Can I get a discussion on Nazi comparisons?

[ThomWV]

During yesterday's Press Conference the subject got around to Rush's comparison of the Democratic Party to the Nazi's and as you would expect there was quick dismissal of the subject because no one in their right mind can make any comparison of the Nazi horror to anything other than Stalin's horror without unacceptable exaggeration. That is the common response and its the correct response in one sense, but maybe not the right response all the time.

Certainly no comparison can be made between any existing power structure and the Nazi's when one looks at result, but what about process? I say this because I have spent a good bit of time over the last few years trying to learn about the rise of the National Socialist Party, not what it did. When you ask, how did they come to power, what was the mechanism by which they took over the nation, how did they subvert a nation, how much resistance did they face and how did they deal with it, what was their position on the rights of recognized civilians, what was their economic policy, and on and on then I think maybe some very important comparisons can, and I dare say, should be made.

And so that is my point. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater; there may indeed be a great deal to be learned about the methods of political manipulation and to simply disavow any comparison may be a mistake.

[daedalus_dude]

1. The psychological mechanisms that brough the nazis into power are relevant in todays politics

regardless of the fact that the scales and the outcomes are different. People can have a mindset that would make them a good nazi, given the circumstance and IMO that is something that should always be of concern. The nazi followers were not "alien monsters", they were to a large part regular people.

[ThomWV]

3. That is exactly my point and to dismiss the argument because the word Nazi is used is a mistake.

For instance, how many and what seats of power did they have to control to take over the nation? The answer to that question is 3, and know which positions there were and how they were used is a very important thing, not to be dismissed lightly.

[backscatter712]

10. Exactly. The psychology still applies, and scares the shit out of me.

As far as psychology goes, I'd say we have a lot of Right-Wing Authoritarianism, as defined and used by Bob Altemeyer. What we have in this country is 28% of the population, who is more strongly motivated by fear than most, who have three traits: Authoritarian Submission, where they look for an authority figure, and follow him unquestioningly, to the point of irrationality, Authoritarian Aggression, where they try to force others to follow said authority figure, and conventionalism - they adhere to traditional and established ways, and build world-views around established conventions. These people have a tendency to be strongly religious - a lot of them in the U.S. are fundamentalist Christians, and they think of themselves as strongly patriotic.

Right-wing authoritarianism ties in nicely with fascism, which Roger Griffin of Oxford defined as palingenetic, ultranationalist populism. There's the palingenetic politics (in other words, a politics centered around a mythos of national rebirth. You see that lady screaming "I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!"? That's palingenetic.) which appeals to the conventionalism of right-wing authoritarians, and the ultra-nationalism appeals to their patriotism and gives them lots of authoritarian leader figures to look up to, and the populism allows them to band together, and reinforce their own authoritarian submission and authoritarian aggression with each other in a nasty positive feedback loop. Very dangerous.

You'll also have some leaders who enter the picture. In politics, you get a lot of people with Social Dominance Orientation - that is, they have a strong drive to get on top, and they're willing to step on a few backs and play dirty pool to get there. Right Wing Authoritarians are also in leadership circles, with their authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression and conventionialism, bringing with them heavy patriotism and religion - most of them we call Republicans. The really, really dangerous ones are the ones who are both right-wing authoritarian, and social-dominance-oriented. You see some really atrocious behavior from them - they can be both heavily religious and very pious, and at the same time, completely amoral and ruthless - they literally get to the point where they use religion to wash away the guilt for the bad acts they've committed, and at times, they think of themselves as "pinch-hitters for God" and think that because they're special, they can do things that others aren't allowed to do. See C Street for examples. In history, the double-high right-wing-authoritarian/social-dominance-oriented folks get very famous: Adolf Hitler, Francisco Franco, Benito Mussolini and Augusto Pinochet...

You really need to read Bob Altemeyer's free online book The Authoritarians - it is very good. Also read Dave Neiwert's The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right and John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience

[hfojvt]

27. I think you are way off on that

First, about the unquestioning following. I don't think there are that many of those as detractors seem to believe. That is, there are no more Busbbots or Rushbots than there are Obamabots. One of the things that Rush has, for example, is a common worldview with his listeners. He cannot really deviate from that worldview and get his listeners to follow him. Mostly they say ditto to the things he has because he says things they ALREADY agree with. They adopt his talking points and conspiracu theories not so much because "Rush said it, I believe it, that settles is." but because "What this Rush guy says makes a lot of sense. (to them)"

Second, about authoritarian agression - "where they try to force others to follow said authority figure," That seems to be a natural human tendency - to attack others who have different points of view. Just look at how often argumens on DU devolve into personal attacks and calls for expulsion. Some of that is basic worldview defense. Somebody with a different worldview is a threat to my sanity. My worldview is the ground that supports my mind. To shake it can have devastating consequences, like a mental earthquake toppling all the high-rise buildings in the mind. Somebody who believes different is a threat to the stability of the worldview, like erosion washing away the ground that supports my worldview. That cannot be tolerated, and allows only two possibilities - 1) I get that heretic to change his mind or 2) I write him off as a fool.

