Trump, Adolf Hitler “did some good things,”

[SunsetBengal]

(03-21-2024, 12:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: By your own definitions that distinguish Totalitarian vs Authoritarian 
Napoleon did the Concordat of 1801 which gave the State power over Religion and Education.
Then there is the famous lists of top 600 taxpayers of each department that were favored over others. 
He also kept a tight control over society (a model that both Hitler and Stalin would later use).
Of course seeks power thru conquests like any good Totalitarian leader and just like most others, War was his downfall.
Because of his sensitivities, he was trying to build up an image of power and censored the press and removed any rivals that spoke against him in the legislative assemblies. 

How these are not considered Totalitarian methods?

Authoritarian = You will do as we say without question

Totalitarian = You will only do exactly as we say without question

[GMDino]

(03-20-2024, 03:45 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: How they treat their people is more important than that. 

It can provide a sense of stability and order to society. 
Government is able to make swift decisions and implement changes faster than a democratic one. (Look at us, 40 years later and still haven't fixed immigration)

Now that's a couple of the good things that can come from it, i didn't say it was the best or better, i said all types have pros. If you want to focus on the cons, go for it, but I won't be a part of that conversation cause that is not what i said at all. 

I'm reminded of the old "Mussolini made the trains run on time" when I hear that are "good" things that come from totalitarians or authoritarian regimes.

He didn't, btw.

No matter what "good" thing happens the fact remains that those forms of government aren't "good" in anyway.  I'd assume no one is campaigning for that in the US, other than Trump.  I don't even think most of his supporters would support that even if it was Trump himself in charge.

Although many think they are in a dictatorship any time the government does something they don't like so maybe they DO want Trump to be a dictator.

Which reminds me of another one:

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-21-2024, 03:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm reminded of the old "Mussolini made the trains run on time" when I hear that are "good" things that come from totalitarians or authoritarian regimes.

He didn't, btw.

No matter what "good" thing happens the fact remains that those forms of government aren't "good" in anyway.  I'd assume no one is campaigning for that in the US, other than Trump.  I don't even think most of his supporters would support that even if it was Trump himself in charge.

Although many think they are in a dictatorship any time the government does something they don't like so maybe they DO want Trump to be a dictator.

Which reminds me of another one:

My claim wasn't that that type of government was good or the best. Just some aspects. 

Also They are good at technological advancements, simply because their leader will devote the resources necessary to research, unlike other types that have to split their money to other projects. Ex: Hitler's war technology (Jets, rockets, radio guided weapons, night vision, long range missles etc) were all superior to anything the Allies had, If he hadn't bitten off more than he could chew, we might all be speaking German.

[GMDino]

(03-21-2024, 06:28 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: My claim wasn't that that type of government was good or the best. Just some aspects. 

Also They are good at technological advancements, simply because their leader will devote the resources necessary to research, unlike other types that have to split their money to other projects. Ex: Hitler's war technology (Jets, rockets, radio guided weapons, night vision, long range missles etc) were all superior to anything the Allies had, If he hadn't bitten off more than he could chew, we might all be speaking German.

Yeah, no.

Gotta look at the whole picture, IMHO.

Hitler devoting "resources" to technology isn't good.  He also put a lot or resources into science in the concentration camps.

We can stop saying anything about him or what he did was "good".

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-21-2024, 08:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah, no.

Gotta look at the whole picture, IMHO.

Hitler devoting "resources" to technology isn't good.  He also put a lot or resources into science in the concentration camps.

We can stop saying anything about him or what he did was "good".

? Do you honestly think any leader takes over and says "i'm gonna be the worst leader they've ever had and ruin this country"? 

If you have a problem with it, then don't post/read here, there's plenty of other threads for you to yell i hate trump in.

[GMDino]

(03-22-2024, 12:00 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: ? Do you honestly think any leader takes over and says "i'm gonna be the worst leader they've ever had and ruin this country"? 

If you have a problem with it, then don't post/read here, there's plenty of other threads for you to yell i hate trump in.

Of course not.  They all think they're great and will do the best job ever.

But that STILL doesn't mean anyone would give Hitler, for example, credit for "doing good things".  Is there a market for people wanting authoritarian rule?

And, oddly enough, I only mentioned Trump as an example of a group that thinks THEIR authoritarian will be the good one and it will never come back to bite them.  The concept of "if we had one guy who called all the shots this country could get something done" is a bit off-putting.  At least to me.

[Dill]

(03-21-2024, 12:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: By your own definitions that distinguish Totalitarian vs Authoritarian 
Napoleon did the Concordat of 1801 which gave the State power over Religion and Education.
Then there is the famous lists of top 600 taxpayers of each department that were favored over others. 
He also kept a tight control over society (a model that both Hitler and Stalin would later use).
Of course seeks power thru conquests like any good Totalitarian leader and just like most others, War was his downfall.
Because of his sensitivities, he was trying to build up an image of power and censored the press and removed any rivals that spoke against him in the legislative assemblies. 

How these are not considered Totalitarian methods?

All authoritarians do stuff like favor friends and use the law/police against enemies and attack/control the press, but N. pretty much left civil society alone in terms of ideology.

What converts authoritarian to totalitarian is the attempt to erase the distinction between civil society and the state. 

The Concordat of 1801 restored Church rights and power which had been stripped during the Revolution, increasing its authority and independence from the state, i.e., shoring up the distinction rather than erasing it.

In contrast to Robespierre, Napoleon doesn't seem to have had any special ideology to impose on France, beyond his own desire for rule and nationalist empire. "Bonapartism" was just a movement to keep his family in power, and retain enough Revolutionary reforms to defuse mass protest. 

The state control over religion and education, which began in France back then, continues today in France and many European countries  without implicating them in totalitarianism. "Control" in this context turns out to mean separation of Church and state, so the Church is not in control.
Unlike the Nazis, Napoleon wasn't instituting a special French version of Christianity. He allowed Catholics to decide what was Catholic (though he retained the right to nominate bishops and kept confiscated land). 

What control there was, was/is a consequence of the liberal desire to modernize the nation and to nationalize language/culture. In the case of education, goals were set by a combination of liberal notions of democratic equality and response to economic need, as well as the needs of an expanding state (i.e., for literate bureaucrats). Outside of a thin nationalism, there was nothing like a fascist or communist "catechism" defining educational goals.  Or if there was an ideology, it was liberalism, similar to that of Great Britain and the US--choose your own life and go as far as your talents take you. Religion is a private matter, etc.

[Dill]

(03-21-2024, 06:28 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: My claim wasn't that that type of government was good or the best. Just some aspects. 

Also They are good at technological advancements, simply because their leader will devote the resources necessary to research, unlike other types that have to split their money to other projects. Ex: Hitler's war technology (Jets, rockets, radio guided weapons, night vision, long range missles etc) were all superior to anything the Allies had, If he hadn't bitten off more than he could chew, we might all be speaking German.

Just a side note here. Hitler and Nazis were not "good at technological advancements."

When Hitler took over in 1933, Germany had the most advanced university system in the world
with the complementary science/technology infrastructure.  Nazis purged that system of many of its best minds,
and eliminated the "Lehr- und Lern-freiheit" which had made its universities the global model and standard.

It is the pre-Nazi state advancement of German science/technology that explains the technological
superiority of many of their weapons and the existence of people to make them.

Odd side note--all that fancy technology and Germans were still relied overmuch on horse and wagon transport
during WWII.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-22-2024, 05:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: Of course not.  They all think they're great and will do the best job ever.

But that STILL doesn't mean anyone would give Hitler, for example, credit for "doing good things".  Is there a market for people wanting authoritarian rule?

And, oddly enough, I only mentioned Trump as an example of a group that thinks THEIR authoritarian will be the good one and it will never come back to bite them.  The concept of "if we had one guy who called all the shots this country could get something done" is a bit off-putting.  At least to me.

This current stalemate that we are in on every effing thing that has to be extreme one way or another.  
Roe vs Wade was done what in the '70's? And here we are 50 years later flip flopping the other way on it. 
Can't get crap done about Immigrants, TX just got invaded again, nada from the left about it. 
Still worrying about Gov Shutdowns, aid for Israel, Ukraine and many other important issues. 

Not a complete fan of authoritarian rule, but he does have a point, someone needs to straighten out all of this shit and get us back on track, cause they way it's currently going, the shit isn't working very well either. That's a more that a bit off putting to me when alot of these problems could easily be fixed if they were actually serious about it.

PS Don't worry, I know Trump is not that guy, but neither is Biden

[GMDino]

(03-22-2024, 01:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: This current stalemate that we are in on every effing thing that has to be extreme one way or another.  
Roe vs Wade was done what in the '70's? And here we are 50 years later flip flopping the other way on it. 
Can't get crap done about Immigrants, TX just got invaded again, nada from the left about it. 
Still worrying about Gov Shutdowns, aid for Israel, Ukraine and many other important issues. 

Not a complete fan of authoritarian rule, but he does have a point, someone needs to straighten out all of this shit and get us back on track, cause they way it's currently going, the shit isn't working very well either. That's a more that a bit off putting to me when alot of these problems could easily be fixed if they were actually serious about it.

PS Don't worry, I know Trump is not that guy, but neither is Biden

Roe overturned by...conservatives put on the SC by Trump
Immigrant bill blocked by...conservatives because Trump told them to.
Government shut down, aid for Israel and Ukraine all being blocked by conservatives because...Trump told them too.

We could be on track if the MAGA part of the party wasn't there.  There have been several bipartisan deals made under Biden.  Some have passed despite them but many have been blocked.

We don't need a dictator...we need sensible people who want to work for the people rather than be on television and grift.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-22-2024, 09:19 AM)Dill Wrote: Odd side note--all that fancy technology and Germans were still relied overmuch on horse and wagon transport
during WWII.  

Not involving myself in your little gang up here, but level of technological advancement is not synonymous with manufacturing capacity.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-22-2024, 09:19 AM)Dill Wrote: Just a side note here. Hitler and Nazis were not "good at technological advancements."

When Hitler took over in 1933, Germany had the most advanced university system in the world
with the complementary science/technology infrastructure.  Nazis purged that system of many of its best minds,
and eliminated the "Lehr- und Lern-freiheit" which had made its universities the global model and standard.

It is the pre-Nazi state advancement of German science/technology that explains the technological
superiority of many of their weapons and the existence of people to make them.

Odd side note--all that fancy technology and Germans were still relied overmuch on horse and wagon transport
during WWII.  

Hitler rose to power in 1933, by the fall of 1933, over 15% of university teachers were out of a job because of their political beliefs... 
In 1934 Rust was appointed as Minister of Education and tasked with working on inventions for war purposes. 

yet many of the inventions were done AFTER that and Hitler's Nazi's don't get any credit for that? 

Guess you better start talking to all these historian sites that credit Hitler with many of those technological advances. Set them straight!!


Also just because they invented them, doesn't mean they also had enough time to figure out how to mass produce them on a large enough scale needed for their armies to use effectively. But they were definitely working on it. 

[Dill]

(03-22-2024, 02:42 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Hitler rose to power in 1933, by the fall of 1933, over 15% of university teachers were out of a job because of their political beliefs... 
In 1934 Rust was appointed as Minister of Education and tasked with working on inventions for war purposes. 

yet many of the inventions were done AFTER that and Hitler's Nazi's don't get any credit for that? 

Guess you better start talking to all these historian sites that credit Hitler with many of those technological advances. Set them straight!!

Also just because they invented them, doesn't mean they also had enough time to figure out how to mass produce them on a large enough scale needed for their armies to use effectively. But they were definitely working on it. 

Not really.  I'd like to meet a "historian site" that credits Hitler in that way.

No one credits Churchill and British conservatives for breaking the Enigma Code.
Or FDR and US Liberals for the atomic bomb.

Germany had a wonderful cohort of engineers to draw on for creating weapons. 
I'd give them the credit. But the Nazis didn't create the system that trained them.

As the first line of your post affirms, they broke it.

