Please comment...

Probably not all Jews were rich. But he needed a common enemy to unite the people. And preferably one that was not equipped to put up a fight as @modernpaladin points out.

 

Ok . But the thing is was he right about that enemy or not . I mean he gathered the people around himself by these talks that jewish people are bad and we need to be united against them. Was he lying about them and he gathered germans around a lie ?

 

"Nazis took advantage of German’s fears of a far left or communist government take-over, as well as exploiting long existing and underlying prejudices by scapegoating a minority, the Jews, as being responsible for all their woes.
I think maybe he just took advantage of prejudices that were already established. Do we have those already in place here? Yes I believe so.

 

For crying out loud, the German people were united in their hatred for the Allied powers from WW1 and the subsequent treaty of Versailles that took their land and demanded heavy war reparations due to Germany's actions in WW1. THAT was their common enemy, and it was already baked into the cake. Hitlers hatred for Jews was a triviality in terms of galvanizing support from the German populace.

Why are you trying so hard to falsely imply that Hitlers hatred for Jews is what made Germans rally around his war machine? Why is this even a relevant topic? What is your underlying motive?

 

I found a little more...
"While most Germans were going bankrupt, the Jews were viewed as privileged, rich, and corrupt people. Jews made up only 1 percent of the German population, but they were 16 percent of all lawyers, 10 percent of all doctors, and 5 percent of all editors and writers. Generally speaking, they were people who had money while others were starving—and that won them a lot of resentment."

 

I'm quoting from articles I find pertaining to historical events that took place in Germany. What's your underlying motive?

 

You are falsely implying that German support for Hitler's war machine was ginned up due to a common hatred for the Jews. That is simply not true. In fact, it couldnt be further from the truth. Even YOUR article in YOUR OP disproves that notion.

My motive was to point out just how nonsensical and bereft of reality that your implication truly is, and I have succeeded in doing so.

Since I answered your question, it is only fair that you answer mine. What is your underlying motive? Are you trying to somehow tie this notion in with Trump and his desire for enforcing our legal borders? If not, then what is it?

 

The advent of Bolshevism and communism with the purges in Russia attached was perceived as a disproportionately Jewish political movement in reaction to Tsarist persecution. That kernel of truth, amplified via propaganda, together with the rational fear of what communism could do to weakened Germany (many communists were also non Jewish Germans), ended up sparking basic racial mistrust into hatred. This has been whitewashed by Complex historical revision, but is necessary context in understanding 20th century history. The Holocaust, IMO. is just another consequence of the inherent instability, murder, mayhem and misery of communism. All collectivism leads to such results, either directly, or indirectly by empowering dictators like Hitler who capitalize on the anarchic vacuum. Collectivism is great at tearing down, but fails utterly in sustainability and justice.

 

Yes good scenario to examine.
In the German version, a single extremest was all it took to get the ball rolling…. "Days after Hitler became chancellor, a Communist sympathizer named Marinus van der Lubbe burned down the Reichstag, the German parliament building. He had almost certainly worked alone, but the Nazis seized on the opportunity. This, they declared, was proof that the Communists were planning to violently overthrow the state. The Nazis used Article 48 to put through the Reichstag Fire Decree. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assembly, and restraints on police investigations were all suspended until the Communists could be put under control."

 

Perhaps you're making too many assumptions without reading more of this thread.
But since you've already proved how "nonsensical and bereft of reality" my OP is, there is no need for me to respond further.

 

So you will not answer a very simple and straight forward question?.....What a shock! Oh well.......not a big loss.

FWIW.......My statement was that your implication about Hitler using Jews as a common enemy to unite the German people was nonsensical and bereft of reality, not your OP specifically. You perhaps should try watching a documentary every once in a while. You are obviously ignorant of very basic and well known historical events.

 

One reason a lot of the German people followed Naziism was that they had no other choice. I remember one guy saying what he said to a relative when he was asked this "why" question and his answer was, "Why do you not bother a poisonous snake? Because it will kill you if you do". And that was the exact way the Nazis were, utterly ruthless and without any scruples whatsoever when it came to killing people.

The book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" makes the point that the Nazis were always a rather small minority and that they just couldn't have incarcerated all the people they did without a lot of help, maybe so, but I think this misses the point of just how amazingly dangerous the Nazis were.

Do you remember the scene in "Schindler's List" where the guy shoots this woman down from a balcony for no reason whatsoever? I don't know if that really happened or not but that very definitely was the type of "toughness" the Nazis admired and encouraged. It doesn't take too many people of that sort to make the rest of the people go along Cowards? Yes, we are all cowards to some extent and the Nazis realized that if they were just completely willing and even anxious to kill people for the slightest provocation that only the very very brave would stand against them. This is why you can't give these bastards the slightest inch, for they will take the proverbial mile and put dead bodies along the entire way.

 

So we need to be extra cautious of attempts to limit our rights based on the actions of extremists.

I hope we don't need the example the Nazi's set to keep that in mind. But it certainly helps.

 

Agreed 100%

Some people would see this as a reason to be armed- makes it easier to stand against ruthlessness.

 

It makes it so much easier for the ruthless Domestic Terrorists to be armed!

 

Terrorists will be armed regardless of how hard you try to make it for them to be.

 

And so will those who fight for their freedom. When people revolt they take arms from the overlords, always have always will. The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto did not hold off the Panzer SS for several weeks with some rusty revolvers. The myth of the disarming dictators is not borne out by history. Stalin's 1930 Soviet HS had classes in marksmanship that would be the envy of the American NRA in the present and Hitler's gun laws for non-Jews were actually a small relaxing of fairly strict Weimar regulations. Dictators rely upon an armed public far more than they fear them.

 

Organization and ongoing training are much, much more effective weapons than almost any actual firearms. Occupying armies seldom even come close to the numbers of the people they have conquered and these people almost always are still equipped nearly as well as the defeated soldiers, yet revolts by such people rarely happen and even more rarely succeed.

 

What you're saying is how he convinced people to rally. And it's always this way . If someone wants to convince public one needs an intuitive example like "look how wealthy they are while we're starving".
Or like Iranian leaders towards Israel: " Look they came to palestine and took their land so their the enemy" . But the fact is that all these statements are not hitler's or Iranian's true motive for their amnesty. They are the means to convince people.
What I'm really saying here is that what if jews ( with the power ofcourse) was really the cause of suffering of people. I mean no one can argue that right now most of US's media and federal reserve board of directors are jew. And US policy is Israel always first isn't it?
I mean think about it we have a world nowedays that is really hell for some people with this kind of wealth concentration and practically 2-3 percent of world's population are the gods and the others are their workers and that 2-3 percent are shaping and dictating people's lives and somehow jews are in power so one can argue that they are resposible for this.
I mean I can say that Hitler believed that jews are the cause and the bosses of capitalism and what Hitler was doing during WW2 was fighting the jews thrugh fighting the capitalism.

 

I am probably in the minority here, but I agree with 99 percent of what you said above. I'm just not convinced that Jews are the problem. I don't know the percentage of rich Jews compared to rich non-Jews, but the greed is mutual. I don't see the desire to be wealthy as a problem either...except for the wealthy person himself.
IMO, rich people(s) using their wealth to sway governments both foreign and domestic is the problem. Corporations of rich taking resources from less developed countries with no regard to the inhabitant's well-being. And there are still plenty of rich that profit from keeping war continuously.
Are you aware of some variable that points to Jews in particular?

 

In regards to your scenario again....
"Days after Hitler became chancellor, a Communist sympathizer named Marinus van der Lubbe burned down the Reichstag, the German parliament building.
If the Capital was destroyed by some left extremest(s), or staged to incriminate the left...
"He had almost certainly worked alone, but the Nazis seized on the opportunity. This, they declared, was proof that the Communists were planning to violently overthrow the state."
would that be enough to convince armed Trump supporters that Democrats are enemies of the Constitution and the nation? Or do they already believe that?

 

Pretty good summation but you missed the 1933 burning of the Reichstag (Germany's Parliament Building) that Hitler blamed on Communists. Earlier, the disastrous Treaty of Versailles after World War I demanded war reparations from a broken German plus other destructive elements.

These two events further infuriated and inflamed the general German population. It was easy for Hitler to stir the flames and create first, the Brownshirts, then the SS.

 

Thanks. Deliberately left out some of the article just to shorten the topic. But have been including those events as the discussion progressed.
There still seems to be some controversy as to the Nazis being left or right. @Sanskrit has stated they were left. The article I'm quoting seems to say different.
So I'm still not sure.

 

I think they do already believe that. But it needs clarified that not all enemies warrant a violent response. Rust is often referred to as an 'enemy' of gun enthusiasts. But we dont get rid of it by shooting it off our guns. Some oil now and then does the trick. In the same way, political enemies do not warrant a violent response (unless they initiate violence, of course). In politics, enemies are fought politically, with protest, boycott, discourse, lawsuits and voting. The initiator of violence is always in the wrong. Violence is never justified except as a means to defend oneself from violence.

Though, 'enemy' is not always an objective term. One persons enemy may simply be anothers 'opponent', which may be a better word here.

 

I’ve been working on a six legged crawler that followers you around.

After seeing the gun in the trunk mechanism in Breaking Bad, and hearing about the guy in Nevada who killed all those people with a bump stock, I started to think, that if there was someone with sufficient skills, that a massive killing mechanism could be crated.