Posted on 05/20/2003 8:54:43 PM PDT by ConservativeMan55
I just finished watching the documentary on Hitler the Rise of Evil and had some thoughts I would like to share.
The first night was mainly about local politics and how Hitler used wheeling and dealing to get his way. He came to power through different deals made with other members of his and other parties.
The second night is when I began to notice the comparison of modern times. The movie could have been made by a liberal attempting to contrast to today's times.
The movie did portray Hitler as a fairly open minded man in the beginning who became less stable as he became more powerful.
Hitler was billed as a great speaker which led to his becoming the leader of the party. Hitler was also billed as a great artist and he created the Nazi sign.
He changed the name of the German World Workers Party to the Nazi party and used his design as the new flag.
Hitler then started using tactics which can be compared to modern day liberals. When his party could not get their way in the Reichstag (The Congress) they would walk out. Sound familiar?
Everyone in the Nazi party began wearing little Nazi pins and once Hitler dealed his way to become Chancellor he announced the suspension of all civil rights until the problem of "terrorism" could be taken care of.
Two points to make here. Hitler blamed the suspension of civil rights on "Jewish Communists" who were bent on terrorizing Germany. Hitler had the Reichstag burnt down in order to accomplish this. There were no real jewish terrorists in Germany at this time.
The second point I would like to make is that Hitler ordered everyone to start wearing the little Nazi pins. Most did not wear them because they wanted to, but because of Hitlers orders.
All in all I would say it was a good movie with some very interesting facts. Hitler was portrayed as crazy politically, but almost rational in his personal life even up until the end when the two started to mix and he became unbearable to deal with.
The movie did have a caption at the end about exactly how many people were killed. The movie ended with journalists who had written unfavorable about Hitler being sent to concentration camps. The beginning of the Holocaust was the end of the movie.
So all Democrats are like Nazis? Republicans have the clear lead in moral authority in this country today. But you seem to be suggesting that all Democrats are evil fascists. Are you saying we should have a one-party state with only the Republicans in charge? I doubt that's what you really want. Debate makes a republic like ours stronger, and in fact, Hitler did establish a one-party state.
Hitler ammending the law through executive order was the same as Clinton ruling by executive order.
But not when Reagan or Bush have? How about the Iran-Contra affair? How about Watergate? With Congress sitting on its butt during the Nicaraguan revolution, Reagan had to take strong action, and Ollie North is still a hero in my eyes. But selling arms to Iran to fund the Contras remains a violation of the separation of powers (only Congress can legally write checks), and a serious one at that. Moreover, Nixon surely had dictatorship in mind when he turned loose his dirty trickster Plumbers.
The homosexuals as indicated in the SA is the same as the Gaystapo seeking "acceptance" today.
Given the savage treatment of gays before the 1960s, and continued gay bashing in this country, you are calling all gay activists brownshirts? Certainly much of the gay political agenda is off track, but it's a pendulum swing, much like rights for minorities. After having their power suppressed, when it's returned, the victim mentality sets in and people start demanding special treatment. But to assign this to Nazism is to invite the return of institutionalized prejudice.
The wife who grew to love Hitler was the same as the democrat party appologists for hitler.
So people who remain in the Democratic party trying to improve it are Nazi apologists?
I agree with your comment about Germany's contemporary contracts with Saddam, though. It's significant how many Germans have sided with the Arabs in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It wouldn't seem so unusual given that most leftists around the world are doing it, and Germany is riddled with leftists, but in a country with the Holocaust on its conscience, one would think they could do better.
We should attack Democrats for specific behaviors and individual character flaws. Comparing them en-masse to Nazis does a disservice for the Republican party's image, and it fails to recognize the complexities of the American political landscape. Moreover, it insults the many Democrat veterans who have fought against Nazis both in Europe (such as my father) and in the Gulf Wars. I say be Republican and proud, and defeat corrupt and liberty-stealing Democrats one at a time. But don't link any of them to the Nazi party without citing precise examples, and certainly not the whole party.
I dont think the documentary has portrayed that accurately, if it indeed it has. As the history books put it Hitler wanted to be an artist, took an exam in Vienna and failed. he ended up as a house painter, if I'm not mistaken. Just quibbling:)
Interesting to know that Hitler took the Swastika off a Church. I had read somewhere that it was also taken indirectly from the Hindu religion. I do know that the Nazi swastika is the inverse of the Swastika that has been a religious symbol in my country for more than a thousand years.
I believe that is true. I seem to recall that the Swastika was associated with the Aryans that migrated to India (hence the grouping of Indo-European languages).
In the second episode it was terrorism that he both caused and then promised to cure, just like the mafia, that he used to increase his power. It was the fear of terrorism and the promise to protect people from it that allowed him to suspend human rights. Notice the parallel.
When the movie is done we now are suppose to feel a twinge a guilt for flying the flag or thinking anyone a traitor to America. We are also suppose to be very suspicious of Bush everytime he uses the word terror or terrorism, which happen to be words he uses a lot and have been the events that have gained him so much popularity. Yes this movie was a Bush hit piece with interesting pieces of history.
I also notice that Nazi's hate Commies yet they are exactlly the same thing. Commies promise to take money from the rich and give to the poor. Commies demonize the wealthy capitalists. Nazies hated "Profiteers". It is exactly the same thing!!! One calls the other left and the other calls the one right but they have met at the same point and it is off the left/right spectrum.
WOW I sure was wondering if he used the word terroris. I doubted it since that was the obvious Bush spin on part 2.
How did I "overlook" this? I said exactly that. I was refuting someone else who seemed to suggest that Roehm was arrested because he was in bed with another man, which is obviously not the case. Not sure what you read.
Watching the movie last night also reminded me of a thought that also crossed my mind when Saddam's regime was being discussed: I wonder what it's really like for a dictator whose power depends so completely on terror, fear and paranoia. What must life be like when all the people you come into contact with can never really be comfortable around you because they literally fear for their lives? It must be a very creepy, cold and lonely existence, I think.
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.