Easily refuted ignorant nonsense.
">
John Ford (1939)
Posted on 11/13/2008 8:40:57 AM PST by fightinJAG
Economy in a freefall. Political rhetoric. An apathetic electorate dismayed by the slide of their country into irrelevence. Theological liberalism. Doctrinal indifference.
America, 2008?
No. Germany, just before electing Adolf Hitler to lead their country, with the apparent support of the majority of those who considered themselves Christians.
We're rereading a book []by Erwin Lutzer []. In it Lutzer looks at the holocaust and the rise of Hitler and asks the question: where was the Church? This book is a fascinating read, particularly in this time of economic upheaval and election year rhetoric.
[snip]
Did you know that Hitler was elected to power through a democratic process? He only became a dictator after he had risen to power through the voting process. And the people elected him in large part because they were convinced he would fix the deteriorating economy and restore Germany to the prominence and prosperity it had once enjoyed. Writes Lutzer:
...he would give the appearance of being one of the masses, but in reality he would be quite another...At times he could be charming and forgiving...Privately (and sometimes publicly) he prided himself in his honesty, yet often he reveled in his abilty to deceive. "The German people must be misled if the support of the masses is required," he mused.
And
Hitler holds a fascination for us because his dictatorship enjoyed such wide support of the people. Perhaps never in history was a dictator so well liked. He had the rare gift of motivating a nation to want to follow him. Communist leaders such as Lenin or Mao Tse-tung rose to power through revolutions that cost millions of lives; consequently they were hated by the masses. Hitler attracted not only the support of the middle class but also of university students and professors.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.worship.com ...
Regardless if you are correct, the point is that Hitler came to power, despite all he had publicly declared about his intentions, by legal, legitimate means.
And regardless, he was in fact initially LOVED by the Germans, who viewed him as a savior.
It doesn’t really matter why Hitler came to power. The lesson here is that he promised change, national glory and economic salvation; he was loved by the people, who in time more or less willingly gave him their freedom in exchange for various kinds of “welfare.”
People who claimed to be against what Hitler was for nevertheless supported him because he promised to make them happy and full.
The lesson here is to acknowledge that socialism/communism/fascism doesn’t need to by imposed at the pointy end of a stick. It can slip in, even be welcomed by the masses, as welcome, blessed “change.”
That is all.
*Since Hitler was heartily supported it would seem none in the plebiscite was forced to vote so “free” would fit, and as to “fair”, how many dead people just voted in the U.S. election?, but the plebiscites were for sure democratic.*
I love it when people just can’t admit they are WRONG.
Why don’t you people read some history before spouting nonsense? Stop digging and just admit you don’t know what you are talking about.
Another excellent book that thoroughly explains the rise and fall of both the Second and Third Reichs is William Manchester’s “The Arms of Krupp”. It’s an amazing tale, and it is very clear that German Industry was what enabled the rise of 2 Kaisers and Adolph Hitler, but also helped forge modern Germany out of a vast forest that even the Romans were too wary to conquer.
It’s very easy to heap all of the blame on Adolph Hitler for the atrocities of World War II, and that is exactly what Historians and Post-War Germans have done. But the complicity for the atrocities committed during the many German/Prussian wars over the centuries lies more in the makeup of the German people, than at the feet of just one man.
It’s true Hitler was loved by many Germans because of his promises and his vision of a Greater Germany.
And you’re right. Initially his party received more votes than the other parties and he was legitimately elected.
But I had family in Germany at this time. There were still many Germans who were aware of Hitloer’s previous attempts to take over the government and the fact that his party were a bunch of thugs.
I consider the situation to be not too far different than the US now.
Obama won the election and many Americans love him. But many of us know him for a Chicago machine-style politician full of empty promises with a significant probability of doing great harm to the Republic.
I think maybe we only differ in degree on this.
But I got my Military History this week and there’s old fuzzy face on the cover.
Ok, I’ll play along.
Why did Hollywood oppose EVERY OTHER WAR we’ve been in? Why the “PApa Joe” treatment? Why was there an “Second Front” movement to help the Soviet Union?
Don’t forget, but in Korea and Vietnam we were fighting AGAINST communism, so there goes Hollywood’s support. WWII wasn’t for the survival of the US it was to aid and abet the USSR and to create world government.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad we won and I’m glad we kicked some booty-booty. I even want to buy an M1 Garand rifle.
And John Wayne was an independent filmmaker who had control over production - he wasn’t just an actor but a pretty brilliand guy in many ways. I’ve seen most of his movies and have read two biographies on the man - he was much more complex than his critics claim.
Don’t be fooled.
______________________________________________
Nonsense. Wayne was a B-movie contract player before WW2. He was not even with a top tier studio. The real stars of the day went to war (with the notable exception of Errol Flynn). Many of them were older than Wayne and had more children. Wayne stayed home, got rich making movies about the war and became a star. He started his own company Batjac years later.
How utterly vapid to say that John Wayne became a star because fools like Errol Flynn went off to war.
John Wayne’s star was rising by 1939, and John Wayne’s B movies were and are very entertaining.
