But see also https://www.lrb.co.uk/v10/n16/paul-foot/the-great-times-they... on Wallis Simpson; it should not really be surprising that the British aristocracy were often Fascist sympathisers and that a lot of the history has been whitewashed since and during the war.
I had no idea there were foreign visitors in Dachau before the war, but then it was merely a brutal prison or a "concentration camp" in a pattern deployed by many countries against their colonial victims.
A useful reminder that Fascism had absolutely tremendous advertising - the Hugo Boss uniforms, the logos, the slogans, the films, the rallies, etc - and tapped into exactly the sort of mass movement belonging and hostility to the Other that really galvanises people.
> Did the parents of these fresh-faced young people not read newspapers? Or was it that they simply thought of Nazi violence and philistinism as an irrelevant sideshow compared with the joys of Schiller and Schubert?
Depends which papers they were reading. The famous Daily Mail "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" article by Viscount Rothermere was in 1934.
Last year I read the whole of the book from which this article is excerpted, and I really recommend it. It's out in paperback now I think. I was surprised she didn't quote Leight Fermor but there's tonnes of other great stuff in it I hadn't come across before.
History repeating, etc. Just subtly different, and from the other side of the fence.
Mind you, the US never has been "the good guys", the country was invaded and the natives murdered and displaced massively (that's called "genocide") by colonists, slavery, etc. In WW2 they had concentration camps (for the Japanese), after 9/11 they have concentration camps (for "enemy combatants"), in all cases blatantly flaunting international law and getting away with it without any consequences.
The US had concentration camps in World War II. They did not have a policy of deliberately killing people in those camps. So, yes, the same (there were camps), and yet really different in a fundamental way that really mattered. Yes, it was wrong. No, it wasn't the same as Germany.
Waco was a law enforcement disaster, but one typical of US law enforcement rather than a partisan issue. The policy of distributing MRAP vehicles to police forces has resulted in other victims: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/31/actor-steve...
The entire BLM movement is against state violence by US law enforcement. It's a longstanding problem.
The Oregon ranchers did not prevail in court, they were pardoned by Trump: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44775113
Not quite. There are no concentration camps in the United States. And we don't have guys out executing jews and other minorities while trashing their temples and churches.
EDIT: Oops. iamdave below makes a very good point that people are out executing minorities and attacking their churches. (In fact, a few enterprising numbskulls are out doing both at the same time.) That was a miss on my part. Extremely bad example.
How far off the mark would I be in guessing you're not a minority in America?
Jason Van Dyke, a Chicago police officer was just convicted of 2nd degree murder and sixteen counts of aggravated battery with a fire arm of a black man in a time when more and more black Americans feel scared for their lives simply being in the presence of a police officer (I happen to be one of them) and Dylan Roof was given the death penalty for killing nine black parishioners at a church in my hometown of Charleston South Carolina three years ago.
These are by no means the only examples I can give you.
We do have a few wackos here and there which is unavoidable.
Furthermore Van Dyke's conviction came with mitigating factors that I will passionately argue create the conditions for disparate impact when black Americans are killed by state actors in the form of local police officers.
This IMO supersedes any argument that we lack government policy that sanctions police brutality and points to a direct need for police reform which is the root of a statement like "Black lives matter".
Point conceded, even if the two examples I gave are two of the highest profile events in the last five years speaking on the topic of minority repression in America, they are symptoms of a larger disease. But point conceded.
I'll play along and gladly provide sources and statistics if you'd like, I seem to have made a faulty assumption that these issues I pointed to were speaking for themselves rather loudly and the volumes of data would be readily available to anyone inclined to look for them.
There's much more recency to this discussion than what happened in as you put it "the 1930s"
I understand the fear of cops and I do believe in self policing but for the black community the biggest problem is rampant crime.
That's not "rampant". In fact, it's not overstating the case when I say that today the primary lethal threats for blacks or hispanics in Chicago are, far and away, heart disease and renal failure. In fact, household slip and falls off more people than cops and black people COMBINED.
