NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you consider the greatest statesman of the 20th century, from any country? If this thread is hot, I might take the post popular choices and add them to a poll.

Winston Churchill, perhaps.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Hey look, I'm your economic opposite! Eat me you liberetard (patent pending)

Willy Brandt is one, Charles De Gaulle perhaps another.
Joachim von Ribbentrop was a skilled diplomat, but working for the wrong side.

Mohammed Ghaddafi is still in power, which has got to be some sort of feat as well. And the same goes for the Kims... :D

Eisenhower made a good impression on me, as well as Carter and to some extent Woodrow Wilson.

But I reckon I nominate Willy Brandt, seeing as how many people like him on my German Chancellors poll.

Winston Churchill, perhaps.

I'd have to disagree with you on that. He was a treacherous bastard who deceived us into two World Wars, starved untold thousands of German civilians to death during WWI, and was an ardent admirer of Benito Mussolini in the 1920's.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt!

He led the United States through the Great Depression and the Second World War. He dramaticaly changed the direction of the American social system and the function of American government. The great social changes of the last 70 years can all be linked back to his presidency.

None of them can touch ol' Talleyrand! But he's not 20th century... :(

I don't know enough about Cold War politicians, but I'd put my money on one of them.

Don't mean to instigate, but the Gilded age has already proved your free-market wrong.

Don't mean to instigate, but the Gilded age has already proved your free-market wrong.

That's a different subject for a different thread.

I'd have to disagree with you on that. He was a treacherous bastard who deceived us into two World Wars, starved untold thousands of German civilians to death during WWI, and was an ardent admirer of Benito Mussolini in the 1920's.

:rolleyes:

That's a different subject for a different thread.


True, I just don't like libertarians. I'm sorry, it's nothing against you as a person, it's just half of what you stand for is complete bunk.

:rolleyes:
At least the starving the Germans and the admiration of fascist strongmen is true though.
Plus there have been questions about his involvement in the Lusitania business, being head of the admiralty and all.
And finally, I'd ask you to consider Galipoli, which was hardly a glorious idea.

:rolleyes:

Don't believe me? Read Illusion of Victory: America in World War I by Thomas Fleming, The Lusitania by Colin Simpson, How Diplomats Make War by Francis Neilson, How the War Came by Earl Loreburn, America Goes to War by Charles Callan Tansill, Churchill's War by David Irving, and The Churchill Legend, The Makers of War, and The Tragedy of Eurpe, a Commentary on the Second World War, all by Francis Neilson.

Oh, and here's a Churchill quote for you: "If I had been an Italian I am sure I would have been entirely with you and don the Fascist black shirt.” (source: As We Go Marching by John T. Flynn (New York: Doubleday, 1944) p. 70)

Surprising answer from me: Richard Nixon.

As a President? Not so great ... as a statesman, excellent.

I feel the same about Carter.

Surprising answer from me: Richard Nixon.

As a President? Not so great ... as a statesman, excellent.

I feel the same about Carter.

Nixon and Carter were both sleazeballs who backstabbed allies, kow-towed to the Soviets and Red Chinese, and did everything conceivable to jeopardize our national security.

It might sound funny, but I'd have to say Pope John Paul II. He was largely apolitical, but the subjects he had a fixation with is what he saw to completion. His great gift was that he could mobilize the 1 billion + members behind him, even if they did disagree with him. He helped made Solidarity a household name, and was a serious player in ending the Soviet Empire, itself no easy feat.
We also know that he did have some leverage with the West, even if it was just ceremonial, and could operate without whipping up a crowd. For instance, his unsealed letters indicate that he met with US intelligence services several times, reviewing sattelite photos and endorsing the placement of nukes in Western Europe. His role in political life declined when the USSR fell, but his time in the limelight was fruitful.

At least the starving the Germans and the admiration of fascist strongmen is true though.

One should remember that the first half of the 20th century was hardly a democratic time (Italy was not really a democratic society before the fascists took over). When Hitler, the logical conclusion of the Fascist movement, took power in Germany Churchill stood against all appeasement. As for starving the Germans, war is not humanitarian (he also suggested gassing them to eliminate the threat they posed to Europe once and for all, but fortunally his generals talked him out of it).


Plus there have been questions about his involvement in the Lusitania business, being head of the admiralty and all.
And finally, I'd ask you to consider Galipoli, which was hardly a glorious idea.

No one is perfect. He did however step forward and lead England through it's time of need. The world is more peaceful and free due to his efforts. In defeating the Nationals Socialists Churchill saved humanity from extinction.

What do you mean by statesmen? Just politicians in general, or diplomats?

What do you mean by statesmen? Just politicians in general, or diplomats?

Either-or. Your choice.

He saved humanity from extinction? It wasn't England alone that won it though; and I'm not sure all of humanity would have been eradicated. The Jews and Slavic minorities most certainly; though not ALL of humanity.

Don't believe me? Read Illusion of Victory: America in World War I by Thomas Fleming, The Lusitania by Colin Simpson, How Diplomats Make War by Francis Neilson, How the War Came by Earl Loreburn, America Goes to War by Charles Callan Tansill, Churchill's War by David Irving, and The Churchill Legend, The Makers of War, and The Tragedy of Eurpe, a Commentary on the Second World War, all by Francis Neilson.

Revisionist history which ignores reality. I suggest you read "Paris 1919" by a real historian, Margaret Macmillan. It covers all the details and compelxities of the ending of the First World War.


Oh, and here's a Churchill quote for you: "If I had been an Italian I am sure I would have been entirely with you and don the Fascist black shirt.” (source: As We Go Marching by John T. Flynn (New York: Doubleday, 1944) p. 70)

Context, context!

Revisionist history which ignores reality. I suggest you read "Paris 1919" by a real historian, Margaret Macmillan. It covers all the details and compelxities of the ending of the First World War.



Context, context!

Typical leftist response, too lazy to read, so they automatically shun the book(s).

It's hard for me to think of the best, but i think one that could be considered would be Mohatma Gandhi. It takes more cojones and ingenuity to accomplish something that big without the use of force. He was able to obtain so much loyalty from his followers. He never served in public office or anything, but he I think he was definitely a statesman.

It's hard for me to think of the best, but i think one that could be considered would be Mohatma Gandhi. It takes more cojones and ingenuity to accomplish something that big without the use of force. He was able to obtain so much loyalty from his followers. He never served in public office or anything, but he I think he was definitely a statesman.

It's hard for me to think of the best, but i think one that could be considered would be Mohatma Gandhi. It takes more cojones and ingenuity to accomplish something that big without the use of force. He was able to obtain so much loyalty from his followers. He never served in public office or anything, but he I think he was definitely a statesman.

It's hard for me to think of the best, but i think one that could be considered would be Mohatma Gandhi. It takes more cojones and ingenuity to accomplish something that big without the use of force. He was able to obtain so much loyalty from his followers. He never served in public office or anything, but he I think he was definitely a statesman.

It's hard for me to think of the best, but i think one that could be considered would be Mohatma Gandhi. It takes more cojones and ingenuity to accomplish something that big without the use of force. He was able to obtain so much loyalty from his followers. He never served in public office or anything, but he I think he was definitely a statesman.

Ceauşescu.

Not really, but look him up anyway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceausescu.

He saved humanity from extinction? It wasn't England alone that won it though; and I'm not sure all of humanity would have been eradicated. The Jews and Slavic minorities most certainly; though not ALL of humanity.

Had the fascist powers triumped and established dominion over humanity, they would have marched the human race merrily towards extintion. It would have been a dark age of war and chaos (remember the Nazis did not believe in peace, they were Hobbes turned on his head, they sought the state of war).

One has to remember that the jury is still out on whether the current civilization will survive (some scientists put the odds of human extinction in the next century at 50%). With the Nazis in power extinction would have been assured.

And I did not mean Churchill single handidly saved humanity, being one of many, but he and F.D.R. were the ones who led the fight and thus deserve a great deal of credit.

The more I think about it, the less inclined I am to beleive most of us are qualified to answer this question. So much shit goes on behind the scenes that a good statesman probably knows not to be too conspicuous. That said, a lot of it depends on your criteria. If Hitler had stopped at Czechoslovakia, he might be a good choice. Short of that, most of the nominations here are pretty good.

Except for that son of a bitch FDR.

Eat me you liberetard (patent pending)
Ah but how can you support the patent, such an inherently capitalist idea? Oooh pwned :D

True, I just don't like libertarians. I'm sorry, it's nothing against you as a person, it's just half of what you stand for is complete bunk.
True, I just don't like socialists or any other type of statist (and don't tell me about how it isn't statist). I'm sorry, it's nothing against you as a person, it's just half of what you stand for is complete bunk
See how easily I can manipulate the same thing you say to my purpose? I think it's time I moved on from NS then, if the Forums are going this downhill

As for starving the Germans, war is not humanitarian (he also suggested gassing them to eliminate the threat they posed to Europe once and for all, but fortunally his generals talked him out of it).
And yet you're happy to blame both the Soviets and the Germans for all sorts of massacres.

No one is perfect. He did however step forward and lead England through it's time of need. The world is more peaceful and free due to his efforts. In defeating the Nationals Socialists Churchill saved humanity from extinction.
I certainly wasn't saved from extinction. The man hated Germany (why? only because it had once dared to challenge the empire), always had. If he'd had his way, then I wouldn't be alive.
Militarily he was a moron, as has been shown plenty of times.
Politically, he can be reduced to a populist who used foreign enemies to overshadow his total lack of skill (see his demise after the war was over).

You're lucky that the Soviets stepped up to the challenge, because if they hadn't been there, Britain would've taken over, and his stubborn resistance, not fuelled from rational thinking but from sheer hatred would've looked rather stupid.

The more I think about it, the less inclined I am to beleive most of us are qualified to answer this question. So much shit goes on behind the scenes that a good statesman probably knows not to be too conspicuous. That said, a lot of it depends on your criteria. If Hitler had stopped at Czechoslovakia, he might be a good choice. Short of that, most of the nominations here are pretty good.

Except for that son of a bitch FDR.

Wow, a fellow FDR hater!

*Gives Melkor a beer*

Except for that son of a bitch FDR.

Where did that come from :confused:

Where did that come from :confused:
If you couldn't tell already, it came form the fact that I have a less than favorable opinion of FDR.

And thanks for the beer, Lew. It tastes gooooood.

Wow, a fellow FDR hater!
*Gives Melkor a beer*
By any chance, do you hate Lincoln as well? (yea FDR was a screw-up)

By any chance, do you hate Lincoln as well? (yea FDR was a screw-up)

Hell yes! Lincoln was a racist totalitarian jackass-dickweed. :mad:

Now, I know Ceauşescu may not be American, but he deserves your attention. Back in his day, his crap regime had no less than two visiting American Presidents, all love and cuddles with ours - not to mention that Elisabeth II gave him a ride in the royal carriege.
Fun times, fun people.

And yet you're happy to blame both the Soviets and the Germans for all sorts of massacres.

I have not meantioned massacres (though they did occur and it is not a matter of blame). I believe that is a "and you lynch negro's" arguement.


I certainly wasn't saved from extinction. The man hated Germany (why? only because it had once dared to challenge the empire), always had. If he'd had his way, then I wouldn't be alive.
Militarily he was a moron, as has been shown plenty of times.
Politically, he can be reduced to a populist who used foreign enemies to overshadow his total lack of skill (see his demise after the war was over).

You're lucky that the Soviets stepped up to the challenge, because if they hadn't been there, Britain would've taken over, and his stubborn resistance, not fuelled from rational thinking but from sheer hatred would've looked rather stupid.

England held out while Stalin and Hitler devided up Eastern Europe. And the Soviets did not "step up to the challenge", they were invaded by the Germans. Don't get me wrong, they fought heroically, but they were invaded, and until then they appeased and cooperated with the Fascists.

Also the Russians suffered many defeats due to Stalins mistakes.

Hell yes! Lincoln was a racist totalitarian jackass-dickweed. :mad:

You have no sense of history.

You have no sense of history.

Speak for yourself. Did you know Lincoln was a white supremacist? Or that he suspended the writ of habeus corpus, imprisoned thousands of dissidents, etc.?

England held out while Stalin and Hitler devided up Eastern Europe. And the Soviets did not "step up to the challenge", they were invaded by the Germans. Don't get me wrong, they fought heroically, but they were invaded, and until then they appeased and cooperated with the Fascists.

Also the Russians suffered many defeats due to Stalins mistakes.
Not a fan of Stalin, but I feel compelled to intervene:
- England fought heroically because she acted absurdely until the very minute (remember the "Funny War"?)
- Stalin resorted to appeasing/cooperating with the Nazis as a last recourse - his Czechoslovakian alliance failed (Chamberlain might've had something to do with it around 1938) , he was courted by the Western powers but they offered nothing in return, and he could only reach an agreement with Germany with regard to Bessarabia, the Baltics and eventually Poland
- he antagonized the Nazis in his war with Finland (check it out: the Finns were cooperating with happy-to-help Germans no matter what the situation was between Germany and the USSR)
Add to this the growing threat from Japan, the experience of the Spanish War and the purges in the Red Army.

Not a fan of Stalin, but I feel compelled to intervene:
- England fought heroically because she acted absurdely until the very minute (remember the "Funny War"?)
- Stalin resorted to appeasing/cooperating with the Nazis as a last recourse - his Czechoslovakian alliance failed (Chamberlain might've had something to do with it around 1938) , he was courted by the Western powers but they offered nothing in return, and he could only reach an agreement with Germany with regard to Bessarabia, the Baltics and eventually Poland
- he antagonized the Nazis in his war with Finland (check it out: the Finns were cooperating with happy-to-help Germans no matter what the situation was between Germany and the USSR)
Add to this the growing threat from Japan, the experience of the Spanish War and the purges in the Red Army.

