This piece has zero journalistic merit. The author vents his personal prejudices without any knowledge of history. My father was a newspaper editor in Berlin in 1933. He witnessed the events, and the New York Times Magazine featured an article by him on the 25th anniversary of the events. There is no comparison whatsoever between then and now. President Bush does not have storm troopers running through the streets. Historians consider him more responsible with regard to civil liberties than any other wartime President, far, far better than FDR, Wilson or Lincoln. The public has no constraints on its free speech today, unlike then. Also, the Nazis did have 44% of the vote in the Reichstag as the author mentions, but the rest was split among FIVE parties, so the Nazis were dominant. Why does the author pretend it was different? I could go on. The author distorts the views of Haffner completely. I hope that those who gave high initial ratings to this piece will reconsider in light of the distortions and biases of the author that make this bad journalism.