In the spring of 1985, as part of a trip to West Germany, US President Ronald Reagan paid a brief visit to a German military cemetery to lay a wreath. The cemetery, which is located near the city of Bitburg, contains the remains of German WWII soldiers, including members of the Waffen SS. The visit was surrounded by much controversy, and became a major public relations debacle for the administration. The whole thing was immortalized in song by The Ramones, who famously named their song "Bonzo goes to Bitburg", in homage to Reagan's role in the movie "Bedtime for Bonzo".
I bring this history up now because of some recent revelations about the man running as the Republican nominee for the seat in Ohio's 9th congressional district. The politician, Rich Iott, participates in historical military reenactments. Which would not seem to present much of a problem, except for the fact that Mr. Iott belonged to an organization called Wiking. Now, the fact that he has left the organization, doesn't list it on his resume, and the Wiking web site has taken down his name and photographs of him in uniform, definitely point to a certain awareness on Mr. Iott's part that this could be a major headache for a politician.
How big a headache is not yet clear, but suffice to say Mr. Iott will have his work cut out for him explaining this away. House minority whip Eric Cantor, who is the GOP's sole Jewish house member, moved quickly to distance himself from Iott. Past history would dictate that Iott will not be able to survive revelations of this nature. But, this is no ordinary election year and I wouldn't count him out just yet. Much more interesting then the fate of a Ohio congressional candidate is the fact that an organization like Wiking exists at all in this country.
In Germany, Austria, and perhaps France as well, wearing an SS uniform would get you arrested. There are quite strict laws pertaining to the symbols of the Third Reich and violations are treated seriously. Obviously, similar laws do not exist in the United States. However, there was a time when someone wearing a Nazi uniform in this country would be subject to scorn and abuse. They would need the protection of police and the interventions of the ACLU in order to assemble publicly. American Nazis were a fringe element given about the same amount of respect accorded the KKK.
What has changed? Well, for starters, Wiking is careful to draw a distinction between the Nazi Party, and the combat units that made up the German Army. In fact, the Waffen SS division that they glorify was largely made up of non-German volunteers from countries that Germany had conquered. They signed up to go and fight the Bolshevik threat from the east. Wiking stresses the fact that the division never fought against the Americans, only the Soviets. Given the fact that we engaged in a half-century long "Twilight Struggle" against the Soviet Union, such a distinction becomes quite useful.
Suffice to say, I doubt very many angry protesters are going to throw eggs and tomatoes at men armed with automatic weapons, even if they are firing blanks. Holocaust survivors are dying off at the same rate as are WWII combat veterans. Memories are fading and the constant name-calling on the part of pundits and politicians has effectively diluted whatever meaning words like "Nazi" and "Hitler" once had. If there is to be a resurgence of Nazi ideology, it will be here in America, not in Europe.
Do you really think Rich Lott is a Nazi? Are you really fearful of a Nazi uprising in the USA?
ReplyDeleteWe have a federal government that has actual Marxists, a President who attempts to put Marxists on our payroll, in powerful positions, and you fear a goofy person who dressed up is costumes, who has denied being a Nazi, does not support a "Nazi" agenda, and in fact is politically anti-big government, and anti-socialist, which would make him diametrically opposed to Hitler and his ilk.
I would liken this to civil war reenactment (noting of course that the Nazis movement was more recent and the attempt at genocide makes it a tad more sensitive an issue). I do not assume that those who reenact civil war battles and dawn a southern army uniform, are in support of reinstating slavery, or even seceding from the Union, although I might sympathize a bit with the latter position.
The guy is a bit weird, but I always thought men who join clubs such as the KKK (Bob Byrd), fraternities, the Masons, skull and bones, etc. were all a bit strange. If being weird were a disqualifier for government service, Washington would be an empty, quiet place
I find it more then a little ironic that Obama's critics on the right regularly label him a "Socialist" and compare him to Hitler. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck do it all the time, absent any actual evidence that Obama is indeed a Nazi. Protesters crudely put Hitler mustaches on Obama's image and scream that the president is a Nazi. Yet here we have a Republican candidate for Congress, who has been photographed on more then one occasion, wearing an SS uniform. But he's not a Nazi? Some consistency might be useful.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree that reenacting the exploits of an German SS Unit is as benign as you seem to believe it is. The images and symbols of the Third Reich are dangerous things. Why do you suppose that the display of them is criminalized in Germany? And please don't answer "political correctness". The bloody history of the 20th century barely touched America. Not so with Europe. They know only too well what that uniform represents. And, by the same token, I don't think that a Black person in this country finds much to appreciate in nostalgia for the Confederacy.
Lots of things are illegal in Germany. I am in hopes that we never base our rights on what is allowed or not allowed in Germany, or any other part of Europe for that matter.
ReplyDeleteWe did avoid much of the bloody history of the 20th century, luckily we were there to mop up the mess created by the nations of that continent.
Germany does not guaranty silly little things like Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Religion, among others. If Germany had these freedoms in place, I believe much of the "bloody history" would never occur.
Were you offended when Tom Cruise dawned a Nazi uniform? Did all the posters of a "hitlerized" G W Bush cause you such discomfort? Do reruns of Hogan's Heroes bother you? So many people wearing Nazi uniforms!
Hitler was a socialist, and Obama has clearly demonstrated, in words and actions, similar beliefs. The comparison, while not perfect, is not completely without merit.
The silliness of this whole affair is what stands out to me.
Slavery is as much a black-eye on the North as it is on the confederacy. Slavery would not have disappeared in the North so early, had the economy remained primarily agrarian, as it did in the south.
The north should climb down off its high horse on this matter. Even the celebrated Emancipation Proclamation failed to end slavery, it simply punished those soveriegn states who had the courage to secede. MD, KY and others were not covered under Lincoln's famed document.
Honest Abe's own words:"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it"
My sentimemts exactly Warren. Wearing a Nazi uniform does not a Nazi make. He is obviously a reanactor just like any civil war or WW2 reanactor would be. Somebody has to be the south as well as the Axis soldier to make a reanactment authentic. Cowboys and Indians anybody? Somebody had to be the indian (like when we were kids), or in this politically correct climate, the big bad capitalistic cowboy. Obama IS a National Socialist and trying to portray Lott as a Nazi based on his reenactment is rediculous at best. It just gives democrats cannon fodder for more dirty politics as usual. The issue is democrats are socialists, and republicans are not. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear. This administration has shown it's true colors and they are not blue, they are RED.
ReplyDeleteI'm confused. Is Obama a National Socialist or a Marxist? He is accused of being both things, yet they are completely different ideologies. The Nazis should more correctly be called Fascists. Under Hitler, private ownership of both capital and land was maintained. He didn't nationalize industries or anything like that. Mussolini described Fascism as a marriage between corporations and the state. There is no hard and fast rule that states that democracy is the natural form of government for a capitalist society.
ReplyDeleteSo, was Hitler truly a Socialist? Despite what he labeled his political party, the answer is no. Private enterprise and private land ownership existed in what we would today call a mixed economy. Some elements of socialism, but not a socialist economy. Much like what we have here in the United States. And that was the case long before Obama came on the scene.
The only thing exotic about Obama is his skin color. He is otherwise a conventional, somewhat left of center politician. I see no evidence to support any of the wild charges leveled against him. He is the second coming of Jimmy Carter, not Karl Marx...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHas any government or leader "truly" been a socialist or Marxist? Is there such a thing as purity when ideology is put into practice? I think not.
ReplyDeleteObama's own words, "spread the wealth" certainly carries the stench of socialist ideology.
Regarding Adolph Hitler, he had no need to take ownership of industry as he had de facto control of everything and every German citizen. He had total control of the money supply, trading a gold-backed currency for a labor-backed, and the threat of a very dangerous secret police, and having those ended the need for literal ownership. (Sound familiar?)
The "People's Car" was not a product dreamt up by Mr. Porsche, it was built on the orders of the government. So was Volkswagen a private or public organization?
Obama’s government has not taken ownership of most private industry (except with regard to a couple of major auto manufacturers), he has exerted power and used threats and bribes to take de facto control of industry, to the point that he has actually appointed management within the private sector. If another term than “socialist” would make everyone feel better,
All the discussion of "mixed economy" and when that economy crosses the line and becomes socialist or Marxist will be endless. There is no clear delineation. Although I am not aware of when an economy is ABSOLUTELY socialist, I can clearly see the path down which we are headed, and it is certainly not in a capitalist direction.
"Democracy", the colloquial, not the literal word, is definitely not the natural form of government for a capitalist or any society. The idea that a government's power is derived from the governed is not common and its practice is extremely rare.
Democracy is not natural; it is morally superior to other forms of government. For a free-market to exist, those trading in that market must certainly be free!!!
This is why the existence of liberty is so tenuous and freedom against tyrannical government must be constantly defended. All government tends to work towards elimination of the rights of the citizenry, often with good intentions, more often without.
I am not sure which description is more damaging to our President’s legacy, “The second coming of Karl Marx” or “The second coming of Jimmy Carter?”
I actually intended the Carter comparison to be a compliment. Lord knows, the man has his shortcomings as president, but he just looks better and better as time goes by. He took office in the wake of the twin shocks of Watergate and the fall of Saigon. The economy was on life support, and national confidence was badly shaken. Had the great Ronald Reagan been sworn on January 20, 1977, instead of four years later, his legacy would be an altogether different one. The Gipper is very fortunate that Ford was able to fend off his primary challenge in '76.
ReplyDeleteCarter's best years were yet to come when he left office in 1981. He has done nothing, but good works since then. His simple and unassuming way was what the American people thought they wanted in 1976. He promised to tell the truth, and after 10 years of Johnson and Nixon, that sounded pretty good. But, it turned out that the American people really don't want the truth when it it time to face uncomfortable facts. They would rather be told reassuring bedtime stories and Reagan was just the man for the job.
Obama assumed the presidency under very similar circumstances to those that Carter faced. He played no role in creating the mess that he inherited, but will get saddled with all of the blame if things don't turn around. And they most likely will not get much better, at least not in the short term. The Republicans will have an opportunity to take back the White House in two years. If they manage not to nominate someone like Palin, Beck, or Gingrich. Reagan was successful because of who he was, rather then anything substantial that he did. His personality was sunny and he was, by nature, an optimist. Always ready with a self-deprecating quip and a smile. He didn't traffic in raw ugly anger the way that his heirs do. Reagan had what they call "good bedside manners". The medicine went down a whole lot easier, even if much of what he was dispensing was nothing, but snake oil.