X. Benedict Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Does somebody and Kurt Goebbels share the same library? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Hindenburg tried to build a non-Hitler coalition, which soon collapsed. Eventually, Hindenburg became convinced that including Hitler in the government might be necessary to avoid a civil war. The Nazis were initially given only a minority of the cabinet positions; which represented Hindenburg's plan to keep Hitler under control. Ultimately, Hindenburg bowed to political pressure created by Hitler, just as the German generals had earlier bowed to political pressure created by the WWI Allies. They would have bowed to political pressure created by FDR; had he cared to impose any. FDR's economic policies were a failure, as demonstrated by the fact he presided over the longest depression in U.S. history. Most of the depression was on his watch, and was a direct result of the climate of uncertainty and unpredictability he created for businesses. 859190[/snapback] Jesus Christ. Is there anything you're not a total idiot about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Hindenburg tried to build a non-Hitler coalition, which soon collapsed. Eventually, Hindenburg became convinced that including Hitler in the government might be necessary to avoid a civil war. The Nazis were initially given only a minority of the cabinet positions; which represented Hindenburg's plan to keep Hitler under control. Ultimately, Hindenburg bowed to political pressure created by Hitler, just as the German generals had earlier bowed to political pressure created by the WWI Allies. They would have bowed to political pressure created by FDR; had he cared to impose any. FDR's economic policies were a failure, as demonstrated by the fact he presided over the longest depression in U.S. history. Most of the depression was on his watch, and was a direct result of the climate of uncertainty and unpredictability he created for businesses. 859190[/snapback] Oh brother. Hindenburgh allowed the Nazis to control the biggest police force in Germany, the Prussian one, and Hitler's fat ass buddy Goring used that to Nazify it. That made the 'minority' position you speak of very powerful. And you do know Ludendorf--an apolitical general, lol--was part of the Beer Hall putsch? And FDR and the economy. He didn't start Depression, he didn't sign the Smoot-Hawley Tariff that deepened it, and while he may not have ended it with the New Deal his reforms sure as helped ensure there hasn't been another one. He made huge contributions to making prosperity a reality to millions in America. The TVA, for example, made the modern south possible. Ever see a picture of North and South Korea? How at night the North is completely blacked out. Well, the American south was basically like that into the mid-1930's. Private companies wouldn't electrufy the region and it took FDR and the New Deal. If that's 'centraization' so be it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Jesus Christ. Is there anything you're not a total idiot about? 859198[/snapback] We'll probably hear how Greenspan & Bernanke are wrong in their accounts of the causes of the Great Depression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 I'm no expert, but I haven't heard any historian suggest that Hitler had plans to invade the U.S. He'd focused his attention on building up his army and air force, not his navy. The navy he had largely consisted of submarines, which would have been unsuitable to any invasion of the United States. On the one hand, Hitler wasn't in a position to conquer the United States. On the other hand, his lebensraum objective would have been achieved by a successful war against the Soviet Union. He lacked both the means and the motive to go to war against the U.S. 859185[/snapback] I've read thru 30+ pages of Err America and Regression towards the mean and yet I still tried tried to use some reason with H_A why did i even try Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 No one can top Jimmah Cahter as the worst president of the last 100 years! NO ONE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Is someone going to seriously blame a president for these things? Stay tuned. 858377[/snapback] Bush backers blame Carter, Clinton and Monica Lewinski... Clinton backers blame Reagan, Bush SR, Bush Jr and all those damn vacations in Crawford, TX... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 The list of negatives far exceeds the positives, but if you want a positive, how about Space Exploration Renewed Lunar missions planned for 2015-2020, planning a manned mission to Mars, and NASA planning a mmanned Lunar colony around 2024 857227[/snapback] ***WARNING: Thread Hijack attempt forthwith*** That can be a good thing, or a bad thing. Depends on your point of view I suppose. From NASA's POV, I would say that is a FANTASTIC thing. However, I believe any mission related to the moon is a complete waste of time. Mars is a different story. I am not sure who sold the government this idea that you must have the moon to go to Mars, but they are a friggin Genious from NASA's POV. If you want to go to Mars, then go to Mars. If you want to go to the moon (for whatever reason) then go to the moon. But one does not preclude the other... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 I've read thru 30+ pages of Err America and Regression towards the mean and yet I still tried tried to use some reason with H_A why did i even try 859353[/snapback] Do you think I enjoyed 30 pages of advocating a commonly accepted statistical principle; only to be greeted by ignorant derision? Or take this discussion: Hitler's plans called for Germany to conquer large portions of Europe, but he had no interest in building some global empire. After France fell, Hitler asked Britain for peace; despite the obvious opportunity to conquer British-held places like the Middle East and most of Africa. Hitler's ambitions were confined to Europe, or at most to the Soviet-held portion of Asia. This is not some theory I've concocted; it's an historical fact. Look it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Do you think I enjoyed 30 pages of advocating a commonly accepted statistical principle; only to be greeted by ignorant derision? Do you really think that if you keep calling it "commonly accepted statistical principle", it's going to magically become so? No matter how many times you say that...you're still going to be laughably wrong. Or take this discussion: Hitler's plans called for Germany to conquer large portions of Europe, but he had no interest in building some global empire. After France fell, Hitler asked Britain for peace; despite the obvious opportunity to conquer British-held places like the Middle East and most of Africa. Hitler's ambitions were confined to Europe, or at most to the Soviet-held portion of Asia. This is not some theory I've concocted; it's an historical fact. Look it up. 859531[/snapback] No, it's not historical fact. It's pretty much some theory you've concocted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Oh brother. Hindenburgh allowed the Nazis to control the biggest police force in Germany, the Prussian one, and Hitler's fat ass buddy Goring used that to Nazify it. That made the 'minority' position you speak of very powerful. And you do know Ludendorf--an apolitical general, lol--was part of the Beer Hall putsch? And FDR and the economy. He didn't start Depression, he didn't sign the Smoot-Hawley Tariff that deepened it, and while he may not have ended it with the New Deal his reforms sure as helped ensure there hasn't been another one. He made huge contributions to making prosperity a reality to millions in America. The TVA, for example, made the modern south possible. Ever see a picture of North and South Korea? How at night the North is completely blacked out. Well, the American south was basically like that into the mid-1930's. Private companies wouldn't electrufy the region and it took FDR and the New Deal. If that's 'centraization' so be it! 859215[/snapback] You bring up good points in your first paragraph--Ludendorf was clearly political. Then again, he wasn't one of the generals planning to overthrow Hitler. You're also right in saying that Hitler's minority position within the German government was very powerful. That said, Hindenburg initially wanted to totally exclude Hitler from the government, and let Hitler have that minority position only because he could not maintain a majority government without Hitler's help. Overall, FDR's economic policy was an abysmal failure From the White House on the heels of the Wagner Act came a thunderous barrage of insults against business. Businessmen, Roosevelt fumed, were obstacles on the road to recovery. He blasted them as "economic royalists" and said that businessmen as a class were "stupid."[36] He followed up the insults with a rash of new punitive measures. New strictures on the stock market were imposed. A tax on corporate retained earnings, called the "undistributed profits tax," was levied. "These soak-the-rich efforts," writes economist Robert Higgs, "left little doubt that the president and his administration intended to push through Congress everything they could to extract wealth from the high-income earners responsible for making the bulk of the nation’s decisions about private investment."[37] At the nadir of the Great Depression, half of American industrial production was idle as the economy reeled under the weight of endless and destructive policies from both Republicans and Democrats in Washington. During a period of barely two months during late 1937, the market for steel — a key economic barometer — plummeted from 83 percent of capacity to 35 percent. When that news emblazoned headlines, Roosevelt took an ill-timed nine-day fishing trip. The New York Herald-Tribune implored him to get back to work to stem the tide of the renewed Depression. What was needed, said the newspaper’s editors, was a reversal of the Roosevelt policy "of bitterness and hate, of setting class against class and punishing all who disagreed with him."[38] Columnist Walter Lippmann wrote in March 1938 that "with almost no important exception every measure he [Roosevelt] has been interested in for the past five months has been to reduce or discourage the production of wealth."[39] As pointed out earlier in this essay, Herbert Hoover’s own version of a "New Deal" had hiked the top marginal income tax rate from 24 to 63 percent in 1932. But he was a piker compared to his tax-happy successor. Under Roosevelt, the top rate was raised at first to 79 percent and then later to 90 percent. Economic historian Burton Folsom notes that in 1941 Roosevelt even proposed a whopping 99.5-percent marginal rate on all incomes over $100,000. "Why not?" he said when an advisor questioned the idea.