Posted on 06/10/2016 10:49:04 AM PDT by Captain Peter Blood
I am a huge World War II buff and have read and continue to read a lot about that war. A few months ago I realized that for all my reading as a history buff that I had never read a really good biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt. After doing a fair amount of research I settled on James MacGregor Burns’ two volume biography. I was most interested in FDR and the war years. Mr. Burns is a excellent historian and I have not been disappointed by his writing.
Right now I am reading volume two on FDR and the war years and the other night I came across a couple of pages where Mr. Burns wrote of Hitler and Roosevelt and comparing the two.
As we all know the Democrat’s and Hillary are doing their best to compare Donald Trump to Adolph Hitler, but in a close perusal of what Mr. Burns wrote of Hitler, it almost seemed in some ways he was writing about Hillary Clinton. I realize lots of things are subjective so I will let you come to your own conclusions. The following are some of the observations made about Hitler
(A) Hitler as a boy hated and feared his father and loves his mother, moved repeatedly from place to place and from school to school. Had a sense of self that was at once overblown and empty
(B) Hitler showed little ability to change and adjust.
(C) Hitler emitted at most a barking gurgle.
(D) Hitler loved the grandiose, the morbid, the apocalyptic.
(E) Hitler was an Ideologist. In his five decades of vagrancy, and of trench life, political combat, and finally the conquest of power, he had forged a system of values, a rigid theory of change, and a strategy of political action. The values were folkish, racist, xenophobic; they assaulted everything precious to the liberal mind-eagalitarianism, altruism, tolerance, religion, individual liberty, internationalism.
(F) Hitler’s theory of change was not of personal flexibility and adaptation, but of unremitting racial and national conflict and brutal violence, with the strong climbling to power over the bodies of the weak; there was no place for flabby liberal notions of due process, minority rights, civil liberty, parliamentarianism, gradualism, accommodation.
(G) Hitler was a true Ideologist in that his values, his theory of change, and his political strategy meshed perfectly. And as an Ideologist he considered his adversaries not merely wrong or evil, but also mad.
(H) Hitler was a man possessed of a rage for recognition and deference far beyond that of most other politicians and everyone else for that matter. 1
Hillary Clinton has a number of these points in common with Hitler and I have no doubt she will be a monster herself if she is elected president. Our economy will not improve and we will be enmeshed and ensnared in host of foreign wars without end. She will want to prove she is as tough as any man and the way for her to do that is send our military to war.
1 Some of these comments on Hitler were from James MacGregor Burns’ book “Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom”.
Well she was a murderer and a monster, even Mandela decided he needed to get rid of her.
I only got about a fifth of the way through Rise and Fall. One thing that struck me was how scathingly harsh Shirer was every time he mentioned homosexuals. Parts of his book would be considered hate speech today. For me, it was a refreshing reminder that perversions were once recognized as such.
The minute you say the “H” word (Hitler, not Cankles) people start rolling their eyes, but there are some similarities in the political situation.
In the late 1920s, Weimar Germany had several political parties. The Nazis were NOT the majority, but by 1932 held about 44% of the vote in the Reichstag. They took control when their allies, the Nationalist Party, voted to make Hitler Chancellor, with 52% of the total vote.
A majority of Germans never voted for Hitler, but a majority allowed him to come to power by not aligning with the Catholic Center Party (for whatever reason). Can you say “NeverTrumpers?” These are precisely the people who will have blood on their hands if Trump does not win the presidency, for they have not allied against a great evil because of their personal pettiness.
Hillary is not an ideologist (E). Her ideology is strictly based on getting elected and getting paid. She is a money and power hungry witch without ideology. She’ll rant on and on about “women’s rights” then help multiple rapists get off when the money or power gain is right.
She’ll stay left first term to get a second since that’s how she thinks she’ll win (unless Kristol and friends convince her otherwise and she becomes a “conservative” like them). But her presidency will go to whoever pays Bill the most for speeches and increases her off-shore bank accounts regardless of the payer’s ideology or what they want in return.
Psychologically speaking Hillary is a strange case. Her foremost trait is pathological lying. Add to that guilt-free theft, as she broke some priceless WH treasures and stole truckloads more. I’m not enough of a Hitler aficionado to know the degree to which he lied, but I’ve read that, unlike Hillary, he didn’t engage in a never ending, often illegal pursuit of wealth, driven be insatiable greed.
Two more Hillary traits: a simply abject mania for secrecy, and a willingness to endure decades of humiliation by her husband. Afaik, Obama is the only other major poll that comes anywhere close to Hillary for compulsive secrecy, and can you see Hitler tolerating partner-infidelity for even an entire ten seconds?
One major similarity: both Hillary and Hitler believed death to be the perfect solution for individuals who threatened them politically.
Godwin’s law only applies when you have a baseless comparison to Hitler, because you have no other real argument.
In this case the comparisons are real.
OTOH, it’s used to stifle recognizably legitimate comparisons more often than not.
She is clearly corrupted to the core.
Godwin’s law example would be something like. Hitler was a vegetarian thus vegetarians are like Hitler.
I’m not enough of a Hitler aficionado to know the degree to which he lied, but I’ve read that, unlike Hillary, he didn’t engage in a never ending, often illegal pursuit of wealth, driven be insatiable greed.
High and even medium-ranking Nazis got rich. Even down to the SS guards at the concentration camps who sold the dead inmates’ rags to the still living were able to profit.
Think about the contradiction involved: Hillary is uncharismatic; people don't like Hillary; she's an unimaginative creature of machine politics; she's part of the established system and doesn't make waves: and then all of a sudden she's Hitler? It makes no sense.
So you see Hitler as similarly greed-focussed on amassing a huge fortune as Hillary? Bear in mind Hillary devoted inordinate amounts of time to raising big bucks when she was supposed to be doing state dept business. Did Hitler cut large swaths of time out of his Nazi activities to, for example, sell Germany out for cash gain? [Hillary and her HINO have made a cottage industry out of selling off America’s military/hi tech secrets and natural resources. Or should I say, a mansion industry.]
Just did a quick search on H & H’s net worth. Hitler made Clinton look like an amateur. Not saying that every Nazi made out like a bandit, but lots of them did. Whose pockets did European Jews’ wealth end up in?
I guess my point is, that most people view the Nazis through the lens of the horror they created—which is fine, but they miss the point of what was in it for the Nazis themselves—they got very wealthy. Think about Goering’s wine and art collections. He sure didn’t buy those on his salary as head of the Luftwaffe.
I think she is a Ideologist, she is a much more committed Leftist than people think. Bill was more centrist and easier to deal with. But when you look at Hillary’s background and the people she has associated with, she is a Socialist or worse.
I think in many ways she might be worse than Obama. We really can’t and don’t want to find out.
You keep changing the subject away from Hitler. My comment was that Hitler was not as greed-obsessed as Hillary. Mrs. Clinton has spent a massive amount of time and energy accruing wealth. It’s a fixation with her. Hitler’s fixation was Germany. He certainly set up a revenue stream. But that was not his focus;rather, it enabled his true focus.
Or are you saying the bottom line of Hitler’s Nazi activities was the desire to line his pockets?
The thing is we have never seen Hillary with the kind of Power she would have as President. Sure she has amassed wealth but that doesn’t mean she isn’t a very dangerous person. There are enough indications she would be as autocratic or worse than Obama.
No I said that I saw some similarities, although Hitler did like money and what it cold buy. He certainly was more interested in Power as I think Hillary is.
not to mention how Hitler and Goering looted Europe (especially Jews of course) of a vast fortune worth of fine art.... Hitler died with one of the most valuable private art collections in the world, of unfathomable economic value
I do agree that both Hitler and Hillary craved and crave power, respectively. The point I was making with the other poster is that Hitler lived and breathed for his vision of Germany as the ruling world power. Mrs. Clinton seems more focussed on money for money’s sake (though again, I agree she is obsessed with acquiring power as well), and whereas Hitler loved the Fatherland, Hillary loves Hillary, and has sold the US out time and again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.