In Defense of Making Comparisons of Certain People with Nazis or other Contemptible Groups

I and others are sometimes vigorously criticized for making comparisons between George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their cohorts on the one hand with Hitler or his Nazis on the other hand. Usually the person making the criticism doesn’t explain the basis of his/her criticism, but as best as I understand it, the basis of these criticisms falls into one of the three following related groups of reasons:

1. Comparing people to Nazis “makes us look bad”.

2. Comparing anyone to Nazis trivializes what the Nazis did because nothing can compare with what they did.

3. It is inaccurate to compare Bush or Cheney with Nazis because the degree of damage they’ve done is miniscule compared to what the Nazis did.

I believe that we have very good reasons for comparing Bush, Cheney and their cohorts with Nazis, but before I get to that I’d like to address the criticisms:


Comparing people with Nazis “makes us look bad”

This argument is similar in some ways to the argument that some people use against trying to impeach Bush and Cheney. These people are worried that impeachment may be seen by large segments of the U.S. population as too extreme and partisan, and therefore such efforts may hurt us badly in the 2008 elections.

I don’t want to minimize such concerns, and I will admit that sometimes it is best to withhold speaking the truth for tactical political purposes. Probably a good example of that is when Lincoln withheld the extent of his anti-slavery views during his campaign for the presidency in 1860. I believe that it’s very unlikely that he would have been elected had he made known how he really felt about slavery prior to his election. And it is also likely that had he not been elected President in 1860, slavery could have lasted another several decades in our country. It pains me to admit it, but sometimes it is best to bite your tongue and avoid saying very controversial things, even when true.

Yet, I believe that most of the time it is better to speak truth to power. Cynthia McKinney was widely lambasted for questioning the Bush administration’s response to 9-11, and she undoubtedly lost her House seat (twice) because of that and other controversial statements that she made. Michael Moore is widely despised in our country because of his controversial statements and documentaries, and he may well be assassinated because of them. Yet, to me both of those people are heroes and badly needed breaths of fresh air in our country, and I am very grateful to them for bringing issues of great importance for us to light.

Keith Olbermann is another example. His wonderful commentaries on the Bush administration have struck a chord in our country, and he seems to have survived the effort without eliciting the great hostility that Rep. McKinney and Michael Moore have elicited, while reaching and affecting the views of millions of Americans. I believe that he can be credited more than any other single person with the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections. Sometimes speaking the truth works, and sometimes it doesn’t. But as Keith has said, though he may lose his job because of his controversial statements, at least he’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that he says what he deeply believes. Thank you so much Keith for elevating the quality of corporate media journalism in our country by a few notches.


Comparing anyone to Nazis trivializes what the Nazis did because nothing can compare with what they did

The last thing I would want to do is trivialize what the Nazis did. I have been intensely interested in better understanding what they did for as long as I can remember, precisely because what they did was so terrible, and perhaps also because some of my relatives were their victims. In my efforts to understand what they did I have read more books on this subject than any other – probably around 50.

But although the magnitude of their crimes is probably the largest in the history of the world, what they did is not qualitatively unique by any means. History is full of examples of mass murders of civilian populations and other atrocities. What is different about the Nazi Holocaust is only the numbers of victims involved and the fact that it is better documented than earlier examples.

Nor is it unreasonable to fear that there will be future similar incidents. In fact, we have had a number of similar incidents in the 62 years since the Nazi Holocaust, including 200,000 dead (mostly Mayan Indians) in Guatemala between 1968 and 1996, the 1.7 million murdered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979, the 100,000 dead in East Timor at the hands of the Indonesian government between 1975 and 1999, the Bosnian genocide of 1992-1995, and the Rwandan genocide of 1994 which claimed 800,000 victims in just a hundred days. All of these atrocities were smaller than the Nazi Holocaust. But for those who say that that’s because the perpetrators were less evil, I have to say that the reason for the smaller numbers was less opportunity, not less evil. Does anyone really believe that someone who would murder 100 thousand innocent people would be incapable of doing the same to 10 million if given the opportunity?

The bottom line is this: Historical comparisons, when used properly, are not meant and do not serve to trivialize the historical events that are the most serious of those being compared. Far from trivializing those events, the comparisons are made precisely because they are so serious. The purpose is the same purpose that provides the primary motivation for all historical studies: to learn from the past so that we may have a better future. If the Nazi Holocaust was known to be a unique, one in a billion years event, there would be no reason to study it because it would be irrelevant to our future. But there is little or no reason to believe that it is absolutely unique.


It is inaccurate to compare Bush or Cheney with Nazis because the degree of damage they’ve done is miniscule compared to what the Nazis did

When I or others (I can’t speak for all others of course) compare Bush or Cheney with Hitler or his Nazis, the claim is not that they have killed as many people as the Nazis did, or that their methods have been as extreme. As I noted above, the amount of evil that any one person does is a function of how evil they are and of their opportunity to do evil. Few would argue that Bush and Cheney have thus far had as much opportunity to do evil as Hitler did. For one thing, they rule a country with a democratic tradition of more than two centuries. And that serves as some sort of brake on their ambitions.

