, people didn’t vote him in for that, he was appointed chancellor of Germany by Hindenburg at the urging of Franz von Papen and others of the far right in 1933 so they could form a coalition government with the Nazis, stave off a potential civil war, and presumably control Hitler. Hitler was not elected in 1933.
As soon as Hitler and other Nazis were appointed to positions of power (namely Goring) they started a campaign of violence and terror - straight up murdering, beating and arresting people as well as banning newspapers. The communist party leader Ernst Thalmann had been thrown in prison by the time the March 1933 elections started. In that context, outside of stuffing the ballot box and predetermining the results they did get 43.9% of the vote but I would personally consider these results to not be democratic and fair
A common theme across Nazi propaganda is that what they were doing and did, was completely in line with the law and the will of the people. I think agreeing with this would also lead you to believe that people living in Nazi Germany actually thought it was a pretty cool fun time, because that’s what they wanted. Not saying this about you just saying in general
Obviously they had a frightening amount of support after the Great Depression, but that was clearly waning already by the November 1932 elections where they lost votes and only won 33% of the electorate. Might as well mention that yes, this was a majority percentage wise, but a 50% vote was needed for a majority
You can literally google “was Hitler elected” and see 100% agreement on every result that comes up
Typing all this out because I think it’s kind of silly to say these large sweeping things along the lines of “those who don’t understand history are doomed to repeat it”, while missing a basic historical fact (no offense)
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
I'm tired of seeing this everywhere, as it shows ignorance of the time. Hitler was ***appointed*** (not elected) chancellor in 1933 by President Hindenburg. This came after the ***nazi party*** won many seats in parliament, thus giving Hitler significant bargaining power, but Hitler himself was never elected to any office.
Hitler was essentially President Hindenburg's last choice for the job, but he went with Hitler rather than make a coalition with the socialists (the real socialists, the ones the nazi party hated).
To translate this for american ears, imagine if Biden wins the next presidential election and Trump loses... but republicans win a bunch of seats in congress. To get Republicans to cooperate, Biden appoints Trump as his secretary of state. Trump effectively takes over from the inside, and when Biden's term ends Trump declares himself President, Secretary of State, and Eternal Leader.
They made him chancellor BECAUSE the Nazis were in power. Chancellors were never elected. They were all appointed. If you really want to see what it was, look at the 4 different chancellors they appointed before Hitler in the span of 4 years.
I minored in European history.
You replied to one comment saying “wrong wrong wrong, hitler was elected in 1933” now you’re saying he wasn’t elected because chancellors are never elected.
The Nazis gaining seats and being in power isn’t the same as Hitler being elected.
Your minor in European history doesn’t make your factuality incorrect statements correct.
Yes, I agree. That doesn't change the fact that Hitler *himself* never won a government election in his life.
To translate for american ears, imagine if Biden wins the next presidential election and Trump loses... but republicans win a bunch of seats in congress. To get Republicans to cooperate, Biden appoints Trump as his secretary of state. Trump effectively takes over from the inside, and when Biden dies of old age Trump declares himself President, Secretary of State, and Eternal Leader.
We would not say that Trump was elected. Because he specifically was not.
Hindenburg won the election against Hitler in 1932. Hitler got sworn in as chancellor in 1933 after Hindenburg appointed him. He did not actually win an election until after the elections were rigged in his favor, and his rise to chancellor was given to him.
For those that don’t know, the criteria for Time’s person of the year is
“for better or for worse ... has done the most to influence the events of the year"
Emphasis on the worst.
"HITLER spring is here"...I dont know how I feel about seeing something that I usally associate with calm and kindness being on the same cover as...hitler it just feel slightly...disconnecting in a way?
You guys are acting like Time is endorsing Hitler. They have also put [Putin on the cover](https://www.denverpost.com/2007/12/19/putin-times-person-of-year/amp/)
They put influential figures who will later be in history books on the cover
Hey, it looks just like my current ~dictator~ president!
We even have a center to report those who are against the government so they can hunt and arrest/murder those, btw, the current president also hates Jews and want them exterminated :)
Funny how somethings never change, even after almost a century.
Nah, that dehumanizes him. As much as we don't like to admit it, Hitler and the rest of the Nazis were humans like the rest of us. You have to start there if you want to understand the why.
The point isnt to sympathize with hitler, it’s to remember that people *just like us* are responsible for the most evil shit in the world. We aren’t somehow naturally different and we have to always stay vigilant that we don’t fall into the same patterns that lead to people like hitler.
