Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nazism, like communism, wasn't a purely German phenomenon. Nationalism had been rising across Europe and across the world since the 1800's. National-Socialism was the wedding of the "left-wing"(IE welfare state) with the "right-wing"(IE traditionalism).
Nazism was made for export, which is why even to this day, you have things like Japanese Nazis.
You even have Persian Nazis, and in the Middle-East, one of the most-common reading material for sale is actually Henry Ford's "The International Jew".
In fact, Persia renamed itself Iran because it was part of the "Indo-European" language family, on which Germany developed his concept of "Aryanism" from. Iran was similar to Aryan, and Iran wanted to develop closer ties with Germany.
Hitler had hoped to ally with Britain, either through King Edward, or with people like Sir Oswald Mosley. And he had been talking about it for more than 20 years.
George really name was Albert or Bertie but it was decided he would use a midde name of George, as Albert was seen as to Germanic, at a time when Germany was not popular.
It should be noted though in 1936, Hitler was merely a nationalist leader and had not started wars or killed anyone, and we were trying to make peace with him and it was in 1937 when the former Kings and now Duke of Windsor and Wallis Simpson met with Hitler,
In 1937, the Duke of Windsor, Prince Edward married American socialite and divorcee Wallis Warfield Simpson, for whom Edward had abdicated the British throne.
In late October of 1937, Adolf Hitler welcomed a rather well-known couple to his mountain retreat for a cup of tea. Hitler, by then, was German chancellor — and ws a host, he couldn’t have been quite pleasant.
The Duke’s relationship with the Nazis, as detailed in a secret file, has been examined over the years by historians and journalists, none of whom can agree on whether the papers represented the duke’s actions or were simply Nazi propaganda, as the monarchy has long claimed. Either way he was no longer King and Wallis Simpson was not even a member of the Royal Family nor did he in 1937 represent the people of Britain in any shapew or form.
In terms of Edward and Wallis, they spent a lot of time in the Caribbean, and were largely forgotten about, indeed they were not well liked by the British people, they were also detested by Churchill and had a very strained relationship with the 'Royal Family', the Queen Consort and wife of King George VI was detested by Wallis Simpson, indeed the feeling was mutual.
As for the Nazi salutes it was just horse play back in the 1930's, and given the strained relations with Edward and Wallis Simpson it's unlikely that the Queen Consort had them anywhere neat their children Elizabeth and Margaret. Indeed Edward and Wallis soent their entire lives snubbed by the Royal Family and were outcasts who were never ever seen with the 'Royals' on state occasions.
In terms of political power that it was in the hands of the Government and not the Monarchy, whilst Oswald Mosley and his Black shirts had very little political support and had no political representation in Britain. Mosley and his Blackshirts were famously attacked and inthe 'Battle of Cable Street' on Sunday 4 October 1936 when 2,000 to 3,00 Backshirts tried to March through London's East End, they were met by over 20,000 locals who were only prevented from giving them a good beating by the intervention of 7,000 police officers. Mosley and his Blackshirts were just a small nasty fscist group who were detested by most people in Britain.
I wonder what would have happened if we didn't push back against the USSR, and China Communism at the time by fighting in Vietnam. The world view, and reality of the era was Communist Expansion, the Domino Theory. Would we have looked weak, and enabled Communist expansion to traditionally more Capitalist, free countries? Just something to ponder.
You appear to be rationalizing the systematic murder of Jews in occupied Eastern Europe by calling them German bankers. Please tell me I'm reading this wrong.
Sadly you are not the only one I am reading it was same way.
Step out of line and oppose these 'common sense' policies, you're a traitor. That is what you yourself said to me once, "I know what side you're on" when I gave mild criticism to US terrorism.
I would like to know the virtuous record of those that the U.S. has committed "terrorism" against.
I wonder what would have happened if we didn't push back against the USSR, and China Communism at the time by fighting in Vietnam. The world view, and reality of the era was Communist Expansion, the Domino Theory. Would we have looked weak, and enabled Communist expansion to traditionally more Capitalist, free countries? Just something to ponder.
If We didn't fight the Cold War and let communism spread country by country, continent by continent then the world would be very different today in a very bad way. More poverty, more hunger and more wars.
We had to fight the Cold War without going global nuclear, 1 hand tied behind our backs. That's the reason We didn't turn North Vietnam, Korea, and China into a Parking Lot. WW 2 we didn't have limits. Our goal was to destroy Germany and Japan to get their unconditional surrender. Cold War was different.
I would like to know the virtuous record of those that the U.S. has committed "terrorism" against.
1. Terror is never an acceptable action against others, even if they're bad people.
2. The indigenous minorities in Guatemala (who were not guerrilla fighters btw), the sudanese civilians who died from the bombing of al shifa (we knew it was a medical facility).
The East Timorese, the Cambodians and villagers in Laos (who did nothing to us), the Iraqi civilians (we bombed infrastructure during the gulf war to weaken Iraq's stability), All the thousands who disappeared due to the military dictatorship set up in Argentina during operation condor (as well as Brazil and Chile), cointelpro, a domestic terror program carried out by the FBI that assassinated, tortured, and blackmailed political activists who were in no way bad people, North Koreans in the East who died of flooding thanks to our purposeful attacks on dams. The innocence tortured at abu ghraib, the ethnic cleansing of Diego Garcia, the chemical warfare against the Japanese, the subjugation of the Chinese in the late 19th century.
Either way he was no longer King and Wallis Simpson was not even a member of the Royal Family nor did he in 1937 represent the people of Britain in any shape or form.
As for the Nazi salutes it was just horse play back in the 1930's, and given the strained relations with Edward and Wallis Simpson it's unlikely that the Queen Consort had them anywhere neat their children Elizabeth and Margaret. Indeed Edward and Wallis spent their entire lives snubbed by the Royal Family and were outcasts who were never ever seen with the 'Royals' on state occasions.
I don't think Edward was "disliked". But certainly, for political reasons, he needed to be "kept out" of the royal spotlight because of his marriage to the twice-divorced Wallis, which put the royal family in a bad light, because marrying a divorcee whose previous husband was still alive was against the teachings of the Church of England. So for political-reasons, he was pushed out, although still the rightful King of England(and he always reminds me of Nigel Farage).
Mosley and his Blackshirts were just a small nasty fscist group who were detested by most people in Britain.
East London was primarily a poor, minority-enclave of London. The area was full of Indians, Pakistanis, Afro-Caribbeans, and other colonial subjects living in England. British fascists marching through East London would have been the equivalent of White-Nationalists marching through southside-Chicago.
There is one thing we can probably agree on though, Hitler's "Nationalism" wasn't beneficial for the British, who maintained a very diverse empire. The rise of nationalism generally was against British interests. And Nationalism/anti-imperialism is what ultimately led to the collapse of the British Empire.
Nationalism only really benefits large nations with a lot of resources. Britain is simply too small to be nationalistic in an Age of Empires, or where Nations, such as the United States or Russia or China or India for that matter, are many many times her size.
And the whole point of Britain's entry into WWII, was to protect the British Empire, which they lost anyway. So what did Britain really gain?
I wonder what would have happened if we didn't push back against the USSR, and China Communism at the time by fighting in Vietnam. The world view, and reality of the era was Communist Expansion, the Domino Theory. Would we have looked weak, and enabled Communist expansion to traditionally more Capitalist, free countries? Just something to ponder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
If We didn't fight the Cold War and let communism spread country by country, continent by continent then the world would be very different today in a very bad way. More poverty, more hunger and more wars.
We had to fight the Cold War without going global nuclear, 1 hand tied behind our backs. That's the reason We didn't turn North Vietnam, Korea, and China into a Parking Lot. WW 2 we didn't have limits. Our goal was to destroy Germany and Japan to get their unconditional surrender. Cold War was different.
WW 2 was checkers.....Cold War was chess.
Before you read my response, please watch this video.
Thomas Hobbes wrote a book called "Leviathan". In it he wrote...
"In (a state of nature) there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
His argument is that men are basically naturally-wicked, and without a government we are miserable. And so therefore, we must obey government for our own good.
Or put simply, government prevents the people under their power from going to war with each other.
But a government can only prevent war within its own borders. And each government on Earth, being thus outside of each other's power, is in a state of nature with every other government, and they, like men without government, are wicked, and war between them is always a possibility, if not an everyday threat.
So what is the solution to war? According to Hobbes, and the neo-Hobbesians(which include Marxists), the only way out is to bring the entire world under a single government, who would have the power to prevent war everywhere.
Once the whole world is under the same government, there wouldn't even be a need for a military, only the police. Finally, peace on Earth!
Of course, this idea is much older than Karl Marx and Thomas Hobbes, it is actually the basis for Islam.
Islam is often called the "Religion of Peace", which seems a bit oxymoronic to many. How can a religion spread by the sword be a religion of peace?
That is simple. Because once the "One true faith" is spread around the world, bringing everyone under the same government(religion is just a form of government), then there would finally be Peace on Earth.
As for the Soviet Union, as much as we like to bash them, part of the problem with the Soviet system was that it began in 1918 as a third-world country with basically no industry. It tried hard to "catch up" to the United States but it never came close. And because of the Cold War, and its need to "prevent the spread of Capitalism" as well as to "spread communism", it spent a significantly greater portion of its resources on its military and foreign relations than did the United States.
We complain that the United States spends too much on our military, but military-spending is only 4% of our GDP. The Soviet Union spent about 30% of its entire budget on the military and foreign-policy.
Had the Soviet Union not been economically a century behind the United States from the beginning, and had the Soviets been able to direct more production towards domestic-consumption instead of the military, things would have been much better(likewise with modern North Korea).
Much of the spread of communism was done indirectly. The Soviets would fund political factions in a country like Greece, while employing mass-propaganda, economic-manipulation, and possibly arming/training militant factions to destabilize in the hopes of provoking a revolution
After a revolution began, the Soviets, allied with one of the factions, would claim that that faction was the legitimate government, and that they were intervening on the behalf of the legitimate government to protect them from foreign manipulation, and to bring an end to the violence.
So what would it have looked like if Communism had taken over the entire world? That is a very complicated question. It is probably both better than what you think, and worse than what you think.
It wouldn't be freedom, but it wouldn't be "hunger, poverty, and war" either.
Thomas Hobbes wrote a book called "Leviathan". In it he wrote...
"In (a state of nature) there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
His argument is that men are basically naturally-wicked, and without a government we are miserable. And so therefore, we must obey government for our own good.
Or put simply, government prevents the people under their power from going to war with each other.
But a government can only prevent war within its own borders. And each government on Earth, being thus outside of each other's power, is in a state of nature with every other government, and they, like men without government, are wicked, and war between them is always a possibility, if not an everyday threat.
So what is the solution to war? According to Hobbes, and the neo-Hobbesians(which include Marxists), the only way out is to bring the entire world under a single government, who would have the power to prevent war everywhere.
Once the whole world is under the same government, there wouldn't even be a need for a military, only the police. Finally, peace on Earth!
Of course, this idea is much older than Karl Marx and Thomas Hobbes, it is actually the basis for Islam.
Islam is often called the "Religion of Peace", which seems a bit oxymoronic to many. How can a religion spread by the sword be a religion of peace?
That is simple. Because once the "One true faith" is spread around the world, bringing everyone under the same government(religion is just a form of government), then there would finally be Peace on Earth.
As for the Soviet Union, as much as we like to bash them, part of the problem with the Soviet system was that it began in 1918 as a third-world country with basically no industry. It tried hard to "catch up" to the United States but it never came close. And because of the Cold War, and its need to "prevent the spread of Capitalism" as well as to "spread communism", it spent a significantly greater portion of its resources on its military and foreign relations than did the United States.
We complain that the United States spends too much on our military, but military-spending is only 4% of our GDP. The Soviet Union spent about 30% of its entire budget on the military and foreign-policy.
Had the Soviet Union not been economically a century behind the United States from the beginning, and had the Soviets been able to direct more production towards domestic-consumption instead of the military, things would have been much better(likewise with modern North Korea).
Much of the spread of communism was done indirectly. The Soviets would fund political factions in a country like Greece, while employing mass-propaganda, economic-manipulation, and possibly arming/training militant factions to destabilize in the hopes of provoking a revolution
After a revolution began, the Soviets, allied with one of the factions, would claim that that faction was the legitimate government, and that they were intervening on the behalf of the legitimate government to protect them from foreign manipulation, and to bring an end to the violence.
So what would it have looked like if Communism had taken over the entire world? That is a very complicated question. It is probably both better than what you think, and worse than what you think.
It wouldn't be freedom, but it wouldn't be "hunger, poverty, and war" either.
Even as a communist (not Hobbesian or a Marxist) I find a Central state against the interests of the people as power ends up with their own objectives that can contradict the needs of different localities.
Out of curiosity, what is your preferred solution to these problems?
Even as a communist (not Hobbesian or a Marxist) I find a Central state against the interests of the people as power ends up with their own objectives that can contradict the needs of different localities.
Out of curiosity, what is your preferred solution to these problems?
My friend Winterfall, there is no solution.
The "ideal" would either be a world without any states(not to be confused with open-borders), or a world consisting of only one state.
The evils of a "one-world government" seem obvious to most people. A one-world government is simply too big to govern without mass-propaganda and greater limits on freedom, and it would become more despotic in time because there would be no outside "power" to check it.
As George Orwell wrote.... "The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed."
Without a rival, the government would have little interest in "excellence" or "advancement". Instead it would focus on stability and integration. And its hierarchy would become increasingly aristocratic, promoting loyalty/trustworthiness over ability.
And a world without states(IE anarchy) is impossible. Anarchy is simply incapable of defending itself from states. Anarchy has been crushed everywhere it has been tried. And even if it wasn't completely crushed, it has been undermined, and will ultimately cease to exist.
Power rules the world. The only way to defend yourself from power, is more power. The only thing power wants, is more power.
I would love to abolish power, but it will never happen. In this video the best part starts at ~10:15, but you should watch the whole thing if you have time.
It is damned if you do, damned if you don't. Damned.
And as the world becomes more economically/socially-integrated and interdependent there will eventually be something like a one-world government, if we don't blow ourselves up before that(I'm kinda hoping for the latter).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
