History repeating itself?

i laughed my butt off after reading that. not sure where to start, but I guess people can shape history anyway they want to suit their motives. I guess we will be seeing terrorist camps soon. Ohh, i guess theres one in guantanamo. ;)

later,
 
epicstruggle said:
i laughed my butt off after reading that. not sure where to start, but I guess people can shape history anyway they want to suit their motives. I guess we will be seeing terrorist camps soon. Ohh, i guess theres one in guantanamo. ;)

later,

I'd be interested to know what portions you consider historically innaccurate. Granted I haven't read up on WWII history in about 10 years, but it seemed pretty accurate to me.
 
Joe DeFuria said:
I'm just waiting for Natoma to start posting links to the similarites of the Iraqi war to Vietnam.... :rolleyes:

*cough* troll *cough* :rolleyes:

Add to the conversation constructively or don't say anything at all...
 
Natoma said:
Add to the conversation constructively or don't say anything at all...

To be frank, when you post shit - you get shit in return. This is true of us all...

Whats this guys Intelligence Quotient, 79?

I have a habit of going to the end first and then reading backwards and stopped at the 3rd paragraph (IIRC) where he compared Guderian's Blitzkrieg with the INSS's doctine of Rapid Dominence based on Clausewitzian ideologies, of which one is Shock and Awe.

Perhaps if he had a clue.... other than what he hears on CNN :rolleyes:


Also, if Natoma and this clueless sole are so big on comparing FDR (ideal leader) with Hitler and contemporary society - then thats a resousing YES! to Bush's supply-side tax cuts, which were first implimented in the modern United States by FDR at the behest of his Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon.
 
When you have to resort to calling somebody a fascist, or comparing them to Hitler, you've lost your argument already.
 
Sxotty said:
Hey Russ I can compare Saddam to Hitler though right? ;)

You can compare anybody you want to Hitler. However, if you have to resort to it to villify your opponent, you've already lost.

(But, to be sure, I think there's closer comparison to the government in Iraq to WW2 Germany than there is to the US)
 
Sxotty said:
Hey Russ I can compare Saddam to Hitler though right? ;)

RussSchultz said:
You can compare anybody you want to Hitler. However, if you have to resort to it to villify your opponent, you've already lost.

(But, to be sure, I think there's closer comparison to the government in Iraq to WW2 Germany than there is to the US)

No. The correct analogy would be Saddam to Stalin. He's a socialist, not a fascist and he follows the pattern set by Stalin much more closely. The situation in Iraq is closer to Stalinist Russia than Nazi Germany.

For one thing, much as Hitler is reviled today (and deservedly so), he was actually very popular in Germany for a while. Hitler was actually elected in the beginning. I doubt Saddam was ever that popular in Iraq (though I could be mistaken).
 
Joe DeFuria said:
Natoma said:
cough* troll *cough* :rolleyes:

Lol... Sorry Natoma...I can't constrctively contribute to this topic any more than I can make a mountain out of a pile of sh*t.

Man, I really am right about you never reading anything aren't I.

Add to the conversation constructively or don't say anything at all...

:rolleyes:
 
Russ and Vince:

I'm pretty sure the world in 1935 didn't see Hitler as the greatest menace to mankind, as the world, post WWII, sees him. Most certainly the germans didn't at the time. You're looking at this with hindsight, rather than placing yourself in the appropriate time period.

Frankly, the lead up to where we are right now parallels so well it's pretty scary. Now obviously I doubt Bush is going to become the genocidal poster boy of the 21st century, but that doesn't mean he and his administration can't do a serious amount of damage to this country, and our interests around the globe.

Everyone always assumes that a comparison to Hitler automatically means genocide, death camps, etc. This article is comparing Hitler's political rise and maneuvering, *not* his atrocities against mankind. I had an immediate gut reaction *against* this article when I first read it, due to the fact that Hitler is historically known as "Satan Incarnate." But as I actually read it, I realized that it wasn't doing that at all.

