SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A biography of Adolf Hitler published two years before his autobiography Mein Kampf may also have been written by Hitler:
In the early fall of 1923, when Adolf Hitler was still mostly known for his frenzied speeches at Munich beer halls, a slim biography was published that lauded him as the savior of the German nation and even compared him to Jesus. The book, "Adolf Hitler: His Life and His Speeches," was credited to Baron Adolf Victor von Koerber, a German aristocrat and war hero. Scholars have said that Hitler sought Mr. von Koerber out for the biography because he needed a conservative figure without links to the Nazi Party to help legitimize him as a leader.
However, new research says Hitler penned the work himself. This suggests that Hitler had designs on taking power earlier than many historians have previously thought and manipulated public opinion to get there.
"Adolf Hitler: His Life and His Speeches" was published two years before "Mein Kampf," the autobiography and manifesto that historians consider the moment Hitler went from political propagandist to leader in waiting. The von Koerber biography was published shortly before Hitler helped lead a bungled coup in Munich known as the Beer Hall Putsch.
"It's 1923, and Hitler suddenly decides he needs to boost his national profile," said Thomas Weber, a professor of history and international affairs at the University of Aberdeen, in Scotland, who uncovered documents in Mr. von Koerber's archival papers that he argues reveals Hitler as the biography's true author. The documents included a sworn statement by the publisher's widow.
Dusty old Godwin meme.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @08:05PM
FOR A JEW UNIVERSE
(Score: 5, Funny) by ikanreed on Monday October 10 2016, @08:09PM
I have, on multiple occasions, compared Donald Trump to Adolph Hitler for a fractional-minority-blaming, extraordinarily-authoritarian, cult-of-personality political framing.
But now, I'm forced to accept they are opposites. Hitler Wrote his own biography, and Trump couldn't even be assed to write his own autobiography.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday October 10 2016, @08:19PM
Sure about that [fortune.com]?
He wrote his own medical report, why wouldn't he be just as controlling and micromanaging of his biographies?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @09:08PM
As a businessman, Donald Trump long practiced an extreme version of self-promotion he called “truthful hyperbole” to get what he wanted.
He wrote his own medical report, why wouldn't he be just as controlling and micromanaging of his biographies?
Because Trump wasn't even competent enough to come up with the term "truthful hyperbole" himself, his ghostwriter did [newyorker.com] because he needed a way to say "lie" without straight-up calling Trump a liar in his own autobiography. The man has the attention span of a gnat — read the article for how it was literally impossible for his ghostwriter to get Trump to focus for more than a few minutes.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday October 11 2016, @03:07AM
Have you read Mein Kampf???
It makes Trumps rambling look deep, scholarly and thoughtful!
Get a copy and try to read it: you can't.... honestly... it is baaaaaad. Hitler was probably ADHD to the max, or SOMETHING....
...baaaaaad.....
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @03:58AM
> Hitler was probably ADHD to the max, or SOMETHING....
Well, Hitler was a meth addict. [usatoday.com]
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday October 11 2016, @11:40AM
Stop trying to smear Hitlers good name!
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 10 2016, @09:27PM
This is a problem because my entire life (and I'm not that young) I've been heavily indoctrinated that EVERY republican presidential candidate is "literally Hitler" therefore as a republican voter I've come to believe there's something wrong unless I'm voting for Hitler, or that he did nothing wrong and must be a great leader. Or worst case he's not any worse than Bush 2.0. I mean a republican has to be pretty cucked or pretty neo not to be literally hitler, so unless he's literally hitler as defined by the D party, I'm not voting for him because he must not be any good.
The D party needs to get its message together because if "Mittens Romney" is Hitler and therefore a great guy for a bit less than half the country to vote for, some mad scientist is going to clone the actual Hitler someday and yeah yeah yeah heard it all before he's the 55th consecutive republican candidate to be literally Hitler blah blah oh sure so just because he's a German immigrant with an unfortunate name of Hitler doesn't mean anything bad I mean we elected Obama and he had a dumb name too and sure he sucked and was worthless and accomplished nothing but he wasn't a real problem either, so I'll just vote for candidate Hitler because what could possibly go wrong? I've been hearing that negative campaigning for decades same old tired thing ah whatever.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday October 10 2016, @10:01PM
This thing, where you think much of anyone compared Mitt Romney to Adolph Hitler requires some fairly extreme nutpicking.
That hyperbole exists doesn't really validating the extremely... difficult... things that Trump has said or implied.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @10:02PM
> This is a problem because my entire life (and I'm not that young) I've been heavily indoctrinated that EVERY republican presidential candidate is "literally Hitler"
If, as an adult you let yourself be indoctrinated then that's on you.
Maybe its time you start taking responsibility for your own beliefs, god knows you need to.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday October 11 2016, @12:52AM
I think "like Hitler" was a term tossed around too cavalierly and without much care as to the facts. Similar with labeling something fascist. It turned into more of an insult, than a serious observation.
That being said, Trump is literally Hitler. Unlike all of the other elections I'm sure, this particular election and time period has a lot of uncomfortable similarities with World War II Germany. Not to mention the things that Trump/Hitler *says*. I don't buy any of this "don't take him seriously" bullshit like we need to treat him as if he is still on TV. These are serious matters, and his words need to be taken seriously.
George Takai didn't outright call him Hitler (to my knowledge), but he did immediately start reminding the rest of America that talk like this led to the Japanese interment camps that he lived in as a child. If Trump/Hitler had absolutely no connections or similarities with the Nazi's and Hitler, then why are white nationalists celebrating as if Jesus came back with a "kill the niggers" tattoo? I hear what you're saying, but then again, white supremacists weren't pouring from everywhere to support Republican candidates in the past. They notice the similarities too.
Name calling isn't that useful, and you have a point that is well made. However, likening Trump to Hitler isn't name calling, and it isn't a baseless character attack. Trump and Hitler have a LOT in common, more so than Hillary and Hitler do, that's for sure. Forget about the names, and just listen to Trump *speak*. It's truly as if Hitler is speaking hate through his lips.
For the record, both parties can burn in the lowest levels of Hell, as BOTH parties have fundamentally betrayed America. Trump has hijacked the Republican party (well destroyed it is more accurate) and Bernie has all but hijacked the Democratic party which has largely become Progressive. So I can't argue with you about the Democratic message being ridiculous since both Democrats and Republicans have been ridiculous for years.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 11 2016, @10:11AM
I think "like Hitler" was a term tossed around too cavalierly and without much care as to the facts.
[...]
That being said, Trump is literally Hitler.
You show us how it's done. LOL. It's like you've never seen a hardcore populist politician before.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday October 11 2016, @05:43PM
No, you dipshit.
I haven't heard a politician make the statements that Trump has made, that are eerily reminiscent of the nationalist sentiments in World War II Germany. If you really think that there are no parallels right now to Nazi Germany, you have your head stuck in the sand.
Unlike character attacks, which is what Hitler attribution was before, Trump acts and speaks like Hitler did. I couldn't actually call Bush "Hitler II", neither was Reagan, and the older Bush was certainly not like Hitler either. Trump? He makes the same fucking statements, is toxic against due process and civil rights in the same way, etc.
How about you spend a moment and argue about how Trump isn't like Hitler? We're listening.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday October 11 2016, @07:32PM
I haven't heard a politician make the statements that Trump has made, that are eerily reminiscent of the nationalist sentiments in World War II Germany.
It's a free country. You want to say that Trump sounds eerily reminiscent of Bambi the deer, then go for it. But what you are neglecting here is that words aren't relevant. It's normal, vaguely appealing nationalist populism. The need is the same, to get elected. I could similarly note that vegetarians practice a diet eerily reminiscent of Hitler's with equal consequence. Guess we better not elect a vegetarian before they kill six million Jews, eh?
What mattered is action. First, prior to elections Hitler had engaged in considerable, deadly violence with his rivals, particularly the Communists, that was so severe, that the German government had by the time of Hitler's election to Chancellor, already used it as a pretext to shut down the Free State of Prussia, which was by itself, more than half of Germany by population and land area. In addition, Hitler had already attempted to overthrow the state government of Munich. How many states has Trump shut down? How many riots have his supporters caused? How many coups has Trump attempted to engineer?
Second, the end of the Wiemar Republic was at hand, but it was far from solely the fault of Hitler. As I noted above, they destroyed the biggest obstacle to tyranny when they took down Prussia. Aside from being a convenient scapegoat, Hitler didn't have anything to do with the end of Prussia's state government. Someone was going to be head of a tyranny in Germany and Hitler managed to be the one, but it wasn't a sure thing for Hitler until the Night of the Long Knives [wikipedia.org] when most of Hitler's rivals ended up dead or arrested.
To say that Trump sounds like Hitler (without I note ever presenting here the slightest justification for your opinion, aside from commenting on Japanese internment camps, which was an FDR thing not a Hitler thing) and hence, by implication, claim that he'll act like Hitler is fraudulent. Sure, both he and Hitler are rhetorically speaking covering the same populist ground and appealing to similar groups of people. They both are acting cynical and saying what a good portion of the voting public wants to hear. But there's no reason, aside from dishonest propaganda or perhaps mindless hysteria, to claim or imply that sounding similar means they'll act similar in office.
There are good reasons to not vote for Trump. But saying it's because he sounds like Hitler, is not one of them.
I have to say here, I'm not surprised that the sort of people, such as yourself, who attempt to browbeat me at every turn with morality, would turn around and casually commit such skullduggery. The stench of hypocrisy is strong on you and always has been.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday October 11 2016, @02:19PM
Not to mention the things that Trump/Hitler *says*.
OK, how so? I assume you've read Mein Kampf as I have (it was for "holocaust class" in senior year of college, they always pick something depressing (why?) and cover all the liberal arts angles of it, because in theory a senior has the full range of liberal arts education, and our year was the holocaust... so MK was on the reading list)
So Hitler didn't like the Jews very much. Trump of course has one of his kids married to a jew, done business for decades with others... I'm just saying if you think investing in crematoria is a wise financial investment, you're likely to be horribly disappointed after the trump victory. The odds of him cooking up his own kids and grandkids are kinda low.
So Hitler wanted a final world war against communism and as a side dish figured as Russia was industrializing, Germany needs to invade Russia before they dominate and are unstoppable, in which he was basically correct and we fought on the wrong side (in this specific aspect). Um I think you're talking about crazy hillary and obama here, continually poking the Russian bear. Eventually the bear is gonna get pissed off and rightly so. We really do have amateur hour in charge now and its going to get us all killed unless they're replaced by professionals like Trump, or frankly anyone else. Meanwhile one complaint against trump is he's too buddy buddy with Putin and Russia in general. Or maybe you're imagining things and think Trump has been running on invading Cuba and North Korea as primary campaign planks. Yeah I could see crazy hillary getting us in a nuclear war with Russia or maybe next time Bill rapes yet another woman in order to distract us she might try some kind of "second bay of pigs" thing in Cuba, but I think Trump's about the least likely politician on the planet to start a final world war against the commies or against the Russians.
Another big theme of M.K. is Germany needed/wanted land and felt large chunks of neighboring countries like Austria and Poland were ethnically German enough that Germany should own them rather than being separately operated and its only an accident of history that they're not greater germany at this instant. I suppose the USA analogy is Canada is basically a maple syrup flavored New England with a better health care system, so we should take over. Even crazy people aren't claiming Trump is going to send tanks across the border to take over Canada to get us some more farm land and unite our ethnically similar peoples. I'd even throw the opposition a bone and say with the illegal alien invasion there's not a hell of a lot of difference between Mexico and New Mexico so if Trump were Hitler we'd be planning on taking over Mexico. Which as a failed narco state on our border we probably SHOULD do... however rather than rolling the tanks and saddling up the cavalry he wants to play pure defense mode and put up a nice boring static wall. Which has worked pretty well in Hungary and on the southern border of Mexico so its probably all we need.
So... what exactly is there in MK or any other biography of Hitler that's even remotely similar to Mr Trump? Beyond the traditional "all republican candidates are literally Hitler" as has been tradition for decades?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday October 11 2016, @06:07PM
Jews are irrelevant here though, it's the nationalism that matters. Replace Jew with Muslim/Mexican.
Trump has a lot in common with Hitler. For one, he doesn't recognize or grant human dignity and compassion to basically anybody other than white males (to them he is just an asshole). You cannot argue that he is good for women, but we are talking about Hitler so we can constrain it to civil rights largely. His talk about eliminating freedom of expression, outlawing specific knowledge (Anarchist's cookbook), and modifying due process. Contrast that Ronald Reagan for a moment, who was such a class act that you couldn't attribute Hitler to him on his worst day. Even in the light of history, Reagan may not have been the best president we've had, but he was no Hitler. Bush II comes close, but only in terms of the mass surveillance state, not statements he's made about entire peoples.
When it comes to Muslims specifically, Trump is talking about internment camps and treats American Muslims as if they are criminals themselves, and has directly accused American Muslims as being responsible and part of the problem. See his islamaphobic double down answer about how he would protect American Muslims against islamaphobia.
I'm in agreement with you about how the Democratic party abused this characterization for years, but now about how Trump doesn't deserve it. He completely deserves it, and the parallels to Nazi Germany right now are numerous and frightening, and to be fair, Trump only plays a part of it. It's a part he is playing well though.
Where are all the good traits that Trump possesses that should distance himself from the Hitler characterization? Don't bother, he doesn't have any. He's an arrogant and brutish entitled child that has redefined narcissism while being a fraudulent charlatan that refuses to release his taxes or illuminate his conflicts of interest. Kind of hard to defend him, even playing Devil's advocate.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @12:46AM
OTOH...
Living History [amazon.com]
It Takes a Village, Tenth Anniversary Edition [amazon.com]
Hard Choices [amazon.com]
Stronger Together: A Blueprint for America's Future [amazon.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @08:09PM
Who would do something like that [fortune.com]?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Monday October 10 2016, @08:17PM
I find the cognitive dissonance of people who compare Trump to Hitler so funny that I always forget to laugh.
Of the two Presidential candidates only one of them - objectively speaking - has been involved with arms trafficking with the explicit intent of ending the lives of people they disagree with.
Somehow, disturbing society's safe spaces and cultural norms has literally become more contemptible than murder. War is peace. Thought is slavery. Vote for Hillary.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Monday October 10 2016, @08:26PM
You're talking about someone whose explicitly stated foreign policy platforms include the following:
1. Torture. No, not pretending torture like waterboarding is torture, using the word torture as an official goal for US policy.
2. Killing the families of enemies. Explicitly targeting innocents.
3. "Why can't we use [nuclear weapons]?"
4. Explicitly supporting middle eastern dictators, implying Saddam Hussein was a good thing.
Now, the fact that he's never had military or political power in the past does preclude him from having acted on any of those(though he did economically engage with the Castro regime, even as a private citizen), it's pretty telling that you'd make extremely vague accusations of Hillary killing those she disagreed with.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday October 10 2016, @09:17PM
1) I like that he uses the actual terms doesn't use pretend words or pretend we're giving victims to other countries to do it. The opposition won't talk honestly about it. I think we have a better chance talking about the issue with the rational honest guy. Also he's not a micromanager, and the military has never been a huge supporter or torture and camps (because they don't want to end up in someone elses...).
2) Ditto. We can talk to a guy who admits whats going on, but some clown with a kill list blasting away at weddings and pretending its not what it is is impossible to reason with.
