Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Comparison between Nazi Germany and Neo-Conservative USA

  1. Dec 9, 2004 #1
    Are Parallels To Nazi Germany Crazy?
    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.
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 9, 2004 #2

    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.
  4. Dec 9, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  5. Dec 9, 2004 #4
    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?
  6. Dec 9, 2004 #5
    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.
  7. Dec 9, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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).
  8. Dec 9, 2004 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    '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.
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2004
  9. Dec 9, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  10. Dec 9, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    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.
    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, 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.
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2004
  11. Dec 9, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    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. Loehr provides some good historical context and eschews explicit comparisons to the Nazis.
    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. Just before the election he completed a 7-part series: The Rise of Pseudo-Fascism (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.
  12. Dec 9, 2004 #11
    Hilter checkpoints, bushs checkpoints,.

    reichstag fire, 911

    Tatoos in conc. camps. Id card and retin scan in fallujha
  13. Dec 9, 2004 #12
    well... i think he does; it's called "Imperial Brain Trust", by Shoup/Minter.

    or from amazon.com

    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.
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2004
  14. Dec 9, 2004 #13
  15. Dec 9, 2004 #14
    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:
  16. Dec 9, 2004 #15
    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).
  17. Dec 9, 2004 #16
    Artman: Bush isn't like Hitler because Hussein was more like Hitler?
  18. Dec 9, 2004 #17
    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!!
  19. Dec 10, 2004 #18
    o:) I see a little comic relief is due here...

    :tongue2: Hail Amelica!! :biggrin:
  20. Dec 10, 2004 #19
    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 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.

    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.

    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.
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2004
  21. Dec 10, 2004 #20
    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.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Comparison between Nazi Germany and Neo-Conservative USA
  1. What is a Neo-Con? (Replies: 17)