[chris v]

When Bush spoke those words during the SOTU, I knew immediately I'd seen them elsewhere.

It took me a few days to get around to confirming my suspicions, but this appears to have been a popular rhetorical turn-of-phrase with the Nazi's. I'm not calling Bush a Nazi, but I'm wondering either one of two things:

1. Did they use this phrase knowing its past attributions, and figure that the rhetorical style used by the Nazis to incite their population to war was a good style with which to incite the American poulation to war as well?

2. Are they that ignorant of history that they had no idea how popular the phrase was with the Nazis?

Observe the results of a perfunctory google search:

1. CHANCELLOR HITLER'S MEMORIAL ADDRESS

Berlin, Germany, March 16, 1941 [1] (4th paragraph)

...a war that Germany did not want, but that was forced on us...

Source: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/410316a.html



2. "Wann oder Wie?", Das eherne Herz (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1943), pp. 78-84. When or How? by Joseph Goebbels (8th paragraph)

We did not want this war, despite our constricted and almost hopeless situation back then; it was forced upon us.

source: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb3.htm



3. (noted for the effects of propaganda)

INTERROGATORY; Regional Loyalty Board; FOURTH UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE REGIONAL OFFICE, Washington, DC (Executive Order 10241, The White House, 28 April 1951, signed Harry S. Truman) - Questions of the board to Rudolph Salvermoser and his answers

Paragraph V.

Information has been received to the effect that from September 1, 1942 to May 1945, you were a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or Nazi Party) and that your party number was 9 106 256.

Please furnish full and complete information concerning the nature and extent of your affiliation with, and activities in, the Nazi Party as well as the extent of your adherence to the Nazi ideology and your reasons therefore.

(answer)

(...)

b. At that time, Germany was not in war with the United States. I believed Germany was fighting for a good cause, namely against the aggressive communistic Russia. We were made to believe that the war against the Western Powers was also forced upon us by these powers.

source: http://www.feldgrau.com/interview6a.html



4. Our Hitler, Goebbels' 1945 Speech on Hitler's 56th Birthday (14th paragraph)

It knows his works of peace and now wants to bear and fight the war that was forced upon him until its successful end.

Source: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/unser45.htm



5. Statement by Hitler, March 20, 1943

(...) The pitiless and merciless war that has been forced upon us by external Jewry will lay the entire Continent in ruins...

source: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/statements.htm


6. Hitler's Political Statement April 29, 1945, 1st sentence.

More than thirty years have now passed since I in 1914 made my modest contribution as a volunteer in the first world war that was forced upon the Reich.

source: http://history1900s.about.com/librar.../aa022100a.htm

---------

I think perhaps there are better roll models that the Bush administration's speech-writers could aspire to than Goebbels.

CV

[snotnose]

damn you should be a lawyer!!! good stuff

i think it was just a simple statement that he was making. no other reason though

[shanraghan]

I believe it was a logical rhetorical device, not necessarily inspired by the Nazis. If war is 'forced' on us, then we at least do not believe that it was at all our fault or responsibility, and it also imprints the idea that war is the only logical, reasonable solution to current developments. It will prove problematic, however, should the results of this war prove as disasterous as some believe. We will be faced with another generation of terrorists and the East blaming the West for their ills, and we will think it was not in the least our falut, because we thought there was no choice.

[Awimoway]

Very good find. I've been hemming and hawing about this war for some time. Good can come out of it.

But I am ultimately led to conclude that there is no moral basis for initiating a war. Therefore, "if war is forced upon us" seems like it would be fairly standard rhetoric for trying to advance a course of immoral action: make it look like you are not the initiator.

While America's motives for their war may be much nobler than those of Nazi Germany's for theirs, apparently America's means of justifying the war are rather similar in some respects.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by shanraghan:
I believe it was a logical rhetorical device, not necessarily inspired by the Nazis. If war is 'forced' on us, then we at least do not believe that it was at all our fault or responsibility, and it also imprints the idea that war is the only logical, reasonable solution to current developments. It will prove problematic, however, should the results of this war prove as disasterous as some believe. We will be faced with another generation of terrorists and the East blaming the West for their ills, and we will think it was not in the least our falut, because we thought there was no choice.

Is that "pre-emptively" rewriting history?

[daimoni]

.

[Usama's Carcase]

Originally posted by Awimoway:
apparently America's means of justifying the war are rather similar in some respects.

ALL justifications for war are rather similar. Hitler, in all his evil and twisted ways, was an excellent orator. You infidels shouldn't be surprised when others use similar rhetorical devices. To make this into a big issue is just lame.

Hitler had 10 fingers. Bush has 10 fingers. Holy Mother of Allah, Bush is like Hitler.

[shanraghan]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Is that "pre-emptively" rewriting history?

I dunno, he's sure jumping the gun. It ain't even written yet, even less published.

Oh wait, you mean ME? Uh, no... (Big Brother is watching you! )

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Usama's Carcase:
ALL justifications for war are rather similar. Hitler, in all his evil and twisted ways, was an excellent orator. You infidels shouldn't be surprised when others use similar rhetorical devices. To make this into a big issue is just lame.

Hitler had 10 fingers. Bush has 10 fingers. Holy Mother of Allah, Bush is like Hitler.

Heh the topic ended before it began. He compared someone to Hitler/Nazis on the first post. We all know that is officially a topic ender.

I hear Bush and Hitler BOTH had a penis too.

Striking!

[chris v]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Heh the topic ended before it began. He compared someone to Hitler/Nazis on the first post. We all know that is officially a topic ender.

I hear Bush and Hitler BOTH had a penis too.

Striking!

(yeah, but Hitler only had one ball. Apparently, GWB has three)

It doesn't bother you at all that your president is employing an exact rhetorical turn-of-prase as Hitler?

Either 1. the speechwriters knew full well that this was a cornerstone of Nazi propaganda, and used the phrase anyway, in the same context, for the same purpose, in which case they are taking YOU, THE AMERICAN CITIZEN for an idiot,

or 2. They are woefully ignorant of history, and missed the attribution entirely, in which case THEY are complete idiots.

BTW Zim, when the heck are you gonna finish Simple Aqua for 10.2.3? It's still my favorite theme, despite our VERY different politics.

CV

[Cubeoid]

Nice work chris...but this time it might get worse this time Idiots these days are stronger then the idiots of the 30s. Once again, I will stand my ground and accept anything. I am ready.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by chris v:
It doesn't bother you at all that your president is employing an exact rhetorical turn-of-prase as Hitler?

Depends on the motives. Hitler said a lot of nice things, but didn't mean them. Should I be wary of people saying similar nice things but mean them?

Either 1. the speechwriters knew full well that this was a cornerstone of Nazi propaganda, and used the phrase anyway, in the same context, for the same purpose, in which case they are taking YOU, THE AMERICAN CITIZEN for an idiot,

Or it could just be a coincidence.

or 2. They are woefully ignorant of history, and missed the attribution entirely, in which case THEY are complete idiots.

Of course, because everyone studies up on their Nazi propaganda before they make speeches. Another

BTW Zim, when the heck are you gonna finish Simple Aqua for 10.2.3? It's still my favorite theme, despite our VERY different politics.

CV

It's been finished for MONTHS. It was finished before 10.2.3 was out.

http://webpages.charter.net/zimphire...SimpleAqua.sit

[derien]

It's an interesting catch, but not necessarily new or surprising rhetoric. Just do a quick search and you will find many historical examples of the same phrase. The Nazis weren't even the first Germans to use it; note:

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1914/theobelg.html

And there are many other examples (in contexts sometimes more justifiable, sometimes equally dubious).

I think I've heard more or less the same thing from Iraq. Obviously, someone in this mess is being insincere. My guess is there's enough blame to go around.

It probably indicates the nature of public perception of war more than anything else. I think it's fair to say that no people wants to think of itself as an aggressor nation. Placing the onus of war on others is an easy way to deflect that responsibility. In other words, it's just the line to be expected. Good old realist calculus and allusion to national interest won't reliably sway the public, I guess.

My personal preference would be less rhetoric and more frank discussion of motives. Of course, that's just wishful thinking--except that wishing implies some degree of hope, and I can't help but be cynical here. I can't easily imagine that anyone, even Bush--though I have to admit some uncertainty here--wants war just for the hell of it. I doubt the administration's motives are noble, but I think the effects could be good. It's for this reason that I'm ambivalent about the whole thing. In this political world, it's not necessarily so simple to say that the ends justify the means. And to show my political colors here, I'd prefer that Bush not be given credit for any good that comes of his deceptions.

On a related note, several years ago, I was surprised to hear the name Operation Desert Fox. Did that bring to mind less-than-positive connotations for anyone else?

[driven]

Not everything to come out of Nazi Germany was bad. They rewrote the book on military tactics for example.

For those that recall during the first Iraqi war the original name was "Desert Fox" (named after Rommel). But ... a group of folks were offended and they changed it to Desert Shield.

[Cubeoid]

Originally posted by driven:
Not everything to come out of Nazi Germany was bad. They rewrote the book on military tactics for example.

For those that recall during the first Iraqi war the original name was "Desert Fox" (named after Rommel). But ... a group of folks were offended and they changed it to Desert Shield.

Here's a free t-shirt for you driven

[Zarqawi's Stump]

Originally posted by Cubeoid:
Idiots these days are stronger then the idiots of the 30s.

In the context of this thread, then, you must be referring to 1930s Europe as idiots. Appeasement and Fascism rank high on that list. But then again American had nothing to do with that. It was the Great Satan that saved everyone.

If you're going to throw around the 'idiot' label, then everyone that fell for Hitler and everyone that bought into Appeasement were the world's greatest fools.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Zimphire:



It's been finished for MONTHS. It was finished before 10.2.3 was out.

http://webpages.charter.net/zimphire...SimpleAqua.sit [/B]

Thanks for that.

CV

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by driven:
For those that recall during the first Iraqi war the original name was "Desert Fox" (named after Rommel). But ... a group of folks were offended and they changed it to Desert Shield.

Really? There was an Operation Desert Fox. It was in 1998 under the arch-PC President Clinton. Why weren't people offended then?

[derien]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Really? There was an Operation Desert Fox. It was in 1998 under the arch-PC President Clinton. Why weren't people offended then?

To quote myself:

On a related note, several years ago, I was surprised to hear the name Operation Desert Fox. Did that bring to mind less-than-positive connotations for anyone else?

Offended probably would be the right word, but it made me do something like this:

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Really? There was an Operation Desert Fox. It was in 1998 under the arch-PC President Clinton. Why weren't people offended then?

I always wondered that myself. Were was the angst? The protesting? The war mongering?

[derien]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I always wondered that myself. Were was the angst? The protesting? The war mongering?

There was a little on Pennsylvania Ave. between 16th and 17th.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

[/b] Of course, because everyone studies up on their Nazi propaganda before they make speeches. [/B]

I am a T-shirt printer by trade. I have never set foot in a college classroom. I barely graduated high school with a C average. In fact, I flunked a social studies class in the 11th grade, and made up the credit by taking 0 hour weight lifting.

I read perhaps 4 or 5 books a year, half of them novels.

Are you willing to uncritically accept that I know more about the use of propaganda in political history than a sitting United States president, his entire cabinet and their speechwriting and fact-checking staff???

Wow.

Oh, and I noticed the Desert Fox thing, too. Raised plenty of eyebrows, from what I can recall about conversations between friends. Clinton is no hero of mine, either. Defending Bush by attacking Clinton won't get you far with me.

CV

[Zarqawi's Stump]

aw come on people. There have been probably millions of speeches from various leaders (all levels) since the 1930s. Surely it's no big deal if the war speeches end up sounding the same. After all, you're dealing with a limited amount of time and attention span, strict subject matter, and very basic methods of getting it across. It isn't surprising that Bush's writers came up with something that sounds good but happened to have been eerily similar to one from the 1930s. It's no big deal, and to make it into a Big Deal is the farthest from intellectual rigour or debate that one can get.

Simply put, there's nothing to see here.

[xi_hyperon]

Interesting topic. The whole "war has been forced upon us" line has been used by many leaders. Sharon has used it a few times lately as well.

Having said that, if we go to war in Iraq, I have a quote of my own to pass along.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by chris v:
I am a T-shirt printer by trade. I have never set foot in a college classroom. I barely graduated high school with a C average. In fact, I flunked a social studies class in the 11th grade, and made up the credit by taking 0 hour weight lifting.

I read perhaps 4 or 5 books a year, half of them novels.

Are you willing to uncritically accept that I know more about the use of propaganda in political history than a sitting United States president, his entire cabinet and their speechwriting and fact-checking staff???

Wow.

I know a lot of people that wont touch anything that has to do with Nazism. Go figure. I think you assume too much.

Oh, and I noticed the Desert Fox thing, too. Raised plenty of eyebrows, from what I can recall about conversations between friends. Clinton is no hero of mine, either.

Well then the comment wasn't for you. It was for all the pro Clintoners that are calling Bush a war monger, but don't see Clinton as one, even though he did start more wars that Bush has.

Defending Bush by attacking Clinton won't get you far with me.

CV

Well it's a good thing I wasn't trying to do that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Zarqawi's Stump:
aw come on people. There have been probably millions of speeches from various leaders (all levels) since the 1930s. Surely it's no big deal if the war speeches end up sounding the same. After all, you're dealing with a limited amount of time and attention span, strict subject matter, and very basic methods of getting it across. It isn't surprising that Bush's writers came up with something that sounds good but happened to have been eerily similar to one from the 1930s. It's no big deal, and to make it into a Big Deal is the farthest from intellectual rigour or debate that one can get.

Simply put, there's nothing to see here.

It's a pathetic attempt and they had to reach at the bottom of the barrel to even think it was remotely releated.


Typical leftist FUD, :

[FulcrumPilot]

stop forcing BS!