5 best & 5 worst US presidents [Archive]

siva_chair

01-27-2009, 10:58 AM

all of your worst ones are pretty decent.
care to explain?

(except for FDR, i can see how you would say that, i dont think hes that good either, just kind of mediocre, but still not one of the worst.)

Wilson unnecessarily got us into WWI and his idea of a "global democracy" still plagues us today. WWII sprang out of such things and is partially the result of his ideological crusade to "democratize the world" (and out of that the interventionism we still see today). This is just one of the many reasons why I chose him.

FDR needs little explanation, methinks. We are still suffering from his horrible socialist policies and the likes.

Lincoln basically secured the expansion of the powers of a centralized government to a degree that we are still seeing the horrible results from. He basically transformed the nation from one of small decentralized government to one with an ever expanding and invasive centralized Federal government. He also nationalized the banks, to fund his expensive civil war that cost countless American lives and set a precedent for future presidents to drive up large deficits and create fiat money to pay for imperialistic wars.

Washington started it all. He might have been a heroic fighter in the War of Independence, but he paved the way for (or at least did nothing to prevent) central government with an iron fist, and government-enforced puritanism, all with one measure: the "tax on distilled spirits and carriages". He ordered troops that were assigned to crush the tax resistance.

These are just a few of the reasons I chose them.

Mr. Ron

01-27-2009, 11:04 AM

siva we got into WW2 because our asses got attacked

Washington was a good president

hismajestythepope

01-27-2009, 11:10 AM

Yes because rebellion within 4 years of a nations founding isn't more just people not wanting to listen to any government whatsoever.

And if he didn't stamp out the rebellion, you realize how week America'd look?

Mr. Ron

01-27-2009, 11:15 AM

are you talking about the whiskey rebellion?

pooble

01-27-2009, 11:16 AM

Ron, im pretty sure by that point fdr was looking for any excuse.

Mr. Ron

01-27-2009, 11:18 AM

Ron, im pretty sure by that point fdr was looking for any excuse.
of course but Pearl harbor was the main event as to why we got into it

MAthiAS

01-27-2009, 11:25 AM

Garfield is by far the best.

mph4ever

01-27-2009, 11:37 AM

obama in one week has trumped all other presidents

dubya is the worst ever

and OP, why jimmy carter?

catharsis

01-27-2009, 11:42 AM

obama in one week has trumped all other presidents

dubya is the worst ever

and OP, why jimmy carter?1.) no

2.) arguably

3.) he did absolutely nothing.

Glad to see Wilson on everybody's worst list. I hear people whine about Bush violating privacy with the patriot act, but nobody ever acknowledges how Wilson put his foot through the constitution regarding American dissention around WWI.

siva_chair

01-27-2009, 11:43 AM

siva we got into WW2 because our asses got attacked

Not by the Germans.

FDR did little to stop (even though he arguably knew it was coming) the attack by the Japanese. In fact, he in many ways, invited it by intervening in Asian affairs.

Washington was a good president

I disagree. He was a good military general, but not a good president. Though he is admirable for warning against forming political parties.

Yes because rebellion within 4 years of a nations founding isn't more just people not wanting to listen to any government whatsoever.

There is nothing wrong with that. I can see where people wouldn't want to trade one tyrant for another.

And if he didn't stamp out the rebellion, you realize how week America'd look?

We just got done defeating the largest and most well equipped military in the world. I don't know how "weak" we had to worry about looking.

of course but Pearl harbor was the main event as to why we got into it

That is the main reason that was given for us to get into it.

siva_chair

01-27-2009, 11:45 AM

Glad to see Wilson on everybody's worst list. I hear people whine about Bush violating privacy with the patriot act, but nobody ever acknowledges how Wilson put his foot through the constitution regarding American dissention around WWI.

Not only that, the guy ran on a platform of non-interventionism.

Also another one of his crimes was establishing the Federal Reserve.

mph4ever

01-27-2009, 12:23 PM

1.) no

maybe a little quick out of the blocks. from what i have seen during the campaign, the transition, inauguration and subsequently lead to believe that if he is allowed to follow through on his policies then we may have a new number one. we can only hope.

2.) arguably

certainly from a foreign affairs point a view. based on what i have read here then most would feel he was a complete failure at home too

3.) he did absolutely nothing.

don't know a whole lot about him but doing nothing is a lot better than doing damage. and didn't he have the iran hostage situation resolved and instigated camp david also although cowboy ronnie certainly hijcaked all this for his own purposes

why wouldn't reagan be considered to be a poor one?

Already_Taken

01-27-2009, 12:25 PM

best: lincoln, polk, jefferson, washington, fdr

worst : hoover, grant, taft, bush,

Against Miik!

01-27-2009, 12:31 PM

Best
Obama (hasn't ****ed up yet)
Reagan (C'mon, it's Reagan)
Andrew Jackson (didn't he kill like 8 people in duels or something)

Worst
All the other ones

Already_Taken

01-27-2009, 12:39 PM

reagan didn't do anything. oh yeah except start a war on drugs, and a war on regulation. we should just call him mr productive!!!

siva_chair

01-27-2009, 12:40 PM

don't know a whole lot about him but doing nothing is a lot better than doing damage. and didn't he have the iran hostage situation resolved and instigated camp david also although cowboy ronnie certainly hijcaked all this for his own purposes

Carter did lots of damaging things, actually. He was a nice guy, but he was a terrible president.

Andrew Jackson (didn't he kill like 8 people in duels or something)

He killed one, but he fought in like 15 of them. A guy tried to assassinate him which resulted in an epic fail after Jackson beat him with his cane.

Also his parrot had to be taken away at his funeral for cursing.

Shell

01-27-2009, 12:51 PM

I don't really know much about the topic. (:() But wasn't Nixon pretty shitty also?

And I think JFK probably is overrated.

mph4ever

01-27-2009, 12:53 PM

Carter did lots of damaging things, actually. He was a nice guy, but he was a terrible president.

oh, ok. ill have to read up on him

siva_chair

01-27-2009, 12:53 PM

I don't really know much about the topic. (:() But wasn't Nixon pretty poopty also?

And I think JFK probably is overrated.

Correct on both accounts.

Against Miik!

01-27-2009, 12:54 PM

I don't really know much about the topic. (:() But wasn't Nixon pretty poopty also?

And I think JFK probably is overrated.

Besides Watergate I think Nixon was pretty average, not great, not horrible. However, he will always be remembered for Watergate.

I don't think JFK was overrated at all. He was president during some of the craziest times in the nations history up until that point. I mean, there haven't been too many other times when total and complete obliteration of the entire country was a possibility. And he (along with some others) got us through it.

siva_chair

01-27-2009, 12:55 PM

He also helped escalate the Vietnam conflict.

Against Miik!

01-27-2009, 12:57 PM

He also helped escalate the Vietnam conflict.

LBJ more so

beso negro

01-27-2009, 12:58 PM

based on what i have read here then most would feel he was a complete failure at home too

that's because most people on here are liberals

why wouldn't reagan be considered to be a poor one?

other than his war on drugs he was awesome

siva_chair

01-27-2009, 01:01 PM

LBJ more so

Well obviously, but Kennedy drastically increased the number of "advisors" in Vietnam. He also supported France over the independence of Vietnam. As a result, it drove Ho Chi Minh towards Soviet style Communism.

siva_chair

01-27-2009, 01:03 PM

I'm gonna go ahead and add LBJ to my worst list.

Shell

01-27-2009, 01:10 PM

Besides Watergate I think Nixon was pretty average, not great, not horrible. However, he will always be remembered for Watergate.

I don't think JFK was overrated at all. He was president during some of the craziest times in the nations history up until that point. I mean, there haven't been too many other times when total and complete obliteration of the entire country was a possibility. And he (along with some others) got us through it.

probably shouldn't have pissed off the Cubans in the first place

if you're gonna overthrow a government, make damn sure it's gonna work ffs

siva_chair

01-27-2009, 01:15 PM

If Kennedy would have had the chance to abolish the Federal Reserve like he had planned, he would have ranked higher in my mind.

Understanding In a Crash

01-27-2009, 01:17 PM

I don't usually post in these forums but I LIKE THIS TOPIC!

Best
1. Abraham Lincoln
2. FDR - "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"
3. Thomas Jefferson
4. Harry S. Truman
5. Andrew Jackson

Worst
1. George W.
2. Richard Nixon
3. Andrew Johnson
4. Ulysses S. Grant
5. Warren G. Harding

catharsis

01-27-2009, 01:23 PM

Unfortunately for his memory, if Kennedy wasn't shot, nobody would think much of him.

switched

01-27-2009, 01:35 PM

i agree with catharsis because i can see alternate realities

catharsis

01-27-2009, 01:59 PM

I'm sure you can see an alternate reality in which Kennedy wasn't just a placeholder president whose job preventing the Cuban Missile crisis couldn't have been done by anyone other than himself.

Mediocre president was mediocre.

Seafroggys

01-27-2009, 02:12 PM

I'm gonna go ahead and add LBJ to my worst list.

Civil Rights Act?

Oh but you can't like that, because it 'trampled on states' rights' like Strom Thurmann was bitching about. Right........

Also, even though Nixon was a scumbag, I will have to give him credit for the Endangered Species Act.

As for Carter....Camp David Accords? Can you name any other president that would have done that? Probably not. Sure you may not like anything else he did, but that by itself was ballsy but historic. Too bad nothing was built on it.

But I think it can be agreed that as far as just pure *** kicking skills, Andrew Jackson takes the cake.

Sk0rpi0n

01-27-2009, 02:16 PM

Nice picks so far everbody. I'm going to limit myself to picks from the last centuryish on a challenge from my girlfriend.

Worst

Reagan (War on drugs/Supply Side Economics, Iran Contra Affair)
George W. (Trendy -- This guy didn't believe in facts, so I won't provide any)
Lindon Johnson (Gulf of Tonkin Resolution --> Vietnam)
John F. Kennedy (Vietnam, Bay of Pigs)
Carter (Human Rights as Foreign Policy??? Was this guy for real???)

Best

Dwight D. Eisenhower (Sufficiency, Civil Rights)
Theodore Roosevelt (Balls to spare --> Anti-Trust, Mediation)
Richard Nixon (Detente, Floating Currency)
Bill Clinton (Don't ask and I won't tell)
Obama (My "Best" trendy pick -- gotta be down with the hipsters!)

Iskandar

01-27-2009, 02:53 PM

Honestly most presidents have had mixed legacies and so it's hard to evaluate them objectively. One that I feel is underrated though is Theodore Roosevelt, for taking a stand against big business, and conservation efforts. And the more I read about John Quincy Adams the more I like him.
why wouldn't reagan be considered to be a poor one?His role in ending the Cold War.

whiteminority

01-27-2009, 04:03 PM

Nixon opened trade relations with China, I'll give him props for that.

switched

01-27-2009, 04:27 PM

teddy was a badass

Iscariot

01-27-2009, 04:30 PM

Grover Cleveland

Isn't he the one that got stuck in a bathtub because of how fat he was? Or am I thinking of someone else?

nungman

01-27-2009, 04:32 PM

Isn't he the one that got stuck in a bathtub because of how fat he was? Or am I thinking of someone else?

taft

Iscariot

01-27-2009, 04:35 PM

Oh, ok.

Aaron

01-27-2009, 05:44 PM

Wilson unnecessarily got us into WWI and his idea of a "global democracy" still plagues us today. WWII sprang out of such things and is partially the result of his ideological crusade to "democratize the world" (and out of that the interventionism we still see today). This is just one of the many reasons why I chose him.

FDR needs little explanation, methinks. We are still suffering from his horrible socialist policies and the likes.

Lincoln basically secured the expansion of the powers of a centralized government to a degree that we are still seeing the horrible results from. He basically transformed the nation from one of small decentralized government to one with an ever expanding and invasive centralized Federal government. He also nationalized the banks, to fund his expensive civil war that cost countless American lives and set a precedent for future presidents to drive up large deficits and create fiat money to pay for imperialistic wars.

Washington started it all. He might have been a heroic fighter in the War of Independence, but he paved the way for (or at least did nothing to prevent) central government with an iron fist, and government-enforced puritanism, all with one measure: the "tax on distilled spirits and carriages". He ordered troops that were assigned to crush the tax resistance.

These are just a few of the reasons I chose them.
But Woodrow dated Ms Krabapelle from The Simpsons?! That takes balls.

Mr. Ron

01-27-2009, 07:19 PM

Not by the Germans.

FDR did little to stop (even though he arguably knew it was coming) the attack by the Japanese. In fact, he in many ways, invited it by intervening in Asian affairs.

Well seeing as how the Japs were allies of the Germans we'd have to enter into the European theater one of those days. You just do not leave your allies in the dust.

don't be one of those historical revisionists that have him knowing Pearl Harbor would happen. There might have been a warning here or there but it was among thousands of other messages that needed to be decoded. I would say him "inventing it" is a pretty large exaggeration.

Already_Taken

01-27-2009, 07:23 PM

fdr is one of the best leaders this country has ever had. he was loved. the decisions he made and their implications can be argued, but his role as man of the people can not.

VomitStainedCretin

01-27-2009, 07:57 PM

Gerald Ford? I've not done much research but he seems a bit of a laughable non-entity stop-gapping the post- Nixon resignation Republican presidential office. Anyway, where would he belong in things? I don't gather he did much either way, which doesn't really qualify him for either best/worst really, but feel free those who know more about US politics than me to comment otherwise.

When it comes to Vietnam, LBJ suffers a lot of blame for processes already initiated under Kennedy. Eisenhower's refusal to intervene in 1954 is also somewhat overlooked. Nixon was successful in his promise to withdraw but his methods were sometimes gratuitous; plus the Cambodian invasion effectively heated up their civil war and helped bring Pol Pot into power.

Loser

01-27-2009, 08:04 PM

Man, FDR was lame.

Chu

01-27-2009, 08:11 PM

What's with the general hate for Carter from most Americans?

I don't know why, but my dad loves Carter, perhaps I should talk to him about it.

pooble

01-27-2009, 08:22 PM

i dont really understand the hate for carter either. there were far worse presidents i think...

Angmar

01-27-2009, 08:31 PM

I'm not gonna make a list, (too difficult) but I don't see how Lincoln or FDR could be seen as bad presidents.

Illmatic

01-27-2009, 08:52 PM

best:

Lincoln
Eisenhower
Truman
JQ Adams
T Roosevelt

worst:

Reagan
Bush Sr
Bush Jr
Harding
Grant

TheDarkHorse

01-27-2009, 08:59 PM

Best:
T Roosevelt
FDR
Carter
Washington
Eisenhower

Worst:
Reagan
Bush Jr.
Harding
Hoover
Taft
I'm not gonna make a list, (too difficult) but I don't see how Lincoln or FDR could be seen as bad presidents.

Cause the nation fell apart under Lincoln's watch. Granted things don't come apart overnight, but I can see that as reason enough.

Angmar

01-27-2009, 09:04 PM

The end result is more important than the events that occurred at the time on a historical standpoint though...

Iskandar

01-27-2009, 09:04 PM

I'm not gonna make a list, (too difficult) but I don't see how Lincoln or FDR could be seen as bad presidents.They were both extremely controversial in their day and still are. Lincoln from Southerners who felt the Confederacy had a right to secede, and Roosevelt from big business and economic conservatives who felt his New Deal interventionism was excessive.
i dont really understand the hate for carter either. there were far worse presidents i think...Probably for the Iran hostage crisis.

Angmar

01-27-2009, 09:09 PM

They were both extremely controversial in their day and still are. Lincoln from Southerners who felt the Confederacy had a right to secede, and Roosevelt from big business and economic conservatives who felt his New Deal interventionism was excessive.
Probably for the Iran hostage crisis.

Yeah I guess, people in this day and age who still gripe about the south not having been able to secede need to get a grip with reality though. As for FDR's ecenomic interventions it's completely understandable that he took those actions when you take into account America's ecenomic problems at the time. Even though the New Deal might not have saved us from the depression it still played a role in helping people gain jobs and such, although I can't say I'm anything close to a free market fundamentalist.

kitsch

01-27-2009, 09:10 PM

Wilson unnecessarily got us into WWI and his idea of a "global democracy" still plagues us today. WWII sprang out of such things and is partially the result of his ideological crusade to "democratize the world" (and out of that the interventionism we still see today). This is just one of the many reasons why I chose him.

FDR needs little explanation, methinks. We are still suffering from his horrible socialist policies and the likes.

Lincoln basically secured the expansion of the powers of a centralized government to a degree that we are still seeing the horrible results from. He basically transformed the nation from one of small decentralized government to one with an ever expanding and invasive centralized Federal government. He also nationalized the banks, to fund his expensive civil war that cost countless American lives and set a precedent for future presidents to drive up large deficits and create fiat money to pay for imperialistic wars.

Washington started it all. He might have been a heroic fighter in the War of Independence, but he paved the way for (or at least did nothing to prevent) central government with an iron fist, and government-enforced puritanism, all with one measure: the "tax on distilled spirits and carriages". He ordered troops that were assigned to crush the tax resistance.

These are just a few of the reasons I chose them.

so im guessing you dont like a strong national gov't. i dont mind it, but i agree with you on the anti-interventionalist stuff.

Mr. Ron

01-27-2009, 09:12 PM

he's an anarchist

Iskandar

01-27-2009, 09:14 PM

Yeah I guess, people in this day and age who still gripe about the south not having been able to secede need to get a grip with reality though.Definitely.
As for FDR's ecenomic interventions it's completely understandable that he took those actions when you take into account America's ecenomic problems at the time. Even though the New Deal might not have saved us from the depression it still played a role in helping people gain jobs and such, although I can't say I'm anything close to a free market fundamentalist.While I can freely admit his programs weren't as effective as people had hoped, unemployment did decline steadily during his tenure. He deserves credit for trying, and holding the country together until WWII revived the economy.

kitsch

01-27-2009, 09:37 PM

he's an anarchist

srsly?

Mr. Ron

01-27-2009, 09:56 PM

ja srsly

although he's a fellow gun nut so he's not too bad :p

jaredong

01-27-2009, 10:12 PM

i dont know many american presidents... least not enough to make a best or worst list

though Woodrow Wilson i dont see any problem with. Read stuff on the negotiation during Treaty of Versailles in 1919, exciting stuff back then!. Most importantly, he was a political science professor, which is always mad cred in my books.

AyatollahKhomeini

01-27-2009, 10:12 PM

What's with the general hate for Carter from most Americans?

I don't know why, but my dad loves Carter, perhaps I should talk to him about it.

carter was the first and only president to make human rights and energy conservation central issues of his administration.

and it's very telling that so many americans consider him a failure. i hope americans don't do to obama in 2012 what they did to carter in 1980.

Iskandar

01-27-2009, 10:16 PM

though Woodrow Wilson i dont see any problem with. Read stuff on the negotiation during Treaty of Versailles in 1919, exciting stuff back then!.Wilson's internationalism was hopelessly idealistic in his time, as exemplified by the failure of the League of Nations. Probably less so today, though.

TheDarkHorse

01-27-2009, 10:23 PM

The end result is more important than the events that occurred at the time on a historical standpoint though...

the end result was chaos what you talkin about

Angmar

01-27-2009, 10:27 PM

The end result was freedom of blacks and a more unified nation after some turmoil I don't see why you couldn't view it as a positive event in the long run.

Iskandar

01-27-2009, 10:29 PM

Because states' rights, meaning the right to keep slaves, was more important.

siva_chair

01-27-2009, 10:58 PM

Civil Rights Act?

Oh but you can't like that, because it 'trampled on states' rights' like Strom Thurmann was bitching about. Right........

Vietnam: pointless, stupid Imperialist war that wiped out a whole cohort of young men and innocent civilains.

Great Society: absolutely destroyed the black family, unprecedented usurpation of private property rights, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.

Plus, Gun Control Act of '68.

Nice try trying to paint me as some racist though.

As for Carter....Camp David Accords? Can you name any other president that would have done that? Probably not. Sure you may not like anything else he did, but that by itself was ballsy but historic. Too bad nothing was built on it.

IDK Clinton did something very similar in 2000, so there's another president that "would have done that."

Well seeing as how the Japs were allies of the Germans we'd have to enter into the European theater one of those days. You just do not leave your allies in the dust.

America had no business involving itself in European squabbles.

Although WWII is really just an extension of WWI, which we were partly to blame in ushering in the fascists and communists after destabalizing the area.

don't be one of those historical revisionists that have him knowing Pearl Harbor would happen. There might have been a warning here or there but it was among thousands of other messages that needed to be decoded. I would say him "inventing it" is a pretty large exaggeration.

Umm he directly antagonized the Japanese through embargos, threats, etc.

Sure, the Japanese were imperialistic and assholes, but when you piss off a beehive you are going to get stung.

The end result was freedom of blacks and a more unified nation after some turmoil I don't see why you couldn't view it as a positive event in the long run.

Because it paved the way for an ever expanding and intrusive central government.

Also, lol @ people who believe the main reason the Civil War was fought was over slavery.

I think I'm going to add Harding to the list of my favorites. Not only was he likely the first actual black president, he tried very hard to reverse many of the cluster****s Wilson caused. Plus, he is one the largest reasons for the 19th Amendment. :) *puts on flame suit*

fruteefly

01-27-2009, 11:12 PM

ITT:
people who profess to know the slightest ****
but just dont

Angmar

01-27-2009, 11:14 PM

I know my US history and I know that wasn't the absolute 100% main reason the war was started but it was one of the end results and I don't see how you could (unless you're a racist, not saying you are but ya) think the civil war was an all out bad thing.

An expansion of the central government doesn't seem like a good enough reason, but I guess if you're an anarchist, any expansion of government is bad.

siva_chair

01-27-2009, 11:16 PM

Angmar

01-27-2009, 11:20 PM

fruteefly

01-27-2009, 11:21 PM

since when was the civil war fought to end slavery?

Angmar

01-27-2009, 11:23 PM

It wasn't the only reason, but it was a contributing factor and an end result. Not too hard to understand.

fruteefly

01-27-2009, 11:25 PM

It wasn't the only reason, but it was a contributing factor and an end result. Not too hard to understand.

mmm not really

Angmar

01-27-2009, 11:25 PM

k slavery had nothing to do with the civil war urrite

Iskandar

01-27-2009, 11:26 PM

To try to pin it down to any one cause is retarded. But slavery was definitely a major issue. People who talk about states' rights seem to conveniently leave out that slave-holding was one of those rights.

Angmar

01-27-2009, 11:28 PM

Der Übermensch

01-27-2009, 11:29 PM

Best (using a variety of criteria, not limited to "most in line with my views"):
Thomas Jefferson - I've spouted on about him enough to need little explanation
Teddy - He was just a ****ing badass!
FDR -
Madison - The only President to lead troops WHILE president deserves serious kudos (although I've read conflicting stories on the veracity of that).
Pierce - Why you ask!?!? Wasn't he just horrible at the job!?!? Perhaps he was, but I just see him as a tragic figure. A depressive alcoholic who never wanted the job, his son dies just before he is sworn in and his wife is a raving lunatic! I'm just trying to make him feel better...
JQA also gets mentioned for the sole reason that he alone of the Presidents chose to be sworn in on a law book as opposed to a Bible, which is what they should be using anyways (or even better, the Constitution).

Honorable Mention goes to Carter: Best ex-president ever.

Worst (I'm avoiding the cop-outs like Chester A. Arthur... This is worst of the major players):
Wilson
Lincoln - Most overrated president. Suspension of Habeas Corpus alone warrants his vilification.
R.R. - Absolute worst imo. Selling weapons to an enemy, terrorist nation to illegally fund another terrorist group who is trying overthrow an elected government? Don't even get me started on this monster.
Coolidge - Hoover got shafted with the depression happening on his watch, but I've always felt Calvin should have been the one to take the blame.
Nixon - I'm kind of split on Nixon. He was efficient at the presidency (as was Regean) but just did so much discredit to the office that it is hard not to put him here.

GWB gets a pass. For now. Let it sit for 10 years and then I'll rate him.

Not by the Germans.
Germany declared war on the US as a show of support with Japan, even though the treaty they had didn't require it. We did not declare war first.

fruteefly

01-27-2009, 11:30 PM

People who talk about states' rights seem to conveniently leave out that slave-holding was one of those rights.

i did what?

Iskandar

01-27-2009, 11:32 PM

Yeah, and the election of Lincoln was a big issue because of his standpoints on such issues. The economic differences may have held some significance but I don't see how someone could just say slavery was irrelevant to the war.Yes, economic differences, like the South having a primarily agricultural economy ... with slaves.

Also a big factor in why they lost.
i did what?Remind me again which states' rights did they feel were important to defend? Besides slavery, that is.

Angmar

01-27-2009, 11:35 PM

i did what?

Well you haven't backed up your argument with anything besides saying others are wrong so ya.

fruteefly

01-27-2009, 11:36 PM

Well you haven't backed up your argument with anything besides saying others are wrong so ya.

such truth

siva_chair

01-27-2009, 11:38 PM

I don't agree with the invasion of Iraq really, so honestly I can't help you there. But we're looking at 2 very different situations, one was occurring within our own country, it's easy to say "oh slavery would have been abolished eventually" but how the hell do you know that?

Because that was already the trend. Lincoln's motives were economic and political and in no way altruistic. Less than a fourth of Southern adults owned slaves in the south, and with the development of capitalism, slavery became uneconomical. Manumission became much more common.

Diplomatic means of solving the problem certainly weren't working, the south was so intent on their right to hold slaves do you really think that asking nicely would have done it? No, and that's why they needed to turn it into a war, yes many people died, but in the long run when looked at on a historical perspective the war outcome justified the occurance of the war itself.

Why didn't all those wealthy northerners just buy up slaves and free them if they really wanted slaves freed? Oh that's right it's because they didn't really give a **** about them.

Remember, the slaves weren't "freed" until AFTER the Civil War already started.

Angmar

01-27-2009, 11:40 PM

Der Übermensch

01-27-2009, 11:43 PM

Remind me again which states' rights did they feel were important to defend? Besides slavery, that is.
Slavery was the result of the states rights to not be interfered with by the Federal government about issues that were contained within that state.
The South was correct in principal, but were fighting for the wrong excersise of that principal. The North was wrong in it's legal view on the matter, but non-the-less could have justified the war on the basis of crimes against humanity - if the term had been invented 100 years earlier.
The South was doing the right thing (states rights) for the wrong reason (slavery), and the North was doing the wrong thing (trampling states rights) for the right reason (stopping slavery - although that is a separate issue as to whether it was an early goal or not...).

Seafroggys

01-27-2009, 11:43 PM

Yeah obviously they weren't freed because the only states that allowed slavery at the time of the civil war were the southern ones, other states in the north had already outlawed slavery. If the war wasn't fought who knows how long it would have taken for slavery to be abolished, could have been decades, which would have severely rolled back the time for black civil rights and equality.

in the alternate history book How Few Remain, the precondition that France and England would help the CSA in their war with the US in 1881 was that they would free the slaves.

Iskandar

01-27-2009, 11:48 PM

Slavery was the result of the states rights to not be interfered with by the Federal government about issues that were contained within that state.
The South was correct in principal, but were fighting for the wrong excersise of that principal. The North was wrong in it's legal view on the matter, but non-the-less could have justified the war on the basis of crimes against humanity - if the term had been invented 100 years earlier.
The South was doing the right thing (states rights) for the wrong reason (slavery), and the North was doing the wrong thing (trampling states rights) for the right reason (stopping slavery - although that is a separate issue as to whether it was an early goal or not...).I understand.

Based on the outlawing of slavery in most of the Northern states and attempts to prevent its spread in the territories, it seems reasonable to me that it was a long-term goal at least.

siva_chair

01-27-2009, 11:51 PM

Yeah obviously they weren't freed because the only states that allowed slavery at the time of the civil war were the southern ones, other states in the north had already outlawed slavery. If the war wasn't fought who knows how long it would have taken for slavery to be abolished, could have been decades, which would have severely rolled back the time for black civil rights and equality.

With the relatively rapid development of capitalism, slavery would have died out fairly quickly. It was becoming too costly to hold slaves.

The South's primary reason for succession was primarily South crippling tariffs to subsidize national railroads and other "internal improvements" that would benefit Northern industry at the expense of the South.

siva_chair

01-27-2009, 11:52 PM

I understand.

Based on the outlawing of slavery in most of the Northern states and attempts to prevent its spread in the territories, it seems reasonable to me that it was a long-term goal at least.

It's goal wasn't out of any altruism. It was so Northern industry could benefit. Pure and simple.

MattSharpIsCool

01-27-2009, 11:54 PM

He also nationalized the banks, to fund his expensive civil war that cost countless American lives

His Civil War? You mean the Civil War where the Confederates fired the first shot? Maybe I'm missing something.

Remember, the slaves weren't "freed" until AFTER the Civil War already started.

Ya that's normally how a war works. You have to "war" with somebody else to get what you want.

I'm not trying to be a dick, I read through this forum a lot and normally find myself agreeing with you on a lot of things. But on this, I just don't.

siva_chair

01-27-2009, 11:56 PM

His Civil War? You mean the Civil War where the Confederates fired the first shot? Maybe I'm missing something.

Yeah you are missing the fact that the Union army INVADED the South. The war was one of Northern aggression.

Ya that's normally how a war works. You have to "war" with somebody else to get what you want.

Yes, at the cost of countless lives.

Also, it was a total war, which means the Union didn't tend to distinguish much between Rebel soldiers and Southern civilians.

Stone Cold Bush

01-28-2009, 12:01 AM

The South was merely defending their right to property and states' rights, to think that the North was anything but disgusting, violent aggressors in the affair is an affront to history.

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 12:07 AM

Still confused as to how the North were the aggressors when it was the Confederacy who attacked at Fort Sumter.

JohnXDoe

01-28-2009, 12:07 AM

oh how i weep for the South. how i weep....

we are one country now. like it or not

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 12:09 AM

I don't know what they teach children in the South but they all seem to love romanticizing a failed war.

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 12:09 AM

Still confused as to how the North were the aggressors when it was the Confederacy who attacked at Fort Sumter.

Because Fort Sumter is in South Carolina, which was the first state to secede.

Stone Cold Bush

01-28-2009, 12:10 AM

Still confused as to how the North were the aggressors when it was the Confederacy who attacked at Fort Sumter.
Who was it that tried to regulate and remove the Southern states' constitutional rights?

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 12:10 AM

I don't know what they teach children in the South but they all seem to love romanticizing a failed war.

Because the Southern resistence is justified whereas the Northern aggression was not.

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 12:12 AM

Because the Southern resistence is justified whereas the Northern aggression was not.Regardless of their being justified I can't see how the North were the aggressors. They didn't strike first.
Who was it that tried to regulate and remove the Southern states' constitutional rights?Again, what rights? Besides slavery which the states' rights defense is all too happy to gloss over.

Chu

01-28-2009, 12:13 AM

carter was the first and only president to make human rights and energy conservation central issues of his administration.

and it's very telling that so many americans consider him a failure. i hope americans don't do to obama in 2012 what they did to carter in 1980.
So basically, he "failed" because he dealt with things most people thought weren't really issues...

Nice.

Stone Cold Bush

01-28-2009, 12:20 AM

The southerner's right to property, merely the cornerstone of a capitalist free market economy. By attempting to regulate this, the big government Northerners were infringing on the South's basic rights. That's to say nothing of indiscriminate killings on Southern land and voter fraud in the Western territories.

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 12:21 AM

Regardless of their being justified I can't see how the North were the aggressors. They didn't strike first.

Federalist troops were in Fort Sumter illegally. They aggressed because it was the North that invaded the territories that seceded.

Again, what rights? Besides slavery which the states' rights defense is all too happy to gloss over.

See: tariffs

Now, what right did the Federal government have to keep these states from breaking off from the Union? Do you honestly think the North invaded the South because they had slaves and wanted to free slaves?

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 12:22 AM

That's to say nothing of indiscriminate killings on Southern land and voter fraud in the Western territories.

To be fair, the South and the North were equally engaged in that type of thing in the Western territories.

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 12:28 AM

Now, what right did the Federal government have to keep these states from breaking off from the Union? Do you honestly think the North invaded the South because they had slaves and wanted to free slaves?No, I think they wanted to prevent the dissolution of the Union. The whole argument depends on whether the secession was legal.

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 12:33 AM

No, I think they wanted to prevent the dissolution of the Union. The whole argument depends on whether the secession was legal.

And it should have been, as the Union was supposed to be voluntary.

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 12:36 AM

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 12:39 AM

Yes, it originally was. My problem though isn't with that though. Was the South morally right in seceding? Possibly. Were they morally right in keeping slaves? Absolutely not. I just regret it had to come to a war before the slaves were freed.

But that isn't why the Civil War was fought.

And it didn't have to come to war for them to be freed, thus the reason northern aggression was unjustifed and the Civil War was wrong.

You don't have to agree with slavery to support the South's right to secede. Look at the Copperheads. Many of them were morally against slavery, but strongly opposed the war.

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 12:40 AM

The South certainly showed no signs of freeing them voluntarily.

Mr. Ron

01-28-2009, 12:41 AM

America had no business involving itself in European squabbles.

Although WWII is really just an extension of WWI, which we were partly to blame in ushering in the fascists and communists after destabalizing the area.

actually they did have business involving itself in European squabbles since their allies were attacked.

Plus you know, Hitler.

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 12:43 AM

At the very beginning of WWII the full extent of Hitler's crimes was not known, just that he was a dictator with expansionist aims who had invaded several countries around him. In retrospect it wasn't as easy to make a moral argument for intervening.

Stone Cold Bush

01-28-2009, 12:44 AM

Do you honestly think that the slaves weren't helped by being brought to America? Even as slaves, they were better off in America than they would have ever been in Africa. Not to mention that waging this illegal war on the South specifically targeted them because of their agrarian, labor-based economy. If left unfettered by Northern regulation, tariffs, and total war, the South would undoubtedly be more prosperous than it is today.

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 12:44 AM

actually they did have business involving itself in European squabbles since their allies were attacked.

Which is a hangover from Wilson's ideological war in WWI.

Plus you know, Hitler.

Yeah and?

Mr. Ron

01-28-2009, 12:49 AM

ok but they still had the obligation to help their allies out

Hitler needed to be stopped obviously.

Angmar

01-28-2009, 12:50 AM

ok but they still had the obligation to help their allies out

Hitler needed to be stopped obviously.

Yeah I don't really understand why someone would believe we should have left him alone.

switched

01-28-2009, 12:51 AM

hitler is in my top 5 us presidents tbh

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 12:51 AM

Do you honestly think that the slaves weren't helped by being brought to America? Even as slaves, they were better off in America than they would have ever been in Africa.Are you actually trying to justify slavery?

Can I believe what I'm reading?
Yeah and?Isolationism can all too easily be taken to extremes. Was Hitler Europe's problem? When a militarist nation with an expansionist ideology starts invading everyone around it, it is a cause for concern to say the least.

switched

01-28-2009, 12:55 AM

stone cold bush is so edgy!!!!

