Yet, despite all his praises and adulations of freedom, despite all his allegations of having not only supported its expansion and growth but having been one of its foremost proponents, Hitler openly and unabashedly expounded and propounded the virtues of dictatorship.  He made no attempt, unlike Bush in the minds of some, to hide his preference for dictatorial control and domination at certain times.
        In a 4 May 1923 Munich speech:
         Even the ancient republics with a very firm sense of government have in times of need resorted to dictatorship.  When the life of a people hangs in the balance, then bodies of representatives, parliaments, and assemblies are useless.  Giants alone are the answer.
         ADOLPH HITLER QUOTATIONS, by Karl Hammer,1990, Page 50

         Dictatorship was certainly necessary for the Reich in his estimation:
         The elite, whether inside or outside our Party, senses that only a dictatorship can create order.
         SECRET CONVERSATIONS WITH HITLER, Edited by Edouard Calic, 1971. Page 41

         The State in its organization, beginning with the smallest cell of the community up to the highest leadership of the entire Reich, must be built upon the principal of personality.
         There must be no decisions by majority, but only responsible persons,...  At every man's side there stand councillors, indeed, but one man decides.
         MEIN KAMPF, Adolf Hitler, New York, Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939, page 669

         During his trial Hitler said:
         The fact was that for that whole time Seisser and Kahr shared the same goal with us; namely, the removal of the Reich government in its present international parliamentary attitude, and its replacement by an absolute, nationalistic, anti parliamentary government--a dictatorship.
         THE HITLER TRIAL IN MUNICH, Volume 1, 1976,  page 61

         The main difference between Italy and Germany is that in the former the Duce has not been made the supreme Dictator of the State; as a result, there are always ways and means of circumventing his orders.  If, for example, he calls for a particularly valiant effort, the corps of officers immediately appeals to the King!  Such a state of affairs must be maddening to a man of the Duce's personality.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 614

         And in words that hopefully will not express the attitude of any present or future American leaders he said:
         I can understand most things, but I shall never understand why, when once one has seized power, one does not hold it with all one's might!
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 691

         Hitler was even candid enough to concede his tyrannical nature by failing to deny the charge when given an opportunity:
         People want to brand me as a bloodthirsty tyrant.  All rule is at bottom tyranny.  It can come into existence in no other way.
         THE VOICE OF DESTRUCTION, by Hermann Rauschnigg, 1940, page 280

         His partial defense to the charge of being a dictator is that he is only one of many dictators in his regime and the supreme dictator is not the Fuhrer but God.
        In a speech to the SA on 8 April 1933:
         We have, too, adopted the principle of leadership, the conception of authority.  That was a heavy sacrifice at a time when the whole people was running after the illusion of democracy and parliamentarianism, when millions believed that the majority was the source of a right decision.  It was at this time that we began resolutely to build up an organization in which there was not one dictator but 10,000.  When our opponents say: "It is easy for you: you're a dictator"--we answer them, "No, gentlemen, you're wrong; there is no single dictator, but 10,000, each in his own place."  And even the highest authority in the hierarchy has itself only one wish, never to transgress against the supreme authority to which it, too, is responsible.  We have in our Movement developed this loyalty in following the leader, this blind obedience of which all the others know nothing and which gave to us the power to surmount everything.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 180

         The folkish State, from the community up to the leadership of the Reich, has no representative body which decides by majority, but only bodies of councils who stand at the side of the respective elected leader, receiving their share of work from him,...
         MEIN KAMPF, Adolf Hitler, New York, Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939, page 670

         The ironical aspect of Hitler’s stance in this matter is that he admits being a dictator and having an urge to be a dictator:
        In a closing statement at his 1924 trial:
        Anyone who is a born dictator does not have to be "urged" to be one--he wants to be one.  He is not "pushed forward," he pushes himself forward.  This is not immodesty just as it is not immodesty for a worker to press ahead to harder work; nor is it presumptuous of a thinking man to brood night after night until he finally can present mankind with an invention.  Anyone who feels called upon to govern a nation does not have the right to say: "If you want me, or if you call on me, I shall do it."  It is his duty to do it.
         THE HITLER TRIAL IN MUNICH, Volume 3, 1976, page 362

         Yet, he simultaneously denies being a dictator.
         I am no dictator, and never will be a dictator.
         THE VOICE OF DESTRUCTION, by Hermann Rauschnigg, 1940, page 198

         On 8 November 1938:
         Besides that, I am not a head of state in the sense that a dictator or a monarch is, I am a leader of the German Volk!
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 1239

         And in Hamburg on 20 March 1936 he alleged Germany was not under a dictatorship:
         It is regrettable that the statesmen and also the peoples of the rest of the world are unable to have a look at contemporary Germany.  If they could, I believe that they would then be delivered of the erroneous idea that this people languishes under a dictatorship which oppresses them.
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolf Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 110

         He bases this bizarre contention on the assertion that:
         There is no such thing as unlimited power, and I should never dream of pretending to it myself.  The word dictatorship is misleading; there is no such thing as dictatorship in the accepted sense.  Even the most extreme autocrat is compelled to correct his absolute will by existing conditions.
         THE VOICE OF DESTRUCTION, by Hermann Rauschnigg, 1940, page 198

         I cannot give orders as I please.  What I command is not arbitrary, but the result of close understanding with the party....  I am not dependent on the man in the street.  But I am responsible to my party comrades.  The parliamentary democracies can influence public opinion as they like.  I am subject to an incorruptible judge, my party.
         THE VOICE OF DESTRUCTION, by Hermann Rauschnigg, 1940, page 200

         To that anemic rationalization one can only reply: If you are not a dictator, then you are certainly the nearest approximation.
         Hitler even went so far as to claim he was fighting dictatorships and his depiction of the Austrian government and its actions was submitted as evidence of same.  Hitler’s stance from the outset with regard to Austria was that millions of Germans lived in Austria and, although they wanted to be citizens of the Reich, the Austrian government was maintaining a brutal dictatorship over them by suppressing their right to express their governmental preference through an election or plebiscite.  He raved on this contentious issue many times.
        In Hamburg on 29 March 1938:
         Austria's National Socialists were persecuted, hundreds of them were murdered and thousands were shot.  They were hanged as though they were murderers lacking any feeling of honor although their only crime had been their belief in their Volk.
         And the world remained silent and uttered not a world of condemnation.  You can judge for yourselves the meaning the word democracy took on for us.  It became the embodiment of lies and injustice, the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 1077

         I have now made yet another attempt to bring about an understanding.  I endeavored, with the representative of that regime with whom I myself, as the Fuhrer elected by the German Volk, was dealing and who had no legitimate mandate whatsoever--I endeavored to make it clear to him that this situation could not prevail for any length of time because the rising indignation of the Austrian Volk could not be suppressed forever by an escalation of force; and that here, after a certain point, it would also be intolerable for the Reich to look on in silence while such a violation took place.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 1048

         In a Munich proclamation on 12 March 1938:
         Germans!  In the past few years, I have attempted to warn the former rulers in Austria not to continue on this route of theirs.  Only a lunatic could believe that suppression and terror can permanently rob people of their love for their ancestral Volkstum.  European history has proven that such cases served to breed an even greater fanaticism.  This fanaticism then compels the oppressor to resort to ever harsher methods of violation, and these in turn increase the loathing and hatred of the objects of those methods.
         I have further attempted to convince the rulers responsible for this that, in the long run, a great nation in particular is incapable--because undeserving--of constantly being made to look on while people belonging to the same race are oppressed, persecuted, and imprisoned only because of their ancestry or their declared affiliation with this Volkstum, or because they hold fast to an idea.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 1046

         In that same proclamation:
         Germans!  It is with deep grief that, for years now, we had been witnessing the fate of our Volksgenossen in Austria....
         When in Germany--thanks to the victory of the National Socialist idea--the nation found its way back to the proud self-confidence of a great Volk, in Austria there began a new period of suffering and of the bittermost trials.  A regime totally lacking any sort of legal mandate attempted to maintain its existence--which was rejected by the overwhelming majority of the Austrian Volk--with the utterly brutal instruments of terror and of physical and economic castigation and destruction.  Hence, as a great Volk, we witnessed that more than 6 million people of our own lineage were suppressed by a numerically small minority which was adept at gaining possession of the instruments of power it needed.
         This political gagging and deprivation of rights had its counterpart in an economic deterioration which stood in crass contrast to the flourishing new life in Germany.  Who could blame these unhappy Volksgenossen that they focused their gaze longingly on the Reich?
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 1047

         From now on, the German Reich, however, will no longer tolerate that Germans are persecuted in this territory because of their affiliation with our nation or their open support of certain ideas.  The Reich wants peace and order.  I have, therefore, decided to place assistance from the Reich at the disposal of the millions of Germans in Austria.
 Since this morning, the soldiers of the German Wehrmacht have been marching over all the borders of German-Austria.
         Tank troops, infantry divisions, and the SS formations on the ground, and the German Luftwaffe in the blue skies above, summoned by the new National Socialist Government in Vienna, shall guarantee that the Austrian Volk will now be given, as quickly as possible, the opportunity to shape its future and thus its own fate in a genuine referendum of the people.  Behind these formations stand the will and resolve of the entire German nation.
         ...  Let the world conclude for itself that the German Volk in Austria is spending these days in the most blissful joy and stirring emotion it has ever experienced.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 1049

         This “Rushing to Bring Freedom to the Oppressed” banner bears an eerie resemblance to the Bushites invading Iraq to unchain millions.
         Of paramount importance in this comparison, however, is that Hitler had a more credible case for invading Austria than Bush had for invading Iraq for several reasons.
         First, the overwhelming majority of Germans in Austria did want to join the Reich and were being prevented from doing so, while millions of Iraqis have never expressed any desire to join the United States.
         Second, neither Iraq nor its people were ever severed from the United States as a result of losing a war.
         Third, Iraqis are not Americans, do not speak English, and have never been closely allied to the United States either socially, culturally, politically, or linguistically.
         And fourth, because the primary reason for invading Iraq--to eradicate weapons of mass destruction--has been exposed as a hoax, the major justification for an attack collapses.

         The logical corollary accompanying Hitler’s ambitious program of suppression, terror, and intimidation is obedience from all those expected to execute its provisions, especially party members.  Obedience, blind obedience, is not only expected by the Fuhrer but demanded and he made no secret of that fact.  His attitude was plain for all to see.
        On 28 March 1933 Hitler issued the following instruction to all party organizations:
         More than ever before it is necessary that the entire Party stand behind the leadership in blind obedience as one-man.
         HITLER, SPEECHES AND PROCLAMATIONS 1932-45, Vol. 1, by Max Domarus, page 301

         In a speech in Nuremberg on 1 September 1933:
         Our party must follow the same law that it wishes to see the masses of the nation follow.  It must, therefore, constantly educate itself to recognize authority, to submit voluntarily to the highest discipline, so that it will be able to educate the followers of the Party to do the same.  And in doing this the Party must be hard and logical....
         MY NEW ORDER  by Adolf Hitler, Edited by de Sales, 1941, page 197

         But we need only specialists, not intellectual charlatans, and these specialists must obey orders blindly.
         SECRET CONVERSATIONS WITH HITLER, Edited by Edouard Calic, 1971. Page 37

         Hitler not only demanded blind obedience but felt it had been attained.
         In the Berlin Sportpalast on 8 April 1933:
         We have fostered in ourselves an allegiance, this blind obedience all the others know nothing about and which has given us the strength to survive everything.
         HITLER, SPEECHES AND PROCLAMATIONS 1932-45, Vol. 1, by Max Domarus, page 305
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 180

         Compared with this, the National Socialist meetings were indeed not "peaceful" meetings.  Here the waves of two views of life clashed, and the meetings did not end with some patriotic song lamely rattled off, but with the fanatical outburst of national passion.
         From the very beginning, it was important to introduce blind discipline into our meetings and absolutely to safeguard the authority of the meeting's leaders.
         MEIN KAMPF, Adolf Hitler, New York, Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939, page 720

         In the Industry Club speech in Dusseldorf on 27 January 1932:
         The bourgeois [democratic] parties have had 70 years to work in; where, I ask you, is the organization which could be compared with ours?  Where is the organization which can boast, as ours can, that, at need, it can summon 400,000 men into the street, men who are schooled to blind obedience and are ready to execute any order--provided that it does not violate the law?...
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, page 824

         In Augsburg on 23 November 1937:
         Here [in the NSDAP] we have established the basic rule of absolute obedience and absolute authority.  Just as the Army--the weapon--cannot prevail without this law of the absolute authority of each and every superior to those below him and his absolute responsibility to those above, neither can the political leadership of this weapon prevail.  For what is gained by the weapon is ultimately subject to political administration, and what the political administration wants, the weapon is to procure.  The leadership of the Volk in former times, the Church, also recognized only this one law of life: blind obedience and absolute authority.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 981

         On 30 June 1934 in an order of the day to Chief of Staff Lutze:
         When I appoint you to the post of SA Chief of Staff today, I expect that you will concern yourself with a number of tasks which I hereby assign to you:
         1.  I demand from SA leaders the same blind obedience and unqualified discipline which they demand from their SA men....
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 1, page 475

         And in his closing speech to the Nuremberg Parteitag of 1935:
         Similarly the strong and, if necessary, harsh leadership of the Party should prevent a conflict of views within National Socialism: a blind recognition of its authority was essential.  This is the supreme national interest, and thus the supreme duty of every German who feels with his people and strives for its welfare.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, page 447

         The Fuhrer left no doubt that subordinates were not to question decisions; that was non-negotiable:
         Obviously, then, those in authority must never permit their decisions to be criticized by those subordinate to them.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 482

         In his closing speech to the Nuremberg Parteitag of 1935:
         The question of fallibility or infallibility is not under discussion: the individual has as little right to question the action of the political leaders as the soldier to question the orders of his military superiors.  And just as the Party demands the subjection of the people to its will, so within the Party itself this same subjection must be an immutable law.  There is no possibility of release from obedience to this principle.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, page 447

         What luck for governments that the peoples they administer don't think!  Thinking is done by the man who gives the orders, and then by the man who carries them out.  If it were otherwise, the state of society would be impossible.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 224

         Hitler preached that obedience to superiors will eventually make the obedient qualified to receive obedience from subordinates.  It must be earned.
        In Berlin on 1 May 1937:
         For nearly six years I was a soldier and never voiced a contradiction, but instead simply obeyed orders at all times.  Today Fate has made me the one who gives orders.
         And this I must demand of every German: you, too, must be able to obey; otherwise you will never be deserving or worthy of giving orders yourself!  That is the prerequisite!  It is thus we shall train our Volk and pass over the stubbornness or stupidity of the individual.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 892

         In Nuremberg on 14 September 1935:
         Nothing is possible unless one will commands, a will which has to be obeyed by others, beginning at the top and ending only at the very bottom....
         ... We must train our people so that whenever someone has been appointed to command, the others will recognize it as their duty to obey him, for it can happen that an hour later they will be called upon to command, and they can do it then only if others in turn obey.  This is the expression of an authoritarian state--not of a weak, babbling democracy--of an authoritarian state where everyone is proud to obey, because he knows: I will likewise be obeyed when I must take command.  Germany is no chicken house where everyone runs about at random, cackling and crowing, but we are a people that from its infancy on learns how to be disciplined...  From this discipline fewer quarrels will develop for the world than from the parliamentary-democratic confusion of the present day.
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolf Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 126

         In a Nuremberg speech on 1 September 1933 Hitler contended that democratic freedom, which he equated with the absence of obedience, will only foster defeat:
         The rise and the astonishing final victory of the National Socialist Movement would never have happened if the Party had ever formulated the principle that in our ranks everyone can do as he likes.  This watchword of democratic freedom led only to insecurity, indiscipline, and at length to the downfall and destruction of all authority.
         MY NEW ORDER  by Adolf Hitler, Edited by de Sales, 1941, page 195

          And in another apparent contradiction, he contended that the freedom of the individual must always be secondary to that of the group, despite having repeatedly stressed in earlier quotes that the individual was central and history was made by individuals not the masses.  The Bushites of today, like the Hitlerites of yore, have never figured this one out either.  They proclaim individual freedom but would prohibit freedom of choice with respect to abortion, gay rights, marijuana use, etc.
        In a speech delivered in Berlin on May Day 1939:
         And with that I come to the problem of freedom in general.  Freedom, yes!  So far as the interest of the community of the people gives the individual freedom, it is given him.  But at the point where his freedom harms the interests of the community of the people, at that point the freedom of the individual ceases and the freedom of the people steps into its place....  But high above all the freedom of the individual there is the freedom of our people, the freedom of our Reich:...
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 2, Page 1660

         A very large measure of individual liberty is not necessarily the sign of a high degree of civilization.  On the contrary, it is the limitation of this liberty, within the framework of an organization which incorporates men of the same race, which is the real pointer to the degree of civilization attained.  If men were given complete liberty of action, they would immediately behave like apes.  No one of them could bear his neighbor to earn more than he did himself, and the more they lived as a community, the sharper their animosities would become.  Slacken the reins of authority, give more liberty to the individual, and you are driving the people along the road to decadence.
         The eternal mouthings about the communal spirit which brings men together of their own free will, make me smile.  In my own little homeland, when the lads of the village met in the local tavern, their social instincts rapidly degenerated, under the influence of alcohol, into brawling, and not infrequently finished up in a real fight with knives.  It was only the arrival of the local policeman which recalled them to the realization that they were all fellow-members of a human community.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 423

         Along with obedience must come, unity, for without unity among those passing down decrees, underlings could very well receive conflicting and contradictory orders which would not only destroy effectiveness but eviscerate morale.  It would be analogous to receiving one order from colonel A and the opposite from colonel B.  When the issue of unity was addressed, Hitler made his stance crystal clear by contending that the entire leadership must be of one view on all issues.
        In a secret speech on 10 November 1938:
         All of these men are part of the German Volk's leadership, and as such they must appear to stand united before the Volk.  Amongst us, we can exchange opinions.  Before the Volk, there is only one opinion.  Gentlemen, this is the clear-cut command of the hour!  If we can carry out this command, then this leadership will make the German Volk great and mighty.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 1254

         Arguments and disputes among the highest officials were to be suppressed and remained unpublicized, a program the Bush regime has desperately sought, but failed, to emulate:
         For example, when there are problems, over which men of eminence are scratching their heads without being able to find the solution, it is unwise in the extreme to air them in public; much better wait till the thing is settled.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 481

         The Fuhrer left no doubt that: all party members should exhibit blind obedience, leaders should present a public face of unity, and the masses should never be included within the decision making process, especially when the leadership is divided or undecided, because the masses definitely preferred a united-as-one leadership behind which they could rally and feel confident.  There can be little doubt the Bush regime has worked hard to project the same image.
        During a secret speech on 10 November 1938 Hitler removed any ambiguity in this regard:
         Nonetheless, it is entirely possible that I may not arrive at an agreement with other gentlemen on the assessment of certain problems, with other gentlemen who have also accomplished not little.  However, a decision must be made.  It is totally impossible that I leave this decision, an issue to which no one knows a solution at this point, in the hands of dairymaids and dairyfarmers or cobblers.  It is totally impossible.
         It does not make any difference whether this decision proves correct in the last instance--that is of no interest.  What is decisive is that the entire nation as a single unit stands behind this decision.  It must form a unitarian front.  Should the decision prove not entirely correct, this will be more than compensated for by the determination with which the whole nation backs it.
         This will be of importance in the coming years, gentlemen!  In this manner only can we free the German Volk from the bondage of doubt, a doubt that only makes the Volk unhappy.  The broad mass would rather not be troubled by doubt, it has only one desire: to be led by a leadership it can trust.  The mass does not want this leadership to be a divided one, but rather that this leadership should step before it as one.
         ...The Volk feels secure in the knowledge that these men will stand together, follow one Fuhrer, and this Fuhrer will stand by these men....
         It is this that makes the people happy!  That is what they want!  This has been the case throughout German history.  The Volk always delights in seeing the men on top united.  This makes it easier to maintain its own unity.  We must bear in mind the big picture, we must do everything in our power to preserve and foster this impression with the Volk.  We must instill in the Volk the conviction that the leadership is right and that everyone stands behind this leadership.  Psychologically speaking, this makes it possible for the leadership to hold its own in times of crisis.
         In summary, I would like to point out one fact, gentlemen.  In the liberal states, the mission of the press can be summed up as follows: press plus Volk against leadership.  For us, it must read: leadership plus propaganda plus press, etc., to stand united before the Volk!  Leadership of the Volk entails all of this.... Regardless of what is discussed behind closed doors, the leadership must step before the Volk as one, a single united entity.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 1253

         Yet, being the pragmatist that he was, Hitler was not so naive as to shut off all contrary opinions offered by other high authorities.  He did not isolate himself from the opinions of others, as some historians have decreed, nor was he reticent about adopting differing policies.  Bush appears to have gone even further by instituting minimal supervision of high officials, cabinet members, generals, and others presiding over their own fiefdoms.
        In an interview with Louis Lochner of the Associated Press on 4 April 1934 Hitler stated:
         I have surrounding me an entire staff of experts thoroughly versed in economic, social and political life whose sole purpose is to criticize.  Before we pass a law, I show these men the draft and ask them, "Would you tell me what is wrong with this, please?  I do not want them to simply say amen to everything.  They are of no value to me if they are not critical and do not tell me which defects might, under certain circumstances, detract from our measures.
         HITLER, SPEECHES AND PROCLAMATIONS 1932-45, Vol. 1, by Max Domarus, page 444

         Whatever openness Hitler may have displayed toward high officials was far outweighed by the intolerance he preached and practiced toward millions, and no attempt was made to conceal his one-sidedness.  Indeed, it was openly broadcast.
        In his closing speech to the Nuremberg Parteitag of 1935:
         Just as diseased pacifists refuse to understand the harshness and the exclusive claims of Prussian education in the army, so today many refuse to recognize the necessity for National Socialist intolerance, an intolerance which is in reality the assured consciousness of responsibility.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 445

         In a Munich speech on 1 August 1923:
         Ours shall be no State where tolerance reigns.  No, we would be intolerant against all who do not wish to be German....
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 77

         And lots of hate should accompany intolerance.
         In a speech on 10 April 1923:
         For liberation something more is necessary than an economic policy, something more than industry: if a people is to become free it needs pride and will-power, defiance, hate, hate, and once again hate.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 44
         MY NEW ORDER  by Adolf Hitler, Edited by de Sales, 1941, page 49

         Hitler felt the masses preferred an intolerant leader over a tolerant one and some Bushites appear to be capitalizing on the same sentiments.
        The Fuhrer said in this regard:
         ... thus the masses love the ruler rather than the suppliant, and inwardly they are far more satisfied by a doctrine which tolerates no rival than by the grant of liberal freedom; they often feel at a loss what to do with it, and even easily feel themselves deserted.
         MEIN KAMPF, Adolf Hitler, New York, Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939, page 56

