It's well known that the judiciary at the time was very lenient towards right wing extremists. His time in jail was rather cozy and gave him time to develop and write down more of his ideological underpinnings. And come up with a more comprehensive plan for taking over.
That's why I find it very worrisome when people like Donald Trump get what amounts to a slap on the wrist for staging an insurrection. Not just that but they actually put him on the ballot again 😱. And this time the people propping him up in the background came up with an elaborate plan for claiming the election and then completely restructuring the executive authoritarian style (aka Project 2025).
America made it clear it wants to be taken over by Nazis when it didn't have Trump's head on a pike outside the white house on January 7th.
imprisoning him would've been fine too
Agreed, and it's telling that the same Democrats who did absolutely nothing to stop these fascists, resulting in a probable second (or even permanent) Trump presidency, are supposed to be moral imperative we all have to vote for lest fascists take over. I'm not sure why any reasonable person trusts anything these Democrats say.
Yes, let's create a martyr of Trump. Fantastic idea. No way that would have backfired. Nosiree.
Democrats tried to do things by the book. Legally. You know, the way things should be done. Not by escalating tensions with more violence.
Democrats are absolutely infuriated by all of this. The shear frustration that more is not able to be done. Hell, look at Jack Smith and everything he's been fighting for and trying to get pushed through. There have never been lawsuits like this brought against a former President - shit has to be airtight. You can't just walk into court and say, "Trump sucks, he's a menace, lock him up," and expect Trump to get hauled off to jail.
Your not being remotely realistic about how things SHOULD happen. Sure, the reactionary in me would have loved to know that the traitor got drawn and quartered, but the realist in me knows that it wouldn't have done anything but beget more violence and extremism from the right. Trump cronies structured the Judicial System in his favor, and yes. He's a fucking menace, but it's not likely we've lost here, Kamala will win and he'll get fucked. Let's do this legally, and not take the "Nuclear, who cares about the fallout" option.
Yes. About 7 months after this article, he published "Mein Kampf" which he finished writing during his prison sentence.
Average NYT article
It's nice to see some things haven't changed.
Did any of you even check to see if it's real?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nyt-1924-hitler-tamed-by-prison/
(it is, but you didn't know that!)
NYT has a long history of being wrong about what to do about fascists
https://player.fm/series/behind-the-bastards/part-one-how-the-liberal-media-helped-fascism-win
Robert has good intentions but damn is he cringe
I didn't check, but the time, dates, people and places were historically accurate. You're right that I didn't check if this newspaper clipping was real.
No, because I can't be bothered to fact check everything I read. It's why I appreciate it when people do it for me in comments. Thanks!
It's visually convincing (looks like a proper old-timey newspaper article, even has a misspelling/adapted name that nobody would use today), and OP even included the context with the source and date above the pic. I've seen the pic before, and if it were fake, nobody would manage/bother to add the original date it was published in.
Writing "neutral" op-ed and slice of life stories about Nazis is one of the Times's favorite things to do.
It takes a lot of mindlessness from the mindless masses to go from
reactionary extremist
to
Chancellor of the Third Reich
and the utter destruction of many countries. Which is where these right-wing tendencies stampede straight towards.
We can't even begin to fathom what Europe would look like today if republicans instead of Democrats were at the helm in Washington, as the Marshall Plan surely would NOT have happened.
Not sure whether you mean “mindless obliviousness” or “mindless rage” here, because I think reality was much closer to the latter. The Nazi party went from nothing to hundreds of thousands of members and 44% of the vote in parliamentary elections in less than a decade. They were extremely popular and their brand of ethno-nationalism resonated with a German public that was disillusioned by the humiliation they all felt (due to the treaty of Versailles) and the economic disaster of hyperinflation (deliberately created to pay down the old war debts as well as Versailles-imposed reparations).
Today most people think of Hitler as a devil single-handedly responsible for the Holocaust and all the invasions of neighbouring countries but that’s an oversimplification. There were tons of other nasty, ideological men in the Nazi party who would’ve done the same or worse had Hitler never existed. The conditions for a wildfire existed, Hitler just happened to be the spark which became ground zero of the blaze.
This is really well said. Thank you
We can’t even begin to fathom what Europe would look like today if republicans instead of Democrats were at the helm in Washington, as the Marshall Plan surely would NOT have happened.
Germany would be weaker and poorer than now. And more national-socialist, of course.
Basically Central and even in some parts Western Europe would be more similar to Eastern Europe today than we can imagine.
At the same time - if USA wouldn't create this tendency of swaying societies full of unreformed evil to their side by forgiving everything and everyone and giving money, maybe the world wouldn't be that bad.
Anyway, Marshall plan not happening would mean Soviet ideology being more competitive, European militaries of the Cold War being less formidable. It would change the balance. It's possible that USSR would be able press through a somewhat more leftist Austria and a unified Germany somewhat dependent on it. It's also a question what role would Turkey play, same with Israel. Without restoration of Europe would they be more attractive as western assets or less, and thus what relationship would the rest of the Middle-East have with the former allies.
