Hitler / Bush

[Vibecrewangel]

My take on the similarities are in ().

27 Similarities between Hitler and President Bush

by Edward Jayne

Dissident Voice
March 29, 2003



After President Bush promised last fall to invade Iraq, his spokesmen fell into the habit of comparing Saddam Hussein with Adolph Hitler, by most accounts the most monstrous figure in modern history. Everybody was therefore shocked when the German Minister of Justice turned the tables by comparing Bush himself with Hitler. As to be expected, she (the Justice Minister) was forced to resign because of her extreme disrespect for an American president. However, the resemblance sticks -- there are too many similarities to be ignored, some of which may be listed here.



1. Like Hitler, President Bush was not elected by a majority, but was forced to engage in political maneuvering in order to gain office.

(Very well worded. Shows that both had to battle to gain the position of power they held/currently hold)


2. Like Hitler, Bush began to curtail civil liberties in response to a well-publicized national outrage, in Hitler's case the Reichstag fire, in Bush's case the 9-11 catastrophe.

(Vince, this is what I am talking about. The reasons behind what they did)


3. Like Hitler, Bush went on to pursue a reckless ultra-nationalist foreign policy without the mandate of the electorate.

(Ultra-nationalist. Reckless. When Hitler did it it was worng. When Bush does it it's American)


4. Like Hitler, Bush has accordingly improved his popularity ratings, especially with veterans and conservative Republicans, by mounting an aggressive public relations campaign against foreign enemies. Just as Hitler cited international communism to justify Germany's military buildup, Bush uses Al Qaeda and the Axis of Evil to justify our current military buildup.


5. Like Hitler, Bush promotes militarism while in the midst of a major economic recession (or depression). He uses war preparations to help subsidize defense industries (Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.) and presumably the rest of the economy on a trickle-down basis.

(War time economy is often stronger. But insighting (sp) a war to build an economy is a bit excessive regardless of who does it.)


6. Like Hitler, Bush glorifies patriotism to stir up public support. He treats our nation's unique historic destiny almost as a religious cause sanctioned by God.

(It's UnAmerican if you are against the war. And how did the Germans feel?)


7. Like Hitler, Bush quickly makes and breaks diplomatic ties, and he makes generous promises that he soon abandons, as in the case of Mexico, Russia, Afghanistan, and even New York City.


8. Like Hitler, Bush envisages a future world order that guarantees his own nation's hegemonic supremacy rather than cooperative harmony under the authority of the United Nations (or League of Nations). He is willing to break the U.N. Charter in promoting this end.

(Their world view was similar. Though Bush isn't using racial supremacy to do it. How can he? We are the melting pot. Hitler was able to use the race card. But using the American card can be construed as being similar.)


9. Like Hitler, Bush scraps international treaties, most notably the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Prohibition of Land Mines, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Global Warming Accord, and the International Criminal Court.

(Don't know enough about these myself)


10. Like Hitler, Bush depends on an axis of collaborative allies, which he describes as a "coalition of the willing," to give the impression of having a broad popular alliance. These include the U.K. as compared to Mussolini's Italy, and Spain and Bulgaria as compared to, well, Spain and Bulgaria, both of which were aligned with Germany during the thirties and World War II.

(Both had/have nice sheeple followers who follow the big dog)

11. Like Hitler, Bush possesses a war machine much bigger and more effective than the military capabilities of other nations. Today, Bush depends on a "defense" budget roughly equivalent to the combined military expenditures of the rest of the world.

(Hitlers plans started out small too. Protect German interests. But power is power and human nature is what it is. Things can get out of control very quickly.)


12. Like Hitler, Bush is willing to invade other nations despite the opposition of the U.N. (League of Nations). He also has no qualms about bribing, bullying and insulting its members, even tapping their telephone lines.


13. Like Hitler, Bush pursues war without cutting back on the peacetime economy. He actually seeks to reduce taxes while conducting an expensive invasion and occupation of an "undesirable" nation.


14. Like Hitler, Bush launches unilateral invasions on a supposedly preemptive basis. Just as Hitler convinced the German public to think of Poland as a threat to Germany in 1939, Bush wants Americans to think of Iraq as a "potential" threat to our national security.

(You don't say?)



15. Like Hitler, Bush is willing to inflict high levels of bloodshed, with many thousands of casualties anticipated in Iraq, especially since the city of Baghdad--with a population of between 5 and 6 million--will be a primary target.

(Clearly Bush did more to protect the citizens of Iraq. But as I said, genocide was not the goal.)


16. Like Hitler, Bush depends on a military strategy that features a "shock and awe" blitzkrieg beginning with devastating air strikes, then an invasion led by heavy armor columns.

(What a stupid name...."shock and awe")


17. Like Hitler, Bush is perfectly willing to sacrifice life as part of his official duty, as indicated by his unique record as a governor of Texas who was reluctant to commute death sentences.

(Sometimes you gotta break some eggs. Just make sure you are American before you make that ommlet)



18. Like Hitler Bush began warfare on a single front (Al Qaeda quartered in Afghanistan), but then expanded it to a second front with Iraq, only to be confronted with North Korea as a potential third front. Much the same thing happened when Hitler expanded German military operations from Spain to Poland and France, then was distracted by Yugoslavia before invading the USSR in 1941.



19. Like Hitler, Bush has no qualms about imposing "regime change" by installing Quisling-style client governments reinforced by full-scale military occupation under a military governor.


20. Like Hitler, Bush curtails civil liberties and depends on detention centers (i.e. concentration camps) such as Guantanamo Bay.


21. Like Hitler, Bush repeats lies often enough that they come to be accepted as the truth. Bush and his spokesmen argue, for example that every measure has been taken to avoid war (hardly true), that an invasion of Iraq will diminish (not intensify) the terrorist threat to the world, and that the U.S. is staging an invasion because the risks of inaction would be greater (not less). All of this is highly debatable. They likewise argue that Iraq is linked with Al Qaeda (which has yet to be proven), and that nothing whatsoever has been achieved by U.N. inspectors to warrant the postponement of U.S. war plans (which simply isn't true). They insist that Iraq hides numerous weapons it does not possess as well as can be determined by U.N. inspectors, and they refuse to acknowledge the total absence of any nuclear weapons program in Iraq since the late nineties. As perhaps to be expected, they indignantly accuse everybody else of deception and evasiveness.



22. Like Hitler, Bush incessantly finds new excuses to justify war—from Iraq's WMD threat to the elimination of Saddam Hussein, to his supposed Al Qaeda connection, to the creation of democracy in the Middle East as a model for neighboring states, and back again to the WMD threat. As soon as one excuse for war is challenged, Bush shifts to another, but only to shift back again at another time.



23. Like Hitler Bush and his cohorts exaggerate ruthlessness by their enemies in order to justify their own. Just as Hitler cited the threat of communist violence to justify even greater violence on the part of Germany, the Bush team justifies a full-scale invasion of Iraq by emphasizing Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity that were for the most part committed when Iraq was a client-ally of the U.S., supplied with both advisors and materiel (poison gas included) by our own government.



24. Like Hitler, Bush's Messianic ambition to bring about America's hegemonic dominance in the world makes him perhaps the most dangerous President in our nation's history, a rogue chief executive capable of waging any number of illegal preemptive wars.



25. Like Hitler, Bush has become so obsessed with his vision of a Manichaean conflict between good (U.S. patriotism) and evil (the anti-patriotic "other") that for many in contact with the White House he is beginning to seem as if he has lost touch with reality.



26. Like Hitler, Bush takes pleasure in the mythology of frontier justice. As a youth Hitler read and memorized the western novels of Karl May, and Bush retains into his maturity his fascination with simplistic cowboy values. He also exaggerates a cowboy twang despite his elitist education at Andover, Yale and Harvard.



27. Like Hitler, Bush misconstrues evolutionary theory, in Hitler's case by treating the Aryan race as being superior, in Bush's case by rejecting science for fundamentalist creationism.

(This one I take issue with. Not really a similarity)



Of course countless differences may be listed between Hitler and President Bush, most of which are to the credit of Bush. Nevertheless, the twenty-seven resemblances listed here are striking, especially since Bush's presidency this last couple of years must be compared to Hitler's early performance as German Chancellor, preceding the chain of events that culminated in World War II. As with Hitler, Bush's early successes in pursuit of global imperialism--whatever the cost to others--might well culminate in disaster, if not quite of the same magnitude.


(Remember, Hitler didn't just appear one day. In the early years he had great ideas. Ideas that went horribly awry. )

[ItalianStereotype]

the resemblances there are NOT striking because of some grievous and critical historical errors and misconceptions. i'm not even going to touch this one, at least not right now, because these things have become so fucking irritating that i want to stab my eyes out by bashing my face into the monitor. plus i have exams to study for...

[Vibecrewangel]

Maybe another option then.

Try looking at history from something other than the American perspective.
We aren't the only ones with history books.


IMHO - The biggest and most important similarity......Bush and Hitler both pissed off the rest of the world for their own personal intrests under the guise of protecting their country.
Everything else falls under that one.



Ror-

I know you are going to take issue with some, maybe a lot of this. Please fill me in on the historical inaccuracies and misconceptions if you know them.

This article BTW came form a similar source as many of the others on this board. A nice little Google search.
There were others, but this one had a bit of substance to some of the comparisons.

[ItalianStereotype]

Maybe another option then.

Try looking at history from something other than the American perspective.
We aren't the only ones with history books.


you have no idea just how much this pissed me off...

i'm sorry, i am just cranky today.

[Ronnie Raygun]

The is the dumbest post I've ever seen.

I'll point out the first flaw.

"1. Like Hitler, President Bush was not elected by a majority, but was forced to engage in political maneuvering in order to gain office.

(Very well worded. Shows that both had to battle to gain the position of power they held/currently hold)"

Of course they had to battle, that happenes every ELECTION. As you know, in this country we have an electoral college that's been here since the beginning and Bush had nothing to do with it origin. THAT he won hence won the election.

It's amazing how ignorant some of you are.

Some of you just refuse to accept common knowledge and choose to make up conspiracy theories to hide from common sense facts.

[Vibecrewangel]

Ronnie you are too cute sometimes.

Come up with something other than the electoral college. We all know how it works.

The Florida situation was a fiasco from any perspective. The political manuvering in question was what got counted and what didn't. Bush did better. Bully for him. I don't think he in any way stole the office. He did better in the political arena though not necessarally the popular one.

See Ronnie, step outside your little box just a bit. And you'll see that things are not always black and white.

[Vibecrewangel]

Italian -

Why does it piss you off? Aside from being cranky?
I am serious. Why is the American perspective more right than any other?

[ItalianStereotype]

because i have spent the last 6 years...since i was 12 years old...trying to gain a more worldly view of history. i have loved history since i was 10 years old and have worked to gain an unbiased and accurate understanding of it. for you to so flippantly dismiss that makes me want to throttle something.

[Vibecrewangel]

Fair enough.
Just remember what boards you are on.




And to be fair. Most people who cite "historical inacuracies" generally tend to do so from the American perspective only (at least when American)
Very few take other views into consideration.

I'd be interested to see what you have to say when you have more time. Though I disagree with you on a lot of issues, I do consider you someone I enjoy debating with.

[mburbank]

I found the article interesting in that I initially rejected a Hitler/Bush comparrison out of hand.

I pretty much reject the time honored "Hitler = however I currently don't like" argument every time I hear it. I thought the "Noriega is just like Hitler" was a stupid ass argument and I thought the extended "Saddam + Hitler" argument with anyone who wasn't part of the 'coalition of the willing' cast as Chamberlain was ignorant and insulting.

So; A Bush/Hitler comparisson also seems to serve no real illuminating purpose.

But, if the comparison is whittled down to: Hitler's progress from political non entity through German chancellor to the annexation of Poland shares several commanalities with Bush's journy from political non entity to the middle of his first term... This author makes an interesting case.

That said I'm not sure where the effort gets us. While I think if you plunked Bush down in a historic setting that provided the unchecked opportunity Hitler had the results might prove interesting, that's sciencefiction. Unless and until Bush finds reason to declare marshall law (and personally I can think of several scenarios) I think the comparissons are interesting, but don't play out very far.

Now, if people wanted to compare Chenney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft to Hitler's inner cirlce just prior to WW II, I think there's a case to be made.

[The_Rorschach]

By the way, the wartime economic "boom" is non-existant. The German economy was actually driven into the ground by Hitler's war machine. The only reason it works in America is because of how very vastly it applies. We not only manufacture our own munitions, we do so for the world as well.

As to the article, well, Italian is as usual quite correct. There are some rather fanciful intrepretation of reality in that piece. Such as its very opening, Hertha Daeubler-Gmelin did not resign because she compared Bush with Hilter, but because of the negative backlash she received from her words made her reelection impossible. . .If you will recall, she said it during the German elections. His case is further weakened by the fact that many of the contrasts he cites are not similar in the least. . .But to be honest, that isn't my objection.

". . .of comparing Saddam Hussein with Adolph Hitler, by most accounts the most monstrous figure in modern history"

See, this is what bothers me. He considers a comparison between Hitler and Hussein to be unwarranted slander, as evident from his writing tone, and yet, he is eagre to show how the converse corrolation between Adolf and Bush "stick," but it doesn't. Not only is this an obvious double standard, it is a harmful one. Let me quote an anonymous liberal from the San Francisco Peace Protest to display my point better:

"Even though I dislike (Bush's) policies, what disturbs me as an American is to see some of these signs portraying him as Hitler and comparing him to the Third Reich. I think thats disgusting and unpatriotic. I mean in our generation, in my folks generation, and in your generation, that was the most horrible thing mankind ever lived through. To protray him as Hitler, I think, is just disgusting. . .I think when they go that far, I think they take alot of the muscle away from the true message, and what we're out here for, because that brings such heated opinions and passions and when they see that kind of comparison, it clouds the real reason that we're out here."

Anyone with a third grade education can see that his argument is nonsense. Judging only by the ramification of their actions one can see there is no real comparison. People have spoken of shock and awe, and that is exactly what this is, on an entirely different level.

[mburbank]

Ronnie and Naldo should note where you got that last revealing quote from, Ror.


There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt
of in their philosiphy.

[AChimp]

I think that the comparison is dead on in certain areas, but waaay off in others. Bush ain't a bad dude, by any account. He might be a moron, but he is certainly not evil on the scale that would even come close to Hitler.

On the other hand, Bush and Hitler certainly do seem to have (had) a knack for pulling the strings of patriotism to build up support for constructing their legacy. I'm pretty sure that Bush would really love to go down in history as "the President that saved America from all the bad brown people."

[Vibecrewangel]

Ror -

Thanks for the info. I was curious about the Hertha Daeubler-Gmelin issue. It seemed a bit odd the way the article portrayed it, but I wasn't concerning myself with that at the time. I was only looking for a comparison of the two.

I agree that to compare Hitler to Bush but to say the comparison to Saddam doesn't add up is hypocritical at best. Saddam has more of the terrifying similarities than Bush could ever have. It's why I chose this particular article. It broght up more political aspects than many of the others I ran across that were just so bad I had to laugh.

I am still curious as to what in the article is historically misrepresented or twisted. I do see a few things that try to make Bush look worse. Quite unnecessary.

19. Like Hitler, Bush has no qualms about imposing "regime change" by installing Quisling-style client governments reinforced by full-scale military occupation under a military governor.


20. Like Hitler, Bush curtails civil liberties and depends on detention centers (i.e. concentration camps) such as Guantanamo Bay.


Being the worst. With 27 just being off the wall as far as a comparison goes. But that is more current and less historical.

I agree with a lot of the comparisons. I disagree with a few.
Though I in no way believe that Bush could ever be as evil as Hitler was. I do believe that some of the similarities are quite interesting. But then, if you let a psycho-feminist do the comparison I'm sure you'd get a whole list of woman hating, penis having, macho B/S. The comparisons would be just as real. But in the end they wouldn't mean anything.
I posted this to get a debate going since it had been brought up in another thread. Looks like this one will fade away. :(
Oh well - better luck next topic I guess.

[ranxer]

2. Like Hitler, Bush began to curtail civil liberties in response to a well-publicized national outrage, in Hitler's case the Reichstag fire, in Bush's case the 9-11 catastrophe.

yes, and bush didn't just use 9-11 after the fact, the 9-11 attacks were allowed by the bush administration to be used as they have.
fear, demonization, new security boom for the folks that financed bush and oil contracts in afghanistan.

too bad hitler worked for his dictatorship.. bush is just a puppet put up by the real hitlers comparisons in the background..
bush wouldn't even be a polititian(or have a job) if it weren't for his family.

[Vibecrewangel]

I admit I've only just recently become interested in politics. 9-11 made me open my eyes. I'm upset that it took me so long, but I've spent the last bundle of years more interested in philosophy, history and religion.
I post articles like these and questions like my gun control question because I feel that I get a better understanding of how average Americans feel about these issues if I can follow a debate between them. I do read both or all sides of the issue, but I tend to post about the one I think will get a good debate going.

I feel that the opinions of the American public should be more important than they seem to be these days. It's why I like the debates here. For the most part what is said here doesn't change my view. But I have often ended up looking in new places for information because of something that someone has said. And that has given me far more to think about than I ever thought possible.

