Bush is not Hitler...

[irlandais9000]

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

Hitler killed relatively fewer German union members than he did Jews, perhaps "only" a few hundred thousand. If that is what you mean by bloodless, now I understand why you say things are going smoothly in Iraq.

 

[Peeping Tom]

One of Hitler's acts of genius was to suspend functionaries pending review and then re-make, instead of demolish, certain institutions. Thus, the truly dangerous were of course dealt with whereas the lower level were often intimidated and frightened with a nerve wracking interview and then sent back to work, with new duties and zeal for the regime. Un-necessary punishment of the minor jabroni was avoided with great results for the regime.

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

 

[irlandais9000]

One of Hitler's acts of genius was to suspend functionaries pending review and then re-make, instead of demolish, certain institutions. Thus, the truly dangerous were of course dealt with whereas the lower level were often intimidated and frightened with a nerve wracking interview and then sent back to work, with new duties and zeal for the regime. Un-necessary punishment of the minor jabroni was avoided with great results for the regime.

So, Tom, was punishment necessary for the millions who were slaughtered then? Your post is ridiculous. Have you heard of the Holocaust? Do you accept that it happened?

And by the way, Hitler demolished Parliamnet, he didn't remake it.

If Hitler was such a genius why did he allow a million soldiers to be encircled at Stalingrad and face certain doom? Why did he devote resources to attacking while he was already losing? Why didn't he negotiate a peace while he still had his power? Why was he determined that Germany would either win or be obliterated, with no middle ground? Why did he murder his slave laborers, who could have helped him win? Why did he murder the Jewish middle class, whose technical know how he needed? Why did he attack his allies, when if he did not overreach he probably would have ruled for decades?

Your "genius" let every decision of his be controlled by hatred and prejudice, not rationality. It's scary to hear anyone suggest otherwise.

 

[Asterix]

Why this is still being debated is beyond me. PT, stick to speculation about the future where no one can prove you wrong, as it's clear most of your understanding of the past is your own invention. Hitler was at essence a classic megalomaniac. He cared nothing for others, and none of his policies had, or were intended to have, any lasting impact other than to feed his delusional aspirations.

 

[Truncador]

It's undeniably true that the use of State violence by Hitler in the interior of Germany was far less indiscriminate than most of the other great dictators of the age of socialism. The campaign of extermination against Jews and other putative racial health hazards was precisely targeted on the basis of formal criteria, if nothing else, and at least the German could predict on objective, calculable grounds whether or not he stood at risk of disappearing in the night (contrast with the likes of Stalin or Pol Pot)- something that isn't exactly surprising coming from the historical homeland of impartial bureaucracy. I also have it on good word from somebody who spent his childhood there that, in the countryside, NSDAP functionaries were rather less than omnipotent, and had to bend over backwards making concessions to the locals in exchange for their assent.

 

[Asterix]

The campaign of extermination against Jews and other putative racial health hazards was precisely targeted on the basis of formal criteria...

It's precisely this kind of statement that makes me think you're full of it. I'd especially like a definition of "putative racial health hazards". It would be refreshing to see if you have the ability to speak plainly. Personally, I doubt it.

I also have it on good word from somebody who spent his childhood there that, in the countryside, NSDAP functionaries were rather less than omnipotent, and had to bend over backwards making concessions to the locals in exchange for their assent.

Oh, good. Now I can throw out all the history books.

 

[maxim4]

hmmmmmm.............

The debate about Hitler is can never happen with unreasonable, emotional and
domineering individuals! The facts about Hitler according to the self appointed gatekeepers of knowledge is that he is EVIL! The same individuals will tell you such things as the U.S. civil war was all about slavery, Columbus was the first European to discovered the 'new world', Ronald Reagan single handedly with his genius destroyed USSR/communism and the French are too liberal! I can only conclude by saying I guess Orwell was right and we should all accept our doses of 'minitrue', drink 'victory gin' and repeat daily:
1-war is peace
2-freedom is slavery
3-ignorance is strength
To those in this thread who have added to this scholarly debate without trying to force your opinions on others I say that the guardianship of democracy is truly yours to inherit. To those who sought to suppress any debate by name calling and outright lying about the facts without explaination, may you one day see the errors of your ignorance!

 

[markvee]

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

Thanks for the link to the Jon Stewart skit. I enjoyed it.

 

[Peeping Tom]

This is a fact that seems to have been largely ignored by most of the relevant historians. There were some spurts of State killing, most notably the purge of 1934. But, even that was discriminate: The disorderly segment of the party, bent on expanding the revolution for its own sake, was no longer needed and had become an impediment to the further goals of regime building.

