Why are Americans so Insular?

[Dencore]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iN...elated&search=
^^^EVERYONE CLICK HERE SHE HAS THE ANSWER!!!^^^

[BillyT]

THIS ONE IS EVEN BETTER!!!!!!

Proof: 58% of French people are dumb!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxmHEGy7JUU

[Dencore]

THIS ONE IS EVEN BETTER!!!!!!

Proof: 58% of French people are dumb!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxmHEGy7JUU

My God I hope that wasn't the real question.

[jotham]

Once again, WWII was primarily about Fascism versus Communism and was played out between Germany and Russia.

That's a superficial way of looking at it. It was about two leftist, socialist states trying to bestow on the rest of the world the "blessings" and "superiority" of organized, central economic management while trying, at the same time, to rid the world of Anglo-American, free-market liberalism. Germany and Russia first agreed on a secret arrangement that would distribute their yet-to-be-conquered power:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact
But when you had thuggish, unscupulous leftist dictators working together, it's no surprise that it didn't take long before someone couldn't be civil and keep his word — negotiation only works for civilized states — which is why their agreement fell through and they subsequently pointed their guns at each other.
Russia joined the Allies only out of situational necessity, not out of principle. They conveniently used the outcome of the war with their status as victor to clandestinely further their prewar intentions after the war's end, and this time without an equally evil Germany to share power with or to keep them in check.
The war wasn't just about Fascism versus Communism: even if Russia and Germany had remained allies, war would still have been inevitable. If there had been a potent German-Russian unified army, the casualties on our side would have been worse and the end result might not have worked out as propitiously as it did — not that it was propitious. The German-Russian relationship lapse turned out to be a blessing in the fighting of the war (although not in the aftermath), but it wasn't the primary determinant of the war; nor could their theoretic unity have been a deterrent. It would have been a more potent catalyst.

It was also about the USA strengthening its 'ownership' of the Pacific and its emergence as a true 'empire'.

Franklin Roosevelt did all he could to stay out of the war, when we should have been involved (and well prepared) much earlier. Even had our strong ally and philosophical equal Britain fallen (and she almost did), Roosevelt wouldn't have lifted a finger — and that's disgraceful. He was the insular guy; he spent on social-welfare schemes at home while neglecting our defenses, global responsibilities, and friends in need. When we were hit at Pearl Harbor, we were militarily weak and unready for war: we were, indeed, forced into it. There was no preparation to "grab land."

It was also about the collapse of Britain as a major power...mainly because of the massive debts it incurred getting loans from the USA.

Roosevelt, in his old age, stupidly treated the Russians with more respect (and as an ally) than he treated Britain during post-war negotiations — partially because of his extreme dislike of British colonialism and partially because Russia was the bigger power and so he wanted to be "fair." Roosevelt enabled Russia to continue their chicanery after the war and extend their Communist empire and socialist philosophy by force. Our American general Patton, who was wiser than Roosevelt, correctly viewed Russia as a camouflaged enemy rather than the ally they superficially were.
Most wars are won with one philosophy dominating another, but the inclusion of Russia with the Allies threw a wrench into the aftermath of World War II and enabled the internationally tense Cold War situation and specifically, the Iron Curtain in Europe. Thank you, Roosevelt. If things had been done Churchill's way, the outcome would have been much less troublesome for later generations.

[kurogane]

That's a superficial way of looking at it. It was about two leftist, socialist states trying to bestow on the rest of the world the "blessings" and "superiority" of organized, central economic management and trying to rid the world of Anglo-American, free-market liberalism. .

I shouldn't have slept through Modern History class apparently.

Nazi Germany was a "leftist, socialist state"???????




Oh, lordy.

Andrew Keen was right about the internet.

Where do you guys learn this stuff?

[jotham]

Nazi Germany was a "leftist, socialist state"???????

Where do you guys learn this stuff?

The Nazis were the National Socialist German Worker's Party. Though it was a different version of the previous socialism under democracy, it was nevertheless socialist through and through. (Socialism is left; not right.) They held control of most state industries and exercised tight control of the economy, and thus economic freedom. Adolf's socialism favored the engineers and managerial class, whereas the previous socialism benefitted the labor class.
The common left-right distinction between communism and fascism doesn't exist. There are differences to be sure, but not left-right. It's hard for some people to fathom two leftist countries fighting each other, but that's in fact what happened.
And what makes Nazism right-wing? Because of national pride? Racism? Didn't Communist regimes pander to the same sentiments, and still do? Communist Russia, under Stalin, though not necessarily singling out Jews, nevertheless killed many more millions of people than Germany did — because such people weren't Russian. Communist Russia, North Korea, and China all use sentiments of national identify and race, and marry it up with the concept of the State and it's activities as an effective propaganda device. Nazism was just as leftist as it was socialist.

[kurogane]

The Nazi's were the National Socialist German Worker's Party. Though it was a different version of the previous socialism (under democracy), it was nevertheless socialist through and through. (Socialism is left; not right.) They held control of most state industries and exercised tight control of the economy, and thus economic freedom. Adolf's socialism favored the engineers and managerial class, whereas the previous socialism benefitted the labor class. .

Ummm, let's see:

In order,

Duh.

No, it wasn't.

Ever heard of the Krupps, and IG Farben?

On the other hand, I agree with most of your point about the red herring status of simplistic binary oppositional dichotomies, though.

So, because of this intense feeling of Deja Vu I am getting, I will leave you on a note of agreement.

[jotham]

My source on that point is famous Austrian-British economist Friedrick Hayek, whose book, The Road to Serfdom, is in the top one hundred books of the twentieth century and whose ideas eventually saw the error and subsequent decline of Keynesian economics. Many people use the Nazism-is-right-wing analogy as a ploy to bash capitalism, but it's always been a flawed analogy that Hayek brilliantly refuted. It nevertheless continued as an urban myth — even today.

[paijingod]

Being rightist is not about free trade. In economic terms, it's about corporatism.

Did you know that Fanta was invented in 1940, by Coca-Cola Germany? Now that's a socialism of sorts.

[jotham]

Being rightist is not about free trade. In economic terms, it's about corporatism.

I never said it was about free trade; I said it was about free markets. And that's certainly more rightist than leftist.
In the U.S., free traders are almost fifty-fifty between the two parties, but usually more dominant in the conservative Republican party. Clinton, a Democrat, was a free trader: he drafted NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Corporatism is about government intervention in planned economies — not about capitalism and free markets: it's left-wing — not right-wing.
Interestingly, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, which Mussolini praised, was considered to be similar to Mussolini's corporatism, because it was leftist — because it increased government control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New...nd_corporatism

Historian Stanley Payne, in his 1995 book, "A History of Fascism, 1914-1945," wrote:

"What Fascist corporatism and the New Deal had in common was a certain amount of state intervention in the economy."

Also,

In a 2002 book, historian Benjamin Alpers writes on page 35:

"Business approval of government intervention in capital-labor relations had begun to wear off as the business community began to actually experience it under the NRA; it discovered that such an arrangement, at least in its American incarnation, meant state involvement in business, not self-government by wealth...."

Some Austrian School economists, such as David Gordon and Thomas DiLorenzo, have also compared aspects of the New Deal to Mussolini's corporatism.
In 1993 author Sheldon Richman wrote:

"Roosevelt's National Recovery Act (NRA) attempted to cartelize the American economy just as Mussolini had cartelized Italy's. Under the NRA Roosevelt established industry-wide boards with the power to set and enforce prices, wages, and other terms of employment, production, and distribution for all companies in an industry. Through the Agricultural Adjustment Act the government exercised similar control over farmers. Interestingly, Mussolini viewed Roosevelt's New Deal as 'boldly... interventionist in the field of economics.'"

