It doesn't just stop at the Nazi's. Both sides of every major war are always financed by the same international bankers and corporations. As I have said before these people manipulate the world, bankrupting every nation through war and gaining more world control over resources and economies. What do you think all this worldwide economic collapse is ? Why do you all think it is just a coincidence, or just a few at the top making mistakes. There are no mistakes, all these problems are staged. Scarecrow I have read many books on this topic, and I don't care if you think I am some wierd conspiracy theorist, much of what I believe has already been proven true, just some people are in too much denial to accept the truth.
Here's the thing about you weird conspiracy theorists, you can nver actually show hard evidence to support your claims, and you get all upset and cry when exposed. Come up with something concrete and reliable that withstands reasonable critique, and I will certainly give it proper attention and who knows you may convince me. But you haven't ever done that. I had a great thread about Greatest Conspiracies since 1940. Go look it up and you will see that when tested many conspiracies fall apart.
well you wouldn't believe me about America's helping of the Nazi's, and I'm not sure if you believe it even now that loads of evidence has been shown to you. Let's just assume for one minute that everything I say is true, do you think there will be loads of articles and news sources from mainstream networks proving all of this, just so people in denial like yourself will just suddenly go " Damn those evil guys " I'm not saying there is no info out there, there is tons of it to be honest, but if you think it is going to be on CNN or FoxNews where they just announce everything and break it down for idiots, you are severely deluded.
Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert Rule by Secrecy by Jim Marrs start with those two, Most of the facts from these books are backed by mainstream sources, these books just put all the info together. you can also read documents put out by people like Obama's advisor Zbvinew Breyzinski who wrote a book " the Grand chessboard " where he states The US's aims to control the planet. Read the report put out by the Project for the NEw American Century where it is outlined that the US must invade Iraq and an excuse for invading must be created.
not only did american companies support the Nazi war effort, but after the war they smuggled thousands of the top Nazi scientists in operation paperclip, into the United States and gave them immunity. These were the diabolical minds behind the experiments in the holocaust. These guys specialised in mind control techniques, nuclear technologies, bio weapons, race specific weapons. These guys were allowed to continue their devilish work here in the good old US of A instead of being tried for crimes against humanity. They worked behind closed doors with the CIA, immagine all the great things they accomplished together. What a great world we live in. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRzEmU9Aj8"]YouTube - The Most dangerous Game part 1[/ame]
What?????? I tried googling that, and as expected the results were the craziest of the conspiracy theory sites. And the Drudge Report.
I should've said the "worst" of the Nazi Idealogy, as in the Final Solution. From readings and classes I've taken I know that a lot of them agreed with some parts of it.
Eh? What did you study in History class, anything? I thought this stuff was pretty much common knowledge, 20's and 30's era Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Joe Kennedy, great grandaddy Bush, etc, were all admirers of Hitler; he was Time's man of the year for crying out loud. In those days Fascism hadn't yet earned a bad name for itself and the industrial elite, then as now, thought Fasicsm was a pretty great idea in the era of emerging labor unions. The most recent Bush administration, and really the Republican party of the 20th century, was idealogically anyway basically a descendent of 20's era US fascists. It's not conspiracy, it's fact...and in case you weren't aware, "fascism" (little "f") is basically just the marriage of corporations with government, with control of churches and the media to create frenzied black-and-white definitions of "patriotism". Very rough definition I'm giving you but that's been the definition since someone came up with a defnintion way back whenever; Mussolini himself basically used those very words. Has all that stuff been censored or something? That was pretty mainstream in my history classes; I'm starting to feel old, I'll admit, but I haven't broken 40 yet. Fasicsm: extreme right wing ideaology. Socialism: extreme left wing idealogy. Do we need to go back to school here? Has education really been reduced to what you can google and what you can't?
I am still a couple of years away from 40 and no it was not part of our US or World History curriculum here. Very little of the 20th century was ever covered in my grade or high school years.
Reminds me of the day I learned most of the Americas didn't have the same definition of "North America" and "South America" that I had grown up with, I couldn't believe it for awhile.
It's been pretty conclusively shown that the economic efficiency of Germany's corporations was impaired by the Nazi government. Perhaps the Republican party has advocated a plutocracy, but saying Republicans are fascists is inaccurate. You need to take what you read in the Boston Globe with a grain of salt.
? You're speaking around me and addressing comments to points I didn't make. I never said the US was responsible for the rise of the Nazis or German economy or any of it, I can see where the point can be made but IMO it's going too far. What I did say was that in the context of the 1920's and 1930's, there were many sympathizers and supporters of Hitler's Nazi Germany in our country, people who represent the very top of the power structure in this country down to this day. I don't read the Globe and don't know what you're referring to, and I didn't say Republicans are fascists, though the far right element of the modern day republican party, best represented by ol' W and his administration and currently being carried on by the stubborn remnants in congress (one hopes temporarily), certainly comes as close as anyone in US political history to being so, using unquestionably fascist ideals as part of the bedrock of their administration, bearing in mind that the definition I'm using here is a marriage of corporations with the state, and attempting control of media and churches to "keep the people in line" by promoting their own definition of patriotism and treachery, and assassinating the character of those who disagree...even the barest, most modest study of history shows this time and time again to be a pretty bankrupt method of governing, thankfully we have an 8 year term limit on presidents. Even so, to our shame as a nation, they almost succeeded, largely due to the stupid, spoiled, entitled, overfed and lazy population in this country of ours, who would rather be entertained than achieve and who treat any minor inconvenience as a major scandal. Facts are facts, what the Bush administration did for 8 years largely fills the definition of fascism, though true fascism in the Italy/Germany sense is probably not possible here, at least without some major slash and burn to our constitution. And yet we have yahoos calling Obama a "Fascist", when if you do even a little bit of reading you'll realize that's like calling Bush a "socialist", it's nonsensical and displays ignorance.
To elaborate... The trouble with the term "fascism" is that it has no precise one-size-fits-all definition. Hitler, Mussolini and, say, Zhirinovsky are all conisidered fascists but they are all also very different from each other. To add to the confusion, even individual fascist parties harbored, as do all human social groups, internal self-contradicitions. For example, the uneasy tension between authoritarian paternalism on the one hand and capitalist "social darwinism" on the other. The introduction to Walter Laqueur's "Fascism" reviews the difficulties in determining what is and is not "fascism" and concludes that it is impossible to create one all-encompassing definition. Just for giggles, though, I swung by Wikipedia (cue collective groan) because everyone can presumably access it to do their own fact-checking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Here's Robert Paxton's attempt at a definition of "fascism": With due consideration for the different types of Republicans ("country clubbers versus theocrats, for example), one can argue plausibly that the GOP has manifested and does manifest of some of these. "Obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood"? Check. "Compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity"? Check. "A mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites"? Check. One could also argue that while the rest are not official party platforms, its base and various sympathizers possess the rest. Still, I find Paxton's definition very incomplete. According to Wikipedia, core tenants of fascism are nationalism, militarism, authoritarianism, "Social Darwinism", social interventionism, social conservativism, corporatism, xenophobia. All these can be found in varying degrees in the mainstream of the GOP. As for economics, per Wikipedia: "The Labour Charter of 1927, promulgated by the Grand Council of Fascism, stated in article 7: "The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation", then goes on to say in article 9: "State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management." I doubt you'd find many Reeps outside the Paulistas who'd have serious difficulties with those statements as written. Where you would find some disagreement with fascist practice is in the area of social welfare. I refer you to the "Social Welfare" section of the Wikipedia article as it agrees with what I read in Laqueur. One characteristic used by some observers to define fascism is the "cult of personality", the focus on a father-figure-like "Leader". While Reagan and, to a lesser extent, Bush II certainly fit the bill for Reeps, that characteristic by itself is no guarantor of fascism. Stalinists, who I would argue are much closer to fascism than to Marxism as envisioned by Marx himself, created an icon out of Lenin, Che seved a similar function for New World leftists and even now GOPers can point at Obama as a "Leader"-type figure. Also, historically, fascist groups have been all over the map regarding religion from fundamentalism to atheism. The differences are so widespread and extreme that you cannot say anything about fascism and religion that can't be immediately contradicted by several strong counter-examples. So while one can point out the "religious right" element of the GOP, there's nothing uniquely "fascist" about them. One can call for a Crusade or a Jihad without being a fascist. Finally, there are definitely aspects of American culture that have historicaly been staples of fascist belief systems (racism, homophobia, militarism, machoism, etc.) that have little to do officially with the GOP, even if many on the American Right agree with them or enjoy them. So... IMO, the most one can say is that historically and currently, the GOP has contained elements to a greater or lesser extent that can be fairly labelled "fascist" without actually being an officially and overtly fascist party. ------- As for American support of fascism, yes, several prominent Americans did express admiration for it. Some even maintained their sympathy even after the violent anti-semitism of the Nazis became clear. I suspect, however, that this was more due to the extreme times of the 1920s and especially the 1930s when such people saw fascism as an effective bulwark against "communism" and they thought that it could either be effectively controlled or that once "normality" returned, fascism would die off on its own. And, of course, committed capitalists generally believe that making the almighty dollar (or pound or franc or yen or...) is what really matters while religion, nationalism, and patriotism are all for sucks. American firms weren't the only ones doing business with Hitler.
