The Bush Administration is playing the NAZI card

  • News
  • Thread starter edward
  • Start date
  • #26
Futobingoro
Olbermann:
The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.
1. The Bush administration says that Islamic terrorists seek the destruction of our freedoms.
2. The Bush administration calls these Islamic terrorists "Islamofascists."
3. Keith Olbermann questions whether Rumsfeld and the Bush administration "are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek."
 
  • #27
slugcountry
Reread your own quote -

He still doesnt call them fascists... though I would.
 
  • #28
McGyver
BushCo's Rhetoric and Failed Response to 911

The true reality is that if the Bush White House wanted to avenge 911 and wipe out the terror and Al Queda movement, we would have gotten Bin Ladden. What the hell are we doing over in Iraq - now apparently building a democracy - while Bin Laden and his movement runs free? I mean, if on 911, Bin Laden and Co. did attack the WTC, why did we drastically scale back our efforts to find him?

Now the Bush Administration is going to fight them with words by calling them fascists! What's next, Dr. Laura? He's the one who decided to invade and destabalize Iraq. This administration is so "out on a limb" and unpolular that all they can do is offer up some type of "history lesson" on a totally unrelated conflict that occurred 70 years earlier!

If we were truly attacked by Bin Ladden on 911, any administration worth its wares would have caught him within several years. It's now been 5 years, and we're being served up a hefty portion of more RHETORIC! It's time for some new folks to take over and refocus our resources.
 
  • #29
Futobingoro
Tracking down bin Laden is much harder than many think it is. He has some big advantages:

-He is believed to be in hiding in Pakistan, out of reach of US forces. The backlash from the January 13th airstrike on Damadola illustrates how the Bush administration would face criticism for hunting bin Laden in this way.

-He has the support of the locals and knows the terrain well. I am reminded of the Pancho Villa expedition, where 12,000 soldiers with aerial surveillance abilities were unable to find Villa after nine months of searching. Locals would often give faulty information to soldiers, a problem which was amplified by the soldiers' lack of knowledge of the region.

-His command structure takes advantage of the scaling laws of physics. If bin Laden chose to travel with a force totalling 20 men, his group would have more than 10 times the efficiency and flexibility of a force of 200 US soldiers dispatched to hunt him. The effectiveness of guerilla warfare is, in itself, not the most basic reason why such tactics are so effective. It bespeaks the manifestation of the scaling laws in the relative efficiencies of military forces. In Vietnam, for example, one VC soldier could occupy the attention of an entire US garrison for as long as five minutes, maybe more. This VC soldier sometimes killed one or two American servicemen, and occasionally even managed to slip away into the jungle, all the while wasting several thousand dollars worth of American mortar fire, random rifle shooting and investment in any soldiers wounded or killed. Compare this to the pitched battles that happened in the same war. Through the combined efforts of the various services, US forces could take on a division of 20,000 North Vietnamese regulars and destroy it at comparatively lower cost per enemy killed and with only a few hundred casualties of their own. Had the regular North Vietnamese army dispersed into VC units, it could have caused far more damage and casualties to US forces. Barring complete incompetence, smaller forces are simply more efficient.

Add all these factors together, and you have yourself a tough man to track down. Technology, training and strength-in-numbers help, but do not easily redress the advantages bin Laden has.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
devil-fire
Futobingoro said:
Tracking down bin Laden is much harder than many think it is. He has some big advantages:

-He is believed to be in hiding in Pakistan, out of reach of US forces. The backlash from the January 13th airstrike on Damadola illustrates how the Bush administration would face criticism for hunting bin Laden in this way.

-He has the support of the locals and knows the terrain well. I am reminded of the Pancho Villa expedition, where 12,000 soldiers with aerial surveillance abilities were unable to find Villa after nine months of searching. Locals would often give faulty information to soldiers, a problem which was amplified by the soldiers' lack of knowledge of the region.

-His command structure takes advantage of the scaling laws of physics. If bin Laden chose to travel with a force totalling 20 men, his group would have more than 10 times the efficiency and flexibility of a force of 200 US soldiers dispatched to hunt him. The effectiveness of guerilla warfare is, in itself, not the most basic reason why such tactics are so effective. It bespeaks the manifestation of the scaling laws in the relative efficiencies of military forces. In Vietnam, for example, one VC soldier could occupy the attention of an entire US garrison for as long as five minutes, maybe more. This VC soldier sometimes killed one or two American servicemen, and occasionally even managed to slip away into the jungle, all the while wasting several thousand dollars worth of American mortar fire, random rifle shooting and investment in any soldiers wounded or killed. Compare this to the pitched battles that happened in the same war. Through the combined efforts of the various services, US forces could take on a division of 20,000 North Vietnamese regulars and destroy it at comparatively lower cost per enemy killed and with only a few hundred casualties of their own. Had the regular North Vietnamese army dispersed into VC units, it could have caused far more damage and casualties to US forces. Barring complete incompetence, smaller forces are simply more efficient.

Add all these factors together, and you have yourself a tough man to track down. Technology, training and strength-in-numbers help, but do not easily redress the advantages bin Laden has.
although i disagree with with cost and combat effiency of necessarily lesser maned units, i do agree that ossama will be vary difficult to find. however, for the most part the effort to confront Islamic fundamentalist aggression is not focused on ossama bin ladin or his al-qaeda but instead on the resistance in Iraq. personally i think if as many dozens of billions of dollars were spent on good resources to find ossama bin laden, he would be found by now.

what i mean by "good resources" is a resource that is tightly focused on finding ossama specifically, and not on gathering information in general. spending money on monitoring domestic phone calls and money transfers is not focused on finding ossama, coordinating with the Pakistani intelligence agency is focused on finding bin laden.

lets face it. the only man to mastermind a large scale attack on continental USA this century is being let off the hook because unrelated issues in Iraq were and are more important to the current administration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
Skyhunter
Osama who?

Wow we are really winning the war on terror.

With a truce between the Pakistani Taliban and Islamabad now in place, the Pakistani government is in effect reverting to its pre-September 11, 2001, position in which it closed its eyes to militant groups allied with al-Qaeda and clearly sided with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
:surprised
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HI08Df03.html
 
  • #32
Futobingoro
devil-fire said:
personally i think if as many dozens of billions of dollars were spent on good resources to find ossama bin laden, he would be found by now.

what i mean by "good resources" is a resource that is tightly focused on finding ossama specifically, and not on gathering information in general. spending money on monitoring domestic phone calls and money transfers is not focused on finding ossama, coordinating with the Pakistani intelligence agency is focused on finding bin laden.
The biggest obstacle of all in the US's search for bin Laden is the Pakistani border.

Here are some of George Bush's options for tracking down bin Laden:

-He can have American military personnel and equipment cross into Pakistan to actively search for bin Laden - and face a torrent of criticism for his "belligerent disregard of national boundaries." See: Damadola airstrike

-He can choose not to cross into Pakistan, instead relying upon Pakistani officials to capture or kill bin Laden - and face criticism for implementing an unsuccessful strategy (with a sizeable portion of Pakistanis sympathizing with bin Laden, Musharraf will do little, if anything, to hunt him). See: Skyhunter's article

-Order the CIA to covertly penetrate Pakistan to attempt an assassination of bin Laden. Even if this works, George Bush will again be accused of a "belligerent disregard of national boundaries;" Noam Chomsky would rant until he became hoarse.

-Try to lure Osama out of Pakistan - don't hold your breath.

-Some combination of the above - which will unleash a new salvo of anti-Americanism or be unsuccessful (or both).

Believe it or not, many of the people who now bemoan the Bush administration's failure to capture bin Laden would, at least philosophically, be opposed to hunting bin Laden at the moment, as doing so would entail an "imperialist" extension of US influence into Pakistan (whether directly or by inducing the Pakistani government to cooperate).
 
  • #33
devil-fire
Futobingoro said:
The biggest obstacle of all in the US's search for bin Laden is the Pakistani border.

