First, I did not mention the Soviets, not because I consider them benign or revolutionary or anything but because I was aiming more at countries that had a semblance of Democracy before the 20th century; the czarist reforms were probably too little and too late. Pilsudki I also omitted not because he was not a dictator but because he was considered a rather "benevolent" one.
I understand and agree. Was a bit confused prior.
Galton and Kellog were not instigators of a dictatorial regime, indeed, but propagated ideas that today are identified with the Nazi regime. Ideas do not happen in a vacuum either.
Agreed, particularly when you factor in that many free nations did dabble in the insanity of eugenics years or even decades after the fall of the Axis powers revealed the lovely problems with that sort of thinking. To say nothing of the "lovely" cases of Apartheid South Africa or Rhodesia, with at least the former being a genuine case of a free democratic republic... so long as you're of a certain ethnicity based on state repression and violence against all others ("all others" including *the actual majority) of the population...).
I will have to question the notion of "equality" here.
I'm not altogether sure what you mean, even after the fact.
I do not imply that proponents of eugenics were mass murderers
Well, maybe not by definition, but I think that a good argument can be made for at last a number of them (especially Sanger, Kellog, etc. al.) even thought it was passive or through more morally fuzzy methods than *put gun to back of the head pull trigger which must serve as some mitigating factor. To say nothing of the guys who unconditionally were, like Himmler, Mussolini, etc. al.
but I don't think numbers alone can be the exclusive criterion for the nature of a regime; for example the Japanese were far less efficient in exterminating "subhumans" but that neither masks their determination to do so, nor the cruelty of their methods.
Agreed, though with a bit of qualification. To put it bluntly, the Japanese leadership of WWII couldn't agree on whether or not they *liked* themselves; nevermind much else. Unlike in Nazi Germany, I am not sure the Japanese leadership ever arrived at much of a firm consensus of WTH they qualified as a "subhuman" beyond a few generalities (Caucasians, Africans, and general disapproval of a LOT of their so-called "brother Asians", which swung back an forth in intensity based on how badly PO'd they were with them at a given time). I'd have to say that part of the reason for the lack of efficiency on their part actually stemmed from problems with determination due to the myriad circle-jerk arguments they tended to have amongst themselves over what actually qualified as subhuman in their eyes. And furthermore what would be considered *enough*: whether you had to actually kill them all, or whether it would be good enough to just "Japanize" them.
The Nazis, Fascist Italians, Soviets, and a number of others had their problems, but when you compare them they look like models of clarity compared to the Japanese government's problems. Which in no way mitigates the brutality of their methods, the human tragedy they caused, or the fact that they did intend to do it. It's just that they were nooowhere near as clear about it as most of their contemporaries.
But in your main point we do not disagree. Hitler was a German phenomenon, concocted by German circumstances which cannot be viewed outside a European (or even global) pathology. Why this pathology found the probably most extreme expression in Germany is related with the post 1870 state of affairs in Weimar.
Agreed.
This is as false a dilemma as it gets. Do you seriously imply that the persecution of political opponents (that was soon to escalate to outright murder) by a bunch of thugs was somewhat positive because some of the political opponents had the hypothetical potential to become thugs themselves?
Apart from that, the Nazi party persecuted opponents along the whole political spectrum like Social Democrats and the Center Party. That of course before persecuting everyone it attracted its attention not excluding his own members.
Sorry to drop in for a bit, but I feel obliged to play Devil's Advocate and nitpick one point: the KPD as a whole on an institutional level could already be called thugs. Thalmann etc. al. had geared their party to revolutionary violence without completely going underground or withdrawing from the normal political process (in order to keep drumming up support).
I don't think they would've avoided taking power if the electoral process would've allowed them to that way, but I also don't think they ever seriously saw it as their primary road to power. Which was why they invested so much time trying to "win the streets" and spread revolutionary violence using their paramilitaries in the hopes of creating proper conditions for a Communist revolution (or coup). It's worth noting that one of the great, unheralded stepping stones on Hitler's road to Fuhrer was how in the 1931 he recalled Roehm from his military advisor "exile in the wilderness" in Bolivia and over the course of 1931 and '32 they led the SA to pretty decisive victory in "the streets" over the Communist and pro-Communist paramilitaries.
