Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:

You cannot have the rise of a Nazi without the rise of Hitler, Himler, and Goerbals, speer. Etc.

Theres no charasmatic leader, no one able to easily fill a rally ground of hundreds of thousands, to drive thr vision with Thete oratory. There's no war hero, no national hero, no propaganda master whom able to sell the message with great skill or master architect turn ING the very ideas and power into form and function.

I was just going to post the same thing here. The AfD has no single one, charismatic leader that would be able to pull anything off at a bigger stage. And the pathetic thing is, it's full of people who are obviously trying to hold a speech like Hitler did - and it's so very obvious, and so very sad. Björn Höcke (the one guy who said the Holocaust memorial is a shame amongst other ridiculous things) is front and foremost amongst those who seem to think they can pull off being the next Hitler - and he's been sidelined so hard even by his own party that you rarely ever hear from him these days.

The current AfD top politicians have some more charisma than the rest of the bunch, but not at the level where a rousing oratory will convince half the country to suddendly like the AfD.

You don't need a charismatic leader to send a nation on the road to hell.

If you know your 1920s German history, then you'll know that Conservative elements, especially in the army, were out to destroy the Weimar Republic from day 1, long before Hitler became a major player in German politics.

As I've said before, AfD don't need to win - just by panicking the ruling class, and changing the narrative, already gives them a 'victory' of sorts.

UKIP, another minority party in the UK, were able to panic the much larger Conservative party into holding an EU referendum. The rest is history.

If AfD get the mainstream parties talking tough on immigration, then AfD have achieved their goals...

Really? You don't need a leader? But then you bring up 1920? You don't need a leader, but an incredibly devestating world war, the collapse of the German political system and the spectre of communism? If anything 1920 represents an even more extreme scenario Germany in no way faces or will face in the foreseeable future.

UKIP already had influence because its ideas found support in the media and amongst elements of the conservative party. The conservatives didn't panic, they tried a cynical ploy. Meanwhile the AfD has none of the above, no coherent viewpoints that can count on anywhere near the support the single issue party of UKIP can.

Define talking tough, as the shift was already slowly coming about.

Really? You don't need a leader? But then you bring up 1920? You don't need a leader, but an incredibly devestating world war, the collapse of the German political system and the spectre of communism? If anything 1920 represents an even more extreme scenario Germany in no way faces or will face in the foreseeable future.

People forget that the Nazis only polled about 8% in the 1928 elections. The situation had stabilised somewhat by then, with Weimar scoring some success with the treaty of Locarno.

Had it not been for the great crash of 1929, Weimar might have weathered the storm, and the rest could have been history.

As for AfD, when hard-core, right-wing fringe parties start becoming 'normalised' then it is time to start worrying, because then people think it's acceptable to vote for them...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Really? You don't need a leader? But then you bring up 1920? You don't need a leader, but an incredibly devestating world war, the collapse of the German political system and the spectre of communism? If anything 1920 represents an even more extreme scenario Germany in no way faces or will face in the foreseeable future.

People forget that the Nazis only polled about 8% in the 1928 elections. The situation had stabilised somewhat by then, with Weimar scoring some success with the treaty of Locarno.

Had it not been for the great crash of 1929, Weimar might have weathered the storm, and the rest could have been history.

As for AfD, when hard-core, right-wing fringe parties start becoming 'normalised' then it is time to start worrying, because then people think it's acceptable to vote for them...

Yes they only polled 8%, what people also tend to forget that Hitler started massively downplaying the extreme parts of the Nazi party, grew to 18% and then about 33% They still didn't get into a significant position of power until the elites (such as von Papen) basically handed Hitler control because they were terrified of communism and the socialist parties. Yet they even needed the Reichstag fire to really break out 1933 wasn't just a consequence of the great depression, it was a large combination of factors. Alternative parties were demolished in the 20's due to a combination of factors and the Nazis also engaged in pretty widespread political repression of opponents before they even got into power.

The AfD has nowhere near the elite support and political instability to profit off, let alone being able to depend on people's ignorance like the Nazis could.

12.8% of the vote, that means the AfD is 'normalised' already, people did find it acceptable. Yet there is no indication that the AfD will get nearly big enough.

To give the AfD SOME credit, they are not as loony as the NPD, the far-right party that regularly is discussed to be forbidden because of their extreme views. I'm not even sure the AfD's program is that much worse than most of the conservative parties of Eastern Europe, Poland and so on. But yes, they still get treated as the devil you absolutely don't work with by all other parties, and as long as that doesn't change, they will be confined to opposition politics.

On a separate note, I'd pay good money to see Merkel's reaction if she ever has to meet Berlusconi again, and recent events in Italy might make that possible

 Witzkatz wrote:
To give the AfD SOME credit, they are not as loony as the NPD, the far-right party that regularly is discussed to be forbidden because of their extreme views. I'm not even sure the AfD's program is that much worse than most of the conservative parties of Eastern Europe, Poland and so on. But yes, they still get treated as the devil you absolutely don't work with by all other parties, and as long as that doesn't change, they will be confined to opposition politics.

True, this hits the nail on the head, but to be fair, some AfD politicians might as well be closet NPDers. Allowing those to be in the party is the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
On a separate note, I'd pay good money to see Merkel's reaction if she ever has to meet Berlusconi again, and recent events in Italy might make that possible

He's banned from holding office untill 2019. So even if his party forms a government its unlikely he will be in a position important enough to meet Merkel in an official capacity.

Yeah, if the AfD would clean up their act and take a strong and official stand against the closet NPD politicians in their own party, they might actually manage to slowly gain more acceptance as a legitimate opposition party. As long as guys like Höcke can run around and do shouting speeches with a trembling fist and pulsating veins on his temple, they just look...bad.

 Witzkatz wrote:
Yeah, if the AfD would clean up their act and take a strong and official stand against the closet NPD politicians in their own party, they might actually manage to slowly gain more acceptance as a legitimate opposition party. As long as guys like Höcke can run around and do shouting speeches with a trembling fist and pulsating veins on his temple, they just look...bad.

Indeed, but that is never going to happen as long as Gauland is the co-leader.

Well, Gauland is an old political warhorse, he is ex-CDU after all.

I'm not even sure the AfD's program is that much worse than most of the conservative parties of Eastern Europe, Poland and so on.

It's probably not, it reads a lot like a CDU/CSU program from the 90s.

Weimar might have weathered the storm, and the rest could have been history.

I don't think that Weimar II would technically be possible, they needed a dumb president with a lot of power that the current Bundespräsident simply doesn't have. There's a reason why the BP is often called Grüßaugust (which means something like empty shirt or director of all things breakfast).

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


As for AfD, when hard-core, right-wing fringe parties start becoming 'normalised' then it is time to start worrying, because then people think it's acceptable to vote for them...

I'd rather have fringe parties consciously work their way to the centre than fringe wings of a party taking over a main party: namely Trump.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


UKIP, another minority party in the UK, were able to panic the much larger Conservative party into holding an EU referendum. The rest is history.

It then collapsed in on itself and lost most of it's vote share, becoming more of a joke than it started.

These populist / single party groups tend to disintegrate as soon as they have to do anything except shout soundbites from the sidelines.

UKIP got what they wanted. They were a party that formed to get the UK out of the EU, and they got the UK out of the EU. We used to have a word for people like that: dictator.

To portray that as a defeat of UKIP is ridiculous.

The funny thing here is I just emailed Angela Merkel abd said as an american I believe Germany should go nuclear and develop a nuclear arsenal large enough to protect itself from. Russia , China, abd possibly america.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
No hint for Germany so far. The AfD doesn't really tend to play nice with the other parties or vice versa. The fact that the AfD doesn't even want to keep a pretense of moderate approaches means that they just drive away any possible coalition. Plus it might be electoral suicide for other parties to link up with the AfD, because the voters who supported the AfD already moved over, while the majority of Germans seems to strongly dislike the AfD for obvious reasons.

Le Pen getting 34% is in part a side effect of second round French presidential elections, but as Germany doesn't have that system and multiple parties, I have a hard time seeing them reach above the 10-20% bracket. Taking into account that both the AfD and Le Pen got their election campaigns handed to them on a silver platter due to events in the last years.

Yeah, I thought about making a note that the numbers weren't directly comparable, because one was a two horse race, and the other had many parties. But my post was already going in a few directions, and I figured anyone who cared about the distinction already knew

It seems like AfD are stuck like most hard line parties are. Their hard line gives them a solid base of disaffected, angry people, but it won't ever be enough to be single party majority, and because they're politically toxic to the rest of politics they won't be part of any coalition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:
That and Le Pen has massively toned down the anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

While her father was openly anti-semite, anti-immigrant and anti-semite she speaks about "the values of laicism" and to "rethink the euro"

It's been a remarkable exercise of rebranding.

But it is just rebranding, there's no real change in substance. So using euphemisms to hide the real motivation of the policy can help win over people who have some pretty strong racial angst but who don't like to think of themselves as racist, but even when added to the outright racists it is still well short of a majority.

The only way she or any hard right candidate gets to a majority is if voters who know full well how racist she is decide they'll ignore it to serve some other political goal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlexHolker wrote:
It might. The problem is not that more moderate groups form alliances with the hard liners; it's that the more moderate groups form alliances against the hard liners. That is how they have already broken the ceiling by finding support outside their core voter base: by being the the only ones on their side of the argument.

I see what you are getting at and think there is a good point there, but I disagree with your conclusion. Thing is, if the only groups you quarantine are the clear racists, then then space you've left there is only for racists, and it is a space that will only draw in racists, who won't ever exist in big enough numbers. The problem comes because there's a lot of parties and policies which can have racist elements but aren't purely racist. Immigration reform, for instance, is often extremely racially charged, but there's a whole lot of non-racist reasons to want reform to the system.

If we were to quarantine the whole of the immigration discussion in to the racist corner, then I agree that the racist parties may end up the only ones on that side of the argument. I believe this was what drove up UKIP's vote, people weren't on board with a lot of UKIP's really problematic stuff, but they were searching for a way to register their protest against the EU.

So there is a fair bit of complexity in exactly where the line is drawn, both on issues and on parties. I agree there. But the answer to this isn't to open the door to racists or entertain plainly racist policies as part of the national discussion. History shows these guys don't make constructive allies, they either take control or they smash up as much as they can in a hissyfit when they aren't given more power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
There'd a thing missing here.

Yes there is a rise of far right in Germany, and right in general.

You cannot have the rise of a Nazi without the rise of Hitler, Himler, and Goerbals, speer. Etc.

Theres no charasmatic leader, no one able to easily fill a rally ground of hundreds of thousands, to drive thr vision with Thete oratory. There's no war hero, no national hero, no propaganda master whom able to sell the message with great skill or master architect turn ING the very ideas and power into form and function.

Hitler's personal appeal has been largely overstated. Hitler's most famous piece of propaganda, Triumph of the Will, the film that used visionary techniques to show Hitler's speeches in their best and most powerful form didn't even crack the top 10 films. It came in miles behind a bunch of American movies, funnily enough. If Hitler was a master orator who could draw a whole nation to his crazy beliefs, you'd think people might have paid money to see him talk.

This is why, like I said earlier, in the last fair election the Nazis won a little over 30% of the vote.

The difference is that 30% of the vote is worthless when the other 70% refuse to make deals and give you power. But when, as with Hitler, other groups make deals to form 51% of the vote, you open the door and very bad things happen.

So there is a fair bit of complexity in exactly where the line is drawn, both on issues and on parties. I agree there. But the answer to this isn't to open the door to racists or entertain plainly racist policies as part of the national discussion. History shows these guys don't make constructive allies, they either take control or they smash up as much as they can in a hissyfit when they aren't given more power.

The AfD has a lot of racist people, even close to the top, but certainly down at its voter base. However, I was just reading through parts of their party program (it's 96 pages so I'm not going to suffer through the whole thing right now, if anybody non-German is interested on their stance on a specific topic I could gladly look it up and translate, though) and I was again surprised how many points simply sound like the usual shtick from the US republicans (not trying to drag them into this topic, just giving a one-time comparison) or conservative parties of other countries. They are more or less pro-life, which is a rarity in the German political landscape, but certainly not worldwide. They support "traditional family values", which has become such a meme in these last few years, in threads which must not be named. They want to try and support a higher birth rate, just like other countries like for example Denmark is doing, with lots of financial and material aids for young couples wanting to have kids. - The racist or bigoted part comes in when they mention in their party program how muslim immigrants turn out to be less well educated than native Germans while having more kids, which is why they want more native German kids. So yeah, there's glimpses of what some party members think deep down, but - without intending to vote for them - I really wonder if they deserve that "Nazi party" spectre hanging over them, when they are mostly supporting policies so very common in conservative parties of other countries.


@Techpriestsupport regarding your post in your locked thread - "Look who's back" is a comedy...? Nothing there is meant to be serious, it's a bizarre novel about Hitler coming out of some hidden bunker half a century later and OF COURSE not being happy with the Germany he sees today, because he's fething Hitler, not because Germany is actually in such a bleak state. It's a fun read!

I think the Nazi party spectre is more of a consequence of what its politicians have said in public than what is in the party program. The members they have and the views they hold say a lot more about a party than a program that can be changed or ignored at will.

