Bush vs. Hitler

[snopes]

Comment: Is this true?

[keokuk]

It would have been nice if they'd provided dates for either of the remarks.

Although my initial reaction is that, as a matter of the difficulties that go into translation, it would be really fortuitous if the English translation of Hitler's speech were actually ver batim what Bush said. Maybe someone fluent in German could provide better insight on that though.

[callee]

my first reaction was that it was completely untrue, and neither bush nor hitler said any such thing.

My second reaction was that if it were true, it was because a disgruntled speech writer slipped a standard english translation of the original german quote into a bush speech as an act of sabotage.

Then I did some quick googling, and so now my third reaction is that it appears to be a legitimate hitler quote, and it looks like many godwin-loving bloggers have used it in criticizing bush, but it doesn't look like bush himself has ever actually said it. The maker of this poster has either decided to be deliberately misleading, or has misunderstood someone else's Godwin.

[Dropbear]

Loathe as I am to defind George W Bush, and appalled as I am by some of the measures taken by the US and Australia in response to the events of September 11 and other terrorist attacks, the reality is that the quotes (if that is what they are) are so broad and general as to make any comparison meaningless. The quotes are the sorts of sound-bites that would be uttered by any world leader in response to a percieved threat. Churchill could easily have said them, Clinton could have said them, I can even imagine that Mandela could have said them.

Dropbear

I have no doubt that Hitler and Bush both said something similar. Wich would have been repeated by many other nation's leaders.The message is basically "There's bad people out there, we need to protect ourselves from them" wich has been one of the rallying calls of many nations, religions, creeds,etc...

[Arriah]

Even if the quotes are exactally what they are stated to be, the important part is what happens after that part. It's whether the speaker then says "we must imprison all of them and starve and torture them" or "we should prevent them from hurting us by making sure our military is in a position to prevent attacks."

Not my most perfect analogy, but I think it makes sense...

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Malalaise

I have no doubt that Hitler and Bush both said something similar. Wich would have been repeated by many other nation's leaders.The message is basically "There's bad people out there, we need to protect ourselves from them" wich has been one of the rallying calls of many nations, religions, creeds,etc...

I have to agree. It's not like the sentiments of the quote are particularly Hitler-like.

[Troberg]

As others have said, both could have said it or something very much like it, and so could many other leaders.

I would take it one step further and say that it's not wrong to study Hitler's rhetoric skills. Sure, he was a sociopathic madman, but he knew how to put on a show that grabbed the masses. When I read rhetoric at school, the teacher started up with a video of Hitler, both as an example of how effective it can be and what tricks to look out for. Hitler's mastery of rhetoric was second to few, too bad he didn't use it for good.

That said, one should probably avoid using words like "lebensraum" and "anschluss" if one is to be taken seriously. At least Bush hasn't called Iraq "Sudeten-USA" yet...

[Michael Cole]

Originally Posted by Arriah

Even if the quotes are exactally what they are stated to be, the important part is what happens after that part. It's whether the speaker then says "we must imprison all of them and starve and torture them" or "we should prevent them from hurting us by making sure our military is in a position to prevent attacks."

So don't leave us in suspense, which of the two then said what?

[applepwnz]

Ugh, it drives me insane when people always try to make this Republicans == Nazis comparison. Nazis were SOCIALISTS, the dead opposite of true conservatives (Libertarians).

[wanderwoman]

Originally Posted by applepwnz

Ugh, it drives me insane when people always try to make this Republicans == Nazis comparison. Nazis were SOCIALISTS, the dead opposite of true conservatives (Libertarians).

I abhor any attempt at such a comparison for politicians from any part of the political spectrum, but I think you are wrong here. Naziism was not true socialism, either. The name was co-opted for political reasons:

In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.

Others might challenge your definition of "true conservatives" as well, but I'm just going to say I think it's much more complicated than you have implied.

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by applepwnz

Ugh, it drives me insane when people always try to make this Republicans == Nazis comparison. Nazis were SOCIALISTS, the dead opposite of true conservatives (Libertarians).

No. Like The Party in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Nazis adopted the language of socialism while remaining steadfastly opposed to its philosophies. Having "socialist" in your name doesn't make you a socialist organization any more than calling yourself "the Christian militia" makes you a Christian.

[RBCal]

Yes, Nazis were fascists NOT socialists.

Originally Posted by applepwnz

Ugh, it drives me insane when people always try to make this Republicans == Nazis comparison. Nazis were SOCIALISTS, the dead opposite of true conservatives (Libertarians).

in what way are Libertarians "true conservatives"?

and as has been pointed out, Hitler's socialism didn't extend much further than the party name.

[Dropbear]

Originally Posted by Chloe

No. Like The Party in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Nazis adopted the language of socialism while remaining steadfastly opposed to its philosophies. Having "socialist" in your name doesn't make you a socialist organization any more than calling yourself "the Christian militia" makes you a Christian.

An then there are Democratic Republics....

Dropbear

[E. Q. Taft]

Also, I would posit that if true conservatives are libertarians, then by no stretch of the imagination can Bush & co. be deemed "true conservatives." (A sentiment which I think many old-style conservatives, looking both at the invasions of privacy and civil liberties and the gigantic budget deficits, would agree with.)

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Jonny T

in what way are Libertarians "true conservatives"?

And there's libertarian socalists to complicate things further.

Originally Posted by Tarquin Farquart

And there's libertarian socalists to complicate things further.

indeed.

when I hear "libertarian" I'm more likely to think of these folks than these...

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Jonny T

indeed.

when I hear "libertarian" I'm more likely to think of these folks than these...

I think it's more common in a European context for libertarianism to be a collectivist philophosy. I've never heard of "anarcho-capitalism" much outside the US.

[E. Q. Taft]

Ah, seems like a good time for....Echinodermata Q. Taft's Irreverent Lecture on Classifying Libertarians!

In my experience, Libertarians generally break down into three types -- though many fit in more than one category. My names for these categories are: Dope-Smoking, Gun-Toting, and Tax-Dodging.

Dope-Smoking Libertarians tend to be about individual choice in personal matters. They don't think the government has any business telling them what they can eat, drink, smoke, snort, inject, or have sex with. It goes further than just recreational drugs: many of them would like to get rid of the FDA altogether, or at least end requirements for prescriptions for medication: if an individual thinks a particular drug might be effective for treating his or her condition, he should be able to get it, regardless of whether the government or his doctor considers it safe and effective. They also tend to want the government to stay out of their bedrooms, deplore censorship of any sort, etc. Of the three kinds, this is the one I'm closest to sympathizing with, though they go too far, I think, on the drug thing. (They should all go read The Jungle again.)

Gun-Toting Libertarians are the sort that believe that ultimately, it is up to individuals to protect themselves and enforce their own rights. They are highly suspicious of giving the government authority over anything. They believe the population should be heavily armed and ready to rise up at any time and tear down any regime that oversteps its bounds. One guy I knew said that his ideal was that government should be "small, weak, and frightened."

Tax-Dodging Libertarians are the ones a friend of mine identified as being people who believe they would be rich if the government weren't stealing all their money. (He added, "If they actually managed to become rich, they turn into conservatives.") These are people who worship the free market and want as little government interference and regulation as possible -- preferably, none at all. They feel that free-market forces will handle matters such as, say, pollution (since "enlightened self-interest" will cause consumers not to buy from companies that pollute, even if they put out cheaper products that way) or discrimination (since companies that want to succeed will always hire the best workers they can get, irrespective of race, gender, etc., and if they don't, their competitors will profit from their mistake). They have a habit of considering income taxes to be a form of slavery -- since you spend several months of the year working for "free" with the government taking all of your income. And they want to privatize just about everything. This is the faction that can be thought of as "conservative" in the sense that conservatives tend to favor less regulation and lower taxes; but they tend to go further than even the right-most wing of the Republican party is willing to go -- or at least, to admit to.

Naturally, I am oversimplifying and not being particularly respectful -- but that's because, by and large, I think Libertarians are whackos. More seriously, I think they suffer from a major fallacy: fewer laws and a weaker government do not necessarily imply greater liberty for individuals. (They read the part of the Declaration of Independence about the inalienable rights, but they, like everyone else, skip the next clause: "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." (emphasis mine)