31 Similarities Between Hitler And President Bush

[Postteen]

THE SIMILARITIES! (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles3/Jayne_Hitler-Bush.htm)

I found that and I thought it was interesting.I don't know if there's athread about it(so don't say I spam, if there is!)


LOOK:



Like Hitler, Bush depends on a military strategy that features a “shock and awe” blitzkrieg beginning with devastating air strikes, then an invasion led by heavy armored columns.

Like Hitler, Bush uses the threat of enemies abroad to stir the fearful allegiance of the U.S. public. For example, he features public announcements of possible terrorist attacks in order to override embarrassing news coverage or to crowd from headlines positive coverage of Democratic Party activities. He also uses the threat of terrorism to justify extraordinary domestic powers granted by the Patriot Act. Even the books we check out of public libraries can be kept on record by federal agents.

Like Hitler, Bush depends on a propaganda machine to guarantee sympathetic news management. In Hitler’s case news coverage was totally dominated by Goebbels; in Bush’s case reporters have been almost totally “imbedded” by both military spokesmen and wealthy media owners sympathetic with Bush. The most obvious case is the Fox news channel, owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Not surprisingly, recent polls indicate that the majority of Fox viewers still think Hussein played a role in the 9-11 attack.

Like Hitler, Bush has promoted militarism in the midst of economic recession (or depression as it was called during the thirties). First he used war preparations to help subsidize defense industries (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, etc.) and presumably the rest of the economy on a trickle-down basis. Now he turns to the very same corporations to rebuild Iraq, again without competitive bidding and at extravagant profit levels.

Like Hitler, Bush envisages our nation’s unique historic destiny almost as a religious cause sanctioned by God. Just as Hitler did for Germany, he takes pride in his “providential” role in spreading his version of Americanism throughout the entire world.


Just have a look at it!

[cormacobear]

Yah that's pretty scary. You should replace Haliburton, an oil company(regardless of their influence over military affairs), with say Boeing, and other aerospace giants busy making weapons of mass destruction.

Of course their was a spike in jobs the last few months, if you activate tens of thousands of reservists you open up tens of thousands of jobs. If you allow your country to borrow money to hire soldiers you employ people today at the expense of those same people ten years down the road, when it comes time to pay back the money.

[Freedom Writer]

Hehe, I was just explaining to a friend the similarities between Bush and Hitler. They seem not to be so far fetched that my friend thought. I must give him this link. <_<

[h&s]

For Fuck&#39;s sake, will people never stop comparing the two? They were/are reactionary bullshits who rely on vagueness to gain votes, and they both kill a lot of people. But Hitler was a genocidal dictator who killed far too many to ever be compared with a &#39;democratically elected&#39; small-time megalomaniac like Bush.

[Freedom Writer]

"Same shit, different asshole"

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 2 2004, 08:11 PM
For Fuck&#39;s sake, will people never stop comparing the two? They were/are reactionary bullshits who rely on vagueness to gain votes, and they both kill a lot of people. But Hitler was a genocidal dictator who killed far too many to ever be compared with a &#39;democratically elected&#39; small-time megalomaniac like Bush.
I agree, the Hitler/Bush comparison only allows people to more readily write-off leftist arguements.

[cheka]

What the shit? What modern military strategy does NOT involve blitzkrieg-esque tactics? Maybe African tribesman, but thats about it, get a new argument asshole

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Cheka, perhaps people would be more willing to listen to your counter-arguement if you didn&#39;t call them assholes?

[ComradeRed]

There was a tactic that was used quite frequently, and still is, what was it called...? Oh yeah, GUERRILLA WARFARE&#33;&#33;&#33;

[cheka]

Why would a nation other than any developing one use Guerilla warefare? The United States and most modern military forces realize that the face of war today is aero and mechanized based.

[Postteen]

I just found the document by chance...I&#39;m not comparing them.But just count the people who have died in Afganistan and Iraq.Have you ever wondered who many they are?

[h&s]

The proportions of people killed may be in a similar range (as in far too many to count), but does Bush want to rid a continent of an entire race of people? Does he send millions of people to the gas ovens? No.

[cheka]

Have you ever wondered who many they are?

Not nearly as many as 5 million thats for sure, and thats only the jews, count the some 15 millions killed on the eastern front.....

[PRC-UTE]

What the shit? What modern military strategy does NOT involve blitzkrieg-esque tactics? Maybe African tribesman, but thats about it, get a new argument asshole

The Brits for one; their strategy has been primarily to use light infantry (always has been). Almost the entire American army are mechanized infantry which is in sharp contrast to the BA.

The US relies completely on heavy firepower. . . which means they rarely catch enemy officers. Which means less intel on the ground. . . which means they keep shelling or bombing everything. . . cuz they rarely know when they&#39;ve hit the "right" target&#33; :(

A strong criticism of the US military is its lack of mobility, its abscence of a true anti-terrorist unit. Navy Seals don&#39;t cut it, they usually flop the scroungers.

The Green Berets however are decent commandoes, as they don&#39;t require as much fire power support, can get up close to the enemy.

The US Marines are a little more elite. They are light infantry like the Brits, try to draw enemy fire, take the hill without artillery support, etc. Fast, mobile and very indoctrinated.

Just my observations, is meant to be objectively appraising the enemy, not praising them or otherwise.

[cormacobear]

The Americans used Canadian anti-terrorist units in Afghanistan.
Isreal is a modern army not useing blitzkrieg techniches. Theycould easily drive over the palestinians but remain aware of the potential backlash such a move would have. So they continue to drop bombs and limit the Palestinians ability to move.

And I&#39;m sure there are more than a million Arabs dead due to Bushes actions already. Let&#39;s add up the bodies when the killing stops.

So your argument doesn&#39;t stand up, Cheka maybe you&#39;re a rectum&#33; <_<

[Invader Zim]

Why is this topic in history?

Surley chit chat, politics or trash would be more suitable.

George Bush is many things, a Nazi, however dispicable he may be is not one of them.

[ComradeIvan]

I dont see Bush killing minorities in America.
Or proclaiming himself a Fuhrer, or Saying he is between god and man.
Or having huge rallies, Bush isn&#39;t like Hitler. And you are a moron for bringing this topic up.

[Xvall]

Do not compare Bush with Hitler. It is a very unfair assessment. First of all, Hitler - unlike Bush - actually won the popular vote. Second of all, Hitler - unlike Bush - was a decorated war veteran. Third, and most importantly, Hitler had a moustache, and bush does not.

Now Saddam Hussein... he is Hitler&#33;

[PRC-UTE]

I&#39;m shocked anyone disagrees with the assessment that Bush and Hitler are very similar.

Not only do Hitler and Bush occur in a similar material circumstance (crisis in capitalism),

use the same tactics (ultranationalism, conquest, scapegoating semetic people),

but the Bush regime even has a direct connection to Hitler (his family made a fortune money laundering for the nazis).

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

The reason that bush can&#39;t just come out and take away our rights completely is because WWII wasn&#39;t that long ago. There are still people who had a part in that war and are alive. We&#39;re not ready to let one of the most horrible parts of history repeat itself... yet.

[h&s]

While I have no belief that Bush is in any way comparable to Hitler, what do you think he would have been like if he was leader in the late 1930&#39;s? mAybe he would have been a Nazi?

[Freedom Writer]

Lets say that they truely have some similarities but in different scales.

Bush [__]
Hitler [_________________]

Something like that.

:lol:

[Xvall]

Quite frankly, Bush is too stupid to ever be on par with Hitler.

[ComradeIvan]

Agreed.
Hitler was very smart, bush is just a complete moron.
Hitler could speak like no one could. He could get all the masses rallying behind him in just one speech. Bush on the other hand can&#39;t even get out a damn speech without having it filled with a lot of errors and stupid sentence fragments.

[ComradeRed]

Hitler was not "very smart", but in relation to Bush, then I concur.

