Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
EDIT:
Context: This is an archived article from 1939 by "Foreign Affairs".
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/germany/1939-04-01/will-hitler-save-democracy
Journalism has an adage that any headline ending with a question can be answered "no" by the readet who then safely ignores it.
I guess this article was from before they figured that out
No one seems to have actually read the article, just the headline. This is the ultimate click bait title - kudos to the headline writer in 1939.
The tl/dr: It's saying Hitler's authoritarian actions were galvanising other countries to step up and protect democracy after the failures after WW1.
In the final paragraph:
It is one of the most interesting phenomena of Hitler's political activity that it has resulted in bringing about so soon such an overwhelming and unprecedented manifestation of defensive solidarity amongst the democratic peoples.
And the final line of the article:
It would be the height of paradox if Hitler, of all persons, were destined by his statesmanship finally "to make the world safe for Democracy."
The article is surprisingly prescient.
I'd love to read it for myself but it's paywalled. Do you think you could run it through archive.is?
When the headline of an article is a question, the answer is always "no".
Interesting that unwritten rule applied back then as well.
Like Putin uniting NATO countries
Nah, NATO is a really bad example, it's not union it's usa controlling others members
Go tell that to France.
Lmao OP caught in 4k
In my defense, the contents were blocked by a paywall
Soon, we will get the same with Trump, Putin, etc.
That's either an April fools article or the dumbest take ever.
It's a real archived article from April 1, 1939
A real archived article from...1 April, 1939.
I don't think it's an April Fool's article, but from just the headline it would not be unreasonable to conclude that.
It's a clickbait title. From what I see it basically says that Hitler gave democracies a common enemy to fight against and rally to defend their system
I think I get the point they're trying to make, democracy had become complacent and Hitler gave it a common threat and enemy, but in retrospect... Didn't work out that great now, did it
It worked fine at the time, the problem is that all of that motivation to defend democracy was artificial, and slowly faded from the public as the war faded into the past.
It's difficult to quantify, but I think there is a compelling argument to be made - just off of my head, WW2 led to:
But also
Italian and Japanese democracy
And, albeit on a longer timeframe, Taiwanese and South Korean democracy.
That authors name is Comfort Ero?