|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12732
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| enrico_dandolo wrote: | | Sweetleaf wrote: | | Aelfwine wrote: | I think that for most Nazis (like the artist which drew this ugly cartoon) Communism, Liberalism and Democracy are all parts of a jewis conspiracy.
I think that they thought that there isn't any difference between Communism, Liberalism and Democracy.
The "Dolchstoßlegende" was invented by Paul von Hindenburg a general in WW1 and later until his death Reichspräsident (president) of Germany (between 1924 and 1934). The "Dolchstoßlegende" was not only against Communism and Jews. It was mainly against the young German democracy.
I think that after two World Wars everybody see the results of nationalism. I hope that no one forgets this.
A nationalistic dictationship and mass murders is and was not only possible in Germany or Europe, no it could happen anywhere in the world.
But I'm optimistic that the humanity is intelligent enough to dislike any kind of nationalism.
| Quote: | ruveyn wrote:
Germany. What a country! It took two wars with France and two world Wars to get them straightened out at last. All is well that ends well. Germany is now a sane and efficient nations -- at long last! |
I want to mention that the first war with France wasn't caused by Germany.
The WW1 was in large parts but not only caused by Germany. |
I thought it was over an assasination not nessisarily the entire nation of Germany.....as well as a bunch of other political drama and secret treaties and deals the politicians of various countries had in secret with each other. I guess I don't see how it was more Germany than the other nations involved. |
Over an assassination, but not because of it. Everyone was looking for a fight. The French wanted Alsace-Lorraine, the Austro-Hungarians and Germans wanted to take down Russia before it could industrialise, the Russians wanted the Straits, the Ottomans wanted true independance, the Balkan countries wanted to continue where they had stopped in 1913, the British didn't care what happened too much so long as there wasn't a single hegemonic power on the continent (yet didn't say they would defend Belgian indepedance until it was too late).
Everyone thought it would be quick. Even though the results proved them wrong, they had good reasons to think that way: the most recent wars between European powers had been won by Prussia within weeks (or by Russia still very quickly, if you count the war of 1877), two wars had been waged in the Balkans, all decisive within weeks, just as was the Italo-Turkish war, militarily at least (there were rebels to suppress in Lybia). Indeed, if the French hadn't stopped the Germans on the Marne, the Great War would not have gone far into 1915. We see a parallel between the absurd bloodshed of the First World War and the American Civil War today, but it is quite artificial. Only after the decision was not reached early on did the war become mutual slaughter -- just like the Second World War started to be a deathtrap in 1941, after the first failed Biltzkrieg offensive, where before victory or defeat was moral rather than physical. |
Actually, I'm not not one to give Britain an easy pass on this one.
Germany was already outpacing Britain in industrialization, while their citizens were enjoying a more comfortable, extended lifestyle. There was British envy clearly directed at the Germans on this point. With that came growth in hostile British nationalism.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
Joker
Sinn Fein
Joined: Mar 20, 2011
Age: 24
Posts: 7593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kraichgauer wrote: | | enrico_dandolo wrote: | | Sweetleaf wrote: | | Aelfwine wrote: | I think that for most Nazis (like the artist which drew this ugly cartoon) Communism, Liberalism and Democracy are all parts of a jewis conspiracy.
I think that they thought that there isn't any difference between Communism, Liberalism and Democracy.
The "Dolchstoßlegende" was invented by Paul von Hindenburg a general in WW1 and later until his death Reichspräsident (president) of Germany (between 1924 and 1934). The "Dolchstoßlegende" was not only against Communism and Jews. It was mainly against the young German democracy.
I think that after two World Wars everybody see the results of nationalism. I hope that no one forgets this.
A nationalistic dictationship and mass murders is and was not only possible in Germany or Europe, no it could happen anywhere in the world.
But I'm optimistic that the humanity is intelligent enough to dislike any kind of nationalism.
| Quote: | ruveyn wrote:
Germany. What a country! It took two wars with France and two world Wars to get them straightened out at last. All is well that ends well. Germany is now a sane and efficient nations -- at long last! |
I want to mention that the first war with France wasn't caused by Germany.
The WW1 was in large parts but not only caused by Germany. |
I thought it was over an assasination not nessisarily the entire nation of Germany.....as well as a bunch of other political drama and secret treaties and deals the politicians of various countries had in secret with each other. I guess I don't see how it was more Germany than the other nations involved. |
Over an assassination, but not because of it. Everyone was looking for a fight. The French wanted Alsace-Lorraine, the Austro-Hungarians and Germans wanted to take down Russia before it could industrialise, the Russians wanted the Straits, the Ottomans wanted true independance, the Balkan countries wanted to continue where they had stopped in 1913, the British didn't care what happened too much so long as there wasn't a single hegemonic power on the continent (yet didn't say they would defend Belgian indepedance until it was too late).
Everyone thought it would be quick. Even though the results proved them wrong, they had good reasons to think that way: the most recent wars between European powers had been won by Prussia within weeks (or by Russia still very quickly, if you count the war of 1877), two wars had been waged in the Balkans, all decisive within weeks, just as was the Italo-Turkish war, militarily at least (there were rebels to suppress in Lybia). Indeed, if the French hadn't stopped the Germans on the Marne, the Great War would not have gone far into 1915. We see a parallel between the absurd bloodshed of the First World War and the American Civil War today, but it is quite artificial. Only after the decision was not reached early on did the war become mutual slaughter -- just like the Second World War started to be a deathtrap in 1941, after the first failed Biltzkrieg offensive, where before victory or defeat was moral rather than physical. |
Actually, I'm not not one to give Britain an easy pass on this one.
Germany was already outpacing Britain in industrialization, while their citizens were enjoying a more comfortable, extended lifestyle. There was British envy clearly directed at the Germans on this point. With that came growth in hostile British nationalism.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
I couldn't agree more Kriachguaer |
|
| Back to top |
|
Longshanks
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 03, 2012
Posts: 513
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enrico_dandolo wrote: | | Sweetleaf wrote: | | Aelfwine wrote: | I think that for most Nazis (like the artist which drew this ugly cartoon) Communism, Liberalism and Democracy are all parts of a jewis conspiracy.
I think that they thought that there isn't any difference between Communism, Liberalism and Democracy.
The "Dolchstoßlegende" was invented by Paul von Hindenburg a general in WW1 and later until his death Reichspräsident (president) of Germany (between 1924 and 1934). The "Dolchstoßlegende" was not only against Communism and Jews. It was mainly against the young German democracy.
I think that after two World Wars everybody see the results of nationalism. I hope that no one forgets this.
A nationalistic dictationship and mass murders is and was not only possible in Germany or Europe, no it could happen anywhere in the world.
But I'm optimistic that the humanity is intelligent enough to dislike any kind of nationalism.
| Quote: | ruveyn wrote:
Germany. What a country! It took two wars with France and two world Wars to get them straightened out at last. All is well that ends well. Germany is now a sane and efficient nations -- at long last! |
I want to mention that the first war with France wasn't caused by Germany.
The WW1 was in large parts but not only caused by Germany. |
I thought it was over an assasination not nessisarily the entire nation of Germany.....as well as a bunch of other political drama and secret treaties and deals the politicians of various countries had in secret with each other. I guess I don't see how it was more Germany than the other nations involved. |
Over an assassination, but not because of it. Everyone was looking for a fight. The French wanted Alsace-Lorraine, the Austro-Hungarians and Germans wanted to take down Russia before it could industrialise, the Russians wanted the Straits, the Ottomans wanted true independance, the Balkan countries wanted to continue where they had stopped in 1913, the British didn't care what happened too much so long as there wasn't a single hegemonic power on the continent (yet didn't say they would defend Belgian indepedance until it was too late).
Everyone thought it would be quick. Even though the results proved them wrong, they had good reasons to think that way: the most recent wars between European powers had been won by Prussia within weeks (or by Russia still very quickly, if you count the war of 1877), two wars had been waged in the Balkans, all decisive within weeks, just as was the Italo-Turkish war, militarily at least (there were rebels to suppress in Lybia). Indeed, if the French hadn't stopped the Germans on the Marne, the Great War would not have gone far into 1915. We see a parallel between the absurd bloodshed of the First World War and the American Civil War today, but it is quite artificial. Only after the decision was not reached early on did the war become mutual slaughter -- just like the Second World War started to be a deathtrap in 1941, after the first failed Biltzkrieg offensive, where before victory or defeat was moral rather than physical. |
There is one important point that's been missed. The assasination was the spark. Another major contributing factor was the advent of a single type of ship: the dreadnought. HMS Dreadnought was the first modern, all-big gun turbine driven battleship and it sparked a naval arms race only paralleled by the race between the US and the USSR. Germany had the second biggest navy in the world and that made the British, a sea faring nation very antsy. The two great fleets met at Jutland in 1916 - the biggest battleship battle in history. Imagine some 37 British capital ships going up against 21 German ones. The battle lasted two days with the Germans achieving a tactical victory in sinking more ships but the British winning strategically by keeping the German Navy hemmed in a blockade. I recommend Robert K. Massie's book "Dreadnought" which goes into detail the naval arms race and it's effects from both British and German documentation. Point being: a single new weapon can always spark a new arms race, potentially a war.
Longshanks
_________________
Supporter of the Brian Terry Foundation @ www.honorbrianterry.com. Special Agent Brian Terry (1970-2010) was murdered as a direct result of Operation Fast & Furious - which Barry O won't discuss - wonder why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kraichgauer wrote: | Actually, I'm not not one to give Britain an easy pass on this one.
Germany was already outpacing Britain in industrialization, while their citizens were enjoying a more comfortable, extended lifestyle. There was British envy clearly directed at the Germans on this point. With that came growth in hostile British nationalism.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
I don't disagree, but there was no direct antagonism between Germany and Britain, like there was between Austria-Hungary and Russia (and thus, indirectly, between Germany and Russia) or between France and Germany. Weltpolitik was more a desire than anything truly dangerous to the British Empire itself, and the war showed how little could the High Seas Fleet challenge British thalassocracy. The Germans were the most powerful in Europe at the time, but a few years later, it could have been a revitalised France or a freshly industriliased Russia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Aelfwine
Pileated woodpecker
Joined: May 04, 2012
Posts: 184
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Kraichgauer wrote:
Actually, I'm not not one to give Britain an easy pass on this one.
Germany was already outpacing Britain in industrialization, while their citizens were enjoying a more comfortable, extended lifestyle. There was British envy clearly directed at the Germans on this point. With that came growth in hostile British nationalism. |
Yes and Germany was envious of the British and French colonies. Germany conquered only some few remaining colonies. They brought only expenses and no revenue (I read a book about the german colonies). I think the german colonies were only a waste of money.
Also the relations between France and Britain were not perfect. Around the year 1900 was an incident in the Sudan.
| Quote: | Longshanks wrote:
There is one important point that's been missed. The assasination was the spark. Another major contributing factor was the advent of a single type of ship: the dreadnought. HMS Dreadnought was the first modern, all-big gun turbine driven battleship and it sparked a naval arms race only paralleled by the race between the US and the USSR. Germany had the second biggest navy in the world and that made the British, a sea faring nation very antsy. The two great fleets met at Jutland in 1916 - the biggest battleship battle in history. Imagine some 37 British capital ships going up against 21 German ones. The battle lasted two days with the Germans achieving a tactical victory in sinking more ships but the British winning strategically by keeping the German Navy hemmed in a blockade. I recommend Robert K. Massie's book "Dreadnought" which goes into detail the naval arms race and it's effects from both British and German documentation. Point being: a single new weapon can always spark a new arms race, potentially a war.
|
I think it would be more intelligent if Germany had spent the money for the fleet on new weapons and better equipment for their soldiers.
And here are two other strange wars:
The Anglo-Zanzibar War. This war was 38 minutes long. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War
And there was around 1847 a 27 days long civil war in Switzerland with only 90 deads. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderbund_War |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12732
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | Kraichgauer wrote: |
I couldn't help but notice - the Jew in the cartoon has b***h tits.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
That cartoon was drawn by a German anti-semite. He was revealing his own feelings with the cartoon of a Jew.
Germany. What a country! It took two wars with France and two world Wars to get them straightened out at last. All is well that ends well. Germany is now a sane and efficient nations -- at long last!
ruveyn |
Why do you think my ancestors left Germany? 
My maternal Grandmother - though always one to be proud of her German roots - had said the country her parents had left was "terrible."
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29296
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| enrico_dandolo wrote: |
I don't disagree, but there was no direct antagonism between Germany and Britain, like there was between Austria-Hungary and Russia (and thus, indirectly, between Germany and Russia) or between France and Germany. Weltpolitik was more a desire than anything truly dangerous to the British Empire itself, and the war showed how little could the High Seas Fleet challenge British thalassocracy. The Germans were the most powerful in Europe at the time, but a few years later, it could have been a revitalised France or a freshly industriliased Russia. |
That disaster at Sarajevo uncorked all the insanity and instability the existed for centuries in Europe. Europe has been a screwed up place since the collapse of the Roman Imperium. They never really learned how to live peacefully. That is why there was a 100 years war that lasted 116 years and a 30 years war. Europeans like to look down their noses at the United States. The U.S. had really only one Really Bad War since independence and that was the Civil War. Once done we got it out of our systems and learned to live in peace, at least internally. The Europeans never really achieved that prior to WW II. Europe has peace now (1) because the U.S. saved there sorry arses and (2) the collapse of the Soviet Union. By themselves the Europeans would never have found a peaceful modus vivendi.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Aelfwine
Pileated woodpecker
Joined: May 04, 2012
Posts: 184
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | ruveyn wrote:
That disaster at Sarajevo uncorked all the insanity and instability the existed for centuries in Europe. Europe has been a screwed up place since the collapse of the Roman Imperium. They never really learned how to live peacefully. That is why there was a 100 years war that lasted 116 years and a 30 years war. Europeans like to look down their noses at the United States. The U.S. had really only one Really Bad War since independence and that was the Civil War. Once done we got it out of our systems and learned to live in peace, at least internally. The Europeans never really achieved that prior to WW II. Europe has peace now (1) because the U.S. saved there sorry arses and (2) the collapse of the Soviet Union. By themselves the Europeans would never have found a peaceful modus vivendi.
|
The fundamental difference between Europe and the USA is that Europeans see themselves as different peoples. Wars in Europe were Foreign Policy and not internal conflicts.
Another fundamental difference is that big barbarian invasions happened until the year 1237 (Mongols).
I think that the US isn't as peaceful as you wrote in your post. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations. I'm sure that more than one of all the wars and military operations was bad.
Also the attempts to unite Europe are not really American Ideas. Western European politicans realized around the years 1950-1970 that they should work together.
for example the friendship treaty between Germany and France. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lys%C3%A9e_Treaty
We learned now to live peacefully.
If theoretically Americans with the technology of the year 1700 but splitted up in severall countries would colonize an almost uninhabited Europe, than I could post to you: America is a screwed up place with to much wars and Europe is much more better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aelfwine wrote: | | Also the relations between France and Britain were not perfect. Around the year 1900 was an incident in the Sudan. |
That is a wrong interpretation. After Fachoda, actually, France and Britain reconciled on colonial matters (the famous Entente cordiale), a first step towards military alliance. By 1914, there was little left of the old hostility.
| ruveyn wrote: | That disaster at Sarajevo uncorked all the insanity and instability the existed for centuries in Europe. Europe has been a screwed up place since the collapse of the Roman Imperium. They never really learned how to live peacefully. That is why there was a 100 years war that lasted 116 years and a 30 years war. Europeans like to look down their noses at the United States. The U.S. had really only one Really Bad War since independence and that was the Civil War. Once done we got it out of our systems and learned to live in peace, at least internally. The Europeans never really achieved that prior to WW II. Europe has peace now (1) because the U.S. saved there sorry arses and (2) the collapse of the Soviet Union. By themselves the Europeans would never have found a peaceful modus vivendi.
ruveyn |
America have it better because they have acquired practical dominion over the American continent. Also, they had the luck of only fighting Indians with backwards weapons, which generally meant that the Indians lost most of the time in war, and were massacred violently in peace. Chronic genocide is not what I call a "peaceful modus vivendi". |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29296
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aelfwine wrote: |
Also the attempts to unite Europe are not really American Ideas. Western European politicans realized around the years 1950-1970 that they should work together.
for example the friendship treaty between Germany and France. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lys%C3%A9e_Treaty
We learned now to live peacefully.
. |
Once the Fascists were eliminated. It required the Brits, led by a drunken imperialist (Churchill) and the Americans to save the sorry asses of the Europeans. Once the Fascists were put down and the U.S. rescued Europe economically (Marshall Plan) finally the Europeans got some of their sh*t straightened out. But not all. Look at the buzz with Greece and Spain. Germany seems to be the only sensible nation in Europe at this juncture.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Joker
Sinn Fein
Joined: Mar 20, 2011
Age: 24
Posts: 7593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | Aelfwine wrote: |
Also the attempts to unite Europe are not really American Ideas. Western European politicans realized around the years 1950-1970 that they should work together.
for example the friendship treaty between Germany and France. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lys%C3%A9e_Treaty
We learned now to live peacefully.
. |
Once the Fascists were eliminated. It required the Brits, led by a drunken imperialist (Churchill) and the Americans to save the sorry asses of the Europeans. Once the Fascists were put down and the U.S. rescued Europe economically (Marshall Plan) finally the Europeans got some of their sh*t straightened out. But not all. Look at the buzz with Greece and Spain. Germany seems to be the only sensible nation in Europe at this juncture.
ruveyn |
Germany as of now is also the dominat European country they had the largest population and economy but I dislike their Angela Merkel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Longshanks
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 03, 2012
Posts: 513
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aelfwine wrote: | | Quote: | ruveyn wrote:
That disaster at Sarajevo uncorked all the insanity and instability the existed for centuries in Europe. Europe has been a screwed up place since the collapse of the Roman Imperium. They never really learned how to live peacefully. That is why there was a 100 years war that lasted 116 years and a 30 years war. Europeans like to look down their noses at the United States. The U.S. had really only one Really Bad War since independence and that was the Civil War. Once done we got it out of our systems and learned to live in peace, at least internally. The Europeans never really achieved that prior to WW II. Europe has peace now (1) because the U.S. saved there sorry arses and (2) the collapse of the Soviet Union. By themselves the Europeans would never have found a peaceful modus vivendi.
|
The fundamental difference between Europe and the USA is that Europeans see themselves as different peoples. Wars in Europe were Foreign Policy and not internal conflicts.
Another fundamental difference is that big barbarian invasions happened until the year 1237 (Mongols).
I think that the US isn't as peaceful as you wrote in your post. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations. I'm sure that more than one of all the wars and military operations was bad.
Also the attempts to unite Europe are not really American Ideas. Western European politicans realized around the years 1950-1970 that they should work together.
for example the friendship treaty between Germany and France. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lys%C3%A9e_Treaty
We learned now to live peacefully.
If theoretically Americans with the technology of the year 1700 but splitted up in severall countries would colonize an almost uninhabited Europe, than I could post to you: America is a screwed up place with to much wars and Europe is much more better. |
Oh, boy! I can't resist ripping this one to shreds! Coming from a military family that includes Charles Martel and Charlemagne, the author obviously has very little knowledge of history. And the author of this post has no clue about the US. I'll go paragraph by paragraph on this:
Paragraph 1: Wars in Europe were matters of foreign policy - not internal conflicts. Get real! The War of the Roses was an internal civil war, as was the Cromwellian War. What about Charles Martel's wars with various principalities? How about Charlemagne's battles with fellow Frankish nobles? And let's not forget the petty little battles between Charlemagne's immediate descendants after Charlemagne's death. Of course, we can't forget Kenneth MacAlpin, or Edward I "Longshanks", and let's not forget Cnut the Great and his battles over various overloards. Give me a break! And yes, the US has been invaded - twice! The first time in 1812 by the lobster-backs (British) and the second time in the Aleutians by the Japanese during World War II. And various groups do see themselves as different peoples. You are obviously forgetting that all of the American Indian Tribes are, by treaty, nations within a nation and that they actually due exercise a certain amount of sovereignty.
Paragraph 2: The US has had two internal squabbles: Shay's Rebellion, or, if you will the Whiskey Rebellion, which lasted less than a month and was ended comparitively peacefully compared to your Cromwellian War or War of the Roses or other noble squabbles. The second was the American so-called "civil war". That war was more a war of separation or rebellion because a civil war is a war between 2 factions fighting for control of the same government - which the Confederacy was not fighting for. They were fighting to leave the Union - not take it over. And I will point out that the Union had to put up with a lot of European tampering and interference - so much that Czarist Russia threatened to declare war on both Britain and France if it continued.
Paragraph 3: True, a united Europe is not an American idea. Charlemagne worked and fought toward it. Napoleon and Hitler tried it by force of arms. The simple fact of the matter is that it took two World Wars, that we Americans had to settle for you before you all decided to get civilized. It's ironic that we were founded much later, but civilized much earlier.
Last paragraph: We have fought in far less wars, percentile wise, in our 236 years of exisitence than all of Europe. In sum, we are far less violent than you Europeans - which is one of the reasons - many reasons - that my ancestors left for America.
Longshanks
_________________
Supporter of the Brian Terry Foundation @ www.honorbrianterry.com. Special Agent Brian Terry (1970-2010) was murdered as a direct result of Operation Fast & Furious - which Barry O won't discuss - wonder why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29296
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joker wrote: |
Germany as of now is also the dominat European country they had the largest population and economy but I dislike their Angela Merkel. |
Be that as it may, Germany has become a sane sensible nation (at long last!) Treasure the moment.
All of the good things that Hitler wanted for Germany, they now have, not by conquest, but by sensible economic policy. Sanity has achieve what reckless Fascism could not.
ruveyn
Last edited by ruveyn on Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Joker
Sinn Fein
Joined: Mar 20, 2011
Age: 24
Posts: 7593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | Joker wrote: |
Germany as of now is also the dominat European country they had the largest population and economy but I dislike their Angela Merkel. |
Be that as it may, Germany has become a sane sensible nation (at long last!) Treasure the moment.
All of the good things that Hitler wanted for Germany, they not have, not by conquest, but by sensible economic policy. Sanity has achieve what reckless Fascism could not.
ruveyn |
Fasism like Communism good in theory bad in practice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12732
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joker wrote: | | ruveyn wrote: | | Joker wrote: |
Germany as of now is also the dominat European country they had the largest population and economy but I dislike their Angela Merkel. |
Be that as it may, Germany has become a sane sensible nation (at long last!) Treasure the moment.
All of the good things that Hitler wanted for Germany, they not have, not by conquest, but by sensible economic policy. Sanity has achieve what reckless Fascism could not.
ruveyn |
Fasism like Communism good in theory bad in practice. |
Wait a minute... I thought you said you were a fascist. 
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
