;


Hot Topics




Hitler Watch


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Orest Bohdan Slepokura - 3/24/2005

During a 1976 state visit to Israel by South Africa's then prime
minister, John Vorster, the late Yitzhak Rabin invited Vorster,
an old Nazi collaborator, unabashed racist and white supremacist,
to Yad Vashem to pay homage to Jews murdered in the Holocaust.
Vorster should, of course, have been tried as a Nazi collaborator;
instead he was welcomed by his Jewish hosts.

Compared to the usual outcries from Jewish groups who zealously
guard the dignity of Holocaust remembrance, no less remarkable
was the bland equanimity Israeli and Diaspora Jews also displayed
toward the Vorster visit. Vorster left Israel four days later, after
forging close military and commercial ties between the Jewish state
and Pretoria's apartheid regime.

That said, I can't see how either Professor Lipdtadt - or any other of
her co-religionists - could be all worked up by C-Span's BookTV having
historian David Irving on to jaw-jaw for an hour or so.


Jeff Hauser - 3/15/2005

For ten leading recent examples, please see http://njdc.org/emet/detail.php?id=434


Beth Klopott - 3/7/2005

I feel that Senator Byrd made an accurate comparison between the attempst s to limit the filibuster and Hitler's early tactics to gain power through "legal" means. The Senator, in no way, compared the filibuster to the Holocaust. He was talking strictly of the methods Hitler used to come to power.


Timothy Furnish - 3/5/2005

OK, Mr. Tucker: RFK Jr. equates "crony capitalism" (whatever that is) with fascism. That is not a historical definition of fascism, which entails one-party control, extreme militarism, belligerent nationalism and racism, to name most of the characteristics of fascism. It is not enough to simply throw that label at someone--always on the "Right"--whom one dislikes. Of course, I'm sure Kennedy--like the rest of the less-than-stellar intellects in that bloodline--was doing the best he could.


Timothy Furnish - 3/5/2005

Mr. Tucker,
I hope your skills in history are better than those using the Internet; since you seem to need help, let me assist you:
1) my college faculty website: http://www.gpc.edu/~tfurnish/
2) my upcoming book:
http://www.greenwood.com/books/BookDetail_pf.asp?sku=C8383
3) ONE of my published articles:
http://www.meforum.org/article/159
And besides, if you're a regular reader of HNN, could you not rub your sparse Leftist I.Q. digits together and do a search in the archive section here for me? I have published six articles on this site, all of which mention my doctorate and where I teach.
No, I'd only quit my job if YOU were in my department.


Charles Christopher Tucker - 2/6/2005

"Bush has created fear?!?! Funny, I thought al-Qa`idah's killing of 3,000 Americans had done that."

Bush created fear of Iraq by constantly linking the events of 9/11/2001 with Iraq/Saddam Hussien, even though he had, when pressed, admitted there was no known connection. There is STILL no known connection with the war done and over with. There IS a connection, now, in the form of a terrorist leader who renewed (note: renewed) his alliegience to Al Quidah who is operating in Iraq but there is zero evidence that he ever collaborated with Saddam Hussien.

And is your point that Nazi "efforts to instill a sense of patriotism" are somehow analogous to what the Bush administration is doing? Isn't that--to be kind--ahistorical at best? (The word "asinine" comes to mind, as well.) The Left always blanches at comparison's of their policies to those of the former USSR--but yet is always ready to lump a conservative president in with the Nazis. Pathetic."

You appear to believe "the Left" is a monolithic pseudo-theology, however no sociologist of any credit would do so. That being the case I'll concede that SOME, few, persons who self-identify as "Left" propound Stalinist doctrine.

However, Stalinism was as much a cult of personality and a dictatorship as Hitlerian Nazism. To lump the populism of Woody Guthrie into Stalinsm is rather, shall we say--to be kind--ahistorical at best? (The word "asinine" comes to mind, as well.)

I did a Google search of your name and can't find where you practice the profession of historian, Mr. Furnish. I do see you had a paper which you then used as a footnote in your posting on a different website.

Just where are you practicing? I just figured others might want to look in to your job if you are so disgusted that you'll quit.


Charles Christopher Tucker - 2/6/2005

If there's a factual error, point it out.

If not, well, if the jackboot fits...


