Both are idealogues and absolutists:
Ahmadinejad is an Islamist, and Hitler was a Nazi.
Both are advocates of genocide:
Hitler advocated genocide of the 'undesirables' according to a insane application of nietzsche's ideas (Hitler was too stupid to understand Fred).
Ahmadinejad advocates violent Jihad, which is essentially an Islamic doctrine of genocide upon non-muslims. He also believes that the great Mahdi will return soon in a great end-of-the world flurrey of Islamic war. The lunatic even built ceremonial platforms and facilities for the Mahdi when he returns from Allah's heaven to Iran.
How do they differ:
Hitler didnt beat his chest like Ahmadman does. Ahmadman openly makes threats on almost a daily basis, where Hitler took a more deceptive route.
What similarities are there from Hitlers day:
Despite the most violent and intolerant idealogical resumes, naive and weak people (liberals) like Chamberlin, thought they could be reasoned with.
2006-12-07 13:03:32 · 20 answers · asked by Thoughtful Tristan 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Hitler is dead.
Ahmadinejad is not, yet.
2006-12-07 13:11:56 · answer #1 · answered by Bawney 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Hitler had to balance his chances in second-generation warfare. When he went into France, he had fewer tanks than the French, and the Pz III wasn't quite as good as the best French tanks, as an example. He had fewer troops and artillery tubes than his opponents, and they were largely horse-drawn across difficult terrain. And once he started, everybody new it.
Ahmadinejad can fight a fourth-generation war wherever and whenever he wants and needn't let anybody know he's doing it, unless and until the mushroom cloud appears over Tel Aviv or New York, and might even be able to maintain deniability then.
The Royal Navy eventually got Lend-Lease through the U.S. Congress. It'll be interesting to see if the Saudi littoral force (basically to balance the Iranian subs they bought from Russia and Boghammer surface craft) will get through this Congress.
2006-12-07 13:42:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
they have similarities in ideology
but Hitler had the means, Ahmadinejad doesn't really...
Hitler had the best military technology on Earth at the time, probably a good 5 years ahead of even the U.S. on average...
Iran seems to be in the 1960s as far as military technology goes... a good 40-50 years behind Europe and the U.S....
also, Hitler actually attacked other countries directly and did so VERY successfully... the guy in Iran talks a lot, but doesn't really do much, maybe give some money to some terrorists for some bombings... no direct large military actions...
some of the same ideas, but one took action, the other doesn't seem to be able to...
2006-12-07 13:16:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Congratulations my friend,you asked a question that I know you know the answer to but I'll explain anyway(especially since the answers you recieved have no merit for the insight you have )
Hitler used the media in his country and propaganda to exterminate the Jewish people blaming them for the ills in his society.
Ahmadinejad uses his religion(perverted of course) and uses the world media to blame the jews for the ills in his world(as you can see by the answers you recieved)
a personal note on the latest report pretty much says by the left that we are willing to trade the Jewish nation of Israel,to have peace in the middle east,that should tell you what influence we are giving Ahmadinejad in our media and how blind the common person is here in America
2006-12-07 13:24:29 · answer #4 · answered by stygianwolfe 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The Iranians President hasn't the power of Hitler, the Ayatollah is the power figure. It's called a church state, and has offered to have talks with USA, not that any agreements are apt to take place, talking leads to a better understanding of the problems of both parties. As long as they are talking no bullets are flying or bombs droping and nobody is getting killed. In hindsight if we had talked to Hussein we could still be talking and saved thousands of lives.
2006-12-07 13:22:38 · answer #5 · answered by longroad 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The main difference is that Ahmadinejad is only threatening where Hitler put in practice what he was saying.
Today I doubt that Ahmadinejad will do what he says as he knows that if he attacks Israel, his country will be destroyed shortly after.
2006-12-07 13:19:36 · answer #6 · answered by kl55000 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Hitler consistently invaded his neighbors, Iran does not. Hitler took action, Iran threatens a lot but so far has not done anything.
Why does everyone have to keep comparing modern folks to a pathetic mentally ill dead German dictator?
2006-12-07 13:21:07 · answer #7 · answered by ash 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
They are way to similar than i can take. I honestly think we need to do something about it. I am confident our president would support us being there, except he sees that our country isn't ready for another war. Most of the liberals that follow that media and Al Gore for guidance and actually believe that report democrats just came out with about iraq just wouldn't take another war. The democrats would bring our country down and i really don't want to see that happen
2006-12-07 13:10:27 · answer #8 · answered by THEBurgerKing 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Good contrast & comparison Thoughtful Tristan!
I had never heard about the ceremonial platforms. Weird.
I agree that they can't be reasoned with, but it looks like Bush will have to go through the motions. Bush has got guts and will look deep into the devil's eyes, but won't be fooled.
2006-12-07 13:14:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Bush and Hitler are both extremist and hate liberty and freedom
2006-12-07 13:27:13 · answer #10 · answered by democatUSA 1 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Both hate the Jews and wish to destroy them. So there is not much difference.
2006-12-07 13:13:06 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