Welcome to NATO!

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
With Hitler, the country was in a period where it was down and being treated like crap....Hitler came up and promised great things. Who wouldnt have supported him then? If your country was being treated like crap, you had just lost a war, and were still recovering and someone suddenly came along and began preaching that they would make Germany into a superpower again, wouldn't YOU support him?

That's why the thing about "democracies don't fight each other" is ****. There's nothing in the world easier to stir to anger than the general population. Hitler was popularly elected. Lenin and Mao both came to power with vast popular support.

wtf That is, unless China gets its way....

Well, we weren't the ones who disintegrated...

[Ned]

Originally posted by ranskaldan


That's why the thing about "democracies don't fight each other" is ****. There's nothing in the world easier to stir to anger than the general population. Hitler was popularly elected. Lenin and Mao both came to power with vast popular support.



Well, we weren't the ones who disintegrated...

Agreed. But by the time Hitler declared war on Poland, Germany was no longer a function democracy, IMHO. The Nazi flag, not the German Flag, was flown everywhere in Germany. What does this tell you?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Well, we weren't the ones who disintegrated...

Qi Lai!

[Dauphin]

I thought Lenin firstly stole power, held elections in 1917, lost those elections, and then promptly said that the elections didn't mean anything. He therefore ignored the results and retained power for himself.

Hence he was not popularly elected or supported.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by DanS
...the increase in security is extreme and permanent.

Extreme and permanent Nowadays, security is either mutual or none. If such a move (I mean NATO expansion) noticeably decreases security of one of the parties (Russia), then the wording 'extreme and permanent' is not quite appropriate even in relation to Lithuania.

[The Vagabond]

Ned, your stance is nice, but a little bit idealistic.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Saras
What can you expect from people who use the flag of one of the most bloody regimes in history as their avatar (and NOT meaning it as a joke)

This flag can't be exclusively asociated with that regime. Of course, Stalin smeared this flag, just as he smeared the whole communist movement. But this flag is something much, much bigger than just Stalin.

Tassadar5000, I love your avatar

[The Vagabond]

On the other hand, it's rather scary to see to which extent East Europeans are Russia haters.

[Sonic]

Vagabond, please explain what "much more" that flag means.

It is scary what Russians did to Eastern Europeans also.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by ranskaldan


That's why the thing about "democracies don't fight each other" is ****. There's nothing in the world easier to stir to anger than the general population. Hitler was popularly elected.

Well......no, he wasn't. He was appointed by the ruling party as the German equilivant of Vice President...basically, a place where they could put away this dangerous nutjob without him causing damage.

Then Hindenburg upped and died. oops.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Sonic
Vagabond, please explain what "much more" that flag means.

Communist movement, ideals. Fight for social justice.

It is scary what Russians did to Eastern Europeans also.

Yes, and I am sorry for that. To a large extent, this boils down to the fact that communism didn't work. If it worked you would now be thanking us.

[Ned]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Ned, your stance is nice, but a little bit idealistic.

Perhaps it is idealistic. But the ideological basis for hostility is gone. Russia is no longer an enemy of Europe or the United States. We need tear down the barriers that might inadvertently lead to renewed hostility. America and its NATO allies offered the hand of friendship, and Russia accepted. This is a good beginning.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Lonestar


Well......no, he wasn't. He was appointed by the ruling party as the German equilivant of Vice President...basically, a place where they could put away this dangerous nutjob without him causing damage.

Then Hindenburg upped and died. oops.

Nevertheless, Hitler was enjoying a great amount of popular support. Political manoeuvrings aside - a very large number of Germans were very ready to listen to and accept his extremism by 1933, if we look at the steadily rising number of Nazi representatives in the Reichstag up to 1933.

Besides, why would there be a need to put away the "dangerous nutjob"? If he didn't have popular support, he would just be a nutjob, not dangerous at all. It is precisely his support among the tired, angry German populace that made him so dangerous.

The point of this, in the end, is that democracies aren't "peaceloving"; like dictatorships, they can be stirred to war by any capable demogogue.

What ultimately prevents war isn't democracy. It is a well-off, well-educated middle class population, whether or not they happen to live in a democracy or dictatorship.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


Qi Lai!

Frankly, I think stirring, communistic anthems are a bit out of date. Who believes in them anymore, anyway?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Hitler was popularly elected. Lenin and Mao both came to power with vast popular support.

Neither of the regimes you listed count as democratic by any reasonable definition.