Timothy Furnish - 8/9/2004

Mr. Dickerson,
Bush has created fear?!?! Funny, I thought al-Qa`idah's killing of 3,000 Americans had done that.
And is your point that Nazi "efforts to instill a sense of patriotism" are somehow analogous to what the Bush administration is doing? Isn't that--to be kind--ahistorical at best? (The word "asinine" comes to mind, as well.) The Left always blanches at comparison's of their policies to those of the former USSR--but yet is always ready to lump a conservative president in with the Nazis. Pathetic.
If you're a historian, I'm ready to leave the profession.


Steven Alan Dickerson - 8/8/2004

It is inevitable that people are going to compare our leaders to villains and heroes of the past, especially those who are well known such as Hitler and Stalin. To not make these comparisons would be irresponsible. For example, it is only natural to compare the Patriot Act to the Enabling Law. Responsible journalists will point out the similarities as well as the differences.

As I see it, Bush has done a job within the USA of creating fear that Goebbels would surely admire. On the other hand, he has done a miserable job of convincing people overseas to subscribe to these irrational fears. He has done a far better job of causing people overseas to fear the USA.

Similarly, although anti-Semites can compare Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, it is also possible for those who are not anti-Semites to point out legitimate similarities as well as differences. These comparisons can be effective because the history of the Nazis is quite well known. Intelligent dialog can take place on the basis of knowledgeable comparisons. On the other hand, referring to Israeli officials as Nazis and critics of Israeli policy as anti-Semites has a tendency to not be productive.

All in all, these dialogs can teach us a lot. We can compare aggressive policy today with policies of the Nazis and study the contemporary reasons for such policy. These dialogs could conceivably lead to positive changes in policy. Similarly, we need to look at Nazi efforts to instill a sense of patriotism in the German people. Few would disagree that they were unsuccessful in this regard.
We need to rethink our own efforts to instill patriotism and the likely consequences. I have concluded that love for one's people and one's home is admirable while at the same time concluding that patriotism leads to conflict. I agree with Judge Rutherford who said that patriotism is a narrow-minded form of bigotry and hatred. Love of one's people and home is likely to lead people to insist upon change while patriotism is more likely to lead to blindly accepting flawed policy.


Timothy Furnish - 8/7/2004

Where are all you modern European historians? If a Republican had written a book based on such a facile, jejune --okay, stupid--view of fascism, you'd be all over him like Clinton on an intern. But because it's a KENNEDY who's attacking mean ole Republicans, I guess he gets a pass.


Arnold Shcherban - 5/23/2004

Mr. Lamovsky,

Your, like so many other, comments expressing anger and
condemnation towards made comparison between Bush and Hitler has no ethical, logical or historical basis.

First of all, as any half-brained understands, the mentioned comparison has not been made as the direct comparison of Hitler's and Bush's personalities.
By the way, provided they had done so, the Americans would discover that Hitler's intelligence and charisma greatly exceeds the respective personal qualities of two Bushes(father + son) taken together making such
comparison faulty, as a matter of historical fact.

The policies and methods of justification of the latter
by the two administrations/goverments that what were really compared.

US, currently, as well(and much more so) as Germany at the end of 30s in the last century has the most powerful
and prepared for action military machine in the world.
The other economical and military powers are, as they
were then, experience a miriad of heavy economical, social, and other sorts of problems or drastic changes, and are/were not prepared to get engaged in any sustained and wide-scaled military actions.
(Today, on top, they don't have and can't think of a slightest chance for victory over the US and NATO).
Bush administration, as well as Hitler's one is openly belligerent, and openly threatens the other countries,
whom it doesn't like on some reason(s) or where it just considers US "presense" being important for this country's "national interests".
Bush administration, as well, as Hitler's one is/was strongly supported by the big orporations, in general, and military-industrial complex, in particular, on I hope, obvious reasons/profits.
Bush administration explicitly uses one of the mottos of Nazi's political ideology: "Who is not with us - are against us".

Bush administration demonstratively(recongnizing its impunity) marched out of the Anti-Missile Pact with Russia, fully reconstituting the infamous 'Star Wars' program and starting, according to the majority of the political and military observers, the new era in the arms race, in good analogy with the Nazi Germany's actions announcing the end of its adherence to Versailles treaty and untying Hitler's hands for the unseen up to then rearmament of Germany military.
(Not mentioning the greatly unjustified for the "peaceful nation" huge rise of the defense budget in both cases).

And finally, for these comments, Bush administration(its retorics aside) committed the act of military agression against Iraq in an outright violation of the international laws and continues occupation of the country against the expressed will of the overwhelming majority of its population, now including even many of the Iraqi supporters of the US invasion, in complete analogy with the Hitler's agression(his retorics aside) against Poland.

If these factual analogies/comparisons are not enough for you, I have more.
If you still feel the comparison is wrong and unjustified, well - some folks refuse to recognize Holochaust as a historical event.


Aidan McGivern - 2/26/2004

I agree that Saddam Hussain and the Taliban were worse than Bush. But this is only because they could get away with it (at least for a while). Bush is as extreme and racist as he can be in a democracy. He has to dress up his racism as a 'war on terror' and the way that the patriot act gives the government the right to lock up any muslims without giving a reason is very similar to Hitler's concentration camps. I hate the way that the left often gives the impression that they are only against Bush, and not the many other extremist regimes around the world. Saddam Hussain was like Hitler in that he was a brutal dictator, the Taliban were like Hitler in that they punsihed their citizens if they were not following their religion and George W Bush is like Hitler with his racism against Muslims and stripping away of civil liberties.


Sheldon Howard Laskin - 1/27/2004

I recently resigned from the AJ Congress, of which I
am a past President of the Maryland Chapter, over AJ Congress' hypocrisy in condemning MoveOn.org's wholly innocent sponsoring of an election TV ad contest during which two ad proposals compared Bush to Hitler. MoveOn's members did not select either ad to be aired on TV. The only reason that these ads were aired at all is because the Republican National Committee demagogued the issue. Meanwhile, AJ Congress remains silent about antitax zealot and influential Republican ideologue Grover Norquist's calculated comparison between the estate tax and the Holocause. See the article "Jack Attack" in E.J.
Kessler's Campaign Confidential weblog in the Forward
at
http://www.forward.com/campaignconfidential/2004_01_18_archiveindex.html.


Sheldon Howard Laskin - 1/27/2004

I recently resigned from the AJ Congress, of which I
am a past President of the Maryland Chapter, over its demagoguing MoveOn.org's "Bush in 30 Seconds" ad campaign while remaining silent as to Grover Norquist's deliberate comparison between the estate tax and the Holocaust. See the article "Jack Attack" in E.J.
Kessler's Campaign Confidential weblog in the Forward
at
http://www.forward.com/campaignconfidential/2004_01_18_archiveindex.html.

MoveOn was "guilty" of nothing more than sponsoring an election TV ad campaign, during which two MoveOn members submitted two proposed ads that compared Bush to Hitler. Neither ad won a vote of MoveOn's members for selecting the winners ads would be aired on TV. If the Republican National Committee hadn't demagogued the issue, the ads would never have been aired at all. In contrast, when Grover Norquist, a leading antitax zealot, compares a tax to the Holocaust, he does so deliberately. He wants people to associate taxation with the Holocaust so as to impugn any support for progressive taxation. But a number of Jewish organizations, including AJ Congress, won't condemn this influential Republican ideologue, because those organizations are in bed with Bush. What hypocrisy!


Steve Lowe - 1/7/2004

First of all, the Hitler advertisements were part of a contest sponsored by MoveOn, not prepared or written by any member of the management of that group. If you check out their related web site, http://www.bushin30seconds.org, you will see that, whatever you may think of the political content of the ads that made the list of finalists, none compares Bush to Hitler. Several do call him a liar.

The co-leaders of MoveOn have expressed regret that the Hitler ads were posted on their site at all, but reiterate that they had nothing to do with the content thereof. They have also conveyed their apologies to leaders of major Jewish organizations.

You can read more at http://www.salon.com.


Hope Parson - 11/13/2003

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!! Right on! The thing that amazes me is how quick people are to compare Bush to Hitler....What about Sadahm Hussein??? To me, he is infinitely more comparable to Hitler than the President who is only trying to bring freedom to opressed people.


Irving is a Joke - 11/11/2003

British historian David Irving said Thursday night that Adolph Hitler was unaware of the mass killing of Jews at the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II.

... Irving said that professors float historical claims like a "Goodyear blimp" and are waiting for someone to come along and prick it.

"I AM THAT PRICK," he said.

– The Daily Californian (UC Berkeley student paper), 2/27/89, p. 1, "Holocaust exaggerated, British historian claims"


E.D. Matthews - 11/11/2003

The LAST place I would go for historical analysis or evidence is the Institute for Historical Review. I also would not encourage any of my students to use the website as a source. Unless of course I wanted them to have a look at neo-Nazi pseudo history.


