Why is it we have to paste a name on it?

Depending the level of involvement of course...till someone comes to your house that disagrees with you with a gang of his cronies?

What would you pay for an AK with an xtra 4 magazines at that point?

You tell me: I`ll sell it to ya

Are you starting to understand what the US constitution was all about?...and why there is a major immigration to the states?

Unfortunately we became good at selling illusions...

IDEAS man...they DO change the world!...but they don`t change human nature...

A search on "dictatorship" and my user name turned this up:

The hauliers announced the blockade last week after Labor Finance Minister Karl Eirik Schjoett-Pedersen refused to promise fuel tax cuts in a draft 2001 budget.

Bigstick: Most (but obviously not all)
>Germans did support Hitler and most (not
>all) Russians did support Stalin.

This is fundamentally false. Hitler was elected as a minority leader, and then he harrassed the other parties out of existence. Those who resisted him were eliminated. By the time people began to become aware of what was going on Hitler had consolidated himself to the point that no one could publicly oppose him (with one notable exception, Dietrich Bonnhoeffer). Those who chose to secretly plot against Hitler were also killed (there were at least three plots against Hitler's life that I am aware of (one by the aristocracy and two by generals [44, 40, 44]. These plots were very nearly successful, but Hitler was a very lucky man. Hitler never had the support of the majority. He never even had the support of the majority of the military.

The King had next to zero power in weimar. He no longer had any say in anything. Nor did the aristocracy have any real power. Versailles was very successful in destroying the aristocracy in Germany.

As far as nationalism in England is concerned, my point was that it would be harder for a fascist to gain power on the Hitler/Stalin model where the leadership was foreign. As for the aristocracy and the ethnic English, even here there is not complete homogeneity. As I said, there is a history of foreign occupation in England that is hard to obscure and is nothing whatsoever like the current minority population which are not even European and are in fact the consequence of feed back from colonialism. Part of the role that such minorities would play in a modern rise to a similar fascism would be to obscure the foreign character of such leadership, much the way the Jews played a similar role in Germany and its subjegated or sympathetic states.

You should check your basic history before you post...

BTW, it's also obvious from your post above that you don't know who Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were, and the impact their actions had on the German psyche...

I find it reasonable that a "Stalin" could not have come to power in the U.S. during the last century. The American mindset is too free-wheeling, too daring, resistant to any kind of ironfist tactics. The Russian populace on the other hand has historically been perpetually subservient, willing to trade in certain basic freedoms for security.
I propose that in order for a dictator to emerge, the populace needs to create the appropriate climate for that emergence. The climate was "right" for Stalin. The same can be said of Mao.

Perhaps it is too simplistic to say to someone in North Korea or in Cuba "you get what you deserve". And yet that is the conclusion I find myself drawn to.

You seem to forget that certain levels of xcistance and availability of resourses have a lot to do with a populus`s herde-mentality...

The countries you`ve mentioned(Russia-China) have went and are goin through several revolutionary phazes to join the rest of the human race in this past century...

Remember: "freedom, yeah it`s just some people takin`"

Hindenberg was not the German crown, he was the president of Germany and actually followed another president, Friedrich Ebert during the short life of the Wiemar Republic(1919-33).

The last German crown was William the II, who was forced to abdicate at the end of WWI. The end of the German monarchy began with the Weimar Republic. There was not even a constitutional monarchy in Germany under the Weimar Republic.

I said,

"Hindenburg, the former Kaiser retained the Presidency in the Weimer Republic."

It is simply not correct that Hindenberg was "the former Kaiser of Germany". I'll rephrase the following,

"I don't really know, but I'll bet that even under the Weimer republic, the German crown had more power in Germany than the English crown in England."

to read,

"I don't really know, but I'll bet that even under the Weimar Republic, the German presidency had more power in Germany than the English crown in England."

Ok, we've already dealt with the fact that Hindenberg wasn't a former Kaiser, so we'll let that go. Yes, Hindenberg did have some amount of power, and certainly more than the crown in England. However, that is not your original argument. Your original argument had to do with the German monarchy. So, now, since Hindenberg wasn't a kaiser you'll have to concede the original point which was related to a comparison of monarchies.

