Comparison between Nazi Germany and Neo-Conservative USA

[Smurf]

Are Parallels To Nazi Germany Crazy? (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2004/01/26/hsorensen.DTL)
Now, I don't agree with alot of the things he mentions, and some of his points are pretty weak, but this is something I hadn't thought about before and I find it interesting, one thing I would add to the list is;

Pre-Emptive strikes, Germany used this excuse to invade many nations because it tricked or scared its population into thinking they were a threat or should be punished/overthrown. This very much parallels the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the obvious mass media trends.

[franznietzsche]

Are Parallels To Nazi Germany Crazy? (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2004/01/26/hsorensen.DTL)
Now, I don't agree with alot of the things he mentions, and some of his points are pretty weak, but this is something I hadn't thought about before and I find it interesting, one thing I would add to the list is;

Pre-Emptive strikes, Germany used this excuse to invade many nations because it tricked or scared its population into thinking they were a threat or should be punished/overthrown. This very much parallels the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the obvious mass media trends.


Except Bush doesn't have a book detailing his plan to take over the world written before committing said deception.

And Bush isn't trying to annex Afghanistan and Iraq. Nobody in the world wants to annex those countries. Not even Haiti.

[PerennialII]

Your addition is a valid one ... and makes the comparison a bit more realistic. Drawing parallels on some of the points is pretty weak, but on others he does mean business. In particular considering that GWB could be argued to be a legalized autocrat due to the convergence of political power, civil rights comparison coming close by.

[Smurf]

All good thoughts, and while Bush may not have a best seller detailing his plan of world domination, the neo-conservatives goals are quite clear if you can read between the "Freedom here freedom there, freedom everywhere" coat of armour.

And Haiti? What?

[franznietzsche]

And Haiti? What?

HItler had a goal of conquering europe, enslaving the slavs and exterminating the jews.

If bush is trying to build an empire, he's picking the wrong countries. Even Haiti, with all the probelms they have, would not be improved by taking over afghanistan or Iraq.

[PerennialII]

HItler had a goal of conquering europe, enslaving the slavs and exterminating the jews.

If bush is trying to build an empire, he's picking the wrong countries. Even Haiti, with all the probelms they have, would not be improved by taking over afghanistan or Iraq.

But he is doing his best/worst to preserve the "current one" (which is his job of course, but means and motifs can be questioned) and oppressing those either not belonging to his realm or siding with him. And he's picking cherries globally (like oil from Iraq for example).

[russ_watters]

Pre-Emptive strikes, Germany used this excuse to invade many nations because it tricked or scared its population into thinking they were a threat or should be punished/overthrown. This very much parallels the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the obvious mass media trends. Besides what franz said, this fails for another reason: we were attacked and Saddam was both an internal and external threat. Unless, of course, you buy into a 9/11 conspiracy theory or the 'Saddam wasn't such a bad guy' thing....

No, in this case, parallels to Nazi Germany fall flat.

Regarding parallels to Nazi Germany in general, they need to be treated carefully. Obviously, they generate an emotional response and need to be firmly grounded in reality to avoid being strictly emotional arguments.All good thoughts, and while Bush may not have a best seller detailing his plan of world domination, the neo-conservatives goals are quite clear if you can read between the "Freedom here freedom there, freedom everywhere" coat of armour. 'clear if you can read between the lines' is a logical contradiction. And besides - you'd be hard-pressed to prove that "neo-conservative" exists outside of liberal talkshows and books.

[PerennialII]

Besides what franz said, this fails for another reason: we were attacked and Saddam was both an internal and external threat. Unless, of course, you buy into a 9/11 conspiracy theory or the 'Saddam wasn't such a bad guy' thing....

And this would fail 'cos the logic - "I was attacked ... I'll avenge it to who happens to be in my sights and ain't a pal of mine" does not make much sense either. If the US wants to rid the world of dictators ... better, so far that hasn't been the argument.

[plover]

'clear if you can read between the lines' is a logical contradiction.
This is incorrect. The conditional "if message X must be read between lines and you can read between the lines, then message X is clear" is not at all contradictory as those are the conditions under which message X becomes clear. The word "clear" could perhaps be considered redundant, but it entails no contradiction.
And besides - you'd be hard-pressed to prove that "neo-conservative" exists outside of liberal talkshows and books.
I'm not sure what mythical beast you've attached the label "neo-conservative" to. But while the term does seem to get abused by some to indicate almost anyone who agrees with Bush's policies, the useful definition of the term is rather concrete: it refers to people who favor the initial goals and policy ideas of the Project for a New American Century (www.newamericancentury.org), a quite real organization to whose early documents many high-level Bush administration figures lent their names (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton). What Smurf said here does not go beyond that definition. Your point seems equivalent to the idea that, just because the term "basilisk" is the name of a mythical creature, there couldn't also be a perfectly good lizard running around that is called a basilisk (http://www.tamarindo.net/animals/basilisk.jpg).

[plover]

Of the pieces I've seen making similar points, the one linked at the start of this thread is probably the weakest. The analogy with Nazism per se doesn't really work very well—there are a few easy parallels but for the most part, this direct comparison only works superficially. The more interesting comparisons are between current trends in America and fascism defined in its original more general sense. One reasonably decent though imperfect piece using this approach is actually a sermon by a Texas Unitarian minister, Davidson Loehr: Living Under Fascism (http://dailykos.com/story/2004/12/1/133310/217). Loehr provides some good historical context and eschews explicit comparisons to the Nazis.
When most people hear the word "fascism" they may think of the racism and anti-Semitism of Mussolini and Hitler. It is true that the use of force and the scapegoating of fringe groups are part of every fascism. But there was also an economic dimension of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and '30s as "corporatism," which was an essential ingredient of Mussolini's and Hitler's tyrannies. So-called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a model by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe.

