A FEW weeks ago the German minister of justice compared George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler, triggering a big hue and cry in the American media. Consequently, the minister was forced to quit the government.
I join the bandwagon of those who oppose describing Bush as the Hitler of the 21st century because there is a big difference between the two.
Hitler came to power in Germany after a sweeping election victory while Bush was the first American president who entered the White House with the support of a court verdict.
Hitler was famous for his oratorical eloquence and his ability to sway the public through his speeches, some of which lasted for hours. On the other hand, Bush lacks such qualities.
Hitler took power after Germany’s crushing defeat in World War I, which had destroyed everything. The Germans had also suffered humiliation at the hands of the victorious Allies who confiscated their weapons and imposed heavy fines on them.
On the other hand, Bush took over the mantle when the United States looked confident and powerful with the whole world paying obeisance to it. Its economy was also in good shape compared to the past.
The only point that would justify the sacked German minister’s comparison is that Hitler launched continuous wars which finally led to the destruction of Germany and its people.
Bush has also adopted a policy of "permanent war for permanent peace", which will lead his people to the same destiny that met the Germans under Hitler. Hitler had transformed his country into a police state violating freedoms, and Bush is seemingly moving in the same direction.
In this context, it is worth pointing out that a move is afoot in the US to boycott German products with a view to forcing German government and people to toe the Washington line, especially on Iraq.
