What fascist tactics did they use to get rid of Hitler? If you're referring to his time in prison, he was put there because he staged a putsch.
Beyond that, much of the establishment and industry tried to work with him using a softly, softly approach. They thought they could steer him, temper him, leverage his popularity for their own ends. Of course, that didn't work out for them
>What fascist tactics did they use to get rid of Hitler?
November 1921 (Munich): During a speech at an NSDAP rally in a beer hall, an unknown assailant fired shots at Hitler from the crowd amid a melee, but he escaped unharmed.
1923 (Thuringia): An unidentified person attempted to shoot Hitler during a rally, but Nazi supporters outnumbered opponents, forcing the attacker to flee.
1923 (Memmingen): Another unknown individual tried to assassinate Hitler with a rifle but retreated when confronted by his followers.
July 15, 1932 (Munich): An assailant fired shots at Hitler and SA leader Ernst Röhm while they dined at Cafe Heck, but both were unhurt.
1932 (Nuremberg): A bomb was planted in the lobby of Hitler's hotel, but it was discovered and removed before detonation.
1932 (Berlin and Munich): Two additional attempts occurred, one involving potential poisoning at the Hotel Kaiserhof in Berlin (where Hitler and staff fell ill after a meal, suspected to be deliberate contamination), though details are limited and perpetrators unidentified.
Attempted assassinations by unidentified lone wolves, spread out over decades, are not "fascist" tactics. Obviously they are very bad for a political climate, but I think that's stretching the definition beyond any use.
You originally implied the Weimar Republic itself used fascistic tactics. But your examples show nothing of the sort (and are obviously just an LLM dump, which disinclines me to continue this conversation)
Yes, I'm sure they were lone wolves who happen to have massive resources for political assassinations, and not backed by hitler's political opposition. Please, let's end the conversation here since it's clearly not going anywhere.
You listed a handful of failed attempts that didn't come anywhere near to being successful. Where are the massive resources? What's the evidence for massive resources? And where's the evidence that these attempts were organised by political opponents at state level?
at what point do you start to question your worldview, when you are actively complaining about the "fascist tactics" used by people who tried to kill Hitler himself?
I wasn't, but thanks for proving my point: If everyone calls their opposition fascists in order to justify killing them, who's the fascist then?
As per history proves, the ones who lose the battle are the fascist, since both the allies and soviets were guilty of the same atrocities in their colonies that they accused the nazis of.
The fascist is the ultranationalist, authoritarian, and xenophobic side that operates under the rule of one strongman leader. That's all. These days the idea that "Liberals are the real fascists" runs rampant, or even more "Antifa is fascist". It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.
> As per history proves, the ones who lose the battle are.
What are you trying to say? Mussolini called himself a fascist. Hitler modeled his nazi party on Mussolini's fascist party, he openly admitted that and admired him. Fascism is not some word that was invented post-hoc to describe very bad people.
> He is incredibly good at manipulating public perception to change opinions and get what he wants
Sorry but you are suffering from some kind of delusion here. He's not manipulating public perception in any way that is beneficial to him or the US. He's crashing his own public perception (which was already in the gutter to all but the sycophants and blind loyalists) and taking the US' reputation with him
I hate this quote with such a passion. It's treated as some enduring wisdom passed down through generations. When it's from a 2016 book you have probably never heard of.
Same pattern played out in Germany. The centrists were more concerned with leftists than Hitler. Big business thought they could cosy up to him and keep him under control. Opportunistic collaboration for self preservation or personal benefit.
Of course these all turned out to be grave miscalculations. I imagine that pattern will eventually play out this time too...
Is it possible their only miscalculation was not realizing how much of the world would fight back? Because if it hadn't, they would have continued enjoying the benefits.
No I don't think so. Broadly they hitched their cart to a genocidal madman. Their hubris convinced them they could maintain a steer on its direction.
The centrists ultimately lost when the Nazis banned other political parties. If they were not murdered first. And the Nazis took control of the German workforce, imposed harsh taxation on businesses, central planning, nationalization etc.
I'm sure the uneasy alliance worked well for a a little while though!
Yes of course this could've been done in photoshop. But a convincing Photoshop effort takes someone with years of experience working for likely hours. AI can churn out this kind of image in seconds, operated entirely by someone with zero skill or experience. It lowers the bar significantly, increasing the scope and scale of the output.
For the same reason a fully automatic weapon is substantively different from a bolt action rifle, despite both being guns.
It's also a fundamentally different scenario. Photoshoot-style touchups - likely at the request of the subject himself - for pure vanity, versus doctored images of an unwilling citizen (who presumably hasn't been convicted yet and is therefore considered innocent) as propaganda
And individual departments can/do have their own GitHub org. Eg the Office of National Statistics. Some work I did ~10 years ago can be found there! https://github.com/onsdigital
But to address the point. There may be base instincts to which we are all subject. But that doesn't mean we should embrace them or proudly wear them as a badge. Violence is entirely natural. And yet most will agree it should not be embraced. Someone proudly declaring themselves as violent will (and should!) be judged harshly. I say the same holds true for racism, whether it is "natural" or not.
Much (all?) of civilisational progress is characterised by moving away from the natural state to a higher strata. The civil part of civilization is entirely unnatural
What's silly about it? I am neither unnatural nor supernatural, and my nature is who I am.
>But that doesn't mean we should embrace them or proudly wear them as a badge.
Maybe. But it also means that I shouldn't be ashamed of them or try to suppress myself into neuroticism. And since the left has made a point of that for decades now, has tried to bully people into doing just that, the pendulum was primed to swing the other way. So yeh, I think I will be proud. It feels good.
>Violence is entirely natural.
It is, but also something to be avoided unless there is no other reasonable option. I would recommend not trying to drive an SUV over the top of me. That's caused some strife recently. I can remain nonviolent indefinitely.
Apologies I shouldn't have said "silly", that's too charged. More I don't think it's a good argument or justification. I think the rest of my comment outlines, along with counterexamples, why I think that.
Making this some left-right polemic has made me not want to continue this conversation further
Yeah this is one conspiracy I believe. There's this narrative at the moment that the UK is some dystopian hellhole where you'll get arrested for basically anything you post online. It's very pervasive to the point that fairly normal American people I follow online have repeated such things.
Now, the UK has plenty of problems, I do not deny that. But the situation is nothing like it is presented online.
My thinking is that this is meant to make people in the US feel that the rising authoritarianism isn't so bad in relative terms "well the UK is far worse!".
Beyond that, much of the establishment and industry tried to work with him using a softly, softly approach. They thought they could steer him, temper him, leverage his popularity for their own ends. Of course, that didn't work out for them
reply