[Protoclown]

The biggest and most important difference between the two, the way I see it, is that I believe that Hitler was evil. I do not believe Bush is evil. Just horribly misguided and foolish.

[Vibecrewangel]

Without a doubt Proto.

[El Blanco]

I need attention. Acknowledge me. Please.

Anywho: You think Hitler invented all those things? Every leader calls on patriotism to get people under his or her cause. It isn't even just politics. Anytime people organize into a group, someone tries to convince the other members that certain actions are for the good of said group.

I don't know whats worse: To say what Bush does is as evil as what Hitler did, or that you are giving Hitler credit for inventing those methods.

[VinceZeb]

Achimp, so you say Bush is a moron. What colleges did you graduate from again?

[Vibecrewangel]

I don't think anyone here thinks Bush is evil. A tad bit nuts sure but evil.....not too likely.


Hitler may not have invented those things, but he did take them to levels not seen before or since. Thank God.

[Baalzamon]

Which colleges did your daddy pay your way into, and through to graduation vince?

Chimp and I are both paying and working our own way through college on our own, which is more than i can say for dubya.

[AChimp]

Achimp, so you say Bush is a moron. What colleges did you graduate from again?
Graduating from a college has nothing to do with one's status as a moron. Choking on a pretzel and banging your head on on a helicopter's hatch does.

[Jeanette X]

I am working at a Rite-Aid to pay my student loans...I HATE retail. At least hookers get to lie down and take their shoes off! :blowme

[VinceZeb]

Which colleges did your daddy pay your way into, and through to graduation vince?

Chimp and I are both paying and working our own way through college on our own, which is more than i can say for dubya.


1) Who cares if W got his way paid through college? More power to him.

2) My dad died two days before I turned 18. I pay for my own college education. I already pay for the loans my mother and sister helped me take out. I work 40+ hours a week to pay for my education and my bills. I take care of myself. So, wipe the big ball of jizz off your face from me owning you like a whore, and don't open your mouth unless you are asked.


And IS, unless you are their experiencing history as it happens, you will NEVER get an unbaised view. Sorry to burst your bubble, but thats just the way it is.

[Helm]

The biggest and most important difference between the two, the way I see it, is that I believe that Hitler was evil. I do not believe Bush is evil. Just horribly misguided and foolish.

It's disturbing that, whereas I'm sure you ment well, you fall to such terminology to state such a point. What is 'evil'? Such third-rate ethical judgements not only are naive, but also fail to properly put into perspective what exactly Nazi Germany set out to do under the guidance of Hitler. 'Evil' just doesn't cut it. The main philosophical excuse of the german elite behind the genocide remains Nietzche, and to call his ethical standpoints 'evil' is as fundamental as calling the 'axis of evil' exactly that. It's a vacant statement, always used as a tool, as means to an end, rather than expressing an actual viewpoint. To judge anything only by how it happened, is incomplete. You should also undestand what brought it to be, in a historical, philosophical and economic context. For example, to understand the rise of totalitarianism in germany after the first world war, you'd have to take into consideration the fact that germany came very badly off economically after that, having to pay war 'funding'(sorry, the english term escapes me), as well as having spent a good deal of money in a war that was largely unsuccesful. They had trouble to adjust to the capitalistic model of economy, being at such a disadvantaged position. Couple this with some very serious refugee tension, and their wounded ethnic pride, and you have the perfect context for someone to rise up and declare the 'return to values' and 'the battle for the betterment of all germany'. Hitler was not evil. He was the product of a wounded, starving germany, begging for an easy solution.

[VinceZeb]

Helm, I am glad you do not talk to me, becaue that was the biggest bullshit statement I have ever seen in my life!

HERE IS WHAT EVIL LOOKS LIKE, HELM! 10+ MILLION PEOPLE PUT INTO CAMPS AND DESTROYED! THAT IS EVIL!

You have to be the most vapid person I have encountered. I hope you do not try to gather any sort of power in this world, because I would almost guarentee that I would move to your place of residence and make sure you are put back into the cave you came from.

Evil exists, you fucking moron. It is people like you that allow the Hitlers, Maos and others to exist. Don't judge, because it is wrong to judge, it is just a throwaway term! God, you make me sick. I am glad this is the internet becuase I would already be in jail right now after the fist connected to my arm puts your teeth down into your stomach.

[Zebra 3]

:( - I agree with VinceZeb, Hitler is nothing like Bush, for one, Hitler actually created work unlike Bush, and Hitler had that cool mustache unlike Bush that has that dumb crooked eye stare, and Hitler signed up for WWI unlike Bush that decided not to go to Vietnam, but now for one reason or the other is a navy pilot wannabe...

[Protoclown]

Helm, I understand and appreciate what you have to say, and I recognize that there are many different contributing factors to Hitler's rise and the start of World War II. Believe me, I know he wasn't so simplistic in his goals as Cobra Commander, but for the sake of ease, I decided to use the term "evil" without defining it. Which is also why I said "I believe" he was evil, not that he was (since I didn't define evil). And I do believe that he was evil, all extraneous circumstances aside. I believe in a good/evil morality, but I also do not think that everything is clean cut and in black and white terms. I see two extremes and then a WHOLE lot of muddled grey area in between, where categorization becomes difficult if not impossible. And in my opinion, Hitler was definitely on the extreme evil end of the spectrum.

Anyway, I had a feeling somebody might call me on that post, and while I'm more than willing to open up a discussion about the nature of good and evil, I don't think this thread is the place to do it.

[Zebra 3]

...the fact that germany came very badly off economically after that, having to pay war 'funding'(sorry, the english term escapes me),...
:) - The word is restitution.