[LSD]

Hitler was not "very smart"

Hitler was a brilliant politician.

Dismissing Hitler as "stupid" is dangerous. You can&#39;t ever forget that there are "smart" people on both sides. Never underestimate our enemies.

If you listen to or watch Hitler&#39;s speeches you realize that he was one of the greatest demagogues who ever lived. He didn&#39;t win elections because his ideas were appealing, we won it because he was "very smart" and could make his ideas seem appealing to everyone.


"The National Socialist German Workers Party"

National - Rightist.
Socialist - Leftist.
German - Rightist.
Workers - Leftist.

Hitler crafted his party so that it "had something for everyone". He could speak to the corporate elite one night and to union workers the next, both would end up supporting him. He was a politician and as such he could be rational when he had to and could be "crazy" when he had to. It was all about the audience.

The way to prevent another Hitler from emerging is recognizing that is not the oppenly radical who are the most dangerous, but the clever politician who knows to temper his message.

"Smart people" can be Nazis too.

Rmember that it was a Nazi that took America to the moon.

[Funky Monk]

So your saying that Nationalism is a right wing policy? You&#39;re staarting to sound like 60s America.

And i would just like to add my voice to those decrying this notion that Hitler and Bush are similar. I mean, sure Bush is a dickhead but he&#39;s not even in teh same league as Hitler in terms of evil. Bush has never come out saying that Muslims are evil, Bush has never systematically exterminated vast numbers of people.

If you want to compare the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan to Hitler&#39;s attrocities you are way out. In that sense Bush is probably more similar to Napoleon who&#39;s troops killed civillians and enemy personnel in Spain and most of mainland Europe.


Lets look at the differences between them.

Hitler has a cult of personallity. Bush doesnt.
Hitler was very centrist in his descision making. Bush isnt.
Hitler dominated a nation ravaged by war and economic crisis. Bush is head of a super-power.
Hitler took land for Liebensraum (sp), Bush according to many takes land for profit.
Hitler took the offensive, Bush responded to a threat.

Now calm down children and stop suggesting that Bush is the incarnate of all evil.



And one last thing, why should the name of the Nazi party be attributed to Hitler? He didnt found it.

[LSD]

So your saying that Nationalism is a right wing policy?

Yes.


And one last thing, why should the name of the Nazi party be attributed to Hitler? He didnt found it.

He named it.

Anton Drexler (with Feder and Eckart, of course) founded the German Workers Party, it was Hitler who came up with the rather Ingenous NSDAP.

[Funky Monk]

Ho Chi Minh was nationalist, was he right wing?

[LSD]

Ho Chi Minh was nationalist, was he right wing?

In many ways, yes.

Just as Stalin had been.

Minh&#39;s nationalism was a departure from leftist thought and was a very rightist/conservative ideology. Like all people, he was complex. Not all of his ideas were strictly leftist, this is an example of one that was not.

[PRC-UTE]

So your saying that Nationalism is a right wing policy?

Yes.

Unless it&#39;s Jewish-settler nationalism, or is "more democratic", right Lysergic Acid Diethylamide? :lol:

The question about nationalism can only be answered in relation to objective conditions. It&#39;s not an abstract matter of some nation&#39;s right to self-determination. If nationalism defeats an imperialist power and thus stirs more rebellion in the heart of the empire, is it really right wing?

[LSD]

Unless it&#39;s Jewish-settler nationalism, or is "more democratic", right Lysergic Acid Diethylamide?

What are you talking about?

If you mean my insistance that Israel is not as bad as Hitler was....well....ok...you keep believing whatever you want :D :D


If nationalism defeats an imperialist power and thus stirs more rebellion in the heart of the empire, is it really right wing?

I didn&#39;t say it&#39;s "wrong", but it&#39;s definitely rightist.

Sure it can be a powerful motivated, but in the long term it is ultimately counterproductive when used by communists.

Taking the focus away from fighting the rulling class only further divides the workers.