Imagine a world without the US

[HankMorgan]

Victor Davis Hanson of the National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200501070750.asp)

"Imagine a world in which there was no United States during the last 15 years. Iraq, Iran, and Libya would now have nukes. Afghanistan would remain a seventh-century Islamic terrorist haven sending out the minions of Zarqawi and Bin Laden worldwide. The lieutenants of Noriega, Milosevic, Mullah Omar, Saddam, and Moammar Khaddafi would no doubt be adjudicating human rights at the United Nations. The Ortega Brothers and Fidel Castro, not democracy, would be the exemplars of Latin America. Bosnia and Kosovo would be national graveyards like Pol Pot's Cambodia. Add in Kurdistan as well — the periodic laboratory for Saddam's latest varieties of gas. Saddam himself, of course, would have statues throughout the Gulf attesting to his control of half the world's oil reservoirs. Europeans would be in two-day mourning that their arms sales to Arab monstrocracies ensured a second holocaust. North Korea would be shooting missiles over Tokyo from its new bases around Seoul and Pusan. For their own survival, Germany, Taiwan, and Japan would all now be nuclear. Americans know all that — and yet they grasp that their own vigilance and military sacrifices have earned them spite rather than gratitude. And they are ever so slowly learning not much to care anymore."

[trex]

Well, it would probably be something more or less like that. An interesting look at things.

"How would the world be different without Luxembourg? Everyone would make fun of Madagascar instead."

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

Imagine a world in which there was no United States during the last 15 years. We would have a whole different set imperialists fighting for power, what's you point?

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

World without US - itd just be plains indians with nuclear missiles <shrugs>

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by Discarded Wobbly [email protected] 9 2005, 03:32 PM
Imagine a world in which there was no United States during the last 15 years. We would have a whole different set imperialists fighting for power, what&#39;s you point?
Yes, Mr. Pop, that&#39;s precisely Mr. Hanson&#39;s point.

[RhetoricalAbsurdity]

Originally posted by Discarded Wobbly [email protected] 9 2005, 07:32 PM
Imagine a world in which there was no United States during the last 15 years. We would have a whole different set imperialists fighting for power, what&#39;s you point?
^First dose of reality that&#39;s been injected into this topic thus far.

And Hank, I&#39;m very disinclined to take you seriously when your source has ads for a Sean Hannity book, the "Liberal Most Wanted" card deck, and a handbook to being a conservative.

Besides, I don&#39;t think Mr. Hanson would have worded it in the way that Wobbly Pop did, as using the phrase "whole different set" implies that the US is in and of itself an imperialist power, and I very highly doubt a man like him would come out and say that. It appears more to me like a self-righteous "In your face, stupid liberals&#33; The world would be hell without America here to guide, nurture, and protect it."

[redstar2000]

Even better...imagine a world in which the United States never existed.

I like that idea...a lot.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Iran . . . would now have nukes

Mind you, if the USA hadn&#39;t existed for the past fifty years, Iran would be a secular democracy. Haha, oh, right. That.


Cambodia

. . . could have been invaded by Vietnam MUCH earlier, and that whole business could have been, thankfully, stopped sooner. Alas, the Vietnam was otherwise &#39;occupied&#39; (Pun intended).


Noriega

. . . would be a nobody.


the Ortega Brothers and Fidel Castro

. . . still have a few on CONTRAS, right-wing death squads, and Pinoche.


Saddam

. . . assuming he was still able to sieze power within the Ba&#39;ath Party, would probably have been a good deal less successful.



Arab monstrocracies . . . second holocaust

Damn those Arabs&#33; This reminds of that time my friend Ahmed went on a Jewish-baby eating rampage (Before going to study at Waterloo). Because, naturally, given the means, Arabs, in any situation, will immediately start killing Jews.

A wee bit of a generalization?

[Big_Don]

Imagine a world with no Italy&#33; The world would be a very dull palce

[fernando]

no sexy foto models...no pizza&#33;&#33; :angry:

No US would probably mean a free and possibly prosperous Latin America

[Ian]

Would Zarqawi even exist? Hell would Osama exist?

[zangetsu]

I think that with no USA the UN wouldnt take much time to expand and grow stronger to keep the peace, in a world where everyone is the little guy, and afraid that one little guy might try and arm itself and try some empire building- people would organise ect.

But i think it it interesting that most of the examples you give of what would be the world&#39;s problems if there was no USA; it is known that most of those countries only arm because they are either afraid of American imperilism, or USA&#39;s allies in that regoin (eg Israel, in the case of Iran).

Collectively a world full of little states could still isolate and sanction states which brake the rules and violate human rights, and would not be able to forgo this punishment by making friends with the big boss~ but let us not forget, for all the bad people who have nukes already... has ne1 actualy used ne? despotic states do not want to commit suicide by bringing down the wrath of the world on them. One big state and polorized world is a lot more scary... HAVE U ALL FORGOTTEN only >>1<<< country in the history of the world has used nukes on people (CIVILIANS FOR THAT MATTER&#33;)... and they got away with it- -

And didnt USA create the monster saddam hussein in the first place? 0_o

[seraphim]

Even better...imagine a world in which the United States never existed.

I second that if the U.S had never existed Iran and Iraq would never have been provided with weapons and technology that put them on the road to nuclear arms in the first place.

But then again the nuclear bomb probably wouldn&#39;t exist atall.

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 08:06 AM
But then again the nuclear bomb probably wouldn&#39;t exist atall.
Of course the nuclear bomb would exist. It would have been invented by the Nazi&#39;s.