[The_Rorschach]

I happen to like Nietzche. . .I used both he and Aeschylus of Sparta in a recent essay to outline why it was exactly that Democracy was an egalitarian myth. He was a big proponant of civic and political responsibility, something the Nazi party lacked.
One of the reasons I happen to admire the man is because he believed that democratic equality was an impediment to human excellence as it attributes a "herd morality," which in turn fosters and encourages a spirit of entitlement which made individuals more apt to rely upon the government for assistance in every concievable capacity. Furthermore, he belied that in order for human excellence to develop freely, there should never be any equality constraint on people: a noble heart should not be put down in order to make it equal to a base heart, people should be allowed to compete freely for power and as a natural result, noble people will win the competition and become rulers of human society. Competition breeds success ;)
Now contrast this with fuckers like Rousseau and Marx whom hate inequalities. They both generally defined freedom as something which made them free from responsibility, rather than a responsibility in and of itself. For them, freedom meany being able to realize certain "higher" goods (such as to free and equal participation in political activities, freedom from alienation, etc). In order for people to have the ability and oppourtunity to achieve these higher goods, the society has to create certain conditions for people -such as the social crutch of equality.
Now, can I get a little Nietzche love?

=-=-=-=-=-=-
EDIT
=-=-=-=-=-=-

Vibe: I'll contrast the truth with the paper point by point, beginning with numero uno.

Italian, I could use some help. Finals week. Not much time ;)

#1 Like Hitler, President Bush was not elected by a majority, but was forced to engage in political maneuvering in order to gain office.

Hitler, though a skillful manipulater of political intrigue, was actually GIVEN his leadership. In November 1932 elections, like every election before it since 1924, the Nazis failed to get a majority of seats in the Reichstag. Their share of the vote fell – from 230 seats to only 196. Hitler contemplated suicide, he saw himself as his nation's saviour and felt betrayed that he could got gather the necessary support. Yet, unfortunately, it was at that time he was rescued by Hindenburg. Franz von Papen (a friend of Hindenburg) was Chancellor, but he could not get enough support in the Reichstag. Hindenburg and von Papen were having to govern by emergency decree under Article 48 of the Constitution. They offered Hitler the post of vice-Chancellor if he promised to support them.
Hitler refused – he demanded to be made Chancellor. Von Papen and Hindenburg took a risk and on 30 January 1933 Hindenburg made Hitler Chancellor. He thought he could control Hitler and how wrong he was. So you see, in the end, Hitler did not TAKE power at all – he was given it. It all but fell into his lap.

[AChimp]

I believe that Hitler also used that power to eventually be declared Chancellor-for-life; not 100% sure, though.

From our current perspective, there are many bad things about Hitler, but there were some good things that he did. Bringing an entire economy out of the shitter and turning it into an industrial powerhouse, for one.

The Germans at the time obviously didn't think he was bad, or they would have voted even less for him. I doubt that Hitler would have been offered even part-time Chancellor duties if he'd been reduced to 96 seats rather than 196.

I see what Helm is saying and I tend to agree with him. Defining "good" and "evil" all depends on what side of the fence you're on.

[mburbank]

Vince; while I was of course moved and impressed by your typewritten threats against Helm, I'm fairly sure you missed what he was getting at. You read the phrase "Hitler wasn't evil" and your ability to think went straight out the window.

Helms point was that once you label someone 'Evil', you know longer need to think about how they came to power or why or how to recognize it happening or prevent it from happening gain. You don't need to think.

Hitler could have been (and may have been) the most deeply evil bastard ever. Without national context that might have amounted to absolutely nothing beyond a very nasty mediocre painter obsessed with Jews.

Here's the sad thing. For Helm, English is a second language and his communication skills are better than yours.

Your so eager to have your little righteous berserker rages. Does it make you feel all manly? And does it matter to you tht in the process you completely missunderstand that someone is saying? Do you really think Helm meant "Ahhh, Hitler was no big deal."? And if he did mean that, don't you think I'd find it offensive?

[Ronnie Raygun]

"The Florida situation was a fiasco from any perspective."

Yes, and mainly it was the fault of the democrats......afterall, they designed the ballots. Besides, Florida had the same amount of problems as any other state. All the focus just so happened to be on FLA because both candidates needed it to win.

"The political manuvering in question was what got counted and what didn't. Bush did better. Bully for him. I don't think he in any way stole the office. He did better in the political arena though not necessarally the popular one."

Wrong. Gore and the dems only wanted democratic counties recounted.....which they were....3 TIMES! And they were just going to keep recounting those 3 counties until Gore won the election. That's why the Supreme Court stopped it.

"See Ronnie, step outside your little box just a bit. And you'll see that things are not always black and white."

I have looked at this situation from all angles.

[Zebra 3]

Helms point was that once you label someone 'Evil', you know longer need to think about how they came to power or why or how to recognize it happening or prevent it from happening gain. You don't need to think.
>: - In that case should we watch CBS's upcoming mini-series Hitler: The Rise of Evil or not?

[AChimp]

No; we should watch The Last Crusade again for the humourous Hitler cameo. :)

[Vibecrewangel]

Ronnie -

It was a democrat designed ballot. Your point being? Why do you feel the need to continue pointing out things most of us already know? We know how the electoral college works. We all know that it was a democrat designed the ballot. Would it have been different if it was a republican designed ballot? Other than more yelling, probably not.


CNN On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering a full statewide hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively ratified Florida election officials' determination that Bush won by a few hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast.

That is more than 3 counties. Though Gore and his damn 3 counties up to that point was annoying at best.

Now Ronnie, we could both go back and forth and find hundreds of little things to bring up. Chads, dimples, the absentee ballots counted in violation of provisions. It doesn't serve any purpose. The election is over and Bush is in office. And might I repeat, maybe you will catch it this time......I don't think Bush stole the office. Though Gore won the popular vote by a slight margin. Bush took the election after much political manuvering on both sides when it came to Florida. Again I state "Bully for him"
Neither Bush nor Gore impressed me so this was just depressing to watch.

Now, about stepping outside of your box. I wasn't talking about the situation. I was talking about how you seem to insist that anyone who doesn't like Bush, disagrees with him in any way or brings up anything negative about him is a liberal. That just isn't the case.

[Vibecrewangel]

Ror -

But wasn't Hitler playing Schleicher against Papen all that time? Hoping to undermine everyone in his way until he was the only choice left?

Of course one could argue that Bush was given his leadership too. But then we'd have to go into chads and dinples and counts.....and I just don't wanna do that. Besides, that wasn't in the article. :D

[ranxer]

Wrong. Gore and the dems only wanted democratic counties recounted.....which they were....3 TIMES! And they were just going to keep recounting those 3 counties until Gore won the election. That's why the Supreme Court stopped it.

um, i heard a much different reason..

Here is Justice Scalia's admission:

The reason the recount had to be stopped before any evidence was heard, and before the briefs were even filed, was because, said Scalia, the recount threatened "irreparable harm" to Mr. Bush, "by casting a cloud on what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."

i couldnt believe my ears when i heard that press conference..
what a day :(

[ItalianStereotype]

sorry ror, i can't be of much help right now. i am barely keeping afloat with my own finals. if this thread is still going next week, then it's go time.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html

I thought this would be an amusing contribution to this thread. :)

I don't agree with most of it, but the background music alone makes it worth it (hint: turn up your volume!).

[CastroMotorOil]

That was definately amusing kevin, although the piece itself i don't really trust at all, but yes the music was awesome.

[AChimp]

:lol

Best link in a long time!

[Miss Modular]

I think it's time to post that Jesus/Hitler Guinness ad again.

[Vibecrewangel]

Italian -

Good luck on the finals!!!! I'm sure you'll do fine. You is a smart guy and stuff.

I welcome your input on this topic if Ror and I haven't covered it all by the time you get back.
As I do with Ror, I like discussing / debating things with you. I have to actually work when I do. I sure can't bull-no-shit with either of you. It's why I usually stick to topics I know well. :D This time I posted something I know a bit about, but was more political than I am used too. Now I actually have to look things up to make sure what I remember is correct. Darn you both, darn you to heck! :P

BTW - I really don't see any valid comparisons between Hitler and Bush. But I chose this side for the sake of the post and the follow-up so I am stuck with it. "grumble grumble grumble" Thought I'd make sure I made that perfectly clear before people got too emotional over this topic.

Oh and Ror....do you have finals too? I thought I saw that earlier in this thread.




And Mod.....YES YES YES

[mburbank]

"I have looked at this situation from all angles."

-I'm sorry, I find that a fairly incredible statement. if this is the truth cn you summarize any arguments of sides other than your own?

[AChimp]

http://members.shaw.ca/achimp/guinness.jpg

[The_Rorschach]

Yeah. Scored 100% on the one taken today. Hawaiian Studies, getting to know the historical and cultural background. Interesting stuff.

Dug an I'mu, cooked a pig, dug the shit up and served, twenty hour project. Tried awa for the first time too. good shit. Puts you on your ass.

Not alchohol. Sime kind of root.


=-=-=-=-==-
E D IT
=-=-===-

Even if it was given to Bush too, assertion that both were "forced to engage in political maneuvering in order to gain office" is still false.

[Vibecrewangel]

Congrats Ror. :)

I love Hawaii. If I could afford to live there I would go and never look back.





Bush / Hitler - I guess it would come down to how you interpret "forced"

[The_Rorschach]

I like it too.

This is far afield, but speaking of that class, my instructor, "Pohaku" Tom Stone, is supposed to be hosting something on Comedy Central this summer -unless he was totally bullshitting us last night, and I was too drunk to pick up on it.

"2. Like Hitler, Bush began to curtail civil liberties in response to a well-publicized national outrage, in Hitler's case the Reichstag fire, in Bush's case the 9-11 catastrophe."

The day following the yhe Reichstag fire of '33, Hindenburg signed into law -in a format akin to an Executive Order- a declaration of the current state of emergency, which not merely limited certain lberties, but actually curtailed basic rights of the German people. Hitler, who produced 'proof' that Communists were behind the terrorist act -such as Van der Lubbe's admission-, managed to get newspapers and radio transmissions censored - Meetings between individuals were allowed only at certain places and times, limited in order to keep the chances conspiracy in check. All forms of private corrspondance were allowed to be read by government officials at any times, uncluding letters and phone calls. The Law stayed in force until 1945.

Now, when one carefully scrutinizes the information available concerning the Fire, it becomes obvious that Van der Lubbe could not have committed the act alone, as he says. Huge amounts of pertol were utilized in setting the blaze, and the fire department wrote a report saying in some places the fire resisted ever attempt to put it out. One man with a tin of kerosine and a handful of matches COULD NOT have set it himself, which leaves us with two theories:
One- Hitler was right, there was a conspiracy of Communists and Van der Lubbe was protecting his allies; or
Two- Van der Lubbe was lying, and was working for the Nazi party, perpetrating an act which would give Hitler just the clout and power he needed to subvert his enemies.

We all know about September 11, we all know who drafted, wrote and passed the Patriot Act(s). Neither were Executive Orders.

If I need to elaborate, I will, but I think we can safely say number 2 is a fanciful account of what truly transpired.

[Zebra 3]

[center:472def79ce]http://www.topographie.de/imt/bilder/tn_IMT9.jpg[/center:472def79ce]
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patrotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
- Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII

[kellychaos]

Hitler is to Nietzche as Jerry Falwell is to the Bible. Granted, some of Nietzche points were extreme but, on the whole, his published works are both insightful and even inspiring. It's a shame that they've been attached in history to the likes of Hitler to be bastardized into unrecognizability. Basically, he used only part of the sentiment in Nietzche works towards his own ends. Sadly, those parts are what many people will remember about Nietzche.

[Abcdxxxx]

i don't like bush but he's not on the level of Hitler's genocidal "final solution". very few of the specific points listed in that article were the actions that made Hitler so infamous. it seems there's this constant need "to understand" and recognize the building elements of events like WWII/The Holocaust that some lose sight of the big picture.

[Vibecrewangel]

I promise to continue with this when I have a moment. Have had some family stuff come up that needs to be dealt with.

I'll be lurking. :)

[Vibecrewangel]

I'm back.....for the most part.....family....ish.

Okay, here goes.
It's sort of long.....

2. Like Hitler, Bush began to curtail civil liberties in response to a well-publicized national outrage, in Hitler's case the Reichstag fire, in Bush's case the 9-11 catastrophe.

First, I believe Van der Lubbe was working for the Nazi party. He was just a patsy who ended up losing his head. Literally. This is indeed a major difference in the Hitler / Bush debate. Hitler, most likely planned the fire. I do not believe Bush planned the 9/11 attacks.

Though Hindenburg signed the law, he was coerced by Hitler along with Papen.

The curtailing of civil liberties however is where the similarities begin. Bear in mind the Enabling Act of 1933 was supposed to be a temporary measure to protect the democracy of Germany from the Communist Threat.


The Enabling Act allows
"Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."

And here is the long part…..

The Patriot Act allows
The Patriot Act grants the executive branch unprecedented, and largely unchecked, surveillance powers, including the enhanced ability to track email and Internet usage, conduct sneak-and-peek searches, obtain sensitive personal records, monitor financial transactions, and conduct nationwide roving wiretaps.

The Patriot Act permits law enforcement agencies to circumvent the Fourth Amendment's requirement of probable cause when conducting wiretaps and searches that have, as a 'significant purpose,' the gathering of foreign intelligence.

Law enforcement is still required under this provision to obtain a warrant to enter, but it no longer has to give you the timely notice which both the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Fourth Amendment require. The only justification law enforcement now needs to enter without notice is that notice might "seriously jeopardize an investigation or unduly delay a trial."

Under Section 216 of the Act, law enforcement now not only has the authority to intercept transmissions from people suspected of terrorist activity, but also from people under investigation for other crimes as well.
This authority now contains no constitutional safeguards. Judges are now required to issue blank warrants without reference to a location or jurisdiction, as long as law enforcement certifies that the surveillance is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."
The Act doesn't stop there. Section 216 of the Act extends this low threshold of proof beyond the mere "trapping and tracing" of telephone numbers. It extends it to tracing your emails and internet activities.


Section 411 of the Patriot Act purportedly defines foreign terrorist organizations. However, as the ACLU points out, this provision "permits designation [of] foreign and domestic groups," since the provision defines these groups as "any political, social or other similar group whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity" - which, of course, under the Section 802 could mean lawful protest - which "the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities." Under Section 412, any immigrant who innocently supports the activities of a designated terrorist organization could be deported or indefinitely detained. Again, the government can detain or deport an immigrant who provides lawful assistance to groups that are not even designated as terrorist organizations.

Criminal investigations and foreign intelligence investigations have historically, and with good reason, been kept separate in our country. The USA Patriot Act blurs the dividing line between these two areas of law, undermining procedural protections inherent in criminal law.
Under the USA Patriot Act, the boundaries between these two territories of law are breached. An immediate and direct consequence of this breach is an immediate and direct loss of constitutional protections for both American citizens and immigrants.


The Patriot Act puts the CIA back in the business of spying on Americans. Section 203 of the Act allows law enforcement to share with intelligence agencies -- including the FBI, CIA, NSA, INS, Secret Service, and Department of Defense -- sensitive information gathered during a criminal investigation. The types of information that could be shared include information revealed to a grand jury (previously prohibited by law), telephone and internet intercepts obtained without court order and without restrictions on the subsequent use of the intercepted information, and any other "foreign intelligence" information obtained as part of a criminal investigation
This, alone, is reason enough to amend the Act. As the ACLU says: "The USA Patriot Act would tear down [procedural] safeguards and once again permit the CIA to create dossiers on constitutionally protected activities of Americans and eliminate judicial review of such practices.”


There is a lot more, but I think my point is made as well.

An interesting difference…where Hitler was upfront about what he was doing, the Patriot Act seems more low key. In some ways that could make it more dangerous. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and all.

[Zebra 3]

:confused - Does either act have a sunset clause, meaning that these new government powers would automatically end after a certain time or event?

[The_Rorschach]

"Like Hitler, Bush began to curtail civil liberties in response to a well-publicized national outrage, in Hitler's case the Reichstag fire, in Bush's case the 9-11 catastrophe. "

The policies are similar, in some respect, but the question was regarding both taking advantage of the situation to impliment precedents which abused civil liberties. In one case, the situation was orchestrated, in another, it was used. There is a difference.

[Vibecrewangel]

That I absolutely agree with. I think I mentioned that in the begining of my last post. By my own standard of "the reason why" it totally falls apart.

Though the liberties being curtailed are similar and I believe that is the intent of this particular comparison.




Walter - I'll double check, but I don't think so.

[The_Rorschach]

Sorry. I didn't catch that ;)

I'll try number 3 tomorrow, btu I have two more finals so it might have to wait til Thursday

[Vibecrewangel]

:: giggle ::
Take your time. :D

[The_Rorschach]

" 3. Like Hitler, Bush went on to pursue a reckless ultra-nationalist foreign policy without the mandate of the electorate."

Alright, maybe I'm just getting lazy, but while the language in this is aggressive and seeminly meaningful, number three is likke more than a subjective opinion presented as fact. "Ultra-Nationalist" is not a real description. Nationalism is defined as "Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation," and is therefore already an extreme. But without that descriptor, you are left with a "nationalistic foreign policy" which would be no different from any other country's foreign policy basis.

