Are Parallels To Nazi Germany Crazy? (not in Harley Sorensen's fairyland)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Monday, January 27, 2004 | Harley Sorensen

[presidio9]

They had their Holocaust, we have ours, better known as abortion on demand.

Amen.

[gcruse]

The left seems to not know or just ignore the fact that the Nazi's were Socialists.

• Throughout its rise to power and rule, the Nazis were strongly opposed by left-wing and socialist parties, and Nazi rhetoric was virulently anti-Marxist, attacking both communists and social democrats.

• Nazis proposed that only people who were considered "racially pure" or Aryan would benefit from their policies. This can be seen as contrary to the socialist ideal of a society for the benefit of all.

• In his rise to power, Hitler reassured German industrialists that he would respect private property and fight labor unions. To the extent that permitting private property to exist is contrary to "socialism", then Nazism was not "socialist". On the other hand, some democratic countries (like Sweden) have adopted some (but not all) socialist ideas while retaining a degree of freedom to own private property and have labor unions.

• Hitler received strong support from conservatives for the "Enabling Act." This legislation was opposed by social democrats.

• After coming to power, Hitler sent thousand of communists, social democrats and unionists to concentration camps and killed communist leaders in Germany. He outlawed labor unions and guaranteed corporate profits for Krupp & Co.

• The profits of large corporations soared under the Nazis.

[theFIRMbss]

>The left seems to not know or just ignore the fact that the Nazi's were Socialists

And the Left ignores that the educated Right sees more horrible similarities to Nazi culture today than they pick up on. (And, very oddly, some evangelicals and Randians concur!)

[theFIRMbss]

>The profits of large corporations soared under the Nazis

[Timesink]

Just remember, every time a beyond-the-pale "Bush is Hitler" hate piece like this gets published somewhere, it costs the Democrats hundreds (or even several thousand) voters, as they leave for the GOP in utter disgust.

Even in San Francisco.

[Timesink]

Whether by chance or design, George W. Bush is the most powerful American president in modern history. Not only does he have both houses of Congress beholden to him, but the majority of the Supreme Court is acting like a quintet of Bush lapdogs. And it all appears legal.

Yet during every one of the MANY times in modern history when the Democrats controlled the White House, the SCOTUS and both houses of Congress all at the same time for years on end, well, that was just the natural order of things!

(I especially like how it only "appears" legal to this guy.)

---

This is the Mainstream Media Shenanigans ping list. Please freepmail me to be added or dropped.
Please note this is a medium- to high-volume list.
Please feel free to ping me if you come across a thread you would think worthy of this ping list. I can't catch them all!

[nopardons]

LOL...there's moral relativism and this proves that there's political relativism too.

The Supreme Court acts as President Bush's " lapdogs "? In what universe ?

[cyncooper]

Whether by chance or design

The design of U.S. citizens, Mr. Sorensen, who ELECTED a Republican Congress and ELECTED President Bush.

[Congressman Billybob]

Keep in mind where this article was published, and for whom it was published. Both ways, the answer is San Francisco Democrats. So your point is well made. When Democrats control all three branches of the federal government, that is "normal." When Republicans control all three branches, that is both dangerous and probably illegal.

Odds are, the writer and his editor (and most of their readers) are too politically bigoted and historically stupid that they never considered the obvious point that you raise.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread).

[cyncooper]

Exactly. We know the rhetoric. Dems "win" a seat, Republicans "seize" it.

[reformed_democrat]

Who could forget "Stroke of the pen, law of the land."

Seems to me that was a democrat quote.

[tet68]

They only called themselves, "National Socialists" as a joke?

come on!

[gcruse]

They only called themselves, "National Socialists" as a joke?

East Germany called itself a democratic republic.  It was neither.  I wouldn't place so much weight on rhetoric.  Look at how Nazism functioned; it was not communist nor particularly socialist.  The issue is not so settled as some would have you believe.
The items I posted for you aren't jokes, but matters of historical record.

[Nick Danger]

This isn't even good propaganda. It's just lame.

[jimfree]

What planet are these dishonest people from???

They are from the planet where Guantanamo Bay is somehow equivalent to Dachau.

Let's see, we are questioning a few hundred in a tropical venue and that is the same as gassing and burning thousands. They have my vote (for commitment).

[xm177e2]

I almost feel bad fisking this article, because it doesn't deserve this sort of attention to detail, but I feel like doing it anyway.Whether by chance or design, George W. Bush is the most powerful American president in modern history.

