Eamonn Fitzgerald's Rainy Day

"Hitler had only one ball.
Goebbels had two but they were very small.
Himmler's were very similar.
But Goering had no balls at all."

Not tasteless -- merely a political matter.

A foreign correspondent friend once told me that the verse cited was sung to the tune of the Colonel Bogey March (which as I remember was sung by the allied prisoners in "The Bridge Over the River Kwai"), with these words:

"Hitler has only got one ball.
That's all, just one bloody ball.
Himmler is very similar,
And Goebbels has no balls at all."

A fine poem, though I think it goes more like this (to the tune of the march from The Bridge on the River Kwai -- or for the younger generation, the Dinks' song in Spaceballs):

Hitler, he only has one ball,
Goering, has two but very small,
Himmler is somewhat similar
But Goebbels, has no balls, at all.

The notion that anything political can't be tasteless explains a lot of what passes for political debate in that country. Maybe the guy who designed that float in Cologne that depicted Angela Merkel emerging from Uncle Sam's ass didn't think he was being tasteless, either. After all, it did make a political point, albeit in a matter that wasn't particularly adroit.

What is easily forgotten is that Ms. D䵢ler-Gmelin was not dropped from the cabinet until after the elections -- that is, after she had served her purpose of whipping up anti-Americanism in the electorate.

Don't blame D䵢ler-Gmelin. She was only following orders.

Conviction makes one a Nazi? Or is it just faintly religious conviction?
One wonders what this buffoon would say of Jefferson. Think about the concluding lines of the Declaration of Independence:
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

I suppose it's hard to comprehend such moral certitude when you're completely besotted with cynical detatchment. The only thing this guy is sure of is that people that are sure of anything are idiots. Too bad he's too dumb to notice the circularity.

Bad satire from an old leftist who is still living in the 70s - but it?s worse than that. Everyone needs to realize how incredibly biased our NEWS media are. There are too many examples, but here is one I?d call typical:

Yesterday I was listening to Bayern 5 public radio, the 7pm news. Reporting from Baghdad, a reporter quoted at length from one Iraqi he met in the street. I paraphrase from memory: "The Americans destroyed everything, they will cheat us out of our freedom, my family lives in fear" and so on. Then they mentioned in passing that this guy was...an army general who a day earlier changed into civilian clothes. On a day like yesterday the ONLY Iraqi who makes it into the evening news is an ex-general? And this opinion is presented as valid?

I have to finance this bullshit through my taxes. And I resent it.

The German perspective is intriguing. This is because their insight is not totally out of place. They use concretes instead of abstracts. For example comparing Hitler and Bush. This is naturally offensive because it emcompasses such a broad context. However, within a narrower context, it can be applied. Mr. Hildebrandt illuminates it.

The common thread is that of the code of self-sacrifice. For as we have been told in speech after speech by Bush, and in fact the name of the campaign, it is "Iraqi liberation" that is the reason for this war. Or so it appears.

Initially self-defense was the raisson de guerre, but we did not see the pre-war evidence, and Bush did not present a geo-political case at all. Perhaps his thinking is not that lateral.

Up until now no evidence of WMD's have been found and the Iraqi's never used any. Although the pre-war evidence is far more important and that is being kept secret. Perhaps conveniently forgotten?

So Bush and Hitler have in common? The ethic of self-sacrifice. This is not uncommon with many leaders in the world and is a central part of the Islamist code. For Hitler it was to sacrifice for the "volk" or people. For Bush it is American soldiers to sacrifcie to liberate Iraqis and he constantly preaches the virtue and morality of volunteering. His "2 year program". So while it is indeed over the top to compare Bush with Hitler per se. They do have altruism in common. The Germans are not far out on this although Americans find the comparison distasteful.

Hitler was mystic and so is Bush, albeit differently. It is uncomfortable to hear a leader, especially one as powerful as the US president constantly invoke "God" in his speeches. It does imply and I am not sure he has excluded that he is where he is because of "divine interference".

