Viewing Thread:
"USA - A lot Like Nazi Germany?"

Comparing the USA to Nazi Germany may seem ridiculous to you at first. I mean, I don't live in America, but I know there's no Gestapo there. No rounding up of Jews to be murdered. No children forced to join politicised scout groups where they learn their first allegiance is to their dictator.

So lets start at the beginning. Mr. Bush is now the leader of the USA. How did that happen? Well, it turns out he didn't actually win the presidential election. But he's still in power. In Germany, Hitler did try to stage a coup to seize power, but it failed. When he eventually did take power, he actually did it democratically. So now we have the two in the same place. Both Hitler and Bush in power. But neither have total control over their country. In Germany, the Reichstag (German Parliament) is burnt down. Hitler, seeing this as a chance to seize total control, demands he be given emergency powers to ensure further terrorist acts are not carried out. The Nazi's blamed communists for the fire, but some historians now suspect the Nazi's torched the Reichstag themselves to get Hitler his emergency powers, which would lead to him obtaining total control over the country. Remind you of anything? September 11th? Now obviously they aren't the same, but there are similarities. Hitler used an act of terrorism so he no longer had to consult parliament on decisions. Bush used an act of terrorism so he no longer had to explain himself to his voters. His excuse to so many issues has been September 11th.

At present, the USA is in a state of fear and mindless nationalism. Everyday people are warned of terrorist threats. Everyday people are confronted with the stars and stripes, 'freedom' fries and an 'us and them' mentality. If you don't support the ruling party, you are a terrorist supporter. The Nazis used similar tactics. They scared people with propaganda against communists, Jews, blacks, any minority that didn't fit in with Hitler's 'master race'. Opposition parties were banned, people were indoctrinated to worship Hitler, if you didn't support all Nazi actions you were a communist or Jew-lover.

But just in case all this didn't work, the Nazis had the secret police or 'Gestapo'. They could spy on people and take anyone away at any time for questioning. They were essentially above the law, and anyone in their hands essentially had no rights. But surely there's nothing like this in America? I wouldn't hold your breath. Under the new Patriot Act in the USA, the government may intercept confidential E-mails, take a peek at bank and school records, and even records of purchases that have been made. Government agents are even allowed to enter and search homes and never tell the occupants they have paid a visit. These may not seem anything too intrusive, after all they'll only be used on suspected terrorists right? Well, no. Because the Patriot Act means agents simply get secret warrants from a secret court. So in effect no one knows what evidence is produced to justify prying into peoples lives. Further, Mr Bush seems to think he has the right to label anyone an 'enemy combatant', meaning the Bush Administration will not acknowledge they have any human rights. At least the Gestapo couldn't electronically pull up the private records of any German they wanted to.

But the Gestapo were there to reinforce Hitler's power, not to protect the country from terrorism. After all, isn't the Patriot Act there to protect people? Well that's what Bush would say isn't it, but if we dig a little deeper it seems there are cases where it's not being used appropriately. A college student has been visited and told to hand over anti-American material. It was an anti-death penalty poster. A teacher was removed from his class when the feds paid a visit to photograph one of his students' art projects that showed Mr. Bush with duct tape over his mouth. A final example is a Green Party Activist being detained and not allowed to fly because it was deemed Green Party members were potential terrorists. So the new Patriot Act has already harassed students for expressing themselves freely, and has stopped a member of an opposition party from travelling. Way to fight terrorism.

The final comparison I'm going to make is that of concentration camps. There are no concentration camps in the USA though. The Nazis locked up anyone they didn't like (Jews, blacks, suspected homosexuals, anyone who spoke out against them) in concentration camps. Many people were murdered in gas chambers, died of starvation or were killed trying to escape. And while it's true Bush hasn't done anything as horrific as this, America does have it's own special camp for people it wants to put away without a fair trial (or any trial for that matter). But as I said before, it's not actually in the USA. America finally found something Cuba was good for, namely holding hundreds of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. They have no rights, they have not been charged with anything, and all this flies in the face of international laws. There are even children under sixteen incarcerated indefinitely there. So while the USA has no concentration camps, it still manages to lock people up without proving them guilty of any crime, with little or no hope of release.

So far in this article America and Germany have been under the microscope. So now it's time to examine the other countries. When Hitler started breaking points set out in the Treaty of Versailles (the treaty Germany was forced to sign after World War 1), Great Britain, which was still a major power in Europe and worldwide, ignored it. It was felt that once Hitler had reversed the harsh restrictions placed on Germany by Versailles, he would stop being so aggressive. He was appeased. But he wanted a German empire, he wanted his vision of the 'master race' imposed on the world. The more he walked over the international community, the more they moved back and gave in. Finally, Hitler invaded Poland and it was decided enough was enough. World War 2 was the result. Bush is using September 11th as an excuse to invade countries. At first he invaded Afghanistan. Fair enough, get rid of Osama who planned the attacks that killed thousands of Americans, most people probably thought. But then came Iraq. Bush used the state of fear in America to gain support for the war. He then ignored the wishes of the international community and went ahead with his own war against Iraq, dragging us Brit's into it as well, because our own Mr. Blair didn't want to jeopardize our 'special relationship' with the USA. The moral of the Nazi Germany case is that appeasing an aggressive ruler doesn't work. If they think they can get away with something, they'll keep doing it. You have to stand up and make it clear you're not going to take that kind of s*** from them.

The so-called "Land of the Free" has a worrying number of similarities to a certain Fascist Regime. Thankfully there is still a process for Americans to throw their dictator out. Lets just hope Bush doesn't hijack democracy a second time.



Much of the information about the current state of America taken from 'Dude, Where's My Country' by Michael Moore. Go read it.
Nazi Germany information based on stuff I learnt from taking GCSE history. Looks like school's good for something.

I wrote this for my website a few days back, thought some people here might be interested... The whole article (which includes some pictures) can be found at http://www.unitepunk.co.uk/features/fascistamerica.htm

Heh. I think 'from source D' is a good hint on where it's from. I didn't read any further than that :^D

What's that *points below* blatant word count boosting to aid the rise to regular status? From his posts elsewhere there is no way that came from him...

Transportation

From source D you can learn that the punishment of transportation was not handed out just for major crimes, even minor crimes when the eye witness accounts don’t even add up, for instance in the ‘Trial of William Raven‘ in which William Raven was accused of stealing an iron rail from Arabella Scattergood on the 22nd March 1733 (Source D) The first watchman says ,‘between 2 and 3 in the morning I heard the fall of an Iron Rail, and running out I saw the Prisoner with a Bar in his hand. I cried “Stop Thief“, he got past the first Watch, but was stopped by another Watch‘. The Third Watchman says he heard the cry “Stop Thief“ but saw the ‘Prisoner running with a drawn sword‘. The last part of his statement agreed with the First Watches statement in the fact that the prisoner got past him but the Second Watch caught him. This all ads up apart from one glitch in the stories but when it gets to the Second Watches statement he tells us that ‘I planted my lantern in the middle of Blenheim street, that my inhabitants might see I was upon my duty.’ this blew the two other statements right out because it had shown that the Second Watch had not brought the Prisoner down meaning something else had happened, but we never heard a statement from William Raven to try and prove his innocence and no sorting out of the eye witness accounts proves the fact that the government didn‘t care who they sent out or in how many numbers. William Raven was later found guilty and transported. The government handed transportation out to anybody and everybody. In my opinion the government were just trying to lower the number of people in England by shipping them out or even the death penalty for the most pettiest of crimes.
According to source E. The number of people transported between 1788-1853 was more than ever because transportation became increasingly common in the late eighteenth century as it turned into a substitute for capital punishment. The most amount of both male and female transportees to Australia was 6 871in 1833. It wasn’t so dramatically high until around the 1820’s when it rose to over 2 000 a year, then the number grew even more to between 3 000 and 7 000 every year for 18 years between the years of 1827-1845. In total around 161 000 people were transported to Australia between 1788-1853.
Sources B and C show that transportation was such a cruel punishment for a number of reasons. Firstly, the crimes resulting in the punishment of transportation were often just theft of small items mainly cheap or worthless to anyone, this made the experience even worse. Say you steal a piece of cheese from a house then and then you are caught, you expect a little slap on the wrist and a warning, then they tell you they’re bringing in a new punishment ‘Transportation’. They say that they’re going to send you to Australia for seven years hard labour, and when those seven years are up they just leave you there and don’t let you back. This seems extremely harsh. The second reason this seems such a cruel punishment is the way you are treated when you get there. You are sent for a certain time of hard labour which looks just like slavery as you are owned by your master, just like James Pollock who was transported to Tanzania. He recorded his experience of how he was treated. He said ‘My master was so cruel I ran away. I was on the run for four days. I was captured by a policeman and taken to court. My master told the court that I was lazy. He said that he treated me well.’ The court then gave him 50 lashes and sent him back to his master. This again doesn’t even bother to look at the defendants point of view. He then ran away 4 more times and got 50 lashes each time. After you have finished your hard labour you are then just left there for dead. Which may seem cruel for petty crime you committed. Source B shows the terrible conditions on a ship on the way to Australia which shows the criminals locked up like slaves in small cages, and with the number of people being transported increasing, the cages would have been tighter and more cramped producing bad moods, bad smells and bad sanitary conditions. Transportation was such a cruel punishment because you was given transportation for petty crimes; badly treated on the ship ride to exile; cruelly treated by the masters on the exile and when your time is up you are left on the island to rot.
Source A is useful in showing that the criminals were so harshly punished for petty and forgettable crimes. e.g. William James was transported for 7 years for stealing cheese from a house. While Thomas James was hanged for stealing shirts from a house. Both are extremely harsh punishments for the crimes committed. Source A does prove my point that they gave criminals the punishment of transportation willy-nilly. So it shows that they were getting rid of as many people as possible for one reason or another proving this to be quite a good source.
In my opinion transportation was used as a punishment because the population was increasing rapidly and there not enough houses in the country. The houses already there were crammed to the top anyway. So any increase in population meant room had to made. So for the maximum room to be made from this scheme as many criminals had to be transported as possible, meaning even most minor of crimes were given transportation. In source E it says ‘Transportation became increasingly common in the late eighteenth century as a substitute for capital punishment’. This meant they could get rid of more people without having to go through all the rigmarole of public executions.

Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> OK, fair enough, but I didn't say anything about the withdrawal of
> troops, the point that we're arguing (I think) is my assertion that
> the US has been involved in a major genocide. Also just to clarify,
> the statistic of 47,000 dead is from the result of a report by a
> Harvard Study team, and the 47,000 were actually all under the age of
> 5.

My point is that if the US had not been halted by the UN in 1991 those sanctions would never have happened. It took 9/11 to give the US a will to use the power it has had for two decades. Hence the US was involved but to a lesser degree than other countries who would argued against the US finishing Saddam off in 1991.

> Again, apologies for not fully understanding you. I don't know that
> much about econmoics at all, but surely a national bank would have
> money in? I can't see how that justifies the claim that Hussain
> pocketed a large amount of cash.

Banks also hold account. Private accounts. When the bank wa eventually seized by the coalition we found out that the money withdrawn was largely from personal accounts. Intelligence has traced that money to the oil for food program. See now?

> While we're on the subject, 1/3 of the money that Iraq had made from
> the oil for food program was spent on the UNs expenses and
> compensation to Kuwait (already a rich country). I think that this
> amounts to more than the Iraqi government pocketed.

Doubt it, the Iraqi regime pocketed a majority of it, as for reparations I am not going to argue against them. Saddam inflicted massive damage on Kuwait and the region. Why the hell should Kuwait have to pay to clean up the mess purposely left behind by Saddam's men eh? More to the point Kuwait did not have many of the things needed - such as environment decontamination teams and equipment - and had to hire in companies to do so. It was not an accident what Saddam did with the oil fields.

