Hitler wins again.

[Anti Federalist]

Hitler Wins Again!

Posted by Butler Shaffer on September 7, 2011 10:51 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/94408.html

It has been a few years since I presented my first year students with my election exercise on the first day of class. I have two candidates, "A" and "B." Without naming either of them, I describe their programs, ideas, practices, etc. Candidate "A" - I tell them after they have voted - is a composite of the "founding fathers" (Sam Adams, Jefferson, John Hancock, Tom Paine, etc.), while candidate "B" is Hitler.

In prior years, Hitler prevails with about 75% of the vote. This time, candidate "B" won by a margin of 25-13. When I told my students that candidate "B" was Adolf Hitler, there was a loud, collective "gasp!" Later on, in the discussion of a case involving government regulation of food, one of my students said "of course, none of us are Nazis," to which I responded: "then how do you account for the fact that nearly 2/3 of you just voted for Hitler?"

Adolf is still a popular figure, which probably explains why most Americans are as willing to support attacks and invasions on other countries as Germans were during the 1930s.

[Chester Copperpot]

id like to see the text of his survey

[Seraphim]

sad and unsurprising.

[ravedown]

i think it would be easy to manipulate that survey and get the results you wanted. it all depends on how the issues are presented.

[jmdrake]

I think folks worried about the wording of the questionnaire are missing the point. Does anyone think that if Hitler had said "I'm going to launch WW II and kill millions inside and out of this country" that people would have voted for him. (Yes kiddies, Adolf Hitler was democratically elected to office.) Government evil is typically covered with a thin layer of "it's for the good of the nation"...at least initially.

[PastaRocket848]

no "kiddies" Hitler was absolutely not, ever, democratically elected. hitler was appointed chancellor by then-president von hindernburg. von hindernburg fell ill shortly thereafter, and hitler proceeded to force his way into the role of president (and chancellor) rather than call up an election to replace von hindernburg.

the only way one could spin hitler's rise as being the product of a democratic process would be to suggest that the electoral victories of the nazi party prior to his appointment amount to he himself being elected, which they of course do not.

[jmdrake]

no "kiddies" Hitler was absolutely not, ever, democratically elected. hitler was appointed chancellor by then-president von hindernburg. von hindernburg fell ill shortly thereafter, and hitler proceeded to force his way into the role of president (and chancellor) rather than call up an election to replace von hindernburg.

the only way one could spin hitler's rise as being the product of a democratic process would be to suggest that the electoral victories of the nazi party prior to his appointment amount to he himself being elected, which they of course do not.

Fine. The Nazis were elected then. Point still stands. Hitler pitched his ideas to the German voters and a plurality of them fell for it.

[AuH20]

Not really shocking. We are all National Socialists if you think about it. ;)

[AuH20]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer109.html

[AuH20]

Someone get me off this planet and quick. Here's a breakdown of the test :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer52.html


Candidate A is identified as "a well-known critic of government, this man has been involved in tax protest movements, and has openly advocated secession, armed rebellion against the existing national government, and even the overthrow of that government. He is a known member of a militia group that was involved in a shoot-out with law enforcement authorities. He opposes gun control efforts of the present national government, as well as restrictions on open immigration into this country. He is a businessman who has earned his fortune from such businesses as alcohol, tobacco, retailing, and smuggling."

Candidate B is described thusly: "A decorated army war veteran, this man is an avowed nonsmoker and dedicated public health advocate. His public health interests include the fostering of medical research and his dedication to eliminating cancer. He opposes the use of animals in conducting such research. He has supported restrictions on the use of asbestos, pesticides, and radiation, and favors government-determined occupational health and safety standards, as well as the promotion of such foods as whole-grain bread and soybeans. He is an advocate of government gun-control measures. An ardent opponent of tobacco, he has supported increased restrictions on both the use of and advertising for tobacco products. Such advertising restrictions include: [1] not allowing tobacco use to be portrayed as harmless or a sign of masculinity; [2] not allowing such advertising to be directed to women; [3] not drawing attention to the low nicotine content of tobacco products; and, [4] limitations as to where such advertisements may be made. This man is a champion of environmental and conservationist programs, and believes in the importance of sending troops into foreign countries in order to maintain order therein."

The students are asked to vote, anonymously, for either of these two candidates. I employ this exercise only every other year, at most, so that students will not have been told to expect it. Over the years, the voting results have given candidate B about 75% of the vote, while candidate A gets the remaining 25%. After completing the exercise and tabulating the results, I inform the students that candidate A is a composite of the American "founding fathers" (e.g., Sam Adams, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc.). Candidate B, on the other hand, is Adolf Hitler, whose advocacy for the programs named can be found in such works as Robert Proctor's The Nazi War on Cancer.

In one of my classes a few years ago, we were discussing the Schechter case, in which the United States Supreme Court struck down the cornerstone legislation of the "New Deal," the National Industrial Recovery Act. I was explaining to the students how this legislation had transformed American commerce and industry into a system of business created but government-enforced cartels. I also pointed out to them how popular fascist/socialist programs were throughout much of the world at that time. There was Stalin in the Soviet Union, Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, Franco in Spain, and Roosevelt in the United States.

I then informed my class how Winston Churchill had, in 1938, praised Hitler, as had such luminaries as Ghandi, Gertrude Stein (who nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize), and Henry Ford (who was pleased to work with the German leader). One of my students could take it no more. "How can you say that so many people could support such an evil man as Adolf Hitler?," she pleaded. "You tell me," I responded, "just two weeks ago 78% of you in this class voted for him!" Some twenty seconds of pure silence settled into the classroom before we moved on to the next case.

[fisharmor]

Does anyone think that if Hitler had said "I'm going to launch WW II and kill millions inside and out of this country" that people would have voted for him.
Bush didn't say "I'm going to start bombing weddings, create secret prisons, engage in torture, and force our telecom companies to literally plug in the big brother machine" either.

[Sentient Void]

Wow. This is awesome. Thanks for sharing!

/SHARED.

[Sentient Void]

Just as a heads up, I spread this around - and it's been *very* popular. It's caused a lot of discussions.

[Cutlerzzz]

I. Want. To. See. The. Questions.

[green73]

I. Want. To. See. The. Questions.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?314049-Hitler-wins-again.&p=3535058&viewfull=1#post3535058

[awake]

All this exercise says is that good and evil lives in each and everyone of us. The important part is each individuals choice of which to suppress and which to foster. I love this exercise, it hits hard.

Many of the professed Nazis in their day did not even think twice about the evil they were involved in because the government said it was OK. Kind of like today.

[Cutlerzzz]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?314049-Hitler-wins-again.&p=3535058&viewfull=1#post3535058

lol rep

[asurfaholic]

I think the questions are manufactured to get a certain response. I am sure if candidate b believed in race superiority and candidate a wasn't painted as such a thug (spoke of family values and personal responsiblity) the voting results would have been skewed a bit more.

All this project does is confirm that people are sheeple and buy propaganda like its going out of style.

[awake]

I guess a lot of us have a little Hitler in us. Did I say already that I love this exercise?

George W Bush said he wanted a humble foreign policy, Obama is a noble peace prize winner... Both of these men are thugs too, very few see it, and even less would agree. Hitler never personally killed anyone, his order followers did.

When you are chasing new Hitlers all over the world one never stops to see if they might actually be him.

[awake]

To hell with Hitler, people currently still vote for Stalinist, Trotsky, and Leninist policies repackaged under a whole host of pretty banners. Hitler was simply the pupil and imitator of these other monsters who did far worse with virtually no repercussions for themselves, their minions and fellow travelers.

[enjerth]

Yes, the questions are skewed. Quite perfectly. Candidate A will typically be portrayed by the media as the bad guy, called an outlaw and a renegade for questioning and challenging the authority of government. Candidate B will typically be praised for their use of government force (note: not real authority) for a seemingly good cause.

[Philhelm]

I think folks worried about the wording of the questionnaire are missing the point. Does anyone think that if Hitler had said "I'm going to launch WW II and kill millions inside and out of this country" that people would have voted for him. (Yes kiddies, Adolf Hitler was democratically elected to office.) Government evil is typically covered with a thin layer of "it's for the good of the nation"...at least initially.

I thought he was appointed by Hindenburg.

[heavenlyboy34]

+rep @ OP

[LibForestPaul]

All this exercise says is that good and evil lives in each and everyone of us. The important part is each individuals choice of which to suppress and which to foster. I love this exercise, it hits hard.

Many of the professed Nazis in their day did not even think twice about the evil they were involved in because the government said it was OK. Kind of like today.

