|
| ▲ | busyant 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > but he was enthusiastically supported by a large portion of the German society. I can't tell you what my relatives were like leading up to the war (I certainly wasn't born at that point), but they were illiterate peasants from the south, far removed from the cities and politics. My suspicion is that, if anything, they were like most southern Italians, who seem to have a profound distrust of the government and politicians. If I'm honest, they didn't have any moral objections to the war--they just felt used. |
| |
| ▲ | BobbyJo 4 days ago | parent [-] | | People forget that the popularity of being anti-war is relatively new, like maybe 100-150 years old. World War 1 popped off so quickly specifically because moral objections to war from the standpoint of "violence is wrong" were just not even part of the discussion. Even during World War 2, most objections within the US to entering the war were based on it just not being our problem. Up until the last century, violence was seen as just another necessary part of living, and morality only came into play when it involved you're own community. | | |
| ▲ | cafard 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Up to some point not that long ago, public opinion as we know it didn't exist, and for some time after that it didn't matter much. I'm mentioning this because the poster you are responding to is writing about Italy. Italy's entrance into WW I was deeply unpopular in the south of Italy, and not all that popular elsewhere, I gather. | | |
| ▲ | BobbyJo 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I was just adding color to the statement that they didn't believe their family's objections were necessarily moral objections. | |
| ▲ | tcmart14 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Just some other fascinating things about WW1 and Italy. Mussolini was heavily was heavily in the Italian socialist party. His family was socialist. World War 1 breaks out, he leaves/get kicked out of the party for his support of WW1. And it wasn't just Mussolini, it caused a huge fracture in the socialist party. The main party line was neutral with a heavy anti-war stance. Which I would suggest leads Mussolini to what would become Mussolini and perhaps with a lot less opposition. I would say there is probably some evidence there giving credit to the claim that today it is probably much more easier to maintain an anti-war stance than in the past. | | |
| ▲ | cafard 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Some book on WW I, I think by Alistair Horne, claims in passing that the French bought Mussolini. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | olelele 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Same in Sweden, the majority popular opinion started shifting away from supporting Germany late in the war as they were obviously losing. |
| |
|
| ▲ | vkou 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Isn't that just a comforting fantasy, though? Germans also embraced the myth of Hitler as a guy who just somehow hoodwinked everyone and made good people do terrible things. And there's no doubt about it - it was a myth. Most of Germany stood behind him, and were outraged by the failed July 20th coup... In 1944. Ivan and Uncle Sam were kicking down the door, extermination camps were working overtime, yet most people were still fully behind him. The hardest thing for people to admit is that they've been duped. |
| |
| ▲ | dolmen 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > Most of Germany stood behind him, and were outraged by the failed July 20th coup... In 1944. Most of Germany had seen the defeat of 1918. Once a war is started the only way is forward. | | |
| ▲ | vkou 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | And they liked it so much that 1918 nearly resulted in revolution. Anyone picking up the paper could tell that the war wasn't going to be won by them in 1944. It was two years after Stalingrad, a year after Kursk and Italy's surrender, France was being liberated, Finland was collapsing, and Germany was fighting a three-front war. Compared to all that, 1918 at the time of the armistice looked down-right optimistic. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 4 days ago | parent [-] | | And yet mention any of that to your husband/wife would likely get you and all your relatives killed. |
| |
| ▲ | PicassoCTs 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | aredox 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And it is not the only case. The French people went to war in 1914 "la fleur au fusil"[0]. Jean Jaurès is assassinated for his pacifism and (his assassin would be found not guilty - despite being totally guilty - in 1919). [0]: a more nuanced take that is illuminating can be read here:
https://www.france24.com/fr/20140730-grande-guerre-poilus-vr... |
|
| ▲ | Okawari 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wouldn't necessarily call it comforting fantasy, people change their minds all the time. I think we're all to some extent able to justify some negative sides of any political movement as tensions rise. I've felt this myself a few times now. Both when Trump was attempted assasinated and now with Charlie Kirk. I am sad that public discourse and our democracies are kind of unraveling these days and that this is just a sad reality of that fact. As far as Trump or Charlie Kirk go, I have no sympathy what so ever. I'm not sure I really want to blame anyone for things becoming like this, it all seems like par for the course in the world we've created for ourselves. I just wish we were able to stop before this. |
|
| ▲ | VagabundoP 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Fascism was quite fashionable at the time. |
|
| ▲ | motorest 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Isn't that just a comforting fantasy, though? Germans also embraced the myth of Hitler as a guy who just somehow hoodwinked everyone and made good people do terrible things. Another way this observation is manifested is how out of nowhere you have countries voting in extremist parties and politicians. |
| |
| ▲ | account42 5 days ago | parent [-] | | "Out of nowhere" just like how the Germans elected Hitler for no reason at all. | | |
| ▲ | stickfigure 5 days ago | parent [-] | | As a point of fact, Germans never elected Hitler. The National Socialists never achieved a majority, and their share of the vote had been decreasing over successive elections. Hitler was appointed to the chancellorship by senior political leaders (the president and the former chancellor) who thought they could control him. Unfortunately Germany at the time embraced the "unitary executive" theory of government. We all know how that worked out. | | |
| ▲ | naijaboiler 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No single human is smart enough to manage unitary executive an optimal long term form of government | |
| ▲ | theoreticalmal 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The German people certainly elected the coalition government, which the NSDAP was the leader of. You’re completely correct about the conservatives and others thinking they could control Hitler |
|
|
|