Stone Cold Bush

01-28-2009, 12:56 AM

Stone Cold Bush

01-28-2009, 12:58 AM

stone cold bush is so edgy!!!!
Again, stop trying to put words in my mouth. Slavery was terrible and it is great that it was ended, it's just that it was regrettable that it had to be ended in an illegal, aggressive war which attacked the South's rights and way of life.

Mr. Ron

01-28-2009, 12:59 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRSOdylUbmc

song rocks tbh

switched

01-28-2009, 01:00 AM

Again, stop trying to put words in my mouth. Slavery was terrible and it is great that it was ended, it's just that it was regrettable that it had to be ended in an illegal, aggressive war which attacked the South's rights and way of life.

but duDDeeee YouR On the fukkin cuttin edge next thing u know it gonna be on the mtvs

Mr. Ron

01-28-2009, 01:01 AM

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 01:01 AM

I'm not in any way justifying slavery, but it was deemed the most efficient system by the free market, as horrible as it was. And generally, the free market produces the most efficient solution to any economic problems. Try googling Dr. Ron Paul sometime.I really hope this was a joke.

Slavery was not an efficient system. It was not productive as it relied on coerced labourers who hated their lot. Slavery came about from the desire of slave owners to profit and get the most out of unpaid workers, yet it could not produce the same results as the free labour and industrial economy of the North.

That's aside from the anachronism in talking about a market economy in the agrarian Old South.

Add in the ideological plug for a failed candidate at the end and it just gets better.

switched

01-28-2009, 01:01 AM

is soviet russia, dr. dron paul googles you

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 01:02 AM

Okay, stop posting crap, switched.

switched

01-28-2009, 01:03 AM

stop being a towelhead, iskandar

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 01:05 AM

No, seriously. Knock it off or you're getting the banhammer.

Stone Cold Bush

01-28-2009, 01:07 AM

I really hope this was a joke.

Slavery was not an efficient system. It was not productive as it relied on coerced labourers who hated their lot. Slavery came about from the desire of slave owners to profit and get the most out of unpaid workers, yet it could not produce the same results as the free labour and industrial economy of the North.

That's aside from the anachronism in talking about a market economy in the agrarian Old South.

Add in the ideological plug for a failed candidate at the end and it just gets better.
This is actually patently false. An economic study by Fogel, a Nobel Prize winning economist, and Engerman states that slave plantations in the South were 21 to 36% more efficient than their free counterparts, they simply produced more output at a lower cost. Slavery did come about from owners' trying to profit and get the most out of unpaid workers, but it is intellectually dishonest to say that they failed in doing this.

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 01:10 AM

It's not even that the slave labour was efficient (though I doubt this) it's that the entire mode of production was. It was not sustainable, and that's really why the South lost the war. Its agrarian economy could not compete with the North's high-output industrial economy.
Did Slavery Retard Southern Economic Development?

Gavin Wright (1978) called attention as well to the difference between the short run and the long run. He noted that slaves accounted for a very large proportion of most masters' portfolios of assets. Although slavery might have seemed an efficient means of production at a point in time, it tied masters to a certain system of labor which might not have adapted quickly to changed economic circumstances. This argument has some merit. Although the South's growth rate compared favorably with that of the North in the antebellum period, a considerable portion of wealth was held in the hands of planters. Consequently, commercial and service industries lagged in the South. The region also had far less rail transportation than the North.

Sk0rpi0n

01-28-2009, 01:30 AM

Do you honestly think that the slaves weren't helped by being brought to America? Even as slaves, they were better off in America than they would have ever been in Africa.

Even as slaves they were better off in America??? Damn dude.
I guess you don't value freedom, family, mental health or profiting from the fruit of your own labor very much.

This is actually patently false. An economic study by Fogel, a Nobel Prize winning economist, and Engerman states that slave plantations in the South were 21 to 36% more efficient than their free counterparts, they simply produced more output at a lower cost. Slavery did come about from owners' trying to profit and get the most out of unpaid workers, but it is intellectually dishonest to say that they failed in doing this.

Although elements of Fogel and Engerman's writing is quite respectable, you must also know that they roundly condemned slavery throughout Time on The Cross on moral grounds. You should also note that Herbert Gutman's Slavery and The Numbers Game brought legitimate criticism to their flawed methodolgy. Ie. Their study was based on imperfect information, from a single selected source, even though there is clearly enough information to do a much wider study. This one flawed study hardly seems to provide enough evidence to condemn all competing claims as "patently false".

TheDarkHorse

01-28-2009, 01:42 AM

The end result was freedom of blacks and a more unified nation after some turmoil I don't see why you couldn't view it as a positive event in the long run.

the situation didnt change much they still weren't free

cities were burning and the reconstruction gave way to authoritarian leaders in the south

nah man pretty bad
Do you honestly think that the slaves weren't helped by being brought to America? Even as slaves, they were better off in America than they would have ever been in Africa..
um no in Africa they had freedom and dignity thats worth more than a material cotton-gin

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 01:45 AM

If it weren't for Western colonialism in Africa, of which slavery was the logical outcome, who knows what Africa would have been like? There were prosperous civilizations there once. It's a Eurocentric view to see Africa strictly as a place of failure.

TheDarkHorse

01-28-2009, 01:48 AM

mr. dropper just took a good perspective I'm impressed.

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 01:52 AM

ok but they still had the obligation to help their allies out

Read: we didn't want trade with our European allies to be disrupted.

Hitler needed to be stopped obviously.

Ok but it isn't our duty to play interventionist.

The whole thing really boils down to the fact that the US and Britian (like in WWI) did not want Eastern Europe to be dominated by Germany.

Isolationism can all too easily be taken to extremes. Was Hitler Europe's problem? When a militarist nation with an expansionist ideology starts invading everyone around it, it is a cause for concern to say the least.

Ah the Humanitarian with a guillotine.

Also, had Britain and France acted when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936, the Nazis could have been overthrown virtually without cost.

I'm not in any way justifying slavery, but it was deemed the most efficient system by the free market, as horrible as it was. And generally, the free market produces the most efficient solution to any economic problems. Try googling Dr. Ron Paul sometime.

Actually it was the free market that was eliminating slavery. It was becoming uneconomical to own slaves.

TheDarkHorse

01-28-2009, 01:54 AM

Actually it was the free market that was eliminating slavery. It was becoming uneconomical to own slaves.
it was the free, unfettered, immoral market that made the slave business possible thanks free-market you're the best.

Mr. Ron

01-28-2009, 01:57 AM

Read: we didn't want trade with our European allies to be disrupted.

Ok but it isn't our duty to play interventionist.

The whole thing really boils down to the fact that the US and Britian (like in WWI) did not want Eastern Europe to be dominated by Germany.

well duh trade is important but there's also something called honor. Yes, governments have a bad history with such a thing but coming to your friend's aid is always good.

There are times in history where nations must intervene if possible. Hitler was marching across Europe, spreading a repulsive ideology and killing millions of people doing it. To say that we should have intervened is silly.

Iscariot

01-28-2009, 01:59 AM

Honor stopped playing a part in politics when Japan ceased to be feudal.

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 01:59 AM

It's kind of dumb to talk about slavery and the free market anyway because slavery began before the capitalist economy really existed in the United States. It's a question of human beings being commodified for personal gain, and that is clearly immoral.
Ah the Humanitarian with a guillotine.Not really. Hitler aggressed against other nations on a massive scale. It's pretty easy to say it's not our problem when it's not affecting us directly.
mr. dropper just took a good perspective I'm impressed.
I have a good perspective on everything. Folks around here are just too stubborn to see that.

Iscariot

01-28-2009, 02:02 AM

I have a good perspective on everything. Folks around here are just too stubborn to see that.

You're too much of a commie for me to handle sometimes. :p

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 02:04 AM

I am not really a commie at all. I guess I might seem like that to an anarcho-capitalist,but hey, who cares what they think....

Mr. Ron

01-28-2009, 02:06 AM

uh-oh

Iscariot

01-28-2009, 02:06 AM

According to the political compass I'm Authoritarian to quite a large degree.

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 02:08 AM

it was the free, unfettered, immoral market that made the slave business possible thanks free-market you're the best.

No actually it wasn't the free market. Get your facts straight.

It was Imperialist mercantilism that made the slave trade possible.

well duh trade is important but there's also something called honor. Yes, governments have a bad history with such a thing but coming to your friend's aid is always good.

Umm this choosing sides is what escalated both World Wars.

So was Japan and Italy honorable for coming to their friend Germany's aid?

There are times in history where nations must intervene if possible. Hitler was marching across Europe, spreading a repulsive ideology and killing millions of people doing it. To say that we should have intervened is silly.

You are ignoring the fact that both sides escalated the conflict. Germany wasn't the sole perpetrator of this whole thing.

It's kind of dumb to talk about slavery and the free market anyway because slavery began before the capitalist economy really existed in the United States. It's a question of human beings being commodified for personal gain, and that is clearly immoral.

Yes, it was an ugly extension of mercantilism.

Not really. Hitler aggressed against other nations on a massive scale. It's pretty easy to say it's not our problem when it's not affecting us directly.

It wasn't our problem. Germany would never have been able to attack the US on our own soil (for many of the same reasons he wouldn't have been able to succeed in Switzerland) with any success. The fact is that it was two imperialist sides fighting over control of land that lead to a massive waste of life on both sides. To pretend that one side was the altruistic force of good fighting this monolithic and immoral evil entity is absurd. England, France, the US, etc all wanted a stake in influencing the rest of Europe, just as Germany did.

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 02:08 AM

I am not really a commie at all. I guess I might seem like that to an anarcho-capitalist,but hey, who cares what they think....

Well you are clearly a socialist.

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 02:13 AM

Well you are clearly a socialist.Yeah but that's not a dirty word in my country. And I am as different from authoritarian socialists like communists as you are.
The fact is that it was two imperialist sides fighting over control of land that lead to a massive waste of life on both sides. To pretend that one side was the altruistic force of good fighting this monolithic and immoral evil entity is absurd.Supporting democracies where people have a certain degree of freedom versus a genocidal, expansionist state. Hmm.

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 02:16 AM

Yeah but that's not a dirty word in my country. And I am as different from authoritarian socialists like communists as you are.

No, you aren't. You believe in statism, which puts you far closer to authoritarians than me.

Supporting democracies where people have a certain degree of freedom versus a genocidal, expansionist state. Hmm.

No, supporting expansionist imperialist "democracies" vs. expansionist imperialist National socialists.

Illmatic

01-28-2009, 02:17 AM

i must have forgotten about the part where a fascist dictatorship controlling all of continental europe would have been good for the world

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 02:23 AM

No, see we have no moral obligation to intervene when a state is invading an entire continent and enslaving and murdering millions. If it doesn't affect us directly, it's not our problem.

Sk0rpi0n

01-28-2009, 02:26 AM

Actually it was the free market that was eliminating slavery. It was becoming uneconomical to own slaves.

Is free market capitalism your answer to everything? LoL.
(just jokes)

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 02:30 AM

Yes, it was an ugly extension of mercantilism.This is a red herring. Slavery existed in many forms before mercantilism for thousands of years. It's borne out of humans' desire to profit, in this case through coercion. Its relationship with mercantilism is concurrent really.

Illmatic

01-28-2009, 02:30 AM

No, see we have no moral obligation to intervene when a state is invading an entire continent and enslaving and murdering millions. If it doesn't affect us directly, it's not our problem.

you left out the more important fact: germany was being provoked from all sides. it had every right to protect itself against dangerous neighbors like belgium, poland, and czechoslovakia.

Sk0rpi0n

01-28-2009, 02:32 AM

I have a good perspective on everything. Folks around here are just too stubborn to see that.

You always offer an interesting viewpoint.:)

I am not really a commie at all. I guess I might seem like that to an anarcho-capitalist,but hey, who cares what they think....
Yeah but that's not a dirty word in my country. And I am as different from authoritarian socialists like communists as you are.

Yeah, socialism is still a fairly pristine word here in Canada.

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 02:35 AM

You always offer an interesting viewpoint.:)I try.
Yeah, socialism is still a fairly pristine word here in Canada.I recall a quote like "here in Canada, socialism brings to mind Tommy Douglas and universal healthcare; in the United States it recalls enforced calisthenics in state-issue underwear." I lolled a little.

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 02:47 AM

Is free market capitalism your answer to everything? LoL.
(just jokes)

Everything concerning economics.

This is a red herring. Slavery existed in many forms before mercantilism for thousands of years. It's borne out of humans' desire to profit, in this case through coercion. Its relationship with mercantilism is concurrent really.

It is quite obvious that the trans-Atlantic slave trade has it's origins in mercantilism.

I didn't mean that all slavery is a product of that, but the slavery being discussed certainly is.

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 02:48 AM

No, see we have no moral obligation to intervene when a state is invading an entire continent and enslaving and murdering millions. If it doesn't affect us directly, it's not our problem.

That isn't the reason we got into WWII though.

We had no knowlege of Hitler's "Final Solution" until long after we already got involved. It was an ideological war pure and simple.

Once again, Humanitarians setting up guillotines.

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 03:05 AM

We did know he was invading every country around him and millions of people were dying as a result of it. That is what I meant.

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 03:23 AM

We did know he was invading every country around him and millions of people were dying as a result of it. That is what I meant.

And part of the reason he was invading every country is because of Churchill's hunger blockade. Germany wasn't the sole aggressor in WWII, believe it or not. Remember, Great Britian advocated a policy of bombing of civilians and did so before Hitler ever did.

Mr. Ron

01-28-2009, 10:13 AM

.

Umm this choosing sides is what escalated both World Wars.

So was Japan and Italy honorable for coming to their friend Germany's aid?

You are ignoring the fact that both sides escalated the conflict. Germany wasn't the sole perpetrator of this whole thing.

Ok so lets do nothing and let the extermination of an entire people happen and let fascism reign over and entire continent. :rolleyes:

You're ignoring the fact that Hitler and his war machine NEEDED TO BE STOPPED. There is no arguing that. At all.

I totally realize that both sides had their part in escalating the war, however who would you rather stop?

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 10:44 AM

Ok so lets do nothing and let the extermination of an entire people happen and let fascism reign over and entire continent. :rolleyes:

Hitler wished to expel the Jews from Germany, and those willing to emigrate were actively encouraged to do so. Obviously it would be silly to defend Hitler, as the guy was a piece of ****, but had the war not escalated as it did, there is no guarantee would have exterminated them as such. Not only that, Roosevelt did NOTHING to help the Jews escape Germany. He refused to relax the rigid American immigration quotas in order to permit Jews to find refuge from the Reich. Things got even worse after the Kristallnacht pogrom. Hitler made it very clear in his address to the Reichstag that if a European war broke out, he considered drastic action against the Jews (thank you History channel).

You are delusional to think that the Allies were some altruistic force concerned with the well being of the Jews. No, it was an ideological war that stank of imperialism on all sides.

You're ignoring the fact that Hitler and his war machine NEEDED TO BE STOPPED. There is no arguing that. At all.

You are ignoring the part that the US, and to a greater degree, Great Britain played in escalating the conflict to where it got to that point. Churchill's hunger blockade only exacerbated the most extreme Nazi policies. Also, remember Hitler offered a peace offering to Great Britain in 1940. Churchill refused.

You know, trying to starve a wolf only tends to make it more vicious.

I totally realize that both sides had their part in escalating the war, however who would you rather stop?

The US didn't need to "stop" anything. It really wasn't our business to get involved in Europe's wars (we should have learned that the first go around in WWI).

Der Übermensch

01-28-2009, 10:59 AM

Churchill refused.
He correctly refused.

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 11:01 AM

He correctly refused.

Why? So he could continue to bomb the crap out of civilian targets?

It was quite clear that Churchill had no regard for innocent lives.

Mr. Ron

01-28-2009, 11:21 AM

Hitler wished to expel the Jews from Germany, and those willing to emigrate were actively encouraged to do so. Obviously it would be silly to defend Hitler, as the guy was a piece of ****, but had the war not escalated as it did, there is no guarantee would have exterminated them as such. Not only that, Roosevelt did NOTHING to help the Jews escape Germany. He refused to relax the rigid American immigration quotas in order to permit Jews to find refuge from the Reich. Things got even worse after the Kristallnacht pogrom. Hitler made it very clear in his address to the Reichstag that if a European war broke out, he considered drastic action against the Jews (thank you History channel).

You are delusional to think that the Allies were some altruistic force concerned with the well being of the Jews. No, it was an ideological war that stank of imperialism on all sides.

You are ignoring the part that the US, and to a greater degree, Great Britain played in escalating the conflict to where it got to that point. Churchill's hunger blockade only exacerbated the most extreme Nazi policies. Also, remember Hitler offered a peace offering to Great Britain in 1940. Churchill refused.

You know, trying to starve a wolf only tends to make it more vicious.

The US didn't need to "stop" anything. It really wasn't our business to get involved in Europe's wars (we should have learned that the first go around in WWI).
Of course early on the jews were encouraged to get the **** out of dodge, Thats what people like Eichmann were for. However, who cares what reason there was for Hitler to begin killing them? The fact of the matter was is that he was begining to commit mass genocide, which needed to be stopped, no matter who or what "started it". Of course Hitler promised to escelate plans for the jews if war in Europe broke out, but really, Hitler planned to begin war in Europe ever since his days in the beer halls of the national socialist worker's party meetings. Read Mein Kampf, its all in there.

I don't doubt that the jewish problem was high in the minds of the Allies, since defeating the German war machine was first a foremost. However, I do not think they were totally unconcerned about it. Genocide on that scale is disgusting and will call the attention and empathy of even the hardest people on the Allied side.

You're sounding like Nazi Germany is the victim here or something. The only reasons why Churchill tooks such actions was because of the nazi party's extreme view points and intimidation. I cannot blame Churchill for doing such things to protect his homeland.

If the US didn't get involved by supplying England with money and equpiment, or didn't give Russia money and equipment to kickstart their warmachine that eventually ended the European conflict (there's strong evidence that Russia would have not been as strong as they were if we had not supplied them earlier in the war) then the entire continent would be Taken over by Hitler. What makes you think Hitler would have stopped there? Hitler needed to be stopped. If we didn't get invovled we would be just as guilty of murder.

Der Übermensch

01-28-2009, 11:27 AM

Why? So he could continue to bomb the crap out of civilian targets?

It was quite clear that Churchill had no regard for innocent lives.

Because Hitler wasn't a man who should be compromised with? I won't venture that Churchill did it for the right reasons - he was after-all a warmonger and a bit of an anti-semite himself - but he did the right thing nevertheless, even if only in hindsight.

Sum of it is, stopping Hitler was a good thing, and regardless of what the personal reasons behind the UK, USA, CCCP and so on being involved in doing so, the end result justified the means.

Against Miik!

01-28-2009, 11:52 AM

Siva I think you were trying to make a pretty reasonable argument and just got to the point of no return and now you sound like a Nazi sympathizer (even though I know you said it would silly to defend Hitler).

To try and sort it out in one sentence, you are saying that the allied forces were equally as responsible as the axis in escalating WWII...no?

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 12:16 PM

Of course early on the jews were encouraged to get the **** out of dodge, Thats what people like Eichmann were for. However, who cares what reason there was for Hitler to begin killing them? The fact of the matter was is that he was begining to commit mass genocide, which needed to be stopped, no matter who or what "started it". Of course Hitler promised to escelate plans for the jews if war in Europe broke out, but really, Hitler planned to begin war in Europe ever since his days in the beer halls of the national socialist worker's party meetings. Read Mein Kampf, its all in there.

Umm I'd say it's pretty important to point out the reason Hitler began killing them. He made it very clear he originally didn't want war with the West. His motives were primarily against the Soviets. GB and the US had ulterior motives for entering the war, and by glossing over the shitty things that were done to exacerbate and intensify you are doing a great disservice to honest history.

And it is clear that the extent of genocide was not clear until after the war, so saying that "it needed to be stopped" is misleading, as it implies that the Allies had full knowledge of the Final Solution. The holocaust didn't even began until 2 (or 3?) years after the war started. The final solution was only put on the table when Germany had essentially lost the war. Granted, by the beginning of the war Hitler had done some horrible things, but Stalin had killed something like 1000 people to Hitler's 1 by the the outbreak of the war, and yet, the British thought it was acceptable to ally with Stalin....

I don't doubt that the jewish problem was high in the minds of the Allies, since defeating the German war machine was first a foremost. However, I do not think they were totally unconcerned about it. Genocide on that scale is disgusting and will call the attention and empathy of even the hardest people on the Allied side.

Yes, defeating the German war machine at the expense of countless civilian lives in a total ideological war. Churchill couldn't stand the thought of another European superpower arising and challenging the British empire. His reasonings for escalating the war against Hitler were not out of altruism AT ALL, but out of Imperialistic concerns (and the same holds true to a degree with Roosevelt as well). How anyone can think that motive even begins to approach a noble or just one I do not know.

Remember, GB bombed Germany before Germany bombed them, and GB was the first to bomb civilian areas.

You're sounding like Nazi Germany is the victim here or something. The only reasons why Churchill tooks such actions was because of the nazi party's extreme view points and intimidation. I cannot blame Churchill for doing such things to protect his homeland.

Except he wasn't protecting his homeland, he was trying to keep his imperialistic influence over Europe.

Nazi Germany isn't the victim (I couldn't care less that a particular brand of utter dogshit statist ideology died out), the countless civilians everywhere are. You need to stop thinking of this in terms of an "Us vs. Them" scenario and start seeing how deplorable and imperialist both sides were. This statist war (and that is exactly what it was, pure and simple. It wasn't a war for liberty, it was a war for political power and influence at the hands of statists) racked up a countless toll. Both sides are responsible for this terrible period in history.

If the US didn't get involved by supplying England with money and equpiment, or didn't give Russia money and equipment to kickstart their warmachine that eventually ended the European conflict (there's strong evidence that Russia would have not been as strong as they were if we had not supplied them earlier in the war) then the entire continent would be Taken over by Hitler. What makes you think Hitler would have stopped there? Hitler needed to be stopped. If we didn't get invovled we would be just as guilty of murder.

Proof that the entire continent would have been taken over by Hitler? This is pure speculation, really. We will never know considering the eagerness Churchill displayed at entering into the fray.

"Everything I undertake is directed against Russia. If the West is too stupid and too blind to comprehend this, I will be forced to reach an understanding with the Russians, turn and strike the West, and then after their defeat turn back against the Soviet Union with my collected strength. I need the Ukraine and with that no one can starve us out as they did in the last war." - Adolf Hitler, Aug. 11, 1939, to Carl J. Burckhardt, LEAGUE OF NATIONS administrator for Danzig

Of course, Churchill entered the fray with a hunger blockade and then shortly after with "strategic" bombing.

This also completely ignores the role the US and Co. played in bringing such douchebags like Hitler and Stalin to power.

Because Hitler wasn't a man who should be compromised with? I won't venture that Churchill did it for the right reasons - he was after-all a warmonger and a bit of an anti-semite himself - but he did the right thing nevertheless, even if only in hindsight.

That is assuming there would have been no other way to stop Hitler, for one, and for two, I disagree that "he did the right thing." His tactics were deplorable and in all likelihood exacerbated Hitler's aggression even more. Not only that, he openly allied himself with someone who was obviously as bad (if not even worse in many ways).

