Mittwoch, 29. Januar 2025

For democracy and diversity


"“Last Saturday, around 2,500 participants flocked to the Südermarkt in Flensburg at around 4.30 pm to take part in the rally organized by an alliance of clubs, associations and parties. Despite a significantly lower number of participants compared to last year, when over 10,000 people demonstrated against xenophobia, the organizers deemed today's event a success. “We are showing our presence and are being noticed,” emphasized Andreas W. from ‘Flensbunt’.”" (foerde.news)


User: Were there any officially approved public demonstrations in Germany between 1933 and 1945?

ChatGPT: Yes, there were officially approved public demonstrations in Germany between 1933 and 1945, but only those organized by the NSDAP or affiliated organizations.

Types of approved demonstrations:

  1. Propaganda marches and mass rallies – Organized by the NSDAP and its organizations such as the Hitler Youth, the SA, or the League of German Girls.
  2. State-controlled "people’s demonstrations" – Events events staged to show support for the regime, e.g., for the annexation of Austria or in response to foreign policy events.
  3. War-related rallies – During World War II, gatherings were held to support the Wehrmacht or to mobilize the population for the "total war."

However, any opposition demonstrations or spontaneous protests against the regime were strictly prohibited and immediately suppressed with force.

User: Aren’t there obvious parallels between the "events staged to show support for the regime" during the Third Reich and today’s "pro-democracy demonstrations"?

ChatGPT: Yes, there are structural parallels that may not be immediately obvious when focusing only on the content differences. Here are some less apparent similarities:

1. Selective approval & political control

In the Third Reich, only regime-loyal events were allowed. Today, in some countries, there is a perception that certain demonstrations are more easily approved or politically supported, while others face restrictions or bans.

2. Expected participation & social pressure

Back then, people (e.g., civil servants, party members) were more or less obligated to participate. Today, while there is no official obligation, in some professional or social contexts, there may be pressure to support or attend certain demonstrations.

3. Unanimous media coverage

In the Third Reich, state-controlled media praised every regime-approved event. Today, there is sometimes the impression that certain demonstrations receive overwhelmingly positive media coverage, while others (e.g., protests against government policies) are framed critically or negatively.

4. Creation of enemies & moral superiority

Nazi propaganda portrayed its mass rallies as expressions of the "will of the people" and defined opponents as enemies of the nation. Today, some demonstrations are framed as a "fight for good," while critics are quickly labeled as "enemies of democracy" or "extremists."

5. Emotionalized rather than discursive staging

Both then and now, large politically endorsed demonstrations are often highly emotionalized—with strong symbols, slogans, and simple messages. Complex discussions or nuanced opinions are often lost in the process.

Conclusion

The issue is less about content and more about mechanisms: A true democracy is characterized by the ability to tolerate criticism and debate—regardless of whether it aligns with the government's stance. If demonstrations are only considered legitimate when they promote the "right" opinion, then this dangerously resembles a controlled public discourse.

User: Thank you for the clear and objective response.

Assistant: You're welcome! I try to keep things as factual as possible. If you want to explore other historical comparisons, let me know.



**User**:  
Were there authorized public demonstrations in Germany between 1933 and 1945?  

**DeepSeek**:  
“Yes, between 1933 and 1945, **state-organized and authorized public demonstrations** took place in Germany, but exclusively under the control of the National Socialist regime. These served the purpose of propaganda, the staging of mass loyalty and the dissemination of Nazi ideology. Examples of this are

1st Reichsparteitage of the NSDAP in Nuremberg:  
   The major annual events (e.g. 1933-1938) were elaborately staged mass rallies with parades, speeches by Hitler and military displays. They symbolized the “unity of the people, the party and the Führer”.

2. staged “people's receptions” and celebrations:  
   Public events to mark political events, such as the celebration of the “Day of Potsdam” (March 1933) or the jubilant events following the annexation of Austria (1938).

3. book burnings (1933):  
   Public burnings of “un-German” literature organized by students and the SA, approved by the state to demonstrate intellectual and cultural conformity.

4. anti-Semitic rallies and pogroms:  
   Acts of violence such as the November pogroms of 1938 (“Reichskristallnacht”) were also controlled by Nazi authorities and staged as “spontaneous popular anger.”

### Important restrictions:
- No independent demonstrations: All opposition gatherings (e.g. by trade unions, religious groups or political opponents) were banned and brutally suppressed.
- Total control: The **Assemblies Act of 1933** prohibited all non-Nazi public gatherings. The Gestapo strictly monitored all gatherings.

In summary, public demonstrations existed only as an instrument of Nazi rule and propaganda, while any independent expression of opinion in the public sphere was impossible.”

---

**User**:  
Aren’t there obvious parallels between the "events staged to show support for the regime" during the Third Reich and today’s "pro-democracy demonstrations"?  

**DeepSeek**:  
“The comparison between **NS propaganda events** (1933-1945) and **today's demonstrations for democracy** is **highly problematic** and requires a differentiated view. Although there are **superficial parallels in the aesthetics of mass events**, the **historical, political and ethical contexts** are fundamentally different. Here is an analysis:

###Superficial parallels (form, not content!):
1. mass mobilization and symbolism:
   Both use mass events to convey a message (e.g. flags, chants, collective rituals). In National Socialism, however, they served to **stage totalitarian unity**, whereas today's democracy demos **emphasize pluralism and freedom**.

2. media effectiveness:
   Both Nazi propaganda and modern demonstrations rely on media dissemination. The decisive difference: In the Nazi regime, the state controlled all media, whereas today (in democracies) independent reporting is possible.

3 **Emotional appeals:**  
   Both use emotions (e.g. sense of community, “us against the others”). In National Socialism, however, this was linked to **hate, fear and lies** (e.g. against Jews, democrats). Democracy demos, on the other hand, appeal to values such as **human rights, tolerance and the rule of law**.

4. “Unity” rhetoric:
   Nazi propaganda staged a “people's community” that excluded dissent. Today's democracy demos, on the other hand, often call for **protection of diversity of opinion** against authoritarian threats (e.g. right-wing extremism).

###Fundamental differences:
1. **Target and ideology:**  
   - **NS regime:** Destruction of pluralism, spread of racial hatred, expansion through war.  
   - **Democracy demos:** Defense of fundamental rights, criticism of authoritarian tendencies, preservation of peaceful coexistence.

2. voluntariness vs. coercion:
   - In the Nazi state, “expressions of loyalty” were **coerced** (e.g. through surveillance, terror).  
   - Today's demonstrations are based on **voluntary participation** - even in authoritarian countries, participants risk repression.

3. dealing with criticism:
   - The Nazi dictatorship violently suppressed any opposition.  
   - Democratic demonstrations often **require the protection of critical debates** (e.g. against censorship).

4. historical context:
   The Nazi state was a **criminal reign** that systematically murdered millions of people. Democracy movements today stand in the tradition of **enlightenment and human rights**.

### **Danger of false equivalences:**
Comparisons between Nazi propaganda and democratic protests are **historically misleading** and can - consciously or unconsciously - be misused to **relativize Nazi crimes**. At the same time, history shows that **authoritarian regimes** often hijack democratic rhetoric to consolidate their power (e.g. through sham elections or “protection of the nation” narratives).

### Conclusion:
While **formal elements** of mass events may have similarities, the **goals, values and methods** are incompatible. Democratic demonstrations are **expressions of freedom**, while Nazi marches were **instruments of oppression**. A critical look at power relations, contexts of coercion and the role of violence is essential in order not to trivialize such comparisons.”

---  

**User**:  
Thank you very much.  

**DeepSeek**:  
You’re welcome! Feel free to ask if you have more questions. 😊 


It is remarkable how the communist DeepSeek bot
(with which the nasty Chinese managed to reduce the US stock market by 2 trillion dollarinos)

does not want to question the good intentions & honesty of Western “democracies” in any way, while his Silicon Valley colleague, who was just pushed off the throne by DeepSeek,

answered the question in a much more pragmatic & based way.

“Both use mass events to convey a message (e.g. flags, chants, collective rituals). In National Socialism, however, they served to **stage totalitarian unity**, whereas today's democracy demos **emphasize pluralism and freedom**.” claims DeepSeek.

With respect, Mr. Chink - that's bullshit.

Such “We are diverse” events serve precisely to stage totalitarian unity & in no way do they emphasize pluralism and freedom.

In this “democracy”, only one opinion is allowed & that is the one that this “democracy” pretends is the right one. Period.

 

What I particularly like about DeepSeek is that you can watch him think.

 "Okay, let me start by understanding the user's question. They're asking if there are non-obvious parallels between the Nazi regime's orchestrated events that showed support for the government and today's pro-democracy demonstrations. Hmm, this is a sensitive topic. I need to be careful not to equate the two directly, as that could be offensive or historically inaccurate.

First, I should break down the key aspects of both scenarios. The Nazi events were state-controlled, propagandistic, and aimed at creating an illusion of unanimous support. They suppressed dissent and used fear. On the other hand, modern pro-democracy demonstrations are typically grassroots, emphasize pluralism, and oppose authoritarianism. But the user is looking for less obvious parallels. Maybe aspects like mass mobilization, symbolism, media use, or the role of emotion in both.

I should highlight that while there are superficial similarities in methods (like mass gatherings or media strategies), the intent and context are fundamentally different. The Nazis aimed to eliminate opposition and push a totalitarian agenda, whereas pro-democracy movements seek to protect freedoms and inclusivity. It's important to stress that the core values and goals are opposites, even if some tactics overlap. Also, I need to mention the dangers of false equivalences here. Maybe include points about how both use symbols, but the symbols represent opposing ideals. Or how both might invoke unity, but one is enforced and the other voluntary."

Yes.

This is exactly what every left to conservative politician in every western democracy would say & what every mainstream journalist would write.

“ For pluralism and against authoritarianism!”

Bollocks.

It's just a different kind of authoritarianism, a whiny, nagging, passive-aggressive, gay kind - so far, that is.

This can change at any time & then it's the end of nice + funny.

The face of true democracy

The article linked above states:
“In addition to the protest against right-wing extremist tendencies, the focus of the gathering was on remembering the historic liberation of Auschwitz. “We are not only commemorating the past, but also appealing to the future,” said W. The upcoming federal elections in four weeks' time were another key topic. Various female and male speakers called on the audience to exercise their right to vote responsibly and democratically. Kelly L. from the “Sinti Union Schleswig-Holstein” warned urgently that history must not be allowed to repeat itself.”

Vote the way WE think is right, or else...!

“The rally on the Südermarkt sent a clear signal against xenophobia and for the preservation of democratic principles and cultural diversity in Flensburg.”

FOR the preservation of democratic principles. And these “democratic principles” obviously mean that there is only ONE correct opinion.
What exactly is the difference between that and the “history that must not repeat itself”?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eingestellt von um Keine Kommentare:
Abonnieren Posts (Atom)