Nazi way to make a point

Eric says:

08:06am | 08/04/10

Is this another example of “dogwhistling”? They don’t say it, but you think they’re saying it anyway.

Maybe it’s all in your head, not on the screen.

Rev says:

04:48pm | 08/04/10

Having lived in the States, you should probably watch MSNBC.  It is the polar opposite of Fox, though you could go one step further than all the clowns who moan about the right-wing channel…you could turn it off.

Dan says:

08:49pm | 08/04/10

Eric,  give me a break. Just as the Howard government constantly dogwhistled against Mulims (which you undoubtfully support), Fox news and co are dogwhistling against Obama because he’s a Muslim or a Solialist! Disgusting.

BTW, Penbo; “with one of the world’s most enlightened constitutions.” Yet, this enlightened constitution has constantly been ignored, and in the case of Bush, was trashed.

Seano says:

09:08am | 08/04/10

I don’t know about Seinfeld being the start, after all he didn’t “invade Poland”.

Jo says:

11:55am | 08/04/10

Seinfeld based that character on a real person who was actually referred to as “the soup nazi” so he really didn’t start it. It was already happening for quite a while.

bec says:

09:14am | 08/04/10

Scarier are the people who think the words are interchangeable.

A Bob says:

12:37pm | 08/04/10

The false dichotomy of left vs right gives them an excuse. Nazism doesn’t fit well into a leftover concept from the cold war.

Their full name was the The National Socialist Workers Party and they projected a Socialist agenda to the public in order to leverage the suffering caused by their shattered economy. Once they gained power their economic philosophy shifted to the centre and became Keynesian but their political bent went straight to totalitarianism. Which is neither left nor right but something that can be employed by both.

They were also happy to misappropriate anything that could be twisted to support their cause. Be it the writings of Nietzsche, the music of Wagner or even the myth of Atlantis. They claimed the Arians originated from there. They were unique in that they knew that what they were doing was founded in lies and relished in it.

Which makes them rather hard to categorise but easy to draw parallels as they tried a little bit of everything. Evil, raving, nutbags might be close to the truth. Very smart, dangerous ones.

papachango says:

01:31pm | 08/04/10

A Bob -

that’s about the best reponse to the whole ‘Were the Nazis left or right wing’ chestnut I’ve read for a long time. Answer - neither, they were authoritarian nutters. Only two small quibbles:

1 - the left/right dichotomy came from the French Revolution, not the Cold War. ‘la droite’ were the old established landowners and supporters of the King, ‘la gauche’ were the revolutionaries. So named because that’s which side of the national assembly they sat on.

2 - I could be wrong but wasn’t Wagner sympathetic to the Nazi cause as well?

A Bob says:

01:39pm | 08/04/10

Papachango,

the origin of the left/right dichotomy may have come from the French, but the modern idiom comes from the culture wars that erupted during the Cold War, where the term ‘liberal’ also got inverted from its original meaning of an economic liberal during the 17th thru 19th century to the post-modernist social liberal we know today.

Wagners family (Richard was long dead) allowed their personal concert hall to be used for a Nazi function early on in a nationalistic performance, but once the true nature of Nazism became evident they distanced themselves. In any case, there was nothing in the actual music to justify the Nazi association other that its celebration of teutonic mythology. His music is only just starting to get rid of the stigma.

Por old Nietzsche still has along way to go.

Chris L says:

01:58pm | 08/04/10

Richard Wagner died in 1883. He did, however, favour the idea of the superiority of the Aryan race. No way to know if he would have condoned genocide.

A Bob says:

02:56pm | 08/04/10

Richard Wagner was a larger than life character. He was inclined to use hyperbole and incite outrage if he thought it would further his idea of the German identity. He was much more restrained in private. He loved to heap shit on the neo-classical style of Brahms, but was actually quite complimentary when Brahms performed for him in person. Richard was a grand romantic. I can’t see him going for actual bloodlust.

A-Bomb says:

10:32am | 08/04/10

Though I believe Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply if the blog is actually about Nazism in the first place.

papachango says:

01:12pm | 08/04/10

yes this article is exempt from Godwins’ law, but the article is really all about why Godwin’s law is a good thing. I’m staggered the author didn’t mention Godwin’s law as he could have saved about 500 words.

A Bob says:

12:32pm | 08/04/10

Yes, how gauche of them.

But the dress code is all they have. David Gress, in his book ‘From Plato to Nato’ comments that the modern neo-Nazi/Skinhead would be begging for release in minutes if locked in a room with a real 1930’s Brownshirt. They really have no idea what it is they idolise.

Eric says:

10:12am | 08/04/10

Good point, Ian. Stalin alone had murdered over ten million people before World War II began, while Hitler was still in the dozens. And Mao was an even bigger killer.

If history had been well represented, we’d be insulting people by calling them Communists, rather than Nazis.

John A Neve says:

10:28am | 08/04/10

Ian F,
Your point is?

A Bob says:

12:26pm | 08/04/10

Hitler has a special place in Western culture because he acquired power by democratic means. These others were via revolution or the vacuum left by war. Our society does not face any real threat from these things.

Hence, the Nazi obsession kicks in to our own vigilance whenever our own rights are eroded. It is probably excessive but describes the worst case scenario for many.

Eric says:

12:43pm | 08/04/10

A Bob: Interesting point.

However, it is certainly possible that Communists could get into power by democratic means, just as Nazis did. They have certainly tried.

I think the problem is that many of the elite classes of media, bureaucracy and education have a sneaking sympathy for Communism, along with its exterminationist goals.

Henry says:

12:49pm | 08/04/10

Agree.  Given Hitler was a Socialist what is the total of people slaughtered by either of these crackpot left-wing religions?

One only needs to tune into Q&A on the ABC to see a tiny microcosm of the type of aggressive, hate filled spite the latte socialists in the audience and dominating the panel have for anyone not following the sick set of ‘morals’ these people want to impose on us all.  The booing, heckling, of Liberals or alternative to PC thinkers is sad and reminds me of how NAZISM started where people were afraid to give their opinions.

papachango says:

01:34pm | 08/04/10

A Bob - true, most real socialists got into power by violent revolution, as not many people will volunarily surrender their property to the State.

A possible exception is Hugo Chavez, whose ‘revolutionary socialism’ appealed to the masses who thought he’d take all the oil money from the rich and give it to them. He must realise that’s not sustainable as he’s taking extraordinary steps to install himself as a dictator.

Chris L says:

02:07pm | 08/04/10

I think Henry has missed the entire point of this article. Either that or he hadn’t met his quota of left hating comments and just had to leave one here.

Willy K says:

02:17pm | 08/04/10

Henry is spot on.  When it comes to hate and slaughter the Left is in a realm of its own.

Their creed is one based on spite and envy for ones betters.  With hate and blame at its core and the religious like fervor of its zombies and their often violent methods of imposing its set of ‘morals’, Socialism and its devil spawn Communism has been the single most evil creed this planet has ever known.

Wombat says:

06:01pm | 08/04/10

Henry is doing the old “Nazis are socialists” crap again.
What’s that badge on the back of the skinhead’s jacket in the photo, Henry? The one in between the swastikas.
I suggest that you get yourself along to a meeting of the National Front or Stormfront. After listening to the anti-socialist speech, then the anti-gay speech, then the anti-union speech, then the anti-abortion speech and of course the obligatory anti-immigrant speech, Henry, you can get up and give your own speech, explaining to the skinheads that they are, in fact, socialists.
Just make sure that your life insurance is fully paid up first.
BTW, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-union… isn’t there a famous Aussie triathlete/ironman who has views along those lines?

Dan says:

08:57pm | 08/04/10

Willy K, you really need to research socialism. If you think that it as evil as you make out, then you you need to read the source material.

Oh, and Henry and everyone else, considering that Nazism was a form of Fascism and Fascism is specifically right-wing, you really need to stop spouting your left-wing nonsence.

It's Getting Hot In Here says:

01:24pm | 08/04/10

You think there is a case for the term “holocaust sceptics”?  There is a point where scepticism becomes absurd, and the equivalent of denial.

Mark says:

03:52pm | 08/04/10

Only in your mind. Just to clarify. There is no such thing as global warming caused by man.

You cannot deny that which is not occurring.

It's Getting Hot In Here, So Take Off All Your Clo says:

04:08pm | 08/04/10

I knew I’d get a bite from someone who didn’t read the comment properly.  Although I invited the conclusion, my comment did not say the world was getting hotter.  And I didn’t even hint or suggest that any global warming that may or may not be occuring was caused by humans.  Defensive much?

WinstonSmith says:

03:59pm | 08/04/10

@MArk -bit of an OT non-sequiter there. Skepticism implies that you are open to an alternative view should it be shown to be demonstrably true. Unfortunately, your view is denial- it ain’t happening therefore you cannot disprove it. The illogic involved here astounds me.

Of course the Nazi label is used on the who deny the Holocaust occurred or attempt revisionist history to downplay its effect. They may not be NAzis but they certainly are sympathisers.

DG says:

02:22pm | 09/04/10

“You cannot deny that which is not occurring.”

To deny something one must assert that it is untrue. It does not matter whether or not the thing is true. A person can deny allegations, such a denial does not mean that the allegations are true. The person is a “denier” with respect of those allegations but that does nothing to support the allegations.

Kim says:

03:19pm | 08/04/10

After reading and enjoying Susan Sontags “Trip to Hanoi”, I don’t see how you could possibly use the two ladies names in the same sentence.  Naomi Wolf - pfffft

stephen says:

01:50pm | 08/04/10

Modern Germans are very sensitve about the nazi, because they are taught of the atrocities at school. They have a deep regret, as they should. When you use the word outside normal context, it shifts their sympathies, (and everyone elses’) to nothingness.
(The word ‘gay’ is a bit different : you can still have ‘gay abandon’, but a ‘nazi’, well,  is a dead-end road.)

Toby says:

02:31pm | 08/04/10

Of course the winner gets to rewrite history.  That’s the point of winning.

papachango says:

03:31pm | 08/04/10

Leaving aside the ‘why can’t I fly the nazi flag with pride’ (I certainly hope you didn’t actually mean it) yes I do find it ironic that you can fly a communist flag or have a portriat of Mao in your living room and no-one will bat an eyelid.

Communism and Naziism as praticed were both evil ideologies, it’s just that Naziism was more explicit about its evil, whereas Communism pretended it was abotu creating a workers paradise.

bec says:

03:29pm | 09/04/10

Stunning. I will have to teach this to my year 8 debating team. This is a sure-fire way to win!

papachango says:

03:45pm | 08/04/10

sorry, but the politics of the Nazi party WERE the problem. One of their stated political aims was to eliminate the Jewish people. You don’t think that’s a ‘problem’?

Personally I’m extremely uncomfortable with any kind of race-based supremacy (whether it’s white, black, Asian or whatever), but beliveing you are the ‘superior race’ is not in itself an evil thing. But calling for the extermination of another race (or class in the case of the communists) is definitely evil. For the same reasons I condemn groups like Hamas who explictly want to kill all Jews.

The nazi’s actions can’t be divorced from their politics as their politics is exactly what guided their actions.

I also completely disagree that fact they were a totalitarian regime is not relevant. It’s completely and utterly relevant, and the sole reason they were able to do what they did. Totalitarianism almost always leads to this type of evil behaviour, whether they started out as nationalists, socialists or national socialists.

DG says:

05:03pm | 08/04/10

Papachango:

Perhaps I should have made a clearer distinction between the ideas and the actions. There is a world of difference between thinking about doing something and actually doing it. Similarly, talking about something is not the same as doing the thing. It gets messy when directing a person to do a thing - I would argue that by giving that direction you are equally responsible for the behaviour (notwithstanding the capacity of the actor to say “No”).

Calling for a thing to be done, when you have reasonable expectation that people will follow your orders, is an action that, depending on the orders, may be abhorrent.

Interestingly the Neuremberg Laws did not provide for the execution of the Jewish population, it simply revoked their citizenship and did certain other things relating to the rights of Jewish people in Germany (including interbreeding between Germans and non-Germans).

Now, I am not suggesting that this is a good thing, but it is certainly not the same as the extermination of a race of people.

To be honest I don’t know where the authority for the holocaust was based, but it was not in law or in the NAZI party. It’s almost certain that by the mid 1930’s the “party” was irrelevant as Germany had their “one leader”. To suggest that policy after that time was the policy of the party does not appear to stand up to the facts. By this stage it was a dictatorship in all but name. The Enabling Act allowed the Chancellor (Hitler) to make laws - he no longer needed his party. By the middle of 1933 he had no substantive opposition, there were no other parties, and his own “party” was pretty much his plaything.

The totalitarian nature of Hitler’s rule made it possible to behave in such manner, but again it does not mean that a totalitarian regime is, by its very nature, evil. Again my point is that these people decided that it was OK to pursue their goals in this manner that was the problem, not the fact that the Government had that much control.

To learn a lesson from this we must learn that the behaviour is unacceptable, not that the NAZI party was a problem, not that racial ideology kills people or any other political or social ideology kills people. If we take away all of the reasons, all of the opportunity and every extracted “reason” we can think of, the behaviour remains abhorrent.

For that reason I argue that the lesson should be distinct from its association with a particular political party in the 1930’s. The remaining link to the NAZIs, without the context of the prevailing political structure at the time is meaningless. The practice from the end of 1933 until Hitler’s death was that Hitler did what he wanted, people went along with it due to fear or other self interest (some people accumulated great wealth due to their association with Hitler and his allies). Does this (Hitler’s motivations and power) have any bearing whatsoever on the ‘acceptability’ of things done under his command? Of course not. 

Why is it important to link this behaviour to a political party that was effectively redundant during the time of these atrocities?

Paul Horn says:

06:30pm | 08/04/10

Sorry Papachango have to disagree with you there. Prior to the start of the War the Nazis simply wanted to deport all Jews from Germany. The final solution came about because of other nations refusal to resettle them, in large numbers anyway. I can always remember walking through the Holocaust museum in Israel and seeing a letter on display from the Australian delegate to the Evian conference convened to discuss the increasing Jewish refugee problem and declaring that

“Under the circumstances, Australia cannot do more, for it will be appreciated that in a young country manpower from the source from which most of its citizens have sprung is preferred, while undue privilege cannot be given to one particular class of non-British subjects without injustice to others. It will no doubt be appreciated also that as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one by encouraging any scheme of large-scale foreign migration.”

Quite moving really. They had no idea just how bad the situation would become. Once war started all immigration stopped!

Dan says:

09:09pm | 08/04/10

papachango is right. The politics of the NAZI party ARE absolutely the problem. Their goal, their reason for being, was to murder all the Jews.

Kim says:

03:17pm | 08/04/10

Hey!  I resemble that remark! 

Tedd says:

03:52pm | 08/04/10

bunch? ... bunch applies to a grouping of a few flowers.

We’re a nettle, we are!