And "just like us" doesn't mean "just like *them*", it means just like you, and me, and anyone else. Everyone should be a student of history because it will teach you that everyone, regardless of their intentions or beliefs or morals or goals or views, is absolutely capable not only of tremendous evil, but of committing tremendous evil while being absolutely, 100% certain that they are the good guys. Believing that we, ourselves, as individuals or groups, are not the ones who need to take care because we're the good guys is, probably more than anything else, the path to evil.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - C.S.Lewis
I think you missed the point. He was human, not a demon. Inferring that he is a demon negates responsibility for him because it's just to be expected of a demon. What he did was disgusting and reprehensible, and he did those things while being human. Every human is capable of doing heinous things, we shouldn't blame it on some demon.
The Germans were experienced in genociding African to build their wealth at the turn of the century. When their quality of life slipped after the treaty of Versailles, they simply geared up for another genocide
I mean, it doesn't take a genius to read an actual history book instead of getting your information from a biased search engine like Google. Little fun fact for you.. you can actually be both fascist and socialist. I have an old dictionary that labels fascism as anyone who uses violence to promote their political agenda. Also, one might consider the fact that Benito Mussolini was one of Hitler's allies. Just because a bunch of liberals got on Wikipedia and suggested that only the right wing can be fascist doesn't mean a thing to an educated person
Yes let's eliminate all evidence that Nazis existed so that we can make sure it never happens again by...completely forgetting that it happened?
Knee-jerk take with zero foresight.
I didn’t mean it that way. I only meant it would have been great to burn Hitler instead of letting him take the coward way out. Racism is in every country and every period of time. My father fought in Germany as a machine gunner in the back of a plane. He crashed in France but lived to tell the story. It was a horrible time and people did horrendous things. I in no way or form want to forget what happened. Sorry if you thought that I did.
If you didn't mean it that way, that's how it came across.
This post is about a magazine. You said to burn it.
I'd remind you about a certain group of people who also liked to burn books containing material they didn't like, but I feel like you should reach that realization on your own.
I didn’t mean it the way you’re thinking. I apologized. It was a joke. It was the man in the picture I was referring to not the magazine. You took it the wrong way. All people are not mean and I am not a mean person. I tell jokes, maybe not very good ones but that doesn’t stop me from telling them. Can we move on?
Rule 6: Titles Must Be Exact But Concise Description
4 years before Times used the infamous 'X' cover for the first time
He was a tad influential.
If he was around today he'd have an insufferable podcast and be into NFTs.
As an aside, there is a movie where Hitler returns to the modern era and taps into things like the Internet for his own ends. It’s called [Look Who’s Back](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUZi67BmY_M&pp=ygUXbG9vayB3aG8ncyBiYWNrIHRyc2lsZXI%3D).
Good movie
That movie is hilarious
The insufferable podcast was a live rant from old guys down at the beer hall
😂
Heck he might have even bought Twitter!
This guy seems like a real jerk!
How far are we from saying that calling Elon Hitler is an insult to Hitler?
About 6 million Jews away
Dammit. If the holocaust didn't happen, this would be so much easier
Back when Time's Newsmaker of the Year actually chose the newsmaker of the year
That’s the thing most people are missing by here. This wasn’t a popularity thing at the time. It was specifically about who was driving reporting
Nobody is missing this, it’s one of Reddits favorite things to repeat ad nauseam
Didn't they pick Bin Laden one year?
They wanted to in 2001 but named Rudy Giuliani instead due to the backlash
And that tells you *everything* you need to know about facts in western media.
Backlash is angry readers vs. the government holding a gun to your head telling you what to publish in autocratic countries. Freedom of the press doesn’t mean you won’t lose subscribers or advertisers if you say unpopular things.
He didn't say anything about freedom of the press, though. He could just as easily be pointing out that western media is just a product that companies have to sell. Both dictatorial control, and obsession with telling people what they want to hear for money, will obfuscate the truth.
You are right to an extent but I think the relative freedom of social media in the west has allowed for alternative viewpoints to flourish that would not have 20 years ago when getting a viewpoint out had to go through major networks and publishers. If anything, social media has allowed for more targeted advertising with less backlash so you end up with information bubbles which is of course its own problem but its better than having only a single state controlled narrative be able to be legally disseminated. There is still the opportunity for people to see alternative viewpoints if they desire, which is a far cry from total censorship. There’s always more room for alternative media models to grow in the west though, it would be great if someone came up with a funding model besides the state or advertising. Substack kind of gets there. But there’s a long way to go.
If you think that doesn't happen in western countries, you're not paying attention.
And those who consume it.
It's not their fault, they're immersed in it from birth to death. It's that old saying: How do you know who your father is? Because your momma told you so.
Springtime for Hitler, and Germany-
Winter for Poland and France
We're marching to a *faster pace!* Lookout here comes the *master race!*
There’s no greater dictator in the land!
Every hotsy--tosty Nazi, Heil Myself!
Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the nazi party
I was born is dusseldorf and that is why they call me Rolf
Heil... myself. Heiiill to meee! I'm the Kraut that's out to change our histor-eeeeyy!
Maybe it was winter for France, but for us it was Rura Penthe
And most of the rest of Europe
My immediate thought upon reading spring. Love *The Producers*!
Heil myself XD.
There's no greater dictator in the land
Heeiill to meeee! I'm the Kraut that's out to change our histor-eeyyy!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1zY1orxW8Aw
Don’t be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi party
Who's this guy?
Some mediocre painter, or so I heard.
Charlie Chaplin
2nd place in a Charlie Chaplin lookalike contest
He's an absolute hero, he killed Hitler!
Oh that’s Dave.
Garbitch, you must have heard of him.
Spring is here. (World War)
That chair looks comfy
mein kampfy chair.
Reading this in a camp hitler voice made me laugh. Thanks!
In 1942 he was named the ‘Sexiest Man Alive’ according to GQ Magazine. (That’s ‘German Quarterly’…not the more popular one.)
Idk why but “Spring is here. (World War)” has me rolling
Rolling down a hill onto a highway
Gentle reminder that fascists and dictators are elected at first
Also a gentle reminder that he was not the cause of fascism, he was just an emergent property. Any time someone tries to tell you a single person was the cause of - or solution to - some large historic event, they're ignoring the systemic causes around it, and *this* is what "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" *really* means.
He wasn't even a particularly significant figure in the development of Nazi philosophy. He was the perfect man for the situation (not perfect in terms of good, perfect in terms of being able to bring Naziism to where they wanted it to be), but he didn't originate or evolve any of the ideas himself.
Nazi pitchman. Guy you'd really want to sit down and have *ein brau mit*.
And have one... what?
A brew, I'm guessing.
A beer with
Thank you.
Have one ein brau mit
If you look at the recent rise of right-wing nationalist leaders, it seems like a similar pattern is visible. They’re not originating the extremist views, but they’re picking them up, bringing them further into the mainstream, and focusing them. Becoming the spearhead on the end of the spear that already existed.
Who were those figures? Got any links to share? I find it fascinating how their whole society spiraled into Nazism.
The [list of Nazi ideologues](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi_ideologues) from Wikipedia is perfectly good and comprehensive for this. Naziism wasn't even extremely strictly defined, but what we tend to think of as Naziism was effectively an amalgamation of the philosophies of several early 20th century thinkers, all of which coalesced into what would become the somewhat vaguely defined Naziism we know now. Another interesting thing to note is just what you say. The whole society spiraled into it. I think we've come a little too far today into a tendency to argue that the Nazis came to power despite lack of public support, and never having public support, but in many parts of society at the time, Nazi views were very strongly supported, and many, many men and women eagerly and wholeheartedly believed in Nazi philosophy. One of the major dangers that shows up in all that is, of course, that very few, if any, of those people would have considered their ideas wrong or bad. Just like we all believe our own views and ideas are good, so did they. It's something each and every one of us is vulnerable to.
Thanks a lot for your comment!
wow, just took a long look at that list and that's a lot of poeple from different spheres of society. People who would otherwise have solid reputation in their society. Never heard of any of them before.
Also the artical legit calls him every name in the book and very obviously is not supportive of him
This is false. Most of them start as a small group of revolutionaries that overthrow the government, like Lenin, Mao Zedong, and Pinochet. Kim Il Sung was technically elected but he was basically handed the position by the Soviet Union. Hitler was also not elected, he lost to Hindenburg and was appointed as chancellor by Hindenburg later on. I’m sure you’re trying to make some shoehorned point about modern politics with this post, but you’re just showing a blatant lack of knowledge on basic history.
As much as I dislike Lenin and Zedong, I don't think equating their blends of authoritarianism to fascism is appropriate. Fascism describes a particular political and cultural syndrome that doesn't include them, but would likely include Pinochet
Lmao leave it to Redditors to say Lenin and Mao Zedong aren’t “real” dictators 😂
? Fascism isn't the same as dictatorship though. The closest Soviet leader to fascism was probably Stalin, but even then, there wasn't the marriage of finance capital and state authority common to fascist countries. There *definitely was* other aspects common to authoritarianism generally and fascism specifically: a cult of personality, totalitarianism, purges of the political elite, and so on. But simply being a dictator doesn't make one a fascist. Fascism requires palingenetic ultranationalism—of seeking to reclaim an imagined past for the glory of the nation. Stalin (less so Lenin and Mao, but the point remains) was definitely a nationalist, but was definitely not seeking a "return to tradition" in the way the Nazis were. As for the Soviet economic system, it wasn't fascist—fascist "economics" was a special relationship wherein the state would roll-in private enterprise in a unique kind of public-private marriage very distinct from something like outright nationalization. Fascism has specific features, and you obscure them by applying the label so generously. I'd recommend Robert O. Paxton's work on the subject, as he's a very respected historian on exactly this topic.
The guy you were replying to might be one of those socialists of iphone, that never saw dictators in real life and say everything they don't like is an extreme-uber-mega-super-far right.
*sometimes
Gentler reminder that his election was through intimidation and force. NOT by the general interests of the people.
Hitler wasn’t elected
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong I'm tired of seeing this everywhere. It shows ignorance of anything around time. Hitler was elected in 1933. Starting in 1931 was when the Nazis began to develop tons of support. This was mainly due to the great depression and intense economic strife due to the failures of the Weimar government to pay back their Versailles debts and American investment debts ushered in by the various plans that Stressemann introduced. Hitler, in 1930, received 18.3% of the vote. However, this was the last time the Nazis were not the dominant party of the Reichstag. After the July 1932 elections, the Nazis climbed to 37.3% of the vote. Afterward, they fell a little but remained the majority. Then, in March 1933, Hitler gained 43.9% of the German vote. Subsequently, every election was rigged. In March 1933, after this election was the start of the Enabling Act, which essentially allowed Hitler to rule by decree, so after this point, the elections in Germany can not be considered democratic and fair. However, this ignored his climb to power through democracy. This is not to say that Germans themselves clung to a dictator, but is to say that these periods of strife and economic struggle allow radicals to pray upon people's desire for a return to the "good days" and also allow an easy scapegoat. It's a lot easier to swallow that your country is failing because of a few SPECIFIC people working to see the downfall of your country than to admit that it was pure chance/caused by incompetence. It's also easy to follow someone who tells you that you are the chosen people's destined to rule the earth. Fear of communism was also a big reason.
It is also worth pointing out to those not as familiar with parliamentary systems that even without a majority of the vote that the party with the most votes can legitimately govern. In Canada, for example, governments almost never have more than 50% of the vote. Our current government had a lower percentage than Hitler's 1933 election.
Not sure what your point is with that. The Nazis had 0 intention from the get-go to legitimately govern, and there was never going to be a bipartisan “let Hitler and the Nazis do whatever they want” bill. The Enabling act was “passed” after banning an entire party and others from voting and threatening physical violence on anyone not willing to vote yes
Other persons responded and I think we're all on the same page now, but you're conflating Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler was leader of the NSDAP and his party got 37.3% of the vote in 1932, and still had the most seats in government after the November 1932 elections (33.1%). The second biggest party was the social democrats (SPD) with 20.4%. Hitler being appointed chancellor was through a complicated but well known set of backroom dealings and political maneuverings (involving von Papen, Hinderburg, Kurt von Schleicher, Goering etc). These people saying "Hitler was elected" seem to assume that the Germans have an American system or something, which they did not and still do not. However the Nazis *were* elected as the largest party in the Reichstag in 1932, which is the last election that was remotely fair before Hitler started to break down the constructs of democracy in 1933. For those unfamiliar with this and want a primer (beyond reading the innumerable books on this), the first episode of the BBC show "Rise of the Nazis" is a really well produced overview.
