We are Voting for Hitler!

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

So, why is Divided Friends subtitled, "Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the United States"?

Cheers,

Sid

[ljadw]

Because the author is an American ,and because the editor is an American and they will sell more copies if the subtitle (probably written by the editor ) is ''Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the United States '' and not ''Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis ''

[Latze]

Because the author is an American ,and because the editor is an American and they will sell more copies if the subtitle (probably written by the editor ) is ''Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the United States '' and not ''Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis ''

Did you read the book yourself to be able to make these sweeping statements?

[Latze]

If one cares to look, the ToC is visible on Amazon. Given the chapter titles nothing indicates that the following characterization of "Divided Friends" ist incorrect or misleading:
"In two sets of intertwined biographical portraits, spanning two generations, Divided Friends dramatises the theological issues of the modernist crisis, highlighting their personal dimensions and extensively reinterpreting their long-range effects. The four protagonists are Bishop Denis J. O'Connell, Josephite founder John R. Slattery, together with the Paulists William L. Sullivan and Joseph McSorley. Their lives span the decades from the Americanist crisis of the 1890s right up to the eve of Vatican II. In each set, one leaves the church and one stays. The two who leave come to see their former companions as fundamentally dishonest. Divided Friends entails a reinterpretation of the intellectual fallout from the modernist crisis and a reframing of the 20th century debate about Catholic intellectual life." (this from https://www.lehmanns.de/shop/literatur/ ... ed-friends)

Also the review published in a peer reviewed journal (https://brill.com/view/journals/jjs/2/2 ... anguage=en) is consistent with the description given above.

[ljadw]

There was almost no ''modernism '' in the US ( no one knows /knew what modernism meant ),after the encyclical of 1907 it was all over .
There were few Catholics in the US and the average priest was not interested in modernism ,which was only a toy of theologians .There are no proofs that the 4 persons mentioned in the book ever had a beginning of influence on the American Catholics .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

I asked of you, "So, why is Divided Friends subtitled, Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the United States?"

You replied, (or pretended to), "Because the author is an American ,and because the editor is an American and they will sell more copies if the subtitle (probably written by the editor ) is ''Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the United States '' and not ''Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis ''

What evidence do you have for this proposition that the authors included an entirely misleading subtitle in order to sell more copies of a book that was hardly likely to get on the New York Times best seller list under any circumstances?

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

I asked of you, "So, why is Divided Friends subtitled, Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the United States?"

You replied, (or pretended to), "Because the author is an American ,and because the editor is an American and they will sell more copies if the subtitle (probably written by the editor ) is ''Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the United States '' and not ''Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis ''

What evidence do you have for this proposition that the authors included an entirely misleading subtitle in order to sell more copies of a book that was hardly likely to get on the New York Times best seller list under any circumstances?

Cheers,

Sid.

Because this is a tactic that is used in the world of the publishing houses :subtitles have a commercial aim .
And you give the NYT best seller list an importance it does not have in places as Topeka, Bismarck,Cheyenne, Sacramento, Boise, etc .People who use the NYT best seller list to buy a book will not buy Divided Friends .
Divided Friends mentioned the Modernist Crisis in Europe and the reply of the Vatican (Pascendi ) and the role of Catholics in the Italian elections, not in the US elections .
The importance of Modernism in the US and of Catholic Americans in the Catholic Church was negligible before WWI :Europe was the centre of the world and the Catholic Church : til Pius X US was depending on the Propaganda Fide = the congregation who was dealing with the colonies .

[Latze]

There was almost no ''modernism '' in the US ( no one knows /knew what modernism meant ),after the encyclical of 1907 it was all over .
There were few Catholics in the US and the average priest was not interested in modernism ,which was only a toy of theologians .There are no proofs that the 4 persons mentioned in the book ever had a beginning of influence on the American Catholics .

Which is completely besides the point. You did not read the book.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

So, no evidence as asked for, then. Just more unsupported opinion.

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

So, no evidence as asked for, then. Just more unsupported opinion.

Cheers,

Sid.

All publishing houses do it .

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

So, no evidence as asked for, then. Just more unsupported opinion.

Cheers,

Sid.

Sources are countless
TWO sources
1 www.evolvemarketingdesign com
''How to write a subtitle that sells your book for you ''
''It's the subtitle than can make or break your book ''
''Anatomy of a book cover : the ( front ) cover of a book has one purpose: to sell the book by intriguing the right readers ''
Thus ......
2 WAPO June 4 2019
Book titles are getting ridiculously long .What is going on ?
'' Subtitle length and content have a lot to do with finding readers through online searching .''
Think on the following question : subtitles cost money . Why are they used ?
Answer : to sell copies and thus make money .
The margin of profit is that small that everything that is printed must yield money .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

Nice try, but no banana.

