Bush Admin. students of Nazi propaganda tactics?

on Jun 19, 2005

Daiwa, why do you try to reason with those who lose before the debate is even begun? If someone is going to use Nazis as their argument, they lost before they uttered their second syllable.

I don't think if I had a attributed the quote to someone else you would be any happy. You're just annoyed that I'm pointing out the manipulative tactic of your government (it was also used by mine) which for some odd reason you seem to love. Really the only reason why I used a quote from a Nazi was because that just happened to be where the quote came from. If I found a similar quote from King Henry just as a random example I would have used it. Have you ever seen compare Bushco to Nazi before? You may have seen it from other lefties but not me.

I don't think Bushco is exactly like the Nazis I AM JUST POINTING OUT THE SIMILARITY CONCERNING SWAYING PUBLIC OPINION.

I'm shouting because everyone seems to be ignoring that and going with "he's just another leftie compare Bush to Nazis" line. That is a lame arguement in my view. Not one of you have directly refuted the comparison (which could have been to anyone) which leads me to believe I've touched on a sore point otherwise you would not be so narky about it.

The sum total of your contribution to the original article was, "The quote speaks for itself." So don't get your knickers in a wad if we fail to comprehend what you "meant."

Well you could have discussed the quote in relation to events rather than just attacking me, champas and the fact I just happened to use Nazis as a comparison. I have never compared Bush to a Nazi in my life, but I happened to see a similarity between the tactic mentioned in the quote and his rhetoric. Saying an idea is insane isn't an actual arguement. Attacking someone is a just a lazy way of arguing and usually the resort of people who CAN'T actually form an arguement to support their view. All you had to say was something along the lines of "Bush has never accused anyone of being unpatriotic or even made the implication" and that would have been more than what you attempted in terms of a rubuttal.

Toblerone,

let me ask you something. A very simple question. But I find it an important question:

Why do you assume that Goering was right?

Looking at Germany's history, which part exactly made you think that Goering was right and his shrink was wrong?

Well the Nazis managed to get a lot of the German people behind them it is as simple as that. He was right because the same thing has happened in Austrlia, UK and the US when the leaders tried to get people behind the war. All these leaders used the fictious WMDs, and supposed connection to Al Queda to try to instill fear in the people. Anytime someone (the opposition party here for example) opposed sending troops or wanted to bring troops back they were accused of not supporting the troops and not being unpatriotic. In fact the government doesn't even have to do the latter because once they made up a threat the people who believe it will often automatically shout about unpatriotism.

I have an essay to write now. Bye.

47

Champas Socialist

on Jun 19, 2005

Once again the JU Right fails to engage in actual debate, preferring to resort to infantile tactics of "You called me Hitler, you called me Hitler!!", which was not at all what Toblerone did. You all kepp rabbiting on about the killing of the Jews. This quote is nothing at all to do with the atrocities committed by Hitler, it has only to do with rhetorical and propagandfist techniques. It is a debate about language.

Before I go on, Daiwa, apology accepted. It was not after all your fault.

Saying that Bush and his mob have used a rhetorical technique that was identified by Goering is not in any way saying that he is a Nazi. I have written quite a lot about former Australian PM Paul Keating's use of techniques that were identified in Aristotle's Rhetorica Addendum. This does not mean that Keating believes in the superiority of homosexuality, nor does it mean that he believes that only the intellectual elites should govern (Keating never completed high school). Many of the Ancient Greeks believed that, but that is a separate issue. Only a fool would enter politics without studying Aristotle's study of rhetorical techniques. They provide valuable tips on how to convince people of anything.

Have an actual look at the quote, rather than making all sorts of jumps that Toblerone never made. Goering is making an observation about how countries manage to justify war to their people. Being an astute observer, he used the same tactics in justifying the killing of the Jews. But Goering's own statement implies that he is not the first or the last to use these tactics. They are the same in every country according to him. Goering's statement implies that the same tactics were even used by Churchill and Menzies and Curtin etc. Whether his observation is correct is a matter for debate as he does little to substantiate the claim here.

Using the same propaganda techniques as Goering does not even mean that GW2 was unjustified. If I wanted to convince a nation of pacifists to go to a war that I believed to be just, surely I would do well to study how previous world leaders had convinced a nation to go to war. The Nazi propaganda machine were a very clever bunch of people. They understood the power of language very well. Bush's men are perhaps equally intelligent.

This has nothing to do with whether the War was justified or not. I believe removing Saddam was a good goal. I don't believe Bush made the case for it very well, but only in the sense that he did not put forward arguments that would convince me. His tactics convinced many others. So let's for a second leave aside what the real reason for war was and assume that the goal of the Iraq war was to save millions of lives. Is it ethical to use rhetorical techniques that were once used by the Nazis? Is it ethical to lie in order to convince people to fight a war that will save lives? You may not believe that he was lying, but the question still remains, is it ethical?

Personally I don't think it is. I expect politicians to lie, but in the case of war I think they need to be truthful. But others would argue that my naivety, my belief that the truth will convince people to fight for justice would be the ruin of millions of lives.

48

bakerstreet

on Jun 19, 2005

On the contrary, Champas, many of us have made many points besides pointing out the sad tendancy of the Left to equate their opponents to Nazis.

YOU have chosen to deal with the parts you find easiest to address... kind of like what you are accusing us of. You can dwell all you like on what you consider to be lies, but Hussein violated a cease-fire he agreed to after the Gulf War. He attempted to thwart sanctions, he fired on our aircraft.

The only people who felt we needed all this WMD junk were people who were so soft on Hussein that he NEEDED to gas half of us to death for us to grow a backbone and remove him from power. Oh, and those where were making billions from propping his evil regime back up.

Oh, and the ones that were ready to start selling him all the arms he wanted again once sanctions fell...

You guys keep on with your "Abandon the Iraqi People!!" campaign. I hope it serves you as well as it always has.

49

Toblerone

on Jun 19, 2005

The only people who felt we needed all this WMD junk were people who were so soft on Hussein that he NEEDED to gas half of us to death for us to grow a backbone and remove him from power. Oh, and those where were making billions from propping his evil regime back up.

What does that have to do with comparing Bush's rhetoric to Goerings? Nothing, stick to the topic.

50

Toblerone

on Jun 19, 2005

I should make an amendment to one of my comments I said no one was discussing the topic at hand without bringing up the fact that I used a Nazi quote. ParaTed did manage to seperate the Nazi thing from the topic, sorry Para, good stuff.

51

Champas Socialist

on Jun 19, 2005

BS, I am beginning to understand what LW finds so tiring about having to restete evrything a million times.

"You may not believe that he was lying, but the question still remains, is it ethical?"

You are stuck on this endless debate about whether GW2 was justified. In the process the JU Right have all assumed I think it wasn't. That is false.

The topics of debate are:
Has Bush used the same language techniques as the Nazis and countless other war Governments?
Have other war Governments used these techniques?
Is it ethical to do so?
Is Goering right that it is easy to bring people into line using these techniques? (Personally I think he is being rather humble in that sense. His feat was quite substantial).

52

bakerstreet

on Jun 19, 2005

"What does that have to do with comparing Bush's rhetoric to Goerings? Nothing, stick to the topic."

You're assertion is that, as Goering describes, we were hoodwinked into doing something we would rather not do. That isn't true. We had very good reasons to continue the Gulf war after Hussein abandoned the cease fire. No one had to be fooled or bullied into it. Clinton or Bush Sr. could have done this the first time an American plane was fired upon.

You just want to divert attention away from the truth to propagandize your political perspective, which makes YOU a lot more like what Goering describes. You're not this obtuse, you just refuse to acknowledge the truth of the situation because you can't deal with it.

53

bakerstreet

on Jun 19, 2005

"Has Bush used the same language techniques as the Nazis and countless other war Governments?"

I'm sorry, but that's silly. Because a policeman and a robber both say "Hands in the Air", that means the policeman and the robber are both ethically similar? One is justified, the other isn't.

Has anyone heard the phrase "Night of the Long Knives"? I defy you to compare the supposed pressure put on the American people and politicians to what happened to people who differed with the Nazi regime. Goering was trying to make what they did seem commonplace, when in reality it was horror.

Apples and oranges. Maybe we should start comparing the language used by the left to quotes from Mao or Stalin, who between them killed 100 million or more.

Then YOU'D say it was apples and oranges.

54

MecAustralien

on Jun 19, 2005

I know that this comment isn't exactly the topic, but I just want to clear up a couple of weird things thast Andrew J. Brehm said:

"Gipsies aka Aryans"

Hitler tried to kill the Gypsies. He loved the Aryans. The Gypsies have had as bad a run as the Jews throughout history.

"Afterall, we all know that World War II began because Hitler won an election, was re-elected in free elections, had an elected parliament to support him, "

Hitler was elected. He then convinced the Parliament to vote to make him Dictator. So he actually used democracy to make himself dictator. They weren't totally free elections, but some say nor are the US elections (there is obviously not a comparison, but still, don't delude yourself that democracy can't be abused in this way).

55

Champas Socialist

on Jun 19, 2005

"Because a policeman and a robber both say "Hands in the Air", that means the policeman and the robber are both ethically similar?"

No I said that was a matter for debate. "Is it ethical to use Nazi propaganda techniques? is a separate issue to whether Bush did do so.

"Has anyone heard the phrase "Night of the Long Knives"? I defy you to compare the supposed pressure put on the American people and politicians to what happened to people who differed with the Nazi regime. Goering was trying to make what they did seem commonplace, when in reality it was horror."

Ahhh, now you're getting to the heart of the actual topic. Is Goering's observation true? You argue no because the Nazis' tactics were far more complicated than he describes. Then again. is Goering saying that they didn't have to use all the violence, that they could have done it with just the propaganda? Is he saying that the propaganda alone can be almost as effective? If so, BS, you are probably right that Goering is wrong.

"Maybe we should start comparing the language used by the left to quotes from Mao or Stalin, who between them killed 100 million or more."

Feel free. In fact, it was done only the other day with a comparison between "liberalism" and The Communist Party. It has naught to do with "the Left's" political stance.

56

bakerstreet

on Jun 19, 2005

"Then again. is Goering saying that they didn't have to use all the violence, that they could have done it with just the propaganda? Is he saying that the propaganda alone can be almost as effective?"

To me it is obvious that he is saying Hitler and the German government just did what everyone else does to start a war. He makes a big deal about propaganda and misinformation when it is really the fact that people would be KILLED for opposing them. People didn't lie awake at night fearing propaganda posters.

Toblerone ignores the fact that Goering isn't really stating how they controlled Germany, and he and Goering are just trying to pretend that Germany just did what Bush and everyone else does. Toblerone ignores the fact that there were many good reasons to go to war with Iraq, and pretends that the American people had to be brainwashed into supporting it.

Why? Because it helps his point to equate Bush's tactics with Hitler's. You can no doubt find similarities between Jesus's language and Stalin's if you look hard enough, and it would prove just as much.

57

bakerstreet

on Jun 19, 2005

I think the root of all this "hoodwinked" silliness is that people like Toblerone can't fathom anyone differing with them on Iraq. If people do, they must have been fooled, or they must be as evil as Hitler. Oh, it must be because they were brainwashed. Surely no one with a healthy, educated mind could differ with Toblerone about Iraq...

In reality there's a myriad of perspectives on Iraq, and you need not be hoodwinked into adoping any of them.

58

Daiwa

on Jun 20, 2005

Once again the JU Right fails to engage in actual debate

'Scuse me, Champas, but spare us the snobbery. As if Toblerone's intent was to host a nice academic discussion of the Art of Political Pursuasion by posting that cute little Tyrolean scene with Goering's mug and quote. You can pretend all you want, "debate" was the furthest thing from his mind. It's perfectly OK with me for zinkadoodledoo and Toblerone to think of what they and you call the JU Right as blind, ignorant, whatever. It only makes the accusers look more foolish and certainly gives me no reason to give ideas like this any thoughtful consideration, let alone a logical response. There is no logical response to an irrational proposition.

Cheers,
Daiwa

59

Champas Socialist

on Jun 20, 2005

BS, I think you make a compelling point about what Goering is trying to do and I thank you for finally engaging with the topic that Toblerone raised. Daiwa, you are welcome to your cynicism, but as a personal friend of Toblerone I am willing to disagree with you about his intentions. You have assumed that about Toblerone because many other people who have pointed out the similarities between Bush's tactics and Goering's statements also want to equate Bush's actions with Hitler's. Toblerone and I have both pointed out that people who do that are being stupid.

Unfortunately then BS starts getting allon his high horse again, making gross generalisations about the Left in order to supprt his prejudice against anyone who disagrees with him about Iraq. He simply can't fathom that anyone who disagrees with him about Iraq might have a justified reason for believing the Iraq War was unjustified, or that a student of rhetoric might want to discuss rhetoric separated from the issue of the War. But then, that is the sort of shrill, emotive response we hjave come to expect from Right wingers. (I don't really believe that, but it is fun to use Draginol's words against you).

"Toblerone ignores the fact that Goering isn't really stating how they controlled Germany, and he and Goering are just trying to pretend that Germany just did what Bush and everyone else does. Toblerone ignores the fact that there were many good reasons to go to war with Iraq, and pretends that the American people had to be brainwashed into supporting it."

Toblerone actually has said very little about the topic as a whole, so he ignores a lot of things. His contribution has mainly been "Discuss". I happen to know that Toblerone opposed the War in Ira, and he and I aren't in total agreement on this point. Our disagreement is however irrelevant to this topic. I think there are certainly some very good arguments for the War in Iraq. But instead of using them, Bush used the tactics that Goering identifies. (Goering did not use these tactics alone, but I think BS that you underestimate the power of language to convince people). While there are intelligent people who came to their own conclsuions about the Iraq War and came to agree with the War, there are plenty of Americans who came to agree with the War for fairly stupid and uninformed reasons (the same can be said for those who disagree with the war, but that has nothing to do with the Goering quote). Bush used the tactics available to him to convince an uninformed public to engage in a War that could have been justified to rational, intelligent people using different arguments. I commend you BS for making up your own mind about Iraq, but do not delude yourself that the entire nation followed your example. All politicians use propaganda techniques to promote their cause. Whether or not this is justified is open to debate. You seem to feel it is. Can you explain your point of view for why? There are many good arguments for why it is justified, but what are your reasons?

60

Daiwa

on Jun 20, 2005

CS -

To paraphrase, "Toblerone's article speaks for itself."

Cheers,
Daiwa