> I am talking about the first 8 months of the sanctions - during that
> time no decontamination equipment was let into Iraq, and the reason
> cited was that it could potentially be used in WOMD.

Which was proved right, as I pointed out. Civilians do not need chem suits or drugs to counter chemical warfare.

> Again, forgive my ignorance about what duel use goods are - this is
> why I am debating with you, I'm trying to both refine my argument and
> increase my knowledge. But to say that the UN blocked no food and
> medical supplies is a denial of the facts.

The UN blocked no food shipments. Where those shipments went once into Iraq was left to the regime. I assume you know the answer to where most went. Some medical supplies were stopped because of the fears they were dual use.

Dual use items are those with multiple uses, usually good and bad. For example, say Iraq wants to buy, as it did somehow through other channels, 100 000 nuclear/chemical protection suits. Iraq says it wants to use them so that troops can clean up infected areas. However they could also be used by the Iraqi army to protect their troops on the battlefield if Iraq uses chemical weapons.

You cannot argue that they are to protect from coalition chemical/nuclear weapons because the US and UK have a policy whereby weapons of mass destruction are used in kind only - in other words we will not be the first to use them but use them against us or our people and by god you'll get it back in spades.

So, with dual use goods you do not know how they will be used. so you look at the country. In Iraq's case you see a regime which until now didn't really care too much about healthcare or civlians and that has hidden weapons programmes from the West. you assume the worst and block the goods.

> The British Medical Jounal, as part of an study for which they went
> to Iraq itself, said that 'requested radiotherapy equiptment and
> chemotherapy drugs are consistantly blocked by the UK and US
> sanctions commitee advisors'. This surely contradicts your
> statement.

No, because those are dual use goods. Unfortunate, but see above for the reasoning.

> Professer Karl Sikora, chief of the WHOs cancer program, along with a
> group of experts, drew up a list of 17 essential cancer drugs which
> could not possibly be converted into weapons that the UN was
> blocking. The sanctions comittee was informed, and took no action -
> the WHO told Sikora, specificly, not to talk about the UNs activitys.
> That he even drew up a list of things that were being blocked
> contradicts your statement.

Surely they can be used to treat the effects of weapons? I don't know too much about this to be honest. Plus it is fair to say that the guy does not know all the intelligence surround the situation, who knows what else was going on?

> Furthermore, the ex-Co-ordinator of Humanitrain Relief in Iraq, since
> promoted to Assistant Secretry General, Dennis Halliday, resigned in
> protest at the UNs sanctions. He had been with the UN for 34 years.
> Not only that, but his sucsessor as the Co-ordinator of Humanitarin
> Relief in Iraq, Hans Von Spaneck, also resigned for the same reason.
> Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program (a UN agency)
> resigned for the same reason. In each of these cases, the people
> cited the example of blocking food imports, which again shows your
> statement to be false.

I'll come back to this later as I have to go.

Are you a democrat?

Rest a bit easier, not everyone on this side of the pond(I'm a Yank)waves the cowboy hat as Bush the Lesser goes striding by. IMHO the greater part(*) of our population is counting the days until the White House has been de-loused.(*and by that I mean those of us who have been educated despite the republican effort to destroy our educational system). The offenses that this current presidency has committed,--brokered at the expense of our economy, environment and foreign policy has produced a very long laundry list--not the least of which being Bush's adamant refusal to support the International Criminal Court. First he said he would not answer to a commitee that would sit in judgement of the actions of the United States while there was not a member of the U.S. on the panel. So then a place on the panel was offered to the United States. He still refused. Frankly I'm still reeling from the fact that the (S)election process that put this man in power was not overturned. I'm so very disgusted by the man. I look forward to the day when I can be proud of my country again, but I fear the damage that the Republican party has done will take many many years to undo. So don't write off all Americans. We're not the monsters Bush makes us out to be, we're just the victims of a very lengthy and expensive infestation. I bought a copy of David Bowie's "I'm afraid of Americans" when it was first released in 97.

