it's perfectly legitimate to compare bush's gang to the nazis

[mopaul]

i guess it's not generally accepted as nice, or as fact to call the neocons neo nazis, if you call a person a nazi, you've apparently lost the argument automatically according to hoyle. but i still contend that they are behaving in a very nazi like way.

even the imagery from bush's recent speeches look like hitler rallies or mussolini staged events, always the military embellishments, multiple flags, clever catch phrases on huge banners, strutting like il duce, swaggering like uncle adolph.

don't tell me that they aren't using the nazi playbook, PNAC plan and all. if it walks like a nazi, it's a nazi.

[mattclearing]

1. Most people think it is hyperbole, and pretty offensive hyperbole at that.

While I don't disagree with your assessment, it is not a very persuasive (or productive, for that matter) stance.

It will be twenty years from now, and already is in Europe, where people actually remember what Hitler was about.

[Tace]

2. No Doubt

The only difference I've heard argued is that the Nazis were ruthlessly efficient at turning war-torn Germany into an industrial powerhouse, while the neocons -- Bushco anyway -- seem to be tearing the world apart, sowing chaos, and destroying any industry left domestically.

[Skinner]

11. With respect, there is a point when the comparisons go too far.

When people start suggesting ways in which the Nazis were better, then the comparisons go too far. Arguments that go along the lines of: "The Bush Administration and the Nazis are the same -- except the Nazis were better at X." I know that this type of comparison is not intended to glorify Naziism. But it does have a certain whiff to it, which sounds way too similar to: "you know, there were some good things about Naziism."

To be honest, we usually delete these types of comments. But given the topic of this thread, I suspect we'll see more of this type of thing. So I figue there's some value in explaining it.

As I said, I know that it's supposed to be ironic, and no harm is intended. But it's really too much, IMO.

[mopaul]

12. i agree

so if this has to go, i'll understand

[Skinner]

13. To be clear

we don't usually delete straightforward Bush/Nazi comparisons. I was referring to those posts where someone takes it the next step and makes the old "but nazis were better at (whatever)" joke.

[mopaul]

14. hitler made the trains run on time

one of my faves

[Skinner]

15. That's exactly the type of thing I was referring to. (nt)

[Burried News]

3. Seems to me the Nazis and Italian Fascists were more open

about what their agenda was. Most of our people still don't know what they are up against. Maybe in the 20's that wasn't the case but it certainly was by the 30's.

[C_U_L8R]

4. Except these nazis

are OUR nazis...
whether they've rigged the ballot boxes or not
and on top of that--- they are nuclear armed nazis

[FormerDittoHead]

5. I'm with you...

They compare Democrats to Communists all the time, and arguably, Communists (Stalin, Lenin, Mao) killed more people than the Nazis, yet there no 'outrage' from the side that supposed to be the 'politically correct' ones in 'control' of the media...

[Mutley]

6. Just supply them with the definition of fascism...

it's pretty damn hard to ignore.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fascist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism (this is one of my favorites :P )
"Merriam Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"<1>. The American Heritage Dictionary instead describes it as "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."<2>. The narrowest possible definition of fascism is the specific ideology of Mussolini's fascist state in Italy."

[mopaul]

7. nationalism has religious overtones

like when some folks get weepy at the sight of a waving flag

[terrya]

8. I think it trivializes the evil of Hitler, actually.

I hate Bush as much as anyone on DU. But I do think these "Bush=Hitler" analogies de-emphasizes the absolute evil that Hitler represented. I don't recall Bush ever expressing hatred of an ethnic or religious group as Hitler did. I don't think the analogy is a proper one. IMO.

[Mutley]

9. Which is one reason why I tend to use the word

'fascist' instead of the word 'nazi'.

[Beware the Beast Man]

10. Oh, FFS.

:eyes:

This is a tired statement.

[unblock]

16. i don't think anyone can argue that the propaganda approach is the same

certainly their attitude towards telling lies, attacking opponents for their own sins, deciding policy in private and communicating publicly (with more lies) only to sell it and glorify it, etc. is all REMARKABLY similar to the nazi philosophy.

then there's the business-government coziness as well.

oh yeah, there's also that pre-emptive warfare thing.


but the real problem is that hitler and the nazis have become inseperably intertwined with the holocaust. it's IMPOSSIBLE to have a rational public discussion about hitler and the nazis without evoking the images of skeletal prisoners in concentration camps and so on.

THAT's why the comparisons don't work. it's not that they're inaccurate -- aside from the genocide bit, shrub and the gang are indeed VERY much like the nazis. the problem is that, as a practical matter, it's impossible to separate out the mass killing of 12 million civilians, included the attempted extermination of the entire jewish population.


in this sense, the jewish community has greatly failed us all. we have, ever since the fall of hitler, said 'never again' and we have pressed that point near and far. unfortunately, we erred in demonizing and caricaturizing hitler to the point where all shrub needed to do was appear somewhat human and people couldn't see the connection. without the mustache and the armbands and the german accent, people just don't recognize it.

[Neil Lisst]

18. Very solid comments.

Just wanted to acknowledge that. I purposely avoided reading the thread until after posting my comments. That way, I'm not reacting to anyone's post except the original poster.

Good thoughts you expressed, and consistent with mine.

There's so much wrong about Bushworld, it's a shame to get into side arguments with friendlies over truly non germane matters.

[Neil Lisst]

17. It's simply not an effective argument tool, mentioning Nazis.

First of all, one shouldn't use the Nazi comparison because it is not effective. It elicits a negative response in so many, it automatically distracts from any point being made.

In recent years, the vogue has been to say "the first person to use a Nazi analogy loses." That's a convenient way of not having to think about the very real comparisons between attitudes and behaviors which are found in this administration and were also found in the early days when the Nazi movement was developing.

When one says "Nazi," I want to know WHEN?

1928? 1933?

Those years are a lot different than 1939 or 1943.

The problem with even mentioning Nazis is that the mere mention makes any discussion intended secondary to the cacophony of protests that follow because you've gone to the Nazi card.

I never use them because they're not effective, not because they're not accurate. This administration is by far the most fascist administration we've had in the past 50 years. They still don't approach the Nazis in any sense, but there are valid comparisons to how they lie, use propaganda, and use party goons to enforce their will. Of course, the same can be said for just about any despotic regime.

I stay away from Nazism because there is no such thing as thoughtful discussion about the nazis online. One side is overstating the analogy, and one side is overreacting to the use of Nazi.

How hard is it to simply refute absurd overstatements or comparisons? I don't favor the OH NO YOU DIDN'T! shout down as a means of argument.

This is the first and last time I'll talk about the Nazis here. I've never mentioned them for a reason, and never will again. Real life, thoughtful people who are knowledgeable about Nazism from its start to its finish - great. Message board - it'll never happen. A majority of posters in every venue simply cannot discuss Nazism rationally, as a topic. Almost all the overreaching analogies can be dismissed with little effort, but that is not the reaction that follows. Otherwise sane people suddenly lose their rational gene and start chunking rocks and calling names.

If I never see the word "Nazi" here again, it'll be too soon. Let's talk about what Bush is doing NOW to us, without getting sidetracked on an argument that is simply irrelevant to our discussions.

I hope I don't offend anyone on either side of this issue, but I figure to say what I think about this topic once and leave it behind forever.

[Peter Frank]

19. Remember, Hitler used the BIG lie...

He knew that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it -- regardless of how outlandish the lie is.

It nauseates me that a substantial percentage of Americans still believe that there was an Iraq/al Qaeda connection. Why do they believe it? Because this big lie was told over and over by this administration. :puke: