Are you the same person whose dad used to say that? I remember someone commenting about it on Lemmy and it has stuck with me. If it is you, thanks, and if not thanks anyway for the reminder that there’s always someone willing to carry water and normalize monsters.
I’ve heard Norm Finkelstein say it as something his mother used to say. It’s a reference to how her Apple Strudel recipe was featured in a magazine before the war.
The difference between Bin Laden and Hitler was that Bin Laden actually had legitimate beef, based on the colonialist actions of a belligerent ethnostate (and their puppet, the USA) carrying out a nazi-esque regime of apartheid and ethnic cleansing, as well as blowing up countless Muslim human beings with long-range missles in the name of economic imperialism.
So if you do asshole things in support of assholes, don’t be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
And Hitler…. Well he didn’t have the same effective PR campaign the Zionists do.
Hitler arguably had legitimate beef as well with at least France and the UK. The treaty of Versailles was very lopsided and placed both the blame and reparations for WW1 largely on Germany.
It’s not unreasonable to state that clause 231 almost directly lead to the economic situation and resentment that fueled the German people to reject their political system in favour of radical change (yes, I know Hitler never actually won a fair election, but he did enjoy growing support throughout his ascension to the Reichstag).
I’m sorry but Germany may have had beef due to the lopsided terms of the treaty of Versailles but Hitler, there is no excuse for Hitler. He used and abused his own people for the sake of power and tried to enact his warped vision of a perfect “aryan” ethno state by murdering millions of people in the most brutal way possible. Anyone who tries to excuse Hitler’s actions can go get FUCKED.
Also, while Mein Kampf described many races as inferior, the actual mechanics of what would be the Holocaust and the decisions that resulted in the Final Solution were largely shaped over time through small decisions that fed on each other by multiple individuals.
Put differently, Hitler never ordered the Holocaust directly or personally. Yes, he talked a lot about the end if the Jewish race, but to pretend he was solely responsible for coming up with this policy lets the other architects of the Holocaust off the hook way too lightly.
None of that excuses him and his regime overseeing and directing these atrocities though. I think we can all agree that this was a uniquely evil policy for which there is no punishment big or fitting enough (even the Nuremberg trials struggled to (and acknowledged) mete out judgement that was in any way proportional to the suffering the defendants had caused).
I’m not disagreeing with anything you said, nor defending Nazi Germany. I’m just pointing out that saying something along the lines of “the difference between Bin Laden and Hitler is that he had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not” is at the very least reductive.
People don’t follow a reactionary populist for no reason. Without legitimate grievances in German society, Nazi Germany would not have happened. Simple as.
I don’t buy into the great man myth of some people being such legitimate influencers of history that their deeds would’ve existed despite circumstances.
In contrary: It’s the circumstances that allow certain people to influence large enough parts of society to enact their plan/will, but it never happens by happenstance nor in isolation, nor without the help of lots of other people/enabelers.
The treaty was certainly fucked up, and also, the Nazis used that as propaganda to enflame their base with the “stab-in-the-back” myth.
Also, we can keep playing this nationalists game. One could also argue that France had “legitimate reasons” for being so punitive in the treaty, like, for instance, how they didn’t start WWI.
That’s fair, and corroborates my initial point. Saying Bin Laden had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not is reductionist at best. Just like the French being super punitive in the treaty of Versailles, the German people had legitimate grievances that were insufficiently addressed by their political leadership, resulting in the king of climate that enabled a despotic genocidal maniac to take power. That doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
Extreme problems can lead to drastic measures, which often does not work out well for humanity. People definitely look for a “hero” to save them without realizing the power collectively lies within themselves for change.
Hitler had a girlfriend. Bin Laden had a wife and many children.
FAFO
Mrs Goebbels made a lovely strudel.
Are you the same person whose dad used to say that? I remember someone commenting about it on Lemmy and it has stuck with me. If it is you, thanks, and if not thanks anyway for the reminder that there’s always someone willing to carry water and normalize monsters.
I’ve heard Norm Finkelstein say it as something his mother used to say. It’s a reference to how her Apple Strudel recipe was featured in a magazine before the war.
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/how-to-make-strudel-like-magda-goebbels
Too bad she murdered all her children.
Actually Hitler and Eva Braun got married in the bunker right before they killed themselves. Why do I know this?! Fuck
Awww how sweet, they wanted to be together in heaven 💓
I have a gift for you
‽
The difference between Bin Laden and Hitler was that Bin Laden actually had legitimate beef, based on the colonialist actions of a belligerent ethnostate (and their puppet, the USA) carrying out a nazi-esque regime of apartheid and ethnic cleansing, as well as blowing up countless Muslim human beings with long-range missles in the name of economic imperialism.
So if you do asshole things in support of assholes, don’t be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
And Hitler…. Well he didn’t have the same effective PR campaign the Zionists do.
Hitler arguably had legitimate beef as well with at least France and the UK. The treaty of Versailles was very lopsided and placed both the blame and reparations for WW1 largely on Germany.
It’s not unreasonable to state that clause 231 almost directly lead to the economic situation and resentment that fueled the German people to reject their political system in favour of radical change (yes, I know Hitler never actually won a fair election, but he did enjoy growing support throughout his ascension to the Reichstag).
Sounds like he has “legitimate beef” with the governments of France and the UK, not goddamn “international Jewry”
I’m sorry but Germany may have had beef due to the lopsided terms of the treaty of Versailles but Hitler, there is no excuse for Hitler. He used and abused his own people for the sake of power and tried to enact his warped vision of a perfect “aryan” ethno state by murdering millions of people in the most brutal way possible. Anyone who tries to excuse Hitler’s actions can go get FUCKED.
Also, while Mein Kampf described many races as inferior, the actual mechanics of what would be the Holocaust and the decisions that resulted in the Final Solution were largely shaped over time through small decisions that fed on each other by multiple individuals.
Put differently, Hitler never ordered the Holocaust directly or personally. Yes, he talked a lot about the end if the Jewish race, but to pretend he was solely responsible for coming up with this policy lets the other architects of the Holocaust off the hook way too lightly.
None of that excuses him and his regime overseeing and directing these atrocities though. I think we can all agree that this was a uniquely evil policy for which there is no punishment big or fitting enough (even the Nuremberg trials struggled to (and acknowledged) mete out judgement that was in any way proportional to the suffering the defendants had caused).
I’m not disagreeing with anything you said, nor defending Nazi Germany. I’m just pointing out that saying something along the lines of “the difference between Bin Laden and Hitler is that he had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not” is at the very least reductive.
People don’t follow a reactionary populist for no reason. Without legitimate grievances in German society, Nazi Germany would not have happened. Simple as.
I don’t buy into the great man myth of some people being such legitimate influencers of history that their deeds would’ve existed despite circumstances.
In contrary: It’s the circumstances that allow certain people to influence large enough parts of society to enact their plan/will, but it never happens by happenstance nor in isolation, nor without the help of lots of other people/enabelers.
Yes. Thank you.
The treaty was certainly fucked up, and also, the Nazis used that as propaganda to enflame their base with the “stab-in-the-back” myth.
Also, we can keep playing this nationalists game. One could also argue that France had “legitimate reasons” for being so punitive in the treaty, like, for instance, how they didn’t start WWI.
That’s fair, and corroborates my initial point. Saying Bin Laden had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not is reductionist at best. Just like the French being super punitive in the treaty of Versailles, the German people had legitimate grievances that were insufficiently addressed by their political leadership, resulting in the king of climate that enabled a despotic genocidal maniac to take power. That doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
Extreme problems can lead to drastic measures, which often does not work out well for humanity. People definitely look for a “hero” to save them without realizing the power collectively lies within themselves for change.
That last bit has been ruined by awful people. Just reading it makes me picture the Secretary of Embarrassing Defeat and feel nauseous.