Is It Just Me Or Are Their Too Many...
CommunistWithAGun
Local Propaganda Guy Join Date: 2003-04-30 Member: 15953Members
Local Propaganda Guy Join Date: 2003-04-30 Member: 15953Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">...scary similarities between the US....</div> ...and Nazi germany?
I saw this stupid public service announcment with a couple foreigners babbling about how great the U.S is and why we should DEFEND IT AT ALL COSTS! Flashing quick images of the flag, statue of liberty, other "U.S. Thingys" Watching them I thought for a moment we were in the cold war again.
A couple rules for discussion. I realize this is a very sensitive theory/topic/similarity, so treat it as such. Ruin the discussion and Ill get Nem or someone else to delete it.
Do not come in here being Pro nazi(har har) or Flag waving patrio-****.
Do not post if you can't be neutral
Please have some knowledege of how Nazi germany was, and be able to compare it to the curret state of the U.S.
This sounds like a highschool essay, but please, try to have fun with this...(if at all possible)
I saw this stupid public service announcment with a couple foreigners babbling about how great the U.S is and why we should DEFEND IT AT ALL COSTS! Flashing quick images of the flag, statue of liberty, other "U.S. Thingys" Watching them I thought for a moment we were in the cold war again.
A couple rules for discussion. I realize this is a very sensitive theory/topic/similarity, so treat it as such. Ruin the discussion and Ill get Nem or someone else to delete it.
Do not come in here being Pro nazi(har har) or Flag waving patrio-****.
Do not post if you can't be neutral
Please have some knowledege of how Nazi germany was, and be able to compare it to the curret state of the U.S.
This sounds like a highschool essay, but please, try to have fun with this...(if at all possible)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
there could be some simularities between the 2. but what made nazi germany what it was was that it tried to exterminate a entire religion. The US has invaded and taken over 2 countries, but not for the same reasons that germany did (more territory). Also nazi germany was formed after it lost a huge war that costed the country everything, unlike the bush administration which was just elected in just as any other.
the way Bush and Hitler both got power was contraversal. Hitler got into power by threatening the german politicians' lives, thus forcing them outa power.(they voted to remove themselves) Bush got into office under a contraversol vote that was extremely close.
Both Bush admin. and Nazi germany blamed a certain people for all there problems. ie Jews or Al-Quida/terrorists.
The most simular thing amoung them has to be the way they deal with pacifists. when in time of war, both countries shund on those who spoke out against the government and war. They were see as unpatriotic and outcasts.
so though there are some simularities, i cant find anything to major to link the 2. i may be wrong but hey.
Sebastian Haffner writes in his 'Story of a German' that "the Nazis rise to power on the 31st January of 1933 influenced every Germans life.
Take, for example, the expelling of Bismarck from the position of chancellor. Doubtlessly an important moment in this countries history, but did it affect the people? Was there even one visit in the theatre cancelled because of it? When the Nazis rose, <i>everything</i> changed." (free translation)
What Haffner describes here is what we've later come to describe as 'totalitarian state': A state in which the government takes direct influence in each and every part of life, no matter how private. In the Third Reich, you were put into organizations linked to the NSDAP by the age of six and never ever left them again. There were organizations for young boys and girls, for adolescents, for workers and soldiers, lawyers, sailors, mothers, veterans and old people. Hitler himself described this with the words "They'll never get free again, and they'll be happy."
Now compare the flag-toting of the 'worst' hooray-patriots to this and tell me that there's a similiar degree of totalitarism.
Two years and a day ago, when a certain incident happened, my first reaction was, like everyone else's, "oh crap, how horrible, all those poor people, and those great landmarks..."
Less than an instant later, I realized, "oh crap, this is exactly the excuse this administration has been looking for -- here come years of unadulterated conquest and slaughter in the mid-east..."