Put it this way, heart disease and renal failure are the primary lethal threats to minorities. (And they strike earlier in minorities to boot.) Now, how often have you ever heard a right winger or left winger demand more primary care centers and access to better foods in black neighborhoods? Compare that to, say, the number of times right wingers ask for more cops in black neighborhoods. Ask yourself, are they really trying to help blacks?
Here's the thing, the left wingers get political power by playing up the threat of police. They don't really like police, which is why you see them off police in mass shootings from time to time. And the right wingers get political power by playing up the threat of black homicide. They don't really like blacks, which is why they do things like stabbing young black military officers, or offing little old black ladies in church for instance. They just want those guys dead.
Point is, neither are very interested in data. In fact, even doing that math to find the chances of cops or blacks being a problem only enrages them. Which brings us back to why you shouldn't really buy into right wing or left wing claims of "this is a problem". There is an extremely good likelihood that the only problem they are trying to solve is how to get power, how to get money, or how to cause pain to your fellow Americans.
For the period 2008-12-
- Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).
- Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8-2.5 per 1,000).
- The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.
- Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).
- Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).
- Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).
According to the latest government data, as of 2017 21% of African Americans and 18% of Hispanics are living in poverty. Only about 10% of Asian Americans and 8.7% of whites are in poverty.
To what would you attribute the racial disparity in poverty rates?
(Naturally I have an opinion, but I'm withholding it because I want to understand your approach to this.)
 http://federalsafetynet.com/us-poverty-statistics.html citing https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-26...
It's no secret that blacks and latinos in the US have been the victims of widespread institutional racism. I recommend 'The Case for Reparations' by Ta-Nehisi Coates for a thorough breakdown on the topic.
I agree completely :).
Unfortunately, I think the solution is likely as cyclical as the problem.
I don’t know what else to call the tent camps full of kids in the desert. They even move the kids around at night in the classic “Nacht und Nebel” fashion. They use the classic vocabulary (“vermin”, “animals”) and even call the children “criminals” and subject them to bureaucratic nonsense like dressed-up court appearances for two year olds.
Yes, I would call that right out of the 1930s playbooks.
THAT is my issue with that topic. Not just that it's a plant but the very way you've argued against it and the wholesale ignoring of how that prohibition was used to disenfranchise and disempower feeding into Ameria's current incarceration obsession because of a plant.
Alas we're straying from the central of the thread right now.
From there to physical violence is but a small step, and this line has been crossed and continues being crossed in modern US politics all too often. Surely, we are nowhere near where Weimar Republic has been in 1930s, but unfortunately, a lot of people looking at the same direction and try to delegitimize their opponents and promote the idea that they should be not argued with, but deplatformed, assaulted and suppressed.
And yes, I am aware that comparing people to Nazis is part of doing the above, so we need to be extremely careful with it. But I think we can condemn people who purport to dehumanize their opponents without falling into the same trap.
Are you sure? I keep hearing about these private ICE border prisons with utterly inhumane treatment of detainees.
She brought a whole camera crew and intends to produce a documentary. This is just the initial report, evidently done on a cell phone right after she left the facility.
And now if you can explain me what crime these people comited to not merit due process despite not being US citizens?
presenting themselves at a port of entry and requesting asylum
"To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
You must apply for asylum within one year of the date of their last arrival in the United States"
"The asylum officer will determine if you are eligible for asylum by evaluating whether you meet the definition of a refugee. See section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). "
As I said, it duck types as a "crime." Pragmatics matter.
But enough about Silicon Valley
Not just Silicon Valley. That sounds like every nook and cranny of the United States. From Florida to the northernmost acre of Alaska, from Maine to Hawaii to Guam, and from Minnesota to Puerto Rico.
Right wingers and left wingers are generally not interested in having a reasonable discussion with you. With a lot of those more extreme people it's not so much data and ethics they come armed with, but tiki torches and baseball bats.
What is "sporadically"? I read about violence in Berkeley and Portland almost every month. I've just seen a number of videos from violent Antifa groups in Portland taking over city streets, attacking pedestrians and motorists, literally yesterday - before that I've read about many other riots, including ICE blockade and such. Police is mostly ignoring them and treating them with velvet gloves.
I don't know if they have central organization or how they are managed, but they seem to be organized, financed and supported enough to regularly perform takeovers, blockades and riots without being afraid at the least of the police.
> are organized and centralized enough to effectively temporarily take over a small city
Which city? Rally in Charlottesville in no way "took over the city", and there was police presence, which can be obviously seen in many photos. The police failed to effectively separate the marchers and counter-protesters, which ensured there was violence, so there was a police failure - all too common, in general the police is way too timid in cracking down on protest violence. Which is probably connected to the courts refusing to prosecute such violence - e.g. Berkeley professor that bashed people over the head with a bike lock got only probation for his violent behavior. Not a day of actual jail time.
And this was probably the best they could do ever - 2018 rally of the same people is universally described as "pathetic failure", with virtually nobody showing up - they had like 30 people there. They may be organized, but their numbers are tiny. They never pulled off something that Antifa is routinely doing in Portland and Berkeley and never will be able to.
Again, lots of bigots in the US, just as there are everyplace else. This is a result of simple human nature however, and cannot be avoided. We just have to live with prejudice and bigotry. Which is why it's important that when it affects a fellow citizens life and limb, we should be "bringing the hammer" so to speak.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. There are a lot of bigots in the US. Just as there are everywhere else on Earth. Unfortunately, it's just human nature.
At what point does a "camp" become an "internment" camp and then a "concentration" camp?
Vote suppression/manipulation is very common in the US. Things like making registration harder on people that move regularly are very common and are considered in political terms.
The most insidious cas relates to defining things as Felony convictions based on which groups will lose voters.
PS: Gerrymandering of course increases the impact of such things while directly marginalizing the opposition. Really though it's just part of a wider pattern of seeking power at the expense of others which is the true core of Fascism.
making registration harder on people that move regularly
If person X, did not vote anywhere else then count the ballet. Having less permissive rules is a question of does this rule help or hurt the party writing the rule. Which is the antithesis of a democracy.
Consider, if your a US citizen and live in DC or a territory, you don't get a meaningful vote. However, if your a US citizen and live in China but used to live in a state then you can vote.
There is absolutely an other, upon whom all the country's problems are blamed.
> that is trying it's hardest to strip citizens/permanent residents of their status.
Those that obtained the status by fraud, right? Do you think if somebody acquired the status by fraud, this should be excused because when it concerns immigration, laws are mere guidelines and should not really be enforced? Or what would be the reason to excuse fraud in case of citizenship/permanent resident status?
So, here we go. e.g. Dreamers are not illegal immigrants, tjere was a law protecting them. I do follow US politics quite closely as of late, and up to now I dis not see any plausible proof of people getting resident status by cheating. There is asystem in place, and at the moment the current US administration is also pushing against legal residents of foreign origin. Zjing is the means used, like the use of food stamps, is targwting a specific sub group. This will not the affect the ex-pats from, say, Norway. It will affect migrants from Latin America. And with their path to citizen ship blocked by some BS like that zhat is a way to keep non-whites out. For that there is proof.
What kinds of thinking?
> Dreamers are not illegal immigrants
What is "dreamers"? If you refer to people DREAM Act has been about, they are by definition illegal immigrants. That's the whole purpose of this law - if they weren't illegal, there would not be any need for this law to exist. The whole purpose is to convert them from illegal to legal status. This may be the right thing to do - I actually like this solution, if only it would be combined with actual immigration reform and not be just "well, we feel bad about you so we decided not to enforce any immigration laws anymore and see how it works out". But the absolutely first step for it to work is to recognize there are illegal immigrants that need this solution.
> up to now I dis not see any plausible proof of people getting resident status by cheating
Then you do not follow US politics as close as you'd like to think, or your ideological filter does not allow you to encounter the facts.
