(06-11-2014 08:48 PM)AngryAphid Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 07:17 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 06:21 PM)AngryAphid Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 02:08 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  And the Mongols at one time ruled both lands. So what's your point?

Are you guys trying to say the people who live there have no right to their own lands?

I’m just pointing out that there are no agreed rules as to “who has the right to any land”

IMO the people who were there first have the best claim. Anyone else is an usurper or invader, with no right to it what so ever. Might does not make right, no matter what people say.

Knowing who came first could be problematic.

Europeans took property from native Americans, who had
taken that same property from other native Americans.

The further back in time you go, the less civilized humanity becomes. Eventually humanity is supposed to grow up. But I haven't seen any sign of it yet.

Calvin Coolidge.

Arguably more responsible for the Great Depression than Herbert Hoover. (Although Herbert Hoover was his Secretary of Commerce)

Abraham Lincoln


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(06-09-2014 02:27 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I really should go with Stalin, he was downright evil. He's kind of interesting though, maybe just because we hear about him less than Hitler.

Arguably the largest mass murderer in history. I can't believe he has only come up once so far in this discussion.

(06-25-2014 04:30 PM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 02:27 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I really should go with Stalin, he was downright evil. He's kind of interesting though, maybe just because we hear about him less than Hitler.

Arguably the largest mass murderer in history. I can't believe he has only come up once so far in this discussion.

2 things hold Stalin back from his proper place in history:

• Hitler will always outshine him in early 20th Century horrible humans.
• Uncle Joe had the best PR department on Earth, Franklin D. Roosevelt.
  

My favorite (and probably apocryphal) story about Stalin is that at the Potsdam Conference in 1945, he was positively confounded as to why Winston Churchill was forced to leave the conference, after being voted out in place of Clement Attlee. Supposedly it took quite a mental leap for ole Joe to understand the concept of a leader being "voted out."

As others have said, his horrific actions should be far more prominent in history than they are. You have to think his and the USSR's role in the Allied Victory has probably kept it that way

(06-25-2014 06:16 PM)TPBlaze84 Wrote:  My favorite (and probably apocryphal) story about Stalin is that at the Potsdam Conference in 1945, he was positively confounded as to why Winston Churchill was forced to leave the conference, after being voted out in place of Clement Attlee. Supposedly it took quite a mental leap for ole Joe to understand the concept of a leader being "voted out."

As others have said, his horrific actions should be far more prominent in history than they are. You have to think his and the USSR's role in the Allied Victory has probably kept it that way

Imagine that was mind boggling for him.
Surprised some of the political pundits have not named Barack Obama, even in jest.

Staying away from the aforementioned obvious choices.......


This guy planted the intellectual seeds of statist ruin we harvest today.





In just one administration we went from defensive war to offensive war. From no central bank to The Federal Reserve. And we got ourselves involved in a war we had no business being in, and helped shape the post-war defeat so that a second war was inevitable. He was big into labor unions. He had the government take over railroads. He started a wave of anti-German bigotry (what, you mean Progressives can be bigoted too??) He was one of the organizers for the League of Nations, and wanted the LoN to be able to unilaterally bring the US military into a war. He started the FTC. He started the Income Tax.

If you want the antithesis of a Calvin Coolidge or a Thomas Jefferson or a George Washington ...... look no further. This guy was FAR worse than even FDR.

(06-28-2014 12:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Staying away from the aforementioned obvious choices.......
This guy planted the intellectual seeds of statist ruin we harvest today.

In just one administration we went from defensive war to offensive war. From no central bank to The Federal Reserve. And we got ourselves involved in a war we had no business being in, and helped shape the post-war defeat so that a second war was inevitable. He was big into labor unions. He had the government take over railroads. He started a wave of anti-German bigotry (what, you mean Progressives can be bigoted too??) He was one of the organizers for the League of Nations, and wanted the LoN to be able to unilaterally bring the US military into a war. He started the FTC. He started the Income Tax.
If you want the antithesis of a Calvin Coolidge or a Thomas Jefferson or a George Washington ...... look no further. This guy was FAR worse than even FDR.

He's on my short list of baddies.

(06-12-2014 02:46 PM)TPBlaze84 Wrote:  Calvin Coolidge.
Arguably more responsible for the Great Depression than Herbert Hoover. (Although Herbert Hoover was his Secretary of Commerce)

But inarguably less responsible than FDR. Now that was a man who knew how to make a depression.

