|
On April 20 2013 05:05 eeniebear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 04:47 HellRoxYa wrote:On April 20 2013 04:35 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 03:36 Asymmetric wrote:On April 20 2013 03:15 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 02:35 jello_biafra wrote:On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . . I don't know so much about Italy but Nazi Germany's economic plans were a total shambles (also, Hitler had nothing to do with them, he appointed others to take care of the economy), it was very short term and short sighted planning that required the country to be constantly expanding to continue growth and led directly to WW2, they got involved in the Spanish civil war because they needed more resources, it's a big part of the reason why they annexed Austria then the Sudetenland etc. The house building and highway building programs had to be stopped in 1937-8 because the workers were needed to build the Westwall because they knew some serious consequences would come from their actions. Not to mention the fact that their constant pogroms in the mid 1930s hurt the economy pretty badly (1935 was the worst year, they stopped it for the 1936 Berlin Olympics) because instead of working people were out smashing up shops and beating people up. True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that). The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops. That is some impressive revisionism of history. Hitler was not a victim of circumstance. When Bavarian beer halls rang with his speeches long before he ever tasted power he spoke of LebensraumNever ending expansion for the Aryan Race was his goal from the beginning and he never hid it. Of course, but only as the population would support the territory gains. His only major territorial ambition was Czechoslovakia and western Poland. That would have given the German population enough territory for a couple of centuries. All other territorial concerns would be for future generations, as far as Hitler was concerned. The circumstances of the war once it got out of hand made it so that Hitler had to secure a lot of strategic positions, so he ended up taking over a lot of territory that he never initially planned for. There are a few speeches and conversations where Hitler explicity says that what became World War II was far beyond anything he had imagined, as he had hoped to spend most of his time not as a war leader, but as a peacetime leader working to build up Germany domestically. All through Mein Kampf and especially his "Secret Book" England is seen as Germany's natural ally. And the Greater German Reich was just an afterthought? I'm enthralled by your revisionism. It's often overlooked that Hitler was not just a political leader. He was also a philosopher. He had a vision for the next 1000 years. And never in his writing did he target western Europe, except for reclaiming the Rhineland, the Ruhr, and Alsace-Lorraine. South Tyrol he was willing to let the Italians keep. His immediate territorial goal for his lifetime was western Poland and German Czechoslovakia ("Hitler's Secret Book"). In the decades and centuries to come, he would have liked to see a German empire expand to the east, while in the process eliminating Bolshevism. Stalin short-circuited this vision by massing troops and tank divisions in eastern Poland, prompting Hitler to respond. (closed-door meeting in 1944 I think with Carl Mannerheim, president of Finland, of which an audio tape exists) Guys, I'm not making this stuff up, it comes from Hitler's own mouth in private conversations, as well as war documents, and his own writings on the Third Reich.
You may not be making this up but David Irwing, Pat Buchanan and all the other revisionist are making it up and you're just lapping it up hook, line, and sinker. This idea that Hitler was somehow a misunderstood genius who if only left alone would have created the great Germanian Utopia and everything that went wrong in the 30's and 40's is to be blamed on Churchill and Stalin is ridiculous and has been proven wrong and rejected many many times. If Hitler really only wanted a little piece of Poland and nothing else (and as others have pointed it out even if this were true how does that make it okay?) then why was Barberossa being planned even before Hitler invaded Poland? And Hitler has always said that his main goal in life was to defeat Bolshevism. How do you propose he do that without invading Russia? And of course dont' forget that Germany desperately needed the oil fields and other resources in the Ural. But please tell me how none of these things were his fault again?
Quite honestly I highly suspect arguing with you is quite pointless as I imagine you have heard all these arguments before and I'm sure you have 1000 refutations that are all in Hitler's secret writings that the mainstream historians just choose to ignore in order to placate the Illuminati order of Jewish conspirators.
|
On April 20 2013 05:07 eeniebear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 04:51 Quincel wrote:
I'm more impressed by the idea that conquering 'only' Czechslovakia and half of Poland would have been somehow 'OK'. The territory he wanted back was German anyway up until Versailles gave it to the Poles. It used to be West Prussia. Just taking back stolen land.
