Wow, Rake. Just wow.


Maybe somebody should come along and blow up your shitty little country, ever think of that? I'm sure it would be terrible for your State, but it would probably be great for all the indigenous peoples you guys have been oppressing ever since the Brits shipped your white, delinquent asses out to that hell-hole.


If that line of reasoning offends you, maybe you should think of that before you suggest that another country should be overthrown by military force. Who do you suggest for that job, by the way? God? China? Is Australia gonna do it? Please, by all means, see if you can convince your government to overthrow America. Don't worry. I'll wait. It's something I'd love to see.



Fucker.

(March 9, 2016 at 4:16 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:  That's why we had the B29 ready to go when WWII started.

Another incorrect statement. The B-29 didn't enter service until 1943. WWII started in 1939.

I trust you're smart enough to do the math.

Wait, I'm not. WWII started four years before the B-29 was, to use your own phrase, "ready to go".

I'm pretty sure you said something earlier in the thread about "blowing off your own legs". Is this something you specialize in?

And it only was used at the Asian frontline. Never in Europe.

(March 9, 2016 at 4:47 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: lol, my evidence is history.  He was banned from politics at all in 1925 as a result of the Beer Hall Putsch until 1927.

At this point you really need to quote and link reputable sources.

And I'm saying that Hitler never, I repeat never, sat in the Reichstag. "As far as I know" -- you clearly don't know shit from shinola on this topic.

Your same Wikipedia link CLEARLY says "Leader of the Nazi Party: In office 29 June 1921 – 30 April 1945". You've brought me no evidence that he didn't have a seat in parliament until 1933. You've shown me NO information that says that Hitler didn't hold a parliamentary seat. You fucking moron.

But that's besides the point anyway. You seem to forget that your little claim that he was not elected. No one gets elected into the position of Chancellor so that point is moot, and only parliamentarians can be appointed Chancellor, obviously, unless you have evidence otherwise?

(March 9, 2016 at 4:47 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Well, you do realize we're not talking about Australia, right, Bumpkin?  We're talking about ... wait for it ... an entirely different country.  Wait, you mean other countries don't do things like Australians?  Are you kidding me?!  What a fucking idiot.  Let me repeat that: what a fucking idiot.

I'll wait for you to actually research the topic, learn a little about it, and link to your sources for the incorrect claims. He was not elected to any office, he held no seat in the Reichstag, and his accession to the Chancellorship was not a result of any parliamentary action but as a result of a Presidential appointment. Indeed, Article 53 of the Weimar Constitution stipulates that the Chancellorship, which was Hitler's title from Jan 33 to Aug 34, must be appointed by the President -- i.e., Hindenburg.

Forgive my laughter as I hand you a shovel, but really, the hole you're digging is comical.  You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Go fetch your citations, now. I'll wait for your acknowledgement of error.

You do realise that the President (Hindenburg) was directly elected into office by the people, right (in fact he was also re-elected in 1932 TWICE!)? And as you said it was his responsibility to appoint the Chancellor. Hitler won three straight elections - that is to say that the NAZI party held the largest number of seats.

Before Hitler the other Chancellors had also routinely issued rule by decree, so that wasn't anything new either. And they had also been granted emergency powers, so even that wasn't new. Abaris claimed that "virtually every other party was opposed to him" - that's just not true. Firstly, the NAZI's formed a coalition with the German National People's Party, and that did give them an outright majority of 52% in the parliament. Then they went about freeing themselves from negotiations with their coalition partner by passing the Enabling Act 1933 which allowed the NAZI's to bypass parliament entirely. And that was passed into law by a parliamentary vote. Yes the President bent the rules to allow an easier passing, but it didn't matter anyway since it passed easily with 444 votes in favour and 94 against - which was more than the 2/3rd majority required (before any rule bending). It passed with an 83% vote and only needed 67% (2/3rds). If the SPD parliamentarians had been allowed to vote then the result would have been 79% in favour - which is still way more than the votes required (see Wikipedia). I am aware that some people have pointed out the law was unconstitutional, but that's largely irrelevant also since the constitution could have been amended with the same requirement for quorum (67%), therefore had they taken the time to make a constitutional amendment at the same time that made this law legally sound it also would have passed, easily.

The B-29 ran over time and over budget, the USAAF had requested nearly 200 be combat ready by 1944, but they weren't.  They sat in depots in Kansas and the plants in Georgia and Nebraska awaiting refits and modifications required to declare them combat ready.  Notably, they had engine trouble and pressurization issues.  Further complications arose in poor weather conditions that stalled their modifications (they sat in open air).   After the first clutch was finally made combat ready near the middle of 44 the decision was made to deploy them to the pacific  due to their unique capability with regards to high altitude long distance pressurized flight and payload (these things were the first of their kind, not at all comparable to b-17's, for example - which helps to explain the production delay....there weren't enough specialized tools, even, to complete their manufacture and modification at first).  Previous deployment of other bombers was also a factor, particularly in regards to the european theater.  What we had in the sky over europe was working, and we already had alot in the sky.  Initially, we'd planned to use them against germany and then move them into place in China and India only after we'd defeated the Reich.  We did end up sending some b-29s to europe..but they sat in the uk (and after d-day in france, by some reports..a milk run) awaiting further, theater specific modification.  

The first sortie they flew on was a combat readiness test against forward bases in Thailand .  We lost five, all to mechanical failures/pilot error.  They were grounded for further modification to address those issues made clear in that raid.  10 days later they officially entered duty, declared as combat tested and ready.  They hit steelworks on mainland japan.  Initially, they were designed to have two small bays, further modification was made to the most famous b-29's (Enola Gay, Bockscar, Death and Taxes, Necessary Evil) to allow them to carry the atomic bombs.

The idea that we had them ready, or that we intended to use them against japan, or even to deliver a-bombs, for that matter...is fantastically misinformed.

(March 9, 2016 at 7:18 am)Aractus Wrote:

(March 9, 2016 at 4:47 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: lol, my evidence is history.  He was banned from politics at all in 1925 as a result of the Beer Hall Putsch until 1927.

At this point you really need to quote and link reputable sources.

And I'm saying that Hitler never, I repeat never, sat in the Reichstag. "As far as I know" -- you clearly don't know shit from shinola on this topic.

Your same Wikipedia link CLEARLY says "Leader of the Nazi Party: In office 29 June 1921 – 30 April 1945". You've brought me no evidence that he didn't have a seat in parliament until 1933. You've shown me NO information that says that Hitler didn't hold a parliamentary seat. You fucking moron.

But that's besides the point anyway. You seem to forget that your little claim that he was not elected. No one gets elected into the position of Chancellor so that point is moot, and only parliamentarians can be appointed Chancellor, obviously, unless you have evidence otherwise?

(March 9, 2016 at 4:47 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Well, you do realize we're not talking about Australia, right, Bumpkin?  We're talking about ... wait for it ... an entirely different country.  Wait, you mean other countries don't do things like Australians?  Are you kidding me?!  What a fucking idiot.  Let me repeat that: what a fucking idiot.

I'll wait for you to actually research the topic, learn a little about it, and link to your sources for the incorrect claims. He was not elected to any office, he held no seat in the Reichstag, and his accession to the Chancellorship was not a result of any parliamentary action but as a result of a Presidential appointment. Indeed, Article 53 of the Weimar Constitution stipulates that the Chancellorship, which was Hitler's title from Jan 33 to Aug 34, must be appointed by the President -- i.e., Hindenburg.

Forgive my laughter as I hand you a shovel, but really, the hole you're digging is comical.  You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Go fetch your citations, now. I'll wait for your acknowledgement of error.

You do realise that the President (Hindenburg) was directly elected into office by the people, right (in fact he was also re-elected in 1932 TWICE!)? And as you said it was his responsibility to appoint the Chancellor. Hitler won three straight elections - that is to say that the NAZI party held the largest number of seats.

Before Hitler the other Chancellors had also routinely issued rule by decree, so that wasn't anything new either. And they had also been granted emergency powers, so even that wasn't new. Abaris claimed that "virtually every other party was opposed to him" - that's just not true. Firstly, the NAZI's formed a coalition with the German National People's Party, and that did give them an outright majority of 52% in the parliament. Then they went about freeing themselves from negotiations with their coalition partner by passing the Enabling Act 1933 which allowed the NAZI's to bypass parliament entirely. And that was passed into law by a parliamentary vote. Yes the President bent the rules to allow an easier passing, but it didn't matter anyway since it passed easily with 444 votes in favour and 94 against - which was more than the 2/3rd majority required (before any rule bending). It passed with an 83% vote and only needed 67% (2/3rds). If the SPD parliamentarians had been allowed to vote then the result would have been 79% in favour - which is still way more than the votes required (see Wikipedia). I am aware that some people have pointed out the law was unconstitutional, but that's largely irrelevant also since the constitution could have been amended with the same requirement for quorum (67%), therefore had they taken the time to make a constitutional amendment at the same time that made this law legally sound it also would have passed, easily.

What this world really needs to save it from world domination is another Hitler, and its name is Aractus Erectus. Good luck with that, you violent fucktard! Australia really should do something about its new asshole, but then I wouldn't have your free speech censored, because this guarantees that those who would put you back where you belong will be heard. What a serious dumbfuck!

(March 9, 2016 at 7:18 am)Aractus Wrote: Firstly, the NAZI's formed a coalition with the German National People's Party, and that did give them an outright majority of 52% in the parliament.

Care to look at the charts I posted. We're not talking 1933, but 1932, which was the last year of free elections. With the communists not already being imprisoned and hunted. Without the SPD being powerless because many of their leaders had been imprisoned also or fled the country.

Also, it would do you some good to compare the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" (Enabling Act) to the emergency decrees other chancellors issued. As opposed to the decrees it was a constitutional amendment, which institutionalised a state of emergency.

Here's the full text.