It's frightening how easily the American public was swayed to support a war against Iraq. I'd refer people to the <a href='http://www.iraqbodycount.net/' target='_blank'>Iraq body count</a>, and ask people to note how the number of civilians killed due to the American invasion and occupation is two to five times higher than the number who died in the twin towers. Is America a land of terrorists? No, we're just 'patriots.' Even those who believed in the war noticed how Bush changed his justification almost daily, from Al Qaeda links, to WMD, to ousting Hussein...
My point is, the majority of Americans didn't care why we invaded Iraq. Some felt solace that we were exacting vengeance for 9/11 by killing Muslims, even if said Muslims were no closer to terrorism than you or I are to Charles Manson. Some were simply satisfied to think invading Iraq was in the best interests of the United States. Regardless, it all made me think that Americans would believe anything President Bush said. With all the suspicion that was being encouraged, I would not have been at all surprised that if Bush said any Muslim could be a terrorist and we should therefore relocate them all to work camps, many white Americans would have eagerly complied, and the rest would be too scared to resist, just like in Nazi Germany...
In fact, I think the only reason this country doesn't dare go as far as the Nazis did is that we know, in the age of nuclear weapons, we could not get away with it. If the bomb had not yet been invented, I don't think the current regime would think twice against waging a 'pre-emptive' war against the entire world...
You have to keep in mind that Hitler siezed control over the country, he didn't use subtle politics and lies to get support, he literarly took over. He immediatly began probably the largest mobilzation in history, when in our current state the military is actually being downgraded. Hitler also made his plans for genocide actual policy by means of the "Final Solution" and didn't have to hide any of his doings since as soon as he was in power he was dictator plain and simple, we on the other hand still live in a Democratic state.
Also some slightly less serious descrepencies. Hitler was a horrible military strategist and often times gave direct orders that cost huge military losses, Bush on the other hand is a great military leader and takes the most effective military course of action available. Hitler was an intellectual and had great aspirations to become an artist, Bush was a frat boy and had great aspirations to become beer bong champion of the US.
PS: the whole end of the world through nuclear weapons argument is so moot, because any country capable of doing it is ruled by people who never would. Very simple put a country would rather be taken over than destroy the world.
And didn't he violate that treaty within a year of becomming Chancellor?
The NSDAP, Hitlers party, recieved more than 40% of all votes in the last <i>public election</i> of the Republic. More than 40% of the people going to the ballots voted for them.
Why was he elected despite the Munich coup? This has something to do with what historicans call the 'Democracy without Democrats': At the end of WW1, Germany was divided into those still clinging to the old ideals of the monarchy, a few democratic minded people, and a lot of Marxists. The emerging state was thus never really based on a population that wanted it, and a combination of hard economic crisises (such as 1929), propaganda, and a biased juristical system just removed any confidence the people had left in the democracy.
As for the breaking of the Treaty, Hitler did indeed break it rather fast, but only in small steps. He hoped that France and GB wouldnt go to war for 'those small violations'.
BTW, as for the assumption that Hitler was an inept tactican, he invented the Blitzkrieg, which worked quite well at first, as the Fourth Republic can confirm.
Because that's one of the prime examples of how the US is acting like a Nazi state.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You have to keep in mind that Hitler siezed control over the country, he didn't use subtle politics and lies to get support, he literarly took over. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/runs.htm' target='_blank'>Not entirely so</a>. You don't think Hitler was a popular politician? He was pretty close to winning the presidential election (36% of the votes), just like Bush was pretty close to winning our presidential election <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...we on the other hand still live in a Democratic state.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...though if you listen to our president's speeches, count the flags, and read the rhetoric in the popular newspapers, you'd think we live in a Nationalist state...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PS: the whole end of the world through nuclear weapons argument is so moot, because any country capable of doing it is ruled by people who never would. Very simple put a country would rather be taken over than destroy the world.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nuclear weapons are the proverbial sword of Damocles. In theory, we can feel that cold war sort of safety, thinking no country would be dumb enough to destroy another if it would seal its own doom. Let's look at the worst case scenario, though -- one tyrranical country is poised to take over the globe, promising a new age of misery for everyone. Perhaps at least one country with nothing left to lose might decide stopping the leviathan is necessary, no matter how great the cost...
Nem: Good point about the Marxists, I didn't realise so many people voted for him willingly, I guess they weren't fortune tellers or anything. And I meant he become an inept tactician after he rotted his brain with methemphetamins and went insane : )
Edit: BTW, please leave the 'nuclear weaponry' tangent again. It has little to do with this topic.
Hitler wasn't just a good tactician, he was the <a href='http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1488907' target='_blank'>Gröfaz</a>.
If you've seen the movie <a href='http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102048/' target='_blank'>Homicide</a>, you'll already know what Gröfaz means.
But the dangerous part of the current USA is that a certain crisis is (ab)used to do things and implement draconian legislature, since the voice of moderation is reeling. In a crisis, the People want an Action man at the helm. Understandably. As I remember the 20's and 30's history of Germany, it was a country stricken with post-wall street depression as well as a uncomfortable situation after the Weimar Republic was instated at the end of WWI. So Hitler's NDSAP (was that right?) used a situation, probably in the best intentions, and it went out of control because they got the backing of the public to start with.
So, remember: vote democrats next time, just to balance out some stuff. Even if you're republican <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Hitler: "Russia will be conquered during the summer, no need for winter equipment or extra doses of food and supplies"
*Winter arrives*
General: "Sir, we would have most of the Russia under our control within a week, if we would just attack Moscow with all our force"
Hitler: "Oh ballocks. I get that Leningrad no matter what it takes. Just to annoy Lenin"
If Hitler wouldn't have been so dumb/crazy/arrogant, I might know more german than "Ich möchte ein Bier haben, bitte" <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Of course there's more to it but it seems like a wrong topic.
I'm just playing the devil's advocate, but I don't entirely think nuclear weapons have nothing to do with the topic -- I truly believe superpowers such as the US wouldn't be as scared to use much bolder military tactics if nuclear weapons weren't being held over their heads... to flip it around, Nazi Germany may not have been so expansionist if England, France, and Russia were nuclear powers... though they were just crazed enough that they may have fired nukes themselves, if they had em... who knows. alright. I'll drop it now. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
btw as for bush being a great military strategist, I guess he is, insofar as a man shooting fish in a barrel is a great fisherman...
Things aren't always black and white. Most places have grey area....
<img src='http://bloggy.com/mt/archives/reichstag-wtc.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
Just a little pic. Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag to move the German people into "wanting to go war"
Bush used the WTC attack to move the nation into getting revenge on the terrorists.
Only differance is that Hitler had preconceived ideas of why he wanted war. Hitler wanted to take over the world, wheras Bush just is trying to free it. (Many of you may not see a differance, but I do)
and if u leave out the whole holocaust thing. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo-->
but back to the topic..... The doctrine of preemtive striking is almost the same with both nations. Nazi Germany with its extremely successful Blitzkreig strategy and Bush Administrations preemtive strike policy.
also both countries revolutionized war and moved it into a field. Germany with tanks and bombers, and the US with UAVs, precision guild munitions, and special forces.
and the greatest simularity i can think of is.....THEY BOTH HATE FRANCE! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Of course, someone can "attack" someone and call it a pre-emptive strike when its actually a ploy to conquer them.
Just another grey area...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hitler wanted to take over the world<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Common misconception. Hitler was not out to rule the world, his initial aim was conquering Eastern Europe (mainly Poland and the Russian territories west of the Ural) to open it for the settlement of Germans, as he believed the 'German race' to be a 'race without of room to live in'.
The wars against France and England were only led as they had defensive alliances with a number of eastern nations, which explains why the bigger part of the Axis forces were always in the eastern front.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag to move the German people into "wanting to go war"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the Reichstag was used as an excuse for the introduction of the already penned 'Gesetz zum Schutz von Volk und Staat' (Act for the Defense of People and State). This act became the basis on which Hitler prosecuted other political groups, most notably the communists, and removed a big portion of the Germans basic rights.
The excuse to go to war was a faked Polnish attack on a German radio station in 1939, which then led to the Blitzkrieg.
--
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hitler wasn't so great tactician. After he started taking care of the war-tactics instead of his generals, everything started going downhill(for him, yay for us).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I once read a paper on what historicans describe as the 'layman factor': Hitler, lacking a proper strategic education, was the first to believe in the possibility of a tank strike without of infantry support - this concept proved immensely successful in the invasions of Poland and France. Motivated by this success, he began taking bigger and bigger parts of the strategizing out of his generals hands, which was a mistake, as he lacked the required knowledge to actually plan a compaign.
--
Anyway, my point remains: While Bush is definitely one of the most authoritarian figures in recent history, he lacks the totalitarian ambitions of Hitler.
I once read a paper on what historicans describe as the 'layman factor': Hitler, lacking a proper strategic education, was the first to believe in the possibility of a tank strike without of infantry support - this concept proved immensely successful in the invasions of Poland and France. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh, Pardon? While Hitler may have came up with the concept that using mass tanks was a good idea, it was Guderian idea to actually do it against France. In fact, Hitler wasn't even convinced of this tactics effectiveness! This indecisiveness as a military leader cost the Germans a decisive defeat of the British army at Dunkirk. He told the tanks to slow down and stop taking ground for infantry to catch up. He did a similar thing in the Drive to Moscow (diverting tanks instead of driving straight on), and blew his chance at ending any disaster on the eastern front too. The many massive tactical errors Hitler made definitely lend weight to the idea he DIDN'T think up that particular tactic, just allowed those who DID to do it (as I imagine he liked the idea). Guderian was opposed by most of the other Generals, who didn't think that tanks would be that effective, Hitler also had his trepidations about it too (clearly demonstrated by mistakes he made).
Also many other generals, lets take Gundarian had LONG thought of using tanks without infantry before Hitler. Calling Hitler a military leader isn't really that strong a statement IMO. He had some BRILLIANT Generals, but when Hitler ceased listening to them things went down hill. Hitler himself was a great Civil leader, but he was definitely not a good military leader.
-How Hitler Could Have Won WW2: The fatal errors that led to Nazi defeat.
Bevin Alexander
-Stalingrad/Berlin
Anthony Beevor.
(References)
Ever hear the "OMG they're invading! Get hitler to approve the move of these tanks!" "We can't, he's )*#@$Q sleeping right now!"
Stuff like that went on....
He was not that bright a guy when it comes to those things, dispite being in the military. It's too much for one to handle, which is why you have generals and a chain of command. Bypass those and how do you expect to fight to full effectiveness? Politicians should set the ROE and objective, and let the generals do their job. We got into that same screwup in vietnam, politicians micromanaging troops. Perhaps to a different degree, but the results are still apparent
Yes, but the ordinary people of Iraq/Afganistan who were killed in the bombings were not terrorists either, are you forgetting them?
Personally, I think America isn't too far from a totalitarian state. Think about it, you have TWO choices over who to vote for. Two. What if neither of the candidates would run the country well? You'd have to vote for one or the other (AFAIK, i can't claim to know much about the American system of government).
In Britain, anyone can become Prime minister if they get enougth votes (and pay £20,000 i think, which gets refunded if you get enougth votes), although I will admit that there are only two parties which are currently serious contenders.
Britain is not run by a Prime Minister, a Prime Minister simply has the overruling vote if all the other ministers can't agree to a decision. Tony Blair is a President. He calls the shots, and the other ministers are simply advisors. But I suppose that is for another thread...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Personally, I think America isn't too far from a totalitarian state. Think about it, you have TWO choices over who to vote for. Two. What if neither of the candidates would run the country well? You'd have to vote for one or the other <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can vote for 3rd party, they just never win. Perot got 20% of the votes one time IIRC, which was more than the repubs and democrats ever thought he would get