[40] After that confiscatory proposal failed, Roosevelt issued an executive order to tax all income over $25,000 at the astonishing rate of 100 percent. He also promoted the lowering of the personal exemption to only $600, a tactic that pushed most American families into paying at least some income tax for the first time. Shortly thereafter, Congress rescinded the executive order, but went along with the reduction of the personal exemption. . . . In his private diary, FDR’s very own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, . . . wrote: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . . and an enormous debt to boot!"[45] At the end of the decade and 12 years after the stock market crash of Black Thursday, 10 million Americans were jobless. The unemployment rate was in excess of 17 percent. Roosevelt had pledged in 1932 to end the crisis, but it persisted two presidential terms and countless interventions later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 No, it's not historical fact. It's pretty much some theory you've concocted. 859536[/snapback] Depends what a fact is: Fun Acticulating Cockamamie Theories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Depends what a fact is: Fun Acticulating Cockamamie Theories 859571[/snapback] Your ignorance wouldn't be so annoying if it wasn't for your excessive confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Your ignorance wouldn't be so annoying if it wasn't for your excessive confidence. 859584[/snapback] Really? Your excessive confidence is what makes your ignorance so damned funny... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Really? Your excessive confidence is what makes your ignorance so damned funny... 859586[/snapback] Unfortunately, your ignorance isn't funny at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Do you think I enjoyed 30 pages of advocating a commonly accepted statistical principle; only to be greeted by ignorant derision? Or take this discussion: Hitler's plans called for Germany to conquer large portions of Europe, but he had no interest in building some global empire. After France fell, Hitler asked Britain for peace; despite the obvious opportunity to conquer British-held places like the Middle East and most of Africa. Hitler's ambitions were confined to Europe, or at most to the Soviet-held portion of Asia. This is not some theory I've concocted; it's an historical fact. Look it up. 859531[/snapback] Where, in Neville Chamberlain's autobiography? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Where, in Neville Chamberlain's autobiography? 859610[/snapback] Most good WWII history books will tell you that Hitler offered Britain peace after France fell. If you look at the number of divisions the German army had in Europe versus what the British had to defend the Middle Eastern and African portions of their empire, you'll see it would have been relatively easy for Hitler to have taken large portions of the British Empire. But in Mein Kampf Hitler wrote that he had no interest in a tropical empire, because areas near the equator were unsuitable living conditions for white people. He also wrote that he had no interest in conquering the United States. He wanted Germany to have the same relation to Europe that the U.S. had to North America. For this purpose, and for his lebensraum goal, the conquest of the Soviet Union would have been more than enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Hitler July 19, 1940: 'In this hour, I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense in Britain as much as elsewhere. I consider myself to be in a position to make this appeal since I am not the vanquished begging favors, but the victor speaking in the name of reason. I can see no grounds why this war must go on.' Of course Hilter was sincere - offering Britain a chance to cease hostilities without concessions - what a great deal!! Too bad Winston didn't cash in on it. The pot was pretty sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Most good WWII history books will tell you that Hitler offered Britain peace after France fell.859623[/snapback] Uhhh...no, they don't. Not that it matters. You've already established for us that books aren't credible sources of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Hitler July 19, 1940: 'In this hour, I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense in Britain as much as elsewhere. I consider myself to be in a position to make this appeal since I am not the vanquished begging favors, but the victor speaking in the name of reason. I can see no grounds why this war must go on.' Of course Hilter was sincere - offering Britain a chance to cease hostilities without concessions - what a great deal!! Too bad Winston didn't cash in on it. The pot was pretty sweet. 859639[/snapback] That statement wasn't delivered to the British, either. It was part of a speech he gave, I believe in Munich honoring the Beer Hall Putsch. Hardly constitutes "offerring peace", considering he didn't actually "offer" anything to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts