Simviation Forums

I've never read anything quite like this article.  I'd love to here some other opinions on it.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=44210

What an idiot. Does he think Germany invading Poland was the only reason we went war. Does he think that if we'd let Hitler have Poland and sat back, he wouldn't have then gone on to expand his Reich to include Begium, Holland and France.

Sorry mate (Patrick J Buchanan or whatever your name is). Those Germans must have been damn good to devise invasion plans for Holland, Belgium and France, considering (according to him) they had no intention of ever invading them, until after war was declared on the 3rd Sept 39, considering they'd overrun France my mid 1940.

Sounds like a journo with a political agenda and something against the WWII leaders. I was half expecting the article was going to conclude by saying Churchill and Roosevelt were Communists!

Complete and utter tosh...

Another broadside against other political systems.
Believe me, as long as you kept your mouth shut, communism and all of its forms weren't that bad.

The thing about communism is that it works in theory and not in practice. And of course WWII was worth it, If the allies hadnt stopped Hitler when they did, he would have had that much more power when they finally had to fight him. I honestly dont think he would have stopped at Europe.

In human terms WWII wasn't worth it, no war ever is. However in terms of technical advances and beatiful planes...

Interesting take on the situation...

Looked at objectively, the War in Europe, based on stated historical objectives...was an abject failure.

Nazi Germany would, of course, have had pre-existing war plans for most of the surrounding nations. This is a normal situation. One cannot take their future success as indicative of pre-existing intent.

Believe me, as long as you kept your mouth shut, communism and all of its forms weren't that bad.

This is precisely the problem with non-democratic forms of leadership (communism, dictatorship, et al).  

You shouldn't HAVE to keep your mouth shut.  The foundation of democracy is that you're born with certain rights that can't be taken away by anyone.  Those include the right to speak your mind.

Anyone who honestly believes that silencing the masses is better than letting them speak (and live) freely has never experienced all that freedom has to offer.

I have to say living in a former Eastern Bloc country that my opinion has been revised a lot. When I was in uniform the Iron Curtain was there, I was based in W.Germany.
Hearing stories from friends and family I have to say that not everything from Communism was bad, most of it was but there were some v.good things as well, and people forget that. Bj

[quote]

This is precisely the problem with non-democratic forms of leadership (communism, dictatorship, et al).

Oh and of course Communism gave us the Trabbie, one of the coolest cars in existance

...also you didn't have to care about the safety of your working place; about daytime child care; about free time activities and about voting.

You can never experience true freedom, even in a democracy. Too many laws and moral rules around.

Some might say communist regimes have more regulations.

As for moral restrictions, they're MORAL restrictions.  If you're incapable of complying with THOSE, you're going to have a REALLY hard time complying with any society.

It's worth remembering that Stalin was as bad as Hitler if not worse. Also, the non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich that was signed on August 23, 1939, before Britain & France declared war on Germany. Whatever happened Poland was doomed.

In a secret appendix to the pact, the border states Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania were divided in spheres of interest of the parties, that within a year would injure their sovereignty.

The non-aggression treaty lasted until Operation Barbarossa of June 22, 1941, when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union. I'm sure this had always been Hitler's intention & the pact gave him breathing space. He regarded Soviet Russia & Communism as the true threat in Europe.

It's not the moral rules themselves that I have problems with. It's the point "democracy = freedom" that bugs me, since this is hence not 100% true.
Or as my ethics teacher says: "Democracy is the least bad form of government."
No reason to make it the ultimate, perfect form of government 'though.

He regarded Soviet Russia & Communism as the true threat in Europe.

As did Churchill - too late 'though.

No form of government will ever be perfect, because it will be under human control.  We're not programmed for perfection.

But to me, that's not reason enough to say that an oppressive form of government is better than one in which the people have their freedoms.

Sure, people had jobs under communist rule.  But how happy were they?  They weren't allowed to speak their mind about the government.  They weren't allowed to stand up and say "Ya know what?  This sucks."  

Is a democracy 100% free?  No.  But it's a lot better than 100% oppression.