         Hitler firmly believed the masses will follow a stern, forceful leader and most Bushites  and followers of Tony Blair appear to agree with that assessment judging by the impression they project:
         The soldier, too, is for the most part devoted to the leader who is stern but just.  If a man is a real leader, the people will follow him.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 609

         Hitler had little doubt that the masses preferred to be blindly led by the nose like so many sheep:
         The majority-man wants someone to tell him what to think and what to do.  He longs for someone who has the courage to say: Do what I tell you and I will give you what you want.  And I will tell you what you want.  Follow me and I will take you to where you want to be.  The majority-man wants a leader....
         The leader must have the intelligence not to tell him too clearly what he will give him.  For man does not know very clearly what he wants.  What he knows very clearly he usually does not want.  The leader must not tell him too definitely where he is going to take him.  Not only does man not know where he wants to go, he loves to go into the blue, he loves to go to he does not know where.--The leader must have the courage to inspire men with such admiration and confidence that they will feel they are where they want to be, because they are with him.  They have what they want, because they have him.
         The majority wants an idol.  A God.  Someone who makes himself responsible for them.--Someone they can follow blindly,--blindly.--Yes, yes.--Shut your eyes.  You will get there.  You will get there all the better if you keep your eyes shut.--He will take you there.  You do not know where.  That is part of the fun.
         I AM ADOLPH HITLER, by Adolph Hitler, Ed. by Werner/Lotte Pelz, 1971, Page 95

         Man gets bored to death, or he gets frightened out of his wits, when he has no one to obey or to rebel against.
         I AM ADOLPH HITLER, by Adolph Hitler, Ed. by Werner/Lotte Pelz, 1971, Page 54

         Hopefully the American people will never conform to the image Hitler has of the German people, but judging by some polls, concern is surely warranted.
         Hitler’s intolerance comes to the fore in all its menacing depravity when he spews comments that would make any sane man cringe:
         Why did he do it?  And why did he confess?  He knows that no man has ever contradicted me and remained alive.  I could not afford that.  Men who take upon themselves godlike freedom and responsibility, must be surrounded by worshipers, by angels, doing their bidding without question, singing hosanna!  No real man can afford contradiction.  Not even a Jew.
         I AM ADOLPH HITLER, by Adolph Hitler, Ed. by Werner/Lotte Pelz, 1971, Page 58

         The Fuhrer made no secret of the fact that he originally intended to eradicate all other parties and political ideologies.  Eventually he succeeded and in the process proved that there can be no domestic accommodation or compromise with his philosophy.
        In a speech to the Reich Commissioners in the Reich Chancery in Berlin on 6 July 1933:
         The political parties have now been finally abolished; this is a historical event of which the importance and far-reaching effect have in many cases not yet been realized at all.  We must now get rid of the last remains of democracy, especially of the methods of voting and of the decisions by the majority,...
         THE HITLER DECREES, by James Pollock and Harlow Heneman, 1934, Page 76
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 454

         On the day when we are entrusted with the business of government...one of our first decisions should be to ban the communist party.  The majority of the Social Democrats can be re-educated.
         SECRET CONVERSATIONS WITH HITLER, Edited by Edouard Calic, 1971. Page 83

         In his proclamation issued on New Year's Day 1934:
         And just as the Marxist foe of our people has been annihilated, so in the same way have the bourgeois [democratic] parties been destroyed.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 639

         In his speech at the celebration of the 15th anniversary of the founding of the Party on 24 February 1935:
         All the ferments which were destroying the people have been banished--Marxism and just to the same extent our rootless and equally international bourgeois [democratic] party system.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 647

         In his Proclamation at the opening of the Parteitag of 1936 Hitler answered the question: "What has National Socialism made out of Germany in the last four years?"  His answer was:
         ...I had at that time foretold that after these four years there would be only one single German people, that no Social Democracy, no Communism, no Centrum, not even a bourgeois party would any longer be able to sin against the life of Germany, that no trade union would any longer be able to incite the workers,....
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 653

         And in a similar vein in a speech to the Reichstag on 13 July 1934:
         Hardly six months of National Socialist government had passed before the course of our former political life, our party-disunion, was overcome....  even the bare thought of any return to this confused party-world is ridiculous and absurd.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 295

         Hitler unreservedly announced his goal to be one of leaving behind a legacy of merciless intolerance.
        In that infamous Industry Club speech in Dusseldorf on 27 January 1932 he said:
         ...the primary necessity is the restoration of a sound national German body-politic armed to strike.  In order to realize this end I founded 13 years ago the National Socialist Movement: that Movement I have led during the last 12 years, and I hope that one day it will accomplish this task and that, as the fairest result of its struggle, it will leave behind it a German body-politic completely renewed internally, intolerant of anyone who sins against the nation and its interests, intolerant against anyone who will not acknowledge its vital interests or who opposes them, intolerant and pitiless against anyone who shall attempt once more to destroy or disintegrate this body-politic,...
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 828-29

         And as his standard to be emulated in this regard he specified Christianity:
         Christianity also could not content itself with building up its own altar, it was compelled to proceed to destroying the heathen altars.  Only out of this fanatical intolerance could an apodictic creed form itself, and this intolerance is even its absolute presupposition.
         MEIN KAMPF, Adolf Hitler, New York, Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939, page 675

         In light of the foregoing, one can readily understand why hundreds of thousands chose to flee the furor of the Fuhrer.

         As if his intolerance were not enough to enshrine him in the halls of infamy forever, Hitler went even further and rejected any possibility of modifying or ameliorating his views.  In effect, he not only defined himself as rigidly intolerant but made no secret of the fact that he fully intended to remain that way permanently.
        He confirmed this determination during a 10 November 1933 speech in Berlin:
         Once I am convinced that a certain course is the only and correct one for my folk, then I keep to it, whatever may come.  And what I do, I do openly!
         ADOLPH HITLER QUOTATIONS, by Karl Hammer,1990, Page 59

         In Munich on 14 March 1936:
         Neither threats nor warnings will prevent me from going my way.  I follow the path assigned to me by Providence with the instinctive sureness of a sleepwalker.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 790
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 2, Page 1307
 

         During the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion and world-wide demonstrations in opposition to same, Bush appeared to be in a comparable mental state.
         Like Bush contemplating Iraq, Hitler was firmly convinced during WWII that altering his course was unnecessary since God was in his corner.
        In Berlin on 26 April 1942 he stated:
         If it be true that the gods love only those who demand the impossible from them, it is equally true that the Lord blesses only those who remain steadfast even in an impossible situation....
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolf Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 98

         Equally demonstrative of Hitler’s affinity for intransigence was his view that opinions are signs of indecisiveness.  Opinions are for weak-willys; certitudes are for real men:
         While convictions suit a woman as little as trousers; for a man to contract opinions is like contracting venereal disease.
         My early struggle against my father taught me that opinions were luxuries, even before my later experience showed me that they were perversions.  From my earliest youth on, I let life itself, reality itself, face me, until I could perceive its clear either/or.  Every real man, with even the smallest grain of real passion, will be compelled by his nature to perceive that reality always demands a clear either/or, for or against.
         I AM ADOLPH HITLER, by Adolph Hitler, Ed. by Werner/Lotte Pelz, 1971, Page 143

         I never held opinions.  Only ragamuffins, rag-collectors, journalists, professors, and politicians hold opinions.
         I AM ADOLPH HITLER, by Adolph Hitler, Ed. by Werner/Lotte Pelz, 1971, Page 143

         Does or does not Bushism exude an aura of this caste is a question all should ponder?
         Hitler openly instructed his adherents to speak and act as if only their view mattered and it deserved to be carved in granite.
        The future of a movement is conditioned by the fanaticism, even more the intolerance, with which its adherents present it as the only right one and enforce it in the face of other formations of a similar kind.
         MEIN KAMPF, Adolf Hitler, New York, Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939, page 485

         A nationalization of the great masses can never take place by way of half measures, by a weak emphasis upon a so-called objective viewpoint, but by a ruthless and fanatically one-sided orientation as to the goal to be aimed at.
         MEIN KAMPF, Adolf Hitler, New York, Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939, page 467

         An open mind was christened a cesspool by Hitler, being held by him in the highest contempt:
         An open mind, a sewer, is the privilege of professors and liberals.  Born into a waste-paper basket full of the world's discarded opinions, what can they do but pick and choose among the scraps.  And when they have pieced together the scraps of litter into a patchwork of opinions, a Weltanschauung, what else can they do but feel generous and tolerant towards other patchworks.  I leave you yours, you leave me mine.
         I AM ADOLPH HITLER, by Adolph Hitler, Ed. by Werner/Lotte Pelz, 1971, Page 66

         Yet, with all of this focus on intransigence he made the following assertions:
         I cannot reveal my innermost thoughts to my associates, for they are not absolutely clear even to me.  Nor am I so much in favor of being rigid.  Everything is too new, everything is in a state of flux, everything is still forming.
         HITLER--MEMOIRS OF A CONFIDANT, by Otto Wegener, 1985, page 177

         His thoughts “are not absolutely clear” and he is not “so much in favor of being rigid.”
 Talk about being inconsistent!  The temptation to request the real Hitler to please stand up is hard to resist.  Hitler’s trend of thought is sometimes as muddled and incoherent as Bush’s oratory.

         When intolerance and intransigence are placed on pedestals, compromise becomes little more than a trampled memory.  In Hitler’s pantheon of beliefs compromise had about as much respect as a UN rep at a neo-con convention.  It was simply unworthy of serious discussion, a mere bagatelle.  With Hitler decisions were always a matter of either/or, yes or no, for me or agin me.  He even cited Jesus for confirmation:
         And one of his [Jesus] sayings defines the man and I have made it completely my own: "He who is not for me, is against me."
         I AM ADOLPH HITLER, by Adolph Hitler, Ed. by Werner/Lotte Pelz, 1971, Page 111

         And just as Bush said those not for the United States in its war on terrorism/Iraq are against it, Hitler exhibited the same attitude toward others regarding his war on Marxism.
        Being the religious man that he was, Hitler occasionally invoked Scripture for support and no doubt Bush has followed suit.
        In Munich on 1 January 1932 Hitler stated:
         What is it that fate wishes?  If the events of the past year should have any inner meaning, then it could only be that fate itself wants things clarified.  We see in our own people the fulfillment of that passage in the Bible which states that that which is hot and that which is cold is accepted, but that which is lukewarm is condemned to be spewed out.  The middle parties are cut asunder and destroyed.  Compromises are coming to an end.  Through National Socialism the German nation today stands out against international Bolshevism.  The Almighty Himself through His merciful will creates the conditions for the deliverance of our people.  In that He permits the destruction of the lukewarm, He wishes thereby to give us victory.
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolf Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 87

         Hitler made other comments revealing that from his vantage point there are just two options and neutrality is not one of them.
         In a speech in Munich on 12 April 1922:
         There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to disassociate themselves from it.  And that party is either the LEFT: and then god help us!  for it will lead us to complete destruction--to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the RIGHT which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power--that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago.  Here, too, there can be no compromise--there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew.
         MY NEW ORDER  by Adolf Hitler, Edited by de Sales, 1941, page 21

         While discussing al Qaeda and terrorism on TV, Bush recently leveled the same words at the entire world.
         In a 27 May 1933 speech in Danzig Hitler branded those who engage in compromises as cowards:
         They choke on their own cowardly compromises.
         ADOLPH HITLER QUOTATIONS, by Karl Hammer,1990, Page 34

         And he actually relished and felt honored by denunciations accusing him of being uncompromising:
         Men will say that I have a closed mind.  Let them.  It is a flattery.  It means I have a mind of my own.  I have made up my mind.
         I AM ADOLPH HITLER, by Adolph Hitler, Ed. by Werner/Lotte Pelz, 1971, Page 66

         They regard me has an uneducated barbarian.  Yes, we are barbarians!  We want to be barbarians!  It is an honorable title.  We shall rejuvenate the world!  This world is near its end, it is our mission to cause unrest.
         THE VOICE OF DESTRUCTION, by Hermann Rauschnigg, 1940, page 80

         How on earth could any of the allied powers have ever reached accommodations with that incredible mentality.  And judging by Bush’s behavior in office is it any wonder that political leaders in Germany and Canada have compared Bush to Hitler.  Their concerns are well founded and not hyperbolic.  They are only exaggerations to those knowledgeably deficient as to what Hitler represented and unaware of the degree to which Bush is replaying an odious script.  Hitler began his career in much the same manner Bush is operating today.  The truly heavy blows came later and took years to fructify.
         With one group Hitler left no doubt that compromise was out of the question even though he proved himself an unmitigated liar by signing the Russo-German Pact in August 1939:
         We give the orders; they do what they are told.  Any resistance will be broken ruthlessly.  I will tolerate no opposition.  We recognize only subordination--authority downwards and responsibility upwards....  It is the bourgeoisie's fault that the Marxist disease has taken so deep-rooted a hold on our people.  Marxism will be exterminated root and branch.  Do you think that I shall compromise with marxism when revolution comes?  I make no compromises--none whatsoever.  If I compromise, then Marxism will revive in 30 years' time.  Marxism must be killed.  It is the forerunner of bolshevism.
         SECRET CONVERSATIONS WITH HITLER, Edited by Edouard Calic, 1971. Page 36

         And in Munich on 24 February 1933:
         If others wish to join in this work-- be our guests; I have not withheld my consent.  However, if anyone says to me in one and the same breath: I would like to take up with you, but I reserve the right to take up with Marxism, too; then I have to say: No!
         HITLER, SPEECHES AND PROCLAMATIONS 1932-45, Vol. 1, by Max Domarus, page 257

Go to Chapter 20