But they have been systematically dismantling our democratic traditions by repeatedly violating the laws of our country and our Constitution, and otherwise simply putting themselves above all of our laws.

What many Americans seem not to realize is that Hitler didn’t just come to power and immediately start in with his genocidal plans. Far from it. The way was prepared gradually. It’s true that Jews and other minority groups were treated poorly from the beginning of Hitler’s rise to the Chancellorship in 1933. But the scale of atrocities was miniscule pre-World War II compared to what it was after that war got going. World War II loosened Hitler’s restraints, as he had planned, by shielding him from international intervention (other countries couldn’t effectively complain about his genocide while they were under attack or threat of attack) and by focusing the minds of the German people on the war. It can be argued that pre- World War II, the scale of atrocities in Nazi Germany was of the same order of magnitude that currently exists in this country.

Bush and Cheney have already initiated one war against a country that posed no threat to us, which has resulted in the deaths of close to a million innocent Iraqi civilians. Some argue that their intentions were to stave off a major threat to our country – but I think the evidence strongly argues against that interpretation.

Some have argued in response to my posts, “But I don’t see any concentration camps”. Without getting into a trivial argument over semantics, I ask those people what they would consider our detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, our many prisons in Iraq, our many secret prisons scattered throughout the world, and our torture outsourcing program, which is called “extraordinary rendition”.

To get an idea of the scale of these programs I suggest that people read “Ghost Plane – The true story of the CIA Torture Program.”, by Stephen Grey, which I discuss in detail in this post. According to Grey, who has extensively investigated this issue, there have probably been about 11,000 victims of our illegal detainee programs, and untold numbers of them are tortured on a frequent basis.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, too many Americans don’t take these things seriously enough. The all too common attitude in our country is that these programs are only for hardened terrorists, to protect us against a great threat to our country. But the evidence suggests that a great many of these victims, probably the vast majority, are innocent of any wrongdoing. Major General Antonio Taguba, charged with investigating the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, said that “A lack of proper screening meant that many innocent Iraqis were being detained (in some cases indefinitely) and that 60% of civilian prisoners at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society; and the International Red Cross said that between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake. These figures could well be very conservative.

What about the Bush administration’s claim that these prisoners are the “worst of the worst”? I say to that, what right does George Bush have to make that claim when the vast majority have neither been charged with nor tried for a crime, and when many have been determined to be innocent of any wrongdoing? Did Hitler not make the same claims of those whom he sent to the concentration camps without charges or trial? Tell me, what is the difference between the majority of victims of Hitler’s concentration camps and ours? I ask you, what kind of man would imprison for an indefinite period of time and without trial thousands of human beings? Would such a man not do the same to millions if he had the opportunity?


Why historical comparisons (to Nazis or whatever is appropriate) are so important

When tyrants make their grabs for power they don’t go around with a sign on their chests proclaiming their intentions. On the contrary, they always proclaim the noblest of intentions. Hitler wasn’t averse to calling himself a Nazi, of course, because in those days “Nazi” wasn’t a bad name. Today “Nazi” is a bad name almost everywhere, so today’s modern Nazis call themselves something else. Bush and Cheney, of course, are just trying to fight terrorists and protect American citizens.

My whole point is that the intentions of tyrants are difficult for many people to recognize because those intentions are almost always disguised, at least in the early stages of their rise to and accumulation of power. Once their rise to power has advanced to a certain degree it is often too late to stop them without a major war; thus the crucial importance of recognizing them early.

Evil in particular is difficult for many people to recognize, when disguised (as it so often is), because it is so painful recognize. The evil of Hitler’s Nazis is easy for us to recognize today, both because it is now so thoroughly documented and because it comes from the past rather than the present. But for many Americans it is extremely difficult to recognize and admit to the presence of evil in their own country, today, in their own leaders.

A major purpose of history is to help us recognize serious problems before they get so bad that they can no longer be successfully fought. By comparing current situations to certain historical situations we can learn to recognize the danger signals, thereby giving us the opportunity to learn from our past, that we might make a better future for ourselves. That is the reason why I and others make comparisons of the type that I have spoken about.

In a previous post I have pointed out numerous similarities between Hitler’s regime and current day United States of America. In another post I quoted a prominent past Nazi and a current day Neoconservative and asked people to guess the authors of the quotes, in the hope that some would see a striking similarity between the two that they hadn’t previously noticed. And in my most recent post I quoted Thom Hartmann’s description of Hitler’s war on terror, in the hope that many people would see a striking similarity between the two that they hadn’t previously noticed.


A final comment

I recently watched a news segment in which Mitt Romney was vigorously criticized by citizens attending a campaign rally of his for his shameless attempt to compare Barack Obama with Osama bin Laden, solely on the basis of somewhat similarly sounding names.

One of the persons at the rally said, “How dare you compare Osama bin Laden to any American.” That statement, which reflects the sentiments of too many Americans, is seriously misguided, and even dangerous. One could reasonably defend Obama by pointing out that it is terribly inappropriate to compare him with anybody based on the similarity of their names, and that he has never done anything to warrant such a comparison. But to say that he should be immune to such a comparison simply because he is an American is ridiculous. Such a statement implies that all Americans have some sort of immunity against a character trait that unfortunately is scattered widely throughout the world and throughout history. There is no factual basis for such an assertion. Only blind faith supports it.

What is dangerous about such a belief, especially at this point in time in our history, is that it prevents us from recognizing just how bad our leaders can be. As it is now, approximately 50% of the U.S. population approves of impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney. I feel confident that the prevalent belief in extreme “American exceptionalism” – the belief that no American is capable of evil, or the extreme difficulty that many Americans have in recognizing evil in their leaders – prevents many more Americans from getting behind the effort to cast out the worst presidential administration that we have ever had. That kind of belief could be the ruination of our country.

Frame of reference has always been a part of communication. Also, it helps in avoiding repeats of bad events.

...Bush and Cheney are Nazis! And, the coconuts never fall far from the tree....

http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm

http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/bus...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00....

http://www.rense.com/general43/bush.htm

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/05/far04017.html

So people who foolishly dismiss the comparison are comparing the end result of the Nazis versus the overall scope of what they did. They took over power in ways extremely similar to how Bushco has. It started with erosion of civil liberties, beating the war drums, going after domestic critics and invading other countries... We have no idea how this will all end up under Bushco because they are far from through.

If they go after Iran, as they seem eager to, we could be talking about a muslim cleansing that rivals what the Nazis did to the Jews.

Again though we don't know the end result of Bush's tactics. He's done the torture, the secret prisons, the imprisonment without trial of American citizens, the domestic spying that Hitler and the Nazis did already. It IS relevant.

For those who think it is not, please stick your head back in the sand and stop bitching about the comparison.

The only reason anyone says it looks bad is a) they're part of the right wing regime or one of their defenders and they are crying foul to protect themselves from the criticisms they earned or b) they have no fucking clue what is actually going on and should go back to watching their entertainment television.

At this point they have followed very similar patterns. Both are extremist right wing regimes. We KNOW how the Nazis ended up and since we are step for step with them in this process thusfar, I think it very credible to be arguing from the left on how we need to stop the future from repeating the past.

Rp

Hitler needed a World War before he was able to really put his genocidal plans into action.

The prospect of a world war doesn't seem to bother Bush or Cheney in the slightest. They seem to look forward to it.

Yet Congress appears to feel that they have other higher priorities, other than to deal with this.

of the truth of the American MIC's "adventures" over the last 30 years. Anyone want to estimate a body count?

However, this is NOT about numbers or whose genocide is sacred. It is about the People's ability to demand accountability from their governments.

And it's another crucially important similarity between Hitler and BushCo. Both demanded that they not be held accountable for anything, and anyone who tried to hold them accountable was a traitor.

And the B(ookmarked)

There's a reason why people in their right minds balk at such comparisons and tune out anything else that comes afterwards. It's because they recognize how ridiculous it is.

And someone doesn't need to post a million word rebuttal to show why either, any more than one wouldn't be necessary to dispute the fundy creationist claims that the Earth is only 5000 years old.

Some things simply don't require long winded rebuttal since they stand on their own, and it's simply better to walk away from the person putting out the premise rather than actually think you're going to get them to understand why their logic is so flawed.

No, they're not nazis.

Hitler begins with an H and is two syllables.

You're right, the comparison is ridiculous there.

Although Cheney is two syllables, so the comparison gets much more appropriate... yeah, I think I see.

You vehemently disagree with me, but you won't say why because my logic is so flawed that there's no way I could ever understand.

That doesn't leave much room for discussion does it?

But anyhow, I think you helped make my point. Some people are so against acknowledging the possibility that their leaders might be evil that they refuse to think about it or talk about it.

The greatest source of my frustration here on this big board. The labeling and careless dismissal of fellow DU'ers with a callous wave of the hand/keystroke is incredibly irksome. But I digress...

Thank you for the OP Time for change.

and I'll acknowledge the possibility that they're nazis.

Some things can simply be dismissed out of hand without rigorous debate. I recognize that with the Nazi ridiculousness as readily as I do with the whole Earth is 5000 years old ridiculousness.

But much like the fundy creationists wouldn't possibly agree or be swayed with the obvious deductions that their logic is flawed, neither do I expect it from those thinking they're truly nazis.

So be as frustrated as you want. I'm monumentally frustrated with how reckless and illogical the premises can be here sometimes. So we're even.

either way, you are entitled to your opinion and I won't call you names for exercising your right to voice them.

But you can't or won't even bother to say why you think it's ridiculous.

Why even bother responding if that's your attitude?

