Bush and Hitler?

Split from "Hermann Goering"

But I may compare Bush to Hitler!!! You can compare anything to anything else an apple to a car is a wild example.

 

True, but you cannot in that comparisson say an apple is like a car, similarly you cannot reasonably say Bush is like Hitler.

 

Yes you can. Slowely taking over.invading 1 country at a time. Repealing civil freedoms in the name of national security/safety, helping to jumpstart the economy by creating arms and wars. I can continue.

 

Bush is not jumpstarting the economy, he is bankrupting his country. I suppose you could compare him to Hitler in that sense.

But seriously, no matter how you wish to generalize Bush's actions until they appear to be similar to Hitler's, there is no way in which you can make this man look like one of the most utterly ruthless dictators of all time, responsible for the death of 12 million of his own civilians, not to mention the casualties from the war he started. Also, Bush didn't start wars to conquer countries of which he wanted the populations exterminated to make room for Americans.

 

True but there are similaritites you have to admit that.

 

Ah, they're both male, both have served in the military when younger, both got to power via elections that caused controversy (although Bush did win the Electorial College votes so he did win fair)...

And that's about it, really.

 

I thought Hitler was named the succesor of Paul von Hindenburg.

 

Nope. Hitler was elected and became Reichs Chancellor. He assumed the role of president by emergency decree IIRC.

 

I dont beleive Reich Chansellor was an elected positionm, I may be wrong thought.

 

Chancellor wasn't an elected position and so far no-one has said it was. Hitler and the NSDAP were voted for by the German people and became the most powerful single party in Germany at the time of the election in 1933. As the leader of the largest party Hitler was able to secure for himself the post of Chancellor, despite initial objections from Hindenburg.

When Hindenburg died in 1934 Hitler assumed the powers of President as well, made largely possible by the emergency powers granted following the Reichstag fire, but he was never the named successor.

 

The position was generally given to the leader of the largest party in the previous elections. This still goes for most elections in the Netherlands, anyway.

The NSDAP got 42.9% of all votes in an election they heavily influenced on all sides (including coercion), and that was the greatest share of the votes they ever got before they disbanded all other parties.

 

There is one major difference between Busha dn Hitler. public opinion. When Hitler occupied th Rhineland the public opion was 99% in favor of what he was doing, bush not so much, around 37 right now.

 

There is also a major difference between Rhineland and Iraq, especially seen in context of the times.

 

There are quite a few major differences. Bush has yet to outlaw opposition parties, yet to grant himself dictatorial powers, yet to start a world war, yet to commence the genocide of an ethnic group, I could go on but it is pointless. In your eyes it seems Bush is equal to Hitler, in my eyes that is ridiculous.

 

Also Bush has yet to write a book, fight a losing war, take part in a failed coup and go to prison, and develop a maniacal hatred towards a minority group in order to use them as a scapegoat and source of illegally attained money later on as he slaughtered them by the millions. I stand ready to be corrected...

I don't think Iraq has ever been a part of the United States, and I don't believe control over it was wrenched from them by a vengeful peace treaty forced upon the country after losing a war, either.

Remilitarizing the Rhineland - case for: it's German soil. Case against: the French say we can't.

Invading Iraq - case for: the Iraqis might have WMDs, and Saddam is an evil dictator, and Iraq has strategical value. Case against - Iraq is on the other side of the world, full of people that do not want foreign occupation, do not want to lose their influence as a minority, or simply do not want peace. It has nothing to do with the US other than just being there, and it has no WMDs.

 

Unfortinutely I do not beleive in evil. it is once choice to do something, there is no devil taking over the person forcing them to do things.

An actually one party's main members were put into jails and concentration camps and than the rest of the parties dissolved themselves in fear of the same happenend, than Hitler out lawed opposition parties.

 

According to: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm

My emphasis.

In any case whichever is correct the difference is marginal at best. Being arrested by the Gestapo and thrown without trial into a concentration camp because you belong to a political party or being arrested by the Gestapo and thrown without trial into a concentration camp because you belong to an illegal political party isn't likely to make the slightest difference to the people who cannot vote for you or the SS guards administering your daily beating.

Either way, this cannot be applied to the USA in the first decade of the 21st century.

 

Well someone has stated that Herman Goring was incharge of making the concentration camps and the gestappo. it would bethe same as if an American was incharge of creatign a secret police, like FBI, and secret prisons like the one in Guntanamo. the concentration camps were just prisons cause all the reral prisons were full of people who the Nazis didnt like. Wait sint that kinda like America? over 55% of people in American prisons are not from that country.
What is worse secret Police, or fighting secret wars for example in Cambodia.

And yes it can If Lionel Davis can compare the former parte government of South Africa to Nazi Germany, than why cant I NAzi germany to America?

Okey look arrest without trail, I beleive America is doing the same thing, are they not?
There are major race issues too.
For exampel most Mexicans take the bad jobs and are illegal immigrants, I mean illegal aliens. All peopel with dark skin are considered terrorists.

Rhineland was considered neutral terriitory therefore an armed presence would incite an act of war.

I have a question Germans were charge with leading a war of aggresion, is there a war that is not agreesive?

 

The FBI are not a "secret police" as their existance is publically known. No single American created both the FBI and the Guantanamo prisons. There are big differences again between the FBI and the Gestapo and between Guantanamo and concentration camps. :roll:

No. American prisons are not FILLED with political prisoners. Furthermore, Guantanomo (which is no concentration camp) was not created to annihilate ethnic minorities.

Have a source for this?

First of all, just because someone else does it does not mean you can. The former government of South Africa was not democratic (like Nazi Germany, with its one party system etc.), and thus incomparable to democratic America. America is thus incomparable to Nazi Germany. There are no minority groups in America being ethnically cleansed. There is no one party system. There is no fascism.

And?

There might be a connection between illegal immigrants and bad jobs. :roll: Furthermore, this statement:

Yeah, the President has a "terrorist" in his cabinet, namely Condoleezza Rice. This statement is UNTRUE.

And?

A war usually requires an attacking party, and attacking is usually seen as aggressive. So no, there are no wars without some kind of agression.

 

France and Britian brought the war on themselves. They could ahve waited it out and wait for Stalin to build his army up and attack Hitler liek he was planning.

Dark skined fine let me refrace in a more racist term any ARAB PERSON IS A SUSPECTED TERRORIST.


No it was not but neither were concentration camps. Thats is what they jsut ended up becoming. Just liek Guantanimo was not created to annilate ethic minorteis the concentrtation camps were not. So you are telling me by this that German Socialsts who were not jews were an ethnic minority? Is that really what you are saying?

Have you forgotten the Final Solution was implimented during the middle of WWII. The first 100K-250K of prisoner of Auschwits were Polish catholics, does that mean they were an ethnic minorty in Poland?

Okey Gestappo, that it is a myth created by movies that everyone knew who the Gestappo were?

The source I'll look into that.