Wow ... talk about propoganda. The author's obvious bias and ridiculous attempts to equate Hitler with Bush by describing a leader with southern origins, simplistic background, some religious associations, etc., alone discredits any kind trust I have in this author's interpretation. Also I sense a lack of historical knowledge about the origin and rise to power of the NSDAP. The author seems to portray an innocent Germany until the Reichstag fire which propelled Germany into becoming a Nazi state. If only things were so simple! My IB history paper could have been shortened from 20 pages to 5! For anybody who has seriously studied Germany from the start of Hindenburg's Presidancy to 1939, I think you could quite easily laugh at some of the article's insinuations.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

I think you could quite easily laugh at some of the article's insinuations.

Such as?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Hmmm ok where should I start ...

quote:

"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

an all out war on terrorism??? People who traced their origins to the middle east??? Is he making a crude reference to jews and the communist party? He's trying to affiliate two very different objectives into the same category. Hitler wasn't interesting in preventing terror in germany. His only objective was to eliminate political enemies, destroy teh communist party, consolidate his stranglehold on the government, and give the state absolute powers over the rights of people. If you want to be funny, I suppose you could attempt to correlate those objectives with bush, however, that is approaching the realm of ridiclousness. Hitler was firmly entrenched in power long before the Reichstag fire and his national socialist policies were firmly entrenched in teh German mind prior to it happening.

But instead of myself tearing into every other paragraph of this article, why don't you present the parallel's you think are relevant in contributing towards the argument that America is 1933 in the making, and I'll argue against that.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Leftist paranoia, or legitimate concern?

Leftist paranoia.
And that's coming from a leftist.

by the way, Bush is way too dumb for any comparisons
History does not know any such precedents

___________________

Download all my EuroHardTrance traxx & learn more about me ("Kompulsor"):
www.kompulsor.com

Last edited by Eugene on Aug-06-2003 at 19:25

Hehe Eugene ... I tend to agree, Bush is too dumb to be any Hitler. Seriously though, Hitler was a genious. Too bad he was also a nutjob.

Anyway here's another "insightful" and less subtle article from Commondreams:

Bush's 9/11 Reichstag Fire
by Harvey Wasserman

When Hitler was rising to power in 1930s Germany, somebody did him the favor of burning the Reichstag, the German Parliament. It's widely believed the Nazis torched it themselves.

Hitler's cynical minions turned that fire into a horrific wave of terror. They blamed "the communists" and the Jews, the trade unionists and the homosexuals. With the support of a terrified populace, they suspended civil rights and civil liberties, fattened their war machine and rode the fascist tide into a full-blown dictatorship. The rest, as they say, is history.

The neverending White House-sponsored orgy of 9/11 rhetoric, recrimination and retaliation has become a treacherous parallel. Few Americans believe the Bush Administration itself brought down the World Trade Center last year. But the conviction is widespread throughout Europe and the Muslim world, and for good reason.

This unelected regime---Hitler also came to power with a minority of votes---has used the terrible tragedies of September 11 in much the way the Nazis jumped on the Reichstag fire. Bush has failed to capture or try 9/11's alleged perpetrators. But he's used the tragedy to push an extreme rightist agenda aimed at crushing civil liberties, silencing all opposition, fattening a war machine, and arrogating the right to unilaterally attack other countries without tangible provocation.

With this has come an assault on the natural environment, women's rights, gay rights, organized labor, a wide range of international treaties, and the need of the public to know about and prosecute corporate crime and fraudulent stock dealings, which seem to involve at least half the Bush cabinet, including its two ranking members.

Fittingly, just as the nation was mourning those who died in one of the most twisted acts of terrorism imaginable, Bush's brother Jeb made another mockery of the electoral process. In Florida, where the 2000 election was most blatantly stolen, faulty voting machines were again foisted on districts filled with primarily with blacks and Jews. While the nation's eyes were elsewhere, major---perhaps fatal---chaos was injected into the Democratic primary meant to choose Jeb's fall opponent. As the unusable ballots, dysfunctional voting machines and manipulated poll hours again shredded the democratic process, one could hear Republicans smirking from Tallahassee to DC.