Yeah just like Alsace-Lorraine
I bet the german minority there needed to be protected from the french military raping their women
seriously...
|
On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . .
I will not comment on Mussolini as I know little of Italy from that time period. Hitler on the other hand did nothing special, he continued projects already started and later basically caused his country to go bankrupt, he had to start the war as without plundering other countries Germany was on quick way to bankruptcy. Such an economic genius.
|
On April 20 2013 02:15 clementdudu wrote:
We (french people) beheaded our last monarchs so...yeah....pretty republican;)
Did you forget the ones after that were not beheaded, but exiled 
|
On April 20 2013 04:51 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 04:12 McBengt wrote:On April 20 2013 03:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
Sure McBengt, how are you with kids btw? I generally prefer them with some garlic and a touch of basil, why? Hm, I approve of your Monarch-pushing policy, but on the other hand don't really like the possibility of Mini-wombat devouring
Do they drink milk? In that case they are quite safe, I'm lactose intolerant, as it were.
|
Dane here. I am pretty sure that the Queen is a net positive because of creation of tourism and goodwill internationally. Having the oldest unbroken royal family in the world and a relatively popular current and upcoming ruler, makes it kind of bad to remove it right now.
On the other hand, our constitution is extremely outdated and if people read it without knowing our history, they would think that we are a dictatorial monarchy since the constitution is giving the regent a lot of power over the political proces.
It is not a problem since in 1920 when the king fired a socialistic/center government. The government had been serving during WW1. When the loss for Germany was inevitable, Denmark made a claim on the northern part of Germany lost during 1864. The socialistic/center government made some calls on who could vote and the opposition was pretty angry about some of these.
The vote happened and the result was relatively clear. The northern part became danish and the southern part was german with about 4 to 1 in favour of germans. The danish opposition wanted the land Denmark didn't win in the elections in to become an international zone, since Flensbourg was a very important city in that zone. The king fired the prime minister after the biggest company owners in the country and the opposition had asked him to do so, while appointing a government lead by the opposition. After that, the workers prepared for a strike and because of the very widespread opposition towards the kings actions the king gave it up and a new election was held. At that election the opposition crushed the government the king turned down and they all lived happily ever after. The end.
|
On April 20 2013 05:05 eeniebear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 04:47 HellRoxYa wrote:On April 20 2013 04:35 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 03:36 Asymmetric wrote:On April 20 2013 03:15 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 02:35 jello_biafra wrote:On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . . I don't know so much about Italy but Nazi Germany's economic plans were a total shambles (also, Hitler had nothing to do with them, he appointed others to take care of the economy), it was very short term and short sighted planning that required the country to be constantly expanding to continue growth and led directly to WW2, they got involved in the Spanish civil war because they needed more resources, it's a big part of the reason why they annexed Austria then the Sudetenland etc. The house building and highway building programs had to be stopped in 1937-8 because the workers were needed to build the Westwall because they knew some serious consequences would come from their actions. Not to mention the fact that their constant pogroms in the mid 1930s hurt the economy pretty badly (1935 was the worst year, they stopped it for the 1936 Berlin Olympics) because instead of working people were out smashing up shops and beating people up. True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that). The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops. That is some impressive revisionism of history. Hitler was not a victim of circumstance. When Bavarian beer halls rang with his speeches long before he ever tasted power he spoke of LebensraumNever ending expansion for the Aryan Race was his goal from the beginning and he never hid it. Of course, but only as the population would support the territory gains. His only major territorial ambition was Czechoslovakia and western Poland. That would have given the German population enough territory for a couple of centuries. All other territorial concerns would be for future generations, as far as Hitler was concerned. The circumstances of the war once it got out of hand made it so that Hitler had to secure a lot of strategic positions, so he ended up taking over a lot of territory that he never initially planned for. There are a few speeches and conversations where Hitler explicity says that what became World War II was far beyond anything he had imagined, as he had hoped to spend most of his time not as a war leader, but as a peacetime leader working to build up Germany domestically. All through Mein Kampf and especially his "Secret Book" England is seen as Germany's natural ally. And the Greater German Reich was just an afterthought? I'm enthralled by your revisionism. It's often overlooked that Hitler was not just a political leader. He was also a philosopher. He had a vision for the next 1000 years. And never in his writing did he target western Europe, except for reclaiming the Rhineland, the Ruhr, and Alsace-Lorraine. South Tyrol he was willing to let the Italians keep. His immediate territorial goal for his lifetime was western Poland and German Czechoslovakia ("Hitler's Secret Book"). In the decades and centuries to come, he would have liked to see a German empire expand to the east, while in the process eliminating Bolshevism. Stalin short-circuited this vision by massing troops and tank divisions in eastern Poland, prompting Hitler to respond. (closed-door meeting in 1944 I think with Carl Mannerheim, president of Finland, of which an audio tape exists) Guys, I'm not making this stuff up, it comes from Hitler's own mouth in private conversations, as well as war documents, and his own writings on the Third Reich.
You are making a lot of stuff up. Hitler was planning invasion of USSR quite in advance, it was not spur of a moment thing, that is utterly nonsensical. You are really having some rather faulty view of history.
|
Northern Ireland23663 Posts
On April 20 2013 05:56 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 04:51 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 20 2013 04:12 McBengt wrote:On April 20 2013 03:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
Sure McBengt, how are you with kids btw? I generally prefer them with some garlic and a touch of basil, why? Hm, I approve of your Monarch-pushing policy, but on the other hand don't really like the possibility of Mini-wombat devouring Do they drink milk? In that case they are quite safe, I'm lactose intolerant, as it were.
He's been clinging on to my partners innards, too terrified to enter a world where baby-eating Swedes with a penchant for vehicular regicide dwell. His reticence to emerge should be lessened a bit now though
|
On April 20 2013 05:07 eeniebear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 04:51 Quincel wrote:
I'm more impressed by the idea that conquering 'only' Czechslovakia and half of Poland would have been somehow 'OK'. The territory he wanted back was German anyway up until Versailles gave it to the Poles. It used to be West Prussia. Just taking back stolen land.
And it was Polish before Germany, Russia and Austria destroyed Poland. And what about Czechoslovakia it was also German ? No it wasn't.
|
On April 20 2013 06:02 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 05:56 McBengt wrote:On April 20 2013 04:51 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 20 2013 04:12 McBengt wrote:On April 20 2013 03:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
Sure McBengt, how are you with kids btw? I generally prefer them with some garlic and a touch of basil, why? Hm, I approve of your Monarch-pushing policy, but on the other hand don't really like the possibility of Mini-wombat devouring Do they drink milk? In that case they are quite safe, I'm lactose intolerant, as it were. He's been clinging on to my partners innards, too terrified to enter a world where baby-eating Swedes with a penchant for vehicular regicide dwell. His reticence to emerge should be lessened a bit now though
Vehicular manslaughter, I insist. Clearly, it was an accident.
I shall endeavour to curb my cannibalistic predisposition, in the interest of hastening the emergence of aforementioned infant of the man-wombat variety. A radiant specimen, I am sure, with his mother's eyes and his father's fur.
|
On April 20 2013 05:59 radiatoren wrote:
Dane here. I am pretty sure that the Queen is a net positive because of creation of tourism and goodwill internationally. Having the oldest unbroken royal family in the world and a relatively popular current and upcoming ruler, makes it kind of bad to remove it right now.
Don't the Imperial house of Japan claim to be descendants of 660BC Emperor Jimmu?
Semantics anyway. Tradition has always been a dubious reason to keep something intact.
|
The Queen (and soon King) has no power over the state. And it makes for a nice show plus probably some positive benefits for international relationships, tourism, job opportunities, etc. I have no problems with it.
|
Canada11258 Posts
On April 20 2013 02:29 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 01:57 Iyerbeth wrote:Ok, so I was considering putting some time in to write up a decent anti-monarch reply to dismiss the common claims but early in the thread it didn't really seem worth it, but the last couple of pages have proved it might just be worth it. So here goes... Before I begin presenting the case, it's important I make a couple of points clear. The reasons I'm about to post aren't what caused me to take a republican stance they merely support the position. The reason I oppose the monarchy is simply that hereditary power and wealth by birth right to a single family is abhorrent to every sensibility I have. The reasons I will include here are primarily arguments against the monarchist position from a British perspective. Finally, whilst I may not quote www.republic.org.uk often, my early education in the subject was informed from that site so many of the arguments could probably be found in a similar form somewhere on that site, therefore it seems only fair I credit them (though I don't entirely agree with all their positions either). The Tourism ArgumentThe ClaimOne of the most often repeated claims of the benefits of having a British monarchy is that they bring in tourist cash. Were we to get rid of the monarchy the cost to the british tourist industry would be huge. ResponseReally, this claim should be dismissed without any evidence to the contrary. Even if it were true, is "well foreign people think it's kinda funny" a good way to decide on the head of state? Or maybe decisions of who gets to be the head of state should be made on which option gets most money from tourists? These are obvious preposterous positions. Fortunately, they're also based on a complete falsehood. The Association of Leading Visitor Attractions tracks the number of tourists visiting attractions over time. Their figures for 2012 show (after enough scrolling) that not only do the royals not play a particularly big role in tourism, it might actually be better if they vacated their properties permanently such that we could open them as museums In case you had any concerns of the potential bias in the figures, the president of ALVA is the Duke of York. The Finances ArgumentThe ClaimIn a similar way to the tourist argument, this claim is that the royals bring in such an income to the country that it could lost billions in lost revenue if we no longer had them. Fortunately many monarchists even wouldn't go that far and simply assert that they don't cost much and perhaps even result in a slight income. ResponseThis claim should really be considered as absurd as the tourist one in terms of the pure 'money' argument in that it's absurd to make a decision about who should be head of state on the idea that we might make a bit of cash. As it is the cost of the monarchy has increased almost every year for at least the past 20 years. The civil list cost has officially been locked since 2010 at £7.9million ( source) and yet we find that the cost has increased every year between 1991 and 200 until it dropped mildly in 2009 following a £2 million rise the year before ( source). They managed to rally themselves though for 2010, dropping again in 2011 by £700,000 to a mere £13.5 million according to the official royal finances. With all this money over the £7.9m though, are they funding themselves? ..no, of course not. The lock on the civil list came after 10 years of huge over payments and the money is taken from the 'civil list reserve' to make up the difference, which is to say the money they didn't need to spend in the 90s ( source). But in 2011 the civil list reserve was running out, so rather than maintaining the "freeze" of finances which had resulted in more money every year a new system has been installed known as the sovereign grant. This grant gives the Queen 15% of the crown estates net revenue which even according to conservative sources bemoaning it isn't more is an increase of £5 million for this year. But wait, there's more! When you take a lot of the costs in to account we get the official cost of the royals at 62p per head in 2010 ( source). This number has obviously increased, but since I can't find more recent data we'll stick with 62p for now. It's important to notice that the official figures refuse to include security which is likely another £100m according to even pro monarch papers in the Briain ( source). The estimated costs in total end up being around £202million in 2010 ( source) which makes it roughly 100 times more expensive to maintain than the salary of the Irish president ( source) for example. Maintaining an entire family of wealthy elite isn't cheap, and it certainly doesn't bring money in to the country. The Stability ArgumentThe ClaimMany of the most developed countries in the world have monarchies. Indeed, many of the most stable in the world too. Without a monarchy, we would lose that stability. ResponseTo this claim there is the obvious retort that many countries, including the US, are able to be stable and developed without a monarchy, and the fact that many monarchs around the world are anything but (for example, Saudi Arabia and Thailand). The point is that, it's more likely that stable countries keep their monarchs than that monarchs produce stable countries, not least because of the examples throughout history of countries after the removal of monarchs. Britain won't fall apart if the Windsors are removed from power. The "They Don't Really Do Anything" ArgumentThe ClaimThey're relatively benign, and they don't really do anything or cause any harm so we don't really have any reason to get rid of them. ResponseIt is certainly true that the current monarch doesn't really do that much, but that's no reason at all to leave an unaccountable, unelected head of state. Especially when that unaccountable head of state provides all the authority for parliament. Even more so when that power includes a royal veto which is still used and which has been offered 39 times ( source). On top of that, we're still left with the position of a head of state which is not only undemocratic, but is also the very definition of anti-democratic nepotism!
Unfortunately I don't have time to finish this right now, but I'll cover topics such as 'Tradition' 'Hard Working and Charitable' and 'International Diplomacy' and the laughable 'Trained from Birth' (which I wasn't going to until it actually came up in this thread) tomorrow. On the stability part as George Orwell noted the monarchy does provide a unique role in preventing dictatorships as any move from the monarch themselves towards a dictatorship would immediately result in republicanism and any head of government isn't actually the head of state and can't use pomp and ceremony to enhance themselves and can't really use the armed forces either.
Well at least in Canada that would be the case. The last time the Governor General (just the representative, not even the Royalty itself) contradicted our prime minister was 1926 with the King-Byng Wingding. If it ever happened again, someone else would wrap themselves in the flag and win an election touting Canadian autonomy. Basically there's no point to getting rid of it because it doesn't affect us. If it did affect us, we would immediately kick out the last remnant of the monarchy. Because that has not happened, we just carry on.
|
On April 20 2013 05:23 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 05:05 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 04:47 HellRoxYa wrote:On April 20 2013 04:35 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 03:36 Asymmetric wrote:On April 20 2013 03:15 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 02:35 jello_biafra wrote:On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . . I don't know so much about Italy but Nazi Germany's economic plans were a total shambles (also, Hitler had nothing to do with them, he appointed others to take care of the economy), it was very short term and short sighted planning that required the country to be constantly expanding to continue growth and led directly to WW2, they got involved in the Spanish civil war because they needed more resources, it's a big part of the reason why they annexed Austria then the Sudetenland etc. The house building and highway building programs had to be stopped in 1937-8 because the workers were needed to build the Westwall because they knew some serious consequences would come from their actions. Not to mention the fact that their constant pogroms in the mid 1930s hurt the economy pretty badly (1935 was the worst year, they stopped it for the 1936 Berlin Olympics) because instead of working people were out smashing up shops and beating people up. True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that). The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops. That is some impressive revisionism of history. Hitler was not a victim of circumstance. When Bavarian beer halls rang with his speeches long before he ever tasted power he spoke of LebensraumNever ending expansion for the Aryan Race was his goal from the beginning and he never hid it. Of course, but only as the population would support the territory gains. His only major territorial ambition was Czechoslovakia and western Poland. That would have given the German population enough territory for a couple of centuries. All other territorial concerns would be for future generations, as far as Hitler was concerned. The circumstances of the war once it got out of hand made it so that Hitler had to secure a lot of strategic positions, so he ended up taking over a lot of territory that he never initially planned for. There are a few speeches and conversations where Hitler explicity says that what became World War II was far beyond anything he had imagined, as he had hoped to spend most of his time not as a war leader, but as a peacetime leader working to build up Germany domestically. All through Mein Kampf and especially his "Secret Book" England is seen as Germany's natural ally. And the Greater German Reich was just an afterthought? I'm enthralled by your revisionism. It's often overlooked that Hitler was not just a political leader. He was also a philosopher. He had a vision for the next 1000 years. And never in his writing did he target western Europe, except for reclaiming the Rhineland, the Ruhr, and Alsace-Lorraine. South Tyrol he was willing to let the Italians keep. His immediate territorial goal for his lifetime was western Poland and German Czechoslovakia ("Hitler's Secret Book"). In the decades and centuries to come, he would have liked to see a German empire expand to the east, while in the process eliminating Bolshevism. Stalin short-circuited this vision by massing troops and tank divisions in eastern Poland, prompting Hitler to respond. (closed-door meeting in 1944 I think with Carl Mannerheim, president of Finland, of which an audio tape exists) Guys, I'm not making this stuff up, it comes from Hitler's own mouth in private conversations, as well as war documents, and his own writings on the Third Reich. You may not be making this up but David Irwing, Pat Buchanan and all the other revisionist are making it up and you're just lapping it up hook, line, and sinker. This idea that Hitler was somehow a misunderstood genius who if only left alone would have created the great Germanian Utopia and everything that went wrong in the 30's and 40's is to be blamed on Churchill and Stalin is ridiculous and has been proven wrong and rejected many many times. If Hitler really only wanted a little piece of Poland and nothing else (and as others have pointed it out even if this were true how does that make it okay?) then why was Barberossa being planned even before Hitler invaded Poland? And Hitler has always said that his main goal in life was to defeat Bolshevism. How do you propose he do that without invading Russia? And of course dont' forget that Germany desperately needed the oil fields and other resources in the Ural. But please tell me how none of these things were his fault again? Quite honestly I highly suspect arguing with you is quite pointless as I imagine you have heard all these arguments before and I'm sure you have 1000 refutations that are all in Hitler's secret writings that the mainstream historians just choose to ignore in order to placate the Illuminati order of Jewish conspirators.
Hitler's battle with Bolshevism was primarily fought in Germany. He wanted to smash it there, and he succeeded, to the benefit of the world, in my opinion. Russia would have had to come much, much later than he had anticipated, probably after he was dead and a new Fuehrer was at the helm. Hitler had no intention at the start of the war to open up two fronts. He knew from experience how badly that can end up. He spends a great deal of time addressing this in his second book. His blitzkrieg into Russia was something he desperately wanted to avoid, but clear aggression from Stalin forced his hand. Again I refer you to his conversation with Mannerheim.
As far as invading Poland being "okay," I think the rescue of Danzig justifies it perfectly. If your people are being oppressed just on the other side of a political border, and you have the military means to stop it and bring that territory under control, you do it. And per his agreement with Stalin, Hitler let him take the rest of Poland.
Re: Barbarossa being planned in advance - Every military power must have contigency plans. I don't fault anyone for having strategies worked for any situation. It's just responsible military leadership so that reaction time can be minimized. The Wehrmacht had strategies devised for an invasion of Ireland. They never did. The USA most likely has army, navy, and air force files on Chinese targets. If they didn't, they would be derelict in their duties.
So yes, I have read a fair bit of David Irving. Also Ernst Zundel. Would you mind telling me who your sources are that have proven them wrong? It would be intellectually irresponsible if I didn't investigate the information you use to arrive at your opinion.
And the reason I brought the subject up is because Fascism is somewhat similar to a monarchy in that power is concentrated at the very top.
|
I normally avoid these threads like the plague but the OP is just so full of lies and factual misrepresentation that I felt the necessity of speaking out. Talking politics rationally and on an informed manner is cool. Talking politics based on personal dogmas and misinformation is another alternative, but don’t expect people to take you too seriously.
On April 19 2013 05:00 Arctic Daishi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +While certainly some countries have very strong republican histories, such as the Czech Republic and Poland, others still cling to the trappings of unelected monarchs and aristocrats. Needless to say, these monarchs and aristocrats have very little real power, but the fact that they still exist at all is baffling. Even left-wing and libertarian groups that one would suspect to be opposed to monarchy, are okay with these unelected heads of state for the most part.
From where are you getting your history?! How is it that these countries have a strong republic tradition? The Czechs had a monarchy from the the XII century all the way to WWI and after a bit went straight into communism until 1989! Similar thing with Poland. Really, it makes me wonder if you are just making everything up as you go.
On April 19 2013 05:00 Arctic Daishi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +It's often said, and rightly so, that the United States is the first 'new' country. We're a country founded on the principles of freedom, republicanism, rule of law, gun ownership, and equality for all peoples. The idea of being born into power or nobility has always been abhorrent and foreign to us. Many have even pointed out that the reason the European Union is allowed to exist in it's current form, is because the idea of being ruled by unelected elites is a fundamental part of their cultures.
Now that paragraph I dont know if its the result of some wierd chauvinsim or just bad education. The vast majortity , and I mean maybe all except 5 countires, of Latin America were based under the ideas of equality, freedom, and republicanism. They may have skipped the "ideal of gun owndership" but who the hell thinks that is an ideal. Even your beloved founding fathers saw it just as a mechanisim to enable the right of self-defense agaisnt the colonial powers. But that is not the worst part of that paragraph, the most cringe-worthy thing is the fact that you think that european MP's just suddenly find themselves in Parliament. These guys ARE elected! And guess what? Every European has as much say as to what happens on the European Parliament as you have on what happens on the American Congress.