+1. It is those that believe that a horrible act if cared out for good reasons by good people, under the color of law or patriotism, is something to be proud about.

[Anti Federalist]

Someone get me off this planet and quick. Here's a breakdown of the test :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer52.html

Worth a repost and a +rep for the find, I know it's been around before, I couldn't find it.



Candidate A is identified as "a well-known critic of government, this man has been involved in tax protest movements, and has openly advocated secession, armed rebellion against the existing national government, and even the overthrow of that government. He is a known member of a militia group that was involved in a shoot-out with law enforcement authorities. He opposes gun control efforts of the present national government, as well as restrictions on open immigration into this country. He is a businessman who has earned his fortune from such businesses as alcohol, tobacco, retailing, and smuggling."

Candidate B is described thusly: "A decorated army war veteran, this man is an avowed nonsmoker and dedicated public health advocate. His public health interests include the fostering of medical research and his dedication to eliminating cancer. He opposes the use of animals in conducting such research. He has supported restrictions on the use of asbestos, pesticides, and radiation, and favors government-determined occupational health and safety standards, as well as the promotion of such foods as whole-grain bread and soybeans. He is an advocate of government gun-control measures. An ardent opponent of tobacco, he has supported increased restrictions on both the use of and advertising for tobacco products. Such advertising restrictions include: [1] not allowing tobacco use to be portrayed as harmless or a sign of masculinity; [2] not allowing such advertising to be directed to women; [3] not drawing attention to the low nicotine content of tobacco products; and, [4] limitations as to where such advertisements may be made. This man is a champion of environmental and conservationist programs, and believes in the importance of sending troops into foreign countries in order to maintain order therein."

The students are asked to vote, anonymously, for either of these two candidates. I employ this exercise only every other year, at most, so that students will not have been told to expect it. Over the years, the voting results have given candidate B about 75% of the vote, while candidate A gets the remaining 25%. After completing the exercise and tabulating the results, I inform the students that candidate A is a composite of the American "founding fathers" (e.g., Sam Adams, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc.). Candidate B, on the other hand, is Adolf Hitler, whose advocacy for the programs named can be found in such works as Robert Proctor's The Nazi War on Cancer.

In one of my classes a few years ago, we were discussing the Schechter case, in which the United States Supreme Court struck down the cornerstone legislation of the "New Deal," the National Industrial Recovery Act. I was explaining to the students how this legislation had transformed American commerce and industry into a system of business created but government-enforced cartels. I also pointed out to them how popular fascist/socialist programs were throughout much of the world at that time. There was Stalin in the Soviet Union, Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, Franco in Spain, and Roosevelt in the United States.

I then informed my class how Winston Churchill had, in 1938, praised Hitler, as had such luminaries as Ghandi, Gertrude Stein (who nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize), and Henry Ford (who was pleased to work with the German leader). One of my students could take it no more. "How can you say that so many people could support such an evil man as Adolf Hitler?," she pleaded. "You tell me," I responded, "just two weeks ago 78% of you in this class voted for him!" Some twenty seconds of pure silence settled into the classroom before we moved on to the next case.

[Cutlerzzz]

The Republican Party just applouded the death of over 200 people. It is no suprise that most favor the Nazi.

[Anti Federalist]

The Republican Party just applouded the death of over 200 people. It is no suprise that most favor the Nazi.

"It takes balls to execute an innocent man" - unnamed GOP primary voter in Texas.

[ClayTrainor]

Awesome, and scary article when you really think about the implications of it.

[Bman]

id like to see the text of his survey

agreed.

*saw it and read it.

[ClayTrainor]

Fine. The Nazis were elected then. Point still stands. Hitler pitched his ideas to the German voters and a plurality of them fell for it.

Exactly.

If Hitler was never born, it would've been someone else who headed up nazi germany, and its history would be unlikely to be much different from what it already is.

[Anti Federalist]

the only way one could spin hitler's rise as being the product of a democratic process would be to suggest that the electoral victories of the nazi party prior to his appointment amount to he himself being elected, which they of course do not.

Umm, no, not quite.

1 August 1934, the day before Hindenburg's death, rapidly passed legislation merging the office of chancellor and president was approved.

Hitler assumed complete power the next day when Hindenburg died.

However, that merger was put to a national vote on 19 August 1934.

It passed by 85 percent of voters.

The German people had a chance to put a stop to the whole thing in 1934.

Just like the American people do now.

And I suspect the American people will fail, just like the German people did.

[purplechoe]

Yup, it never ceases to amaze me how people just don't realize the Nazis and Communists were pretty much the same, different flags, colors, etc. but the underlying fundamentals are pretty much the same. They both were aiming for a socialist "utopia"...

A superpower needs an opposition. If you have one wolf chasing the sheep it is much harder to make the sheep go in the direction you want him to go, but if you have two wolves chasing that same sheep, it's much easier to make the sheep go in the direction you want him to go. The two wolves are fascism and socialism and the rest of us are the sheep...

[TruckinMike]

If I'm not mistaken but didn't the population of Austria accept Hitlers policies and Leadership? ANswered my own question - via wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss):

The Anschluss [ˈʔanʃlʊs] ( listen) (spelled Anschluß at the time of the event, and until the German orthography reform of 1996; German for "link-up"[1]), also known as the About this sound Anschluss Österreichs (help·info), was the occupation and annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany in 1938.[2]

Austria was annexed into the German Third Reich on 12 March 1938. There had been several years of pressure by supporters from both Austria and Germany (and both Nazis and non-Nazis) for the "Heim ins Reich" movement.[3] Earlier, Nazi Germany had provided support for the Austrian National Socialist Party (Austrian Nazi Party) in its bid to seize power from Austria's Austrofascist leadership.

Devoted to remaining independent but under considerable pressure from both German and Austrian Nazis, Austria's Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg tried to hold a referendum for a vote on the issue. Although Schuschnigg expected Austria to vote in favour of maintaining autonomy, a well-planned coup d'état by the Austrian Nazi Party of Austria's state institutions in Vienna took place on 11 March, prior to the referendum, which they canceled.

They transferred power to Germany, and Wehrmacht troops entered Austria to enforce the Anschluss. The Nazis held a plebiscite within the following month, asking the people to ratify the fait accompli. They claimed to have received 99.73% of the vote in favor.

This holds true from the account of Kitty Werthmann.


...
I believe that I am an eyewitness to history. I cannot tell you that
Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We
elected him by a landslide – 98% of the vote. I’ve never read that in any
American publications. Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his
tanks and took Austria by force.

In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce
was unemployed. We had 25% inflation and 25% bank loan interest rates.
Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people
were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn’t want
to work; there simply weren’t any jobs. My mother was a Christian woman
and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle
of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people – about 30
daily.

The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were fighting each
other. Blocks and blocks of cities like Vienna , Linz , and Graz were
destroyed. The people became desperate and petitioned the government to
let them decide what kind of government they wanted.

We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany, where Hitler had been in
power since 1933. We had been told that they didn’t have unemployment or
crime, and they had a high standard of living. Nothing was ever said about
persecution of any group -- Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe
that everyone was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria . We
were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment
and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be
assisted, and farmers would get their farms back. Ninety-eight percent of
the population voted to annexAustria to Germany and have Hitler for our
ruler....

Listen to this 23 minute AJ interview of Kitty- very interesting (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1758808539498490012)

TMike

[BamaAla]

Come on. He asked the question in such a way to get the response he wanted. If we are going to crucify Frank Luntz for this, why are we giving this guy a pass?

Try my exercise: candidate A is in favor of letting people ravaged by natural disasters hang in the wind. He/she doesn't want any oversight on drug companies like the makers of fen-phen. He/she doesn't want any regulation on builders like those who built with asbestos. He/she isn't in favor of regulations on corporations and banks like those that caused the economic collapse of 2008.

Candidate B lead the fight against teenage cervical cancer. He/she is in favor of putting Americans to work by building a highway that will move billions of dollars of goods through the state. He/she believes in swift justice for those that harm others. Has a world class tan...

I know this isn't a perfect example, but I haven't had years to perfect it a group unsuspecting students. It is basically the same thing: present out of context perceived negatives about A and out of context perceived positives about B. It should work every time and apparently does.

[Anti Federalist]

I agree there is some amount of question bias.

However, if presented neutrally, with one candidate offering pure freedom and free market solutions and one offering "reasonable" social controls and benefits, like the Nazi regime did, I maintain a majority will still choose the Nazis.


Come on. He asked the question in such a way to get the response he wanted. If we are going to crucify Frank Luntz for this, why are we giving this guy a pass?

Try my exercise: candidate A is in favor of letting people ravaged by natural disasters hang in the wind. He/she doesn't want any oversight on drug companies like the makers of fen-phen. He/she doesn't want any regulation on builders like those who built with asbestos. He/she isn't in favor of regulations on corporations and banks like those that caused the economic collapse of 2008.

Candidate B lead the fight against teenage cervical cancer. He/she is in favor of putting Americans to work by building a highway that will move billions of dollars of goods through the state. He/she believes in swift justice for those that harm others. Has a world class tan...

I know this isn't a perfect example, but I haven't had years to perfect it a group unsuspecting students. It is basically the same thing: present out of context perceived negatives about A and out of context perceived positives about B. It should work every time and apparently does.

[nunaem]

EDIT: Hmm, I guess sofia said too much.

[jmdrake]

Umm, no, not quite.

1 August 1934, the day before Hindenburg's death, rapidly passed legislation merging the office of chancellor and president was approved.

Hitler assumed complete power the next day when Hindenburg died.

However, that merger was put to a national vote on 19 August 1934.

It passed by 85 percent of voters.

The German people had a chance to put a stop to the whole thing in 1934.

Just like the American people do now.

And I suspect the American people will fail, just like the German people did.

+rep and thanks for the history lesson!

[sofia]

EDIT: Hmm, I guess sofia said too much.

not the first time my words of wisdom have disappeared down the memory hole on this "libertarian" forum.

The moronic fairy tales taught to us about Hitler must never be questioned. Thats what the history books will do to someone who ends private control of his nation's central bank, pulls his people up from debt servitude, slashes taxes, and pulls out of the League of Nations.

Dont u know, Hitler's 99% approval rating by 1937 was all just the result of Goebells propaganda..

[Anti Federalist]

///

[Cutlerzzz]

not the first time my words of wisdom have disappeared down the memory hole on this "libertarian" forum.

The moronic fairy tales taught to us about Hitler must never be questioned. Thats what the history books will do to someone who ends private control of his nation's central bank, pulls his people up from debt servitude, slashes taxes, and pulls out of the League of Nations.

Dont u know, Hitler's 99% approval rating by 1937 was all just the result of Goebells propaganda..

The fact that you think a politician can fairly get a 99% approval rating speaking volumes of your "wisdom".

[sofia]

The fact that you think a politician can fairly get a 99% approval rating speaking volumes of your "wisdom".

why not?

Obama had 96% of the black vote...so why would it be impossible for Hitler to have similar numbers....especially in light of the fact that Unemployment was 30%+ when he came to power.....and down to full employment just 3 years later?....(Mostly private sector jobs too I might add)

In the 2 years just before Hitler came to power...250,000 Germans had committed suicide out of desperation. The German economic miracle was like no other in history.

[Cutlerzzz]

why not?

Obama had 96% of the black vote...so why would it be impossible for Hitler to have similar numbers....especially in light of the fact that Unemployment was 30%+ when he came to power.....and down to full employment just 3 years later?....(Mostly private sector jobs too I might add)

In the 2 years just before Hitler came to power...250,000 Germans had committed suicide out of desperation. The German economic miracle was like no other in history.

That means that Hitler was four times more popular among the entire Germany population (composed of 70 million people, multiple ethnic groups, multiple religions, and dozens of political parties) than Obama was among a relatively small group that Obama specifically appealed to.

Yeah, that proves my point entirely. Hitler was four times more popular among the entire Germany population than Obama was among his strongest base. Perfectly legitiment on Hitler's part, clearly.

And for anyone reading this, Germany did not have a real recovery. Read this.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/centralplanning.html

[AGRP]

Hitler would be envious of what Neocons have accomplished.

[Xenophage]

I think the bias in questioning is unquestionably intentional. The idea is NOT to test which candidate the students would vote for. The idea is to get the students to question what they believe and why. I think it's an excellent exercise, and appears to have had positive results, if his accounts of their reactions are accurate.

As far as an actual test is concerned, I'd be more interested in seeing another actual historic figure pitted against Hitler, not a "composite of the founders." Thomas Jefferson would be my pick.

[Icymudpuppy]

Thomas Jefferson. A known producer and distributer of unpasteurized beverages and self admitted that he drank alcoholic beverages for breakfast.