New Book Finds Ties Between Nazis and Hollywood

INN ^ | 7/1/2013, 4:45 AM | Elad Benari

[US Navy Vet]

“Now that I find hard to believe, because JFK fought the Nazis in WWII.” WRONG! JFK was in the PACIFIC! His brother Joe jr was in Europe and dies there. And YES JFK’s DADDY was a Pro-Nazi STOOGE!

[SunkenCiv]

Sounds like Google and Facebook today. Or Hollywood.

Thanks Olog-hai.

[justiceseeker93]

This theory about Hollywood in bed with the Nazis runs counter to just about everything I've seen and heard.

But since Hollywood was so infiltrated with Communists, and American Commies and Nazis were generally friendly during the period between the conclusion of the USSR-Germany non-aggression pact and the onset of the German attack on the Soviet Union (Aug. 1939 to June 1941), one might think that some films during this period might have reflected this. There is also a good chance that whatever films were made during this era that reflected a less than antagonistic attitude to the Nazis were quickly destroyed once the US had entered WWII.

[Fiji Hill]

A Communist-dominated organization called the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League was active in the 1930's. After the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939, it changed its name to the Hollywood League for Democratic Action. Click here to see how many Hollywood celebrities were sucked into this Communist front.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Commies and Nazis were generally friendly during the period between the conclusion of the USSR-Germany non-aggression pact and the onset of the German attack on the Soviet Union (Aug. 1939 to June 1941)

Hitler had been allied with the Soviets for years, and had circumvented many parts of the Vesailles Treaty with Uncle Joe’s help. Their working together long predated Molotov Ribbentrop.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Commies and Nazis were generally friendly during the period between the conclusion of the USSR-Germany non-aggression pact and the onset of the German attack on the Soviet Union (Aug. 1939 to June 1941)

Hitler had been allied with the Soviets for years, and had circumvented many parts of the Vesailles Treaty with Uncle Joe’s help. Their working together long predated Molotov Ribbentrop.

26 posted on July 1, 2013 5:49:26 AM EDT by FreedomPoster

Also note F.A. Hayek’s observation that advocates for the Communists and the Nazis each considered the other as wrong but being of the right timber and in need of conversion, whereas both considered the liberal (by which Hayek meant the advocate of liberty, not FDR and that bunch*) to be enemies to be exterminated.

* Note that Hayek was European, and learned English in America in his, and the 20th Century’s, late teens. Socialists didn’t hijack the term “liberal” until the 1920s, and then only in America. Hayek didn’t return to America until after he had published The Road to Serfdom during WWII.

[FreedomPoster]

FYI, the Hayek quote you are referring to has lived on my FR profile page for years, near the top. It is two paragraphs that are well worth everyone reading carefully.

[justiceseeker93]

Hitler had been allied with the Soviets for years, and had circumvented many parts of the Vesailles Treaty with Uncle Joe’s help. Their working together long predated Molotov Ribbentrop.

I can't buy the "Hitler had been allied with the Soviets for years" part. "Mein Kampf," which is considered Hitler's "Bible," his self-proclaimed core political beliefs, contains many disparaging references to "Bolshevism," which usually was synonymous with the Soviet government and its supporters. There were also comments about the "racial" superiority of "Aryans" as contrasted with Eastern Europeans, which were later used by the Nazis to justify their military expansion eastward. Furthermore, socialists and communists were bullied out of the German parliament when Hitler became chancellor and many were arrested and/or deported to the first Nazi concentration camps. And the scapegoats charged with the infamous Reichstag fire (in all likelihood, an act of arson by the Nazis themselves) were socialists and communists.

It was only after the signing of the non-aggression pact shortly before the start of WWII (which enabled the two powers to split up eastern Europe between them) that the Nazis and Soviets became temporary buddies.

[FreedomPoster]

OK, I stand (somewhat) corrected.

The Germans and Soviets had lots of interesting interactions between the wars. Things did get rocky once Hitler came to power, as he could not abide any internal rivals to his power, which the German Communists represented. So Hitler took out Stalin’s people in Germany, then you had a German - Soviet proxy war in Spain.

But the fact remains that there were a lot of between the war actions other than M-R.

See here, for starters:

Secret Wehrmacht in Russia
http://www.quikmaneuvers.com/secret_wehrmacht_in_russia.html

The relationship between the two countries between the wars was much more extensive than first meets the eye.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

In late 1920s and early 1930s, Germans closely co-operated with Russians in the development of armored vehicles at Kama, near Kazan in USSR. There was also minor military cooperation with Sweden, including the extraction of technical data that proved invaluable to early German tank design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_the_German_Army

[RedHeeler]

All these descriptions, are narrowed to socialist fascist. The soviets and hitler are the same. There is no difference by the islamists. They are all the same. If you must, research any proven dictionary, and prove me wrong. All the variation in definition, is blinding siding true understanding, of their purpose. Thank you for your response.

[nathanbedford]

Coincidently, I was engaged in conversation with a retired German history professor who has written four books concerning the birth, life, and aftermath of the "Hitlerzeit" (Hitler time) as it specifically affected the immediate geographical area where I now live here in Bavaria. I posed this question directly to him, wanting to hear an academic's response to the proposition that the wellspring for both ideologies is essentially the same, a socialist/statist impulse.

I wanted this reaction from him because I have long believed that the reaction by the Germans to their experience with Hitler was disproportionate to their experience with Stalin, meaning, that there was a denazification program conducted by the Allied occupying powers directed against national Socialists but no such program directed against East German socialists when their power and ended. It is not clear to me whether this is cause or effect, that is, whether there has been no commensurate reaction against Soviet style socialism as it was applied to East Germany because the Germans are essentially " left " or because there was an inherent difference in the experiences, which justify a different reaction. Clearly however, there is much more tolerance of socialism as it existed on the "left" than as it existed on the right. There is for example no prohibition against denying the crimes of the Soviet occupation and the German Democratic Republic but it is a crime to deny the Holocaust.

His answer to my query, which I attempted to make as a non-leading as possible, was to the effect that the Nazis were driven by racism and nationalism which, of course, distinguishes them from Soviet style communism although it resorted to both nationalism and racism, when convenient. Nevertheless, it is true that the basic motivating ideology is different in this respect to each "socialist" tyranny.

This distinction is exactly the same one made by Jonah Goldberg in his excellent book, Liberal Fascism, which exposes the similarities about which you speak. But that is not to say they are identical in every respect, because they are not. Yes, a Jew murdered in a Nazi extermination camp is no less dead than a priest dying in a Siberian gulag, but the murderous impulse is different. And, not incidentally, both Nazi-ism and communism are fundamentally anti-religious, which is, of course, contrary to the animating impulse of Islam.

So, it is wrong not to see distinctions among the three, just as it is equally misleading to the public to ignore the common tyrannical impulses of all three. The omissions might be "equally" wrong in an academic sense but in an important political sense the failure to make the distinctions or, more particularly, the failure to identify for the public the commonalities, has produced a lopsided view of history and an unfortunate tendency to tolerate communism.

It is time to correct this definitional error and to correct history.

[RedHeeler]

“And, not incidentally, both Nazi-ism and communism are fundamentally both anti-religious, which is, of course, contrary to the animating impulse of Islam.”... This particular point of reference/inference is mistaken. Islam is not a religion. Never has been. It is a political philosophy, which actually birthed socialist fascism- in all it’s varied names, over the centuries. This where my common point of reference, is invaluable, in understanding the alliance by nature of political species. Islam is religion in the same sense as Nazi-ism and communism- it is Humanism. No God- men are god. Thank you, for your reply, nathanbedford!