Yes yes, all true.

Just to note, Churchill (the figure who the debate was about) did not become Prime Minister until after the initial failures on the continent.

I have not meantioned massacres (though they did occur and it is not a matter of blame).
But mentioning someone who openly advocated gassing something like 80 million people as "greatest statesman" is not exactly accepted practice, is it?

Also the Russians suffered many defeats due to Stalins mistakes.
Unlike France and Britain?

I'll end this by posting Churchill's life as I see it:
His parents put him in a boarding school and didn't want anything to do with him.
In the Sidney Street Siege he already proved dogmatic, letting buidlings burn down just to prove a point.
He tried to be the hero and sent thousands to death in Galipoli, an operation with no chance of success. Plus, in the Dardanelles his strategy lost heaps of ships (big ones) in early 1915.
He was a great fan of intervening in the early USSR - another doomed operation fought only for pride.
When he became Chancellor he oversaw the UK being screwed because of the return to the gold standard.
During WWII, there was the Bengali Famine, about which he apparently didn't give a shit.
He failed to make a meaningful impression to either the Yanks or the Soviets, thus dooming Britain to become meaningless for the war and the time after.
And after the war he has a record of trying to use force in a colonial fashion without achieving anything other than dead people.

And all that after one quick read on wiki.

Speak for yourself. Did you know Lincoln was a white supremacist? Or that he suspended the writ of habeus corpus, imprisoned thousands of dissidents, etc.?

Yes

He suspended the writ of habeus corpus facing an organized rebbelion against the Republic. The majority of those imprisioned were traitors or suspected of sabotoging the attempts to put down the rebelion.

As for Lincoln holding racist views :rolleyes: , yes he did, by the standirds of today he held views that would be considered racist. And?

Yes yes, all true.

Just to note, Churchill (the figure who the debate was about) did not become Prime Minister until after the initial failures on the continent.
I'm aware of the topic. I just thought I had to clear some things about the USSR's position - it wasn't completely illogical, and was partly determined by the Western course of action.
Even later, when Churchill approached him, Stalin was justified to notice that he had nothing to offer. It took an invasion.

i'm still going to have to go with the ol' skool statesman... Bismarck :D

Juuuust nicks into the 20th C. ;)

But mentioning someone who openly advocated gassing something like 80 million people as "greatest statesman" is not exactly accepted practice, is it?

I did not suggest him, but I think he would deserve some mention on the list. The exact number by the way was less then far less then 80 million (and just for context you know the atomic bomb was origionally made to be dropped on Germany not Japan and would have been if operation Overlord had failed). War is not a humanitarian matter, and one should not pretend it is.


I'll end this by posting Churchill's life as I see it:
His parents put him in a boarding school and didn't want anything to do with him.
In the Sidney Street Siege he already proved dogmatic, letting buidlings burn down just to prove a point.
He tried to be the hero and sent thousands to death in Galipoli, an operation with no chance of success. Plus, in the Dardanelles his strategy lost heaps of ships (big ones) in early 1915.
He was a great fan of intervening in the early USSR - another doomed operation fought only for pride.
When he became Chancellor he oversaw the UK being screwed because of the return to the gold standard.
During WWII, there was the Bengali Famine, about which he apparently didn't give a shit.
He failed to make a meaningful impression to either the Yanks or the Soviets, thus dooming Britain to become meaningless for the war and the time after.
And after the war he has a record of trying to use force in a colonial fashion without achieving anything other than dead people.

And all that after one quick read on wiki.

All opinion. What are you trying to prove.

I'm aware of the topic. I just thought I had to clear some things about the USSR's position - it wasn't completely illogical, and was partly determined by the Western course of action.
Even later, when Churchill approached him, Stalin was justified to notice that he had nothing to offer. It took an invasion.

There was no need to meantion it (I was already aware), but thanks anyway.

(and just for context you know the atomic bomb was origionally made to be dropped on Germany not Japan and would have been if operation Overlord had failed)

Thats a hotly debated but still unprovable statement. Most historians agree that in fact it was all along meant for Japan... if at all.

Thats a hotly debated but still unprovable statement. Most historians agree that in fact it was all along meant for Japan... if at all.

If Germany had been victiorius against Russia or had beaten back operation Overlord (killing thousands) do you think the allies would have held back on their greatist weapon? Also American research into the atomic bomb was conducted partially due to the legitamate fear that the Germans were doing the exact same thing.

The use against Japan was due not just to millitary/geopolitical concerns, but also due to a desire to test what they had spent so much time, treasure and effort on.

If Germany had been victiorius against Russia or had beaten back operation Overlord (killing thousands) do you think the allies would have held back on their greatist weapon? Also American research into the atomic bomb was conducted partially due to the legitamate fear that the Germans were doing the exact same thing.

Yeah yeah yeah....

Listen, a lot of factors were involved in it being Japan and not Germany- racism being one of them. The beginning of the Cold War, the effective defeat of Germany by the time the tests were successful, the wanting of the Allies to rebuild Germany ASAP- a lot easier if the pop don't hate you and the major cities aren't uninhabitable- (as they knew the USSR had an interest in a weak Germany too) etc etc etc.

Japan was the intended target by the time Truman came to power.

Again, we will never know, because FDR is dead and Truman played the 'oh my god, we should never have done it' card since.

I did not suggest him, but I think he would deserve some mention on the list.
But then you'd have to add Hitler too. He was certainly successful.

The exact number by the way was less then far less then 80 million
In 1950 the total number of citizens in West and East Germany was 77 million.

and just for context you know the atomic bomb was origionally made to be dropped on Germany not Japan and would have been if operation Overlord had failed.
Indeed I do know. The very fact that Allied Statesmen condoned adding nuclear weaponry to the already prevalent terror bombings is enough to disqualify them from the list IMHO.

War is not a humanitarian matter, and one should not pretend it is.
Why not? Because less enemies could be killed?

All opinion. What are you trying to prove.
Look at it. Every last one of these things happened. I'm trying to paint you the picture of the man he really was, not the man urban mythology has made of him.

Japan was the intended target by the time Truman came to power.


Yes, by the time Truman came to power, the bombs were ready and Germany being conqured piece by bloody piece, Japan was the target.

Yes, by the time Truman came to power, the bombs were ready and Germany being conqured piece by bloody piece, Japan was the target.

Not quite- the bombs weren't ready until March/April of 45. By then Germany was all but defeated. There was only one other player left in the war-Japan.

She tried to use her neutral 'friend' Russia to intercede and play for a truce with America. Truman fresh with the news of his new toy at Potsdam told Stalin... by the way, we've got a new weapon of immense power.. Stalin said 'good for you' (secretly pi**ed off).

Truman was never told about the A bomb even when he was Vice President. Only when he came to power did the Chiefs of Staff inform him... and they told him it was going to be dropped. i.e. FDR had already decided who.

Truman not wanting to go against the hero that was FDR consented. The Cheifs of Staff gave the go ahead, and plans were finalised. Again, by this stage only Japan was left in the war.

But then you'd have to add Hitler too. He was certainly successful.

HA. he ruined his country and impoverished (nearly destroyed) his people. The Fascists ruined everything they touched. Hitler was ultimatly not is the least bit successful.


In 1950 the total number of citizens in West and East Germany was 77 million.

Yes, after the Russians and Communists had expelled all the Germans in Eastern Europe (having remembered Hitler's "living space"). Also Brition did not poccess the resources to gas the whole country, just the cities. Also for context, certain allied bombing raids targeted dambs for the purpose of causeing floods.


Indeed I do know. The very fact that Allied Statesmen condoned adding nuclear weaponry to the already prevalent terror bombings is enough to disqualify them from the list IMHO.

That is your opionion.


Why not? Because less enemies could be killed?

Because war is not humanitarian. It is the mobalization of a large number of people by the State to kill those mobalized by another State. A war can be fought for humanitarian reasons but it cannot itself be humanitarian. The goal of war is victory, let us not pretend otherwise. The allies bombed the houses of German civilions, who payed taxes and supported the Nazi State. The Russians upon conquring Berlin, had all the women raped. It was a psycological means of beating the Germans into submission (an unfortunate time honored tradition dating back to the invention of war itself). Horrable things happen in war (I am not defending the existence of those horrors, just pointing there inevitability out), which is why war is to be avoided when possible.

Not quite- the bombs weren't ready until March/April of 45. By then Germany was all but defeated. There was only one other player left in the war-Japan.

She tried to use her neutral 'friend' Russia to intercede and play for a truce with America. Truman fresh with the news of his new toy at Potsdam told Stalin... by the way, we've got a new weapon of immense power.. Stalin said 'good for you' (secretly pi**ed off).

Truman was never told about the A bomb even when he was Vice President. Only when he came to power did the Chiefs of Staff inform him... and they told him it was going to be dropped. i.e. FDR had already decided who.

Truman not wanting to go against the hero that was FDR consented. The Cheifs of Staff gave the go ahead, and plans were finalised. Again, by this stage only Japan was left in the war.

That is simpalizing things a bit.

Evil as he was, Joseph Stalin was the greatest statesman of the 20th century. He secured Eastern and part of Central Europe as part of the Soviet buffer, helped Mao to achieve power over China, and placed much of the foundation for future Soviet leaders to spread their influence throughout the world without direct challenge from the western world. It seems it's always the sons of bitches that are the most effective leaders, unfortunately.

Evil as he was, Joseph Stalin was the greatest statesman of the 20th century. He secured Eastern and part of Central Europe as part of the Soviet buffer, helped Mao to achieve power over China, and placed much of the foundation for future Soviet leaders to spread their influence throughout the world without direct challenge from the western world. It seems it's always the sons of bitches that are the most effective leaders, unfortunately.
His strategies weren't uneffective, and he was a 'good leader' [after a fashion], but he lacked any diplomatic ability whatsoever and wasn't as militarily or politically well-rounded as, say, any of the Nazi High Command. But he certainly was a lot better than Hitler, which probably won the war.

I can only state this from a US perspective.

1. Martin Luther King
2. Dwight D. Eisenhower
3. Edward R. Murrow
4. Bob Hope
5. Ralph Nader

Also, Delano Rosevelt doesn't rank as the greatest statement due to his almost ridiculously power hungry ambition before WW2. Untill WW2 happened, he was just a damned powerhungry politician. It took a war to shapen him up into a better leader.

For those who do deserve to be on the list, it is due to my lack of remembering at this period of time.

Also, Delano Rosevelt doesn't rank as the greatest statement due to his almost ridiculously power hungry ambition before WW2. Untill WW2 happened, he was just a damned powerhungry politician. It took a war to shapen him up into a better leader.


What do you base this "observation" upon?

What do you base this "observation" upon?

He tried to pack the supreme court when they disagreed with his policies due to them finding them unconstitutional. He wanted to appoint more than 9 judges that agreed with his view to override the checks and balance system. Research this fact up. I'm not going to hold your hand.

The other is the fact he ignored precedent regarding the set respect for term limits. There was a reason presidents adhered to it. Read Washington's words in his farewell address regarding why he refused to serve more than two terms.

You might argue to save what you ignorantly believe is a "great US president" simply because he served during WW2, but imagine if George Bush or Clinton did the same and disregarded the Constitution or precedent for his own political ambition.

The ONLY reasons why Rosevelt is looked up as a great president is for two and two reasons alone. His WW2 term finally made him a leader probably due to the country finally being under real threat. And Social Security. The new deal is still debated.

However if WW2 did NOT happen, he would have been only an ambitious powerhungry politican. I do feel he did his job during WW2. From his comforting to his behavior as the Commander in Chief. However for those who look before Pearl Harbor, the guy was a bigger threat to this country than dubbya.

Hell they made a Constitutional Ammendment to STOP future presidents from doing what Rosevelt did with his four terms gig.

I HATE power hungry bastards and politicans. Rosevelt did well in WW2. For that, I don't hate him. However I'd be a DAMNED American if I ever claimed he was the greatest statesmen in the 20'th century. George Patton was a far better statesman than he. As was Eisenhower without considering his presidency.

He tried to pack the supreme court when they disagreed with his policies due to them finding them unconstitutional. He wanted to appoint more than 9 judges that agreed with his view to override the checks and balance system. Research this fact up. I'm not going to hold your hand.


It is often regarded as his greatist mistake, which he was rightly criticised for. His proposal was defeated (and I knew of it thank you very much). And the issue was not the check and balance system, it was the legality of the New Deal programs and the Commerce Clause (at least get the facts right). No one is perfect. Also you are ignoring the quality of his later picks to the the Court and how they transformed civil rights and free speech rights.


The other is the fact he ignored precedent regarding the set respect for term limits. There was a reason presidents adhered to it. Read Washington's words in his farewell address regarding why he refused to serve more than two terms.

What he did was not illegal, precedent is not law and can be broken when times require. FDR anyway was not the first president to run for a third term.

And the presidency killed him, it was a real strain for him to be in office, with his medical condition. Before he died in 1945 he was rumored to be planning retirement once the war was ended.


You might argue to save what you ignorantly believe is a "great US president" simply because he served during WW2, but imagine if George Bush or Clinton did the same and disregarded the Constitution or precedent for his own political ambition.

It is now illegal for a President to serve more then two terms, so this statement is meaningless (and I wish Clinton could have run for a third term).


The ONLY reasons why Rosevelt is looked up as a great president is for two and two reasons alone. His WW2 term finally made him a leader probably due to the country finally being under real threat. And Social Security. The new deal is still debated.

The country was under real threat after the 1929 crash. There was economic collapse, violence, instability, and radical figures gaining strength. Are you familar with the King Fish? Then in 1933 National Socialism came to power in Germany and preceded to go on a rampage. As Germany began to dominate Europe the majority of Americans did not wish to become involved. Rosevelt, had he been a simple power hungry politician, would have played the isolationist card. His wish to provide aid to Great Brition cost him politically and could have resulted in him being voted out.

