Well the US was very much in love with the nazi party until it became politically inexpedient. Then they pretended they never were but didn’t actually change anything
“The US” was very much in love? NO, a lot of Americans were. But the US was NOT in love with the Nazi party. And if you mean, “when Americans realized how horrible the Nazi’s were”, instead of “politically inexpedient”, then maybe I can agree with you.
The Nazi party’s racist ideology was based off of the Eugenics movement that started in the US.
Fascism has a bit of history in the US as well, besides the NYC Nazi rally.
The rally occurred when the German American Bund’s membership was dropping; Kuhn hoped that a provocative high-profile event would reverse the group’s declining fortunes.[2] The pro-Nazi Bund was unpopular in New York City, and some called for the event to be banned. Mayor Fiorello La Guardia allowed the event to go forward, correctly predicting that the Bund’s highly publicized spectacle would further discredit them in the public eye.[2]
While Madison Square Garden had prepared itself for the presence of the German Bund, many around New York City considered the Nazi sect less welcome in their city. About 100,000 anti-Nazi protesters gathered around the arena in protest of the Bund, carrying signs stating “Smash Anti-Semitism” and “Drive the Nazis Out of New York”.[6] A total of three attempts were made to break the arm-linking lines of police, the first of these, a group of World War One Veterans, wrapped in Stars and Stripes, were held off by police on mounted horseback, the next, a “burly man carrying an American flag” and finally, a Trotskyist group known as the Socialist Workers Party, who like those before, had their efforts halted by police.[4]
If you gather a crowd of 100,000 counter-protesters, several times larger than your own rally, not sure how ‘popular’ you are.
To prove the point you seem to ba making, you’d need to find a quote that backs the notion they were never popular
At some point people gushed over Mel Gibson, then his crazy was made public and he lost favour. Could I take his popularity numbers from 5 years ago and pretend he wasn’t super famous ever?
Op claims they were popular for a while and then not. You seem to take evidence from the “then not” part of the story and seemingly use it to prove they were never popular
It was literally at the peak of the Bund’s popularity - which is pretty damning for anyone claiming that they were popular.
To prove the point you seem to ba making, you’d need to find a quote that backs the notion they were never popular
So when someone claims that the Bund was popular, citing an event, and I cite the actual details of that same event showing that the accusation of popularity is highly dubious, the burden of proof is on me.
Is that what you’re saying?
Op claims they were popular for a while and then not. You seem to take evidence from the “then not” part of the story and seemingly use it to prove they were never popular
I didn’t realize “When the biggest event they ever manage to have is outnumbered by counterprotesters 5-1 maybe they just aren’t that popular in the country” was such a huge leap of logic.
It was literally at the peak of the Bund’s popularity
According to the article and specially the first quote you took from it, it was not. Their popularity was declining and the event was a response to that
So when someone claims that the Bund was popular, citing an event, and I cite the actual details of that same event showing that the accusation of popularity is highly dubious, the burden of proof is on me.
No, the claim was that the movement was popular and then declined. You cannot take half a claim and make it whole
So if I claim Michael Jackson was blank and then turned white, you cannot show pics when he was already white and claim he was never black
I didn’t realize “When the biggest event they ever manage to have is outnumbered by counterprotesters 5-1 maybe they just aren’t that popular in the country” was such a huge leap of logic.
The article seems to summarize events concisely and provides links to outside references. We really shouldn’t turn our nose up to any outlet trying to share information. Even if an outlet tends to be sensationalist we should pay attention to each article as they may be breaking a story, provide more research paths, or give an insight from a point of view we miss.
With that being said I know nothing of Vogue, TeenVogue, or the author. However you never know when someone cries “wolf” if it is the real deal unless you look.
Looking at the article it’s explicitly talking about Jewish American organised crime groups and their efforts against antisemitism in the prewar period, particularly the notorious Abner Zwillman so I’m not sure exactly what you think you are doing here. They are literally talking about Jewish American mobsters.
Oh I remember the story quite well. I just read it to my kids. Yes there is the responsibility of the kid to not lie, but it also the responsibility of the town to check it out even if wolf has been called several times before. The sheep feed the town, not just the child. There are multiple morals of the story.
I’ll admit I quickly read through the article and just scanned for key points and followed the linked articles, some of which were no longer valid links. The point I was trying to make was not in the defense of Vogue themselves but in the defense of news outlets that are often ignored.
I appreciate you reading the article and providing your insight into the author’s bias. I did not wish to start an argument and I apologize if I offended.
Well the US was very much in love with the nazi party until it became politically inexpedient. Then they pretended they never were but didn’t actually change anything
“The US” was very much in love? NO, a lot of Americans were. But the US was NOT in love with the Nazi party. And if you mean, “when Americans realized how horrible the Nazi’s were”, instead of “politically inexpedient”, then maybe I can agree with you.
The Nazi party’s racist ideology was based off of the Eugenics movement that started in the US. Fascism has a bit of history in the US as well, besides the NYC Nazi rally.
Mussolini seemed to think that FDR was the same as him: https://italoamericano.org/the-italian-connection-roosevelt-mussolini/
Didn’t the president have a party at the White House to show a movie titled something along the lines of “the jew problem” before WW2?
Have anything to back that up?
You’re kidding, right? I mean that very sincerely, this is incredibly well documented
So they were popular and then declined. Exactly what OP claimed
If you gather a crowd of 100,000 counter-protesters, several times larger than your own rally, not sure how ‘popular’ you are.
Again, not popular anymore at that point.
To prove the point you seem to ba making, you’d need to find a quote that backs the notion they were never popular
At some point people gushed over Mel Gibson, then his crazy was made public and he lost favour. Could I take his popularity numbers from 5 years ago and pretend he wasn’t super famous ever?
Op claims they were popular for a while and then not. You seem to take evidence from the “then not” part of the story and seemingly use it to prove they were never popular
It was literally at the peak of the Bund’s popularity - which is pretty damning for anyone claiming that they were popular.
So when someone claims that the Bund was popular, citing an event, and I cite the actual details of that same event showing that the accusation of popularity is highly dubious, the burden of proof is on me.
Is that what you’re saying?
I didn’t realize “When the biggest event they ever manage to have is outnumbered by counterprotesters 5-1 maybe they just aren’t that popular in the country” was such a huge leap of logic.
According to the article and specially the first quote you took from it, it was not. Their popularity was declining and the event was a response to that
No, the claim was that the movement was popular and then declined. You cannot take half a claim and make it whole
So if I claim Michael Jackson was blank and then turned white, you cannot show pics when he was already white and claim he was never black
I think I will explained that already bud
deleted by creator
The article seems to summarize events concisely and provides links to outside references. We really shouldn’t turn our nose up to any outlet trying to share information. Even if an outlet tends to be sensationalist we should pay attention to each article as they may be breaking a story, provide more research paths, or give an insight from a point of view we miss.
With that being said I know nothing of Vogue, TeenVogue, or the author. However you never know when someone cries “wolf” if it is the real deal unless you look.
deleted by creator
Looking at the article it’s explicitly talking about Jewish American organised crime groups and their efforts against antisemitism in the prewar period, particularly the notorious Abner Zwillman so I’m not sure exactly what you think you are doing here. They are literally talking about Jewish American mobsters.
Oh I remember the story quite well. I just read it to my kids. Yes there is the responsibility of the kid to not lie, but it also the responsibility of the town to check it out even if wolf has been called several times before. The sheep feed the town, not just the child. There are multiple morals of the story.
I’ll admit I quickly read through the article and just scanned for key points and followed the linked articles, some of which were no longer valid links. The point I was trying to make was not in the defense of Vogue themselves but in the defense of news outlets that are often ignored.
I appreciate you reading the article and providing your insight into the author’s bias. I did not wish to start an argument and I apologize if I offended.