Desperate and Afraid, People Trust Leader
This is the first of two parts.
WASHINGTON, NORTH AMERICAN PROTECTORATE, GREATER GERMAN REICH–From Honolulu to Portland, Maine, North American citizens of the Greater German Reich gathered on June 6th to celebrate the 65th anniversary of the victory of Axis forces at D-Day, the battle that decided World War II. Fallen heroes of the Wehrmacht and SS were commemorated at solemn ceremonies and Party rallies throughout the Reich, but the day held special meaning in Washington, which until 1945 was the capital of the former United States.
Speaking at the Supreme Kommandatur, which was built at the site of the former American presidential palace, Chancellor Adolf Hitler III said the war against the Western Allies paved the way for the years of peace and prosperity that followed. “It was unknowable then, but so much of the progress that would define the 20th century, on both sides of the Atlantic, came down to the battle for a slice of beach only six miles long and two miles wide,” he said.
Recollections of the National Socialist triumph at Normandy were clouded by several developments–a severe recession, a war with no apparent end in sight, and continuing concerns over human rights abuses.
Hitler III swept into power last November with a slogan–“change you can believe in”–that charmed members of the Reichstag across the political spectrum from far right to extreme right. Since that time, however, changes have proven either incremental or non-existent. For example, Hitler III promised during the campaign to help national comrades in danger of losing their homes–but instead spent trillions of marks to bail out feckless banks. He promised to withdraw from the Eastern Front, but has extended the pullout timeline by a year, is leaving tens of thousands of troops in place, and even plans to open a new front in South Asia.
Finally, he declared his intent to close Auschwitz (“Germany does not ‘do’ genocide,” he said) only to move the remaining inmates to other camps, which are being expanded.
Despite the lack of action, most people continue to support the charismatic new Leader. “He has a lot on his plate,” says Kristof Mathewsohn, the cable TV commentator. “Give the guy time.”
Indeed, five months into his chancellorship, the Leader remains the most trusted figure in North American politics. A new poll of homeless, recently dispossessed workers found that 72 percent trust Hitler III “to do the right thing.”
“In watching and listening to Hitler III’s press conferences, it’s easy to appreciate why people trust him,” said a man who preferred to remain anonymous because, as a Jew, he could be arrested and murdered by the state. “Sure, I wish he’d shut down the gas chambers and the ovens, but he has a lot of other problems to fix first. I’m sure he’ll get around to investigating the guys in the previous administration for their role in the Holocaust–nothing drastic, maybe a truth and reconciliation commission or something.”
Members of the media remain in thrall to the Leader’s suave persona, which is magnified by the glamour his statuesque wife and adorable daughters have brought to Germania (formerly Berlin). “Finally–parties we can believe in!” quipped a reporter as he slipped into a sold-out Wagner performance where Hitler III and his family appeared for a long-promised “date night.”
Few have forgotten that Hitler III offered the best alternative. “We live in a one-party system,” pointed out Rachel Maddoff, host of “The Rachel Maddoff Show.” “Can you imagine how much worse it would have been had Hitler III lost?”
NEXT WEEK: Resistance!
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
60 Comments.
Wow, a Hitler comparison. How provocative. zzz What, are you channeling Rush Limbaugh now?
…jesus, man…
I think your article here is an Ann Coulter level foyer into the absurd. Pick something inflammatory (proposing on the anniversary of D-Day what might have been if the Axis had won), and stretching a social commentary out of a completely fictitious alternate reality. Is that not precisely what Coulter does?
Sorry, Ted, this is really silly. D-Day did not decide World War II. World War II was decided by Operation Barbarossa when Hitler insanely decided to invade Russia. The Russians defeated Nazi Germany, even while being profusely abused by their own tyrannical ruler. On the Western Front were never more than 2 million German forces. The Eastern Front was where the worst of the war in Europe lay, and the Russians would have eventually won regardless of our efforts.
Having defeated Nazi Germany, I suspect that Russia would not find it hard to sign a peace treaty with Imperial Japan. The Japanese were absolutely terrified of the Russians, as well they should have been.
Also, having defeated Nazi Germany alone, the Russians would probably have beaten the Americans in developing nuclear weapons, and as Sputnik and Soyuz would later demonstrate, were way ahead of America in heavy lifting and intercontinental rocket technology.
