friedrich braun wrote:
ASMarques wrote:He wasn't. Please tell us how you count that in his favor.
Well, you seemed to imply that there's an intrinsic difference between a National Socialist style of government and a "democratic" one; and I'm saying that taking a country to war has always been the normal prerogative of all governments.
I still don't know what you mean by your quote-unquote democracy. You seem to love the word -- a word that, BTW, I rarely use. Perhaps I can suggest a definition of the concept to avoid further confusion: in modern context, democracy means freedom of political organization plus the possibility of getting rid of elected representatives through peaceful mandatory elections.
No more, no less. I don't mean "popular democracy," or "organic democracy," or "social democracy," or whatever. I mean freedom of organization plus frequent mandatory elections. Period.
However, I don't know what all of this has to do with the comment of mine that you excerpted, namely "[Hitler] who looked upon himself as a demigod and did not mind in the least holding the arbitrary powers to send any fellow countryman of his to his doom with a stroke of his pen."
In case you misunderstood me, this didn't mean the power to wage war. I was thinking of government by unchecked personal power, i.e. by Fuehrer and Party, if you wish, with no freedom of organization, no balance of powers, no free elections, and indeed with general contempt for the rights of individuals in real or perceived opposition to the government (do read the man, by all means, if the spectacle of totalitarian politics in lockstep doesn't impress you).
friedrich braun wrote:
ASMarques wrote:Why the quote marks? To imply quote-unquote democracy is different from democracy tout court? Glad you spot the difference and appreciate the advantages of democratic government.
There has always been various kinds of democracies throughout history. In other words, there's a plurality of definitions.
See above, to avoid confusion.
friedrich braun wrote:National Socialist Germany had a populist and participatory democracy that represented more accurately the Will of the national community than the BRD's imposed pseudo-representative model.
You know, the impressive electoral results in Stalin's "populist and participatory democracy," as far as the counting of the votes went, was probably accurate as well. But, of course, at the root of the whole system was the outlawing of any political opposition, so what on earth are we talking about here?...
friedrich braun wrote:One can make the case that the current system is undemocratic in all essential aspects.
That would be a long discussion, relatively irrelevant to the point I was making: that of individual rights versus the abusive power of the unchecked state. Is it a simple coincidence that the present German governments actually use legislation devised under Hitler's regime to incarcerate revisionists? Methinks not.
friedrich braun wrote:
International law, more often than not, serves to solidify and legitimize the victors' status quo, without taking into account whether that status quo is in point of fact just or unjust, moral or immoral, legitimate or illegitimate.
True and something that needs to be changed, rather than accepted as a sort of superior worldly wisdom.
friedrich braun wrote:Germany was asked to acquiesce to a profoundly perverse Versailles Diktat and all that flowed from it. Only looking at who officially started shooting (without taking into account the whole picture) is a cynical and untenable approach in my view. The Allies must carry the lion's share of the blame for W.W.II.
No contradiction with what I said. I certainly don't "only look at who started shooting." But a lot had been achieved by peaceful means and the decision to start shooting rested not even with a freely elected parliament, but with the Fuehrer who made it an habit of his to assume he could always have his way through sheer will power (it's interesting to note a passage that Hitler distinguished with a defiant question mark in his copy of one of Ernst Junger's books: it concerns Junger's doubts about the power of the human will in the face of "monstrous mass production").
Well, the illuminated sole decider failed, and the ordinary people paid the price. Perhaps we should start learning while there is still time.
My apologies for stopping the solely political discussion here, but I wish to spare the esteemed moderator the trouble of banning us from this thread.