Besides the “Peace in Our Time” issue, mentioned by bridgeweaver in his otherwise ridiculous post near the end, what other factual errors are contained?
I’ve read that piece before. The only actual mistake in there that I know of is that I thought Hitler’s preferred term for Germany was the Fatherland, not Homeland. A couple of parts here and there I’m personally sure are true, but there are portions I’d have to ask about.
I haven’t come across any glaring factual errors, but it is slanted. It does draw some interesting parallels, but ultimately, George W. Bush (who I detest) is not Adolph Hitler.
For instance:
There was no doubt that Hitler was massively popular in Germany at the time he invaded Austria (though it’d be hard to prove he was “the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation.”) And, yes, he was named “Man of the Year,” but the fact is, that title was given to the most newsworthy person, and was never meant to be a mark of approval (even more so back in the 30s, when Hitler got the honor).
I’d guess the facts are essentially correct, though very slanted. But Hitler did use the burning of the Reichstag as an excuse for a crackdown of “anti-German” elements and did tend to work with corporate leaders and the military to try to provide relief from the Depression.
And since Bush has used tenuous historical analogies when talking about Saddam Hussein, it’s fair game for others to use the same tactics against Bush.
This guy seems to think that Hitler ruled as a slightly over-zealous democrat for five years and only then became a frothing tyrant. No, indeed; Germany’s “first experiment with democracy” had ended long before 1939. Within weeks of taking office Hitler had outlawed all other political parties, incarcerated or murdered tens of thousands (not “hundreds”) of opponents, passed brutal anti-Semitic legislation, and imposed strict censorship and state ownership of all media.
Also, Munich was the run-up to the annexation of the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia), not Austria. I thought everybody knew that. And Germany wasn’t really “fully at war” until after the invasion of Poland.
I don’t see any serious factual errors, just a silly attempt at finding eerie parallels where none exist.
There aren’t any factual errors in those lists you see of “spooky parallels” between the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations, either. That doesn’t mean that the parallels are of any significance.