So you read her quote and came away with “It said the Hitler was good!!!”
The subject was clearly in defense of nationalism not Hitler. But here we are with USA Today reporting that Candice Owens thinks Hitler was just fine.
MODERATOR NOTE: Yes most posts in this thread are going through the filter first. I’ve had to delete a few for Hitler/Nazi comparisons. As long as we can keep the subject about the topic at hand and of a historical nature, it will stay up.
Don’t go personal, especially about this. This is one of those subjects where the line can be easily crossed if personal shots are taken.
Don’t compare any political party or it’s members to Hitler or Nazis. Keep the discussion historical.
I understand that was what she was trying to say. But in getting there she clearly stated that if Hitler had kept his ambition to Germany that would have been okay. By doing that Ms. Owens has endorsed
- Genocide against the Jews
- Genocide against the disabled
- Genocide against Gypsies
- Replacing a Democracy with an authoritarian regime
- Suppression of the press
Which is what several of us find objectionable… Her use of the work “okay” was NOT OKAY. This issue not Nationalism, Globalism, National Socialism, Imperialism… it is the Ms. Owen’s failure to recognize that the internal polices of the Nazi Party were not acceptable when judged by American values.
2 Likes
But that’s not what she was saying and even said the opposite to clarify. All quoted in the same article.
“Hitler was “a homicidal, psychotic maniac” and there is “no excuse or defense ever for … everything that he did,” she clarified.”
To continue to mischaracterise her words is wrong and only done so to score political points.
No she didn’t, she specifically stated otherwise.
Yeah, that doesn’t make it any better.
I don’t understand why this has to be said to a spokesperson of any group that wants to be mainstream: in trying to make a case for your flavor of politics, don’t point to Hitler in any aspect.
1 Like
You realize that doesn’t work in reverse, don’t you?
What’s a trillion…times zero?
I disagree -
Here’s her quote:
“You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay fine.”
How is this not trying to soften him?
That’s not her full quote. As I said, she was trying to distance nationalism from Hitler. She wasn’t trying to make Hitler look good. If Hitler looked good that would defeat the context of her argument which is nationalism =/= national socialist.
I don’t even think about Hitler when I think about my varied opinions on the subject of nationalism. Hitler and the Nazis were on a scale all their own.
Instead I look at the Somme, or Verdun, or Meuse-Argonne, or Antietam, or Gettysburg, or Vicksburg, or Stalingrad and Okinawa.
Those are the events that point out the ugly side of nationalism. There are good things about nationalism. But we have plenty of examples of what can happen when nationalism isn’t tempered by logic and empathy.
But from a political standpoint bringing up Hitler for anything positive is a recipe for disaster.
3 Likes
Yeah, I don’t disagree.
She probably should read a book about Germany under National Socialism.
Of course one can be “Nationalist” and exterminate a large portion of the citizenry.
Those people are not part of the “nation” they are the other. They are the ones that stabbed the country in the back in the previous war.
There are all sorts of reasons to exclude a group from a National identity.
1 Like
Hey, as long as he just crushed all other political parties and threw their members in concentration camps, forced the entirety of German society to “coordinate” with Nazi ideology, persecuted all other religions except the pro-Nazi splinter of the Lutheran Church and all that other good stuff to make Germany great, no big deal.
1 Like
It’s a good thing she clarified in the linked article so that we know those thoughts aren’t hers.
Tactically stupid thing to say.
Yeah, her clarification doesn’t make it any better. It just shows how ignorant she is about the concept of “nationalism.”
