Lawless Trump supporters breach the Capitol

@Ramon67 If anyone has to explain to you why it's LAWLESS to damage the Capital building it's too late for you 🙄

@Ramon67 The federal law against seditious conspiracy can be found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code (which includes treason, rebellion, and similar offenses), specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2384. According to the statutory definition of sedition, it is a crime for two or more people within the jurisdiction of the United States:

1. To conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States or to level war against them;
2. To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States; [b]or[/b]
3. To take, seize, or possess by force any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.

@Ramon67 Only according to conservative fan fiction

@peskyone @Ramon67 Yes, I'm missing something here. Ram-rodding buildings and businesses owned by ordinary citizens is OK. As is torching a police station, toppling statues and shooting police officers. To listen to the leftist, it doesn't become insurrection until it happens in Washington DC to a federal building. If leftist do it it's protest; if non-leftist do it it's treason :)

@Heartlander It's only "ok" in conservative fan fiction Heartlander. IF you change your media diet, you'll snap out of it.

@Heartlander that’s so not true. Violent protest is never acceptable. What happened yesterday should bring tears to ones eyes, regardless of sides.

@Kwek00 Sorry, but I don't do much media consumption beyond the History and Smithsonian channels.

One thing I get from all those WW2 history programs is how the Nazis and the media teamed up to incite the German people against the Jews, the Pols, the Russians, the French, the British ... against anyone that didn't surrender to Herr Hitler. Pretty similar to the way Democrats team up with the US media.

@Heartlander Heartlander, the NAZI party called the free press "Lugenpresse" (lying press). Journalists were shunned, threatened and labeled "enemies of the people". Eventually the free press didn't excist annymore. You only had NAZI-propaganda. This also happened in every country they occupied, so that only one message got broadcasted which was in line with the party ideology. This was forced not a choice.

I don't know what you watch in your free time, but you have a serious misunderstanding of the situation. And thinking that this is the same thing that is happening right now in your country, is pretty ridiculous.

@Heartlander wow!!! Maybe you need to start following more current media.

@Kwek00 muppet !!!!

@Wayne1170 ?

@Handfull1

[quote] Violent protest is never acceptable[/quote]

I agree. I'm just making note of the selective vocabulary used by leftist here and in the media :)

@Handfull1

[quote] wow!!! Maybe you need to start following more current media.[/quote]

Well, I am a news hound and try to capture it all. Capturing it all helps to draw out the contrast and remind me that the media is far less about the news than it is about political propaganda.

History .... what actually happened, provides a glimpse of how what happened wasn't what the media was reporting at the time, and how the truth itself, when revealed years later, was itself often more a political opportunity than a call to bare bone honesty.

@Kwek00

[quote] This was forced not a choice. [/quote]

:) you glossed over the part about how a minority party with just a few people were able to convince millions of Germans that the Jews were vultures, or how Poland had attacked Germany. There's a lot of space between being a minority party in the 1930s and the point where it got forced.

@Heartlander Because Antisemitism was a real thing even before the NAZI-Party was a thing. Antisemitism in Europe has a long history. These biasses excisted in society, the NAZI-Party just exploited that and turned it up to 11.

You said:

[quote]Pretty similar to the way Democrats team up with the US media.[/quote]

But there was no "team up" in NAZI-Germany. The media (all media) was subjugated to the NAZI-doctrine. People that didn't work with them, were replaced. If you choice not to go along, you dissapeared. If you read that entire paragraph, then you know that my sentence was talkin about your media comment.

I also seriously wonder what a "minority party" is?

@Kwek00


[quote] But there was no "team up" in NAZI-Germany[/quote]

Amazing .... so how did a handful of crazies convince the millions of Germans to go along with the Nazi vision of a better Germany? How did Hitler and his thugs worm their way into the people's hearts and souls? How did the Nazis get to the point of "forcing" the media? Heck, there were American newspapers praising Hitler in the 1930s. He made Time's "Man of the Year". Were US newspapers and magazines "forced" to serve as Nazi propaganda agents?

@Heartlander You’re living in Trump’s America and you cannot see the answer to your own questions?

Astonishing!

@Heartlander
After the Versailled Treaty, Germanny got the biggest blame for the first world war. They lost territory and had to repay an enormous amount to allied countries.

Because of monatery and financial descisions made by Germanny during the 1st world war they were already deeply in debt after the 1st world war. This and the new debt to the allied countries lead to a process where Germanny went into hyperinflation between 1921-1923. This lead to the fact that they couldn't pay off what was owned to allies according to the Versailles Treaty. Great Britain choice to forfait their claim on the money fearing that unrest in Germanny would lead to new troubles but France and Belgium were vindictive and laid claim on the Rurh-Territory which was a major industrial zone. The images from the Belgium/French occupation are downright shamefull, where Germans were made to bow and were hit in the head if they didn't.