Sum of it is, stopping Hitler was a good thing, and regardless of what the personal reasons behind the UK, USA, CCCP and so on being involved in doing so, the end result justified the means.

No, motives are just as important. Stopping Hitler may have been a good thing in of itself, but that in no way excuses the imperialistic actions and reasons that were taken to do so. If you can make value judgements on the ends, you can make them on the means just the same.

Siva I think you were trying to make a pretty reasonable argument and just got to the point of no return and now you sound like a Nazi sympathizer (even though I know you said it would silly to defend Hitler).

Anyone who thinks I am a Nazi sympathizer is a ****ing idiot.

To try and sort it out in one sentence, you are saying that the allied forces were equally as responsible as the axis in escalating WWII...no?

I would say they both had the same motives for escalating the war to the point that they did. Playing the "who is more to blame" seems rather pointless, all things considered.

Mr. Ron

01-28-2009, 12:21 PM

Ok this is getting no where. Can you at least see that Nazi Germany Possibly taking over Europe would be a bad thing considering the sort of people running the Nazi regime? You can't possibly think that people like Himmler and Hitler would be good for the future of Europe?

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 12:27 PM

Mr. Ron

01-28-2009, 12:31 PM

you assume that Hitler wasn't a power hungry warmonger. He was looking for any excuse to engage in war.

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 12:37 PM

you assume that Hitler wasn't a power hungry warmonger. He was looking for any excuse to engage in war.

Umm no I never said he wasn't a warmonger or power hungry.

You have to consider the fact that Hitler's actions were only emboldened and exacerbated by the actions of the Allies. The fact is, he made it very clear that his intentions were originally towards Russia.

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 01:11 PM

You are still assuming they would have taken over all of Europe had the Allies not taken the actions they did.And they and other fascists did take over nearly all of Europe....

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 01:22 PM

And they and other fascists did take over nearly all of Europe....

Yeah because the Allies gave them a very large incentive to do so. When you are being attacked on both sides, it is only natural you expand your domain out as far as you can on all sides.

Remember, Hitler initially sought an alliance with the British Empire. He sought to renounce colonial conquest in the west in exchange for a free hand in the east. Before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany on behalf of Poland.

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 01:30 PM

Okay except fascism was expanding before the war began and Hitler aggressed by attacking Poland. It was already a force in Germany, Spain and Italy and had moved into Austria with the Anschluss.

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 01:33 PM

Okay except fascism was expanding before the war began and Hitler aggressed by attacking Poland. It was already a force in Germany, Spain and Italy and had moved into Austria with the Anschluss.

Hitler made it very clear his goal was the East. So why exactly was it necessary for France, Britain, and the US to get involved? Why exacerbate the ordeal and spread the conflict to the rest of Europe?

Do you really thing the Poles benefitted at all from such interventionism? No, they ended up being subject to the Soviets for decades, who treated them every bit as bad.

Illmatic

01-28-2009, 01:45 PM

You are still assuming they would have taken over all of Europe had the Allies not taken the actions they did.

well if the US and UK didn't intervene the USSR would have been all alone. it wouldn't have been easy but the Germans would have most likely taken it, especially because they would have been able to throw all of their resources into it.

and are we talking about only in Europe or the war overall? because what if the Allies let Japan have the Pacific and Asia?

i'm not saying that the Allies were perfect or noble, but intervening instead of letting Germany have all of europe was the lesser of two evils

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 01:52 PM

Hitler made it very clear his goal was the East. So why exactly was it necessary for France, Britain, and the US to get involved? Why exacerbate the ordeal and spread the conflict to the rest of Europe?

Do you really thing the Poles benefitted at all from such interventionism? No, they ended up being subject to the Soviets for decades, who treated them every bit as bad.At the war's beginning nobody know it would end like that. Removing Hitler and Mussolini marginalized fascism in western Europe (except for Franco) and so allowed these countries to join NATO and form a bulwark against the communist east.

As bad as the Slavic and Baltic countries had it under the Soviets, it was probably better than the Nazis. Though it's hard to quantify which was worse.

SWard325

01-28-2009, 02:16 PM

William Harrison was the best president

Seafroggys

01-28-2009, 02:36 PM

William Harrison was the best president

Hmmm, off the top of my head (I know you're being funny) but I think he was sick throughout his one month in office. Did he do anything at all? Wikipedia time.

McP3000

01-28-2009, 03:01 PM

best:
-Teddy Roosevelt
-Andrew Jackson
-Thomas Jefferson
-Ronald Reagan
-George Washington

worst
-FDR
-LBJ
-JFK
-IDK

Mr. Ron

01-28-2009, 03:02 PM

ewwww Reagan

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 03:05 PM

Reagan had some terrible policies but he did play an important role in the fall of Communism. He deserves credit for that.

Talking to your enemies, what a novel idea.

Mr. Ron

01-28-2009, 03:09 PM

Eh, he helped but he receives too much credit.

mph4ever

01-28-2009, 03:13 PM

oh, history, you are a liar and a fool

read some books about hitler, stalin too, then churchill. i don't know anything about fdr except that he should have stayed out of other peoples wars but then america suffers those interventionist tendencies all the time. something to do with economies and employment and machinery and the like. probably helps the economy recover. they, all the psychotic murderers, really were not all that different except that hitler was a scorned upstart who wanted to provide some lebensraum for the germanic people. england had an empire, russia and america were self sufficient. it just wouldn't do to have to slice up the pie any more

Already_Taken

01-28-2009, 03:17 PM

mph4ever

01-28-2009, 03:34 PM

um, if the usa stayed out of the war germany would have not been beaten in any short time frame, and hitler would have killed millions more people. plus our allies would be defeated. if you're going to make an alliance you should act on it.

who were the allies? who were the allies that benefitted from intervention?

didn't help the russian people, the english empire crumbled afterwards, so big fail england but great for its colonies. i don't think churchill entered the war with the expectation that it would result in the freedom for the colonial subjects. italians seem to got off the hook, as have the japanese. palestinians lost everything.

so who did intervention help?

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 03:35 PM

so who did intervention help?The people in the territories conquered by the Nazis.

mph4ever

01-28-2009, 03:40 PM

The people in the territories conquered by the Nazis.

what about the ones that were kept or destroyed by the allies? for one russia brought down the iron curtain on countless countries, why didn't the allies intervene there?

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 03:54 PM

what about the ones that were kept or destroyed by the allies? for one russia brought down the iron curtain on countless countries, why didn't the allies intervene there?Making war on Russia just after the most costly, destructive war ever would be the height of stupidity. As it is Communism collapsed eventually and Europe is better off than ever. In the long run it was the right course of action to take. The Allies couldn't have won without Russia.

mph4ever

01-28-2009, 04:06 PM

Making war on Russia just after the most costly, destructive war ever would be the height of stupidity. As it is Communism collapsed eventually and Europe is better off than ever. In the long run it was the right course of action to take. The Allies couldn't have won without Russia.

america always takes the right course of action for america. it didn't take long for the commies to emerge as the main menace

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 04:20 PM

america always takes the right course of action for america. it didn't take long for the commies to emerge as the main menaceYeah really. At least they weren't invading other countries and committing mass murder.

Lol. Okay well they were but at least they could be contained.

mph4ever

01-28-2009, 04:32 PM

Yeah really. At least they weren't invading other countries and committing mass murder.

Lol. Okay well they were but at least they could be contained.

they contained themselves, they were satisfied with their lot. as hitler would have been if the war mongerers hadn't taken control of the situation. and anyways, if all those mens magazines, levis and other western fashion hadn't been smuggled in to the ussr then it would still be there today lol

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 04:43 PM

Moscow was obviously okay with expansionism or they wouldn't have annexed the Baltic countries along with much of Eastern Europe. Communism was an international ideology and attempted to foment revolutions in Africa, South America and elsewhere. We're just lucky they weren't very successful in this.

mph4ever

01-28-2009, 04:53 PM

TheDarkHorse

01-28-2009, 04:56 PM

um, if the usa stayed out of the war germany would have not been beaten in any short time frame, and hitler would have killed millions more people. plus our allies would be defeated. if you're going to make an alliance you should act on it.
thats nonsense.

The Germans went downhill after going into Russia. Then came General Rommel's anger against Hitler. They had a big part of their army taken out as well as their best General. It was only a matter of time.

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 05:05 PM

stalin, not moscow. it was a dictatorship, not a state based on communist ideology, it lost that when lenin croaked.

and you're right, we are lucky. there would be no place for a Supermod in a commie internetIt was based on Marxist-Leninism. The results of that ideology are clear.

Lenin was not a benign dictator as some still choose to believe. He was a bad man. He laid the foundations for people like Stalin and Mao.

Stalin was the first supermod tbh.

Sk0rpi0n

01-28-2009, 06:05 PM

This thread has turned into a historical dick wagging contest, tbh.

Iskandar

01-28-2009, 06:12 PM

Huh?

siva_chair

01-28-2009, 11:57 PM

well if the US and UK didn't intervene the USSR would have been all alone. it wouldn't have been easy but the Germans would have most likely taken it, especially because they would have been able to throw all of their resources into it.

I seriously doubt this. The Eastern front was pretty much being turned before the US even entered the war. There is considerable doubt that the Germans would have been able to conquer all of Russia.

and are we talking about only in Europe or the war overall? because what if the Allies let Japan have the Pacific and Asia?

Roosevelt basically provoked the Japanese, though.

i'm not saying that the Allies were perfect or noble, but intervening instead of letting Germany have all of europe was the lesser of two evils

Once again, it is very dishonest to assert that Germany would have had all of Europe.

At the war's beginning nobody know it would end like that. Removing Hitler and Mussolini marginalized fascism in western Europe (except for Franco) and so allowed these countries to join NATO and form a bulwark against the communist east.

Umm they didn't know attacking Hitler on the Western front wouldn't cause a violent reaction from him?

As bad as the Slavic and Baltic countries had it under the Soviets, it was probably better than the Nazis. Though it's hard to quantify which was worse.

And the Nazi policy in those countries was probably made far worse because there was a brutal war going on. Sure, the Nazis were asshats to the highest degree, but you can't just assume their policy towards those nations would have been of the exact same brutality in absence of the war going on as such.

oh, history, you are a liar and a fool

read some books about hitler, stalin too, then churchill. i don't know anything about fdr except that he should have stayed out of other peoples wars but then america suffers those interventionist tendencies all the time. something to do with economies and employment and machinery and the like. probably helps the economy recover. they, all the psychotic murderers, really were not all that different except that hitler was a scorned upstart who wanted to provide some lebensraum for the germanic people. england had an empire, russia and america were self sufficient. it just wouldn't do to have to slice up the pie any more

I actually agree with you. Who would have thought.

Moscow was obviously okay with expansionism or they wouldn't have annexed the Baltic countries along with much of Eastern Europe. Communism was an international ideology and attempted to foment revolutions in Africa, South America and elsewhere. We're just lucky they weren't very successful in this.

Actually Russia only ever attempted to reclaim territory that it had lost after the World Wars.

In fact, the "expansionism" of Russia simply encouraged internal revolutions within countries to bring about some Marxist/Leninist wet dream of sorts. Marxism-Leninism itself believes that a victory of communism is inevitable. Not by an outside force, but rather from accumulating tensions and “contradictions” within each society. So Marxism-Leninism considers internal revolution (or, in the current “Eurocommunist” version, democratic change) for installing communism to be inevitable.

Taking the 20th century, as much as it pains me to say it, the US has been the most warlike, most interventionist, and most imperialist government, all things considered.