Come on, think. All through history into the present, it&#39;s easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

[fernando]

Really? good guys and bad guys...typical yankee way of seeing things :rolleyes:

Who were the bad guys in the genocidal campaign against the Indians throughout the Americas? Are the US the good guys from bringing &#39;civilization&#39; throughout the Northern American continent, or are they the bad guys for killing off the Indians?

[PRC-UTE]

Afghanastan would not be a hellhole, you idiot. The Russians would&#39;ve helped create a reformed and modern Afghan Republic. Without those yankee stinger missiles, do you think the Mujhadeen would&#39;ve won?

Jaysus how much do I hate ignorant arrogant yank wanks like this?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Hank Morgan
Of course the nuclear bomb would exist. It would have been invented by the Nazi&#39;s.

You&#39;re thinking too narrowly; "counter-factual history" opens up all kinds of alternative possibilities...and the further back the event that you alter, the wider the range of those possibilities becomes.

Consider...

the totally unexpected and stunning defeat of the "federalists" that came with the rejection of the proposed U.S. constitution.

The old Articles of Confederation remained in force, but the several states behaved increasingly like independent countries.

When Virginia and Pennsylvania went to war in 1802 over rival territorial claims in the west, that put an effective end to any notion of a "united states".

There was no "Louisiana Purchase", no "Trail of Tears", no "Mexican War".

There were "2nd revolutions" in both the Republic of New England (1800) and the Republic of Pennsylvania (1804) that ended slavery and created more egalitarian political structures along the model of the French revolution.

Under pressure from both sides (and a threat of succession by New York City), the Dutch landed aristocracy in the Republic of New York was "peacefully" overthrown in 1815.

In 1821, the Cherokee Republic was established and immediately signed treaties of mutual military assistance with the northern republics...and in 1823, the Iroquois Republic followed suit.

The southern slave republics, blocked from western expansion, began to suffer from a shrinking economy...and the slave uprising in Carolina (1833) threw the slave-holders into a panic. The Republic of Virginia was the first to abolish slavery (beginning the "phase out" in 1835); Georgia followed in 1839 and Carolina finally began freeing its slaves in 1846.

...and so on.

Had history taken such a track, it&#39;s unlikely that there would ever have been any Nazis.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Maynard]

What a ridiculous article, it is basically assuming, that if the major "actor" in international affairs was taken out, exactly the same movements and figures would emerge. Which is absurd, if the United States didn&#39;t exist, everything would be different, for better or worse.


Iraq, Iran, and Libya would now have nukes This is an assertion which is highly debatable, since Iraq, Iran and Libya, mainly sought weapons to deter an attack by the United States and/or Israel, whose military budget is heavily subsidised by the United States government. Furthermore, this leaves aside the questions of how those, with the nukes got into power in the first place. Like the role the United States played in overthrowing Mohammed Mossadeq and reinstalling the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose rule led to the increasing popularity of an Islamic Theocratic Revolution and the United States, trying to assassinate Abdul Karim Qassim, Iraqi leader who was later overthrown by the Ba&#39;ath party in a coup with CIA involvement.


Afghanistan would remain a seventh-century Islamic terrorist haven sending out the minions of Zarqawi and Bin Laden worldwide
This point also seems to neglect the CIA&#39;s role in the recruitment of Islamic Fundamentalists to fight the Soviet Union, while not directly supporting but not opposing the rise of the Taliban, so stability could be achieved in Afghanistan and the opportunities that would create for business, while also denying Iran and Russia an ally. While also forgetting that Osama Bin Laden, did not have any intention of fighting the United States, till the United States military maintained bases in Saudi Arabia. Islamic Fundamentalism may still have been a problem but Osama Bin Laden would not be of any significance, I would think.


Noriega
Not wise to bring him up, while trying to display the virtue of the United States...School of the Americas and CIA Payroll ring a bell ? Mullar Omar and Saddam have be explained. I guess, the author though has no problems with current US support for Islam Karimov, Vladamir Putin, Álvaro Uribe and King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz, as well.


The Ortega Brothers and Fidel Castro, not democracy, would be the exemplars of Latin America
The democratic overthrow of the elected Haitian leader was quite exemplary, as was the attempted overthrow of elected leader Hugo Chavez.


Europeans would be in two-day mourning that their arms sales to Arab monstrocracies ensured a second holocaust
One would suggest that Mr Hanson look at the United States Military aid past and present, before including this. European nations have a bad record there but the United States has constantly been much worse in funding and propping up despotic regimes if they serve their interests.


Americans know all that
Trying to pass off his opinion as that of Americas, most would not know the Ortega brothers or about the extent of Libyas weaponry if the United States didn&#39;t exist.


I suppose the Russians, Chinese, and Indians know that Islamists understand all too well that blowing up two skyscrapers in Moscow, Shanghai, or Delhi would guarantee that their Middle Eastern patrons might end up in cinders.

India, of course, has many Islamic Fundamentalist patrons, who are big supporters of an Islamic Kashmir. The Islamists must have understand all too well not to attack on Russia soil, in Beslan, for instance. China has also been fighting Islamists in Xinjiang province.


The wealthy Gulf States pledge very little of their vast petrol-dollar reserves — swollen from last year&#39;s jacked-up gasoline prices — to aid the ravaged homelands of their Islamic nannies, drivers, and janitors
Fair enough criticism, it has very little to do with the Subject. Qatar though, a wealthy gulf state, has pledged 25 million US dollars, with a population of less than 1 million, while the United States Government pledged 350 million dollars, with a population of 293 Million, so it appears they are being more generous.


