• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Are the allegations of this article true?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,508
46
91
Originally posted by: chess9
The stuff about IBM is TRUE. Watson was a believer in eugenics and it's corrolaries. One of the reasons the USA was so slow to get involved in WWII (and Germany declared war on US first) was because many Americans were pro Germany prior to about 1939. The Republicans were especially cozy with the Nazis.

-Robert
FDR and the Democrats particularly admired National Socialism, as well. Much of the New Deal was inspired by reforms of Mussolini. If you're going to throw stones at least be completely honest.

Until WWII started (not the US interpretation thereof, but "Lebensraum", actions towards the Czechs, etc.), Hitler was well-regarded across the political spectrum. Heck, Time put him on the Man of the Year cover in 1938.

http://www.time.com/time/magaz.../0,9171,760539,00.html
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: XMan
Originally posted by: chess9
The stuff about IBM is TRUE. Watson was a believer in eugenics and it's corrolaries. One of the reasons the USA was so slow to get involved in WWII (and Germany declared war on US first) was because many Americans were pro Germany prior to about 1939. The Republicans were especially cozy with the Nazis.

-Robert
FDR and the Democrats particularly admired National Socialism, as well. Much of the New Deal was inspired by reforms of Mussolini. If you're going to throw stones at least be completely honest.

Until WWII started, Hitler was well-regarded across the political spectrum. Heck, Time put him on the Man of the Year cover in 1938.

http://www.time.com/time/magaz.../0,9171,760539,00.html
Huh? That's a lot of misinformation. FDR had the conviction that we would have to go to war against Hitler, and led the reluctant nation to do so.

Time Magazine making Hitler 'Man of the Year' was not praise - it was saying that he was the biggest newsmaker, which is quite reasonable.

I'll quote from the actual article in 1938:

Führer of the German people, Commander-in-Chief of the German Army, Navy & Air Force, Chancellor of the Third Reich, Herr Hitler reaped on that day at Munich the harvest of an audacious, defiant, ruthless foreign policy he had pursued for five and a half years. He had torn the Treaty of Versailles to shreds. He had rearmed Germany to the teeth? or as close to the teeth as he was able. He had stolen Austria before the eyes of a horrified and apparently impotent world.

All these events were shocking to nations which had defeated Germany on the battlefield only 20 years before, but nothing so terrified the world as the ruthless, methodical, Nazi-directed events which during late summer and early autumn threatened a world war over Czechoslovakia. When without loss of blood he reduced Czechoslovakia to a German puppet state, forced a drastic revision of Europe's defensive alliances, and won a free hand for himself in Eastern Europe by getting a "hands-off" promise from powerful Britain (and later France), Adolf Hitler without doubt became 1938's Man of the Year.

But the figure of Adolf Hitler strode over a cringing Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror. Not the mere fact that the Führer brought 10,500,000 more people (7,000,000 Austrians, 3,500,000 Sudetens) under his absolute rule made him the Man of 1938. Japan during the same time added tens of millions of Chinese to her empire. More significant was the fact Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today.
Hardly the 'praise' you imply it to be.
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,508
46
91
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: XMan
Originally posted by: chess9
The stuff about IBM is TRUE. Watson was a believer in eugenics and it's corrolaries. One of the reasons the USA was so slow to get involved in WWII (and Germany declared war on US first) was because many Americans were pro Germany prior to about 1939. The Republicans were especially cozy with the Nazis.

-Robert
FDR and the Democrats particularly admired National Socialism, as well. Much of the New Deal was inspired by reforms of Mussolini. If you're going to throw stones at least be completely honest.

Until WWII started, Hitler was well-regarded across the political spectrum. Heck, Time put him on the Man of the Year cover in 1938.

http://www.time.com/time/magaz.../0,9171,760539,00.html
Huh? That's a lot of misinformation. FDR had the conviction that we would have to go to war against Hitler, and led the reluctant nation to do so.

Time Magazine making Hitler 'Man of the Year' was not praise - it was saying that he was the biggest newsmaker, which is quite reasonable.

I'll quote from the actual article in 1938:

Führer of the German people, Commander-in-Chief of the German Army, Navy & Air Force, Chancellor of the Third Reich, Herr Hitler reaped on that day at Munich the harvest of an audacious, defiant, ruthless foreign policy he had pursued for five and a half years. He had torn the Treaty of Versailles to shreds. He had rearmed Germany to the teeth? or as close to the teeth as he was able. He had stolen Austria before the eyes of a horrified and apparently impotent world.

All these events were shocking to nations which had defeated Germany on the battlefield only 20 years before, but nothing so terrified the world as the ruthless, methodical, Nazi-directed events which during late summer and early autumn threatened a world war over Czechoslovakia. When without loss of blood he reduced Czechoslovakia to a German puppet state, forced a drastic revision of Europe's defensive alliances, and won a free hand for himself in Eastern Europe by getting a "hands-off" promise from powerful Britain (and later France), Adolf Hitler without doubt became 1938's Man of the Year.

But the figure of Adolf Hitler strode over a cringing Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror. Not the mere fact that the Führer brought 10,500,000 more people (7,000,000 Austrians, 3,500,000 Sudetens) under his absolute rule made him the Man of 1938. Japan during the same time added tens of millions of Chinese to her empire. More significant was the fact Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today.
Hardly the 'praise' you imply it to be.
O RLY?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/122026.html

Roosevelt himself called Mussolini ?admirable? and professed that he was ?deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.? The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt?s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, ?Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.?Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.? The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised ?Roosevelt?s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies? and ?the development toward an authoritarian state? based on the ?demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest.?