Der Übermensch

01-29-2009, 12:24 AM

Actually Russia only ever attempted to reclaim territory that it had lost after the World Wars.
Well you can only reclaim something that you previously possessed. Thats what the word means. They also tried to lay new claims to most of Eastern Europe, such as Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and so on and son on :)
And don't try and say that those nations were independent. All of the Warsaw pact was just soviet puppet states in some capacity or other and were kept on a nice, short leash.

siva_chair

01-29-2009, 12:49 AM

Well you can only reclaim something that you previously possessed. Thats what the word means.

Yeah no kidding. The point was that it wasn't really trying to expand into new territory, per se.

They also tried to lay new claims to most of Eastern Europe, such as Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and so on and son on :)
And don't try and say that those nations were independent. All of the Warsaw pact was just soviet puppet states in some capacity or other and were kept on a nice, short leash.

White Russia and the Ukraine were all part of the Russian empire pre-WWI.

And those nations did not initially fall to Communism through military interventionism. It was only after they threatened to leave the Soviet bloc (Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968) that the Soviets intervened with troops (which is reprehensible, to be sure, but they were still acting in a "conservative" rather than expansionist manner). They did not really use their armies to expand their bloc or territory, but to "preserve" it.

Interestingly, the Soviets seem to have given thought about using military force in Yugoslavia after Tito took it out of the bloc, but decided against it probably due to the guerrilla fighting of the Yugoslav army.

Iskandar

01-29-2009, 01:45 AM

Umm they didn't know attacking Hitler on the Western front wouldn't cause a violent reaction from him?Not what I meant. They (the Western powers) didn't know the Soviets would wind up controlling half of Europe.
And the Nazi policy in those countries was probably made far worse because there was a brutal war going on. You think they wouldn't have committed genocide if there hadn't been a war going on? I may be misinterpreting you but that seems like bullshit to me. The death camps were a waste of resources if anything.
In fact, the "expansionism" of Russia simply encouraged internal revolutions within countries to bring about some Marxist/Leninist wet dream of sorts.It wasn't Russia sought to increase its territory, exactly, it's that they encouraged revolutionaries to install communist dictatorships which could be brought into their sphere of influence. Hence the communist guerillas in Latin America, south Asia etc.
Taking the 20th century, as much as it pains me to say it, the US has been the most warlike, most interventionist, and most imperialist government, all things considered.It certainly hasn't been the most peace-minded.

siva_chair

01-29-2009, 02:01 AM

Not what I meant. They (the Western powers) didn't know the Soviets would wind up controlling half of Europe.

I don't see how they could not have seen that.

You think they wouldn't have committed genocide if there hadn't been a war going on? I may be misinterpreting you but that seems like bullshit to me. The death camps were a waste of resources if anything.

I am saying that the Final Solution was only put on the table after Germany had basically lost the war. Before that the Germans were content with segregation and deportation.

And death camps were probably less wasteful than the cost of exporting all those Jews elsewhere, as well as facing a home brewed large scale Jewish resistance as well as fighting the Allies.

It wasn't Russia sought to increase its territory, exactly, it's that they encouraged revolutionaries to install communist dictatorships which could be brought into their sphere of influence. Hence the communist guerillas in Latin America, south Asia etc.

Yeah no kidding I don't recall anyone disputing that. The point was that in contrast, they weren't as interventionist. They only took "conservative" military actions, as opposed the the US taking "imperialistic" or "expansionist" military actions.

It certainly hasn't been the most peace-minded.

Well obviously if they are the above.

Der Übermensch

01-29-2009, 02:02 AM

and Those Nations Did Not Initially Fall To Communism Through Military Interventionism
COMINTERN/COMINFORM (I think that was what they called the successor...)

Iskandar

01-29-2009, 02:06 AM

I am saying that the Final Solution was only put on the table after Germany had basically lost the war. Before that the Germans were content with segregation and deportation.

And death camps were probably less wasteful than the cost of exporting all those Jews elsewhere, as well as facing a home brewed large scale Jewish resistance as well as fighting the Allies.You're saying they didn't plan to exterminate them before the war began in earnest? I could be wrong but anti-Semitism had been escalating for some time. Genocide occurs in stages, if you recall your sociology textbook, and Nazi Germany was in the last stages before the war began. Plans were already made for mass depopulations and settlement. Killing is the logical next step.

As for a Jewish resistance it's possible but the Polish and French undergrounds weren't terribly successful. That just brings to mind the tragedy that was the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

siva_chair

01-29-2009, 02:13 AM

COMINTERN/COMINFORM (I think that was what they called the successor...)

Umm that has nothing to do with military intervensionism. It was propoganda based, for sure, but what I have said still stands.

You're saying they didn't plan to exterminate them before the war began in earnest? I could be wrong but anti-Semitism had been escalating for some time. Genocide occurs in stages, if you recall your sociology textbook, and Nazi Germany was in the last stages before the war began. Plans were already made for mass depopulations and settlement. Killing is the logical next step.

No, Hitler planned to forcibly export the Jews, for sure, but the Final Solution wasn't really implemented or drawn up in any coherent way until after the war had reached a critical level (in other words, past the point of him being logistically unable to export the Jews as such).

As for a Jewish resistance it's possible but the Polish and French undergrounds weren't terribly successful. That just brings to mind the tragedy that was the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

It doesn't matter. The fact is that if they had to deal with more uprisings, it would have detracted from their resources considerably. Much more so than simply killing and burning the bodies (as German personel and equipment would have been destroyed/confiscated in various uprisings).

Iskandar

01-29-2009, 02:17 AM

No, Hitler planned to forcibly export the Jews, for sure, but the Final Solution wasn't really implemented or drawn up in any coherent way until after the war had reached a critical level (in other words, past the point of him being logistically unable to export the Jews as such).You mean deport. Jews are not a commodity (at least not that I know of).

But seriously, did he? That talk of a Jewish homeland in Madagascar or wherever was obviously bullshit. Given the rampant anti-Semitism of the Nazis which had existed since their inception it's not a huge stretch to imagine they'd go on to kill them. Even the labour camps were essentially death camps in that they got the maximum amount of labour out of prisoners before proceeding to kill them after they'd exhausted their usefulness.

siva_chair

01-29-2009, 02:36 AM

You mean deport. Jews are not a commodity (at least not that I know of).

Considering they used them as virtual slaves, I'd say they pretty much viewed them as a commodity. But yes, I meant deport anyway.

But seriously, did he? That talk of a Jewish homeland in Madagascar or wherever was obviously bullshit. Given the rampant anti-Semitism of the Nazis which had existed since their inception it's not a huge stretch to imagine they'd go on to kill them. Even the labour camps were essentially death camps in that they got the maximum amount of labour out of prisoners before proceeding to kill them after they'd exhausted their usefulness.

Once again, Hitler made it very clear in his address to the Reichstag that if a European war broke out, he considered drastic action against the Jews. Before that he had just told them to leave (and they were allowed to), and it very much seemed as though his intent was to deport them.

Iskandar

01-29-2009, 02:48 AM

You actually believe the **** he said though? It began with the restrictions on the personal liberties of Jews, followed by destruction of their property and livelihoods, confinement to ghettos, and internment in camps and forced labour. It was pretty clear where the whole thing was headed. Other genocides like the Rwanda tragedy follow similar patterns - they escalate over time and explode into violence.

it was not a huge step from concentration camps to death camps. Auschwitz was built in 1940.

siva_chair

01-29-2009, 03:00 AM

You actually believe the **** he said though?

I don't know he seemed pretty clear in what his intentions were. It seems much more sensible to me to go off of that then what you think he would have done in a different situation in hindsight.

It began with the restrictions on the personal liberties of Jews, followed by destruction of their property and livelihoods, confinement to ghettos, and internment in camps and forced labour. It was pretty clear where the whole thing was headed. Other genocides like the Rwanda tragedy follow similar patterns - they escalate over time and explode into violence.

it was not a huge step from concentration camps to death camps. Auschwitz was built in 1940.

Auschwitz was originally used as a prisoner of war camp.

Also, England and France entered the war in 1939, remember? "The Final Solution" wasn't really fully implemented until 1942. It was only then that the extermination camps were built and the industrialized mass slaughter of Jews began.

And need I remind you that the US had concentration camps for the Japanese, and it didn't result in death camps or systematic execution, so it is a significant step. Whilst the very implementation of concentration camps anywhere is deplorable, the fact is that the actual systematic genocide of the Jews didn't take place until after the war was in full swing.

Iskandar

01-29-2009, 03:13 AM

siva_chair

01-29-2009, 03:29 AM

Internment camps were immoral but America during the war was nothing like Nazi Germany. Misplaced nationalism and xenophobia are not comparable to that genocidal state. Look up "The 8 States of Genocide." Nazi Germany was already far along in the process before the war even began.

You've simply sidestepped the issue. For one, you are ignoring the fact that the US, France, and Great Britain payed no attention to the the persecution of the Jews before they entered into the war (and thus, it isn't the reason they entered the war to begin with), and you are also still ignoring the fact that the Final Solution was implemented AFTER the Allies got involved. Hitler made it very clear he would move to exterminate the Jews if they "brought about another World War." Given his tendency to blame the Jews for everything, it should have been very little surprise he would implement such a program were GB, France, and later, the US enter the conflict.

The fact is you have absolutely no way of knowing for sure whether Hitler would have enacted the Final Solution as such had the western Allies not intervened. Chances are, the Final Solution was primarily the act of a desperate madman that was exacerbated by interventionism.

Iskandar

01-29-2009, 03:55 AM

I never said that was the reason they entered the war. They did know about it, though not the full extent of it. I said the Holocaust would have happened whether the war did or not. Based on what we know of Nazi ideology, that it was expansionist (requiring the resettling of Lebenraum) and extremely racist, I don't think that's unfounded. As I said, referring to the theory that genocide happens in stages, they were well on their way.

siva_chair

01-29-2009, 04:01 AM

mph4ever

01-29-2009, 04:26 AM

money, its not as if freedom has improved, it was for the protection of money and property by the allied statist regimes against the new kid on the block.

siva_chair

01-29-2009, 04:30 AM

money, its not as if freedom has improved, it was for the protection of money and property by the allied statist regimes against the new kid on the block.

And geopolitical influence as well.

mph4ever

01-29-2009, 04:37 AM

And geopolitical influence as well.

i suppose that goes hand in hand with their desire for a global state

i was thinking that this latest crisis is just world war three but they knew we were fed up with death and destruction so they have decided to take control through total regulation. who would have thought the free market would give way to most business having to bank with the government. cash is nearly gone for the public, everything is in banks accounts and on plastic. its the ultimate tax regime

it has been on war on our freedom under the guise of a war on drugs or terror or iraq or any other threat they present to us

siva_chair

01-29-2009, 04:57 AM

i suppose that goes hand in hand with their desire for a global state

i was thinking that this latest crisis is just world war three but they knew we were fed up with death and destruction so they have decided to take control through total regulation. who would have thought the free market would give way to most business having to bank with the government. cash is nearly gone for the public, everything is in banks accounts and on plastic. its the ultimate tax regime

it has been on war on our freedom under the guise of a war on drugs or terror or iraq or any other threat they present to us

Well, this isn't the product of the free market, it's a product of the state's natural desire to expand. It would be a mistake to confuse statism (i.e. socialism, though I'm sure there will be plenty that object to that designation) with the free market. War is the health of the state, afterall.

mph4ever

01-29-2009, 05:22 AM

i wasn't suggesting that it was the product of the free market. the free market was gaining too much control for the states liking so the state had to press control alt delete and reboot in the hope that when things start up again then they will have much more control.

siva_chair

01-29-2009, 05:24 AM

mph4ever

01-29-2009, 05:26 AM

they want windows not linux lol

siva_chair

01-29-2009, 05:34 AM

The state = Microsoft monopoly.

mph4ever

01-29-2009, 05:52 AM

the state hasn't got a hope of emulating such total control

siva_chair

01-29-2009, 06:00 AM

Vista = the UN

At least they both fail about as much as each other anyway...

mph4ever

01-29-2009, 06:19 AM

maybe although i have been running vista since release and have had few if any issues

un = windows mobile 6, it has some great ideas but is too big and clunky to do anything efficiently and no one really knows why it still exists

Der Übermensch

01-29-2009, 11:14 AM

Umm that has nothing to do with military intervensionism. It was propoganda based, for sure, but what I have said still stands.
The direct financing of paramilitary groups certainly comes of as militaristic to me.

siva_chair

01-29-2009, 11:16 AM

The direct financing of paramilitary groups certainly comes of as militaristic to me.

