Do any politicians really need to be compared to Hitler?

[Madison Redskin]

Make no mistake Burgold, Hitler was a politician. He won the hearts and minds of the German people by giving them a common enemy and scapegoat, the (Jew), and very nearly defeated Paul Von Hindenburg for President of Germany in 1932. His autobiography "Mein Kampf" was widely distributed and won him and the Nazis many supporters among a people who felt that they had been ****ed over with a reeling economy and a nearly 30% unemployment rate. The Nazis gained political power through elections and at the time of Hitler's appointment had huge numbers in the Reichstag. Hitler was ultimately appointed Chancellor of Germany by Hindenburg who basically had been left with little choice. He knew Hitler ultimately would have staged a coup.

Although Hitler was indeed a politician, I don't see how that fact is relevant to the point being made by most posters, I.e., it is absolutely ridiculous to compare Dubya or Obama to Hitler.

[Commander PK]

Although Hitler was indeed a politician, I don't see how that fact is relevant to the point being made by most posters, I.e., it is absolutely ridiculous to compare Dubya or Obama to Hitler.

agreed on both counts.

However, making a statement like "foreign politician X is a loon, and has the potential of being another Hitler" is completely valid.

[thebluefood]

The answer is no.

I really wish people would stop it. It's proof that they have no context and they know nothing about politics in general.

[Corcaigh]

Making a statement like "foreign politician X is a loon, and has the potential of being another Hitler" is completely valid.

And all men are potential rapists.

Do you really think when people make an association between Bush or Obama and Hitler that they are simply making the argument that Bush/Obama are "radical politicians"?

Hitler is associated with mass, systematic, genocide of millions. Portraying anyone as Hitler when they have not committed such an act serves only to diminish the Holocaust and its victims, increasing the chances that history will be repeated.

[Commander PK]

And all men are potential rapists.

Do you really think when people make an association between Bush or Obama and Hitler that they are simply making the argument that Bush/Obama are "radical politicians"?

Hitler is associated with mass, systematic, genocide of millions. Portraying anyone as Hitler when they have not committed such an act serves only to diminish the Holocaust and its victims, increasing the chances that history will be repeated.

I suggest you go back and read all of my posts. I understand the intent of the OP was obviously offering an opinion on comparing American Politicians to Hitler. Bush and Obama, and I agree, this is absurd. However, the idea that a foreign politician (or a foreign dictator, which in some cases is the same thing) has the ability to conjure as much death and destruction as Hitler did, is entirely valid. Iwannajihad for example has the "potential" to become another Hitler. How does saying that diminish the Holocaust?

[mistertim]

I suggest you go back and read all of my posts. I understand the intent of the OP was obviously offering an opinion on comparing American Politicians to Hitler. Bush and Obama, and I agree, this is absurd. However, the idea that a foreign politician (or a foreign dictator, which in some cases is the same thing) has the ability to conjure as much death and destruction as Hitler did, is entirely valid. Iwannajihad for example has the "potential" to become another Hitler. How does saying that diminish the Holocaust?

I'm sure there are plenty of foreign politicians who are extremists in their views that could have the "potential" to be another Hitler as far as military mobilization and genocide. The question then becomes one of capability and logistics (sorry if that sounds cold). Could Ahmadinejad potentially be another Hitler considering his open hatred for the Jewish state? Yes. Does he possibly want to be that horrific? Quite possible. Does he have the means to become that? Very unlikely. Obviously he is someone you keep an eye on and check his actions whenever you can, but to think that he, or even any other political extremist/leader in the world has the military, personnel, and logistical capability of doing anything near what Hitler did is a bit far off, IMO. Of course, that shouldn't diminish the debate about the horrific things that some leaders DO do and are continuing to do. However, the hypothetical of "potential Hitler" insofar as bringing about as much death and destruction as he did may be a bit outdated.

[Burgold]

On that level you have a point, Painkiller. If you want to compare Saddam's treatment of the Kurds to Hitler or look at Darfur, Bosnia, Cambodia, Rwanda, or even if you want to look at David Duke in America or some other hate monger to discuss similarities and how we can stop hate or when to intervene that makes sense.

If you want to look at the intense partisanship within this country and those who use it as a wedge to try to make one group our nation's enemy and try to generate unrealistic or disproportionate hate for a group because of how they look, who they love, or how they vote... that can be done.

Mostly though, that isn't what's done. The people who choose to make these comparisons are some trying to spread hate themselves. They're not thinking it through just trying to push a button. That's why, for the most part, I dislike and am opposed to these comparisons. It's become to easy and too common. I've read that Daniel Snyder is Hitler over a hundred times on this board from various posters. How can you make a sane comparison there?

The comparison is Hitler was a bad man. Snyder is a bad man. I don't like Hitler. I don't like Snyder. They are the same. That level of elementary reasoning is lazy, dumb, and counterconstructive.

[adam@section118]

On that level you have a point, Painkiller. If you want to compare Saddam's treatment of the Kurds to Hitler or look at Darfur, Bosnia, Cambodia, Rwanda, or even if you want to look at David Duke in America or some other hate monger to discuss similarities and how we can stop hate or when to intervene that makes sense.

If you want to look at the intense partisanship within this country and those who use it as a wedge to try to make one group our nation's enemy and try to generate unrealistic or disproportionate hate for a group because of how they look, who they love, or how they vote... that can be done.

Mostly though, that isn't what's done. The people who choose to make these comparisons are some trying to spread hate themselves. They're not thinking it through just trying to push a button. That's why, for the most part, I dislike and am opposed to these comparisons. It's become to easy and too common. I've read that Daniel Snyder is Hitler over a hundred times on this board from various posters. How can you make a sane comparison there?

The comparison is Hitler was a bad man. Snyder is a bad man. I don't like Hitler. I don't like Snyder. They are the same. That level of elementary reasoning is lazy, dumb, and counterconstructive.

A graet post (and a good discussion)

This is going in a diffrent direction, but how many deaths is/was Saddam Hussein responsible for? Is something like that even tracked/can it be tracked (in comparison to Hitler)

[twa]

Rather impossible to count,though many try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq#Number_of_Victims

Number of Victims

According to The New York Times, "he [saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]

added

despite their evil,the Nazi's were better record keepers

[Burgold]

Twa's right. The numbers are impossible to know accurately. For one thing, Iraq wasn't going to brag about it. I believe most agree that Saddam's regime murdered well over 100,000 Kurds. Amongst the reasons that Bush presented for us going into Iraq I found this one to be the most compelling.

[jnhay]

Make no mistake Burgold, Hitler was a politician. He won the hearts and minds of the German people by giving them a common enemy and scapegoat,

Shouldn't Obama be excluded by this line? Just look at his approval rating!

I suggest you go back and read all of my posts. I understand the intent of the OP was obviously offering an opinion on comparing American Politicians to Hitler. Bush and Obama, and I agree, this is absurd. However, the idea that a foreign politician (or a foreign dictator, which in some cases is the same thing) has the ability to conjure as much death and destruction as Hitler did, is entirely valid. Iwannajihad for example has the "potential" to become another Hitler. How does saying that diminish the Holocaust?

Yeah, I was going to specify "US politicians" but just forgot. Hitler isn't the only leader affiliated with genocide.

[Corcaigh]

I believe most agree that Saddam's regime murdered well over 100,000 Kurds.

There's no comparison to Hitler.

Until Saddam developed and executed a plan to exterminate them as a people ... which included rounding them up from all over the Middle East, and turned six million of them into ****ing lampshades ... there's no comparison between Hitler and Saddam.

[Seabee1973]

Where was this thread when bush was being compared to hitler?

[twa]

. there's no comparison between Hitler and Saddam.