David Sandlin - 10/9/2003

It's about time we start realizing that we have been lied to about the reasons for our participation in most of the wars we have been involved in & learn about the lies about the so-called enemies in these wars. This goes for every war since the Mexican War. Until one realize that since the turn of the last century our press has been controlled by one ethnic group who has their interest in mind ONLY & uses us as tools for their agenda. We sided with the gratest mass murderer in history to fight a man who was trying to save his country from destruction by the interest of this ethnic group & prevent this same mass murderer from taking over all of Europe. General Patton had realized that we had fought the wrong enemey but was silenced by a car "accident".

If you want truth in history, go to the web site of the Institute for Historical Review. http://www.ihr.org

Read Hitler's Reichstag speech. It was censored in the west. He tells why he declared war on the U.S. & why he invaded Poland. Remeber, England & France declared war on Germany. Why didn't they also declare war on the U.S.S.R. who had also invaded Poland? You will find out who really started WWI & WWII. WWII wasn't started by Hitler. War was declared on him the day he took office. It was on the front page of the newspapers in England. War was being waged against Hitler by the U.S. for at least 2 months before he declared war on the u.S.

If you want truth, don't pick up a classroom history book. It's full of lies. Lies "they" want you to believe.

DS

PS-6 million my donkey!


Jesse Lamovsky - 8/6/2003

We can call Mr. Bush and Mr. Ashcroft as many loaded names as we want, but this does not address the main problem: the hyperpowered, unconstitutional Federal State, with its gigantic military machine, that makes this administration's imperial ventures possible. Something tells me, however, that Mr. Lindorff would have no problem at all with the State, as long as it satisfied the whims of himself and his left-wing colleagues.

By the way: where, exactly, is the conflation between Mr. Ashcroft's admiration for the Confederacy and supposedly feeling "quite comfortable in brown with a hakenkreuz tacked to his sleeve"? The Confederacy, a deeply Christian, de-centralized, agrarian society, resisted the invasion of Federal troops. Nazi Germany was a paganistic, ultra-centralized, socialist State that invaded almost every other country in Europe. There's no similarity there, and that includes race relations. Patriots who flew the Stars and Bars in defiance of Soviet tyranny in the old Eastern Bloc didn't see any similarities. Maybe Mr. Lindorff ought to actually learn a little history, instead of just sucking propaganda from it. Does he think Robert E. Lee would have made a good Nazi too? Sherman or Sheridan might have.


Aaron Hill - 8/6/2003

I have seen some fairly stupid stuff before very much like this. In fact, I have also been labeled a Nazi (while in high school) by leftist liberals who can't compete in a debate and revert to name-calling instead of arguing facts and figures. Why don't you just say that you disagree with Bush and his policies? It is often mentioned that conservatives such as myself "hate" former President Clinton. I don't hate him. I never have and I never will. He does, however, have several flaws, both in policy and personally. Yet, I don't characterize him as some sort of Stalinist Commie sympathizer.


Richard Dyke - 7/30/2003

If he shows anything, Lindorff shows the barren wasteland of the liberal position on Iraq. I am not a member of the extreme right--in fact I consider myself moderately liberal--but to suggest that the Bush administration was "war-mongering" and was wrong on Iraq because no weapons of mass destruction have been found is ridiculous. We KNOW the Iraqis HAD AND USED weapons of mass destruction. They CLEARLY used them in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 and CLEARLY killed Kurds in Northern Iraq with chemical agents in the 1990s. (The Kurd slaughter is not legend--it is documented on film showing numerous dead bodies of men, women, children, and babies in mountain villages.) "Chemical Ali" did not get his reputation from the Bush administration. Chemical agents are small and can be hidden readily or neutralized into something else. The same goes for biological weapons. Using the argument that "no weapons were found" is old, dry, and unconvincing. Bush is no Hitler and the Patriot Act became necessary because of ATTACKS on the United States, which sustained 3,000 dead at the Twin Towers. Even the U.S. government at times needs to clamp down hard when its citizens are attacked and sustain heavy casualties. What does Lindorff expect to do--debate as we are being picked off? The time will come when the Patriot Act is not necessary, but the time is not now.


Howard Mirkin - 7/25/2003

David Lindorff of course fails to mention that George Bush has in the past two years given 50 million people freedom from the Hitler-like regimes of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. I also wonder just what David Lindorff would have done in the place of John Ashcroft, apparently nothing to make the country more secure.