Interesting Fact
 

All this talk about Socialism reminded me of something a Russian Politics professor told me a few years back. I don't know if it's ABSOLUTELY true or an exaggeration, but it is interesting nonetheless.

This proves that Josef Stalin was perhaps the most paranoid person that ever lived, and Adolf Hitler was one of the most intelligent (disregarding moral issues).

In order to weaken the Soviet Union during World War II, Hitler would use intelligence channels - agents and double agents - to inform the KGB that Stalin's top Generals were actually double-agents working in tandem with the Axis powers. This wasn't true, of course. Stalin had no way of knowing whether or not this was true, so, always better safe than sorry, he executed all of his top Generals. Hitler continued this process until the highest-commanding Soviet officers were lowly Lieutenants that had to have been promoted through the ranks to fill in the holes left by Stalin's purgings. Thusly, Hitler rendered the Soviet army all but incompetent.

Re: Interesting Fact
 

Interesting, then, that Hitler lost, isn't it?

Hitler was outmanned by the Americans, outsmarted by the British who cracked their impossible codes, and outwitted by DeGaulle's underground that time and time again managed to get vital information where it needed to go (the french resistance was kind of like the R2D2 of WW2)...

Hitler was a genius, don't deny it. He lost because his ideology was evil, and the world wouldn't stand for it.

You're forgetting the part where Hitler was stopped at Stalingrad, beaten in Belorussia ("[the Soviets] eliminated more than three times as many German army divisions than the Allies did in Normandy"), and in April 1945 the Soviets occupied Berlin and hoisted the hammer and sickle over the Reichstag!

Hitler lost because he was insane. Not because good triumphs over evil.

Following your logic, France's ideology was (is still?) evil, since they were happy to let Hitler do whatever he wanted until they realized that THEY were getting raped, killed, etc.

Yes, and they would have eliminated more if the army weren't weakened.

"Following your logic, France's ideology was (is still?) evil, since they were happy to let Hitler do whatever he wanted until they realized that THEY were getting raped, killed, etc"

Oh, God. Here we go again with the anti-French sentiment that is newborn as of this war with Iraq. The fact of the matter is that France's military was simply not equipped to oppose the thousands upon thousands of German troops that marched on the country. If they HAD, the French death toll would have been catastrophic compared with what happened in reality. What France decided to do instead was an underground and active resistance, undermining the German forces and providing information to the allies that would have made victory much more difficult than it was. Lives were saved with the French method of dealing with Hitler, and Hitler was eventually defeated.

I am not French, nor to I pretend to like the French people (they are rude and arrogant, in my experience), but I feel the need to defend a people that are suffering the verbal abuse of many, many thoughtless Americans who are solipsistically upset that the French government dares to oppose U.S. policy.

Then why don't you feel the need to defend the US people that are suffering the verbal abuse of many, many thoughtless world inhabitants?

BTW, how can hitler be a genius AND think it reasonable that he could rule the world? http://forums.pelicanparts.com/image...cs_-_Brain.gif

No more trips to France for me, no more putting up with the sh**head French mentality. These last few months have been a wake up call. The French are dead to me.

Presumably because it is mostly one-way France-bashing traffic around here. Who knows - maybe CJ frequents a Peugeot BBS and vigorously defends the US there...

Besides, France didn't make war without getting agreement from everyone first. It blocked the US and criticised it. For this, France get called a nation of cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Depending on your point of view, France did nothing wrong (and deserves no abuse), while America did, and deserves abuse.

how can hitler be a genius AND think it reasonable that he could rule the world

But, but, but, I am a genius and I think I can rule the world ;)

Good point!!

My goodness you're easy to bait. SmileWavy :p :D

It was. However they also set a precedent for every other country in Europe to roll over. Who knows what might have happened had they had the balls to stand up to the goosesteppers.

As for France being evil, it was a simple syllogism based on two of your postulates:

1) Hitler was evil (your postulate, but I agree)
2) Those who "wouldn't stand for it" were not evil (your postulate)
3) France stood for it
4) France was (still is?) evil

Yeah, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" isn't quite right.

It should be; wine-drinking surrender monkeys. :D
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...army-knife.jpg

BTW, if you think France opposed the US (taking out Saddam) due to some higher moral standard, you would be very wrong.

Russia and France together accounted for most of the commercial contracts permitted by the UN in the past 12 years of sanctions in Iraq through the oil-for-food program. . ..and the UN got to skim 3% off of those for "administration."

I am not aware of that (the contracts).

I don't think they did it for any moral reason at all. I think they did it because they believe (this sounds better in a French accent, à la Monty Python/Holy Grail) that the imperialist American Gouvernnement wants to take over the world, and forever damage the French way of life.

And I can't entirely blame them for thinking that. The French have always been worried about it (presumably since Hitler) and if they aren't pissing off the US they are pissing off the English.

It WAS!! - and so too for the allies. Funny, those allies are now the "coalition"
And still further back, how many of us have our uncles and grand dads buried in the Somme?
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...eresmill02.jpg

"1) Hitler was evil (your postulate, but I agree)
2) Those who "wouldn't stand for it" were not evil (your postulate)
3) France stood for it
4) France was (still is?) evil"

That is very Aristotolian logic; ie flawed except when viewed from one side. I don't believe that an entire country of people can be "evil"... only individuals can. The French are not "evil". and they never were "evil". Rude? Yes. Arrogant? Definitely. Smelly? Most of the time. But evil? Hardly.

Hitler WAS a genius - insanity and genius very often go hand-in-hand. If Hitler wasn't a genius, he wouldn't have been able to rescue Germany from the edge of financial ruin, and he definitely wouldn't have gotten as far as he did in his campaign to make the Third Reich the next major world Empire.

Well, yes, except it is correct when viewed from my side, and my side is the side of "Good" (i.e., would not "stand for" Hitler). SmileWavy

Then prove it mathematically. Show all of your work for full credit.

:p

Only individuals can be evil. "The French" refers to a culture in country made up of many, many people. "The French" are not an individual. Therefore, the French are not evil.

Your major premise is flawed. A counter-example: Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Hitler are chatting together in a room. Can we not collectively call this roomful of people "evil"?

Hey Blue:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the US 'stand for it' by acting neutral and selling supplies to both sides until Dec 7 1941 - a full 2 1/2 years after the war started?

Just wondering,
Andrew M

From http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1994/ch10_p7.htm

"The United States, disillusioned by the failure of the crusade for democracy in World War I, announced that in no circumstances could any country involved in the conflict look to it for aid. Neutrality legislation, enacted piecemeal from 1935 to 1937, prohibited trade with or credit to any of the warring nations."

"In early 1941 Congress approved the Lend-Lease Program, which enabled President Roosevelt to transfer arms and equipment to any nation (notably Great Britain, the Soviet Union and China) deemed vital to the defense of the United States. Total Lend-Lease aid by war's end amounted to more than $50,000 million."

You are talking about a room full of evil individuals, I am talking about a country full of millions of people, almost all of whom you have no idea what their personal beliefs consist of. I think the diference is clear.

I think it is safe to say that Hitler was a brilliant man, and also very evil. Most people don't realize that if not for a few key bad decisions, it could be a very different world. Hindsight being 20/20 and all, here is a partial list. It has been a few years since I did any reading on this topic, so if I am missing something, let me know,

1: Pact with Japan. If he could have kept the US out of it longer, Britain may have fallen. Without this pact, the US would have focused on the Pacific post Dec 7, instead of Europe.

2: Invading the USSR in general was a bad idea, but there were a couple other bad decisions that compounded it:

2a: treating the Soviet people horribly. At first many welcomed the Germans as liberators from Stalin. If Hitler would have played up that role, resistance would likely have been much less, and Stalin may have even been removed by whatever was left of the Red Army (post purges) and the people. The Russian people got rid of one government not too long before this.

2b: Spending a month screwing around in the Balkans and Greece bailing out Mussolini, and diverting troops to these areas as well as Africa. Had the invasion of Russia started a month earlier as initially planned, Moscow may have fallen before winter hit.

3: At the beginning of the war, forbiding any long term weapons development. Hitler believed that any research that would not produce a workable weapon within 12 months(IIRC) was a waste of effort, as the war would be over by then. The ME 262 jet fighter had been in development a year when the war started, but didn't enter service for another 6 years. Other inovations like guided anti-ship missiles also came too late to have any effect on the outcome.

4: Changing the focus of air attacks in the Battle of Britain from RAF airfileds to civilian centers. The happened largely by accident, some German bombers dropped their bombs over a darkened London. Attacks on civilian centers were something which had been specifically banned by Hitler. After Nazi bombs hit London the RAF (who didn't know it wasn't planed) retaliated by attacking Berlin. Hitler ordered a change of targets to Industry and cities, and gave the RAF the break they needed to repair airfileds and radar stations. The rest is as they say, History.

If any of these things had been done differently the outcome may have been entirely different, and the world would be a much different, much uglier place.

Something to think about.

Tom