As for "Look who's back", Germans have no problem identifying certain views/people as Nazis/Neonazis. I think the book was pretty mediocre at best, with a subject intended to gain pr because "its Hitler you guyz!"

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No. Her opponents are socialists.

Quite the difference there, ta.

Nice to see someone else understands that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Witzkatz wrote:

So there is a fair bit of complexity in exactly where the line is drawn, both on issues and on parties. I agree there. But the answer to this isn't to open the door to racists or entertain plainly racist policies as part of the national discussion. History shows these guys don't make constructive allies, they either take control or they smash up as much as they can in a hissyfit when they aren't given more power.

The AfD has a lot of racist people, even close to the top, but certainly down at its voter base. However, I was just reading through parts of their party program (it's 96 pages so I'm not going to suffer through the whole thing right now, if anybody non-German is interested on their stance on a specific topic I could gladly look it up and translate, though) and I was again surprised how many points simply sound like the usual shtick from the US republicans (not trying to drag them into this topic, just giving a one-time comparison) or conservative parties of other countries. They are more or less pro-life, which is a rarity in the German political landscape, but certainly not worldwide. They support "traditional family values", which has become such a meme in these last few years, in threads which must not be named. They want to try and support a higher birth rate, just like other countries like for example Denmark is doing, with lots of financial and material aids for young couples wanting to have kids. - The racist or bigoted part comes in when they mention in their party program how muslim immigrants turn out to be less well educated than native Germans while having more kids, which is why they want more native German kids. So yeah, there's glimpses of what some party members think deep down, but - without intending to vote for them - I really wonder if they deserve that "Nazi party" spectre hanging over them, when they are mostly supporting policies so very common in conservative parties of other countries.


@Techpriestsupport regarding your post in your locked thread - "Look who's back" is a comedy...? Nothing there is meant to be serious, it's a bizarre novel about Hitler coming out of some hidden bunker half a century later and OF COURSE not being happy with the Germany he sees today, because he's fething Hitler, not because Germany is actually in such a bleak state. It's a fun read!

Thanks for replying. As a non German I wasn't sure I 'got' it. I was seeing the possibilities as Hitler comes back abd because times are bad he becomes politically popular again, or the idea that Germans are so determined to forget the past they can't even see and recognize hitler when he's literally right in front of them.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the Nazi party spectre is more of a consequence of what its politicians have said in public than what is in the party program. The members they have and the views they hold say a lot more about a party than a program that can be changed or ignored at will.

As for "Look who's back", Germans have no problem identifying certain views/people as Nazis/Neonazis. I think the book was pretty mediocre at best, with a subject intended to gain pr because "its Hitler you guyz!"

Yeah, they do give the impression of trying to just write semi-acceptable conservative statements into their party program, while their politicians on stage or at rallies show a slightly more sinister twist on all of this, which is why I'm still rather wary of the AfD and don't plan on voting for them any time soon.

Nevertheless, who else to vote for if you are unhappy with quite a few things the last and current CDU/SPD government did? Greens and Lefts have their own problems, and the FDP really still hasn't shed its imagine as Germany's party for rich people...

Oh, and I actually didn't read Look who's back completely, just the first parts I think. I was going to maybe read it completely in a bit, but if you're saying it's not worth it I might just leave it be.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the Nazi party spectre is more of a consequence of what its politicians have said in public than what is in the party program. The members they have and the views they hold say a lot more about a party than a program that can be changed or ignored at will.

As for "Look who's back", Germans have no problem identifying certain views/people as Nazis/Neonazis. I think the book was pretty mediocre at best, with a subject intended to gain pr because "its Hitler you guyz!"

Yeah, they do give the impression of trying to just write semi-acceptable conservative statements into their party program, while their politicians on stage or at rallies show a slightly more sinister twist on all of this, which is why I'm still rather wary of the AfD and don't plan on voting for them any time soon.

Nevertheless, who else to vote for if you are unhappy with quite a few things the last and current CDU/SPD government did? Greens and Lefts have their own problems, and the FDP really still hasn't shed its imagine as Germany's party for rich people...

Oh, and I actually didn't read Look who's back completely, just the first parts I think. I was going to maybe read it completely in a bit, but if you're saying it's not worth it I might just leave it be.

Quite true, the AfD presents the only right wing choice for the 'people' so to speak if you're tired of the CDU. The FDP while having good policies is more geared towards business than the people. Die Linke and Die Grünen are left, so not a choice for voters on the right. I get why people vote for the AfD as the 'only' option in that case, but its still unnerving to see people choosing to ignore the wider problem with the party because they get the policies they like from the AfD.

As for the book, maybe its a matter of taste. I felt it just started to meander aimlessly, as if the author knew what he wanted the setting/beginning to be, but not having thought about how to end it.

Just an example for the readers not near Germany or the Netherlands - one of the slightly higher-up AfD politicians apparently just resigned from his position over a speech he gave during Ash Wednesday, which is traditionally a big thing in (middle to southern) German carnival culture. He called Turks "caraway merchants" and "camel drivers", and naturally caught a lot of flak from most other parties and the media. This is quite par for the course for the public image of many AfD politicians and something that keeps many voters from actually considering them a valid choice, I think. And the guy that Disciple of Fate mentioned - the AfD vice boss, Gauland - was interviewed in the context of these remarks and basically said not much more than "Eh, it was Ash Wednesday, what do you expect" and as a literal quote "It's not racism when I say: The Turks don't belong to Germany."

So I think their political personnel overall is not that different from many other more-or-less fringey right-wing parties in other countries. Big proponents of "I'm not a racist, but..." statements in public, shock-and-awe political statements and a lot of bluster, but I honestly question whether they would actually be able to govern a country, being so used to being the "radical" opposition to the "mainstream parties" and the "liar press" as they call it here.



...I think the party had a somewhat charismatic and not completely loony face with Frauke Petry, one of their long-time head figurines. However, she left the party days after the last elections on her own volition, vowing to fround a new party - "Die Blauen", the blues. Since then, I haven't heard a pip from her, so I think her political career is almost over, and certainly removed from the AfD.

I have watched this movie, and the funniest part is when the re-enact a famous scene frome The Fall.

As for the Afd, why do you all speak about nazis ? What have they said or did that they deserve such a bad name ?

 godardc wrote:
I have watched this movie, and the funniest part is when the re-enact a famous scene frome The Fall.

As for the Afd, why do you all speak about nazis ? What have they said or did that they deserve such a bad name ?

Unfortunately, the Right=Nazi or even Conservative=Nazi equation gets thrown around in Germany just as easily as in some other countries, maybe more - so I think it's only partially deserved. The partial bit comes from politicians like Björn Höcke - his speeches are on youtube to some extent, sometimes with translations.

A guy that wants Germany to be proud of its Wehrmacht back during World War 2, who wants to remove Holocaust memorials and overall wants a "180 degree turn on the way we view our history". If somebody like that is higher up in a party and has apparently the green light from party leaders to continue as he does, the party deserves at least some flak for that.


(And by the way, waving the German flag during political rallies is god damn absolutely uncommon in Germany. I know the US loves it, I know other countries do it, but just understand, from a German-calibrated viewpoint it's just...a clear message, let's put it that way.)

Small correction, Gauland made the Wehrmacht comment, not Höcke.

So yeah, the Wehrmach comments and the Holocaust memorials one amongst others cause them to have such a bad name, fully deserved in my opinion.

 godardc wrote:
As for the Afd, why do you all speak about nazis ? What have they said or did that they deserve such a bad name ?

They also like to repackage quite a few Nazi talking points in today's acceptable language. Then when they get their attention and are called out on it they track back and whine that people misunderstood them. Besides everybody else is way too oversensitive and outraged all the time. It all the fault of too much political correctness anyways. To me It doesn't matter too much if their official pamphlets don't mention that that when they have repeatedly shown a pattern of being at least Neo-Nazi adjacent.

 Witzkatz wrote:
The AfD has a lot of racist people, even close to the top, but certainly down at its voter base. However, I was just reading through parts of their party program (it's 96 pages so I'm not going to suffer through the whole thing right now, if anybody non-German is interested on their stance on a specific topic I could gladly look it up and translate, though) and I was again surprised how many points simply sound like the usual shtick from the US republicans (not trying to drag them into this topic, just giving a one-time comparison) or conservative parties of other countries. They are more or less pro-life, which is a rarity in the German political landscape, but certainly not worldwide. They support "traditional family values", which has become such a meme in these last few years, in threads which must not be named. They want to try and support a higher birth rate, just like other countries like for example Denmark is doing, with lots of financial and material aids for young couples wanting to have kids. - The racist or bigoted part comes in when they mention in their party program how muslim immigrants turn out to be less well educated than native Germans while having more kids, which is why they want more native German kids. So yeah, there's glimpses of what some party members think deep down, but - without intending to vote for them - I really wonder if they deserve that "Nazi party" spectre hanging over them, when they are mostly supporting policies so very common in conservative parties of other countries.

That's the complexity. These parties often have a lot of reasonable policies, and often the policies are vague enough that you don't know exactly what they would do if they got some power, they tend to speak out of both sides of their mouths. Which to be fair is something all political parties do.

The result is a non-racist can see stuff like immigration reform and find that appealing. If other parties take the easy positioning of condemning any talk on immigration as racist, then as AlexHolker wrote you risk pushing a lot of non-racists in to the racist party just because they're the only ones talking about the issue they're concerned about. But at the same time we can't take the complexity and lack of overt racism on every issue as an excuse to just ignore the racism, it is what it is and treating parties like AfD as normal opens the door to some really awful stuff, potentially.

@Techpriestsupport regarding your post in your locked thread - "Look who's back" is a comedy...? Nothing there is meant to be serious, it's a bizarre novel about Hitler coming out of some hidden bunker half a century later and OF COURSE not being happy with the Germany he sees today, because he's fething Hitler, not because Germany is actually in such a bleak state. It's a fun read!

I've seen the movie, I don't know if its different to the book but it seemed to have a bit more going on that just poking fun at Hitler being angry at Germany today. A lot of people in the movie agreed with a lot of complaints Hitler made (without realizing he was actually Hitler and not just an impersonator). I took that to mean there are real dissatisfactions in society today that could be played on by a figure like Hitler, as long people didn't know where that figure would end up taking them. But I wasn't 100% sure of that, I don't know if something got lost in translation or if the film just didn't quite nail the point but the overall message did seem a little messy. Still pretty fun though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Witzkatz wrote:
And the guy that Disciple of Fate mentioned - the AfD vice boss, Gauland - was interviewed in the context of these remarks and basically said not much more than "Eh, it was Ash Wednesday, what do you expect" and as a literal quote "It's not racism when I say: The Turks don't belong to Germany."

It's a weird part of the modern world that it is almost universally agreed that racism is very bad, but no-one actually agrees on what racism is. So we still get racism, but its followed by people saying the racist thing wasn't actually racist and therefore is okay.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


As for "Look who's back", Germans have no problem identifying certain views/people as Nazis/Neonazis. I think the book was pretty mediocre at best, with a subject intended to gain pr because "its Hitler you guyz!"

Gah. I sent this in PM to someone else a few days ago, but now I feel compelled to post it here as well.

Look Who's Back is really quite ingenious as a story, but the book is easier to follow than the movie for obvious reasons.

That's not really the point of the movie. Much in the same vein of It Can't Happen Here the Look Who's Back is a satirical comedy/very harsh social commentary. The creator himself is something of a troll as the novel is presented as a satire mocking Hitler and his ideas, when in reality its mocking the audience (i.e the reader) from start to finish. Even' the books initial price-tag (19.33) is openly mocking the audience in a really round about way.

To be clear this book is kind insulting from the get go in how it chooses to portray Hitler as a figure of mockery rather than as a monster but that in itself is kind of the author's point. Look Who's Back is basically a smart version of Idiocracy constantly pointing out that people are surrounded by human beings with ideas as laughable as Hitler's but we're all so naive that we're incapable of realizing how ridiculous they are, that there are people who take such things seriously, and that even in 1933 Hitler didn't seem that evil until suddenly he's throwing people in ovens.

Really I don't think this is a message that solely applies to Germany either. The point of the novel, and it carries into the movie, isn't that Germany is so bad Hitler himself could come back and rise to power again but rather that people are so naive that figures like Hitler become powerful because we don't take them seriously. Further the book is also a sharp criticism of modern TV and mass media, and the way they encourage and promote outrageous characters and personas into larger than life figures, but I think at it's core the story isn't a warning about Hitler coming back, but rather a dark comedy about how he never really left. This kind of figure has been and always will be with us, and its when we don't take them seriously, treat them like a joke, or be oblivious to their own words that they become dangerous.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
I took that to mean there are real dissatisfactions in society today that could be played on by a figure like Hitler, as long people didn't know where that figure would end up taking them. But I wasn't 100% sure of that, I don't know if something got lost in translation or if the film just didn't quite nail the point but the overall message did seem a little messy. Still pretty fun though.

Your basically right. The movie botched the later portions of the story, where the author made a full transition from "look how goofy it is watching Hitler try to come to terms with modern Germany what a riot" to "omg why the feth are we laughing Hitler is trying to come to terms with modern Germany why aren't we rioting?!" The point of the story has nothing to actually do with Hitler himself or Germany imo. It's all about the modern world and and the darkly funny way we looking back at 1933 and asking "how the feth did you people let this happen" while being so naive that we follow similar demagogues without ever realizing it in droves whether they be screaming TV personalities, "I'm here to offend people you hate" comedians, or politicians who tell us what we want to hear but not what we need to know.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


As for "Look who's back", Germans have no problem identifying certain views/people as Nazis/Neonazis. I think the book was pretty mediocre at best, with a subject intended to gain pr because "its Hitler you guyz!"

Gah. I sent this in PM to someone else a few days ago, but now I feel compelled to post it here as well.

Look Who's Back is really quite ingenious as a story, but the book is easier to follow than the movie for obvious reasons.

That's not really the point of the movie. Much in the same vein of It Can't Happen Here the Look Who's Back is a satirical comedy/very harsh social commentary. The creator himself is something of a troll as the novel is presented as a satire mocking Hitler and his ideas, when in reality its mocking the audience (i.e the reader) from start to finish. Even' the books initial price-tag (19.33) is openly mocking the audience in a really round about way.

To be clear this book is kind insulting from the get go in how it chooses to portray Hitler as a figure of mockery rather than as a monster but that in itself is kind of the author's point. Look Who's Back is basically a smart version of Idiocracy constantly pointing out that people are surrounded by human beings with ideas as laughable as Hitler's but we're all so naive that we're incapable of realizing how ridiculous they are, that there are people who take such things seriously, and that even in 1933 Hitler didn't seem that evil until suddenly he's throwing people in ovens.

Really I don't think this is a message that solely applies to Germany either. The point of the novel, and it carries into the movie, isn't that Germany is so bad Hitler himself could come back and rise to power again but rather that people are so naive that figures like Hitler become powerful because we don't take them seriously. Further the book is also a sharp criticism of modern TV and mass media, and the way they encourage and promote outrageous characters and personas into larger than life figures, but I think at it's core the story isn't a warning about Hitler coming back, but rather a dark comedy about how he never really left. This kind of figure has been and always will be with us, and its when we don't take them seriously, treat them like a joke, or be oblivious to their own words that they become dangerous.

My first comment on the book was a bit short, but like I said, I feel like the author had a very good idea behind the setting/story which your comment explains well. Where the book comes up short for me is after setting that up it just keeps going for too long in my opinion, starting to meander. Maybe its just me, but having done quite some research into the period for my studies, so Hitler comes across as not really 'historical Hitler' in parts, which is why the scene almost at the end comes across as doubly ironic to me. The book presents it as ironic perhaps not seeing the irony behind the irony. The inconsistencies are what take me out of the book, the setting is good, but some extra work would have gone a long way for me. That's where my idea comes from that 'Hitler' is just used for PR purposes, it just doesn't click for me as a reference, and when it falls short, it comes across as cynical. Side note, the actor they used in the movie was seemingly made to look even more disturbing, its like a twilight zone version.

One thing I see is people yelling ''racism! '' because people are opposed to radical Islam. Islam is not a race it's an ideology. People can be against an ideology without being racist.

Some fools will say that if it's an ideology help mainly by members of a certain race then opposing it is automatically racist. This is an idiotic mentality but when you point out that by that rational people opposing nazism. Have to be anti European racists they just call you a racist.

So when I hear people in Europe being called racist i have to wonder if they are actually against a. Group of people because of their race or their ideology .

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Where the book comes up short for me is after setting that up it just keeps going for too long in my opinion, starting to meander

It definitely does meander.

so Hitler comes across as not really 'historical Hitler' in parts

Honestly I think Hitler in Look Who's Back is probably one of the most accurate portrayals of the man in fiction. The author points out that people have a tendency to generalize Hitler, completely overlooking the man's charisma and way with words. Films like Downfall focus on his later years where he did start raving like a madman at lot, but Hitler didn't start out that way. It's one reason why the author insisted the price tag for the book by 19.33 instead of the original tag of 19.45, because Hitler didn't seem like a madman to most of the world when he first rose to power. He was approachable, charismatic, and talked about problems people wanted to talk about in ways they wanted to talk about it. Throughout the book I think the author actually does a good job of doing what most of humanity today is unwilling to really do; see Adolf Hitler as a human being, because that to plays into the books point. Hitler was a human being and what he did and thought are all things a human being did. We don't like thinking human beings can throw people in ovens, blow up bombs on crowded streets, or behead people by the thousands. We separate such people from ourselves by calling them inhuman or monsters. Yet they are still people and the dark reality is that these are things people are capable of doing.

Islam is not a race it's an ideology. People can be against an ideology without being racist.

The issue is that in the west Islam is predominantly seen and approached as "Arab" by default. I could even reference a few books that directly address this reality. Beyond that there's also the problem that "racism" is often invoked in any case where someone is being a bigot which kind of goes both ways. On the one hand sure, hating muslims isn't literal racism because "muslim" isn't a race, but on the other hand why are we quibbling over that? Bigotry is still bigotry and ardently crying out "but I can't be racist against an ideology" comes off as childish and deflecting from the underlying criticism that caused someone to shout racism in the first place.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

so Hitler comes across as not really 'historical Hitler' in parts

Honestly I think Hitler in Look Who's Back is probably one of the most accurate portrayals of the man in fiction. The author points out that people have a tendency to generalize Hitler, completely overlooking the man's charisma and way with words. Films like Downfall focus on his later years where he did start raving like a madman at lot, but Hitler didn't start out that way. It's one reason why the author insisted the price tag for the book by 19.33 instead of the original tag of 19.45, because Hitler didn't seem like a madman to most of the world when he first rose to power. He was approachable, charismatic, and talked about problems people wanted to talk about in ways they wanted to talk about it. Throughout the book I think the author actually does a good job of doing what most of humanity today is unwilling to really do; see Adolf Hitler as a human being, because that to plays into the books point. Hitler was a human being and what he did and thought are all things a human being did. We don't like thinking human beings can throw people in ovens, blow up bombs on crowded streets, or behead people by the thousands. We separate such people from ourselves by calling them inhuman or monsters. Yet they are still people and the dark reality is that these are things people are capable of doing.

While it is true people tend to forgo the early years and think about Hitler as a raving lunatic, I also think the book generalizes too much and throws in pieces that don't fit what is known about Hitler at all (the dog). Hell, the book even makes early Hitler seem worse in actions that 'real' Hitler likely wouldn't have taken, after all he was politically savvy. Also the bestseller having read some of his work, I highly doubt it could become one on its own merit. So the problem isn't that he isn't mad, the problem is that he is too mad for a 1933 portrayel of him. It doesn't help that his views aren't just contained up to 1933 but seem to vary wildly into the 40's. Its all over the place. Plus it openly seems to misrepresent how aware Germany actually was about Hitler's views in 1933, few people had even heard of his book and he had downplayed his antisemitism, so the notion that the 1933 Germans knew what they were voting for when it came to the 40's is just a bit out there.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Hell, the book even makes early Hitler seem worse in actions that 'real' Hitler likely wouldn't have taken, after all he was politically savvy.

That's the thing. There is no early Hitler. There's just Hitler. That's why I say the book isn't about Hitler but about people and society, because the book uses its narrative to parallel the development of perceptions of Hitler rather than the development of Hitler's ideology. Mein Kampf was published in 1925. It wasn't secret or hidden but completely public what Hitler thought and wanted to do, and yet still Germany and the world by a large underestimated and didn't fully appreciate the man they were dealing with.

I don't think the author misrepresents how aware people were at all. People knew, but as the author points out and as we can even see in modern politics people didn't take a lot of what Hitler said seriously nor did they fully appreciate that there were people who took what he said deadly seriously.

so the notion that the 1933 Germans knew what they were voting for when it came to the 40's is just a bit out there.

That's exactly Look Who's Back's point when it talks about this subject. Hitler didn't even win the 32 election. It's somewhat ludicrous in hindsight that people actually look back and ask "how did you people let this happen" because no one really let it happen. Even people who appreciated his madness, failed to appreciate how much it had spread. They thought he could be controlled, appeased, or negotiated with. People in Germany thought they could just elect someone else later, or that other political parties would keep him controlled. People foolishly held faith that Hindenburg could keep Hitler in check, or that Hitler's lieutenants could be persuaded to change parties. When Hitler promised a powerless man soon to be thrown out of government (Papen) that he would respect the office of the President, protect the press, and and a whole bunch of other gak he was never going to do, people believed him despite obvious warning signs that Hitler would never keep such a promise.

Rampant naivete put Hitler in power more than anything and that's the full point of Look Who's Back; people are incredibly naive. Even today we foolishly sit in self-righteousness that we'd never elect "Hitler" fully ignorant that in 1933 no one else thought they were electing "Hitler" either.