I haven't had the courage to listen to it in quite some time.

Cheers Lads.

Bloody hell, that 'I await a reply' sounds so pompous. Sorry about that.

Belldandy wrote: .
>
> You've been led wrong. The decision to use sanctions was taken by the
> UN security council in the aftermath of the Gulf War - any one of the
> security council can block the decision. That means China, Russia,
> France and Germany all agreed on sanctions as well. Sure, the US and
> UK have power when it comes to the entire assembly voting but on the
> security council no one votes unless it is what they want.

I'll give you that, I don't know much about it - I can't find the source that I thought I got that from.

>
> Er, simple really. If the UN had been more decisive and, instead of
> authorising the US and the coalition to remove the Iraqi forces from
> Kuwait and back to the Iraqi forces positions pre war, had allowed
> the US and others to pursue the Iraqi forces all the way to Baghdad
> and remove Saddam then there would never have been sanctions. The US
> and UK and others pushed strongly for this but it was obvious China
> and Russia would veto it so the vote never happened. Seen the
> pictures of Iraqi air force MIG 29s buried in graveyards? Those are
> Chinese built.

OK, fair enough, but I didn't say anything about the withdrawal of troops, the point that we're arguing (I think) is my assertion that the US has been involved in a major genocide. Also just to clarify, the statistic of 47,000 dead is from the result of a report by a Harvard Study team, and the 47,000 were actually all under the age of 5.

> Not heard how Saddam sent his son to the national bank in the final
> days of the war and emptied the place then? The convoy carrying it
> was later stopped by coalition troops and the money seized and placed
> into UN managed accounts for Iraq until they get their government up
> and running.

Again, apologies for not fully understanding you. I don't know that much about econmoics at all, but surely a national bank would have money in? I can't see how that justifies the claim that Hussain pocketed a large amount of cash.

While we're on the subject, 1/3 of the money that Iraq had made from the oil for food program was spent on the UNs expenses and compensation to Kuwait (already a rich country). I think that this amounts to more than the Iraqi government pocketed.

>
> Oh dear. You know that decontamination equipment? US forces found
> piles of it and the UN traced it back to those shipments. The
> equipment WAS in the hands of the Iraqi military.

I am talking about the first 8 months of the sanctions - during that time no decontamination equipment was let into Iraq, and the reason cited was that it could potentially be used in WOMD.

The UN blocked no
> essential food and medical supplies it was just that the regime was
> more interested in buying dual use goods.

Again, forgive my ignorance about what duel use goods are - this is why I am debating with you, I'm trying to both refine my argument and increase my knowledge. But to say that the UN blocked no food and medical supplies is a denial of the facts.

The British Medical Jounal, as part of an study for which they went to Iraq itself, said that 'requested radiotherapy equiptment and chemotherapy drugs are consistantly blocked by the UK and US sanctions commitee advisors'. This surely contradicts your statement.

Professer Karl Sikora, chief of the WHOs cancer program, along with a group of experts, drew up a list of 17 essential cancer drugs which could not possibly be converted into weapons that the UN was blocking. The sanctions comittee was informed, and took no action - the WHO told Sikora, specificly, not to talk about the UNs activitys. That he even drew up a list of things that were being blocked contradicts your statement.

Furthermore, the ex-Co-ordinator of Humanitrain Relief in Iraq, since promoted to Assistant Secretry General, Dennis Halliday, resigned in protest at the UNs sanctions. He had been with the UN for 34 years. Not only that, but his sucsessor as the Co-ordinator of Humanitarin Relief in Iraq, Hans Von Spaneck, also resigned for the same reason. Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program (a UN agency) resigned for the same reason. In each of these cases, the people cited the example of blocking food imports, which again shows your statement to be false.

I await a reply.

Maybe, but Mouldy Cheese is referring to a time before then, before US unilateralism really kicked off.

The illusion that the UN had any control over the US was surely shattered when America decided to invade Iraq on it's own whim... or does anyone still think they are a meaningful organisation?