Did you even read my post? Or just the title?

among us who are really sensitive about being reminded of the past. Comparing them to BushCo wouldn't arouse their ire if they didn't know that BushCo was very unpopular here. They wouldn't object if compared with BushCo on Free Republic. The comparison makes them uncomfortable here, though. It gets under their skinheads.

superior ability to figure things out.

Your admissions of being a Nazi and being on the board with us doesn't make or break my day. To each his own. Happy day.

You are oh so wise jack sprat. Oh how we all wish to be you! If only all of us had the power of intellect and deduction to just call people nazis! All hail jack sprat, ruler of knowing who's a nazi! Yayyyyyy jack sprat!

but I will just be content that you worship and adore me. You're the first and only. Again, happy day to you, OPERATIONMINDCRIME.

You've exposed me to all! I'm a nazi! Brilliant! Just brilliant! Everyone now knows who you are Mr. jack sprat! They all adore you! They all want to be you! Why, why, you're the holy keeper of determining that which is nazi! Oh how we all should hold your power of deduction. Oh if we all could expose the nazis in our midst like you can, mr. jack sprat! You're the bestest ever!

You seem very angry and frustrated. Since you hold me in such esteem, then follow my wishes. Take a cold shower, OP. Really let the cold water run over your head. Then ask yourself why you tried to control the thinking of other people. If they want to compare the Bush Crime Family to the Nazis, then what business is it of yours and why should it even matter to you. If you want to be like me, then you need to carry yourself better. Get some pride in yourself. Clean yourself up.

I'm not angry, I've never been so enlightened! I just found out I'm a nazi! Yayyyyyyy!!!!! I can finally scream it from the mountaintops! I'm a nazi! A nazi! God it feels good. I'm freeeeeeeeeeeee. Freeeeeeeeee I tells ya! I'm freeeeee!! I can say it now! I'm a nazi!

Oh THANK YOU mr. jack sprat. Thank you for using your oh so magnificent powers of deduction to enlighten me to my own naziness! Thank you thank you thank you! You're the bedrock of this community. I demand your likeness be placed high atop the DU banner! All hail jack sprat! He is the eternal ruler of all powerful deduction in determining that which is nazi! You are so so smart! So aware! So spot on! How we all wish we could be you! Yes! Yes! I'm a nazi! OPERATIONMINDCRIME is a nazi! Oh thank you mr. jack sprat! Thank you!

...just a condescending halfwit who thinks you're smarter than everyone else. And your unshakeable belief that you are right without actually articulating any argument on why you're right really reminds me of someone...who could that be now...?

In case there's any doubt as to my beliefs, backed by evidence, on this debate, look no further than my nom de DU.

Yes, it makes it readily apparent that you're not someone whose words I would ever take seriously. In fact, you're someone I'd probably laugh at often.

is just so much ridiculousness? that it is comparable to the error of christian fundamentalism and its offshoot creationism?

you go beyond recklessness, your WORDS and IDEAS (not you PERSONALLY) betray a profound lack of insight and lack of intellectual rigor.

you can't just throw out words like "logic" and "premises" and "flawed" and not have something to back it up. some kind of knowledge, some kind of historical perspective, some kind of intellectual curiosity, or at the very least, a humility to be quiet when you don't know what you are talking about. to be smart enough to know that you don't know and that adults are speaking.

i'm monumentally frustrated with how shielded your fundamental general "error" is. and that you expound so diligently and loudly about it.

...than five thousand is like five billion.

someone criticizes something and says it's beneath there dignity to explain why? Why even bother participating on a discussion board with an attitude like that?

Glad you liked my post.

there are too many people who are contrary just for the sake of being contrary.

or maybe they are just plain stupid.

You can go on thinking it is reasonable to compare the administration to nazis. The just about rest of us will continue to look at such concepts and laugh our asses off at how warped and misguided some people's perceptions are.

Topics like these make DU look monumentally dumb. It's embarrassing in fact. Comparing the administration to nazis, in a serious way, is nothing short of reckless and ignorant.

okay. what's so stupid about the comparison between the bush regime and the nazi regime?

sure, it doesn't match up one-to-one, but insofar as similarities between aspects of the bush regime and the nazi regime, which particular parallels are stupid?

according to him, whatever you say is just ridiculous on its face and fails his logic test, ergo he "Defeats You."

actual logic, reasoned arguments, and examples do not matter.

in future, please stick to bloviation and utter pomposity. he'll be able to understand you better.

Pomposity that is: In post # 71:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I felt bad about it, and I don't like to talk like that -- here or anywhere else -- but I was really pissed off.

Like I said, you wouldn't need to debate with someone claiming the Earth is only 5000 years old either, would ya pal.

Not everything needs to be debated thoroughly as if the initiating premise holds credibility. Sometimes, the premise is so blatantly flawed on its face, that no real counter argument is really necessary in order for it to be shown to be silly or misguided.

I don't really expect you to comprehend this simple concept. I really don't. But I'm not sure it's anything but laughable for you to preach about actual logic or reasoned arguments, when you're standing on the side of a premise that has neither.