The Red Army never militarily intervened.

The same cannot be said about the US.

Der Übermensch

01-29-2009, 11:25 AM

The Red Army never militarily intervened.
I guess you slept through Modern Euro class, so here's some good reading for you on direct Soviet military intervention. There are a lot more pre-WW2 but I thought I should stay away from that, so this is 1939 onwards only :) The list would be a lot longer if I included clandestine support - or countries who became communist in Eastern Europe explicitly because of Soviet Occupation at the time (read that as all of them), but overt usage of force seems more important.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afganistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution,_1956
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_spring

siva_chair

01-29-2009, 11:41 AM

I guess you slept through Modern Euro class, so here's some good reading for you on direct Soviet military intervention. There are a lot more pre-WW2 but I thought I should stay away from that, so this is 1939 onwards only :) The list would be a lot longer if I included clandestine support - or countries who became communist in Eastern Europe explicitly because of Soviet Occupation at the time (read that as all of them), but overt usage of force seems more important.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afganistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution,_1956
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_spring

I guess you slept through the bit where I already mentioned they only used direct military force to reclaim what the Russian empire had previously lost (or as a "conservative" measure for their bloc).

The only one that this does not hold true for is Afghanistan, which was obviously a blatant act of expansionist military interventionism.

Der Übermensch

01-29-2009, 12:28 PM

The Russian Empire never possessed Czechoslovakia or Hungary (remnants of the Austro-Hungarian empire). Finland and Poland were both independent and recognized nations by the time of invasion, both of whom did not want to return to the 'Russian fold' as they had never enjoyed being part of the empire in the first place. (And for that matter, Finland had only been stolen from Sweden in the early 1800's, so what claim Russia had to it at all is debatable). (Edit: I'm also going to say that the invasion of Poland counts, despite the fact that even I would admit it was once a well constituted part of the Russian Empire. Why? Because India was once a well constituted part of the British Empire, but if the British Army invaded India tomorrow, I don't think you would be saying "O, it's excusable! They are only reclaiming a part of their Empire they once lost!" That fact obviously doesn't matter. What matters is recognized independence and sovereignty.)

Of course by the mere use of the word "Russian Empire" you are admitting the imperialist nature of the Soviet actions in those cases. They were trying to return to the imperial glory of earlier times! So I don't see how you can possibly think you are correct here in saying the USSR wasn't militaristic or imperialist.

So seriously. Just stop it. Or at least fact check before you go spewing off BS.

siva_chair

01-29-2009, 12:40 PM

The Russian Empire never possessed Czechoslovakia or Hungary (remnants of the Austro-Hungarian empire).

Nor did those countries become part of the Soviet Bloc through intervention by the Soviet Army.

Finland and Poland were both independent and recognized nations by the time of invasion, both of whom did not want to return to the 'Russian fold' as they had never enjoyed being part of the empire in the first place. (And for that matter, Finland had only been stolen from Sweden in the early 1800's, so what claim Russia had to it at all is debatable).

They were still Russian territories as part of the Russian empire, which is what the Soviets wished to restore (namely, all the crap they lost due to WWI and felt cheated out of).

Of course by the mere use of the word "Russian Empire" you are admitting the imperialist nature of the Soviet actions in those cases. They were trying to return to the imperial glory of earlier times! So I don't see how you can possibly think you are correct here in saying the USSR wasn't militaristic or imperialist.

No, I said they weren't expansionist in the same sense. They believed they had legitimate right to those former territories (they did not, of course, but that isn't the issue here), as they felt they were cheated out of them after WWI and II. The only direct military action they took, with the exception of Afghanistan, was to reclaim what they felt they had unjustly lost (and in their mind felt legitimately entitled to) due to the World Wars and to "conserve" the bloc (which isn't expansionist, it's conservative).

The United States on the other hand has taken direct military action to expand it's geopolitical influence on, what is it? 4 different continents on multiple occasions in the last 100 years? Which was what my original point was to begin with: The US has shown itself to adopt far more expansionist and interventionist policies than even the Soviet Union.

So seriously. Just stop it. Or at least fact check before you go spewing off BS.

Maybe you should read a little more carefully before you start raising your lance and making your noble stance against the strawmen you have created.

Iskandar

01-29-2009, 01:07 PM

War is the health of the state, afterall.This would make sense if the healthiest states weren't those which have been neutral for decades if not hundreds of years.

siva_chair

01-29-2009, 01:20 PM

This would make sense if the healthiest states weren't those which have been neutral for decades if not hundreds of years.

No, actually it makes perfect sense. It is meant that a state necessarily expands it's power through war. It comes from a Randolph Bourne piece by the same name.

Iskandar

01-29-2009, 01:22 PM

That conveniently ignores all the states that don't though. Which also happen to be the most stable. Switzerland for the win.

siva_chair

01-29-2009, 01:25 PM

That conveniently ignores all the states that don't though. Which also happen to be the most stable. Switzerland for the win.

They also don't tend to expand their power, either. Context for the win.

ATC

01-29-2009, 01:26 PM

No, actually it makes perfect sense. It is meant that a state necessarily expands it's power through war. It comes from a Randolph Bourne piece by the same name.

The machinery of the state expands itself certainly. Wars are wonderful for expanding the organs of government.

ps: I'm agreeing with you on this after three threads of disagreement.

Der Übermensch

01-30-2009, 01:24 PM

*stuff*
You're just playing with semantics now. They only used force to "conserve the bloc"? Fine. So did the US. Most of the American interventionism was to "conserve" their bloc too. The Monroe Doctrine? All that **** we pulled in the Americas was of the exact same type that the USSR pulled with the Czechs or Hungary. Conserving what we (rightly or wrongly) saw as "our pond." Vietnam, Korea? Those were both instances of us lending support to directly counter Soviet incursions (albeit, as I said, they preferred to be more low key)! The ****ing pilots were were flying against in Korea were mostly Ruskies - not Koreans - who had volunteered for duties similar in essence to the Flying Tigers back in the 40's.
I'm not saying that the US wasn't expansionist or interventionist, but for you to then say that the Soviets WEREN'T is absurd, seeing as the vast majority of American incursions post-1950 till the fall had the Soviets pulling the strings on the other end. Just because they understood how be subtle doesn't let them off the hook. They were blatant in their desire for expansion of their sphere of influence.

siva_chair

01-30-2009, 01:49 PM

You're just playing with semantics now.

No, I explicitly said what I said and it was very clear.

They only used force to "conserve the bloc"? Fine. So did the US. Most of the American interventionism was to "conserve" their bloc too. The Monroe Doctrine? All that **** we pulled in the Americas was of the exact same type that the USSR pulled with the Czechs or Hungary. Conserving what we (rightly or wrongly) saw as "our pond." Vietnam, Korea? Those were both instances of us lending support to directly counter Soviet incursions (albeit, as I said, they preferred to be more low key)! The ****ing pilots were were flying against in Korea were mostly Ruskies - not Koreans - who had volunteered for duties similar in essence to the Flying Tigers back in the 40's.
I'm not saying that the US wasn't expansionist or interventionist, but for you to then say that the Soviets WEREN'T is absurd, seeing as the vast majority of American incursions post-1950 till the fall had the Soviets pulling the strings on the other end. Just because they understood how be subtle doesn't let them off the hook. They were blatant in their desire for expansion of their sphere of influence.

I specifically said the Soviets weren't AS expansionist as their US counterparts (the original point of bringing it up). The only expansionist moves they made were to reclaim what they held at one time and to prevent countries (that became communist through their own populist movements) from leaving their bloc (still horrible, but distinct). And it is certainly very distinct in how the USSR intervened and how the US intervened. The US wasn't "defending their bloc" in any remote sense of the word in WWI, WWII, China, Korea, Vietnam, Guatemala, Iran, The Middle East, Somalia, Indonesia, etc. We took it directly upon ourselves to intervene with our military to stop the big bad expansionism of Communism (despite the fact that most of the time it was to stop a populist movement of Communism) and other leaders we didn't like and install political leaders by brute force. I certainly am not defending communism in any way, but to say that the Soviets were as interventionist and expansionist as the US during the 20th century is simply dishonest.

Iskandar

01-30-2009, 01:52 PM

siva_chair

01-30-2009, 02:02 PM

Iskandar

01-30-2009, 02:10 PM

The idea of the USSR fighting China is laughable. That conflict would drag on for decades.

You could argue the USSR and China each had a separate sphere of influence. The Second World was not any more unified than the First. But you could also consider them two parts of a larger communist sphere, opposed to the West.

siva_chair

01-30-2009, 02:13 PM

The idea of the USSR fighting China is laughable. That conflict would drag on for decades.

Of course it was laughable. The point is very clear though, that Mao had no intention of taking orders from the Soviet politburo.

You could argue the USSR and China each had a separate sphere of influence. The Second World was not any more unified than the First. But you could also consider them two parts of a larger communist sphere, opposed to the West.

Yeah and?

Iskandar

01-30-2009, 02:20 PM

The point is that it was foremost the ideology that was expansionist. It didn't matter whether it was the USSR or China because despite their rivalry they were two faces of the same communist coin.

Der Übermensch

01-30-2009, 02:38 PM

Their funding of guerillas and revolutionary movements in Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia certainly qualifies as expansionism because their aim was to bring more countries under their sphere of influence. What Der is arguing is that covert expansionism is still expansionism (although it was not really all that covert of course, since everyone knew what they were doing).

Heh. True, it was only covert in comparison to how the US went about it.

The only expansionist moves they made were to reclaim what they held at one time and to prevent countries from leaving their bloc (

And the only expansionist moves the US made were to counter soviet moves into areas that they never held at any time previous (such as Korea and Vietnam being the most obvious, but conflict by proxy was also evident in areas such as Angola, where heavy presence of Soviet advisors certainly makes it evident that the USSR's hand was deep into the cookie jar) and to prevent countries from leaving their "bloc" (Everything in the America's as concurrent with the Monroe doctrine and later corollaries, that being besides the fact that half the time the opposing force was funded by the Soviets regardless of the doctrine).

Yet the Soviets never sent troops into China....
They did in 1969 I believe.

siva_chair

01-31-2009, 08:59 AM

The point is that it was foremost the ideology that was expansionist. It didn't matter whether it was the USSR or China because despite their rivalry they were two faces of the same communist coin.

Actually, Marxism (and Leninism) specifically advocates that countries must fall to communism on their own.

And the only expansionist moves the US made were to counter soviet moves into areas that they never held at any time previous (such as Korea and Vietnam being the most obvious, but conflict by proxy was also evident in areas such as Angola, where heavy presence of Soviet advisors certainly makes it evident that the USSR's hand was deep into the cookie jar) and to prevent countries from leaving their "bloc" (Everything in the America's as concurrent with the Monroe doctrine and later corollaries, that being besides the fact that half the time the opposing force was funded by the Soviets regardless of the doctrine).

Those countries were never in the US's "bloc."

The Soviets funded and gave support to communist movements. This is not the same as the US actively sending troops into countries. You are conflating the two in a manner that is very dishonest.

They did in 1969 I believe.

I don't believe so. As far as I am aware, the Soviets have only "intervened" with financial aid in China during the Chinese Revolution. In contrast, the US sent troops into China on 6 different occasions throughout the 20th century....