The number of humiliations that Germany went through and the financial catastrophy that hit a lot of people only worstened in 1929 when the great depression happend.

Next to all that, Germanny was forced to become a constitutional republic. The Weimar Republic may have been one of the most progressive constitutions of it's time, it was also a system that none of the players choice for and was an experiment for every political actor. Politicians in young new democracy suddenly not only had to find their way in the new system but also had to solve all these big problems that lingered in society. With a poppulation that came out of famine because of an allied blockade, a serious debt problem, a monatery problem and humiliated by their neighbour states. The consequence is that governements that formed weren't really stable at all and just imploded on themselves. From 1920 till 1933 they had 13 elections on the federal level. Some of the political parties were just radical. Some of them had paramilitairy wings that just ostracised one another on the streets.

And amidst all this chaos, where there was a fairly new party that reformed itself to a fascist poppulist party. With a message that they would restore order, give Germanny back it's dignity, destroy the Versailles Treaty, destroy democracy and make Germanny great again. They blamed all the issues on the leftists and the liberals and the Jews. And they presented a narrative based on a fabricated national myth. Which was a message that worked with a lot of Germans because well... what did they have to loose?

But not all Germans, people that didn't agree were just beaten into submission. Terror was used to silence opposite voices. Journalists were ostracised and threatened. And in a wild political ride between july 1932 and march 1933 with 3 elections, the NAZI-Party created a situation where they back stabbed their coalition partner which they promised to back up for a chancellor position, which created even more political turmoil. And Hindenburg saw no other way out then to make Hitler chancellor. Hitlers task was to bring order to Germanny and stop the political chaos that the NAZI party helped to foster.

4 weeks later there is a fire in the Reichstag. The most common theory is that this fire was set my a communist radical. Hitler saw his chance to blame it all on the left wing. And the entire social democratic party and communist party was disbanned and sent to concentration camps. These people just dissapeared. In the mean time Hitler, as part of the executive branch, ussurped power from the legeslative branch and influenced the judical branch. After a few months Germanny was a dictatorship, and people that used to vote for anny other party... well, they had to shut up. 🤷‍♂️ The parliament was just there in name, untill the NAZI party stopped the facade and decided that it was no longer nescesary. And if you didn't like it, you just dissapeared.

I don't really get the entire thing about "Time" and the man of the year thing. I mean, why would Hitler not be the man of the year? Time has given that title to other dictators as well, mainly because they made an impact on world politics in that year. I think Hitler made an impact in 1938 considering that he realised the unification with Austria and Sudetenland. So I don't get where you want to go with this.

It's also nice that people praised Hitler in 1930, I don't know what they would praise him for except being a popular figure. He didn't achieve annything politically except building up a movement. I really wonder if anny of them had read his book since it was apperently only translated in English in 1939. Most politicians not only underestimated this movement, they just didn't understand it at all. I've read parts of American Democrats that liked his movement because he had such a devoted voter base at some point... but that's just politicians craving power. As long as the voters suck up every word they say and they can sit in a position of power, then they have done what a politician sets out to do 🤷‍♂️

I also really wonder what kind of documetaries you watch... because I really think you have verry little idea of what you are talking.

@newjaninev2

[quote] You’re living in Trump’s America[/quote]

No :) I'm living in the America that I see, the one unfolding now, and the ideal I would like to see. Your astonishment that I don't see things as you see them suggest that only your version of America counts.

@Heartlander Honestly, if you are really intrested in the 2nd world war and you don't see similairities between the discourse of the American poppulist in power and discourse of the the German poppulist reaching for power... I don't get that part either.

@Kwek00

[quote] It's also nice that people praised Hitler in 1930, I don't know what they would praise him for except being a popular figure. He didn't achieve annything politically except building up a movement. I [/quote]

He was praised for bringing Germany together, putting all of Germany on the same tract, and his enablers said that whatever issues he had with the Jews was understandable. Even in the late 1930s there was a pretty big US Nazi movement with parades. American icons like Charles Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy praised Hitler as a good guy.

The Nazis and the German media were in bed together as early as 1933. The Nazis worked it from the inside out, gaining control over the professional organizations, the gilds, the publishers, the ownership who picked the the publishers and the stories and the writers of the newspaper stories. The revolving door between Democrats and the media we see today has chilling similarities.

@Heartlander In 1930? Seriously?

