Alt Text:
Sarcastic bluesky post saying [time traveling back to 1933 to make sure to tell Germans to protest Hitler less vigorously so as not to alienate bougie centrists who want to go to brunch undisturbed, thus preventing the rise of fascism]
Alt Text:
Sarcastic bluesky post saying [time traveling back to 1933 to make sure to tell Germans to protest Hitler less vigorously so as not to alienate bougie centrists who want to go to brunch undisturbed, thus preventing the rise of fascism]
This isn’t even close to analogous, here is a better one.
“Real leftists” would have been more than happy to write in a niche candidate instead of ensuring that Hitler didn’t become Chancellor in the first place. And then they will have justified it by saying that Germany was going to fail anyway, and they rather have it happen sooner than later, and that none of the blood of the 6 million Jews about to be worked and gassed to death is on their hands.
It’s possible to have voted for the lesser evil and encourage vigorous protest.
It’s not a simple dichotomy.
Voted for Harris, Anti-riot
Voted third party/didn’t vote, Pro-Riot
Plenty of people Voted for Harris and are pro-riot. (Though those people tend to vote as harm reduction not with the naïve belief that simply just voting is enough).
Ppl really forget we can do more than one thing
Easier to dismiss criticism when you can scapegoat it into a made of caricature that you disagree with on other things.
deleted by creator
It’s not like the Nazis ever received the majority of the votes. Funny to see us blaming the votes of that time.
It’s a bit pedantic to say that Hitler rose to power without the majority because he only received 43.9% of the vote… especially considering that over 17 million people voted for him and the next most popular candidate only received 7 million votes.
That really only makes sense if you are reviewing the election through the lens of someone used to a two party system. If we are going to evaluate it as if it were a two party system and combine the right and left into two coalitions…the Nazi, Centre, DNVP, and BVP would make up nearly 26 million voters while the SPD and kpd would only make up nearly 12 million people.
Even though the Centre party was much more willing to work with the Nazi than the socialist, if we added their votes to the left coalition you’d still have 22m on the right and 16m on the left.
The only way you can really claim that the Nazi didn’t receive the majority of the vote is if you misinterpret The Weimar Republic as a direct democracy and not a Republic.
A bad analogy is a license to be pedantic.
It’s not a license to engage in historical revisionism. Like the myth of the clean wehrmacht, the notion that Hitler didn’t have the broad support of the majority of German citizens is an attempt to deny the culpability of everyday Germans from the war crimes they were collectively responsible for in WW2.
Off topic, but this is the first time I’ve seen an awful.systems account outside of its local communities.
Except in this case, the previous government had already killed 4 million Jews, and Hitler was only continuing the previous government’s policy of genocide.
No, in this case, the government would have killed 0 Jews, and instead provided weapons and ammunition to a long-time ally who suffered a brutal terrorist attack just a year prior and was in the middle of a bloody vengeance campaign that had gone way beyond the scope of neutralizing the enemy and had become a full blown extermination campaign in which Hitler was outright calling for the use of nuclear weapons and complete annihilation.
But, that far in to the weeds and the analogy breaks down because you’re just describing the very specific situation that happened back in November.
Israel was always going to do just want they wanted to unless someone stood up to them. That was never going to be Trump, nor was it going to be Harris, let’s be real here for a second. That sweet, sweet AIPAC cash is just too hard to say no to, and, frankly, Israel is a really charged topic that candidates would prefer to avoid. I find your distinction meaningless, it’s like handing an alcoholic booze while saying “nooo, please don’t drink it, it’s bad for you” only to turn around say that you didn’t help them destroy their life because you oh so gently reminded them that booze is bad for their health as you handed it to them. This is a cigarette company defense.
They’re doing it to Trump, just on Iran, because they know Trump isn’t going to meaningfully stand up to them, while still not wanting to get the US into full blown war. They’d be doing it to Harris too, because the DNC didn’t even trust her enough to let her run her own campaign, they sure as fuck weren’t going to let her run her own presidency. We’d probably have some DNC turbodonor or AIPAC mf as SecDef.