You were asked a different question.

Here it is again:

"What evidence do you have for this proposition that the authors included an entirely misleading subtitle in order to sell more copies.....?"

I would also point out that nowhere in your latest pretend answer does either of your sources advise providing "an entirely misleading subtitle".

Try again, but this time please attempt to answer the question actually asked.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Latze]

Hi ljadw,

So, no evidence as asked for, then. Just more unsupported opinion.

Cheers,

Sid.

Sources are countless
TWO sources
1 www.evolvemarketingdesign com
''How to write a subtitle that sells your book for you ''
''It's the subtitle than can make or break your book ''
''Anatomy of a book cover : the ( front ) cover of a book has one purpose: to sell the book by intriguing the right readers ''
Thus ......
2 WAPO June 4 2019
Book titles are getting ridiculously long .What is going on ?
'' Subtitle length and content have a lot to do with finding readers through online searching .''
Think on the following question : subtitles cost money . Why are they used ?
Answer : to sell copies and thus make money .
The margin of profit is that small that everything that is printed must yield money .

Priceless. First you use a book you never read and just stumbled upon via Google Books to give your opinion credence. Then - after you are pressed why you choose to "quote" something at best tangentially related to the your thesis you insist that the subtitle of said book is wrong (as if that would change the gist of the matter) and to lend credence to that dumb assertion you again quote stuff you just googled together!
Neither this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertai ... story.html nor that http://www.evolvemarketingdesign.com/ho ... k-for-you/ prove, support or reinforce the point you made.

[George L Gregory]

What do people think of Richard J. Evans' arguments for why Germans voted for the Nazi Party in 1930?

In the increasingly desperate situation of 1930, the Nazis managed to project an image of strong, decisive action, dynamism, energy and youth that wholly eluded the propaganda efforts of the other political parties, with the partial exception of the Communists. The cult of leadership which they created around Hitler could not be matched by comparable efforts by other parties to project their leaders as the Bismarcks of the future. All this was achieved through powerful, simple slogans and images, frenetic, manic activity, marches, rallies, demonstrations, speeches, posters, placards and the like, which underlined the Nazis’ claim to be far more than a political party: they were a movement, sweeping up the German people and carrying them unstoppably to a better future. What the Nazis did not offer, however, were concrete solutions to Germany’s problems, least of all in the area where they were most needed, in economy and society. More strikingly still, the public disorder which loomed so large in the minds of the respectable middle classes in 1930, and which the Nazis promised to end through the creation of a tough, authoritarian state, was to a considerable extent of their own making. Many people evidently failed to realize this, blaming the Communists instead, and seeing in the violence of the brown-uniformed Nazi stormtroopers on the streets a justified, or at least understandable reaction to the violence and aggression of the Red Front-Fighters’ League.

Voters were not really looking for anything very concrete from the Nazi Party in 1930. They were, instead, protesting against the failure of the Weimar Republic. Many of them, too, particularly in rural areas, small towns, small workshops, culturally conservative families, older age groups, or the middle-class nationalist political milieu, may have been registering their alienation from the cultural and political modernity for which the Republic stood, despite the modern image which the Nazis projected in many respects. The vagueness of the Nazi programme, its symbolic mixture of old and new, its eclectic, often inconsistent character, to a large extent allowed people to read into it what they wanted to and edit out anything they might have found disturbing. Many middle-class voters coped with Nazi violence and thuggery on the streets by writing it off as the product of excessive youthful ardour and energy. But it was far more than that, as they were soon to discover for themselves.

Richard J. Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich.

I don't know about you, but if anything, Evans' description is 'vague' and doesn't explain why the Germans voted specifically for the Nazi Party when there were plenty of other political parties they could have voted for in 1930.

Why would so many people quite happily vote for a party that had no general objective ideas and no ideas about how to solve the problems of a current crisis?

[ljadw]

Very simple : both the NSDAP AND the KP had no ideas about how to solve the problems of the crisis .
Both (NSDAP AND KP ) were not responsible for the crisis .
Both (NSDAP and KP ) did not rule Germany .
Both (NSDAP AND KP ) could not be blamed .
But the Weimar Coalition ( which governed Germany since November 1918 ) was unable to solve the crisis and was thus held responsible .
The majority of the electors voted for the NSDAP and KP .They did not vote specifically for the Nazis .
Other point, what Evans forget to mention :there was Nazi violence on the street, but there was also violence of the DNVP, the KP, the SPD: they had all their uniformed militias .There was in 1920 a Communist revolt in the Ruhr with more than 1000 deaths .
A government by the Weimar coalition was no longer possible .
Neither was a military dictatorship . Neither was a presidential cabinet .
Remained : a government with the Nazis or a government with the Communists .