And yes the New Deal "is still debated" (by political historians with an axe to grind), but you know what is not debated? What is not debated is how miserable a failure the Classical Economic policies of the three previous Republican administrations had been. My family lost several stores which it owned; that is it lost everything. The fact that the United States has not had a single economic failure or down turn anywhere near the Great Depression and has since then dramatically increased its living standirds is proof that the New Deal reforms worked!


However if WW2 did NOT happen, he would have been only an ambitious powerhungry politican. I do feel he did his job during WW2. From his comforting to his behavior as the Commander in Chief. However for those who look before Pearl Harbor, the guy was a bigger threat to this country than dubbya.

Comforting behavior?! FDR personally directed the Lend Leash program and was directly involved in the cordination of the war effort!


I HATE power hungry bastards and politicans. Rosevelt did well in WW2. For that, I don't hate him. However I'd be a DAMNED American if I ever claimed he was the greatest statesmen in the 20'th century. George Patton was a far better statesman than he. As was Eisenhower without considering his presidency.

Yes Patton :rolleyes: who believed we should have rearmed Germany and sent the Russians packing back to Central Asia "where they belonged". Your reasons for "HATE(ing)" FDR seem purely ideological, as you state opinion as fact and give no evidence to back up what you say.

I'd just like to point out that the 22nd Amendment [establishing terms limits for the Presedency] was enacted in February of 1951. I'd think that alone would say something about FDR :p

...or not, but it's fun to point out.

It is often regarded as his greatist mistake, which he was rightly criticised for. His proposal was defeated (and I knew of it thank you very much). And the issue was not the check and balance system, it was the legality of the New Deal programs and the Commerce Clause (at least get the facts right). No one is perfect. Also you are ignoring the quality of his later picks to the the Court and how they transformed civil rights and free speech rights.

Excuse me, but PACKING THE SUPREME COURT IS OVERRIDING THE CHECKS AND BALANCE SYSTEM OF THE CONSTITUTION. The Constitution was NOT designed to allow for the executive office to take such unprecedented action to satisfy a President's agenda. I was NOT refering to the new deal programs overriding the checks and balance system. The action of packing the court however is.

What he did was not illegal, precedent is not law and can be broken when times require. FDR anyway was not the first president to run for a third term.

Automatically I know now it is going to be hard for me to make you understand the fundamental importance of precedent as more than a simple tradition.

The respect for the institution isn't just achieving Commander in Chief status and having your political way with the system if you are able to. It goes beyond that to respecting the people's attempt to be free of a tyrant in the future because people like you don't plan for such things to happen to your children and future citizens of the republic. Of course, you likely don't give a rats ass, now due to it being Rosevelt doing it. However, him ignoring precedent allows for others to ignore it and follow his precedent. Such as goddamned dubbya. Or possibly worse down the line. When citizens ignore the importance of it, it allows for chipping away of our freedoms later by others because they can get away with it without scrutiny.


And the presidency killed him, it was a real strain for him to be in office, with his medical condition. Before he died in 1945 he was rumored to be planning retirement once the war was ended.

Glad something did. People need to stop with this belief that they are entitled to preside over the government till they croak. The presidency is NOT the supreme court. I'm also glad Congress acted and set the precedent for future presidents. Otherwise, we'd have a lot of lame ass presidents to worry about.

If Washington thought two was enough, then two is enough. That man as well as his immediate predecessors understood the power of the office AND the example they had to set.

It is now illegal for a President to serve more then two terms, so this statement is meaningless (and I wish Clinton could have run for a third term).

Goddamned right its illegal now. I'm curious, do you wish dubbya or Regan could run for three or more terms? Hypothetically speaking of course. And hell, the presidency isn't over after dubbya is booted. There could be another Caligula upon the horizon even worse than this current fool.

The country was under real threat after the 1929 crash. There was economic collapse, violence, instability, and radical figures gaining strength. Are you familar with the King Fish? Then in 1933 National Socialism came to power in Germany and preceded to go on a rampage. As Germany began to dominate Europe the majority of Americans did not wish to become involved. Rosevelt, had he been a simple power hungry politician, would have played the isolationist card. His wish to provide aid to Great Brition cost him politically and could have resulted in him being voted out.

I mean REAL threat. Such as citizens being killed for not being German, Italian or Japanese. And no, Pearl Harbor, as debated as it is, gave Congress the initative to declare war. Rosevelt is a figurehead in such an event. Congress DECLARES war. Not the president. At least back then it was true.

And yes the New Deal "is still debated" (by political historians with an axe to grind), but you know what is not debated? What is not debated is how miserable a failure the Classical Economic policies of the three previous Republican administrations had been. My family lost several stores which it owned; that is it lost everything. The fact that the United States has not had a single economic failure or down turn anywhere near the Great Depression and has since then dramatically increased its living standirds is proof that the New Deal reforms worked!

Actually no. Lassie Faire capitalism was primarily the culprit. Once black Thursday proved it to be a fallicy, we switched to Keynsian economic theory with government involvement in economics. This shift from pure capitalism to Keynsian's method helps prevent economic collapse.... at least so far.

Again, I have no problem with new deal so you can kiss its ass as much as you want without my concern or me saying a word in debating it's effectiveness or uneffectiveness. My main concerns however is first and foremost the Constitution, the Republic, and our citizen's present and future liberties. Rosevelt acting like a powerhungry fuck is threatening the first and the last of my concerns. (Constitution's checks and balances, and our liberties down the line or at present)

Comforting behavior?! FDR personally directed the Lend Leash program and was directly involved in the cordination of the war effort!

I meant his comforting a paniced and worried American public after the word of Pearl Harbor over the radio. He did well enough that he deserves to be commended for it. I see no flaw in his behavior other than utter disregard for precedent and the Constitution before Pearl Harbor.

Yes Patton :rolleyes: who believed we should have rearmed Germany and sent the Russians packing back to Central Asia "where they belonged". Your reasons for "HATE(ing)" FDR seem purely ideological, as you state opinion as fact and give no evidence to back up what you say.

Damned straight. He has a right to his military opinion due to the first ammendment, and the fact he did nothing to degrade the Constitution or precedent. So what if he was nuts. At least he wasn't nuts in a public office position. Its a severe difference. He obeyed orders by Ike and Truman that the US will do no such thing. End of story. There was no coup de grace on his part to threaten the Constitution or the republic by him taking out Ike or Truman.

And yes, I do regard Rosevelt as unworthy of being one of the greatest US statesmen in 20 on ideological reasons. Why? Because I'm a goddamned Patriot, that's why. I know the evils of politicans and power. I can't be faulted because you on the otherhand don't know jack otherwise.

Hitler was ultimatly not is the least bit successful.
Unlike Churchill, who succeeded in having Britain have to beg for help, having Bolchevism rule more than half of Europe, and ultimately the demise of the Empire.
England didn't win the war if you look at its position before and after.

Also Brition did not poccess the resources to gas the whole country, just the cities.
Well, now I'm really glad. :rolleyes:

Also for context, certain allied bombing raids targeted dambs for the purpose of causeing floods.
Why do you keep telling me these things?

That is your opionion.
That's what "IMHO" means...

The goal of war is victory, let us not pretend otherwise.
No one doubts that.

Horrable things happen in war (I am not defending the existence of those horrors, just pointing there inevitability out), which is why war is to be avoided when possible.
It is inevitable that your men behave like animals?
I'm sorry, but that is just plain weak. War is not a natural catastrophe - it is a human creation. If we want to, we can change the way war is fought with the snip of a finger.

Unlike Churchill, who succeeded in having Britain have to beg for help, having Bolchevism rule more than half of Europe, and ultimately the demise of the Empire.
England didn't win the war if you look at its position before and after.


So England should have bowed down before the Nazi emperor and allowed him to continue his unchallenged rein over a captive Europe? Allow a new dark age?

England won because it aided in the dustruction of one of the greatist threats to humanity and remained a free democratic country in charge of its own destiny. Also I would hold that England leting go of its Empire was a success story, as the Nation State of Great Brition was able to adjust to a new reality.


Why do you keep telling me these things?

History is not pretty and I am presenting these facts to show the horror of the conflict.


It is inevitable that your men behave like animals?
I'm sorry, but that is just plain weak. War is not a natural catastrophe - it is a human creation. If we want to, we can change the way war is fought with the snip of a finger.

First of all, human beings are animals, let us not forget that. War is mass killing. A Nation can attempt to limit the calaterial damage of war, by having policies in place to restrain/police it's troops and avoid directly targeting the civilion population. But in the end there will be unavoidable suffering and death, some unintentional, some intentional do to military realities. All attempts to "change" war into something more humain have failed and will continue to fail. Saying one can change it in the "snip of a finger" shows an ignorance of the nature of reality, it is bankrupt utopianism.

I am left wondering how old you are. But just to humor you, tell me how we shall go about making war more humain, changeing it in the "snip of a finger"?

History is not pretty and I am presenting these facts to show the horror of the conflict.
All the while assuming that I didn't know?

A Nation can attempt to limit the calaterial damage of war, by having policies in place to restrain/police it's troops and avoid directly targeting the civilion population.
Which is all I ask. And which Churchill failed to even consider.
Civilians do not have to be part of it.

I am left wondering how old you are. But just to humor you, tell me how we shall go about making war more humain, changeing it in the "snip of a finger"?
20 years in a few days, studying economics and business management (majoring in political economy and game theory) with good marks and presumably going on to do masters, and gladly avoiding military service in the Bundeswehr, while most of my German friends are serving right now.
How that changes anything is beyond me.

It takes the commitment of every nation to implement proper rules for military conflict. This is now more possible than ever before, given the precision weaponry we have.
As long though as people excuse atrocities with a simple "war is hell", there is no hope for that. I'm looking at you.

Excuse me, but PACKING THE SUPREME COURT IS OVERRIDING THE CHECKS AND BALANCE SYSTEM OF THE CONSTITUTION. The Constitution was NOT designed to allow for the executive office to take such unprecedented action to satisfy a President's agenda. I was NOT refering to the new deal programs overriding the checks and balance system. The action of packing the court however is.

Rosevelts attempt to expand the Supreme Court was legal! The constitution leaves the number of Supreme Court justices up to Congress. The number of Supreme Court justices has increased and decreased throughout the last two centuries without much notice or fan-fair. Rosevelt asked Congress to expand the number of judges in the Court. Congress however realized that Rosevelt had made a mistake and that doing so was dangerius so they rejected his plan (they held the jurisdiction in that area). End of story. No leader is perfect.


Automatically I know now it is going to be hard for me to make you understand the fundamental importance of precedent as more than a simple tradition.

Precedent changes as times change. Although it is important it is not binding, nor should it be (that is why it is precedent, not law). New precedents are established and old ones discarded. What is of primary importence is law and its enforcement.

The rest of Americai's post I will not answer as it contains ideological ranting not worthy of comment as it contains noting of value.

All the while assuming that I didn't know?

Yes

A
Which is all I ask. And which Churchill failed to even consider.
Civilians do not have to be part of it.

Civilians cannot be excused from war as they are part of it. WWII was a war between nations. Those German citizens who the allies bombed paid taxes to the German State, they participated in its social system, cooperated in the rounding up of jews and other undesirable. The blame for all the atrocities of the Second World War lies with the idologues who started it.

A
It takes the commitment of every nation to implement proper rules for military conflict. This is now more possible than ever before, given the precision weaponry we have.
As long though as people excuse atrocities with a simple "war is hell", there is no hope for that. I'm looking at you.

War is war (what is hell?). That precision weaponry you praise has a miserable success record. It has not stopped 100,000 civilions from dieing in Iraq. I am not excusing atrocities, I am saying they are an unavoidable aspect of war. Instead of futily trying to make war all clean and nice, humanity should be foucused on ending it.

Those German citizens who the allies bombed paid taxes to the German State, they participated in its social system, cooperated in the rounding up of jews and other undesirable.
Does that make terror attacks on American, Israeli or British citizens okay? Afterall, they all pay taxes to the government against which AQ fights its war (or vice versa). They all cooperate in whatever offends Muslim Extremists.

The blame for all the atrocities of the Second World War lies with the idologues who started it.
I disagree. At every point of the way, every individual can make a choice - every bomber pilot, every Soviet soldier, every General and Admiral, every Head of State.
To say that it's the fault of the leadership in Japan that the Crew of the Enola Gay dropped the bomb is to discount their individuality. You're essentially declaring that we're all subject to some sort of fate.

Instead of futily trying to make war all clean and nice, humanity should be foucused on ending it.
Believe me, you have a supporter in me and most of the German people. But it's an even more futile effort than to simply declare civilians off-limits for all UN member states, with the conviction to back it up.

Does that make terror attacks on American, Israeli or British citizens okay? Afterall, they all pay taxes to the government against which AQ fights its war (or vice versa). They all cooperate in whatever offends Muslim Extremists.

I am just explaining the context. A human can justify anything with anything.


I disagree. At every point of the way, every individual can make a choice - every bomber pilot, every Soviet soldier, every General and Admiral, every Head of State.
To say that it's the fault of the leadership in Japan that the Crew of the Enola Gay dropped the bomb is to discount their individuality. You're essentially declaring that we're all subject to some sort of fate.

We are all subject to a limited freedom.


Believe me, you have a supporter in me and most of the German people. But it's an even more futile effort than to simply declare civilians off-limits for all UN member states, with the conviction to back it up.

Besides the mess in the Balkans (which is essientialy was a civil/ethnic war, not a conflict between nation states) how many wars have occured between European nations since the fall of communism? Hell, how many wars have occured in Europe since the end of WWII?

De Gaulle, hands down.