Yes, calling the administration Nazis is ridiculous on its face. Don't like it? Well awwwww, too damn bad.

i see many people COMPARING the administration to nazis.

what is it about comparing the administration to nazis that bothers you so much? the TRUE reason. spare us the bloviation and sophistry.

Seriously, are you just pretending to be this ignorant or is it really this much a waste of my time to be talking to you?

what exactly is thick headed about my statements?

Right, that's why you've put forth the same stupid argument 30 times on this thread.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that OPERATIONMINDCRIME has any motive other than to play a demented game of incessant dissidence. He did not even read your OP, in all probability.

And rather than answer the question he just spewed forth more venom. I think you're right.

You didn't actually refer to anything in the OP in all of your 30 or 40 posts. All you ever referred to was the title. I'll bet you read it.

What, we gotta wait until the death toll in in the millions? Nope.

Mrs. Hitler's little boy was not a mass murder from day one. It took him some time. He was a Nazi long before he racked up his count.

They're either nazis or they aren't. There is nothing more laughable then seeing the whole "well, they're like the nazis were in the beginning!" argument.

All of the emotions, circumstances, realities and atrocities that are associated with the term 'nazis' are associated BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY DID LATER. If the nazis had stopped in the beginning, as you are trying to compare to, there wouldn't be NEARLY the connotations associated with the word as there are. So to still use the term to describe others, but defending it by saying "well, like in the beginning", is amazingly deceptive and of misguided premise. There is no 'nazis in the beginning'. There's just nazis as they were, as they are remembered, for all they did and all the suffering and atrocities they caused. If you are to use the term as comparison, then the ONLY way in which it is applicable is if the target of the comparison is guilty of the same. When absent of that, the term is then used recklessly and ignorantly.

your perception is so warped on this issue that you can't read something so straightforward objectively enough in order to comprehend what it's saying.

But I stand behind the post. It was a thorough refutation of the ridiculousness before it. That stands whether you were able to 'get it' or not.

Goodnight.

... who has ever heard that somewhat shopworn phrase about forgetting history/being doomed to repeat it... well, your whole premise is absurd.

You've completely erased the 1930's, and the Nazi's many machinations on the way toward the Holocaust and all its attendant horrors. You've declared off-limits the drawing of any parallels between today's creep toward fascism and the core tragedy of the Nazi era: the denial. The years and years of refusal to acknowledge that a society was descending into horrifying madness.

"Mind Crime," indeed.

If you want to say that it is unfair to compare someone with a Nazi until he's murdered 10 million people then go ahead.

But the point is to recognize the symptoms BEFORE they do incalculable damage, so that people will be stirred to do something about it before it's too late. Because Hitler was repeatedly appeased BEFORE he murdered tens of millions of people, we was thereby enabled to start the worst war in world history and carry out the worst genocide in world history as well.

Hitler doesn't have a monopoly on evil, and there will be others in the future unless people recognize them in enough time to stop them.

That's why it's not even worth debating this with you or those who'd be like minded. To call that a technicality is such a sign as to why I give no credit to your perception on this issue. Technicality... What a joke!

It would be akin to walking around stating you have a brain tumor cause you woke up with a headache. I mean, it wouldn't be unfair to classify it as being rooted from a brain tumor right? Gotta recognize the symptoms right?

So laughable. So completely and utterly laughable.

Now if your argument was that the administration appears evil enough to some day go to extremes to the length that the nazis did, and we should recognize that now and make sure it would never get that far (which of course we wouldn't), well then that would be a bit different of a discussion. But to skip through alllllll the points inbetween the beginning and the end, and go straight to calling them nazis, is just, well, ignorant.


And with all due respect...
"If you want to say that it is unfair to compare someone with a Nazi until he's murdered 10 million people then go ahead. "

...That's gotta be one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever gotten in reply from anybody, ever.

"Now if your argument was that the administration appears evil enough to some day go to extremes to the length that the nazis did, and we should recognize that now and make sure it would never get that far (which of course we wouldn't), well then that would be a bit different of a discussion."

That's exactly my point -- except for the part "which of course we wouldn't" -- that remains to be seen. Everyone else on this thread got it, and maybe you finally did. Congratulatons.

It happens here too often: Posters say bush is a nazi, or this one is a nazi, or that one's a nazi. For the reasons I've shown, such uses of the term are reckless and ignorant.

Furthermore, you have already declared that you are comparing them to nazis. I've already stated that unless what the administration has done thusfar is EQUIVALENT to the atrocities done by the nazis, then any comparisons to them is misguided and of false perception.

The part you copied of mine IS NOT what your OP was stating, so please don't twist my premise into one that would now seem to be in agreement with yours. In mine, there would be no comparison to 'nazis' at all, it would be a warning about things we're seeing that could some day enable someone else to draw that comparison, if and when the time came. But that ISN'T what your OP was saying. Your OP was already making the comparison, which as I stated is quite misguided and flawed in premise. You and others have gone on to say "bbbbut they're like them in the beginning!", which is one of the weakest things towards this debate I've heard. It's monumentally silly to use that as a defense.

So spare me the 'you finally got it!' garbage. I've gotten it from the beginning. But it appears you still have some deduction to do prior to getting it.

There is a difference between saying A=B and saying that you are making a comparison between A and B. If you can't grasp that then I guess that there's really nothing more to talk about.

that they mean it as shorthand, as a colloquialism?

it's shorthand for "bush is a fascist with delusions of tyranny" or something like that.

do really think people actually mean that "bush is a national socialist?"

So it appears you may be the dense one pal.

You can say what you want. But to rational people hearing others calling the administration nazis, or calling other things nazis, it comes off as monumentally stupid and they will tune out anything afterwards. Trust me; they roll their eyes and think "how pathetic".

a rational person would be able to make draw conclusions on the basis of comparing varying sets of information to other sets of information.

But don't be left wondering why the people you're talking to are rolling their eyes and thinking you a complete fool...

doesn't it matter that many people HERE roll their eyes at you and think you are a complete fool?

and those are just the ones that don't have you on ignore.

The fundy creationists roll their eyes at those claiming evolution as well. I don't get bothered by the opinions of people of which I consider to be unwise or foolish. I just get humored by them.

if you aren't concerned about opinions.

I said I wasn't concerned with the opinions of logical fools, such as those you asked me about. I do, however, care about the opinions of people who are sane, rational, intellectual or wise.

I'm amazed this simple concept flew over your head. (no I'm not)

what's a "logical fool?"

the funny part is, i think you are actually teachable.

A class on "how to get rid of that pesky critical thinking ability that keeps you from looking like an utter ignoramus" isn't exactly my cup of tea.

But from some of the replies in this thread, it would appear that your class is already full anyway.

i'm starting to think you are a parody taking the piss out of us here.

Actually Mr. Crime, may I suggest, if we are going to use medical analogies, that it's much more akin to early stage cancer.

You wouldn't suggest, would you, that someone just diagnosed with cancer not go around claiming they have the disease because it would be an unfair comparison to those who had already suffered and died of it?

You wouldn't claim they were, to use your words, skipping "through alllllll the points in between the beginning and the end", and going "straight to" claiming to have cancer, would you?

After all, that would be "just, well, ignorant".

Ah, a lucid analysis, how refreshing.

do you realize that no one is saying that the bush cabal are actually post-weimar republic era National Socialists?

you do realize that once you go beyond community college freshman phil 101, you can gaze upon the width and breadth of actual knowledge and apply comparisons among different eras that are not supposed to fit within an "either/or" framework.

i really don't think anyone is saying that there is a one-to-one relationship between the Nazis and the bush regime.

i think many people are saying there are PARALLELS. but the two cannot be the same, because they are simply NOT THE SAME.

so making false dichotomies is intellectually dishonest at best or glaringly ignorant at worst.

Using it in reference to the administration or some other things, just shows a sign of utter ignorance and warped perception on the part of the person seriously thinking so.

Americans..we read our history and fucking learned from it.

You've purchased exactly what they wanted you to buy. And it's a nice fit.

It's ridiculous because you say so. Good job countering the excellent points raised in the OP with your own counterpoints. You are a bastion of Logic and Reason, OPERATIONMINDCRIME.

Uh huh. I see it now. They're all just a bunch of nazis. You and the others impeccable logic and powers of deduction has totally turned me towards the light. I see it all so clearly now! Nazis for everyone!

...there I've gone and done it again...couldn't help myself...another blowhard dipshit on "Ignore!"

/ -.. . -.-. --- -.. . -.. / - .... .. ...

Hitler's rise was studied extensively after WWII, in order to prevent the rise of another fascist tyrant.

The signs are all there.

There may be more books on this subject than any other.

Historians have a very good reason for the large amount of time they spend on this.

there are dangerous parallels between the Bush Administration and the Hitler regime which are more than coincidental. Eventhough Bush has not enjoyed the popularity of Hitler, nor the initial success, it is important nonetheless to note these parallels. As far as the ruthless extermination of racial classes of people, these numbers are piling up, and if and when we begin bombing Iran it's very possible this number could begin climbing into the millions.

... was allowed to die through neglect. It was easier than building ovens, and a "lucky strike" for Bush.

Germany started out with laws that simply diminished the citizenship status of Jews, and took away their means of livelihood. It took some time before the trains started running.

And what causes people to deny the parallels between then and now? Fear? Ignorance of history? A closet admiration of the efficiency of it all, the "order" involved? A belief that we're living in too-enlightened an age to repeat the darkness of less-evolved forebears?

they both worked from the same blueprint. There's a very good reason why the genocide increased by several orders of magnitude after WW II started. That gave Hitler the cover he needed to proceed with his plans unhindered.

God knows what will happen in this country if and when we go to war with Iran.

