Indeed, it is worse in many respects, better in others.
For instance: 70 years ago it took a couple of days to organize something involving ten thousand people. Now you can do that in 10 minutes with a social media post in the right spot.
> Today when a genocide happens somewhere on Earth the UN quickly intervenes.
You do realize that the largest participant in such peacekeeping missions has decided to abdicate?
> The US is not some weak-ass state like Germany was in the 30s
You are significantly under-estimating the strength of pre-war Germany in spite of having been beaten in World War I. In fact, you could easily argue that it was specifically this kind of under-estimation that directly led to World War II.
> even if Trump would order some sort of genocide today it would quickly be blocked at many levels.
It would never play out like that. Trump is not going to order some sort of genocide directly. He'll simply stand aside while others do the dirty work and he'll lament at how terrible it is that they are resisting causing violence on both sides.
One of my theories about why the GOP does not want to throw Trump out is that they are - rightfully - scared of what kind of backlash that will cause and that they hope against hope that they will be voted out in 2018 so others will be seen as responsible for throwing the lit fuse into the armory.
> It would never play out like that. Trump is not going to order some sort of genocide directly. He'll simply stand aside while others do the dirty work and he'll lament at how terrible it is that they are resisting causing violence on both sides.
I think you'll agree that a systematic genocide like the ones you mention where you go into a city and round people up cannot happen. That would require the police, national guard, army to stand down and allow it.
So we are left with small scale attacks, the kind terrorists do. We need to fight and guard against those, infiltrate the cells and arrest anyone actually planning such thing, but they are not in the category of genocide, especially because in a genocide the killers walk away with nothing happening to them (because they are protected by the state), but in a terrorist attack you either die or are quickly caught.
> I think you'll agree that a systematic genocide like the ones you mention where you go into a city and round people up cannot happen.
Oh, but we already have a small precursor to that, the ICE raids on immigrants. There will always be people willing to ride the trains and to man the guard towers, good Christians too.
Let's hope it does not go further than it has already done.
> So we are left with small scale attacks, the kind terrorists do.
I'm not sure of that. The whole 'unite the right' movement is about connecting all the little dots into a wave large enough that it would be hard to put down without the national guard or the army stepping in, who could very well have sympathizers in their own ranks.
> We need to fight and guard against those, infiltrate the cells and arrest anyone actually planning such thing, but they are not in the category of genocide.
Yes, that is exactly what they said in 1933 about Hitler and his merry band of followers.
And then in 1934 the tables were turned and suddenly there was no way back, from that point forward WWII was inevitable.
Edit: I've taken some time to find this article in Der Spiegel, I read it long ago and I found it to be quite informative about Hitlers rise to power:
That's not fair. Humanity is not yet at the stage where it can allow anybody to live wherever they want. I also can't move to the US without a visa, not legally at least. And if I do it illegally, I can't complain if I get raided one day. It's not a human right yet to live in the US.
BTW, those kind of raids also happen in Europe. Yes, they make be feel bad, but unless we go for radical taxation and basic income (including for immigrants), I don't see how we could not have them.
Also, what would be the unifying sentiment that the white supremacists would unite the whole country around, like this:
> For the vast majority of Germans, the restoration of
national pride and military strength, the overthrowing of the Versailles Treaty and the expansion of the Reich to incorporate ethnic Germans from Austria and the Sudetenland were goals in themselves
> It says he had total control over the media, and that he had huge approval. Neither is true today.
This was not the case when Hitler first became Chancellor or, even moreso, when his faction first took undisputed control of the Nazi Party.
It was true sometime after he'd done both, and used the propaganda power (and coercive power) of both the state and party to secure his hold on the public. (One clear difference, whatever parallels there might be, is that Trump only really started the fight for undisputed control of the GOP after becoming President; that makes the internal fight much more visible to outsiders, but also wants if he wins it, he won't have as many other barriers to cross to implement his plans as Hitler did after taking over the Nazis.)
Indeed, it is worse in many respects, better in others.
For instance: 70 years ago it took a couple of days to organize something involving ten thousand people. Now you can do that in 10 minutes with a social media post in the right spot.
> Today when a genocide happens somewhere on Earth the UN quickly intervenes.
You do realize that the largest participant in such peacekeeping missions has decided to abdicate?
> The US is not some weak-ass state like Germany was in the 30s
You are significantly under-estimating the strength of pre-war Germany in spite of having been beaten in World War I. In fact, you could easily argue that it was specifically this kind of under-estimation that directly led to World War II.
> even if Trump would order some sort of genocide today it would quickly be blocked at many levels.
It would never play out like that. Trump is not going to order some sort of genocide directly. He'll simply stand aside while others do the dirty work and he'll lament at how terrible it is that they are resisting causing violence on both sides.
One of my theories about why the GOP does not want to throw Trump out is that they are - rightfully - scared of what kind of backlash that will cause and that they hope against hope that they will be voted out in 2018 so others will be seen as responsible for throwing the lit fuse into the armory.