quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

Haha!

But aren't you even an itsy bitsy embarrassed about your national soccer team? When was the last time they dominated at world class level? (PS: We call it football here too, but for the benefits of Americans, where football means a different sport, I'm just gonna go with soccer.)

Soccer is an English term. It was a means of distinguishing the game from rugby.

Football, football as we know it, was called Association Football. Rugby was called Rugby football.

Both games sprang up around the same time, and so Association Football was shortened to 'soccer' by English public schools in an attempt to identify it as a game different to rugby football.

As always, we invent these things.

The fact that other countries do it better in later years doesn't mean anything to us because we'll always be an arrogant (or confident depending upon point of view) lot who don't give a fuck what the rest of the world does because it's our game and no matter how good you are you'll always be out of your depth with us - win, lose or draw.

Come to think of it, why do you people outside of this island copy pretty much everything we do? 'Time you lot stood on your own two feet - what are we? your fuckin' mothers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

I'll have to get a cite for you. But the fascist were a "National" socialist party. The difference between that and a socialist country like the Soviet Union was slim and only based on international intent versus national intent. I assume you're familiar with the Natzies being called National Socialists so I don't have to cite that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

I'll have to get a cite for you. But the fascist were a "National" socialist party. The difference between that and a socialist country like the Soviet Union was slim and only based on international intent versus national intent. I assume you're familiar with the Natzies being called National Socialists so I don't have to cite that.

The differences were not "slim" but fundamental, and you fell in an age-old trap.
What dictator within the last hundred years did not pronounce himself the one and only good democrat? Same phenomenon.

Und leider hast du überhaupt keine Ahnung von irgendwas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


Let's not forget Stalin's non-aggression pact with his fellow socialist country, Germany.


Any idea how that non aggression pact came about?

with his fellow socialist country, Germany.

Germany was fascist not socialis. Germany went to war with russia because they were against socialism. Educate yourself.





In which pact the two countries determined how they were going to devide Eastern Europe between them.


Where is that in the pact?

The pact lasted for years allowing Germany freedom to invade Europe.


Actually it was curuchill who allowed germany to invade europe. You might want to read his book,ww 2 in which he details how he prevented russia from comming to the aid of france (her ally). It was refered to as "the intervention".Lady astor and winny went at it pretty heavy over this incident.

The Soviet Union's, not Russia, contribution after Germany broke the pact was not what they'd intended,


Actually it was exactly what they had intended. When churchill stopped russia from aiding france her only coice was to ally with germany to gain time.



it was necessary for survival. Hitler fucked up with two fronts.


What two fronts? Europe was secure. Hitler left 20 or so divisions there and sent the other 2.5 million men to russia.North africa was only a corps and primarily italian.

Stalin had every intention of later aggression.

You don't have to like stalin to respect him. He had obviously read hitlers book which quite clearly laid out his plans to exterminate the russians. So yes stalin knew he would be fighting hitler he just wanted to postphone it while he was building up his arsenal.


To praise them now is silly. Sure, a lot of their soldiers died. A lot of that was due to Stalin's policy of sacrificing men rather than material.

How do you come up with that. He used material and men the same way. He was fighting to preserve the russian people that hitler had promised to turn into fertilizer. If you were the president how many men would you sacrafice to save the country?

I'll have to get a cite for you. But the fascist were a "National" socialist party. The difference between that and a socialist country like the Soviet Union was slim and only based on international intent versus national intent. I assume you're familiar with the Natzies being called National Socialists so I don't have to cite that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

fascism
a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

Socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Communism
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Now, neither Nazi Germany nor the Soviet Union were actually anything close to socialist countries.

Nazi Germany was clearly fascist with power resting primarily with Hitler and his few select henchmen.

Now, the Soviet Union, or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the power and control was in the hand of the communist party (and party members got all the benefits, perks and good stuff, everyone else got fucked.)

Of course, in the Soviet Union, there were elections, even though there was only one person running for office.

In Nazi Germany, after Hitler came to power, there were no elections, period.

Oh, and for the record, the Nazi Party, indeed all fascist movements are RIGHT wing ultra conservative movements, having little or no connection with socialism other than using the word in the name of the party.

A nazi fanatic is to socialism as a Chicken is to grilled top sirloin.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent1

What happens with these things is that people see 'socialist' in the name, or see the individual being subordinate to the state, and conclude they were socialists.

Well a dog could call itself a cow, but it remains a dog. A stupid fuckin' dog, but a dog all the same.

The proof is in the intent, purpose and the philosophy of the Nazi Party.

Anyone who concludes that the Nazi Party were socialists really haven't done their homework.

The Nazi Party sprang up as a counter to socialist elements within Germany.

Their philosophical spokesman was the arch-conservative Martin Heidegger, probably the most famous philosopher of the 20th century.

Their founders were generally pig farmers and the like from Bavaria - died-in-the-wool conservatives.

Their entire foreign policy was underpinned by racial doctrine, which really isn't a socialist practice - whatever the ills of Socialism.

The things is with Americans, and as you're German the two countries are a good comparison, their form of Conservatism is entirely different to the German form of Conservatism with regard to the Nazi Party.

And, so they generally struggle to understand how and why a state machine with designs on conquest and racial hierarchy can be conservative.

Yet, they were conservative all the same. A peculiarly German form of Conservatism (or Central and Eastern European form of Conservatism - ask Termyn8tor, he loves 'em).

English and American Conservatism is entirely different, and that's why when you ask an American many struggle to grasp that at root they were conservatives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent1

What happens with these things is that people see 'socialist' in the name, or see the individual being subordinate to the state, and conclude they were socialists.

Well a dog could call itself a cow, but it remains a dog. A stupid fuckin' dog, but a dog all the same.

The proof is in the intent, purpose and the philosophy of the Nazi Party.

Anyone who concludes that the Nazi Party were socialists really haven't done their homework.

The Nazi Party sprang up as a counter to socialist elements within Germany.

Their philosophical spokesman was the arch-conservative Martin Heidegger, probably the most famous philosopher of the 20th century.

Their founders were generally pig farmers and the like from Bavaria - died-in-the-wool conservatives.

Their entire foreign policy was underpinned by racial doctrine, which really isn't a socialist practice - whatever the ills of Socialism.

The things is with Americans, and as you're German the two countries are a good comparison, their form of Conservatism is entirely different to the German form of Conservatism with regard to the Nazi Party.

And, so they generally struggle to understand how and why a state machine with designs on conquest and racial hierarchy can be conservative.

Yet, they were conservative all the same. A peculiarly German form of Conservatism (or Central and Eastern European form of Conservatism - ask Termyn8tor, he loves 'em).

English and American Conservatism is entirely different, and that's why when you ask an American many struggle to grasp that at root they were conservatives.

I agree with most you wrote, except I maybe would not put Heidegger in a leading position - most of his philosophy was far too difficult for them to understand. I think both sides were just happy that he did not run like so many other intellectuals.

The Nazi philosophy was mostly based on misunderstood Nietzsche, a lot of Spengler and Rosenberg ("Untergang des Abendlandes"), Schönerer and a few others, not to forget good old Macchiavelli and Clausewitz of course.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent1



Not true.

Actually, the similarity was in their practice.

So, just as the Nazis were happy enough to lock people up in concentration camps and the like, the Soviets were happy enough to kidnap hundreds of thousands of their own citizens and transport them to wherever the Soviets wanted them to work.


Which among those sent to the gulags were not counter-revolutionaries?

The contrast was in their beliefs and values.

Well said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Have you some validation for that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

I'll have to get a cite for you. But the fascist were a "National" socialist party. The difference between that and a socialist country like the Soviet Union was slim and only based on international intent versus national intent. I assume you're familiar with the Natzies being called National Socialists so I don't have to cite that.

The differences were not "slim" but fundamental, and you fell in an age-old trap.
What dictator within the last hundred years did not pronounce himself the one and only good democrat? Same phenomenon.

Und leider hast du überhaupt keine Ahnung von irgendwas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: NorthernGent1
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Have you some validation for that?


Yes, here's the crack, mate: you go and spend at least 5 hours looking for it and in the event you come back empty handed I'll point you in the right direction.

It is not my resposibility to validate your opinions.