Also, sorry to say, but it was actually France and GB--and not the US-- the first democratic countries in any substantial way. Saying that being ruled by unelected elites is a part of their culture is insulting and factually wrong. Maybe if I tell you that 170k frenchman died fighitng for democracy during the french revolution you will see what I mean.
Finally, with the risk of being too political, have you ever considered that "being ruled by unelected elites" is a part of the US reality? According to the Economic Mobility Project the US has a similar income mobility elasticity as developing countries; and you know the Roosevelts, Kennedys, and the Bush make pretty good candidiates for any definition of "ruling family" you may come up with.
You have no obligation to be informed about the things you talk about; but sometimes you will come out as insulting and silly if you just state opinions as matters of facts.
|
On April 20 2013 08:29 eeniebear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 05:23 FryBender wrote:On April 20 2013 05:05 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 04:47 HellRoxYa wrote:On April 20 2013 04:35 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 03:36 Asymmetric wrote:On April 20 2013 03:15 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 02:35 jello_biafra wrote:On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
[quote]
You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . . I don't know so much about Italy but Nazi Germany's economic plans were a total shambles (also, Hitler had nothing to do with them, he appointed others to take care of the economy), it was very short term and short sighted planning that required the country to be constantly expanding to continue growth and led directly to WW2, they got involved in the Spanish civil war because they needed more resources, it's a big part of the reason why they annexed Austria then the Sudetenland etc. The house building and highway building programs had to be stopped in 1937-8 because the workers were needed to build the Westwall because they knew some serious consequences would come from their actions. Not to mention the fact that their constant pogroms in the mid 1930s hurt the economy pretty badly (1935 was the worst year, they stopped it for the 1936 Berlin Olympics) because instead of working people were out smashing up shops and beating people up. True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that). The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops. That is some impressive revisionism of history. Hitler was not a victim of circumstance. When Bavarian beer halls rang with his speeches long before he ever tasted power he spoke of LebensraumNever ending expansion for the Aryan Race was his goal from the beginning and he never hid it. Of course, but only as the population would support the territory gains. His only major territorial ambition was Czechoslovakia and western Poland. That would have given the German population enough territory for a couple of centuries. All other territorial concerns would be for future generations, as far as Hitler was concerned. The circumstances of the war once it got out of hand made it so that Hitler had to secure a lot of strategic positions, so he ended up taking over a lot of territory that he never initially planned for. There are a few speeches and conversations where Hitler explicity says that what became World War II was far beyond anything he had imagined, as he had hoped to spend most of his time not as a war leader, but as a peacetime leader working to build up Germany domestically. All through Mein Kampf and especially his "Secret Book" England is seen as Germany's natural ally. And the Greater German Reich was just an afterthought? I'm enthralled by your revisionism. It's often overlooked that Hitler was not just a political leader. He was also a philosopher. He had a vision for the next 1000 years. And never in his writing did he target western Europe, except for reclaiming the Rhineland, the Ruhr, and Alsace-Lorraine. South Tyrol he was willing to let the Italians keep. His immediate territorial goal for his lifetime was western Poland and German Czechoslovakia ("Hitler's Secret Book"). In the decades and centuries to come, he would have liked to see a German empire expand to the east, while in the process eliminating Bolshevism. Stalin short-circuited this vision by massing troops and tank divisions in eastern Poland, prompting Hitler to respond. (closed-door meeting in 1944 I think with Carl Mannerheim, president of Finland, of which an audio tape exists) Guys, I'm not making this stuff up, it comes from Hitler's own mouth in private conversations, as well as war documents, and his own writings on the Third Reich. You may not be making this up but David Irwing, Pat Buchanan and all the other revisionist are making it up and you're just lapping it up hook, line, and sinker. This idea that Hitler was somehow a misunderstood genius who if only left alone would have created the great Germanian Utopia and everything that went wrong in the 30's and 40's is to be blamed on Churchill and Stalin is ridiculous and has been proven wrong and rejected many many times. If Hitler really only wanted a little piece of Poland and nothing else (and as others have pointed it out even if this were true how does that make it okay?) then why was Barberossa being planned even before Hitler invaded Poland? And Hitler has always said that his main goal in life was to defeat Bolshevism. How do you propose he do that without invading Russia? And of course dont' forget that Germany desperately needed the oil fields and other resources in the Ural. But please tell me how none of these things were his fault again? Quite honestly I highly suspect arguing with you is quite pointless as I imagine you have heard all these arguments before and I'm sure you have 1000 refutations that are all in Hitler's secret writings that the mainstream historians just choose to ignore in order to placate the Illuminati order of Jewish conspirators. Hitler's battle with Bolshevism was primarily fought in Germany. He wanted to smash it there, and he succeeded, to the benefit of the world, in my opinion. Russia would have had to come much, much later than he had anticipated, probably after he was dead and a new Fuehrer was at the helm. Hitler had no intention at the start of the war to open up two fronts. He knew from experience how badly that can end up. He spends a great deal of time addressing this in his second book. His blitzkrieg into Russia was something he desperately wanted to avoid, but clear aggression from Stalin forced his hand. Again I refer you to his conversation with Mannerheim. As far as invading Poland being "okay," I think the rescue of Danzig justifies it perfectly. If your people are being oppressed just on the other side of a political border, and you have the military means to stop it and bring that territory under control, you do it. And per his agreement with Stalin, Hitler let him take the rest of Poland. Re: Barbarossa being planned in advance - Every military power must have contigency plans. I don't fault anyone for having strategies worked for any situation. It's just responsible military leadership so that reaction time can be minimized. The Wehrmacht had strategies devised for an invasion of Ireland. They never did. The USA most likely has army, navy, and air force files on Chinese targets. If they didn't, they would be derelict in their duties. So yes, I have read a fair bit of David Irving. Also Ernst Zundel. Would you mind telling me who your sources are that have proven them wrong? It would be intellectually irresponsible if I didn't investigate the information you use to arrive at your opinion. And the reason I brought the subject up is because Fascism is somewhat similar to a monarchy in that power is concentrated at the very top.
First Hitler took much more from Poland that was historically part of Germany. So no Stalin did not take the rest.
Operation Barbarossa was not a contigency plan. Contigency against attack does not look like that. Germany was fully prepared for an invasion of USSR, you cannot do that in few weeks (less than that) that Hitler would have had if his actions were based on Soviet army movements. It was the other way around, Soviet armies were moving to prepare for German attack they very well suspected was coming.
Contigency plans are based on reactions to events. No such thing happened in this case. And your sources are laughable revisionist nonsense.
|
|
|
There books are laughable bullshit that is not in any way relevant among Historians. It is not necessary to read Holocaust deniers yourself to find out that they are horribly wrong.
|
On April 20 2013 07:03 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 05:59 radiatoren wrote:
Dane here. I am pretty sure that the Queen is a net positive because of creation of tourism and goodwill internationally. Having the oldest unbroken royal family in the world and a relatively popular current and upcoming ruler, makes it kind of bad to remove it right now.
Don't the Imperial house of Japan claim to be descendants of 660BC Emperor Jimmu? Semantics anyway. Tradition has always been a dubious reason to keep something intact.
Thanks, it should read europe!
|
On April 20 2013 06:02 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 05:07 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 04:51 Quincel wrote:
I'm more impressed by the idea that conquering 'only' Czechslovakia and half of Poland would have been somehow 'OK'. The territory he wanted back was German anyway up until Versailles gave it to the Poles. It used to be West Prussia. Just taking back stolen land. And it was Polish before Germany, Russia and Austria destroyed Poland. And what about Czechoslovakia it was also German ? No it wasn't.
Prussia wasnt a part of Poland since the 16th century when german nobles inherited the remaining lands of the Teutonic Order in eastern Prussia.
these discussions lead nowhwere. Poland was reshaped so often and didnt exists for such long times that you can argue any way you want depending on how far back in time you want to go.
And Czechoslowakia was for the longest time a very important part of the Holy Roman Empire and later it was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That doesnt mean that it was predominantly german but minorities existed and they were abused to make silly claims on land.
However you want to spin it, millions of people lost their homes or lives in WW2 all over europe
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