[dixiegrrrrl]

31. I do agree with your perspective.

( dustng off my old psychology books here).
Living, as i do, in the 2nd notch of the Bible Belt, and having watched, as I did,
the faces of "the other side" in Ala. in the 60's, in other places during the abortion debates,
the ERA movement, the anti-war movment, etc.
Yeah...same psychology.

A major problem now is the almost total control of the MSM, which adds to the
"new kind of collective psychosis consuming the American far right " as someone I read put it,
but it is also important to remember this pattern of authoritarian mind control was popular during the Depression, too.

Anyone remember hearing about, from the 30's
Father Charles Edward Coughlin?
Aimee Semple McPherson?

How about Jonestown, for a shuddering example of how people will follow those they hand their minds over to?

[Buzz Clik]

2. The Nazis did not invent the methods they used and they have been used since.

What makes the Nazis unique are the outcomes they produced. There is not escaping the discussions of holocaust when you invoke Hitler and the Nazis.

As soon as someone compares an opponent to the Nazis, the argument is diminished, and rightly so.

[AntiFascist]

38. The Holocaust happened much later than the rise of the Nazi Party...

it is very important to understand the dynamics that caused this rise, and how there were industrialist Nazi supporters in the US who helped sponsor Hitler. By the time the horrors of the Holocaust were taking place, even many of these industrialists decided that Hitler had gone too far.

[bemildred]

4. You simply cannot compare every corrupt militaristic political system to the Nazis

and still keep making sense. You have to get into totalitarian political systems to have a leg to stand on, and whatever you might say in criticism about the USA today, we remain quite far from a totalitarian state.

And don't forget Mao, he was a real winner, and the Imperial Japanese were too, and that's just the guys with the big numbers.

Just my 2 cents.

[Orsino]

11. Sure, we can. We *should*.

As long as we're willing to make distinctions as well as to look for similarities, and never use the comparisons as excuses to stop thinking.

[bemildred]

15. Unless the comparison really fits, it just amounts to name calling.

It is no different that saying liberals or socialists are like communists or anarchists. You can't think well if you refuse to make proper distinctions. But don't let me stop you.

[Orsino]

19. Well, I specifically said that we should make distinctions, too.

That is fundamentally different from the Right's labeling of our side. I'd hate for us to have to fear honest analysis. :shrug:

[bemildred]

22. Look, I don't want to argue with you, but I think you are wrong.

Not wrong because there are no similarities between right wingers and the tools that followed Hitler, but wrong because those similarities are common, they are not what distinguished the Nazis from other political parties/movements. Let's just agree to disagree, OK?
:hi:

[Hugabear]

21. How will we ever know if the comparison really fits if we don't discuss it?

Whenever someone brings up the subject of Nazi Germany, most people automatically think about the concentration camps and the Holocaust, and rightly so. But many people don't really know how the Nazis rose to power, how they used fear and hatred to rally ordinary citizens into supporting them.

[bemildred]

23. We are discussing it.

Propaganda was not a Nazi invention. I am all for attacking the methods being used, but the Nazi comparison will serve us no better than it is serving the wingnuts.

[Orsino]

24. Yep.

Being afraid of introspection and analysis is...is...well, Nazi-like. :rofl:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. Your question is obvious timely, and valid.

One thing I have noticed is that the RW has been quick of late to co-opt the word " Nazi" and turn it around, which is an Orwellian mechanism to dilute the use of the term when others apply it to their tactics.
this thuggery at Town Hall meetings is very brownshirt, isn't it?
So is the free use of lies to whip non-thinking mobs into a frenzy, the use/mis-use of emotional trigger words like "freedom" and "America" and "socialism".
They are hoping no one sees their pattern.
And for long seeming eons of the Bush era, no one really was able to get the public microphone to
point the pattern out.
Now there is escalation, leading up to the 2010 elections. More open threats.
Division and polarity are being fostered, US vs THEM.
the "enemy" that we had to "fear" has been moved from outside of the US ( Al-Quada morphed to Taliban which morphed to Muslims in general which morphed to "Obama's Socialist government").


btw...for those interested in good comparisons, a couple of book recommendations:
They Thought They Were Free : The Germans, 1933-45
Author: Milton Mayer

It Can't Happen Here -Sinclair Lewis

I am interested in what others can add to these thought provoking questions, ThomMV.
And interested in how civil said discussion can be.

