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

Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> Which is why I said the US 'took part' in a genocide. I have also
> been led to believe that the US (and UK) excerised a large degree of
> power over the comittee.

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 don't think I'm sure what you're getting at - I never said anything
> about the war, I mentioned the effects of the sanctions.

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.

> Hum - I'm not sure if the leaders pocketed money or not, but I agree,
> they probably did keep a fair amount for themselves.

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.

>However, a
> significant amount of it WAS spent on food and medicine which, at the
> command of the sanctions comittee, was 'delayed' - stopped from being
> shipped to Iraq after it had been paid for. This was not being done
> on a small scale - over half the food and medicine was handled this
> way - and something like 70% of Iraqs food supply comes from imports.
> The excuse for the medicines non-shipment was that, potentially, they
> could be used in WOMD. Similary, decontamination equipment needed to
> clear the area around Basra from the radiation caused by the use of
> depleted uranium, was blocked. So, though the Iraqi government did
> pocket some of the funds, the UN prevented what they did buy from
> getting inot Iraq.

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. The UN blocked no essential food and medical supplies it was just that the regime was more interested in buying dual use goods. Given some of the ways in which the regime operated it is ludicrous to suggest it was interested in decontaminating areas when it was citing chemical and munition factories in civilian areas in the first place. Not to mention that weapons inspectors found piles of infected material simply discarded around the country before the war.

> If you want to say the US took part in genocide based on what you
> have then essentially every person in the west takes part in
> genocide
> somewhere every single second of the day.
>
> Yup, that's probably right.

It's a ludicrous idea by the way.

Belldandy wrote:
> Well a glaring hole is that the UN, and not the US, controlled the
> sanctions.

Which is why I said the US 'took part' in a genocide. I have also been led to believe that the US (and UK) excerised a large degree of power over the comittee.

> Secondly it was the UN as a body which defined the terms of the
> resolution authorising Desert Storm in 1991. If America had been
> listened to then those coalition forces would not have halted just
> inside the Iraqi border but pursued the Iraqi forces straight to
> Baghdad and removed Saddam Hussein's regime - effectively changing
> history.

I don't think I'm sure what you're getting at - I never said anything about the war, I mentioned the effects of the sanctions.

> Thirdly those people died, not down to sanctions, but because thier
> leaders took the money from exports - which should have been used for
> food, care etc - and pocketed it themselves.

Hum - I'm not sure if the leaders pocketed money or not, but I agree, they probably did keep a fair amount for themselves. However, a significant amount of it WAS spent on food and medicine which, at the command of the sanctions comittee, was 'delayed' - stopped from being shipped to Iraq after it had been paid for. This was not being done on a small scale - over half the food and medicine was handled this way - and something like 70% of Iraqs food supply comes from imports. The excuse for the medicines non-shipment was that, potentially, they could be used in WOMD. Similary, decontamination equipment needed to clear the area around Basra from the radiation caused by the use of depleted uranium, was blocked. So, though the Iraqi government did pocket some of the funds, the UN prevented what they did buy from getting inot Iraq.

> If you want to say the US took part in genocide based on what you
> have then essentially every person in the west takes part in genocide
> somewhere every single second of the day.

Yup, that's probably right.

Well a glaring hole is that the UN, and not the US, controlled the sanctions.

Secondly it was the UN as a body which defined the terms of the resolution authorising Desert Storm in 1991. If America had been listened to then those coalition forces would not have halted just inside the Iraqi border but pursued the Iraqi forces straight to Baghdad and removed Saddam Hussein's regime - effectively changing history.

Thirdly those people died, not down to sanctions, but because thier leaders took the money from exports - which should have been used for food, care etc - and pocketed it themselves. The scale of this only became apparent during last years conflict. Public hospitals were sparse in terms of supplies/equipment, yet the hospitals built to accodmodate the powerful were overstocked.

If you want to say the US took part in genocide based on what you have then essentially every person in the west takes part in genocide somewhere every single second of the day.

Which is it to be??

Bell, could you please expand on that statement? Perhaps explain the other side of the one sided argument, and detail the parts of it that I did not select?

Again that's a very one sided and selective argument.

47,000 people died during the first 8 months of sanctions on Iraq in 92 (not sure about the year). The UN Sanctions Comittee blocked almost all food and medicine imports.

The US HAS taken part in a major genocide, albeit not on the scale of the Jewish Holocaust.

I'll be honest, I couldn't be bothered to read the post . . . But on the other hand, I do think the USA is becoming very oppressive and that they
'Bush' tell people what to do and own them basically.

I can pretty muh imagine that if Bush gets elected again, he WILL turn on the UK saying we have weapons of Mass Destruction and we could turn on them at any second. He's basically a child who wants more toys.

An excellent unfounded opinion I think.

Is it a crime to watch Miami Vice? Were Crocket & Tubbs terrorists????

I read a newspaper article a while ago about the Patriot Act (a pretty Orwellian name in itself) being used against a Miami vice king (or something/one similar) because the police couldn't pin anything concrete on him. That's the trouble with giving government's extra powers in 'exceptional' circumstances: they soon become the norm and are abused, extended and abused some more.

Belldandy wrote:
> For starters even comparing Hitler to Bush. The US Constitution, the
> make up of the government and the command and control structure of
> the military all restricts Bush. If I thought it'd actually change
> your mind I'd go into detail.

The US Constitution, if it is anything like their religion, is open to be interpreted how they see fit. In texas, where they execute people, they believe that the ten commandments say "Thou shalt not Murder", rather than "Thou shalt not Kill", which nicely fits in with their policy on punishing criminals, doesn't it?

I'm sure you're right, but the term 'with great power comes great responsibility' certainly holds true, and with the statements from Bush shortly after the initial invasion of Iraq, to the effect that he was considering going after Syria next, I am skeptical as to whether America has enough responsibility.