Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 This was actually "over colorful" in its description of stereotypes, which in retrospect was all too common in the first half of the 20th Century. Especially in such things as eugenics.
"How to tell who will become a criminal/homosexual/defective based on their background", is actually a pretty nasty way of thinking.
Especially since after the war, some of those same people described as "Nazi types", heroically fought against the Nazis, with many dying in the process.
The article was published in August of 1941.
What the author was probably trying to do was not to talk of Nazi stereotypes as much as to criticize the Roosevelt administration's New Deal embrace of "fascist economic models", and "socialist realism".
Again, in retrospect, America had only seen the tip of the Nazi iceberg. No one at that time could have imagined the eventual horrors that were discovered about the Nazis; such horrors that to even suggest a fellow American had such sympathies would be a horrific slander, beyond the pale and universally condemned.
Something the Democrats of today seem to have forgotten.
Were this article written today, it would still not be a good comparison. Perhaps to use the Italian fascist model would be better, because it was both more personality driven and seemingly "softer". (Only due to Italy still being crippled from World War I.)
Posted by Anonymoose 2012-02-19 09:54||
#2 The Military Channel has been showing the series "Nazi Collaborators" and I highly recommend it to everyone.
It discusses the war in Europe on a country by country basis. Greece, Finland, Latvia, Belgium, the fucking Grand Mufti, Holland, Norway, etc.
I think it is the best documentary series on the war in years. It covers aspects of the war that rarely get covered by commercial media.
Posted by Penguin 2012-02-19 10:10||
#3 I see prejudice is alive today just as it was 70 years ago. Of course, the Southerner is "The Other" and naturally will join the Nazis given half a chance.
Posted by gromky 2012-02-19 10:43||
#4 This was actually "over colorful" in its description of stereotypes, which in retrospect was all too common in the first half of the 20th Century. Especially in such things as eugenics
I'll grant that point on the article's overall tone, 'Moose. But check out the description of "Mr. L," the powerful labor leader:
L makes speeches about the "third of the nation," and L has made a darned good thing for himself out of championing the oppressed. He has the best car of anyone in this room; salary means nothing to him because he lives on an expense account...No one has ever asked him what are the creative functions of a highly paid agent, who takes a percentage off the labor of millions of men, and distributes it where and as it may add to his own political power. (Emphasis mine-RbR)
That's no stereotype - it's an excerpt from Andy Stern's resume.
Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2012-02-19 14:08||
#5 "That's no stereotype - it's an excerpt from Andy Stern's resume."
I was thinking of Bambi, Ricky. >:-(
Posted by Barbara 2012-02-19 14:32||
#6 Andy Stern--Another(and F-uglier)knuckle-dragging, progressive thug prince-ling with an inflated sense of entitlement. Prolly a 3rd-Generation labor-union "motivator" scum-bag.
Posted by Elmising Poodle6592 2012-02-19 23:16||