It's important because this basically crippled the KPD as a force that could dictate German politics... or stand in Hitler's way. They had invested so much in reovlutionary violence that they weren't prepared for someone being able to outdo them in it, and while they remained a potent electoral force (oh the irony) through sheer inertia and popularity, '32 basically saw them screwed.
Again, just a Devil's Advocate clarification, particularly since the Nazis absolutely did not care about which ones were actually involved in trying to destroy the republic or not. Just that the KPD was already heavily "thuggish" to begin with.
NRohiriim: I will try to be as polite and thorough as I can. However, the false dillema in particular is grating.
I myself would make the argument that it is *possible* that the March '33 election could be taken as *reasonably* free enough to count as a reasonable expression of German sentiment. NOT because I believe the use of terror tactics, intimidation, or murder is a valid electoral tactic, but IN SPITE of those methods being utilized by the Nazis, just like I would support the legitimacy of the previous Weimar elections IN SPITE OF the atrocities committed by the Nazis, the Communists, and other radicals. HOWEVER, I can see why many others would take a far harder line than I. No matter how you put it, the 1933 elections were fatally undermined.
It is one of THE most essential parts of democratic and republican tradition that in order for an election to be valid, it must not be compromised by intimidation, corruption, or rigging. In practice, it is impossible to completely remove any of the three in even the fairest and best of systems. But they can be reduced to being effectively irrelevant. Suffice it to say that the Reichstag elections of March 1933 were compromised even on the poor level of Weimar elections. They were not free of intimidation, as shown by the rampant Nazi abuses well outside of anything that could be justified. They were not free of rigging, as shown by how the emergency powers passed in January were used to squelch the organs of free government. They were thoroughly illegitimate by "virtue" that it is impossible for an electorate as a whole to freely voice their opinions in such a circumstance, and whatever legitimacy they *might* command comes not BECAUSE of such abuses, but IN SPITE of them.
You could have argued this point, but instead you are trying to shoehorn us into the most repugnant of choices: that between a Nazi totalitarian state and a Communist totalitarian state. It is MY DUTY as a free person to proudly say NEITHER!
Come back when you are willing to debate this honestly.
Just to keep that documented: Your argument is that because the Axis set the standards for brutality the Allies had to outshine them in that field? But you do realize that, by all rules of logic, your argumentation would make the Allies even worse than the Axis....
If you meant to make yourself sound buffonish you succeeded. For future reference, refrain from putting words in peoples' mouths and making rash and indefensible leaps in...well, I guess you can call it "logic." They do nothing but make you look like an idiot.
At no point did he or any of the rest of us argue that the Axis set the standards of brutality, and thus the Allies had to EXCEED it. At no point did we argue that the Allies (excepting maybe a few "special cases" like the USSR and China) DID exceed them. We merely pointed out that International law is not a suicide pact! There was a reason why the Germans were not the only faction of WWI to utilize poison gas even though they were the ones to break international law and deploy them first.
BTW, strategic mass bombing by Russia? Can't recall when and where?
Mainly from 1942 onwards, and mainly against Germany and its' allies' home territories. Nothing quite like the mass Western Allied bombings, but they certainly did as much as their relatively modest capacities allowed them to.
That's what rules are for: to prevent people from doing things that might give them an advantage, or from which they expect an advantage, but that would be a violation of the social standards of their culture.
Of course, warfare is easyer when you slaugther civilans at will and do whatever you like and might serve you best. But that's what (should) have made the difference between the Nazis and those that oppose them, shouldn't it?
This is the most wrongheaded comment I have read since Mr "Black and White" left this thread. No, believe it or not, the Rules of War do NOT subscribe to a "Tie your hands behind your back, even if it lets someone and punch or crowbar you to death" approach. It's called reciprocity, and it's a feature rather than a bug, and the reason why Geneva etc. al. have survived as long as they have. In the face of a power that is engaged in ruthless disregard for the laws and rules, the other powers are *allowed the choice* of responding in kind to a degree (as shown by how the Western Allied use of poison gas did not translate to genocide of the German peoples in the Rhineland after the wars). The alternative is to turn international law into a suicide pact, which only harms those that are party to it at the benefit of those that are not, and which would have Jean-Henri Dunant rolling in his grave.
ing 
