Overthrowing oppressive regimes by military force

[Aractus]

Our resident anti-American seems to think Red Dawn is possible.

Still can't bring yourself to thank Americans for not having to learn Japanese I see. 1954 Guatemala?

The fact that you think the GOP rhetoric is worse than Hitler makes 'stupid cunt' an easily defensible invective. Get a fucking grip.

Did I say their rhetoric is "worse than Hitler"?

Say what you want about Hitler, he was a true nationalist. He wanted to improve the lives of all German people, especially the underprivileged, unemployed, and the large number of people living in poverty - and in fact the early Nazi policies did achieve great success in these areas. And furthermore Hitler himself was NOT responsible for what happened. Germany would have instigate war and pushed ahead with all the same policies including the final solution with or without him. It was an inevitable outcome of the extreme NAZI policies.

So who was responsible if not Hitler or the Nazis? The German people for electing them perhaps? The catalyst was the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty was incredibly unfair to Germany and showed no regard whatsoever for the effect it would have on people's lives, it required Germany to hand over huge chunks of land, to pay around 132 billion Marks (about USD442 billion in 2013 dollars) in reparations to Belgium, France and other countries, and to disarm/disband their military. Not surprisingly, the Germans didn't exactly feel the outcome was fair. Furthermore, right or wrong, they blamed the treaty on the hyperinflation period that lasted from June 1921 to Jan 1924 that then caused a depression and near-total economic collapse. In paying back the debt, the German government was unsuccessful in their original plan for repayment. So France and Belgium invaded and occupied the German Ruhr valley from 1923 to 1925 to enforce payment, with Germany unable to defend themselves since they officially had no army (they did actually have an army they kept hidden).

How would you feel if a foreign nationals invaded your country, while you are living in poverty and your economy is in hyperinflation and a deep depression from printing money to repay a huge insolvent debt imposed upon you by those same countries? If either Japan or China decided to liquidate their US treasury bonds today they would send the USA into hyperinflation, and it would lead to a recession if not a depression.

By now I'm sure you get the idea. So fast-forward to Hitler. He led a short-lived military offensive against other countries (1 September 1939 - 1 May 1945). Less than six pitiful years. American imperialism on the other hand has been going strong for two centuries straight. So wouldn't you know it - it puts Hitler to shame, just like I said.

Now let me also reiterate my other point, which is that the NAZI party did stand for creating employment, and bringing people out of poverty. And when they got into power unemployment sharply fell under their policies:



But in USA today, the GOP candidates have policies that are designed to disadvantage many American nationals. For example they want to roll back Obamacare - thus providing better medical services for those who will still be able to get private health cover, and no service for those who can't. Cruz wants a flat recessive income tax that will disadvantage the most disadvantaged in society, as well as a huge GST that will also disadvantage the most disadvantaged in society as well. They also want to ban abortion, and they support Social Darwinism.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So who was responsible if not Hitler or the Nazis? The German people for electing them perhaps?

Hitler was never elected, and the NaZis never had a parliamentary majority. And per the Treaty of Versailles, the Germans were allowed a 100,000-man army, the Reichswehr.

Perhaps you should learn some history before pontificating from on high.

<singing softly>
Broadway Duchess, darlin' if you only knew
half as much as you seem to think you do

[abaris]

And before you post a meaningless chart on unemployment rates, you should check some economics history too. Germany was virtually broke in 1938. Hjalmar Schacht, however dubious his role in the rise of Nazi Germany, resigned for that reason. War was the natural consequence, since occupying and exploiting other countries was the only way to keep the nation afloat. That is hardly debated by historians today.

[Minimalist]

So who was responsible if not Hitler or the Nazis? The German people for electing them perhaps?

Hitler was never elected, and the NaZis never had a parliamentary majority.

Well...... The Nazis were the largest party in the Reichstag when President Hindenburg appointed Hitler to be Chancellor and form a government in a coalition with the German National People's Party which had been pre-arranged by his predecessor as Chancellor, Franz Von Papen.  Really just politics as usual.  So, true Hitler was not "elected" chancellor because it was not an elected position but the general point is that they came to power by constitutional means.  As opposed to Mussolini who marched the Camicie Nere into Rome and effectively overthrew the government.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hitler was never elected, and the NaZis never had a parliamentary majority.

Well...... The Nazis were the largest party in the Reichstag when President Hindenburg appointed Hitler to be Chancellor and form a government in a coalition with the German National People's Party which had been pre-arranged by his predecessor as Chancellor, Franz Von Papen.  Really just politics as usual.  So, true Hitler was not "elected" chancellor because it was not an elected position but the general point is that they came to power by constitutional means.  As opposed to Mussolini who marched the Camicie Nere into Rome and effectively overthrew the government.

They came to Parliamentary power in a legitimate fashion, but as you well know, Hitler was appointed and not elected, and that furthermore, it was the Enabling Act, passed after his appointment, with its extension of rule-by-decree -- a completely unconstitutional law, so far as I can tell though I'm no scholar -- that cemented the dictatorship. Add to that the fact that the NaZis lost seats in Parliament between the April and October elections in 1933, and the steep drop in donations they experienced in the last half of that year, and you can see that their star was waning and not waxing.

My point being that this claptrap about "they were elected" elides the point that they did so essentially by deception.

[abaris]

Well...... The Nazis were the largest party in the Reichstag when President Hindenburg appointed Hitler to be Chancellor and form a government in a coalition with the German National People's Party which had been pre-arranged by his predecessor as Chancellor, Franz Von Papen.

But Hindenburg wouldn't have appointed him if Papen hadn't vouched for him and to keep him in check. Hindenburg had many faults, but to his credit he was opposed to Hitler. Hitler never would have gained power without conservative support. Among them the Murdoch of the time. Alfred Hugenberg.

[Minimalist]

They still did not stage a coup like Mussolini and Franco did.

[abaris]

They still did not stage a coup like Mussolini and Franco did.

Oh. come on. Look up the "coup" Mussolini staged. It was just a demonstration and not a very good one. If the Italian king had been opposed to appointing that little stage actor, the military could have taken care of it within two hours tops. Mussolini prefered taking the train anyway. First class if I'm not mistaken.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And to the point of this thread, none of the candidates will stage any sort of coup if passed over.

The OP was comparing American candidates to Hitler in part on the basis that "Hitler was elected". He wasn't, and given the absence of any appointment process in our Constitutional scheme, his comparison is invalid.

[abaris]

The OP was comparing American candidates to Hitler in part on the basis that "Hitler was elected". He wasn't, and given the absence of any appointment process in our Constitutional scheme, his comparison is invalid.

It's stupid in any case. Trump would be Trump. Not that's a prospect to be comfortable with, but it's still a far cry from Hitler. That said, I wouldn't want to see that guy in charge of the major nuclear power.