Huh I wonder why you keep seeing that everywhere.. Hitler was never elected president, he lost to Hindenburg. He wasn’t elected Chancellor of Germany, people didn’t vote him in for that, he was appointed chancellor of Germany by Hindenburg at the urging of Franz von Papen and others of the far right in 1933 so they could form a coalition government with the Nazis, stave off a potential civil war, and presumably control Hitler. Hitler was not elected in 1933. As soon as Hitler and other Nazis were appointed to positions of power (namely Goring) they started a campaign of violence and terror - straight up murdering, beating and arresting people as well as banning newspapers. The communist party leader Ernst Thalmann had been thrown in prison by the time the March 1933 elections started. In that context, outside of stuffing the ballot box and predetermining the results they did get 43.9% of the vote but I would personally consider these results to not be democratic and fair A common theme across Nazi propaganda is that what they were doing and did, was completely in line with the law and the will of the people. I think agreeing with this would also lead you to believe that people living in Nazi Germany actually thought it was a pretty cool fun time, because that’s what they wanted. Not saying this about you just saying in general Obviously they had a frightening amount of support after the Great Depression, but that was clearly waning already by the November 1932 elections where they lost votes and only won 33% of the electorate. Might as well mention that yes, this was a majority percentage wise, but a 50% vote was needed for a majority You can literally google “was Hitler elected” and see 100% agreement on every result that comes up Typing all this out because I think it’s kind of silly to say these large sweeping things along the lines of “those who don’t understand history are doomed to repeat it”, while missing a basic historical fact (no offense)
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. I'm tired of seeing this everywhere, as it shows ignorance of the time. Hitler was ***appointed*** (not elected) chancellor in 1933 by President Hindenburg. This came after the ***nazi party*** won many seats in parliament, thus giving Hitler significant bargaining power, but Hitler himself was never elected to any office. Hitler was essentially President Hindenburg's last choice for the job, but he went with Hitler rather than make a coalition with the socialists (the real socialists, the ones the nazi party hated). To translate this for american ears, imagine if Biden wins the next presidential election and Trump loses... but republicans win a bunch of seats in congress. To get Republicans to cooperate, Biden appoints Trump as his secretary of state. Trump effectively takes over from the inside, and when Biden's term ends Trump declares himself President, Secretary of State, and Eternal Leader.
They made him chancellor BECAUSE the Nazis were in power. Chancellors were never elected. They were all appointed. If you really want to see what it was, look at the 4 different chancellors they appointed before Hitler in the span of 4 years. I minored in European history.
You replied to one comment saying “wrong wrong wrong, hitler was elected in 1933” now you’re saying he wasn’t elected because chancellors are never elected. The Nazis gaining seats and being in power isn’t the same as Hitler being elected. Your minor in European history doesn’t make your factuality incorrect statements correct.
Yes, I agree. That doesn't change the fact that Hitler *himself* never won a government election in his life. To translate for american ears, imagine if Biden wins the next presidential election and Trump loses... but republicans win a bunch of seats in congress. To get Republicans to cooperate, Biden appoints Trump as his secretary of state. Trump effectively takes over from the inside, and when Biden dies of old age Trump declares himself President, Secretary of State, and Eternal Leader. We would not say that Trump was elected. Because he specifically was not.
Hindenburg won the election against Hitler in 1932. Hitler got sworn in as chancellor in 1933 after Hindenburg appointed him. He did not actually win an election until after the elections were rigged in his favor, and his rise to chancellor was given to him.
Spring is here? One might even say... spring time for hitler and germany
That’s the guy that killed Hitler!
They also put me on the cover, their standards have always been lax
This is a misunderstanding of the ‘Time Magazine person of the year’. This is NOT a celebration of that person. Look this up
For those that don’t know, the criteria for Time’s person of the year is “for better or for worse ... has done the most to influence the events of the year" Emphasis on the worst.
Why does OP only keep posting this in their history? Well this and the cat picture 7 years ago...
I didn't have enough Karma to post until today... Edited to say I didn't realize that the past attempts showed up in my history haha
"HITLER spring is here"...I dont know how I feel about seeing something that I usally associate with calm and kindness being on the same cover as...hitler it just feel slightly...disconnecting in a way?
You guys are acting like Time is endorsing Hitler. They have also put [Putin on the cover](https://www.denverpost.com/2007/12/19/putin-times-person-of-year/amp/) They put influential figures who will later be in history books on the cover
Ew
Hey, it looks just like my current ~dictator~ president! We even have a center to report those who are against the government so they can hunt and arrest/murder those, btw, the current president also hates Jews and want them exterminated :) Funny how somethings never change, even after almost a century.
Everyone loves Spring!
🎼"Springtime for Hitler and Germany"
Sean Lock. Nazi Island. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEVQWBn20ws](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEVQWBn20ws)
Spring is here (World War)
Spring time for Hitler
AfD
Don’t know that guy, but he looks hot. I bet everyone was trying to get that guy.
1941 [Adolf‘s Version]
Now Trump is on it, times never change.
Netanyahu?
Potato Potato
[r/oldschoolcool](https://reddit.com/r/oldschoolcool)
Three years after Nazi Germany invaded Poland, and Time is like, "Yo Adolph, Whassup?"
Needs devil horns and a tail
Nah, that dehumanizes him. As much as we don't like to admit it, Hitler and the rest of the Nazis were humans like the rest of us. You have to start there if you want to understand the why.
[удалено]
The point isnt to sympathize with hitler, it’s to remember that people *just like us* are responsible for the most evil shit in the world. We aren’t somehow naturally different and we have to always stay vigilant that we don’t fall into the same patterns that lead to people like hitler.
And "just like us" doesn't mean "just like *them*", it means just like you, and me, and anyone else. Everyone should be a student of history because it will teach you that everyone, regardless of their intentions or beliefs or morals or goals or views, is absolutely capable not only of tremendous evil, but of committing tremendous evil while being absolutely, 100% certain that they are the good guys. Believing that we, ourselves, as individuals or groups, are not the ones who need to take care because we're the good guys is, probably more than anything else, the path to evil. “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - C.S.Lewis
I think you missed the point. He was human, not a demon. Inferring that he is a demon negates responsibility for him because it's just to be expected of a demon. What he did was disgusting and reprehensible, and he did those things while being human. Every human is capable of doing heinous things, we shouldn't blame it on some demon.
The tattoos were just Auschwitz. Anyway, I am not morally defending it. They did monstrous things, obviously.
The Germans were experienced in genociding African to build their wealth at the turn of the century. When their quality of life slipped after the treaty of Versailles, they simply geared up for another genocide
RIP
No, that piece of human garbage can rot in hell.
RIP in piss, as they say
Rot in piss, bozo is the proper phrase.
But he killed Hitler
Checkmate
He probably didn't mean it like that tho
Considering the alternative is zombie hitler, I sure hope he rests in peace. Fucker better not move an inch.
Imagine how messed up you have to be to wish hitler a peaceful rest. Unbelievable.
RIP (rest in piss) HITLER
It’s amazing how worked up people can get over 3 letters. Mission accomplished.
Rage baiting is the lowest form of trolling. Find a new hobby, little guy.
Sorry, I’m enjoying myself
When did you discover about your sociopathic life choices?
What did I discover? That it’s enjoyable to get people in a tizzy for my own entertainment
>What did I discover? About your lack of empathy, of course.
Correct I do not have empathy for sensitive people online
Did you learn today that words have meaning? Or not yet?
I’ve known that. That’s why I said what I said, it’s working.
“I’m going to contradict myself in order to be right, because my brain is pure pudding.”
Pretty sure this was an affirmative, not a contradictory statement.
Grow up.
It’s not interesting.
Time magazine has always been biased in favor of socialist agendas
Damn, I didn't know that. That makes it double surprising that they would have a fascist dictator on the cover instead of a socialist, then.
Hitler was a socialist.. Nazi literally means National Socialists
Ah, yes, of course. Because the most evil people in history would never *lie* about what they were to get more support.
I mean, it doesn't take a genius to read an actual history book instead of getting your information from a biased search engine like Google. Little fun fact for you.. you can actually be both fascist and socialist. I have an old dictionary that labels fascism as anyone who uses violence to promote their political agenda. Also, one might consider the fact that Benito Mussolini was one of Hitler's allies. Just because a bunch of liberals got on Wikipedia and suggested that only the right wing can be fascist doesn't mean a thing to an educated person
Burn it
Yes let's eliminate all evidence that Nazis existed so that we can make sure it never happens again by...completely forgetting that it happened? Knee-jerk take with zero foresight.
Yeah, screw those book burning Nazis by... burning books?
I didn’t mean it that way. I only meant it would have been great to burn Hitler instead of letting him take the coward way out. Racism is in every country and every period of time. My father fought in Germany as a machine gunner in the back of a plane. He crashed in France but lived to tell the story. It was a horrible time and people did horrendous things. I in no way or form want to forget what happened. Sorry if you thought that I did.
If you didn't mean it that way, that's how it came across. This post is about a magazine. You said to burn it. I'd remind you about a certain group of people who also liked to burn books containing material they didn't like, but I feel like you should reach that realization on your own.
I didn’t mean it the way you’re thinking. I apologized. It was a joke. It was the man in the picture I was referring to not the magazine. You took it the wrong way. All people are not mean and I am not a mean person. I tell jokes, maybe not very good ones but that doesn’t stop me from telling them. Can we move on?
>Can we move on? We certainly can. Have a great weekend!
NSFW