Did a 1933 Article Report That Hitler Would Not 'Disrupt' Germany?
www.snopes.com
Events always seem more obvious and predictable after they have already taken place.

Here’s a copy and paste from the 1933 article:

Rise in Stocks Reflects Confidence He Will Not Disrupt Nation’s Affairs

Berlin is settling down to pass judgment on political developments. Politicians, economists and bankers declare there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power.

Consequently, it is not believed that Hitler will accomplish a change in the constitution or that [Reich Minister of Economics Alfred] Hugenberg will bring about a general reduction of interest rates. The government wants to obtain an adjournment of the Reichstag for several months, but it is questionable whether the Centre [Party] will approve of such action.

  • ComradeMiao@lemmy.worldEnglish
    22·
    3 days ago

    Why’re you fleeing the US for being Jewish? Have you been influenced by MSM lying about an increase in antisemitism as anti-Palestinian rhetoric?

    And before you start telling me how awful the UK is for queer people, they’re banning conversion therapy and schools do not tolerate bullying queer kids.

    Who said anything about queer people?

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
      61·
      3 days ago

      Why’re you fleeing the US for being Jewish?

      I’m not. I’m fleeing the U.S. because my daughter is queer and going to a country which is banning conversion therapy and which has a zero tolerance policy in schools for bullying queer people.

      My wife is also a librarian, who they are trying to imprison for corrupting the youth.

      Maybe you should have asked me why I was fleeing in the first place.

      And no, I don’t want to hear from you how Trump isn’t actually going to be that bad.

      • ComradeMiao@lemmy.worldEnglish
        14·
        3 days ago

        That’s literally the first and only thing I asked you, you only mentioned Jewish. Why would you say that if it wasn’t relevant lol

        • Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          3 days ago

          It seems likely they mean that their mother cannot see the signs of coming fascism and danger even though, as a Jewish person who was close to the Holocaust experience, these should be quite obvious. The population under most immediate threat doesn’t have to be Jews for Jewish people to A) still have characteristics of themselves or loved ones that would make them targets and/or B) not want to live under a fascist regime so reminiscent of Hitler’s Germany.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          3 days ago

          This is the relevant part:

          And this being despite her knowing that my father’s mother had to get her mother-in-law out of Nazi Germany by sheer force of will and determination in the 1930s, but not without sewing the few valuables she had remaining that the Nazis hadn’t seized into her coat.

          You do understand that the Jewish part was necessary as context to explain that, right?