How do you explain Nazism, Fascism or even the Communist Terror ?

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by IIIIIIIIII, Sep 12, 2015.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I don't believe that all powers need be selfish, even communism if done according to the book which it never has.
    "Selfish" is more a personal human affliction.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Wake up pad.

    It's about power ; money and control . Population control.

    It's not personal ; it's about ; persons' .
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Yep, just as I said, "Selfish" is more a personal human affliction.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    To what ; pad ?
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Just as I said river, "Selfish" is more a personal human affliction.
  9. river


    A sociopath.
  10. Retribution Banned Banned

    Yes, people often forget that the Nazi Party actually dragged Germany out of a very deep hole before Hitler and the Hierarchy went all wild on it. Even then, they did quite well for a few years before biting off more than they could chew.

    The Weimar Republic was the first taste the German people had had of "democracy", and it failed miserably. We all understand the effect of the treatment handed out by the allies post WW1, but all the common man knew was that he didn't have a job.
    "Give us a few more years to get it right" isn't going to fly when your kids are hungry.

    Basically, as you more or less said, give people in a terrible economic situation a breath of fresh air and lift their living standards, and they'll follow you without many looking too closely at how it's being achieved.

    Start a thread like this these days, though, and all you're going to get is pretty much the last three pages.
    Perspectives based purely on a current moral position.
  11. river

    Hmmmm....of course you know that Banks ; International Banks ; financed Germany in World War 2. And Russia.

    No holds barred on making money.

    So no " bull shit here " of or about morality .

    Manipulation of the most insidious kind was used in Germany and is still used today. World wide.
  12. Retribution Banned Banned

    Nazi Party gained power in 1933, River. Not 1939, or the 6 odd years that followed.

    Has absolutely nothing to do with why people wanted them in power. Does it.
  13. river

    If Hitler didn't have the finances to finance his warmarch; then the " people " wouldn't have a job in the first place. Hence no Hitler adulation ; hence no power . Hence no war mongering.
  14. Retribution Banned Banned

    1919, river. 1927. 1933. 1939. 1946. Now you go look up those years and get yourself some perspective.
    It's fairly clear you're just posting on some vague "knowledge" gleaned from a few websites without any notion or understanding of the timelines and prevailing attitudes.

    Another little tidbit - the German economy between 1925 and 1929 was injected with roughly 25 billion dollars of foreign cash, more than half from the USA. 25 billion dollars. in the 1920's. Would you like to go away and make some calculations and find out how much that would be by today's standards?
    But the Weimar republic wasn't working. In spite of all that money, it had a long way to go before it became anything even closely resembling effective government.

    Let's ignore for the moment that your average German citizen in 1933 didn't know international financiers were going to help prop up the German war machine from 1939-1945
    Even though that's a fairly large point, it seems we have to start from some fairly basic levels with you.

    Let's say you did know that. Let's say everything below assumes you know international financiers are propping up your country. Before the war, after the war, during the war... I don't really see what your point is, but let's play anyway.

    It's 1933, And you're one of those millions of unemployed. A third of the population, River. A third. You've never experienced anything like that in your life. Not many in our particular social circles would have.

    It's the first experience you've ever had with "democracy". It's been imposed upon you after a bunch of people started fighting about how you should govern yourselves.
    Your old rulers are gone, exiled. Before that, and the war, you were one of the most powerful economies in the world.
    You have no experience with this new type of government, this democracy thing. You only know you didn't get much say in what form it would take. You were happy before; now, you're hungry and out of work.

    There has been a bit of violence around the country, but this is fairly normal for 1933. Fights on street corners are par for the course in most nations. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had just escaped an assassination attempt in Florida.
    Politics is a dirty business, and physical violence is pretty much normal. It doesn't fly as high on your radar as it would in these times. Some of the protagonists in this violence wore uniforms. That's new. Well, sort of - many people bore a cockade or something to show their political allegiance.

    Everyone is a bit wary of Jews anyway - nothing new there. It'll be a few more years yet before they start disappearing, so you know nothing of that yet.

    This new mob doesn't like communists or gays, either. Well, that's ok. Neither do you.

    You might have even been a member of the Freikorps after the first war. A fair few of this new mob were too. You might have fought alongside them in the war. They don't think the war was their fault. They don't even really think they were properly beaten. Millions of ex-military men who have no work and long for structure, order. Like it was in the old days.

    Your kids are hungry. Your neighbours kids are hungry. Of 30 families in your little street, 10 have no job.
    There is little in the way of unemployment relief. At some points, the value of money became meaningless. Less than ten years ago, foreign troops occupied the Ruhr to ensure your country paid its debt in kind rather than using your worthless money.
    You'd been invaded, and no one said much about it.

    This new mob are going to change all that. They're going to get you back on track. They're going to get you a military again, so those bloody French don't go around thinking they can occupy you to get paid.
    This new mob says they'll get everyone a job. This new mob promise order, they promise structure, they promise it'll be more like it was 20 years ago when you were happy.
    And it seems they might actually be able to do that - unlike this Weimar mob. The only other alternative really is the communists. Yech.

    So you head down to the ballot boxes.

    Now you go on with your moral principles, river.
    You just go on with that. You go on pretending you know a little something. you know... the great cosmic love principle, or whatever it is you've got your head in.
    Because, you know... in Germany, in 1933 - no one would have had any time for your thoughts at all.
  15. river

    In my post # 48 ; I said " Manipulation of the most insidious kind " . You have just proved my point. I understand what the people were going through ; as well as anyone could who was not there at the time.

    The Word " Insidious " I used for a reason .
  16. Retribution Banned Banned

    What reason was that?

    The same kind of "greed" resulted in the Marshall Plan after world war two.
    It's currently resulting in better living conditions in many nations throughout the world dependent upon foreign cash.

    Without this "greed", million of Africans would be starving... well, millions more.

    Financial cash injections result in as much good as they do harm, river. Yet they all originate from the same source... people interested in self-enrichment.
    That you choose to label a thing with your own perception of it is indicative only of an unbalanced viewpoint. You can call it insidious all you like, but the fact is that it is amoral, not moral or immoral.

    ...And it still has nothing to do with why those forms of government sometimes have success in gaining traction.
  17. river


    Capitalism has become immortal ; actually capitalism has always been immoral. THEY make money despite the people's conditions and/or position.

    To have a balanced viewpoint means that in the end are the people better off in the end . In nazi-Germany or in Africa.

    No they are not.
  18. Retribution Banned Banned

    You sure about that?

    What exactly do you think would happen if foreign donations and investment were pulled out of many African nations right now?

    What do you think would have happened in Germany after world war 2 if it were not for the Marshall plan?
    Do you honestly think it matters more that some people got rich, than it does millions didn't have to live in poverty?

    That's a fairly uncaring world view you got there.
  19. river

    Insidiousnous apparently works.

    Is Africa really that much better off ? The government's are corrupt. Money rarely , if ever , gets to the common people.

    Germany got lucky . The monies given actually built the country up .
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Today's isms.

    The main problem with national socialism is the "national" part.
  21. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    It is interesting to consider what they had accomplished in a short time. They moved from total disarray to a well organized and prosperous society. If you compare Hitler to other dictators, he actually worked towards bettering the lot of his people. Most men in power only enrich themselves at the expense of the people. The totalitarian nature of the system, however, is frightening. I think it serves as evidence to the fact that democracy is a fragile creature, easily corrupted and often short-lived.
  22. Retribution Banned Banned

    I know I've said as much on more than one occasion, and there are times I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but the example of Singapore is one I return to most often in order to explain the concept of a benevolent tyrant; Lee Quan Yew.

    30 Years or thereabouts to transform Singapore from an ex-colonial backwater to a modern, prosperous industrial society.
    And he didn't do it by placing nice. To this day, there are those who hate him with a passion.
    Having lived there for a while, though, one does notice that he is revered even by those who hated him. I might have even hated him myself, had I lived there at the time.

    Thing about Lee, though, is that he was playing the long game. Had a very clear vision of where he wanted Singapore to be. He got them there. Kicking, screaming, dragged to dungeons in chains.
    One thing I'll say about the Chinese, at the risk of some yahoo coming in here and calling me racist, is that they're generally a little more adept at the long game than we westerners are.

    The only real problem with tyranny, in all its various forms, is that it demands leaders with intelligence and benevolence.
    All systems are open to abuse. But in the absence of checks and balances, tyranny is far more vulnerable to that abuse than "democracy" is.

    In spite of that, and generally speaking, though, for every Athens, I'll give you a Rome. For every Germany, I'll give you a Singapore.

    *- I do feel a little guilty using the Weimar Republic as a whipping boy - they were forced to operate under some fairly heinous circumstances. But the Nazis were also operating under those same circumstances, and there is some advantage in being the type of government which has the balls to tell everyone else to go fuck themselves.
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    By appointment, and violence. Not by election.
    There's another one: That intelligence and benevolence are necessary, but not sufficient. Also among the necessities: luck. Because you need a simultaneous absence of dominant military capability and long term security of territory. You need longevity in your tyrant. And you need respite from things like drought and plague. Benevolent tyranny may be the most fragile of all governmental systems.

    There's a reason these benevolent tyrannies - Kew's Singapore, Castro's Cuba, Tokugawa's Japan - tend to happen on islands.
    But for every South America, Africa, Asia, you have another continent full of benevolent strongmen?
    Last edited: May 30, 2016

Share This Page