« The Real Loser from the World Cup | Main | Ja, Guenter Grass was a Nazi »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834516a2569e200d834284eed53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nein, George W. Bush is not a Nazi:

» plomlompom-Links am Vormittag from plomlompom
German Joys nimmt sich aus Anlass von Fatih Akins neuem T-Shirt der auch hierzulande beliebten Bush-Hitler-Vergleiche an und malt breit aus: Wie sähe die Welt und Amerika aus, wenn tatsächlich Bush ein Hitler bzw. seine Regierung nazistisch wäre? Er kommt zu... [Read More]

» Attacking President Bush with Nazi Symbol from Atlantic Review
Two weeks ago, the award-winning German-Turkish director Fatih Akin was seen in Hamburg wearing a T-shirt inscribed with the name Bush in which a swastika replaced the letter S. Since the display of Nazi symbols is illegal in Germa [Read More]

» Bush Is Not A Nazi, Really from The Coalition of the Swilling
My wonderful bride is a much better Net surfer than I am, and she is always finding these very interesting sites that I never have seen. Last night she showed me German Joys, and this post where the author, who... [Read More]

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Christine

I tried to use the trackback for my blog...but link would not work, so just fyi that I have linked it.

Don

You repeat yourself, Ben. A common ailment of the truly-committed I have noticed.

How long before you see Bush getting to death camps, BTW?

Ben Dover

Of course Bush is not a Nazi. That would rewuire he possess organizational skills and planning far beyond his capabilities.

As for the torture, clandestine jails and authoritative styles ...just give him some more time to warm up.

Ben Dover

Of course Bush is not a Nazi. That would rewuire he possess organizational skills and planning far beyond his capabilities.

As for the torture, clandestine jails and authoritative styles ...just give him some more time to warm up.

Martin Meikleham

Do any of the people who post here ever look into real history i.e. not the history written by the victors of course.For instance has anyone of you seen the Balfour declaration part of the deception that dragged America into the second world war in the first place, and may be none of you have ever heard of the then American ambassador to london tell the british fight your own bloody war because at that time America had nothing against the german people and actually admired their stance against communism,well Churchill and Lord Balfour dragged you all screaming and kicking into it anyway. Why do you think Hitler did not wipe out all the British troops and I do mean all of Great Britains army out at Dunkirk, you know why he spared them because he genuinelly thought that Britain would be a valuable ally in the fight against the Russians. And by the way the Balfour Declaration is a promise by Great Britain to give Palistine to the Jews even though they had illegally occupied it,the deal was for American Jews to influence the American government to enter the war and that bit of treachery has lead to what we now call the trouble in the middle east. I could probably talk for the next six months non stop on the subject but please all posters at least dig a little deeper in your research if your going to make a point.Also look into the Creel Commissions job just before America entered the second world war to see what there job was and it wasnt pretty but at the time you all fell for it just like you fall for all the lies that you government spews out, when someone wants you to die for them and their ideals and I do mean THEIR ideals! and arent willing to die themselves always question their motive. And lastly since the United Nations was formed your precious country has abstained or vetoed every single peace plan and proposal put forward through the United Nations since its inception concerning Israel and the middle east. WHY OH WHY !To compare George Bush to Hitler is silly but to compare the American government to The Third Reich is very easy all that you see today going on in the world is all part of a policy that was concieved between 1947 and 1951 and is still in action today.

Trevor

Don: "I have lived in Germany and been told many times by German friends that mentioning Hitler or facism or nazism in any manner tending to compare anyone or anything in any way - is a profound and deadly insult."

Don, this does not suffice to disprove my statement. While I absolutely respect your German friends' judgement, I would not give it as much credit as to serving as a method on how to interpret HDG's statement.
What matters is not what's customary or commonplace among any given group of people, but what she objectively said. Reading a conclusion into her statements on the basis of customs or confirmed habits is not effectual proof.

My initial conclusion was that from that quote alone you cannot read any integral Bush-Hitler-equation into it. I again stress that I only judge from the three sentences mentioned, not knowing what she had said before in the specific circumstances or in private long before. Maybe she has been or still is a blatant Bush-Nazi-leveller and should be placed under custody. But to postulate that she was no longer acceptable ONLY because of these three sentences seems an undue reasoning to me. Historians should also be allowed to draw comparisons between Hitler and any democratic figure no matter who, to stress that certain behaviour patterns are similar, without being accused of making the respective person a Hitler-reproduction.

Don

Unfortunately cannot agree, Trevor. I have luived in Germany and been told many times by German friends that mentioning Hitler or facism or nazism in any manner tending to compare anyone or anything in any way - is a profound and deadly insult.

Yet for a long time I read or heard about Germans doing just that about the US, most often either US Presidents or the Republican Party. Finally the German Justice Minister did it in quasi-public.

What are we to conclude from this? I think she had been saying it in private for a long time and it just slipped out. And I think that it may well have been a more widespread habit in the circle of her friends and acquaintances; that is the circle of German politicos....

Trevor

For the record, I want to stress that what Herta Däubler-Gmelin said did not - in my view - amount to "Bush is like Hitler" or "Bush is a nazi".

Here's the quote:
"Bush will von seinen innenpolitischen Schwierigkeiten ablenken. Das ist eine beliebte Methode. Das hat auch Hitler schon gemacht."
"Bush wants to draw off attention from his internal political problems. That's a popular method. That's what Hitler already did, too."

In my view, these three sentences alone do not amount to equating Bush to Hitler. They do not equate to saying Bush is a nazi, either. The sentences do not contain any judgement about Bush's policy or mindset. HDG merely interpreted the current situation and drew a comparison, without making a statement on the quality of either of the persons. By saying "that's a popular method" she actually emphasised that her statement was meant to be neutral. Why is it impossible to interpret that statement as not more than abstract comment on two political figures, only because one of them (Hitler) was the worst and deadliest dictator of all times?

Also, let me say that I was relieved that she stepped down, not because of what she said but because she was doing a really bad job as minister of justice. And, let me add that I despise the Bush-Nazi T-Shirt Mr Akin was wearing. The t-shirt is a shame.

Don

"The quantity will come in the year 2017 or so. Google "Bush fascism" and you will find plenty of valid concerns."

This is amusing because it is so brutally stupid. The US has been accused of becoming fascist since 1948 at the latest. 58 years into the onset it still hasn't happened. There are no similarities between Hitler and George Walker Bush except in the fevered imgination of the more unhinged leftists. Just as there were no similarities between Hitler and Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton before him. Despite the loud clarion calls of previous generations of those made mad by the collapse of Stalinism.

Nevertheless it would be an overreaction to institutionalise these poor unfortunates. Allow them to discharge their passions to an uncaring sky on a soap box on Speakers Corner in Hyde Park, and maybe go to poke fun and throw peanut shells.

Hendrik

Hello, is this discussion still going on? I can't believe the article has so missed the point of Bush/Hitler comparisons.

a) That Bush hasn't achieved a death count of 6 million yet is obvious. The question is, what is to come? People have understood that you have to recognize such dangers in advance, because the night the Gestapo is knocking on your door, it's too late. So we don't want to know whether Bush is like 1940's Hitler, we want to know if he's like 1920's Hitler. In order to do that, we have to look at the more fundamental things, such as motives, methods, the overall *quality* of the matter, not the quantity. The quantity will come in the year 2017 or so. Google "Bush fascism" and you will find plenty of valid concerns.

b) What's more important, we are indirectly comparing peoples here, not their leaders. Is 2006's USA like 1920's Germany? Characters like Bush and Hitler exist all the time. Healthy societies don't let them rise to any power. 1920's weakened Germany was fertile ground for the seed that was Hitler. Bush's rise to his current position is a sign of a weakening of American society.

Do you know why people occasionally get colds? They say they 'caught' a virus or some bacteria, but that's bullshit. In our bodies and our immediate environment there are bacteria and viruses for all sorts of diseases all the time. A healthy immune system holds them at bay. If our immune system is weakend, due to stress, freezing, vitamin deficiencies etc., the viruses take over.

Ironically, you only have to look at some of the earlier postings in this blog about what's wrong with American society. The question now is, what might weaken an already weak American society to the point that it succumbs to the next dictator? I've seen doomsday warnings from health crises (obesity and diabetes) over energy issues (peak oil), economic ones (credit bubble, trade balance) to social ones (poverty), that I can't judge as a layman, but that seem sufficiently plausible to me. Take your pick.

And, in the spirit of the article, comparing Bush and Hitler by numbers, here's another statistic for you:

Number of nukes held by:
- Hitler: 0
- Bush: 10,000

Cheers

Hendrik

jim

Great article. But I have to point out there's a typo in the 9th paragraph that would be funny if the subject were less serious.

zack

Andrew, I enjoyed your post and found it to be very enlightening in many ways. The question at hand is a difficult one to answer in the context which you seek to see it asked. If you asked any American severley dislikes G. W. Bush like myself, I would bet that they would agree that he is a Nazi. (You must remember most Americans are not as informed or well educated as yourself or other intelectuals. We are somewhat of a lazy society who is more consumed with television, pornography, and avoiding responsibilities. That is why Bush is in the White House). Americans these days don't pay attention to History, let alone much else. Mostly, they don't even know what a Nazi even really is. In general, to Americans I imagine the word Nazi means something like "people who follow a leader who took away peoples rights, governed people unfairly, started wars to secure things like lies and cheats, creates wars and ulitmately killed millions of Jewish people for some weird reason." Or the other would be "stupid, poor, rednecks who tote around the Confederate flag, have mohawks and shaved heads, and where scary clothes that have swastikas on them". Americans don't know what a Nasi is. In our context George Bush is surely a Nazi, he just wears a nice suit and sits at the White House.
As for him being worse than Adolph Hitler, I think that is questionable. However, I do know that Bush's abilty to project power in our time is far greater than Hitler's was in his time. So that leads me to believe that aside from killing millions of innocent Jews, he's a lot worse than just a "paper cut compared to cancer". George Bush's Administration and the GOP have done far more damage to our global security and well being as humans than Hitler ever did. Bush has sytematically undone everything that was good, ignored everything that needed attention, and provoked what need to be left alone. His energy policies alone will have far reaching impacts in the future than Hitler ever could have dreamed of. George Bush is the leader of the most powerful nation in the world with an influence that can be felt in every square in of he globe. So if you ask my opinion I would say, in context of today's time George W. Bush is worse than Adolph Hitler. What makes it even worse is he calles it Democracy.

I am right

Look, the comparisons are not implying that Bush is a post 1938 German style Nazi. The point is that the behavior of the Bush administration is similar enough to Hitler's behavior as he consodilated authoritarian control to make us "dumb angry wasps" realize that we need to nip it now.

unaha-closp

A lot of people support Bush and calling Bush a nazi means calling them nazis by association. This is a horrible personal insult unjustifiably leveled against a great many people.

Lisa

Andrew, I think this is my favorite post I have ever read on your blog. As I began reading, I thought I would not appreciate this post, as I firmly believe the Shrub (as we call the "small Bush" here) is evil and, well, has hurt a lot of people. But your points are all well taken and you have won me over. I think Bush is but a mere shadow of Hitler not because Bush isn't that bad, but because Hitler was really, really, really bad, which relates to your "if Bush is worse than Hitler wasn't as bad" theory.

The main differences I see between the two are these:

(1) Bush's consequences, in terms of sheer numbers of innocent dead people, cannot approach Hitler's numbers in that category; and
(2) Bush is very much working toward having a sovereign executive branch, but his methods differ from Hitler's so far in that he is much more subtle and "behind the scenes" than Hitler was.

Marek Moehling

I concur with every line except for nitpicking on this one:

>Right-wing Germans ... cannot publicly deny the Holocaust
>or minimize Hitler's crimes, because that is against the law

Who's to prevent right-wingers on legal grounds from describing, say, Hitler's aggression on Russia as outright legitimate self defense? As a layman I'd say it's wrong, but not penalised. And why shouldn't they glorify the night of the long knives as a justified coup in the party's interest? That's not even wrong, somehow, just disgusting. Possibly you got carried away a tad, giving foreign readers the wrong idea on the state of civil liberties over here.

Don

Are you sure Geedub isn't a Nazi? So many people seem so sure of it - particularly in the US. Tenured professors, yet!

Can 50,000 tenured academics be wrong? I think not. The Germans colleagues should smply ignore what they think they know and bow to superior authority.

As for the term 'fascist': surely this is a synonym for a member of the GOP. Or of the Christian right - not that there is a difference of course....

Stefan Scholl

The story has 7 up and 7 down votes at the moment. = 0 points. :-(

http://reddit.com/info/d6hf/comments

Ligia

Fistly, I would like to inform that my comment about Polish Punk Rock is misplaced on another post:"Getting tired on Sir Simon". If Adrew could correct it I would be grateful and the beloved Joysters would understand the little note I´ve written about the eastern European Punks.

But the subject here is the following:"Gegen die Wand" is one of my favourite movies: although the movie is about reckless people, there is some poetry in their "boldness". On the other hand, the was no fun to see Mr. Akin t-shirt. He should stick to german-turkish affairs.

bodoro

das ist ein toller Beitrag!

bodoro

das ist ein toller Beitrag!

ukzg

Thanks for pointing out the ridiculousness of that comparison. As you say, one may disagree with President Bush's decisions and plans, but calling him "Hitler" is almost libellous.
As for Akin: however good and important his work may be, in my eyes the shirt was just a publicity stunt.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Books I've written or translated

List
www.flickr.com
Andrew Hammel's items Go to Andrew Hammel's photostream
My Photo

Search German Joys

  • Google

    andrewhammel.typepad.com