greg334
Veteran Expediter
Hitler could have and should have been stopped. I know how and why he was able to come to power. I understand the situation in post WWI Germany that led to a Hitler.
Well not really.
We all know Hitler was bluffing when he decided to ignore the treaties and rearm the military and the same went for the militarization of the Ruhr Valley but outside of that France was the only country capable of actually holding them back and they were indecisive within their government to do much of anything, let alone deal with Germany. Italy and parts of Poland were pro-german, so the war happened because of us crapping on Germany by allowing France bleed them and humiliate them. If we didn't agree with the treaty, if we supported disarment without the demand that Germany becomes a Democracy, then maybe Hilter would not have come to power but instead a worst evil would have.
Remember that a lot of scholars in England have closely examined the issues leading up to and during the first wolrd war and a number of them agree that both England and the US should not have gotten involved with the war between central powers and France. It led to a widening of issues post war, which Hitler was just one of them.
Many in Europe saw what was going on in Russia after the 1917 revolt. What was worse was allowing it to continue AFTER WWII. Europe, and the United States, COULD have put an end to it.
Part of the reason that did not happen was that Europe was tired of wars, for good reason. Part of the problem was that in Europe, and the U.S. to a lesser degree, there was support for Soviet style rule.
Well not really. We did try to help out but European leaders, which were monarchs and all related, didn't do anything - they were arguing among themselves. The revolution was not just a problem for Russia but for Europe because if it spread like the 1847 revolutions, it would mean the end of many countries.
The "communist" movement was greatly entrenched in Europe by that time. There are always people who want to have power over others. The "sheeple" tend to allow themselves to be controlled.
well that last statement means a lot. First off you don't get this part - the European experience is not like ours, they tend to allow themselves to be controlled by their very culture. Even France where Liberty is supposed to be a great asset, Liberty still means you need approval to open a business or do something else.
Communism, which the Russians never achieved, was the mindset of many, but it wasn't what we have seen. Socialism is what you mentioned in the next quote but even that is a lot different.
We see it here now. The more "socialist" we become, the more our "kindly government" does for us, the lazier we are and the more "control" we are willing to accept. We have many in this country now who have become SO dependent on government that they are no longer able to function on their own. Many in my family are like that. I am sure you know many as well. They would not have the sense NOT to just blindly march into the chambers.
What puzzles me is this,
knowing and growing up with Soviet citizens, I never got the impression nor heard of a lazy soviet. Everyone seemed to work - like it or not. Everyone had to pay taxes, regardless who they were and everyone had a duty to fulfill. It wasn't as what we experience today. What we have is a mix of entitlement culture with elitism trying to control everything, not socialism.
Becoming or depending on government is not what seems to be happening when you apply socialism, if that was the case, then many who come here from Russia or a former Soviet bloc country would be sitting on their a** collecting welfare but that's not the case.
I honestly think there is two issues here, one is our culture is divided up by race and then we justify the laziness of one or a couple races through guilt.
Last edited: