Podcasts about Nazi Party

Last time we spoke about the battle of Nanjing. In December 1937, as the battle for Nanjing unfolded, terror inundated its residents, seeking safety amid the turmoil. General Tang Shengzhi rallied the Chinese forces, determined to defend against the advancing Japanese army. Fierce fighting erupted at the Gate of Enlightenment, where the determined Chinese soldiers resisted merciless assaults while tragedy loomed. By mid-December, the Japanese made substantial advances, employing relentless artillery fire to breach Nanjing's defenses. Leaders called for strategic retreats, yet amid chaos and despair, many young Chinese soldiers, driven by nationalism, continued to resist. By December 13, Nanjing succumbed to the invaders, marking a tragic chapter in history. As destruction enveloped the city, the resilience of its defenders became a poignant tale of courage amidst the horrors of war, forever marking Nanjing as a symbol of enduring hope in the face of despair.   #168 The Nanjing Massacre Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. So obvious disclaimer, today we will be talking about, arguably one of if not the most horrific war atrocities ever committed. To be blunt, it may have been worse than some of the things we talked about back during the fall of the Ming Dynasty, when bandit armies raped and pillaged cities. The Nanjing Massacre as its become known is well documented by both Chinese and foreign sources. There is an abundance of primary sources, many well verified. Its going to be extremely graphic, I am going to try and tell it to the fullest. So if you got a weak stomach perhaps sit this one out, you have been warned. Chen Yiding began evacuating his troops from the area surrounding the Gate of Enlightenment before dawn on December 13. En route to Xiaguan, he took the time to visit a dozen of his soldiers housed in a makeshift hospital located in an old cemetery. These men were too severely injured to participate in the evacuation, and Chen had to leave them with only a few words of encouragement. Little did he know, within days, they would all perish in their beds, victims of the Japanese forces. Upon arriving in Xiaguan later that morning, Chen was met with grim news: his divisional commander had crossed the Yangtze River with his chief of staff the previous afternoon. Now, he was on his own. He didn't linger near the riverside chaos, quickly realizing there was nothing he could do there. Instead, he chose to move downstream, hoping to find a secure spot for himself and his soldiers to wait out the next few days before devising an escape from the war zone.  He was fortunate, for soon the Japanese would live up to their notorious reputation developed during their advance from Shanghai; they were not inclined to take prisoners. That afternoon, several hundred Chinese soldiers arrived at the northern end of the Safety Zone. The committee responsible for the area stated that they could offer no assistance. In a misguided attempt to boost morale, they suggested that if the soldiers surrendered and promised not to engage in combat, the Japanese would likely show them "merciful treatment." This optimism was woefully misplaced. Later that same day, Japanese troops entered the zone, dragging out 200 Chinese men, the majority of them soldiers, for execution just outside the city. On December 13, Japanese soldiers started patrolling the riverbank, shooting at anything and anyone floating downstream. Their comrades aboard naval vessels in the river cheered them on, applauding each time they struck another helpless victim in the water. Civilians were not spared either. While traveling through downtown Nanjing as the battle concluded, Rabe observed dead men and women every 100 to 200 yards, most of them shot in the back. A long line of Chinese men marched down the street, numbering in the hundreds, all destined for death. In a cruel twist, they were compelled to carry a large Japanese flag. They were herded into a vacant lot by a couple of Japanese soldiers and as recalled by American correspondent Archibald Steele "There, they were brutally shot dead in small groups. One Japanese soldier stood over the growing pile of corpses, firing into any bodies that showed movement." The killings commenced almost immediately after the fall of Nanjing. The victorious Japanese spread out into the city streets, seeking victims. Those unfortunate enough to be captured faced instant execution or were taken to larger killing fields to meet a grim fate alongside other Chinese prisoners. Initially, the Japanese targeted former soldiers, whether real or imagined, but within hours, the scope of victims expanded to include individuals of all age groups and genders. By the end of the first day of occupation, civilian bodies littered the streets of downtown Nanjing at a rate of roughly one per block. The defenseless and innocent were subjected to murder, torture, and humiliation in a relentless spree of violence that persisted for six harrowing weeks. At the time of the attack, Nanjing felt eerily abandoned, houses stood boarded up, vehicles lay toppled in the streets, and the once-ubiquitous rickshaws had vanished. However, hundreds of thousands remained hidden indoors, seeking refuge. The most visible sign of the city's new rulers was the display of the Japanese flag. On the morning of December 14, the Rising Sun flag was hoisted across the city, seen in front of private homes, businesses, and public buildings. Many of these flags were hastily made, often a simple white sheet with a red rag affixed, hoping to be spared. As the days progressed, horrifying accounts of violence began to emerge. A barber, the sole survivor among eight people in his shop when the Japanese arrived, was admitted to a hospital with a stab wound that had nearly severed his head from his body, damaging all muscles at the back of his neck down to his spinal canal. A woman suffered a brutal throat wound, while another pregnant woman was bayoneted in the abdomen, resulting in the death of her unborn child. A man witnessed his wife being stabbed through the heart and then saw his child hurled from a window to the street several floors below. These are but a few stories of individual atrocities committed. Alongside this there were mass executions, predominantly targeting young able-bodied men, in an effort to weaken Nanjing and deprive it of any potential resistance in the future. American professor, Lewis Smythe recalled “The disarmed soldier problem was our most serious one for the first three days, but it was soon resolved, as the Japanese shot all of them.” On the evening of December 15, the Japanese rounded up 1,300 former soldiers from the Safety Zone, binding them in groups of about 100 and marching them away in silence. A group of foreigners, permitted to leave Nanjing on a Japanese gunboat, accidentally became witnesses to the ensuing slaughter. While waiting for their vessel, they took a brief walk along the riverbank and stumbled upon a scene of mass execution, observing the Japanese shooting the men one by one in the back of the neck. “We observed about 100 such executions until the Japanese officer in charge noticed us and ordered us to leave immediately”. Not all killings were premeditated; many occurred impulsively. A common example was when Japanese soldiers led lines of Chinese POWs to holding points, tightly bound together with ropes. Every few yards, a Japanese soldier would stand guard with a fixed bayonet aimed at the prisoners as they trudged forward. Suddenly, one of the prisoners slipped, causing a domino effect as he fell, dragging down the men in front of and behind him. The entire group soon found themselves collapsed on the ground, struggling to stand. The Japanese guards lost their patience, jabbing their bayonets into the writhing bodies until none remained alive. In one of the largest massacres, Japanese troops from the Yamada Detachment, including the 65th Infantry Regiment, systematically executed between 17,000 and 20,000 Chinese prisoners from December 15 to 17. These prisoners were taken to the banks of the Yangtze River near Mufushan, where they were machine-gunned to death. The bodies were then disposed of by either burning or flushing them downstream. Recent research by Ono Kenji has revealed that these mass killings were premeditated and carried out systematically, in accordance with orders issued directly by Prince Asaka. A soldier from the IJA's 13th Division described killing wounded survivors of the Mufushan massacre in his diary “I figured that I'd never get another chance like this, so I stabbed thirty of the damned Chinks. Climbing atop the mountain of corpses, I felt like a real devil-slayer, stabbing again and again, with all my might. 'Ugh, ugh,' the Chinks groaned. There were old folks as well as kids, but we killed them lock, stock, and barrel. I also borrowed a buddy's sword and tried to decapitate some. I've never experienced anything so unusual”. Frequently, the Japanese just left their victims wherever they fell. Corpses began to accumulate in the streets, exposed to the elements and onlookers. Cars constantly were forced to run over corpses. Corpses were scavenged by stray dogs, which, in turn, were consumed by starving people. The water became toxic; workers in the Safety Zone discovered ponds clogged with human remains. In other instances, the Japanese gathered their machine-gunned or bayoneted victims into large heaps, doused them in kerosene, and set them ablaze. Archibald Steele wrote for the Chicago Daily News on December 17th “I saw a grisly scene at the north gate, where what was once a group of 200 men had become a smoldering mass of flesh and bones, so severely burned around the neck and head that it was difficult to believe he was still human.” During the chaos in the beginning, whereupon the Japanese had not yet fully conquered the city, its defenders scrambled desperately to escape before it was too late. Individually or in small groups, they sought vulnerabilities in the enemy lines, acutely aware that their survival hinged on their success. Months of conflict had trained them to expect no mercy if captured; previous experiences had instilled in them the belief that a swift death at the hands of the Japanese would be a fortunate outcome. On December 12, amid intense artillery fire and aerial bombardment, General Tang Sheng-chi issued the order for his troops to retreat. However, conflicting directives and a breakdown in discipline transformed the ensuing events into a disaster. While some Chinese units successfully crossed the river, a far greater number were ensnared in the widespread chaos that engulfed the city. In their desperation to evade capture, some Chinese soldiers resorted to stripping civilians of their clothing to disguise themselves, while many others were shot by their own supervisory units as they attempted to flee.Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of individual escape stories emerged from this period. In some rare instances, entire units, even up to divisional strength, successfully infiltrated Japanese lines to reach safety. For others, such as the 156th Division, there were detailed plans outlining escape routes from Nanjing. Several soldiers and officers adhered to this three-day trek, skillfully evading Japanese patrols until they reached Ningguo, located south of the capital. Nonetheless, these cases were exceptions. The vast majority of soldiers from China's defeated army faced significant risk and were more likely to be captured than to escape. Some of Chiang Kai-shek's most elite units suffered near total annihilation. Only about a thousand soldiers from the 88th Division managed to cross the Yangtze safely, as did another thousand from the Training Division, while a mere 300 from the 87th Division survived. Even for units like the 156th Division, the escape plans were only effective for those who learned of them. These plans were hurriedly disseminated through the ranks as defeat loomed, leaving mere chance to determine who received the information. Many stayed trapped in Nanjing, which had become a fatal snare. One day, Japanese soldiers visited schools within Nanjing's Safety Zone, aware that these locations sheltered many refugees. They called for all former soldiers to step forward, promising safety in exchange for labor. Many believed that the long days of hiding were finally coming to an end and complied with the request. However, they were led to an abandoned house, where they were stripped naked and bound together in groups of five. Outside, a large bonfire had been ignited. They were then bayoneted and, while still alive, thrown onto the flames. Only a few managed to escape and share the horrifying tale. The Japanese were of course well aware that numerous soldiers were hiding in Nanjing, disguised as locals, evidenced by the piles of military uniforms and equipment accumulating in the streets. Consequently, they initiated a systematic search for soldiers within hours of taking control. The Safety Zone was not spared, as the Japanese Army suspected that Chinese soldiers had sought refuge there. On December 16, they raided Ginling College, despite a policy prohibiting the admission of men, except for elderly residents in a designated dining room. The soldiers brought axes to force open doors that were not immediately complied with and positioned six machine guns on the campus, prepared to fire at anyone attempting to escape. Ultimately, they found nothing. In cases where they did encounter young men of military age, the soldiers lined them up, scrutinizing for distinct telltale features such as close-cropped hair, helmet marks, or shoulder blisters from carrying a rifle. Many men, who had never served in the military but bore callouses from hard manual labor, were captured based on the assumption that such marks indicated military experience. As noted by Goerge Fitch the head of Nanjing's YMCA “Rickshaw coolies, carpenters, and other laborers are frequently taken”. The Japanese employed additional, more cunning tactics to root out soldiers. During an inspection of a camp within the Safety Zone, they struggled to get the approximately 6,000 men and women to surrender. Before leaving, they resorted to one last trick. “Attention!” a voice commanded in flawless Chinese. Many young men, conditioned by months or years of military training, instinctively responded. Even though most realized their mistake almost immediately, it was too late; the Japanese herded them away. Given the scale of the slaughter, efforts were soon organized to facilitate the killing and disposal of as many individuals as possible in the shortest time. Rows of prisoners were mowed down by machine-gun fire, while those injured were finished off with single bullets or bayonets. Much of the mass murder occurred near the Yangtze River, where victims could be disposed of easily by being pushed into the water, hoping the current would carry them away.As the weeks progressed and the Japanese grew increasingly concerned about the possibility of former soldiers still at large, the dragnet tightened. Beginning in late December, Japanese authorities implemented a registration system for all residents of Nanjing. At Ginling College, this process lasted about a week and resulted in scenes of almost indescribable chaos, as the Japanese also decided to register residents from the surrounding areas on campus. First, the men were registered, followed by the women. Often, women attended the registration to help save their husbands and sons, who would otherwise have been taken as suspected former soldiers. Despite these efforts, a total of 28 men were ultimately seized during the registration process at Ginling College. Each individual who registered received a document from the authorities. However, it soon became clear that this paper provided little protection against the caprices of the Japanese military. That winter in Nanjing, everyone was a potential victim. While systematic mass killings primarily targeted young men of military age, every category of people faced death in the days and weeks following the Japanese conquest of Nanjing. Reports indicated that fifty police officers from the Safety Zone were executed for permitting Chinese soldiers to enter the area. The city's firefighters were taken away to meet an uncertain fate, and six street sweepers were killed inside their dwelling. Like an uncontrollable epidemic, the victors' bloodlust seemed to escalate continuously, seeking out new victims. When the Japanese ordered the Safety Zone committee to supply workers for the electricity plant in Xiaguan to restore its operations, they provided 54 individuals. Within days, 43 of them were dead. Although young men were especially targeted, the Japanese made no distinctions based on age or sex. American missionary John G. Magee documented numerous instances of indiscriminate killings, including the chilling account of two families nearly exterminated. Stabbings, shootings, and rapes marked the slaughter of three generations of innocents, including toddlers aged four and two; the older child was bayoneted, while the younger was struck in the head with a sword. The only survivors were a badly injured eight-year-old girl and her four-year-old sister, who spent the following fortnight beside their mother's decaying body. The violence was often accompanied by various forms of humiliation, as if to utterly break the spirit of the conquered people. One woman lost her parents and three children. When she purchased a coffin for her father, a Japanese soldier tore the lid off and discarded the old man's body in the street. Another soldier, in a drunken stupor, raped a Chinese woman and then vomited on her. In yet another incident, a soldier encountered a family of six huddled over a pot of thin rice soup; he stepped over them and urinated into their pot before continuing on his way, laughing heartlessly. The atrocities committed at Nanjing were not akin to something like the Holocaust. Within places like Auschwitz killings became industrialized and often took on an impersonal, unemotional character. The murders in Nanjing had an almost intimate quality, with each individual perpetrator bearing the blood of their victims on their hands, sometimes literally. In this sense, the Nanjing atrocities resemble the early Holocaust killings executed by German Einsatzgruppen in Eastern Europe, prior to the implementation of gas chambers. How many died during the Nanjing Massacre? Eyewitnesses at the time recognized that the Japanese behavior had few immediate precedents. Missionary John Magee compared the situation to the Turkish genocide of the Armenians during World War I, which was still fresh in memory. Despite this, no consensus emerged regarding the exact number of fatalities, a state of affairs that would persist for nearly eight decades. In his first comprehensive account of the atrocities following the conquest of the capital, New York Times correspondent Tillman Durdin reported that 33,000 Chinese soldiers lost their lives in Nanjing, including 20,000 who were executed. Foreign correspondent Frank Oliver claimed in a 1939 publication that 24,000 men, women, and children were put to death during the first month of the city's occupation. As time progressed, much larger figures began to circulate. After returning to Germany in 1938, John Rabe held a lecture where he cited European estimates that between 50,000 and 60,000 people had died. In February 1942, Chiang Kai-shek stated that 200,000 were slaughtered within one week. The Nanjing tribunal established by Chiang's government to try Japanese war criminals in 1946 and 1947 reported that more than 300,000 lives had been lost following the city's fall. The highest estimate recorded comes from a Chinese military expert, who put the death toll at 430,000. Currently, the figure most commonly accepted in official Chinese media is 300,000, a number also cited by various authors sympathetic to China's contemporary regime. The debate over the Nanjing death toll has been a complex and extensive discussion, likely to remain unresolved to everyone's satisfaction. As missionary and Nanjing University teacher Miner Searle Bates remarked when he testified before the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in July 1946, “The scope of this killing was so extensive that no one can provide a complete picture of it.” On December 16, American missionary Minnie Vautrin witnessed a truck passing by Ginling College, loaded with eight to ten girls. When they saw the Western woman, they cried out, "Jiu ming! Jiu ming!" which means “Help! Help!” Vautrin felt powerless, fully aware of the fate that awaited them. As early as Tuesday of that week, she had documented rumors of girls being raped. The following night, women were taken in large numbers from their homes. Another missionary, John Magee wrote to his wife “The most horrible thing now is the raping of the women, which has been going on in the most shameless way I have ever known”. A tentative list compiled by Lewis Smythe detailed instances of rape occurring soon after the Japanese Army entered Nanjing: four girls at noon on December 14; four more women that evening; three female refugees on December 15; and a young wife around the same time. The accounts revealed chilling individual horrors. A 15-year-old girl was taken to a barracks housing 200 to 300 Japanese soldiers and locked in a room, where she was raped multiple times daily. Victims ranged from as young as 11 to over 80. American correspondent Edgar Snow recalled “Discards were often bayoneted by drunken soldiers,. Frequently, mothers had to witness their babies being beheaded, only to then be raped themselves.” Y.M.C.A. head George Fitch reported the case of a woman whose five-month-old infant was deliberately smothered by a soldier to silence its cries while he raped her. Such acts were a gruesome form of humiliation, designed to demonstrate that the vanquished were powerless to protect their own families. Japanese soldier Takokoro Kozo recalled “Women suffered most. No matter how young or old, they all could not escape the fate of being raped. We sent out coal trucks to the city streets and villages to seize a lot of women. And then each of them was allocated to fifteen to twenty soldiers for sexual intercourse and abuse. After raping we would also kill them”. Women were frequently killed immediately after being raped, often through horrific mutilations, such as being penetrated with bayonets, long bamboo sticks, or other objects. For instance, one six-months-pregnant woman was stabbed sixteen times in the face and body, with one stab penetrating her abdomen and killing her unborn child. In another case, a young woman had a beer bottle forcibly inserted into her vagina after being raped, and was subsequently shot.  On December 19, 1937, the Reverend James M. McCallum wrote in his diary “I know not where to end. Never I have heard or read such brutality. Rape! Rape! Rape! We estimate at least 1,000 cases a night and many by day. In case of resistance or anything that seems like disapproval, there is a bayonet stab or a bullet... People are hysterical... Women are being carried off every morning, afternoon and evening. The whole Japanese army seems to be free to go and come as it pleases, and to do whatever it pleases”.  Rabe wrote in his diary dated December 17 “wo Japanese soldiers have climbed over the garden wall and are about to break into our house. When I appear they give the excuse that they saw two Chinese soldiers climb over the wall. When I show them my party badge, they return the same way. In one of the houses in the narrow street behind my garden wall, a woman was raped, and then wounded in the neck with a bayonet. I managed to get an ambulance so we can take her to Kulou Hospital... Last night up to 1,000 women and girls are said to have been raped, about 100 girls at Ginling College...alone. You hear nothing but rape. If husbands or brothers intervene, they're shot. What you hear and see on all sides is the brutality and bestiality of the Japanese soldiers”. In a documentary film about the Nanjing Massacre, In the Name of the Emperor, a former Japanese soldier named Shiro Azuma spoke candidly about the process of rape and murder in Nanjing. “At first we used some kinky words like Pikankan. Pi means "hip", kankan means "look". Pikankan means, "Let's see a woman open up her legs." Chinese women didn't wear under-pants. Instead, they wore trousers tied with a string. There was no belt. As we pulled the string, the buttocks were exposed. We "pikankan". We looked. After a while we would say something like, "It's my day to take a bath," and we took turns raping them. It would be all right if we only raped them. I shouldn't say all right. But we always stabbed and killed them. Because dead bodies don't talk”. Without anyone to defend them, the women of Nanjing resorted to desperate measures for their safety. The young and attractive cut their hair and smeared soot on their faces to diminish their allure. Others donned boys' clothes or the garments of elderly women. However, the Japanese were well aware of these tactics and were not easily deceived. As American correspondent Snow described, it was an orgy of unprecedented debauchery, involving not only the lower ranks of the Japanese military but also officers who turned their quarters into harems, bedding a new captive each night. Open-air sexual assaults were common. During the first ten days of occupation, groups of Japanese soldiers entered the Ginling campus ten to twenty times daily, brandishing fixed bayonets stained with fresh blood. So overwhelmed, Vautrin decided to prioritize saving lives over salvaging possessions, spending those early days frantically moving across campus to prevent marauding soldiers from taking away women. A particularly tense situation unfolded on the evening of December 17, when Vautrin and other staff members at Ginling College were called to the front of the campus to confront a group of Japanese soldiers. Earlier, Vautrin had received documentation from another officer affirming that the area was a legitimate refugee camp. The soldiers torn up the document in front of her. For hours, with armed Japanese soldiers encircling them, Vautrin and her colleagues were left standing or kneeling, uncertain of what awaited them. Gradually, it became clear that they had been lured to the front gate so that other soldiers could enter through a side entrance and abduct twelve women. As Vautrin recalled “Never shall I forget the scene. The dried leaves rattling, the moaning of the wind, the cries of women being led away.” The staff remained at the entrance until 11:00 pm, fearing that hiding soldiers might fire on them if they moved. This was the only time that Vautrin was unable to prevent rape, a failure that would haunt her for the rest of her life. Some Japanese soldiers, seeking young girls, ordered a middle-aged Chinese woman to assist them in finding targets. When she either could not or would not comply, they shot a rifle across her abdomen, narrowly missing and taking away “three handbreadths of flesh.” When the Japanese Army entered Nanjing, little damage had been inflicted on the buildings, as noted by U.S. missionary James McCallum at the end of December. On the first day of their occupation, Japanese soldiers immediately dispersed into Nanjing in small groups, breaking shop windows and looting the goods within. They carried away their spoils in crates and stolen rickshaws. Initially, the looting was partly a makeshift response to the poor logistics of the Japanese Army. Combat soldiers had arrived well ahead of their supply lines and faced severe food shortages until the roads reopened and the Yangtze River became navigable.  Every building in Nanjing was looted and turned upside down. Everything not nailed down was stolen: doors and window frames were removed, safes opened with rifle shots or grenades. Japanese soldiers often pillaged property while the owners were present, threatening them with bayonets. Abandoned cars littered the streets, typically overturned and stripped of useful items, including batteries. Like Russian soldiers in Berlin seven and a half years later, the rank-and-file soldiers displayed a particular interest in watches. As the scale of plunder grew, transportation became scarce. By the end of December, looting was being conducted using trucks. When vehicles were unavailable, Japanese soldiers resorted to wheelbarrows and even children's prams. Mules, donkeys, and people were also commandeered. Just as during their advance from Shanghai to Nanjing, the Chinese were forced to assist in looting their own homes. A common sight was a Japanese soldier leading a group of Chinese down the street, laden with stolen goods. While Chinese soldiers had also engaged in some looting during their evacuation of Nanjing, it was nothing compared to the scale of the Japanese victors' plunder. The Chinese forces had deliberately avoided breaking into foreign buildings, a distinction that the Japanese disregarded. The American, British, and German embassies, along with the ambassadors' residences, were ransacked, stripped of everything from bedding and money to watches, rugs, and artwork. The American School was looted, and its wall breached to remove the piano. As the Japanese stripped the city, they also began to burn it. While the winter sky could have been sparkling, it was instead filled with smoke from thousands of fires across the city. Some fires resulted from carelessness, such as when soldiers cooked meat from a stolen cow over a bonfire, accidentally igniting an ancient building. Others were acts of mindless vandalism. The Nanking Music Shop saw all its instruments and sheets piled in the street and set ablaze. The extent of the massacre can, to some degree, be linked to a breakdown in discipline among Japanese soldiers. Released from weeks or months of hardship on the battlefield, many soldiers experienced an intoxicating sense of freedom, resembling misbehaving boys. The deterioration of order among Japanese soldiers astonished those familiar with the stories of the stringent discipline within Japan's armed forces. Observers commented on soldiers laughing at proclamations from their own officers or tearing up orders and tossing them to the ground. Some foreign witnesses speculated that this lack of discipline was exacerbated by the absence of visible individual numbers on soldiers, making it challenging to identify wrongdoers. The issue also stemmed from the quality of the Japanese officer corps and their ability to manage a large army of young men, many of whom were experiencing freedom from societal constraints for the first time. Not all officers rose to the occasion; Vautrin witnessed an officer almost fail to prevent a soldier from raping a girl. Even worse, some officers transitioned from passive bystanders, guilty by inaction, to active participants in prolonged rape sessions. While a few attempted to instill discipline among their troops, their efforts often fell short. A Japanese colonel, for instance, slapped a soldier attempting to rape a Chinese woman. Another general was seen striking a private who had bayoneted a Chinese man and threatened two Germans, raising questions about how much of this discipline was merely performative for the benefit of foreign observers. Ultimately, disciplinary measures had little impact. As Rabe noted in his diary dated December 18th “The soldiers have almost no regard for their officers”. The absence of effective higher leadership during this critical period likely exacerbated the problem. General Matsui had been suffering from malaria since November 3, which left him largely incapacitated from December 5 to 15. A subordinate later testified that he had been informed of "incidents of stealing, killing, assault, and rape and had become quite enraged.” Although Matsui may have been displeased by the unruly behavior of his soldiers, it is conceivable that his inaction led to even greater levels of atrocity than might have occurred otherwise. He insisted on holding a victory parade on December 17, immediately after recovering from his illness, which likely triggered a security frenzy among Japanese officers concerned about the safety of Prince Asaka, uncle to Emperor Hirohito. This reaction likely prompted a surge in searches for, and executions of, suspected former Chinese soldiers. The Japanese high command in Tokyo was also aware of the unraveling discipline. On January 4, 1938, Army Headquarters sent Matsui an unusually direct message ordering him to restore control among his troops: Our old friend Ishiwara Kanji bitterly criticized the situation and placed the blame on Matsui “We earnestly request enhancement of military discipline and public morals. The morale of the Japanese had never been at a lower level.” A detachment of military police eventually arrived in Nanjing, leading to some improvements, though their presence was mixed. Some officers stationed outside the Safety Zone ignored atrocities occurring before them and, in some cases, participated directly. At Ginling College, the experience with military police was decidedly uneven. The first group of about 25 men tasked with guarding the college ended up committing rape themselves.  Despite frequent visits from Japanese soldiers in search of loot and victims to assault, the Safety Zone was perceived as successful. Many believed that both the zone and the work of its managing committee were responsible for saving countless lives. W. Plumer Mills, vice chairman of the committee, noted that the zone “did give some protection during the fighting…but the chief usefulness of the Zone has been the measure of protection it has afforded to the people since the occupation.” Shortly after the Japanese conquest, the population of the Safety Zone swelled to a quarter million people. Around 70,000 of these were organized into 25 pre-arranged camps, while the majority sought accommodation wherever possible. Makeshift “mat-shed villages” sprang up in vacant areas throughout the zone. Nanjing quickly became informally divided into two distinct cities. Outside the Safety Zone, the atmosphere was ghostly, with a population dwindling to around 10,000, while within the zone, bustling activity thrived. Shanghai Road, which ran through the center of the zone and had once been a wide boulevard, transformed into a hub of barter and trade, resembling a festive market during Chinese New Year, overflowing with makeshift stalls, tea shops, and restaurants, making it nearly impossible to traverse by vehicle. The Japanese held a degree of respect for Westerners, although this sentiment was not universal and did not always offer protection. Many foreigners tried to safeguard their homes by displaying their national flags outside, but they often found that Japanese soldiers would break in regardless. To protect Ginling College, American flags were displayed at eight locations around the compound, and a large 30-foot American flag was spread out in the center. However, this proved to be “of absolutely no use” in preventing Japanese soldiers from entering the area. Despite this, there was some limited outright hostility towards Americans. Stronger negative sentiments were directed towards the Russians and the British, who were viewed as representatives of nations with competing interests against the Japanese Empire. The Japanese displayed particular reverence for one nationality, the Germans. Rabe would shout “Deutsch” or “Hitler” to command respect from unruly Japanese soldiers or show them his swastika armband, indicating his allegiance to the Nazi Party. Germany was seen as a rising power and rapidly becoming one of Japan's closest allies, a fellow outcast in global politics. However, as time passed, the limits of this respect became evident; individual soldiers began searching for women within the German embassy compound, and eventually, nearly all German buildings were broken into. Despite all the challenges, there was no doubting that foreigners offered a form of protection unavailable elsewhere. Within days of the Japanese conquest, women and children began appearing in large numbers outside Rabe's home, kneeling and knocking their heads on the ground as they begged to be let into his already overcrowded garden.  At 1:00 pm on January 1, the Chinese were proclaimed rulers of their own city, or at least this is what Japanese propaganda sought to convey. On the first day of the new year, a puppet government was established in a ceremony held just north of the Safety Zone. A new five-bar flag, the one associated with the early Chinese republic was raised, signaling a patriotic spirit in a gesture that felt unconvincing. As the new leaders took office, vowing to resurrect their city, buildings burned all around them. The ceremony marked the culmination of two weeks of preparatory work. As early as December 15, General Matsui met with a local Chinese leader, referred to in the Japanese commander's diary only as Chen, who had been selected to assist in forming this new puppet government. Chen had been present in the northern port city of Tianjin two years earlier when Matsui helped establish the Chinese chapter of the Greater Asia Association. He subscribed to Matsui's concepts of “Asia for Asians,” but cautioned that Chinese fears of the Japanese would complicate the governance of the conquered territories.   The new government aligned with the Japanese army to implement a system of indoctrination centered on conservatism, primarily targeting the youth, who were perceived as most likely to resist. The indoctrination included messages like, “You must follow the old custom in marriage, letting your parents make arrangements for you. You must not go to theaters or study English, etc. China and Japan must become one, and then the nation will be strong.” Few were deceived by these attempts to win hearts and minds. The government-sanctioned newspaper, the Xinshengbao, or New Life Journal, was immediately dismissed as a crude vehicle for propaganda. Additionally, the government made minimal progress in more urgent tasks, such as restoring peacetime conditions and revitalizing Nanjing's economy, a challenge made formidable by Japanese brutality. Given the fate of the first group of volunteers at the electricity plant after the conquest, no one could be found to fill the needed 40 to 45 worker slots. The same was true for firefighters. The predictable outcomes followed. Water and limited power were restored to parts of the city by January 2, but within two days, the city was plunged back into darkness. By January 13, the waterworks were still non-operational, and the power supply remained intermittent while fires continued to blaze well into January. The government was not taken seriously, struggling even with the Japanese. It quickly built a reputation for being venal and corrupt. One of its names was the Nanjing Autonomous Government, which a clever member of the foreign community humorously rebranded as the “Automatic Government,” reflecting its actual role as a puppet regime devoid of autonomy.  While Nanjing endured its own nightmarish reality, the city's inhabitants had little understanding of the events transpiring beyond its walls. The first radio news that reached foreign residents came on January 7, reporting Japanese air raids on Wuhan. There were also unconfirmed rumors suggesting that Hangzhou was experiencing similar horrors to those in Nanjing, but details were scarce. It was perhaps expected that reports from afar would be limited in wartime, yet information about situations closer to Nanjing was similarly scarce, and the horrific truth gradually dawned on the city's populace. A Westerner who managed to escape east from Nanjing in early January reported that all villages within a 20-mile radius had been burned to the ground. Outside the city, Japanese soldiers were randomly shooting civilians, including children. A German who drove an hour from Nanjing encountered no living souls. After the conquest, Chinese who managed to leave Nanjing reported that every pond between the city and Juyong was filled with the decaying corpses of people and animals. Many of the atrocities committed during this time appeared to stem from boredom and a search for cheap thrills. American missionary Magee witnessed a young farmer who had sustained severe burns on his upper body. After the soldiers demanded money from him and he failed to comply, they doused him in kerosene and set him ablaze. Similarly, a young boy suffered horrific burns after he failed to lead a group of soldiers to his “mama.” People in the rural areas surrounding Nanjing faced danger from numerous directions. Not only were they potential targets for marauding Japanese soldiers, but they were also at risk from bands of Chinese outlaws, who preyed on the large influx of refugees on the roads and the few souls who remained at home despite the fierce conflict raging nearby. Magee encountered a 49-year-old woman whose home was invaded by bandits looking for money. “When she and her husband said they had none they battered her head and breast with a stool and burned her feet until she revealed their savings of between four and five dollars.” In the absence of a formal government, informal authority was often wielded by secret societies. For instance, the “Big Sword Society” reportedly offered protection not only against Japanese soldiers and local bandits but also against small groups of Chinese troops seeking to escape back to their lines and resorting to theft for survival. What a blast from the past eh?   Rumors began to circulate in early January 1938 that the Chinese Army was preparing to retake Nanjing and that Chiang Kai-shek's soldiers had already been spotted inside the city walls. Many of the small makeshift Japanese flags that had appeared outside private homes in mid-December suddenly vanished, and some Chinese residents who had been wearing Japanese armbands hastily removed them. There was even talk of launching an attack on the Japanese embassy. Word spread that the Japanese were becoming frightened and were searching for Chinese clothing to disguise themselves as civilians in the event of a retreat. In reality, none of this was true. The Chinese Army was still reorganizing after the costly campaign that had forced it from Shanghai to Nanjing and then further into the interior. However, this did not imply that the Japanese had achieved complete control over the city. After six weeks of terror, Nanjing began to reassert itself. Japanese soldiers faced fatalities and injuries in skirmishes with members of secret organizations like the “Yellow Spears” and the “Big Sword Society.”  After the New Year, the population within the Safety Zone began to dwindle. A week into 1938, the number of refugees at Ginling College, which had peaked at more than 10,000, fell to around 5,000. Less than a month after the conquest, many former residents started returning to their homes during the day and then coming back to the college at night. Still, the city was far from safe, and even for those whose homes were located within the Safety Zone, Vautrin believed it was unwise to stray too far from her refugee camp. One month after Japanese forces had surged through its gates, Nanjing was a thoroughly devastated city, with fires still being set every day and night. By mid-January, estimates suggested that more than half the city had been burned down, with the main shopping district completely gone, as well as the entertainment area surrounding the Confucius Temple. Nevertheless, slowly but surely, the shell-shocked city began to pull itself together and started the long process of renewal. Vautrin considered opening an industrial school offering four-month courses for women to help compensate for the loss of labor resulting from the indiscriminate killing of men. Chinese New Year fell on January 31, 1938. Celebrated throughout Asia, it was also recognized by the Japanese. It was a “dismal, muddy” day, and as many feared, soldiers who appeared “too happy” from excessive drinking attempted to enter the Safety Zone in search of women but were stopped. The sound of thousands of firecrackers filled the air, fulfilling the age-old purpose of scaring away evil spirits. Refugees in Rabe's compound presented him with a large red silk banner adorned with a gold Chinese inscription. His Chinese friends translated the message for him “You are the living Buddha For a hundred thousand people”. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. In December 1937, the battle for Nanjing left its residents in terror as the Japanese army advanced. Following the invasion, a horrific massacre began, with thousands targeted in brutal killings, torture, and humiliation. Civilians and soldiers alike were indiscriminately slain, and the Japanese military showed no mercy. To this day the Nanjing Massacre stands as a testament to the unbelievable evil man holds within him.

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Ep. 176 The Nazi State was a totalitarian state. This, nobody denies. While Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party associates obviously intended to organize the Nazi State in that way, a thoroughgoing justification was provided by the so-called "Crown Jurist of the Third Reich," Carl Schmitt, who has become popular on the so-called "New Right" (Woke Right). Schmitt resisted the idea of the Nazi movement, despite his political and judicial theories that went on to justify it, but only until Hitler took the Chancellorship in January 1933. Then Schmitt joined and soon after penned an essay, "The Legal Basis for the Total State," to justify Nazi totalitarianism and the Führerprinzip in the "miracle" of legal decisionism (the dictatorial executive making decisions on top of rule of law). In this groundbreaking episode of the New Discourses Podcast, not only does host James Lindsay continue his sprawling series on the "Nazi Experiment," but he also presents this Schmittian essay in English for the first time. Join him for an introduction to Carl Schmitt and to hear "The Legal Basis for the Total State." Latest from New Discourses Press! The Queering of the American Child: https://queeringbook.com/ Support New Discourses: https://newdiscourses.com/support Follow New Discourses on other platforms: https://newdiscourses.com/subscribe Follow James Lindsay: https://linktr.ee/conceptualjames © 2025 New Discourses. All rights reserved. #NewDiscourses #JamesLindsay #Nazism

This Day in Legal History: Nuremberg Laws EnactedOn this day in legal history, September 15, 1935, Nazi Germany enacted the Nuremberg Laws, codifying one of the most infamous legal frameworks of racial discrimination and hate in modern history. Announced at the annual Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg, these laws included the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, the Reich Citizenship Law, and later, the Law for the Protection of the Hereditary Health of the German People. Together, they stripped Jews of German citizenship, prohibited marriage and sexual relations between Jews and “Aryans,” and laid the groundwork for systematic persecution.The Reich Citizenship Law divided citizens into two classes: full citizens, who were of "German or related blood," and subjects, who were denied full political rights. Jews were relegated to the latter category. The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor banned intermarriage and extramarital relations between Jews and Germans, criminalizing personal relationships based on ancestry. Violators could be imprisoned or sent to concentration camps.To enforce these laws, the Nazi regime devised elaborate charts and pseudoscientific metrics to assess Jewish ancestry, culminating in a 1936 chart issued by the Reich Health Office. This visual aid defined citizens by the number of Jewish grandparents they had, assigning labels like Mischling (mixed race) to those with partial Jewish heritage. Even one Jewish grandparent could strip a person of civil rights.The Law for the Protection of the Hereditary Health of the German People added a eugenic dimension, requiring couples to undergo genetic testing before marriage and barring those deemed "genetically unfit" from reproducing. These legal measures normalized state-sponsored racism and laid a legal foundation for the Holocaust.Big Law firm Perkins Coie terminated an attorney over a social media post that appeared to criticize conservative figure Charlie Kirk following his shooting death. The firm stated the post did not align with its values and that the lawyer's conduct fell significantly below professional expectations. The firing was made effective immediately. Kirk, 31, served as executive director of Turning Point USA and was a prominent supporter of Donald Trump. He was fatally shot while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University. Perkins Coie has a history of political entanglements, notably becoming one of the first law firms to sue Trump after his executive orders targeted firms representing political adversaries. These orders reportedly restricted access to federal facilities, revoked security clearances, and jeopardized client contracts. The firm was a particular focus for Trump due to its work during Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, including hiring Fusion GPS to conduct research that led to the Steele dossier, which alleged ties between Trump's campaign and the Russian government.Perkins Coie Fires Attorney Over Social Media Post on Kirk ShootingU.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly extended a temporary block on the deportation of unaccompanied Guatemalan children with active immigration cases. The move halts a Trump-era effort that attempted to deport 76 minors without proper notice or legal process, including waking children in the early hours of August 31 to board planes. The judge's ruling followed a contentious September 10 hearing, where he criticized a Justice Department attorney for falsely claiming that all the children's parents had requested their return. A report from the Guatemalan Attorney General's Office later revealed that most parents couldn't be located, and many of those found did not want their children repatriated.The children in question mostly come from Guatemala's Indigenous, rural regions—Huehuetenango, San Marcos, Quiché, and Alta Verapaz—areas known for high poverty and malnutrition. Guatemalan officials emphasized that such a large-scale repatriation request was unprecedented. Some families reportedly mortgaged their homes to finance the children's migration, indicating the high stakes involved.US judge extends block on deportations of unaccompanied Guatemalan migrant children | ReutersU.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully directed the mass firing of around 25,000 federal probationary employees earlier this year. These workers, many of whom had served in their roles for less than a year, were dismissed under a directive from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in February. The mass terminations sparked lawsuits from unions, nonprofits, and the state of Washington, arguing the firings lacked legal justification.Judge Alsup found that the OPM's directive was unlawful and "pretextual," noting the terminations were falsely framed as performance-related. While he acknowledged that the workers had been harmed, he declined to order their reinstatement, citing recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings limiting judicial power over executive branch hiring and firing decisions. Specifically, the Supreme Court had previously paused a preliminary injunction in April that would have reinstated 17,000 employees.Despite not ordering reinstatement, Alsup mandated that 19 federal agencies, including Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Treasury, correct the employment records of affected workers by November 14. He also prohibited agencies from continuing to follow OPM's original directive. Union leaders praised the decision for confirming the firings were baseless and for requiring agencies to acknowledge the false rationale behind the terminations.Trump administration unlawfully directed mass US worker terminations, judge rules | ReutersThe University of California, Berkeley confirmed it had shared information on 160 students, faculty, and staff with the Trump administration, in response to a federal investigation into alleged antisemitism. The data was provided to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights as part of an ongoing probe linked to pro-Palestinian protests on campus. The university stated that it acted under legal obligation while striving to protect individual privacy and notified those affected.This move comes amid a broader effort by the Trump administration to penalize universities accused of allowing antisemitic behavior, particularly during recent demonstrations opposing Israel's actions in Gaza. Critics argue that the administration is conflating political protest and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, raising serious concerns about free speech, academic freedom, and due process.Trump has threatened to cut federal funding to institutions involved in such protests and attempted to deport foreign student demonstrators, though those efforts have faced legal challenges. The administration has already reached high-profile settlements with Columbia and Brown universities and is in ongoing talks with Harvard. A proposed $1 billion settlement with UCLA was publicly rejected by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who called it extortion.UC Berkeley shares information on dozens of students, staff with Trump administration | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

rWotD Episode 3049: Hermann Baranowski Welcome to random Wiki of the Day, your journey through Wikipedia's vast and varied content, one random article at a time.The random article for Monday, 8 September 2025, is Hermann Baranowski.Hermann Baranowski (11 June 1884 in Schwerin – 5 February 1940 in Aue) was a German politician and military figure. A member of the Nazi Party, he is best known as the commandant of two German concentration camps of the SS Death's Head unit. In April 1900, at the age of fifteen, he volunteered for the navy and fought in the First World War, serving aboard the SMS Moltke. In 1912 he married August Dibbern with whom he had two children, a boy and a girl. In 1930 he was discharged as a lieutenant and then worked first as an office clerk in Kiel and later as a sales representative in Hamburg.Baranowski joined the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party) in 1930. The following year he signed up for the SS (SS #24009). His first appointment was as the leader of the 4th SS Standarte in Hamburg-Altona. In March 1936 Himmler appointed him commandant of the Lichtenburg concentration camp. However, he was soon removed, demoted and sent as a Lagerführer (compound leader) at Dachau concentration camp.However, in 1938 he was promoted to Schutzhaftlagerführer at Dachau concentration camp. He served as the commandant (SS-Oberführer) of Sachsenhausen concentration camp from May 1938 until September 1939. He died at Aue in 1940.He was noted to be especially sadistic. However, Rudolf Höss, commandant at Auschwitz, described Baranowski as: very strict and hard, but of a scrupulous sense of fair play and fanatical sense of duty. As a very old SS leader and National Socialist he became my role model. I constantly saw in him a grander reflection of myself. He also had movements where his good nature, his soft heart revealed themselves, and yet he was hard and uncompromisingly strict in all matters of duty. So he constantly brought home to me how the hard 'must' demanded by the SS had to silence all soft stirrings.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:10 UTC on Monday, 8 September 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Hermann Baranowski on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm long-form Ruth.

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Ep. 174 Here on the New Discourses Podcast, host James Lindsay is doing a sprawling series on the German National Socialist movement to pull back the curtain on the realities of the Nazi Experiment. Primarily, this series covers a set of readings directly from Adolf Hitler's manifesto and autoethnography, Mein Kampf (reading from the uncensored Ford translation). In this fifth volume of the series, Lindsay tackles the "25 Points of the Nazi Party" along with the 12th and final chapter of the first volume of Mein Kampf, which is its proper setting. As Hitler gives 15 more points for Nazi organization in that chapter, we arrive at 40 organizational points and principles for the Nazi Party. Join us for this next episode in giving the world a denuded look at Nazism. Latest book! The Queering of the American Child: https://queeringbook.com/ Support New Discourses: https://newdiscourses.com/support Follow New Discourses on other platforms: https://newdiscourses.com/subscribe Follow James Lindsay: https://linktr.ee/conceptualjames © 2025 New Discourses. All rights reserved. #NewDiscourses #JamesLindsay #Nazism

As I say in the podcast, up until recently I was unaware of the historical betrayal of the Jews by the Zionist movement, both world wide and in Germany, during World War II. Since the late 50's the Zionists have cloaked themselves in the Holocaust, founded the Vad Yashem Holocaust Museum in Israel and shout “Holocaust, Holocaust, Holocaust!” at any attempt to stop their land grabbing and genocide in Gaza.But, as you learn, if you listen to the podcast, this was not always so. Strange as it seems, the Zionists actually welcomed the Holocaust which they openly said at the time, was an engine to force the Jews of Europe to go to Israel and build the Jewish state by fighting the Arabs who had been there for centuries.To that end they entered into negotiations with the Nazi Party despite the fact that England, the colonial ruler of Palestine at the time, refused to let all but a trickle of Jewish refugees into the “Holy Land”. In exchange for the Nazi's cooperation, the Zionists helped round up Jews for deportation to the death camps among other atrocities.I hope I have whetted your appetite to hear the whole sorry story. Please listen to the podcast. Hopefully it will give you insight as to why Israel is the state it has become.] This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rogerrudenstein.substack.com

 One of my favorite things about Roseanna M. White's books is her attention to detail not just with historic facts but LOCATIONS. She does a fabulous job of ensuring that the faiths of her characters match their locales (she has a great blog post about this that you don't want to miss, too!).  Speaking of research and faith, listen in to learn more what went into The Collector of Burned Books. note: links may be affiliate links that provide me with a small commission at no extra expense to you.   Of course, when you talk to a historical fiction author, you learn all kinds of new facts you didn't know.  I think my favorite (and most surprising!) fact was that the Catholic sectors were most against Nazis.  I shouldn't be surprised, but I was. I love how she wove the horrible facts of history together with a beautiful commitment to truth and freedom and created this story.  You won't want to miss it. The Collector of Burned Books by Roseanna M. White  In this gripping World War II historical about the power of words, two people form an unlikely friendship amid the Nazi occupation in Paris and fight to preserve the truth that enemies of freedom long to destroy. Paris, 1940. Ever since the Nazi Party began burning books, German writers exiled for their opinions or heritage have been taking up residence in Paris. There they opened a library meant to celebrate the freedom of ideas and gathered every book on the banned list . . . and even incognito versions of the forbidden books that were smuggled back into Germany. For the last six years, Corinne Bastien has been reading those books and making that library a second home. But when the German army takes possession of Paris, she loses access to the library and all the secrets she'd hidden there. Secrets the Allies will need if they have any hope of liberating the city she calls home. Christian Bauer may be German, but he never wanted anything to do with the Nazi Party―he is a professor, one who's done his best to protect his family as well as the books that were a threat to Nazi ideals. But when Goebbels sends him to Paris to handle the “relocation” of France's libraries, he's forced into an army uniform and given a rank he doesn't want. In Paris, he tries to protect whoever and whatever he can from the madness of the Party and preserve the ideas that Germans will need again when that madness is over, and maybe find a lost piece of his heart. Learn more about Roseanna M. White on her WEBSITE (with all the bookish merch) and follow her on BookBub and GoodReads. Like to listen on the go? You can find Because Fiction Podcast at: Apple Castbox Google Play Libsyn RSS Spotify Amazon and more!

The shadow of the First World War hung over the world. The victors were exhausted and the vanquished wanted revenge. We discuss the death of European democracies, the global origins of WWII, and America's reluctant journey to war. -Support the Showhttps://buymeacoffee.com/amhistoryremix-Find the full transcript of this episode including citations at our website:https://www.americanhistoryremix.com/episodeguide/road-to-war-In this episode we cover….Introduction [0:00-02:41]World War I [02:41-07:04]US Returns to Isolationism [07:04-09:15]Italy & the Rise of Mussolini [09:15-11:19]The Philosophy of Fascism [11:19-13:30]Germany's Defeat [13:30-15:29]The Nazi Party [15:29-18:00]The Weimar Republic [18:00-19:51]Failed Nazi Coup [19:51-21:49]Manchuria [21:49-26:40]Nazi Breakthrough [26:40-30:25]Ethiopia [30:25-31:55]American Neutrality [31:55-33:10]The Spanish Civil War & Neutrality [33:10-37:04]Japanese in China [37:04-39:45]German Rearmament & the Rhineland [39:45-41:35] Austria & Czechoslovakia [41:35-45:27]Nazi-Soviet Pact [45:27-46:59]American Response to War [46:59-48:24]Germany Takes Europe [48:24-51:39]Jewish Refugees [51:39-55:19]US Aid to Britain [55:19-57:33]Roosevelt & Third Term [57:33-59:54]Battle of Britain & Destroyer Deal [59:54-01:02:52]America Initiates Draft [01:02:52-01:04:19]Lend-Lease & Atlantic Charter [01:04:19-01:06:40]Germany Invades Soviet Union [01:06:40-01:09:30]Conflict in the Pacific [01:09:30-01:12:31]Roosevelt & Japan [01:12:31-01:15:01]Pearl Harbor [01:15:01-01:16:47]Conclusion [01:16:47-01:19:11]-To dive deeper into these topics (affiliate links):Jane Caplan, ed. Nazi Germany.https://tinyurl.com/Caplan-Nazi-GermanyJustus D. Doenecke and John Edward Wilz, From Isolation to War, 1931-1941.https://tinyurl.com/Doenecke-and-WilzTimothy Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. https://tinyurl.com/Snyder-BloodlandsDavid M. Kennedy, Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945. https://tinyurl.com/Kennedy-Freedom-from-FearJohn Merriman, A History of Modern Europe: From the Renaissance to the Present.https://tinyurl.com/Merriman-A-History-Support the showSupport the Show https://buymeacoffee.com/amhistoryremix

Christian Historical Fiction Talk is listener supported. When you buy things through this site, we may earn an affiliate commission.Become a patron and enjoy special perks and bonus content.Roseanna M. White returns to the podcast, this time to talk about her recent release, The Collector of Banned Books. We discuss the real library in Paris that held many of the books that were banned in Germany during the time of the Nazis and the power of words and how we need to be responsible with our words. She also shares an update on her cancer journey. Patrons get to hear her call out for us to read dangerously.The Collector of Banned Books  by Roseanna M. WhiteIn this gripping World War II historical about the power of words, two people form an unlikely friendship amid the Nazi occupation in Paris and fight to preserve the truth that enemies of freedom long to destroy.Paris, 1940. Ever since the Nazi Party began burning books, German writers exiled for their opinions or heritage have been taking up residence in Paris. There they opened a library meant to celebrate the freedom of ideas and gathered every book on the banned list . . . and even incognito versions of the forbidden books that were smuggled back into Germany.For the last six years, Corinne Bastien has been reading those books and making that library a second home. But when the German army takes possession of Paris, she loses access to the library and all the secrets she'd hidden there. Secrets the Allies will need if they have any hope of liberating the city she calls home.Christian Bauer may be German, but he never wanted anything to do with the Nazi Party―he is a professor, one who's done his best to protect his family as well as the books that were a threat to Nazi ideals. But when Goebbels sends him to Paris to handle the “relocation” of France's libraries, he's forced into an army uniform and given a rank he doesn't want. In Paris, he tries to protect whoever and whatever he can from the madness of the Party and preserve the ideas that Germans will need again when that madness is over, and maybe find a lost piece of his heart.Stand-alone historical fiction from a bestselling, Christy Award-winning authorA thought-provoking novel perfect for book clubsIncludes discussion questionsGet The Collector of Banned Books by Roseanna M. White.Roseanna M. White is a bestselling, Christy Award winning author who has long claimed that words are the air she breathes. When not writing fiction, she's homeschooling, editing, designing book covers, and pretending her house will clean itself. Roseanna is the author of a slew of historical novels that span several continents and thousands of years. Spies and war and mayhem always seem to find their way into her books…to offset her real life, which is blessedly ordinary. You can learn more about her and her stories at www.RoseannaMWhite.com.

Dr. Abraham Peck joins me for a deep dive into the conditions that led to the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany between World War I and World War II.

Dr Terry Goldsworthy is a criminologist, former detective inspector, academic, and one of Australia's most respected voices on criminal behaviour. With over two decades in law enforcement and a deep academic grounding in forensic criminology, Dr Goldsworthy brings a rare dual lens to the world of crime — blending frontline experience with sharp, evidence-based insight. In this episode of Crime Insiders | Detectives, Brent Sanders takes a deep dive on a gruesome steelyard and we learn if evil is always a factor playing in the mind of criminals.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us comments, suggestions and ideas here! This week's episode began as an investigation into a silly meme and quickly evolved into a crash course into the crossroads where the civil rights movement, Black Liberation Ideology and turn of the century occultism converged to produce the Nation of Islam whos mythic theology details a 6,000 year old big-headed black demiurgic creator being who invented the white race which, in said ideology, is sometimes referred to as “the devil.” In the free side of the show we will discuss the rise of Yakub as described by the Nation of Islam's longtime leader Elijah Mohamed, how aspects of this mythology are active and even pressing in today's cultural landscape and how big pockets of the civil rights movement root structure intersected with popular turn of the century occultism to produce Black Liberation Theology in America. In the extended show we start by indulging our inner history nerd and discover the factual basis upon which Yakub may have been based before settling in with our reading glasses and browse Elijah Mohamed's words in Message to the Blackman of America where the interesting details about Yakub's creations are described in vivid and hilarious detail. Ok, I think you've been thoroughly warned. Thank you and enjoy the show! In this week's episode we discuss:Who is Yakub?Kendrick Lamar's Cousin CarlDeuteronomy 28Origins of the Moorish TempleWallace Fard MohamedThe Nation of IslamIn the extended episode available at www.patreon.com/TheWholeRabbit we quite a bit further and discuss:The MoorsMuslim leader Abu Yusuf Yaqub al-MansurThe FezElijah Mohamed's "Message To the Black Man of America"Birth Control and the White RaceThe KKK, Nazi Party and the Nation of IslamWhere to find The Whole Rabbit:Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0AnJZhmPzaby04afmEWOAVInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/the_whole_rabbitTwitter: https://twitter.com/1WholeRabbitOrder Stickers: https://www.stickermule.com/thewholerabbitOther Merchandise: https://thewholerabbit.myspreadshop.com/Music By Spirit Travel Plaza:https://open.spotify.com/artist/30dW3WB1sYofnow7y3V0YoSources:Elijah Mohamed's Message To the Black Man:https://archive.org/details/message-to-the-blackman-elijah-muhammadThe Nation of Islam:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_IslamKendrick LamarDamn.Support the show

Robert tells Joe about Eichmann's entrance to the Nazi Party and his time as a concentration camp intern during the start of the Third Reich.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Night of the Long Knives EndsOn July 2, 1934, the Night of the Long Knives officially ended, marking one of the most chilling examples of how legal systems can be manipulated to legitimize authoritarian violence. Over the course of several days, Adolf Hitler ordered a purge within his own Nazi Party, targeting the Sturmabteilung (SA) and its leader Ernst Röhm, whom he saw as a threat to his consolidation of power. The executions, carried out primarily by the SS, claimed over 150 lives—many without trial or due process. While it was essentially a mass political assassination campaign, Hitler framed the violence as a necessary defense of the German state.What made the purge particularly sinister was how it was later codified. On July 3, 1934, the Nazi-controlled cabinet passed a law retroactively legalizing the murders, declaring them acts of state necessity. This not only provided immunity for the perpetrators but also cloaked state violence in the veneer of legality. The judiciary, already aligned with or cowed by the Nazi regime, did not challenge the legality of the purge. Instead, they accepted the new norm that the Führer's word had the force of law.The Night of the Long Knives exemplifies a central danger in legal history: when the rule of law is subordinated to the rule of one. Under Nazi rule, laws were not instruments of justice, but tools for enforcing ideological purity and eliminating dissent. This episode remains a stark warning of how legal frameworks can be bent—or entirely rewritten—to serve totalitarian ends.A federal judge in Brooklyn blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 521,000 Haitian immigrants before the program's scheduled expiration in February 2026. The Department of Homeland Security had moved to terminate the protections early, citing an August 3 end date later revised to September 2. However, Judge Brian Cogan ruled that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acted unlawfully by bypassing statutory procedures and lacking the authority to partially vacate Haiti's TPS designation. He emphasized that the interests of Haitian immigrants in maintaining lawful status and employment in the U.S. far outweighed any claimed governmental harm. The ruling noted that the administration remains free to end TPS, but only in accordance with congressional mandates. The plaintiffs, including Haitian TPS holders, churches, and a labor union, argued that Noem's actions were both procedurally flawed and racially motivated. Haiti's ongoing crisis—marked by extreme gang violence and instability—was a central factor in the court's decision. DHS responded by defending the decision to terminate TPS, stating it was never meant to function as de facto asylum, and pledged to appeal. The case underscores the legal limits on executive authority in immigration policy and reflects broader resistance to Trump's hardline stance, including similar efforts to rescind TPS for other nationalities.US judge blocks Trump from ending Temporary Protected Status for Haitians | ReutersIn a shameful capitulation to the Trump administration, the University of Pennsylvania has agreed to disavow its past adherence to NCAA rules allowing transgender women to compete in women's sports. As part of a settlement with the U.S. Department of Education under Title IX, Penn will publicly apologize for permitting swimmer Lia Thomas and others to compete and will retroactively erase records and titles won by transgender athletes. The university, under federal investigation since April, has also committed to reaffirming support for Trump-era executive orders that narrowly define sex in women's athletics. Penn President J. Larry Jameson attempted to deflect responsibility, noting that the school had simply followed then-valid national athletic regulations, but still conceded that some students may have been "disadvantaged." The Education Department's announcement, echoing transphobic language, framed the agreement as a victory for “protecting women” from “gender ideology extremism.” While Penn did not confirm, the deal appears tied to the reinstatement of $175 million in federal funding Trump had suspended in March. This decision, cheered by some as protecting competitive fairness, is seen by LGBTQ advocates as a rollback of rights and a politically motivated attack on a small and vulnerable population.University of Pennsylvania reaches compliance deal with Trump administration on transgender athletes | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that judges are public officials for the purposes of defamation law, meaning they must meet the higher "actual malice" standard to successfully sue for reputational harm. U.S. District Judge Roy Altman in Florida dismissed a lawsuit filed by fellow federal judge Frederic Block, who had accused former members of his Florida condo association's board of defaming him by implying he was a computer hacker. The case centered on a 2020 email that warned residents about privacy and security issues after Block sent a mass message criticizing renovation delays. Block claimed the email suggested he had engaged in criminal conduct, but Altman found no evidence the board acted with actual malice or knowingly spread false information. Altman acknowledged this was likely the first court decision directly applying the "public official" defamation standard to appointed federal judges, but reasoned that the role's public influence and responsibilities justify such a designation. The ruling effectively ends Block's suit, reinforcing the principle that public officials—judges included—must tolerate broader public criticism under the First Amendment.Federal judges are public officials for defamation purposes, judge rules | ReutersNearly half a million graduate students could lose access to significant federal financial aid if President Trump's proposed tax-and-spending bill becomes law. The measure would eliminate the Grad PLUS loan program, which since 2006 has allowed grad students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance beyond other aid. The average loan through this program last year was about $32,000, and its removal would hit low-income and minority students hardest, many of whom attend minority-serving institutions. While proponents argue the move would curb tuition inflation and reduce federal spending—saving an estimated $40.6 billion by 2034—critics say it would force students to turn to private lenders, many of whom impose higher interest rates and stricter borrowing requirements. The bill passed the Senate 51–50 with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote, and is now back in the House. Under the plan, current users of Grad PLUS loans would retain limited access until 2029 or until they finish their programs. The bill would also impose new aggregate limits on other federal graduate loans—$100,000 for master's students and $200,000 for professional students like those in law or medicine—raising concerns that many will be priced out of advanced degrees.Grad Students Face Loss of Major Loan Under ‘Big Beautiful Bill' This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

REFRESHER COURSE ON WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE 1930S IN THE LAND OF BACH AND MOZART:   8/8: Takeover: Hitler's Final Rise to Power Hardcover – Deckle Edge, by  Timothy W. Ryback  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424 From the internationally acclaimed author of Hitler's Private Library, a dramatic recounting of the six critical months before Adolf Hitler seized power, when the Nazi leader teetered between triumph and ruin In the summer of 1932, the Weimar Republic was on the verge of collapse. One in three Germans was unemployed. Violence was rampant. Hitler's National Socialists surged at the polls. Paul von Hindenburg, an aging war hero and avowed monarchist, was a reluctant president bound by oath to uphold the constitution. The November elections offered Hitler the prospect of a Reichstag majority and the path to political power. But instead, the Nazis lost two million votes. As membership hemorrhaged and financial backers withdrew, the Nazi Party threatened to fracture. Hitler talked of suicide. The New York Times declared he was finished. Yet somehow, in a few brief weeks, he was chancellor of Germany.  1937

REFRESHER COURSE ON WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE 1930S IN THE LAND OF BACH AND MOZART:   1/8: Takeover: Hitler's Final Rise to Power Hardcover – Deckle Edge, by  Timothy W. Ryback  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424 From the internationally acclaimed author of Hitler's Private Library, a dramatic recounting of the six critical months before Adolf Hitler seized power, when the Nazi leader teetered between triumph and ruin In the summer of 1932, the Weimar Republic was on the verge of collapse. One in three Germans was unemployed. Violence was rampant. Hitler's National Socialists surged at the polls. Paul von Hindenburg, an aging war hero and avowed monarchist, was a reluctant president bound by oath to uphold the constitution. The November elections offered Hitler the prospect of a Reichstag majority and the path to political power. But instead, the Nazis lost two million votes. As membership hemorrhaged and financial backers withdrew, the Nazi Party threatened to fracture. Hitler talked of suicide. The New York Times declared he was finished. Yet somehow, in a few brief weeks, he was chancellor of Germany.  1931

REFRESHER COURSE ON WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE 1930S IN THE LAND OF BACH AND MOZART:   2/8: Takeover: Hitler's Final Rise to Power Hardcover – Deckle Edge, by  Timothy W. Ryback  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424 From the internationally acclaimed author of Hitler's Private Library, a dramatic recounting of the six critical months before Adolf Hitler seized power, when the Nazi leader teetered between triumph and ruin In the summer of 1932, the Weimar Republic was on the verge of collapse. One in three Germans was unemployed. Violence was rampant. Hitler's National Socialists surged at the polls. Paul von Hindenburg, an aging war hero and avowed monarchist, was a reluctant president bound by oath to uphold the constitution. The November elections offered Hitler the prospect of a Reichstag majority and the path to political power. But instead, the Nazis lost two million votes. As membership hemorrhaged and financial backers withdrew, the Nazi Party threatened to fracture. Hitler talked of suicide. The New York Times declared he was finished. Yet somehow, in a few brief weeks, he was chancellor of Germany.  1932

REFRESHER COURSE ON WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE 1930S IN THE LAND OF BACH AND MOZART:   3/8: Takeover: Hitler's Final Rise to Power Hardcover – Deckle Edge, by  Timothy W. Ryback  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424 From the internationally acclaimed author of Hitler's Private Library, a dramatic recounting of the six critical months before Adolf Hitler seized power, when the Nazi leader teetered between triumph and ruin In the summer of 1932, the Weimar Republic was on the verge of collapse. One in three Germans was unemployed. Violence was rampant. Hitler's National Socialists surged at the polls. Paul von Hindenburg, an aging war hero and avowed monarchist, was a reluctant president bound by oath to uphold the constitution. The November elections offered Hitler the prospect of a Reichstag majority and the path to political power. But instead, the Nazis lost two million votes. As membership hemorrhaged and financial backers withdrew, the Nazi Party threatened to fracture. Hitler talked of suicide. The New York Times declared he was finished. Yet somehow, in a few brief weeks, he was chancellor of Germany.  1933 GOERING

REFRESHER COURSE ON WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE 1930S IN THE LAND OF BACH AND MOZART:   4/8: Takeover: Hitler's Final Rise to Power Hardcover – Deckle Edge, by  Timothy W. Ryback  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424 From the internationally acclaimed author of Hitler's Private Library, a dramatic recounting of the six critical months before Adolf Hitler seized power, when the Nazi leader teetered between triumph and ruin In the summer of 1932, the Weimar Republic was on the verge of collapse. One in three Germans was unemployed. Violence was rampant. Hitler's National Socialists surged at the polls. Paul von Hindenburg, an aging war hero and avowed monarchist, was a reluctant president bound by oath to uphold the constitution. The November elections offered Hitler the prospect of a Reichstag majority and the path to political power. But instead, the Nazis lost two million votes. As membership hemorrhaged and financial backers withdrew, the Nazi Party threatened to fracture. Hitler talked of suicide. The New York Times declared he was finished. Yet somehow, in a few brief weeks, he was chancellor of Germany.  1933

REFRESHER COURSE ON WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE 1930S IN THE LAND OF BACH AND MOZART:   5/8: Takeover: Hitler's Final Rise to Power Hardcover – Deckle Edge, by  Timothy W. Ryback  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424 From the internationally acclaimed author of Hitler's Private Library, a dramatic recounting of the six critical months before Adolf Hitler seized power, when the Nazi leader teetered between triumph and ruin In the summer of 1932, the Weimar Republic was on the verge of collapse. One in three Germans was unemployed. Violence was rampant. Hitler's National Socialists surged at the polls. Paul von Hindenburg, an aging war hero and avowed monarchist, was a reluctant president bound by oath to uphold the constitution. The November elections offered Hitler the prospect of a Reichstag majority and the path to political power. But instead, the Nazis lost two million votes. As membership hemorrhaged and financial backers withdrew, the Nazi Party threatened to fracture. Hitler talked of suicide. The New York Times declared he was finished. Yet somehow, in a few brief weeks, he was chancellor of Germany.  1934 BERLIN

REFRESHER COURSE ON WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE 1930S IN THE LAND OF BACH AND MOZART:   6/8: Takeover: Hitler's Final Rise to Power Hardcover – Deckle Edge, by  Timothy W. Ryback  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424 From the internationally acclaimed author of Hitler's Private Library, a dramatic recounting of the six critical months before Adolf Hitler seized power, when the Nazi leader teetered between triumph and ruin In the summer of 1932, the Weimar Republic was on the verge of collapse. One in three Germans was unemployed. Violence was rampant. Hitler's National Socialists surged at the polls. Paul von Hindenburg, an aging war hero and avowed monarchist, was a reluctant president bound by oath to uphold the constitution. The November elections offered Hitler the prospect of a Reichstag majority and the path to political power. But instead, the Nazis lost two million votes. As membership hemorrhaged and financial backers withdrew, the Nazi Party threatened to fracture. Hitler talked of suicide. The New York Times declared he was finished. Yet somehow, in a few brief weeks, he was chancellor of Germany.  1936

REFRESHER COURSE ON WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE 1930S IN THE LAND OF BACH AND MOZART:   7/8: Takeover: Hitler's Final Rise to Power Hardcover – Deckle Edge, by  Timothy W. Ryback  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424 From the internationally acclaimed author of Hitler's Private Library, a dramatic recounting of the six critical months before Adolf Hitler seized power, when the Nazi leader teetered between triumph and ruin In the summer of 1932, the Weimar Republic was on the verge of collapse. One in three Germans was unemployed. Violence was rampant. Hitler's National Socialists surged at the polls. Paul von Hindenburg, an aging war hero and avowed monarchist, was a reluctant president bound by oath to uphold the constitution. The November elections offered Hitler the prospect of a Reichstag majority and the path to political power. But instead, the Nazis lost two million votes. As membership hemorrhaged and financial backers withdrew, the Nazi Party threatened to fracture. Hitler talked of suicide. The New York Times declared he was finished. Yet somehow, in a few brief weeks, he was chancellor of Germany.  1936

In the 1930s, Leni Riefenstahl infamously directed two propaganda films, Triumph of the Will and Olympia, for the Nazi Party. For the rest of her life, which ended in 2003, she denied knowledge of the regime's crimes, including the Holocaust. In 2016, her heirs gave her estate, which included a vast collection of personal documents, correspondence, and film and tape recordings, to the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, which itself gave permission to Sandra Maischberger and Andres Veiel, a journalist and filmmaker respectively, to use the material as the basis of a documentary. Riefenstahl, comprising countless elements of the archive, along with documents from other sources, builds a biography of a person who never came clean about what she knew about Nazi Germany, and never took responsibility for her part in it. It's a complex and layered examination of a life led between pride and denial, and has resonances today: take Riefenstahl's television appearance in 1976 alongside Elfriede Kretschmer, an anti-Nazi activist and contemporary who refuses to believe her claims of ignorance during wartime, which is followed by recordings of phone calls to Riefenstahl in support of her stance and contempt for Kretschmer. The line between those calls and the metastasising popularity of extreme right-wing, "anti-woke" and similar ideologies today is self-evident, as is the difference between ideas expressed publicly and privately. Riefenstahl is more outspoken off the record than on it, demanding interviewers' cameras be turned off to prevent them from capturing candid revelations. In this sense and others, her life provides a window into fascism - what drives it - her initial response to seeing and hearing Adolf Hitler speak is almost sexual - what it represents and offers to its adherents, and how it shrinks and cowers when it doesn't get everything it wants. It's a problem for Mike that the film doesn't seem to think that the artistic and cultural impact of Riefenstahl's work is worth exploring, where to him it's the most interesting thing about her. Not only were her films technically and artictically innovative - something claimed by subjects in the film but not explained or examined - but her work arguably gives the Nazis their key, and enduring, victory. As thuggish and vile as the regime was, and despite its collapse, through Triumph of the Will and Olympia it created an image of itself as glorious and powerful with which we continue to associate it, and to which neo-Nazis today aspire to emulate. Few filmmakers have left a cultural legacy of such significance and duration, but the documentary isn't interested in the work - only the person. Quibbles apart, Riefenstahl is an excellent example of how to tell a complex tale with intention, clarity, and concision, while allowing for interpretation of the material presented, and it'll be the basis of endless conversations. Highly recommended. Recorded on 2nd June 2025.

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Democrats in Congress have introduced a trillion-dollar slavery reparations bill. Also, Mike Lee is pushing a bill that could lead to almost all pornography being banned. Budget airlines are now so bad that they have roach infestations on the planes. And thousands of people on social media have been very mad at me this week, claiming that I tweeted a “swastika” and announced my allegiance to the Nazi Party. Is that true? And what is my message to the outrage mob? Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6 Ep.1598 - - - DailyWire+: Join us at https://dailywire.com/subscribe and become a part of the rebellion against the ridiculous. Normal is back. And this time, we're keeping it. “Parenting” with Dr. Jordan B. Peterson premieres May 25th. https://bit.ly/3RXTL07 Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj - - - Today's Sponsors: American Financing - Talk with an American Financing consultant today: (866) 569-4711 or visit https://americanfinancing.net/walsh Disclaimer: NMLS 182334, https://nmlsconsumeraccess.org Momentous - Use code WALSH at https://livemomentous.com for 35% off your first subscription. Daily Wire Shop - Save up to 47% with Jeremy's Razors Father's Day Sale: https://jeremysrazors.com/fathersday - - - Socials:  Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy

In the second of two parts, we look at the fallout of Coco Chanel's relations with Nazis during their rule over Paris in WW2. • Follow Diversion Audio on Instagram • Explore more: diversionaudio.com This series is hosted by Mary Kay McBrayer. Check out more of her work at www.marykaymcbrayer.com.This episode was written by Mary Kay McBrayerDeveloped by Scott Waxman, Emma DeMuth, and Jacob Bronstein Associate Producer is Leo CulpProduced by Antonio EnriquezTheme Music by Tyler CashExecutive Produced by Scott Waxman and Emma DeMuth Special thanks to:Carter, Stephen L.. Invisible. Henry Holt and Co.. Kindle Edition. Pre-order Mary Kay's forthcoming true crime book 'Madame Queen: The The Life and Crimes of Harlem’s Underground Racketeer, Stephanie St. Clair' here Check out more on 'Devil's Rooming House' by Hal Vaughn at Penguin Random House SOURCES Albanesi, Melanie. “Coco Chanel: Fashion Designer, Nazi Informant.” PBS. January 3, 2022. Pinnock, Olivia. “Do Coco Chanel’s Nazi Connections Matter For Fashion Today?” Forbes. James, Caryn. “The truth about Coco Chanel and the Nazis.” BBC. 2024. Mah, Ann. “This Picture Tells a Tragic Story of What Happened to Women After D-Day.” Time. June 6, 2018. Mazzeo, Tilar J. The Secret of Chanel No. 5. Harper. Nov 9, 2010. McAuley, James. “The Exchange: Coco Chanel and the Nazi Party.” The New Yorker. August 31, 2011. Paton, Elizabeth. “Chanel Publishes Annual Results for First Time in 108 Years.” The New York Times. June 21, 2018. Vaughan, Hal. Sleeping with the Enemy: Coco Chanel's Secret War. Vintage. 2011. Wars of Coco Chanel documentary. Becoming Chanel documentary. Thomas, Dana. “The Power Behind the Cologne.” The New York Times Magazine. Feb 24, 2002. Villani, Anna. “WHO OWNS CHANEL? The Wertheimer family. But, who are they?” The Vintage Bar. Jan 7, 2021. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tim Willasey-Wilsey comes on Spymasters to talk about the life and espionage career of Baron Bill de Ropp, a spy who infiltrated the Nazi Party during the rise of Adolf Hitler. The discussion covers his early life, his motivations for espionage, his complex relationships with key figures in the Nazi regime, and the challenges he faced as a spy. The conversation also delves into the historical context of the Baltic Germans, the dynamics of British intelligence during the interwar period, and the implications of de Ropp's reports on the perception of Nazi Germany within the British government. Bill de Ropp was a key figure in MI6's early espionage efforts. His linguistic skills allowed him to blend into various societies. de Ropp's loyalty shifted from Germany to Britain during WWI. He played a significant role in monitoring the Nazi Party's rise. His relationship with Alfred Rosenberg was pivotal for intelligence gathering. His first meeting with Hitler was fraught with tension. Buy the book: https://amzn.eu/d/ixv4x6i Keywords: Baron Bill de Ropp, MI6, Nazi Party, espionage, intelligence, history, World War II, Lithuania, Hitler, British intelligence Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A year ago, the great American historian Adam Hochschild came on KEEN ON AMERICA to discuss American Midnight, his best selling account of the crisis of American democracy after World War One. A year later, is history really repeating itself in today's crisis of American democracy? For Hochschild, there are certainly parallels between the current political situation in the US and post WW1 America. Describing how wartime hysteria and fear of communism led to unprecedented government repression, including mass imprisonment for political speech, vigilante violence, and press censorship. Hochschild notes eery similarities to today's Trump's administration. He expresses concern about today's threats to democratic institutions while suggesting the importance of understanding Trump supporters' grievances and finding ways to bridge political divides. Five Key Takeaways* The period of 1917-1921 in America saw extreme government repression, including imprisoning people for speech, vigilante violence, and widespread censorship—what Hochschild calls America's "Trumpiest" era before Trump.* American history shows recurring patterns of nativism, anti-immigrant sentiment, and scapegoating that politicians exploit during times of economic or social stress.* The current political climate shows concerning parallels to this earlier period, including intimidation of opposition, attacks on institutions, and the widespread acceptance of authoritarian tendencies.* Hochschild emphasizes the importance of understanding the grievances and suffering that lead people to support authoritarian figures rather than dismissing their concerns.* Despite current divisions, Hochschild believes reconciliation is possible and necessary, pointing to historical examples like President Harding pardoning Eugene Debs after Wilson imprisoned him. Full Transcript Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. We recently celebrated our 2500th edition of Keen On. Some people suggest I'm mad. I think I probably am to do so many shows. Just over a little more than a year ago, we celebrated our 2000th show featuring one of America's most distinguished historians, Adam Hochschild. I'm thrilled that Adam is joining us again a year later. He's the author of "American Midnight, The Great War, A Violent Peace, and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis." This was his last book. He's the author of many other books. He is now working on a book on the Great Depression. He's joining us from his home in Berkeley, California. Adam, to borrow a famous phrase or remix a famous phrase, a year is a long time in American history.Adam Hochschild: That's true, Andrew. I think this past year, or actually this past 100 days or so has been a very long and very difficult time in American history that we all saw coming to some degree, but I don't think we realized it would be as extreme and as rapid as it has been.Andrew Keen: Your book, Adam, "American Midnight, A Great War of Violent Peace and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis," is perhaps the most prescient warning. When you researched that you were saying before we went live that your books usually take you between four and five years, so you couldn't really have planned for this, although I guess you began writing and researching American Midnight during the Trump 1.0 regime. Did you write it as a warning to something like is happening today in America?Adam Hochschild: Well, I did start writing it and did most of the work on it during Trump's first term in office. So I was very struck by the parallels. And they're in plain sight for everybody to see. There are various dark currents that run through this country of ours. Nativism, threats to deport troublemakers. Politicians stirring up violent feelings against immigrants, vigilante violence, all those things have been with us for a long time. I've always been fascinated by that period, 1917 to 21, when they surged to the surface in a very nasty way. That was the subject of the book. Naturally, I hoped we wouldn't have to go through anything like that again, but here we are definitely going through it again.Andrew Keen: You wrote a lovely piece earlier this month for the Washington Post. "America was at its Trumpiest a hundred years ago. Here's how to prevent the worst." What did you mean by Trumpiest, Adam? I'm not sure if you came up with that title, but I know you like the term. You begin the essay. What was the Trumpiest period in American life before Donald Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I didn't invent the word, but I certainly did use it in the piece. What I meant by that is that when you look at this period just over 100 years ago, 1917 to 1921, Woodrow Wilson's second term in office, two things happened in 1917 that kicked off a kind of hysteria in this country. One was that Wilson asked the American Congress to declare war on Germany, which it promptly did, and when a country enters a major war, especially a world war, it sets off a kind of hysteria. And then that was redoubled some months later when the country received news of the Russian Revolution, and many people in the establishment in America were afraid the Russian Revolution might come to the United States.So, a number of things happened. One was that there was a total hysteria against all things German. There were bonfires of German books all around the country. People would take German books out of libraries, schools, college and university libraries and burn them in the street. 19 such bonfires in Ohio alone. You can see pictures of it on the internet. There was hysteria about the German language. I heard about this from my father as I was growing up because his father was a Jewish immigrant from Germany. They lived in New York City. They spoke German around the family dinner table, but they were terrified of doing so on the street because you could get beaten up for that. Several states passed laws against speaking German in public or speaking German on the telephone. Eminent professors declared that German was a barbaric language. So there was that kind of hysteria.Then as soon as the United States declared war, Wilson pushed the Espionage Act through Congress, this draconian law, which essentially gave the government the right to lock up anybody who said something that was taken to be against the war. And they used this law in a devastating way. During those four years, roughly a thousand Americans spent a year or more in jail and a much larger number, shorter periods in jail solely for things that they wrote or said. These were people who were political prisoners sent to jail simply for something they wrote or said, the most famous of them was Eugene Debs, many times the socialist candidate for president. He'd gotten 6% of the popular vote in 1912 and in 1918. For giving an anti-war speech from a park bandstand in Ohio, he was sent to prison for 10 years. And he was still in prison two years after the war ended in November, 1920, when he pulled more than 900,000 votes for president from his jail cell in the federal penitentiary in Atlanta.So that was one phase of the repression, political prisoners. Another was vigilante violence. The government itself, the Department of Justice, chartered a vigilante group, something called the American Protective League, which went around roughing up people that it thought were evading the draft, beating up people at anti-war rallies, arresting people with citizens arrest whom they didn't have their proper draft papers on them, holding them for hours or sometimes for days until they could produce the right paperwork.Andrew Keen: I remember, Adam, you have a very graphic description of some of this violence in American Midnight. There was a story, was it a union leader?Adam Hochschild: Well, there is so much violence that happened during that time. I begin the book with a graphic description of vigilantes raiding an office of the Wobblies, the Industrial Workers of the World, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, taking a bunch of wobblies out into the prairie at night, stripping them, whipping them, flogging them fiercely, and then tarring and feathering them, and firing shotguns over their heads so they would run off into the Prairie at Night. And they did. Those guys were lucky because they survive. Other people were killed by this vigilante violence.And the final thing about that period which I would mention is the press censorship. The Espionage Act gave the Postmaster General the power to declare any publication in the United States unmailable. And for a newspaper or a magazine that was trying to reach a national audience, the only way you could do so was through the US mail because there was no internet then. No radio, no TV, no other way of getting your publication to somebody. And this put some 75 newspapers and magazines that the government didn't like out of business. It in addition censored three or four hundred specific issues of other publications as well.So that's why I feel this is all a very dark period of American life. Ironically, that press censorship operation, because it was run by the postmaster general, who by the way loved being chief censor, it was ran out of the building that was then the post office headquarters in Washington, which a hundred years later became the Trump International Hotel. And for $4,000 a night, you could stay in the Postmaster General's suite.Andrew Keen: You, Adam, the First World War is a subject you're very familiar with. In addition to American Midnight, you wrote "To End All Wars, a story of loyalty and rebellion, 1914 to 18," which was another very successful of your historical recreations. Many countries around the world experience this turbulence, the violence. Of course, we had fascism in the 20s in Europe. And later in the 30s as well. America has a long history of violence. You talk about the violence after the First World War or after the declaration. But I was just in Montgomery, Alabama, went to the lynching museum there, which is considerably troubling. I'm sure you've been there. You're not necessarily a comparative political scientist, Adam. How does America, in its paranoia during the war and its clampdown on press freedom, on its violence, on its attempt to create an authoritarian political system, how does it compare to other democracies? Is some of this stuff uniquely American or is it a similar development around the world?Adam Hochschild: You see similar pressures almost any time that a major country is involved in a major war. Wars are never good for civil liberties. The First World War, to stick with that period of comparison, was a time that saw strong anti-war movements in all of the warring countries, in Germany and Britain and Russia. There were people who understood at the time that this war was going to remake the world for the worse in every way, which indeed it did, and who refused to fight. There were 800 conscientious objectors jailed in Russia, and Russia did not have much freedom of expression to begin with. In Germany, many distinguished people on the left, like Rosa Luxemburg, were sent to jail for most of the war.Britain was an interesting case because I think they had a much longer established tradition of free speech than did the countries on the continent. It goes way back and it's a distinguished and wonderful tradition. They were also worried for the first two and a half, three years of the war before the United States entered, that if they crack down too hard on their anti-war movement, it would upset people in the United States, which they were desperate to draw into the war on their side. Nonetheless, there were 6,000 conscientious objectors who were sent to jail in England. There was intermittent censorship of anti-war publications, although some were able to publish some of the time. There were many distinguished Britons, such as Bertrand Russell, the philosopher who later won a Nobel Prize, sent to jails for six months for his opposition to the war. So some of this happened all over.But I think in the United States, especially with these vigilante groups, it took a more violent form because remember the country at that time was only a few decades away from these frontier wars with the Indians. And the westward expansion of the United States during the 19th century, the western expansion of white settlement was an enormously bloody business that was almost genocidal for the Native Americans. Many people had participated in that. Many people saw that violence as integral to what the country was. So there was a pretty well-established tradition of settling differences violently.Andrew Keen: I'm sure you're familiar with Stephen Hahn's book, "A Liberal America." He teaches at NYU, a book which in some ways is very similar to yours, but covers all of American history. Hahn was recently on the Ezra Klein show, talking like you, like we're talking today, Adam, about the very American roots of Trumpism. Hahn, it's an interesting book, traces much of this back to Jackson and the wars of the frontier against Indians. Do you share his thesis on that front? Are there strong similarities between Jackson, Wilson, and perhaps even Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I regret to say I'm not familiar with Hahn's book, but I certainly do feel that that legacy of constant war for most of the 19th century against the Native Americans ran very deep in this country. And we must never forget how appealing it is to young men to take part in war. Unfortunately, all through history, there have been people very tempted by this. And I think when you have wars of conquest, such as happen in the American West, against people who are more poorly armed, or colonial wars such as Europe fought in Africa and Asia against much more poorly-armed opponents, these are especially appealing to young people. And in both the United States and in the European colonization of Africa, which I know something about. For young men joining in these colonizing or conquering adventures, there was a chance not just to get martial glory, but to also get rich in the process.Andrew Keen: You're all too familiar with colonial history, Adam. Another of your books was about King Leopold's Congo and the brutality there. Where was the most coherent opposition morally and politically to what was happening? My sense in Trump's America is perhaps the most persuasive and moral critique comes from the old Republican Center from people like David Brooks, Peter Wayno has been on the show many times, Jonathan Rausch. Where were people like Teddy Roosevelt in this narrative? Were there critics from the right as well as from the left?Adam Hochschild: Good question. I first of all would give a shout out to those Republican centrists who've spoken out against Trump, the McCain Republicans. There are some good people there - Romney, of course as well. They've been very forceful. There wasn't really an equivalent to that, a direct equivalent to that in the Wilson era. Teddy Roosevelt whom you mentioned was a far more ferocious drum beater than Wilson himself and was pushing Wilson to declare war long before Wilson did. Roosevelt really believed that war was good for the soul. He desperately tried to get Wilson to appoint him to lead a volunteer force, came up with an elaborate plan for this would be a volunteer army staffed by descendants of both Union and Confederate generals and by French officers as well and homage to the Marquis de Lafayette. Wilson refused to allow Roosevelt to do this, and plus Roosevelt was, I think, 58 years old at the time. But all four of Roosevelt's sons enlisted and joined in the war, and one of them was killed. And his father was absolutely devastated by this.So there was not really that equivalent to the McCain Republicans who are resisting Trump, so to speak. In fact, what resistance there was in the U.S. came mostly from the left, and it was mostly ruthlessly silenced, all these people who went to jail. It was silenced also because this is another important part of what happened, which is different from today. When the federal government passed the Espionage Act that gave it these draconian powers, state governments, many of them passed copycat laws. In fact, a federal justice department agent actually helped draft the law in New Hampshire. Montana locked up people serving more than 60 years cumulatively of hard labor for opposing the war. California had 70 people in prison. Even my hometown of Berkeley, California passed a copycat law. So, this martial spirit really spread throughout the country at that time.Andrew Keen: So you've mentioned that Debs was the great critic and was imprisoned and got a considerable number of votes in the election. You're writing a book now about the Great Depression and FDR's involvement in it. FDR, of course, was a distant cousin of Teddy Roosevelt. At this point, he was an aspiring Democratic politician. Where was the critique within the mainstream Democratic party? Were people like FDR, who had a position in the Wilson administration, wasn't he naval secretary?Adam Hochschild: He was assistant secretary of the Navy. And he went to Europe during the war. For an aspiring politician, it's always very important to say I've been at the front. And so he went to Europe and certainly made no sign of resistance. And then in 1920, he was the democratic candidate for vice president. That ticket lost of course.Andrew Keen: And just to remind ourselves, this was before he became disabled through polio, is that correct?Adam Hochschild: That's right. That happened in the early 20s and it completely changed his life and I think quite deepened him as a person. He was a very ambitious social climbing young politician before then but I think he became something deeper. Also the political parties at the time were divided each party between right and left wings or war mongering and pacifist wings. And when the Congress voted on the war, there were six senators who voted against going to war and 50 members of the House of Representatives. And those senators and representatives came from both parties. We think of the Republican Party as being more conservative, but it had some staunch liberals in it. The most outspoken voice against the war in the Senate was Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, who was a Republican.Andrew Keen: I know you write about La Follette in American Midnight, but couldn't one, Adam, couldn't won before the war and against domestic repression. You wrote an interesting piece recently for the New York Review of Books about the Scopes trial. William Jennings Bryan, of course, was involved in that. He was the defeated Democratic candidate, what in about three or four presidential elections in the past. In the early 20th century. What was Bryan's position on this? He had been against the war, is that correct? But I'm guessing he would have been quite critical of some of the domestic repression.Adam Hochschild: You know, I should know the answer to that, Andrew, but I don't. He certainly was against going to war. He had started out in Wilson's first term as Wilson's secretary of state and then resigned in protest against the military buildup and what he saw as a drift to war, and I give him great credit for that. I don't recall his speaking out against the repression after it began, once the US entered the war, but I could be wrong on that. It was not something that I researched. There were just so few voices speaking out. I think I would remember if he had been one of them.Andrew Keen: Adam, again, I'm thinking out loud here, so please correct me if this is a dumb question. What would it be fair to say that one of the things that distinguished the United States from the European powers during the First World War in this period it remained an incredibly insular provincial place barely involved in international politics with a population many of them were migrants themselves would come from Europe but nonetheless cut off from the world. And much of that accounted for the anti-immigrant, anti-foreign hysteria. That exists in many countries, but perhaps it was a little bit more pronounced in the America of the early 20th century, and perhaps in some ways in the early 21st century.Adam Hochschild: Well, we remain a pretty insular place in many ways. A few years ago, I remember seeing the statistic in the New York Times, I have not checked to see whether it's still the case, but I suspect it is that half the members of the United States Congress do not have passports. And we are more cut off from the world than people living in most of the countries of Europe, for example. And I think that does account for some of the tremendous feeling against immigrants and refugees. Although, of course, this is something that is common, not just in Europe, but in many countries all over the world. And I fear it's going to get all the stronger as climate change generates more and more refugees from the center of the earth going to places farther north or farther south where they can get away from parts of the world that have become almost unlivable because of climate change.Andrew Keen: I wonder Democratic Congress people perhaps aren't leaving the country because they fear they won't be let back in. What were the concrete consequences of all this? You write in your book about a young lawyer, J. Edgar Hoover, of course, who made his name in this period. He was very much involved in the Palmer Raids. He worked, I think his first job was for Palmer. How do you see this structurally? Of course, many historians, biographers of Hoover have seen this as the beginning of some sort of American security state. Is that over-reading it, exaggerating what happened in this period?Adam Hochschild: Well, security state may be too dignified a word for the hysteria that reigned in the country at that time. One of the things we've long had in the United States is a hysteria, paranoia directed at immigrants who are coming from what seems to be a new and threatening part of the world. In the mid-19th century, for example, we had the Know-Nothing Party, as it was called, who were violently opposed to Catholic immigrants coming from Ireland. Now, they were people of Anglo-Saxon descent, pretty much, who felt that these Irish Catholics were a tremendous threat to the America that they knew. There was much violence. There were people killed in riots against Catholic immigrants. There were Catholic merchants who had their stores burned and so on.Then it began to shift. The Irish sort of became acceptable, but by the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century the immigrants coming from Europe were now coming primarily from southern and eastern Europe. In other words, Italians, Sicilians, Poles, and Jews. And they became the target of the anti-immigrant crusaders with much hysteria directed against them. It was further inflamed at that time by the Eugenics movement, which was something very strong, where people believed that there was a Nordic race that was somehow superior to everybody else, that the Mediterraneans were inferior people, and that the Africans were so far down the scale, barely worth talking about. And this culminated in 1924 with the passage of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act that year, which basically slammed the door completely on immigrants coming from Asia and slowed to an absolute trickle those coming from Europe for the next 40 years or so.Andrew Keen: It wasn't until the mid-60s that immigration changed, which is often overlooked. Some people, even on the left, suggest that it was a mistake to radically reform the Immigration Act because we would have inevitably found ourselves back in this situation. What do you think about that, Adam?Adam Hochschild: Well, I think a country has the right to regulate to some degree its immigration, but there always will be immigration in this world. I mean, my ancestors all came from other countries. The Jewish side of my family, I'm half Jewish, were lucky to get out of Europe in plenty of time. Some relatives who stayed there were not lucky and perished in the Holocaust. So who am I to say that somebody fleeing a repressive regime in El Salvador or somewhere else doesn't have the right to come here? I think we should be pretty tolerant, especially if people fleeing countries where they really risk death for one reason or another. But there is always gonna be this strong anti-immigrant feeling because unscrupulous politicians like Donald Trump, and he has many predecessors in this country, can point to immigrants and blame them for the economic misfortunes that many Americans are experiencing for reasons that don't have anything to do with immigration.Andrew Keen: Fast forward Adam to today. You were involved in an interesting conversation on the Nation about the role of universities in the resistance. What do you make of this first hundred days, I was going to say hundred years that would be a Freudian error, a hundred days of the Trump regime, the role, of big law, big universities, newspapers, media outlets? In this emerging opposition, are you chilled or encouraged?Adam Hochschild: Well, I hope it's a hundred days and not a hundred years. I am moderately encouraged. I was certainly deeply disappointed at the outset to see all of those tech titans go to Washington, kiss the ring, contribute to Trump's inauguration festivities, be there in the front row. Very depressing spectacle, which kind of reminds one of how all the big German industrialists fell into line so quickly behind Hitler. And I'm particularly depressed to see the changes in the media, both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post becoming much more tame when it came to endorsing.Andrew Keen: One of the reasons for that, Adam, of course, is that you're a long-time professor at the journalism school at UC Berkeley, so you've been on the front lines.Adam Hochschild: So I really care about a lively press that has free expression. And we also have a huge part of the media like Fox News and One American Network and other outlets that are just pouring forth a constant fire hose of lies and falsehood.Andrew Keen: And you're being kind of calling it a fire hose. I think we could come up with other terms for it. Anyway, a sewage pipe, but that's another issue.Adam Hochschild: But I'm encouraged when I see media organizations that take a stand. There are places like the New York Times, like CNN, like MSNBC, like the major TV networks, which you can read or watch and really find an honest picture of what's going on. And I think that's a tremendously important thing for a country to have. And that you look at the countries that Donald Trump admires, like Putin's Russia, for example, they don't have this. So I value that. I want to keep it. I think that's tremendously important.I was sorry, of course, that so many of those big law firms immediately cave to these ridiculous and unprecedented demands that he made, contributing pro bono work to his causes in return for not getting banned from government buildings. Nothing like that has happened in American history before, and the people in those firms that made those decisions should really be ashamed of themselves. I was glad to see Harvard University, which happens to be my alma mater, be defiant after caving in a little bit on a couple of issues. They finally put their foot down and said no. And I must say, feeling Harvard patriotism is a very rare emotion for me. But this is the first time in 50 years that I've felt some of it.Andrew Keen: You may even give a donation, Adam.Adam Hochschild: And I hope other universities are going to follow its lead, and it looks like they will. But this is pretty unprecedented, a president coming after universities with this determined of ferocity. And he's going after nonprofit organizations as well. There will be many fights there as well, I'm sure we're just waiting to hear about the next wave of attacks which will be on places like the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation and other big nonprofits. So hold on and wait for that and I hope they are as defiant as possible too.Andrew Keen: It's a little bit jarring to hear a wise historian like yourself use the word unprecedented. Is there much else of this given that we're talking historically and the similarities with the period after the first world war, is there anything else unprecedented about Trumpism?Adam Hochschild: I think in a way, we have often had, or not often, but certainly sometimes had presidents in this country who wanted to assume almost dictatorial powers. Richard Nixon certainly is the most recent case before Trump. And he was eventually stopped and forced to leave office. Had that not happened, I think he would have very happily turned himself into a dictator. So we know that there are temptations that come with the desire for absolute power everywhere. But Trump has gotten farther along on this process and has shown less willingness to do things like abide by court orders. The way that he puts pressure on Republican members of Congress.To me, one of the most startling, disappointing, remarkable, and shocking things about these first hundred days is how very few Republican members to the House or Senate have dared to defy Trump on anything. At most, these ridiculous set of appointees that he muscled through the Senate. At most, they got three Republican votes against them. They couldn't muster the fourth necessary vote. And in the House, only one or two Republicans have voted against Trump on anything. And of course, he has threatened to have Elon Musk fund primaries against any member of Congress who does defy him. And I can't help but think that these folks must also be afraid of physical violence because Trump has let all the January 6th people out of jail and the way vigilantes like that operate is they first go after the traitors on their own side then they come for the rest of us just as in the first real burst of violence in Hitler's Germany was the night of the long knives against another faction of the Nazi Party. Then they started coming for the Jews.Andrew Keen: Finally, Adam, your wife, Arlie, is another very distinguished writer.Adam Hochschild: I've got a better picture of her than that one though.Andrew Keen: Well, I got some very nice photos. This one is perhaps a little, well she's thinking Adam. Everyone knows Arlie from her hugely successful work, "Strangers in their Own Land." She has a new book out, "Stolen Pride, Lost Shame and the Rise of the Right." I don't want to put words into Arlie's mouth and she certainly wouldn't let me do that, Adam, but would it be fair to say that her reading, certainly of recent American history, is trying to bring people back together. She talks about the lessons she learned from her therapist brother. And in some ways, I see her as a kind of marriage counselor in America. Given what's happening today in America with Trump, is this still an opportunity? This thing is going to end and it will end in some ways rather badly and perhaps bloodily one way or the other. But is this still a way to bring people, to bring Americans back together? Can America be reunited? What can we learn from American Midnight? I mean, one of the more encouraging stories I remember, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't it Coolidge or Harding who invited Debs when he left prison to the White House? So American history might be in some ways violent, but it's also made up of chapters of forgiveness.Adam Hochschild: That's true. I mean, that Debs-Harding example is a wonderful one. Here is Debs sent to prison by Woodrow Wilson for a 10-year term. And Debs, by the way, had been in jail before for his leadership of a railway strike when he was a railway workers union organizer. Labor organizing was a very dangerous profession in those days. But Debs was a fairly gentle man, deeply committed to nonviolence. About a year into, a little less than a year into his term, Warren Harding, Woodrow Wilson's successor, pardoned Debs, let him out of prison, invited him to visit the White House on his way home. And they had a half hour's chat. And when he left the building, Debs told reporters, "I've run for the White house five times, but this is the first time I've actually gotten here." Harding privately told a friend. This was revealed only after his death, that he said, "Debs was right about that war. We never should have gotten involved in it."So yeah, there can be reconciliation. There can be talk across these great differences that we have, and I think there are a number of organizations that are working on that specific project, getting people—Andrew Keen: We've done many of those shows. I'm sure you're familiar with the organization Braver Angels, which seems to be a very good group.Adam Hochschild: So I think it can be done. I really think it could be done and it has to be done and it's important for those of us who are deeply worried about Trump, as you and I are, to understand the grievances and the losses and the suffering that has made Trump's backers feel that here is somebody who can get them out of the pickle that they're in. We have to understand that, and the Democratic Party has to come up with promising alternatives for them, which it really has not done. It didn't really offer one in this last election. And the party itself is in complete disarray right now, I fear.Andrew Keen: I think perhaps Arlie should run for president. She would certainly do a better job than Kamala Harris in explaining it. And of course they're both from Berkeley. Finally, Adam, you're very familiar with the history of Africa, Southern Africa, your family I think was originally from there. Might we need after all this, when hopefully the smoke clears, might we need a Mandela style truth and reconciliation committee to make sense of what's happening?Adam Hochschild: My family's actually not from there, but they were in business there.Andrew Keen: Right, they were in the mining business, weren't they?Adam Hochschild: That's right. Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Well, I don't think it would be on quite the same model as South Africa's. But I certainly think we need to find some way of talking across the differences that we have. Coming from the left side of that divide I just feel all too often when I'm talking to people who feel as I do about the world that there is a kind of contempt or disinterest in Trump's backers. These are people that I want to understand, that we need to understand. We need to understand them in order to hear what their real grievances are and to develop alternative policies that are going to give them a real alternative to vote for. Unless we can do that, we're going to have Trump and his like for a long time, I fear.Andrew Keen: Wise words, Adam. I hope in the next 500 episodes of this show, things will improve. We'll get you back on the show, keep doing your important work, and I'm very excited to learn more about your new project, which we'll come to in the next few months or certainly years. Thank you so much.Adam Hochschild: OK, thank you, Andrew. Good being with you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