I could say the same about the Democratic party and communism, but I don't have to elaborate because the definition is pretty concise
Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. OK, I'll bite. Kindly define "communism" for us. Points for using the fewest words possible while remaining factually accurate. *grabs popcorn, waits for unintentional hilarity to ensue* --------------- Believe it or not, I agree with you re: the Dems - to a limited point. I think it's accurate to say that in the 1930s, after England's bankruptcy, U.S. war loan greed and Silent Cal helped cause the Depression, the Dems stole some ideas from the socialists which helped many Americans survive the Depression and helped us become the superpower we were after WW2 accelerated the recovery process that had begun under FDR (take that, Schlaes!). After that, the Dems adopted the traditionally optimistic leftist vision (but, sadly, not some of the praxis) of a democratic society where social problems could be solved or at least ameliorated through reason and co-operative action. Naturally, the pessimists and elitists on the Right hated that vision and attacked it wherever they could, using misinformed dupes as their cannon fodder. It didn't help that the Stalinist counter-revolution not only wiped out any last vestige of genuine leftism wherever it seized power but did so using the mindblowingly ironic judo throw of adopting leftist-sounding rhetoric as its justification. This only enabled the Right, knowing that almost nobody would bother to fact-check them, to be able to say "See? See? That's what "communism" and "socialism" are and that's all they can ever be!!" Then Clinton and the DLC came along, wrested the center-right from the Reeps, and caused the GOP to retreat into extremist whackoland where Bush and Rove, aided and abetted by OBL and AQ, have kept them ever since, fondly misremembering the Reagan years and pining for a new Moses to lead them back to good ol' days that weren't. Now, thanks to irresponsibility of the GOP, the intellectual bankruptcy of the corporate managerial class and its use of 'globalization' to attack wages and benefits in developed countries, the Dems are again having to use, among other things, some seemingly "socialist" remedies to fix the crisis and clean up the Right's mess. As in the 1930s, the usual gang of pessimists and elitists are going apeshit, predicting nothing but disaster ahead and equating Obama with Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot and using misinformed Teabaggers and other dupes as their bulletstoppers. Luckily, this crisis isn't anywhere near as bad as the Depression thanks in large part to those "socialist" policies and programs put into place 70 years ago. Therefore, I don't see outright fascism taking over key parts of the developed world and causing another world war. Which is nice.
Huh. I'm not sure if I agree with you on the point that authoritarian paternalism is a type of fascism. It's pretty much generally accepted in East Asian historiography that Park Chung-Hee and Lee Kwan Yew were/are authoritarian paternalists, but few, if any, actually consider them fascists.
The problem with this debate is that it tends to be viewed from a postwar basis... i.e. Axis versus Allies. But that doesn't match the situation in Europe by the mid 30's. or even really of the european war itself, which was mainly waged in the East. The 30s saw two ideologies competing for the conquest of Europe. Communism and Fascism. By mid 1945 communism was the winner, holding large parts of Europe with a real chance of revolution in France to follow. The political choices made by the English, French and American governments in Spain from 1936 for example, were effectively to help the Fascists (including regular german and italian forces) to defeat the Socialist (and Stalin backed) government. Ford for one, supplied vehicles to the fascists in this conflict. To say they were just making a buck is simplistic IMO This was great game politics. Actively backing Hitler and Mussolini against the Soviets whom everyone feared more. Of course only 6 years later, the very same Soviet troops would be advancing across the steppe in Ford trucks against Hitler in a 3 year conquest that would engulf large tracks of europe. It seems that lesson is one we never learn.