History repeating itself?

[Vince]

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)

Russ, their nothing alike at all. It's this ignorance that allows people like the author of that piece to get away with writing such shit. Any educated person reading this would immediatly realize the massive, structural errors in this guys understanding; but to those who know little it seems plausible. I already stated this:

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.

Infact, the two ideologies are about as diametrically opposed as you can get. Guderian's Blitzkreig was based on using massed forces to break threw set-piece defenses at a single point and then using the mobility of mechnized warfare to create a salient, via this point, deep into the opponents rear. In this way it's based on an almost serial type attack where you leave 99% of the opponent untouched, and exert at that one remaining 1%.

INSS's policy of Rapid Dominence, which contains Shock & Awe, tries to maximize the Clausewitzian ideals of destroying the opponents' will to continue the struggle by applying a massive parrallelization of attack and concurrency. Thus, you attack everything you can with in a short temporal period to create senses of fear, hopelessness, that there's nothing left after the initial assault. In Shock & Awe, you attack 99% and leave 1%.

How much diffrent can these be? Unless you look at just superficial aspects like; 'combined arms' or 'winning' or 'killing the enemy'. But, that only works if your clueless.

 

[Vince]

I don't know Vince, when I post shit I get sexual passes made at me.

Yeah, but you know you like it

Now Vince... basically says that you disagree with some of the historical facts that the article raises. Care to elaborate?

I'll state it clearly. It's obvious the article is nothing but some Anti-Bush/Anti-American/Anti-Knowledge (take your pick) biased guy whose trying his best to stretch the political history of Hitler and it make it relate to Bush's thus far. He doesn't truely know the history (eg. as a historian would) and probobly read a 'history of the third reich' or 'biography of Hitler' book and picked out what he could stretch to make it apply to Bush. Because to the extreme leftist mind, equating Bush and Hitler based on superficial facts that he has to stretch and lie to make fit - is a definite proof.

I don't know enough about the period, but I'd love to see a true historian rip this guy a new one.

 

[Natoma]

Russ:

I was thinking about this on the train into work. I think that this article is less trying to directly compare bush's current presidency with the 'presidency' of hitler in the 1930's. I took away from the article that they are saying "While extreme, this is what *can* happen."

As Pax said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. If the germans of the 30's knew what would happen, they would not have allowed their general freedoms to be whittled away slowly but surely.

I doubt that that sort of thing will happen in this country, but it is a warning to those who would not practice vigilence when it comes to protecting their individual rights and freedoms. That is what frightened me. Not the belief that "OMG! Bush is the second coming of Hitler!"

It's how easily, how quickly, and how silently, our rights can be dismantled, and not even notice it.

That's what I took away from it. Maybe I was looking for a deeper meaning than existed though. hehe.

 

[RussSchultz]

Really? I read it and thought: hey, its another leftist villifying Bush.


Going by what this gentleman had written before, I'll say I'm closer to the mark than the gentle warning theory you've got.

 

[Vince]

Natoma's article is an equal to this one:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5174

Which, FYI, is where a guy with little knowldge of basic physics or mathmatics thinks he's created a perpetual motion machine and has bested not only the second law of thermodynamics, but 2,000 years of science that have built upto this point.

Arjan de lumens sums this mentality very well IMHO:

I'd rate this as one of many pseudo-scientific ideas/outright hoaxes floating out there - sharing the same problem as a lot of them: totally unworkable, but written well enough, convincingly enough, with just hard enough math, that someone without higher education in the relevant field (in this case, physics) won't be able to cut through the crap.

And thats all this is. Enough factual information that some moron out there will believe it because it's beyond what they know and *appears* plausible.

Then again, maybe Natoma is Maxwell's demon!

 

[Natoma]

While that perpetual motion machine article is, as far as we know it, impossible, the historical precedent for democracies/republics turning into dictatorships is there.

Germany and Rome, to name but a couple. That's what I see when I read this article. I don't just dismiss it because it's a hitler comparison. I'm looking past the evil of hitler's regime, and looking at the steps taken to get there.