Now Vince, you made a couple of points in your post, though not completely coherant hehe, which basically says that you disagree with some of the historical facts that the article raises. Care to elaborate?
 
Its a lost cause Natoma. As soon as the word Hitler comes out it instantly creates disdain in the mind as to whatever comparisons are drawn. Some of the parallels in that article are scary but some are too strong. If anything with the clear intent of Hitlers regime are taking place today it would have to be incredibly subtle.

I think the article may be relevant if we ever go thru a significant economic crisis of the kind seen in the 1930's. Then we may see more obvious parallels with what I expect to be a renewed form of nationalism and hero worship created as distraction for an impoverished populace in search of something or someone to blame.

The tools of politics are pretty much the same anywhere you go in the western world. Every party practices basic things politically and when in power thru legislation and so its very easy to see similar patterns between any current party and Hitlers. Take propaganda. Hitler helped pionneer it and virtually every western nation has seen it put to use since. It doesnt mean Hitlerism is alive and well in those parties and countries. I certainly cant equate the SS with Homeland Security tho the very name chosen for that dept sent Stephen King class chills up my spine as well, it really shouldnt. At least not yet.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We can only hope the economy and thus democracy holds and then we'll see Bush go the next election or the one after at the latest.
 
Natoma said:
Man, I really am right about you never reading anything aren't I.

No, I just have no interests in commenting on articles that aren't worth commenting on.

And I thought by my previous posts, that was abundantly clear.
 
Joe you're really dumb sometimes. Here. Let me bold my previous comments so you can understand it a little better..

Add to the conversation constructively or don't say anything at all...

Since you have stated multiple times now that you had nothing to say, that obviously means that you were just coming in here to cause trouble, but not add to the conversation.

So do everyone a favor and just stay the hell out of threads where you have nothing to say. I certainly do it. People that comment knowing that they're going to do nothing but toss insults are what? Trolling!! Cripes.

:rolleyes:
 
Thank you Pax for your level headed response. That's what I'm looking for.

What parts did you feel were too strong btw? I thought that a couple as well were a little over the top, but overall I thought it was pretty even keel, when looked at through a pre-WWII lens.
 
Natoma said:
Joe you're really dumb sometimes.

Yes, one of my inherent flaws is in fact stooping to the level of the topic / discussion at hand. Sincere apologies.

Carry on, I will no longer interrupt what is sure to be a thread full of insight and wisdom. Pax did indeed say all that was needed to be said:

The tools of politics are pretty much the same anywhere you go in the western world. Every party practices basic things politically and when in power thru legislation and so its very easy to see similar patterns between any current party and Hitlers.

That's MY view of it. The basic premise of this thread is nonsense, and seemingly everone here that has "meaningully commented" on the article's contents appears to agree, except perhaps you. You have not really said anything about the article itself except to take a sensationalist tone that parts are "downright scary."

If you look through a "Pre-WWII lens" at Hitler's / Nazism's popular rise, you can equate it to any popular rise of most any politician / leadership. Brilliant observation.

Consider that "my constructive comments" for this thread, though I just thought such an observation was obvious.

Good luck with the rest of the thread...
 
I think you'll find the past was slightly reshaped to match more with the current facts to help bolster his claim of parallelism. (Particularly the bit about Hitler's poor oratory skills honed later in life, the characterization of the occultist 'skull and bones' reference, etc). Next, he plays off of the anti-globalist fears of corporate control of the government. When hasn't government been inundated with rich white men?

Blitzkrieg vs. Shock and Awe? Well, duh. The Blitzkreig is a tactic that's been around since before the German's gave that name. It wasn't put away in the history books and re-invented by Bush's military advisors. (Plus, Shock and Awe and Blitzkrieg are not the same thing)

The editorialist takes great liberties with the facts (both past and present) to make his case, and while it certainly feeds those who believe already, it isn't convincing me or scaring me into believing Bush is the second coming of Hitler. He'll be voted out at the next election, or the one after that and then whoever else suceeds him will be the new Hitler/Great Satan/Julius Ceaser. That is the history that's repeating itself.
 
Back
Top