Overthrowing oppressive regimes by military force

[Aractus]

The NaZis weren't elected to govern.  They had to form a coalition to do so ... as you yourself pointed out earlier in this thread.

So? They were elected to govern with a junior coalition partner. Which is what they did until the parliament voted more than 80% in favour of giving the NAZIs total rule. You can't argue with that. You also can't argue with the fact that previous Chancellors that were appointed represented parties that were much smaller (i.e. half the size or less of the Nazis in Jan 1933). One Chancellor in fact didn't represent any party! And he still issued "rule by decree" to avoid parliament.

I suspect the major point of the whole discussion is that if you are going to overthrow an "oppressive" regime you should have a plan to replace it with something better.

Seems to me that is the point where the US always goes down the shitter.

No my point is that's not how you get a better government. Meaningful change must come from within. If it's forced then it's doomed for failure. As I've mentioned in the other thread this is exactly why Obamacare is doomed to fail - not because it's bad, but because it doesn't have the support of the voters. If voters overwhelmingly supported it then the Republicans couldn't touch it or it would be political suicide.

I'm sure he knows a professor who thinks this is wrong, because the Australians didn't write the list.

I'll raise this with him and get back to you. He told me unequivocally that Hitler had a seat in the Reichstag. But now we (or rather I) know he didn't that just makes present USA even more similar to Hitler: Trump has never had a parliamentary seat, and Cruz is a first term senator (correct?) And just like Hitler they're at the extreme right of domestic politics.

And by the way, I'm 32 I'm due to be wrong about something by now.

[Minimalist]

Meaningful change must come from within.

Tell that to Germany and Japan.  Those were the last two we got right.

[abaris]

Okay I'll accept that list. Hitler personally was not elected, but how does that change the fact that the NAZIs were elected to govern?

They haven't been elected to govern. They only had most of the seats, but not a majority. That's the difference between representative and direct. The combined left was equally strong and the DNVP alone didn't provide a majority either. They took the possibility for a minority government, which Hindenburg approved. Even before the next elections - because of the NSDAP not finding a coalition partner for a majority.

It's a very complicated issue that would fill several pages to explain. Basically it was a coup by a government that never had the majority of the popular vote. That's why I posted the election charts earlier on. It's at the very basic to understand what was going on.,

[Thumpalumpacus]

The NaZis weren't elected to govern.  They had to form a coalition to do so ... as you yourself pointed out earlier in this thread.

So? They were elected to govern with a junior coalition partner. Which is what they did until the parliament voted more than 80% in favour of giving the NAZIs total rule. You can't argue with that. You also can't argue with the fact that previous Chancellors that were appointed represented parties that were much smaller (i.e. half the size or less of the Nazis in Jan 1933). One Chancellor in fact didn't represent any party! And he still issued "rule by decree" to avoid parliament.

I'm still waiting for you to simply say, "When I said Hitler was elected, I was wrong."

Either you can do this, or you can't. The fact that you keep answering with irrelevancies while ignoring the point I was making speaks volumes both about your knowledge and your character -- or lack thereof.

I'll raise this with him and get back to you. He told me unequivocally that Hitler had a seat in the Reichstag. But now we (or rather I) know he didn't that just makes present USA even more similar to Hitler: Trump has never had a parliamentary seat, and Cruz is a first term senator (correct?) And just like Hitler they're at the extreme right of domestic politics.

He is wrong: you can tell him that a high-school graduate from America has corrected him. And in the meantime, you can yourself take a lesson about worshiping authority rather than cottoning to facts.

As for the rest of your snippet here, that is simply you trying to rescue a slipshod comparison. Trump is the more fascist of the two, but neither of them are "just like Hitler". That's because "the extreme right" is obviously (to anyone with half a brain) a relative term. "Extreme right" in America in 2016 means something different than "extreme right" in Germany in 1932 which means, again, something different than "extreme right" in 1789 France.

Do you see how stupid your argument is now?

And by the way, I'm 32 I'm due to be wrong about something by now.

No problem with you being wrong, but really, lad, you shouldn't be obstinately so.

[KUSA]

And by the way, I'm 32 I'm due to be wrong about something by now.

It seems like you are wrong about everything. Anything that comes out of your mouth is like a bad fart.

[Aractus]

That's the difference between representative and direct.

Well not really because the President was directly elected and he appointed Hitler.

[Aractus]

I'm still waiting for you to simply say, "When I said Hitler was elected, I was wrong."

