Is/Should being a Nazi in the U.S. be illegal?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Hitler succeeded in part because of the ignorance of the German people at the time. He was a predator who preyed upon the fear of the German people.

The essence of genius. Realized it and pounced.

No, a product of his predatory nature.

Then later, breaking the Treaty of Versailles with no one caring... snookering Britain and France into taking Czechoslovakia. Amazing accomplishments all!

It was more of a bluff that nobody called until it was too later.

He started as nobody and basically took over Germany by himself!

I'm not saying he was a complete moron. He was a shrewd politician. But certainly not a genius. If he were a political genius, he wouldn't have declared war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. That was a major political blunder that ended up costing him his life.

My god if he isn't a political genius then NO ONE is!

His third reich lasted 12 years.... hardly a political genius...

[Imran Siddiqui]

It was more of a bluff that nobody called until it was too later.

And yet he made it and counted on the results and was totally correct. He knew the situation exactly.

He was a shrewd politician. But certainly not a genius. If he were a political genius, he wouldn't have declared war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. That was a major political blunder that ended up costing him his life.

Please, Sava. The USSR would have taken Berlin even if the US never entered. You may say declaring on the USSR was dumb, but no one called Hitler a military genius.

His third reich lasted 12 years.... hardly a political genius...

Is genius only measured by the amount of time they did it?

No one is calling Hitler a military genius.. but a political genius, an evil genius. The man was the master of manipulation, especially of the people, a skill KEY in politics.

Let's look at another person who has been called a political genius. Otto von Bismark. What was his skill? He could manipulate foreign rulars to do whatever he wanted. Is Bismark not a political genius because his only skill was manipulation? No, of course not, but he isn't as reviled as Hitler. I don't think he should be demonized (Hitler that is), but I don't think we should go so far in the other direction by saying ANYONE could do it... because they can't. It requires someone of brilliance to do what Hitler did. Likewise another person who was a nobody and rose to take over a country, Lenin, was also a genius. His genius was in organization, however.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And yet he made it and counted on the results and was totally correct. He knew the situation exactly.

so lottery winners are statistical geniuses?

Please, Sava. The USSR would have taken Berlin even if the US never entered. You may say declaring on the USSR was dumb, but no one called Hitler a military genius.

Again, this works in my favor. If Hitler were a political genius, he would have realized that Stalin was secure and felt safe, and thus, Hitler could have devoted resources to taking England.

Is genius only measured by the amount of time they did it?

Longevity does play a very important role. Hitler's political system only lasted 12 years. Hardly the work of a genius

No one is calling Hitler a military genius.. but a political genius, an evil genius. The man was the master of manipulation, especially of the people, a skill KEY in politics.

He was a master of manipulation... but lacked other qualities required of being a political genius. He made many political blunders that I pointed out.

Let's look at another person who has been called a political genius. Otto von Bismark. What was his skill? He could manipulate foreign rulars to do whatever he wanted. Is Bismark not a political genius because his only skill was manipulation? No, of course not, but he isn't as reviled as Hitler. I don't think he should be demonized (Hitler that is), but I don't think we should go so far in the other direction by saying ANYONE could do it... because they can't. It requires someone of brilliance to do what Hitler did. Likewise another person who was a nobody and rose to take over a country, Lenin, was also a genius. His genius was in organization, however.

I can't comment on these comparisons. Each had his own situation. It would be like comparing players from different eras in baseball. You just can't do it.

Hitler was a "master manipulator" as you put it. That is the extent of his political skill. And not quite enough to be considered a genius.

[Imran Siddiqui]

so lottery winners are statistical geniuses?

Because Hitler hit the lottery ? Come on... he knew the situation totally and exploited it. He knew what the response was going to be. Why do it if he wasn't sure of the outcome, when failure would have meant the end of him? He knew what the world situation was and knew he would be able to manipulate Chamberlain and the French into seeing things his way.