Consider the strange but relevant analogy of alcoholism. You can't talk about the problem to a guy who claims there's no problem. A guy who sees the problem can at least be talked to. We're better off with open eyes trump that hands over eyes and fingers crossed behind back clinton.
3) Yeah good question. MAD does not work unless its understood to be mutually assured destruction. To support anything less in public is to invite tragedy.
4) Saddam was bad, but was also the best of a bad situation. We've filled a lot more cemeteries, both our people and theirs, by meddling where we don't belong, than if we just left them alone. The whole Vietnam war thing about having to destroy the village to save the village. We can't even sensibly govern ourselves, but we figured we'd go over there and "fix them". Globalism is suicide on a civilizational scale. Every time its tried it just doesn't work and cemeteries overflow. Neoconservatism is dead as a doctrine, at least outside of Hillarys head. Who knows whats going on inside there, probably planning how to get our troops into iran and syria to keep israel happy. I see nothing inherently wrong with israel other than apparently someone put them in charge of our foreign policy with american interests as a distant second. As allies they'd be cool, they should try that, instead of trying to make us one of their provinces.
There's nothing inherently wrong with dictators. Rodrigo Duterte is one of the good guys, a hero of the 2010s decade, a savior to his people. Lee Kuan Yew was a great man who was relatively nonviolent and a great organizer and economic savior of his people. Augusto Pinochet was a wise leader who did nothing wrong, did nothing that was unnecessary. As you can see by the example of the USA, merely holding sham elections doesn't guarantee superman is going to rise up and lead. Progressivism and its lackey democracy are obsolete and simply don't work in the real world. Trump would make a good God Emperor; if not him, who would?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @09:24PM
> I like that he uses the actual terms doesn't use pretend words or pretend we're giving victims to other countries to do it.
Yeah, the important thing is that he calls it torture. He's really just starting a conversation, that's all...
> There's nothing inherently wrong with dictators. Rodrigo Duterte is one of the good guys,
Jesus Hussein Christ. Have you become a parody of yourself?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 10 2016, @09:42PM
Well, the good news is you don't disagree with me about LKY and Pinochet. That shows you have good taste in dictators.
Duterte may not be motivated enough, not be forceful enough, might not be carrying out his mission fast enough or with enough effective force. I can see that argument. I can still respect he is trying very hard and is at least doing the right thing, even if debatably not doing enough.
I've been trying to start a movement to get his face on flags and tee shirts much like the leftists pimp out their bootlicking terrorist Che from decades ago. Would you like a stylish tee shirt? The problem is people are already pimping his image out.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday October 11 2016, @03:27AM
I look at it as
1. Vote Hillary. Result, you get a kick in the nuts (or you get your pussy grabbed)
2. Vote for Trump. Result, you get a kick in the nuts (or you get your pussy grabbed)
It's funny: this whole election is about "who kicks harder/grabs more hair".
I'm voting Hillary cause she kicks like a girl.
Yeah, well I'm voting Trump cause he might miss!
Your still getting kicked in the nuts/getting your pussy grabbed!!!!!!!
Why all the argument?
Funny..... I like my nuts.... glad I'm Canadian!
Seriously.... people get so angry over who they want to crush their nads. :)
🎶 Trolling, trolling, trolling, this is Gaaark a trolling.... trolling, trolling, trolling, Rawhide! 🎶 Drops mic.🎤
I know I say Hillary is evil... Trump is too! Americans really need to stand up and FIGHT for a third option.... Revolucion! Amigos!
Ramble over.
I just think it's all really funny.... but not. Like Curly going "nyuk nyuk wooopwooop, etc" and then poking your eye.
You all are so screwed... I'm gonna start raising money for that wall.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday October 11 2016, @12:17PM
And this is not to troll VLM. This is just laughing at the state of the States.
Door #1 or door #2.... surprise, a kick in the nuts!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 11 2016, @12:34PM
You'll think it's funny until millions of American political refugees swarm over the Canadian border.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 11 2016, @01:33PM
Yeah they say that every year, but no one ever moves. Its a campaign trail tradition. Just like calling every Republican candidate "literally Hitler". It isn't a real election until the checkboxes are checked.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 12 2016, @02:02AM
We should all move. They have poutine-flavored potato chips. That's gravy flavored potato chips. Canadians take every unhealthy, insanely delicious food Americans can think of, and double it. They're also polite, which would be particularly attractive to those of us who remember an America that valued manners. Lastly, you don't even need to learn another language. Even if you go to Quebec you can speak English, because the people will refuse to speak French with you even if you do speak good French.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @10:34PM
You have to have your tongue firmly in your cheek while writing that stuff.
the good news is you don't disagree with me about Lee Kuan Yew
...the thief who stole the soul of Singapore and made the people automatons.
By 1993, [caning] was mandatory for 42 offences and optional for a further 42 [wikipedia.org]
That's called regressing into the dark ages.
and Pinochet
Pinochet was a monster.
He had thousands murdered.
One of his favorite ways of dealing with peaceful dissidents was to have his minions fly them far out over the ocean and push them out of the aircraft. [google.com]
(Freefall time from 10,000 feet is about 1 minute.)