> at the moment the current US administration is also pushing against legal residents of foreign origin
What you mean by "pushing against"? The only "push" is if somebody is suspected of fraud, this will be investigated, and if the evidence of fraud would be found, the person who committed fraud would be denaturalized.
> This will not the affect the ex-pats from, say, Norway. It will affect migrants from Latin America.
It will affect anyone who commits fraud. There are much less people from Norway immigrating to US, and even less of them have reasons to cheat instead of following proper immigration procedures, so statistically more people will be caught in fraud from Latin America than from Norway. So what? Does US have some obligation to people of Latin America to suspend American immigration law because they are from Latin America? Or deport some Norwegians just to keep statistics nice?
> And with their path to citizen ship blocked by some BS like that
You mean US immigration laws? Yeah, too bad Americans dare to put some bullshit laws in front of people only exercising their natural rights to become US citizens without following naturalization procedure, too bad they require honesty in applications. No country would dare to do that, every other country just accepts whoever comes in and believes whatever they say, no question asked, citizenship granted right at the border, just sign on the line, and only stupid Americans (probably because they are racist) have immigration laws. Right?
Implying that it's somehow racist to have immigration laws and actually enforce them makes no sense. Only in a bizarro world of modern US politics it can be seen as a viable argument.
They mean "undocumented workers."
In the Soviet Union, there was an idiom to describe this situation - roughly translated as "Once they shoot you, you go ahead and try prove to them that you're not a camel."
It's funny you bring up legality, here - because the process by which those people are removed is the opposite of such. They are often deceived about their legal options, not provided adequate legal representation, are kept imprisoned until they confess, have few to no opportunities to appeal decisions made against them.
Please explain to me how, twenty years ago, a two-year old was capable of committing fraud. Fraud requires mens rea.
It is a kafka-esque mockery of a legal system.
It's in a roughly chronological order as well, and really captures the darkness and change that spreads across the continent from the 20's through the 30's - with some eerie parallels that can be seen in glimpses today.
Outstanding part of a great read.
So I had to go and search for the answer myself.
No, it was not mandatory to perform the salute if you were not a German citizen. Yes, it was often easier to do so; the Portuguese Consul General was beaten by SA thugs when he failed to do so, but couldn't be charged with any offence.
I know it is fiction but The Man in the High Castle on Amazon certainly has everyone looking very grave when giving the salute.
It's mind warping to realize, but every symbol and word that we associate with the Nazis and Fascists had innocuous connotations until the Nazis corrupted them.
The swastika, the fasces, the Hugo Boss uniforms, the salutes, the word "Nazi" (nickname for rural Bavarians), the word "Fascist" (Sicilian labor militants before WW1), the names Mussolini, Adolf, Hitler, none of those things had any scary associations before that era.
So this article touched a nerve -- I was already distrubed by the idea of my grandfather blithely roaming around Germany in the early '30s, and by my family's willingness to treat the whole thing as a trifling bit of youthful tourism -- now I'm confronted with the mental image of him heil-ing his way across the country and dropping in to Hitler's favorite tea room.
At least three of Unity's and Diana's sisters (Jessica, Nancy and Deborah) leaned left to a greater or lesser extent.
This means I always win at "6 Degrees of Hitler".
I'd suggest all three of Cornelius Ryan's books to anyone look for a tightly knit story style of WW2 book, written mostly in the 1950's-1960's with real interviews of those involved and excellent anecdotes.
Sure, two different political systems but I don't see the reason why the average foreign national should be arrested in times of war.
"The sisters, six daughters of David Freeman-Mitford, 2nd Baron Redesdale, and Sydney Bowles, became celebrated, and at times scandalous, figures that were caricatured, according to The Times journalist Ben Macintyre, as "Diana the Fascist, Jessica the Communist, Unity the Hitler-lover; Nancy the Novelist; Deborah the Duchess and Pamela the unobtrusive poultry connoisseur"."