How Hitler Came to Power

[monsoon]

One could notice some parallels.

How Hitler Became a Dictator

[Snowguy716]

There are some very interesting parallels. One shouldn't read too much into the conspiracy parallels. (Hitler denouncing communism, Bush denouncing terrorism after a supposed staged event; Fire at the Reichstag and 9/11).

While there are parallels, the ones today are much more likely to produce revolt because A) We're the United States and we will revolt before simply accepting the drastic measures like those taken in Germany and B) The injustices and violence and death are taking place somewhere else. While it could be argued that people were isolated from the concentration camps, the people knew what was going on and were afraid to dissent in fear that they would end up in the concentration camp.

By removing the violence almost completely from our day-to-day life, the powers that be can ensure a longer term of support from a largely "apathetic" or energized populace. Unfortunately, with the constant scene of death and destruction by the media has soured the American public's perception of the war in Iraq, and has thus turned a pretty wide majority (nearly 2 to 1 now) against the war.

This could ultimately lead to a shift in power this fall and at minimum, Bush's policies will be held at current standards or scaled back.

During WWII, it is important to know that Hitler was NOT elected to power, he was appointed by the president because of a resignation. His party maintained the largest number of seats in power, but he largely consolidated his power in response to public fear over the spread of communism.

While you could call the Patriot Act something that parallels the response to the fire at the Reichstag, the Patriot Act is again a much smaller piece of legislation in that it affects less of the population than Hitler's special courts, thus allowing more to support it for a longer period of time.

I don't know if I would call what Bush has done (advertantly or not) better than what Hitler did. Bush and his cronies know that Americans have a rebellious streak and don't want to incite a revolution against him... so they do everything as quietly and as slowly as possible. As time goes on, and their support is eroded, their actions will get louder and faster until finally, he'll be booted out.

[monsoon]

it is important to know that Hitler was NOT elected to power, he was appointed by the president

Bush was appointed to his first term in office by the Supreme Ct.

[Gusterfell]

While there are parallels, the ones today are much more likely to produce revolt because A) We're the United States and we will revolt before simply accepting the drastic measures like those taken in Germany and B) The injustices and violence and death are taking place somewhere else. While it could be argued that people were isolated from the concentration camps, the people knew what was going on and were afraid to dissent in fear that they would end up in the concentration camp.

A. Citizens of many other countries would have revolted long ago over actions already taken by the Bush administration. For example, look at the last presidential election in Ukraine, with days of unrest over evidence of vote tampering leading to a reversal of the results. The same sort of evidence was dismissed out of hand by the American public not once, but twice. Few other societies are made up of such an apathetic, unaware populace as the US. The administration knows this and uses it to their full advantage, offering up snappy sound bites that sound great on the evening news but have zero substance to back them up. Just like the citizens of 1930s Germany, out rights and liberties are gradually being dismantled, and just like the Germans, most of us aren't watching closely enough to notice.

B. The atrocities for which the Nazis are so infamous didn't take full effect until the party was firmly entrenched with dictatorial power, by when it was too late for the people to prevent it. It could get that bad in the US very easily, if we don't do something now.

Is Bush Hitler? Are the Republican neocons Nazis? No. However, they are both fascist movements, and the neocons have had plenty of time to analyse and correct the mistakes made by the Nazis. This makes them potentially even more dangerous, and all I can say is that, whatever your political leanings, pleas pay attention to what these people are doing to our country.

[somad]

Comparing the eroding of civil liberties under bush vs. lincoln, who suspended the writ of habeus corpus at the onset of the civil war, I would hardly call what has happened here to be comparable to Hitler. Even during WW2 with the internment camps... The article that metro posted clearly stated that the Nazis did commit atrocities before gaining full power, the burning of the Reichstag. And the Nazis did commit atrocities even before Hitler became Chancellor, including a failed coup that resulting in Hitler's imprisonment...

Comparing Bush to Hitler really is like comparing apples and oranges. I would find it easier (though a stretch, absolutely) to compare him to Lincoln. As with Lincoln, a lot of Bush's opponents characterize him as a nice guy when you talk to him in person, but in way over his head and unfit for the office of the Presidency. Lincoln was thought of as a simpleton, had a speech impediment, presided as a President during an unpopular war that didn't seem to ever go right, his political opponents likened him to a chimp, was a part of a radical idealogical fringe movement (henry clay, neocon/PNAC crowd), etc. Am I opposed to Bush? Yes, but not because I think he's another Hitler or Stalin...

[Gusterfell]

^The Bush administration has already committed their fair share of atrocities. My point was that the average American doesn't yet feel threatened by these atrocities, just as the average German didn't feel threatened by the Nazis in about 1935 or so.

I agree that equating Bush and Hitler is absurd. That doesn't mean he isn't dangerous.

The suspension of civil rights under Lincoln was an effort to control violence and unrest in this country. The limiting of civil rights under Bush is different in that there is no equivelent unrest here, and no reason to do so. There have been leaked memos from within the Republican leadership from well before 9/11, stating that a catastrophic event would solidify public support behind their agenda. Perhaps this could explain why so many warnings pre-9/11 were ignored by the administration.

[Snowguy716]

I think if somehow Bush was tied to 9/11.. or was even found to ignore evidence for political gain... he would go to prison and the Republican party would crumble.

The whacko-Christians would run to another party to follow blindly and we would have some major unrest in this country.

It would be very bad for this country.

But don't worry.. there'd still be a fair share of "conservatives" (read.. authoritarians) that still stood by Bush.

I can just imagine the Republican campaigns in that situation: "You know... political parties don't matter much. I'm an independent kinda guy.. ya know... one who'll work for you and not for the party. I'm just a party line kinda guy, because I realize that my party is in trouble and people are tying me to the president for supporting his policies 92% of the time and I'm doing this add treating voters like ignorant idiots and won't mention once that I'm a Republican. Then come October, I'll start smearing my opponent in hopes to win.. but it's hopeless because I haven't polled within 7% of my opponent since I announced I was running."

Oh wait.. that already happens.

[Charlotteman]

Snowguy I think what you just basically described was the Democrats' campaign woes of 1984.

Reagan was flying high, it was Morning in America blah blah blah..Mondale was ultimately a sacrifical lamb for the Democrats. All over the South, old time Democrat politicians were saying this very thing! "I don't agree with the national ticket on everything. I'm more an independent Democrat." (Because throughout the South Mondale was thought of as too liberal.)

But now in this campaign it's the GOP. Throughout the entire COUNTRY, Reps are going to have to distance themselves from the Bushies, to have a chance at being elected.

[Snowguy716]

Unfortunately people are seeing right through it.

[monsoon]

Unfortunately people are seeing right through it.

Indeed. At election time, it's too late to run from a President they have been in bed with for the last 6 years. If they had been doing their job, they should not have been so quick to say "yes" to everything that he has done or said.

[Charlotteman]

Isn't it interesting that Bush and his henchmen aren't out campaigning for Rep candidates? It would surely be a political kiss of death to be seen on stage with goofball Bush or sinister Cheney~~~

[somad]

Isn't it interesting that Bush and his henchmen aren't out campaigning for Rep candidates? It would surely be a political kiss of death to be seen on stage with goofball Bush or sinister Cheney~~~

I'd assume it's too early, anyways, to be taking sides. They'll probably wait until either after the primaries or until there's a clear "chosen one" to get the base out to vote for in the primaries...

[monsoon]

Indeed. At election time, it's too late to run from a President they have been in bed with for the last 6 years. If they had been doing their job, they should not have been so quick to say "yes" to everything that he has done or said.

This means they are hypocrites if you ask me as it means they are unwilling to run on their record.

[Charlotteman]

Where in the country do you folks think Bush's presence would be helpful, to get a candidate elected? Maybe Texas or Oklahoma?

His approval poll numbers are so low, it would seem his legacy would be unwise for any Rep candidate to run on!!

Appropriate how Bush is being discussed in a Hitler thread.

[itk]

One could notice parallels... one could also not notice some parallels. I've noticed both.

If others who think they are so convinced one way or the other about their opinions about Bush, and/or any possible similarities with the rise and keep of the Nazi's, not only would Shirer be a good read, but also "Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience of a Single German Town 1922-1945" by William Allen.

The reason I recommend this work by Allen is because it takes a microscopic look (as opposed to most historical literature, esp. about Hitler and Nazi's, which takes a macro look) at one particular German town and it's people, and how they responded (or didn't respond) to the NSDAP/Hitler, from its beginnings to its domination.

These two works, among others, are probably pretty standard historical readings on this subject. Good reads.

[gvsusean]

During WWII, it is important to know that Hitler was NOT elected to power, he was appointed by the president because of a resignation.

you should prob get your history right because he was elected to power and his ascension to supreme power over the german people was 100% legal!!

[Snowguy716]

you should prob get your history right because he was elected to power and his ascension to supreme power over the german people was 100% legal!!

His ascension to power was legal. His scrapping of the consitution and the following absolute rule was not legal. While you could conclude that he had the power to make his own courts and police and reduce Germans' rights due to the Reichstag fire, it was a severe abuse of power, at least.

Hitler was not elected, however. The Nazi party was elected and given the largest minority of an all minority parliament. This is how he became the top man to be appointed Chancellor when the previous Chancellor resigned.

I'm not stupid. I have my history right.