... Fortune magazine ran a cover story on Mussolini in 1934, praising his fascism for its ability to break worker unions, disempower workers and transfer huge sums of money to those who controlled the money rather than those who earned it.

Few Americans are aware of or can recall how so many Americans and Europeans viewed economic fascism as the wave of the future during the 1930s.

As far as I'm aware, the person who has done the most detailed and careful work comparing the idea of fascism with trends in contemporary America (at least among journalists) is David Neiwert (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/). Just before the election he completed a 7-part series: The Rise of Pseudo-Fascism (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/archives/2004_10_31_dneiwert_archive.html#10990210925003529 5) (the link is to part 7, which includes links to the earlier sections). Neiwert makes the point that current circumstances, while evidencing a lot of notable parallels to fascism, are lacking several key elements, perhaps the most crucial being organized and manifestly authorized violence against scapegoats within the country. This lack leads to his use of the term "pseudo-fascism".

As yet I've only read part 7 of the essay so I won't give an opinion on the overall effect of Neiwert's argument. Neiwert also has an earlier long essay "Rush, Newspeak, and Fascism" which can be found on his site.

[Burnsys]

Hilter checkpoints, bushs checkpoints,.

reichstag fire, 911

Tatoos in conc. camps. Id card and retin scan in fallujha

[fourier jr]

Except Bush doesn't have a book detailing his plan to take over the world written before committing said deception.

well... i think he does; it's called "Imperial Brain Trust", by Shoup/Minter (http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/357Lsum_s2_ShoupMinter.html).

or from amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0595324266/qid=1102611516/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0216877-5456113?v=glance&s=books)


Imperial Brain Trust summarizes the plannin that the Council on Foreign Relations did before & during WWII. The "Grand Area" which needed to be controlled by the US & economically integrated included Japan, China, the whole western hemisphere, the rest of the British Empire, and as much of Europe as they could get by the end of the war. I think it's called the whole "free world" now, except maybe China.

[Burnsys]

well... i think he does; it's called "Imperial Brain Trust", by Shoup/Minter (http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/357Lsum_s2_ShoupMinter.html).

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465027261/002-1996162-1872847?v=glance

PNAC: The Project for the New American Century
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[Smurf]

Lol, I think it's funny how in www.newamericancentury.org they have that little white box with messages that perfectly reflect what they're trying to get the public to think about. China, North Korea regime change, EU arms embargo, and, of course, French-US relations :rofl:

[Artman]

I see far more similarities to Sadaam's Iraq and the rise of Nazi Germany. If we are going to accuse the people of the US of allowing a dictator to rise, we should also accept that we stopped the rise of one.

Iraq was struggling with recovery from the first Gulf war.
Germany was struggling with recovery from the First World War.

Iraq had a leader who blamed this struggle on other countries and people of other creeds.
Germany saw the rise of Hitler who blamed their struggles on the Jews and their opponents in the first World War.

Iraq was falling into a deep economic depression with food and water shortages on the rise.
Germany was in a deep economic depression with food shortages on the rise.

Sadaam exterminated millions of his own people, and those he opposed.
Hitler came to power and exterminated millions of Jews living in or around germany.


I guess it was okay for the USA to allow Sadaam to continue on his killing ways then maybe we wouldn't be accused now of allowing the rise of a dictator (Bush).

[the number 42]

Artman: Bush isn't like Hitler because Hussein was more like Hitler?

[franznietzsche]

Of course it is, you know that liberal doctrine : Even bloodthirsty murderers deserve to rule their own country!! Even mass rapists shouldn't be attacked!!

[Polly]

o:) I see a little comic relief is due here...


:tongue2: Hail Amelica!! :biggrin:

[Artman]

Artman: Bush isn't like Hitler because Hussein was more like Hitler?You have to look at the motivation and the goals of the two individuals and their governments. Do you really think that Bush wants to annex either of those countries?

"Domestically, during the next six years, Hitler completely transformed Germany into a police state."

Civil libertarians insist that this is happening here now, with the USA Patriot Act in force and Patriot II on the table. The difference is that Germany was not at war when it became a police state. We are currently in a war. War time is often accompanied by government restrictions on personal freedoms. These are often required for the safety of our soldiers and civilians as well.

In 1933, the Reichstag, Germany's parliament building, was burned to the ground. Nobody knows for sure who set the fire. The Nazis blamed communists. "This incident prompted Hitler[,then Germany's chancellor,] to convince [German President Paul von] Hindenburg to issue a Decree for the Protection of People and State that granted Nazis sweeping power to deal with the so-called emergency."

The Reichstag fire parallels the Sept. 11 attacks here, and Hindenburg's decree parallels our USA Patriot Act.Does it really? So, the destruction of several civilian structures housing one of the economic centers of the world, 3 jet airliners full of people, the military headquarters of the USA and the deaths of over 3000 civilians and governement workers is a "so-called emergency" equated to a fire that destroyed a (probably) empty government building? The difference is pretty obvious. One was a so-called emergency the other was a real emergency.

"Nazi anti-Semitic legislation and propaganda against 'Non-Aryans' was a thinly disguised attack against anyone who had Jewish parents or grandparents. Jews felt increasingly isolated from the rest of German society."

How comfortable do American-born Arabs feel in the United States today? Is this discomfort due to Bush? I have heard him say that we should not blame the American-born Arabs or the Muslims living in this country. Hitler preached hate.


Who has actually taken away our freedoms? Bush and the conservatives, or terrorist threats? I visited the Statue of Liberty, back when Clinton was president, and I had to wait three hours to get in because they were wanding everyone at the door with a metal detector. Bush is trying to get our liberties back people.

[the number 42]

I see. You need for Bush to be wearing a swastika and speaking German before you think there is any sort of comparison? Aldous Huxley must be spinning like a top in his grave.

[Artman]

I see. You need for Bush to be wearing a swastika and speaking German before you think there is any sort of comparison? Aldous Huxley must be spinning like a top in his grave.This is alarmist nonsense. I have listed my objections to several of the comparisons, list what you feel are some actual legitimate comparisons that should be cause for concern.

Bush is not calling Arabs, Muslims or the people of Afganistan evil and threatening to imprison or kill them. It may interest you to know that Afganistan is the tenth largest recipient of US foriegn aid.

[russ_watters]

I see. You need for Bush to be wearing a swastika and speaking German before you think there is any sort of comparison? Aldous Huxley must be spinning like a top in his grave. No, all we need is some actual connections - the connections that have been made here are nonexistent at best. It makes me wonder if you even know any of what went on in Germany in the 1930s. You're comparing phone taps to genocide. :surprised

For some history: It takes only 23 days (or 51 days, depending on where you want to start) for the timelines between Bush and Hitler to diverge:
-Hitler became chancellor on January 30, 1933.
-The Reichstag fire was on Feb 27, and
-on March 23, Hitler siezed dictatorial power. Hitler's very first act sets him apart from Bush! But lets continue:
-The boycott of Jewish stores started April 1st.
-The first government book burning was May 10th.
-The first concentration camp opened in June.
-All other political parties were outlawed June 14.
-Germany quit the League of Nations on October 14th.
-The Nurenburg Laws went into effect in 1935 - denying Jews citizenship, among other things.

Again, nothing Bush has done comes anywhere close to any of that.

More HERE (http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/280.html)

Minor nitck, Artman, regarding the Reichstag fire - the Reichstag was the equivalent of the US Capital Building, so sabbotage of that would be a direct attack on the government and require some real action to maintain a functioning government. Trouble is, it was (apparently) set by the Nazis. While a real emergency, 9/11 was an attack on the US people not the US government, so it didn't require a bolstering of the government functionality, just a bolstering of security.

[Artman]

Minor nitck, Artman, regarding the Reichstag fire - the Reichstag was the equivalent of the US Capital Building, so sabbotage of that would be a direct attack on the government and require some real action to maintain a functioning government. Trouble is, it was (apparently) set by the Nazis. While a real emergency, 9/11 was an attack on the US people not the US government, so it didn't require a bolstering of the government functionality, just a bolstering of security.Agreed. Records, paperwork and government operations would definitely have suffered. I still find the 911 attack far more wide reaching in its emergency status and if the 911 attack was just an hour later in the day 45,000 people could have been in those buildings.

[PerennialII]

So you two water the argument by details, rather than premises, of evaluating a historical timeline ... makes the question above

I see. You need for Bush to be wearing a swastika and speaking German before you think there is any sort of comparison? Aldous Huxley must be spinning like a top in his grave.

again warranted. How you end up with the situation isn't everything, but rather whether there are any similarities to speak of. And so far you haven't been able to contradict the direction US has been going in many people's view.

You have to look at the motivation and the goals of the two individuals and their governments. Do you really think that Bush wants to annex either of those countries?

The annexing does not have much to do in this ... US wants to sustain its position as a unilateral superpower and of course there is no point in starting by invading Haiti for example. For Hitler the idea was to defeat his enemies, no matter the means, in that respect the US of GWB seems to be following a similar agenda.

The difference is that Germany was not at war when it became a police state. We are currently in a war. War time is often accompanied by government restrictions on personal freedoms. These are often required for the safety of our soldiers and civilians as well.

That is an action of wartime, but the disconnected argument of using war here falls short because the US war is just rhetoric.

Does it really? So, the destruction of several civilian structures housing one of the economic centers of the world, 3 jet airliners full of people, the military headquarters of the USA and the deaths of over 3000 civilians and governement workers is a "so-called emergency" equated to a fire that destroyed a (probably) empty government building? The difference is pretty obvious. One was a so-called emergency the other was a real emergency.

Agreed. Records, paperwork and government operations would definitely have suffered. I still find the 911 attack far more wide reaching in its emergency status and if the 911 attack was just an hour later in the day 45,000 people could have been in those buildings.

Claiming the other one was more important than the other does not really take this anywhere. Both can be perceived as monumental, whoever did what. One had greater immediate impact, the other was a step in torching of the globe ... pick one ?

[Artman]

So you two water the argument by details, rather than premises, of evaluating a historical timeline Yeah Russ, let's not clutter up the discussion with facts.

[the number 42]

Yeah Russ, let's not clutter up the discussion with facts.

:rofl:

Good to know you have a sense of humour.

[PerennialII]

Yeah Russ, let's not clutter up the discussion with facts.

:rofl: devil can sure always be hidden in the details :rofl:

[Artman]

:rofl:

Good to know you have a sense of humour.I'm glad to see that you do as well. :smile:

PerennialII and number 42, I can see how people can see similarites. It is not hard to make that leap. However, the difference lies in the details that Russ and I are mentioning: Hitler's desire to rule the world, his insane obsession with killing Jews, these are important differences. The Patriot Act's purpose is supposed to be so that a terroist attack of the magnitude of the 911 attack will not happen again, not to enslave our nation to Bush's maniacal will. Does the Patriot Act really step on an honest person's rights? Show me examples of that to convince me. These are important differences, not petty details.

[the number 42]

Russ has a heart of gold, but he is addicted to filibustering.

[Artman]

Russ has a heart of gold, but he is addicted to filibustering.Hey, we agree on something! (Sorry Russ)
:smile:

[russ_watters]

So you two water the argument by details, rather than premises, of evaluating a historical timeline ... Uh, yeah - if people want to make a comparison, I'm a sticlker for insisting that they make a comparison. How you end up with the situation isn't everything, but rather whether there are any similarities to speak of. I'm still waiting for someone to list some similarities. And so far you haven't been able to contradict the direction US has been going in many people's view. Say what? I showed quite clearly that the US isn't moving in any "direction". Nothing on that timeline bears any resemblance to what is happening now. If you disagree with that, prove your position. Show me an action by Bush that has a direct equal to an action by Hitler.

