Bush is not Hitler...

[WoodPeckr]

I don't buy into the theory that you can be seriously mentally ill and rise from being a complete nobody to conquering all of Europe. What traits of madness Hitler and Mussolini displayed are attributable to their populist politics, which encourages and in fact requires leaders to act in flamboyantly irrational and/or homicidal ways (cult of heroic, spontaneous action carried out with absolutely no regard for the consequences; denunciation of prudence, conservatism, and restraint as signs of cowardice and decadence; legitimation of authority by personal charisma, which involves doing things like invading other countries and declaring war on America to prove what a heroic tough guy the leader is). Such madness is social, and not neurological, in origin.

Careful, the criteria you list above, there are some who would say, could very easily apply to Dubya!

It has been well documented that Hitler started off a bit paranoid, only to progress to full blown madness at the time of his demise.

 

[WoodPeckr]

...the chorus of 'Hitler the evil' will begin! But he is slowly being replaced by Osama Binladen!

Don't forget Hitler killed between 40 million maybe even up to 50 million in WWII!
OBL is insignificant in comparison.
To Date Bush has killed more people than Osama, who BTW was created back in the 80's by Reagan/Cheney/Rummy & Dad of Dubya during that USSR/Afghan War 1979-1989.

 

[maxim4]

Don't forget Hitler killed between 40 million maybe even up to 50 million in WWII!
OBL is insignificant in comparison.
To Date Bush has killed more people than Osama, who BTW was created back in the 80's by Reagan/Cheney/Rummy & Dad of Dubya during that USSR/Afghan War 1979-1989.

Leaders never kill! Their whims, wishes and wisdom are the motivation to have other do their bidding! Also though OBL was a byproduct of Cold War politics exposing the Republican neo-cons is pointless! Because no one is listening! Much like the issue of Hitler the facts are sanitized for THEIR protection! So forget about the comparisions....unless you are prepare for uncensored, unscripted and unpopular subject matter!

 

[red]

Leaders never kill! Their whims, wishes and wisdom are the motivation to have other do their bidding! Also though OBL was a byproduct of Cold War politics exposing the Republican neo-cons is pointless! Because no one is listening! Much like the issue of Hitler the facts are sanitized for THEIR protection! So forget about the comparisions....unless you are prepare for uncensored, unscripted and unpopular subject matter!

Hitler was an evil bastard you neo-nazi fuck

 

[maxim4]

hmm.........

Hitler was an evil bastard you neo-nazi fuck

Good and Evil are all a matter of perception.
ps. I am NOT a wannabe nationalist socialist!

 

[assoholic]

Hitler worked for German Military Intelligence. He was sent to infiltrate the Nazi party and his backers found out the little fanatic had a talent for public speaking.
From then on he was backed by the Conservative Right establishment as a bastion against Bolshevism. But who the themselves could not be seen openly backing beating up communists in the streets.
Once in power he told his backers to go fark themeselves.

 

[langeweile]

Good and Evil are all a matter of perception.
ps. I am NOT a wannabe nationalist socialist!

Good and Evil are perceptions??? Wow you are right you are not a memeber of the NSDAP....you sound more like a leftwing tree hugger.

 

[maxim4]

Good and Evil are perceptions??? Wow you are right you are not a memeber of the NSDAP....you sound more like a leftwing tree hugger.

Hmmmm....left wing and tree hugger. You are perfect example of my original point that too many people have had their opinions given to them in the guise of original thought! The truth is that your enemies may be my friends and my enemies your friends. There are NO absolutes. Too many of accept our friends enemies as our enemies. Hitler to many poor peasant uneducated Germans was a savior to the point that they thought that he was a force of good that could do no wrong. But to those who opposed him and suffered there was no greater evil! Thus no absolutes!
PS. Bush is still not Hitler.....Bush more like Nixon with better media connections, more money and good IR relations with nations who have something to bargain with (China, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan!)!

 

[langeweile]

Hmmmm....left wing and tree hugger. You are perfect example of my original point that too many people have had their opinions given to them in the guise of original thought! The truth is that your enemies may be my friends and my enemies your friends. There are NO absolutes. Too many of accept our friends enemies as our enemies. Hitler to many poor peasant uneducated Germans was a savior to the point that they thought that he was a force of good that could do no wrong. But to those who opposed him and suffered there was no greater evil! Thus no absolutes!
PS. Bush is still not Hitler.....Bush more like Nixon with better media connections, more money and good IR relations with nations who have something to bargain with (China, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan!)!

Your analysis as to why Hitler came to power is flawed. It had nothing to do with Germans being somehow uneducated peasants.
It was a combination of a failed attempt on Democracy called the "Weimarer Republic" and the depression. He added a villain, everybody that wasn't blond and blue eyed, and he had the perfect recipe.
If you g back to the elction that got Hitler in to power, he only received 33% of the vote. He than managed to form a coalition of some splinter parties, which ironically included the catholics (which he later banned).
Once in power he slowly dismantled the first, fragile german democracy. His support wasn't as broad than some might think.
Some of his dealings i.e. KZ was not known until later.
He was evil, there are no grey areas about him

 

[Mcluhan]

lange, here's a question for you. Would you say that Hitler was the first leader in history to 'weaponise an economy' (this is my own notion). By weaponise, I mean build an economy (or at least a prime economic driver) based on the manufacture of weaponry.

 

[irlandais9000]

There's no denying that both Hitler and Mussolini were great men from an age of great men. In many ways, they were arguably victims of fortune, which happened to place them in a historical configuration out of which no happy ending could have possibly emerged (caught in a morbid nexus of, variously, the age of socialism at its peak, the extreme political immaturity of both Italy and Germany, the persistence of extremely backwards cultural values articulated to modern values in the worst possible way, etc.). Look at Hitler's Mein Kampf. Scattered throughout the demented inventory of populist and socialist rubbish are utterly brilliant political analyses of subjects ranging from systemic corruption in Parliamentary systems (which deserve to be carefully read by Canadians in particular), the nature of authority in mass movements, geopolitics, the nature of the Left and the inherent limitations of traditional conservatism in effectively opposing it, and many others. Had he been born in America during the Baby Boom, instead of being caught up in the web of pathology that was his Germany, and handled properly (namely converted to neo-conservatism at an early age), he could have been a wonderful leader- maybe as great as Bush Jr. or even Reagan.

It's amazing the different standards you have for politicians. Howard Dean is the lowest of the lowest to you, but you somehow see Hitler as being a victim of his times. Amazing.

 

[irlandais9000]

In comparison with Chavez and Dean, Hitler and Mussolini were responsible statesmen. They rose to incredible heights, even dictating to the appeasist losers what the European map should look like and trading States for threats. Chavez would never have rose above the position of Gauleuter, even in the flakiest district of Germany (well, maybe in the mental hospital district). As for Dean, well someone who screamed his way out of a primary speaks for himself.

Responsible stateman?????? They left their countries in ruins.

 

[someone]

lange, here's a question for you. Would you say that Hitler was the first leader in history to 'weaponise an economy' (this is my own notion). By weaponise, I mean build an economy (or at least a prime economic driver) based on the manufacture of weaponry.

I suspect that you could make an equally strong argument in Japan's case and they started earlier. However, in both cases I think it might be an exaggeration to say that they build on economy only on military expenditures.

 

[Mcluhan]

I suspect that you could make an equally strong argument in Japan's case and they started earlier. However, in both cases I think it might be an exaggeration to say that they build on economy only on military expenditures.

Yes, good point about Japan. As for your your use of " only on military expenditures" anticipating that remark/confusion I pre-empted it by qualifying the question with the phrase, " prime economic driver "...you did see that?

I am not familiar with Japan's economy and trade prior to WWII, but it seems to me (guessing) they where likely doing okay in non-military sectors/trade of their economy, and branched into Manchuria seeking resources. Germany on the other hand had Krupp, and were busy revitalizing their economy thru the efforts of building a vast war machine, ptting people to work in the Ruhr factories arming themselves. Do you know enough about the Japanese econopmy to draw a parallel, or are you just surmising?

