What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

I think Obama is on the path to becoming a ruthless dictator. He is employing scare tactics to get people to do what he wants--his meeting with the CBO chairman attempting to change the CBO's assessment of the likely cost of his universal healthcare plan, is just one example.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Well, I didn't use the term since 'Mobilisation' means something totally different in German, namely "making the troops ready for war".

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Setanta wrote:
No, i meant Beethoven. Just because you are unfamiliar with a long standing joke among the Germans and Austrians doesn't mean it isn't real.

Perhaps you would check your own familiarity with said long-standing joke by asking someone else - unless you, too, have joined the "I'm ignorant of the facts so therefore I have a strong opinion" confrerie here and in the current presidency. Hope that's not the case.

I'll assume that you have, since you posted this, read the posts by Walter which refer to this l0ng-standing joke between the Germans and Austrians.

Not that i have any expectation that you would ever admit that you were wrong.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, I didn't use the term since 'Mobilisation' means something totally different in German, namely "making the troops ready for war".

My (often indequate) translator translates "einberufung" as "conscription" in English which I would think would be used mostly as involuntary induction into the military.

But then the other day I was trying to translate light bulb into German and the translator kept translating 'bulb' into the German word for onion.

So I take all the translations with a bit of caution these days.

0 Replies

Coming back to okie's idea that Hitler was a Socialist.
There are (in German) two online references about this, one on the website of Holocaust reference: arguments against Holocaust deniers. The other on the NS-archive. Both referring to the Strasser brothers and their role within the NSDAP.

0 Replies

@okie,

First, Okie responds to a post of mine with this:

okie wrote:

Setanta wrote:
This is something we've been over before here, Walter--people attempting to blame the entire German nation for the NSDAP and their policies. People who have their minds made up in advance, though, will never listen.

If you are talking about me, I have not ever blamed all the people in Germany, Setanta. Try to be accurate, okay?

Then, he responds recently as follows:

okie wrote:

Obviously, you are doing one of two things, you either have not read my posts, or you are intentionally misquoting what I have said, as I have been careful to point out that not all Germans can be blamed. . . .
If you disagree with that, fine, but when you misquote and mis-characterize what I am saying here, I have no use for that. It is dishonest.

That is, however, a flat lie. This is the original post to which i have been referring. Okie did smear the entire German people by inference (leaving aside the gross stupidity of referring to Walter's "fellow Germans," given that neither he nor the majority of the population of Germany were alive then). Okie was definitely not careful to point out that not all Germans can be blamed.

okie wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
I'm glad to hear that neither okie's nor Foxfyre's social background in their childhood showed indicators that they could become dictators.

If your fellow Germans had paid attention to some of this, perhaps a few million people would not have had to die, Walter. Just maybe they could have recognized a troubled man when they saw one, and would not have voted for him, or blindly followed him? (emphasis added)

So what is dishonest is making such a statement, and then trying to weasel out of the implications of what you have written. And, of course, you show your profound ignorance by talking about how Germans might not have voted for him. The Germans did not elect Hitler. When Hitler ran against Hindenberg, he lost. He got into power because the NSDAP had the largest party in the Reichstag, and he was the leader of the party, not because the Germans elected him to anything--not even dog-catcher.

**************************************************

As for your 25 points, both Walter and i have repeatedly pointed out to you that the actions of Hitler and the NSDAP speak louder than words. Hitler relied upon money from right-wing industrialist, bankers and financiers to bankroll the electoral campaigns of the NSDAP. When Hindenberg was finally obliged to call Hitler in to take the office of Chancellor, he propped up his minority government by an alliance with the right-wing DVP (German People's Party). After the Reichstag fire, he used his Reichstag majority (the combination of the two most right-wing parties, the NSDAP and the DVP) to outlaw left-wing parties, and even then, the NSDAP could still not poll more than 45% of the vote.

You are obviously doing one of two things--either you have not read the posts Walter and i have made on this subject, or you are willfully ignoring the overwhelming evidence that you are wrong.

All of it is, of course, in aid of that idiotic thesis that left-wing governments are inherently dangerous because of an alleged innate tendency to totalitarianism.

You have miserably failed to address the long, long list of right-wing dictatorships which i have listed for you. You have ignored Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, Anastasio Somoza, Park Chung Hee, the Argentine Junta, the Greek Colonels--in short, you bury your head in the sand of you illogic, plug your ears and refuse to hear anything which contradicts your thesis.

You are the dishonest one in this thread.

5 Replies

@Setanta,

Set, Expectations from okie to be consistent or even know what he's talking about can only lead to more frustrations. He loves to argue, but his opinions are based on his faulty knowledge and memory, and comes directly from his own imagination; nothing more, nothing less.

He can never produce evidence or facts to back up what he says; he just throw out inanities thinking some of it will stick with some people. I think he's challenged about the same or more than Foxie on any thread.

Most of us are aware they contradict themselves, leave out important facts and only pick and choose on what they think are sellable leaving out pertinent information, and generally play the fear-mongering game.

They both keep us awake and challenged. LOL

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

.......... The Germans did not elect Hitler. When Hitler ran against Hindenberg, he lost. He got into power because the NSDAP had the largest party in the Reichstag, and he was the leader of the party, not because the Germans elected him to anything--not even dog-catcher.......... When Hindenberg was finally obliged to call Hitler in to take the office of Chancellor, he propped up his minority government by an alliance ........
You are obviously doing one of two things--either you have not read the posts Walter and i have made on this subject, or you are willfully ignoring the overwhelming evidence that you are wrong..........

You are the dishonest one in this thread.

No, Okie isn't "the dishonest one" on this thread - at the very least, he has shown that he knows the name of Hindenburg (which you persistently spell wrong), and furthermore he appears to know that under the article 48 of the Weimar Republic's constitution (Artikel 48 Weimarer Verfassung, unless Walter, my authority on German constitutional law, decrees otherwise), Paul Ludwig Hans Anton von Beneckendorff und von Hindenburg (to give the man all his proper titles, not to mention his last name which you consistently and ignorantly butchered) had no choice but to name Hitler in that post. I'm not calling you dishonest, Setanta, just attempting to focus your attention on documentable facts. I trust my effort isn't in vain, and indeed hope wholeheartedly that it isn't, because I think highly of you.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

All of it is, of course, in aid of that idiotic thesis that left-wing governments are inherently dangerous because of an alleged innate tendency to totalitarianism.

Whatever happened in Hitler's case there is nothing idiotic about the thesis that left-wing governments are totalitarian.

Whether that makes them dangerous is another matter. It will depend on who you ask. And the circumstances.

0 Replies

Your knowledge of the rise of Hitler is, at best, shallow, Helen. Hindenburg was not obliged to call Hitler, and, in fact, he attempted to get von Papen to form a government before he called in Hitler. And, von Papen initially tried to do so using the DNVP and the Centre Party. But, failing that, he advised Hindenburg that he would have to call for Hitler to become Chancellor, since von Papen had offered Hitler the Vice-Chancellor's portfolio, and had been turned down..

I had traditionally spelled Hindenburg as you say it should be, until i was corrected by a German-speaking member. It doesn't mean that much, although i'm sure it gratifies your nit-picking heart.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Okay, let us address what you claim that proves I am dishonest in claiming I did not blame all of the German people. Here is my quote you claim to prove your assertion.

"If your fellow Germans had paid attention to some of this, perhaps a few million people would not have had to die, Walter. Just maybe they could have recognized a troubled man when they saw one, and would not have voted for him, or blindly followed him? (emphasis added)"

Let us use some reason to analyze this statement, but first of all I will point out that I have explained before that I did not blame all the German people, so I think Walter knows this, and I think you know this, but you purposely ignore it. Secondly, when I said "your fellow Germans," I did not say "all Germans," and if you would finish reading the very next sentence, it makes it clear that I am talking about the Germans that voted for Hitler and or blindly followed Hitler. The ones that voted for him are far less in number than the ones that later followed him, and of the ones that followed him, some were obviously more enthusiastic than others. Everyone knows, including hopefully you, that not all Germans voted or blindly followed Hitler.

But in another sense, a country can be collectively viewed as a group, when that country goes to war. Nobody ever would claim that every single person out of millions of people are totally of the same exact mindset, but it is common practice to refer to a group in that manner. Not unusual, and only someone like yourself that is trying to twist or make the statement mean more than it obviously does, would try to claim it proves that I lied about it. Actually, your claim is pretty childish, silly, and quite amateurish, in my opinion.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

No, Okie isn't "the dishonest one" on this thread - ....

Thanks.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, Do you understand what a contradiction is? In English, you can't have it both ways and eat the cake too! If you didn't mean one or the other, it's proper English to support your first statement with consistency. When you include a contradiction, nobody really knows where you stand. Do you know what confusion is? That's you!

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Why are Helen and you both misspelling the name of our president Hundenbach?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You have miserably failed to address the long, long list of right-wing dictatorships which i have listed for you. You have ignored Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, Anastasio Somoza, Park Chung Hee, the Argentine Junta, the Greek Colonels--in short, you bury your head in the sand of you illogic, plug your ears and refuse to hear anything which contradicts your thesis.

Your list of characters seem to include strongmen that were corrupt, yes, but in regard to ruthlessness, probably not in the league of the Stalins and Hitlers of the world, not even close. I think they had varying degrees of capitalism, but often state controlled forms of them, and sometimes businesses were confiscated or directed into the hands of friends or relatives of these guys. Often they opposed or were opposed by socialists and communists, but on the scale of left vs right, they still seem to be to the left of any conservative right wing brand of politics, as we know it here. Perhaps some or most have been described as various forms of fascists, so again we run into the debate over where that falls in the political spectrum.

To relate some of that to what we are seeing here now, Obama claims to believe in free markets, but he is creating czars and seeking to exert more government control over businesses and free markets, similar to what we have seen with many of these kinds of governments that you have brought up, Setanta. We certainly do not consider Obama a conservative, but instead he is a leftist, clearly so, in context with left vs right as we judge here in this country. I think it is a matter of borrowing some from both capitalism and socialism and trying to come up with a particular brand or hybrid of the two. The result is a form of politics or policy that is to the left of American conservatism, but to the right of the most extreme left end of the spectrum, which is marxism or communism.

So, although some of the guys you mention may be known as right wing dictators, let us remember they are right wing as compared to what, outright marxists and communists in many cases, which is the extreme left end of the scale. But in my opinion, these guys are still to the left of what we would consider to be conservative in the United States.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

So, although some of the guys you mention may be known as right wing dictators, let us remember they are right wing as compared to what, outright marxists and communists in many cases, which is the extreme left end of the scale. But in my opinion, these guys are still to the left of what we would consider to be conservative in the United States.

I don't think, okie, there's a lot right to what you (and some others) consider to be conservative in the USA.

So, if this is your parameter to judge history - you're certainly 'right'.

But that's a way, you don't look at past times, at history elsewhere.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I would have thought this would have been understood a long time ago, Walter? After all, I said this on Page 2 when this whole subject of Hitler came up:

Quote:

"One of the running debates here in politics has been with mainly "old europe," but other as well, in regard to whether Hitler was an extreme rightist or a socialist or leftist. I have now read some of Mein Kampf and have also read the 25 points of the Nazi Party. I believe the evidence is clear from these documents that Hitler was leftist or a socialist, in context with American politics, left and right. I am going to list the Nazi 25 points of the party in the following."

And using Obama as an example right now, Obama claims to believe in capitalism, but is creating czars and increased government power and intervention into free markets as we speak, which is similar to some of the policies of so-called right wing dictators in history. And as I said, Obama is clearly a liberal leftist, probably the most left leaning president in the history of this country. Here is what one poll now says:

"Obama is now seen as politically liberal by 76%. That's up six points from a month ago, 11 points since he was elected, and the highest total to date. Forty-eight percent (48%) now see him as Very Liberal, up 20 points since he was elected. "

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

1 Reply

@okie,

Well, okay. But there's still the 'socialist'.

Of course, you can re-coin that term for your own, private purposes as well.

I mean, according to our view left-right view you're certainly a right wing in the corner of Neo-Nazis.
But I sincerely would judge it that way.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Frankly, you can get lost, Walter.

Neo- National Socialist German Workers' Party was in Germany, not here.

Thanks to Winston Churchill and FDR, and a great number of people that went there to die, like on the beaches of Normandy, it was placed in the trash heap of history, so you are not going to tag a German invention onto me here. I am a conservative, not a nazi. Got that? If you don't, as I said, you can get lost, okay.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Frankly, you can get lost, Walter.

Neo- National Socialist German Workers' Party was in Germany, not here.

I doubt that more than ever now, okie.

You say that the NSDAP was a german party.
Correct.

You judge that historic party with your today's views as an American conservative.
Your choice.

My choice could be to judge your (political) views with the parameter of our political spectrum.
Which seems to be ... well, questionable.

You judge history from and with your today's opinions.
Which is deadly wrong, I think.
At least when you do it seriously - and when you "have studied" that party's history as you said.

0 Replies

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know