Was Hitler Partially Inspired by Jim Crow Laws in the US?

Race laws in the U.S. were a “blueprint” inspiring the Nazi regime’s racial oppression, according to author and Yale Law School professor James Q. Whitman.

He joined the show today to talk about his book “Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law” and analyze the parts of U.S. law that were appealing to radical Nazi leaders at the time.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So Stu brought in a book that he was reading. And said, you're going to love this. Hitler's American model.

It has Hitler in it. It's got the Nazis. Of course, I'm going to love this. The United States and the making of Nazi race law.

This is a really important book for -- for several reasons. None of which, because of the person who authored it, a professor at Yale law, James Whitman, it is a very thoughtful book, a scholarly book, and one that I think -- he's probably not overcautious. I'm just too reckless. He makes the point over and over and over again, this does not mean the Americans were Nazis or anything else.

It just is documenting how much the Nazis loved our racist laws from the Jim Crow does and the Progressive Era. Not good.

James Whitman is with us now, author of Hitler's American Model.

How are you holding up, James?

JAMES: Hello. Thank you for having me on the show.

GLENN: Yes. You bet.

How are you holding up?

JAMES: Oh, pretty well. You know, the book is keeping me busy, I got to say.

GLENN: Yeah, I bet it is.

I would imagine that there is many people on the right that are saying, this is nothing, but an American bashing book. And those on the left that maybe are in denial that they don't want to see you expose, you know, FDR for, you know, his -- you know, the outdated thinking of that era.

JAMES: Well, it's certainly true that the book has created some discomfort on the left. There's no doubt about that.

Although, there are people on the far left who have been quite excited about what I have to say in the book. It's true enough though, that when the Nazis were looking at the US, in the early 1930s -- my book is only about the early 1930s, it was in an era of substantial Nazi interest in the New Deal administration and occasional admiration for Franklin Roosevelt. That's absolutely true. And a little bit hard to swallow, obviously, for a lot of Americans now.

GLENN: Stu, read -- this is just on page six. Read the thing that you brought in today on page six.

STU: You're talking, we have now long known the strange fact that the Nazis frequently praised Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal government in the early 1930s.

FDR received distinctly favorable treatment in the Nazi press, until at least 1936 or '37. Lauded as a man who had seized dictatorial powers and embarked on bold experiments in the spirit of the furor. Similar things were said more broadly about what was sometimes labeled in the 1930s, the fascist new deal. The glossy Berlin illustrated magazine, seized from a Jewish publisher and converted to a kind of Nazi life magazine ran heroic photo spreads on Roosevelt, while Nazi rags like Will & Power, the newsletter of the Hitler Youth, described him as a revolutionary, who might fail only because he lacked a disciplined party army like our furor. Wow.

GLENN: So to defend Roosevelt in some regard, this was the new kind of thought that had come from Germany in the 1800s to America. This idea of a strong state and fascism was -- had not been discredited yet, if you will, like it was under Hitler.

So nobody wants to really recognize that though, James. Do they?

JAMES: Well, you know, I can't speak for anybody else. But the fact that there -- it's important to say that the Nazis were wrong about whether FDR was a fascist. They were wrong about a lot of other things.

GLENN: Correct.

JAMES: You know, they -- and it's also important to say that Germany, like the US, was facing the Great Depression. And in some ways, it's not surprising that they came up with similar programs, programs that, you know, are now regarded as not very effective. But at the time, were the best people could come up with. So, you know, it's not -- this is not a story of deep brotherhood between --

GLENN: No, no, no.

JAMES: -- Hitler and Franklin Roosevelt or anything like that.

The other thing you have to emphasize in all of this is that Roosevelt, especially in the early '30s again, depended entirely on the support of the segregation of the Southern Democratic Party.

GLENN: So here's the thing -- and you do a really good job. I mean, for me, I'm a little more reckless. That's why you're a Yale professor.

But you make -- you do a good job of all the way through saying, this does not mean -- we're not comparing the two, et cetera, et cetera. It's a very thoughtful book.

But when you get into the Nuremberg Laws. I have, you know, studied the progressive movement and it's entanglement in eugenics for a long, long time. I was not aware of all of the things that you exposed in the Nuremberg Laws. I mean, they really looked at our laws to round up Jews.

JAMES: Yeah, they sure did. I mean, there were -- it's important to emphasize that in the early '30s -- the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, the idea of mass extermination of the Holocaust was not in anybody's head yet. The Nazis were simply trying to -- simply -- the Nazis were trying to introduce forms of persecution short of death camps. You really have to remember that. And what the Nuremberg Laws were involved in particular was the creation of a new form of second class citizenship for Jews, and bans on sex and marriage between Jews and, you know, Aryans as the Nazis defined them. And in those respects, there were all kinds of interesting things to look at in American law, and they did.

GLENN: You know, I want to take issue with one thing that you said. Or maybe you can clarify that nobody was thinking about gas chambers yet.

In some ways, they were. I mean, George Bernard Shah is shockingly deeply into this. And talks about an actual gas chamber or some way of humanly putting people down that were no longer worth -- or worthy of -- of the support of the mass of people. And that was in England, right after the turn of the century.

I mean, there was this idea of, let's get rid of people, you know -- let me -- let me -- Theodore Roosevelt -- so let me take on a Republican, wrote, at some point, we're going to be looked at like a crazy cattle rancher who would just let his best stock breed with the worst stock. You don't allow that to happen. Why would we now? And others took it further to extermination.

JAMES: Those are appalling quotes. Yeah, it's not that the Nazis and Hitler, in particular, might not in principle have gone along with that sort of thing, but in the early '30s, it wasn't a practical possibility for them.

GLENN: Right.

JAMES: You know, exactly why they eventually turned to -- to the death camps, under cover of war, really, in World War II, is a subject of great debate among historians. I don't address that problem in the book. But in the early '30s, this just couldn't possibly have been a program they could have gotten through in Germany. And they didn't talk about it.

STU: It was really one of those things, this was what they believed they could get away with at the time, the leadership. And what was -- is so disturbing about that is one of the reasons they thought they could get away with this part of it, the Nuremberg Laws was because, hey, here's this other country. They're advanced. They're a first world country and they're doing these things. It was something they could bring with justification of the United States in their policy. As a backing to -- these were sensible laws. People were doing this all over the world.

JAMES: You bet. And not only in other First World countries, but the most powerful country in the world. Of course, when the Nazis tried to understand how the US had risen to whatever measure of world domination they had at the time, they figured it's obviously American racism that's made the country so successful. What else would Nazis conclude?

GLENN: So there's also a story that you write about that I had no idea. They -- they actually used a judge in New York who was an activist judge, who very rightly stood up and talked about the Nazis when a ship came in.

However, you know, he kind of overreached his position. But that's kind of what set the Nuremberg laws, really, in place. Is it not?

JAMES: That sure is. It's a heck of a story, really. This is a Jewish judge. A really minor figure in American law. He was actually a magistrate in the tombs, the detention center in Manhattan.

GLENN: He was like a night court judge, right?

JAMES: Night court judge.

GLENN: Right.

JAMES: What happened was there had been a riot in which the rioters tore the swastika flag off a Nazi German ocean liner and threw it into the Hudson River. The rioters had been arrested. They came before him, and he released them. And issued a statement denouncing Naziism, which he had no business doing whatsoever.

GLENN: Right.

JAMES: Not what a night court judge is supposed to be doing.

GLENN: Right.

JAMES: But the Nazis seized on this as an insult, as justification for making the swastika flag at last the sole flag of Germany and as the reason for promulgating these Nuremberg Laws. So the Nuremberg Laws were indeed the Nazi response to this, you know, in many ways admirable, but completely legally unjustified opinion delivered by a night court judge in Manhattan.

GLENN: So, James, did that play into -- by the way, we're talking to Yale law professor James Whitman, author of the book Hitler's American Model. Did that incident play in at all with the -- the idea that the Jewish community should just remain quiet? Don't cause trouble here in America.

Did people see that at the time in the Jewish community at all of, oh, crap, you did the wrong thing, but you said the right thing. And look at the trouble. It's made things worse now in Germany.

JAMES: Not that I know of. In fact, he became something of a hero. Not just in the US, but in France. He sailed off to France and was celebrated as a champion of the values of humanity against the threat of Naziism. I don't think people were yet thinking that it was important to keep quiet at that stage in 1935.

GLENN: What was the thing that -- as you were doing your research, you shake your head and you say, I can't believe how wrong we have history, or I can't believe this happened and nobody really knows?

JAMES: Yeah, well, that was my reaction, I have to say. I didn't expect to find the stuff that I found. But, boy, did it turn out that there was a lot of it. In particular -- I mean, I started just by -- out of curiosity, looking at Mein Kampf, in which one finds the phrase, "There is one country that has made progress toward the creation of a healthy race order, and that country was the United States."

So Hitler was praising the US already in Mein Kampf. And when you start to track down the legal records in the early '30s, it's all over the place. Including in the -- we have a stenographic transcript of a planning meeting for the Nuremberg Laws. The meeting begins when the minister of justice presents a memorandum on American law, and they discuss what lessons they can learn from the US there.

GLENN: So, James, this is going to make people uncomfortable.

I like books and thinking that makes me uncomfortable. It makes me grow. It makes me think. And it makes me question.

Why is this important that we learn this?

JAMES: First of all, it's just a big part of American and world history. You know, no insignificant thing.

GLENN: Yeah.

JAMES: And it does help us to -- it doesn't help us explain why Hitler happened or anything like that. I mean, I think Hitler would have happened regardless.

GLENN: Yeah.

JAMES: But it does help us understand the course of development. And come back to something you said earlier, it shows that the extent to which in the early 1930s, creating a race order of that kind was quasi-respectable.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. It was.

JAMES: I mean, which is easy for us to forget.

It tells us things about the US too. About the history of American racism. So the Nazis weren't just interested in Jim Crow's segregation.

It turns out that there was racist law of all kinds. In immigration law, for example. Not all of it directed against blacks. It was a vast national body of law, not just limited to the South. And that's something we've forgotten too.

And that's important to see that. You know, I think it also tells us things about where the dangers lie in -- in American values and American traditions. The things the Nazis liked so much in the '30s are still with us in some ways, even though segregation is gone. There's no more Jim Crow.

GLENN: James, thank you very much. It's a great read. And something that I think everybody should have in their home library, and not something that necessarily you're going to drill down in, anyplace else. And I hope this furthers the conversation about who we have been and the mistakes that we've made and how others have capitalized on that.

JAMES: Well, thanks so much. I really appreciate the kind words.

GLENN: You got it. Buh-bye.

The great beyond. What does it hide from us? Do unknown lifeforms linger in the dark? In other words, was David Bowie right? Is there life on Mars? The head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department contends that, yes, there is. Well, not that there's life on Mars. I'll explain in just a minute.

In an academic article for the Astrophysical Journal Letters, Dr. Avi Loeb, the head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department, claimed that an alien probe entered our solar system. He claimed that it is masked as the space rock Oumuamua (Ow-moo-ah-moo-ah), "the first interstellar object to enter our solar system." It turns out that "space rock" is way more than a musical genre.

RELATED: Science saves us again: Octopuses are really aliens who crash-landed on Earth

In his own words:

Considering an artificial origin, one possibility is that 'Oumuamua is a lightsail, floating in interstellar space as a debris from an advanced technological equipment.

His evidence? pointed to the space rock's abnormal acceleration, activity which he gathered via the Hubble Space Telescope.

He added that "the lightsail technology might be abundantly used for transportation of cargo between planets."

Sounds a bit like Star Wars, no? Or are you more of a Star Trek fan? Either way, it's an odd thing to hear from the head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department. Typically, we hear these sorts of things from the darker corners of the History Channel.

Well, I'll say that, at this point, I'm not really surprised. It's 2019. I'm not surprised by anything anymore.

"I don't care what people say," Loeb said. "It doesn't matter to me. I say what I think, and if the broad public takes an interest in what I say, that's a welcome result as far as I'm concerned, but an indirect result. Science isn't like politics: It is not based on popularity polls."

Honestly, I believe the guy. Well, I'll say that, at this point, I'm not really surprised. It's 2019. I'm not surprised by anything anymore. Heck, I welcome alien lifeforms. Maybe they can give us some advice on how to get our world together.

The third annual Women's March is approaching, and the movement has shown signs of strife. It's imploding, really. An article in Tablet Magazine revealed deep-seated antisemitism among the co-chairs of the movement, which is funny for a movement that brands itself as a haven of "intersectionality." The examples pile up, and just yesterday there was another. I'll tell you about it in a minute.

The Women's March has been imploding, and it started at the very top. Four women have come to represent the diverse face of the movement, the co-chairs: Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez, Linda Sarsour, and Bob Bland.

RELATED: LEFTIST INSANITY: Woman attacked at women's rights rally for exercising her rights

Increasingly, we've learned that anti-Semitism is common among these women.

Teresa Shook, who founded the Women's March has repeatedly asked them to step down: The co-chairs "have steered the Movement away from its true course. I have waited, hoping they would right the ship," Shook wrote. "But they have not. In opposition to our Unity Principles, they have allowed anti-Semitism, anti-LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform by their refusal to separate themselves from groups that espouse these racist, hateful beliefs."

Tamika Mallory gave us the latest example, by continuing to stand by Louis Farrakhan. Check out Tamika's arrogant, nonsensical response. But the real problem came at the end of Mallory's rambling non-answer.



Women's March Leader Tamika Mallory Doubles Down On Love For Louis Farrakhan youtu.be


Later this week I'll go over the entire controversy on Glenn TV. It's harrowing, really. For now, I'll leave you with this. Critics of 4th wave feminism have argued that the radical identity politics of the left will lead to the exact kind of mistreatment that feminists claim to be against. That argument has been written off as using the slippery slope fallacy. But, as we see with the Women's March, it is in fact a brutal reality.

Remember how serious Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi were last week, when they gave their "rebuttal" to President Trump's address? They made it seem like this government shutdown is apocalyptic. A lot of Democrats have done the same. On social media and CNN at least. Thirty Democrats, however, took a different route. Puerto Rico. For cocktails at the beach.

RELATED: The President won the night, but don't count on the media to admit it

A group of 30 Democrats have turned the government shutdown into a live-action interpretation of a Jimmy Buffet song:

Nibblin' on sponge cake, Watchin' the sun bake.

No, seriously. In the words of Press Secretary Sarah Sanders:

Democrats in Congress are so alarmed about federal workers not getting paid they're partying on the beach instead of negotiating a compromise to reopen the government and secure the border.

A photo of New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez at a resort beach has gone viral.

They arrived via chartered jet. They're staying at a seaside resort, and attended the ridiculously-priced and overhyped play "Hamilton," where tickets for opening night "ranged from $10 to $5,000," according to the Associated Press. They even attended several afterparties.

Of course, the official occasion seems legit. They're in San Juan for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus BOLD PAC. According to a memo for the gathering:

This year's winter retreat promises to be our most widely attended yet with over 220 guests, including 39 Members of Congress and CHC BOLD PAC supporters expected to attend and participate!

Also in attendance, about 109 lobbyists, from a number of places, including "R.J. Reynolds, Facebook, Comcast, Amazon, PhRMA, Microsoft, Intel, Verizon, and unions like the National Education Association."

Donald Jr. said it well:

And of course no one says anything. I'm not even in government and I'd get killed in the press if I was on vacation right now. Why won't they cover their democrat buddies lobbyist sponsored vacation in the islands???

Maduro takes office and Venezuelans vote with their feet

CRIS BOURONCLE/AFP/Getty Images

Venezuela continues to collapse. A country that used to have the world's largest oil reserves is now in rags. Its money is worthless, with inflation near one million percent. People must work an average of five days at minimum wage just to afford a dozen eggs. But there is one person still pumped about Venezuela's future – its noble president, Nicolas Maduro! I'll tell you why he's still enthusiastic in just a minute…

Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro had a stellar 2018. Here are some highlights:

  • Running water and electricity only work occasionally and prices for basic goods doubled.
  • Doctors, engineers, oil workers, and electricians fled the country en masse. Over 48,000 teachers also left the country.
  • Over half a million Venezuelans fled to Peru alone.

Maduro created a new digital currency called the "petro." One petro is supposed to equal the price of a barrel of oil, about $60. U.S. Treasury Department officials call the petro a scam. Who could've seen that coming?

Maduro also announced a 3,000 percent minimum-wage hike. Even Ocasio-Cortez might roll her eyes at that one. Or find it inspiring.

And just yesterday, a Human Rights Watch report detailed how Venezuelan intelligence and security forces are arresting and torturing military personnel and their family members who are accused of plotting against Maduro. The torture includes: "brutal beatings, asphyxiation, cutting soles of their feet with a razor blade, electric shocks, food deprivation, [and] forbidding them to go to the bathroom."

It's so bad in Venezuela that even The Washington Post admits Venezuela's problems are mostly due to "failed socialist policies." But President Nicolas Maduro gave a televised New Year's address calling 2019, "the year of new beginnings." He's pumped, you see, because today he will be sworn in for his second six-year term as president. He was "re-elected" last May in an election that the international community declared illegitimate.

Thirteen nations released a statement last week urging Maduro not to take office and saying they would not recognize his presidency.

Maduro doesn't have many friends left at home or abroad. Thirteen nations released a statement last week urging Maduro not to take office and saying they would not recognize his presidency. This week, the U.S. added more Venezuelan officials to its sanctions list.

In a press conference yesterday, Maduro said:

There's a coup against me, led by Washington. I tell our civilians and our military to be ready. Our people will respond.

I think the people of Venezuela who have the means are already responding – by leaving.