|
Author |
Topic Options
|
Posts: 18770
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:12 am
bambu bambu: Germany should've been taken over and ruled by the Allies after WW1...then WW2 would never have happened.
If Japan is not very careful it'll get itself whacked bigtime again.
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" - Chairman Mao.
...and nuke missiles, of which China has many.
The Nazis were evil scum. Are you saying that if Japan continues to do things you don't like that you will support them being attacked?
|
Posts: 18770
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:21 am
$1: And you are falling into exactly the problem people have, you look at the end which was caused by insanity, not the amazing economic revival.
The two major employment projects that the Nazi's did were the Autobahn and rebuilding of the Military. The Autobahn was built by political opponents of the Nazi's who were the first concentration camp detainees/slaves. The military buildup was in violation of the treaties that ended WWI. The political weakness of the Weimer gov. along with the economic devastation caused by the depression so soon after the war all lead to the German people seeking any kind of leadership that promised to make life better. Yes Germany had a successful recovery but it was by means considered unethical. The "recovery” continued through the first half of the war by the looting of property, valuables, and money of not just the Jews but of concurred nations.
|
bambu
Active Member
Posts: 302
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:22 am
$1: Are you saying that if Japan continues to do things you don't like that you will support them being attacked? No. But if they so much as fire once on Australia again I expect America to whack them before they can fire a second time. - ANZUS Treaty/Alliance- ...which saw Australia go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan with America after NYC was attacked.
Last edited by bambu on Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
|
Posts: 7684
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:23 am
jeff744 jeff744: And you are falling into exactly the problem people have, you look at the end which was caused by insanity, not the amazing economic revival. You treat the two like they are inseparable which is failed way of looking at the world. It's like saying Rome wasn't great because they collapsed in the end, that Alexander the Great sucked because his empire collapsed as soon as he died, etc. You are lumping all the good and bad into one package, the Nazis did incredible work to the economy in Germany, the problem is that they followed it up with genocide and mass warfare. In the end Germany left WWII with a Europe that was actually willing to help them rebuild instead of one that was willing to do whatever it took to leave Germany so poor they would have to mortgage the house to buy their daily bread. Do you know what drove that miraculous economic revival? The re-militarization of Germany, with the intention of essentially taking over and ruling all of Europe. You can't look at their economic policy in a vacuum. And Europe wasn't keen on rebuilding Germany. Post-war the plan was to deindustrialize Germany and split it into two or three countries. The Cold War changed that plan, not any kind of goodwill from Germany's neighbours.
|
Posts: 18770
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:30 am
bambu bambu: No.
But if they so much as fire once on Australia again I expect America to whack them before they can fire a second time. So you want others to kill for you yet be able to say that same nation is barbaric for killing its criminals. You are one racist hypocrite, you know this right? A racist because of your continued unending tirade against the Japanese. A hypocrite because you want the USA to "whack them before they can fire a second time" yet say we are barbaric for doing exactly that to our convicted murderers.
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:34 am
saturn_656 saturn_656: jeff744 jeff744: And you are falling into exactly the problem people have, you look at the end which was caused by insanity, not the amazing economic revival. You treat the two like they are inseparable which is failed way of looking at the world. It's like saying Rome wasn't great because they collapsed in the end, that Alexander the Great sucked because his empire collapsed as soon as he died, etc. You are lumping all the good and bad into one package, the Nazis did incredible work to the economy in Germany, the problem is that they followed it up with genocide and mass warfare. In the end Germany left WWII with a Europe that was actually willing to help them rebuild instead of one that was willing to do whatever it took to leave Germany so poor they would have to mortgage the house to buy their daily bread. Do you know what drove that miraculous economic revival? The re-militarization of Germany, with the intention of essentially taking over and ruling all of Europe. You can't look at their economic policy in a vacuum. And Europe wasn't keen on rebuilding Germany. Post-war the plan was to deindustrialize Germany and split it into two or three countries. The Cold War changed that plan, not any kind of goodwill from Germany's neighbours. And yet re-militarization itself isn't a big deal, it's what they did with it that causes the problems. They could just as easily have turned it into a non-military industrial force as the factories that produce tanks can be repurposed to cars after they run out of the need to build tanks. Militarization is one of the surest ways to get yourself out of an economic black hole, you ramp up production which results in wages, which causes consumerism which allows you to turn factors away from tanks over to cars. Government spending is a long trusted way of getting out of economic trouble, had Germany not militarized at all France would just claim some more German land for collateral when the debt wasn't paid. They could very easily have just used that military to force France to back off on the debt and then gone on with their business without invading everyone. The problem is Hitler was one of the worst possible people to have in charge of strategy ever and he went insane with using it to invade everyone.
|
bambu
Active Member
Posts: 302
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:39 am
stratos stratos: bambu bambu: No.
But if they so much as fire once on Australia again I expect America to whack them before they can fire a second time. So you want others to kill for you yet be able to say that same nation is barbaric for killing its criminals. You are one racist hypocrite, you know this right? A racist because of your continued unending tirade against the Japanese. A hypocrite because you want the USA to "whack them before they can fire a second time" yet say we are barbaric for doing exactly that to our convicted murderers. War is war. Death chambers are death chambers...it's nothing the same. Yeah, yeah, 'racist, racist' 'And if Japanese were 'White European appearance'?
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:43 am
stratos stratos: $1: And you are falling into exactly the problem people have, you look at the end which was caused by insanity, not the amazing economic revival.
The two major employment projects that the Nazi's did were the Autobahn and rebuilding of the Military. The Autobahn was built by political opponents of the Nazi's who were the first concentration camp detainees/slaves. The military buildup was in violation of the treaties that ended WWI. The political weakness of the Weimer gov. along with the economic devastation caused by the depression so soon after the war all lead to the German people seeking any kind of leadership that promised to make life better. Yes Germany had a successful recovery but it was by means considered unethical. The "recovery” continued through the first half of the war by the looting of property, valuables, and money of not just the Jews but of concurred nations. The treaty that ended WWI should have never existed, that was a monstrosity which is considered one of the leading causes of WWII as without it the Nazis would have never come to the same level of power. Nobody ever condemns Germany for violating that treaty because it was so incredibly unjust, they condemn the Germans for the fact they followed it up with invading a bunch of countries and starting the Holocaust. There are only so many detainees and slaves in a nation, they still had to use normal Germans to get their reconstruction really going as the Jewish relocation programs were still in their ghetto phase. Even without the looting Germany was well on the path to recovery by having created jobs for workers to fill and get paid for so they could buy things. And at the time having political detainees do work wasn't exactly considered rare or particularly unjust, you can find cases of it after WWII in all sorts of colonial regions. Hell, in Vietnam the French would pick random people, beat them into signing a contract and then work them nearly to death on rubber plantations for next to nothing.
|
bambu
Active Member
Posts: 302
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:49 am
stratos stratos: But you want others to kill for you yet be able to say that same nation is barbaric for killing its criminals. You are one racist hypocrite, you know this right?
Washington is basically running the world...as it wants to do. PNAC. Instead of going around signing nuclear non-proliferation treaties and leaving itself defenceless and at the mercy of others to protect it, Australia should be armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships and subs, and an air force armed with nuke bombs/missiles etc. Washington won't even sell us planes with all the bells and whistles...only a 'second rate' version...and says we can't have nuclear weapons.
|
Posts: 18770
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:15 am
bambu bambu: No.
But if they so much as fire once on Australia again I expect America to whack them before they can fire a second time. $1: War is war.
Death chambers are death chambers...it's nothing the same.
If the second quote is the case then why use a non military term "whack" in the first qoute. Death is Death you want the USA to kill Japaness if they attack you so they don't get a second chance. We kill murderers so they don't get a second chance. Same principle just you want it done on a larger scale.
|
Posts: 18770
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:21 am
$1: Instead of going around signing nuclear non-proliferation treaties and leaving itself defenceless and at the mercy of others to protect it, Australia should be armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships and subs, and an air force armed with nuke bombs/missiles etc.
You say this and then try to blame it all on the USA by saying... $1: Washington won't even sell us planes with all the bells and whistles...only a 'second rate' version...and says we can't have nuclear weapons.
Very confusing when you decry your own country for not building up its military and refusal to have nukes. Then immedately turn around and blame the US for not arming you. Why exactly should we arm you? Your country, i'm sure, is more then capable of building weapons.
|
Posts: 33691
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:24 am
stratos stratos: Are you saying that if Japan continues to do things you don't like that you will support them being attacked?
If China and Japan ever had a serious go, It would be tough for me to choose a side. Probably just sit and ![Eating Popcorn [popcorn]](./images/smilies/popcorn.gif)
|
Posts: 7684
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:25 am
jeff744 jeff744: And yet re-militarization itself isn't a big deal, it's what they did with it that causes the problems. They could just as easily have turned it into a non-military industrial force as the factories that produce tanks can be repurposed to cars after they run out of the need to build tanks. Militarization is one of the surest ways to get yourself out of an economic black hole, you ramp up production which results in wages, which causes consumerism which allows you to turn factors away from tanks over to cars. Government spending is a long trusted way of getting out of economic trouble, had Germany not militarized at all France would just claim some more German land for collateral when the debt wasn't paid. They could very easily have just used that military to force France to back off on the debt and then gone on with their business without invading everyone. The problem is Hitler was one of the worst possible people to have in charge of strategy ever and he went insane with using it to invade everyone. Whether or not militarization is a big deal depends entirely upon who is doing the militarizing. One of the reasons why Germany steamrolled over mainland Europe so quickly is because they had a full on war economy firmly in place before they fired the first shot. They were locked, cocked, and ready to rock while everyone else was humping the bunk. The plan was never to shift the war economy to consumer products, at least not until all their neighbours were firmly subjugated and they had a peace treaty with the British Empire. A German-ruled Europe was always their plan. Had the fascists not been in power, defying Versailles wouldn't have been such a bad thing. The full on war economy the Nazis built is another story entirely.
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:31 am
saturn_656 saturn_656: jeff744 jeff744: And yet re-militarization itself isn't a big deal, it's what they did with it that causes the problems. They could just as easily have turned it into a non-military industrial force as the factories that produce tanks can be repurposed to cars after they run out of the need to build tanks. Militarization is one of the surest ways to get yourself out of an economic black hole, you ramp up production which results in wages, which causes consumerism which allows you to turn factors away from tanks over to cars. Government spending is a long trusted way of getting out of economic trouble, had Germany not militarized at all France would just claim some more German land for collateral when the debt wasn't paid. They could very easily have just used that military to force France to back off on the debt and then gone on with their business without invading everyone. The problem is Hitler was one of the worst possible people to have in charge of strategy ever and he went insane with using it to invade everyone. Whether or not militarization is a big deal depends entirely upon who is doing the militarizing. One of the reasons why Germany steamrolled over mainland Europe so quickly is because they had a full on war economy firmly in place before they fired the first shot. They were locked, cocked, and ready to rock while everyone else was humping the bunk. The plan was never to shift the war economy to consumer products, at least not until all their neighbours were firmly subjugated and they had a peace treaty with the British Empire. A German-ruled Europe was always their plan. Had the fascists not been in power, defying Versailles wouldn't have been such a bad thing. The full on war economy the Nazis built is another story entirely. Still doesn't mean that people can't look at the work they did and try to mimic parts while removing the intention of invading other nations. Using the Nazis as an example on how to do some things is perfectly valid option as some of their stuff worked quite well, as long as you aren't trying to copy their utterly inhumane ideals there isn't really any issue.
|
Posts: 7684
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:32 am
martin14 martin14: stratos stratos: Are you saying that if Japan continues to do things you don't like that you will support them being attacked?
If China and Japan ever had a serious go, It would be tough for me to choose a side. Probably just sit and ![Eating Popcorn [popcorn]](./images/smilies/popcorn.gif) I'd lean towards Japan. The PRC is pushing out more aggressively as time goes on, other countries in the region need to push back lest they completely own the neighbourhood.
|
|
Page 8 of 9
|
[ 127 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests |
|
|