Now, he goes on to say 'without the mandate of the electorate," and that is rather clever, because he conveniently fails to mention congressional support, trying to say that though he has federal bipartisan persmission, the 'people' themselves did not ask for his measures. But name a country where the "electorate," or civic population, actually does have that strong of a voice in their government's policy making.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, this is such a simplistic and easy generalization to make, it really could apply to just about every country which ever existed and their leaders.

"4. Like Hitler, Bush has accordingly improved his popularity ratings, especially with veterans and conservative Republicans, by mounting an aggressive public relations campaign against foreign enemies. Just as Hitler cited international communism to justify Germany's military buildup, Bush uses Al Qaeda and the Axis of Evil to justify our current military buildup.

Right, same as number 3. No real suprises here. It's pretty ambiguous really, because that is what most governments do - They incite patriotism and conjure bogeymen to justify their own existance. If he is afraid of this military build up, he must have been shitting himself in the street every day from 1959 to 1988. It's a wonder he hasn't died of apoplexy really.

"5. Like Hitler, Bush promotes militarism while in the midst of a major economic recession (or depression). He uses war preparations to help subsidize defense industries (Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.) and presumably the rest of the economy on a trickle-down basis. "

Yeah. . .This is NOT a major recession, or depression. It's a cyclical economic spiral. Major describes the Oklahoma Dust Bowl. The Great Depression. There is no comparing our current economic hardship with what Germany went through in the 20's and 30's. If you'll remember correctly, we began collecting the money they owed us as repairation immediately following the Great Depression. We sent an already poor country into a state which 'poverty stricken' does not begin to even encompass. Hitler's war machine was the sole hope of their economic salvation.

Bush has upped military spending, but it still does not rival what the budget restraints were during the cold war years, nor is it with any imperialistic aim. Furthermore, Hilter neved had a Trickle Down Economics theory. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, but none of these are all that outrageous, and its only the language he uses which makes them sound provative and somehow menacing.

I know I'm splitting hairs, but really, when making comparisons, one should consider the context, which this guy fails to do time and time again.

[Vibecrewangel]

Ror -

Me no forget......

Busy.

Will try to get to this over the weekend.

[Vibecrewangel]

Sorry Ror.....

Things have been hectic. Putting together the budget for the department next year. God I hate accounting.......it's why I'm not an accountant. Well for most of the year anyway......


" 3. Like Hitler, Bush went on to pursue a reckless ultra-nationalist foreign policy without the mandate of the electorate."

Though I agree with you that a nationalistic foreign policy does apply to all countries, a reckless one does not. I think this comparison for the most part is being made to show how both had/have little to no concern for what the rest of the world thinks of their actions. Let's just hope we don't step on the wrong foreign toes. Or too many of them.



"4. Like Hitler, Bush has accordingly improved his popularity ratings, especially with veterans and conservative Republicans, by mounting an aggressive public relations campaign against foreign enemies. Just as Hitler cited international communism to justify Germany's military buildup, Bush uses Al Qaeda and the Axis of Evil to justify our current military buildup."

I have to concede to you on this one. Though just because it can be applied to a broader base does not mean that the comparison at hand is invalid. I hadn't thought about this before, but I think that more people were honestly patriotic during the cold war than they are now. I see a lot of lip service. But actual love and respect for this country doesn't seem as strong or as real. Maybe it's just me.


"5. Like Hitler, Bush promotes militarism while in the midst of a major economic recession (or depression). He uses war preparations to help subsidize defense industries (Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.) and presumably the rest of the economy on a trickle-down basis. "


It's all you on this one Ror. I tried to find something....anything to counter you and support this statement. I couldn't.

[The_Rorschach]

"Though I agree with you that a nationalistic foreign policy does apply to all countries, a reckless one does not. I think this comparison for the most part is being made to show how both had/have little to no concern for what the rest of the world thinks of their actions. Let's just hope we don't step on the wrong foreign toes. Or too many of them"

That is just it though Vibe. . .When is it that we suddenly became beholden to the entire world? These countiess are not our peers, they are not equals, they are not even friends. We are a sovereign nation,. sovereign, and people seem to have forgotten that. They call the world today a global community.

Thats a misnomer.

There is nothing communal about the world. They are not friends and neighbours who we see on sunday afternoon barbeques, they are treacherous allies and outright foes. We gave Prague to Stalin in order to placate the "global community" and I'll be damned if the US makes concessions to the petty tyrants of Peace time and time again. I'm not saying might makes right, but I am saying that there is no country out there that is expected to meet the high standards put on the US. Rememeber France and the Atoll bombings? Remember North Korea and their manufactoring of fissionable material? Remember Russia and a Afghanistan? Remember China and Taiwan?

The list goes on and on. We are no more reckless than anyone else.

[Wang]

hey whats the deal with the ways dubya got into da white ass if u can cheat like u imply then y not eh? i believe ridding iraq from saddam was a good deed even if there was other countrys in need. u can only do 1 thing at a time and hes already starting to pressure the other culprits to give up their nukes and bios. i think thats very smart and he had to have learnt something in college to become a presitdent of the usa u know.i thought when i clicked on this link that it would be half full of ass ramming donkey raping hippies and i was SOOOOOO right. congrats to the intelligent people here who disagreed.

contradict that punks

[ItalianStereotype]

LOOK AT WANG, HE THINKS HE'S PEOPLE! :lol

[Vibecrewangel]

Bump for me.......must find more time.......


And LOL 'talian

[Vibecrewangel]

I'm not saying that we should be beholden to the rest of the world. However, we should remember that we are all on the same hunk of rock.

At one time Germany was hated by much of the rest of the world. Now we are. The difference is we are bigger and stronger. And we are not affraid to flex out muscles.