Some of the 1,000+ Jewish scientists who fled Germany were critical to developing the US bomb.
E.g., it was Rudolf Peierls who solved the ignition problem. And they undermined Germany's
ability to develop one.  I credit the Nazis with that, also for work conditions which made it
hard for scientists to complete the advanced research and technological application for a bomb.

Nazis were good at expanding murder of civilians to industrial scale. Credit Hitler with that.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-23-2024, 07:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Not really.  I'd like to meet a "historian site" that credits Hitler in that way.

No one credits Churchill and British conservatives for breaking the Enigma Code.
Or FDR and US Liberals for the atomic bomb.

Germany had a wonderful cohort of engineers to draw on for creating weapons. 
I'd give them the credit. But the Nazis didn't create the system that trained them.

As the first line of your post affirms, they broke it.

Some of the 1,000+ Jewish scientists who fled Germany were critical to developing the US bomb.
E.g., it was Rudolf Peierls who solved the ignition problem. And they undermined Germany's
ability to develop one.  I credit the Nazis with that, also for work conditions which made it
hard for scientists to complete the advanced research and technological application for a bomb.

Nazis were good at expanding murder of civilians to industrial scale. Credit Hitler with that.

Ofc Hitler didn't directly invent it, but he was responsible for it's development on his watch via Funding. 

Like any good fun loving peaceful minded Totalitarian regime, they took control and got rid of the parts that didn't fit their agenda and twerked it to match what they wanted. 

WTF? Some Polish mathematicians while in Poland broke the code. Was Churchill secretly funding them? If not then he had no ties, so why should he get credit for it? 

FDR certainly does get partial credit, he started and got funding for the Manhatton Project, Truman did keep the funding going, but I don't think he was fully aware of what it was that they were doing til he was POTUS. FDR was pretty secretive about that project. So Truman is really only associated with it because he was the unfortunate one that had to decide whether or not to deploy the bomb. 

[Dill]

(03-23-2024, 10:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Ofc Hitler didn't directly invent it, but he was responsible for it's development on his watch via Funding.
Like any good fun loving peaceful minded Totalitarian regime, they took control and got rid of the parts that didn't fit their agenda and twerked it to match what they wanted.
WTF? Some Polish mathematicians while in Poland broke the code. Was Churchill secretly funding them? If not then he had no ties, so why should he get credit for it?
FDR certainly does get partial credit, he started and got funding for the Manhatton Project, Truman did keep the funding going, but I don't think he was fully aware of what it was that they were doing til he was POTUS. FDR was pretty secretive about that project. So Truman is really only associated with it because he was the unfortunate one that had to decide whether or not to deploy the bomb. 

Thought the Poles only broke the earlier version of Enigma? Polish president back then was a scientist; maybe that influenced
the research priorities? Anyway, who did it first was not the issue. Turing gets credit for breaking the code in Britain.  
Not Churchill and the Conservative Party.

All leaders during wartime can take some general credit for war machine accomplishments. Everyone agrees "Truman dropped the bomb,"
but I've never heard anyone credit him FOR the bomb. Or even FDR for that matter.

I just find it odd that anyone, historian or otherwise, would directly credit "Nazis" or Hitler with German war inventions, as if to suggest there was
something especially smart about THEM and not the people they inherited. That's like crediting "liberals" or "Democrats" for the atomic bomb.
I'm ok with saying "the Germans successfully weaponized jet engines" or "the British invented the cavity magnetron."

Maybe I'll throw that one at my Republican friends sometime--It was Dems who invented the bomb, not Republicans!!
Someone might say Oppenheimer was a Commie, though, so Communists invented it!!

By the way, glad to see another forum member interested in history. Wish more Americans would take the time . . . .

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-24-2024, 06:55 PM)Dill Wrote: By the way, glad to see another forum member interested in history. Wish more Americans would take the time . . . .

Well if it's Ancient History, then I'm in, modern, not so much.

[*pally*]

3 Polish mathematicians broke the basis of Enigma in 1938 and gave the information to the British and French before the breakout of the war. Alan Turing and the rest of the Bleckley Park folks then built upon the earlier work to build the machines that could decipher the messages within minutes not days and hours.

I just watched a documentary last week that mentioned the Poles earlier work.