In the first days of the disaster, a Norwegian U.N. bureaucrat snidely implied that the United States was "stingy" even though private companies in the United States, well apart from American individuals, foundations, and the government, each year alone give more aggregate foreign aid than does his entire tiny country
A very hard point to criticise Norway for, since Norway gives &#036;0.93 for every &#036;100,000 of GDP, while the United States gives &#036;0.06 for every 100,000 dollars in GDP. While the Norwegian government is giving 182 Million in aid for the Tsunami, which is more than half of what the United States is giving, with less then 1/60th of the population.


while millions perished
He couldn&#39;t even get that right....

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 10:39 AM
Imagine a world with no Italy&#33; The world would be a very dull palce
It would also be a place with reliable, yet noticably slower cars.

Of course the nuclear bomb would exist. It would have been invented by the Nazi&#39;s.

I can see that your understanding of history is severely limited. If the USA never existed then the stock market crash would never have existed, the depressions would never have existed, and the Nazis would never have gined the support to win support necessary to gain power.

If you care to move a little further back to the 1919 treaty, if either France of the USA were to be removed the treaty would have been far more extream. Thus it is liley France would have gained a treaty more in line with her ideals on how Germany should be treated. This would undoubtedly have resulted in a treaty which ended in Germany being given a hammering, and more than likley never being able to financially recover. Thus no Nazis.

Alternativly you could argue that without the USA the first world war would have been won by the Germans. If that had been the case the Germans would not have been the losing party and no Nazis.

If America had not existed, then it is almost certain then the Nazis would not have risen to power.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 11:49 PM
Even better...imagine a world in which the United States never existed.
We&#39;d probably all be under the jackboot of Nazi Germany.


I like that idea...a lot.

I can understand why (see above comment).

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 10:59 AM
Had history taken such a track, it&#39;s unlikely that there would ever have been any Nazis.

Had communism not existed, there wouldn&#39;t have been any Nazis either. Or communists, or "state capitalists"
( :lol: ).

[Forward Union]

You forgot that saddam was heavily funded and aided by the US , so without the US he probably wouldn&#39;t have got as far as he did. Besideds...without the US the world would actually be incomprehensibly different.

[fernando]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jan 11 2005, 04:43 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jan 11 2005, 04:43 PM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 10:59 AM
Had history taken such a track, it&#39;s unlikely that there would ever have been any Nazis.

Had communism not existed, there wouldn&#39;t have been any Nazis either. Or communists, or "state capitalists"
( :lol: ). [/b]
Without communism the workers would have been fucked over just as much if not worse than in the 19th century :rolleyes:

[Rage Against the Right]

Without the United States capitalist ideology many of these problmes wouldn&#39;t exist. Radical Muslims will fight anything that moves, there&#39;s no changing that. With no United States the world wouldn&#39;t be so oil obsessed and the Middle East wouldn&#39;t be a seat of power. There&#39;s way too many inferences made in that article. If the past was changed there are an infinity of possible outcomes of things. Stop making those possible outcomes fit into your skewed worldview please.

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jan 11 2005, 04:43 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jan 11 2005, 04:43 PM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 10:59 AM
Had history taken such a track, it&#39;s unlikely that there would ever have been any Nazis.

Had communism not existed, there wouldn&#39;t have been any Nazis either. Or communists, or "state capitalists"
( :lol: ). [/b]
Do you even have a clue what he&#39;s talking about?

If the southern states had not been so powerful, many of those oil families(bush) would not have existed. Many of these oil families played a huge part in Nazi Germany&#39;s rise to dominance.

[PRC-UTE]

Even assuming there was the NSDP, assuming that history was basically the same minus the US, there would&#39;ve been no Henry Ford to sustain Hitler after the beer hall putsch. No American financers to help them. No GM. No Israel either&#33;

But to be fair, had there not been the USA, those Japanese Americans woudln&#39;t&#39;ve had a nice place to stay during WWII. FREE ROOM AND BOARD&#33; The US is the most generous country in the world. Not to mention the American Indians or one third of male Black America. So God Bless the USA&#33; :lol:

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 11 2005, 04:41 PM

We&#39;d probably all be under the jackboot of Nazi Germany.
Nope, you forgot who clawed the guts out of Nazi Germany.


.....yeah, the Soviet Red Army :rolleyes: .

[Vallegrande]

[QUOTEBosnia and Kosovo would be national graveyards like Pol Pot&#39;s Cambodia.[/QUOTE]

Kosovo... Didn&#39;t the U.S. bomb civilians during the time of Clinton&#39;s Presidency?

[fernando]

Yes...they also bombed the Chinese ambassade...and a hospital...but ok they said that they were using "old maps" <_<

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Big_Don
Imagine a world with no Italy&#33;

When the Carthaginian general Hannibal marched victoriously through Roman streets, the nascent empire ignominiously collapsed...and the Italian peninsula once more became a collection of city-states, subservient to Carthage but autonomous in their local affairs.

Meanwhile, Carthage flourished with its new conquests in the Iberian peninsula and, in 115BCE, occupied a foothold in a place that would never be called London.

The "Italians" gradually developed a culture based on a blend of Carthaginian and Greek influences...much resembling the Hellenic kingdoms of the eastern Mediterranean.

But the crucial development was in 49BCE when a couple of young Roman engineers first transformed the "steam toy" of Alexandria into a working steam-powered pump for use in a new aqueduct.

Oh yes, and while there was a fellow called "Yeshuah of Nazareth" who attained moderate notoriety as a "tub-thumping" revivalist in northern Palestine (an Egyptian province), his sect of Judaism died out within a decade of his death (from old age, c.68CE).

Damn, I love that shit&#33; :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[PRC-UTE]

After the collapse of Roman power on the contenient of Europe, the strongest civilization left in Europe, the Celts, spread their influence throughout Eastern Europe, the Baltic, and the Middle East. The enormous Celtic-speaking Nation of Galitia still flourishes and Britain remains a completely Celtic stronghold.

The Germans slowly integrate with the Celts and give up their nationalistic outlook, and everyone lives in cooperative peace.

You&#39;re right this is fun&#33; ;)

[Latifa]

What is this?

[redstar2000]

It&#39;s called "counter-factual" history...what things would have been like if certain "key events" had turned out differently.

I think it goes back to a book published in the 1930s called What If? -- a collection of essays by respected historians speculating on such "events".

Many science-fiction novelists have also written such "alternative time-line" novels.

Imagine a world in which the Muslims won the Battle of Tours? Or the Spanish Armada defeated the England of Elizabeth I?

Here&#39;s one...

When the Roman Emperor Julian issued his edict of toleration in 360CE, the Christians fell to sectarian bickering amongst themselves...prompting a revival of the "old gods".

Up against Julian&#39;s own faith in the old gods plus the prestige of his military victories in Persia and Gaul, Christianity disintegrated and though it still exists today, it is one of hundreds of minor religions.

By the end of Julian&#39;s glorious 35 year reign, the Roman Empire had fully recovered from its 3rd century disasters and, today, is one of the world&#39;s great powers...the longest continually existing political entity in history.

Or this...

The fall of Syracuse to the Athenians spelled the doom of the Spartan despotism and, indeed, of despotism throughout the near east.

Within a half-century, the Republic of Pericles was founded by Athenian merchants and colonizers at the mouth of the Nile River -- its library became world-famous.

The last threat was the Macedonian adventurer Alexander, whose attempted invasion of Greece was soundly defeated in 335BCE.

Or this...

The inward-looking emperor had ruled China only two years before his assassination; so it was easy for his successor to resume the great voyages of exploration in 1412.

Thus a fleet of 80 Chinese vessels entered the harbor at Lisbon in 1438...to the general consternation of Europe.

No one has yet written this one...

Key to the victory of the Paris Commune was the seizure of the gold deposits in French banks. Gold bought food from otherwise unsympathetic peasants but, more importantly, brought many of the nearby German soldiers over to the side of the Commune. With these additional forces available, it was easy to attack and defeat the bourgeois forces gathered at Versailles.

When the German High Command threatened to occupy Paris, a revolt broke out in Hamburg and spread quickly to Berlin. Bismarck was compelled to withdraw much of the German forces in order to deal with this uprising...to no avail as it spread across Germany. Meanwhile, Marseilles and other French cities also established communes.

Then Vienna and Budapest rose, followed by Rome and Milan. By the spring of 1872, Europe was in flames. In desperation, the old ruling classes called for Imperial Russian assistance.

But it was no longer 1848 and the antiquated and poorly equipped Russian forces were simply no match for civilians armed with superior weapons. It took the Russians two months to capture Berlin...and two further months to retreat in disarray.

In March of 1873, Marx and Bakunin led the great victory parade through Paris to celebrate the proletarian victory throughout the continent.

And, as we all know, this was followed in America by the great revolution of 1877...

:D

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Isn&#39;t it irony that half the guys on the list have been helped with their atrocities by the US and that those atrocities probaly wouldn&#39;t have happend, if the US didn&#39;t exist.

If the US didn&#39;t exist, some other country had probaly done this stuff, so what&#39;s the point of this article?

Hank Morgan - you have too much spare time&#33;

http://www.barefootdave.com/2003worlds/thumbs%20up%20banana.JPG

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 11:13 PM
.....yeah, the Soviet Red Army :rolleyes: .
With who&#39;s help ? (Apart from the weather.)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 06:25 PM
Without communism the workers would have been fucked over just as much if not worse than in the 19th century :rolleyes:
Yeah, sure.

[fernando]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jan 12 2005, 03:50 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jan 12 2005, 03:50 PM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 06:25 PM
Without communism the workers would have been fucked over just as much if not worse than in the 19th century :rolleyes:
Yeah, sure. [/b]
why do you think social reforms came in the early 20th century...the Western Nations were scared of the communist revolution

[S.J.]

Hank you dipshit&#33; Saying that the u.s. has solved world problems, middle east problems at that, is absolute lunacy. All of these madmen that you say that we have taken core of are nothing but products of our own decrepid foreign policy. (Iran Contra ring a bell&#33;) The majority of the problems in central and south America are due in large part to our capitalist ventures. I agree with the people who state if not the u.s. then someone else, so stand up against imperialism and start anew.

[Xvall]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jan 11 2005, 04:43 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jan 11 2005, 04:43 PM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 10:59 AM
Had history taken such a track, it&#39;s unlikely that there would ever have been any Nazis.

Had communism not existed, there wouldn&#39;t have been any Nazis either. Or communists, or "state capitalists"
( :lol: ). [/b]

Had communism not existed, there wouldn&#39;t have been any Nazis either. Or communists, or "state capitalists".

Yeah; if Marx didn&#39;t exist, Hitler never would have siezed power.

Where do you come up with this crap?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 12 2005, 09:18 PM
Yeah; if Marx didn&#39;t exist, Hitler never would have siezed power.
Next to Neitzche and Hegel, Marx was probably Hitler&#39;s biggest inspiration.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 04:43 PM
why do you think social reforms came in the early 20th century
Political opportunism ? The idea of one or two people earning enough to support a family was unthinkable in the early 19th century. That all changed thanks to mechanisation and the political contitions that allowed this mechanisation to take place. You&#39;d be naive to think that politicians wouldn&#39;t be on standby to take credit for it. Why do you think no one was shouting for "free" healthcare and schooling two hundred years ago ? Answer : The money to provide it didn&#39;t exist.

Did politicians of the early 19th century ban child labour and restrict working hours ? Of course not; everyone would have starved and their political careers would have been history.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jan 13 2005, 03:52 PM--> (Professor Moneybags &#064; Jan 13 2005, 03:52 PM)
Drake [email protected] 12 2005, 09:18 PM
Yeah; if Marx didn&#39;t exist, Hitler never would have siezed power.
Next to Neitzche and Hegel, Marx was probably Hitler&#39;s biggest inspiration. [/b]
As usual Professor Moneybags proves that he has never read anything other than Ayn Rand and Adam Smith.

I suggest "Mein Kampf", should be added to the ever growing list of books you haven&#39;t read, but should read. If of course you expect anyone to take you remotly seriously, not that I think they oblige you if you had read these books, but they certainly would be more inclined to.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags
Next to Nietzsche and Hegel, Marx was probably Hitler&#39;s biggest inspiration.

:lol: Wrong across the board&#33; :lol:

Nietzsche despised both German nationalism and anti-semitism. Hegel&#39;s "dialectics" are not ever echoed in any of Hitler&#39;s writings or speeches.

And Marx? Marx??? If Hitler thought about Marx at all, he thought Marx was a "Jewish Devil" conspiring against the German Volk.

The "intellectual" influences on Hitler were 19th and early 20th century social Darwinists and "racial theorists"...like Spengler, Chamberlain, and trash like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- which Hitler thought completely genuine.

Your utter detachment from the real world provokes astonishment...as usual.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[eQuaLiTy]

Their all linked together no matter what country. Deception is their key to success.

[S.J.]

Actually the Nazis did use some of Nietzches work but unfortunately they twisted it into their own warped conception of the world. As for Marx RedStar is right on not only was Marx a Jew But a commie as well. Look in your history books kids the Nazis despised socialism/communism, thats one of the main reasons for goging to war with Russia

[Xvall]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jan 13 2005, 02:52 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jan 13 2005, 02:52 PM)
Drake [email protected] 12 2005, 09:18 PM
Yeah; if Marx didn&#39;t exist, Hitler never would have siezed power.
Next to Neitzche and Hegel, Marx was probably Hitler&#39;s biggest inspiration. [/b]
Really? I guess all those speeches Hitler made where he labeled the bolsheviks as a jewish conspiracy and stated that marxists were trying to destroy germany were made up by the left-wing press.

This really makes me wonder why the people at Stormfront choose to ban us on sight instead of embracing their "marxist brethren"&#33;

[PRC-UTE]

Professer Moneyhag&#39;s post ranks as one of the best pieces of bullshit spin I&#39;ve ever read. This entire thread is so beautiful. Please make it a sticky to remind us how retarded capitalists are and for a good laugh.

In case you didn&#39;t know, PM, one of the defining charactaristics of the Nazi regime was their hatred of Jews, Commies and intellectuals (Marx was all three). They actually burned books . . . sorta like Arnold whom closes down libraries and claims Hitler as his hero&#33; :lol:

You&#39;re so stupid is amazing.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 11:49 PM
Even better...imagine a world in which the United States never existed.

I like that idea...a lot.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
Never existed?

The Nazis would still own Europe.

The point about Nazis never rising to power and stuff? OK. The point is the Americans played a major role in securing freedom for the world and you seem to have forgotten that already. Never mind the men who helped save the world are still here and alive? What do you say to them: I like to idea that you would have never helped? I like the idea your efforts were insignifacant? I like the idea we (Europe) don&#39;t need you? I don&#39;t know what you would say? How about for starters, Thank you.

[Latifa]

The point is the Americans played a major role in securing freedom for the world and you seem to have forgotten that already.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You&#39;re a fuckup, AMIC.

[synthesis]

The point is the Americans played a major role in securing freedom for the world and you seem to have forgotten that already.

The point is that American corporations played a major role in securing the power of the Nazis in Germany. Have you forgotten already? :lol:

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:38 AM

The point is the Americans played a major role in securing freedom for the world and you seem to have forgotten that already.

The point is that American corporations played a major role in securing the power of the Nazis in Germany. Have you forgotten already? :lol:
Do you mean?

That the Americans who made sacrafices to save the world? Thier sacrafice is worthless to you? Is that what your saying? I am aware of the political support for Nazis in America. That all changed when America entered the war. It was not even debatable in the USA. The Nazis were the enemy at that point.

Hey I didn&#39;t know Coke and General Motors executives wore swastickas? and marched goose step. The point? That demonization of us business is NOT as simple as you make it. Communist seem to be proud of being able to see more complicated political theories and deeper levels of thought. Why don&#39;t you see the same fo US companies?

[S.J.]

Everything america knows about technology, medicine, science was learned from the the third reich. one of the main reasons america is in power is nazi germany. Also naziism was a fairly large movement in america at the time, says alot about america doesnt it?

[POFO_Communist]

Some misguided individual wrote:


Never existed?

The Nazis would still own Europe.

The point about Nazis never rising to power and stuff? OK. The point is the Americans played a major role in securing freedom for the world and you seem to have forgotten that already. Never mind the men who helped save the world are still here and alive? What do you say to them: I like to idea that you would have never helped? I like the idea your efforts were insignifacant? I like the idea we (Europe) don&#39;t need you? I don&#39;t know what you would say? How about for starters, Thank you.

"The nazis would still own europe"

-The nazis would still not own europe, because the nazis wouldn&#39;t have existed to begin with.

"A major role in securing &#39;freedom&#39; for the world"

Hahahaha&#33; :lol: I love the sound of that word coming from a yank. "FREEDOM&#33;"
Please braveheart, just say so and we will end your suffering, knife goes in guts come out, "FREEDOM&#33;"

Hahahahahahaa&#33; :lol:

:angry: Fuck hollywood for defiling scottish history. Fuck it for defilling everything.

" The men who helped &#39;save&#39; the world."

The world was never saved, the world still needs saving, the world will be saved, but not by capitalism.

[trex]

Would the world be better off without electricity, computers, barbed wire, Pepsi and coke, telephones, the cotton gin, the reaper, and the submarine?

If so, we&#39;re also better off without America.

[blackwaffle]

the nazis were formed because germany was churshed in the first world war. I think america has had such an impact on the world that you can&#39;t really say if the nazis would have existed or if wwi would have happemed, etc... America wasnt really all that bad until the patriot act, and some of the more recent "they call you a terrorist and throw you into prison for life" stuff. I mean, i think captilism may be a nessarrcy step to communism. We learn from our mistakes, and government evolves. I would never say im proud of my country (no matter what country I lived in, partriotism is a lie) but the US isnt that terrible.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jan 14 2005, 06:18 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jan 14 2005, 06:18 AM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 11:49 PM
Even better...imagine a world in which the United States never existed.

I like that idea...a lot.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
Never existed?

The Nazis would still own Europe.

The point about Nazis never rising to power and stuff? OK. The point is the Americans played a major role in securing freedom for the world and you seem to have forgotten that already. Never mind the men who helped save the world are still here and alive? What do you say to them: I like to idea that you would have never helped? I like the idea your efforts were insignifacant? I like the idea we (Europe) don&#39;t need you? I don&#39;t know what you would say? How about for starters, Thank you. [/b]
If the USA had never existed neither would the Nazis, as it has been explained several times in this thread. I suggest you read before you post, it saves everyone the trouble of repeating them selves.

However it is one of those interesting "what if scenarios" which one can make from History.

[synthesis]

That the Americans who made sacrafices to save the world? Thier sacrafice is worthless to you?

No, but what is worthless to me is the opinion of you ignorant jingoists who imply that American soldiers were the only ones to make sacrifices and that the people who ordered them to make those sacrifices were out to "save the world."


Hey I didn&#39;t know Coke and General Motors executives wore swastickas? and marched goose step. The point? That demonization of us business is NOT as simple as you make it.

They fucking supported the Nazis because it was in their economic interests. Where&#39;s the grey area there?

The point? American business will support ANY regime no matter HOW sadistic and oppressive as long as it doesn&#39;t threaten their interests. THAT&#39;S CAPITALISM. Not free markets, not democracy, it&#39;s whatever the corporations feel is in their interests to support.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 03:36 PM
As usual Professor Moneybags proves that he has never read anything other than Ayn Rand and Adam Smith.
I bet those are the only two capitalists you&#39;ve ever heard of. ;)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 13 2005, 09:14 PM
This really makes me wonder why the people at Stormfront choose to ban us on sight instead of embracing their "marxist brethren"&#33;
Of course the people at stromfront hate communists- you&#39;re their rivals in their quest for world domination, just as you hate them (for the same reason). The argument is only over petty details.

The bolshevik&#39;s hated the mensheviks. The trotskyites hated the stalinsits. They were all communists though.

And you fell for the whole charade. :lol:

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 08:53 PM
Look in your history books kids the Nazis despised socialism/communism, thats one of the main reasons for goging to war with Russia
Is that why Hitler went arm in arm into Poland with Stalin ?

[Professor Moneybags]

In case you didn&#39;t know, PM, one of the defining charactaristics of the Nazi regime was their hatred of Jews, Commies and intellectuals (Marx was all three).

No, it wasn&#39;t. You&#39;re defining it by non-essentials; the defining characteristics of Nazism were :

- Collectivism.
- Totalitarianism.
- State control of private property.

The hatred of Jews was just a by-product of those, not a defining characteristic.


They actually burned books . . . sorta like Arnold whom closes down libraries and claims Hitler as his hero&#33; :lol:

Another non-essential.


You&#39;re so stupid is amazing.

You is right. You is much more intelligenter than me. :rolleyes:

[STI]

PM&#39;s new title should be "Makes one point per post".

[S.J.]

hey PM hitler and stalin divided poland because of their dual lust for land and the allies underestimation of stalin. stalin joined with hitler in the noaggression pact due to the fact that he was ignored by the allies in the crisis in munich, so on aug. 23 1939 he signed the pact with hitler. this pact put into motion two spheres of influence, soviet and german, the dividing line for this was to be poland. also the invasion of poland the plans for operation babarossa were well under way, hitler wanted france and britan delt with first, thus the pact with stalin, knew this could be accoplished with no interference in the east.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort)The point is the Americans played a major role in securing freedom for the world and you seem to have forgotten that already.[/b]

Let&#39;s amend that statement in accordance with historical reality.

The American ruling class played a major role in securing freedom from Nazi domination for the world.

This is because, of course, the American ruling class intended to dominate the world themselves.

At that time, the Nazis would have been worse...much worse&#33;

But as time passes (more than half a century) and the features of the American Empire grow sharper and clearer, the difference has diminished and is continuing to diminish.

As both the list and magnitude of American atrocities continue to grow, how far are we, really, from something "like" Auschwitz?

50 years? 25 years? Or even less?

Will Iraq become America&#39;s "greater Auschwitz"?


Originally posted by trex+--> (trex)Would the world be better off without electricity, computers, barbed wire, Pepsi and Coke, telephones, the cotton gin, the reaper, and the submarine?[/b]

Really...technology is not determined by nationality. All of those things would have been invented by any industrial civilization sooner or later.


[email protected]
America wasn&#39;t really all that bad until the patriot act...

Nope, it&#39;s been "bad" from the beginning.


... but the US isn&#39;t that terrible.

Yes it is. Among industrialized countries, it&#39;s the worst on the planet...and by a wide margin at that. To find worse places than America, you have to look at semi-industrialized countries like India, China, Russia, Brazil, Iran, Turkey, etc.


Professor Moneybags
...the defining characteristics of Nazism were :

- Collectivism.
- Totalitarianism.
- State control of private property.

Hopelessly wrong...except, perhaps, for the rather fuzzy concept of "totalitarianism". (It was Mussolini who actually first articulated the goal of a "total state".)

Historians do dispute heatedly the characteristics of Nazism...but I think that nearly all would agree that racial anti-semitism was the "defining characteristic" of Nazi ideology.

It was present from the beginning, it was constantly promoted during the Nazi rise to power, it was implemented with consistency in the Third Reich, and it culminated in the holocaust. Whatever else the Nazis said and did and however they changed their position on this or that, unrelenting hostility towards the Jews was their "fixed star".

The Nazis did not believe in the collective ownership of property (which is what I presume you mean by "collectivism"). There was state ownership of some enterprises (railroads, for example). But the idea of private ownership of the means of production prevailed throughout the Third Reich&#39;s existence -- even Jewish property was rarely taken over by the government but rather "sold" to "Aryan" businessmen.

There was considerable regulation of business in the Third Reich, especially in the last years preceding the war. In your Randian paradigm, this perhaps translates into "state control"...but that&#39;s not what normal people mean when they use the phrase.

One of the most revealing stories about the class nature of the Third Reich that I&#39;ve ever come across is this: a German company applied for a patent on a gas chamber that it designed and manufactured for the SS.

The patent was granted...by the West German government in 1948.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Xvall]

Of course the people at stromfront hate communists- you&#39;re their rivals in their quest for world domination, just as you hate them (for the same reason).

That&#39;s just outright stupid. I don&#39;t think anyone is going to take this seriously. You&#39;re trying to tell us what our goals and feelings are. That&#39;s just asinine.


The argument is only over petty details.

Statelessness versus Fascism. A corporatistic society versus a moneyless one. A ruthless dictator against a system whering there is no recognizable individual who wields leadership. Yup. Real petty stuff there. I hardly see how any of those concepts contradict one another at all. I bet if I go to a Nazi rally, and talk about communistic notions like abolishing currency and eliminating any form of a state, they&#39;ll love me except for the whole "marx is a jew" thing.


The bolshevik&#39;s hated the mensheviks. The trotskyites hated the stalinsits. They were all communists though. And you fell for the whole charade.

I&#39;m neither a bolshevik nor a menshevik. What exactly did I fall for?


Is that why Hitler went arm in arm into Poland with Stalin ?

Because it was militaristically strategic for Hitler to do so? It most certainly wasn&#39;t because Hitler wanted to "spread communism to Poland".

[PRC-UTE]

PM,

The purpose of invading the USSR (which was the biggest invasion in history), according to Hitler and Whermacht communiques, was to:

secure the oil fields;
destroy the russian arms industry;
kill all bolsheviks, slavs, commies and other untermenschen.

Since that&#39;s what they put the most effort and resources into, I&#39;d say those were some definitive charactaristics. Ffs, has any other regime gone as far as they did to kill racial minorities???

Their post-war objectives included colonising the land with Germans, that&#39;s hardly a collectivist programme.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jan 14 2005, 08:04 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jan 14 2005, 08:04 PM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 03:36 PM
As usual Professor Moneybags proves that he has never read anything other than Ayn Rand and Adam Smith.
I bet those are the only two capitalists you&#39;ve ever heard of. ;) [/b]
I&#39;ve heard of Adolf Hitler? Does he count?

[Xvall]

Of course not Enigma. Just because Hitler said he was a capitalist and benifited off of capitalism doesn&#39;t mean that he was one. Now Pol Pot, he was definitely a communist regardless of the fact that not a single communist I&#39;ve encountered has ever said good things about him.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags
...the defining characteristics of Nazism were :

- Collectivism.
- Totalitarianism.
- State control of private property.

Hopelessly wrong...

-The government controlled private property. What Hitler demanded, Hitler got. Complaining that the property was "yours" and that the government had no right to interfere with it got you shot.

-The Nazis demanded that people put their country and "race" before themselves, and were told to die for it, in necessary. That is collectivism.


except, perhaps, for the rather fuzzy concept of "totalitarianism". (It was Mussolini who actually first articulated the goal of a "total state".)

Nazi Germany was only "perhaps" a totalitatian state, huh ?

[Professor Moneybags]

That&#39;s just outright stupid. I don&#39;t think anyone is going to take this seriously.

There are many truths that people at one time didn&#39;t "take seriously".


Statelessness versus Fascism.

Communism isn&#39;t stateless. The people become "the state" and thus, the ruling class.


A ruthless dictator against a system whering there is no recognizable individual who wields leadership.

No recognizable individual who wields leadership, but there is nothing preventing multiple individuals acting as a ruthlessly dictatorial mob- legally.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 02:08 AM
I&#39;ve heard of Adolf Hitler? Does he count?
No, he&#39;s a socialist. Try again.

[Professor Moneybags]

kill all bolsheviks, slavs, commies and other untermenschen.

Did you not read what I said about Nazism and communism being rivals ? Medieval kings used to declare war each other. Do you think the wars in those cases were over a difference in political ideology ?


Their post-war objectives included colonising the land with Germans, that&#39;s hardly a collectivist programme.

Yes, it is.

[Professor Moneybags]

Just because Hitler said he was a capitalist

Provide proof. I&#39;d hardly call Nazi Germany a free market, or even an attempt at one.


and benifited off of capitalism doesn&#39;t mean that he was one.

Can I trust that because Stalin called himself a communist and benefitted from a communist regime, that he must have been a communist too ?

[Forward Union]

Provide proof. I&#39;d hardly call Nazi Germany a free market, or even an attempt at one

It was free to some extent. Corporations certainly had a lot of power, take IG Farben for example they dealt in an insect extermination substance called Zyklon B, later &#39;revised&#39; to kill Jews in the concentration camps.


Can I trust that because Stalin called himself a communist and benefitted from a communist regime, that he must have been a communist too ?

You made one glaring error there, the use of the term "communist regime", such idea is laughable, since communism evokes a classless stateless society.

[fernando]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jan 14 2005, 05:18 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jan 14 2005, 05:18 AM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 11:49 PM
Even better...imagine a world in which the United States never existed.

I like that idea...a lot.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
Never existed?

The Nazis would still own Europe.

The point about Nazis never rising to power and stuff? OK. The point is the Americans played a major role in securing freedom for the world and you seem to have forgotten that already. Never mind the men who helped save the world are still here and alive? What do you say to them: I like to idea that you would have never helped? I like the idea your efforts were insignifacant? I like the idea we (Europe) don&#39;t need you? I don&#39;t know what you would say? How about for starters, Thank you. [/b]
Hmm...first of all without the US there would have been no Nazis in Germany ;)

And uhm...bringing freedom...is that what you call supporting military coups against democratically elected governments? Is that what you call using ex nazis to train para military groups in Latin America?

[Xvall]

There are many truths that people at one time didn&#39;t "take seriously".

No. That wasn&#39;t a truth. You were outright trying to tell us what our own agenda. It is equivalent to me insisting that you (specifically you, PM) want to kill all of the poor people in the United States. You have no basis for telling us what we believe in.


Communism isn&#39;t stateless.

According to Marx, it is. And being that Marx came up with the notion of Communism, I&#39;m afraid that I&#39;m going to have to take his word of that that of some political adversary on the internet.



No recognizable individual who wields leadership, but there is nothing preventing multiple individuals acting as a ruthlessly dictatorial mob- legally.

But that is something that can happen in any society regardless of it&#39;s political or economic basis. This is something that can happen in capitalism as well.

[October Revolution]

No US = Heaven

There would be a distingt lack of arab terrorists with AK-47s and grenade launchers if the US wasn&#39;t around to fund them.

[Professor Moneybags]

You have no basis for telling us what we believe in.

What you believe in is explicit in everything you say and do.


But that is something that can happen in any society regardless of it&#39;s political or economic basis. This is something that can happen in capitalism as well.

At least it would be illegal and the perpetrators punished. No such luck under your system.

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

America would still exist itself, just not the United States of America, because that was a result of british imperialism. So in other words, blame the crew of the mayflower and subsequent colonists for the USA.

Then blame whatever caused the world to exist for the existence of &#39;america&#39;.

And if american in its USA form hadnt existed in 1944, then chances are, we&#39;d either be speaking german, be blonde with blue eyes and be marching around in jack-boots, or singing the soviet hymn and saluting paintings of &#39;The Boss&#39;.

Either alternate outcome proves that america has had some positive influences in history. And PM, you must accept that they have had some negative ones, but then again, so has every nation on earth. without exception.

[Xvall]

What you believe in is explicit in everything you say and do.

Where did we say that we were fighting against the Nazis because we want to dominate the world, and feel that they&#39;re getting in the way?


But that is something that can happen in any society regardless of it&#39;s political or economic basis. This is something that can happen in capitalism as well.


At least it would be illegal and the perpetrators punished. No such luck under your system.

No one in a communist system is going to even try and stop dictatorial mobs? What the hell are dictatorial mobs anyways? They way you&#39;re describing them, they sound like invading countries.


The Nazis demanded that people put their country and "race" before themselves, and were told to die for it, in necessary. That is collectivism.

The American government asks people to put their country before themselves. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". Is America collectivist?