If you want to make a really poignant comparison, try one of the following scenarios:
1. What if Trotsky had become the supreme Soviet leader instead of Stalin, who was an outsider (Georgian), a peasant, and a technocratic thug? Instead of making straw-man arguments to mock those of us who say "imagine how much worse it could have been if Obama had lost," turn that logic around and ask yourself: "How much better could it have been if Trotsky had risen to power instead of Stalin?" Or for that matter, Deng Xiaoping instead of Mao Zedong?
2. Which would be better to live in, the Nazi style police state or the Soviet style police state? Stalin massacred FAR MORE people in the end actually, as did Mao.
Gee Ted, are you now wishing John Mcain had won now?
Getting closer! At least you're starting to acknowledge reality a bit even in an otherwise incredibly off and unfunny satire.
How can one support the Constitution and accept "Preventive Detention"???
very funny.
but i'm a hitler fan…
Okay Ted's back! Better. So nationalism, exceptionalism oh maybe I'll watch some sports.
You clowns
not good at all, man. how is that even a column?
PLEASE reconsider running part two next week. or ever. better to just let the whole terrible concept die a merciful death.
Actually, I do wish John McCain had won. He might not have been as bad as Obama, but if he had he would have had a Democratic Congress to contend with. That, and a seriously pissed-off, energized Left. What we've got instead is a bunch of pussified liberals who think they should keep on supporting Obama even though he doesn't support them.
Ted – Show me one quote where Obama identified himself as a liberal.
No, you won't. Because you can't. That won't stop you from crying though.
Obama ran as a centrist Democrat, and now he's governing as a ….. centrist Democrat!!
If you're liberal and think Obama has somehow betrayed you, then you're as much a fool as Ted.
Centrist Democrats don't reserve the right to torture. Centrist Democrats don't operate and expand concentration camps. Centrist Democrats don't quadruple the federal deficit in order to hand trillions to Wall Street bankers. Centrist Democrats don't expand losing wars against countries that never did us any harm. Centrist Democrats don't abolish habeas corpus. Centrist Democrats don't condone domestic wiretapping.
Barack Obama ran as a centrist Democrat. He's ruling as a fascist. He is to the right of George W. Bush.
It's easy to see. Just close your eyes, ignore the liberal imagery and focus on the policies. The policies, after all, are all that matter.
P.S. If you're reading this blog, you probably remember that I was right about Bush earlier than most. That doesn't mean you should take my word about Obama. But you might want to consider what I say about him. Then read up for yourself.
For my money, "prolonged detention" is enough for me to wash my hands of him once and for all.
I know, it's hard to accept. But it was hard for those who voted for Bush to accept that their guy was incompetent and dangerous, too. They did come around…but it took five or six years and by then we were all fucked.
Don't live in denial as long as the Bush voters. We don't have time.
Rachel who?
Now you admit he never was a liberal, so why should liberals cry that he has "betrayed" them? He never was one of them in the first place, so that was their mistake projecting their liberal ideals onto him.
You're all over the map Rall. Nothing new here – please move on.
While I share your distaste for Obama, I don't think letting Ms. Stark write your columns is the answer.
if you where a right winger the left would eat you alive
John McCain would've attacked Iran on a pretext, just as his predecessor attacked Iraq on one.
That would both kick off WWIII and send the price of oil skyrocketing over $400 a barrel, completely destroying the world economy. (Sadly, this still may happen if we don't make it very clear to Israel that they are completely on their own if they foolishly and without justification attack Iran)
Keep that in mind when you say stupid things like "I wish John McCain had won" or "Obama is to the right of Bush".
Is Obama as liberal as I would like? Of course not. However, to claim that he's to the right of Bush is nonsense and will remain nonsense until Obama allows a terrorist attack on our soil for political gain.
Worse than that, its the sort of nonsense that makes you look stupid. And as a leading liberal voice when you look stupid, we all look stupid.
I realize you don't give a damn about the party, the country, or anything but your own opinion. But you ought to give serious thought to the level of aid and comfort you're giving to the enemy (and the damage you're doing to the country) with obvious nonsense screeds like this.
Obama was the best we could've done. Accept it, acknowledge it, structure your rants to deal with it, and move the hell on.
Ted Said:
Actually, I do wish John McCain had won. He might not have been as bad as Obama, but if he had he would have had a Democratic Congress to contend with. That, and a seriously pissed-off, energized Left. What we've got instead is a bunch of pussified liberals who think they should keep on supporting Obama even though he doesn't support them.
I think this is flawed logic on your part, Ted. A "..seriously pissed-off, energized Left"? isn't that what we were supposed to have after Nixon? After Reagan? Wasn't that what 2004 was about? McCain winning wouldn't have produced some surge of legitimate left wing power in the US. The '60s style leftist revolution you're looking for isn't going to happen, and even if a progressive surge did occur, I think you and your cronies wouldn't be a part of it, and would complain about it. I said this a year ago when you were mocking the Obama supporters.
Lastly, if McCain had one, it would have given real power to Sarah Palin, and that is a disaster I am immensely grateful to have not seen. If that was your logic, then why did you not vote for McCain and defend that vote? You voted for Obama, claiming that it was worth seeing. Now you wish he hadn't won. I think you're being a disingenuous little baby about this. It's silly and it's the type of content that encourages me to stop taking you seriously.
Specifically, what policies would have been helped by McCain winning? What policies did McCain call for that would have put us in a better situation? The argument you make of an expedited death of American power is adolescent and silly. I want to hear a substantive assessment of areas where McCain would have done a better job than Obama.
Mm. Couldn't you come up with something better? Not your finest moment.
No one knows what McCain would have done. But I doubt he would have proposed "prolonged detention"–aka "preventative detention," which abolishes habeas corpus, here in the US.
Pathetic. This Obama vendetta of yours is becoming an obsession. You seem 'possessed'. See your shrink… soon.
Didn't you vote for Obama yourself Mr. Rall? Anyone with half a brain could have told you he was full of crap from the very beginning… If you represent the astute political minority (and it took you this long to realize how much of a fraud Obama is), then we're pretty much doomed!
Also, I really like the story idea. However, it is a little cliche and I wonder if it's the best vehicle for what you're trying to say?
I thought we always had preventative detention with no trials for those in Gitmo. The only difference before was we had the illusion they were going to eventually have trials. I'm guessing Mcain wouldn't have let them go either, might just have called it something different.
While I share your distaste for Obama, I don't think letting Ms. Stark write your columns is the answer.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I did write the column, Reverend Mr. Smith. I confess!
Ted was down at his usual watering hole last night, waiting for his cartoonist buddies to show up. But the goddamn #1 train had a signal malfunction and a sick passenger, so they were stuck in the subway all night. He had no way to know this, because there's no cell-phone coverage in the Stygian Depths. Ted had no choice but to drink by himself in sorrow. (Also, he contracted Swine Flu from the can of spam he ate that morning.)
With his friends still stuck in the hostage situation Down Below and he not being able to see straight and type with his shaky fingers, he called me up and begged me to write his column in time for the deadline.
Now being that I am such a World War II military and history buff, I decided to use that theme, since I sooooooo much needed to hurry and get the column in before Ted lost his job a second time this year.
I deeply apologize for using such an obscure, esoteric subject like Nazi Germany as the model for my column. I can't tell you how many times I had to "Google" before I found that one.
In my next column, I'll keep it simple: Who's the better dresser, Michelle Obama or Lady Gaga?
Trust me Ted, McCain would have been worse. The dude after years of being a so-called moderate ran to the far right last year.
Obama's biggest problem is he is still operating under the same system that politicians of both parties have operated under for years. They have to kiss the ass of big business and the military industrial complex. Instead of sitting around bitching about Obama for the next 4-8 years, we need to peacefully change the system.
Susan Stark:
I was going by the "what if Palin won" piece you wrote. Judging by the way I apparently struck a nerve with my little joke, you don't like his column either.
However, I'd like to reiterate that at least somebody who's not on the right is publicly criticizing Obama, who might be the biggest sham ever foisted on this country.
Sorry, I have to agree with many here. I love your work, but this one is a complete miss. It doesn't even read like your writing.
…comparing Obama to Hitler isn't obscure, Hitler was the pan-ultimate bogeyman of the 20th Century, the person everyone who has an enemy gets compared to. It's boring, cliche, and worn out.
Thinking that D-Day was the turning point of World War II is equally cliche. It just shows a thorough lack of creativity.
TED,
nice to see you in the thread::
but,
"No one knows what McCain would have done. But I doubt he would have proposed "prolonged detention"–aka "preventative detention," which abolishes habeas corpus, here in the US."
– i feel you are wrong there…
McCain would have doubled down on gitmo and approved prolonged detention and would be personally pulling the fingernails out of "gooks" or "whoever" as we type.
you are correct though that Obama is a fascist, a liar, a corporate shill, a thief, need i go on?
two parties, same agenda…
ugh.
Recall that Philip K. Dick already did it better than anyone else could have in THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE.
The trouble is the subject of Nazi Germany is neither obscure nor esoteric. It is hackneyed cliché, in fact. This does indeed read like an idea that appeared at the "watering hole"; something that sounded great at the time but perhaps should have been re-examined in the cold, headachy light of sobriety.
Aggie is right about the history. This should rightfully and more accurately have been about Stalin. And since Gitmo, Guatenamo and Gulag Archepelago all begin with the same letter and kind of rhyme with each other, none of the clever wordplay would have been lost. Kristof Mathewsohn could have been Kris Mathewski. That sort of thing.
I am in 100% agreement with Mr. Rall about Obama. I'm on his side, really. But this does read like something a dittohead would enjoy as deep historical allegory. Sadly Ted must skew to a more critical demographic. Good luck with the conclusion
I can't believe I am reading this. Ted has been right every time. What are people here doing? Okay the abortion article everyone correctly flamed but here the deep end. This good cop bad cop routine is killing us. So they pull out the"nice" skit and everyone eats it up? Please I thought anyone reading Ted would see right through this script. No? I think McCain would of been a disaster and Palin President soon. But that was not the plan. The plan was always to have O be president. Now we have the so called progressive taking the blame. What a perfect scam. Now people are backing it. O is not one of us never was. If somehow he turns around and changes good but don't hold your breath. The system is set up this way. There is no way to get change even on a city level. Anyone who comes close to presenting a threat to the system is handled. Even someone outside of politics. So stop backing their plan. The powers that be are getting what they want. What you see is window dressing. Better to let the "other side" take the blame. Instead we are stuck with a future where regressives could rule.
I think Ted earned the right to use Nazi references. He is a scholar on the subject.
I don't get all the references to Obama in the comments, Ted didn't mention him even once in the column.
"pan-ultimate" haha
Pfft. Your little article is incomplete… you missed including this bit:
… Former cartoonist Ted Rawls was arrested last month, for violation of his probationary terms.. After his 2000 trial, he had been permanently banned from all political commentary, but persistent rumors have linked him with several items of seditious propaganda distributed by the Zionist Underground….
That was a bit heavy-handed, and the risqué Naz theme is tiresome, because it is so cliché.
Aggie, your reading of history is a little bit off. Operation Barbarossa was largely a success until the Germans lost at Stalingrad (now Volgograd). There's no telling what the outcome would be, had the Germans made peace with the Brits, as Goebbels and Himmler probably wanted to. On D-day, the Russians had barely made it into Poland (again), and there's no certainty that Stalin might have pushed all the way to Berlin if the Nazis had to fight him alone.
Also, though it may give some Commies wet dreams, there is no reason to believe that Russia would be less of a police state had Trotsky prevailed. All the old Bolsheviks believed in solving problems by blood-letting. What you could conjecture about is what would have happened had they not kicked Kerensky out. Now, that is an interesting prospect.
JXC, I am truly sorry that you don't get things unless they are literally spelled out for you word for word. Trust me on this one, it is not the rest of us that are missing something here. Ted has pointed this out by making reference to Obama directly in his comments here.
Don't be a 'tard. You have the choice not to be, you know.
Incitatus makes excellent points. Critique accepted. The most important of them, in my view, is how sketchy attempts at revisionist history are at best. Things are always missed, and history is by definition full of "what ifs." The problem I have with Rall's article here is that it goes way beyond the bounds of logical analogy, and even a shred of potential accuracy, to do one thing: Make the US look like Nazi Germany and Obama a descendant of Adolf Hitler. That's really the only purpose, because there are a plethora of better historical analogies one could make without even flinching a brain cell. That is why I compared it to the type of work you'd expect from Ann Coulter. The purpose was shock value, we are supposed to appalled at the notion that we could be compared to Nazi Germany. There is less intellectual substance here than can be found in one of that revisionist history Star Trek episode that has Germany winning WWII because the American peace movement succeeded in keeping the US out of the war.
See, Ted? This is thoroughly unoriginal at best. It was the plot of a Star Trek episode for God's sake!!!! I hope in the future you will leave the alternate reality conundrums to those who do them best.
Back to Incitatus: You're absolutely right that there is no reason to believe had Trotsky ascended to leadership, the Soviet Union wouldn't have had the police state it did. I think the broader lesson here is that there is equally as much reason to believe that had the allies not been successful on D-Day, Hitler would have won the war. Did Operation Market Garden cost the allies the war? No, but it probably did prolong it.
Aggie Joke, once again, there's no reference to Obama in Ted's column, all of those are in the comments. Since you have such distain for satire, perhaps you should forego next week's column, I'm sure part two will be just as edgy.
Susan Stark:
I was going by the "what if Palin won" piece you wrote. Judging by the way I apparently struck a nerve with my little joke, you don't like his column either.
However, I'd like to reiterate that at least somebody who's not on the right is publicly criticizing Obama, who might be the biggest sham ever foisted on this country.
Reverend Mr. Smith,
I agree with Ted 100% on Obama, but I disagree with him that McCain would have been better. My firm belief is that Sarah Palin would have been running the show if McCain got in, and would have been worse than Obama is now. Hence the "Sarah Palin Alternative-History" that I wrote. She would have made George Bush look tame in comparison.
But on the other, Obama might turn out worse than Palin would have been.
Aggie, don't you dare go dissing Star Trek!
"Aggie Joke, once again, there's no reference to Obama in Ted's column, all of those are in the comments."
Again…wow…missed the point. Are you insisting JXC that this article was NOT about Obama? If that's the case you're being pretty dense. I don't mind satire, I have enjoyed Ted's writings and cartoons for years, and many I find exceptional. I am voicing my opinion on this tired, unoriginal, and sloppy attempt at revisionist history. It's the type of stuff Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin would write, and I have a problem with that because Ted is usually above such drivel.
I can like satire at large but not like every piece of satire, ya know. That is possible.
Done with this site. Used to love the cartoons, disenchanted with Obama, but…lame Holocaust comparisons are for nutjobs. If you wanted to emulate Glen Beck, congrats…
OK Aggie, let's agree to disagree, you say this piece is unoriginal, revisionist history, I say it's topical satire. You say it's all about Obama, I say it's about a nation of gullible saps who get hoodwinked by a slick, charismatic opportunist. I scoff at your notion that Coulter or Malkin could have written something like this, sure, if either one of them had any talent for writing. Please, save yourself the aggravation and don't read next weeks continuation: Resistance!, I think it's about (Ohms)bama's Law.
Ted Rall @ 6/9/09 3:37 PM:
Centrist Democrats don't reserve the right to torture. . . .etc.
Unfortunately, Ted is right here. Centrist Democrats are subhuman slime, true, but they aren’t out-and-out militant fascists, I must admit. The fact of the matter is that even the anti-American, pathetic and compromising Centrists would be a step up from the current Democratic party. Obama isn’t caving in: he’s actively creating aggresive fascist policy. Worse, he’s doing it well, by taking advantage of public support. Bush was in many ways a better president than Obama (and Clinton) because he was shittier at doing his job.
Anonymous @ 6/9/09 4:34 PM:
Now you admit he never was a liberal, so why should liberals cry that he has "betrayed" them?
They shouldn’t — that’s the point. WTF, are you high?
You're all over the map Rall.
Way to project.
Anonymous @ 6/9/09 6:36 PM:
However, to claim that he's to the right of Bush is nonsense and will remain nonsense until Obama allows a terrorist attack on our soil for political gain.
That’s your fucking yardstick? Nothing else? “Sure, he’s bad, but until he rapes at least fifty more victims, he’s not as bad as the last guy.” Inanity aside, the point here is missed. It doesn’t matter if Obama is “more rightwing” than Bush. What matters is that Obama (incidentally, like Bush) is pushing a fascist agenda. It doesn’t matter whether Pol Pot was a worse leader than Stalin; as soon as either comes to power in your town, you have a fucking problem.
He might not have been as bad as Obama, but if he had he would have had a Democratic Congress to contend with. That, and a seriously pissed-off, energized Left.
Oh, come on. We saw what a "seriously pissed-off, energized Left" can do in this country under Bush. That is, nothing much, except wait for the next election.
I liked this one. It reminded me of an obscure but memorable movie called "Shadow On The Land", in which a near-future America has become a Nazi-like dictatorship – but with a very American flavor.
"The Leader" takes all sorts of brutal actions to suppress terrorists (freedom fighters), and Americans obey him like sheep. The Leader's autobiography, My Struggle, is the best-seller; in fact, it's the only book available in bookstores.
The funny thing is that the movie was made in the 1960s! Another odd thing: even though it starred John Forsyth and Gene Hackman and was remarkably prescient, "Shadow On The Land" is never shown on TV any more, was never released on video, and will never be released on DVD. Sony, who own the rights, have confirmed that there will never be a release.
Aggie,
While I was in Poland this year visiting the secret prisons, a local paper released a story about the US setting up secret prisons in Poland.
Is that passe, old-hat, worn-out and cliche? Yes. But the US is doing it anyway.
Fashion is stupid.