How Civilized People Face Violence & Evil People

[kengs333]

Hitler was a bully and if more Europeans had stood up to him earlier, then much tragedy could have been avoided.

Am I wrong to say that?

I personally think that the word "bully" is too colloquial; it doesn't really reflect the nature of a tyranical head-of-state, because much of his power rested in his ability to captivate, enthrall, manipulate, charm etc. his henchmen; his "bullying" on a personal level came about during the war (or at least became more pronounced) when he really began to lose sense of reality. Some historians argue that he simply was a statesman in the traditional sense, like Bismarck, who would resort to war or the threat of war to accomplish a political end. What he was doing was a little more dynamic than simply bullying.

[ScottSA]

It is hard to disagree with a policy or system where individuals are free to choose among a series of actions and their choice leads to the best choice for others. IOW, there is no wasted or lost potential. When it is in my interest to do something and it is also in your interest to do the same thing, then, as they say, we have an alignment of interests.

...

Let me return to this voluntary idea. When relations are voluntary (ie. a market setting), then the nice guy has the advantage. Who would choose voluntarily to deal with a bully? But when relations are involuntary (ie. a bureaucracy, international relations), the tough guy has the upper hand. He gets his way since the meek and mild run away.

So, how can the meek and mild deal with bullies in involuntary relations? They join together. Most of military training amounts to reassuring a soldier that he is not alone. His buddies will back him up.

You're talking in the first paragraph about so-called "enlightened self-interest," a Pearsonian thesis if ever there was one. Theoretically, of course, you're right; when there is an alignment of interests, a common goal, actions can coincide in a win-win situation. The most obvious example I can think of is the Allied-Soviet alliance of 1942-45. But built into that very example is a dialectic of sorts...the convergence of interest was against someone else, and part of the alliance was a bully in his own right, by your own criteria.

The problem with your military analogy is that his buddies DO back him up, in the military arena, but not in the international arena. In fact, the strong can't even get it together to act in the latter case; witness Ethiopia, Manchuria, Iraq. What you're really saying is that if the past of least resistence leads to cooperation, cooperation works just fine. The trouble is that while a liberal trade regime seems in the interests of all, it's not. Not when BoogaBooga in Swatziland looks around and notices that HoogaBooga in Shitziland has lots of diamond mines and a weak army, and no one is really paying attention at the moment...

[Brain Candy]

Hitler was not a bully, bullies tend to be outcasts that push people around. Hitler Himmler, and Goebbels were master manipulators who convinced (not bullied) a nation into believing in their cause without the general populace even knowing what they had done.

[Higgly]

In my case, I wrote a poem: Ode to a Fart.

What happened to that thread? This was some of my best work.

[jbg]

Good example in the US of what happens and we will find out ourselves if Harper ever gets the control he wants.

What does that gratuitous slap have to do with the thread? One may not agree with Bush's or Harper's policies, but someone who becomes a leader in a democracy (aside from Nixon) is far more likely to have been a "gentle giant" type than a bully.

Both Bush and Harper are internally secure people. The last thing I'd expect of either of them is bullying.

Edited December 19, 2007 by jbg

[jbg]

An interesting post and words August. Thanks.

I second that.

When I was in Grade School, through 9th Grade I was bullied, or from roughly fall 1964 to Spring 1972. To this day, I remember fondly the people who bucked the trend and helped out. As a matter of fact, I ran into one of them at Scarsdale Library on Sunday, and that very subject came up.

Good topic, August 1991.

[myata]

Hitler could only become Germany's and Europe's bully because at some point he and his bunch of bullies got support, whether open or silent, of the majority of population. At some point of time the population abandaned its democratic state in favour of the strong man option. Power structures of the state became weak while bully's grew in power. And so on.

The only defense against this happening again is the one that was so well demonstrated in the OP example. That is for the majority to remain open minded, involved and courageous to act when necessary rather than bury their heads in the private affairs.

[kengs333]

Hitler could only become Germany's and Europe's bully because at some point he and his bunch of bullies got support, whether open or silent, of the majority of population. At some point of time the population abandaned its democratic state in favour of the strong man option. Power structures of the state became weak while bully's grew in power. And so on.

The only defense against this happening again is the one that was so well demonstrated in the OP example. That is for the majority to remain open minded, involved and courageous to act when necessary rather than bury their heads in the private affairs.

Actually, you're somewhat wrong here. Hitler did have a significant amount of support, but this did not occur until a few years before he was put in power. Hitler only received about 1/3 of the vote during the 1933 elections, and the fact that he was put in power was because the people who put him there thought that he was a chump who could be controlled. Once he was in power, he systematically consolidated his dictatorship by doing away with political and internal rivals and instituted a revolutionary propaganda campaign--the genesis of modern commercial advertising--that finally gave him majority--but not universal support. One of the things that this propaganda was supposed to instill was the fact that Germany was united behind him--when in reality that wasn't quite the case--and this propaganda still seems to be misleading people to this day.

[charter.rights]

Actually, you're somewhat wrong here. Hitler did have a significant amount of support, but this did not occur until a few years before he was put in power. Hitler only received about 1/3 of the vote during the 1933 elections, and the fact that he was put in power was because the people who put him there thought that he was a chump who could be controlled. Once he was in power, he systematically consolidated his dictatorship by doing away with political and internal rivals and instituted a revolutionary propaganda campaign--the genesis of modern commercial advertising--that finally gave him majority--but not universal support. One of the things that this propaganda was supposed to instill was the fact that Germany was united behind him--when in reality that wasn't quite the case--and this propaganda still seems to be misleading people to this day.

Are you an expert on Hitler and Nazism, kengs333?

[DogOnPorch]

Are you an expert on Hitler and Nazism, kengs333?

Standard knowledge to those with a history background. Just pick-up The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer for a good overview of Hitler's rise to power.

---------------------------------------------

Es ist Zeit für Rache! Wir müssen die Juden ausrotten!

---Eric Cartman, South Park

[Moxie]

My neice goes to that school, in rural areas children and youth tend to protect each other. In cities it's easier to bully someone because of the volume of students.

Zero tolerance is needed with bullies, I can't stand bullies they are cowards that grow up to be even bigger cowards. They thrive on the fear of others, but when confronted by someone who isn't afaid of them they become cowering little arseholes.

[myata]

Once he was in power, he systematically consolidated his dictatorship by doing away with political and internal rivals and instituted a revolutionary propaganda campaign--

While majority did what? Came out in the street, supported the opposition, showed their disapproval of Hitlers tacktics - or pretended to not notice? Then came out in big numbers to great him into the power.

the genesis of modern commercial advertising--that finally gave him majority--but not universal support.

It's everybody's responsibility to keep open mind and not swallow anything that is fed to us by propaganda. As said, a democracy is only as strong as people's committment to it.

[Wilber]

Hitler and 1933 Germany were an anomaly. Germany had only been a country for 62 years and its only experience with democracy was the 14 years under the Wiemar Republic. There was no democratic tradition and Hitler was able to combine that with Germany's miserable economic condition and the German people's desire to find blame for the loss of WWI to solidify his power. Except for Wiemar, Germans had always lived under autocrats and many of them were probably more comfortable with that tradition than the uncertainties of democracy.

[DogOnPorch]

Except for Wiemar, Germans had always lived under autocrats and many of them were probably more comfortable with that tradition than the uncertainties of democracy.

I tend to agree.

-------------------------------------------------

It may be undecided who is the betrayer and who the betrayed one; nothing can prove more urgently the necessity for an authoritarian government.

---Franz von Papen

[kengs333]

While majority did what? Came out in the street, supported the opposition, showed their disapproval of Hitlers tacktics - or pretended to not notice? Then came out in big numbers to great him into the power.

More like were living in poverty, or trying to eke out a living on a small farm, or working long hours in an industry for poor wages. Again, try not to believe everything you see on Nazi propaganda. You're just falling for what the Nazis wanted the Germans to fall for. Not that I'm not saying that large numbers of people didn't support them, or that large numbers didn't come out to their rallies and parades. But things were somewhat more complex than the propaganda makes it look. If only 1/3 of Germans voted for the Nazis, then that means 2/3 didn't. Even if a large number of these 2/3 were willing to go along to some extent with the Nazis, it still means that there were a large number of people who didn't. Moreover, the Hitler and Nazis that they supported were the people who were promising restore Germany's honor, territory, deal with subversive political opponents, restore the economy.

It's everybody's responsibility to keep open mind and not swallow anything that is fed to us by propaganda. As said, a democracy is only as strong as people's committment to it.

It was a different time, people thought differently, were educated differently and the media was not what it is now; they just did not have the access to information that would have allowed them to make decisions they way we do, and the way people like you think they should have.

[kengs333]

Hitler and 1933 Germany were an anomaly. Germany had only been a country for 62 years and its only experience with democracy was the 14 years under the Wiemar Republic. There was no democratic tradition and Hitler was able to combine that with Germany's miserable economic condition and the German people's desire to find blame for the loss of WWI to solidify his power. Except for Wiemar, Germans had always lived under autocrats and many of them were probably more comfortable with that tradition than the uncertainties of democracy.

party politics existed in germany prior to 1919.

[Wilber]

party politics existed in germany prior to 1919.

True but that in itself doesn't make for a democratic tradition. From the start the country was run by Bismark then Wilhelm II who eventually fired Bismark and appointed his own Chancellors.

[M.Dancer]

True but that in itself doesn't make for a democratic tradition. From the start the country was run by Bismark then Wilhelm II who eventually fired Bismark and appointed his own Chancellors.

Party politics existed in the days of Caligula...

[August1991]

I personally think that the word "bully" is too colloquial; it doesn't really reflect the nature of a tyranical head-of-state, because much of his power rested in his ability to captivate, enthrall, manipulate, charm etc. his henchmen; his "bullying" on a personal level came about during the war (or at least became more pronounced) when he really began to lose sense of reality.

The term bully has a precise sense in mathematics (or at least game theory) and in the real world too. A bully is someone who can make a credible threat. A bully is a hawk, as opposed to a dove.

Hitler was not a bully, bullies tend to be outcasts that push people around. Hitler Himmler, and Goebbels were master manipulators who convinced (not bullied) a nation into believing in their cause without the general populace even knowing what they had done.

Go read Bullock's Hitler/Stalin biographies. It is hard to imagine Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler as anything else but bullies. (I've been looking for a Churchill quote describing Hitler as such.) The Nazi/Soviet regimes worked by fear. They bullied and threatened people into submission. Advertising is an essential part of bullying.

You're talking in the first paragraph about so-called "enlightened self-interest," a Pearsonian thesis if ever there was one. Theoretically, of course, you're right; when there is an alignment of interests, a common goal, actions can coincide in a win-win situation. The most obvious example I can think of is the Allied-Soviet alliance of 1942-45. But built into that very example is a dialectic of sorts...the convergence of interest was against someone else, and part of the alliance was a bully in his own right, by your own criteria.

The problem with your military analogy is that his buddies DO back him up, in the military arena, but not in the international arena. In fact, the strong can't even get it together to act in the latter case; witness Ethiopia, Manchuria, Iraq. What you're really saying is that if the past of least resistence leads to cooperation, cooperation works just fine. The trouble is that while a liberal trade regime seems in the interests of all, it's not. Not when BoogaBooga in Swatziland looks around and notices that HoogaBooga in Shitziland has lots of diamond mines and a weak army, and no one is really paying attention at the moment...

Look, if it's easier to steal something, then of course people will steal.

But Scott, I am talking about individual behaviour (how individuals like you and me do things). You seem to be in a geopolitical world where "countries" have "interests" and form "alliances". Huh? It's fun moving pieces around a chess board but it might be a wise idea to understand what the pieces represent before you imagine that the chess board has any connection to the real world.

BTW, what is the difference between "enlightened self-interest" and "self-interest"?

Hitler could only become Germany's and Europe's bully because at some point he and his bunch of bullies got support, whether open or silent, of the majority of population. At some point of time the population abandaned its democratic state in favour of the strong man option. Power structures of the state became weak while bully's grew in power. And so on.

I don't want to excuse the entire German or Russian population for Nazism or Communism but most of them were cowed by bullies.

It's not really a strong man option. It's just a bully who terrifies others.

My neice goes to that school, in rural areas children and youth tend to protect each other. In cities it's easier to bully someone because of the volume of students.

Good point, and I agree. But it also raises another problem: What if the majority becomes the bully?

The only defense against this happening again is the one that was so well demonstrated in the OP example. That is for the majority to remain open minded, involved and courageous to act when necessary rather than bury their heads in the private affairs.

Thanks Myata for bringing this back to my OP.

I disagree that the solution is for the "majority" to remain open-minded or involved. Most of us will run away terrified when confronted with a bully. The only way that we can stand up to one is if we are not alone. IOW, a democratic society must organize itself, have an army, a police force and when necessary, it must organize its citizens to work together.

