What Is The Real Difference Between Adolf Hitler Addressing The Masses And GW Bush Doing The Same?

Question

They both had bright eyed people in shock and awe. And They both went on to deliver shock and awe, if you get me?

J im made me laugh. It was like I don't know. Protector of a million dead so far.

I like to point out that no one saved me during WW2 because I was not born then. Also Hitler could have killed my parents I couldnt care less so no one saved me at all!

Answer 1

OOOH, I know the answer to this! Hitler had the nifty little mustache!
Let's see, other differences,
Hitler spoke German,
Hitler was a thinker,
Hitler actually felt he was doing the right thing, not just killing for money.

Answer 2

There is way too many excellent answers on this very thought provoking as well as a hilarious question - the number of response and the contents of those responses tell us that. The Asker, however, has responsibility to find the best answer. Let me, therefore, give a plain and simple answer:

The real difference between George Bush and Hitler is nothing - The are all the same. The logical people on this earth, the hamane kind will say George Bush and Hitler both killed people, maimed people, uprooted people. Whether you kill more than 550,000 people or millions, it is the same. There's only one death penalty that can be handed out regardless of the number of murders committed.

The only difference that can be seen is due to time. Hitler is not in power but his legacy is being carried on by the Israelis and are being currently used by the Israelis on the Palestinians and the Lebanese. George Bush is still in power and causing deaths everyday.

Answer 3

Adolf Hitler could talk fluently at length. He killed a lot of people.
The difference between Adolf and George is quite stark. Bush cannot say more than four words fluently with intelligent meaning. But he has caused the deaths of many ,many innocent people all over the world. Isn't Bush a right wing Christian? Why is he scared that other countries have WMDs. They will never match the amount thye USA has tucked away!

Answer 4

I will answer your question based only on the context that you asked, that is "The real difference between Hitler and Bush addressing the masses". I will put aside the issue of the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes, or the Iraq war, as they are not relevant to your question.

Hitler possessed excellent oratorical skills, intensity, and passion to express his beliefs convincingly to the people. Hitler's speeches mesmerized his audience and brought them to wild frenzy (just watch the historical footages of Hitler's speeches to see this). It is a matter of fact that 8 out of every 10 Germans believed and supported Hitler.

Bush doesn't posses such oratorical talent nor the convincing power to encourage the American people to unify under his leadership. This is the reason why Americans are so greatly divided on many of Bush's ideas and beliefs. I'd seen the major speeches of G W Bush and I find them not convincing enough.

Answer 5

humorous, Hitler had Muslim help. How do you experience about the three,000 those who were murdered with the help of Muslims (some gay) in lengthy island city on Sept 11, 2001 ? Now are you going to attack Sarah Palins little ones,,,,like different Democrats ?

Answer 6

Hitler did not need a tele prompter. Hitler held his arm up in the air in a salute and spoke directly to a people who were going through a terrible depression.
G. Bush ? Well where should I start ????
RoyS

Answer 7

The masses listened to Hitler.

Answer 8

This does not mean that I approve of Hitler in any way, shape, or form...but Hitler was one hell of an effective speaker. Psychopathic, malevolent, manipulative...but charismatic and genuinely gifted with words. And backed up by Josef Goebbels, who also had what it took to manipulate crowds through speeches. W is strictly noncharismatic as well as ungrammatical.

Fresh from their defeat in WWI, the Germans saw Hitler as their deliverer. Something else was going on between Americans and W. I think a lot of voters bought that persona that W's political machine made for him - that he's "just folks," an old boy from Texas, well-meaning and not scarily bright. A lot of people seem to think that they personally aren't very bright and have great distrust for anyone who does seem highly intelligent, as if they thought it connected directly with being unethical. W is visibly and obviously not too bright, and his machine has capitalized on that by making many insecure people think that his limitations mean that he is honest. I think many of the people who voted him in wanted someone they perceived as just like themselves as their president. As for "just folks," though, W comes from a family that has more money than you and I can ever imagine, and they are from Maine, which they don't seem to emphasize because, for some reason, Maine doesn't come across as folksy as Texas.

Hitler, by contrast, came from an authentic, struggling, lower-middle-class family.

Hitler never attempted to cozy up to people in W's style. They viewed him as a mythic creature, the re-incarnation of the medieval German emperor Frederick Barbarossa, who was supposed to "rise again." Hitler stepped into this myth and wore it well.

Answer 9

I didn't vote for Bush, but Hitler and Bush are in totally different leagues. Hitler murdered his own SS troops for political gain the minute he came into power. He ordered the executions of millions of Jews, homosexuals, intellectuals, and anyone he considered an "enemy of the Reich". He killed off some of his own best generals, made absolutely stunnning military blunders (although I know you can argue that Bush may have done the same with Iraq) and was truly evil. I may not agree with the Bush administration or its policies, but compared to Hitler in regards to evil, Bush doesn't even come close.

Answer 10

One real difference is ONE IS DEAD and the other IS ALIVE.

Secondly, Hitler was a genocidal envision-er, while Bush is a promoter of his style of democracy.

They both made bad decisions to envision their own reckless ideas on, how to control the World and not just their own Homeland.

Answer 11

Hitler was a maniacal ruler and ruled with fear over the staff under him and had them follow his orders or be executed by his SS and Gestapo. I think there is a similar setup with the CIA, but a little more subtle in the eyes of the public. Besides, George would not look good in a leather coat and a Moustache anyway. I also hear his German is awful.