So far, Burnsys is the only one to draw a comparison, but didn't defend it and it should be relatively clear by now how the comparison fails. But hey, if you disagree, stop with the rhetoric and prove your position.

[russ_watters]

One I neglected before: This is incorrect. The conditional "if message X must be read between lines and you can read between the lines, then message X is clear" is not at all contradictory as those are the conditions under which message X becomes clear. The word "clear" could perhaps be considered redundant, but it entails no contradiction. The contradiction is between "read between the lines" and "clear." It makes me wonder if you know what the euphemism means.

When you read between the lines, you are garnering information that isn't there. It can't be clear - if it were clear, you wouldn't have to read between the lines to find it!

The New American Century site doesn't say what you say it says. Indeed - the site characterizes itself as a "Reganite philosophy" - there's nothing "Neo" about that!I'm not sure what mythical beast you've attached the label "neo-conservative" to. But while the term does seem to get abused by some to indicate almost anyone who agrees with Bush's policies, the useful definition of the term is rather concrete: it refers to people who favor the initial goals and policy ideas of the Project for a New American Century (www.newamericancentury.org)... And I can find that definition where?

That definition might be part of the problem though - since it requires 'reading between the lines,' someone like me who agrees with the New American Century position at face value can be incorrectly labeled as a "Neo-Conservative." Basically, (and again) this reduces to conspiracy theory.

[cragwolf]

Except Bush doesn't have a book detailing his plan to take over the world written before committing said deception.

Come now, be fair to Bush! Hitler could read and write. :biggrin:

[Gokul43201]

Perhaps the reason for a comparison is not that Bush is really very similar to Hitler in action or ideology, but that he's the closest any president of the US has ever come ?

[loseyourname]

Perhaps the reason for a comparison is not that Bush is really very similar to Hitler in action or ideology, but that he's the closest any president of the US has ever come ?

I don't know that I'd say that:


Andrew Jackson ignored a Supreme Court order and illegally removed the Cherokee nation from Georgia, killing half of them in the process.
Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habaes corpus right ensured by the constitution.
Franklin Roosevelt had all Japanese citizens moved to internment camps and had their property seized.
Herbert Hoover sent the US army to forcefully break up a veteran's protest in Washington DC, injuring and killing many protesters.
Teddy Roosevelt falsely blamed the Spanish for the Maine incident, taking the US to war and annexing all Spanish colonies.
Andrew Johnson allowed southern dixiecrats back into Congress who subsequently enacted Jim Crow laws keeping blacks in de facto slavery for an additional 90 years.


Need I continue?

[plover]

The contradiction is between "read between the lines" and "clear."
If you take "message X is clear" and "message X is read between the lines" as two separate statements, and if you take "message X is clear" to mean "the meaning I accord to message X requires no context to be derived", then the assertion that both statements are true can be labelled a contradiction. However, that's not what you said earlier, which was: 'clear if you can read between the lines'. Can a set of meanings be attached to this phrase that makes it logically inconsistent? Yes. Is that the only set of definitions that are significantly likely given the natural language phrasing? No. Therefore your assertion (i.e. that the conditional is logically inconsistent) is, strictly speaking, incorrect, as the assertion does not specify any reason to believe that Smurf made his statement under the assumptions that would make said statement inconsistent. Plus, making the unsupported assertion that the logically inconsistent version of a statement was the one intended by a speaker is a fairly dishonest way of arguing.
It makes me wonder if you know what the euphemism means.
This, while at least it's not an assertion applied to another person, is implausible. If you didn't understand the argument, you could ask for clarification. I'm not sure why you seem to believe that making innuendos that impute unlikely motives or improbable gaps of knowledge to people is valid argumentation.
When you read between the lines, you are garnering information that isn't there.
Well, you're utilizing contextual information that is not contained within a given message. Is that what you meant?
It can't be clear - if it were clear, you wouldn't have to read between the lines to find it!
This is the interpretation under the conditions by which the original statement could be considered inconsistent. It does not exhaust the plausible readings, nor is it evidence that Smurf intended this reading.

None of this, of course, says anything about whether or not Smurf's statement is true—but you didn't question its truth status, you questioned its logical consistency.


And I can find that definition where?
This one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_States%29) seems pretty good, and certainly gives more context and detail than my thin summary.

I don't know who came up with the term neoconservative, and it's true that many who are called that do not accept the title, but I don't think they repudiate the ideas most convincingly associated with the concept. Sure, the term is used inappropriately at times, and sure, neocons have been accused of things that probably aren't accurate, but that is probably true of every political category that's ever existed. I just don't get why anyone makes this into an issue.

Here are some people self-identifying as neocons (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201479680/qid=1102736153/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-1813196-1909605?v=glance&s=books&n=507846).


The New American Century site doesn't say what you say it says.
And what did I say it says? (This oughtta be good... :rolleyes: )
Indeed - the site characterizes itself as a "Reganite philosophy" - there's nothing "Neo" about that!
Why not? Because they don't believe in the Matrix? You don't give enough context to make sense of this statement. You don't get to choose how the word was invented, and without knowing, can't say whether or not it was appropriate at the time. (Though it's obviously possible to argue that it supplies odd connotations in the current context.)
That definition might be part of the problem though - since it requires 'reading between the lines,'
It does? The definition I gave is pretty straightforward. According to the page I linked above, it's probably not strictly accurate, since I seem to have made it too narrow, but I have trouble seeing it as indirect or ambiguous. I've tended to think of neoconservatism mostly as a foreign policy stance, which may restrict the scope too much.
someone like me who agrees with the New American Century position at face value can be incorrectly labeled as a "Neo-Conservative."
Well, you agree with their rhetoric apparently. And you agree with at least part of how they've translated the rhetoric into practice. However, I'm not sure about all of their positions or policy suggestions, so I don't really have an opinion on this.
Basically, (and again) this reduces to conspiracy theory.
I don't know what your talking about here. What have I said that seems like a conspiracy? I've been talking about openly stated policy positions. You appear to be imputing weird motives and positions on no evidence again.