Rodrigo Duterte is one of the good guys, a hero of the 2010s decade, a savior to his people.
Duterte [...] is at least doing the right thing
Duterte is another monster.
He has instructed his minions (not even sworn police officers or the military) that it is OK to murder anyone they perceive to be a bad guy.
That's commonly called lawlessness.
Am I missing your /sarc tags, or are you actually slime in human form?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Monday October 10 2016, @09:50PM
There is actually something VERY wrong with dictators. They literally control the lives of their citizens and all freedoms are based on the dictators goodwill. I'm pretty sure you live in the US, so the ideas you just endorsed are very disturbing. However they are not surprising, fascism has been a staple of the US for a long time; though recently there has been a major uptick in support because the general populace has become much more educated and people are tossing out the cultural brainwashing they see as stupid. All the religious zealots are super angry, all the conservatives are super angry, and they all want to lock up / kill / deport the various human beings that dare to choose different lifestyles. I'll take a new age hippy spouting crystal nonsense over a boot licking authoritarian who wants to destroy the lives of others. The liberals are also super angry, but thankfully they are less likely to promote murder and oppression. Well, except taxes and regulations, the WORST oppression EVER /s.
To take a small step back, I understand your point in that a dictator can be beneficial to the people, but such enlightened despots are the exception, not the norm. So even the somewhat decent ones are doing some shady shit, its just that the general public doesn't care as much. To use your example of Duterte, it seems a lot of citizens are having second thoughts after seeing their friends and family locked up. Yes, lets encourage the murder of citizens, that isn't a slippery slope.... mind BLOWN by that level of self serving justification.
All that said, I think most of DC should be locked up for the insane amount of criminal activity and I wish we had a time machine so we could lock up the people who started this whole US empire thing. The chickens are roosting, and I am not looking forward to hatching day.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @04:07AM
> There is actually something VERY wrong with dictators.
VLM is just parroting the alt-right party line [wikipedia.org] that democracy is a failure and that we'd be better off with a dictator.
I am not making it up. That's what passes as intellectualism among that crowd of dim bulbs.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 11 2016, @01:40PM
We're indoctrinated to say dictators are bad, and we're indoctrinated to carefully avoid noticing who fills the cemeteries faster.
I'm well aware of giant piles of indoctrination and elaborate logic puzzles and sophistry, but pragmatically for example "bringing democracy to Iraq" has filled the cemeteries a lot faster than leaving them alone would have.
Every time an American politician says they gonna bring democracy to some poor bastards, Satan, if there is one, laughs, because here comes unimaginable higher levels of pain, suffering, death. If you thought (correctly) that living under a dictatorship sometimes kinda suxs, for something even worse try regime change or enforced democracy.
(Score: 1) by charon on Tuesday October 11 2016, @11:08PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12 2016, @04:00AM
You can't possibly be that stupid.
Just because someone calls it democracy does not make it so.
You might as well be arguing that the DPRK is a democracy because of the D.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 12 2016, @04:01AM
I'm well aware of giant piles of indoctrination and elaborate logic puzzles and sophistry, but pragmatically for example "bringing democracy to Iraq" has filled the cemeteries a lot faster than leaving them alone would have.
Let us note that Syria handled the Arab Spring a whole lot poorer than Iraq did.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Wednesday October 12 2016, @06:11AM
Well you're not wrong about reality being different than we'd hoped, however you're comparing the worst of one system with the best of another. Also, the wars waged by the US in the name of empire have been unwanted and looked down upon by quite a large fraction of the citizens. Even Iraq quickly lost support as the nationwide shock wore off.
My point is that the US is not the shining example of democracy we like to imagine, and the deaths caused were hardly the will of the people. So using that as your measuring stick for democracy vs. dictatorship is pretty disingenuous. Not the worst comparison though, you could have chosen one a bit lower on the list: http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm [worldaudit.org]
Also, I was not recommending enforced regime change, the choice of government is highly dependent on the situation. Destabilizing the entire power structure of a country is a dangerous business best left to the people themselves, otherwise there is nothing in place to fill the vacuum. None of that changes the fact that dictatorships are worse overall. The idea that a dictatorship is a good idea shows just how far gone you are with the us vs. them mentality. If only you could get that one person into the seat of power who tells you what you want to hear and who will get rid of those you don't like... Gee, if only history had some good examples of just that, and if only we could recall how those turned out...
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @01:04AM
Spoken like someone who has never truly lived under a dictatorship. I live in the Philippines and am old enough to remember the era of Ferdinand Marcos, and what is happening with Duterte worries me that we are returning to those days. It's the same with the Pinochet regime, and that you would say that these bastards did nothing wrong is the height of insanity. In the reigns of Marcos and Pinochet people just disappeared for no apparent reason, and Duterte is heading in that direction. He has killed over three thousand people, who may or may not be related to the illegal drug trade, and we will never really know whether these people really are guilty or just people who have crossed those in power for whatever reason. There is no way to prove it. Duterte talks about a major drug lord biting the dust because he tried to fight back, but that sure sounds like absolute crap. If I were a drug lord on the level of a Season 5 Walter White or higher, I sure as hell wouldn't want to get into a shootout with the police and get my ass killed (unless I of course had a death wish just as Walter White did at that point): I'd rather surrender and get my Sauls to twist things about. And who knows about all those thousands of Season One Jesse Pinkmans. I'm pretty sure they would have found prison preferable to a shallow grave. I could wind up just like them myself someday, though I have never used any controlled substances or knowingly consorted with those who do, if things keep going the way they are going. Hopefully I can get out of this place before that happens.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @07:02AM
You have my profoundest consolations. May you find your way away soon.