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sibylle_Lehmann-Hasemeyer/publication/225410603/figure/tbl2/AS:393602258751500@1470853499803/Distribution-of-seats-in-percent-after-general-elections.png


In 1930 the NAZI-Party had [b]18,5 %[/b] of the votes which translated in 108 seats of 577.
The highest number of votes they have ever gotten was in 1932 with [b]37,8 %[/b]. And they lost 4 % of that vote in the next election. How is that uniting the country? Even if you would say this was the case in 1934, then you have to make the remark that elections were already suspended and there was only 1 party left. The NAZI-Party did "unite" Germanny, by abolishing every other political party. More then 60% of the voter base of the last election held in Weimar Republic lost it's voice.

I don't think a lot of politicians understood what was happening in Germanny. Because it was so surrealistic. And as I said, Hitlers political work was only translated in 1939 in English. At least Churchill understood, but he was laughed at in the UK until it was too late. And Chamberlaine downplayed the thread because he too believed that you could make deals with an authoritarian.

I'm so glad you are not a history teacher Heartlander, because I don't know what you have been watching but you clearly don't get it.

@Kwek00 You are nudging the fact and what I said, again :)

I referenced "early 1930s" which I believe would include the period between 1930 and 1934. The NAZIs and/or their supporters moved in to fill the vacuum created by the political consolidation and transformed German media into exclusive NAZI propaganda.

Much like in the US, German media was based on political or cultural affiliations. NAZI propaganda replaced Communist Newspapers, Jewish Newspapers, eventually everything but NAZI publications.

Here's a nice reference: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-press-in-the-third-reich

The role of the NAZI news/propaganda industry wasn't just to get the German people in line but to also lie to the rest of the world. The success of of the NAZI-Press fusion can be seen in British lack of preparedness and initial inclination towards appeasement, and the US's reluctance to even get involved.

Here's an interesting article about the Associated Press facilitating NAZI propaganda.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/30/associated-press-cooperation-nazis-revealed-germany-harriet-scharnberg

It was Japan that pulled the US into the war.

Freedom of the press among other things includes the freedom to distort the news, lie and create less than an honest presentation of the news. Politicians in bed with "the press" is bad shit.

@Heartlander You are right, I didn't see the 's, if I did, I wouldn't have answered you by mentioning 1930. The rest stands though.

[quote]Amazing .... so how did a handful of crazies convince the millions of Germans to go along with the Nazi vision of a better Germany? How did Hitler and his thugs worm their way into the people's hearts and souls? [b]How did the Nazis get to the point of "forcing" the media?[/b][/quote]

Your source:

[quote][i][b]The elimination of the German multi-party political system brought about the demise of hundreds of newspapers produced by outlawed political parties.[/b] [b]It also allowed the state to seize the printing plants and equipment of the Communist and Social Democratic Parties, which were often turned over directly to the Nazi Party.[/b] In the following months, the Nazis established control or exerted influence over independent press organs.

During the first weeks of 1933, the Nazi regime deployed the radio, press, and newsreels to stoke fears of a pending “Communist uprising,” then channeled popular anxieties into political measures that eradicated civil liberties and democracy. SA (Storm Troopers) and members of the Nazi elite paramilitary formation, the SS, took to the streets to brutalize or arrest political opponents and incarcerate them in hastily established detention centers and concentration camps. [b]Nazi thugs broke into opposing political party offices, destroying printing presses and newspapers.[/b]

[b]Sometimes using holding companies to disguise new ownership, executives of the Nazi Party-owned publishing house, Franz Eher, established a huge empire that drove out competition and purchased newspapers at below-market prices.[/b] Some independent newspapers, particularly conservative newspapers and non-political illustrated weeklies, accommodated to the regime through self-censorship or initiative in dealing with approved topics.[/i][/quote]

How is this not "forced"?

@Kwek00

The NAZI party didn't just use force, they deliberately, methodically, intimidated and sometimes "forced" their way in the doors. But whether by force or secret acquisitions they [b]became[/b] the press. And those who were on-board became NAZI operatives helping the NAZI party lie to the German people and to the world. They worked it from the inside out. If you insist that a bunch of brown shirt thugs intimidated and "forced" publishers, editors and news writers to only say nice things about what Hitler and the NAZIS were up to then you paint a pretty unflattering picture of the honor and character of the publishers, editors and news writers at the time.

On reflection, isn't this sort of the same way Eason Jordan justifies why CNN gave cover to Saddam Hussein? Why CNN didn't report about Saddam's atrocities? Iraq brown shirts "forced" him to go soft on Saddam?