  In this episode we look at the general debate amongst Historians about how to understand the German's motivations for the Holocaust. Were the people directly involved in implementing the Holocaust deranged, similar to those who perpetrate school shootings?   How long had German intellectuals been discussing what was called, ‘The Jewish Problem'? How long had the solution of extermination been discussed for? What part did the Nazi Party play in this?  Nach Yomi: Join R' Wittenstein's Nach Yomi on WhatsApp. We learn a perek a day five days a week, with a nine minute shiur covering the key issues. Click here to join!  For tours, speaking engagements, or sponsorships contact us at jewishhistoryuncensored@gmail.com PRODUCED BY: CEDAR MEDIA STUDIOS  

April 4, 1925. Paranoid about rivals within the Nazi Party, Adolf Hitler establishes a personal bodyguard that answers to him alone.Support the show! Join Into History for ad-free listening and more.History Daily is a co-production of Airship and Noiser.Go to HistoryDaily.com for more history, daily.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Following the Trump administration's decision to revoke $400 million in federal funding over Columbia University's failure to protect Jewish students, the university announced sweeping policy changes. Meanwhile, the U.S. moved to deport former Columbia student and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, accusing him of concealing his ties to UNRWA and participating in antisemitic campus protests. Dr. Laura Shaw Frank, Director of AJC's Center for Education Advocacy, joins People of the Pod to discuss the delicate balance between combating antisemitism, safeguarding free speech, and ensuring campuses remain safe for all students. ___ Resources: Leaders for Tomorrow: AJC's Flagship Leadership Development Initiative for High School Students AJC Supports Action on Antisemitism, Warns Against Overly Broad Funding Cuts Guidance and Programs for Higher Education Spaces The State of Antisemitism in America 2024 Report  AJC Statement on ICE Proceeding Against Mahmoud Khalil Listen – AJC Podcasts: -The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. -People of the Pod:  Spat On and Silenced: 2 Jewish Students on Fighting Campus Hate Meet the MIT Scientists Fighting Academic Boycotts of Israel Will Ireland Finally Stop Paying Lip Service When it Comes to Combating Antisemitism? Held Hostage in Gaza: A Mother's Fight for Freedom and Justice Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Laura Shaw Frank: Aaron Bregman: Hi, this is Aaron Bregman, AJC's Director of High School Affairs. If you're the parent of a Jewish high school student, you've probably asked yourself, "How can I help my teen feel proud and prepared to lead in today's world?" Well, that's exactly what AJC's Leaders for Tomorrow program, or LFT, is all about. LFT gives Jewish teens the tools to navigate challenging conversations and advocAte about antisemitism and Israel—whether in the classroom, online, or in their community spaces. Our monthly deep-dive sessions into the issues faced by Jews - both historically and today - become the place where LFT students find community, build confidence, and strengthen their Jewish identity. If your teen is ready to expand their understanding of what it means to be a Jewish leader — have them visit AJC.org/LFT to learn more. Let's give them the tools they need to step up, speak out, and lead with pride. Again, that's AJC.org/LFT.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Three federal agencies said this week that they welcomed the policy changes that Columbia University announced Friday, following the Trump administration's revocation of $400 million in federal funding. The government recalled the funding in response to the university's failure to enforce its own rules to protect Jewish students after the terror attacks of October 7, 2023. Masked protesters of the Israel Hamas War spewed antisemitic rhetoric, built encampments that blocked students from attending classes and, in some cases, took over classes.  Also this week, the government announced new charges against Mahmoud Khalil, an Algerian citizen and green card holder here in the United States, and a former Columbia University graduate student who was detained due to his activism on campus. International students on other campuses also have been detained in the weeks since. As a community that values academic freedom, as well as freedom of expression, and democracy, how do we balance those values with the importance of fighting antisemitism and making sure our campuses are safe for Jewish students?  With me to discuss this balancing act is Laura Shaw Frank, director of the AJC Center for Education Advocacy and director of AJC's Department of Contemporary Jewish Life. Laura, welcome to People of the Pod.  Laura Shaw Frank:   Thanks, Manya. Good to be with you.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   So let's start with the issue of Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student. He was detained due to his activism on campus. And we're learning from government this week that he reportedly did not disclose that he was a member of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNWRA) as a political officer.  And he was also part of Colombia's Apartheid Divest movement when he applied to become a permanent resident in 2024. He was taken into custody, though, in a very troubling way. And frankly, he was one of the few who didn't conceal his identity during the protests and encampments. He negotiated with the University. What is AJC's stance on this? Laura Shaw Frank:   Great question Manya, and it deserves a very, very careful and nuanced answer. So I want to start by saying that AJC, as it has always done, is striving enormously to remain the very nuanced and careful voice that we always have about every issue, and particularly about the issues that we're talking about here, which are so so fraught in a moment that is so so fraught. AJC issued a statement that we published on X and on our website that talked about the fact that we deplore so many of Mahmoud Khalil's views and actions. And at the same time, it is critically important that the government follow all rules of due process and protections of free expression that we have in our country. And I wanted to emphasize, while I am an attorney, my law degree is incredibly rusty, and I'm not going to pretend to know all the legal ins and outs here, but I do know this, that free speech does attach, even for non-citizens in this country. So we're trying to express a very careful position here. It is possible that Khalil needs to be deported. It is very possible. What has to happen, though, is a trial with due process that is open, transparent and legal. And once those factual findings are determined, if it is the case that Khalil has violated United States law, and has provided material support for terror, and I know the government is actually no longer relying on that particular statute, or has endangered US interests, I don't remember exactly the language that the statute has, but endangered US interests, then he can be deported.  But we want to make sure that even as we deplore so much of what he has stood for--he's been the spokesperson for Columbia University Apartheid Divest, which is sort of an umbrella organization for many, many other student organizations at Columbia, including Students for Justice in Palestine, which was banned from campus, and some other groups which have espoused terribly antisemitic and anti-Israel views and actions on campus. They have engaged in protest activity that has been at times violent and exclusionary of Jewish students.  There's a lot to be horrified by there. And even as we abhor all of that, we love America, we love due process, we love democracy, and we feel very fiercely that those norms have to be upheld, and we hope that the government will uphold them. We expressed that concern because of the circumstances of his detention, and we're watching the case closely. Manya Brachear Pashman:   We also have the government threatening to cancel about $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia. This is a separate matter, but those cuts could include funding for scholarship and research and law. Education and health care. You know, a number of students and scholars alike are very afraid that this could backfire, if indeed, this is done at other universities across the country, in the name of protecting Jewish students. That the backlash could actually hurt the Jewish community.  Do you think that there is some credence to that? And if so, how do we prevent that? Laura Shaw Frank:   It's a great question, so I want to stop for a second before I answer the question, and talk a little bit about the position AJC has taken with respect to the $400 million. We issued a statement, a letter to the government, to the task force, about the $400 million. Where we, again, expressed our enormous gratitude to the administration for shining a light on antisemitism and for taking it seriously. Which it needs to be taken incredibly seriously in this moment. And we fear that it has not been taken seriously enough until this moment, so we're very grateful that the administration is taking it seriously.  And at the same time, we expressed our concern about the $400 million dollars being withheld because of what that $400 million will fund. That $400 million is largely funding for research, scientific and medical research, and we know that in this moment, there is a great deal of research money that is being withheld in various places in this country from universities that is funding really critical research. Pediatric brain cancer, Parkinson's disease, COVID. Whatever it is, that research is incredibly important.  So we want to make sure that even as the government is doing the good work of shining a light on antisemitism and ensuring that our higher education institutions are not harboring and fostering atmospheres of antisemitism. We want to make sure that they are simultaneously not using a hatchet rather than a scalpel in order to attack the problem.  We are keenly aware that much of the most antisemitic discourse that occurs on campus among faculty is discourse that comes out of humanities departments and not generally out of science, research, medicine departments. And it feels wrong to perhaps be withholding the funds from those who are not the problem. Generally, humanities departments don't get hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from the federal government. The research that they do is of a different scale. It's less expensive. Frankly, they don't have to run labs, so the funding is really mostly in that medical and science realm.  So I wanted to just start by saying that, and would definitely encourage folks to take a look at the letter that AJC sent to the task force. With respect to your question about whether this is going to backfire against the Jewish community. It is definitely a concern that we've thought about at AJC. There have been many moments in Jewish history where Jews have become scapegoats for policies of governments, or policies in a society, or failures of a society. I'm thinking of two in this particular moment that are just popping into my head.  One of them was the Khmelnytsky massacres in 1648 and 49. I know that sounds like a long time ago, but feels kind of relevant. When Jews, who were representing the nobles in exchanges with peasants, collecting taxes, things of that nature, were attacked and murdered in tens of thousands. And Jews were really, you know, was there antisemitism involved? Absolutely. Were Jews being scapegoated for rage against nobles? Also, absolutely. So I'm thinking about that.  I'm also thinking about the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany in the 1920s and 30s, where this myth of the German population being stabbed in the back by the Jews who quote, unquote, made them lose World War I–which is, of course, obscene and ridiculous–led the way for Nazi ideology finding a foothold in German society. So I'm thinking of those moments when Jews became a scapegoat. And I'm keenly aware of how much our universities rely on research dollars to do their work, and also the anger that so many who are working in that space must be feeling in this moment. It does make me fearful to think that those who are working in the research and those who need the research, you know, people who are struggling with health issues, people who are relying on cutting edge research to help them, could say, No, this is all the Jews' fault. It's all because of them. They're causing the government to do this and that. You know, it feeds into that antisemitism trope of control. I do worry about the Jews becoming the target.  What should we do about that? I think it's very important for us to have the open lines of communication that we're grateful to have with government officials, with elected officials and appointed officials in the Administration and across the aisle in Congress, with Democratic and Republican elected officials. I think it's important for them to understand, at least, you know, from AJC's perspective, that we hope that as they continue to shine that very important spotlight on antisemitism, and continue to ensure that we hold our institutions of higher education to the standard which they must be held to, taking antisemitism very seriously and combating it with all of their power and strength. That at the same time, we want to make sure that the strategies that the government is using to address this issue are strategies that will truly address the problem. And we hope that our statements, our transparency about our stance, will help this country see the views of the Jewish community in this moment. That there are diverse views in the Jewish community, that we do care deeply about the success of higher education, about the success and the importance of research dollars, and that we also care deeply that the administration is taking antisemitism seriously. So really trying to hold that very special AJC nuance. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I know AJC offers an entire package of strategies to combat antisemitism in many different arenas, including university campuses. And I want to take a look at some of the changes that Columbia announced in response to the government's threats to cut funds, to restore those funds. They said that they would make it easier to report harassment and enable the provost to deal with disciplinary action against students who are involved in protests. These seem to reflect some of the strategies that AJC has shared, Yes? Laura Shaw Frank:   Yes, for sure. I want to say, before I respond, that there seems to be a bit of murkiness right now, as we are recording, regarding sort of where some of the some of the agreement stands. So I'm just going to just note that, that it could be that by the time we air this episode, things will be different. But AJC's strategy for higher education administrators, which could be found on our website, and you can probably link to that in the show notes too, calls for very clear codes of conduct. Calls for enforcement, clear enforcement of those codes of conduct.  We don't specifically say where discipline should be situated, because every university has a different kind of plan for how, how that should be situated. And I know that's an issue that appears to be ongoingly unclear between the government and Columbia right now, so I'm not going to say where that's landing. It's not clear to me where it's landing, yet.  But there's no question that the kinds of asks that the federal government or demands, really that the federal government has made of Columbia, are demands that are rooted in the same issues that we have highlighted on campus. So there's this issue of discipline. Not just codes of conduct, but also the enforcement of codes of conduct. We've seen very often, including at Columbia, that there are rules that are on the books, but they're not actually enforced in reality. And they're useless if they're not enforced in reality. So that's one thing that we have been very clear about in our plan.  We also have encouraged universities to think about faculty, to think about the role that faculty plays on a campus, and that's also been a part of the Columbia agreement with the federal government. Again, this is a little bit murky, still, but the federal government had asked for the Middle East and African Studies Department, maybe Asian Studies. I'm not sure exactly what the title of the department is to be put in receivership. That is a very extreme thing that can be done. Universities do it if a department is completely failing in whatever way. They could put it in receivership, give it over to somebody else to head.  And it seems, at least as of this moment, that what Columbia has done is appoint a new Vice President who is going to oversee studies in the Middle East and Jewish studies, but it's not really exactly receivership. So I'm not going to opine on what they've done, but what I will opine on is what AJC is asking campuses to do in this moment. We've alluded to it in our campus plan that we have up on the website, but we are going to shortly be issuing updated guidance specifically about how we think universities should be addressing the issue of faculty members who are creating an atmosphere that's making Jews feel harassed, or that they're advancing antisemitism. Our State of Antisemitism Report that was released about a month and a half ago showed that, I think it's 32% of students felt that their faculty members were advancing an antisemitic atmosphere or an atmosphere that was harassing of them.  And I want to be clear that obviously this is a question of feel, right? We ask the students, do you feel that way? And we know that feelings are not empirical data. Every person has their own set of feelings. And what some students might feel is antisemitic. Other students might say, no, no, that's not antisemitic. That's simply a different viewpoint. That's a perfectly legitimate viewpoint.  So with that caveat, I want to say that we're very concerned about that statistic, and we do think that it reflects a reality on campus, specifically on campuses like Columbia. And what we are asking universities to do at this moment is to think really carefully about how they're talking to faculty. How are they professionalizing their faculty?  Our Director of Academic Affairs, Dr. Sara Coodin, has been working a great deal on coming up with a plan of what we would like to ask universities to work on in this moment, to work on the summer when they have some downtime. How are they going to talk to their faculty, especially emerging faculty, TA's,graduate students and young, untenured faculty about what their responsibilities are. What are their responsibilities to have classrooms with multiple viewpoints?  What are their responsibilities to not treat their classrooms as activist spaces for their own political ideologies? What are their responsibilities to not require students to take actions that are political in nature. Such as, we're going to hold class in the encampment today, or I'm canceling class in order for students to go to protest. Those are not appropriate. They are not responsible actions on the part of faculty. They do not fall under the category of academic freedom, they're not responsible.  So academic freedom is a very wide ranging notion, and it's really important. I do want to emphasize very important. We do want faculty members to have academic freedom. They have to be able to pursue the research, the thinking that they do pursue without being curtailed, without being censored. And at the same time, faculty has that privilege, and they also do have responsibilities. And by the way, we're not the only ones who think that. There are national organizations, academic organizations, that have outlined the responsibilities of faculty.  So as we kind of look at this issue with Columbia, the issue of those departments that are the government has asked for receivership, and Columbia has appointed this vice president, the issue that we would like to sort of home in on is this issue of: what are we doing to ensure that we are creating campuses where faculty understand their role in pedagogy, their role in teaching, their role in upholding University spaces that are places of vibrant dialog and discourse–and not activism for the professor's particular viewpoints. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I'm curious, there's been a lot of talk about Columbia failing its Jewish students, and these measures, these threats from the government are really the government's way of trying to repair that. Trying to motivate Columbia to to fix that and serve its Jewish students. But I'm curious if it's not just the Jewish students that Columbia is failing by not protecting Jewish students. In what ways are–and not just Columbia, but–universities in general failing students in this moment, maybe even students including Mahmoud Khalil? Laura Shaw Frank:   I'm so glad you asked that question. I think it's such an important question. We look at universities, at the Center for Education Advocacy, and I think that so many Americans look at universities this way, as places where we are growing the next generation of citizens. Not even the next, they are citizens, many of them, some of them are foreign students and green card holders, et cetera. But we're raising the next generation of Americans, American leadership in our university and college spaces.  And we believe so firmly and so strongly that the ways that antisemitism plays out on campus are so intertwined with general notions of anti-democracy and anti-civics. And that solving antisemitism actually involves solving for these anti-democratic tendencies on certain campuses. And so we do firmly believe that the universities are failing all students in this moment.  What we need as a society, as we become more and more polarized and more and more siloed, what we need universities to do is help us come together, is: help us think about, what are the facts that we can discuss together, debate together, even as we have different interpretations of those facts. Even if we have different opinions about where those facts should lead us. How do we discuss the issues that are so problematic in our society? How will we be able to solve them?  And that, for antisemitism, plays out in a way about, you know, Jewish students are a tiny minority, right, even on campuses where there's a large Jewish population. What does large look like? 10, 15%? On some campuses it's more than that, but it's still quite small. And Jews are two and a half percent of American society. So Jews are a minority. It's very important for us to be in spaces where different views will be included, where different opinions are on the table.  Additionally, of course, discourse about Israel is so important to Jews, and we know from the Pew study and from our AJC studies that four in five Jews, over 80% of Jews, see Israel as important to their Jewish identity. So discourse on campus about Israel that ends up being so one-sided, so ignoring of facts and realities, and so demonizing of Israel and of Zionists and of the Jewish people, that's not healthy for Jews and fosters enormous antisemitism, and it simultaneously is so detrimental, and dangerous for all of us.  It's not solely discourse about Israel that is at issue. It is any time that a university is sending faculty members into the classroom who are all of the same mindset, who all have the same attitude, who are all teaching the same views and not preparing young people with the ability to debate and come up with their own views. Fact-based views, not imaginary views, fact-based views. That's incredibly, incredibly important.  One other piece that I want to mention, that I think when campuses fail to enforce their rules, why they're damaging not just Jewish students, but all students. When you think about a campus that has their library taken over by protesters, or their classrooms taken over by protesters, or the dining hall being blocked by protesters. That's not just preventing Jewish students from accessing those university facilities. It's preventing all students.  Students are on campus to learn, whether they're in a community college, a state university, a small liberal arts college, a private university, whatever it is, they are there to learn. They are paying tuition, in many cases, tens of thousands of dollars, close to $100,000 in tuition in some places, to learn and for these students to have the ability to take away other students' ability to learn is a way that the university is failing all of its students. That has to be stopped. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You talked about using classroom space, using library space, as you know, co-opting it for protest purposes or to express particular points of view. But what about the quad? What about the open space on campus? You know, there appears to be, again, it's still murky, but there appears to be an outright ban now on protests on Columbia's campus. Is that a reasonable approach or should campuses have some sort of vehicle for demonstration and expression, somewhere on its property? Laura Shaw Frank:   Absolutely, campuses should allow for protest. Protest is a right in America. Now, private campuses do not have to give students the right to protest, because that's private space. The government isn't allowed to infringe on protests, so public universities would not be able to do that. But most private campuses have adopted the First Amendment and hold by it on their campuses, including Columbia.  It is critically important that students, faculty members, anyone in American society, be permitted to peacefully protest. What can be done in order to keep campuses functional, and what many campuses have done, is employ time, place, and manner restrictions. That's a phrase that probably a lot of our listeners have heard before.  You're not allowed to curtail speech–which, protest is, of course, a form of speech–you're not allowed to curtail speech based on a particular viewpoint. You can't say, these people are allowed to talk, but those people, because we don't like their opinion, they're not allowed to talk. But what you can do is have something that is viewpoint-neutral. So time, place and manner restrictions are viewpoint neutral. What does that mean?  It means that you can say, on a campus, you're allowed to protest, but it's only between 12 and 1pm on the south quad with no megaphones, right? That's time, place, manner. I believe, and I think we all at AJC believe, that protests should be allowed to happen, and that good, solid time, place, and manner restrictions should be put into place to ensure that those protests are not going to prevent, as we just talked about, students from accessing the resources on campus they need to access, from learning in classrooms. There was a protest at Columbia that took place in a classroom, which was horrifying. I have to tell you that even the most left wing anti-Israel professors tweeted, posted on X against what those students did.  So campuses can create those time, place and manner restrictions and enforce them. And that way, they're permitting free speech. And this is what the Supreme Court has held again and again. And at the same time, prevented protesters from kind of destroying campus, from tearing it all down. And I think that that's really the way to go. Some campuses, by the way, have created spaces, special spaces for protest, like, if you're going to protest, you have to do it in the protest quarter, whatever it is, and I think that's a really good idea.  I'm an alum of Columbia, so I know how small Columbia's campus is. That might not work on Columbia's campus, but certainly time, place, and manner restrictions are critical, critical to campus safety and peace in this moment, and critical to protect the rights of all students, including Jewish students. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And on the topic of protests, as I was reading up on the latest developments, I saw a student quoted, she was quoted saying, ‘It's essentially going to ban any protest that it thinks is antisemitic slash pro-Palestine. I guess we're mixing up those words now.'  And I cringed, and I thought, No, we're not. And what are universities doing to educate their students on that difference? Or is that still missing from the equation? Laura Shaw Frank:   So I actually want to start, if I may, not in universities, but in K-12 schools. The Center for Education Advocacy works with people across the education spectrum, starting in kindergarten and going all the way through graduate school. And I think that's so important, because one of the things we hear from the many university presidents that we are working with in this moment is: we can't fix it.  We are asking our K-12 schools to engage in responsible education about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and we have particular curricular providers that we recommend for them to use in this moment, I want to say that they are terrified to do that, and I understand why they're terrified to do that. Everyone is worried that the minute they open their mouth, they're going to be attacked by some person or another, some group or another.  And I get that. And I also believe, as do the presidents of these universities believe, that we cannot send students to campus when this issue is such a front burner issue. We cannot send students to campus with no ability to deal with it, with no framework of understanding, with no understanding of the way social media is playing with all of us. That education has to take place in K-12 spaces. So I wanted to say that first.  And now I'll talk about campus. Universities are not yet there at all, at all, at all, with talking about these issues in a nuanced and careful and intelligent way. We can never be in a position where we are conflating antisemitism and pro-Palestinian. That is simply ridiculous. One can be a very proud Zionist and be pro-Palestinian, in the sense of wanting Palestinians to have self determination, wanting them to be free, to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  AJC has long, long been on the books supporting a two-state solution, which I believe is pro-Palestinian in nature. Even as we have very few people who are also in the Middle East who are pro two-state solution in this moment. And I understand that.  Education of students to be able to think and act and speak responsibly in this moment means helping students understand what the differences are between being pro-Palestinian and being antisemitic. I'm thinking about phrases like ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,' which lands on Jewish ears, as we know from research that's been done at the University of Chicago, lands on the majority of Jewish ears as genocidal in nature.  I'm thinking about phrases like 'globalize the Intifada,' which also lands on Jewish ears in a very particular way is targeting them, us, and education needs to take place to help students understand the way certain phrases the way certain language lands with Jews and why it lands that way, and how antisemitism plays out in society, and at the same time, education has to take place so students understand the conflict that's going on in the Middle East.  They might think about having debates between different professors, faculty members, students, that are open to the public, open to all, students that present this nuanced and careful view, that help people think through this issue in a careful and educated way. I also think that universities should probably engage in perhaps requiring a class. And I know some universities have started to do this. Stanford University has started to do this, and others as well, requiring a class about responsible speech.  And what I mean by that is: free speech is a right. You don't have to be responsible about it. You can be irresponsible. It's a right. What does it mean to understand the impact of your words?  How do we use speech to bring people together? How do we use speech to build bridges instead of tear people apart? So I think those are two ways that universities could look at this moment in terms of education. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Anything I haven't asked you, Laura, that you think needs to be addressed in this murky moment? Laura Shaw Frank:   I hope that our listeners and everyone who's following the stories on campus right now can take a breath and think carefully and in a nuanced way about what's going on and how they're going to speak about what's going on. I hope that people can see that we can hold two truths, that the government is shining a necessary light on antisemitism, at the same time as universities are very concerned, as are we about some of the ways that light is being shined, or some of the particular strategies the government is using.  It is so important in this moment where polarization is the root of so many of our problems, for us not to further polarize the conversation, but instead to think about the ways to speak productively, to speak in a forward thinking way, to speak in a way that's going to bring people together toward the solution for our universities and not further tear us all apart. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you so much for this conversation, Laura, it is one that I have been wanting to have for a while, and I think that you are exactly the right person to have it with. So thank you for just really breaking it down for us.  Laura Shaw Frank:   Thank you so much, Manya.

It's become popular to compare our current political moment with the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany in the 1930s, but what if the better comparison is Germany in the 1920s? A new article by Paul Miller argues that to avoid the rise of authoritarianism, Christian in the United States should do the hard work now of creating an alternative political narrative rather than the easy work of demonizing one side or the other as “Nazis.” Skye talks to Lee Camp, the creator and host of “No Small Endeavor,” about creating spaces for diverse people to have important conversations and why fear is the barrier to practicing godly hospitality. Also this week—evangelicals aren't entirely opposed to science. But, just like everyone else, they reject the science that contradicts their politics.   Holy Post Plus: An Evening with the Holy Post: Kaitlyn Schiess and Shane Claiborne https://www.patreon.com/posts/124791463/ Ad-free Version of this episode: https://www.patreon.com/posts/125154482/     0:00 - Show Starts   3:56 - Theme Song   4:15 - Sponsor - Rocket Money - Find and cancel your old subscriptions with Rocket Money at https://www.rocketmoney.com/HOLYPOST   5:25 - Sponsor - Glorify - Sign up for the #1 Christian Daily Devotional App to help you stay focused on God. Go to https://glorify-app.com/en/HOLYPOST to download the app today!   7:20 - Politics and Believing Science   21:43 - America's Weimar Moment   49:15 -  The Leader's Way Podcast - Want to enrich your ministry to bring hope to the world? Listen to Christian thinkers and leaders at https://berkeleydivinity.yale.edu/podcast/holypost   50:05 - Sponsor - Bushnell University - Equip yourself to be transformative in your community! Go to https://www.bushnell.edu   50:55- Interview   57:40 - When Did No Small Endeavor Become so Broad?   1:03:02 - Hospitality vs Fear   1:15:25 - Hospitality Across the Spectrum   1:23:13 - End Credits   Links from News Segment: Are Evangelical Clergy Outliers on Science? Yes and No https://religionnews.com/2025/03/20/are-evangelical-clergy-outliers-on-science-yes-and-no/?utm_medium=social   A Confessing Church for America's Weimar Moment: https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/dispatch-faith/christians-confessing-church-america2/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=A%20Confessing%20Church%20for%20America%20s%20Weimar%20Moment&utm_campaign=A%20Confessing%20Church%20for%20America%20s%20Weimar%20Moment Other Resources: No Small Endeavor Tour: https://www.nosmallendeavor.com/events   Holy Post website: https://www.holypost.com/   Holy Post Plus: www.holypost.com/plus   Holy Post Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/holypost   Holy Post Merch Store: https://www.holypost.com/shop   The Holy Post is supported by our listeners. We may earn affiliate commissions through links listed here. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying  purchases.  

Get ready to uncover a shocking chapter in history as we explore how Adolf Hitler rose to power by manipulating Christian beliefs. This episode of Coffee with Conrad will equip you with spiritual discernment to recognize similar deceptions today. Join Conrad from conradrocks.net as he delves into the disturbing reality of how Hitler gained support from Christians in Germany. Learn about the tactics used and why it's crucial to have a faith anchored in the truth of God's Word. Key Takeaways:Understanding how Hitler used the promise of national greatness to appeal to patriotic Christians.The Nazi Party's exploitation of Christian fears of communism to gain support.The insidious nature of "Positive Christianity" and how it distorted core Christian doctrines.The rise of the "German Christians" movement and their attempt to align Christianity with Nazi ideology.The courageous resistance of the Confessing Church and key figures like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemöller.The Catholic Church's response, the Reichskonkordat, and instances of both resistance and silence.Hitler's private contempt for Christianity and his long-term goal to eliminate it.The historical role of antisemitism in Christian theology and how the Nazis exploited it.The power of Nazi propaganda in manipulating religious symbols and language.The impact of economic troubles in Germany on the rise of the Nazi Party.Practical takeaways for today: prioritizing Bible study, developing spiritual discernment through prayer, fact-checking teachings against Scripture, speaking out against injustice, being cautious about the mixing of patriotism and faith, and critically evaluating religious leaders.The ultimate importance of loyalty to God above any earthly leader or movement.Call to Action:Share this important message to help others learn from history.Visit Conrad's Blog for more insights and discussions.Check out the show notes for links to relevant resources.Links:Sophie Scholl: The Final Days (Movie): Watch Sophie Scholl: The Final Days | Prime Video - Amazon.comHitler's Last Days: The Death of a Nazi Regime (Audiobook): Hitler's Last Days Audiobook | Free with trial - AudibleConnect With Me:Blog: conradrocks.netSocial Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | TikTokFree Resources:Try Audible Free TrialGet Readwise Free TrialStart Amazon Prime Free TrialMy Work:Books: Open Your Eyes | Night TerrorShop: Team Jesus T-ShirtsSupport: PayPalFor Creators: Get $10 off StreamYard840

What was life like as Adolf Hitler's other half?Although their marriage came (very) late in their lives, Eva Braun was with Hitler from the earlier days in his political career, and was a confidant to him through the rise (and fall) of the Nazi Party.How complicit was she in the evil ideologies Hitler set out? Was she in any way a victim? And what was it like to be part of the inner circle?Joining Kate in the second episode of our limited series, Real Wives of Dictators, is Clare Mulley, historian and author of books including The Women Who Flew For Hitler, and recently, Agent Zo: The Untold Story of Fearless WW2 Resistance Fighter Elzbieta Zawacka.This episode was edited and produced by Stuart Beckwith. The senior producer was Charlotte Long.If you'd like to get in touch with the show you can contact us at betwixt@historyhit.com.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  You can take part in our listener survey here.All music from Epidemic Sounds.Betwixt the Sheets: History of Sex, Scandal & Society is a History Hit podcast.

Numerous attempts to secure him German citizenship were attempted over the next few years, but it wasn't until 1932 that a solution was found when Dietrich Klagges, a Nazi Party member who was serving as the Minister of the Interior for the Free State of Brunswick, arranged for Hitler to be appointed as an administrator for the state's delegation to the Reichsrat in Berlin on 25 February ...

Episode Summary:I wrote an article almost two weeks ago titled, Trump's Willing Executioners. Drawing on my graduate work in Holocaust Studies, I compared and contrasted the MAGA movement and Nazi Germany, and in particular, the glaring lack of empathy championed by both cults. The article went viral, encouraging me to consider a more robust analysis of how cruelty, the lack of empathy, and propaganda drives ordinary men and women to commit extraordinary crimes against humanity. We saw it in Nazi Germany in the 1930s and we are witnessing it in real time in the United States.When comparing political movements like MAGA America and Nazi Germany, it's important to approach the discussion with sensitivity and academic rigor. The comparison between the two must be grounded in the analysis of both movements' ideologies, symbols, rhetoric, and policies. Without overstating things, both movements utilized nationalism to rally support, often with a focus on restoring a golden age of past glory. Both cults also exploited social unrest, attacked the intelligentsia, created an “us vs them” mentality, and enlisted the church to absolve their crimes. More sinister, both groups embraced xenophobic rhetoric and abject racism, identifying certain groups as threats to the nation's purity and survival. While both groups rose to power legally, the Nazi Party and the MAGA cult quickly eroded the principles of democracy in route to a fascist regime.There's a lot of talk these days comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. I understand the analogy, but what I find even more significant is the correlation between Nazi Christians and MAGA Christians. As I said in the article, “The same cast of characters and religious propaganda that created the Holocaust are alive and well in the United States.” MAGA Christians are cruel because the MAGA cult is cruel; and MAGA Christians are cruel because cruel people tend to become MAGA members. For Trump evangelicals, empathy is a sin because cruelty is the point.In todays podcast episode, I discuss:The intersectionality between fascism and the lack of empathy.How does the MAGA cult benefit from the idea that empathy and compassion are sinful?Why do ordinary men and women often commit the most heinous offenses when they believe other people aren't actual people?Why are prominent evangelical Christians promoting cruelty and indifference?Why are white, conservative Christians almost always on the wrong side of history and morality?How did the historical Jesus center compassion as the foundational ethic of his life and ministry?Why is compassion, and not holiness, the core attribute of God?When cult behavior, hatred of the other, and a lack of empathy come together, you create a culture of death. And it's happening in real time here in the United States. As Pastor Robin Meyers recently warned:“America is going fascist, and it's doing so with the help of religious zealots whose real passion is for the politics of privilege, not the radically disturbing presence of Jesus. This will sound alarmist to some, but the truth is that no country ever thinks it is going fascist until it wakes up one day to that indisputable reality. Then the people will say, ‘How did this happen?' And the answer is ‘one day at a time, and with the blessing of the church.'”This is one of the top three most important episodes we've ever released. I hope you will take some time today to listen, and share it with a friend.Please follow us on social media (use the buttons below) and help us get the word out! (Also, please don't hesitate to use any of these channels or email to contact us with any questions, concerns, or feedback.)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave us a rating and a review, or share on your socials

Kanye West, now legally known as Ye, has once again ignited controversy with an unhinged spree of posts on X. In a series of all-caps rants, he made inflammatory comments about his wife, declared his superiority over other rappers, and even referred to himself as “Yaydolf Hitler.” Among the most alarming statements was Ye's claim that he “owns” his wife. The rapper, who is married to Bianca Censori, posted, “MY WIFE DEMORALIZES B——” before following it up with a disturbing assertion of control over her. The post immediately sparked backlash, with critics calling it misogynistic and further evidence of his increasingly erratic behavior. Beyond his personal life, Ye also used his platform to voice support for his longtime friend Sean “Diddy” Combs, who is currently behind bars in Brooklyn facing federal charges of sex trafficking and racketeering. If convicted, Combs could spend the rest of his life in prison. Ye believes Diddy is being targeted unfairly and blasted celebrities for remaining silent on the case. As a show of financial support, Ye announced the launch of a Sean John collaboration on his Yeezy.com platform. “@ Yeezy.com I'm selling the Sean John collaboration that me and my brother spoke about before they locked him up we splitting the profits 50/50,” he posted. The t-shirts feature the “Sean John” logo—once the branding of Diddy's now-defunct fashion line. Diddy's legal troubles escalated in late 2023 after his ex-girlfriend, Cassie, filed a lawsuit accusing him of years of physical and sexual abuse. Though that case was settled, it unleashed a flood of additional lawsuits, leading to federal investigations and his subsequent arrest. In his X posts, Ye implied that the charges against Diddy are racially motivated, suggesting that “they” are trying to make an example out of him. His exact target was left vague, but the implication was clear—Ye believes the criminal justice system is unjustly targeting his friend. He continued by heaping praise on Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, even referring to himself as a Nazi. He also made it clear that he has no intention of walking back his comments, writing that he would never apologize for his antisemitism.  Ye's posts also included attacks on Black people, homophobic slurs, misogynistic rants, and ableist language. The flood of hate speech has reignited public outrage, with many calling for his X account to be suspended once again.  Ye also came to the defense of Chris Brown, who was convicted in 2009 for the brutal assault of Rihanna and has faced multiple lawsuits for alleged abuse in the years since. “We all watched them try to cancel Chris Brown,” Ye wrote, framing Brown as a victim rather than an aggressor.   While his latest posts have only fueled further backlash, Ye remains defiant. His website continues to sell “WHITE LIVES MATTER” shirts alongside cryptic symbols and slogans, some of which appear to carry hidden or controversial meanings. From his jail cell at the Metropolitan Detention Center, Diddy acknowledged Ye's loyalty with a simple Instagram post: “Thank you to my brother, Ye.” With his latest outbursts, Ye has once again positioned himself at the center of controversy, deepening concerns over his behavior while reaffirming his willingness to defy public opinion—no matter the cost. #KanyeWest #Ye #Diddy #SeanJohn #BiancaCensori #HipHop #Controversy Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Kanye West, now legally known as Ye, has once again ignited controversy with an unhinged spree of posts on X. In a series of all-caps rants, he made inflammatory comments about his wife, declared his superiority over other rappers, and even referred to himself as “Yaydolf Hitler.” Among the most alarming statements was Ye's claim that he “owns” his wife. The rapper, who is married to Bianca Censori, posted, “MY WIFE DEMORALIZES B——” before following it up with a disturbing assertion of control over her. The post immediately sparked backlash, with critics calling it misogynistic and further evidence of his increasingly erratic behavior. Beyond his personal life, Ye also used his platform to voice support for his longtime friend Sean “Diddy” Combs, who is currently behind bars in Brooklyn facing federal charges of sex trafficking and racketeering. If convicted, Combs could spend the rest of his life in prison. Ye believes Diddy is being targeted unfairly and blasted celebrities for remaining silent on the case. As a show of financial support, Ye announced the launch of a Sean John collaboration on his Yeezy.com platform. “@ Yeezy.com I'm selling the Sean John collaboration that me and my brother spoke about before they locked him up we splitting the profits 50/50,” he posted. The t-shirts feature the “Sean John” logo—once the branding of Diddy's now-defunct fashion line. Diddy's legal troubles escalated in late 2023 after his ex-girlfriend, Cassie, filed a lawsuit accusing him of years of physical and sexual abuse. Though that case was settled, it unleashed a flood of additional lawsuits, leading to federal investigations and his subsequent arrest. In his X posts, Ye implied that the charges against Diddy are racially motivated, suggesting that “they” are trying to make an example out of him. His exact target was left vague, but the implication was clear—Ye believes the criminal justice system is unjustly targeting his friend. He continued by heaping praise on Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, even referring to himself as a Nazi. He also made it clear that he has no intention of walking back his comments, writing that he would never apologize for his antisemitism.  Ye's posts also included attacks on Black people, homophobic slurs, misogynistic rants, and ableist language. The flood of hate speech has reignited public outrage, with many calling for his X account to be suspended once again.  Ye also came to the defense of Chris Brown, who was convicted in 2009 for the brutal assault of Rihanna and has faced multiple lawsuits for alleged abuse in the years since. “We all watched them try to cancel Chris Brown,” Ye wrote, framing Brown as a victim rather than an aggressor.   While his latest posts have only fueled further backlash, Ye remains defiant. His website continues to sell “WHITE LIVES MATTER” shirts alongside cryptic symbols and slogans, some of which appear to carry hidden or controversial meanings. From his jail cell at the Metropolitan Detention Center, Diddy acknowledged Ye's loyalty with a simple Instagram post: “Thank you to my brother, Ye.” With his latest outbursts, Ye has once again positioned himself at the center of controversy, deepening concerns over his behavior while reaffirming his willingness to defy public opinion—no matter the cost. #KanyeWest #Ye #Diddy #SeanJohn #BiancaCensori #HipHop #Controversy Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

In this episode we speak to Mikael Nilsson all about his book with Cambridge University Press, Christianity in Hitler's Ideology: The Role of Jesus in National Socialism. This discussion we look at how the Nazi Party used Christianity to attract people to support the party, if their outwards devotion was genuine or an act, and how Jesus played a role in the Cult of Personality around Hitler.To keep up to date with Mikael head to his XGrab a copy of Christianity in Hitler's Ideology hereIf you want to get in touch with History with Jackson email: jackson@historywithjackson.co.ukTo support History with Jackson to carry on creating content subscribe to History with Jackson+ on Apple Podcasts or become a supporter on Buy Me A Coffee: https://bmc.link/HistorywJacksonTo catch up on everything to do with History with Jackson head to www.HistorywithJackson.co.ukFollow us on Facebook at @HistorywithJacksonFollow us on Instagram at @HistorywithJacksonFollow us on X/Twitter at @HistorywJacksonFollow us on TikTok at @HistorywithJackson Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

8/8: Takeover: Hitler's Final Rise to Power Hardcover – Deckle Edge, by  Timothy W. Ryback  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424 From the internationally acclaimed author of Hitler's Private Library, a dramatic recounting of the six critical months before Adolf Hitler seized power, when the Nazi leader teetered between triumph and ruin In the summer of 1932, the Weimar Republic was on the verge of collapse. One in three Germans was unemployed. Violence was rampant. Hitler's National Socialists surged at the polls. Paul von Hindenburg, an aging war hero and avowed monarchist, was a reluctant president bound by oath to uphold the constitution. The November elections offered Hitler the prospect of a Reichstag majority and the path to political power. But instead, the Nazis lost two million votes. As membership hemorrhaged and financial backers withdrew, the Nazi Party threatened to fracture. Hitler talked of suicide. The New York Times declared he was finished. Yet somehow, in a few brief weeks, he was chancellor of Germany.  In fascinating detail and with previously un-accessed archival materials, Timothy W. Ryback tells the remarkable story of Hitler's dismantling of democracy through democratic process. He provides fresh perspective and insights into Hitler's personal and professional lives in these months, in all their complexity and uncertainty—backroom deals, unlikely alliances, stunning betrayals, an ill-timed tax audit, and a fateful weekend that changed our world forever. Above all, Ryback details why a wearied Hindenburg, who disdained the “Bohemian corporal,” ultimately decided to appoint Hitler chancellor in January 1933. Within weeks, Germany was no longer a democracy. 1935 Paul and Gertrud Hindenburg .

1/8: Takeover: Hitler's Final Rise to Power Hardcover – Deckle Edge, by  Timothy W. Ryback  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424 From the internationally acclaimed author of Hitler's Private Library, a dramatic recounting of the six critical months before Adolf Hitler seized power, when the Nazi leader teetered between triumph and ruin In the summer of 1932, the Weimar Republic was on the verge of collapse. One in three Germans was unemployed. Violence was rampant. Hitler's National Socialists surged at the polls. Paul von Hindenburg, an aging war hero and avowed monarchist, was a reluctant president bound by oath to uphold the constitution. The November elections offered Hitler the prospect of a Reichstag majority and the path to political power. But instead, the Nazis lost two million votes. As membership hemorrhaged and financial backers withdrew, the Nazi Party threatened to fracture. Hitler talked of suicide. The New York Times declared he was finished. Yet somehow, in a few brief weeks, he was chancellor of Germany.  In fascinating detail and with previously un-accessed archival materials, Timothy W. Ryback tells the remarkable story of Hitler's dismantling of democracy through democratic process. He provides fresh perspective and insights into Hitler's personal and professional lives in these months, in all their complexity and uncertainty—backroom deals, unlikely alliances, stunning betrayals, an ill-timed tax audit, and a fateful weekend that changed our world forever. Above all, Ryback details why a wearied Hindenburg, who disdained the “Bohemian corporal,” ultimately decided to appoint Hitler chancellor in January 1933. Within weeks, Germany was no longer a democracy. 1914 Paul von Hindenburg

2/8: Takeover: Hitler's Final Rise to Power Hardcover – Deckle Edge, by  Timothy W. Ryback  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424 From the internationally acclaimed author of Hitler's Private Library, a dramatic recounting of the six critical months before Adolf Hitler seized power, when the Nazi leader teetered between triumph and ruin In the summer of 1932, the Weimar Republic was on the verge of collapse. One in three Germans was unemployed. Violence was rampant. Hitler's National Socialists surged at the polls. Paul von Hindenburg, an aging war hero and avowed monarchist, was a reluctant president bound by oath to uphold the constitution. The November elections offered Hitler the prospect of a Reichstag majority and the path to political power. But instead, the Nazis lost two million votes. As membership hemorrhaged and financial backers withdrew, the Nazi Party threatened to fracture. Hitler talked of suicide. The New York Times declared he was finished. Yet somehow, in a few brief weeks, he was chancellor of Germany.  In fascinating detail and with previously un-accessed archival materials, Timothy W. Ryback tells the remarkable story of Hitler's dismantling of democracy through democratic process. He provides fresh perspective and insights into Hitler's personal and professional lives in these months, in all their complexity and uncertainty—backroom deals, unlikely alliances, stunning betrayals, an ill-timed tax audit, and a fateful weekend that changed our world forever. Above all, Ryback details why a wearied Hindenburg, who disdained the “Bohemian corporal,” ultimately decided to appoint Hitler chancellor in January 1933. Within weeks, Germany was no longer a democracy. 1860 Student Hindenburg

3/8: Takeover: Hitler's Final Rise to Power Hardcover – Deckle Edge, by  Timothy W. Ryback  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424 From the internationally acclaimed author of Hitler's Private Library, a dramatic recounting of the six critical months before Adolf Hitler seized power, when the Nazi leader teetered between triumph and ruin In the summer of 1932, the Weimar Republic was on the verge of collapse. One in three Germans was unemployed. Violence was rampant. Hitler's National Socialists surged at the polls. Paul von Hindenburg, an aging war hero and avowed monarchist, was a reluctant president bound by oath to uphold the constitution. The November elections offered Hitler the prospect of a Reichstag majority and the path to political power. But instead, the Nazis lost two million votes. As membership hemorrhaged and financial backers withdrew, the Nazi Party threatened to fracture. Hitler talked of suicide. The New York Times declared he was finished. Yet somehow, in a few brief weeks, he was chancellor of Germany.  In fascinating detail and with previously un-accessed archival materials, Timothy W. Ryback tells the remarkable story of Hitler's dismantling of democracy through democratic process. He provides fresh perspective and insights into Hitler's personal and professional lives in these months, in all their complexity and uncertainty—backroom deals, unlikely alliances, stunning betrayals, an ill-timed tax audit, and a fateful weekend that changed our world forever. Above all, Ryback details why a wearied Hindenburg, who disdained the “Bohemian corporal,” ultimately decided to appoint Hitler chancellor in January 1933. Within weeks, Germany was no longer a democracy. undated Hindenburg family

4/8: Takeover: Hitler's Final Rise to Power Hardcover – Deckle Edge, by  Timothy W. Ryback  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424 From the internationally acclaimed author of Hitler's Private Library, a dramatic recounting of the six critical months before Adolf Hitler seized power, when the Nazi leader teetered between triumph and ruin In the summer of 1932, the Weimar Republic was on the verge of collapse. One in three Germans was unemployed. Violence was rampant. Hitler's National Socialists surged at the polls. Paul von Hindenburg, an aging war hero and avowed monarchist, was a reluctant president bound by oath to uphold the constitution. The November elections offered Hitler the prospect of a Reichstag majority and the path to political power. But instead, the Nazis lost two million votes. As membership hemorrhaged and financial backers withdrew, the Nazi Party threatened to fracture. Hitler talked of suicide. The New York Times declared he was finished. Yet somehow, in a few brief weeks, he was chancellor of Germany.  In fascinating detail and with previously un-accessed archival materials, Timothy W. Ryback tells the remarkable story of Hitler's dismantling of democracy through democratic process. He provides fresh perspective and insights into Hitler's personal and professional lives in these months, in all their complexity and uncertainty—backroom deals, unlikely alliances, stunning betrayals, an ill-timed tax audit, and a fateful weekend that changed our world forever. Above all, Ryback details why a wearied Hindenburg, who disdained the “Bohemian corporal,” ultimately decided to appoint Hitler chancellor in January 1933. Within weeks, Germany was no longer a democracy. 191-1919 Fieldmarshall Hindenburg

5/8: Takeover: Hitler's Final Rise to Power Hardcover – Deckle Edge, by  Timothy W. Ryback  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424 From the internationally acclaimed author of Hitler's Private Library, a dramatic recounting of the six critical months before Adolf Hitler seized power, when the Nazi leader teetered between triumph and ruin In the summer of 1932, the Weimar Republic was on the verge of collapse. One in three Germans was unemployed. Violence was rampant. Hitler's National Socialists surged at the polls. Paul von Hindenburg, an aging war hero and avowed monarchist, was a reluctant president bound by oath to uphold the constitution. The November elections offered Hitler the prospect of a Reichstag majority and the path to political power. But instead, the Nazis lost two million votes. As membership hemorrhaged and financial backers withdrew, the Nazi Party threatened to fracture. Hitler talked of suicide. The New York Times declared he was finished. Yet somehow, in a few brief weeks, he was chancellor of Germany.  In fascinating detail and with previously un-accessed archival materials, Timothy W. Ryback tells the remarkable story of Hitler's dismantling of democracy through democratic process. He provides fresh perspective and insights into Hitler's personal and professional lives in these months, in all their complexity and uncertainty—backroom deals, unlikely alliances, stunning betrayals, an ill-timed tax audit, and a fateful weekend that changed our world forever. Above all, Ryback details why a wearied Hindenburg, who disdained the “Bohemian corporal,” ultimately decided to appoint Hitler chancellor in January 1933. Within weeks, Germany was no longer a democracy. 1919 Hindenburg and staff

6/8: Takeover: Hitler's Final Rise to Power Hardcover – Deckle Edge, by  Timothy W. Ryback  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424 From the internationally acclaimed author of Hitler's Private Library, a dramatic recounting of the six critical months before Adolf Hitler seized power, when the Nazi leader teetered between triumph and ruin In the summer of 1932, the Weimar Republic was on the verge of collapse. One in three Germans was unemployed. Violence was rampant. Hitler's National Socialists surged at the polls. Paul von Hindenburg, an aging war hero and avowed monarchist, was a reluctant president bound by oath to uphold the constitution. The November elections offered Hitler the prospect of a Reichstag majority and the path to political power. But instead, the Nazis lost two million votes. As membership hemorrhaged and financial backers withdrew, the Nazi Party threatened to fracture. Hitler talked of suicide. The New York Times declared he was finished. Yet somehow, in a few brief weeks, he was chancellor of Germany.  In fascinating detail and with previously un-accessed archival materials, Timothy W. Ryback tells the remarkable story of Hitler's dismantling of democracy through democratic process. He provides fresh perspective and insights into Hitler's personal and professional lives in these months, in all their complexity and uncertainty—backroom deals, unlikely alliances, stunning betrayals, an ill-timed tax audit, and a fateful weekend that changed our world forever. Above all, Ryback details why a wearied Hindenburg, who disdained the “Bohemian corporal,” ultimately decided to appoint Hitler chancellor in January 1933. Within weeks, Germany was no longer a democracy. 1923 Hindenburg

7/8: Takeover: Hitler's Final Rise to Power Hardcover – Deckle Edge, by  Timothy W. Ryback  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424 From the internationally acclaimed author of Hitler's Private Library, a dramatic recounting of the six critical months before Adolf Hitler seized power, when the Nazi leader teetered between triumph and ruin In the summer of 1932, the Weimar Republic was on the verge of collapse. One in three Germans was unemployed. Violence was rampant. Hitler's National Socialists surged at the polls. Paul von Hindenburg, an aging war hero and avowed monarchist, was a reluctant president bound by oath to uphold the constitution. The November elections offered Hitler the prospect of a Reichstag majority and the path to political power. But instead, the Nazis lost two million votes. As membership hemorrhaged and financial backers withdrew, the Nazi Party threatened to fracture. Hitler talked of suicide. The New York Times declared he was finished. Yet somehow, in a few brief weeks, he was chancellor of Germany.  In fascinating detail and with previously un-accessed archival materials, Timothy W. Ryback tells the remarkable story of Hitler's dismantling of democracy through democratic process. He provides fresh perspective and insights into Hitler's personal and professional lives in these months, in all their complexity and uncertainty—backroom deals, unlikely alliances, stunning betrayals, an ill-timed tax audit, and a fateful weekend that changed our world forever. Above all, Ryback details why a wearied Hindenburg, who disdained the “Bohemian corporal,” ultimately decided to appoint Hitler chancellor in January 1933. Within weeks, Germany was no longer a democracy. 1932 President of Germany.

If Musk blocking a key spending bill is not Oligarchy, I do not know what is. Elon Musk raises alarms by endorsing what's known as 'German neo-Nazi party' Joe Biden says student debt cancellation is coming for pubic servants Scientific Breakthrough! Alert. Has the mystery of long Covid been solved? Is help on the way? See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.