We need a fediverse equivalent of /r100yearago for this stuff
[email protected] & [email protected]
But both of them are dead now. They still have a lot of subscribers, so maybe someone could start posting to them again.
I wrote the bot for one of them, I can restart it.
Would r/agedlikemilk be a better equivalent?
Did Susan Collins write that article?
Susan Collins: "Hitler's life was truly a rags-to-riches story. It just goes to show that you can do anything when you work hard enough."
Well obviously his time in prison was the result of a political witchhunt orquestrated by the radical left /s
And his time in the Berlin bunker was the result of a witch-hunt organised by about half of the world.
“….tamed by prison” yeah hehehe
Hitlers cannot be tamed.
They are ironically the only subject for whom the only solution is The Final one..
Lock him up!
As a prison abolitionist, I am very sceptical about things like this. Sure, for this Hilter guy it worked and I'm glad it did, still on a whole, more people get radicalized than de-radicalized in prison.
Most prisoners are there for property crimes and the "bad guys" who really hurt people, aren't helped or bettered either. We aren't free until all of us are free. Don't let positive examples like this one cloud your judgment on an overall bad institution like the prison complex. Transformative justice is a much better solution, also for people like this.
Would they have been able to find that he wrote a racist manifesto in prison? It seems like there was evidence at the time that the headline is wrong.
NYT: "Hitler won't invade the Soviet Union, even though he wrote that he considered Slavs to be untermensch and targeted them specifically as a bunch of Jew-loving communists. It would be an incredibly daft thing to do that would destroy his empire."
Hitler: Invades Soviet Union
NYT: Shocked pikachu face
Propaganda even in a democratic and liberal country exist then and still to this day. I just remembered that the character of Charles Foster Kane from "Citizen Kane" film, is himself a commentary on the power and influence that the media has on the minds of the people.
"People will think what I tell them to think!"
The quote is relevant then and just as relevant now.
That being said, I definitely notice from the conditioning on the public particularly when it comes to immigration and class issues. In my country, the far-right reared its ugly head. A lot of it has been fueled by resentment with competition with migrants from the lack of housing, as the result of decade long apprehension to building social housing and ideological austerity. However, the mainstream media shies away from outright mentioning the root cause. Social media and news outlets still relegate those who became attracted to the far-right as "fringe", "loud minority", "uneducated", "scumbags" or "riff raffs". Those terms have underlying classism and is thinly-veiled insult to the working class. But even if some folks try to acknowledge the real root cause, even they still stop short of clearly saying that housing shortage is the major problem but rather use the manicured phrase "those with genuine concerns". And politicians in my country tend to say that phrase rather than admitting "housing crisis is the root cause", because many politicians are landlords themselves.
jk rowling tamed by twitter
What's with that copyright? Was it everywhere at that time?
As seen in Snope's screenshot, other short stories follow the same formula: header, (c) by times, (author) for times, and then text. I suppose it's been done so you can't cut off these without leaving a text without a header. But how it helps anything? Or that's how everyone (used to) did it?
Maybe it could be printed in another newspaper/in a different region? Can't tell if "reported over wireless" (radio/telegraph) means the reporter was sending the report from Berlin or if this report was being sent from NYC to wherever this paper was, if it was indeed not the NYT.
Or if 'Wireless' is the source of the news, whatever it is in 1924.
It seems like "the new York times company" and "the new York times" are different entities, the "company" one seems to fill a role similar to Bloomberg or Reuters. Which makes it less strange for the Times contacting the Times by wireless.
Before 1989 copyright notices had to be in all works in the usa : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice And since different articles can have different sources, they probably gave each article a separate copyright notice.
Absurd article by NYT.
According to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch#Trial_and_prison it was not really a prison.
He got five years but got out after some eight months. During that time he also dictated his Mein Kampf book to Hess and another of his allies. See also the photo in that article of a "cozy" meeting in the "prison".The lay judges were fanatically pro-Nazi and had to be dissuaded by the presiding Judge, Georg Neithardt, from acquitting Hitler outright.[42] Hitler and Hess were both sentenced to five years in Festungshaft [de] ('fortress confinement') for treason. Festungshaft was the mildest of the three types of jail sentence available in German law at the time; it excluded forced labour, provided reasonably comfortable cells, and allowed the prisoner to receive visitors almost daily for many hours. This was the customary sentence for those whom the judge believed to have had honourable but misguided motives, and it did not carry the stigma of a sentence of Gefängnis (common prison) or Zuchthaus (disciplinary prison). In the end, Hitler served just over eight months of this sentence before his early release for good behaviour.[43] Prison officials allegedly wanted to give Hitler deaf guards, to prevent him from persuading them to free him.[28]
@freezing cold takes
