I thought that European governments understood very well the dangers of appeasement.

[Rison]

Boss of bosses. Leader of leaders. Usually refers to Mafia

thanks

 

[Martin]

<< uhmm, US has a more diverse population and a higher percentage of blacks. It's easier not to be racist when most of people around you are of your race >>



Buddy, I live in Toronto. More 50% of the population are visible minorities. At my school its more like 80%. And that's only "visible", that doesn't include minorities which are white.

AFAIK, percentage of blacks in america is like 20% or so.

 

[MisterPants]

<<

<< nemesis77, when I say Europe, I mean that it was a source of the ideology. It was the Europeans that formulated all those racist, socialist, and communistic ideals. >>



Theoretically you are correct. Karl Marx (German) "invented" socialism. Lenin (russian) evolved it in to communism (I haven't really studied the history of communisn/socialism, so my names may be wrong). Adolf Hitler (Austrian) was one of the founding member of national-socialism, which then mutated in to nazism. But just because those things happened in Europe, you shouldn't judge entire continent because of that. It would be the same if I judged entire USA because of Richard Nixon .

If we used global scale instead, you could say that entire world sucks because nazi-germany was located on this planet



<< It was Europe that spread it across the globe. Marx and Engel were Europeans. Europe is the home of all those ills. Hence, I say Europe. While governments from over ther may have fought with us, it was a homegrown (yours) problem. >>



Alot of bad things have happened in countries that just have happened to be located in Europe. That as such doesn't make Europe bad. Yes, nazi-germany was bad and it was located in Europe. But one shouldn't draw the conclusion that "nazi-germany is in europe. Nazis did alot of bad things. Therefore Europe = suck". That would be the same if I said USA = suck because first americans killed alot of native-americans. I'm not. Those things happened in the past, and things have changed alot since then (for Germany, Europe and for USA) >>



Wrong. I believe socialism was a french movement. Communism was "invented" by Marx. Russia created some mishmash of socialism and capitalism (obvious contradiction).

 

[Random Variable]

Nobody really challenged (or agreed with) my viewpoint about European nations and appeasement. Oh well.

 

[Novgrod]

While Marx and Engels are frequently credited with developing socialism as a theory, they're really not its originators--the idea of communal wealth has been around for a long time. Hrm; I suppose I ought to provide examples . . . nuts . . . when I remember some, I'll edit this post

For what it's worth, communism and socialism are two sides of the same coin. The theory: proletariat (workers) revolt. They institute a government that shares wealth evenly etc etc etc. Then there's no need for the government, because hostility between people ceases to exist. Then the government fades away because it's not needed. The period of Super Government Control is socialism; that with no government is communism. This is a simplification.

The reason nobody can really explain the difference between communism and socialism is that Karl Marx couldn't write for poo. The communist manifesto is fine, but other than that it's all awful and incomprehensible.

Here are some choice quotes: "The only wheels which poitical economy sets in motion are acarice and the war amongst the avaracious--competiton."

"on the basis of political economy itself, in its own words, we have shown that the worker sinks to the level of a commodity and becomes indeed the most wretched of commodities"

Erm, there's one quote about table turning that I just can't find. If anybody cares, i'll look harder

Point being, Marx didn't really create socialism; he kinda codified it.

I have the Lenin thing somewhere in a stack of papers, but I'm too lazy to find it. He has sort of a watered down socialism plan that involves, more or less, a revolution, but not involving the abolition of wage differences.

It wasn't until (guess) 1960 (?) that the USSR actually claimed to have achieved socialism.

 

[Mavrick]

<<

<< WWII could not have been avoided..........Hitler would have provoked it at some point no matter what and IMO WWI had little to do with the onset of WWII........Hitler was just a person whom wanted supreme power and thought he had the instrument to obtain it! >>



Of course, yet if you look at some documents from that time, leaders (I think I read one of Chamberlain's letters in a history book) thought Hitler's demands were quite reasonable and that he didn't want conflict.


All I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't bash the europeans for something you yourselves have done. You wanted peace, so you isolated yourselves. They wanted peace, but they couldnt isolate themselves so they appeased... >>



Actually, all this applies quite well to modern days. Most of you Europeans seem to think that Bin Laden's demands and Arafat's demands are quite reasonable and that they do not want conflict. But what can lead you to think that in 1 or 2 years, they won't ask for something more, just like Hitler did?

And for your last paragraph, in the 40's, the US isolated themselves for peace, while Europe had to fight. Right now, it looks more like the US can not hide itself, and the Europe seeks peace by isolationism. We heard a lot of "well, this terrorism isn't our fault, it's exclusively the US fault. They should deal with it without much of our help..." lately.

In fact, the present situation looks a lot like the inverse of the 40's, except the US aren't in for appeasement... We'll see if the Europeans will finally join the cause (like the US finaly did in WWII) or will content itself of waiting for the outcome, without risking itself too much. (Note, I'm not talking about the British here, which truly acted like an allied nation here. At least, Europes reputation is saved by them)

 

[Martin]

<<

<< Actually, all this applies quite well to modern days. Most of you Europeans seem to think that Bin Laden's demands and Arafat's demands are quite reasonable and that they do not want conflict. But what can lead you to think that in 1 or 2 years, they won't ask for something more, just like Hitler did?

And for your last paragraph, in the 40's, the US isolated themselves for peace, while Europe had to fight. Right now, it looks more like the US can not hide itself, and the Europe seeks peace by isolationism. We heard a lot of "well, this terrorism isn't our fault, it's exclusively the US fault. They should deal with it without much of our help..." lately.

In fact, the present situation looks a lot like the inverse of the 40's, except the US aren't in for appeasement... We'll see if the Europeans will finally join the cause (like the US finaly did in WWII) or will content itself of waiting for the outcome, without risking itself too much. (Note, I'm not talking about the British here, which truly acted like an allied nation here. At least, Europes reputation is saved by them) >>



1. I am neither european, nor anti-war, although Palestinian demands are quite reasonable.
2. I don't think europe wants the US to give into bin laden but then again, i don't think they want you to bomb any country you feel like.