If Hitler were a political genius, he would have realized that Stalin was secure and felt safe, and thus, Hitler could have devoted resources to taking England.

And how close did the Germans come to taking Moscow. He was closer in taking Russia than he was in taking England, Sava. It wasn't a bad gamble at all, but the military was mostly run by the generals.

Longevity does play a very important role. Hitler's political system only lasted 12 years. Hardly the work of a genius

Bismark only lasted for about 30 years in power, and he's considered the greatest political genius. Hitler's political system only lasted 12 years because he lost the war. But the mere fact he was able to set it up and the way he did it (through the democratic process) indicates his brilliance.

Mussolini took over through revolution, so Italians were never really sold on him. Hitler realized that if you go through democratic channels, you grow faster and the people are on your side.

Hitler was a "master manipulator" as you put it. That is the extent of his political skill. And not quite enough to be considered a genius.

Politics is ALL manipulation. If he was a master manipulator, then he was a master politician. We tend to call people who have mastery over things, genius. And I think you severely underestimate how good a manipulator Hitler was.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


I got into a passionate arguement with my sister (who is a jew) over this....While we were watching the Pianist.

He said "pianist".

[Sava]

Sikander

Because Hitler hit the lottery

Yes... I think luck had more to do with Hitler's rise than did his skill.

He was closer in taking Russia than he was in taking England

Had he devoted the resources solely on taking England, he would have probably taken it. And despite the military blunders, declaring war on Stalin in the first place was a political blunder. His hatred of the Jews and Communism, part of his political agenda, was the primary motivation behind the invasion of Russia. A true political genius would have kept Stalin happy while taking England; then after taking England, a political genius would have attacked Russia.

Sorry Imran, but Hitler wasn't a political genius. He was a master manipulator in the right place at the right time who had a lot of things go his way. And in the end, his political ineptitude led to his downfall. And the relatively short period of time in which his political system existed only hammers home this point.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes... I think luck had more to do with Hitler's rise than did his skill.

See, I don't. I see great skill in his ascention. He was the best orator in Europe and was extremely determined and knew how to make people think the same way he did.

Had he devoted the resources solely on taking England, he would have probably taken it.

I don't think he would have. Germany didn't have the transport capacity for a D-Day style invasion the other way.

declaring war on Stalin in the first place was a political blunder.

And if he had taken Moscow, would you be singing the same tune? Probably not.

A true political genius would have kept Stalin happy while taking England; then after taking England, a political genius would have attacked Russia.

If you knew anything about Hitler's theories or beliefs, you'd know he never really wanted to 'take' England. He wanted to make peace with them. The English are Teutons, same race as the Germans. His grand plan was to take France, make peace with Britain and then hit the USSR.

Also if he waited until Britain fell, it'd be years and by that time, undoubtably Stalin would have attacked. Better to attack first to get the suprise, I'd say.

Hitler wasn't a political genius. He was a master manipulator

You just stated a redundancy.

[Sava]

If you knew anything about Hitler's theories or beliefs, you'd know he never really wanted to 'take' England. He wanted to make peace with them. The English are Teutons, same race as the Germans. His grand plan was to take France, make peace with Britain and then hit the USSR.

C'mon now, why start with the personal crap? We were going so good. I can't believe we actually had a civilized debate without insults!

Also if he waited until Britain fell, it'd be years and by that time, undoubtably Stalin would have attacked. Better to attack first to get the suprise, I'd say.

Stalin thought Hitler was his friend. That's why Stalin was so ruthless and determined to get absolute victory.

You just stated a redundancy.

I believe there are other qualities needed to make one a political genius. Diplomacy... for one. Manipulation is a big part of being a political genius, but not everything. And sorry, but Hitler's political blunders were too many to simply ignore, despite his skill at manipulation. Part of being a political genius, especially in creating a system, is creating a system that will last. By leading Germany down the road of ultimate defeat, he negated any possibility of his political system surviving. In fact, since Hitler's actions were most responsible for the demise of the Nazi political system, I would argue that Hitler was the opposite of a political genius.

[Imran Siddiqui]

C'mon now, why start with the personal crap? We were going so good. I can't believe we actually had a civilized debate without insults!

It wasn't an insult, but an observed fact. To say that he should have taken Britain would have gone against most of his beliefs. The reason the war against Britain went the way it did is because he did NOT want to invade and take it over. He wanted Britain to simply sue for peace.

Stalin thought Hitler was his friend. That's why Stalin was so ruthless and determined to get absolute victory.

You are kidding me?! Stalin thought Hitler was his friend?! Stalin KNEW that the peace was just of convenience. Stalin did it to buy more time.

I believe there are other qualities needed to make one a political genius. Diplomacy... for one. Manipulation is a big part of being a political genius, but not everything.

Diplomacy is all about manipulation, but more subtly.

Part of being a political genius, especially in creating a system, is creating a system that will last. By leading Germany down the road of ultimate defeat, he negated any possibility of his political system surviving.

The system would have lasted a long time, if not for bad luck. The fact that the Soviet winter was the worst in centuries is not something that can be planned for. The man almost ruled Europe! I know of no one who considers Napoleon a political or military idiot, in fact the opposite, but his system lasted even less than Hitler's. The length of the system doesn't matter, it is how you attain power in order to create the system which does.

Under your observations I would have to call Napoleon a military and political dunce. I don't think that is right at all.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It wasn't an insult, but an observed fact. To say that he should have taken Britain would have gone against most of his beliefs. The reason the war against Britain went the way it did is because he did NOT want to invade and take it over. He wanted Britain to simply sue for peace.

Not recognizing the conflict in political ideologies was a political blunder. Not using diplomacy to resolve the conflict was a political blunder.

You are kidding me?! Stalin thought Hitler was his friend?! Stalin KNEW that the peace was just of convenience. Stalin did it to buy more time.

Perhaps you should read a little more about Stalin

Diplomacy is all about manipulation, but more subtly.

I disagree. Compromise is the essence of diplomacy.

The system would have lasted a long time, if not for bad luck. The fact that the Soviet winter was the worst in centuries is not something that can be planned for. The man almost ruled Europe! I know of no one who considers Napoleon a political or military idiot, in fact the opposite, but his system lasted even less than Hitler's. The length of the system doesn't matter, it is how you attain power in order to create the system which does.

A political genius would have planned for luck. Even if Hitler took Moscow, the Germany army would not have been able to occupy and maintain control of Russia. You should read about the problems the Nazis had in the Balkans. They could conquer, but not maintain control. Much of my family has had first hand experience, but there is much information out there.

Under your observations I would have to call Napoleon a military and political dunce. I don't think that is right at all.

Napoleon was a political dunce. Sure, he hijacked the French revolution, but just as Hitler, it didn't last. There's a huge difference in being able to conquer and being able to administrate. To negate the importance of longevity and stability in administrating a nation or occupied region is a mistake. Sure, Hitler and Napoleon were successful and grabbing power, but they couldn't keep it.

I'll give you some examples of "political geniuses".

American founding fathers -- created the most successful form of capitalist Democracy ever... also becoming the most powerful nation in the history of humankind

Julius Caesar -- grabbed power and created a system that held power for 200 years, despite many inept Emperors

Ancient Roman architects of the Republic -- system held for 400 years, led to massive expansion

Constantine -- the universal suffrage of religion and the Christianization of the Empire took and held; even as the capital was moved to Byzatium/Constantinople as this Eastern Roman Empire lasted for over 1000 years...

Bolshevieks -- Despite the Soviet Union only lasting less than 90 years, it was easily the second most powerful nation ever. The system only collapsed because it was up against America. Quite a heavyweight bought, but without a massive war. The second most powerful nation ever is beaten by the most powerful. It's a bit like Sosa getting 66 home runs, but losing to McGwire's 70 in the 1998 home run race.

Sorry, but despite Hitler leaving a monumental scar on humanity and the face of the Earth, he was hardly a political genius.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not recognizing the conflict in political ideologies was a political blunder. Not using diplomacy to resolve the conflict was a political blunder.

Um.. he did recognize the conflict, that is why he kinda bombed them? Diplomacy?!! Yeah, after he invades Poland, Britain wants to sit down at the table?

Perhaps you should read a little more about Stalin

I have read plenty about him. The idea that he considered Hitler a friend is laughable at best!

Compromise is the essence of diplomacy.

You mean manipulating your opponent to where he thinks that he was able to get some of what he wanted from you in exchange for what you wanted, when you were already prepared to give him what he wanted, but wanted to make him think that he forced it from you? The best diplomats manipulate, and do it well.

A political genius would have planned for luck.

He's not GOD! Einstein was a physics genius, this no one disputes, but he was wrong more than a few times (more spectacularly in his idea that quantum physics wasn't correct because it didn't mesh with his theory of relativity.

I'll give you some examples of "political geniuses".

CEASAR?! CONSTANTINE?! What?! You put waaaay too much emphasis on creating something that has lasted. Neither Ceasar nor Constantine are considered political geniuses and for good reason, they didn't do anything genius like.

You want a better list (not including Napoleon and Hitler)... not exhaustive, of course:

Augustus Caesar: Was fully able to consolidate his empire. Was able to paint the Senate as people who had killed a beloved leader and traitors and was able to take out his enemies one by one. He manipulated public opinion by focusing on the rage that Caesar's death caused. He further solidified his empire by going after Cleopatra and Marc Antony.

Otto von Bismarck: The Iron Chancellor created the country of Germany by manipulating outlying countries in wars. He goaded Austria-Hungary to fight him, thereby gaining Schelwig-Holstein, then got Napoleon III to think that he had been insulted, resulting in France declaring war, which brought the South German states into the arms of Prussia. After the success, he formed Germany (of course his vision was destroyed only 50 years later).

Abraham Lincoln: Was able to prevent Europe from entering the war by painting the war as a war against slavery in his Emancipation Proclimation which actually really didn't do anything at all.

Thomas Jefferson: Addressed the Declaration of Independance to the King, so that Parliament would not feel the US had attacked them. Destroyed John Adams and then changed what he meant by strict constructionalism on dealing with the Barbary Pirates and Louisiana Purchase in order to exploit oppertunities.

Alcibiades: Top Athenian General (with Nicius) when the Peloponnesian War started, but was accused of a crime that he would be convicted of (defiling religious statues). He convinced the Spartans to make him THEIR top general (he was really, really good as a general) and was the Spartan general until he had to leave again (affair with the King's wife). He then convinced the Athenians to allow him to REJOIN the Athenian army as top general. He was accused again of something (bad war results) and skipped town again and then got the PERSIANS to accept him as their top general, where he was killed by the Persian king for the Spartans.

Longevity has nothing to do with it. It is simply how wily you were. Hitler and Napoleon were very wily in obtaining and keeping power. They quickly saw oppertunities and exploited them. After all the lastest 'political genius' is Bill Clinton... and what has he done that has had any longevity?

[Sava]

The idea that he considered Hitler a friend is laughable at best!

I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess you should try to read more. I don't know what else to say. They weren't best-buddies. Perhaps you misunderstood me... but Stalin trusted Hitler, they had cordial encounters, and by his own words, Stalin professed how he had been betrayed. Correct me if I'm wrong, or try to, but betrayal is something that occurs between two people that aren't enemies right? One friend does something... you know, breaks trust...

Otto von Bismarck: The Iron Chancellor created the country of Germany by manipulating outlying countries in wars. He goaded Austria-Hungary to fight him, thereby gaining Schelwig-Holstein, then got Napoleon III to think that he had been insulted, resulting in France declaring war, which brought the South German states into the arms of Prussia. After the success, he formed Germany (of course his vision was destroyed only 50 years later).

I would agree with this because Germany is still united. Even after the fall of the Iron Curtain, Germany still united.

CEASAR?! CONSTANTINE?! What?! ... they didn't do anything genius like.

Sorry Imran, it appears our definitions of what makes a political genius are at odds. But to say Caesar and Constantine didn't do anything genius like is well... pure nonsense. I'm going to end this discussion. You aren't going to convince me, and I'm obviously not going to convince you.

[Zkribbler]

You have to add von Metternich to that list.

He took over Austrian diplomacy after the army was destroyed at Austerlich and when Napolean was negotiating for a Russian princess to wed. He managed to get Napolean to wed an Austrian princess and to invade Russian, and then he put together the Russian-Austrian-Prussian-English-Swedish alliance that brought Napolean down.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Stalin professed how he had been betrayed

Convenient, isn't it? All the Russians now will know how their leader was betrayed by the evil German leader! Stalin KNEW Hitler was going to attack. He wasn't betrayed in the slightest.

I would agree with this because Germany is still united.

That wasn't the point. The point was that he got all these people to fight him so he could say he was defending himself and get his end result (a Prussian dominated German state). Btw, if Germany wasn't united (like in 1988), would you then say he was a failure?

But to say Caesar and Constantine didn't do anything genius like is well... pure nonsense.

Caesar really didn't do anything genius. Constantine? Ok, he converted to Christianity, which was a GREAT political ploy. Moving the capital to Byzantium wasn't because Rome was in fast decline and Byzantium was the 'city'.

I'm going to end this discussion. You aren't going to convince me, and I'm obviously not going to convince you.

That's fine. I consider political geniuses as those that can pull the wool over other people's eyes for their own, or their country's, benefit.

You have to add von Metternich to that list.

Ah, I said it was non-exhaustive . I'll also have to add Richelieu as well.

[Sava]

Stalin KNEW Hitler was going to attack

He sure did a good job at fooling Hitler, what with the Red Army unprepared, the lack of readiness, and not having the tank factories ready to go in preparation of beating back the Germany advance. You just argued both sides of this Imran. First, you said that Germany would have taken Russia if not for the winter. Then you say Stalin knew about Barbarossa...

G'night

Who are you trying to crap here?

[Dis]

I'm more inclined to believe Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbour before I believe Stalin knew about Barbarossa. He was facing total defeat. Defeat was never a possiblity for the U.S.

[Imran Siddiqui]

First, you said that Germany would have taken Russia if not for the winter. Then you say Stalin knew about Barbarossa...

When did I say Stalin knew about Barbarossa?! I said Stalin knew Hitler was going to attack. And he did. He simply thought it would be much, much later. He was suprised by how quickly the alliance had been terminated, but was NOT suprised that Hitler terminated it.

[Sava]

okay... so Stalin knew that Hitler would attack, but didn't know of the operation which was Hitler attacking?
It must be nice making an unprovable point like that. Dare I ask if you have anything to support your assertion?

I realize it's after midnight there... perhaps you should get some sleep Imran. you don't want to say anything that's going to cause you further embarassment in the morning.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
He was suprised by how quickly the alliance had been terminated, but was NOT suprised that Hitler terminated it.

Because he wanted to be the one to kill it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Stalin knew that Hitler would attack, but didn't know of the operation which was Hitler attacking?

Exactly. He did think it'd come so soon. As you can see from your history, Stalin was VERY busy at work making weapons and T-34s. They were flying from factories and making them at a great rate. The attack against Finland was an attempt to prevent the Nazis from gaining another base of attack against him. He knew they were coming... just didn't know when.

Because he wanted to be the one to kill it.

Yep, but he thought he'd get the chance in '45 or '46, not so early.

[Agathon]

Alcibiades:

also reputedly died wearing women's clothing in the arms of a prostitute.