[Echo In Light]

7. Dandy post, Dixiegrrrrl

[dixiegrrrrl]

32. Thank you.

I read the comments on your profile, btw, and any or all of them fit this discussion perfectly.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Well said. The Nazis and our own RW play on people's fears.

The irony is that the RW has a terror of "freedom". Under the surface is a fear of the poor, the angry, the "not us", taking away their "freedom" to live the American Dream. The American Dream of white picket fences and women and minorities that "know their place" and stay in it.

The Nazis used similar tactics and slogans to stir the fear of the middle class in Germany. The poor were only to be helped to control them. To keep them from the gates of the "good" hardworking, patriotic, loyal, and Aryan, Germans.

The German middle classes wanted, not freedom, but conformity and security.

The teabaggers are appealing to that same desire.

[Echo In Light]

9. And re "conformity & security," their appeal extends well beyond the narrow boarders of their ilk

Unfortunately.

[ThomWV]

16. Another valid comparison comes to mind

All through their rise to power and then continuing long after they had taken power was the constant blaming of all problems on the predecessor Government. Nothing was ever their fault, they were always the victim. Sound familiar?

[unblock]

12. jews around the world vowed after the holocaust to ensure it could never happen again

and in the process, unfortunately, we have so demonized the nazis that we have turned them into a monstrous cartoon. it is now impossible to think of nazis and anything they did without thinking of the horrific systematic extermination of millions upon millions of jews, poles, gays, catholics, roma, communists, and others. so horrific is the scale and dehumanized mechanization that it seems impossibly unrealisted when looking at virtually any government or movement or ideology today.

this near-cartoon image of hitler and the nazis as we knew them at the END of the war means that the vastly more plausible and realistic characteristics and practices of hitler and the nazis in the 1930s, during the creation of the dictatorship, at the START of the rise to power, no longer is a useful comparison.

so precisely the thing jews hoped to avoid -- letting any government START down the path the nazis took -- has become very difficult to argue against. at least, pointing out that hey, they nazis went down that road, maybe we shouldn't go there, that argument has unfortunately turned tragically, comically useless. as much as the republicans recently have borrowed propaganda techniques, government philosophy, and so on from the nazis, it's just no use making the comparison.

we liberals can let the similarities inform ourselves and motivate us to counter them, but we can't actually use that argument to convince anyone who isn't already convinced.

[Hugabear]

13. SHUT UP - NAH NAH NAH NAH CAN'T HEAR YOU

:sarcasm:

Of course your point is valid, but too many people have this knee-jerk reaction anytime a comparison is made to Nazi Germany or Adolf Hitler. We are supposed to learn from history except in this case. All you have to do is bring up Nazis or Hitler, and the automatic response is usually "Godwin's Law, can't hear you, nah nah nah nah nah" People simply do not want to engage in any rational comparisons to the rise of Nazi Germany, whether they be valid or not.

[Echo In Light]

17. Yes..b/c human beings in 30s/40s Germany were fundamentally different from all others

:sarcasm:

I like your line "We are supposed to learn from history except in this case," emphasized all the more by the fact that it's a real biggie of an example that isn't that far removed from our era.

[Hugabear]

18. It also insinuates that it could never happen again, therefore we should not discuss it

Which is complete balderdash, IMHO, and actually could make it more likely to happen, if people insist on burying their heads in the sand and ignore the warning signs around them.

[Echo In Light]

20. And ignoring signs that have the *surface appearance* of being different from what it actually is

The forms of propaganda and thought control have only become more elaborate and sophisticated. A real flat Earth society.

[dorkulon]

14. Everyone compares everything to the Nazis because it's the only piece of history anyone knows about.

Sad but true. We are so terribly ignorant of history that WWII is the only historical event anyone can refer to without getting blank stares.

Also, Hitler is great shorthand for totalitarianism (which is what most people are talking about when they say "fascism").

The whole thing is predicated on near-total ignorance.

