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”.
Not to be argumentative, but my last post was mainly all about Hitler. How greed-obsessed he was, I doubt we’ll ever really know, since his other sins so overshadow “greed”. I think I do see your point, however. No one thus far accused Hillary of being fixated on America. Of course the Clintons were “dead broke” when they left the White House, so Hillary’s fixation on making money is certainly understandable. (That last part is sarcasm).
I think the bottom line for many Nazis was to line their pockets. Hitler, maybe not so much since once he had power, he had the wealth of the state at his beck and call.
Virtually everything Mrs.Clinton has done can be viewed through the lens of acquiring personal wealth. In the WH she and her HINO, among other things, sold the Lincoln bedroom, America’s cleanest coal deposits, and America’s cutting edge military technology. Afterward it was all about massive speaker fees, a money laundering Foundation, and once again selling any part of America she could illegally get her hands on, to the highest bidder.
Hitler obsessed about making Germany THE world power. He also obsessed about making himself dictator of that power. He DID foment a cult of hero worship, with himself as the object. And he certainly ended up in a position where wealth acquisition was all but effortless. My point is that this was the by-product of his true obsessions: greatness for Germany and himself.
I.e.: Hitler set out to make Germany the supreme world power—and became extremely rich. Hillary set out to become rich, and along the way, A, traitorously sold her country out again and again, and B, has yet to achieve a political position of power (other than SoS, which again, she largely utilized to accrue personal wealth).
Kinda mean to Hitler.
Can’t say that I can argue with any of your points. My only point is that Hitler did end up being incredibly wealthy. Most people seem to be unaware of that fact. And I do think that many of his followers were motivated by the opportunity to get rich.
The op compared Hitler to Hillary, not Hillary to Hitler’s followers. While I don’t have one good thing to say about Hitler, it is a fact that he early on centered his life around something bigger than himself—making Germany the lone superpower. There’s no indication that Mrs. Clinton has ever embraced anything bigger than herself. From that POV, there’s a certain irony at play. Hillary’s goal is money [even what power she’s acquired, she utilized to enlarge her portfolio] and while she’s certainly accumulated money, she’s far from the ranks of the ultra-rich.
Hitler’s goal was a supremist Germany, yet as you pointed put, his wealth accrual put Mrs. Clinton’s to shame. Add to that the fact that without her HINO’s political success, Mrs. Clinton’s own money making ability would have been limited at best, and the contrast is complete.
Very good points. I think the main problem is that maybe we just don’t know enough on Hillary.
Excellent, funny and scary at the same time.
Totally agree with you on that. To some extent, Hillary’s privacy/secrecy obsession has been a success.
Hitler had only one ball, but Hillary has two.
They both came under fire during a war
I want to correct one thing I posted yesterday. Namely, I said Mrs. Clinton was not among the ranks of the ultra rich. In fact, we don’t know whether she is or not. While she was head of State, six billion dollars went mission. One thing we know, it didn’t evaporate into thin air.
Now who in a position of power at the State Dept, at that time, has a long and proven track record of robbing America/the tax payers blind? Who’s dismal record as SoS is partly due to the fact that she focussed more on acquiring wealth than on matters of state?
Even if Mrs. Clinton had to disperse a billion to underlings, so as to make them criminally complicit/ensure their silence, that leaves five billion for the Secretary. From what I understand, that still doesn’t put her in Hitler’s league, but A, it’s not chickenfeed, and B, she’s not done yet.
(Note: Switzerland is no longer the only country that shields vast deposits from public scrutiny.)
Is $6 Billion now such a trivial amount that no one cares where it went and to whom?
There is a distinct pattern to Clinton scandals and criminal behavior but there are never held accountable, always a pass, which has helped contribute to the deterioration of enforcement of Black Letter Law.
Yes, I’ve noticed the MSM version of the code of omerta where Hillary’s six billion is concerned. I’ve also noticed a truly unnatural resistance to Trump. The fear of him is palpable; the crooks know they could be discovered, laid bare and prosecuted.
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.