[jotham]

It seems an overzealous Wikipedia "editor" — Marktreut — who apparently hadn't had any previous interest in the article "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact," suddenly changed it TWO DAYS after I linked it, and in such a way so as to sneakily oppose what I had posted and thus somehow, in his mind at least, "prove" it wrong to those who might follow the link — and all this without even providing a resource:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=158459749

Many on the political left were outraged that the Soviet Union would make such a treaty with Nazi Germany, which was its extreme-right ideological opposite. Many Communists in Western parties repudiated this action and resigned their party membership in protest. Likewise, a number of Nazis were outraged by this treaty, and some party members went so far as to throw their party badges into the courtyard of the Brown House.

I'll respond to this "edit" as though it had been posted here on this forum — which would have been the more honest thing to do.
Even if the resignations and badge-throwing were true (and I still want resources on that), it doesn't support his implication that it was due to the left-right dichotomy he so strongly asserted in the first sentence. After all, one can be socialist and still hate other forms of socialism; this is in fact what Russia and Germany both did. And most Western socialists and leftists of today are horrified by communism (which is one form of socialism) as they are fascism (yet another form of socialism) — and they're still socialists. (There may be a similarity to Protestant and Catholic factions or countries now and past fighting each other in parts of the world — are they not both forms of Christianity?)
In the same manner, those German fascists who were "chagrined" because of the pact — if what Marktruet writes is true — would have been opposing only the communist form of socialism, and not socialism or leftism itself. Likewise, communists would have been opposing the fascist version of socialism — not socialism in toto, obviously. Fascism and communism are totally different ideologies that are nevertheless drawing from the same socialist well. They have much more in common with each other, however, than they have with philosophies espousing free markets.


Wikipedia has received much well-deserved criticism for "editors" tweaking articles falsely, or for dishonestly pushing a political point of view or other private interest. I now join the criticism:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...20/wiki120.xml
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live...3.html?sid=101
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs...diting-tricks?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/...iness/wiki.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/...iness/wiki.php

Quoting from Wikipedia on a forum that's full of unscrupulous opponents could obviously prove troublesome. In light of this, I may have to refrain from listing wikipedia sources in the future to prevent this kind of sneaky conduct that becomes those of certain political tendencies.
Here's an alternative article from another encylopedia that is out-of-reach of those on this forum trying to win arguments underhandedly without debate or resources.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...sion_Pact.html

Finally, here are some unalterable links on why fascism is leftwing. They seem to be conservative, but are well-written, well-arranged, and well-annotated.

http://www.watchblog.com/republicans...es/002086.html
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.co...ftist/id8.html

[CuriousSaint]

> I thought it was about European countries trying to halt the land grab by Hitler who by the 1940's had invaded Poland, France, Czechoslovakia and annexed Austria. Countries like Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia were part of the Soviet bloc.

> It was only after he went after the Baltic states and Soviet sateliite states that the Russians realised that Hitler had to be stopped.>

You should pay more for your children education than you father did for yours.
Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia as a part of Soviet block... Invasion of Poland, Czeck and Austria in '40.. It is one thing that you dont know the dates, the facts which was invasion and which not, and who was with who and such, and who the heck are the Soviets are, BUT WHY THE FARK YOU CANNOT AT LEAST READ A CARTOON VERSION, if you really want to say something wise about wwII???
And we are speaking about ignorance in this thread, arent we?

[kurogane]

Never mind insular, it's the blithe subliteracy that gets me.

[dimman]

Alicia the Necromancer has some odd posting. Like a bot copypasta- ing into discussions.

But strangely on-topic and no spam links.

I'm confused.

[pasarajib]

The free educated site for college dating and social networking. Fallterms has features like campus chat, live streaming with clasmates, classified ads, college news, student dicussions, and much, much, more!

So what are you waiting for? Your college life starts now!