[babyrights]

25. No, most people DON'T know the history of the nazis

Partly because many of the classified documents dealing with
the era were only recently released.
Here's a total rewrite of the history of WWII:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6293183&mesg_id=6293280

[dorkulon]

30. Whatever. They think they do.

And most of the important details, like slaughtering millions of people, they get right.

[ThomWV]

26. +1

[sofa king]

28. I wrote this yesterday.

This time I'll preface it with a proposed course of action. I think it's high time to come right out and say it, everywhere: the Republican Party represents the same kind of fascism espoused by the Nazis. Force the shills to crack open the history books and try to deny it. They can't, not after the United States has just undergone eight years of total reversal of fortune due to fascist ideology and practice. The Nazis are right there on the AM radio dial, and all one has to do is better understand historical fascism to see modern fascism hard at work today.

________________________

The practice of National Socialism didn't have anything to do with actual socialism, but it has lots to do with modern Republicanism. Here's William Shirer, referring to an early Nazi platform from 1920:

"These (socialist) demands had been put in at the insistence of (party founders) Drexler and Feder, who apparently really believed in the 'socialism' of National Socialism. They were the ideas which Hitler was to find embarrassing when the big industrialists and landlords began to pour money into the party coffers, and of course nothing was done about them." (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p. 68)

Just as the "socialism" part of Hitler's platform just was so much demagoguery, so too was the "compassionate" part of Bush's conservatism, which makes for yet another comparison which can be drawn between the GOP and the Nazi Party, to go along with everything else from their affinity for lapel pins, preference for big business over the little guy, use of the yellow press to catapult propaganda, political intimidation, armed mobs, racism, extracting free air travel during political campaigns, starting wars of aggression on false pretenses, unusually high numbers of closeted homosexual leaders, and their choice of business partners--namely Prescott Bush.

And while there is doubt about party complicity in either incident, 9/11 and the Reichstag fire were both capitalized upon by the Republicans and the Nazis in much the same way. Seventy years after the fact, most historians lean toward the idea that the Reichstag fire was a Nazi false flag operation. I wonder what they'll be saying about 9/11 in 2071?

Today the Republican Party is inseparable from its right-wing authoritarian followers, which comprise 23% of all adult Americans and can be identified in almost any political poll out there today (recall that in 2007, 77% of Americans felt that the U.S. was ready for a black President--guess who didn't?). But the study of right-wing authoritarianism first began in the aftermath of World War II, when it suddenly became important to understand why the Nazis and Fascists were as successful as they were. Republican RWAs and Nazi RWAs are the same personality profiles: poor reasoning skills, militarism, jingoism, acceptance of conflicting ideological positions, easily influenced by authorities they trust, hostile to social out-groups, hostile to attacks on their worldview, and motivated primarily by fear.

I'd say what it really comes down to is the choice of black or blue to complete the look.

[ThomWV]

40. I wish I had seen your original post.

I wish I had seen it. This has actually been on my mind for several days. It just annoyed me at first because what we were being told in essence was to ignore history because part of it was to repugnant to recite. I didn't feel that and hope I never do. We record history solely for the purpose of learning from it - it is not lore passed on for the amusement of children, it is the meat of civilized decision.

[sofa king]

43. Well, actually, it wasn't posted here.

And I'm not sure it's within the house rules to mention that or where I posted it, so for the moment I'll keep mum about it.

But I've certainly been spouting off about it enough here, for years. If you're interested here are some of my other thoughts on the subject. You can see that my post above is more of an evolution than a completely original thought.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4001335&mesg_id=4002421
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=110x8927#12979
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3297435

Edit: that last link is probably the only one you need to see. It provides plenty of links and goes deeper in depth than probably anything else I've written on the subject. And thanks for your thread!

[Hubert Flottz]

29. Two Words and a link...

Prescott Bush...

http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm

[izzybeans]

33. You might find Zygmaunt Bauman's Modernity and the Holocaust

an interesting read.

[dixiegrrrrl]

34. Speaking of interesting reads........

a fellow DU person turned me onto this memoir of a Jewish man in Dresden in the 30's..

this Amazon link actually gives better detail than i could,
and I do highly recommend a glance at it.
http://tinyurl.com/mux3hl

One man's daily diary of what happened in the lead up to Hitler's total take over.
Day in and day out, the screws were tightened, slowly, and people
DID NOT NOTICE IN TIME.



I have been gently pushed to begin reading it, and given the increased volume and velocity of the uncivil behavior going on, I think I shall make this book ( and it's vol. 2 ) a priority now.
Very engaging book, from what I have glanced at already.
It might serve as a valuable comparison to today.

[izzybeans]

36. Thanks. I'll check it out.

[TommyPaine]

35. The rise of Nazism was a perfect storm...

...of Germany's humiliating defeat in WWI, the lack of rebuilding, the sanctions imposed on them and their severe economic woes, the failure of the Weimar Republic, and Hitler's opportunism and megalomania. There's more to it than those factors, but those are main ones. A similar situation may arise due to different factors, however, so the global community must remain ever-vigilant.

[ThomWV]

42. Those are certainly amoung the causes, but I'm also interested in the methodology

For instance, look at Article 49 from the Weimar Republic and then think about Bush's use of Signing Statements.

[Douglas Carpenter]

37. people should be extremely careful about comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis

I strongly objected to people comparing George W. to Hitler. He was simply the worst President in modern American history and a complete and utter buffoon. No hyperbole is necessary.

I do think the hateful tone of right-wing propaganda gets dangerously close in tone and even content to Nazi propaganda. But I wouldn't compare the dangerous and insane modern Republican Party to the Nazis. That would really be over the top and would have a counterproductive effect on convincing people. Even tactically, it is not wise to say such things.

Always remember, winning depends on how well we can convince - not on how much we ventilate.

[AntiFascist]

39. In the early 20th century....

even the US was flirting with National Socialism, which is also called Military Socialism. (Few of the right-wing pinheads will admit the military association). It was a national socialist who advocated placing flags in every classroom and having childen recite the pledge of allegiance. This was all part of "socialized" public education, and the national socialists also advocated that children should go through some form of military training. When the pledge of allegiance first started, people saluted the flag with an outraised palm. The Nazis actually borrowed this salute from us! Later, it was decided to change the salute to the hand placed on the heart, when we didn't want to be identified with the Nazi Party. History books have never covered this probably because it was felt to be too damaging to the American ego.

[windoe]

41. Looking at the past can be done in many ways

superficially, by using quotes out of context, like the RW media is doing, or more deeply, by examining the psychology of how groups of people were so quickly controlled and indoctrinated to do such atrocities.

I believe the Nazis have been evoked because it is a powerful and popular archetype, yet it is also one of the most useful lessons in what conditions made fertile ground for this type of regime to take over and thrive. It is not a question of whether or not this type of regime can or cannot happen here but that it is POSSIBLE to control people using these methods. The Germans were and are a civilized and educated people, and if it could have happened to them, then by gods, a similar PATTERN can certainly manifest here. And if people think for a second that there are not people in power that have mastered these concepts, then we are truly lost.

The RW True Believers are a textbook example of newly disenfranchised people, afraid and disoriented, they look to the past, to tradition and conservatism, to find anchors in a bewildering and fast changing world, and rigidly stubbornly hang onto the structures they are most familiar with. They badly want to be a vital part of society. Yet this rigidity when combined with fear can turn to violence. Sound familiar?

[Shireling]

44. What little I understand of the early years

There was a terrible economic Depression in Germany with about 50% unemployment. Germany was brought to its knees by the rest of the world after the end of WWI. German people felt humiliated and thought they had lost their country. The Nazi party started to evolve slowly, blaming certain segments of the population. Hitler came to power from a slight majority of votes promising to build a New Germany that people could be proud of. Propaganda was spread through the newspapers and radio encouraging the hate of Jews, gays, etc. Most people thought this was just "BS" and would go away. The government headquarters was burned down, and Hitler blamed the Communists. He then passed the Enabling Act, which chipped away at the civil rights of the German people. People were scorned and isolated socially if they didn't join the Nazi party. This was due, in part, to the propaganda. Goebbels staged a "fake" uprising by using a loyal military group dressed in civilian clothes. This became known as Crystal Night, in which it "appeared" that the citizenry was rioting against the Jewish community. A violent dictatorship was born and the rest is so very sad. :cry:

[AntiFascist]

45. It all started with the 25-point program...

which was subverted by the Nazis when they came to power:

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

The National Socialist program also contained a number of points that supported democracy and even called for wider democratic rights. These, like much of the program, lost their importance as the Party evolved, and were ignored by the Nazis after they rose to power.

Those who sponsored Hitler were first and foremost anti-Marxist.

Compare this to the Fascist Manifesto:

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

Its initial political stance–in the June 1919 Manifesto–includes, however, many elements that would not be normally associated with fascism in the classic definition, including support for democracy (indeed, the fascist manifesto actually called for greater democratic rights) and a limited number of social ideas. All these were slowly abandoned over the following years, as fascism took its recognizable, anti-democratic form.

[AntiFascist]

46. Very interesting document here...

the idea of a "corporative regime" started with the Catholics. Obviously they were struggling with balancing social issues. I don't see any mention of fascism, for obvious reasons:

http://historyofeconomics.org/Conference08/papers/Almodovar_Teixeira.pdf

Corporations qua moral persons had
therefore a crucial moral duty regarding society as a whole, for they were not to forget
that:

“Their goal is to train leaders and members morally apt to serve the
Corporation, and through it the whole city, consciences trained to observe
justice, for the Corporation serves justice, prudence, for the Corporation must
forecast and appropriate the means to the ends, force, for the Corporation must
command, temperance, for the Corporation must introduce among its members
the discipline of profits as a counteract to the obsession for gain” (Duthoit:
1935, 93).

[ThomWV]

48. Actually it all started when Hitler was assigned as an Observer at a Party meeting

Following the first world war there were a great number of political parties operating in Germany. The political scene of the country was such that special interest Parties were the rule. There were Parties for Farmers, Parties for Clerks, Parties for Catholics, Parties for just about every segment of society. Many of these were thought to be subversive of the Weimar government (named for the city where it was chartered) and so to keep an eye on them military personnel who had not yet been discharged were assigned to monitor Party gatherings. Adolph was assigned to attend one before his discharge (when he was still recovering from gas burns) and the one he was assigned to was the National Socialist Party, which he soon joined and them proceeded to morph into what we now now as the Nazi Party. A simple chance of fate.

[AntiFascist]

49. Here's where it started in the US, according to Tarpley...

http://www.tarpley.net/bush3.htm

...

We recall that in 1924, Fritz Thyssen set up his Union Banking Corporation in George Herbert Walker's bank at 39 Broadway, Manhattan. Dillon Read & Co.'s boss, Clarence Dillon, had begun working with Fritz Thyssen sometime after Averell Harriman first met with Thyssen--at about the time Thyssen began financing Adolf Hitler's political career.

In January 1926, Dillon Read created the German Credit and Investment Corporation in Newark, New Jersey and Berlin, Germany, as Thyssen's short-term banker. That same year Dillon Read created the Vereinigte Stahlwerke (German Steel Trust), incorporating the Thyssen family interests under the direction of New York and London finance.@s2@s3

William H. Draper, Jr. was made director, vice president and assistant treasurer of the German Credit and Investment Corp. His business was short-term loans and financial management tricks for Thyssen and the German Steel Trust. Draper's clients sponsored Hitler's terroristic takeover; his clients led the buildup of the Nazi war industry; his clients made war against the United States. The Nazis were Draper's direct partners in Berlin and New Jersey: Alexander Kreuter, residing in Berlin, was president; Frederic Brandi, whose father was a top coal executive in the German Steel Trust, moved to the U.S. in 1926 and served as Draper's co-director in Newark.

Draper's role was crucial for Dillon Read & Co., for whom Draper was a partner and eventually vice president. The German Credit and Investment Corp. (GCI) was a `` front '' for Dillon Read: It had the same New Jersey address as U.S. & International Securities Corp. (USIS), and the same man served as treasurer of both firms. Clarence Dillon and his son C. Douglas Dillon were directors of USIS, which was spotlighted when Clarence Dillon was hauled before the Senate Banking Committee's famous `` Pecora '' hearings in 1933. USIS was shown to be one of the great speculative pyramid schemes which had swindled stockholders of hundreds of millions of dollars. These investment policies had rotted the U.S. economy to the core, and led to the Great Depression of the 1930s.

[ThomWV]

47. That is the popular version and there is a good bit of truth in it

It misses a lot and its off in a couple of places, but its not a misleading narrative. One point I'd like to make though, and its about one thing in there that is wrong. See where you said they managed to get a slight majority of the votes to get into power, well, that's not exactly true. The Nazi Party never had a majority of the vote in any election they participated in. This is off the top of my head but as I recall there was never an election in which they got more than 39% of the vote. Oh, there is one other thing that might interest you - and it an odd way this is sort of funny. About the night of broken glass, yes, you are right that it was a "fake" uprising but what is interesting about it is that it was soundly rejected by the people of the nation and in the end was a big setback for Hitler - then to add insult to injury, not too long after he was confronted by the major insurance companies in Germany who complained that in fact it was they that were going to have to pay for the destruction because most of the businesses and storefronts that were attacked were well insured. In short Hitler's minions cost Hitler's supporters a tremendous amount of money that was paid out to the insured.