He rescued his country from the abyss in WWII, turning it into one of the victors (the saying "France lost the war, but De Gaulle won it" is a little uncharitable, but shows how important he was). Then he came back, gave France its first stable Constitution, strategic independence (with nukes and NATO withdrawal), fathered both economic and social progress through sound policy, and made France into a beacon of hope for all those, especially in the Third World, who were looking for a third way between the Soviet and Western blocs. He cimented the foundations of the European Union. There's no way to count all his political achievements, and there's no aspect of French life and European and even world history that he hasn't affected somehow, and almost always in a good way.

The guy was a genius. In the thirties, he correctly predicted the transforming effect that tanks and airplanes would have on warfare, and, to his disgust, the Blitzkrieg strategy that the Nazis used to conquer Europe was based on books he wrote to try and convince his own government to use that same strategy. 1945, when it was time to create new institutions for France he knew nothing about constitutional law, but he spent a few months inhaling books of constitutional law, and came up with one of the greatest constitutions currently in use. In 1958 when he came back to power, he knew little about economics, being a soldier, so he asked Jacques Rueff, one of the greatest economists of the 20th century, to tutor him. After six months of this, Rueff said "I believed that De Gaulle was better than me at everything, except economics. Now I'm not so sure even about that." His memoirs and his other books are among the finest prose of his day. It's not like Clinton's focus group-oriented best-seller or Churchill's half baked attempts, he was a truly great writer of literature.

But I think what certainly makes him the greatest statesman of the past century is that he gave up power. When he lost a referendum, he had no obligation to resign, yet he did because he felt he no longer had the popular mandate. That to me is the mark of a great statesman. Power is like a drug, it's terribly addictive, and only the very greatest can just give it up when they feel their job is done and not look back.

Hell, how many wars have occured in Europe since the end of WWII?
So are you suggesting engulfing the entire planet in a war so terrible that they will be burnt forever, like Germany was?

Because it seems like Germany is the only country that actually learned something, seeing how the UK, France, Spain, Poland and all the rest of it have no problem going to war in other countries...

So are you suggesting engulfing the entire planet in a war so terrible that they will be burnt forever, like Germany was?

Because it seems like Germany is the only country that actually learned something, seeing how the UK, France, Spain, Poland and all the rest of it have no problem going to war in other countries...

No, that is not what I am suggesting. The process which by humanity is can end war, or more accuratly end the social forces that feed war, is too complex for me to go into this late at night (and in suggesting war can be ended I am not being a Utopian, I am being realistic). When I say end war, I don't mean world peace or global disarmament or any other magical solution/outcome. I mean the ending of the dustructive conflicts between Nation States; Peace through Strength and Liberal Democracy. I suggest you read "The Future of Freedom" by Fareed Zakaria. It is an easy read which which will show where I am comming from.

Also, to bring up Iraq. Much of the current failure and violence there is because the invasion was launched as a liberation, not as a war (which was what it was). The whole disaster was a stupid idea implemented poorly, the corner-stone of which was 'war can be cleanly fought and the consquences perfectly managed'.

...Peace through Strength and Liberal Democracy...
I guess I do need to read that book. Because that sounds decidedly hollow to me.

I guess I do need to read that book. Because that sounds decidedly hollow to me.

Yes, all platitudes sound hollow without details.

Also, although it is not directly related to the subject at hand, I suggest you read Jared Diamonds "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and "Collapsed", as they deal with the evolution of human society and puts everything in perspective.

Rosevelts attempt to expand the Supreme Court was legal! The constitution leaves the number of Supreme Court justices up to Congress. The number of Supreme Court justices has increased and decreased throughout the last two centuries without much notice or fan-fair. Rosevelt asked Congress to expand the number of judges in the Court. Congress however realized that Rosevelt had made a mistake and that doing so was dangerius so they rejected his plan (they held the jurisdiction in that area). End of story. No leader is perfect.



Precedent changes as times change. Although it is important it is not binding, nor should it be (that is why it is precedent, not law). New precedents are established and old ones discarded. What is of primary importence is law and its enforcement.

The rest of Americai's post I will not answer as it contains ideological ranting not worthy of comment as it contains noting of value.

Exactly, and the act of attempting to pack the court due to the circumstances Rosevelt presented, legal or not, is NOT what the Constitution is designed for. The document does NOT pre-determine the nation's destiny. As such it won't give you a constitutional sentencing for each case presented to it, and thus it is important for citizens to recognize whether legal or not an action is unconstitutional by rationalizing how it was designed to work. You need to be far more suspicious of people in power you naive fool.

Again, though no leader is perfect, there fact is Rosevelt being named the greatest statesmen in the 20th century is goddamned ludicrous. Especially due to the FACT that there there are far better canidates of US statesmen such as Martin Luther King or Eisenhower who never went on these power trips as he did before the war. Even Patton was a far better leader because his opinions regarding the aftermath of the war never got passed his mouth. Yet his service to the nation had a profound impact on the war effort to protect the nation from foriegn threats. Same with Nimitz, and Omar Bradly.

Hell, Audie Murphy would probably also be a better canidate than Rosevelt. Perhaps even Woodrow Wilson.

As for precedent, it is indeed not binding law. It SHOULD change when times require for it to change. Rosevelt however was NOT presented with those times untill the actual war happened.

So, Lew, it would appear you asked for people's opinions just to criticize them.

How very .... odd.

So, Lew, it would appear you asked for people's opinions just to criticize them.

How very .... odd.

Criticism is a legitimate form of discussion.

If we all agreed with everyone, only people in need of excessive ego stroking would be on Internet forums.

Criticism is a legitimate form of discussion.

If we all agreed with everyone, only people in need of excessive ego stroking would be on Internet forums.

I'm aware of that, but it just seems strange. It's like asking for someone's favorite color and, when they say "blue", telling them that blue sucks.

It's just strange. It makes no sense. Dispute fact, not opinion.

Because it seems like Germany is the only country that actually learned something, seeing how the UK, France, Spain, Poland and all the rest of it have no problem going to war in other countries...

Unless its the balkans, then germany has no problem with it. :rolleyes:

And Churchill never intended to gas the entire german population. Nor was he responsible for half of europe being dominated by bolsheviks. I don't know what you expect that england (with its relatively small population) should have done. Take that up with Truman. Anway, England was all fucked up from Germany's first attempt at global domination.

The RAF didn't "terror" bomb either. I am curious are you a product of east german school system?

I'm aware of that, but it just seems strange. It's like asking for someone's favorite color and, when they say "blue", telling them that blue sucks.

It's just strange. It makes no sense. Dispute fact, not opinion.

No, dispute opinion. Facts are by definition, indisputable.

Unless its the balkans, then germany has no problem with it.
We didn't go to "war" there. German forces are doing peacekeeping since the 12th of June. The war ended on the 10th.
The Air Force did Reconaissance during the war, and sending Tornado Jets to supress AA-Positions. Not a single attack mission was flown. That's not exactly a war like the stuff that other countries have done there, in Afghanistan or in Iraq.
Nonetheless, I feel that Germany seems to be the only country around that actual does exercise some discretion when it comes to the use of force. You It is very very difficult in Germany to actually get troops deployed anywhere.

The RAF didn't "terror" bomb either. I am curious are you a product of east german school system?
That's an insult, and you know it is. I'm from Hamburg.
And what else would you call the idea of bombing a population into submission by specifically targeting civilian areas with phosphor bombs and the like?

Exactly, and the act of attempting to pack the court due to the circumstances Rosevelt presented, legal or not, is NOT what the Constitution is designed for. The document does NOT pre-determine the nation's destiny. As such it won't give you a constitutional sentencing for each case presented to it, and thus it is important for citizens to recognize whether legal or not an action is unconstitutional by rationalizing how it was designed to work. You need to be far more suspicious of people in power you naive fool.

Something is either constitutional or it is unconstitutional. There is no "sort of if rationalized this way".


Again, though no leader is perfect, there fact is Rosevelt being named the greatest statesmen in the 20th century is goddamned ludicrous. Especially due to the FACT that there there are far better canidates of US statesmen such as Martin Luther King or Eisenhower who never went on these power trips as he did before the war. Even Patton was a far better leader because his opinions regarding the aftermath of the war never got passed his mouth. Yet his service to the nation had a profound impact on the war effort to protect the nation from foriegn threats. Same with Nimitz, and Omar Bradly.

Hell, Audie Murphy would probably also be a better canidate than Rosevelt. Perhaps even Woodrow Wilson.

As for precedent, it is indeed not binding law. It SHOULD change when times require for it to change. Rosevelt however was NOT presented with those times untill the actual war happened.

You really have a warped view of history. More childish ideological ranting.

And for clarification, Martin Luther King was an activist, not a statesmen. To be a statesmen, one has to be part of the state.

I really have a warped view of history. So I'll indulge in more childish ideological ranting.


There, fixed that for you. :D

Just a joke, folks.

Something is either constitutional or it is unconstitutional. There is no "sort of if rationalized this way".



You really have a warped view of history. More childish ideological ranting.

And for clarification, Martin Luther King was an activist, not a statesmen. To be a statesmen, one has to be part of the state.

Frankly, i've gathered enough of your post to know you have no real concept of the Constitution's purpose to begin with.

I ask, why do you believe ideological men of principles is a "childish"? Were your parents so inept that they didn't teach you what is proper character of a citizen and the importance of strong beneficial beliefs? Or are you in that late adolecent nihilist phase of life where all things must be black and white?

As well you never did two things, more than likely to avoid the point and the flaw in your arguement.

1. Would you prefer if Dubbya or future foolish presidents to be elected for undefined amounts of terms?

2. You never even provided evidence to the contrary of the claim that Rosevelt would be outdone by better canidates such as Eisenhower. Nor, that he is even more deserving than those statesmen in WW2, WW1, Korean conflict, and other periods of the 20th century. All you did was kiss his ass while hypocritically state that I did nothing but criticize his ass.

I saw nothing presented by you to actually prove him to be a worthwhile statesman.

That's an insult, and you know it is. I'm from Hamburg.
And what else would you call the idea of bombing a population into submission by specifically targeting civilian areas with phosphor bombs and the like?

It was actually the docks that were targeted not civilian areas, the problem is when you fly night raids you have to drop a lot of bombs, and they often miss. But at least the RAF trained it's pilots in stellar navigation so they had half a chance of hitting what they were supposed, unlike the luftwaffe who just used pathfinders and beams. Or pilotless ordinance. For Fucks sake, eight airforce used to fly day missions to reduce civilian casualities.

The only people in the wholesale terror bombing business were the germans. It was hitler's stated intention to wipe out all british men over sixteen. Stop acting like the british were the bad people in WWII. They weren't.

So I don't see how it is an insult.

Edit: Oh I get it now. You are pissed off at area bombing. Well they didn't have GPS back then.

Where are you from, Lacadaemon?

Where are you from, Lacadaemon?

New York City.

New York City.

And you're arguing with someone from Germany about where bombs landed in Germany?

And you're arguing with someone from Germany about where bombs landed in Germany?

Well I grew up in england, and my grandfather did fight in that war. Besides that, I don't see how being german necessarily makes you an expert on the intentions of the RAF.

It was actually the docks that were targeted not civilian areas, the problem is when you fly night raids you have to drop a lot of bombs, and they often miss. But at least the RAF trained it's pilots in stellar navigation so they had half a chance of hitting what they were supposed, unlike the luftwaffe who just used pathfinders and beams. Or pilotless ordinance. For Fucks sake, eight airforce used to fly day missions to reduce civilian casualities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gomorrah
And just in case you'll be accusing wiki of bias,
http://www.valourandhorror.com/P_Reply/BC.php#Hamburg
...Although there were important military targets on the outskirts of the city (primarily ship-building and docks), these were targeted only by the Americans (and hit lightly and accidentally by some British `creep-back' bombing)...
And here, something for emotional impact:
http://www.seniorennet-hamburg.de/zeitzeugen/vergessen/english/klank1_eng.htm but you should also look at the bottom, where the official orders of Arthur Harris are recorded.

And that doesn't even cover Dresden, which even "Mr Gas" himself distanced himself from.

Stop acting like the british were the bad people in WWII. They weren't.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/area_bombing_01.shtml

So I don't see how it is an insult.
Well, rest assured that accusing a German of being from the East is an insult to some... :D

Edit: Oh I get it now. You are pissed off at area bombing. Well they didn't have GPS back then.
No, I'm pissed off at people not giving a shit, or excusing it.

Well I grew up in england, and my grandfather did fight in that war.
Mine did too. But on the other side...and I don't think he ever faced the Brits.

Besides that, I don't see how being German necessarily makes you an expert on the intentions of the RAF.
It doesn't, but I've read about the wars for years, and this attempt to declare the whole business a "good vs bad" thing is not a good idea.
The only "good" actors in any war are the civilians, who have nothing to do with the politics but are being declared targets nonetheless.

Frankly, i've gathered enough of your post to know you have no real concept of the Constitution's purpose to begin with.

I have quite a bit of knowledge on the Constitution's "purpose". Anyway I was not really posting on that subject, was I.


I ask, why do you believe ideological men of principles is a "childish"? Were your parents so inept that they didn't teach you what is proper character of a citizen and the importance of strong beneficial beliefs? Or are you in that late adolecent nihilist phase of life where all things must be black and white?


I believe ideology to be one of the great determents to human kind. Ideology is the ignoring of truth in favor of ones own preconceived notions. I am not a nihilist, thank you very much, and as far as I am concerned you are the one who apparently sees things only in black and white.


As well you never did two things, more than likely to avoid the point and the flaw in your arguement.

1. Would you prefer if Dubbya or future foolish presidents to be elected for undefined amounts of terms?

That is a straw man arguement, an amendment was made to the Constitution which prevents the president from seeking reelection to a third term. The merits of terms limits is a matter of structural debate, which has no place here. I also see no reason for you bringing "Dubbya" into this debate,


2. You never even provided evidence to the contrary of the claim that Rosevelt would be outdone by better canidates such as Eisenhower. Nor, that he is even more deserving than those statesmen in WW2, WW1, Korean conflict, and other periods of the 20th century. All you did was kiss his ass while hypocritically state that I did nothing but criticize his ass.

I will only respond to facts. You have presented very few, mainly the attempt to stack the Supreme Court and his having been elected to four terms. Your other "accusations" are too vague to be worth commenting on.

FDR led the United States through the some of the greatest challenges it has ever faced. The only crisis that can be compaired to the period between 1933 and 1945 is the Civil War.


I saw nothing presented by you to actually prove him to be a worthwhile statesman.

I presented some information, but decided to let history speak for itself. To that effect here is the link to the wikipedias entry on FDR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDR

Stressman perhaps? The Golden age of the Wiemar Republic

Though Iam British and Should Say Churchill my Pick is Jan Smuts

the real brainchild behind the League of Nations and Helped to redefine the commonwealth to what is it is today


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Smuts

I vote for the travelling salesman :p

As much as I am loathe to say so, it is indelibly Adolf Hitler. He elevated a minority party of ridicule into pre-eminence, office, and finally sole leadership. He reduced unemployment to nigh on zero, whilst maintaining public discipline and peace for a period of numerous years. Furthermore, he saw Germany ascend to a position of global eminence, and could feasibly have conqured Russia.

Granted, he was deplorable and thoroughly risable, and deserves ever lambasting he has recieved, however his achievements as a statesman are considerable.

As much as I am loathe to say so, it is indelibly Adolf Hitler. He elevated a minority party of ridicule into pre-eminence, office, and finally sole leadership. He reduced unemployment to nigh on zero, whilst maintaining public discipline and peace for a period of numerous years. Furthermore, he saw Germany ascend to a position of global eminence, and could feasibly have conqured Russia.

Granted, he was deplorable and thoroughly risable, and deserves ever lambasting he has recieved, however his achievements as a statesman are considerable.

He led his country to ruin, let us not forget that. From the long term perspective he was an utter failure in everything.

He led his country to ruin, let us not forget that. From the long term perspective he was an utter failure in everything.

He made two critical mistakes; the invasion of the USSR, and the declaration of war upon the USA with no reasonable compulsion to do so. However, had he invaded the USSR with Japan concurrently, he would have won, irrefutably so, and would have been utterly omni-potent.

He made two critical mistakes; the invasion of the USSR, and the declaration of war upon the USA with no reasonable compulsion to do so. However, had he invaded the USSR with Japan concurrently, he would have won, irrefutably so, and would have been utterly omni-potent.

He also killed millions of people through his racist ideology. There is nothing about him which can be considered "great", except the number of people whose lives were destroyed.

Also it does not matter what he "could have done", but what he did. Hitler was one of histories greatest failures.

I have quite a bit of knowledge on the Constitution's "purpose". Anyway I was not really posting on that subject, was I.

Not the point. The Constitution was created for a specific purpose which Rosevelt did try to undermine with his position. You greatly fail to realize this. It was also created by ideological men whom valued principles and then you claim such behavior and traits are detemental to human society. Your brand of thinking has NEVER historically provided such a benevolent tool to man because you try to act inhuman and similarly fail to construct beneficial ideas that will hold to the test of the reality of the human condition. Then you blame humans for ruing and disproving your failed reasoning.

Reasoning has its place. Reasoning that Rosevelt was not adhering to better principles while in the seat of power is valid. You however are claiming that because the Constitution didn't put in specific writing, it automatically validates his ambition. It is a ridiculous concept, especially when you view in what context the document was written for.

Being an extremist with reasoning is anything but reasonable.

I believe ideology to be one of the great determents to human kind. Ideology is the ignoring of truth in favor of ones own preconceived notions. I am not a nihilist, thank you very much, and as far as I am concerned you are the one who apparently sees things only in black and white.

Wrong. I know what the document was designed for. It was designed to prevent allowing specific government offices in power from having unchecked power. Packing the court is contrary to the purpose if you look at the what the Constitution and the federalist papers pointed out was the purpose of the document. This is WHY they had to put it in writing to stop further foolish presidents from using the position to create an even stronger presidency. The mere act of making a Constitutional ammendment to correct Rosevelt is evidence enough that it is not something to be taken likely.

That is a straw man arguement, an amendment was made to the Constitution which prevents the president from seeking reelection to a third term. The merits of terms limits is a matter of structural debate, which has no place here. I also see no reason for you bringing "Dubbya" into this debate,

Its just an argument you wish to avoid because there is a point to my position. Its an appropriate question. You simply don't answer it for a reason. Because if you did acknowledge that presidents like dubbya or worse were able to have longer terms, then you would be hypocritical in criticizing me for realize there is a large problem with Rosevelt not respecting established precedent due to his ambition.

I will only respond to facts. You have presented very few, mainly the attempt to stack the Supreme Court and his having been elected to four terms. Your other "accusations" are too vague to be worth commenting on.

No, you just can't validate why Rosevelt would be better than others yet turn around and bother to attack my position for realizing his behavior in the presidency before the war speaks ill of him as a statesmen. You want facts only, and as such you can't distinguish character traits and history however. Unfortunately, dictators or corrupt individuals like Tom Delay love it if the people they abuse took your line of thinking. Then you bitch about human beings having principles as a detrement. Spare me your hypocrisy.

FDR led the United States through the some of the greatest challenges it has ever faced. The only crisis that can be compaired to the period between 1933 and 1945 is the Civil War.

Quick history lesson. War of 1812. Look it up.

Second, I did not criticize Rosevelt for his war behavior. I do believe an actual dangerous threat to the people finally shaped that ambitious power hungry politican up. But don't fool yourself the new deal really didn't do squat to stop the great depression, just help out the public. The actual war and war machine destroyed the great depression. And he was nothing but an average politican before it. You can offer no proof to dispute my claim.

I presented some information, but decided to let history speak for itself. To that effect here is the link to the wikipedias entry on FDR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDR

I've read it. It doesn't provide your facts to dispute my claim however. Now I'm playing your game.

Not the point. The Constitution was created for a specific purpose which Rosevelt did try to undermine with his position. You greatly fail to realize this. It was also created by ideological men whom valued principles and then you claim such behavior and traits are detemental to human society. Your brand of thinking has NEVER historically provided such a benevolent tool to man because you try to act inhuman and similarly fail to construct beneficial ideas that will hold to the test of the reality of the human condition. Then you blame humans for ruing and disproving your failed reasoning.

I have no idea what you are talking about and neither do you.


Reasoning has its place. Reasoning that Rosevelt was not adhering to better principles while in the seat of power is valid. Claiming because the Constitution didn't put in specific writing validating his ambition is fallacy especially when you view in what context the document was written for.

Being an extremist with reasoning is anything but reasonable.

Your grasping at straws.


Wrong. I know what the document was designed for. It was designed to prevent allowing specific government offices in power from having unchecked power. Packing the court is contrary to the purpose if you look at the what the Constitution and the federalist papers pointed out was the purpose of the document. This is WHY they had to put it in writing to stop further foolish presidents from using the position to create an even stronger presidency. The mere act of making a Constitutional ammendment to correct Rosevelt is evidence enough that it is not something to be taken likely.

I've read the federalist papers and other accounts. There was much dispute over the purposes of the document by the very founders who drafted it when it came to the details. They could'ent agree whether the United States Government had the power to form a bank. Thomis Jefferson wrote about how the States had the power to nulify acts of Congress while George Washinton sent troops to put down the wisky rebellion and Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. So spare me your preconcieved notions of "origional purpose".

I believe that limiting the terms of office, or at least blanket limitation, keeps those of ability and competence from serving the government to their fullest abilities and presents greater oppertunity for those who are corrupt or incompetent to get into power.


Its just an argument you wish to avoid because there is a point to my position. Its an appropriate question. You simply don't answer it for a reason. Because if you did acknowledge that presidents like dubbya or worse were able to have longer terms, then you would be hypocritical in criticizing me for realize there is a large problem with Rosevelt not respecting established precedent due to his ambition.



No, you just can't validate why Rosevelt would be better than others yet turn around and bother to attack my position for realizing his behavior in the presidency before the war speaks ill of him as a statesmen. You want facts only, and as such you can't distinguish character traits and history however. Unfortunately, dictators or corrupt individuals like Tom Delay love it if the people they abuse took your line of thinking. Then you bitch about human beings having principles as a detrement. Spare me your hypocrisy.

What the hell are you talking about? By the way character traits are part of history. And I did not mention "principles" (what ever you mean by that), I was talking about Ideology.


Quick history lesson. War of 1812. Look it up.

That was an unneccesary war fought against England while it was busy dealing with the Naplononic wars. The English considered it to be a "silly" conflict and spent few resources on it. The United States, although at risk, did was not threatened with total dustruction. Also the war of !812 did not threaten the world with a new dark age, like WWII.


Second, I did not criticize Rosevelt for his war behavior. I do believe an actual dangerous threat to the people finally shaped that ambitious power hungry politican up. But don't fool yourself the new deal really didn't do squat to stop the great depression, just help out the public. The actual war and war machine destroyed the great depression. And he was nothing but an average politican before it. You can offer no proof to dispute my claim.


Go to a libary and read about it (and all the progress which occured during that period) or go talk to some of the people who lived during that time! Or better yet go around the country and see the buildings built by the CCC.


I've read it. It doesn't provide your facts to dispute my claim however. Now I'm playing your game.

This is not a game and I am not going to bother trying to please you.

As much as I am loathe to say so, it is indelibly Adolf Hitler. He elevated a minority party of ridicule into pre-eminence, office, and finally sole leadership. He reduced unemployment to nigh on zero, whilst maintaining public discipline and peace for a period of numerous years. Furthermore, he saw Germany ascend to a position of global eminence, and could feasibly have conqured Russia.

Granted, he was deplorable and thoroughly risable, and deserves ever lambasting he has recieved, however his achievements as a statesman are considerable.

I would actually agree with you there except for one thing: anybody stupid enough to attack Russia in the winter deserves to live in infamy and be laughed at for eternity. A country willing to sacrifice 20 million lives to turn you away - and one that would rather burn their crops than chance them getting into the wrong hands - is not one that you should be entering in any weather. When it's so cold you can't even bring your tanks, you've got problems.

I would actually agree with you there except for one thing: anybody stupid enough to attack Russia in the winter deserves to live in infamy and be laughed at for eternity. A country willing to sacrifice 20 million lives to turn you away - and one that would rather burn their crops than chance them getting into the wrong hands - is not one that you should be entering in any weather. When it's so cold you can't even bring your tanks, you've got problems.
Well, the idea was never to actually fight in the winter.

The attack was started on the 22nd of June, presumably because planning and bringing troops into position had taken longer than anticipated.
The Italians had started shit on the Balcans and the Germans had to go and clean it up first.
So about 2.6 million men, battling along until they almost reach Moscow, but then it started to rain - and in Russia that means mud deep enough to make a tank disappear.
So they got stuck, and then it froze, and crushed the tanks that were stuck. And because the plan had been to take Moscow before the Winter (and that had looked possible against all odds), the Germans weren't equipped properly.

So for the first two years it looked something like this:
Summer: Germans go forward, Battles of Kiev, Moscow etc
Winter: Russians go forward.
Summer: Germans go forward, take Sevastopol, Stalingrad, Caucasus
Winter: Germans get their arse kicked in Stalingrad
Summer: Germans try and attack, but Russians do to - Kursk etc
Winter: Germans need to move back.
Summer: Same...

A "statesman" thinks about the world and not just his own area. As such isn't always loved by his own.

1. Pope John Paul II
2. Pope John XXIII
3. Mohammed Ali
4. Marshall
5. Jimmy Carter

I have no idea what you are talking about and neither do you.

Your grasping at straws.

I've read the federalist papers and other accounts. There was much dispute over the purposes of the document by the very founders who drafted it when it came to the details. They could'ent agree whether the United States Government had the power to form a bank. Thomis Jefferson wrote about how the States had the power to nulify acts of Congress while George Washinton sent troops to put down the wisky rebellion and Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. So spare me your preconcieved notions of "origional purpose".

I believe that limiting the terms of office, or at least blanket limitation, keeps those of ability and competence from serving the government to their fullest abilities and presents greater oppertunity for those who are corrupt or incompetent to get into power.


What the hell are you talking about? By the way character traits are part of history. And I did not mention "principles" (what ever you mean by that), I was talking about Ideology.



That was an unneccesary war fought against England while it was busy dealing with the Naplononic wars. The English considered it to be a "silly" conflict and spent few resources on it. The United States, although at risk, did was not threatened with total dustruction. Also the war of !812 did not threaten the world with a new dark age, like WWII.



Go to a libary and read about it (and all the progress which occured during that period) or go talk to some of the people who lived during that time! Or better yet go around the country and see the buildings built by the CCC.



This is not a game and I am not going to bother trying to please you.

1. Let me get this straight. You are saying you have NO damned idea why packing the supreme court is overriding the checks and balance system. Alright. I'll let it go because you can't grasp that simple concept. However, this is the biggest reason is why he gets the red marks for statesmenship behavior.

2. You will avoid the question with your damned claims about straws. Therefore you forefit. Because your afraid of looking like a hypocrite, even though you are anyway, about to many presidential terms being dangerous in the hands of fools.

3. They did have to discuss it. However, there is a CLEAR central theme which you ignore that Rosevelt did put at risk. Seperate government branches with a checks and balance system to prevent one branch from becoming to powerful. Though Adams was the only one to really abuse his position with the Alien and Sedition act which SHOULD be criticized and DOES reduce his reputation as a leader despite his great contributions before, the others had valid reasons to discuss the issue. Such as the threat the debt posed due to foreign and domestic entities, the uprising of the citizens not wanting to pay tax to relieve the serious debt issue, to even the discussion of the powers of the state. Jefferson HAD to address this because they were serious issues that needed to be addressed. They were the "national debt" of that day and age. Mind you the states were still beginning to form into a federation. They didn't just go ass wild like as Rosevelt and Adams. Why bring up this? You are.. how do you say... only grabbing straws.

In anycase, Rosevelt had NO reason to go for more terms due to the situation of the government at that time. NONE. A new president can address the debt. No reason to be such a power hungry bastard.

3. Your a fool. If anything it is the oppisite. The more one stays in power, the more instances that will be naturally presented him in office to abuse or misuse that power and get used to it. That IS what makes career politicans.

4. Yeah, we only had our capital burned and were possibly saved by a hurricane or freak storm on the night of the razing. Nothing to scoff at from my opinion. And as a US citizen, to lose the US, is to LOSE the US. I don't really give a crap if it is lost in a small conflict or in a massive war. Losing the country and its principles is LOSING the country and its principles. I live in Texas, not Mexico thanks to the US. Nevermind the fact that THIS aspect is pointless. However the US had faced this threat which was on par.

5. Yeah, I have read about it. However, the great depression itself was removed because of the War. You really can't dispute that because the war removed any evidence to prove whether the new deal would be effective in eliminating it. The great depression really just needed a great war to turn it off the economic rut situation so quickly. If anything, I'd give more credit to Keynes. His theory, thus why it is called Keynes economics. Not New Deal economics.

6. I fucking read it already. It still isn't proof to make him superceed other statesmen. Did you not understand? Your claim is as baseless as mine, yet you ignore that point. Rosevelt made some serious blunders while he was in office. Other statesmen in the 20th century did not.

Mine did too. But on the other side...and I don't think he ever faced the Brits.


It doesn't, but I've read about the wars for years, and this attempt to declare the whole business a "good vs bad" thing is not a good idea.
The only "good" actors in any war are the civilians, who have nothing to do with the politics but are being declared targets nonetheless.

From your source:


TOP SECRET: Bomber Command Operation Orders, No.173. Issued May 27th 1943.
1) The importance of Hamburg, the second biggest city in Germany with a population of one and a half million, is well-known and need not be especially emphasized. The total destruction of this city would produce immense results through the reduction in the industrial capacity of the enemy's war machine. This would, together with the effect on the German moral which will be felt throughout the entire land, play a very important role in the shortening of the war and thereby, in winning it.

Say what you like, the primary goal of area bombing was not just killing civilians, it was degredation of war-fighting capacity. Maybe it didn't work, but there it is.

And maybe you are pissed off that no-one gives a shit about area bombing, but what do you expect people are going to do when Reichskanzler Hitler tells them that when he wins he is going to deport the entire male population between 14-65 to forced labor camps in another country.

Also, yeah there is a good v. bad thing to WWII. Only the ethically crippled could view Nazi Germany as the same as the western allies. This can easily seen by how each party treated those in occupied territories respectively (the holocaust notwithstanding).

My real complaint about the allies is that they didn't invade in 1936 and hang that son of a bitch there and then, but Churchill - who advocated this policy, and whom you seem to have this irrational dislike for - was in the wilderness at this point. Then again, this was mostly because they had learned to eschew war so much from their experience during the first german effort at creating a european empire and they were overly timid.

I am not going to claim the allies were perfect, but to argue that they were morally the same as the Nazis or the Japanese is just ridiculous.

Also, your moniker of Mr Gas for Churchill, is totally inappropriate. When I think of poison gas being used on people, for some reason the RAF and the british don't spring to mind.

1. Let me get this straight. You are saying you have NO damned idea why packing the supreme court is overriding the checks and balance system. Alright. I'll let it go because you can't grasp that simple concept. However, this is the biggest reason is why he gets the red marks for statesmenship behavior.

Everything FDR did was LEGAL, mistakes may have been made concerning the attempt to pack the court, but it was LEGAL. FDR never violated the constitution. Give me one example where he broke the LAW!


2. You will avoid the question with your damned claims about straws. Therefore you forefit. Because your afraid of looking like a hypocrite, even though you are anyway, about to many presidential terms being dangerous in the hands of fools.

I have already answered, your assertions are meaningless. FDR running for a third and fourth term was legal and neccessary. Also you are not a moderator for this arguement and have no grounds to say whether or not I have forfited.


3. They did have to discuss it. However, there is a CLEAR central theme which you ignore that Rosevelt did put at risk. Seperate government branches with a checks and balance system to prevent one branch from becoming to powerful. Though Adams was the only one to really abuse his position with the Alien and Sedition act which SHOULD be criticized and DOES reduce his reputation as a leader despite his great contributions before, the others had valid reasons to discuss the issue. Such as the threat the debt posed due to foreign and domestic entities, the uprising of the citizens not wanting to pay tax to relieve the serious debt issue, to even the discussion of the powers of the state. Jefferson HAD to address this because they were serious issues that needed to be addressed. They were the "national debt" of that day and age. Mind you the states were still beginning to form into a federation. They didn't just go ass wild like as Rosevelt and Adams. Why bring up this? You are.. how do you say... only grabbing straws.

Rosevelt expanded the power of government and the Presidency, but it was neccessary to combat wide spread social problems and international conflict. America after the Second World War was left with a Strong State which was capable of carrying out widespread social change. It must be ironic, from your perspective, that Rosevelt appointed the Supreme Court Justices that would begin to expand the power of the Judiciary to unimagened heights (resulting in the conservative backlash of judical activism).


In anycase, Rosevelt had NO reason to go for more terms due to the situation of the government at that time. NONE. A new president can address the debt. No reason to be such a power hungry bastard.

It was not a "debt", it was economic collapse with the spector of World War approaching.


3. Your a fool. If anything it is the oppisite. The more one stays in power, the more instances that will be naturally presented him in office to abuse or misuse that power and get used to it. That IS what makes career politicans.


To become President, one has to be in some ways a career politician... Anyway I repeat, the merits of term limits has no place here.


4. Yeah, we only had our capital burned and were possibly saved by a hurricane or freak storm on the night of the razing. Nothing to scoff at from my opinion. And as a US citizen, to lose the US, is to LOSE the US. I don't really give a crap if it is lost in a small conflict or in a massive war. Losing the country and its principles is LOSING the country and its principles. I live in Texas, not Mexico thanks to the US. Nevermind the fact that THIS aspect is pointless. However the US had faced this threat which was on par.

The United States was never threatened with destruction even if it lost the war, the American-Canadian border and shipping lanes/fishing areas would have been adjusted. And it was a war of agression waged by fools who wanted to counqure Canada and incorporate it into the Union.


5. Yeah, I have read about it. However, the great depression itself was removed because of the War. You really can't dispute that because the war removed any evidence to prove whether the new deal would be effective in eliminating it. The great depression really just needed a great war to turn it off the economic rut situation so quickly. If anything, I'd give more credit to Keynes. His theory, thus why it is called Keynes economics. Not New Deal economics.

The New Deal was more then economic adjustments, it was the redefineing of the Social Contract. It was the raiseing of living standirds, the creation of social safety nets, the modernization of the nation through advanced public works projects, public houseing, the providing of support for workers seeking collective bargining, the minimum wage, Federal support for arts and culture, est. est. It was the laying the ground work for the strong proggressive State and revolutionary mentality which would move the nation forward on such issues as civil rights, the protection and advancement of minorities and the sexual revolution.


6. I fucking read it already. It still isn't proof to make him superceed other statesmen. Did you not understand? Your claim is as baseless as mine, yet you ignore that point. Rosevelt made some serious blunders while he was in office. Other statesmen in the 20th century did not.

So you admit your claim to be baseless...

Although the attempt to pack the court was a mistake, it was not a serious blunder that in no way disqualifies him. I by the way am not trying to convince you of anything, as I have since given up on that. Ignorance however must always be answered.

...when Reichskanzler Hitler tells them that when he wins he is going to deport the entire male population between 14-65 to forced labor camps in another country...
Do you have a quote for that? Cuz he didn't do it for France, or for Poland, or for the Soviets (although many from the latter were deported).

Also, yeah there is a good v. bad thing to WWII. Only the ethically crippled could view Nazi Germany as the same as the western allies. This can easily seen by how each party treated those in occupied territories respectively (the holocaust notwithstanding).
You might have to revisit what "good" means. "Good" doesn't mean "better". I agree that the Nazis were worse than the Western Allies, and probably than the Soviet Forces too.
But that doesn't automatically qualify people who bombed entire cities into dust (and note the sentence that follows your highlighted one in your quote) as "good".
Both sides sucked, one just sucked more than the other.

I hate to jump in but I will...

Do you have a quote for that? Cuz he didn't do it for France, or for Poland, or for the Soviets (although many from the latter were deported).

Hitler planned the utter enslavement of the slavs to provide labor for the German master race. Mean while there was an artifical famine created by the war and a campain of extermination against the Russian Jewish population.


You might have to revisit what "good" means. "Good" doesn't mean "better". I agree that the Nazis were worse than the Western Allies, and probably than the Soviet Forces too.
But that doesn't automatically qualify people who bombed entire cities into dust (and note the sentence that follows your highlighted one in your quote) as "good".
Both sides sucked, one just sucked more than the other.

So the Democratic, liberal, Constitutional west was less worse then the German Nazi Superstate and it's allies?

Hitler planned the utter enslavement of the slavs to provide labor for the German master race. Mean while there was an artifical famine created by the war and a campain of extermination against the Russian Jewish population.
Indeed. Followed by the complete extinction of the Slavs (I think the word actually comes from the Germanic word for "Slave"...).
How that affects Britain though is not clear.

So the Democratic, liberal, Constitutional west was less worse then the German Nazi Superstate and it's allies?
In a moral sense...yes.
In a linguistic sense, that may lead to misunderstandings...:p

Indeed. Followed by the complete extinction of the Slavs (I think the word actually comes from the Germanic word for "Slave"...).
How that affects Britain though is not clear.

The wish to stop the victimization of fellow human beings and the conquest of Eurasia by a hostile power.


In a moral sense...yes.
In a linguistic sense, that may lead to misunderstandings...:p

:confused: , what is that supposed to mean. Is that not going into cultural relativism at its most bankrupt.

The wish to stop the victimization of fellow human beings and the conquest of Eurasia by a hostile power.
Perhaps, but the question was about Hitler wanting to deport all British men into labour camps. And I'd never heard of that, so the lingering suspicion remains.

:confused: , what is that supposed to mean. Is that not going into cultural relativism at its most bankrupt.
Not necessarily. I can say that I find one culture better than another (like the culture of Ghana). When now morally bancrupt Germany fights morally bancrupt Britain, then I can say both suck (compared to Ghana), but that one is worse than the other.

That being said, the alternative to cultural relativism is cultural imperialism, and the racism that all too often comes into that as well.
I myself would think myself more on the relativist side. Perhaps that is a thing that comes from my "German-ness", given that there is no patriotism (outside the football pitch) in our country.

Not necessarily. I can say that I find one culture better than another (like the culture of Ghana). When now morally bancrupt Germany fights morally bancrupt Britain, then I can say both suck (compared to Ghana), but that one is worse than the other.

How was Britain morally bankrupt in the conflict? (just curiose as to your perspective)


That being said, the alternative to cultural relativism is cultural imperialism, and the racism that all too often comes into that as well.
I myself would think myself more on the relativist side. Perhaps that is a thing that comes from my "German-ness", given that there is no patriotism (outside the football pitch) in our country.

I disagree, just because there is no inherent morality and morals are relative, that does not mean one cannot make judgements without being "imperialistic".

How was Britain morally bankrupt in the conflict? (just curiose as to your perspective)
Well, the bombings of civilian areas comes to mind (and it is naive to assume that there was no element of hatred and payback in there), the shooting of German prisoners and SS, especially if they weren't wearing proper uniforms.
It was not the kind of conduct you would expect from those that hold the moral high ground.
Harris said at the start of the bombing campaign that he was unleashing on Germany "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." In his memoires he writes "In spite of all that happened at Hamburg, bombing proved a relatively humane method".
"There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders." The New York Times reported at the time, "Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, commander of the B-29's of the entire Marianas area, declared that if the war is shortened by a single day the attack will have served its purpose."

I disagree, just because there is no inherent morality and morals are relative, that does not mean one cannot make judgements without being "imperialistic".
Think about it - is it not the logical cosequence?

If you consider British culture superior to Namibian culture in every way, or at least most ways, then it would be the logical choice to try and make Namibians better by making them conform to British culture, correct?

It's the same idea that came from the early colonists and later imperialists: Helping the savages by converting them to our faith/way of life.

Think about it - is it not the logical cosequence?

If you consider British culture superior to Namibian culture in every way, or at least most ways, then it would be the logical choice to try and make Namibians better by making them conform to British culture, correct?

It's the same idea that came from the early colonists and later imperialists: Helping the savages by converting them to our faith/way of life.

First of all, some cultures have elements that are superior to other cultures. I can give many examples without being imperialistic. Second what do you define as "culture", do you mean language/social norms or do you mean form of government, concepts of human rights, the rule of law, est.? What is culture in the end but ways of social organization that can be and should be changed for the better?

First of all, some cultures have elements that are superior to other cultures. I can give many examples without being imperialistic.
The question here would then be what you define to be "superior".

Second what do you define as "culture", do you mean language/social norms or do you mean form of government, concepts of human rights, the rule of law, est.? What is culture in the end but ways of social organization that can be and should be changed for the better?
I'd mean the former, but you said "cultural relativism".
The problem is that we are in no position to know what is "better". There are lines that I draw where I'd be willing to push for change, but these are few and far between.
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2004-06/nigeria.html

The question here would then be what you define to be "superior".

That which maximizes pleasure/happieness and minimizes pain. That which reduces fear and ignorance.


I'd mean the former, but you said "cultural relativism".
The problem is that we are in no position to know what is "better".

Cannot the consquences and empirical effects speak for themselves?

Do you have a quote for that? Cuz he didn't do it for France, or for Poland, or for the Soviets (although many from the latter were deported).

Yah, Brauchitsch's 9 September 1940 Orders Concerning the Organization and Functioning of a Military Governmen in England. I can't find a link for it, it's in Shirer (p. 782) though, along with a list of the other goodies Hitler had planned for a defeated England, like appointing Dr. Hans Six to "eliminate" anti-german sentiment in conquered England. (Though I confess to error, the males to be interned and deported were age 17-45, a smaller range than I had originally remembered).

The wholesale looting of england was planned too.

As for the occupation of Poland, though it wasn't run along the identical lines, if you weren't of ethnic german stock, you basically ended up as slave labor, starved to death, or shot.

You might have to revisit what "good" means. "Good" doesn't mean "better". I agree that the Nazis were worse than the Western Allies, and probably than the Soviet Forces too.
But that doesn't automatically qualify people who bombed entire cities into dust (and note the sentence that follows your highlighted one in your quote) as "good".
Both sides sucked, one just sucked more than the other.

I don't think I do have to revisit it. World War II - in Europe at least - was completely started by the Germans, who were quite clearly intent upon exterminating everything that wasn't german or "nordic". Hitler didn't even hide his plan, he published it before he got to power. Further, he only got away with it because France and Britian had so thoroughly renounced war (something that you are so proud of germany for doing now) after the last go around. At the very least, had they been less naive, Germany could never have developed such a lead in munitions and millitary manpower.

And spare me the whole germany was forced into WWII by versailles. It wasn't. The reparations weren't even being collected by the time germany started to re-arm.

So no both sides didn't "suck" as you put it. One side was okay, if a little weak at the knees. But you also have to remember that by that point, france was suffering (as was england to a lesser extent) the downline effects of WWI, so they didn't have a lot of cards to play with. Moreover, it's frankly ironic that a german would complain about area bombing.

The way you go on however, you'd think the Morgenthau plan was actually implemented.

(What is interesting however, is that some I know said to me only about a month ago that: "in fifty years time, the prevailing wisdom will be that WWII was all britian's fault, and Hitler was actually quite a nice bloke and the whole thing was just a terrible misunderstanding, or at the very least both sides were to blame." How prescient.)

And spare me the whole germany was forced into WWII by versailles. It wasn't. The reparations weren't even being collected by the time germany started to re-arm.
Well, you don't have to believe me...you can believe the people who actually watched the negotiating:
This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.
John Maynard Keyes (www.olin.wustl.edu/workingpapers/pdf/2004-10-011.pdf)
Fact is that Germany did not start the first World War, and that it never saw itself as truly beaten. That the Allies would impress their vanity on it was obviously enough to create the climate in which someone like Hitler could thrive.

And as far as Churchill is concerned, look what I found:
One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.
"Hitler and His Choice", The Strand Magazine (November 1935)

We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon the world another war in which civilization will irretrievably succumb, or whether he will down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the Great Germanic nation.
"Hitler and His Choice", The Strand Magazine (November 1935)

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected... We cannot, in any circumstances acquiesce to the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier.
Statement as president of the Air Council, War Office Departmental Minute (12 May 1919); Churchill Papers 16/16, Churchill Archives Centre, Cambridge.


So no both sides didn't "suck" as you put it. One side was okay, if a little weak at the knees.
I can't hope to convince you otherwise, it seems like you would openly ignore what is put before rather than admit that Britain behaved just as barbaric as pretty much every other nation in war.

Moreover, it's frankly ironic that a german would complain about area bombing.
Yeah, cuz, you know it was your family that fled into the bunker, and it was your grandmother who's still got the burn scars on her arms and legs-

The way you go on however, you'd think the Morgenthau plan was actually implemented.
Well, you needed someone to die first if the Russians attacked.

Well, you don't have to believe me...you can believe the people who actually watched the negotiating:

John Maynard Keyes (www.olin.wustl.edu/workingpapers/pdf/2004-10-011.pdf)
Fact is that Germany did not start the first World War, and that it never saw itself as truly beaten. That the Allies would impress their vanity on it was obviously enough to create the climate in which someone like Hitler could thrive.

Read "Paris 1919".


I can't hope to convince you otherwise, it seems like you would openly ignore what is put before rather than admit that Britain behaved just as barbaric as pretty much every other nation in war.

England and America did not send people into the letal chamber just because of their ethnic or religous background, in fact they did not send people into the letal chamber, period.


Yeah, cuz, you know it was your family that fled into the bunker, and it was your grandmother who's still got the burn scars on her arms and legs-

Sad, but the war was started by your government, and it did not hold back in its attempts to achieve victory.

Winston Churchill, perhaps.

I think you mean "Winston Churchill of course".

So count my vote for him as well.

England and America did not send people into the letal chamber just because of their ethnic or religous background, in fact they did not send people into the letal chamber, period...Sad, but the war was started by your government, and it did not hold back in its attempts to achieve victory.
Don't you want to understand it?

Nazi Germany was worse than the Allies. It was more morally bancrupt than the other side. We can be glad that the Allies won the war.

But

The good guys do not bomb civilians. Civilians of any kind are never (that meaning "not ever") legitimate military targets. The civilians all over Germany that were bombed were no different to the civilians bombed in the rest of Europe.

So the good guys do not do collateral damage. They'd say "Either we can do it without collateral damage, or we can't do it at all."
Such people don't exist in the real world, and that is why no one is ever a good guy.
Every single country or person who's ever gone to war was morally bancrupt - some moreso than others. And since we don't live in a Hollywood movie or a Saturday morning superhero cartoon show, no war ever featured a "good side". Period.

Don't you want to understand it?

Nazi Germany was worse than the Allies. It was more morally bancrupt than the other side. We can be glad that the Allies won the war.

But

The good guys do not bomb civilians. Civilians of any kind are never (that meaning "not ever") legitimate military targets. The civilians all over Germany that were bombed were no different to the civilians bombed in the rest of Europe.

On what do you base this absolutist statement. (note: I do not believe in good or evil)


Such people don't exist in the real world, and that is why no one is ever a good guy.
Every single country or person who's ever gone to war was morally bancrupt - some moreso than others. And since we don't live in a Hollywood movie or a Saturday morning superhero cartoon show, no war ever featured a "good side". Period.

Please state how a person who goes to war can be moraly bankrupt, what do you base that upon.


So the good guys do not do collateral damage. They'd say "Either we can do it without collateral damage, or we can't do it at all."

The world is not this perfect place and you need to realize that. Saying every person who goes to war or every nation which uses violence in its self-defense "is morally bankrupt" smacks of immature utopianism and is a rationally bankrupt position.

The good guys do not bomb civilians. Civilians of any kind are never (that meaning "not ever") legitimate military targets. The civilians all over Germany that were bombed were no different to the civilians bombed in the rest of Europe.


Obviously they weren't; given your earlier statements about WWI. Anyway, how many tonnes of food did German civilians donate to feed the people in the german occupied territories?

Yah, so, sorry about your Grossmutti and all. And I only say this bearing in mind that the VI and VII bombs were armed with kisses, kittens and butterflies.:rolleyes:

On what do you base this absolutist statement. (note: I do not believe in good or evil)
Well, in that case it is pretty obvious that there were no good guys in the war, and you agree with me.
If you did believe in good and evil though (and I'm not actually using "good" and "evil" in any way other than what you would generally define it if you asked the average person on the street), the good would be the absence of evil, just like evil is the absence of good.
And since we should generally agree that bombing civilians is "evil", someone who does it can't be "good".

Please state how a person who goes to war can be moraly bankrupt, what do you base that upon.
They go and kill people, and not only soldiers. Every war so far (to my knowledge at least) has claimed civilian lives.
Involving them for any reason, because you reckon it's acceptable on tactical or strategic grounds, or because you think you're right because the other side started it, or whatever, is not the way a "moral" person would behave.
It is, so to speak, unethical to involve those that have no part in the war.

The world is not this perfect place and you need to realize that. Saying every person who goes to war or every nation which uses violence in its self-defense "is morally bankrupt" smacks of immature utopianism and is a rationally bankrupt position.
Yes, because having ideals is such an immature thing.
But I might as well disregard them, and just accept that gassing the Jews was okay because it had some sort of strategic justification, and it happened, and I can't change it now, can I?
And I did not say that going to war per sé is an immoral thing. Involving those that did not sign up for military service, that never asked to be involved in battle, that for the most part don't understand the tactical or strategic situation, involving them is not the "right" thing to do.
The average German civilians believed their leadership just like the Brits believed theirs, or the Soviets theirs. That does not make them accomplices to crimes, and my problem is not with the British people (who had no more part in the bombing of civilians than the Germans had in bombing London), but with the British leadership who made it happen.

Yah, so, sorry about your Grossmutti and all. And I only say this bearing in mind that the VI and VII bombs were armed with kisses, kittens and butterflies.:rolleyes:
Is that because she fired them at you?

England and America did not send people into the letal chamber just because of their ethnic or religous background, in fact they did not send people into the letal chamber, period.Actually, Britain, and later America, waged a bombing campaign against the German population from 1942 on. The idea was to kill as many Germans as possible in order to get them to stop the war. Incendiary devices were used with the express desire to create firestorms, massive phenomena that would not only scorch anything in their viscinity, but also burn away the oxygen and suffocate anyone still safe in their basement.
There were about 9 to 10 Germans killed in an air raid for every British citizen (including V1 and V2 attacks).
So while the British and Americans didn't send people to gas chambers or do a lot of barbaric things the Germans did, they were far from being Angels.
Sad, but the war was started by your government, and it did not hold back in its attempts to achieve victory.Please don't assume that this was Leonstein's government. It's rather insulting to Germans.

Everything FDR did was LEGAL, mistakes may have been made concerning the attempt to pack the court, but it was LEGAL. FDR never violated the constitution. Give me one example where he broke the LAW!



I have already answered, your assertions are meaningless. FDR running for a third and fourth term was legal and neccessary. Also you are not a moderator for this arguement and have no grounds to say whether or not I have forfited.



Rosevelt expanded the power of government and the Presidency, but it was neccessary to combat wide spread social problems and international conflict. America after the Second World War was left with a Strong State which was capable of carrying out widespread social change. It must be ironic, from your perspective, that Rosevelt appointed the Supreme Court Justices that would begin to expand the power of the Judiciary to unimagened heights (resulting in the conservative backlash of judical activism).



It was not a "debt", it was economic collapse with the spector of World War approaching.



To become President, one has to be in some ways a career politician... Anyway I repeat, the merits of term limits has no place here.



The United States was never threatened with destruction even if it lost the war, the American-Canadian border and shipping lanes/fishing areas would have been adjusted. And it was a war of agression waged by fools who wanted to counqure Canada and incorporate it into the Union.



The New Deal was more then economic adjustments, it was the redefineing of the Social Contract. It was the raiseing of living standirds, the creation of social safety nets, the modernization of the nation through advanced public works projects, public houseing, the providing of support for workers seeking collective bargining, the minimum wage, Federal support for arts and culture, est. est. It was the laying the ground work for the strong proggressive State and revolutionary mentality which would move the nation forward on such issues as civil rights, the protection and advancement of minorities and the sexual revolution.



So you admit your claim to be baseless...

Although the attempt to pack the court was a mistake, it was not a serious blunder that in no way disqualifies him. I by the way am not trying to convince you of anything, as I have since given up on that. Ignorance however must always be answered.

It doesn't matter if technically its legal. It is an abuse of power. And the technicallity comes from the fact that 200 years ago, they were stating specifically that it is congress that has the power to do it. That is the problem. Porkbarreling is legal, but abusing it the most because it is legal doesn't make for a great statesmen.

Tom Delay can use your fucking argument. You going to say he's a great statesmen to?

2. Buddy, so are yours. Here's the problem your just a damned hypocrite. I also asked a hypothetical question and you refuse to comment. Why do you refuse to comment? You can make all this "Its meaningless" excuses you want. You've quickly participated in useless arguments such as the 1812 matter. At this point, its just obvious you know its going to fuck up your argument.

3. Still it was Keynes theory. Second, it isn't ironic. I do not care about how the system's assertions, as long as the system is followed. If it follows the checks and balance system, then in the future if it sways, it is simply a swing of the conservative/liberal pendulum.

4. Whoops, I saw that. I do stand corrected with the economic collapse issue. However a new president would have been able to deal with it.

5. Sorry but the "merits of term limits" do have a place here. We are talking about Rosevelt after all.

6. Nope. Madison was the president. He wasn't a war-monger. The reason for the war was the imprisonment of American citizens by the brits as well as the fact the British were not leaving forts on US territory. Need I remind you the whole belief at the time of social contract and reason for the government was to provide protection for the citizens that live by it. Learn some history. And unfortunately, the loss of the US capital by razing doesn't exactly provide any of your yammering with evidence that the country wasn't any under threat of distruction.

7. The new deal was Keynes' credit for all I care.

8. Buddy, YOU ASKED WHY. Perhaps you should go back a few pages and realize you brought this claim out.

9. It does. By the way, when are you going to give Tom Delay, Bush, Rove, Bush the first (soft money abuse), and Ted Kennedy a blowjob? They'd like you.

Well, in that case it is pretty obvious that there were no good guys in the war, and you agree with me.
If you did believe in good and evil though (and I'm not actually using "good" and "evil" in any way other than what you would generally define it if you asked the average person on the street), the good would be the absence of evil, just like evil is the absence of good.
And since we should generally agree that bombing civilians is "evil", someone who does it can't be "good".

Since we have already established that there is no inherent morality, what do you base your absolutist assertions on? Does not all these moral statements you have made come down to your opinion? Also I reject the terms good and evil as defined by the man in the street (who ever that is).


