You have a good grasp on world history. Nazis pretty much a political reaction grew out of the unfair international treatments to Germany from WW I. Germans supported Nazis party, they elected them to power because of that painful experience. That's way before the Hitler era.
I did before your this post. "In a report published on Friday, the London-based group said China has put people to death not just for violent crimes, but also for offences such as bribery, embezzlement and stealing gasoline." That's why I asked you to verify that sentence in the AI web site/database and report back to me. By the way, I don't think we should judge other countries using our moral standard or our point of view. That's what Amnesty International does: using the western moral standard to judge others. That's what Bush did: Killing tens of thousands to force his ideology upon Iraqis. I think that's very unwise.
The party was not founded by Hitler. It was called The German Workers' Party. Hitler managed to take over the leadership of the party much later and then changed the name to NAZI, namely, the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)
The rise of the Nazis was predicated principally on 4 factors. Those included the humiliation of Germany after WWI, its economic conditions, aspects of German culture generally that tended to favor authoritarianism at the time, and equally importantly an intellectual climate in the Western world beyond even Germany that was explictly anti-Semetic. The latter certainly predated the Nazis. Anyone who is a student of Iranian history will have a good ground base of understanding that intellectual climate. It was prevalent among the British as much as the Germans and others. European historians and travelers alike, reflecting these biases, wrote about Iran in ways that reduced all of history into a battle between "Aryans" and "semites". Many of these were "Iranophiles", but for all the wrong reasons. Indeed, the father of that psuedo intellectual understanding of events, known as anti-semetism (as opposed to old anti-Jewish prejudice) was someone who lived in Iran and who was a historian of Iranian religions, culture, and politics. His name was Conte de Gobineau. Even many of the cultural figures whose work helped anti-semetism were similarly Iranophiles, including Neitzche, Wagner and many others. I mention all this because I am in touch, every time I read a book about Iran history, written by European historians before WWII, of the kind of intellectual climate that made the rise of the Nazis not all that remarkable considering the other factors I mentioned as well.
Hate to see this word used in this context; Germany rode as happily into WW1 as anyone, seeing oportunity for conquest and glory; within the previously prevailing rules it wasn't especially unfair at all. What it was was impractical, not pragmatic. It didn't require exceptional foresight to see something like Hitler coming; it was a stupid approach to preventing further stupidity...
The Treaty of Versailles was bitterly criticized by the Germans. True, they went to war, they paid dearly for it. But after the defeat in WWI, everybody put Germany on the chopping block to get a piece. German reparations of £6,600 million put a heavy toll on the country for a long time to come. To Germans' point of view, it was unfair. http://search.eb.com/elections/micro/621/44.html Many historians claim that the combination of a harsh treaty and subsequent lax enforcement of its provisions paved the way for the upsurge of German militarism in the 1930s.
Nor am I arguing with them; I am arguing with the "sneak ethics in the back door" use of "unfair" where "injudicious" would suffice. The issue is not "poor little Germany, forced into a bad decision." The issue is "stupid allies using the stick twice and leaving the carrot in the frig."
The headline is not in the comment itself. Even internet soccer board posters like you and I could tell it's a loose cannon comment. And loose cannons are simply a fact of life. Very recently, and don't hold me to every detail because I dismissed it as a loose cannon comment and moved on, a Japanese cabinet member or some prominent political figure said Japan could make 3,000 nuclear warheads virtually overnight if needed to be used to nuke China. Instead, the headline is in the fact that such a loose canon comment was picked up and positioned prominently on the newswires. The the reason is simple, it serves as a good way to get everybody's attention and sell tomorrow's annual massively-overexaggerated report about the Chinese military by Herr Rumsfeld.
It's a done deal. Barring anything drastic and unexpected, the Yuan will be revalued soon. In fact I had a thread on this. China had been ready technically for a while now. But just when they were going to do it, some politicians here tried to frontrun them and earn some cheap points for themselves first. The Congressmen who were so loud recently knew darn well that China was ready to move. In fact, that was the only reason they got loud in the first place, in an attempt to get some political capital out of this. Sleazy politicians. The bill passed recently that condemns China actually contains two sets, one with binding power one doesn't. The one that doesn't calls for all kinds of wild sanctions and is the one that most Americans heard about. The one that does is as mild as anything because the Congreemen know it too, trading with China is in the best interests of the US. But since the mainstream media has made it OK and in fact cool to bash China, the Congressmen who are like fish to water to the media, take cue from the media thinking they could earn some cheap political credit by acting tough against China in public. America wants the Yuan to be revalued up agains the dollar. Nobody actually wants the Yuan to float freely. Because nobody knows, if floated, the Yuan will actually go up or down against the dollar. In fact, there was an incident recently when the forex window was opened accidentally and the Yuan was floated for half an hour or so, it went down, NOT up, against the dollar.
The yuan being revalued and floating the Yuan are two different things. The yuan has to float to have stable trade. This will be one source of the eventual downfall of the Chinese government. They simply can't control the invisible hand of capitalism. The more they try, the more they hasten their end.
China welcomes the invisible hand of capitalism. Capitalism is what has benefited their country in recent years. And currency peg is an accepted practice in capitalism. The US had a currency peg until a few decades ago and we had been one of the most capitalistic economies for a long long time. England had a currency peg too. Currency peg was never an issue until recently when the Japanese started championing this idea of forcing the Yuan up as a good way to solve the trade deficits and the Bush Administration bought it.
Herr Rumsfeld was busy yesterday. This report has been delayed three times this year. What's a few more days folks? http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050718-secdef3401.html Q Mr. Secretary, can I ask you a question about China? SEC. RUMSFELD: No. We're going to switch to the Australian side. (Laughter.) Yes? ..................... ..................... Q Now may I ask a question about China? SEC. RUMSFELD: What do you -- do you want to vote on this? (Laughter.) All right, Jamie, you've got it! Q Assuming the Pentagon will be releasing its annual report -- SEC. RUMSFELD: We hope this week. Q -- about China -- and no doubt it will show a China that will provide more detail about China's pretty well-known military buildup. I'm wondering if you believe that China is becoming more of a threat? And in particular, I wonder what you make of the Chinese general's comments last week, saying that -- SEC. RUMSFELD: I thought you would end up there. (Laughter.) Q -- saying that if the United States were to intervene in the defense of Taiwan, that they'd have to respond with nuclear weapons? And I would also welcome the prime minister's views on this issue. SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, I'll be very brief. The report -- it is hoped that that report will be out this week. I've read it, and it's a very straightforward description of what you described: a significant military buildup that's been taking place. With respect to the general, it will be interesting to see to what extent his remarks do or do not reflect the views of his government, and I think I'd prefer to wait and see what transpires there. Prime Minister? PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Well, I've already said publicly that I thought his remarks were irresponsible, and I couldn't believe that they would represent the views of his government. Q What do you -- do you think China's a threat generally? PRIME MIN. HOWARD: I beg your pardon? Q Do you see China as an increasing threat? PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Look, I think that China is a country that is growing in power and economic strength, but understands that military conflict of any kind is not conducive to her medium- and longer-term goals. And that's been a view that I've held for some time. But China is conscious of her authority, and China is a country with which Australia has developed a strong economic relationship. But it's a different country politically. It's not a free democratic country like Australia and the United States. And every so often, Australia will have some differences with China on issues that reflect our differences when it comes to democracy. And we had one recently in relation to a defector from the Chinese mission in Australia. But it's a question of balance and a question of maintaining the focus on those areas where we can work together. ....................
