Facism Page 2
Click on Book for Amazon
At the end of the twentieth century, many believed the story of European political development had come to an end. Modern democracy began in Europe, but for hundreds of years it competed with various forms of dictatorship. Now, though, the entire continent was in the democratic camp for the first time in history.
In the United States, democracy is under attack by an authoritarian movement that has found fertile ground among the country’s conservative politicians and voters, but similar movements have found homes in the hearts and minds of people around the globe. To understand the shape, form, and stakes of this assault, we must go back to extract lessons from our past..
Nazism triumphed in Germany during the high era of Jim Crow laws in the United States. Did the American regime of racial oppression in any way inspire the Nazis? The unsettling answer is yes. In Hitler's American Model, James Whitman presents a detailed investigation of the American impact on the notorious Nuremberg Laws, the centerpiece anti-Jewish legislation of the Nazi regime.
Berman, Sheri. Democracy and Dictatorship in Europe: From the Ancien Régime to the Present Day (p. 15). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
Introduction
Understanding modern european political development requires understanding the ancien régime (French for "old rule"). It was the system against which revolutionaries in France rebelled in 1789, and its characteristics shaped the nature of the French Revolution and the course of subsequent French political development. As Tocqueville pointed out over a century and a half ago, “without a clear idea of the old regime . . . it is impossible to comprehend” either the French Revolution “or the history of the . . . years following its fall. What then, was the ancien régime? Although today the term refers to any regime that no longer exists, originally “ancien régime” referred to the order that existed in France before the French Revolution. Indeed, the term itself dates from this great upheaval: it seems to have first been used in a 1788 pamphlet the ancien régime: it was the system against which revolutionaries in France rebelled in 1789, and its characteristics shaped the nature of the French Revolution and the course of subsequent French political development. As Tocqueville pointed out over a century and a half ago, “without a clear idea of the old regime . . . it is impossible to comprehend” either the French Revolution “or the history of the . . . years following its fall.” What, then, was the ancien régime? Although today the term refers to any regime that no longer exists, originally “ancien régime” referred to the order that existed in France before the French Revolution. Indeed, the term itself dates from this great upheaval: it seems to have first been used in a 1788 pamphlet celebrating the new regime that was about to be born with the meeting of the Estates-General.3 The nature of the ancien régime is difficult for us to understand today. It was, most obviously, a political dictatorship—an absolutist monarchy, where subjects owed loyalty to a hereditary king whose rule was justified by the “divine right of Kings”—the belief that the king was God’s representative.
Stanley, Jason. Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future (p. XII). Atria/One Signal Publishers. Kindle Edition.
Preface
One lesson the past century has taught us is that authoritarian regimes often find history profoundly threatening. At every opportunity, these regimes find ways of erasing or concealing history in order to consolidate their power. Why is this? What does history do that is so disruptive of authoritarian goals? Perhaps most importantly, it provides multiple perspectives on the past. Authoritarianism’s great rival, democracy, requires the recognition of a shared reality that consists of multiple perspectives. Through exposure to multiple perspectives, citizens learn to regard one another as equal contributors to a national narrative. And they learn, we learn, to accept that this narrative is open to continued collective reflection and re-imagination, constantly taking into account new ideas, new evidence, new perspectives and theoretical framings. History in a democracy is not static, not mythic, but dynamic and critical. Erasing history helps authoritarians because doing so allows them to misrepresent it as a single story, a single perspective. But it is impossible to erase a perspective entirely. When authoritarians attempt to erase history, they do so through education, by purging certain narratives from the curricula taught in democracy is not static, not mythic, but dynamic and critical. Erasing history helps authoritarians because doing so allows them to misrepresent it as a single story, a single perspective. But it is impossible to erase a perspective entirely. When authoritarians attempt to erase history, they do so through education, by purging certain narratives from the curricula taught in schools, and perhaps by forbidding their telling at home. However, authoritarians cannot erase people’s lived experiences, and their legacies written into the bones of generations. In this simple fact lies always the possibility of reclaiming lost perspectives.
Whitman, James Q.. Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (p. 2). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition. x
Introduction
On June 5, 1934, about a year and a half after Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of the Reich, the leading lawyers of Nazi Germany gathered at a meeting to plan what would become the Nuremberg Laws, the notorious anti-Jewish legislation of the Nazi race regime. The meeting was chaired by Franz Gürtner, the Reich Minister of Justice, and attended by officials who in the coming years would play central roles in the persecution of Germany’s Jews. Among those present was Bernhard Lösener, one of the principal draftsmen of the Nuremberg Laws; and the terrifying Roland Freisler, later President of the Nazi People’s Court and a man whose name has endured as a byword for twentieth-century judicial savagery. The meeting was an important one, and a stenographer was present to record a verbatim transcript, to be preserved by the ever-diligent Nazi bureaucracy as a record of a crucial moment in the creation of the new race regime. That transcript reveals the startling fact that is my point of departure in this study: the meeting involved detailed and lengthy discussions of the law of the United States. In the opening minutes, Justice Minister Gürtner presented a memo on American race law, which had been carefully prepared by the officials of the ministry for purposes of the gathering; and the participants returned repeatedly to the American models of racist legislation in the course of their discussions. It is particularly startling to discover that the most radical Nazis present were the most ardent champions of the lessons that American approaches held for Germany.