Meanwhile John Ashcroft has shredded the American Bill of Rights as Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein could never imagine. Under the cloak of terror, the new Grand Inquisitor has virtually eliminated the first ten amendments to the Constitution---except the second, which guarantees that he and his gun lobby sponsors (and innumerable potential terrorists) can continue to carry guns.

Indeed, while professing staunch hatred of Big Government, so-called Patriotic conservatives have trashed virtually every guarantee of individual freedom on which American greatness has been built. In the name of fighting terror, the right has become the ultimate anti-Constitutional terrorist. Ashcroft has arrogated the power to arrest virtually anyone he deems unfit, "disappear" them without public notice, deny them access to a lawyer, and try them in secret, if at all. Under certain interpretations of military procedure, the Bush Administration clearly believes it has the right to execute people with no Constitutional guarantees.

In other words, this regime is behaving much like so many other third world dictatorships the US has installed throughout the third world. Pinochet. Somoza. The Taliban. Saddam Hussein. The Shah. Noriega. Mobutu. Marcos. Suharto. The Saudis.

Those flocks of US-sponsored thugs and klepto-dictators have finally come home to roost. For most Americans, any such comparison with any US regime seems like hysterical hype. After all, anti-war protestors threw the word "fascist" around in the later 1960s like a common epithet.

But Lyndon Johnson was not a fascist, and Richard Nixon was still forced to function with the Bill of Rights in tact and a Supreme Court that was willing to back it up. Though the US was deep in an actual shooting war, albeit an unjust one, the guarantees of free speech, habeas corpus and a fair and public trial were still in place.

Those guarantees are now gone. Freedoms were also curtailed during the Civil War and World Wars 1 & 2. But the new Bush war has no clear enemy, no clear goal, and most importantly, no clear end. It's a tangible Orwellian reality, a permanent pretext to shred freedom and dissent.

Because these absolute powers are now being used primarily against people of color, most Americans think these new power won't affect them. But as in Germany, it's only a matter of time before everyone and anyone is intimidated, and everyone and anyone is subject to official attack.

This Administration has been happy to fling the "terrorist" label against those environmentalists and other activists who might question its penchant for secrecy or oppose its corporate-dictated policies. History teaches us that it would be an illusion not to expect the worst.

For this Administration is not only unelected, it has a lot to hide. Witness the current media gang rape of Martha Stewart. While she endures public ridicule and official prosecution, the crimes of George Bush at Harken Energy and Dick Cheney at Halliburton were far worse. Stewart was not a director of the company whose stock she might have sold with insider knowledge. Bush and Cheney were at or near the helms of the companies from which they reaped millions while common stockholders were pillaged. As we know from so many third world dictatorships, where there is an addiction to secrecy there is always much to hide.

Meanwhile, Ashcroft has found time to escalate the attack on medicinal marijuana and other substances individual Americans may choose to use other than tobacco and alcohol. Not surprisingly, while reams of new research confirm marijuana's much-needed healing powers, particularly in chemotherapy and AIDS treatments, pot smokers are now being equated with terrorists. While state after state confirms marijuana's 5,000-year history as a medicinal herb, the Administration insists on enforcing penalties for its use that often exceed those for rape and murder. The drug war remains a blanket warrant to put tens of millions of Americans at risk of random, gratuitous arrest.

As a kicker, the right has further shed its historic rhetoric about states rights to override Nevada's 80% opposition to being turned into a radioactive waste dump. One must ultimately ask: is there any power this administration is not willing to take for itself?

The answer seems to be no. This may well be the most dangerous time in all of US history. While the war regimes of Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt had their excesses, there still remained an integral commitment to the historic guarantees of freedom and liberty that had made America great.

Permeated with economic failure, personal scandal and an obsession with secrecy, this has become the most oppressive of all US administrations. With a bought media, a compliant Congress and a spineless Democratic Party, it has turned the horror of September 11 into a tawdry excuse to bury the core freedoms that have made America great.

Resurrecting those freedoms will not be easy. But we have no choice.



Ooof ... it's like getting punched in the face with radicalism.

