Iolo/Penderyn
Verified User
Or germ warfare to wipe out the world population perhaps? Why did you fight Hitler if you felt like that?
Political Gang Cultures
- Thread starter Iolo/Penderyn
- Start date
Or germ warfare to wipe out the world population perhaps? Why did you fight Hitler if you felt like that?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
That's my point. Why fight Hitler but let the Totalitarian Socialists continue? The US had a key global military advantage at the end of 1945 but didn't use it. Why?
While building my kayak trailer, I've been listening to Dan Carlin's "Hardcore History". One of them was the six hour "Destroyer of Worlds" (from Robert Oppenheimer's comment at Trinity). He talked about this very topic at length; how Truman didn't press the advantage, how the world has avoided WWIII over the years. He didn't like Stalin but thinks Kruschev is underrated as a world leader helping both the USSR and other nations navigate around the Nuclear Genie.
https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-59-the-destroyer-of-worlds/
Iolo/Penderyn
Verified User
They are very different things, and we were allied with Stalin, as was the USA. State capitalism is very different from crisis capitalism, more rational, on the whole.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Allied after his pact with Hitler ended. Stalin was certainly no better than Hiter. How many millions of Russians died due to Stalin's efforts to modernize the Soviet Union? How many ended up in Siberia or in graves?
Iolo/Penderyn
Verified User
Lots, but he was rational - that's how he survived mass capitalist attacks and set up state capitalism to replace socialism-in-on-country. HItler was just a racist nutter.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
can you stop being such a dumbfuck?
Doubtful. He complains about a lack of rationality and a lack of discussion while blocking most conservatives and being as irrational as the far left typically is.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Both were rational. Hitler did seem to get worse toward the end, but he was under a little stress.
Socialism in a world of limited resources doesn't work above the village/tribal level.
Both were rational. Hitler did seem to get worse toward the end, but he was under a little stress.
Socialism in a world of limited resources doesn't work above the village/tribal level.
Technically, you could say that Stalin was more rational, but that's actually what made him worse. Stalin was able to maintain power for far longer than Hitler, which gave him the opportunity to kill far more people and to oppress his society for much longer.
Hitler was a temporary problem, since his instability helped lead to his downfall.
The world's worst tyrants are the ones that are as smart as they are evil, because that allows them to persist.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
I'm not sure why you think Stalin was initially more rational. He joined with Hitler. Hitler was the big dog in the Axis powers. Stalin would have collapsed except for Lend-Lease.
I get the impression that Stalin was as interested in conquering Germany as Hitler was in conquering the Soviet Union. Stalin seemed to be going with "Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer."
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
What else would he claim when Hitler turned on him? Hitler helped Stalin industrialize, something Stalin strongly desired (and killed millions of his own people) because Hitler was initially tied to the Treaty of Versailles. When Hitler was powerful enough, he cranked up his own factories to rebuild his military. Stalin stayed friendly enough to kill off his rivals and invade neighboring nations like the Baltic states and Finland.
https://www.history.com/topics/russia/great-purge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovie...)#/media/File:WWII_in_Europe_1939-1941-en.svg
What else would he claim when Hitler turned on him? Hitler helped Stalin industrialize, something Stalin strongly desired (and killed millions of his own people) because Hitler was initially tied to the Treaty of Versailles. When Hitler was powerful enough, he cranked up his own factories to rebuild his military. Stalin stayed friendly enough to kill off his rivals and invade neighboring nations like the Baltic states and Finland.
https://www.history.com/topics/russia/great-purge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovie...)#/media/File:WWII_in_Europe_1939-1941-en.svg
In the beginning, you could say Hitler played Stalin. Granted, when Hitler turned on the Soviets, that pretty much spelled the end of the Nazis in the long run. They were stuck with yet another 2 front war. That's what did them in during WWI.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Hitler did fuck himself a little too early in the game. Attacking is always harder than defending. American industrial power supplying both Britain and the Soviets wasn't a surefire winner but certainly put a huge damper on Hitler's plans of conquest. The fact the US was also fighting a two-front war is indicative of how much industrial output contributed to winning the war.
This is true. Granted, America had a major geographical advantage. With a few exceptions, the war wasn't fought on our home soil. Our late entry definitely helped as well.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Yeah, it always helps when a country's factories aren't being bombed into rubble. Still, the US was supplying both England and the Soviets 9 months before Pearl Harbor and all through the war.
Disagreed almost 100%. Democrats are just as happy to gerrymander as Republicans. The EC protects the entire nation from tyranny of the majority on relatively small areas of the entire nation; in short, you can't get 38 states to agree to it without asserting an authoritarian Constitution-shredding government. There will always be a Left and Right, conservative and liberal, father and mother types of divides. That's human nature. It's a achieving a balance that's important, not trying to kill off the opposite side. People who can't agree to disagree in a civilized manner aren't civilized.
What a crazy post. yeah gerrymandering has been around a century or so. The Dems did some. It took the Republicans to weaponize it, Their gerrymandering has little in common with historicaL. They have used and abused what was once a provincial and quaint political trick.
The EC is foul. The flip side is that it permits the tyranny of the minority. Justify that.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Why is the EC "foul"? How is that tyranny of the majority when Democrats control the House? Maybe even the Senate this fall? Are you one of those who say tyranny is whenever the Republicans are in charge, but it's all rainbows and unicorns when Democrats win under the same rules?
His next argument will probably be "the Electoral College was created because of slavery." That's the common assumption by the left now, even though it's an obvious conflation of the Electoral College with the 3/5 Compromise.
Iolo/Penderyn
Verified User
He had been sold out by the West at Munich, and had to buy time. The Soviet Union defeated Hitler at unbelievable cost, and the USA would have been totally insane not to send such minimal help as it did.