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

News 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

    PerennialII

    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

    PerennialII

    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

    russ_watters

    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

    PerennialII

    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

    plover

    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 http://www.tamarindo.net/animals/basilisk.jpg [Broken].
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  11. Dec 9, 2004 #10

    plover

    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 http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/357Lsum_s2_ShoupMinter.html.

    or from https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/...f=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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  14. Dec 9, 2004 #13
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  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.
     
  22. Dec 10, 2004 #21
    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.
     
  23. Dec 10, 2004 #22

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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 http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/280.html [Broken]

    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  24. Dec 10, 2004 #23
    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.
     
  25. Dec 10, 2004 #24

    PerennialII

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

    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.

    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.

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

    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 ?
     
  26. Dec 10, 2004 #25
    Yeah Russ, let's not clutter up the discussion with facts.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook