The 20th Century’s Most Popular Dictatorship with Peter Fritzsche
Professor Peter fritsche. So nice to have you on the podcast. How are you? I'm very well and it's my pleasure to be here. Thank you. Very timely, of course, just so everybody knows, Peter is a professor at University of Illinois, at Chicago. He is a very acclaimed author of books on I guess. 20th century German history. We would say or is that fair? Well, 19th and 20th mostly Germany, but it goes all the way back to the French Revolution as well. Oh great. I love that. Added and it's very timely to have you on. I mean, we're going to talk a lot about Peters, really gripping scary, but brilliantly written book. Hitler's first hundred days when Germans embrace the Third Reich and I think that's subtitle gives us so much insight into how societies become authoritarian. But Here we are now at evidence collection point, you know, other crisis point, you know, and obviously, you know, you're going to constantly Here are those of us who are engaged by this, which I think is everybody about the
gravest crisis since World War 2 and, you know, Putin's imperialist Ambitions and so on so forth. What I'd like to do is sort of go back because you are an expert in the area of Hitler and Nazi Germany. And one of the things I think that we have done so badly, in our political discourse and it drives me crazy is the following George w--. Bush is Hitler Barack Obama's Hitler. And Donald Trump is Hitler everyone. We Agree with his him. Okay. So now we have a real real threat going on which is not to say that it's Nazism. But you do have sort of this Resurgence of the strongman on the global stage. What is your,
how would you make a connection to today's if that's just in the broadest sense and Hitler's rise to power. Well, I mean the first connection I think is the rise of ethnic ethnic-based nationalism. So that you think of your freedoms and Liberties in terms of entitlements to your ethnic group and at the same time view threats in terms of ethnic others, and I think that is a that that's an integral and somewhat limited vision of the nation state, but it does create an idea of citizenship of volunteer activity, a sense of entitlement to sense of belonging. A sense of place. And I think that right. And, you know, we talked 20 years ago, 15 years ago about a globalized world and hybrid identities. Those haven't gone away, but neither has the nation-state and either has the sense of national belonging based on ethnicity and to some extent on religion. So that's the big thing. The other thing is that liberalism and behind that multi-party democracies and majorities that Have to find at this time
and that time seemed not to have delivered the goods in the last 15 years in a period where much of the middle class and the working class is economically stagnant if not falling backwards. And so there is an openness to new kinds of political Frameworks that night might not be procedurally. Purely Democratic, but might invite more decisive and active leadership and that's then upholstered. And strengthened by the fact that you're loyal to your faction. You're not loyal to procedure of all the inhabitants who happen to be in your country. You have a vision of your country and those are the people who you represent. And so the terms of representation are different and therefore a multi-party Mock or C is not necessarily the vehicle for our for a political representation. Right? I mean, I think that one of the things that people tend to do is to draw as you know, a historical analogies, right? And could have create they conflate things but you mentioned the word liberalism and I think so
interesting as a student of political philosophy, right? The for one of the first things we were taught as litleo Ronald Reagan. For example, would be considered a liberal side. Classical turn, not necessarily write the term. We use it as a relates to the Democratic party or contemporary liberalism. And I want to know what is the difference because we wrestle with this people talk about it between something, like, let's just call it authoritarianism because Nazism is very specific and we'll get to that and the idea of illiberal ism or maybe, you know, illiberal world. I mean, do you think that's sort of Putin's endgame? Is that relevant to the way you've laid out? Kind of society that can fall into despotism. You know, we're always confronted every day in political life with with choices and what we would wish to have happen and what does happen, but that requires also figuring out. What is your framework is your framework that your vision of the nation and of identity must Prevail? Or
are you accepting of other people's point of view? A variety of religions, Europeans always come to the United States and they're shocked at the number of religions we have because they have to Catholic and Protestant and then goes reverse with the parties. You know, we have two parties. I now have half a dozen parties as an insert, I lived and I lived in London for 2014 and 2016 and I'm G. I'm not practicing, but I'm definitely born Jewish and culturally Jewish and somebody in England said, you know, there is about 300,000 Jews in all of England, right? And 250,000 of them are in London. That makes me think you're right. It's very, it's very Anglican, to say the least. And then, so it's your, it's not just your willingness to compromise. It's your willingness to see who's in the game and a liberal will say that everybody's in the game. Well, whatever your background is, and whatever your Creed and whatever your religion, whatever your sexual orientation. And so on, these are these are
this is the The fullness and the richness and the color that needs to be represented and people need to be able to identify themselves in the government. But also work with others. Then there's a much more sort of uniform and integral way of thinking about nationality. And just pick out example, real quick, you know, Poland for very, very historical reasons that seen itself as the Martyr of Nations, but that is then run through Catholicism and polish paste. Missa tee, that is not exactly. Well, coming to others whether it was Germans and ukrainians and Jews in the interwar period, or migrants coming out of your outside of Europe today. So there's different ways. And when we talk about America First in this country or make America great again behind, that is also an integral Vision white, Christian America, that might be tolerant. Now we say, Judeo Christian, but but it's Finds Its center of gravity, not in Brooklyn, but someplace else. Right? And and those are two competing Visions in one.
Can the latter one can can steer into illiberal ways because you're not so sensitive to procedure, and to accommodation, and compromise, and the, and then, to be a liberal, would be to embrace the very least Embrace Percy. Sure or content right in the end. Yeah, I mean, you know, for those that are listening and whatever and I love to get, I love to chew the fat academically, you know, what, Classical liberalism one would say, sort of locking and John Locke, liberalism would be the idea that there's a cent rally to individual rights. Private property, Free Speech, you know, any profusion of ideas, right? Unencumbered or unregulated by government and the idea that that you know, each person could pursue his or her own destiny, of course, America typified that at the height, I would say. But it comes with a price and I'll give you just one. Good example. There were a lot of Orthodox Jews who are thinking in terms of community and generations and long-term identities. And for them, this individual
based, all these interests. All these ideas was very frightening and they wanted to preserve the old. So we say the old school. The old shtetl world in the face of pluralism and liberalism and yet for many Jews. It's precisely liberalism that opened up all the doors and allowed success without constantly being having two asterisks on your head that you were Jewish. You were just you you you yeah. Well, I mean, you know, it's interesting because you've got in America, right that conflict which is A specific or that tension, I should say where you know your de few want to be an individual, you want to be individuated and have an individual have individual rights? Right, but at the same time and being American but at the same time by embracing a collective identity, which American Jews did write that gave you both the ability to americanize and have a sense of community to, right that's good. There's always this. I feel like the tension because to embrace the collective identity is them to
start talking about the content. Which is more than the word procedure. So it's a certain idea of liberalism of Liberty and freedom, but also struggles opportunity and yet that tension is far less destructive than the outright antagonism implied by a single definition of the United States, which almost from the very beginning denies the kind of Placement, not just to new people coming in but to people who but two people who are different, who don't follow the Bible in this and that way and and and so these tensions always is always exist, but they're much more resolvable in a liberal way though. They exist then in an illiberal way because it liberal way requires really excluding yourself from these other definitions and interpretations. And what's so interesting about Germany. 1833. Is it was founded, Nazism on a specific, kind of German destiny that had been that had seen such hard times since World War one, but also had not been treated fairly because it was a new country. Whereas Britain
and France were old. They had colonies. They were established and Rich and Germany. Germany was sort of the newcomer knocking at the door, but on the other hand, the German nationalism inside the Nazi party was also embracive. One of the first one of the things. The Nazis wanted to do was get rid of the difference between Catholics and Protestants. That was called the mixed marriage, by the way, back then has brought us and Catholic and to get people out of their Mill. Use whether it's upper middle class or working class, or Catholic and to come together as Germans first and foremost, so they did have an ethnically based view of Which excluded people Jews for most, but also foreigners foreigners generally, but it was also very inclusive and that they're trying to break down status and religious identifications. And that is also part of its appeal, right, you know, in this segues beautifully. One of the things about your book which I think is is so Salient and has been in all the best things.
I've read through my life on Hitler on Nazism, on the fall of Vine. Are the whole thing is the people, the people turning against the way, the German people and their nuances. Obviously turned against the Jews. There was that book famously. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Hitler's willing, Executioner's the historian. All right, you know, and the idea that there was the ability for, you know, not only for people to embrace that, I guess you might say their ethnic German. But specifically in Nazism turn against and make enemies of others. And, you know, but so quickly and what I think is so great about your book and scary. But so important the same time as you know, this collapse even though it was long in the coming. Do you know, there's a lot of things I love but first of all, you have the cooperation or the acquiescence of the conservatives at the time which can take control can control this lunatic Hitler. But also the ability to create an idea as spectacle, the sort of positive. Spectacles,
you're talking about, you know, this whole sense of Showmanship. So you see this weird amalgam, right? Of total, consolidation of power move toward, I eventually totalitarianism, but this also celebratory atmosphere that is presented. You know what I mean? That that is that, that it's almost. It's almost like Hollywood iced. If I can use that, right? Can talk a little bit about that because I know it's so interesting. One is the one of the what the Nazis always wanted to do was not simply suggested. They were in microcosm the true German Nation because they represented a workers as well as middle class and intellectuals of the, you know, people workers of the brain workers of the Fist, but also Catholics and Protestants and City people and Farmers so that they were in microcosm, the German then Then they during the election campaigns and afterwards they constantly created pictures of acclamation. So we see constantly the huge crowds, the upraised arms and the people are all in central places.
They are in the marketplace and they've come together here in the center from their neighborhoods. In a way crossing the threshold of milieu and status in order to Present and celebrate a new German identity and that created a sense of unity. It also created huge amounts of energy. The Nazis are this huge energy machine not only as an electoral Force before they come to power but afterwards and mobilizing volunteers. Some are anti-semites and work on that some are interested in women's prenatal health and they work on that. Some are interested in ethnic Germans across the border and they work on that. And so everybody has their little Area to repair and heal a German is and it's a huge, huge amounts of energy and people thought that Germany had healed itself. A if everybody had certain problems with the Nazis, but on the whole, this was way better than before, right. And they saw Germany in the making and of course Hitler was able to the Nazis were able to make very quickly, identifiable
improvements in the unemployment situation. Right already in the summer and fall of 1933. And so they, so this the pictures of the acclamation which is an image, you know, whether it's through radio, or news, real, or just a rally that that's happens to be there, becomes more and more real, because warm people are pulled into, this may be out of opportunism, maybe out of fear, but also out of desire. And so the image has become more and more real as Grim goes on between say, 1932 and 1934. Yeah, Hitler never had everybody behind him. But boy, he had a lot of people, a lot of the way, you know, Ned. No one's 100% not. See, but maybe 80%, maybe 60% and they're all thinking through the premises. What's my responsibility? What do I owe to my race? What do I owe to my nation? What is my responsibility to volunteer and do this and do that? And People thought about those things. Yeah. I mean, I want to talk specifically about this sort of, you know, conservative acquiescence, but your book is
a great. I Mark a lot of stuff in this book, but I wanted to read this because to your point. It's really, really important for people to understand atmospheric Lee. What was going on the right? The way in, which a society gets subsumed in its everyday life, right? Very quickly, you can, you write everything was still in? Place in February, 1933 children sledded, down Hills, Shoppers purchase Linens at white sails, doctors consulted, patient secretaries open mail at Trade Union offices, baba, but the frame of events tilted, just a little bit every day after Hitler's appointment as Chancellor and soon, things started to slide out a place with greater speed. Opposition, opposition newspapers were suspended and political opponents were attacked. Her silence seemingly far away events that people read about in papers. One week then suddenly saw happening down the street. The next the Weimaraner Republic was finished off in a sequence of events over just a week or two in March, 1930s with Sonny
because the quotidian becomes a nightmare, right? I mean, and it's happening. I made sing because I feel like as America and not to jump around too much, but as America sort of isn't this quasi authoritarian muck or the loss of democracy. We should say your piece of people's kind of everyday life is going on, even though the rule of law is under threat. The damage has been done in to the system in so many ways and haven't even fully manifested. But here, right it I meant their verdict. I don't think it's comparable because I don't think this was the same exact thing, but you really see this, this, this declination kind of into total Terror, right? And to among your friends things. Got reshuffled right. Now. How did you feel about the fact that they're banning a socialist newspaper? Which you never read? Anyways,
how do you feel that's procedure versus content? Right? Well, that's also, you know, a great, you know, it like America does. Raid Boogeyman, you know, it's a paper that we're Banning, nobody reads, but there are horrible. Look at the horrible things. They're writing. What do they write? I don't know. They're just socialist. They're badder than if anyone were to read that library book, we wouldn't want to be, you know, my kids friends with, though, their people's kids, exactly. But one has to remember, is that, and then people started sporting, you know, little Nazi Badges and this and that the other people had to decide and you knew you by conversation. Is this a person who's more skeptical? And and and I can talk to this person or is this person gushing about the New Germany and the new opportunities that were real? But one has to remember, is This is not a movement that came from the backwoods. No, this is not come from Western Pennsylvania. Did not come from rural Kentucky. This is,
this is a young people's movement. It's very, very strong in a Protestant neighborhoods that aren't socialist, but it has sympathizers who are workers. It has sympathizers, who are Catholic. So the Nazis are not wrong to say that they have a all Annal representation, but they're young. They're educated and they're Dynamic. The biggest constituency of the Nazis was University students. Yeah, and and so, you have to think of this as people saw themselves, that this is new. That's why they talked about the Third Reich. They talked about the future. They didn't talk about make Germany back to the Kaiser. They wanted something new and in that sense their heirs in an awkward way. Of the Revolution. They didn't like the 1918 Revolution, but they sure as hell. I act like the 1933 Revolution and this was opening up a new page opening, a new page of German, history means, of course, there are some violence but I was preceded. You have that because they have to refight, they have to refight the revolution,
right? But this time you use the word is regenerative as you say, but it is regenerative. -, yeah, it's enormously regenerative and that rhetoric alone creates even more supporters out of people who had been on the sidelines before. And then the real opponents of the Nazis, whether their social Democrats or Communists or perhaps Catholics are really caught without a rhetoric because the Nazis have said we're patriotic. We're new, We're Young were regenerative. We're healers and these other parties had a very hard time finding first of all physical space, right? Because the police, then quickly was the SAA troops were very quickly deputized as police, but they had it with that. They didn't have physical space, but they didn't have rhetorical space, and the Nazis simply occupied that, and it was just this Title Wave partially, fear partially opportunism. And And much desire, that gets bigger and bigger and bigger. Most people didn't think that the Jews were the big problem, but they did think
the Germans were victims and that's the Nazis. Great success is to choreograph. Germany is a country now on the road to Regeneration, but, but, but it has to do. So in a militaristic Vigilant fashion, because Germany was almost destroyed in, By enemies, not just France, not just Britain. But from inside now would have been the intellectuals. It would have been the Socialist that would have been the Jews and that, that part of Germany has to be cut out. Right? And and, and it's so interesting about that front. One thing. You see, you know, that you can say, you can say in about Trump, you can say about it. What do you say about Putin? Is the Big G, grievance? Right? Right. Do you cannot understand anything without grievance? No, aggression can be Stood without grievance. You've got it at him. Right? And so I've been looking at that studying and I've always been fascinated by terrifying the way, but fascinated by the origin, what Hannah, Arendt wrote about the origins of totalitarianism,
you know that the the easiest subject who succumbs to this isn't the conspiracy theorist or The Loon. It's the young person may be middle class educated who suddenly emits their kind of doldrums or You might say their prosperity, you know, decides. Oh, I need something to belong to. And this person. This idea comes along and does it. You know, there is historians have said that, you know, aboard middle class can be a Glide slope for authoritarianism. It's not always poor people. I did there. I disagree with hunt around. She talked about, I know me. And yeah, demise people the Germans were big joiners. They had joined all sorts of clubs and the Nazis built on that. And these clubs before the Nazis came. Long, we're pretty anti-republican anyways, and so you really had a, you had a, you had already a pretty established even confident anti-republican front. The key with the Nazis, is they expanded it? They allowed workers in, not Marxist, but workers they sought out workers and they sought
out Catholics and they said, this is Germany. We're not going back to the Kaiser and we're not going back to the old Protestant World. We're going to a New Germany, but the idea that They sucked up. Lonely People doesn't work for Germany. Germany was a country of joiners like de tocqueville visits America and the 1830s, and that's what he saw. So, tons of tons of voluntary solution, the Civic groups, they all, they all were a little political, you know, you go to the beach 1928 and everyone's building their sand castle, and they have to stick a flag on it. And if you stuck a republican flag of this Republic of Germany on your Sandcastle, you're saying Castle would be busted up. By the next morning. So it. So most of them were the old flags from the Kaiser Reich as a symbol of anti republicanism people were extremely partisan, but they were reluctant to go all the way to the Nazis because the Nazis, one were a little, kind of socialist, right. In the sense. Not that they wanted, you know,
borrowed a couple lines from marks, but they believe in social responsibility that the individual had to subordinate. Himself to the nation. They believe that race required, a kind of collective responsibility, and that only is a nation together with Germany Prosper. So workers, students, peasants shopkeepers together, would it prosper? And and, and be able to navigate the difficult currents of the post-war world. And that they had a different rhetoric, a different vocabulary. And so, they seem to live Little bit socialist. They were a little bit violent. They upended. The here are keys and the status worlds of the local town. They always had their meetings in the Stockyards, right? The conservative party said the meetings in the finest hotel, right? That's not going to get a worker Stockyards. That's something else and and so you had there was a little bit of negotiating there. So when the postman, you know says Heil Hitler when he's delivering Mail to the professor. What the postman is
doing is he's asserting himself as an equal as a German and he's not tipping his hat and saying had octuple vessel.
And that's the dynamic. That's the dynamic. No, that's so interesting. And I want to move after this to, to the relationship of how the conservators got co-opted in, and how that, you know, serves does have parallels to sort of the collapse. Absolutely Republican party into a total authoritarian culpable. For we, before we do that, would you say? Because there was such an opposition to, and this guy actually feeds into the conservative co-opting of it, you know, obviously, there was this bone-deep anti-Semitism. I mean, Hitler was anti-semitic to his down to as marrow, you know, it wasn't like, he just decided in the wake of Versailles to be. So, you know, all by all accounts. He was. Do you this idea that in opposition to the left in opposition to Communism? The idea that, you know, we are class-based history, and there'd be this Uprising or whatever. Nazism is kind of like a populism of a proletariat. But, but in joining with, with the sort of Greater forces, not rebelling against it,
you know what I mean, meaning, giving everybody a sense of belonging University, students workers, shopkeepers everybody. So it's not like liberating the workers so much as much as it was finding a sense of national purpose. Is that right? They would include everybody and everybody could see themselves in the picture, Contra to the Marxist theory, right? That they'll either proletariat's going to overthrow the system, right? And exactly the Mark Mark said that the worker the workers are the class that will liberate everybody, right? And and Hitler's not interested in everybody know the Nazis don't have the concept of humanity and they don't have the concept of man. They have the concept of race, right? So, And, and for the Nazis, the Socialists, and the Communists had a completely different vision of where they wanted to go and many we're Jews. Now, most Jews were Communists, most juice or anti-communists, but many Communists were too. And so Jews got thrown into this this pot. And it was
intellectuals, Cosmopolitan. That was on German. And and that that was the internal opposition. Then you I have to get rid of what's so interesting about Hitler. Maybe I'll give you the segue to the elites is. And this also sounds familiar. He could not break 40%, He saw quarter million people in front of him. Rally, rally rally rally, so he thought he was going to win, but he didn't. Because Socialist Workers and Catholic people tended, not to go, neither to go to the rallies in order to vote for him. And so, in the end, he knew since he couldn't get 50%. He was going to have to do, one of two things are both, it was gonna have to use violence. Or he was going to use, you need the elites and and in the end, both happened. And as far as the leads are concerned, the elites have one big game and that is to dismantle the Republic. That's the most important thing, whether it's going back to the Kaiser or creating some sort of national dictatorship, or creating a strong dharm to authoritarian
state with or without certain constitutional protections. The main thing was getting Rid of the Republic, and thus the rule of social Democrats, right? Moderate socialists who dominated in along with the Catholics in Prussia. And Prussia is like, Texas, New York and California together, 3/5 of Germany. So they wanted to break the Republic break the social Democrats and and we really were willing to do anything to get there. So they overthrow the Prussian government. In fact, in July. 32 then but the sticking point is Hitler. They love the Nazis. They love that energy. They love the uniforms. They love the idealism, but they don't want Hitler who's a, who's a egocentric party leader to be Chancellor. And so that's the best thing for them back in the last nine months of the Weimar Republic and then in the end in the last elections, the Nazis lose a little bit and the Communists gain a little bit. And they the elites say, okay. We're about, you know, our great resource here, is these Nazi
masses, and the Communists are becoming even more powerful. And so, Now's the Time. We're just going to hold our nose and and yes, Hitler will be Chancellor. The Republic will be destroyed, and we will move to a new authoritarian, Anu. More pure Germany and we think we can contain them. Yep, but by saying that they take the risk of not containing him, but that's that's that's not the issue. The issue is getting rid of the Republic and if that means no Law and Order, okay, if that means no Constitution. Okay. The main thing is that we've destroyed the legacy of the Republican Revolution, November 1918, and we adhere to the new Legacy of the national Awakening. Of January 1933. And so only much later did people say well maybe Law and Order is important and maybe a constitution is important and maybe only the police can put you in jail instead of the party in a concentration camp, but that came later the elites were perfectly willing. To risk. Not controlling Hitler. Okay, that's interesting.
But with was, you know, one of the things you hear commonly from people who thankfully defected from the from trumpism. Is that the majority Republican party knows this. Guy's a loon is a crackpot. He's a, he's a bullshit artist. He's dangerous, but they're afraid to say it. We're conservative Elites where the Hindenburg on hindenburg's and hugenberg. Was that his name the right. Now? These people personally didn't like Hitler. But I mean, do they think that he was You know, he's a little bit check. But if we control him, you know, that brings us a certain electoral prowess and Lee, right? That that's their calculus. But the thing is, is we're living in a democratic World. These out, these conservatives. They don't, they don't have the voters know, they don't have a national Army of activists, right? They don't have a tight discipline organized party organization that funds itself. He's not being funded by capitalists. And they didn't have the press, and they could never get 250,000 people
out on the street. And so, they misunderstood Democratic politics. Hitler did not misunderstand Democratic politics. He knew exactly where we're power lies in 1933, and it lies in these Democratic means and ways. And so the Elites at no chance whatsoever. I mean, maybe the military and so on, but on the whole Hitler represented. New world of democratic politics for anti-republican ends, but this is, this is this is what constitutes power in the 1930s and they didn't understand that. And they therefore, they would be just swamped by him. But still they preferred, they still prefer the Third Reich to find more to fight, right? Maybe all the way until their apartments in Berlin, got bombed, November 1943, or singers. There is so much new ones, too. Two Democratic electoral small, D Democratic electoral politics or lack thereof. You talk to him, you know, the reichstag elections, right in 33. Is that right? Within 33, right? That the Nazis hit the Nazis did Carrie Berlin, but was only 52 48.
In other words. There was a sort of Cosmopolitan, right? Almost like anti-hitler vote in that one city. Obviously, they were not the country went bananas, but it Seemed like write that in like, you know, the way that like the majority of London, didn't vote for brexit, or, you know, big coastal cities didn't vote for Trump. It's, you know, that's true. I mean, that kindness and along. Is that an analog? Would you say to? Yeah, I mean, the Communists and socialists did better than the Nazis alone in Berlin, right. On the other hand, 50% of the Nazi votes, in Berlin, come from working class districts, right? It's there's two ways to see the Nazis are the plurality party, you know, the biggest party. In most precincts and in many, many precincts, of course there the majority party, but either way it gives them a sense of authority to now take control, right? And the Socialist and communist aren't working together either. So the Nazis are the people with the act action and although they don't
have 50%, in many places. They do have the plurality and that allows them the legitimacy and gives them the number simply just take over. Then people are intimidated. Right? And so the democratic-republicans are intimidated by the primary voters and and we'll go along and that. That's exactly what happened. Maybe you had a certain, you know, Vance in Ohio is a very good example. I mean, he has all sorts of there's a history of him speaking in principle against Trump, but for his constituency, See, but now it's hard to say what's opportunism. And what's desire as he repositions himself. And that's just the way it is. This is the new world of Republican politics and that's the primary voter. And so far. They have not been punished. I mean Trump lost by less than he won in 2016. So, I mean, that, with the popular vote, which is hugely important. But he looked like he lost my twice as much in 2020 is in 2016 with the popular vote. But if you're playing our game with the Electoral College, his
loss was even narrower than his win. If you have three states, 45 thousand votes and they left right before it was 75,000. So, there's the, the punishment has not been exact it on the party. It's only in their heart of hearts and their, you know, like Lynne Cheney and so on. And I always wonder what do their kids say, but I think their kids are all with them too. Well, I mean, yeah, they're kids are with him. I mean, II think that, you know, there's been such a perversion of what it means to be an American and what our system is, and what our values are. And we've social media combined with, you know, an American dream, that hasn't manifested for people combined. You know, about this, just the huge amount of information people and disinformation that people can consume. I think has allowed people just to create, I don't think I know and their own reality. So if somebody comes along and says, there's a deep State, you know, and they're after you or you know, truck is, you know, the, it's
the Democrats that are going to take everything away from you or with that was also the case in Germany. I mean, you have two different worlds. You have a nationalist world in the Socialist World. They are two soccer clubs. They two chess club's, sometimes they had to volunteer fire companies and these people lived, you know, obviously they met in the marketplace once in a while, but they lived in very, very different worlds. The
I tell you a story. I are good neighbors in our summer house in New Hampshire. We found out they were Republican and we love them very much and still do and they saw the surprise on our face. And then the first thing that the guy says, and I love him. I mean, he's a wonderful guy and I defend him against his hippie, son in Brooklyn and and he says, you know, we never grew up with blacks. I didn't bring that up. He's explaining this divide and why he's a republican. You know, that's it at all. They don't understand the Democratic party and then, that the Democratic party does these things for others, and not for us. And I don't think that, that's necessarily, you know, typical for every Republican, but I found that hugely interesting. Well, I mean, I think you. Yeah, I mean, you know, you have like I'm saying, you know, one of the things that's happened, you know, with Fox News, especially, but with conservative media is initially, it was the anxiety right? About about the Browning of America
and now it's just Full Throttle. I mean now it's very full throttle and that makes it more dangerous. So it's less dangerous because it's sort of Western Pennsylvania, but it's more dangerous because there is an identifiable and real - against what you say, the Browning of America, which, which is true and it's there. And it's in front of us. There is no Jewish takeover of the Varma Republic in 1933. Oh, and so this real live racism. Yeah, not necessary. Practice, you know, in every moment of the day, but still this is experience seeing constantly reinforced.
It makes it more dangerous in the United States because we have, we have a real divide on real things going all the way back to the Civil War and Germany. If you if you put put that into Jews. Non-jews that that that that just doesn't exist. No, no, no doesn't exist. And so it's more dangerous in that sense. It's more dangerous than the United States. So it is. No it is did you did your friends in New Hampshire? Do they obviously See, they voted for Trump. Is that what they don't know? The discussion was from 2012 or 2013? Oh 2012. Yeah. Well, I think personally, they don't like Trump, right? May not have voted for him. But it just is where they're coming from and how they can misunderstand Democrats or not misunderstand Democrats. I not expecting Republicans to agree with Democrats, but to assign them a place. That is almost devilish. You know, they're the enemy not the opposite, loyal opposition. I know that's the corrosion of our politics. I mean it gives me I'm an independent. Okay.
I've tended to vote Democratic side. I don't think I've had much of a choice given me offerings, but the collapse of what used to basically be a Cent and went through obviously many changes in history, a center-right party into this. Bargain Basement, you know, phony populist, racial racially-charged cult is Scary to me. In other words, John McCain and Mitt Romney are not Donald Trump. I didn't vote for them. But that's not the same thing, you know, and I don't think it's healthy for America to be have the Democratic party, which might be clumsy and napped in on the right side of many issues, not all. And then an authoritarian cult as an opposition because you'd only have two parties mean clearly. And when you don't, I'll tell you this, you know, drawing about Germany you talk about a parliamentary system, you know, which is 4 5 part 6. That's why it blurs. 40% was huge. That's right, but we have exactly we have this system and it's a false equivalency to say that the Democrats have moved
to the left and the Republicans have moved to the right. The Republicans have really done the movement, and they've also hit a different level and maybe not in Illinois, where the party is still relatively sober. But in most places and they've hit a level where it's really The enemy they're willing to play nasty games and Wellington boot for Putin to own the lives, you know, enough of them. Exactly. A failure of individual. Those Biden's is doing tremendous. I haven't seen this kind of unified International Leadership since Bush and Baker in the first Gulf War in my lifetime, but I mean, I think there's very little to, to get to accuse Biden of doing wrong on this particular Russia. Well, he doesn't have a strong car. Deck of cards, you know what I mean? Meet us there. Still the party is still saying he's a failure and everything's going wrong and it's his fault. And that is the Republican party. I mean, it is is, you know, you start hearing Condi rice saying that she's never seen NATO
this unified, you start, you just, you know, if you go to Swift and if you take out the Swift accounts, for the ability of the Russians, then the Swiss have now started an embargo, which means the Swiss. Hello. They go. They were position the Swiss man that Nazi drug did that Swiss were always said, you know, we work six days a week for the Nazis and on the seventh we pray for their defeat but six is more than one and notes and amazing Coalition. And the Swift thing is very much the the key here, which was not what they were going to do in 2014. So they're there but you can't get into nuclear war. Now, and so Putin's the theater about putting everything on alert yesterday. Got the White House to respond in a very, very careful under way underrated, you know, underhanded quiet way. Yes, and that's the right thing to do. What are we going to do? Can we cannot accidentally get into a nuclear war? Wow, and it's gluten who's going to be pushing the button. Not us. If he did, by the way, I think
he would do a missile launch into the ocean to show what Can do, but what's behind him. Now, a lot of people have said that he's a little unhinged and you just have to look at the long table and which he sits with his generals with my call and so on. But there is a sense of Russian agreement. They did get an oral response promise that the NATO borders wouldn't maybe except for Poland, hit the Russian border and if it is NATO right on Russia. Borders, of course, it could also be tactical nuclear weapons and and then Russian speakers in the Baltic countries as well as in Ukraine have not always been dealt with fairly. And so the sense of aggrievement is not ludicrous, right? And no one is going to be a bully without a sense of aggrievement. Every bully is a is underneath an anti-bullying. It has been feels as he's been bullied, you know, right, you know, I know and I now I am very Interesting. I was in ask you, I read in the Washington Post and I thought you could weigh in on this. It was
three or four days ago the author of the article. So the article is Putin's attack on Ukraine. Echoes Hitler's. Takeover of Czechoslovakia. The Nazi leader, use similar tactics to dismember and devours was Rocky before WWII. It's abide by Michael E. Ruane. Are you a any under that? It's anyway, their argument is basically that, you know Hitler, you know claim that That millions of Germans were getting us screwed and persecuted in Czechoslovakia and the student land or whatever. And that, you know, he it was there. So, you know, and and they weren't take more as much of it as they could. And so and so forth and and, and they had to take over Czechoslovakia in order to protect Germany, you know, it wasn't just a wanted to was essential, right? Well, he's conflating two things. You see when arguing I'm not that we do taking over Czechoslovakia. Taking over the german-speaking parts of Czechoslovakia. Even if it's Czechoslovakia as a defensive perimeter is one thing and that was done in a for
power agreement. So it's the checks were in part of this agreement. This was Germany, Italy, France, and Britain, and it was a very accelerated timetable, but people said, okay, if this is the way we're going to have peace but no one said that Prague was disrupting. Anything except giving denying these Germans their rights, but then they became Germans inside the right then Hitler takes over proc in March 1939, but this is not that because Putin saying that Ukraine is not see he's attacking Kiev. Yeah, so he's not protecting, only the Russian speakers who may or may not want to be part of Russia. The lenski himself comes from there and his Russian speaking and there's a great Paradox, you know, the premise of the invasion is Ukraine and Russia belong together and they shouldn't be pulled apart by you, you and NATO politics, but the practice of the invasion is to kill fellow ukrainians. Of course, it's a total contradiction. Yeah and poot. But Putin is saying, you know that, you know, Ukraine
is committing genocide, you know, Hitler was saying that too. About about Chuck's Ibaka. Yes, you are. Yes. And then Poland. Yeah. And then Poland and that and of course, you know, you know, Putin seizing, you know, Crimea and and and then, you know, invading Georgia before that, a new sort of been long in the coming and I wonder if I mean, nobody knows Putin's and gate and I only say this in relation to your expertise, on Hitler, even Hitler's Hitler wanted to, you know, all of Western Europe. And as much as he could to fall under Nazism is is This is speculating. It is is Putin sort of eyeing us a sort of stalinist represe of sort of gobbling back up the old spheres of info satellite countries, you know, do I know he doesn't want, Lithuania, Latvia Estonia. Now, NATO countries, that are on his border to be an 80. He doesn't like that, he, they were, he's never gotten over the loss of them, you know, from the Soviet Union stick to my. So I'm not the right person to ask because I didn't
think he would invade the Ukraine taking over assets. In Georgia or taking over Crimea as one thing, and then you would suddenly find all these experts on TV disagreeing with each other. And so, this is this does not find disagreement. But the Ukraine was part of Russia. It was part of tsarist Russia in a way that the Macho Poland wasn't, and he's not going to go after Finland. So they're joining Midwife, but that's what's at stake. I don't think he's going to gobble up Poland and I don't think he's going to gobble up the Baltic countries. What he wants is these countries to go into neutrality the he wants them to sign agreements that they're not part of NATO that the Ukraine won't be part of NATO. He wants but he does want also to resurrect a lot that was there in 1991. He says that was the biggest geopolitical disaster for the Soviet for Russia in the 20th century. Yeah, that's right. I mean, you know and then you know things change things change in 30 years, you know, Ukraine became
an independent sovereign country and the West promised them protection. If they gave up their nukes, I mean sure it has an ancestral part of Russia or ancestral in historical. Part of Russia. We can say that a lot of countries. I mean what I mean is NATO as an alliance was is a defensive Alliance initially conceived as a cold war idea. And ironically NATO is yet again a defensive alliance against the Russian Federation. More so now than ever, I think in some ways, Putin doesn't know what his endgame is in. His endgame has been changed over the last four days because two things have happened Ukrainian resistance, right? Has in fact, given some backbone to the rest of the world to do things that they wouldn't have done last Wednesday. Yeah, but they're doing it today and so he's got a, he's got a thing in China. For example, China doesn't want the world. In turmoil and War. Yeah, China wants the freight trip. Freight ships sailing the oceans back forth. Well, China's done a very bad job of
being a capitalist communist. If you ask me, you know, in terms in terms of their ideology versus the amount amount and they're craving for economic economic power. I mean, you know what I would say this, you know WWII does leave its effects. Yes, it does. And what why did America will allow so many? Immigrants in 2015. Why are we so appalled, at what Putin is doing? He's the first person to invade Ukraine since Hitler in 1941, right? Why are people even in Russia demonstrating? However, and small numbers they are because we have learned certain lessons right from World War Two. It doesn't mean that states have learned those lessons. And doesn't mean that Putin who, by the way, lost a brother. He never met in World. War Two has learned those lessons. Yes, but a lot of people are thinking in these terms, Ukraine for many, for many reasons, at least, 10-15 years ago was was racist, was anti-semitic. You could talk about nationalists there, but that does not justify a Russian invasion. 15
years later after Ukraine has made some changes and as a Jewish prime minister egg. Totally. What I want to do is we reach as we come get near the end. Here is I wanted to talk to you all. So because we're having this discussion basically about, you know, Hitler the Nazis in tyranny, the idea of tyranny, you know? And and every and and the idea that everybody you hate is Hitler, this idea of what they call Godwin's law, right? That every discussion ends up being about Hitler, what if you have to? And I know you've thought about this, you know, I mean Donald Trump is clearly not Adolf Hitler. I mean, for a lot of ways, it doesn't mean he's not dangerous but He's not Hitler. What? If anything in real, what? Real analogues are there right now? To Nazi Germany. When that mean without Hyperbole and partisanship. I mean, would you would you say that? You know, history doesn't repeat it Rhymes. You know what rhymes? Well, what rhymes is that? You have a deeply partisan partisan divide in this
country, right? It's not everywhere, but it's deep enough. To mobilize our Parliament that rhymes with 1933 that you have an ethnic nationalism that animates the right that rhymes. You have. Can you have enough Elites many many fewer in the United States but enough Elites who are willing to cut the corners of procedure and tradition. Yep, in order to gain the content that they want. Yeah, I would say that rhymes and you and you have a self-styled demagogue who understands who thinks he understands
how political strategy works and how he can mobilize people that rhymes. The thing is Hitler still only got forty percent and you know, most Trump voters. I don't think would want. Their daughters to be married to his son's, right, but that's the question. I'd like to gallop people to you. Meet you mean, would you does this person whom you would? You have your daughter Mary, Trump Sons? Well, you know, it's interesting and obviously we're going to wrap up but I don't not point. I have spy. I engaged a lot of people I believe in open debate and I met many people. Recently and people I know who I call them even agnostic politically, but either hated Hillary went for Trump or thought, Joe Biden was demented, or whatever is no excuse. I can't believe they'd vote for him. But one of the things they say is, look Trump's an idiot. I hate him. He's awful. He's despicable. He's uncouth but like his policies. Well, I mean, you didn't I mean, you know, I mean, I've heard that it's this is anecdotal,
of course, but I've heard that right well, but it doesn't matter because because because they still vote for him and you could say I don't like, you know what I say to try and understand this whole period of Hitler, it was possible to hate the Nazis and love the Third Reich, possible to hate the Nazis and love the Third Reich. Well, I will tell you then America is staring at a deep dark abyss. A Chasm that may not be bringing. Apple because it is very possible for people to loathe trumpian politics and character, but not, but a door, the policies you just have to see what he did with the Supreme Court. It's the most prime example, and is Mitch McConnell and so on the prime example not playing by the rules, right? No, it's true. And if you're willing, if you're willing to get your content at that price, then you have switched from limb, you've switched. Over to a liberalism and authoritarianism and if that's the policies you like, I don't care whether you think Trump is Despicable, you positioned
yourself in a anti-constitutional position. Yeah. I know people think that this is a buffet. It's not, you know, there's no Olive cart here. It's all in. You know, it's a full meal, you get the whole thing and you can't not have. You can't just say, I want the meat but I hate the potatoes, you're getting the whole kit and caboodle. Our well listen, Professor Peter, a fritsche. Thank you so much for this. Let me give you another plug here. His book has many books. But his latest book is Hitler's. First hundred days when Germans embrace the Third Reich, a powerful, very insightful, very important book. I would say, told with a sort of narrative grip, but really, really, really important as we see and Illiberal World emerge, liberal World emerge, and in America, sliding fast and furiously toward the same kind of are liberalism that we've seen globally. And that we see Putin doing and obviously there's variations on this theme, but Peter I think your book does a lot to remind people, you know,
of all that goes into claiming power and how that? How power can collapse pretty? Quickly, if people write our and themselves are complicit and here we are. So I really, really appreciate you coming on and I hope to have you back. Great. Well, great pleasure and you take care. Adam. Thanks beer.