I was wrong. I'm 32. It's about time I was wrong once.

He is wrong: you can tell him that a high-school graduate from America has corrected him.

Obviously he was wrong. And it's a long weekend so I'm not going to have a chance to raise this for another week.

As for the rest of your snippet here, that is simply you trying to rescue a slipshod comparison. Trump is the more fascist of the two, but neither of them are "just like Hitler".

Neither of them are like Hitler I've made that point several times. Hitler's policies were at least good for the struggling citizens, whereas Trump, Cruz and the other Republican's policies are absolutely dismal for the poor. But not only are they worse than Hitler on that front, but they continue to support American imperialism - i.e. oppressing weaker States by military force. That's the whole reason that ISIL exists now.

Let's backtrack. Back to my main point. You're looking at the fine details, and that's fine. I was wrong about one fine detail, but I'm looking at the meta details. So again let's consider Germany, and ignore the NAZI party entirely. 1. They lost land following WWI. 2. They had to pay an obscene amount of money to other nations as reparations for WWI. 3. They hit 30% unemployment, their economy was shot, and no ruling Chancellor (or Party) had improved things. Meanwhile, the ruling bodies had promised the people (but failed) to renegotiate the reparations. You see it wasn't Hitler's fault. There were several avenues from which Germany would have joined Japan in WWII and they have very little to do with NAZI policies at all.

Now the death camps may or may not have happened without the NAZIs. But look at American politics. Guantanamo Bay is a concentration camp - not only is it a concentration camp, but it's also a death camp: prisoners in Guantanamo have been tortured to death. The NAZIs at least gassed their victims without inflicting further undue hardship on their victims. True they suffered from Typhus, god-knows what else, and starvation; but those ailments were not intentionally inflicted. Details aside, the war crimes are equal to each other, albeit on a smaller or larger scale. Yet the individual deaths though that the USA inflicted were worse - prisoners in Guantanamo tortured to death.

Right now in Germany they hunt down the incontinent elderly with dementia, drag them into court and then throw them into prison. Yet Bush, Cheney, and everyone else up to and including Obama has gotten away with war crimes scott-free in USA.

[abaris]

Obviously he was wrong. And it's a long weekend so I'm not going to have a chance to raise this for another week.

Well, he can't know everything from the top of his head. I'm sure, he would have known what to look for, if given the time. I spent four years studying contemporary European history, but I would be hard pressed to talk about American or Australian history without looking it up first.

Even with what I'm certain to know in detail, I rather spend a few minutes researching to make sure I got it right. No need to confront this guy because of that. The intricacies of politics and procedures of the Weimar republic aren't exactly public knowledge.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But look at American politics. Guantanamo Bay is a concentration camp - not only is it a concentration camp, but it's also a death camp: prisoners in Guantanamo have been tortured to death. The NAZIs at least gassed their victims without inflicting further undue hardship on their victims. True they suffered from Typhus, god-knows what else, and starvation; but those ailments were not intentionally inflicted. Details aside, the war crimes are equal to each other, albeit on a smaller or larger scale. Yet the individual deaths though that the USA inflicted were worse - prisoners in Guantanamo tortured to death.

So, tell us in your enlightened state -- how many people have been killed in Gitmo?  And how many people were killed in Auschwitz, Birkenau, Chelmno, and the many other death camps in NaZi Gernmany? What's this you say -- the starvation was unintentional? Firstly, you'll need to demonstrate that, because from what I've read, there was certainly deliberate malnutrition practiced. Secondly, you'll need to go get those dead people and tell them, sorry, the NaZis didn't intend to kill you, it was all an accident ... even though that isn't the truth.

And -- if you think death by Zyklon-B was merciful, I'd suggest you need to do a little more studying. Google sonderkommandos, read it and weep; you'll learn details about the process of gassing that you wish you'd never learnt.

You are so desperate to criticize America that instead of opting for one of our many, many flaws to critique -- including fatal war crimes -- you've overstepped all evidence and thinking to go full Godwin, comparing a single camp with fewer than 700 prisoners and no death machinery -- and with a total of eight deaths in custody -- to a system with a hierarchy of segregation camps, labor camps, and extermination camps which killed about 4.2 million people.

"Details aside"! Only a fool ignores facts.

[Aractus]

As I said. You want to compare Gutmo to multiple NAZI camps. But it's a singular camp. That's like comparing if the NAZIs had one camp and the USA had multiple Gutmo's.

A war crime is a war crime, isn't it?