I also, when learning about the Nazis in high school, thought it be much more productive to teach young people about the underlying attitudes that promote cruel treatment of others, how it begins, and develops and warning signs. Instead we were treated to this seeming anomaly of what happened to the Jews in Germany. Of course these were human beings who did this, and humans still have the same psychological make-up now as then.

I learned fairly recently about the history of Dracula, that he was a real person from Hungary who became ruler and was responsible for mass deaths. This kind of treatment of people reappears through the ages, as you say.

I read a lot of history, and historians try to look for danger signs at high levels.

I've never read a good study of what individual factors lead to the production of an Adolf Hitler, a George Bush or a Dick Cheney.

looking at general people. For instance how did the average German citizen come to be involved in these atrocities, or the scientists. If it just remains victim and perpetrator, you really learn nothing from that. I suppose it comes down to how we treat each other, and that is only addressed in sermons.

I have known a few holocaust survivors from places I worked as a teenager. I also worked with one man, a professor who had been a child at the concentration camps. He was a very large personality, very aristocratic. I think he came from a very prominent family in Hungary originally. Anyhow it became apparent at some point that he felt superior and not an egalitarian type of person at all. So even though he had been a victim, I think his use of being superior was a similar character flaw that many of the Nazis probably had.

Albert Schweitzer foresaw serious problems for modern civilization because of the materialism without balance of the spiritual.

It's kind of hard to compare bush to that horror and get people to take you seriously, IMO.

Now, if you want to get into nitty gritty details I'm sure you could find similarities between Bushco and the Third Reich, but as a whole, you'll lose the argurment as soon as you say the word 'Nazi'.

Just my two cents for what it's worth.

They were STILL Nazis before the Holocaust. How many would have been saved if the German people and the world had called them on their shit and stopped them earlier?

That old saw about people who refuse to learn from history....

What, we gotta wait until the death toll goes from tens (probably HUNDREDS) of thousands to millions before we call a Nazi a Nazi?

bush's grandpappy: Nazi sympatherizer and enabler at the very least.
bush is just a mentally ill puppet of men with the same mind set as those who killed millions. Just because they have not YET racked up the body count of the gang in charge of Germany back in the 30's and half the 40s doesn't make them less evil. They are working on the numbers daily.

they came into power in 1933.

As I said, the argument will be lost as soon as the word 'Nazi' is mentioned no matter which side uses it.

And I don't believe in the use of his grandpa as a way of turning bush into a Nazi. Doing that makes me a Nazi, too. My grandfather was one who helped murder men, women and children. It's wrong to do that.

THAT is something more people might do well to keep in mind.

doomed to repeat it.

who made the bush family fortune which helped get his son and grandson in the WH. Okay, gotcha. Will have to watch out for other rich folks who might be assholes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Why?

It brings about horrendous images of the Holocaust. It's very difficult for some to take the contention that bush and his minions are Nazis seriously with that kind of comparison.

Now, if you get into the details such as the Nuremberg laws and such you could highlight some similarities that might get a person to thinking. But it won't happen in a general sense otherwise.

Just what I think.

That's the point. If a person has a small cancer, say one mm in diameter, and the doctor tells him he has cancer, horrendous images may arise in that person's mind. That's good if it causes him to get the cancer removed before it kills him.

As far as details, here is a link from my OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

And I did not say that Bush and his minions ARE Nazis. I made certain comparisons in the hope that they would be useful in getting people to see similarities which would lead them to take things like impeachment a lot more seriously before things get a lot worse.

... that led to disaster for Europe and the whole world. Those who forget the past (or try to deny it and its language) are bound to repeat it.

I am not heroic because my father landed at Normandy and fought in the Battle of the Bulge. I am simply more aware of those events than some people, especially our younger generations, because I had a personal attachment to them as a result of my father talking about his experience.

You are not tinged with Nazism because your grandfather was a Nazi. But I would find it hard to believe that you have not given a great deal of thought, and perhaps soul-searching, to that fact. The very need to protest against what someone we are related to has done is in itself problematical.

Turning from something that is abhorrent to us is not done without some kind of residual feeling. I very early (at age five) turned in my mind from what I thought of as fanatical fundamentalist Christianity. I left it as soon as I could get it out of my life. But I'll never be completely free of being identified by others with my mother's poisonous brand of Christianity. And I still feel anger and disgust at some of the things I experienced growing up with "the wrong crowd." I tell myself I'm free of it all, but memories linger, and I'm much more reactive to the right-wing Christian takeover of this country than some people I know because I know what "Christian" fanaticism is about.

It is this personal issue of yours (which I don't intend to highlight at your expense and discomfort) which I often comment on, in a general way. A whole generation of Germans have borne the stigma of being German for many years after the end of WWII. The world has questioned their basic humanity, their character, even though many, maybe most, simply did what we are doing now as Americans: They tried to stay alive and waited out the terror in hope of returning to normal life. And the sins of the fathers should *not* be rested on the generations. It's good on paper and in therapy, but it's not entirely an accomplished fact in this world, which still has citizens who have intact memories of WWII.