 

[Heathen]

Guderian's Blitzkrieg? He copied it 'e did.

 

[Vince]

While that perpetual motion machine article is, as far as we know it, impossible, the historical precedent for democracies/republics turning into dictatorships is there.

You still just don't get it, huh? It's the underlying ignorance that feeds these fringe ideologies that I'm referring to.

You're thinking is so far removed from any rational line of thought, it's funny. So... you think Bush is going to declare martial law, burn the Constitution, and himself a "Caeser" in his neo-american dictatorship? My God man...

Germany and Rome, to name but a couple.

Do you even know the history of Hitler's rise to power? How can you compare events such as the Night of the Long Knives to events under ANY American president, much less Bush. Do you have any idea of the events conspired against political opponents and each other between Goering, Goebbels, Himmler and Roehm in the '30s?

Your position, like those that believe in the perpetual motion machine, is based on ignorance and confusion. The situations have so very little in common, yet you don't know this because you don't know of the situations. And your believing some lunitic who put together a basic history of Hitler's rise to power that includes only what furthers his cause.

Guderian's Blitzkrieg? He copied it 'e did.

Guderian is widely considered the father of modern mechanized tactics and warfare. He might have copied pieces of similiar ideologies, but he combined them brilliantly and executed on them as seen in France in '40 or working with Hoth (IIRC) in '43-44.

 

[Natoma]

As I said in my prior post vince

As Pax said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. If the germans of the 30's knew what would happen, they would not have allowed their general freedoms to be whittled away slowly but surely.

I doubt that that sort of thing will happen in this country, but it is a warning to those who would not practice vigilence when it comes to protecting their individual rights and freedoms. That is what frightened me. Not the belief that "OMG! Bush is the second coming of Hitler!"

It's how easily, how quickly, and how silently, our rights can be dismantled, and not even notice it.

That's what I took away from it. Maybe I was looking for a deeper meaning than existed though. hehe.

 

[Vince]

As I said in my prior post vince

(a) Prior post was to Pax
(b) Then don't actively compare Bush's presidence to Hitler in '30s Germany or the Roman Republic.

You said:

Germany and Rome, to name but a couple. That's what I see when I read this article. I don't just dismiss it because it's a hitler comparison. I'm looking past the evil of hitler's regime, and looking at the steps taken to get there. [bold = Vince]

And I responded:

Do you even know the history of Hitler's rise to power? How can you compare events such as the Night of the Long Knives to events under ANY American president, much less Bush. Do you have any idea of the events conspired against political opponents and each other between Goering, Goebbels, Himmler and Roehm in the '30s?

So, when did Bush show up at a hotel with beretta toting Rumsfeld and Powell's and murder some friends-turned-opponents?

Do you realize the contemporary equivalent of the Night of the Long Knives would be having Bush and a bunch of Neo-Conservatives murdering and disbanding the entire FBI and Dept of Justice and replacing them? And this is only an early and small action.

Stop twiting dumb little things Bush has done and making them appear like Bush is on step 6 of Hitler's, How to turn a nation-state into your dictatorship in 12 easy steps. When the Capital burns down (eg.Reichstag), then I'll sit up. Get a clue.

 

[Natoma]

You're taking this whole thing far more literally than it was probably meant to be. I guess you've never used literary allusion to get across a point have you.

 

[DemoCoder]

I explained why this scenario couldn't happen in another post about the structure of our government.

Every branch of the US military makes soldiers swear to protect the constitution not the president. It is the organizational mission to follow the constitution. Here's an example from the army

I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; THAT I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY, WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION; AND THAT I WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE UPON WHICH I AM ABOUT TO ENTER

This is psychologically drummed into soldiers. They are there to defend an IDEA -- FREEDOM -- the constitution of the united states.

If Bush tried to use the military to create a dictatorship, Congress would impeach him. There is no ambiguity as to which body the military leaders would follow. For example, if he ordered the military to dissolve Congress, the military would not comply. There is no confusion as to what the ultimate authority of the country is -- the constitution.


The US constitution prevents dictatorships. It is a nonstarter. Now I realize, that for leftists, if the government were to stop one of their anarchist marches, they scream Hitler, and dictatorship. They cheapen the word dictatorship. Immigrants who formerly lived in the eastern bloc probably cringe at the way these nutcases whine about scenarios that are not comparable.

Comparing anyone's position to that of Hitler invokes Godwin's law and usually disqualifies you from intellectual debate.

 

[pax]

As much as Id like to think the constitution (or its perception by the boys in uniform) is a near inpenetrable guarantee against failure of democracy and thus freedom here and as much as I think that article is a little bit of chicken little in some of its details but mostly in its overall orientation. We can never be sure of the future.

There are no political structures or cultural bents that can guarantee against our basic urges for law and order and to be able to blame someone or something when things go badly. The elements of a very bad economy is in place to facilitate democracies failure and more than ever I think we do need to keep watch and be careful.

Of course any failure of democracy here would be in some ways radically different than in Germany of the 30's. It would be made palatable to our psyche and culture. There are plenty of little parties and organisations here who some are very faschistic and others just very authoritarian. None appeal to a wide audience ... yet. But things change and so can they. And new groups can appear anytime.

 

[DemoCoder]

There was no dictatorship established during the Great Depression. It takes more than a bad economy, it takes a cultural change.

Look, Americans still protest airport security. You think martial law, which would heavily inconvenience people, would be supported for very long?

For Bush to have a dictatorship, he would have to abolish the constitution, Congress, the Supreme Court, and use the military to launch coup d'etats against all 50 state governments. Many states would resist.

Is it possible? Yes. But there are way too many road blocks and checks. It would require a massive rearrangement of US culture, political structure, and interests to support a military dictatorship. Opposition parties would not go along, but would lynch Bush.


You simply cannot extrapolate a few new law enforcement powers post 9/11 as a step towards the Third Reich. This is the same "slippery slope" argments used against any government action. For example, if the government raises taxes by $1 and pays it to someone, conservatives will say this is encroaching Communism!

The slippery slope style of reasoning is fraught with error, because history doesn't slide in one direction, but oscillates around just like the economy. And certainly, the attempt to set up an isomorphism between the Bush presidency and Hitler is ludicrous.

 

[pax]

Well Id say interesting things took place during the last great depression... some new political parties and organisations sprung up and had it lasted much longer or been more severe Im not so sure it wouldnt have led to a failure of democracy.

There was for a time a growing communist and even nazi party in america during the 30's. Its influence reached into some surprising areas in some of the us elite. Disney and Ford dabbled with hints of nazism.

We could argue the relative severity of the economic crisis in Germany with the added weight of Versailles vs only the depression here to death. I think the main idea is that economic bad times need to be avoided as they are closely associated with social upheaval.

Never say never and certainly dont say if we suddenly had a new great depression that led to 30% unemployment rates over a 10-20 year period and a political philosophy of the ruling 70% of little or no social safety nets that it wouldnt lead to serious consequences. Heck even if democracy survives under this after a fashion it still might be made toothless. We could argue its largely toothless now. Cynicism is already about 50% of the voting population and yet the economy is essentialy in very good shape compared to much of the past...

I think, to stay on topic a bit, that the article has some merit. Not really in the details but in its main thrust. Its easy to dismiss it out of hand with the glaring comparisons to that eternal paragon of evil that was nazi Germany. But there is nowhere near the situation that could lead to a real serious comparison yet. Then again how fast can an economy strangle itself? Pretty damn fast nowadays...

 

[Barnabas]

As Pax said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. If the germans of the 30's knew what would happen, they would not have allowed their general freedoms to be whittled away slowly but surely.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Germany didn't have any democratic tradition back then and it barely has now.

 

[pax]

As Pax said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. If the germans of the 30's knew what would happen, they would not have allowed their general freedoms to be whittled away slowly but surely.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Germany didn't have any democratic tradition back then and it barely has now.

