I think that both Reich and Feder are off their rockers.

Reich is a scary "LITTLE" man (pathetic actually).

Robert Reich will shout until some issue brings him to elected office. But he will be looking for a long time.

Funny thing about the founder of Third Reich. He may not have cared about the Old Time Religion, may even have considered it his enemy. The Old Time Religion, at least in this country, liked him, though.

A history, "The Old Religious Right," would be instructive reading for Orrin and especially Tom C., who did not live through it and do not know what was being taught at the time.

Clergy went to the Camps that were run by men of science.

Polish, Czech etc. Not German.

And that would not change the situation with regard to the Old Right in the U.S., which loved Nazism.

Of course German, what was Bonhoeffer? And the American Right fought Hitler. Did the Left take on Stalin?

Bonhoffer was a very, very rare exception. I've been reading a history of some of the Dachau (not Nuremberg) prosecutions. I had known that German Christians were overwhelmingly Nazi. I had not realized just how overwhelming that was, though.

What part of the Left? Most of it ignored him during the '30s. That's what the Neutrality Acts were about.

So the answer is no, they never fought hiom as the isolationist Right did the Nazis.

The "old right" in the U.S. loved National Soicialism? You have got to be kidding. I'll asume you are.

Old Christian Right. Ever heard of Coughlin?

Orrin, we have all decided to be amnesiac about Hitler. Except me. The extreme left and right were quite ready to embrace Hitler, and that did not stop, despite the myths, on Dec. 7, 1941.

We have erased plenty of awful things from our national memory. The curious thing is, that when someone such as myself drags them back, people simply deny it.

The Oklahoma City bombing was a classic instance. All agreed, at the time, that it was the worst act of terrorism ever on American soil. It wasn't, wasn't a tenth of the recordholder, but when I brought that up (and as far as I ever saw, I was the only journalist to do so), people simply refused to look at the evidence.

It isn't a left/right thing.

Many of us do indeed have very short memories.

It's something we're all prone to (sorry, not just the French).

And it's something we all must be exceedingly vigilant about. (Isn't this part of the conservative "project"?)

For if we don't remember "our" mistakes, or if we distort them beyond all recognition, how the hell can we learn from them?

Since this is the critical issue.

(Isn't it?)

Harry:

Many important people were pro-Nazi. They weren't after 12/07/41. Many more were pro-Stalin, many, though happily fewer, were even after Ukranian famine, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the show trials, Katyn, etc., etc., etc. In fact, you still are today. That is a Left/Right thing.

I see you've signed on to the Act of Oblivion.

Alright Harry: I'll take the bait. Why was Oklahoma City not the worst act of terror?

I'll note that a Catholic journal recently ran a pretty searing essay about the Roman Catholic Church's attitudes toward the Nazis and the Jews. It hardly concludes that Old Time Religion was pro-Nazi.

OJ:
If you think Harry is pro-Stalin, you are barking mad.

He's defended Stalin every time he's ever been brought up here and thinks the NRA was going to save America. He thinks the stock market is a hoax. Worships social security. Opposes free trader. Has romantic notions about farmers. He also never answers questions about whether he is or was a communist himself. It's hard to draw any other conclusion.

An apologist for Stalin?

Coughlin had much in common with FDR's program. His main criticism was with the pace of reform. In order to characterize him as right-wing or on the opposite end of the political continuum from the New Deal and it's socialist tendencies is a stretch. He was a statist and romantic anti-capitalist whose rhetoric was in line with the New Dealers when describing what he believed prolonged the depression. The New Deal was a corporatist movement or third-way approach to managing the economy much like the Italian Fascists who were less radical than the National Socialists while both maintained the fiction of private property under the control of the state. The Stalinists maintained no such fiction. Other than that and the racialism as opposed to classism, the differences between the Fascists, Nazis and Bolshiveks were minimal or merely cosmetic at best.

I read the same posts you do.

You grotesquely caricaturize his positions, to the point of making Dowd blush.

People are fully capable of defending themselves around these parts, but the "Mission to Moscow", 1930's American liberal/left view of Stalin that Harry consistently projects has a time warp feel about it that one rarely comes across these days. It's kind of quaint.