___________________
Retro ...

I need to go to bed so this will be brief (will add to it tomorrow):

I think you're missing the point of the article somewhat. The idea was not to sugest that Hitler and Bush are ideologically identical - or that they were motivated by identical factors - the aim, as I see it anyway, was to place Hitler's rise to power in a modern historical context: that is, using modern events and viewpoints, detailing how it was that Hitler was able to become powerful enough to inflict his evil upon the world and how - if left unchecked - a similar scenario may arise at some point in the future.

Now the paralells between Bush and Hitler, obviously, are not going to be exact. They were different men with different aims, living in different nations and different times. So when you say:

quote:

He's trying to affiliate two very different objectives into the same category.

You'd be quite right. Nonetheless, in the point you raise:

quote:

Hitler wasn't interesting in preventing terror in germany. His only objective was to eliminate political enemies, destroy teh communist party, consolidate his stranglehold on the government, and give the state absolute powers over the rights of people.

You dismiss the paralells between the actions of Bush and Hitler - spurious or distant as you may believe them to be - based on the contextual disparity in their ideologies, nationalities and eras not on the similarity in methodology and actions. Hitler may not have been interested in "preventing terror in Germany" (the article was probably wrong to insinuate that) in the same way that Bush is currently interested in preventing terror worldwide, but in many ways the methodology and the end result are the same.

The neo-cons had Afghanistan and Iraq on their hitlist long before the Republican party came back into power and long before the events of Sept 11. In the same way, Hitler - who envied the British empire - probably had a list of countries he would have liked to have invaded as well. The point here is that both parties used the propogation of fervent nationalism and fear of the mitsein ("the other" - Jews and terrorists respectively) to help subdue their populations into going along with their plans. It is, afterall, much easier to exert control over a populace simultaneously scared and filled with patriotic pride. Both then used the surge in both nationalism and fear to pass bills infringing on civil liberties, increasing the power of security agencies and the power of the president himself - bills that probably would not have been passed in "peace-time". The reason Hitler is invoked here, as a comparison to what is currently happening in the US, is to demonstrate a possible outcome of the logical continutation of such tactics currently used by Bush and his administration. Consider it the "1984" of 21st century opinion-pieces.

You may disagree with this perspective, and insist that there are no similarities in these methodologies whatsoever - and you are quite entitled to that view - but I merely thought that the similarities were worth pointing out.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I need to go to bed so this will be brief (will add to it tomorrow): I think you're missing the point of the article somewhat. The idea was not to sugest that Hitler and Bush are ideologically identical - or that they were motivated by identical factors - the aim, as I see it anyway, was to place Hitler's rise to power in a modern historical context: that is, using modern events and viewpoints, detailing how it was that Hitler was able to become powerful enough to inflict his evil upon the world and how - if left unchecked - a similar scenario may arise at some point in the future. Now the paralells between Bush and Hitler, obviously, are not going to be exact. They were different men with different aims, living in different nations and different times. So when you say: You'd be quite right. Nonetheless, in the point you raise: You dismiss the paralells between the actions of Bush and Hitler - spurious or distant as you may believe them to be - based on the contextual disparity in their ideologies, nationalities and eras not on the similarity in methodology and actions. Hitler may not have been interested in "preventing terror in Germany" (the article was probably wrong to insinuate that) in the same way that Bush is currently interested in preventing terror worldwide, but in many ways the methodology and the end result are the same. The neo-cons had Afghanistan and Iraq on their hitlist long before the Republican party came back into power and long before the events of Sept 11. In the same way, Hitler - who envied the British empire - probably had a list of countries he would have liked to have invaded as well. The point here is that both parties used the propogation of fervent nationalism and fear of the mitsein ("the other" - Jews and terrorists respectively) to help subdue their populations into going along with their plans. It is, afterall, much easier to exert control over a populace simultaneously scared and filled with patriotic pride. Both then used the surge in both nationalism and fear to pass bills infringing on civil liberties, increasing the power of security agencies and the power of the president himself - bills that probably would not have been passed in "peace-time". The reason Hitler is invoked here, as a comparison to what is currently happening in the US, is to demonstrate a possible outcome of the logical continutation of such tactics currently used by Bush and his administration. Consider it the "1984" of 21st century opinion-pieces. You may disagree with this perspective, and insist that there are no similarities in these methodologies whatsoever - and you are quite entitled to that view - but I merely thought that the similarities were worth pointing out.

Please; go to bed.

___________________

Download all my EuroHardTrance traxx & learn more about me ("Kompulsor"):
www.kompulsor.com

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I need to go to bed so this will be brief (will add to it tomorrow):

Doh ... I can only respond briefly as well. I just moved to a new apartment and the bastards won't set up cable/cable modem for another week. Right now I'm limited to access at work.

quote:

I think you're missing the point of the article somewhat. The idea was not to sugest that Hitler and Bush are ideologically identical - or that they were motivated by identical factors - the aim, as I see it anyway, was to place Hitler's rise to power in a modern historical context: that is, using modern events and viewpoints, detailing how it was that Hitler was able to become powerful enough to inflict his evil upon the world and how - if left unchecked - a similar scenario may arise at some point in the future.

Very well, I suppose one could remark that it's interesting to note that there are some similarities between teh two events on a miniscule scale. But to make comparisons between the two scenarios and prophesize the dangers of America approaching a fascist state is radicalism.

quote:

You dismiss the paralells between the actions of Bush and Hitler - spurious or distant as you may believe them to be - based on the contextual disparity in their ideologies, nationalities and eras not on the similarity in methodology and actions. Hitler may not have been interested in "preventing terror in Germany" (the article was probably wrong to insinuate that) in the same way that Bush is currently interested in preventing terror worldwide, but in many ways the methodology and the end result are the same.

Ok, let's look at these similar methods used and end results achieved.

In Germany: A suspension of virtually all civil rights in order to imprison communists, and NSDAP party opponents. Beginnings of concentration camps for political prisoners.
In US: The passage of patriot act which allows government greater leeway in attaining warrants for wiretaps and searches of suspected terrorists. Allow detention of aliens who are suspected of being terrorists.

In Germany: Enabling act passed in order to consolidate power with the chancellor and essentially remove the reichstag from decision making processes.
In US: ...

Have we started throwing all the democrats into prison and shredded the constitution while I was sleeping last night?

quote:

The neo-cons had Afghanistan and Iraq on their hitlist long before the Republican party came back into power and long before the events of Sept 11. In the same way, Hitler - who envied the British empire - probably had a list of countries he would have liked to have invaded as well. The point here is that both parties used the propogation of fervent nationalism and fear of the mitsein ("the other" - Jews and terrorists respectively) to help subdue their populations into going along with their plans. It is, afterall, much easier to exert control over a populace simultaneously scared and filled with patriotic pride. Both then used the surge in both nationalism and fear to pass bills infringing on civil liberties, increasing the power of security agencies and the power of the president himself - bills that probably would not have been passed in "peace-time". The reason Hitler is invoked here, as a comparison to what is currently happening in the US, is to demonstrate a possible outcome of the logical continutation of such tactics currently used by Bush and his administration. Consider it the "1984" of 21st century opinion-pieces. You may disagree with this perspective, and insist that there are no similarities in these methodologies whatsoever - and you are quite entitled to that view - but I merely thought that the similarities were worth pointing out.

Why would afghanistan be on the hit list? I can understand Iraq because it was a hostile regime, however, the US had virtually no interest in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Additionally wasn't invasion of Afghanistan dependant on the ultimatum that the Taliban give up bin laden? But at any rate, I wouldn't confuse the patriotism naturally generated following the 9/11 attacks with the German propoganda machine. Super-nationalism in Germany wasn't a means to an end but rather it was an end in itself. Patriotism following 9/11 was not whipped up into a furor as a means to 'subdue' the population so much as it allowed the administration greater leeway to use excessive force on the war on terrorism. Otherwise, why not simply attack all our enemies directly after 9/11 when patriotism was at its fullest? Why bother going through the UN? Crap gotta actually work but I'll try to write more tomorrow ... grrr I want my internet connection back.

___________________
Retro ...