It's undeniably true that the use of State violence by Hitler in the interior of Germany was far less indiscriminate than most of the other great dictators of the age of socialism. The campaign of extermination against Jews and other putative racial health hazards was precisely targeted on the basis of formal criteria

This points to a fundamental difference between the types of socialism expressed in the age of dictators.

National Socialism's vision was to build an improved community based on foundations anchored in centuries of Germanic paternalism (this in itself founded on pastoral thinking with even deeper historical roots: see Foucault's Omnes et Singulatum). Thus the rise in power of the medical police, who became the executioners of the unhealthy; this, coupled with the popular eugenics movement of the times, and the traditional European racism, doomed particular elements of the population. The continuation of this pattern by necessity prevented the random and irrational mass killings of citizens. It was the goal of the social to lead the people to virtue and the employment of modern means was readily successful.

Marxist communism was a completely different beast. It was concerned with the obliteration of society, to replace it with some utopian unknown. Marx was familiar with the Germanic paternalism but he did not see in it the socialism: What he learned from it was the structure of absolutist powers. This expression of raw power in the pursuit of an undefined socialism resulted in the mass killings in the Soviet - since socialism was never wrong, there was never a shortage of enemies, real or imagined, and the killings were done in a wholly irrational manner, i.e., the extermination in Ukraine which lead to future food shortages and more needless death.

One might wonder about Maoism. It broke from the Soviet mold and killed far less, perhaps 30 million vs. 60 million, out of a much larger population. This hints at a common factor: paternalist thinking is a component of the traditional oriental despotism.

 

[Gyaos]

Hitler, not totally, but would if given the chance.

I like to think Bush Jr. and his SS administrators are a Business Hitler that cannot get their way. They are stopped by the US Democracy. I certainly want a recount of the 2004 election and don't think the Osama message that appeared 2 days before the election was sent by mule.

They are not out to help the American people. They are only to help their friends while the power lasts. In 2006, Rick Santorum (right winged Repubilcan evangelist liar) will be stopped and not re-elected in PA. Then in 2008, be ready for Hillary. Its as if a contract was signed that said "Okay, we'll let the boy be Pres in 2004 so long as The Queen gets hers, as will Bill, in 2008 for 8".

The US Dollar was weakened by Bush Jr. and his jerks to make the bubble look exactly like a bubble. Now with that weakened dollar we have the high oil prices from $30 to $40 to $50 to $60. So when oil drops back to $49, the illegal media will say it's okay, oil has crashed. WRONG! It's still $50 with commercials from pharms saying "get sick, talk to your Doctor, buy our pill, give us the $$ and die". Oil will go back down when Bush Jr is weakened as a leader and GM and FORD go strictly to renewable energy or cars getting what they are supposed to get 60miles/gallon (40km/liter).

It will only be so long when the 1999 economy returns with renewable energy and the cowbows will be back doing what they do best, shovelling horse shit.

Those are my thoughts.

 

[Truncador]

This is a fact that seems to have been largely ignored by most of the relevant historians. There were some spurts of State killing, most notably the purge of 1934. But, even that was discriminate: The disorderly segment of the party, bent on expanding the revolution for its own sake, was no longer needed and had become an impediment to the further goals of regime building.

In any case, massive coups d'autorite against putative internal enemies of the State are a constant across all types of State, no matter their political organization or governing ideology. One need only mention Waco (for an example of the unrestrained violence that is the norm in such cases), or the invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970 (as a typical example of complete suspension of legality and apocalyptic drama quite deliberately calculated to inspire terror in the masses when the State feels seriously threatened)

Marxist communism was a completely different beast. It was concerned with the obliteration of society, to replace it with some utopian unknown. Marx was familiar with the Germanic paternalism but he did not see in it the socialism: What he learned from it was the structure of absolutist powers. This expression of raw power in the pursuit of an undefined socialism resulted in the mass killings in the Soviet - since socialism was never wrong, there was never a shortage of enemies, real or imagined, and the killings were done in a wholly irrational manner, i.e., the extermination in Ukraine which lead to future food shortages and more needless death.

On the spectrum of social government, National Socialism fell on the welfare-State as opposed to the utopian side of the fence (hence the incredible rancour with which it was despised by Commies and Social Democrats, who saw it as a bourgeois heresy). This means that even the extermination campaign of racial cleansing obeyed the logic of the liberal social-safety net strategy, as opposed to the more positive (and correspondingly much more homicidal) socialist effort to create a New Man and a new social order. Had the Marxists embraced racialism, they no doubt would have tried to engineer a race of cyborgs or Daleks and probably would have wound up exterminating everybody

 

[irlandais9000]

There were some spurts of State killing, most notably the purge of 1934.

Quite the understatement, Tom