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

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.

Belldandy wrote:
> If these are your conclusions then I'd suggest you don't do history at
> A Level...

I'm not. But care to elaborate...? I'd like to know what historical points are wrong, I did take GCSE history 2 years ago, so more than likely some of it is flawed...


Darwock wrote:
> Oh, a well researched, evenly balanced article then ?!?

Not especially...

Loquacious Duck wrote:
> The coalition did, supposedly, believe Iraq had WMDs of course, but
> yes, that's still likely a far lesser threat than nukes.

The key thing for Iraq was that the furtherest Saddam could lob his missiles would be Israel and Saudi Arabia. BUT he couldn't attack Israel this time because the only reason Israel stayed out of the Gulf War was so as not to break the coalition. But this time most arab states stayed out of it, hence if Israel was attacked they could, if they chose, fire back at Iraq with pretty much free reign, though it would annoy (putting it mildly) Israel's neighbours, but they'd be unlikely (I think) to do anything because of the large US presence in the area.

> However, the statement alone doesn't really qualify the idea that NK
> may be a strong match against the US in full force. But other
> evidence does seem to support that conclusion.

Well if the guy sitting on the DMZ line himself says they could only hold North Korea so long... North Korea's other advantage would be that, again in my opinion, it would be unlikely to care too much about international opinion because China and Russia would abandon it until the outcome of the war was more clear. That means North Korea can gas civilians, flatten everything in it's way, but the US can't because of the domestic media coverage. Even if US networks can't get access North Korean media can and they'll spread it around the world.

Anyway right not I'd say this Bird Flu thing is a more imminent threat than North Korea, UN issued an alert today that Asian authorities are not prepared for it to mutate into human to human transmission, or to deal with larger outbreaks.

I don't think attacking North Korea would be a good idea they have a F**k off army and one of the biggest airforces in the world not to mention it would pi*s the chinese off.

Belldandy wrote:
> I'd argue it does because the US could NEVER attack all out unless
> there was rock solid intelligence saying North Korea does not have
> nukes. Even then North Korea could attack the South with missiles.

The coalition did, supposedly, believe Iraq had WMDs of course, but yes, that's still likely a far lesser threat than nukes.

If you take the statment to indicate NK's strength, and thus that the US would be very keen to avoid military conflict, I think you have a good point.

However, the statement alone doesn't really qualify the idea that NK may be a strong match against the US in full force. But other evidence does seem to support that conclusion.

Skarra wrote:
> Well, before those 12 hours, i'm sure somebody would spot a huge
> military build up. Plus, even if nobody spots it, if the border
> troops can hold them for 12 hours, i'm sure it will take the US less
> than that to get some Cruise missiles that way, or even some B1's and
> B52'S. The seige at Khe San(sp?) showed that an advance can be halted
> by carpet bombing.

That's the problem, inadvertently. Both sides of the border around the DMZ are heavily militarised and under normal circumstances North Korea has around 700 000 soldiers within 12 hours of South Korea, all on high readiness every day. There are around 9000 artillery pieces in the area which would not require moving to be able to fire, along with an estimated 500+ ballisitic missiles, not to mention scores of tanks and armoured vehicles and a large air force. Technologically North Korea is not on par with the USA.

B1, F117, B52 and B2 bombers are all stationed within a minimum of 1-2 hours reach of the area but that assumes North Korea won't hit the air fields first and that they can get through to their targets. Sure they'll be escorted where possible but we know North Korea has figured out how to detect at least the F117 stealth because the Serbs knew how to.

Nor would carpet bombing be possible because thousands of civilians live in the area - though if North Korea makes the first move then nothing says any of them will be alive anyway. Precision bombing couldn't dent an invasion force fast enough. Nor could Cruise missiles.

As I see it that is really the problem. In North Korea the US and its allies would face a relatively equal enemy except that any scenario where North Korea does attack first means that the leadership is desperate and has nothing to lose. There would be little warning of an attack and whilst friendly forces could get to the area they'd be unlikely, in my opinion and from what little I know, be enough to do anything than slightly dent an invading force. Against Iraq, Grenada and other developing countries we have a massive edge not only in technology but in the standard of our troops and that the enemy side is largely a forced conscription army with fleeting loyalty. To get into the North Korean army you have to be loyal to the party even if you are conscripted. If your loyalties are wavering then you end up doing something unimportant.

It is, I think, highly unlikely it would ever happen. But then again if you'd told me on New Years Eve 1999 what the world would be like today I'd have said the same...

> Belldandy wrote:
> You mean North Korea? This would be the same North Korea whom the US
> General in charge of US forces in that area admitted in an interview
> last year that even the combined forces of the US and South Korea
> would not be able to halt a North Korean invasion for longer than 12
> hours? Thought so.

Loquacious Duck wrote:
> If you're referring to the same interview I'm thinking of, that only
> refers to those US forces already 'guarding' the N/S Korean border.
> That makes it a fairly limited statement which doesn't hold much
> water in the context of a hypothetical all-out US attack.

I'd argue it does because the US could NEVER attack all out unless there was rock solid intelligence saying North Korea does not have nukes. Even then North Korea could attack the South with missiles. In addition the US could never build up the required forces for an all out attack without North Korea realising. Another point is that if the North invaded the South then it'd take ages to mobilise a large force to push it out and Iraq is bad enough as it is. Imagine trying to push back well trained North Korean troops from an urban environment....

*can easily

Interesting piece. I'd have to agree that in many ways Bush's America does look like a watered down facist regime. I'm sure you could draw similar parallels in the UK too.

But that said, you could probably draw the parallels with most governments. I figure it's just a fundamental, albeit unpleasant, characteristic of human nature - get away with all you can, morals are only really important when they're convenient and easily be put out of sight (even x-ray vision :^p ), out of mind.


Belldandy wrote:
> You mean North Korea? This would be the same North Korea whom the US
> General in charge of US forces in that area admitted in an interview
> last year that even the combined forces of the US and South Korea
> would not be able to halt a North Korean invasion for longer than 12
> hours? Thought so.

If you're referring to the same interview I'm thinking of, that only refers to those US forces already 'guarding' the N/S Korean border. That makes it a fairly limited statement which doesn't hold much water in the context of a hypothetical all-out US attack.

There's nothing said about the current state of America in that post you wouldn't get from watching the news...