Also note you quoted my post before I clarified a few things. I wasn't talking about 1938.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,302
9
81
If we're going to talk about conspiracy theories, how about the one Prescott Bush was reportedly involved with: A planned coup against FDR: link and link
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: XMan
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: XMan
Originally posted by: chess9
The stuff about IBM is TRUE. Watson was a believer in eugenics and it's corrolaries. One of the reasons the USA was so slow to get involved in WWII (and Germany declared war on US first) was because many Americans were pro Germany prior to about 1939. The Republicans were especially cozy with the Nazis.

-Robert
FDR and the Democrats particularly admired National Socialism, as well. Much of the New Deal was inspired by reforms of Mussolini. If you're going to throw stones at least be completely honest.

Until WWII started, Hitler was well-regarded across the political spectrum. Heck, Time put him on the Man of the Year cover in 1938.

http://www.time.com/time/magaz.../0,9171,760539,00.html
Huh? That's a lot of misinformation. FDR had the conviction that we would have to go to war against Hitler, and led the reluctant nation to do so.

Time Magazine making Hitler 'Man of the Year' was not praise - it was saying that he was the biggest newsmaker, which is quite reasonable.

I'll quote from the actual article in 1938:

Führer of the German people, Commander-in-Chief of the German Army, Navy & Air Force, Chancellor of the Third Reich, Herr Hitler reaped on that day at Munich the harvest of an audacious, defiant, ruthless foreign policy he had pursued for five and a half years. He had torn the Treaty of Versailles to shreds. He had rearmed Germany to the teeth? or as close to the teeth as he was able. He had stolen Austria before the eyes of a horrified and apparently impotent world.

All these events were shocking to nations which had defeated Germany on the battlefield only 20 years before, but nothing so terrified the world as the ruthless, methodical, Nazi-directed events which during late summer and early autumn threatened a world war over Czechoslovakia. When without loss of blood he reduced Czechoslovakia to a German puppet state, forced a drastic revision of Europe's defensive alliances, and won a free hand for himself in Eastern Europe by getting a "hands-off" promise from powerful Britain (and later France), Adolf Hitler without doubt became 1938's Man of the Year.

But the figure of Adolf Hitler strode over a cringing Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror. Not the mere fact that the Führer brought 10,500,000 more people (7,000,000 Austrians, 3,500,000 Sudetens) under his absolute rule made him the Man of 1938. Japan during the same time added tens of millions of Chinese to her empire. More significant was the fact Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today.
Hardly the 'praise' you imply it to be.
O RLY?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/122026.html

Roosevelt himself called Mussolini ?admirable? and professed that he was ?deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.? The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt?s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, ?Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.?Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.? The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised ?Roosevelt?s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies? and ?the development toward an authoritarian state? based on the ?demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest.?

Also note you quoted my post before I clarified a few things. I wasn't talking about 1938.
Well, TEMPUS FUGIT, eh? :) The difference between 1932 and 1939 was stark in Italy and the USA. Comments by a President about a foreign leader of an important nation may usually be taken with a huge dose of smelling salts. To suggest that Roosevelt embraced Fascism (the obvious implication) is nonsense.

-Robert

-Robert
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: chess9
[Well, TEMPUS FUGIT, eh? :) The difference between 1932 and 1939 was stark in Italy and the USA. Comments by a President about a foreign leader of an important nation may usually be taken with a huge dose of smelling salts. To suggest that Roosevelt embraced Fascism (the obvious implication) is nonsense.

-Robert

-Robert
There were some things in common between Mussolini's programs and the New Deal - both involved the state getting more involved in planning.

The cliche about Mussolini was that 'the trains ran on time' - there were some things admired about his policies.

But there were always great differences. Historians reviewing the New Deal said it was not based on Mussolini. Mussolini and Hitler eliminated civil rights, FDR did not.

The other two leaders who defeated Hitler and Mussolini along along with FDR were Stalin and Churchill. I don't think many here want to follow Stalin.

Winston Churchill had praised Mussolini. Churchill controversially claimed that the Fascism of Benito Mussolini had "rendered a service to the whole world," showing, as it had, "a way to combat subversive forces" ? that is, he considered the regime to be a bulwark against the perceived threat of Communist revolution. At one point, Churchill went as far as to call Mussolini the "Roman genius ... the greatest lawgiver among men."
Does that make Churchill a 'follower of Mussolini and Hitler'? Of course it's not that simple.
 

magreen

Golden Member
Dec 27, 2006
1,309
1
81
I'm happy with how this thread's turning out -- no tinfoil hats, just serious debate (with sources! Yay!) over serious issues, and very informative at that. Thanks all. It's becoming what I had hoped it would be.

I'm truly terrified at the level of collusion by American corporations in the horrors of WWII, which seems to have much more than a grain of truth to it. It makes me wonder what lessons that has for today, as well as how to relate to the modern day companies which bear the legacy of their pre-WWII and WWII conduct -- IBM, Ford, GM, Carnegie Mellon University for that matter. Do they continue these legacies? Do they share any responsibility? Is there an intellectual or moral tradition passed down from those years? Or is it simply fortunes, money and names that have been passed down, which, from an ethical standpoint, have been cleansed by the passage of generations?

It's also fascinating how relevant this discussion of the possible evils of giant amoral unregulated corporations, FDR era economic engineering, and the possible links to Fascism, is to today's financial corporate meltdown and Obama's response. Not to derail my own thread. ;)
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
j paul getty was quite enamored with the nazis and the fascists. I believe he was in berlin negotiating to sell oil after the invasion of poland. He had trouble re-entering the u.s. and was closely watched by the fbi for years.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: magreen
... It makes me wonder what lessons that has for today...
Money/business talks. The 'causes' are just smoke and mirrors. Always has and always will. Doesn't make it right but trying to fight it is fruitless.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY