I cited Time (and The New Yorker) as a single example of the consensus.
Yes, you cited one conservative publication - unless you're trying to make the case that The New Yorker was a conservative publication, which is silly. That one publication got it wrong doesn't mean much.
Henry Luce saw the Nazis precisely the way everybody else at the time saw the Nazis. And he was not prone to the "enemy of my enemy fallacy" as his distaste for Joseph McCarthy indicates.
If he has a distaste for McCarthy, that kind of proves my point - being anti-Communist trumped being anti-fascist.
As for Henry Ford -- oh come now. I've posted facts that indicate the Nazis admired Ford for his anti-Semitism.
Nazis, yes. Hitler? Didn't appear to be a top reason, although I'm positive it didn't hurt.
And the fact that Jonah Goldberg says something does not make it "a fact." During his trial in 1923, a witness referred to Hitler's admiration for Henry Ford as "a great individualist and a great anti-Semite."
"A witness." For what it's worth, Goldberg's sourcing has been better than yours on this, and he's not trying to perpetuate the "fascist = right" myth, so I'm prone to take his scholarship more seriously at this point.
What "friend of my enemy" are you talking about here? Franco was a fascist. The leftists then as now were sworn enemies of fascism. The Spanish Civil war was regarded then and remembered now as a battle between leftism and fascism. Franco was not a "friend of leftism's enemy." He was the enemy.
Again, being anti-Communist trumped being anti-fascist. Keep in mind the American mindset of the time, which was significantly reversed during the war.
The book doesn't talk about important facts that disprove its silly premise.
Assuming it disproves anything, sure. You call it important - that doesn't make it so.
What Goldberg is doing is lying his fool head off and counting on young readers not knowing anything about the Third Reich.
Odd, then, that so many people who know so much about the Third Reich agree with his premise.
And the Nazi ideology on women, race, labor unions, and art put them firmly on the side of the right.
Highly disputable.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Re: Shortened Version of What I Posted back in 2008:
Date: 1/10/10 16:51 (UTC)Yes, you cited one conservative publication - unless you're trying to make the case that The New Yorker was a conservative publication, which is silly. That one publication got it wrong doesn't mean much.
Henry Luce saw the Nazis precisely the way everybody else at the time saw the Nazis. And he was not prone to the "enemy of my enemy fallacy" as his distaste for Joseph McCarthy indicates.
If he has a distaste for McCarthy, that kind of proves my point - being anti-Communist trumped being anti-fascist.
As for Henry Ford -- oh come now. I've posted facts that indicate the Nazis admired Ford for his anti-Semitism.
Nazis, yes. Hitler? Didn't appear to be a top reason, although I'm positive it didn't hurt.
And the fact that Jonah Goldberg says something does not make it "a fact." During his trial in 1923, a witness referred to Hitler's admiration for Henry Ford as "a great individualist and a great anti-Semite."
"A witness." For what it's worth, Goldberg's sourcing has been better than yours on this, and he's not trying to perpetuate the "fascist = right" myth, so I'm prone to take his scholarship more seriously at this point.
What "friend of my enemy" are you talking about here? Franco was a fascist. The leftists then as now were sworn enemies of fascism. The Spanish Civil war was regarded then and remembered now as a battle between leftism and fascism. Franco was not a "friend of leftism's enemy." He was the enemy.
Again, being anti-Communist trumped being anti-fascist. Keep in mind the American mindset of the time, which was significantly reversed during the war.
The book doesn't talk about important facts that disprove its silly premise.
Assuming it disproves anything, sure. You call it important - that doesn't make it so.
What Goldberg is doing is lying his fool head off and counting on young readers not knowing anything about the Third Reich.
Odd, then, that so many people who know so much about the Third Reich agree with his premise.
And the Nazi ideology on women, race, labor unions, and art put them firmly on the side of the right.
Highly disputable.