George Santayana was right.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Almost any comparison to Hitler is a stupid comparison, particularly when comparing the evolution of our nation's moral compass (e.g., gay rights) to a man who systematically murdered untold thousands of homosexuals. I think "ignorant" characterizes his comment more than "cogent" does.

finn the moral compass was changing prior to Hitler in the Weimar culture. Hitler put it into hyperdrive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_culture

Berlin's reputation for decadence



A 1991 German stamp featuring Otto Dix's portrait of erotic dancer Anita Berber (1925).
Prostitution rose in Berlin and elsewhere in the areas of Europe left ravaged by World War I. This means of survival for desperate women, and sometimes men, became normalized to a degree in the 1920s. During the war, venereal diseases such as syphilis and gonorrhea spread at a rate that warranted government attention.[36] Soldiers at the front contracted these diseases from prostitutes, so the German army responded by granting approval to certain brothels that were inspected by their own medical doctors, and soldiers were rationed coupon books for sexual services at these establishments.[37] Homosexual behaviour was also documented among soldiers at the front. Soldiers returning to Berlin at the end of the War had a different attitude towards their own sexual behaviour than they had a few years previously.[37] Prostitution was frowned on by respectable Berliners, but it continued to the point of becoming entrenched in the city's underground economy and culture. First women with no other means of support turned to the trade, then youths of both genders.

Crime in general developed in parallel with prostitution in the city, beginning as petty thefts and other crimes linked to the need to survive in the war's aftermath. Berlin eventually acquired a reputation as a hub of drug dealing (cocaine, heroin, tranquilizers) and the black market. The police identified 62 organized criminal gangs in Berlin, called Ringvereine.[38] The German public also became fascinated with reports of homicides, especially "lust murders" or Lustmord. Publishers met this demand with inexpensive criminal novels called Krimi, which like the film noir of the era (such as the classic M), explored methods of scientific detection and psychosexual analysis.[39]

Apart from the new tolerance for behaviour that was technically still illegal, and viewed by a large part of society as immoral, there were other developments in Berlin culture that shocked many visitors to the city. Thrill-seekers came to the city in search of adventure, and booksellers sold many editions of guide books to Berlin's erotic night entertainment venues. There were an estimated 500 such establishments, that included a large number of homosexual venues for men and for lesbians; sometimes transvestites of one or both genders were admitted, otherwise there were at least 5 known establishments that were exclusively for a transvestite clientele.[40] There were also several nudist venues. Berlin also had a museum of sexuality during the Weimar period, at Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld's Institute of Sexology.[41] These were nearly all closed when the Nazi regime became a dictatorship in 1933.

Artists in Berlin became fused with the city's underground culture as the borders between cabaret and legitimate theatre blurred. Anita Berber, a dancer and actress, became notorious throughout the city and beyond for her erotic performances (as well as her cocaine addiction and erratic behaviour). She was painted by Otto Dix, and socialized in the same circles as Klaus Mann.

Cinema in Weimar culture did not shy away from controversial topics, but dealt with them explicitly. Diary of a Lost Girl (1929) directed by Georg Wilhelm Pabst and starring Louise Brooks, deals with a young woman who is thrown out of her home after having an illegitimate child, and is then forced to become a prostitute to survive. This trend of dealing frankly with provocative material in cinema began immediately after the end of the War. In 1919, Richard Oswald directed and released two films, that met with press controversy and action from police vice investigators and government censors. Prostitution dealt with women forced into "white slavery", while Different from the Others dealt with a homosexual man's conflict between his sexuality and social expectations.[42] By the end of the decade, similar material met with little, if any opposition when it was released in Berlin theatres. William Dieterle's Sex in Chains (1928), and Pabst's Pandora's Box (1929) deal with homosexuality among men and women, respectively, and were not censored. Homosexuality was also present more tangentially in other films from the period.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Almost any comparison to Hitler is a stupid comparison, particularly when comparing the evolution of our nation's moral compass (e.g., gay rights) to a man who systematically murdered untold thousands of homosexuals. I think "ignorant" characterizes his comment more than "cogent" does.

By the way this is a history thread. Look at post #1

I have brought up morality a few time and there has been comments on the topic like 90% of the thread. As far as I am concerned Morality is much bigger than just whats going on in Az and gay rights. That not even the point of morality or my comment related to Hitler. That is an observation what happen or can when morality moves as in your post 43.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Actually I think that was a cogent observation. Hitler and the Nazis were the most successful criminal organization of all time, taking over an entire great power, and for a time establishing powerful positions in a number of others. By which I don't mean that they conquered other states, but that they to various degrees introduced Nazism and Nazi morality into them.

Criminal gangs are everywhere, of course, but the unprecedented accomplishments of the Hitlerites demand explanation. And I don't mean simply his seizure of power in Germany (do not believe the misconception that he was 'elected.') I mean the way he succeeded in corrupting Germans by the millions. They weren't all just going along out of fear, you know. A big percentage bought into whole brutal power trip, at least while things seemed to be going well....

Actually he was elected....he won a plurality of votes in 1932 was a member of a coalition of various politicians that were trying to set up a Government under Hindenburg. He had to get two other rivals out of the way Von Papen and a guy named Schliecher and became Chancellor in early 1933.

I do not know where you get the idea he was not elected to an office. You have to remember that he made the decision to use legitimate means to achieve elective office after the failed coup of 1923.
He used the system to destroy it of course.

Hitler was very popular and I do not buy the myth that he sort of hoodwinked everyone. If you watch some of the footages of the rallies (the early Nuremberg ones) you will see women swooning when they see him.

People wanted him to fix Germany's economic system and some historians can point out similarities between his efforts to end the Depression in Germany and the New Deal programs FDR was trying in the States at the same time.

I am sure the Germans who supported him during his time as Dictator did not see him as criminal.
You do not get within 16 miles of Moscow with a willing German army perceiving their Commander In Chief as a "criminal".

The use of the term criminal in relation to the Third Reich is a euphemism to me.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by icenine

Actually he was elected....he won a plurality of votes in 1932 was a member of a coalition of various politicians that were trying to set up a Government under Hindenburg. He had to get two other rivals out of the way Von Papen and a guy named Schliecher and became Chancellor in early 1933.

I do not know where you get the idea he was not elected to an office. You have to remember that he made the decision to use legitimate means to achieve elective office after the failed coup of 1923.
He used the system to destroy it of course.

Hitler was very popular and I do not buy the myth that he sort of hoodwinked everyone. If you watch some of the footages of the rallies (the early Nuremberg ones) you will see women swooning when they see him.

People wanted him to fix Germany's economic system and some historians can point out similarities between his efforts to end the Depression in Germany and the New Deal programs FDR was trying in the States at the same time.

I am sure the Germans who supported him during his time as Dictator did not see him as criminal.
You do not get within 16 miles of Moscow with a willing German army perceiving their Commander In Chief as a "criminal".

The use of the term criminal in relation to the Third Reich is a euphemism to me.

Excellent post and factual.

Between Monetary Condition, Too Many Parties all Fighting, The Religions Fighting, War torn Socioeconomics depraved Germans were falling at Hitlers feet.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by icenine

The use of the term criminal in relation to the Third Reich is a euphemism to me.

Sum? You're only a criminal if you lose.

Do you know what the Founding Fathers were until the defeat of Cornwallis?

Guilty of treason.

Everything has context.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Sum? You're only a criminal if you lose.

Do you know what the Founding Fathers were until the defeat of Cornwallis?

Guilty of treason.

Everything has context.

That's a good point.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Sum? You're only a criminal if you lose.

Do you know what the Founding Fathers were until the defeat of Cornwallis?

Guilty of treason.

Everything has context.

The Nazis were a political party with a leader who had many followers.
The movement was conservatively responsible for at least 30-40 million deaths

that was not done by a criminal enterprise it was done by a nation-state.
Which to me is much worse. You are missing the whole point. To the Germans in WWII they were not acting criminally in their own minds nor did they view their leaders as such.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by icenine

You are missing the whole point. To the Germans in WWII they were not acting criminally in their own minds not did they view their leaders as such.

If I missed the point, you missed the metaphor as I agree with you: if the Germans win WWII, there is no recognized criminality as they do not perceive their acts to be as such. (For example, forefathers of the United States gave no credence to the crime of treason as there was no personal recognition of the King's power as Sovereign.)

Bottom line? Nation-states (including ours) regularly commit acts which other entities do not condone...

This is no better or worse than it has always been, there is no universal moral spoilage of society in which to lay our ills at the modern feet of. That theory is complete Straw Man.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by icenine

Actually he was elected....he won a plurality of votes in 1932 was a member of a coalition of various politicians that were trying to set up a Government under Hindenburg. He had to get two other rivals out of the way Von Papen and a guy named Schliecher and became Chancellor in early 1933.

I do not know where you get the idea he was not elected to an office. You have to remember that he made the decision to use legitimate means to achieve elective office after the failed coup of 1923.
He used the system to destroy it of course.

Hitler was very popular and I do not buy the myth that he sort of hoodwinked everyone. If you watch some of the footages of the rallies (the early Nuremberg ones) you will see women swooning when they see him.

People wanted him to fix Germany's economic system and some historians can point out similarities between his efforts to end the Depression in Germany and the New Deal programs FDR was trying in the States at the same time.

I am sure the Germans who supported him during his time as Dictator did not see him as criminal.
You do not get within 16 miles of Moscow with a willing German army perceiving their Commander In Chief as a "criminal".

The use of the term criminal in relation to the Third Reich is a euphemism to me.

Last first--I hardly mean 'criminal' to be an ephumism. I think it's very bad. Maybe if I used the word 'sociopathic' you'd feel better about it? My main point in using it is to avoid 'over-exceptionalizing' the Nazis. There is this attitude that Hitler and his gang were in some way unique, were special in their evil. But if you look at their activities from the beginning through the 20's they are replete with all sorts of typical criminality--blackmail, extortion, assault, poisoning, murder. Hitler strategized to obtain political power, not just 'gangster power' and riches, which is different from the usual criminal gang. But their attitudes were criminal. They did nasty criminal stuff not just because it worked for them. They did it because that's how they thought--that's how they were.

There is danger in over-exceptionalizing the Nazi's--it leads to 'it can't happen again' and 'it can't happen here.' I'm here to tell everyone to watch out--it can.

(Continued on next rock)

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

....

There is danger in over-exceptionalizing the Nazi's--it leads to 'it can't happen again' and 'it can't happen here.' I'm here to tell everyone to watch out--it can.

(Continued on next rock)

Agreed. Although they were 'exceptionally' () good at being bad, taking things that had/have been done since time began and scaling it to unseen heights.

Pete