 

[someone]

Yes, good point about Japan. As for your your use of " only on military expenditures" anticipating that remark/confusion I pre-empted it by qualifying the question with the phrase, " prime economic driver "...you did see that?

Yes, I saw that. I was just trying to emphasis that there were other drivers such as getting their money supply under control

I am not familiar with Japan's economy and trade prior to WWII, but it seems to me (guessing) they where likely doing okay in non-military sectors/trade of their economy, and branched into Manchuria seeking resources. Germany on the other hand had Krupp, and were busy revitalizing their economy thru the efforts of building a vast war machine, ptting people to work in the Ruhr factories arming themselves. Do you know enough about the Japanese econopmy to draw a parallel, or are you just surmising?

Some years ago, I took two undergraduate courses in Japanese economic history. From what I recall, the real move to a “war economy” occurred with their earlier war with Russia. It is often considered to be the first case of “total war” in the sense that all the nation's resources were devoted to the war effort including major realignments of the economy. Much of their government fiscal policies in the 1920s and 1930s have been described as "war Keynesianism" BTW, on a point only partially related your post, Krupp had a lot of non military activities. For example, they were the first firm to developed roller plates that could mass produce articles like cutlery. Although people often think the circles on their emblem were cannons, they were actually railway wheels (Krupp was a major player in railway equipment when the industry was founded). You asked about my background in this area. I read history as a hobby and as many here know, I’m an economist by profession. However, I have never combined the two interests in any of my academic work. Thus, I am basically "surmising" but with a background in related areas.

 

[Peeping Tom]

In March 1933, Hitler polled 44% in the last real election which was observed internationally and deemed fair. For German politics of the time, that was pretty massive support and it increased with every passing day. This regime was remarkable in the low amount of coercion required on part of the State and did some pretty incredible things, which aren't possible without massive popular support.

The full rise to power was complete within about a year, culminating in the military's permission for him to absorb the post of President follwing Hindenberg's death. Not exactly snail's pace but slow enough to consolidate powers without shattering institutions.

If you g back to the elction that got Hitler in to power, he only received 33% of the vote. He than managed to form a coalition of some splinter parties, which ironically included the catholics (which he later banned).
Once in power he slowly dismantled the first, fragile german democracy. His support wasn't as broad than some might think.

 

[Keebler Elf]

I'm immediately suspicious of anyone who tries to label others as "evil." Some people think the USA is evil. Some people think Osama is evil. Blah blah blah. It's all relative. It's a label that one gives to their enemies. And it's also a convenient way to blacklist someone/something so that you don't have to deal with it in a rational manner. Instead you can just call it "evil" and wash your hands of it.

And people who do that are the people we should really be worried about...

 

[peteeey]

http://jewishworldreview.com/0605/jon_stewart_holo.php3

 

[Truncador]

This regime was remarkable in the low amount of coercion required on part of the State and did some pretty incredible things, which aren't possible without massive popular support.

That he managed to deal with the labour movement as easily and bloodlessly as he did is highly remarkable.

 

[irlandais9000]

In March 1933, Hitler polled 44% in the last real election which was observed internationally and deemed fair. For German politics of the time, that was pretty massive support and it increased with every passing day. This regime was remarkable in the low amount of coercion required on part of the State and did some pretty incredible things, which aren't possible without massive popular support.

The full rise to power was complete within about a year, culminating in the military's permission for him to absorb the post of President follwing Hindenberg's death. Not exactly snail's pace but slow enough to consolidate powers without shattering institutions.

For God's sake, read a history book and learn something. You mention the low amount of coercion required - do some research on that one, you will find that there was a lot of coercion (understatement of the century).

Regarding your last paragraph, Hitler's people entered Parliament at gunpoint and did some "persuading". I would say Parliament was an institution that was shattered, wouldn't you?