I mean, if you want to get deep into the historical back-catalog, a lot of what Germany was doing on their Eastern front had been encouraged by anti-communists in the West. Hitler was encouraged by antisemitic fanatics like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh in the US and Henry Hamilton Beamish and Lord Halifax in the UK. He received enormous private support and subsequent overseas investment in his Fascist party and state war machine from western investors, largely in an effort to contain Eastern European Soviet organizations.
The British spent the entire 1930s claiming that Britain and Nazi Germany will be a bulwark against communism. They signed three pacts with Hitler which were all directly against the Soviet Union: the Four Powers Pact meant to exclude and isolate the Soviets, the Naval Agreement meant Germany could have a navy up 35% of the British navy meaning it wouldn’t threaten British empire but every country on the Baltic sea… i.e. the Soviet Union, and finally the Munich Betrayal which was understood to be a gesture of a “free hand” (British diplomat’s words not mine) for Hitler to go east.
And we’d be foolish to confine the fascist sentiment entirely to Central Europe.
I was in the East End of London (a working-class quarter) yesterday and attended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches, which were just a cry for ‘bread! bread!’ and on my way home I pondered over the scene and I became more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism… My cherished idea is a solution for the social problem, i.e., in order to save the 40,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for the goods produced in the factories and mines. The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists.
~ Cecil John Rhodes, British mining magnate, Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, and founder of Rhodesia
The only real difference between someone like Rhodes and Hitler was Hitler waged this violence against Europeans for his Lebensraum, while Rhodes turned his attention to South Africa.
That’s all fine and good, but singling out liberals this way rhetorically absolves the actual fascists
Chamberlain was absolutely to blame for his weak actions , and the German libs were accountable for theirs, but so were the Nazis.
Purity testing and leftist infighting is the geo-political equivalent of blaming a girl’s outfit for her rape, instead of the rapists. It’s like going to a man who was stabbed and mocking his cowardly friend instead of providing first aid or chasing off his attacker.
We donʻt end up in a position where fascists are able to come to power without liberals paving the runway. And its what’s happening. Trump doesnʻt come to power if not for the liberal tendencies of Obama. Their failure to hold the banks accountable. Their refusal to bailout homeowners instead. Trump doesnʻt come to power when the preferred candidate of the people isnʻt being sabotaged by the anti-democratic tendencies of the Democratic party. Trump gets a mulligan in 2024 because the Democrats held yet another coronation and yet again ran to the right of their voters when their voters had made it clear as day that they wouldnʻt be voting for a pro-genocide candidate.
You are doing the thing liberals do to absolve themselves of accountability. And its a precise component of the song and dance that liberals use to simultaneously empower fascists but also absolve themselves of sin. Trump doesnʻt come to power at all in a context where Democrats take the task of delivering for their constituents seriously. Trump doesnʻt exist if not for the perpetual failure and the permanently apologetic state of the American Liberal.
Don’t do the zionist work for them by limiting your criticism to just the rational people who should have stopped this.
WW2 was started by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, not Neville Chamberlain.
WW2 was started by Tojo and the Imperial Japanese, with the invasion of Manchuria in 1931.
Them too, but that’s really is a distinction without a difference. Thank you for pushing back on eurocentrism.
(I mean, unless you’re claiming Germany [and Italy] started the war in Europe in direct respone to their ally’s invasion?)
I mean, if you want to get deep into the historical back-catalog, a lot of what Germany was doing on their Eastern front had been encouraged by anti-communists in the West. Hitler was encouraged by antisemitic fanatics like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh in the US and Henry Hamilton Beamish and Lord Halifax in the UK. He received enormous private support and subsequent overseas investment in his Fascist party and state war machine from western investors, largely in an effort to contain Eastern European Soviet organizations.
The British spent the entire 1930s claiming that Britain and Nazi Germany will be a bulwark against communism. They signed three pacts with Hitler which were all directly against the Soviet Union: the Four Powers Pact meant to exclude and isolate the Soviets, the Naval Agreement meant Germany could have a navy up 35% of the British navy meaning it wouldn’t threaten British empire but every country on the Baltic sea… i.e. the Soviet Union, and finally the Munich Betrayal which was understood to be a gesture of a “free hand” (British diplomat’s words not mine) for Hitler to go east.
And we’d be foolish to confine the fascist sentiment entirely to Central Europe.
~ Cecil John Rhodes, British mining magnate, Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, and founder of Rhodesia
The only real difference between someone like Rhodes and Hitler was Hitler waged this violence against Europeans for his Lebensraum, while Rhodes turned his attention to South Africa.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
That’s all fine and good, but singling out liberals this way rhetorically absolves the actual fascists
Chamberlain was absolutely to blame for his weak actions , and the German libs were accountable for theirs, but so were the Nazis.
Purity testing and leftist infighting is the geo-political equivalent of blaming a girl’s outfit for her rape, instead of the rapists. It’s like going to a man who was stabbed and mocking his cowardly friend instead of providing first aid or chasing off his attacker.
We donʻt end up in a position where fascists are able to come to power without liberals paving the runway. And its what’s happening. Trump doesnʻt come to power if not for the liberal tendencies of Obama. Their failure to hold the banks accountable. Their refusal to bailout homeowners instead. Trump doesnʻt come to power when the preferred candidate of the people isnʻt being sabotaged by the anti-democratic tendencies of the Democratic party. Trump gets a mulligan in 2024 because the Democrats held yet another coronation and yet again ran to the right of their voters when their voters had made it clear as day that they wouldnʻt be voting for a pro-genocide candidate.
You are doing the thing liberals do to absolve themselves of accountability. And its a precise component of the song and dance that liberals use to simultaneously empower fascists but also absolve themselves of sin. Trump doesnʻt come to power at all in a context where Democrats take the task of delivering for their constituents seriously. Trump doesnʻt exist if not for the perpetual failure and the permanently apologetic state of the American Liberal.