Germany before World War II --- with its vulnerable neighbors including Holland
I find myself thinking lately about a visit I had when I was a teenager, in the late 1970's, with a Dutchman named Max.
Max talked about his life, which was a fascinating capsule of European history. He had served in the bureaucracy of the Dutch navy in the 1930's, and told entertaining stories about advances the Netherlands made in submarine technology that flummoxed both Germans and English. He wound up working in the Royal Navy after the Germans invaded Holland in 1940.
I was entertained and respectful of his age and experience, but not so much so that I did not, eventually, interrupt with a question that had begun gnawing at me during his narrative.
"OK, so you were in the Dutch government during the 1930's," I said. "Didn't your country feel threatened by Hitler's rise?"
No, Max said. "Back then, that was not at all how it seemed. We all thought that Hitler was so good for Germany. The Germans had got a bad deal from the Versailles treaty, you know? So they were depressed, they were resentful, and their economy was a complete disaster. And that spread out through Europe, what was bad for Germany was bad for all of us littler countries, you see? But with Hitler, they had their pride back, their economy was recovering, they were a good trade partner, we all benefitted. What was good for Germany, was good for Europe.
"Oh, we all knew he had this thing about the Jews," --- this accompanied by an apologetic hand wave, "but everyone has their strange obsessions. But overall, Germany was so much better, and they made a better neighbor, you know?"
Max shook his head, as if still puzzled. "Then all of a sudden he just went crazy and started conquering people."
"But, but," I spluttered, "he wrote all of that, I mean about acquiring territory, ruling Europe, in Mein Kampf! It wasn't a spur of the moment decision!"
"Yes, of course," Max allowed, "but who could take that seriously?"
Oops.
I think the moral of the story is that when a leader with a major following promises something, even if it’s something that sounds crazy and impossible as well as morally wrong, he needs to be taken seriously.
It is dangerous to underestimate a megalomaniac. Either his intentions, or his ability to work around barriers to accomplishing his crazy goals
Or to pin your hopes for a brighter future on him, despite the evidence he has provided you.
And I have heard so many people lately doing both with the Republican nominee-apparent.
I’ve met a journalist who cheerfully waves away Trump’s utter hostility to the first amendment, who is sure that constitutional guarantees and the balance of power will keep Trump from doing anything REALLY crazy like opening up those libel laws or shutting down news writers. My journalist friend thinks politics as usual isn’t working so why don’t we give the crazy man a try?
I heard an immigration lawyer on NPR, a Latino immigration reform activist who was disappointed that Obama abandoned immigration reform. This man was bright and articulate and passionate -— and thinks that because Trump has stated his hostility to immigration Trump forms a 'bridge' to the anti-immigration camp, making him the man who will paradoxically be able to negotiate immigration reform.
There are Bernie Sanders supporters (not as many as Trump claims, but certainly TOO many) who plan to vote for Trump. They support him because he is articulating their discontent with the status quo, or because he will stop globalization, or various other imagined points they have in common.
I have heard SO MANY people echoing Dutch Max lately… and when you bring up “But he said he would [ insert insane antidemocratic/bigoted/immoral phrase here ] “ they say some variant of "But who could take that seriously”?
Would they also say “He was making America great again — then he went crazy and [insert insane antidemocratic/bigoted/immoral phrase here ]”?