However, Hindenberg's power was not as extensive as many think and your timeline leaves out major events. In the 1932 election Hitler got 30% of the vote, this made him second to Hindenberg in the vote, and hindenberg struck a deal to avoid a run-off. However, Hitler called another election in March and won a majority. This election was tampered with, and cannot be considered truly democratic (since some parties were heavily persecuted, similar to what Milosevic has done recently in Serbia). However, if you examine the trends:

1928 - 12 members of the Reichstag
1930 - 107 members
1932 July - 230 members

He simply did get his mandate through elections, certainly his first, while the second I would consider illegitimate.

However, it is quite concievable that in Britain they *could* have elected Mosely, and they could have created a fascist government.

".... England also has a rich anti-authoritarian streak that makes dictatorships unwelcome. I don't really know, but I'll bet that even under the Weimer republic, the German crown had more power in Germany than the English crown in England."

My conjecture had to do with authority in the respective countries, not necessarily the monarchies.

Viz: You can argue that Hitler's election was undemocratic and he is therefore a dictator...

OR:

You can argue that a dictator is one who *never* has to run in an election.

You can't have it both ways.

"Can we not agree from here on out that when you use the word "dictator", you are talking about someone who never has to run for elections?" - Envelope posted 07-25-2000 01:37 PM

As for my analysis of Castro, you do me a great diservice by misquoting me so haphazardly. What I pointed out was the Cuba has never had a democratic tradition, and that some countries without democratic traditions might not be considered dictatorships. It is your narrow understanding of legitimacy (understandable given the lamentable shape of the American education system) that causes you to fail that there are other ways of passing on leadership and power which are legitimate besides elections. I could cite hundreds of political thinkers to support that case, but I will merely point out that while you think Hitler's illegitimate election doesn't count, you think Milosevic is not a dictator because serbia has regular 'elections' which are more heavily manipulated in his favour than Hitler's ever were.

Just now in your last post you say,

"As for my analysis of Castro, you do me a great diservice by misquoting me so haphazardly. What I pointed out was the Cuba has never had a democratic tradition, and that some countries without democratic traditions might not be considered dictatorships."

If you are not saying that Castro is not a dictator, then what the hell are you saying? Like I said before, either you are not fluent enough in the concept "dictator" to argue the subject, or you are just making it up as you go along to please yourself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Morrison:

Bigstick: Most (but obviously not all)
>Germans did support Hitler and most (not
>all) Russians did support Stalin.

This is fundamentally false

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Morrison:

After hitler won 30% in the 1932 election, and was appointed chancellor hindenberg died. Hitler then called an election, which he promptly won with a large majority. So, he absolutely was elected by the people

---

How many times do I have to say it! Hitler *WAS* elected by the people.

1932 - General election by the people (Hitler win's 30%)
1932 - Hindenberg brokers a deal making Hitler Chancellor
1933 - Hindenberg dies, Hitler calls another general election.
1933 - Hitler wins majority in election.
1933/4 - Hitler passes a series of laws to make his position more dictatorial.

Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to keep repeating yourself over and over until someone finally understands what you are saying??

WRT Castro (yet again): Please feel free to read the part you didn't quote: "It is your narrow understanding of legitimacy (understandable given the lamentable shape of the American education system) that causes you to fail that there are other ways of passing on leadership and power which are legitimate besides elections." The argument is that democracy means 'power from the people'. Is it not possible for the people to provide power to their leaders in a manner other than an election? Of course it is. I would argue that this is how Castro came to power. The people gave him support and power which enabled him to come to power and overthrow that evil exploitational dictator that *YOUR* government, the self-described 'protector of the Free World', installed and supported. Castro's power is not something he engineered for himself, as Stalin did with the Famines and political killings or the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia, rather he recieved his power from the people, whose life is immeasurably better now than it ever was under YOUR dictator, Batista. My concern with your grevious mis-representation of my view is in reference to the people loving Castro. Elections are basically a popularity contest. The guy who can rally the most supporters and friends wins. Cuba doesn't have elections, but they feel no need for them because everyone (with a very few exceptions, most of whom are now living in Miami) supports him.

Big Stick:

In order for a contradiction to exist a statement must be of the following form:

Something cannot be both (a) and non(a) at the same time and in the same respect. (aristotle's definition, not mine).

What you have quoted is not a real contradiction, but an apparent one.

In the first quoted segment I am refering to a different time and a different respect. In the first statement I am referring to Hitler's policies, particularly those relating to war and the Jews, which most Germans did not support or approve. There is significant research occuring on this very topic (a response to the Goldhagen thesis).

In the second I am referring to an election. Now, recently in my province, Ontario, we had an election which put in a party called the NDP (This was about 8 years ago now). They were elected with a majority, though few knew there platform. After about a year the majority who elected them no longer wanted them in power. The majority did not approve of their policies or support them. So, in the next election they were tossed out. Germany never had another election after the one Hitler won.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Morrison:

Elections are basically a popularity contest. The guy who can rally the most supporters and friends wins. Cuba doesn't have elections, but they feel no need for them because everyone (with a very few exceptions, most of whom are now living in Miami) supports him.

---

Sure, that explains the complete lack of a free press. How the hell would we know if the people support him or not? All media is controlled by the state and anyone foolish enough to even mumble something like "You know, socialism isn't really a sound economic system" gets thrown into a "re-education" camp. Castro's own daughter doesn't seem that fond of him and Amnesty international is never going to label Cuba as a good place to have an opposing point of view.
http://www.courttv.com/world/pinochet/111098_castro.html

If an election is nothing but a popularity contest and Castro is so loved by the people why not have one? The US embargo would be seen as completly illegitimate. But Castro would not even consider such an idea because he is nothing more than a dictator thug who replaced a meaner dictator thug. An improvement, but nothing I'd put up with.

"Cuba doesn't have elections, but they feel no need for them because everyone (with a very few exceptions, most of whom are now living in Miami) supports him."--PM

Is any one responsible for anything anymore in this new brave world?

If a German soldier did not enjoy gasing a Jew, does it mean that he's not really responsible?

If you have read anything on the subject, and I doubt that severely, you must have read Goldhagen, because no other scholarly work has been written supporting what you are postulating. The Historiography of the period clearly shows that the majority of Germans either opposed or had no knowledge of what Hitler was doing in the death camps.

Stanman: WRT cuba... With all due respect, have you ever been to Cuba? I have. I spent several weeks there and was free to talk to anyone I wanted and free to travel at will. Cuba has most, if not all the freedoms possessed by Americans. They have freedom of religion and freedom of association. They have excellent medical care (not as technologically advanced as American medical care, but it is free and no one slips through the cracks or goes bankrupt to pay for an operation), universal education (Incl. post-secondary education). Cubans have free speech, and they exercise it. They have limited free press. The press is subject to censorship on matters of 'national security', but is otherwise free to print what it will. Granted I would like to see freedom of congregation (to protest) and true press freedom, but Cubans all enjoy freedom of firearms ownership (Cubans all enter the militia, are trained and then equipped with an assault rifle, which they take home).

More to the point, during my travels in Cuba (in some of the poorer and less developed parts of Cuba) I met many people from different levels of status and I never heard more than a couple of comments against Castro. Instead, when they mentioned him their eyes lit up, and they couldn't help but drone on for 10 minutes or so about all the great things he had done for them.

"Blah, blah, blah, analysis. Blah, blah, blah, contradiction. Blah, blah, blah." Your desperate tap dancing around the the simple and unadorned truth is no longer even amusing.

Castro is a dictator.

http://www.combatsim.com/ubb/Forum18/HTML/000518.html

Of course Hitler was popular with the German people, and of course they voted for him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bob671:
Of course Hitler was popular with the German people, and of course they voted for him.

---

But according to Paul this does not mean that they supported him. And had I only read "the book", I would've known about it.

I`m conflicted with this post since I find the C-sucker highly intelligent, but WTF...those are the

Facts...

...Not they make any difference these dayz...

quote:

---

bob671, when you say "came to power", what are you talking about?

---

When he was appointed Chancellor in 1933. 1936 - 3 = 1933 I'd assumed it was obvious...

quote:

---

What was the purpose of elections in 1936?

---

What is the point of the US holding elections in 2000?

quote:

---

The Nazis hated democracy, why did they hold elections?

---

Because people were more than happy to vote for them.

quote:

---

Yes, there were many construction projects that were supposed to imply a vigorous economy, much like they are now. Of course without slave labor and confiscated property from the Jews and conquered territories, the German economy would have quickly collapsed. Nazi Germany could never have survived without robbing the wealth and labor of its own citizens and its neighbors and it knew it.

---

Actually, slave labour did not begin in Germany until late in the war, and the reason it began was that Germans had had to pull all of the factory workers out of the factories and put them into the army. Germany was short on manpower, and they saw forced labour as a means to overcome it. The Autobahns and city construction projects of the late 30s were all built with German labour.

Toecutter: