The Bush/Hitler Connection, a different point of view
Sunday, October 3. 2004
A lot of articles have been written on the connections between the Bush family and the 3rd Reich by various rather unknown magazines and internet sources. Finally the Guardian took their time to write an article and help to shed some light on this delightful family. I am not saying what his grandfather did is the fault of Bush's son. Just as it is not my fault that my great-grandfather probably killed Soviet soldiers (or even civilians) when he was serving in the Wehrmacht. Nonetheless knowing the history helps understanding the doctrine behind the policies and practices of a mighty family-dynasty. Of course the pro-Bush fraction calls this a conspiracy theory. Still I consider parts of this issue worthy of discussion.
In the recent past (early 2003) an Italian journalist and political scientist (sorry, can't find the source right now) pointed out he saw similarities between the current developments in the political landscape of the US and the late Weimar Republic (which led to the 3rd Reich). Several newspapers and magazines picked this up and investigated further (Neocons dance a Strauss waltz).
Now even the family of the current head of administration is tried to be connected to this sad spot in history. I won't repeat the facts here. You can read all about Prescott Bush, director of the UBC, which was a US-holding of the Thyssens (German company/family supporting the Nazis), in the Guardian article. It is not that interesting he made his profits there because it was nothing special at that time. I would rather like to point out something more significant:
If you are not too naive you might see that Bush's ancestor and his contemporaries knew exactly who and what they were dealing with. Prescott Bush was merely one of the many financiers of the monster called Hitler. Also I am pretty sure none (or at least most) of the Nazi investors didn't have the slightest idea of what was coming up. Not that they wouldn't have invested the money anyway for the profit. They wouldn't have invested not to have to do the needed cover-up preventing the image-loss of their companies. They just didn't foresee this certain dictatorship would leave such a big dark mark in history (-books). They thought it would be forgotten as fast as the rise and fall of other dictatorships earlier and later in history (i.e. see South America).
So it is not important who exactly sponsored Hitler. It is also not important they sponsored Hitler (only to make my point, of course) and not someone else. It is the American economy in general. Bush's sons grandfather and his friends helped to rise a German 'administration' destined to start a war, invested in the relevant economic sectors, brought it to a fall (excuse me, for simplifying here). Is it only me to see a red thread through the history of the United States of America here? In the 1890s the US (under president Cleveland) supported Brazil's pro-american dictator Peixoto against the pro-republican rebels who blocked the harbour of Rio de Janeiro. They broke up the blockade with their warships to protect the interests of American companies like the Standard Oil Company of New York, which was owned by William Rockefeller (brother of John D. Rockefeller). Just another historic exapmple of the US, supporting dictatorships for their economies own good. Going further in history: Who was it so sell weapons to both conflicting parties in Gulf War I, the Iraq and the Iran? Right, Bush senior.
To say it briefly, not only Bush's sons administration but American administrations for decades have been merely following a business concept their fathers and grandfathers have proven to be quite profitable.
... or maybe I'm just too wasted
Matthias
Additional notes: I don't want you to take this as anti-americanism. America is a great country with a great people. I was merely pointing out a red thread through American history from the 1750s up until today. Also I should point out that other imperialistic countries like France or the British Empire did not behave any different from the US, except the US are still following this doctrine of foreign policies.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
Comments
I'm not too sure about the spin being put on granddad Bush. Seeing as Granddad Kennedy was doing the same thing yet there's nary a peep about him. Telling, No? Also - it's extremely disingenuous for us to get on our moral high horse and condemn certain actions taken by others in the past. When we have no idea how we would fare if it were one of us living back then. Remember we've reached certain conclusions as to what's right and wrong because of the sum of our experiences. Both actual and vicariously through our understanding of history. Their history wasn't ours. And the unpleasant fact is that prior to the outbreak of war - and in some cases even after war broke out - many people looked at Hitler's Germany as a possible example for how things should be done. Progressives now like to make the most out of granddaddy Bush's business dealing with the third Reich - when their own political history is deeply wound with that of the National Socialists. Remember it was Americas progressives that championed and even made into law the polices of Eugenics. Hitler was greatly influenced by the "science" of eugenics as well as was openly supported and endorsed by many prominent American progressives of that time.
Many of whom were pacifists as well. And were adamantly opposed to our entering the war in Europe. Presumably because of their admiration for the third Reich. In fact it was the progressive/pacifists of France who would later become a large part of its Vichy government.
Damning for sure.
But does it really say anything about progressives or pacifists today? Not at all.
Well -
With the exception of a bunch of people who claim the progressive title but instead are just rabid anti American dimwits (defacto fascists in that they'll back any thug government the US butts heads with) (as to the wisdom of them butting heads with thug governments.. that's entirely a different topic.. my point was centered only on the fact the poseur progressive crowd would rally in support of Satan if the Americans chose to take him on..) Talk about a long-winded caveat.
Anyway - I think you can see my point.
The ignorance of the grandfather only becomes the crime of the grandson if the grandson chooses not to learn from his grandfather's experiences. And unless you're going to tell me you read minds - that last one is a non-starter.
Plus to waste so much energy on trying to breath life into conspiracies and their hapless creators & believers is the definition of a time waster.
Conspiracies evolve because people either lack the knowledge or the ability necessary to understand the world around them. It's a process in which the gaps in their understanding are filled with embellishments of a subjective nature.
Certainly not an environment someone serious would care to engage.
Hi Mike,
thanks for writing such a long comment. I really enjoyed reading it.
I share the exact same opinion as yours on this topic. I'm not sure if you read my article or just answered to the headline. My article - in fact - was not about grandpa Bush or anyone in particular at all. I tried to describe an agenda in US foreign policies which existed at least since Adams wrote the Monroe Doctrine. I also dislike conspiracy theories. They are usually plain stupid. Almost everything happening in the world can be explained by just having a look at history books (in this case) or at the involved people's backgrounds (in other cases). But most of the time you can easily prove conspiracy theories wrong by simply checking the facts.
Do you have a spell checker? "Alot" is not a word.
Corrected that.. and no.. I don't have a spell checker.