If the so-called lack of veteran Hollywood actors was the reason for the Duke’s rise to fame, why didn’t he fade after WWII? Name one actor of that generation and see how the memory and career of that actor even comes close to John Wayne.
Humphrey Bogart is a competitor. Clark Gable (a superstar of the 1930’s) is virtually forgotten today except for us rabid movie fans.
You don’t need to wear a uniform to serve your country. One John Wayne is worth 100,000 soldiers in uniform and, if we examime WWII, he left a lasting legacy.
Don’t forget, it was the WWII generation which gave birth to the pro-abortion, pro-socialism, anti-US 60’s hippie generation.
________________________________________________
You don't know very much do you and you obviously can't read....
I said that Flynn was the exception. He didn't enlist. The fools who did, to use your word, include Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable, Henry Fonda, Robert Montgomery, Tyrone Power, David Niven and dozens others. All were better established at bigger studios than Wayne was.
The fact of the issue is that Wayne was a B-actor at a B-studio. As late as 1940 he was in movies as a second lead, not even the star.
/////////////////////////////
"One John Wayne is worth 100,000 soldiers in uniform and, if we examime WWII, he left a lasting legacy."
_________________________________________
Ridiculous, especially given the fact that Wayne only made two war movies that were released during the war...that's right sparky, only two. The movies that cemented his war hero image came after the war was won by the men who fought it.
/////////////////////////////////////////////
"Don’t forget, it was the WWII generation which gave birth to the pro-abortion, pro-socialism, anti-US 60’s hippie generation."
____________________________________________
You really are an idiot.
Easily refuted ignorant nonsense.
">
John Ford (1939)
Regardless of how high you build his pedestal, the facts are the facts.
Normally hatred for John Wayne comes from the left.
Well, let’s look at the body of work of John Wayne, who today is far more known and his movies have survived the passage time than those actors you mentioned (btw, actors volunteering to “fight for their country” doesn’t mean that the only reason Hollywood supported the troops in WWII is because we were defending Joseph Stalin and making the world safe for the ascendency of communism).
John Wayne’s B Westerns are all about private property rights and respect for the individual. Most of the movies portrays the Duke as coming into a town and protecting a defenseless girl or some landowners from the neocons and lefties of the day.
Watch those old B-westerns with a discerning eye. Pay attention to the values being presented.
Don’t forget also that your Papa Joe sent some KGB killers to the U.S. in 1954 with the specific task of assassinating John Wayne because John Wayne and his movies represented the best of freedom loving Americans.
You know what? Even though his movies are fun to watch, Frank Capra was a dyed in the wool Communist.
Hatred for John Wayne? Oh I get it, stating the facts get in the way of your hero worship of an actor.....guess what, John Wayne never did any of those things in real life, he was an actor getting paid to pretend. He went home at the end of the day.....sorry kid, reality sucks.
An actor is an artist. John Wayne stands alongside Mozart.
I’m not sure what your point is.
As for your facts, why won’t you engage the real facts I gave you?
John Wayne is a role model and hero. A movie hero, but still a hero.
Why do you disdain John Wayne?
Hey, going home at the end of the day is G-d’s design for humankind.
I’m still puzzled at your animosity toward The Duke!
Why don’t you tell me why you don’t like John Wayne and tell me who your favorite cowboy actors were.
I’m a fan of Humphrey Bogart also.
*You left out the best part:
“Don’t you people know who I Am!!!???” Or
“You don’t know who you’re dealing with!!!”.
Do you think, “You can’t handle the truth!!!”, is getting over used? Probably.
Anyhow, glad you have something to love.*
And here we the next resort of the ignorant: change the subject, ladle on a side dish of sarcasm mixed with nonsense and a few pop catch phrases, then blame the ‘corrective’ agent.
True, but in a coalition-style government, it’s not unusual to “win” with a small percentage of the vote because it’s split among several parties.
It was a legitimate win for Hitler.
Even in our winner-takes-all, de facto two party system, Bill Clinton won the presidency with 43% of the popular vote (not all that much more than Hitler, considering) because of wasted third party votes on Ross Perot (19%).
And even though there were people with grave reservations, which only grew over time, clearly Hitler & Gang still were essentially unimpeded (by the populace; there were their own internal power struggles and purges) in destroying Germany and it took a world war to stop him.
From some of the discussion I have been involved in here, it seems some folks think that, because it's unlikely such a death spiral is imminent, that it's okay to be blithe about it.
I view it oppositely. Even if we are only seeing the first steps down that road, it's not wrong to point out the predictable historical destination to which that road leads.
Don't receive Military History any longer. Will have to check out the issue at the library this month. Thanks.
BTW, if you didn't see this link, it might interest you:
Why was Hitler elected if he blatantly stated his plans in Mein Kampf?
I was just looking around after we got to talking about this and found this eerie column. The comments aren't as dumb as usual for a forum like that; some are even insightful.
Bottom line for me: it was eerie, again, to see such a question asked. I heard that same question asked about Obama over and over again since the election: why was he elected when he blatantly and repeatedly said he is committed to wealth redistribution, to using the power to tax to destroy what he disagrees with or thinks is "bad," to raising a civilian "security" force that is "just as large, just as powerful, just as well-funded" as the military?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.