I think thats an interesting angle to the argument. Democratic traditions are in fact not that old in the western world as a whole. If we had an eon or 2 of tradition You could slap mud in my vface but we have at best really barely more than 200 years... and really the first century of democracy in the 19th was far from what we take for granted today.

I dont think even the best traditions in Britain, American and France are any guarantee at failure of democracy.

 

[Nagorak]

I explained why this scenario couldn't happen in another post about the structure of our government.

Every branch of the US military makes soldiers swear to protect the constitution not the president. It is the organizational mission to follow the constitution.

The thing is, the military also teaches soldiers to obey no matter what and not question their orders. I think you may be giving a little bit too much credit to how much free thinking there is in the military. By nature the military is a dictator ship.

This is psychologically drummed into soldiers. They are there to defend an IDEA -- FREEDOM -- the constitution of the united states.

Why not just used the term brain washing?

If Bush tried to use the military to create a dictatorship, Congress would impeach him. There is no ambiguity as to which body the military leaders would follow. For example, if he ordered the military to dissolve Congress, the military would not comply. There is no confusion as to what the ultimate authority of the country is -- the constitution.

True, but it's easy to see how it could come to pass. What if a nuclear weapon exploded in DC, vaporizing most of congress. Then a couple more nukes went off in other cities. Bush could declare martial law, and due to the "dangerous state", suspend elections. He'd still be the elected President in name. There are ways around the constitution. But then again, I don't give Bush credit for having the necessary contacts and intellect to actually pull something like that off. So it's all pretty unlikely.

More likely is that Bush ends up destroying the economy during his tenure in office.

Anyway, there's one real reason that there won't be a dictatorship: the wealthy elite have discovered that it's more viable to let the people think they have the power, but then just buy off the politicians. On the other side of the coin, the people do have the power, if they choose to express it.

Unfortunately, fewer and fewer do. If anything, the greatest threat to democracy is the continued drop in the percentage of the population that votes. It's just a sign that the people either don't care, or don't feel they have any real power. I guess we can hope it's only the dumb ones who stay home...

 

[Vince]

The thing is, the military also teaches soldiers to obey no matter what and not question their orders. I think you may be giving a little bit too much credit to how much free thinking there is in the military. By nature the military is a dictator ship.

So, you're telling me that soldiers in the US Military aren't smart enough to discriminate between orders from a fanatical political leader and the Constitution?

True, but it's easy to see how it could come to pass. What if a nuclear weapon exploded in DC, vaporizing most of congress. Then a couple more nukes went off in other cities. Bush could declare martial law, and due to the "dangerous state", suspend elections. He'd still be the elected President in name.

Ok, so lets go with this off-the-wall situation and expand it to the established Cold War type, post-apocolyspe thinking.

Obviously, if you were in a situation where ~50M American citizens die in one night, there would be serious changes to protect the Consitution. The constitution, infact, provides for this and it's widely known and established that in-order to protect the state and constitution in times of dire need, rules must be broken. As I stated in another thread, between 1790 and 1900, Martial Law and the suspension of writs of habeous corpus was enacted over 100 times, nearing 200. But, these conspiracy-theorist type scenarios NEVER play out.

So, even if Bush declared general Martial Law (which would probobly be left upto the states to do as this is a federalist republic) and suspended the election, which has historical president in the case of FDR during WWII, as soon as the crisis is over the situation would normalize - as it has in the past.

There are ways around the constitution. But then again, I don't give Bush credit for having the necessary contacts and intellect to actually pull something like that off. So it's all pretty unlikely.

And I, quite frankly, don't think your comment hold any water in the face of historical and political theory. There is nothing in your above situation that either hasn't been done or hasn't been thought of (and has protocal writen for) and planned for.

The Consitution is very elegent in this way - it's pretty immune to 'emergent' political philosophies that quickly rise in revolution and fall even faster. It doesn't put total power in any one person or party, has so many checks and balances and most of all - allows the citizens to have the final word (or action) against any possible governmental take-over en masse.