It had to happen, why Hitler?

For those that don't know about Godwin's Lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law, it states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

I reckon a lot of this Nazi comparison, which has been currently directed at Obama, might have to do with something people feel ashamed to admit: Hitler did a few good things: under his rule, the Autobahn was developed, the VW Beetle was designed, and German economy rose from the ashes of the depression. Sure, there are dark sides from these things. And let us not forget the fact that HE WAS A FUCKING MONSTER! But could he have been such a powerful and terrible man if he didn't unite the country by doing a few good things?

And, for those who like to compare Obama to Hitler, I'd like to point out a few subtle differences:
Obama is of mixed race, not exactly die Herrenrasse.
Obama has not inferred the need to exterminate any race, creed, color, or political afilliation.
Although Iraq and Afghanistan are currently occupied by American forces, he has yet to show any ambition of taking over the world.
And, contrary to the political talking heads, he has yet to prove himself to be a fucking monster.

Sorry about the political sidetrack, just had to vent.

What is really sad, though, is that the world does not deal with the Hitlers of the world more expediently. The posters are right, Hitler was not the greatest butcher of human life. And there are many more small dictators killing and oppressing for power right now. Why doesn't the world (not just the US) do more to stop them?

I am sorry guys but I think your giving John to much of a hard time and letting fast gunn slide. His comment that there was a hidden agenda in John's comment would have provoked a much harsher response from me had it been directed to me. His comments suggested that John was a closet nazi supporter.

I took Fast Gunn's comment as missing JG's (valid) point. That's part of the problem with bringing Hitler into a discussion. He was so atrocious that people feel angry and stop thinking.

Hitler was a politician at the start. He was left for the liberals and right for the conservatives. He was an opportunist who figured out how to manipulate the concerns and fears of the German people to get elected. In the end, he was a dictator. Once he had power, he abused that power to further his (warped) goals.

But hasn't he gotten enough press without bringing him up in a discussion of abortion? Sometimes the reason his name is mentioned is just to distract people from the fact that a good point was made by the "other" side of a discussion.

Say what you want about those Nazi's, they sure knew how to throw a parade.

Sharp dressers too.

But hasn't he gotten enough press without bringing him up in a discussion of abortion? Originally Posted by BiggestBest

I hope Hitler continues to get press, lest we forget his atrocities, but not in the aspect of comparing him to Democrats, Republicans, or those we disagree.

Sometimes the reason his name is mentioned is just to distract people from the fact that a good point was made by the "other" side of a discussion. Originally Posted by BiggestBest

I don't know if you're responding to what I said in the abortion thread, but if so, my intention was not to distract. I even responded in that thread what my intention was and it was about hypothetical, idealistic situations.

If you hear a clapping sound that's me applauding Badboy's post.

Now, I think there are some posters on this thread that claimed that Hitler was on the left, not right. What do they have to say to the post about the definition of fascism? Fascism is by definition a right-wing system of government. Did you skip over the part in the history books where Hitler hated the Communists? History omitted is history distorted.

If you hear a clapping sound that's me applauding Badboy's post.

Now, I think there are some posters on this thread that claimed that Hitler was on the left, not right. What do they have to say to the post about the definition of fascism? Fascism is by definition a right-wing system of government. Did you skip over the part in the history books where Hitler hated the Communists? History omitted is history distorted. Originally Posted by Longermonger

To set the record straight, NO party in America is Hitleresque.

"Did you skip over the part in the history books where Hitler hated the Communists?"

So monger are you saying that liberals are communists?

To set the record straight, NO party in America is Hitleresque. Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

At least none of the major parties.

http://www.americannaziparty.com/

Sort of related, in 1935 Sinclair Lewis wrote the book "It Can't Happen Here." If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.

Thanks, Longermonger.

Just took a look at the Wikipedia synopsis on It Can't Happen Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here. At a glance, some plot points ring a bell, but I'm not getting into that bag of worms.

On ASPD, I had a tagline: "Knowledge is Power, Ignorance is Bliss." Too many of the talking heads on what I used to consider news outlets are driving their points home using a very effective tool: Fear. Fear of Hitleresque and Stalinesque politics and that, if we don't heed their warnings, we're going to follow down that road. Well, they may be right, but I have my doubts.

But I have a fear that we [I]should[I] consider: while we worry about these abstractions, what about the real tyranny going on in this world? What about the corporate and state-backed dictators running third world countries to the ground while we make deals for their resources? Seems to me that this kind of stuff is fodder for terrorist recruiters. I know we can't police the world, but it would be nice if we could keep our business above board. Maybe a little naive, but it seems like good policy.

At least none of the major parties.

http://www.americannaziparty.com/ Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

LOL. Yeah, I did mean the major parties.

I believe JG has been reading too many right wing blogs and needs to actually read and understand Kershaw. I don't believe any of the central theories of his work could factually be used to draw comparison to Liberal ideology and National Socialism of the 1930's. Kershaw does state that Hitler was a "lazy dictator", who never really involved himself in the day to day running of Germany. Does that sound like Obama, the Clinton's or any of the Kennedy's?
JG casually ignores Kershaw's argument that the German bureaucracy under Hitler had been reduced to a shambles by infighting between bureaus all trying to vie for Hitler's favor. That situation was a catalyst for the "cumulative radicalization" of Germany.
The right wing in this country has used the term "radical" for the left for many years. They now bastardize Kershaw's work by once more calling liberal ideology radical in a hopeless attempt to paint Obama as a Fascist. That comparison is a disgusting perversion of Kershaw's work and a vile attempt to put liberalism in the same genre as Nazism.
Instead of encouraging liberals and the rest of us to read Kershaw, perhaps we should encourage JG to find more centrist authors to espouse. Perhaps he should move away from the tired ideas of Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck and Hannity. They had their day. Our country is worse off financially and more divided politically as a result.

Wow. I re-read that that diatribe of mine above and it is pretty harsh for a board dedicated to civility.
Apologies to JG and anyone who was offended if I let my anger get the best of me.

That will happen when talking politics. Which is why I avoid getting in to it on this forum.