What does this mean, "by chance or design?" Bush, like any other normal politician, wants to win elections, and he wants his fellow partymembers to win elections. What does the author mean by "design?" Is he insinuating that Bush perpetrated elections fraud, or that he was behind the 9/11 attacks?

Not only does he have both houses of Congress beholden to him, but the majority of the Supreme Court is acting like a quintet of Bush lapdogs. And it all appears legal.

Why wouldn't it be legal for him to preside during the time of a Republican-majority Congress? Why would this appear to be anything other than legal? Again, the author hints at something that he won't back up (in perfect Chomskyian form).

"Domestically, during the next six years, Hitler completely transformed Germany into a police state."

Civil libertarians insist that this is happening here now, with the USA Patriot Act in force and Patriot II on the table.

This is an extremely lame method of argumentation. To paraphrase: "I'm not saying the US is a police state, but civil libertarians (none are named) insist that this is happening here." He gets to say this country is turning into a police state without actually saying it (and defending it). The Reichstag fire parallels the Sept. 11 attacks here, and Hindenburg's decree parallels our USA Patriot Act.

And now he has more directly hinted that Bush could have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen. At best, he is accusing Bush of having cynically used 9/11 to grab as much power as he possibly could--he leaves out any possibility that Bush might have felt responsible for our nation's defense, and wanted to prevent another such attack during his tenure.

Soon after Hitler took power, the concentration camp at Dachau was created and "the Nazis began arresting Communists, Socialists and labor leaders ... . Parliamentary democracy ended with the Reichstag passage of the Enabling Act, which allowed the government to issue laws without the Reichstag."

With Bush leading all branches of government around by the nose, there's a question whether parliamentary democracy still exists here.

Because Bush gets his way in Congress much of the time does not diminish the democratic nature of our country (which the author inexplicably refers to as "parliamentary democracy"--this is very silly error, because in countries with parliamentary democracy, the executive and legislative branches are fused, and the Prime Minister always enjoys at least tenuous support from more than half of the legislature, or his/her government falls and the PM is replaced or new elections are held). This does not diminish the democratic nature of this country because Americans elected and re-elected Republican congressmen during the 2002 midterm elections because we wanted them to help Bush and not obstruct him. We voted for Republicans knowing full well what it meant.

Certainly, concentration camps exist, if we're willing to call the lockup at Guanténamo Bay what it really is. And the USA Patriot Act allows the president to effectively take citizenship rights from any American-born criminal suspect.

If all Hitler had done was establish "concentration camps," he would not have been such a monster. I would not mind terribly if one eighth of my relatives had only been locked up in poor conditions rather than exterminated in extermination camps. We are not running gas chambers and crematoria, and it is absurd to compare the prison in tropical Gitmo to the Nazi death camps. Who is being held in Gitmo? Mostly hardened terrorist leaders who belong there, not random political or racial prisoners.

How comfortable do American-born Arabs feel in the United States today?

How comfortable do you feel knowing that every single prominent Arab-American organization (with the exception of explicitly Christian organizations) supports Muslim terrorists around the globe? How comfortable do you feel knowing that CAIR refused to condemn Usama bin Laden for several months after 9/11? Even with these displays by prominent Muslims of disloyalty to America and sympathy for terrorists, there have only been the smallest number of hate crimes involving serious bodily harm or death against Muslims here in America, mostly by mentally deranged people. These attacks have always been condemned by politicians across the spectrum and Bush has never tried to stir up race-hatred against Arabs or anti-Islamic sentiment (he goes out of his way to praise it at every turn).

While the German concentration camps were being built and Jews were being persecuted, in 1936 Nazi Germany hosted the Olympic Games and put its best face forward to the world. We have the Super Bowl.

I don't think I can argue effectively against this point; nobody who would accept it credulously could possibly be swayed by anything I have to say.

In the mid- to late 1930s, Germany was able to annex nearby territories without firing a shot. That was because of the threat of the German military, the strongest in the world at the time. That might be compared with the sudden flexibility of Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Libya, all of whom are aware that Bush will do more than just threaten; he'll do it.

So the author has now accused Iran, Pakinstan, Syria, and Libya of appeasing America by giving in to our demands--demands like "hey, quit trying to get nuclear weapons you bloodstained fanatic dictators" or "knock it off with the international terrorism." The nations Hitler intimidated were democracies that wished to avoid war. The nations Bush has intimidated are dictatorships that are never hesitant to use the most brutal tactics, including war, to get what they want (just look at what Syria has done to Lebanon).

This also raises the question: If Bush is Hitler, and if Hitler had been resisted earlier much violence could have been avoided, and these states are appeasing Bush, does that mean that the author feels these states should be resisting Bush? Does he want these states to continue developing nuclear weapons and sponsoring international terrorism?

Hitler came to power in 1933, but the killing of Jews (and others) didn't begin until five years later, in 1938, with the historic Kristallnacht ("Night of Broken Glass") on Nov. 9. On that day, "nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire and 76 were destroyed. More than 7,000 Jewish businesses and homes were looted, about 100 Jews were killed, and as many as 30,000 Jews were arrested and sent to concentration camps to be tormented ... ."

We haven't seen anything like that here, nor does it appear to be one the horizon, yet one must wonder about the hundreds shut away in Guanténamo Bay and in other lockups in the United States and throughout the world.

Once again he returns to Gitmo to support this comparison. The prison there is humane, it holds many bad people, and it is a necessary part of the war on terror (they need to be locked up somewhere--much better here than to be tortured by police forces/intelligence services in their home countries). The prison in Gitmo is held up as the greatest single example of George Bush's fascist tendencies. But Gitmo is not terrible at all.

My conclusion is that some comparisons between modern times and Nazi Germany are valid, and some are not. Enough are valid, in my opinion, however, for us to be wary, and as vigilant as humanly possible.

I don't see a single instance in which he points out a comparison as being invalid; he just says they haven't happened yet.

From the Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust, we can view Hitler's rise to power in detail. Notice the comparison he has not mentioned: Where is Bush's Mein Kampf? Does George Bush worship strength and teach children to hate weakness? Does Bush demand more government control of the economy? Does Bush blame our troubles on a ethnic groups? (Bush has always gone out of his way to say that Arabs and Muslims are not our enemy--a courtesy Hitler did not exactly extend to the Jews).

When has Bush expounded on his philosophy? He is in favor of faith-based charity initiatives, strict educational standards for poor children, a thing he calls "compassionate conservatism" (Hitler never described himself as a big softie at heart). A major aspect of the Nazi party was its brazen fascist nature, which it did not ever try to hide; indeed, this was a major part of Hitler's drive to revolutionize Germany. Hitler was always loud, angry (he shook with rage during his speeches), violently stabbing into the air with his finger. Bush is always calm and composed.

When was George Bush's failed "Beer Hall Putsch?" Where is George Bush's SA? Where are his lynch mobs? Who are his domestic assassins?

Hitler took power because of an economic crisis. George Bush won election during one of the biggest economic booms of this century (some say the recession started during Clinton's term, but at the time, nobody knew a recession was coming). Under Hitler, the economy was improved; under Bush... well, let's just say the economy is finally turning around now.

Hitler was a vegetarian and an anti-smoking Nazi. George Bush probably took major campaign contributions from tobacco companies and beef farmers (I'm just guessing about this, I could be wrong). He abstains from alcohol, but has no plans to encourage the rest of us to give it up.

And, perhaps most importantly, unlike Hitler, George Bush isn't trying to get into his niece's pants.

[xm177e2]

Not a single Arab was killed in retribution after 9/11.

That's not true. A small number (one or two?) were killed by a deranged man, along with a few Sikhs (non-Arab non-Muslims) who are often mistaken for Muslims because of their turbans.

I believe the total number of Arabs murdered here in America in retribution for 9/11 is something on the order of four.

[theFIRMbss]

>They only called themselves, "National Socialists" as a joke?

IBM and the Holocaust : The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation

Nazi Germany was very "business friendly" and it's disturbing to go back and read speeches people like Watson made supporting them.

[Mr.Atos]

Its interesting to note that when the nation - including it's citizens, legislatures, and judges - take a stand, by choice, for that which is right, moral, and just... support the nation's founding principals... recognize the primacy of virtue, integrity, honor, and character... promote and export the fundamental concepts of this Constitutional Republic... and shed the rotting mores of Leftist's moral relativism, pathetic little minds like this Mr. Sorenson consider it Tyrannical.

Hmmm....

[dueler88]

Random thoughts:

gcruse is no idiot. I can see where he’s (she?) going. What's important to understand, though, is that there is a wing of the Left that is very Nazi-like in its behavior: you must think this way, you must speak this way, you must respect this person whether they deserve it or not, you must WORSHIP diversity for its own sake, you must worship the earth, etc. Hardly notions of democracy. Based upon what he/she said there, I would like to think that gcruse would acknowledge that those “you must” notions exist on the Left. They exist on the right, too, but the right is labeled whacko, while the Left is not. Well, not yet. But the day that Communists are rounded up, imprisoned, and put to death is the day that I renounce my U.S. citizenship, y’knowhamsayin’? As Ted Nugent said so profoundly: "Freedom of speech is ultra important so stupid people will make their stupid statements so we know how stupid they are." (from tednugent.com)

The article smacks of desperation.

I admit there are parallels, but people need to recognize that there IS a threat. Any thinking person should be able to evaluate this, or any article, for what it is without having political preconceptions. I have no problem with somebody saying these things, because freedom of expression is of utmost importance. What's of nearly as much importance is the freedom for us to intelligently evaluate what is communicated.

The threats to Germany were almost entirely imagined, while Islamic Militants are REAL. It's sucks, but it's there. Hitler relied on conspiracy theories to acquire his power. Bush is reacting to a real act of war, and is in fact also having to defend himself against people concocting conspiracy theories.
To think that Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand is simply crazy. So many specifics would have to be known in order for any preventative action to take place. Our intelligence and law enforcement systems didn’t allow us to connect the dots, an action that might have prevented 9/11. Hindsight is always 20/20. The Patriot Act simply allows our intelligence and law enforcement systems to begin connecting dots – from what I understand, it does not rob any freedoms.

9/11 / Reichstag and Hindenberg/Patriot are parallels that are a little too convenient to be taken seriously, like the Kennedy and Lincoln assasinations. Interesting in their parallels, but invalid in real meaning.

To think that Bush is leading the government around by the nose is also crazy. Germany did not have the same kind of separation of powers that the U.S. has always had. What also occurs to me is that the U.S. is (as long as we have a strong philosophical connection with our frontier/agrarian past) full of rugged individualists who trust themselves more than anybody else, especially the government.

Communists and socialists have just as much of a voice in the U.S. as any other political party. I don't see any concentration camps, nor any on the horizon. Gitmo is TOTALLY different - it holds enemy combatants that were SHOOTING at American soldiers, and the prisoners are living more comfortably than they every did with the Taliban.

The Super Bowl comment is interesting, in that it reveals much about how the author feels about American culture, but it only appears to mean something because it’s very timely. The Olympics are bathed in international relations and national pride (aka propeganda). The Super Bowl is bathed in pure American capitalism. Big difference.

Germany invaded the Sudetenland, Austria, Poland, etc. They were peace-loving and by-and-large democratic states, if I recall. Iraq was a dictatorship. Philosophically, can individual freedom be a concept forced upon a population?

The author's point about the power of the presidency is very interesting, and i find myself agreeing somewhat. From what i can remember about constitutional deliberations, wary of their experience with monarchy and knowledge of imperial Rome, the founding fathers were very concerned about the power of the presidency. the american presidency has become a sort of cult of personality. I defend Bush not because I love him and will do whatever he asks of me, but because I agree with most of his policies and I think he is unfairly maligned. What's important to examine are the actions of the man, and not the personality (percieved or otherwise) of the man. I don't agree with everything he does, but the criticism is starting to get psychotic. People need to remember that the real power of the U.S., i.e. what makes this country great, is the individual citizen. This is because we have the freedom to believe and act in whatever manner we see fit, respecting that same right in others. We stand on the soil of the actions of our past, whether it's digging a hole of regression or standing on a mountain of progress. We shouldn't be lax in examining the behavior of our elected officials, but we should also not neglect to do what's right on a daily basis for ourselves, our children, our families, our communities, and our nation.

The biggest difference with Nazi Germany is that American political parties don't have a habit of intimidating their adversaries with death threats. We rationally discuss the problems, listen to all viewpoints, and make up our own minds. I don't see the National Socialist German Workers Party as being similarly thoughtful in regards to the course of their nation.

I recently saw these words scrawled in to a bench at a bus stop: "KILL REPUBLICANS". Although I know it was put there by some punk kid, is that the voice of a rational thinker? Or the voice of a Leftist "Nazi"?

The simple quote "Never Again" rings loudly in my mind, but we should be aware that tyrrany can be hatched from both the Right AND the Left.