Here are some of George Bush's options for tracking down bin Laden:

-He can have American military personnel and equipment cross into Pakistan to actively search for bin Laden - and face a torrent of criticism for his "belligerent disregard of national boundaries." See: Damadola airstrike

-He can choose not to cross into Pakistan, instead relying upon Pakistani officials to capture or kill bin Laden - and face criticism for implementing an unsuccessful strategy (with a sizeable portion of Pakistanis sympathizing with bin Laden, Musharraf will do little, if anything, to hunt him). See: Skyhunter's article

-Order the CIA to covertly penetrate Pakistan to attempt an assassination of bin Laden. Even if this works, George Bush will again be accused of a "belligerent disregard of national boundaries;" Noam Chomsky would rant until he became hoarse.

-Try to lure Osama out of Pakistan - don't hold your breath.

-Some combination of the above - which will unleash a new salvo of anti-Americanism or be unsuccessful (or both).

Believe it or not, many of the people who now bemoan the Bush administration's failure to capture bin Laden would, at least philosophically, be opposed to hunting bin Laden at the moment, as doing so would entail an "imperialist" extension of US influence into Pakistan (whether directly or by inducing the Pakistani government to cooperate).
i think the best option would be a cooperation between the American military&CIA with the Pakistani military&intelligence agency (examples later). I'm aware that path would have resistance that would need to be smoothed over but if the objective is to fight bin laden and people like him then these resistances can be overcome peacefully. think if the resources used in the Iraq war were instead used to fight al-qaeda? if Pakistan was getting all the munitions and equipment used in Iraq, you can bet they will find everyone named ossama bin laden and everyone who looks like him too (no, i don't mean literally). the resources are there to make a big impact but the desire on behalf of the people in charge of making the choices isn't.

maybe Pakistan doesn't want American jets flying bombing missions in Pakistan, but maybe American jets could be given to Pakistan to fly the bombing missions and there won't be a boarder dispute any more. the Pakistanis might not want to bomb a building based on intelligence forwarded by an untrustworthy group, but maybe if they were given detailed satellite imagery of Asia, they would be more confident about the target. maybe the Pakistani people won't favor a government that backs the USA, but if the USA backs Pakistan in the next dispute with India the people will be more friendly toward the USA's intentions for the region.
 
  • #34
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
devil-fire said:
i think the best option would be a cooperation between the American military&CIA with the Pakistani military&intelligence agency (examples later).
Very risky to push that relationship too far. Bush already knows that Musharraf's support is pretty weak, and if he falls, he'll be replaced by the strongly anti-American PPP (Pakistan People's Party) or worse, the fundamentalist MMA. So, presently, it is in America's interests that Pakistan be ruled by a self appointed President who refuses to permit free elections.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
devil-fire
one of my points is that i haven't herd of anything lately that the USA has shown a genuine Pakistani favoritism in.

there was a significant cooperation between Pakistan and the CIA to channel arms into Afghanistan resistance groups to fight soviet occupation. as this conflict was winding down, Pakistan was vary concern that the USA flooded the region with arms and that because the soviets were leaving, the Americans were going to follow them straight out and leave the Pakistani government with all kinds of armed militias in the region. unfortunately, that was generally the way things ended in that area so its no wonder Pakistan doesn't trust the USA to help them for finding ossama. if the USA spent as much resources fighting Saddam as fighting ossama, i think we can all agree that things would be looking much different the the region and that al-qaeda would not be as invigorated.
 
  • #36
221
0
The nazi card? Ohhh how Leo Strauss would be a proud man, make that boogie man as big as possible, and really scare the 'em!
The biggest obstacle of all in the US's search for bin Laden is the Pakistani border.
:
I think its that tora bora cave system he has been using, and just cant seem to find?:

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid3.htm

:rofl:
 
  • #37
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
Futobingoro said:
-Promotes a centrally governed state
-Believes that the government has been corrupted and sabotaged by a capitalist elite
-Believes in environmental protection
-Believes in the limiting of profits, the abolishing of rents and the increasing of social benefits
-Believes in uniting all workers to work for the common good
-Goal is to bring forth a nation-state as the locus and embodiment of the people's collective will
-Has a perception that a select group of rich men are controlling the country's finances
-Has a perception that a select group of rich men profits from warfare
Who supports big government? BushCo. They only opt for states rights when they want to pass the buck (literally), and also as already pointed out, the attack on civil/individual rights by the Bush administration as been atrocious.

As for capitalist elite, lest we forget that Bush and Cheney are oilmen, and Bush is of the "Bush Dynasty," and funny you should mention Halliburton, which many feel has been associated with war profiteering.

So that members can refresh their memories about the 'F' word, and compare your list to the list generated by the left:

In 2002, Laurence W. Britt's Fascism Anyone? analyzed seven fascist regimes in order to find the common threads that mark them as fascist: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia. He found 14 common characteristics (reprinted below, with 6 additions by Umberto Eco):

Characteristics Of A Fascist Political Party
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
For the additional "Ur-Fascist" traits: http://bushwatch.com/fascism.htm

Added 08.31.06: The Bush Administration's recent attempts to call its opponents "fascists" is just one more example of its ongoing strategy of projecting its own faults and weaknesses upon its opponents in an effort to "frame" an issue. --Jerry Politex
http://www.bushwatch.com/bush.htm

Which brings me to this:

THE 9 PRINCIPLES OF FASCIST PROPAGANDA, Chuck Almdale

Fascism is in the news again: Islamo-fascist, Judeo-fascist, Christo-fascist, crypto-fascist, neo-fascist. Everyone knows fascism was terrible, therefore the word creates a strong emotional reaction in the listener, but few still understand what fascism was, is, or why some recent name-callers are themselves fascists. As unsupported name-calling is no more than naked propaganda, analyzing propaganda itself is the best place to start, and who better to start with than a past master of the form, Adolf Hitler himself...

1. The Big Lie - Always choose the big lie over the small; the masses will believe it more readily.

2. Focus - Use only one or at most two selling points.

3. Repeat - Use them over and over until even your enemies know them by heart.

4. Blame - Never waver, acknowledge no doubt, always blame - never credit the other side.

5. Provoke - First attract attention, then appeal to emotions.

6. Crisis - Shades of gray don't work: The issues must be black and white: love/hate, good/evil, life/death.

7. Emotional Symbols - Good slogans have no literal meaning, only a strong emotional appeal.

8. Pander - Ignore intellectuals and reasonable arguments; target the unthinking masses with powerful emotional pitches.

9. No Limits - Ignore all moral limits when you believe stakes are high.
http://www.bushwatch.com/archives-august06.htm#fascism

"Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not."

We think "maybe not." It's just a matter of degree...
http://www.bushwatch.com/bush.htm

I alternate between recent publications and classics. Currently I am reading Atlas Shrugged. In this book, industrialists are moral, intellectuals are delusional, and government is parasitical. I see a good deal of this mentality (i.e., big business propaganda) in your list.

I have nothing against moral capitalists, whenever there is one to be found (think Enron). Some intellectuals are out-of-touch, but that could never justify discouragement of increased knowledge/education. As for the government, it should be afraid of the people, not the other way around. And right now I'd say the people are becoming afraid of its government (or at least they should).

What's wrong with protecting the environment, or workers rights, etc.? Sounds like a good idea to balance capitalist greed and the general good. And the left (or progressives) -- at least in America -- by no means favor limited profits, or abolishing rents, etc. True we have anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies. However, it is not limiting profit in the pure, direct sense. A company can make unlimited profits, as long as it is within a competitive market, and subjected to the forces of a free market thereof. And true, there are regulations for safety, the environment, to prevent false advertisement, etc. Why? Because unfortunately greed for more profit will always corrupt--it is human nature. But it's all about balance.

Back to the OP, you state the difficulties in capturing Bin Laden. I believe there is consensus that it would be difficult (and why Bush went after the easier target of Saddam instead). However, you still don't address the fact that we have not seen Bush make much effort to pursue Bin Laden, other than to say he hasn't because he fears disapproval. Have you forgotten you are referring to an administration that promoted and continues to defend preemptive strikes and illegal regime change?

You are making excuses for Bush, by saying that Americans, or even other countries in the world would disapprove of efforts to pursue Bin Laden. You should check your premises, because I don't think this is altogether accurate. If there are problems getting cooperation with Pakistan or any other government in the region, let us see Bush (and/or Rice) put forth the same kind of efforts they've been making in Iraq, or on whatever else is clearly a higher priority for them.
 
  • #38
Futobingoro
Let's think of Nazis as part of the NSGW party. The "Nazi" that we know stems from the German pronunciation of the first four letters of "national." "National," however, comprises only the first word of NSGW. The other three words are [HIGHLIGHT]S[/HIGHLIGHT]ocialist [HIGHLIGHT]G[/HIGHLIGHT]erman [HIGHLIGHT]W[/HIGHLIGHT]orkers' party.

By saying that George Bush's [HIGHLIGHT]N[/HIGHLIGHT]ationalism makes him part of the [HIGHLIGHT]N[/HIGHLIGHT]SGW party, you are saying that one's nationalism makes him socialist and pro-labor.

I hope you now see why these comparisons are invalid.
 
  • #39
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,789
10
^

Oh that is so weak.

Tell us now that the ruling party of Japan (The "Liberal Democrats") must be liberal.
 
  • #40
Futobingoro
'Liberal' has many different meanings.

In some contexts, a 'liberal' is a person who heavily favors capitalism.

In other contexts, a 'liberal' is a person who has a Progressive view on politics and/or is more tolerant of certain activities/ideas.

It is conceivable that two 'liberals' may have entirely opposite politics.
 
  • #41
Futobingoro
Although Hitler's obsession with nationalism took precedence over domestic policies, the Nazi party had a large socialist base. It is said here that Hitler:
...was not interested in the “socialist” aspect of the national socialist doctrine. Himself of provincial lower-middle-class origins, he disliked the mass working class of the big cities, and had no sympathy with the notions of attacking private property or the business class which some early Nazis espoused.
However, the same source also says this:
The small business class were receptive to Hitler’s anti-Semitism, since they blamed “Jewish big business” for their economic problems.
And this:
The belief that the Nazis were extensively or exclusively funded by big business is a myth, deriving ultimately from SPD and KPD propaganda. Some business figures such as Fritz Thyssen were Nazi supporters and gave generously, but most were traditional conservatives who saw Hitler as a dangerous demagogue and the Nazis as another variety of socialists, and remained aloof.
However, the same source continues by stating this:
The SA under Röhm’s leadership soon became a major problem for the party. Many of the 700,000 members of this well-armed working-class militia took the “socialist” element of national socialism seriously, and soon began to demand that the Nazi regime broaden its attack from SPD and KPD activists and Jews to include the capitalist system as a whole. Röhm and his associates also saw the SA as the army of the new revolutionary Nazi state, replacing the old aristocratic officer corps. The army was still outside party control, and Hitler feared that it might stage a putsch if its leaders felt threatened with an SA takeover. The business community was also alarmed by the SA’s socialist rhetoric, with which, as noted earlier, Hitler had no sympathy.

In June 1934, therefore, Hitler, using the SS and Gestapo under Himmler’s command, staged a coup against the SA, having Röhm and about 700 others killed without any semblance of legal process. This Night of the Long Knives broke the power of the SA, while greatly increasing the power of Himmler and the SS, who emerged as the real executive arm of the Nazi Party. The business community was reassured and largely reconciled to Nazi rule.
Yet then there is this quote from Ludwig von Mises:
The Nazis did not, as their foreign admirers contend, enforce price control within a market economy. With them price control was only one device within the frame of an all-around system of central planning. In the Nazi economy there was no question of private initiative and free enterprise. All production activities were directed by the Reichswirtschaftsministerium. No enterprise was free to deviate in the conduct of its operations from the orders issued by the government. Price control was only a device in the complex of innumerable decrees and orders regulating the minutest details of every business activity and precisely fixing every individual's tasks on the one hand and his income and standard of living on the other.

What made it difficult for many people to grasp the very nature of the Nazi economic system was the fact that the Nazis did not expropriate the entrepreneurs and capitalists openly and that they did not adopt the principle of income equality which the Bolshevists espoused in the first years of Soviet rule and discarded only later. Yet the Nazis removed the bourgeois completely from control. Those entrepreneurs who were neither Jewish nor suspect of liberal and pacifist leanings retained their positions in the economic structure. But they were virtually merely salaried civil servants bound to comply unconditionally with the orders of their superiors, the bureaucrats of the Reich and the Nazi party. The capitalists got their (sharply reduced) dividends. But like other citizens they were not free to spend more of their incomes than the Party deemed as adequate to their status and rank in the hierarchy of graduated leadership. The surplus had to be invested in exact compliance with the orders of the Ministry of Economic Affairs.
And this as well:
The Marxians are not prepared to admit that the Nazis are socialists too. In their eyes Nazism is the worst of all evils of capitalism. On the other hand, the Nazis describe the Russian system as the meanest of all types of capitalist exploitation and as a devilish machination of World Jewry for the domination of the gentiles. Yet it is clear that both systems, the German and the Russian, must be considered from an economic point of view as socialist. And it is only the economic point of view that matters in debating whether or not a party or system is socialist. Socialism is and has always been considered a system of economic organization of society. It is the system under which the government has full control of production and distribution. As far as socialism existing merely within individual countries can be called genuine, both Russia and Germany are right in calling their systems socialist.
It seems to me that Hitler catered to the business community whenever doing so suited his aims, and likewise to the working class. Germany, however, ultimately nationalized or controlled industries out of pure necessity, as many countries did during WW2.
 
  • #42
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,789
10
Futobingoro said:
'Liberal' has many different meanings.

In some contexts, a 'liberal' is a person who heavily favors capitalism.

In other contexts, a 'liberal' is a person who has a Progressive view on politics and/or is more tolerant of certain activities/ideas.

It is conceivable that two 'liberals' may have entirely opposite politics.
Apply this very analysis to your previous post.
 
  • #43
Futobingoro
Did you not read my second post in the sequence?

I concluded that, even though Hitler's appeal to the socialist base of his party was mostly a marketing campaign, Hitler ended up turning Germany into a socialized state anyway.
 
  • #44
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,789
10
Futobingoro said:
By saying that George Bush's [HIGHLIGHT]N[/HIGHLIGHT]ationalism makes him part of the [HIGHLIGHT]N[/HIGHLIGHT]SGW party, you are saying that one's nationalism makes him socialist and pro-labor.
I read it. I still say that the above is a very weak argument. Your subsequent posts seem to support this claim since the words within the name of the party may have little in common with the actions and the legacy of the party.
 
  • #45
Futobingoro
So you are saying that because the names of some political parties may be deceptive to some people, that automatically makes a misnomer out of the 'Socialist German Workers Party' component of NSDAP?

As for the origins of the actual naming of NSDAP, look at the following section taken from this source:
The DAP [German Workers' Party] was one of many small political groups formed in the wake of Germany’s [WWI] defeat, which German conservatives saw as resulting from betrayal of the undefeated army by the SPD, the liberals, the intellectuals and the Jews.[1] Like other groups, the DAP advocated völkisch ideology – the belief that Germany should become a unified "national community" (Volksgemeinschaft) rather than a society divided along class and party lines. This ideology was explicitly anti-Semitic from the start – the “national community” would be “judenfrei” (free of Jews). The DAP was violently opposed to the SPD and to “Bolshevism”, although its program had some socialist elements and it saw itself as a working-class party, rejecting pre-war aristocratic conservatism. Among the party’s earlier members were Rudolf Hess, Hans Frank and Alfred Rosenberg, all later prominent in the Nazi regime.

In September 1919 Adolf Hitler joined the DAP. Hitler, who had finished the war in a military hospital after suffering a gas attack at the front, had returned to Munich, his adopted home, in November 1918. He had stayed in the army and had joined the intelligence section. In this capacity he was sent to monitor the DAP’s activities. He found the DAP reflected his own views – German nationalism, anti-liberalism, anti-Semitism. He became the party’s 55th member, although he later claimed to be member number seven. (He was in fact the seventh member of the DAP’s central committee). In February 1920 the party was renamed National-Socialist German Workers Party. The term “national socialism” had been current in German and Austrian politics since the 1890s. There was a German National Socialist Workers’ Party (DNSAP) in Austria – Hitler later acknowledged that this was the inspiration for the DAP’s new name.
I think the confusion over the exact political alignment of the Nazi party and of the fascists stems from a mangling of the terms of 'liberal' and 'conservative,' used in the context of European politics of the era. 'Conservative' can describe a leftist who lives in a nation which has been traditionally leftist. 'Liberal' can describe a rightist who lives in the same nation as the aforementioned 'conservative.' The words 'liberal' and 'conservative' are therefore incredibly imprecise when used in these contexts.

In fact, the above quote lists two different types of 'conservatism' in the same paragraph: the anti-Semitic conservatives of the DAP and the 'pre-war aristocratic conservatism' which was rejected by said 'conservatives.' The quote also says that Hitler shared in the DAP's 'anti-liberalism' even though the party 'saw itself as a working-class party,' which would make it 'liberal' in some contexts.

I agree that my argument regarding the acronym of 'NSGW' was perhaps not very illustrative of what I was trying to say.

It is better to ignore labels completely and see what Hitler's policy really was, instead of getting reality wrapped around the axle in trying to decipher the true meaning of 'liberal' or 'conservative.'

In that sense I stand by my analysis of the socialist aspects of Hitler's regime, while at the same time maintaining that I am not comparing socialists to Hitler, or Hitler to socialists.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,789
10
Futobingoro said:
So you are saying that because the names of some political parties may be deceptive to some people, that automatically makes a misnomer out of the 'Socialist German Workers Party' component of NSDAP?
Nope. I'm saying that it is not an effective argument to suggest that the origins of Hitler's party, and its erstwhile name, have anything to do with what people are invoking when labeling someone or anything with the "Nazi" epithet.
...

It is better to ignore labels completely and see what Hitler's policy really was, instead of getting reality wrapped around the axle in trying to decipher the true meaning of 'liberal' or 'conservative.'

In that sense I stand by my analysis of the socialist aspects of Hitler's regime, while at the same time maintaining that I am not comparing socialists to Hitler, or Hitler to socialists.
I think we agree more than we disagree.
 
  • #47
laurelelizabeth
Hey if talking to Hitler might have worked perhaps we should try it.
I agree, but then again I am sort of a pacifist. But talking to people makes you realize that they are actually people and would make you a little more hesitant to attack them.

And about the title of this thread, I do not believe that the Bush administration is as bad as the Nazi's, if you think about WWII and the Holocaust.
 
  • #48
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
Strange that you'd resurrect a year-old thread, and on a different topic than what was actually discussed.

Anyway, no one at the time pointed out to edward - but I'll point out to you now - that people did talk to Hitler and even signed treaties with him. When Neville Chamberlain waved that worthless piece of paper in the air in 1938 and declared "I believe it is peace for our time", he not only made himself a historical laughingstock, but also unintentionally proved the foolish naivete of extreme pacifism.

Dictators are a cross between spoiled children and common street thugs. They take things because they want them and think they can get away with it. No amount of cajoling and appeasement can stop that. Appeasement even has the opposite fo the intended effect. It tells dictators that pacifists are willing to let them do whatever they want and I'll look the other way as long as they don't come after me.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
laurelelizabeth
Haha... i don't know how i came across this thread if it's that ancient :P

That makes sense :)
 

Related Threads on The Bush Administration is playing the NAZI card

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
88
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
64
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
74
Views
7K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Replies
24
Views
4K
Top