Comments on: George Washington (Remember Him?) http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/ I'm the Ghost of Christmas Past! Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:34:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Jeremy Clifton http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-315 Jeremy Clifton Thu, 01 May 2008 21:24:43 +0000 http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-315 I'm not so sure Hitler's logic was that much different from ours, at least in the early years. My view of humanity and dictators is that there is a little bit of Stalin, Hitler, Mugabe, etc. in all of us ... we have the capacity to be like them given the right set of circumstances. It's not a nice thought to think that we all could be as evil as Hitler, but I think it's important to keep that in mind. In the early years, I think he was just a cold, calculating individual willing to do whatever was necessary to grasp power. From my reading of him, he had a good idea of how to get people to follow him. Now ... in the later years, I do suspect that he was under the influence of drugs of some variety. I saw a good special on the History Channel once that hypothesized that he was taking meth (or something like it) regularly to counteract Parkinsons or something of that nature. I think that fits pretty well because he seems to have gotten increasingly irrational after 1941 or so. But, even if you take what you are saying ... I think it makes an even stronger argument that he would have pressed ahead with the war even knowing the consequences. I’m not so sure Hitler’s logic was that much different from ours, at least in the early years. My view of humanity and dictators is that there is a little bit of Stalin, Hitler, Mugabe, etc. in all of us … we have the capacity to be like them given the right set of circumstances. It’s not a nice thought to think that we all could be as evil as Hitler, but I think it’s important to keep that in mind.

In the early years, I think he was just a cold, calculating individual willing to do whatever was necessary to grasp power. From my reading of him, he had a good idea of how to get people to follow him. Now … in the later years, I do suspect that he was under the influence of drugs of some variety. I saw a good special on the History Channel once that hypothesized that he was taking meth (or something like it) regularly to counteract Parkinsons or something of that nature. I think that fits pretty well because he seems to have gotten increasingly irrational after 1941 or so.

But, even if you take what you are saying … I think it makes an even stronger argument that he would have pressed ahead with the war even knowing the consequences.

]]> By: bbaldowski http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-313 bbaldowski Thu, 01 May 2008 13:11:07 +0000 http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-313 Of course, thinking about this as Austin's history class began studying World War II and some of the recent documentaries I have seen recently on Hitler, we can't assume what he would do because his logic was completely different than any we can consider. Our standard logic doesn't fit because, at least I am not, an egomanic or cult of personality like Hitler. Of course, thinking about this as Austin’s history class began studying World War II and some of the recent documentaries I have seen recently on Hitler, we can’t assume what he would do because his logic was completely different than any we can consider. Our standard logic doesn’t fit because, at least I am not, an egomanic or cult of personality like Hitler.

]]> By: Jeremy Clifton http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-307 Jeremy Clifton Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:32:35 +0000 http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-307 Oooh ... that makes for a good discussion. I could go either way. On one hand, I think those in power in Nazi Germany were all too aware that they wouldn't get a slap on the wrist and be told to behave in the future ... after all, WWI showed them that they could get the shaft pretty badly if they were on the losing end. On the other hand, it would appear that Hitler and his cronies were of the opinion that at least the British and maybe the Americans were sympathetic to the situation Germany was in as a result of the Versailles treaty, and might be attempt to be a little less punitive the next time around. Rhetoric aside, it seems obvious (at least to me) that Hitler didn't want war with Britain or the US at least in the near term. I think he realized that if his near-term goal was expansion to the east, having a front on both sides would compromise his ability to implement whatever bizarre plan he'd cooked up in his mind. I suspect that his attack on the USSR was out of necessity rather than simply being a harebrained scheme on his part. He had to have the resources from the USSR to maintain the western front and push Britain to the point of giving up or either taking the Isle. In the end, because of the above ... I tend to think that the Nazis would have waged war regardless of whether they thought they'd end up on "trial" for "war crimes" (and I lean in this direction probably 55% vs 45% 'Germany wouldn't have waged war'). I don't think Hitler anticipated any real opposition from Britain when he rolled through Poland, France, etc. and didn't expect that FDR would be so bent on harassing the Japanese to the point of bringing the US into the Pacific war (thus indirectly bringing the US into the European war). If he'd known that that Britain and the US would be involved so soon, he might have reconsidered ... but probably not any more than delaying things, or modifying his plans. But ... he would have waged war one way or the other. If he hadn't done so, at best he would have been the Kim Jong Il or Hugo Chavez of his era in Europe. At worst, without the war he wouldn't have been able to maintain the economy, unify the minority of Germany that fell under his spell and supported him outright, and would have been out of power by the fifties. Oooh … that makes for a good discussion. I could go either way.

On one hand, I think those in power in Nazi Germany were all too aware that they wouldn’t get a slap on the wrist and be told to behave in the future … after all, WWI showed them that they could get the shaft pretty badly if they were on the losing end.

On the other hand, it would appear that Hitler and his cronies were of the opinion that at least the British and maybe the Americans were sympathetic to the situation Germany was in as a result of the Versailles treaty, and might be attempt to be a little less punitive the next time around.

Rhetoric aside, it seems obvious (at least to me) that Hitler didn’t want war with Britain or the US at least in the near term. I think he realized that if his near-term goal was expansion to the east, having a front on both sides would compromise his ability to implement whatever bizarre plan he’d cooked up in his mind. I suspect that his attack on the USSR was out of necessity rather than simply being a harebrained scheme on his part. He had to have the resources from the USSR to maintain the western front and push Britain to the point of giving up or either taking the Isle.

In the end, because of the above … I tend to think that the Nazis would have waged war regardless of whether they thought they’d end up on “trial” for “war crimes” (and I lean in this direction probably 55% vs 45% ‘Germany wouldn’t have waged war’). I don’t think Hitler anticipated any real opposition from Britain when he rolled through Poland, France, etc. and didn’t expect that FDR would be so bent on harassing the Japanese to the point of bringing the US into the Pacific war (thus indirectly bringing the US into the European war).

If he’d known that that Britain and the US would be involved so soon, he might have reconsidered … but probably not any more than delaying things, or modifying his plans. But … he would have waged war one way or the other. If he hadn’t done so, at best he would have been the Kim Jong Il or Hugo Chavez of his era in Europe. At worst, without the war he wouldn’t have been able to maintain the economy, unify the minority of Germany that fell under his spell and supported him outright, and would have been out of power by the fifties.

]]> By: bbaldowski http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-306 bbaldowski Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:20:17 +0000 http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-306 A question I was reading in a book called Judgement on Nuremburg, a look at American attiudes about the Nazi war crime trails, would the nazi's have refrained from invading if they had known Nuremburg was a possibility? A question I was reading in a book called Judgement on Nuremburg, a look at American attiudes about the Nazi war crime trails, would the nazi’s have refrained from invading if they had known Nuremburg was a possibility?

]]> By: Jeremy Clifton http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-304 Jeremy Clifton Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:47:16 +0000 http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-304 OK, I now have a better idea of who Weinburg is and the conclusions he's drawn from his research. I still disagree with his conclusions. While a critical question (and we will probably never know the answer) is whether Hitler's talk of war with the United States was rhetoric or something he seriously intended to pursue, I still maintain that Germany lacked the ability to achieve anything remotely resembling global domination within his lifetime, even had he not lost WWII. It would have required forcefully occupying too many countries. At some point, there would be too many of them too fast, and Germany would have been unable to manage the inevitable resistance movements in all of them, and their momentum would have been compromised. I believe that Germany had already reached this point by 1942-1943, and Britain would have been able to turn the tide of the war on (on the western front) on their own without intervention by the US (which of course is to a certain extent a moot point since Germany did declare war on the US and thus bring them into the European conflict). But again ... even if they had *not* reached the tipping point as far as managing occupied territories goes ... as I've said before, Germany lacked the momentum to even cross the channel and occupy parts of Britain. I suppose at some point we should bring this conversation back to Washington's era. :-) On the other hand, I find the conversation about Germany quite fascinating. If only I had more time to read on the subject ... OK, I now have a better idea of who Weinburg is and the conclusions he’s drawn from his research. I still disagree with his conclusions. While a critical question (and we will probably never know the answer) is whether Hitler’s talk of war with the United States was rhetoric or something he seriously intended to pursue, I still maintain that Germany lacked the ability to achieve anything remotely resembling global domination within his lifetime, even had he not lost WWII. It would have required forcefully occupying too many countries. At some point, there would be too many of them too fast, and Germany would have been unable to manage the inevitable resistance movements in all of them, and their momentum would have been compromised. I believe that Germany had already reached this point by 1942-1943, and Britain would have been able to turn the tide of the war on (on the western front) on their own without intervention by the US (which of course is to a certain extent a moot point since Germany did declare war on the US and thus bring them into the European conflict). But again … even if they had not reached the tipping point as far as managing occupied territories goes … as I’ve said before, Germany lacked the momentum to even cross the channel and occupy parts of Britain.

I suppose at some point we should bring this conversation back to Washington’s era. :-) On the other hand, I find the conversation about Germany quite fascinating. If only I had more time to read on the subject …

]]> By: Jeremy Clifton http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-301 Jeremy Clifton Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:17:58 +0000 http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-301 Yes, it makes sense. No, I would rather wait until the United States is directly attacked (in a *real* unprovoked manner) before taking action. There is no excuse for pre-emptive strikes against any nation, regardless of the consequences on our end. If it costs more money, lives, and time, then so be it. That is the cost of acting in an honorable manner. Nor is there any excuse for goading a potential enemy into attacking us so that we can act like we are then in the right in fighting back. In the mean time, there's nothing wrong with building up defenses against a nation that is making threats that may or may not be serious in their threats. That is responsible. Attacking preemptively ... that is irresponsible, and inexcusable. Period. If we are really a example and a beacon of liberty for the world, then we should behave that way. "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't cut it. Words are just that, words. We should respond to actions, not words. Yes, it makes sense. No, I would rather wait until the United States is directly attacked (in a real unprovoked manner) before taking action. There is no excuse for pre-emptive strikes against any nation, regardless of the consequences on our end. If it costs more money, lives, and time, then so be it. That is the cost of acting in an honorable manner. Nor is there any excuse for goading a potential enemy into attacking us so that we can act like we are then in the right in fighting back.

In the mean time, there’s nothing wrong with building up defenses against a nation that is making threats that may or may not be serious in their threats. That is responsible. Attacking preemptively … that is irresponsible, and inexcusable. Period. If we are really a example and a beacon of liberty for the world, then we should behave that way. “Do as I say, not as I do” doesn’t cut it.

Words are just that, words. We should respond to actions, not words.

]]> By: bbaldowski http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-300 bbaldowski Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:32:41 +0000 http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-300 I am sorry your slammed at work. I hope things calm down for you. I have been trying to do more reading on Weinberg also. About it being a waste to spend, money, time and lives to combat a threat, wouldn't you rather face a person before they have had a chance to build up their strength and so cost even more money, lives, and time to combat them when they impliment their schemes? Did that make sense? I am sorry your slammed at work. I hope things calm down for you. I have been trying to do more reading on Weinberg also.
About it being a waste to spend, money, time and lives to combat a threat, wouldn’t you rather face a person before they have had a chance to build up their strength and so cost even more money, lives, and time to combat them when they impliment their schemes? Did that make sense?

]]> By: Jeremy Clifton http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-299 Jeremy Clifton Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:37:49 +0000 http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-299 What do you think you scored a point on? Me wanting to read the Weinburg research? The fact that I haven't responded to your last post yet? I didn't know I had a chess tournament and I needed to respond within a certain amount of time. If you have to try to claim you've scored just because of the time, you must be in sorry shape. :-) I have been way to busy to keep up with this. But ... if we're talking about foreign intervention, whether or not a foreign dictator intended to implement his plans (or even if they were capable of implementing their plans) is of great import. After all, spending money, time, and even lives to combat a threat that really isn't a threat is a waste. I will write more later (hopefully after I get a chance to read some on Weinburg). But, it will probably be next week because I am completely slammed with work. What do you think you scored a point on? Me wanting to read the Weinburg research? The fact that I haven’t responded to your last post yet? I didn’t know I had a chess tournament and I needed to respond within a certain amount of time. If you have to try to claim you’ve scored just because of the time, you must be in sorry shape. :-)

I have been way to busy to keep up with this.

But … if we’re talking about foreign intervention, whether or not a foreign dictator intended to implement his plans (or even if they were capable of implementing their plans) is of great import. After all, spending money, time, and even lives to combat a threat that really isn’t a threat is a waste.

I will write more later (hopefully after I get a chance to read some on Weinburg). But, it will probably be next week because I am completely slammed with work.

]]> By: bbaldowski http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-297 bbaldowski Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:53:47 +0000 http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-297 Point Brian 1, All the others 0. :0 Point Brian 1, All the others 0. :0

]]> By: bbaldowski http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-294 bbaldowski Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:44:45 +0000 http://www.four-eight-four.org/2008/03/01/george-washington-remember-him/#comment-294 I have to question whether or not it matters when Hitler's plans to dominate the world were designed to be implimented. He obviously wanted Germany to be the one dominate power around the globe. He would have prefered it happen while he was alive but he saw that as only a minor detail. If the German people were not able to take the lead and control while he was alive, I think he would have been happy to let it be his legacy to be the man who laid the foundation for it to happen. Maybe he hoped to be the Lenin of Germany. The revolutionary leader who brought his people to a better place. The irony of the situation, one he could not foresee, was when his plans for global domination failed it led to America, his arch-rival, to take the role he hoped Germany would obtain. Having faced the crisis, America most then begin to find a role that would provent similiar situations. Thus leading us back to part of our topic, to truly protect American intrests we must face dictators head on throughout the world. If they are allowed to grow in strength, they will threaten not only America militarily, but economically, socially, and politically. With the size of the world "shrinking" everyday it becomes even more important for America to play a larger role in the world. We just need smart leaders to impliment the neccassary steps to protect us from foriegn threats. This may lead to a discussion of the Iraq war. I will go ahead and state my opinion that it was needed. We had to eliminate the threat Iraq posed to the Middle East and the alliances and monatary intrests we held there. I just don't agree with the execution of the plan. It could have been handled better. I have to question whether or not it matters when Hitler’s plans to dominate the world were designed to be implimented. He obviously wanted Germany to be the one dominate power around the globe. He would have prefered it happen while he was alive but he saw that as only a minor detail. If the German people were not able to take the lead and control while he was alive, I think he would have been happy to let it be his legacy to be the man who laid the foundation for it to happen. Maybe he hoped to be the Lenin of Germany. The revolutionary leader who brought his people to a better place.
The irony of the situation, one he could not foresee, was when his plans for global domination failed it led to America, his arch-rival, to take the role he hoped Germany would obtain. Having faced the crisis, America most then begin to find a role that would provent similiar situations. Thus leading us back to part of our topic, to truly protect American intrests we must face dictators head on throughout the world. If they are allowed to grow in strength, they will threaten not only America militarily, but economically, socially, and politically. With the size of the world “shrinking” everyday it becomes even more important for America to play a larger role in the world. We just need smart leaders to impliment the neccassary steps to protect us from foriegn threats.
This may lead to a discussion of the Iraq war. I will go ahead and state my opinion that it was needed. We had to eliminate the threat Iraq posed to the Middle East and the alliances and monatary intrests we held there. I just don’t agree with the execution of the plan. It could have been handled better.

]]>