this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025

90 points (95.0% liked)

Progressive Politics

2814 readers

1419 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

The Germans Who Stayed Silent (lemm.ee)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by BoycottPro@lemm.ee to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What's the difference between a German in the 1930s who said "I don't support Hitler's stance on Jewish people but he promised to make the economy great again so I'm voting for the Nazis" and a German who said "I fully support Hitler and I'm voting for the Nazis"?

What's the difference between a German who said "I don't support the regime's actions but this job at the weapons factory pays the bills" and a German who said "I'm fulling my patriotic duty building weapons for the Nazis who I fully support"?

What's the difference between a German solider who said "I don't agree with the regime but I'm just following orders" and a German solider who said "I'm doing this because I support the regime"?

The answer is not very much. Their actions accomplish the same end result and they're judged by history to be almost no different. The Nazis were in part comprised of millions of people who unintentionally or intentionally supported the regime with their small daily actions.

This time around things must be different. Make ensuring your actions don't support the Trump regime your mission. Be bold and speak out whenever you can. Teach others that silence is tacit consent in the regime's actions. Don't worry about imperfection, your actions no matter how small will make a difference. You could be grain of rice that tips the scale.

top 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 45 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I live in an ICE/FBI/PD/FD/CO ghetto. They take over neighborhoods en masse. The ones that get fired work as realitors to ensure only cop and cop friendlies will move into the neighborhood.

And I am not silent about my disdain for their part here.

They poisoned my dog. They vandalize my dwelling and cars. They have slandered me. They have knocked me off my bicycle in the neighborhood. They throw rocks at my house 24/7. They have tried to break into my home while I was in the shower two different occasions.

The police refused to investigate literally saying that since I don't like them they don't have to do shit.

I wrote the Chief and called them out and they sent Mental Health services like the Soviets did.

They went out of their jurisdiction to threaten my dad who was 80 and my mom who 78 at the time.

They have accused me of being a thief. They have accused me of being violent. They accused me of being the local cat killer.

Just keep in mind they will lie, steal, assault and battery, cheat, beat, defraud, slander, defame, and murder to stop you "not being quiet".

And fuck the police.

[–] BoycottPro@lemm.ee 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You are extremely brave! If you don't have this already I would strongly recommend getting security cameras. Security cameras don't have to be complex or expensive. You can get a DVR and a few TVI or IP cameras for cheap. TVI is easier to setup but IP cameras have more flexibility. IP cameras could be cheaper if you can get Ethernet for cheaper than BNC + power cables but you need to buy a POE switch which is an additional cost.

Note that most of the low cost DVRs may have security vulnerabilities or backdoors so you should not put them online.

You can also turn a computer into a DVR if you feel more technically inclined.

TVI and CVI are standards for sending digital data over standard coax cable. It was made in part so people could upgrade their old analog cameras without running new cable. CCTV cameras that use coax cable typically don't require any setup. The cost is typically around the same as a composite video or AHD security camera but the quality is a lot better.

IP camera means the camera uses standard ethernet cables and are typically powered with POE (Power Over Ethernet) so you only need one cable to run the cameras.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If they're living in a ghetto as they say, telling them to spend money - which for you may seem affordable - seems entitled.

Also, I don't know how cameras help. They're blaming ICE. ICE dresses in black and wears masks. They're the new Secret Police, Trump's brown-shirts, and regular LE isn't going to do shit about their illegal activities; so far, all LE has done is support them.

[–] deur@feddit.nl 1 points 18 hours ago

if you could read you'd notice they say cops and whatever live there. Clearly not a poor ghetto but some random adjective the insane sounding person used

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 39 points 1 day ago

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

If you’re only opposing these actions when it’s Trump, you’re in position to criticize.

We were also fighting mass deportations, genocide, and warmongering under Biden/Harris, but the libs getting worked up now are pretending it just started with this admin. While it’s nice to have some additional numbers, it’s very important to understand that these people are not anti-authoritarian in the slightest. They just prefer a flavor of it.

Just please don’t go back to sleep when it’s a Democrat in the White House.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

The difference is that the person saying "I don't support Hitler's stance on Jewish people but he promised to make the economy great again so I'm voting for the Nazis" is a liar, because they had at least a vague idea what was going to happen. Hitler was a known extremist who had been in jail after his first coup attempt (the Beer Hall Putsch).

Every adult who supported him knew he will install an authoritarian regime, a lot of people will die and there may even be a war.

[–] python@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

What's the difference between a German who said "I don't support the regime's actions but this job at the weapons factory pays the bills" and a German who said "I'm fulling my patriotic duty building weapons for the Nazis who I fully support"?

I know this question is somewhat rhetoric but it's currently a topic for me! A person in my life recently got hired into a high ranking engineering position at a company that supplies the German military. As long as the Government is somewhat reasonable they'll be working there dutyfully, but if things ever go to shit (again), they'll be the first to sabotage, spy, sell out secrets and fuck everything up from the inside. Those kinds of people do make a difference and are remembered differently. Ever heard about Oskar Schindler?

[+] vivalapivo@lemmy.today -6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What's the difference between a soldier who did speak up and not? A difference between a German who critisized Hitler and not?

The answer is not very much. They all are dead. Stance does not make a difference. The US politics looks way beyond a point where having moral ground is meaningful.

Saw this happened in Russia: like 70-80% of various celebraties were speaking up against Putin's regime, meduza.io was the most popular news source, even in siloviki's (essentially ICE/FBI/police) spaces. Regime co-opted some, others ran away to be smug about their "political position".

[–] BoycottPro@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Those who opposed the Nazi regime did matter. Perhaps if they had more support and less people resisting they would have won or would have lasted longer. If more people opposed them they likely would have been over faster.

[–] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How? We can see time after time how direct peaceful protest fails and violent protest either is policed down or fails successfully like in Syria, Libia, Egypt.

Approaching the politics from the moral ground perspective and making martyrs is childish

[–] ideonek@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

No democracy movement has ever failed when it was able to mobilize at least 3.5 percent of the population to protest over a sustained period.

The answers to protest failing seems to be more protests.

[–] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No democracy movement has ever failed when it was able to mobilize at least 3.5 percent of the population to protest over a sustained period.

Belarus had more than a million people on the streets for months. It's a lot more than 10% of the whole population. Also your source seems to be BBC

[–] ideonek@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago

I would ask what's wrong with BBC, but I don't want to get into that. This study is the source study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240678278_Why_Civil_Resistance_Works_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Nonviolent_Conflict

I think it was based on over 320 cases from 1900-2006.

Belarus is a hard case, since the meeting the goal depending on the estimates, and this varies a lot. But you could be right. The Bahraini uprising is more clear-cut exception to that rule. So fair enough.

But still the opinion that large sustained protest are ineffective is less evidence based that stance that they are effective.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The key word is "democracy." WWII Germany wasn't a functional democracy. It is debatable whether America still has a functional democracy, or if it's just in pre-failure.

[–] ideonek@piefed.social 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I belive word "democracy" modyfies word "movement" here. Not the country where moment happen.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I read the same 3.5% article, but I don't see where you're quoting it and am not sure what "democracy movement" means in this context. Could you explain?

[–] ideonek@piefed.social 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I'm honestly not sure about this 3.5% number anymore - there are a lot somewhat subjective qualifiers there. But the point is that the study was conducted based on protest in both democratic and authoritarian regimes. And - all over the board - the non-violent movements were noticeably more sucesful sucesful than violent one. Yes, idea that 3.5% means guaranteed success is wrong. But solution to protest being squashed ramians the same - more protests.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I'm not a history buff, but what I remember about the successful violent ones is that they tended to end up little better than what they replaced. So, point for non-violent ones.

Circumstances are important, though. For non-violent protests to be successful, the oppressors have to see the protesters as human. A theory I believe which has weight is that Ghandi didn't understand that the British may have thought Indians were lesser, but they didn't systemically dehumanize them, and were generally reluctant to treat them as animals, and so protests could have an effect. The Nazis made an effort to dehumanize Jews (and other minorities), and had fewer reservations about wholesale slaughtering. Uprisings were squashed by the sheer expediency of mowing down entire crowds.

What concerns me is the same rhetoric used on the far Right to dehumanize the Left and minorities. The real danger is the precedent of training people to see the opposition not as people, but as animals.

I'm sidestepping the fact that humans are animals; the science doesn't matter, the important thing is the desensitizing and moral rationalization.

[–] ideonek@piefed.social 1 points 30 minutes ago

That's exactlyn the risk with violent ones. They make it easier to paint you as extremist or unreasonable radical. The big part of the effecivness of the non-violent one is that they are more sucesful at making people deflect to the right side.