No wonder the Germans who hear this as well, shrink back aghast and worry.

I am not German and do not come from Europe but I am still alarmed and dislike the overtones.

It is self-sacrifice and mysticism that is common in what Hitler, Ben Laden and Bush say. The difference is degree.

Everyday I become more troubled that many U.S. soldiers, myself included, helped bring security to these people for so many years.

I guess it is still justified by those within Germany who haven't suddenly taken the crazy pills and that they do brew good beer...

So Bush is like Hitler because he talks about altruism and religion. I understand. Gandhi and Mother Teresa were kind of like Hitler that way, too.

Well David, comparisons between Bush, Hitler and Bin Laden sounds like a German problem to me, more than a George Bush problem.

Stalin and Ghandi are both dead. The fact that they share one thing in common -- even if it is a central fact for both of them -- doesn't mean that the mention of Ghandi should make Kulaks cringe in fear. Likewise Bush and Hitler. Many reasonable people believe in some form of divine providence, and self-sacrifice is a central belief for everyone from Buddhist monks, to Marines, to people who work for charities.

The relevant points of comparison would be a messiah complex, a plan to build an empire, and a nationalistic mystic vision. Hitler had these things; George Bush does not appear to, except in the fever dreams of the anti-war left.

"It is self-sacrifice and mysticism that is common in what Hitler, Ben Laden and Bush say. The difference is degree."
Great analysis: it is same difference as between the man, who ogles a pretty derriere and the serial rapist. As far as German TV is concerned: it is sheer propaganda, nothing else, paid for by anyone who has bought a Sony or a Hitachi.
Thank you for your blog.

Regarding Werner's post above -

German insights are not totally out of place??

Hmmm?lets see?

Hitler's World Tour Accomplishments:
Annex ֳterreich
Invade 'das Sudatenland'
Invade Poland
Invade France
Invade Holland
Invade Belgium
Invade Russich and kill every living thing (how many dead Russians?? 15 million, mehr??)
Dream up die Endl?g (oder Vernichtung der Juden) and then kill 6 million of these helpless people for fun
And so on?and so on?

The correlation you draw between The President of the United States and the insane Austrian Despot (who was embraced by a large portion of Germans) Hitler, a lunatic responsible for the worst violence the world has ever seen ??is severley misguided. It is also an insult to every citizen of the United States. Let me know when you re-join relaity.

Sieg Heil!!

Deutschland ?lles!! Jawhol!

Gott mit uns!!

Regarding Werner's post above -

German insights are not totally out of place??

Hmmm?lets see?

Hitler's World Tour Accomplishments:
Annex ֳterreich
Invade 'das Sudatenland'
Invade Poland
Invade France
Invade Holland
Invade Belgium
Invade Russich and kill every living thing (how many dead Russians?? 15 million, mehr??)
Dream up die Endl?g (oder Vernichtung der Juden) and then kill 6 million of these helpless people for fun
And so on?and so on?

The correlation you draw between The President of the United States and the insane Austrian Despot (who was embraced by a large portion of Germans) Hitler, a lunatic responsible for the worst violence the world has ever seen ??is severley misguided. It is also an insult to every citizen of the United States. Let me know when you re-join reality.

Sieg Heil!!

Deutschland ?lles!! Jawhol!

Gott mit uns!!

Eamonn: how do you translate 'in goettlicher Mission'

"On a crusade?" "Doing the Lord's work?" "On a mission from God?" Is it an allusion to something besides Sister Act 2?

Watching the statue of Saddam fall yesterday, how can any German, those from the west, and especially those form the east, fail to see a system identical to the one thrown off a little more than a decade ago in their own land. The failure to identify it and immediately volunteer to help (without profiteering) must be remembered.
The callous, calculation of the "me-and-my-group-first" ideologies is astonishing. To make an analogy between germ warfare and political ideologies might be apt: recombinant viruses, part one bad thing plus part someting else have shown to be particularly bdd...... recombinant ideologies, for instance, socialism with some German nationalism added has been very nasty and all too persistent.

I don't believe I've ever heard Hitler referred to as Alturistic before.

a great deal of this european moralizing concerning bush and iraq is explained when the graph showing the very very large investments made by the moralizers in iraqi military and oil industries is displayed---its available on several sites---but on another level---i am afraid i do not find the idea of the german republic acting in a pacifist manner to be a disturbing thing---after their very dangerous and destructive history, it seems like a fine idea---just like japanese pacifism, i hope it sticks around for at least the next few centuries---i would be more than happy to bear the extra tax burden to defend them---after all, their economies are moribund anyway---

a great deal of this european moralizing concerning bush and iraq is explained when the graph showing the very very large investments made by the moralizers in iraqi military and oil industries is displayed---its available on several sites---but on another level---i am afraid i do not find the idea of the german republic acting in a pacifist manner to be a disturbing thing---after their very dangerous and destructive history, it seems like a fine idea---just like japanese pacifism, i hope it sticks around for at least the next few centuries---i would be more than happy to bear the extra tax burden to defend them---after all, their economies are moribund anyway---

The principle shared by Hitler, Ben Laden and Bush is self-sacrfice. The concretization is different.

Simply because most religions, intellectual movements and people may embrace it, does not make it moral. It is immoral.

And if you are looking for a vision to match a "messianic mentality" then how about Bush's vision to "bring democracy to the entire middle-east". Does this mean he is prepared to sacrifice the blood and treasure of America to carry this out? Such ambitious courses, especially in that region, have a nasty habit of turning around and biting those who attempt it.

Somebody should stand up and ask him if he believes that he is where he is out of "divine direction".
Somebody should ask him where his religious influence stops.

The United States has moved from self defense to Iraqi liberation as the reason for war. Which is it? This is important.

Currently all these questions are being shut out in the heady wake of the Iraqi success.

Why is it so important? More important than finding or not WMD's in Iraq. Because the answer to these questions tell us the worldview of the man and the results we may expect given circumstances.

For example.
If Iraqi liberation is it, then why not Cuban liberation? What about the double standard of rejecting Saddam but embracing Saudi Arabia? The double standard of "collateral damage" in Afghanistan not being important but "civilian casualties" being a reason to not act in Iraq? If the united States criticizes Israel for its actions against terrorism, why is the United States excused?

Madame D䵢ler-Gmelin told reporters that Bush, like Hitler, started wars in order to deflect domestic unpopularity. In this she was doubly wrong, not just about Bush, but more definitively about Hitler. The Fuhrer's war plans were clearly laid out in Mein Kampf, and once in power he carried them out systematically. He did not improvise them in order to deflect domestic unpopularity, because he was not unpopular -- at least, not until the very late stages of the war when it was obvious Germany was in major trouble.

These are widely known historical facts that are not in any serious dispute. Yet, no one in Germany, at least that I know of, makes this case. I have to wonder if today's Germans have learned anything from 20th century history. Have they learned to recognize totalitarian dictators? Saddam Hussein has (or had) the moustache, the uniform, the boots, the prison camps, the torture chambers, the poison gas, the one-party ("socialist") system, the propaganda monopoly, the militarized state, the invasions of the neighbors, the whole nine yards -- but for the '68 generation of Germans, it's George W. Bush who is a Hitler.

Similarly, you might think that Germans would be alert to the kind of psychotic Jew-hatred that so tragically burned within their society sixty years ago. However, I have yet to hear the slightest condemnation from the German "intellectual" class of the murderous hatred that grips so much of the Arab world. Instead, they fulminate against Israel. How can people this profoundly unserious expect respect?

One more thing, please. It is good news indeed that George W. Bush thinks that he is answerable to God. This is an important one of the many things that distinguishes him from Saddam, Stalin, Mao, Ceaucescu, Hitler, Castro and the other despots. They consider(ed) themselves to be revolutionaries who are/were above bourgeois morality. The didn't think they were answerable to God, and they governed themselves accordingly.

Well, this is how we sang it at school in London in the early 60s:

Hitler has only got one ball
The other is in the Albert Hall
'Immler has got one sim'lar
And poor old Ger-bbels has ner balls at all

I saw the show today. Even a good friend of mine -- incidentally, a member of the SPD -- agreed that it was pretty pathetic, the last croaks of a bunch of geriatric '68 leftovers. They barely had any arguments and had to resort to the pretty stale staple of accusing Merkel of brown-nosing and even dragging the old "Bush wasn't even elected" routine out of the cellar. And when Pispers started talking about plutocratic land-owners, we went completely into Cloud Communist Land...

Generally, I think that the actual number of rabid pseudo-idealists is pretty small. But they're governing the nation, writing the newspapers and making the TV programs. And the Germans are still _very_ easy to lead. Some years ago I wondered how such a massive con act like the Third Reich could've happened, nobody can be that stupid. Oh, the days of innocence...

But I think it's starting to break down. At the first signs of victory Schr? and Fischer were there, saluting the victory and talking about the German-American friendship. Pictures from Baghdad show liberated people and statues dragged down. No Vietnam. No Berlin. No Stalingrad. People are starting to wonder.

Well, nothing that some lefty human rights propaganda about babies killed and buildings bombed can't wipe out.

When you believe that you're living in some post-modern Utopia, realists will look evil.

Posted by veryretired: "The United States has moved from self defense to Iraqi liberation as the reason for war. Which is it? This is important."

Why does it matter? This is a false choice; it makes no sense to parse the rationale for regime change in this way. Many opponents of the US position have tried to discredit the case for military intervention on this basis however, so it deserves a reply even if the answer is obvious.

Did Lincoln fight the Civil War to preserve the Union or to free the slaves? Answer: Both. He was initially motivated by a desire to keep the USA whole, but he came to see the slavery issue as critical and it became more important to him over time. After General Lee, with the Army of Northern Virginia, moved aggressively into Maryland and Pennsylvania, ultimately threatening Washington, DC itself, he was also able to convincingly argue for self-defense of US citizens and property.

For a President to use any one reason, or any combination of them, to justify warfare to various internal constitutencies seems reasonable to me as long as they meet the high burden that applies to any such conflict. The bogus idea that only one reason can matter, and it must be universally acceptable across a broad audience like the USA (or the UN) and never change as circumstances evolve is dumb. It is a recipe for never taking action -- like the UN in the Balkans.

Did 8 consecutive US Presidents fight the Cold War to defend our allies or to propogate democracy and capitalism? Did Clinton intervene in Kosovo for humanitarian reasons or to support NATO? Did GHW Bush free Kumwait to protect the Saudi oil fields or to make a larger stand against military annexation? Did Truman rush to protect Korea in order to hold the line against Communism or to save an endangered people or to send a message to the Chinese government?

According to veryretired, only one reason will do (and it must not change in light of new information) so he must pick the reasons that are not applicable and argue they had no bearing on the decision. Good luck...

Germany?s government,ruling governamental partys and media are leaded by ?68 leftovers.
They arrived to national government exactly 30 years later - 1998 -.
In 68 they started the so called "langer Marsch durch die Institutionen" (long march through institutions).
And unfortunately you can see today?s result with Mr. Schroeder and Mr. Fischer.
As far as Mr. Hildebrand concerned - he was always on the extreme left side of the showbusiness - a strong supporter of the DDR during the Cold War.

i hate to spoil anyone's fun, but i only posted one comment about german and japanese pacifism be-cause i find all this fuss about whether european governments do or don't want to join us to be blather---the other posting is either some type of error or an imposter---by the way, i find most of the indignant fuss on this and other bulletin boards to be less about real issues and more about which college sophomore has the most time available to explain to the world everything they ever wanted to know

TO: Werner
RE: Hitler vs. Bush

"Hitler was mystic and so is Bush, albeit differently." -- Werner

Hitler studied the occult. You know...forbidden knowledge.

{Occult sciences}, those sciences of the Middle Ages which related to the supposed action or influence of occult qualities, or supernatural powers, as alchemy, magic, necromancy, and astrology. -- Websters

Bush studies the Bible. You know...Christ and God.

Your comment about their being a difference is something of an 'understatement'. So much so, I'd describe it as being obtuse.

RE: Getting 'Uncomfortable'

"It is uncomfortable to hear a leader, especially one as powerful as the US president constantly invoke "God" in his speeches. It does imply and I am not sure he has excluded that he is where he is because of "divine interference"." -- Werner

I can understand that. Secularists, or atheists, who don't understand something are very likely to become so when they start to realize that other people actually do recognize the existance of things that they themselves cannot see or appreciate. This is especially true when they begin to preceive that those peoples' beliefs might, in fact, be bona fide and effective.

[Note: To date, this is the most lop-sided victory I think the US has ever experienced against a group with stand-up divisional organizations. If anyone can identify another, please tell me. Indeed, this is almost on a par with Gideon and the 300.]

Back on track...

People deny the existance of God. People who do so are likely to get very paranoid when someone in authority believes in God and is not afraid to express such belief. This is why we have groups that support the idea of "Freedom from Religion"; they are afraid to hear it and want to suppress it.

You can compare Bush to Hitler, but if the surface of the argument is scratched, as above, the comparison falls away and the truth is revealed. There is no equivalence.

And, just because you've never heard God speak or see Him act or encountered his agents or the agents of that other camp, doesn't mean no one else has.

Who is more blind? He who sees nothing? Or he who sees more?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[For the power of paradox opens your eyes and blinds those who say they can see.]

>>"The United States has moved from self defense to Iraqi liberation as the reason for war. Which is it? This is important.">>

>>>Why does it matter?>People deny the existance of God. People who do so are likely to get very paranoid when someone in authority believes in God and is not afraid to express such belief. This is why we have groups that support the idea of "Freedom from Religion"; they are afraid to hear it and want to suppress it.>>

The reason why people become jittery when a President constantly invokes God is because it raises doubt that he will act rationally all the time. It is not only directed at "God", the same would be if the President spoke to a "soothsayer". Irrational ideas lead to irrational decisions and delusion. Other irrational ideas are such as socialism, communism and Islamism. Ben Laden also praises and talks about God.

If the President believes in God, then rather let him keep it private and talk in more rational terms.

Hitler... has only got one ball.
Goering... has two but rather small.
Himmler... has something sim'lar.
But poor old Goebbels... has no balls... at all.

Sung to the tune of "Colonel Bogie", which was whistled, not sung, by British POWs in "Bridge on the River Kwai".

As for the lefty comparison of Bush with Hitler, they show a pathetic ignorance of history. If anything, Saddam is far closer to Hitler in both politics and methods.

TO: David
RE: Tell Him to 'Shut Up'

"If the President believes in God, then rather let him keep it private and talk in more rational terms." -- David

He is being rational.

Rather it is irrational to tell someone that they must 'shut up' about something they believe. That's really fascism, isn't it?

Otherwise let's have everyone shut up about everything, because surely whatever someone says is going to be disagreed with by someone else. Let's start with that character at Columbia University. Eh?

I suspect that you only regret that you cannot enforce your will upon him, or upon me, with regards to this belief system of ours.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.]

TO: David
RE: Of Soothsayers and Kings

"It is not only directed at "God", the same would be if the President spoke to a "soothsayer"." -- David

Soothsayers are of the 'occult'. [Note: See earlier comment.]

Observer, orient, decide, and act.

You are still on item number one of that list.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Chuck Pelto:

"Fighting and dying for your high values such as defending your country and family in self-defense is moral. Fighting a war to free another country without rational self-interest is immoral.

"So which was it? Was the reason for the Iraqi invasion self-defense or Iraqi liberation?"

Straw men both.

The reason for the Iraqi invasion was self-defense and Iraqi liberation. Fighting a war to free another country with rational self-interest is moral.

My apologies; I looked at the attributions wrong. My comment was meant for David.