(06-29-2014 11:13 AM)jh Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 02:46 PM)TPBlaze84 Wrote:  Calvin Coolidge.
Arguably more responsible for the Great Depression than Herbert Hoover. (Although Herbert Hoover was his Secretary of Commerce)

But inarguably less responsible than FDR. Now that was a man who knew how to make a depression.

Responsible for causing it or prolonging it? Because I would say he is responsible for the latter. The Recession within the Depression in 1937-1938.

(06-28-2014 12:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Staying away from the aforementioned obvious choices.......


This guy planted the intellectual seeds of statist ruin we harvest today.





In just one administration we went from defensive war to offensive war. From no central bank to The Federal Reserve. And we got ourselves involved in a war we had no business being in, and helped shape the post-war defeat so that a second war was inevitable. He was big into labor unions. He had the government take over railroads. He started a wave of anti-German bigotry (what, you mean Progressives can be bigoted too??) He was one of the organizers for the League of Nations, and wanted the LoN to be able to unilaterally bring the US military into a war. He started the FTC. He started the Income Tax.

If you want the antithesis of a Calvin Coolidge or a Thomas Jefferson or a George Washington ...... look no further. This guy was FAR worse than even FDR.

You can blame a lot of stuff on Wilson, but the income tax isn't one of them. It (16th Amendment) was ratified before he took office. First states to ratify were in 1909, with most coming in 1911. It reached the requisite 3/4 of states in February of 1913. Wilson was inaugurated for his first term in March, 1913.

(06-09-2014 12:17 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Woodrow Wilson

A mixed bag, IMHO.

I certainly think his legacy to America's government was destructive, but if I were asked to pick one person in all of human history as being worthy of special condemnation or rebuke, he's probably not the one I would think of first.

(06-29-2014 10:52 PM)TPBlaze84 Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 11:13 AM)jh Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 02:46 PM)TPBlaze84 Wrote:  Calvin Coolidge.
Arguably more responsible for the Great Depression than Herbert Hoover. (Although Herbert Hoover was his Secretary of Commerce)

But inarguably less responsible than FDR. Now that was a man who knew how to make a depression.

Responsible for causing it or prolonging it? Because I would say he is responsible for the latter. The Recession within the Depression in 1937-1938.

Responsible for making it the Great Depression. That depression wouldn't have been Great if it hadn't lasted so damn long.

Kaiser Wilhelm II. MOFO set the stage for 2 fcking world wars by pushing Austria/Hungary to exact revenge against Serbia after Archduke Ferdinand was killed. One could make the assertion that his militaristic bravado was responsible for more deaths than any one leader. For sure the 16 million in WW1.

(07-19-2014 01:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Kaiser Wilhelm II. MOFO set the stage for 2 fcking world wars by pushing Austria/Hungary to exact revenge against Serbia after Archduke Ferdinand was killed. One could make the assertion that his militaristic bravado was responsible for more deaths than any one leader. For sure the 16 million in WW1.

FYI: The Kaiser had nothing to do with WWII. That was all on Hitler, who gained his power in Germany after the Reichstag fire in 1933, which gave the Nazi Party an excuse to take absolute control over the German government.

But the desperate situation that led the Nazis to begin preparing for WWII were the harsh penalties imposed on Germany by the Allies after WWI. Had Germany's economy not be so devastated, the Germans might not have felt the need to start a war in order to turn things around.

Of course, if Hitler's art teacher hadn't tried to push him into architecture after criticizing his artwork, WWII might never have started. Or if it did, it would have been with a different leader in Germany.

But you can't blame WWII on Kaiser Wilhelm. The countries you mention were very minor players on the world scene, and there is no way those nations could have started that war, much less defeat enough nations to become much of a worldwide threat.

(07-19-2014 01:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Kaiser Wilhelm II. MOFO set the stage for 2 fcking world wars by pushing Austria/Hungary to exact revenge against Serbia after Archduke Ferdinand was killed. One could make the assertion that his militaristic bravado was responsible for more deaths than any one leader. For sure the 16 million in WW1.

Wilhelm II had as much part in starting World War I as his dead uncle Edward VII did. They both supported their respective alliance systems as a way to prevent war, but also to try to contain their opponents. Wilhelm didn't have broad dictatorial powers. He had a Reichstag that could defund military expenditures and all he could do was dissolve the Reichstag and hope the next election went his way. He was active until the last minute trying to get his cousin Nicholas II to stop the Russian mobilization. Wilhelm gets a very bad reputation because he was just like George Patton, he could never shut up in front reporters. He also gets a bad rep. from Allied propaganda. He wasn't a Belgium baby eater, and he wasn't the primary motivation behind the start of World War I. Much bigger factors than any one man, are the world-wide arms race and imperialism, French Revanchism, and the breakdown of the Alliance System.

(07-19-2014 03:18 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 01:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Kaiser Wilhelm II. MOFO set the stage for 2 fcking world wars by pushing Austria/Hungary to exact revenge against Serbia after Archduke Ferdinand was killed. One could make the assertion that his militaristic bravado was responsible for more deaths than any one leader. For sure the 16 million in WW1.

FYI: The Kaiser had nothing to do with WWII. That was all on Hitler, who gained his power in Germany after the Reichstag fire in 1933, which gave the Nazi Party an excuse to take absolute control over the German government.

But the desperate situation that led the Nazis to begin preparing for WWII were the harsh penalties imposed on Germany by the Allies after WWI. Had Germany's economy not be so devastated, the Germans might not have felt the need to start a war in order to turn things around.

Of course, if Hitler's art teacher hadn't tried to push him into architecture after criticizing his artwork, WWII might never have started. Or if it did, it would have been with a different leader in Germany.

But you can't blame WWII on Kaiser Wilhelm. The countries you mention were very minor players on the world scene, and there is no way those nations could have started that war, much less defeat enough nations to become much of a worldwide threat.

My assertion is simply based on the theory that without WW1?....there would be no WW2. I'm not alone in that assertion. This has been debated for decades. The harsh war reparations after the WW1 set the perfect environment for Hitlers nationalist policies. I only blame KW2 for getting the ball rolling.

(07-19-2014 10:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 03:18 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 01:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Kaiser Wilhelm II. MOFO set the stage for 2 fcking world wars by pushing Austria/Hungary to exact revenge against Serbia after Archduke Ferdinand was killed. One could make the assertion that his militaristic bravado was responsible for more deaths than any one leader. For sure the 16 million in WW1.

FYI: The Kaiser had nothing to do with WWII. That was all on Hitler, who gained his power in Germany after the Reichstag fire in 1933, which gave the Nazi Party an excuse to take absolute control over the German government.

But the desperate situation that led the Nazis to begin preparing for WWII were the harsh penalties imposed on Germany by the Allies after WWI. Had Germany's economy not be so devastated, the Germans might not have felt the need to start a war in order to turn things around.

Of course, if Hitler's art teacher hadn't tried to push him into architecture after criticizing his artwork, WWII might never have started. Or if it did, it would have been with a different leader in Germany.

But you can't blame WWII on Kaiser Wilhelm. The countries you mention were very minor players on the world scene, and there is no way those nations could have started that war, much less defeat enough nations to become much of a worldwide threat.

My assertion is simply based on the theory that without WW1?....there would be no WW2. I'm not alone in that assertion. This has been debated for decades. The harsh war reparations after the WW1 set the perfect environment for Hitlers nationalist policies. I only blame KW2 for getting the ball rolling.

You can't blame WWII on the Germans, since it was stupid decisions by Allied command that set the stage for WWII. They were the one who set the stage for future wars, and not just WWII. But you can lay Korea, Vietnam, and most of the unrest today at their feet.

Just look at the Middle East. The nations of the Middle East had their borders setup at the end of WWI by oil advisors (mostly from BP), who advised them to setup those borders around the major oil fields, instead of considering the people who lived in the area. So all the people of the Middle East suddenly found their families scattered across several nations, and their mortal enemies were fellow countrymen. In almost every nation of the Middle East you have areas where there are Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurd regions, and all of 'em are fighting each other all the time.

In Europe, Yugoslavia is a perfect example of the stupidity of the Allied command, which created this nation from the breakup of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire by merging the provisional State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs with the formerly independent Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro. Yugoslavia's original name was the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, established in 1918, and renamed the Kingdom Yugoslavia in 1929. The Kingdom part of the name disappeared after WWII. But the nation itself was doomed, since it was composed of people who have distrusted and hated each other since they first came into the area sometime in the stone age.

I could go on and on, since there are numerous examples of such ignorant decisions made by a people who were sick of war by the end of WWI. But their decisions made future wars inevitable, just as decisions made at the end of WWII led to further warfare down the road. Patton and MacArthur had the right idea at the end of WWII. But the President refused to listen to the idea, since the Russians were our allies in the fight. But both advised him to continue the war until the Russians surrendered (although MacArthur advised dropping one more A-bomb on Moscow), and then demand that the rest of the world disarm itself. That would have ensured peace, of a sort, for all time. But we weren't willing to commit to that.

I've wondered at times what the world would be like if we have done that. Would it be significantly different from today?

Hitler running a close second Stalin