Because he was stopped perhaps?

Would Hitler have been as proficient if opposed earlier?...is a nascent evil any less evil?

[adam@section118]

Where was this thread when bush was being compared to hitler?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.....

[Corcaigh]

Where was this thread when bush was being compared to hitler?

Seriously? Go **** yourself.

I remember making the same point in a thread several years ago that comparisons of Bush to Hitler were deeply offensive, and I'm no fan of GW Bush.

That you would make such a point suggests that any offense is fake and only because the comparison is applied to Obama.

[Corcaigh]

Sorry, I couldn't resist.....

What's your point?

[Corcaigh]

Because he was stopped perhaps?

Would Hitler have been as proficient if opposed earlier?...is a nascent evil any less evil?

Saddam did not practice systematic genocide in the same way as Hitler. He certainly had the time, resources and opportunity.

[twa]

Saddam did not practice systematic genocide in the same way as Hitler. He certainly had the time, resources and opportunity.

In the same way no...but then the situation was not the same,nor the opposition

He was however guilty of genocide,though perhaps more of Stalin's nature

[artmonkforHOF]

I agree, it is not called for, but unfortunately, if a candidate or a party has a weak platform or none at all in some cases, the standard rule is to compare a competing candidate/party to Hitler or a socialist/communist regime. It really is the lowest form of campaigning, not having anything compelling to say yourself, so you just trash your opponent. What I find more disturbing is the public who actually gets behind these crazy statements as if they are the truth. I cannot for the life of me see why people debate about Obama's birth certificate, but once that story about him being born offshore surfaced, people just ran with it, and if you ask them, well where is the proof? the response is " a conspiracy is covering it up". What a great world we live in where if something does not go your way, you can just blame it on a conspiracy. If some random stranger told you there was a conspiracy against him, you would think he is crazy, but yet if it makes the rounds on a few blogs then it must be true.

[adam@section118]

What's your point?

Wow, wound tight much

I was simply poking fun after the [heavy] ESPN race thread yesterday.

Relax, have a beer......

[Corcaigh]

Wow, wound tight much

I was simply poking fun after the [heavy] ESPN race thread yesterday.

Relax, have a beer......

Yeah - the genocide of the Jews is always worth a good laugh. Especially to someone whose lost half their family.

[adam@section118]

Yeah - the genocide of the Jews is always worth a good laugh. Especially to someone whose lost half their family.

Wow, that post does a great job of twisting words and taking things out of context.

I will say, before you run your mouth, you should probably make sure you know what the **** you are talking about. I have two grandparents from Poland who are survivors of the Holocaust, but again, why let facts get in the way of you taking an image out of context.

[elkabong82]

only the ones that refer to master races, subscribe to the eugenics theology, and/or advocate violence and death towards another group; if it's a direct comparison (and in the case it's being used presented by the OP, it is a direct comparison and of course invalid.

however, as bang pointed out, there are correlations to aspects of Hitler and his regime that could be made if such correlation is apt.

[Woodhead]

Hitler was crazy

But il say one thing he was one helleva leader for people to follow and and do the things they did.

Actually, I would say he was a madman and a horrible leader. Anyone can lead through fear, it takes a great leader to lead without fear. One of the things that makes out country so great is the leaders, for the most part, get people's rights, and don't err on the side of security for liberty. It was something that the founding fathers were dead set against (abuse of power) and wrote the constitution to prevent the balance of power being in terms of security over liberty.

In terms of generally comparing politicians to Hitler, I think it SHOULD be done when there are similarities in the behavior. I think what Bang said is true, you need to look out for it because it can happen again in history if the right circumstances come up. It gets harder and harder with the advent of technology, the internet, the sharing of information and free thought, but it can still happen. Look at how people follow what politicians say, and TV tells them no matter what the facts are. Look at how blind some people are to life. Read what Goebbles said about propaganda, it is a dangerous tool in the hands of people who are looking out only for themselves.