Liberal Fascism

[Ecthy]

Nobody doubts that the crisis ended in 1932/33. This is why the Nazis weren't especially successful after all

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Nobody doubts that the crisis ended in 1932/33. This is why the Nazis weren't especially successful after all

???

[Ecthy]

It's essentially "after" the Great Depression and the German economy recovered like many others did.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ecthy
It's essentially "after" the Great Depression and the German economy recovered like many others did.

No. The Nazi's took over because of the Great Depression. Look at the unemployment graph. I don't have to post more stats, do I. This is just getting to ridiculous.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious
We just need the numbers.

The ones I kept asking you for ?

It would probably be better to look at some professional journals instead of internet sources and general history books

I wasn't aware that a book on the evolution of the German state was a general history book- it seemed quite specific.

As was the essay on Nazi Germany in the book on Fascism in Europe.

Bullock's biography of Hitler (You remember him ? Fairly important when discussing the Third Reich) is also quite limited in its scope, in comparison with say, Elizabeth Wiskemann's book 'Europe Of The Dictators'.

written by people who don't really know what they are talking about.

Let's take Wiskemann as an example:


Wiskemann was once a prisoner of the Gestapo. From 1930 until 1936 she spent about half of each year in Germany. She also gathered intelligence on the Axis for the Allies during WWII.


How much would you say she knew about Weimar and Nazi Germany in comparison with you ?

[Kidlicious]

...

[Berzerker]

Why did Saddam keep Iraq awash with weapons? He could easily have limited it.

no he couldn't, they're even more fanatical about their guns than we are.

[Theben]

I've been reading Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean. He notes that Goldberg mentioned that Jesus was not a conservative, which I guess would make him a moderate or (!) liberal.

So does Jesus=Mussolini in this guy's eyes?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Theben
I've been reading Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean. He notes that Goldberg mentioned that Jesus was not a conservative, which I guess would make him a moderate or (!) liberal.

So does Jesus=Mussolini in this guy's eyes?

I guess its a bit of a side note, but why would anyone read anything written by that worm, John Dean? Hopefully you didnt pay for it.

[Theben]

$1 in the bargain bin.

For someone who calls himself a conservative, he really lays it on thick for the current admin. But then he claims to be a Goldwater con.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Theben
$1 in the bargain bin.

For someone who calls himself a conservative, he really lays it on thick for the current admin. But then he claims to be a Goldwater con.

I have a couple of Dean's books. He writes well. He seems to be one of the old style risk-averse conservatives. That style of conservatism doesn't really exist any more, so he's really a liberal (what is called a liberal in the UK – someone who on balance prefers lack of government and regulation, but will accept it wholeheartedly when necessary).

I kind of feel sorry for the guy. He's watched all his fellow Tories get nuttier and nuttier. The straw that broke the camel's back was when they blamed him for Watergate based on the preposterous idea that he was pimping out his wife (yes, they actually accused him of that).

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Agathon

so he's really a liberal (what is called a liberal in the UK – someone who on balance prefers lack of government and regulation, but will accept it wholeheartedly when necessary).

I call myself a Libertarian and feel the exact same way. I am sure you could find socialists who would claim the same mantra and every political ideology between them for that matter. The key point that everyone argues about are your last 2 words "when necessary"

[Theben]

Originally posted by Agathon

I kind of feel sorry for the guy. He's watched all his fellow Tories get nuttier and nuttier. The straw that broke the camel's back was when they blamed him for Watergate based on the preposterous idea that he was pimping out his wife (yes, they actually accused him of that).

He mentioned that in this book. Spent a good portion of the preface on it, I guess he took it personally. Can't imagine why.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

I call myself a Libertarian

Don't. You'll get lumped in with Ron Paul and the 9/11 truthers.