The word "Nazi" has a necessary place in our vocabulary, and when people are doing in current time things very similar to what has already played out on the world stage, we need to pay attention.

I will agree that people sometimes hurl the term "Nazi" at someone inappropriately, and that the word should not be used without a great deal of forethought. I think this OP displays that thoughtfulness perfectly. And I think that the thousands of movies and television programs which have revolved around Hitler's regime have tended to desensitize younger people, and that WWII becomes one more video game with the bad guys and good guys fighting each other.

I remember taking a psychology class years ago, and writing a paper about Anna Freud and the Blitz in London. As I was reading it to the class, a young woman raised her hand and said, "Like, uh, what's the Blitz?" I was only about 35, but I realized that the world moves on and, but for those who write and talk about the past, we truly do live in a constant replay of what has gone before.

It is not my intention to be argumentative with you, and I mean that sincerely. I just think we must not engage in censorship at this serious juncture in our history.

I agree that Bush cannot be called a Nazi (or someone who embraces similar principles) just because of his blood ties to his grandfather. But when we consider the eerie similarities between the Nazi era and what is happening in America now, it is impossible -- unless one is really determined -- to deny that we are going down a similar path. As many have said, we're back in the 1930s right now, in terms of similar timelines and proposals for destroying our democracy. That Bushco has not committed crimes on the scale of what the Germans did does not mean that he will refrain from doing so in the future. The lives of our troops, and the larger numbers of lives of Iraqis, are much more than statistics, and we need to keep firmly in mind that Bush is not done yet -- unless and until we rein him in.

Whether it is a genetic tendency, or simply an opportunistic grab for power, Bush and his family are carrying on the tradition of the grandfather who is finally getting attention today, owing to the Internet and individuals who are bothering to explore Bush's family history. He could have been a foundling, left on Barbara and George's doorstep, but if he were, he certainly is fitting right in with the past history of the family he grew up with. It matters little whether it's nature or nurture we're dealing with with GW, he is, to borrow a well-known tale, an evil pied piper who is leading this country over a cliff and into fascism.

and I'm not trying to keep others from using it. That's their choice.

But like I said before...generally speaking using the term doesn't help unless a person is willing to engage in details with another who is willing to listen. I know plenty of people who would roll their eyes and walk away if I said that George Bush was a Nazi or that we had a fascist government. I wouldn't be taken seriously and I prefer not to use that kind of rhetoric in order to persuade someone to my line of thinking.

Military socialism or national socialism was the origin of the Nazi Party. There were also national socialists in the United States before the turn of the 20th century, one of whom invented the Pledge of Allegiance (without the term "under God" which got added later). Originally the salute to the flag consisted of a military salute followed by an outstretched arm:



Our origins may be closer to the Nazis than we care to admit.

thinking I don't know what Nazism is.

And I don't know what school you went to, but we didn't outstretch our arms when we saluted the flag.

Historically speaking...our origins are nowhere near the Nazis...especially since they didn't come to power until 1933. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf not long before that. We're a little older than the Nazis.

Now, if you had said the Roman Empire...I probably would have taken you more seriously.

but that is when we first saluted the flag with a military salute ending in an outstretched arm. In fact historians claim that the Germans got the idea from us. (We also fictionalized the use of such a salute in early movies about the Roman Empire).

One historian claims that Richard Bellamy, who wrote the pledge of allegiance and wanted a flag in every school, wanted government schools to create an "industrial army" in order to nationalize the entire economy. It is also claimed that this is how ideas for the modern military-industrial complex came about. The military-industrial complex is a common central theme in Hitler's Germany as well as the Cold War and the Bush family's New World Order.

well, in a previous life maybe that I don't remember.

I stand corrected and I apologize for being sarcastic. It's late and I should be in bed.

A question: Are there any books about the history of the military industrial complex? I think it would make for some good reading.

Thanks for informing me and not slapping me around too much over my ignorance.

Here is a good link:

http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2004/12/16899_comm...

The Rex Curry website seems to have its own agenda so it would be good if other historians could back this up. Unfortunately much of this American history seems to be scrubbed from our history books!

On edit: Rex Curry's "agenda" may be to demonize all of socialism. I don't think it is necessarilly fair to compare socialized medicine or socialized education with military socialism and racism.

nazism flourished for a quite a few years before that.

the problem isn't with the person making bush/nazi comparisons, the problem is with the person who might be offended by it. they are probably historically and politically ignorant.

because I disagree I'm ignorant. I hate seeing discussions taken to such levels because of disagreement. I don't agree and that automatically means I'm ignorant in your eyes. It's a poor way of engaging someone in discussion and only serves to build bigger walls.

Those I disagree with...I respect a lot more because we disagree without having to resort to insults than those who use them as a way to knock people down.

Great minds think alike.

I swear a picture really is worth a thousand words