I am afraid for my Filipino friends. They have gone dancing. Some have travelled and partied. Some have enemies. Not knowing if or why they might be targetted is sickening.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @02:11AM
There's nothing inherently wrong with dictators. Rodrigo Duterte is one of the good guys, a hero of the 2010s decade, a savior to his people.
There is sooo much fail in your logic.
But you know what, don't listen to me, Duterte literally godwin'd himself:
"Hitler massacred three million Jews. Now, there is three million drug addicts. I'd be happy to slaughter them."
"If Germany had Hitler, the Philippines would have...," he said, pausing and pointing to himself.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-09-30/philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte-happy-to-slaughter-addicts-as-hitler-did-jews/ [itv.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @07:02AM
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday October 11 2016, @11:52AM
Can we get a score 1, mentally disabled? I feel bad for this guy and I don't want to mod him troll. He is seriously ill and needs help, not shunning.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday October 11 2016, @05:57AM
> 3. "Why can't we use [nuclear weapons]?"
That's not a platform; it's a question. Supposedly, it was asked in a private meeting with the anonymous source who was advising Mr. Trump on foreign policy. His campaign chairperson denies that it was asked:
Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort denied the claim on Wednesday morning.
“Absolutely not true,” he said in an interview with Fox News. “The idea that he’s trying to understand where to use nuclear weapons? It just didn’t happen. I was in the meeting, it didn’t happen.”
It seems to me that the reason for the meeting may have been Mr. Trump's awareness of his own ignorance and his desire to dispel it. If he asked that question, he may have done so for the same reasons.
> 4. Explicitly supporting middle eastern dictators, implying Saddam Hussein was a good thing.
Mr. Trump appears to understand that overthrowing Mr. Hussein had terrible--I mean, really, really terrible--consequences. Whether he can generalise that understanding in order to apply it to other situations, I don't know. Certainly Ms. Clinton favoured overthrowing Mr. Qaddafi, after the repercussions of the Iraq adventure were obvious. Did you see the interview in which she gloated over his assassination?
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Tuesday October 11 2016, @06:02AM
link from which I took the quote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scarborough-trump-nukes_us_57a1e47ae4b0693164c347d0 [huffingtonpost.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @11:47AM
Voting time! Who would you perfer:
A. Saddam Hussein
B. ISIL
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 11 2016, @02:29PM
Fun fact: Syria gets both a petty dictator and ISIS at the same time.
The nature of the Iraq War and the carelessness with which it was waged did, in fact, lend a lot of momentum to the creation of ISIS, but the line doesn't need to be between openly supporting the kinds of dictators who create large swaths of religiously fundamentalist, uneducated, and unhappy people, and endorsing the warlord-esque pseudo-governments those unhappy fundamentalists create.
It's the kind of false dilemma that comes from a foreign policy that only asks the question "Who do we bomb?"
(Score: 1) by linkdude64 on Tuesday October 11 2016, @09:05PM
Fair points, friend.
Hillary's explicitly stated platforms include the following:
1. Hugs, kisses, and love for everyone. (Wow, that's great!)
- Her actions include supporting ISIS. (Oh.)
2. Loving our international allies and supporting women. (Amazing!)
- Her actions include supporting Saudi Arabia, who enforce Sharia Law. (Whoops! Brain freeze!)
3. [Haven't heard her say anything about nukes other than things about keeping them away from Trump.]
4. Standing against foreign dictatorships that support, sexism, rape, etc.
- Actions include supporting rebel groups to topple dictatorships.
- Rebels became much worse dictators than previous ones. Actively made things worse for citizens at the low low cost of thousands of lives and a European immigrant crisis which is tearing their union apart and impoverishing millions of citizens who had nothing to do with US war-mongering.
It's like you almost think that words speak louder than actions or something! Hillary is easily as bad as George Bush in terms of judgement and record, if not worse. George Bush only fucked the Middle East. Hillary fucked the middle east so hard that it gave Europe an STD.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday October 10 2016, @09:03PM
Nothing about her that has been sufficiently proven is sufficiently interesting to me to care.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 11 2016, @05:57PM
- has been involved with arms trafficking
When was Hitler involved with arms trafficking?
Somehow, disturbing society's safe spaces ...
You mean like r/The_Donald, where "no dissenters allowed" is rule #6?
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday October 11 2016, @08:48PM
How many people did Hitler personally kill?
I hope that rhetorical question makes it very clear to you how inane your cherrypicking of my statement is. Had I directly accused Hillary of murder (as most people do of Hitler) you would have claimed I was "Another one of those crazy right-wingers who believe lies." The point is that Hillary has blood on her hands, and Donald does not. Period. Trump has acted to overthrow exactly zero foreign governments. "But Hillary only killed the 'bad' guys111!!"
The Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton (indirectly, but knowingly) supported ISIS who have raped and beaheaded thousands of innocent civilians around the middle east and Europe.
Donald Trump has bought and sold real estate.
Which do you think is less evil? I am not sure how to put things more clearly or succinctly. Your moral compass should not be spinning around like a Delta fan, it should be pointing to the only reasonable answer.
Fuck reddit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12 2016, @04:10AM
> The point is that Hillary has blood on her hands, and Donald does not. Period.
Are you so sure? He's fucked over a lot of people, I bet there has been at least one suicide as a result. And he sure has tried to get people killed. The central park 5 for example. He paid for a full-page ad in the NYT and 3 other newspapers calling for their execution. And even today, despite not only being exonerated at trial but DNA evidence matching a confession by the actual killer he still thinks they should have got the electric chair. [bbc.com]
> Trump has acted to overthrow exactly zero foreign governments.
That's juvenile sophistry. Lack of opportunity is in no way proof of good faith. Not even fucking close.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday October 13 2016, @06:01PM
"Lack of opportunity is in no way proof of good faith."
What you don't seem to understand is that the point of the statement is not to defend Trump, it is to Damn Hillary Clinton, and by extension her supporters.
She is worse a war criminal than George W Bush already, and her supporters mean to reward that level of incompetence and malice with greater power.
What they - and I assume you are included in their lot - don't seem to understand is the level of their own hypocrisy.
"TRUMP IS A MADMAN!" They say, "I COULD NEVER VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO SUPPORTS WAR, TORTURE, OR INDECENT ACTS!" then they turn around and vote for Hillary Clinton??? That is fucking hysterical!
By all means, don't vote for Trump if you are a person of such principles, but if you are such a person, you would never in your right mind vote for Hillary.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @08:33PM
On the internet, any discussion of Hitler or the Third Reich that produces many responses will inevitably generate comments drawing comparisons to Donald Trump.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @08:47PM
On the soylent, any discussion that produces many responses will inevitably generate comments drawing comparisons of american presidential hopefuls or otherwise.
(Score: 3, Funny) by jdavidb on Monday October 10 2016, @08:59PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @10:24PM
On the internet, any discussion of Hitler or the Third Reich that produces many responses will inevitably generate comments drawing comparisons to Donald Trump.
For a master class in this principle, see this book review of a new Hitler biography that never mentions Trump at all:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/books/hitler-ascent-volker-ullrich.html [nytimes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @08:51PM
Too late.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday October 10 2016, @08:52PM
Is it the writer or the painter?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday October 10 2016, @08:57PM
Probably his taste in women, like Bill C.
Also, that 'stache is sooo '30s...
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday October 10 2016, @09:03PM
Probably his taste in women, like Bill C.
Well, I'll grant you that: Bill Cosby and Adolf Hitler seem to share similar sexual orientations.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @11:27PM
People dislike neither about Adolf Hitler. These people have been 'told' to dislike. Over and over again. Those who 'told' the people over and over again are called propagandists. These propagandists are paid good money for their propaganda. These propagandists have no conscience and openly lie and create myths. The parasites who pay these propagandists have something to gain from all this. Their future depends on the fact that people will continue believing lies and never bother to look up the truth for themselves. Doing research will automatically give you the death penalty.
These parasites will never be as popular, powerful, intelligent or loved as Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler and his close group gave their lives to do good, to bring justice to their people, to remove the parasites from sucking the blood of the people. They were nationalists and loved their people. Naturally, this cannot co-exist with 'globalist parasites' sucking the very life out of our present and future.
This 'dislike' must end. When someone says they dislike Hitler or compares someone else to Hitler, ask them _what_ they dislike about the man and _why_ they dislike him so much. They don't know! Not one of them.
(Score: 4, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Monday October 10 2016, @11:50PM
ask them _what_ they dislike about the man and _why_ they dislike him so much. They don't know! Not one of them.
My Dad knew. Because Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 my Father spent the next 6 years fighting across North Africa and Italy.
You can spin it anyway you like, but if Hitler didn't want Lebensraum World War II wouldn't have happened.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @12:43AM
You forgot to mention that Soviet Russia took half of Poland, and had no plans to return it.
Soviet Russia also took Finland, from which it was driven out eventually.
Soviet Russia had bigger plans for the world, and Uncle Joe was getting ready at full speed.
Do you remember the Katyn Forest Massacre?
You father was used by evil powers hell-bent on world domination. Your father fought for the bad guys. Its nothing to be proud of.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 11 2016, @11:06AM
You father was used by evil powers hell-bent on world domination. Your father fought for the bad guys. Its nothing to be proud of.
The previous poster indicated his father fought in North Africa and Italy. The USSR wasn't in either region.
Soviet Russia had bigger plans for the world, and Uncle Joe was getting ready at full speed.
Nuclear weapons changed those plans real fast.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @10:01PM
My father fought in Africa, on the other side. I dunno who are the good guys, but the bad guys do not go fight, they count the money. Make a one article martial law, "who makes one penny or earns a square inch of property from the war gets his head chopped off", if you hate wars.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 12 2016, @12:19AM
If your Dad was in the Afrika Korps then my Dad hated him.
It wasn't until 1945 when the Germans were surrendering in droves, that he realised that these young guys were just like him, and he felt guilty about having killed their mates.
Not that he ever told me any of this, but he did talk to my Mother about it. It affected him badly until his death.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 12 2016, @12:14AM
British Army, 2nd Parachute Regiment.
Not a USSR unit.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @12:28AM
They don't know! Not one of them.
Let me guess. If somebody mentions the whole holocaust thing and blitzkreig thing, those don't count. Obviously anybody who would point those out must be brainwashed.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @12:55AM
holocaust
Not again!
Bring some evidence to back-up the Holocaust thing. Please?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
It is not for the accused to prove himself innocent. Its the accuser's job.
blitzkreig
Blitzkrieg.
Would it be in everybody's interest if WW1-style trench warfare was conducted? Would it have worked?
When did a quick war (Blitzkrieg) become a bad phrase? Look and see the whole world is doing it. No more trench warfare.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @11:39AM
Possibly when the term became commonly associated with the repeated bombing of civilian population centres [wikipedia.org], over the course of many months.
That much certainly seems true.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 11 2016, @12:51PM
By the standards of what is called evidence, there are terabytes of it for the holocaust. I realize that's a Hollywood-juiced term, but I'll use it because it's what most people know and use to refer to the Nazi extermination campaign. We have the death camps themselves. We have the testimony of thousands upon thousands of survivors. We have the forensic evidence of the gas chambers and all the remains. We have the reports from the American and allied troops that liberated the camps. We have the meticulous records the Nazis themselves kept to track their progress and efficiency. We have the medical research that Mengele amassed experimenting on prisoners.
We all know all the rest. The Nazis are guilty by any standard of evidence. The Germans themselves concede their guilt. I know because I went to high school there and they spend their senior year of history class learning about the holocaust.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 11 2016, @12:42PM
Good morning, resident SoylentNews true-believer Nazi!
There's the little bit about Hitler starting WWII and running an extermination campaign against all kinds of people he didn't like--communists, gypsies, evangelical Christians, gays, the handicapped, etc--, but in person I'm sure he was a lovely guy. Er, no, actually people didn't say that about him. Rather, they said he was socially awkward, according to the Mind of Adolf Hitler that the OSS researched.
If Hitler had stopped at the Triumph of the Will stage, the world might have come to view him as you do, but he didn't. The rest is history.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @03:06AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @09:16PM
Is the (auto)biography public domain? Because Mein Kampfy Chair is.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday October 10 2016, @10:27PM
(also an extensive collection of martin luther king's work, just so you know I'm not a NAZI.)
Mein Kampf is dedicated to the sixteen men who gave their lives for Hitler in the Beer Hall Putsch.
Sixteen.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @11:34PM
just so you know I'm not a NAZI.
Please tell me what is wrong with being a 'NAZI'?
No, don't repeat propaganda you see on TV.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday October 10 2016, @11:40PM
that's what he called his plan for Germany - it was explicitly racist.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @12:28AM
I suppose you mean Hitler wanted a "Racially pure state".
And what made him want that in the first place? Was it because his people were well-off or was it because his people were taken advantage of, barely scraping a living, paying unjust, illegal war reparations (for a war his country was NOT responsible) and many other planned disadvantages?
I know you are a troll, but I will continue...
Israel, today, conducts genetic tests on its citizens and does not allow anyone who is not the correct race. That is called racism in its most extreme form. Israel has achieved it. Only Khazarians will live in Israel ... and the rest of middle east. Ethnic cleansing? Oh noes!!! Look there! horrible nazi! *jewish laugh* *rubs hands together*
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday October 11 2016, @08:53AM
So what did the powers that won WWI (who for the most part were neither Jews nor coloured) imposing unfair conditions on Germany have to do with the races of people inside Germany?
Indeed, I'd say one of the main reason why Germany lost WWII is Hitler's racism. I mean, the people who were conquered in the east didn't previously have a good life in the Soviet Union; if they had been treated well by the Germans, I guess they would have supported the German side. Especially the Jews who had to suffer from Soviet antisemitism (while not as bad as Nazi antisemitism, it was still bad enough). They would have had been strong allies.
And had Einstein not have to leave Germany for the simple reason that he was Jew, probably Germany would have had the atomic bomb first.
Note that I don't think starting WWII was right, I just think it would have been winnable if Hitler had not been an insane racist.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 11 2016, @01:06PM
You should subscribe to David Duke's channel. He makes the same argument you do.
Realizing a racially pure state in America is such a fool's errand, it's a marvel that anyone would imagine it's possible. Even if you instantly subtracted all the ostensibly non-white people from America by waving a magic wand, the people that remained are such mutts it would be impossible to ever achieve any kind of Aryan purity. For example I look as white as they come but my paternal grandfather didn't because he had such a large portion of Indian blood.
So what would that leave? A handful of Norwegian descendants in northern Minnesota? Is that what you're after, to impose your lutefisk laws on the rest of the country? I say, No! Never!
It's a good thing that America is a melting pot. It makes it a truly unique society. The multiplicity of perspectives confers a distinct advantage over places that operate in a cultural echo chamber.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday October 11 2016, @01:50AM
Educate me.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday October 11 2016, @08:40AM
Counter question: What is not wrong with being a Nazi?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.