October 8, 2002

3:38 AM

Enough Godwin:Saddam Hussein is not Hitler, George Bush is not Churchill, Kofi Annan is not Chamberlain, Israel is not Nazi Germany, neither are those who criticise it. Has Matthew Engel been reading Metafilter?
posted by niceness (70 comments total)

A wonderful article, niceness. I'd blogged it just after midnight GMT and I'm glad you brought it here, as it couldn't be more apposite. Let's just hope Matthew Engel doesn't read MetaTalk, wot? ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:46 AM on October 8, 2002

Miguel, you beat me to it I was just going to link to Metatalk. I read Engel's article in the paper and minutes later saw the Metatalk post.

My own view is that when you simplistically strip everything down to 'for' or 'against' (us), then blatant hypocrisy, hyperbole and polarised views (on all sides) is to be expected. Using Hitler, Stalin, etc. to support or denigrate an argument is just plain lazy, which is probably why so many just lap it up.
posted by niceness at 3:54 AM on October 8, 2002

What? No mention of the Rise and Fall the Roman Empire? Imperialism? The (original) Evil Axis?

The Guardian is really leaving a lot of empty spots. For example, (courtesy of anagramgenius):

Saddam Hussein = 'UN's said he's mad.' 'Human's sad side.' 'He damns Saudis.' 'Hindu = Mad Asses!' 'I had US madness.' 'Hissed: "Damn USA!"' 'Has nudes, maids.' 'Has nude sadism?'

George Bush = 'He bugs Gore!' 'Huge Gore BS.' 'Bugs go here.' 'Huger BS ego.' 'O, he buggers!'

Nazi Germany = 'I'm zany anger'

Jihad against the West = 'Aids at hating the Jews.' 'It's that Jewish agenda.' 'Had it against the Jews.'
posted by hama7 at 4:11 AM on October 8, 2002

"I like dogs." "Hitler liked dogs. You're a Nazi, then!"

Exactly
posted by matteo at 4:13 AM on October 8, 2002

Hitler was a vegetarian. Is Saddam?
posted by Postroad at 4:19 AM on October 8, 2002

If you don't know history, you're bound to repeat it. If you've only the vaguest notion of history, you're bound to apply it willy-nilly.
posted by kahboom at 4:31 AM on October 8, 2002

The exile agrees.
posted by talos at 4:37 AM on October 8, 2002

"you're bound to apply it willy-nilly"

sounds interesting.
posted by johnnyboy at 4:44 AM on October 8, 2002

The thing I find most amusing about this, is that there have been people who were much worse than Hitler, take Stalin for example, but for some reason Hitler resides at the top of the list for "Most Evil".....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:46 AM on October 8, 2002

Thanks for bringing it up. May I contribute? :-)

Get Your War On!!

“Naturally the common people don’t want war... But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship... All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

- Hermann Goring, Adolf Hitler’s second in command.


“Of course people have reservations about war. However, this administration has presented evidence about Iraq that any true American would find reasonable. Those who naively choose not to believe are not as true.”

-Donald Rumsfeld
posted by nofundy at 4:49 AM on October 8, 2002

The thing I find most amusing about this, is that there have been people who were much worse than Hitler, take Stalin for example, but for some reason Hitler resides at the top of the list for "Most Evil".....

actually, yeah. didn't stalin kill way more people than hitler? i guess he was less discriminating, but still.
posted by donkeyschlong at 4:50 AM on October 8, 2002

there have been people who were much worse than Hitler, take Stalin for example

It must be wonderful to enjoy the sort of knowledge and self-assurance that allows you to say that, Steve.

I have yet to come across someone more evil than Hitler. I'd like to see your list of the other "people" (apart from Stalin) who were worse.

As for your sentence "for some reason Hitler resides at the top of the list for 'Most Evil'", let me just say there just might be a reason for it, if you think about it.

The fact that you also find this "amusing" is also interesting. When you're thirteen or so you'll understand how silly you're being, son.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:56 AM on October 8, 2002

didn't stalin kill way more people than hitler?

I've seen various estimates for how many were killed as a result of Stalin and Mao's domestic policies, but somewhere around 50,000,000 for Uncle Joe and another 40-50 million for Mao seem to be the general consensus, and this doesn't include those killed in war.

The mind boggles.
posted by MrBaliHai at 5:03 AM on October 8, 2002

Hitler Was Not a Vegetarian
posted by gametone at 5:04 AM on October 8, 2002

Fist off Miguel, do not take a condescending tone with me, I am not your son. Don't think you can treat me like it.

I have yet to come across someone more evil than Hitler
Well then, you must not have tried very hard. History is full of horrendous people who were bloodthirsty just like Adolf...

let me just say there just might be a reason for it
Yes, I belive there is. The fact that most people are not well versed in history, and that Hitler is the only reference point that "normal" people have... His crimes were exposed after the war, unlike Uncle Joe who's crimes were buried silently for the last 70 some years... and now most people don't care.....

I know of Hitler's actions, I have read every thing from Mein Kampf to all 1300 pages of Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"

I am not trivializing Hitler's crimes and misdeed, but unfortunately he is not as bad as human nature can get...

As for a full list, I do not have one in front of me, but if you want to push the issue, give me a few days and I will compile it for you...

It must be wonderful...
Yes, it is...

(Bonus Trivia for you: Hitler's Germany was not the first country to make Jews wear Yellow Stars of David, so people could pick them out. Guess who was...)
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 5:17 AM on October 8, 2002

That's better. No, honestly. I thought you were some relativistic Holocaust denier or something. I apologize for my tone. It seems we have different opinions about what evil is but I suspect that when you say "unfortunately he is not as bad as human nature can get...", you're probably right. Before Hitler appeared, it was probably thought impossible that anyone could actually present the systematic killing of human beings who happened to be X, Y or Z as a coherent political plan.

And Steve: thanks for taking the trouble to explain. I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:33 AM on October 8, 2002

Steve, your attempts to replace a psychopath from the right with a psychopath from the left as the whipping boy of choice are pretty sick and pretty pointless.
posted by Summer at 5:34 AM on October 8, 2002

Summer, I had wrote out a reply, but you don't deserve one... I thought about it, and you are so quick to dismiss what I had to say, with out offering a counter to my argument.... that you, your self, are pretty pointless.

You are attempting to turn this into a Right vs. Left issue... And I will not go there....

Miguel, Thanks...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 5:43 AM on October 8, 2002

yeah, especially as the psycho from the left was our bloody ally. Long live sherman tanks and spam.
posted by johnnyboy at 6:04 AM on October 8, 2002

Degrees of Evil
posted by syzygy at 6:11 AM on October 8, 2002

Doesn't it get arbitrary, really (and silly), to talk about 'how evil' someone is or was, after they've killed say a million people or so?

On second thought, though, should the bar be 100,000? Or only a thousand? If I kill, say, 100 people personally, cut out their hearts with my own two hands, in front of their kids, while whistling a happy tune, am I worse than the killer of ten thousand by proxy? Or not as bad?

Pointless and silly, after a certain point, is this quantification of 'evil'*, is my point.


*I think it's funny to put scare quotes around evil. Does that make me evil?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:11 AM on October 8, 2002

You are attempting to turn this into a Right vs. Left issue

Not me

with out offering a counter to my argument

Alright. I don't hold with the use of Hitler as the measure of all modern evil, so I don't hold with comparisons to Stalin either. Both were evil. To use statistics is silly - no doubt Hitler would have killed more if he could. To argue whether one was more evil than the other is pointless and I question the motivation of anyone who does that.
posted by Summer at 6:15 AM on October 8, 2002

I'm putting down an outlier vote for Ali Agca as most evil. I mean, who shoots the Pope?
posted by fluffy1984 at 6:24 AM on October 8, 2002

Bonus Trivia for you: Hitler's Germany was not the first country to make Jews wear Yellow Stars of David, so people could pick them out. Guess who was...

Portugal.

But, if I remember correctly, only because of pressure from the Spanish.
posted by zedbends at 6:25 AM on October 8, 2002

Stavros, I personally don't think it is a level of "evil" by number of deaths...

My point is that Hitler is put on this pedicel above all other nuts. Any people use him as a reference point, the end all be all of evil, the devil in the flesh..... And that no one could possibly do any thing worse than Adolf. That is just being naive....


