Why Nazi rhetoric is so unserious

Ed Driscoll gives a little history lesson about how the Nazis dealt with opposition. Hint: it more than underscores just why calling The Bush Administration (or conservatives in general) “Nazis” makes one look foolish. You’ll want to read it all, including Ed’s update.

Ace has related thoughts.

Speaking of Nazis – if you missed it, here’s another chance to read neo-neocon’s remarkable piece on Magda Goebbels.

I make myself resonsible. I belonged. I believed in Hitler and for long enough in Joseph Goebbles…Suppose I remain alive, I should immediately be arrested and interrogated about Joseph. If I tell the truth I must reveal what sort of man he was–must describe all that happened behind the scenes. Then any respectable person would turn from me in disgust…

It would be equally impossible to do the opposite–that is to defend what he has done, to justify him to his enemies, to speak up for him out of true conviction…That would go against my conscience. So you see, Ello, it would be quite impossible for me to go on living.

When asked about the reason the children had to die, too, Magda is reported to have answered:

We will take them with us, they are too good, too lovely for the world which lies ahead. In the days to come Joseph will be regarded as one of the greatest criminals that Germany has ever produced. His children would hear that said daily, people would torment them, despise and humiliate them….You know how I told you at the time quite frankly what the Fuhrer said in the Cafe Anast in Munich when he saw the little Jewish boy, you remember? That he would like to squash him flat like a a bug on the wall…I couldn’t believe it and thought it was just provocative talk. But he really did it later. It was all so unspeakably gruesome…

You’ll want to read all of THAT, too. And wait impatiently for part II