Note: I haven't said a thing about my opinion of what Smurf said (other than that as a proposition it does not entail any contradiction). I haven't been defending his statement, merely interrogating the assertions you employed against it.

[Gokul43201]

I don't know that I'd say that:


Andrew Jackson ignored a Supreme Court order and illegally removed the Cherokee nation from Georgia, killing half of them in the process.
Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habaes corpus right ensured by the constitution.
Franklin Roosevelt had all Japanese citizens moved to internment camps and had their property seized.
Herbert Hoover sent the US army to forcefully break up a veteran's protest in Washington DC, injuring and killing many protesters.
Teddy Roosevelt falsely blamed the Spanish for the Maine incident, taking the US to war and annexing all Spanish colonies.
Andrew Johnson allowed southern dixiecrats back into Congress who subsequently enacted Jim Crow laws keeping blacks in de facto slavery for an additional 90 years.


Need I continue?

Yes - at least till you get to people that became President after Hitler.

To come up with even these (relatively) weak examples, you've had go back (for the majority) over a hundred years ! That, in itself says something.

[loseyourname]

Yes - at least till you get to people that became President after Hitler.

To come up with even these (relatively) weak examples, you've had go back (for the majority) over a hundred years ! That, in itself says something.

Interesting the way you weaken your argument only to say that it still must say "something." Actually, if you want example after Hitler (FDR, by the way, interned the Japanese well after Hitler came to power), what about Nixon and Johnson in the late 60's and early 70's, both of whom presided over many protesters, in particular anti-war protesters and ethnic minorities, being severely abused by police and intelligence agencies. I'd say that shows far more indication of a police state than we have today. I think you can look to Watergate, Iran-Contra, the pardoning of Marc Rich, and find many example of presidential behavior far more abhorrent than anything Bush II has been guilty of. I might doubt his methods every now and then, but I have never doubted his intentions.

[Gokul43201]

I've not claimed ever, that I concur with the OP on this. I offered a possible reason for the comparison, and was surprised by the examples you provided to counter it.

If I was to look for similarities between GW and Nazi Germany, the only things that come to mind immediately are :

1. Ideology driven policy-making, rather than one weighed carefully by checks and balances (for more on this, look up what former Treas Sec, Paul O' Neill had to say about this administration).

2. The ability to command the respect of the people despite the odds.

3. The loss of value for human rights.

4. Most PNAC documents (the SoP for instance) reads like a Nazi Party Manifesto. Many PNAC members were/are top policy-makers in the cabinet.

[PerennialII]

PerennialII and number 42, I can see how people can see similarites. It is not hard to make that leap. However, the difference lies in the details that Russ and I are mentioning: Hitler's desire to rule the world, his insane obsession with killing Jews, these are important differences.

Yeah, I don't think we'll get to an argument whether there aren't significant differences ... Hitler is in the league of his own with Stalin, Mao etc. The details are different, many of the actions look in principle similar in direction (even though in magnitude they naturally aren't close).

The Patriot Act's purpose is supposed to be so that a terroist attack of the magnitude of the 911 attack will not happen again, not to enslave our nation to Bush's maniacal will. Does the Patriot Act really step on an honest person's rights? Show me examples of that to convince me. These are important differences, not petty details.

Patriot acts give the government the option to make terror suspects disappear ... no one needs to be notified about anything when people are detained and so on. Somehow that sort of legal development doesn't sound too "free" to me.

I'm still waiting for someone to list some similarities.

There are those couple of links in the first page which were the basis of this thread.

Say what? I showed quite clearly that the US isn't moving in any "direction". Nothing on that timeline bears any resemblance to what is happening now. If you disagree with that, prove your position. Show me an action by Bush that has a direct equal to an action by Hitler.

So far, Burnsys is the only one to draw a comparison, but didn't defend it and it should be relatively clear by now how the comparison fails. But hey, if you disagree, stop with the rhetoric and prove your position.

Your equal requires Bush to burn the German parliament building before there is a "direction" ... mine doesn't. How about trying to argue against the initial premise rather than trying to take the easy way out by 2nd order details. But I'm sure you'll find a way to explain how civil rights for one have increased & improved after 911.

[the number 42]

I fear you some of you nay sayers are basing your argument on the premis that 'It couldn't happen here'. This provides the most fertile ground possible for grandiose, ruthless, empire-building politicians to rise to power. Of course for others, the US dominating the world in whatever way it chooses, is to be applauded.

If it is true that fascism isn't categorical but exists on a continuum, then just because Bush isn't exactly like Hitler, or as extreme as Hitler (yet :uhh:) doesn't mean that there isn't a reasonable comparison to be made.

[Artman]

I fear you some of you nay sayers are basing your argument on the premis that 'It couldn't happen here'. This provides the most fertile ground possible for grandiose, ruthless, empire-building politicians to rise to power. Of course for others, the US dominating the world in whatever way it chooses, is to be applauded.This may be true of others, but I do realize that there is a possibility that a Hitler could rise again anywhere. It is good to be vigilant over our freedoms. I just feel that Bush's interests lie in regaining them, not taking them away. I think his leaning toward a more religious USA is even a way of helping us in the eyes of the world. I don't agree with his methods in this regard, bt I still think his intentions are in the country's best interest and not his own personal interests. I may be wrong in this, but that is my opinion.

[russ_watters]

I don't know what your talking about here. What have I said that seems like a conspiracy? I've been talking about openly stated policy positions. You appear to be imputing weird motives and positions on no evidence again.

Note: I haven't said a thing about my opinion of what Smurf said (other than that as a proposition it does not entail any contradiction). I haven't been defending his statement, merely interrogating the assertions you employed against it. This can't continue if you're going to be this coy - defending Smurf's position while implying that you don't share it allows you to talk out of both sides of your mouth. Say what you mean and mean what you say: otherwise, you're not arguing faithfully.