They go and kill people, and not only soldiers. Every war so far (to my knowledge at least) has claimed civilian lives.
Involving them for any reason, because you reckon it's acceptable on tactical or strategic grounds, or because you think you're right because the other side started it, or whatever, is not the way a "moral" person would behave.
It is, so to speak, unethical to involve those that have no part in the war.


What determines whether someone is "involved" or not (for example the Japanese government had it's citizens construct explosive filled balloons and manufacture primitive guns for the military)? Also how do you define a moral person?


Yes, because having ideals is such an immature thing.

Absolutist ideals leave no room for complexity or compromise in a world which requires it. Also absolutist ideas and ideals have been responsible for a fair share of the worlds wars.


But I might as well disregard them, and just accept that gassing the Jews was okay because it had some sort of strategic justification, and it happened, and I can't change it now, can I?

Do you believe in the judgement of the human individual? Do you believe in personal responsibility? Also you did not answer my earlier question:

Cannot the consquences and empirical effects speak for themselves?


And I did not say that going to war per sé is an immoral thing. Involving those that did not sign up for military service, that never asked to be involved in battle, that for the most part don't understand the tactical or strategic situation, involving them is not the "right" thing to do.
The average German civilians believed their leadership just like the Brits believed theirs, or the Soviets theirs. That does not make them accomplices to crimes, and my problem is not with the British people (who had no more part in the bombing of civilians than the Germans had in bombing London), but with the British leadership who made it happen.


Please define for me in detail what you hold to be "right" and "wrong".

Actually, Britain, and later America, waged a bombing campaign against the German population from 1942 on. The idea was to kill as many Germans as possible in order to get them to stop the war. Incendiary devices were used with the express desire to create firestorms, massive phenomena that would not only scorch anything in their viscinity, but also burn away the oxygen and suffocate anyone still safe in their basement.
There were about 9 to 10 Germans killed in an air raid for every British citizen (including V1 and V2 attacks).
So while the British and Americans didn't send people to gas chambers or do a lot of barbaric things the Germans did, they were far from being Angels.


I never claimed that the allies were angels. There is no such thing as a perfect human being, there never has been one, there never will be one.


Please don't assume that this was Leonstein's government. It's rather insulting to Germans.

Perhaps the wording was a bit off, but the Nazi State was the German government at the time (1933-1945), just as the USSR's Communist State was the government of Russia and the other former Soviet nations (1920s-1991).

Since we have already established that there is no inherent morality, what do you base your absolutist assertions on?
Which assertions?
That Britain and the Western Allies weren't the "good guys" is the only thing that I remember asserting.
The rest was certainly not absolute, that is down to my belief as to how war should be fought.

What determines whether someone is "involved" or not (for example the Japanese government had it's citizens construct explosive filled balloons and manufacture primitive guns for the military)? Also how do you define a moral person?
I really don't care whether the Japanese built, stored, or loaded the guns. As long as they don't actually shoot at your men, they are civilians, and as such not military personnel.
Rules of war apply to the killing of civilians, namely that it's just not on.
As far as collateral damage is concerned, that is not illegal, but in my view still wrong.

Do you believe in the judgement of the human individual?
In many cases, yes. In many others, no.

Do you believe in personal responsibility?
Yes, a person should be held accountable for their actions. Killing civilians (especially if the intent is not clear) is something that both the leadership and the people who followed the orders should be held accountable for.

Also you did not answer my earlier question:

Cannot the consquences and empirical effects speak for themselves?
Of the result of the war?
Yes, obviously. How often do I have to say that I'm glad the Allies won, if not for myself than at least for the rest of the world that would have had to suffer.
That being said, I wouldn't mind Britain and the other Allies facing up to this part of their past as well. Germany has done plenty of facing up, even Russia has to some extent.
Yet you still have millions of people in Britain, in the US etc believing that they were somehow the virtuous "good guys", and that the bombings could not be legitimately called "terror bombings".
Which is, I believe, what started this whole argument in the first place.

Please define for me in detail what you hold to be "right" and "wrong".
And what's the point? You're obviously going to disagree, and we'll be no further.
And besides, I think I made it pretty clear as far as this topic is concerned.

Reading through this thread, there's one important thing that I think everyone needs to remember:
The question was 'Greatest statesman of the 20th century'
Greatest means (among other things):

Superior in quality or character, noble;
Powerful; influential;
Eminent.

Now that pretty much eliminates people like Hitler and Stalin. Sure they were important and influential (arguably two of the most influential - along with Mao - statesmen of the 20th Century), but they weren't great per se.

So let's stick with people who proved themselves not only to be powerful and influential, but also noble and superior in quality and character.



As for Americai's rants, it seems to me it stems solely round Roosevelt trying to stack the courts in his favour - which seems to be what every president tries to do - and that he was elected 4 times to office, which was perfectly legal to do so at that time. But somehow that makes him an ass. He did apparently lead the country out of the worst economic hardship of the century, start social security (as we know it today) and help win WWII, which set the US up to be the most powerful nation on earth ever since, but 'lahlahlahlahIcanthearyouTeddyran4timeswhichisbadsoishelahlahlah'.

One thing you seem to have missed in all your rantings (which I'm surprised hasn't gotten you an official warning as yet) is this:
He didn't take over in a coup and rule for 12 years as a dictatorship. He was elected four times, which means that the general American populace must have thought he was doing a pretty damn fine job during that entire time.
This makes him a pretty good, if not great, statesman.
Similarly Thatcher, much as I personally detest her and her policies, has to be considered a good (at minimum) stateswoman due, if nothing else, to her ruling for 11 years and being elected PM 3 successive times - the only british politician to do this in the 20th Century (and the longest serving). Obviously the british populace thought enough of her to keep electing her (and her party).

You know, just because Washington said something, doesn't automatically make it right. He was wrong on occasion, nor could he have possibly foreseen how the US would change and develop over the centuries. What may have been proper then doesn't necessary make it proper now. Sure his decision to step down makes old George even more admirable, but using Washington's decison not to run for a 3rd time isn't all that relevant.

Now go ahead, rant about the court-stacking and his 4 terms.

Thank you very much. I think this thread needed a good smack to get back on track.

I nominate the German Chancellor between 1969 and 1974 , Willy Brandt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy_Brandt). His influence may not have been super-über-awesome, but he did leave a mark in that he managed to normalise relations somewhat between Western and Eastern Europe.

Thank you very much. I think this thread needed a good smack to get back on track.

I nominate the German Chancellor between 1969 and 1974 , Willy Brandt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy_Brandt). His influence may not have been super-über-awesome, but he did leave a mark in that he managed to normalise relations somewhat between Western and Eastern Europe.

But it was Reagan/Thatcher who brought down the iron curtain.

But it was Reagan/Thatcher who brought down the iron curtain.
Do you want to start another fight?
Gorbachev decided he'd had enough, it was his choice. He might as well have decided to leave it with a bang.

Telling the other side they're the spawn of hell doesn't serve to end conflicts, it only makes them worse.
Look at the CIA estimates for Soviet Military Spending before, during and after the Reagan years. They didn't give a shit.

But it was Reagan/Thatcher who brought down the iron curtain.
They were not even in power at the time, and what they did during the previous years -in this respect, and others- amounts to nonsensical.
The "Iron Curtain" was never a thing to unite those on the Eastern side of it, nor to make them lookalikes. The Western powers had no problem making the difference between the regimes when they needed to, but there just had to be a "They are all under a Soviet spell" propaganda.
I clearly remember an interview where Mr. Bush sr. was saying: "we were astonished to find that the Curtain had fallen - we were expecting it to last for quite some time". How does that rhyme with consistent and prolonged US-policy?

Do you want to start another fight?
Gorbachev decided he'd had enough, it was his choice. He might as well have decided to leave it with a bang.

Telling the other side they're the spawn of hell doesn't serve to end conflicts, it only makes them worse.
Look at the CIA estimates for Soviet Military Spending before, during and after the Reagan years. They didn't give a shit.

Even Gorbachev has admitted that the Reagan/Thatcher partnership lent weight to his moves to reform the Soviet block.

They were not even in power at the time, and what they did during the previous years -in this respect, and others- amounts to nonsensical.
The "Iron Curtain" was never a thing to unite those on the Eastern side of it, nor to make them lookalikes. The Western powers had no problem making the difference between the regimes when they needed to, but there just had to be a "They are all under a Soviet spell" propaganda.
I clearly remember an interview where Mr. Bush sr. was saying: "we were astonished to find that the Curtain had fallen - we were expecting it to last for quite some time". How does that rhyme with consistent and prolonged US-policy?

Well Reagan (with his SDI) and Thatcher with her no-nonsense approach to the former Soviet Union are both credited as major reasons fo rthe fall of the iron curtain. Yes, nobody expected it to happen as quickly as it did - but that doesn't change the facts.

Even Gorbachev has admitted that the Reagan/Thatcher partnership lent weight to his moves to reform the Soviet block.
And that is enough to say "They brought down the Iron Curtain"?
Gorbachev made the decisions, and they backfired on him. He could have chosen to go apeshit on everyone, yet he didn't.
Just imagining how Reagan would have reacted had it looked like the US was going to lose the Cold War......

I'd also like to nominate Gorbachev for Statesman of the Century!

I´ve read (sometimes had to bully on) through this thread...can`t decide right now...

For the Americans it should be Woodrow Wilson

For the Germans Willy Brandt is a good guess

For the English Churchill only if they got blinded

I think I´ll retire and ponder this a bit

And that is enough to say "They brought down the Iron Curtain"?
Gorbachev made the decisions, and they backfired on him. He could have chosen to go apeshit on everyone, yet he didn't.
Just imagining how Reagan would have reacted had it looked like the US was going to lose the Cold War......

I'd also like to nominate Gorbachev for Statesman of the Century!

Yes, they did do enough to be able to claim they brought down the Iron Curtain - and are credited as such by many people.

As for the west losing the cold war - that was almost an impossibility.

Yes, they did do enough to be able to claim they brought down the Iron Curtain - and are credited as such by many people.
Well, nominate them if you want, but they're not going to get my vote.
As far as I'm concerned, these two are an example of the kind of abomination Anglo-American Philosophy spawns from time to time, and the best argument against the whole world conforming with that philosophy.

Bismarck blows all of those guys out of the water. The first and best there ever was at Statescraft.

Bismarck blows all of those guys out of the water. The first and best there ever was at Statescraft.
But since we're restricting ourselves to the 20th century, he's not really eligible.

Well Reagan (with his SDI) and Thatcher with her no-nonsense approach to the former Soviet Union are both credited as major reasons fo rthe fall of the iron curtain. Yes, nobody expected it to happen as quickly as it did - but that doesn't change the facts.
Oh, I'm sorry. They are "credited", how could I disagree with that?
They are credited by the CIA, you mean. There is no absolute here, nobody could say "I ended the Cold War". Reagan/Thatcher most likely did not (again, they weren't in power in 1989 - this also answers your point about the quickness of it all; consider the paradox: Bush could not know even one month in advance that the Curtain was to fall, but Superman Reagan and Superwoman Thatcher can be credited with provoking it some years before).
What say we leave the cliches aside and look at what really happened? What say we investigate the utter naivite of Amercan officals during the latter part of the Cold War?
Let me back this with just a few examples:
- the factions they supported against the Soviets (from Ceausescu and the Contras to Al Qaida)
- the fact that they still credit "national awakening" as the source for the fall of the USSR (when, in fact, nationalism other than Russian had no part to play in it)
- the very simple fact that the fall of the USSR is not really a thing to cheer: the US has opened Pandora's box, and it never looked ready to deal with all of the scum left on the outside (no, not for "our" sake, but for its own)

Well Reagan (with his SDI) and Thatcher with her no-nonsense approach to the former Soviet Union are both credited as major reasons fo rthe fall of the iron curtain. Yes, nobody expected it to happen as quickly as it did - but that doesn't change the facts.

First of all, SDI was a complete failure and in violation of U.S. treaty obbligations. Reagans obsession with SDI stopped him from engaging the Russians in nuclear disarmament (so now we have thousands of nuclear weapons in Russia protected by a pad lock and a guard who checks weekly).

Reagans domestic agenda was a long term failure, as the deficits, enviormental destruction, resource depleation, and decreaseing social mobility testify.

Also, Reagan deserves little credit for the end of the Cold War. The Soviet System collapsed because of its own weaknesses and failures. Also Reagan during his first term increased tensions and his "evil empire" retoric resulted in several war scares (some have compared the period to the Cuban missle dispute, only the U.S. was asleep and Russia utterly paranoid).

Then there is the issue of Iran-Contra (sending weapons to terrorists who killed childeren and school theachers) and Reagan running for a second term while knowing perfectly well his mental state was deterorating.


The choice of Thatcher deserves some debate, however.

Bring the Iron Curtain down? You know who did it? The Hungarians played a vast role by dismantling the Austro-Hungarian border in 1989, allowing thousands of East Germans to flee to West Germany. The incident in the West German Embassy in Prague played a big role too. A few thousand East Germans fled onto the grounds of the West German Embassy and were all granted asylum in West Germany. The fall of the Berlin Wall also had little to do with Reagan's "Tear down that Wall" speech. The East German government liberalized it's travel laws a bit, and when asked, acknowledged that this was in effect immediatly, causing vast portions of East Berlin's adult population to swarm the checkpoints. There was never any intention to really allow all those people to travel freely, but they managed to take that right.
Reagan and Thatcher have no more significance than do Kennedy, Eisenhower, or any other Western leader that helped bring about the end of the Cold War. They're only significant insofar as it happened in their term. Statesmen weren't really the ones that brought down the Iron Curtain.

Who do you consider the greatest statesman of the 20th century, from any country? If this thread is hot, I might take the post popular choices and add them to a poll.

Bill Moyers