Just out. Still hot. Be careful. Rumsfeld is saying something nice about China. Be very careful. China not capable of Taiwan attack: US report http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1418134.htm China's rapidly modernising military could pose a long-term threat to other regional armed forces but its ability to project conventional power beyond its borders remains limited, the Pentagon said. In its long-awaited annual report, the Pentagon said Beijing's military build-up has already begun to put the regional balance at risk. It also concluded that China does not now possess the military capability to attack Taiwan. It described China as being at a strategic crossroads that could lead down three paths but "not yet set immutably on one course or another". ................. The Pentagon has been raising alarms over China's military modernisation for several years. The annual report, always controversial, is the focus of even more attention this year because of increasingly vocal concerns in Washington over China's trade, currency and proliferation trends, as well as the military build-up. It went through considerable vetting by US agencies besides the Pentagon and included the personal involvement of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who in the past often left the task to his deputy, a former administration official said. "As I see it, China is on a path where they are determined to increase their economy, the opportunities for their people and to enter the world community," Mr Rumsfeld told a news briefing before the report was released. "They want the (2008) Olympics to go well. They are doing a number of things to leave the world with the impression that they are a good place for investment and a good economic partner." While US-China ties have improved since 2001 - when a US surveillance plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet off the Chinese coast - the military build-up underscores why Washington opposes European Union military sales to Beijing, he said. Asked if he saw "gathering clouds" and a threat similar to what Europe faced from Germany in the 1930s, Rumsfeld replied: "I guess the short answer is no."
Done. The Yuan has been revalued up 3%. More significantly, China has scrapped the dollar peg. The Yuan will be linked to a basket of currencies from now on. What is in the basket? Well, the market is guessing the Japanese Yen will be in it and as a result it's now up sharply against the dollar.
Indeed. Treasuries are selling off. Yields are going higher. Well but we get to pay back what we owe them now with cheaper money so I guess that's one positive. But, the Bush Administration who bought this idea from the Japanese will realize soon this is actually not to the best interest of America in the longer term. Walmart will simply source more from Indonesia or Vietnam instead of China. It will do nothing for America except it seems like America has won something. And at the same time, the dollar has lost just a little bit more of its legitimacy as the world's reserve currency. Yen on the other hand, gains legitimacy, if the speculation now is proven true that China will include Yen in the basket. Japan is coming out as the clear beneficiary, once again.
topcatcole, Since you are sincerely wanting to know what is going on, here is what my take. I used to work with some military strategists from China, Taiwan and USA. First of all, you have to understand US stance on Taiwan issue. When Russians were US number 1 enemy, China was viewed as a strategical partner to against Russian threat. At that time Deng Xiaoping launched a war against communist Vietname who not long ago they supported to against US. That act, by wasted many of young Chinese soldiers lives, served two reasons--1) appeasing USA and West; 2) Totally cut off the communists blood-ties from China. At that time, Taiwan issue is just a historic issue and US just wants a peace solution. But after Soviet Union breaks up, the situation became a lillte muddy. China is not a friend and also not an enemy. In Clition ara, he tried to work a some kind of strategical partner relationship with Jiang, but that did not went well. So the issue in Taiwan becomes a unclear one--Is a raising China will work for or against US interests? If China becomes the next big enemy, what US can use Taiwan to be a counter force? The old strategy is unclear stance--if Taiwan declares indenpence, US will not intervene; but if China attacks without provocation, US will intervene. By this, it will make sure the current status will not change. But recent years, the tide was changing. Some of thinking tanks believe China as next to be superpower will become a big challenger to USA. So if USA has to confront with China with a war, it is better fight earlier than later. So some of the guys arguing that by using Taiwan as a chance, US (with fully support from NATO and Asia countries) can at least delay China's rise for another 50 years. So for this to happen, remember China would not attack Taiwan if there is no indenpence, US can back up Taiwan toward independance to provoke China's attack. But US cannot fight a limited war just off Japan base (US didn't win a limited war against China in Korean War) and open in the sea. For US to win it, US needs to fight a total war. (You can check the Atlantis mag for this issue). In the otherside, China is sure to win a limited war against a partial US forces to fight off from the seas and Japan, but feel that they cannot win a total war. So they just put more chips on the table: How about a total nuclear war? Let's do a 200 cities swap instead of 1996 Shanghai vs. LA. So this message is not from a loose connon and it is intended to send a message to Pentagon war lovers--If you want to play, let's do an ALL-IN! Recently US is working on to form a group of Asian coutries about how to deal with China threat, so far Japan is signing up, but Austrilia refused joining. That is also a back drop why there was China-Japan tension.