An individual alone cannot stand up to a bully. (Referring to the thread title, an individual doesn't need a gun but a militia should have them.)

----

Here's another way to indicate what I mean, and I'm willing to argue this because I think I'm right (but I might be wrong. The NS article in the OP seems to demonstrate the same point. The people wore pink tshirts because they were not alone and their friends wore them too.)

A bully uses fear to motivate a regime. Most soldiers in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were there because of fear.

Most (if not all) Canadian soldiers were there because they had friends around them. They were not alone.

Edited December 20, 2007 by August1991

[Wilber]

It is hard to imagine Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler as anything else but bullies.

At first they came across as such but in reality they were far more sinister than mere bullies. They weren't just satisfied with intimidating people to get their way, they eliminated anyone who got in their way or didn't fit their definition of racial purity. Psychopaths.

[jbg]

Hitler could only become Germany's and Europe's bully because at some point he and his bunch of bullies got support, whether open or silent, of the majority of population. At some point of time the population abandaned its democratic state in favour of the strong man option. Power structures of the state became weak while bully's grew in power. And so on.

Remember, Prussia/Germany had a long history of authoritarian and/or absolute rule prior to WW I. Weimar was the Germans' first unpleasant experience with democracy (hyperinflation and overall license) so reverting to the default position of having a strongman was not altogether surprising. A lot like the way Russia is reverting to strongman rule after democracy proved unworkable in a country with no tradition of self-government or neutral rule of law.

[jbg]

I can't stand bullies they are cowards that grow up to be even bigger cowards. They thrive on the fear of others, but when confronted by someone who isn't afaid of them they become cowering little arseholes.

I second that. In my elementary/Junior High School, from roughly 1967-71, a kid named Michael regularly bullied me and it was tolerated by the teaching staff.

Fast forward to the summer of 1988. I was playing a game of beach football on Westhampton Beach, Long Island, with a group of my friends from elementary, Junior High and High School. I had barely seen Michael since June 1971. He was assigned to guard me during a game of beach football, figured I still wasn't athletic, and didn't notice that I caught the ball until I was about 20 meters down the beach and streaking away. Thoroughly humiliated in front of our mutual friends, he challenged me to tennis, and we played two sets the next weekend. I won 6-1, 6-0.

Again, fast forward to 1990, when me and my girlfriend (now my wife) were vacationing at a summer camp for adults in Massachusett's Berkshires. We were in shared cabins. He say my name on the guest list, and requested the room adjacent to me and my girlfriend. The whole Memorial Day weekend, he acted as if he was scared of his shadow. I suppose he didn't know that I would not avenge the childhood bullying. In fact, I am not a violent person, and I get my revenge in other ways, as I did with him, on the beach and on the tennis court. This demonstrates that bullies are also cowards.

Edited December 20, 2007 by jbg

[myata]

I disagree that the solution is for the "majority" to remain open-minded or involved. Most of us will run away terrified when confronted with a bully. The only way that we can stand up to one is if we are not alone. IOW, a democratic society must organize itself, have an army, a police force and when necessary, it must organize its citizens to work together.

Then, there's no hope. Army, police and militia are all made of people. The same people who will be terrified and run away.

Democracy is only as strong as its people.

[Oleg Bach]

Then, there's no hope. Army, police and militia are all made of people. The same people who will be terrified and run away.

Democracy is only as strong as its people.

White violent trash are now heads of state - they are just as violent and evil as the trash at the bottom - money and social or poltical status does not grant class - we are surrounded by the evil and stupid - the barbarians are everwhere...people assume that say the Bushites and the handlers and our heads of state are NOT white trash - well just look at the fruit they bare and their moral values and character - a man that goes to day care - then public school - university then into politics or high buisness is not edcuated = they are CONDITIONED - PROCESSED...INSTITUTIONALIZED - NO DIFFERENT IN THEIR MINDSET THAN THE GUY THAT SPENT HIS WHOLE LIFE IN A FEDERAL PEN - WHITE TRASH IS WHITE TRASH - BE IT THE HEAD OF THE BACK OR THE KID SMOKING CRACK.

[charter.rights]

Then, there's no hope. Army, police and militia are all made of people. The same people who will be terrified and run away.

Democracy is only as strong as its people.

Alas....if we only had a democracy in Canada. Unfortunately the oligarchical bullies don't listen to us.