Quote:The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Reichsrat, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled:

Article 1

In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution

Article 2

Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain unaffected.

Article 3

Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government

Article 4

Treaties of the Reich with foreign states, which relate to matters of Reich legislation shall for the duration of the validity of these laws not require the consent of the Reichstag. The Reich government shall adopt the necessary legislation to implement these agreements.

Article 5

This law enters into force on the day of its proclamation. It expires on April 1, 1937; it expires furthermore if the present Reich government is replaced by another.

Suffice to say that Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution are all about checks and balances in order to not allow a single party or single person to rule without checks.

Do your homework for fucks sake. Here's the full text of the German Constitution back then. In German, of course.

http://www.documentarchiv.de/wr/wrv.html..._ABSCHNITT

(March 9, 2016 at 5:59 am)abaris Wrote: Really?

---

---

That's July '32. In November of the same year, the last free election was held. The NSDAP lost over 4 percent between July and November. And we're not talking a winner takes it all system, unless a single party manages to get over 50 percent of the seats. Hitler would have had to find a partner for a coalition. So they were at an impasse for 6 months. Hitler never had more than 33 percent of the votes on his side.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Firstly - it proves that Hitler and other 229 NAZIs were elected at that time, and secondly Hitler did form a coalition with another party as per my previous post.

(March 9, 2016 at 5:59 am)abaris Wrote: Germany at that time was equally divided between left and right, as the chart quite clearly shows.

Don't go giving me a bunch of BS about the "left" and the "right", those divisions are not comparable between countries, even between contemporary countries today. And you're wrong because Hitler and the NAZIs did form a coalition government with a right-wing party that gave them a majority (52% of parliament).

(March 9, 2016 at 5:59 am)abaris Wrote: November '32 shows the left parties in the lead and the Catholic Zentrum getting considerably stronger. Also the DNVP got stronger, which ultimately led to the demise of democracy. They still didn't have a majority in January, but by the end of february, the Communists were already forbidden.

---

---

march 1933.

---

---

Again, where's the relevance?

(March 9, 2016 at 8:46 am)abaris Wrote: Suffice to say that Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution are all about checks and balances in order to not allow a single party or single person to rule without checks.

Do your homework for fucks sake. Here's the full text of the German Constitution back then. In German, of course.

http://www.documentarchiv.de/wr/wrv.html..._ABSCHNITT

I already said that. But that point is moot because had they put a constitutional amendment before parliament to overturn or suspend articles 68-77 it would have passed.

(March 9, 2016 at 8:53 am)Aractus Wrote: Again, where's the relevance?

But the real question is this:


Where's the relevance of your butthurt, Rake? Why is it relevant, huh? Why?

(March 9, 2016 at 6:26 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 9, 2016 at 4:16 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:  That's why we had the B29 ready to go when WWII started.

Another incorrect statement.  The B-29 didn't enter service until 1943.  WWII started in 1939.

I trust you're smart enough to do the math.

Wait, I'm not.  WWII started four years before the B-29 was, to use your own phrase, "ready to go".

I'm pretty sure you said something earlier in the thread about "blowing off your own legs". Is this something you specialize in?

The US entered WWII as a combatant on December 7, 1941.  

"Historical Snapshot

B-29 Superfortress
Boeing submitted the proposal for the B-29 long-range heavy bomber to the Army in 1940, before the United States entered World War II."
http://www.boeing.com/history/products/b...tress.page

Franklin D. Roosevelt 49 - Message to Congress on Appropriations for National Defense. May 16, 1940

"At this time I am asking the Congress immediately to appropriate a large sum of money for four primary purposes:

First, to procure the essential equipment of all kinds for a larger and thoroughly rounded-out Army;

Second, to replace or modernize all old Army and Navy equipment with the latest type of equipment;

Third, to increase production facilities for everything needed for the Army and Navy for national defense. For it is clear that we require the ability to turn out quickly infinitely greater supplies;

Fourth, to speed up to a twenty-four hour basis all existing Army and Navy contracts, and all new contracts to be awarded.

I ask for an immediate appropriation of $896,000,000. And may I say that I hope there will be speed in giving the appropriation.

That sum of $896,000,000 of appropriation I should divide approximately as follows:

1. For the Army $546,000,000
2. For the Navy and Marine Corps 250,000,000
3. To the President to provide for emergencies
affecting the national security and defense 100,000,000
In addition to the above sum of appropriations, I ask for authorizations for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps to make contract obligations in the further sum of $186,000,000.
And to the President an additional authorization to make contract obligations $100,000,000
The total of authorizations is, therefore $286,000,000

It is my belief that a large part of the requested appropriation of $100,000,000 and the requested authorization of $100,000,000 to the President will be used principally for the increase of production of airplanes, anti-aircraft guns, and the training of additional personnel for these weapons. These requests for appropriations and authorizations would, of course, be in addition to the direct estimates for these purposes in the other items that are requested.

The proposed details of the appropriations and authorizations asked for will be given to the Committees of the Congress."