Summer, I think you misunderstood me, I agree that it is not about the number of deaths... What I was pointing out that this is how "whoever" comes to the conclusion that Hitler is Lucifer because he killed 6 million, even though there are people who have kill more...

It is a curious thing that in many cases when History is taught, Hitler is painted, rightfully so, as a homicidal manic, but Stalin is a revolutionary and the leader of the USSR. A lesson on Germany during the first half of the last century with out talking about the Holocaust is unthinkable, but for some reason you often hear very little about the purges.

Point being, human nature has a dark side to it. A very dark side. And to be naive and try to convince one's self that events like that are something that only happened way back when, and couldn't possibly happen again, is a sure good way to get your self in to a lot of trouble.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:36 AM on October 8, 2002

Isn't it that Stalin believed his violence was a means to an end while for Hitler his violence was the end - the final solution.

NB. Ironic within this post but: "Please accept that I am not defending communism against fascism, I'm not belittling the scale of Stalin's crimes nr am I a lefty appeaser."
posted by niceness at 6:45 AM on October 8, 2002

It is a curious thing that in many cases when History is taught, Hitler is painted, rightfully so, as a homicidal manic, but Stalin is a revolutionary and the leader of the USSR.

I don't think so, not any more. Maybe 20 years ago, but not now. I think the reason Hitler is The One is because: we can honestly say we (US, UK, most of Europe) never supported him; we've got pictures and film footage of what he did; him and his kind were completely wiped out so we never had to deal with him; he looked funny; we beat him.

Robert Harris' book Fatherland (rubbish book but an interesting idea) has at its centre the idea that if Hitler had won, Stalin would have been The Evil One, with purge museums and memorials everywhere.
posted by Summer at 6:50 AM on October 8, 2002

was a means to an end

Stalin -> Remove opposition (imagined or real) -> World Communist Revolution

Hitler -> Kill Jews, Homosexuals, & Others -> "Purify" Aryan Race

Summer: we've got pictures and film footage of what he did; him and his kind were completely wiped out so we never had to deal with him; he looked funny; we beat him.

You just hit the nail on the head, my point 100% It is all about media images...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:57 AM on October 8, 2002

This is the classic case of the *mis*use of history, or rather, the misapplication of historical precedents. I strongly urge the reading of "Thinking in Time" by Neustadt and May for a very good analysis of how leaders tend to misuse history in their decision making.
posted by tgrundke at 7:01 AM on October 8, 2002

Stalin -> Remove opposition (imagined or real) -> World Communist Revolution
Hitler -> Kill Jews, Homosexuals, & Others -> "Purify" Aryan Race


I'm not defending one policy over the other and I don't know my history in enough detail to do so, but there is a difference in the above: One decides he will do whatever is necessary to fulfill his aims no matter how gruesome. The other decides the same but picks specific ethnic and sexual groups to exterminate as an integrated and calculated part of the policy.
posted by niceness at 7:05 AM on October 8, 2002

It is a curious thing that in many cases when History is taught, Hitler is painted, rightfully so, as a homicidal manic, but Stalin is a revolutionary and the leader of the USSR.

Funny, I spent nine years studying modern European history at the undergraduate and graduate level, and not once have I seen Stalin portrayed that way. Please tell me where you took your seminars on the Stalin period of Soviet history; maybe we'll compare notes.

Frankly, Steve, I think you're shadow-boxing lefties on this site. You're no less closed-minded than the ultra-left strawmen you refer to, but their presence here seems to drive you nuts. You're implying that Stalin doesn't get criticized because he's on the left, and we're a bunch of ultra-lefties for whom Stalin Is the Hero of the Workers. Bollocks. You're not defending Hitler as "your guy", so why would you impute the converse -- and you're doing that, by comparing the treatment of H & S -- with Stalin and the Left?

But what this (Hitler or Stalin, who's more evil? -- next on Fox TV!) has to do with the linked article, I have no idea.
posted by mcwetboy at 7:16 AM on October 8, 2002

there have been people who were much worse than Hitler, take Stalin for example, but for some reason Hitler resides at the top of the list for "Most Evil".....

Search of mass killings:

Hitler: 5 million non-Jews and almost 5.9 million Jews. Stalin: 60 million or more. (seven times as many as Hitler). Mao-tse-tung: estimated 60 million. Pol Pot: 2 million. Idi Amin: between 300 and 600 thousand. (and currently lives as a guest in Saudi Arabia![some say France]) Hussein: millions. Kim Jong-Il:millions. China....the list (unfortunately) goes on.

posted by hama7 at 7:18 AM on October 8, 2002

I just put my new switching power supply in my Robotron cabinet. I am now the savior of the human race. Mommy, daddy and Mikey are all set to go now.
Hitler and Stalin better watch out. I am a mutated super human hell bent on the destruction of the evil robotrons and all their minions, except those damn indestructible hulks.

Was Hitler evil? Stalin? Pol Pot? Who was the most evil? Who cares, it's not like we are going to give him a blue ribbon.

My vote for greatest evil of all time would be for televangelists though. They have sinned against me.

Come Pinky, we have work to do.
Ok Brain, SNARF!!
posted by a3matrix at 7:35 AM on October 8, 2002

i'm not sure why everyone is getting all puffy about what steve said - i don't think he was implying a left vs. right arguement - he simply stated that whenever people refer to evil they always seem to refer to hitler, generally as the best example of evil b/c he killed lots of people even though there are numerous examples of others doing the same thing and staling just happens to have been during the same period but seems to escape the label or gets beat out by hitler pretty much every time.

what... you don't like run-ons?

and i have to agree that in school i was taught NOTHING about staling being a mass murderer and lots about how terrible hitler was. most of what i know about stalin was learned from the history channel.
posted by ggggarret at 7:54 AM on October 8, 2002

Saddam Hussein is not Hitler,

He ain't Mr. Rogers euther. I'm not too hot on the whole invasion idea(I marched against the original Gulf War back in the day)but I'm not naive enough to think he dosen't mean us any harm either.

Was Hitler evil? Stalin? Pol Pot? Who was the most evil? Who cares, it's not like we are going to give him a blue ribbon.

My vote for greatest evil of all time would be for televangelists though. They have sinned against me.

Please tell me you're kidding. Televangelists are a bunch of bigoted pinheads to be sure, but all they do is spew invective and only a tiny(albiet loud) minority take them seriously.

The dictators you mentioned murdered millions of people , ruled nations and were hellbent on more. Televangelists are a nuisance but to equate them to this belittles the suffering of those mens victims.
posted by jonmc at 8:15 AM on October 8, 2002

ggggarret, that's probably because more teachers agree with Stalin's "final solution" than agree with Hitler's version of the same. You still find a good number of Stalinists and other flavors of communists among teachers, professors and the like, but very, very, very few nazis.
posted by dagny at 8:16 AM on October 8, 2002

I'm not getting into this pissing match -- I just want to thank talos for that wonderful link!
posted by languagehat at 8:18 AM on October 8, 2002

Dagny: that's the sort of rubbish that this post was originally about.
posted by niceness at 8:22 AM on October 8, 2002

unlike Uncle Joe who's crimes were buried silently for the last 70 some years... and now most people don't care

What total crap. You think you and your Republican buddies were the first to realize how evil Stalin was? Guess again. Plenty of Trots and anti-Stalinist leftists were quite cognizant of the old bastard's crimes, more than a few of them from personal experience. Orwell smelled the stink of Stalinism in Homage to Catalonia and the Partisan Review crowd were anti-Stalinists when the rest of America still regarded "Uncle Joe" as our loyal ally in the fight againt fascism.

Sure, Conquest and other non-left historians might have uncovered more evidence of the extent of Stalin's crimes since then, but evil's evil--the rest is just numbers.

And what mcwetboy said above: I studied Russian and continental history, too, and I don't recall my professors ever minimizing Stalinist barbarity. If your claim is representative of your education, I suggest you ask for your money back.

Finally re: Hitlerian evil, I suggest you read, if you haven't, Ron Rosenbaum's Explaining Hitler.

and on preview: dagny: the only response you deserve is:

BITE ME
posted by octobersurprise at 8:23 AM on October 8, 2002

this thread is wwII and all of you are Nazis or Communists.
posted by cell divide at 8:29 AM on October 8, 2002

In an attempt to restore to this thread a sense of fun and - who knows? - perspective...

'I like the Walrus best,' said Alice: 'because you see he was a LITTLE sorry for the poor oysters.'

'He ate more than the Carpenter, though,' said Tweedledee. 'You see he held his handkerchief in front, so that the Carpenter couldn't count how many he took: contrariwise.'

'That was mean!' Alice said indignantly. 'Then I like the Carpenter best--if he didn't eat so many as the Walrus.'

'But he ate as many as he could get,' said Tweedledum.

This was a puzzler.
posted by soyjoy at 8:37 AM on October 8, 2002

I think "evil" is generally a silly word that people throw about a bit too much for my liking. What is "evil"? Anything relying so much on moral judgements for comparison is always going to get people arguing in circles.
posted by digiboy at 8:42 AM on October 8, 2002

I've just seen McWetboy's link to "steve_at_linwood's" site

"I am giving my-self a time out from MetaFilter. It has become the domain of this ultra-leftwing group who is anything but open-minded, as they claim... Hopefully it will calm down, and I can go back.. Till then...
No more posts from Steve_At_Linnwood"

Bollocks - that's precisely why I posted to the Engel article in the first place.
posted by niceness at 8:46 AM on October 8, 2002

Much of the Bush family wealth came from supplying needed raw materials and credit to Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich.

This is interesting if it's true.
posted by sparky at 9:25 AM on October 8, 2002

I'm with digiboy. Evil ranks alongside Nazi for me as a woefully overused term. The demonization of characters such as Hitler for me hides the horrific truth of complicity. It also dehumanises the figure when what is most terrifying is that Hitler wasn't some Marvel comics baddy, but nothing more than a person. Banality of evil and all that stuff. Dammit, I said evil.
posted by ciderwoman at 9:44 AM on October 8, 2002

It is true sparky. There are tons of documents on the net regarding this matter. George Herbert Walker was the business partner of Prescott Bush in these shady banking transactions. Sorry I don't have links handy but a Google search will turn up more than you probably want to read and should provide more than enough evidence for even the biggest skeptic.
posted by nofundy at 9:47 AM on October 8, 2002

Evil... schmeevil.... I don't believe in it, anymore than I believe in a Devil or Satan or Santa. What drives the Hitler's and Stalin's of the world is hatred, greed, power, idealism, apathy....
posted by disgruntled at 10:44 AM on October 8, 2002

Look it was just a quick snack, ok?
posted by walrus at 10:54 AM on October 8, 2002

Evil... schmeevil.... I don't believe in it, anymore than I believe in a Devil or Satan or Santa. What drives the Hitler's and Stalin's of the world is hatred, greed, power, idealism, apathy....

I would say that "evil" is the intersection/conflagration of all of those things, disgruntled. I understand your point but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the term. It is useful to maintain a sense of scope for times where the reduction of actions down to their individual, supposed motivations detracts from the stunning whole.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:33 AM on October 8, 2002

huh?
posted by disgruntled at 12:01 PM on October 8, 2002

Essentially I mean it's a useful term when no other term will suffice.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:16 PM on October 8, 2002

Using Hitler, Stalin, etc. to support or denigrate an argument is just plain lazy, which is probably why so many just lap it up.

Nonsense. The destructive tendencies of a Hitler or a Stalin live in each of us. Do you really think that somehow we've become more enlightened, or that the same human failings and conditions that led to the tragedies their names represent do not exist today?

What is lazy is when terms from that era are thrown about with no explanation of how and why they do apply (e.g. the simpleminded "Bush = Hitler" is obviously lazy -- but "the Bush administration scapegoating Muslims in this country is like Hitler scapegoating Jews" is not. Or my own personal favorites: "Bush followers are goosesteppers" IS lazy...but "those who disparage dissent have the gait of geese" is not)

Folks howl at the latter examples, primarily because there is nothing inaccurate or lazy about them. It is the ring of truth that infuriates.

And what is extraordinarily lazy is when "Godwin's" so called law is invoked (as is overwhelmingly the case, especially here) without any attempt whatsoever to show how the parallels do not apply. Really. If the parallels are so obviously inaccurate, why don't we see more information on why they are so, instead of the howls of outrage in thread and the MetaTalk tantrums?

Of course Bush is not Hitler. Of course the United States is not stockpiling Zyklon. And yet, just as obviously, in our fear and anger , "our" worst instincts and "their" worst instincts are much like those exhibited by other humans from earlier in this century, who at least on newsreel look to me to have all the same characteristics as we modern, civilized humans.

I mean, why not just coin "Engel's Law" and point out that history is completely irrelevant, because after all we're living in the present moment, with present day problems that no one has ever encountered before?

As I pointed out in MetaTalk, the real ugliness is the fact that parallels do exist...that many of the events we see today can clearly be seen in the same old cycles of violence practiced by the likes of Bush and Nixon and Truman and Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Jefferson Davis and Andrew Jackson and Christopher Columbus, etc...ad nauseum I recommend we spend more time worrying about the fact that such parallels obviously exist...and less time running away and hiding from the unpleasant shock of recognizing those faces in present day mirrors.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:14 PM on October 8, 2002

Using Hitler as the apotheosis of evil is so common because it carries with it the unspoken fact that it was us who stopped this walking, talking horror. You can happily expect most people in the Western world to agree with you on that, whereas the others mentioned in this thread have less clear-cut, less celebrated fates.
posted by MUD at 2:08 PM on October 8, 2002

yawn... Once again, If we disagree it come to personal attacks....

rest of America still regarded "Uncle Joe" as our loyal ally in the fight againt fascism.

May I remind you what President decided to ally us with Joe?, Thankfully his successor had more brains.....

I spent nine years studying modern European history at the undergraduate and graduate level, and not once have I seen Stalin portrayed that way

Excatly my point. Any one who is a student of History would know, but how many people spend 9 years studying European History? Most don't pay attention in High School....

McWetboy: Would rather have me "boxing" it out here, like some who can't get a clue, and get their own fucking weblog....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:12 PM on October 8, 2002

Steve_at_Linwood, you're doing a great job, very impressive. You really taught Steve_at_Linwood a lesson!
posted by Ty Webb at 2:20 PM on October 8, 2002

Fuck off Webb
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:23 PM on October 8, 2002

Zing! Brilliant, no, really, just brilliant.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:29 PM on October 8, 2002

Of course Bush is not Hitler agreed.

Of course the United States is not stockpiling Zyklon. you mean hydrocyanic acid?

there are about 10 companies in the U.S. alone who manufacture this chemical. It is usedfrom everything from nylon to pharesueticals. the largest souse of cyanide is from automobile exhaust.

The destructive tendencies of a Hitler or a Stalin live in each of us Really, i thought it was the devil. (snark)

Folks howl at the latter examples, primarily because there is nothing inaccurate or lazy about them. It is the ring of truth that infuriates ummmm
posted by clavdivs at 2:47 PM on October 8, 2002

Cogent.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:11 PM on October 8, 2002

grant you foldy, i did not edit my comment. "pharesueticals":) But my leeks were boiling over. let me ask you this, are you the cheerleader for the societal mirror squad or do you have some point other then the obvious.

"point out that history is completely irrelevant, because after all we're living in the present moment, with present day problems that no one has ever encountered before?"

you see no contextual history? Do you believe that historical inevitabilty is bunk?

care to posit some examples or are you a member of the Carl Sandburg bucket-o-ashes brigade.
posted by clavdivs at 3:32 PM on October 8, 2002

Steve, you might want to take a time out, or a walk around the block or something.
posted by bshort at 3:35 PM on October 8, 2002

Of course the United States is not stockpiling Zyklon. you mean hydrocyanic acid?

there are about 10 companies in the U.S. alone who manufacture this chemical. It is usedfrom everything from nylon to pharesueticals. the largest souse of cyanide is from automobile exhaust.

There's a difference between Zyklon B, and hydrocyanic acid. Maybe not chemically, but that's not the point.

"point out that history is completely irrelevant, because after all we're living in the present moment, with present day problems that no one has ever encountered before?"

you see no contextual history? Do you believe that historical inevitabilty is bunk?

If I read foldy correctly, that particular line was exasperation. The idea of throwing out history altogether is obviously sarcasm when contrasted with the more heartfelt plea to concern ourselves with the parrallels with history, rather than ignoring them completely because someone mentioned Hitler, and there's this law you see...

Or rather, the poor use of a particular historical comparison, doesn't invalidate all instances of that comparison.

Or to paraphrase someone else, "I call Godwin on Godwin".
posted by inpHilltr8r at 4:16 PM on October 8, 2002

There's a difference between Zyklon B, and hydrocyanic acid. Maybe not chemically, but that's not the point.

But that is ne of my points. Foldy said Zyklon, not Zyklon-B. You said Zyklon-B.
Since Zyklon-B is no longer made would it not serve logic that one cannot stockpile it?
taken literally "Of course the United States is not stockpiling Zyklon" is moot point. if foldy already knew this.
(unless BIG SAM has created a way to bottle cyclones to unleash on it's enemies)

so foldy may retreat into the 'zyklon metaphor'. I do not think it a good metaphor.

Do you really think that somehow we've become more enlightened -Foldy

to me, this is a very good question. Foldy, I gather, thinks we have not. I disagree. but that is another debate.

he counters my error in my lazy posting with "cogent". water off the back. but he needs to get cogent also....and foldy i'm taking to you in the third person...on metafilter. I'm going to go watch 'Brazil' now.
posted by clavdivs at 5:18 PM on October 8, 2002

"one of..." pardon the typo. and strike "If foldy knew this"
posted by clavdivs at 5:21 PM on October 8, 2002

grant you foldy, i did not edit my comment. "pharesueticals":

That's nice, but I'm used to bad spelling here and the shoddy thought that accompanies it. The single word "cogent" was all I could muster for the depths of "ummmmmmmm". But that seemed to go along with the depth of the rest of your comments on this whole issue, here and in MetaTalk.

you see no contextual history? Do you believe that historical inevitabilty is bunk?

care to posit some examples or are you a member of the Carl Sandburg bucket-o-ashes brigade.

Go back, reread and ponder the "contextual" nature of my question that you quoted. Now edit your thinking before you edit your post (ie I'm afraid more than your leeks are boiling over). Since you werent able to do that initially, I'm afraid my single word comment on your spanking new, *edited* posts remains:

Cogent.

Steve, you might want to take a time out, or a walk around the block or something.

I thought he'd already placed himself in time-out.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 5:30 PM on October 8, 2002

rest of America still regarded "Uncle Joe" as our loyal ally in the fight againt fascism.

May I remind you what President decided to ally us with Joe?, Thankfully his successor had more brains

Other than a can't-miss opportunity to disparage Roosevelt, what does it matter who chose to ally with Stalin? My point is that many people--even many leftists--had no illusions about Stalinism from a quite early date; a fact you seem never to have learned. Your assertion that "Uncle Joe's crimes were buried silently" is nonsense. Or propaganda. Take your pick.

Any one who is a student of History would know, but how many people spend 9 years studying European History? Most don't pay attention in High School

My advice? Pay attention.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:01 PM on October 8, 2002

i cannot see the context foldy

But that is ne of my points. Foldy said Zyklon, not Zyklon-B. You said Zyklon-B.
Since Zyklon-B is no longer made would it not serve logic that one cannot stockpile it?
taken literally "Of course the United States is not stockpiling Zyklon" is moot point

your use of zyklon is either a bad metaphor or your to lazy to look up the facts. Thats cogent. your backpedaling foldy.

context should be backed up by accurate data. which i have already pounded you on several points in other threads. but let us start anew.
what is your point within a historical context:

Nonsense. The destructive tendencies of a Hitler or a Stalin live in each of us
Is that it, your point?

Folks howl at the latter examples, primarily because there is nothing inaccurate or lazy about them. It is the ring of truth that infuriates.

Is that the context? (of course not)

same old cycles of violence practiced by the likes of Bush and Nixon and Truman and Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Jefferson Davis and Andrew Jackson and Christopher Columbus

is this your evidence to support your point?
posted by clavdivs at 6:39 PM on October 8, 2002

octobersurprise: I am reminded of the German proverb my Grandfather used to often say:

"Never give advice unless asked."
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:49 PM on October 8, 2002

¡!
posted by y2karl at 7:37 PM on October 9, 2002

Wow, Karl I am glad you are allowed to have such strong convictions, but no one else....

Too bad you have to hide your feelings....

Once again, no counter-argument, so we show our true colors with personal attacks... Smoke and Mirrors but no substance...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:24 PM on October 9, 2002