Regarding the definition from Wikipedia, I didn't read the whole thing, but the summary looks good: its a label coined by a socialist to be applied in a way that is intended to be derogatory. If you didn't get that far, read "Criticism of Term." An excerpt: The fact that its use has rapidly risen since the 2003 Iraq War is cited by conservatives as proof that the term is largely irrelevant in the long term. David Horowitz, a purported leading neo-con thinker offered this critique in a recent interview with an Italian newspaper:

"Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today neo-conservatism identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists."

Similarly, many other supposed neoconservatives believe that the term has been adopted by the political left to stereotype supporters of U.S. foreign policy under the George W. Bush administration. Others have similarly likened descriptions of neoconservatism to a conspiracy theory and attribute the term to anti-Semitism. Regarding the book: it is a collection of essays and the title chosen by the editors does not imply that the people who wrote the essays would label themselves as such.

So lets lay it right out there: if this term exists outside of Democratic propaganda/conspiracy theory, you should have no problem finding for me a self-labeled "neoconservative" describing what "neoconservativism" (heretofore to be written in quotes since it is quite clear that the movement does not exist) is.

[russ_watters]

I fear you some of you nay sayers are basing your argument on the premis that 'It couldn't happen here'. This provides the most fertile ground possible for grandiose, ruthless, empire-building politicians to rise to power....

...just because Bush isn't exactly like Hitler, or as extreme as Hitler (yet :uhh:) doesn't mean that there isn't a reasonable comparison to be made. Well wait, you're talking about two different things:

-Bush has done things that parallel Hitler's actions.
-Bush has not yet done anything that parallels Hitler's actions - but will.

The first has been shown to be factually/logically inaccurate. The second is, of course, very convenient since it doesn't require any facts: just baseless conjecture. Ie, conspiracy theory.

Though I haven't heard a good Bush:Hitler conspiracy theory yet (surprisingly - but it could have been because Bush didn't do anything after 9/11 that fit), virtually every President has one: Clinton had one - a FEMA restructuring law passed under him that some people said would serve as a justification for siezing dictatorial power (a la Hitler) following the Y2K disaster (a la Reichstag).

In an attempt to apply a similar one to Bush: Bush orchestrates 9/11 and the 4th plane was bound for the Capitol building (his Reichstag). In response, Bush declares martial law, invokes FEMA, rounds up all Muslims and puts them in concentration camps, and attacks (and annexes) Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait - ehh, just the whole Arabian Penisnula (a la Hitler's or Japan's beginning of WWII).

Does this sound good to you guys? Trouble is, of course, that the disaster happened, but none of the fallout did. So that makes it tough to fit a conspiracy theory to it.

[russ_watters]

Your equal requires Bush to burn the German parliament building before there is a "direction" ... mine doesn't. See my example above. How about trying to argue against the initial premise rather than trying to take the easy way out by 2nd order details. But I'm sure you'll find a way to explain how civil rights for one have increased & improved after 911. I've never said that civil rights have improved - they haven't. The Patriot Act does expand the law-enforcement powers of government. But that in no way implies that Bush is moving down the same road that Hitler took, as you can see from loseyourname's examples of similar actions.... To come up with even these (relatively) weak examples, you've had go back (for the majority) over a hundred years ! That, in itself says something. Relatively weak or not, every one of these examples goes further than what Bush has done. That makes Bush's movement toward fascism even weaker. Regarding timeframe (loseyourname, I'm surprised you didn't cite the entire '60s in the first list), I consider the US's actions during WWII to be the most relevant: rounding-up Japanese and putting them in internment camps.

[lucifer]

even though the Iraq war isn't imperialistic, the point is: we did not attack Iraq in "self-defense". of course Bush is 10 times "better' than Hitler, both wars were based on misguided beliefs and people were brainwashed cos both Bush and Hitler presented their beliefs as facts(Bush said that there were WMD's in iraq and Iraq had ties w/ Al Qaeda while Hitler said that Jews and other minority groups were the cause of all of Germany's problems and all those countries he took over were a threat to germany.)

They are both did/want to discriminate between specific groups. and they were both "right-wing". eeewwwwww.

anyways, so even though it's not like Bush is a mass killer like Hitler(he's just really stupid), but there's some valid comparision points.

[Hurkyl]

The problem is that while you can draw parallels of some things Hitler did with just about anyone, those parallels generally do not justify extending the comparision to the horrific things Hitler did.

However, the emotional response to Hitler's horrific acts is precisely why the person is trying to make a comparison with Hitler in the first place.

Such an argument is inherently unsound, and is the basis for Godwin's law -- he who invokes Hitler or Nazi-ism automatically loses the argument. If you Google on the law, you can actually find a fair bit of theory and analysis on the subject.

[Smurf]

The problem is that while you can draw parallels of some things Hitler did with just about anyone, those parallels generally do not justify extending the comparision to the horrific things Hitler did. I do not think anyone intends to imply that Bush is anywhere near as bad or as extreme as Hitler. I certainly don't. However you must understand the fear that some would hold that he may one day become very similar.
The point of such an article as was shown in the first post was to raise awarness to how Bush is deteriorating civil rights in America by comparison to Nazi Germany. We could have done a comparison with Burma, or Zimbabwe, or modern day Russia but Germany is so much more commonly known, is simply more effective for the sake of the argument and probably has more similarities historically, as well as being easier to research.Such an argument is inherently unsound, and is the basis for Godwin's law -- he who invokes Hitler or Nazi-ism automatically loses the argument. If you Google on the law, you can actually find a fair bit of theory and analysis on the subject.
I'm surprised it took 3 pages for someone to bring this up. But (it is my understanding that) the theory was proposed for arguments seperate from Hitler and Nazism, this entire topic is in fact based on Nazism and Hitler, therefor the argument cannot be proposed without brining either of them up in the first place.

[Dissident Dan]

HItler had a goal of conquering europe, enslaving the slavs and exterminating the jews.

If bush is trying to build an empire, he's picking the wrong countries. Even Haiti, with all the probelms they have, would not be improved by taking over afghanistan or Iraq.

Where did improving Haiti come in?

Anyway:
A) Read neocon views of the world to see their ideas of empire (many neocons in bush's gov)
B) Many of the corporations bush has connections to have benefitted tremendously. The nonexistance of a global or regional domination goal does not mean that there is no intent to control specific nations for specific gains.
C) "Empire" today is much different from empire 100 years. Ago. Empire is not de jure, but de facto, through the controlling influence a country or powerful group exerts on others. There is no actual, explicit conquest, but, in many respects, the effects are the same. Actually, you can get the benefits without the responsibilities in today's model.

[russ_watters]

A) Read neocon views of the world to see their ideas of empire (many neocons in bush's gov) Could you help me out a little and identify one for me. I have yet to see anyone use that term to describe him/erself.

[the number 42]

Well wait, you're talking about two different things:

-Bush has done things that parallel Hitler's actions.
-Bush has not yet done anything that parallels Hitler's actions - but will.

The first has been shown to be factually/logically inaccurate.

The first is a matter of opinion. As far as I am concerned a case has been made that is worth taking seriously. As far as you are concerned a convincing case hasn't been made. This most likely indicates our differing political leanings rather than how much Bush's actions resemble Hitler's in any objective sense.

The second is, of course, very convenient since it doesn't require any facts: just baseless conjecture. Ie, conspiracy theory.

True, but I wasn't really putting it forward as an argument in its own right, as indicated by the parethesis.

[the number 42]

Such an argument is inherently unsound, and is the basis for Godwin's law -- he who invokes Hitler or Nazi-ism automatically loses the argument. If you Google on the law, you can actually find a fair bit of theory and analysis on the subject.

Hurkyl, you deserve a purple heart for reminding us all of this in no uncertain terms. To invoke Hitler is to charicature the reality of the situation.

[the number 42]

HItler had a goal of conquering europe, enslaving the slavs and exterminating the jews.

Franznietzche: you have earned the blue max for shooting down a perfectly reasonable debate. Dumkoff! Schwein! :biggrin:

[Hurkyl]

I'm surprised it took 3 pages for someone to bring this up.

I was all set to bring it up when I saw the title a few days ago. I decided to wait to invoke it until people were clearly suffering from the general fallacy to which the law refers.


The point of such an article as was shown in the first post was to raise awarness to how Bush is deteriorating civil rights in America by comparison to Nazi Germany.

And, remind me, the point of the comparison to Nazi Germany was... what?

[the number 42]

I was all set to bring it up when I saw the title a few days ago. I decided to wait to invoke it until people were clearly suffering from the general fallacy to which the law refers.

Uh? Purple heart revoked.

And, remind me, the point of the comparison to Nazi Germany was... what?

What? Are you suddenly suffering from concussion?

[Gokul43201]

Could you help me out a little and identify one for me. I have yet to see anyone use that term to describe him/erself.

I've heard Krauthammer use that word to describe himself.

White supremacists, or others of that ilk, may refer to themselves by several names, but rarely will that name include "racist". Just because they do not choose to describe themselves by a particular term does not preclude the term from applying to them.

[polyb]

HEY, why dont you take a quiz to see if you are a "NEOCON"!

Neocon quiz (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html)

Some People who are NEOCONs:

Richard Pearle
Paul Wolfowitz
William Kristol

Just to name a few!

[Hurkyl]

What? Are you suddenly suffering from concussion?

Maybe. I got hit pretty hard when, after I stated that people make comparisons with Hitler in order to imply that the comparison does/will extend to more his horrific acts, Smurf retorted by saying that the comparison was made to Hitler because of a fear that the comparison will extend to more horrific acts. :yuck:

[Dissident Dan]

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

[plover]

This can't continue if you're going to be this coy - defending Smurf's position while implying that you don't share it allows you to talk out of both sides of your mouth. Say what you mean and mean what you say: otherwise, you're not arguing faithfully.
You're imputing motives to me again. (Badly.)

Saying that I'm defending Smurf's position is incorrect. I've made two points. The first is that the statement " 'clear if you can read between the lines' is a logical contradiction" is shoddy reasoning. I've shown why this is not a viable argument from a logical point of view, and I've shown your responses on logical grounds have not addressed my argument. The second is that saying 'there ain't any such thing as a neocon' is silly. None of your responses to this so far would survive a closer reading of the wikipedia article. And like I said before, I don't even understand why it's an issue. If the foreign policy position in question were not called 'neoconservatism', it would be called something else—this is the name that stuck. David Horowitz's dislike of the term is neither here nor there.

For the particular statement of Smurf's to which you were responding, the extent of my support is that it is not logically inconsistent, and that "Freedom here freedom there, freedom everywhere" is a serviceable caricature of PNAC rhetoric. While PNAC policy suggestions are certainly concerned with the projection of US power (especially in the Middle East), if there is an easy summary of their underlying goals, I doubt "world domination" is it. And, I have already stated that I think explicit comparisons of contemporary American politics to Nazism are mostly useless.

I shouldn't even have to say any of this. There is no basis for your intimation that I have not "said what I meant, and meant what I said". Accusing me of dishonesty simply makes it appear that you have no response to any of my arguments.

[PerennialII]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerennialII
Your equal requires Bush to burn the German parliament building before there is a "direction" ... mine doesn't.
See my example above.
Quote:
How about trying to argue against the initial premise rather than trying to take the easy way out by 2nd order details. But I'm sure you'll find a way to explain how civil rights for one have increased & improved after 911.
I've never said that civil rights have improved - they haven't. The Patriot Act does expand the law-enforcement powers of government. But that in no way implies that Bush is moving down the same road that Hitler took, as you can see from loseyourname's examples of similar actions....


Now we're stuck in 'implies' ... we appear to have 'mildly' differing usages for the word. If you grant a government authoritarian rule over its citizens, I see it pretty hard to wiggle out from the implication of it.

[PerennialII]

Maybe. I got hit pretty hard when, after I stated that people make comparisons with Hitler in order to imply that the comparison does/will extend to more his horrific acts, Smurf retorted by saying that the comparison was made to Hitler because of a fear that the comparison will extend to more horrific acts.

What is the problem in trying to identify where we might be heading on the basis of where we're now ? It's not like we're debating solely archaeological findings, even this topic can & ought to be approached objectively.

[Polly]

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

There is no better way to unite the global community than a common threat or enemy.

[fourier jr]

i haven't looked at this thread in a while but i just thought of something. the nazis called their style of fighting "blitzkrieg", which was where they would rain down as much #$^% as possible in a few days in order to demoralize & frighten the other guys into submission. well that's precisely what the USA's "shock & awe" is all about. the idea first came out in this 1996 (!) book entitled "shock & awe: achieving rapid dominance". here's part of the prologue:

...Since before Sun Tzu and the earliest chroniclers of war recorded their observations, strategists and generals have been tantalized and confounded by the elusive goal of destroying the adversary's will to resist before, during, and after battle. Today, we believe that an unusual opportunity exists to determine whether or not this long-sought strategic goal of affecting the will, understanding, and perception of an adversary can be brought closer to fruition. Even if this task cannot be accomplished, we believe that, at the very minimum, such an effort will enhance and improve the ability of our military forces to carry out their missions more successfully through identifying and reinforcing particular points of leverage in the conflict and by identifying and creating additional options and choices for employing our forces more effectively....

To affect the will of the adversary, Rapid Dominance will apply a variety of approaches and techniques to achieve the necessary level of Shock and Awe at the appropriate strategic and military leverage points. This means that psychological and intangible, as well as physical and concrete effects beyond the destruction of enemy forces and supporting military infrastructure, will have to be achieved. It is in this broader and deeper strategic application that Rapid Dominance perhaps most fundamentally differentiates itself from current doctrine and offers revolutionary application.

(edit) & from chapter 2, entitled shock & awe:
The second example is "Hiroshima and Nagasaki" noted earlier. The intent here is to impose a regime of Shock and Awe through delivery of instant, nearly incomprehensible levels of massive destruction directed at influencing society writ large, meaning its leadership and public, rather than targeting directly against military or strategic objectives even with relatively few numbers or systems. The employment of this capability against society and its values, called "counter-value" in the nuclear deterrent jargon, is massively destructive strikes directly at the public will of the adversary to resist and, ideally or theoretically, would instantly or quickly incapacitate that will over the space of a few hours or days.

here's the whole book online:
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/books%20-%201996/Shock%20and%20Awe%20-%20Dec%2096/prol.html

[russ_watters]

When it comes to military tactics, everyone borrows from everyone else and we certainly learned from the Germans in WWII - Rommel, in particular, was very highly regarded.

edit: I heard a story from Gulf I where a captured Iraqi tank commander saw a picture of Rommel on an American tank. The Iraqi asked why they would put a photo of their most hated enemy on their tank, an American replied "if you knew why, you wouldn't be here right now."

[kat]

From fourier's link:
The first example is "Overwhelming Force," the doctrine and concept shaping today's American force structure. The aims of this doctrine are to apply massive or overwhelming force as quickly as possible on an adversary in order to disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy militarily impotent with as few casualties and losses to ourselves and to non-combatants as possible. The superiority of American forces, technically and operationally, is crucial to successful application.
Which would seem to be a defining difference from the intentional targeting of civilian areas of Hitlers Blitzkrieg model.

[cragwolf]

Which would seem to be a defining difference from the intentional targeting of civilian areas of Hitlers Blitzkrieg model.

Do you even know what blitzkrieg was? Not on the basis of the above comment. FYI, blitzkrieg is a military tactic perfected by the Germans and used to great effect in France and Russia during WWII. All or most available forces would concentrate on a single weak point on the enemy line; artillery and tactical bombers would then pound that point, coupled with assaults by infantry. Once a breakthrough was made, tanks and mechanised infantry would pour through the hole in the enemy line, and then strike deep into the rear of enemy territory, which was usually poorly defended. With great initiative these highly mobile armoured forces would strike at supplies, logistics, communications and other strategic targets. This would hopefully render the enemy's command, communications and control structure weak and essentially useless, and a confused and retreating enemy would be relatively easy to finish off, if necessary. Civilian areas were not intentionally targetted and were quite irrelevant to the whole concept of blitzkrieg.

Perhaps you are confusing blitzkrieg with the London Blitz?

[Smurf]

It's also highly probable that the Allies killed more civilians than the Germans (obviously excepting the SS) in WW2, Dresden for example.

[kat]

Perhaps you are confusing blitzkrieg with the London Blitz?
I did, I did, I'm so sick today that I'm confused...blah.

[russ_watters]

It's also highly probable that the Allies killed more civilians than the Germans (obviously excepting the SS) in WW2, Dresden for example. Random OT shot there, but NOT EVEN CLOSE. (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/civilian_casualties_of_world_war.htm) Even after subtracting out the holocaust, the Germans killed twice as many Russians alone as Germans were killed by the Allies (remember, a significant number of those 3.8 million German deaths were in the holocaust.

[FZ+]

... Though we are not entirely sure about the source of the Russian deaths - it is possible that many of them were inflicted by Stalin's forces, or perhaps indirectly by policies of 'scorched earth'. Let's just stop the whole kill ratio thing right here, ok?

[fourier jr]

ya the soviet union lost something like 30000000 or more, which was almost 3 times the population of canada at the time. (so why did truman keep the russians in the dark re: a-bomb but give churchill all the secrets? that's another story...)