|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/17/2014 4:01:50 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
That leftist freaks mock me only makes me laugh.
For anyone more honest and open minded than the typical leftist, the article I linked to above is called "Obama, Hitler, And Exploding The Biggest Lie In History" and it is a very good read.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/09/01/obama-hitler-and-exploding-the-biggest-lie-in-history/
Interesting article. The thing that always floors me about arguments comparing Hitler, Stalin, Fascism, Socialism, Communism, etc. (and trying to use that brush to tar U.S. politicians) is that they typically fail to take into consideration the extreme conditions in those countries which led to men like Hitler and Stalin taking power. You'd think that the lesson from history should be for society to not create the conditions which lead to such desperation as to cause such upheavals.
For example, Lenin gained power on a slogan of "Peace, Land, Bread." It would have been wise for the powers that be in Russia to provide (at least) land and bread to the people before Lenin rose to power, wouldn't it? So, why didn't they make things better for the people so they wouldn't turn to Lenin and the Bolsheviks? That's all they had to do, yet the wealthy in that country were too unreasonably intransigent. All they had to do was share some of their wealth, not all of it, but they refused to even make the slightest concessions, so they ended up losing it all. They would rather have lost everything than share one penny of wealth with the "little people," and that's what ended up happening.
But sure, blame it all on Lenin. Or blame it on Rasputin. But never, ever blame the ever-wise and all-knowing wealthy classes who create the air we breathe and the land we stand on.
A somewhat similar situation could be discerned in pre-Hitler Germany, where people had to carry wheelbarrows full of money just to buy a loaf of bread. Of course, somebody could have clued in the wealthy and business elite of that country to not be so greedy and demand so much money, especially with guys like Hitler wanting to gain power and causing a ruckus. It didn't matter if he was a socialist, communist, fascist, or whatever you want to call him. He was an extremist, and the elite of that country should have realized that the best way to weaken an extremist's position is to make concessions to the lower classes. People will only go along with extremism in times of desperation, so the elite have to learn to not create times of desperation.
I once thought that our elite in America learned to do just that, which is part of why we have social programs and gave moderate support to the labor movement and civil rights movement. That's the reason for having such programs, not because of a bunch of bleeding hearts, but because it is clear that not having moderate social programs and moderate policies to rein in business would lead to the extreme conditions found in pre-Soviet Russia or pre-Nazi Germany. But it seems as if this article wants us to forget these lessons of history.
Wasn't Hitler's rise to power preceded by major expansion of the money supply? Didn't that massive expansion essentially make the currency nearly worthless (which is why it took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy bread)?
You're right, though. You'd think we'd have learned from history. It's a great thing that we haven't inflated our money supply to the extent the Weimar Republic, Hungary, Bolivia, or Zimbabwe. We're just too smart to make those mistakes. [8|]
|
|
|
|
