<!--QuoteBegin--Immacolata+Oct 27 2003, 06:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Immacolata @ Oct 27 2003, 06:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Oct 28 2003, 12:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Oct 28 2003, 12:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bah, I believe that if people get oppressed long enough, they either take over by theirselves or people in the upper levels dispatch the moron upsetting people and messing economy. Hasn't that been always the case in history? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Erm no. That's utopian Marxist thinking I am afraid. If history shows anything it isn't that systems are toppled over from below, it's rather that it gets top heavy and implodes. The roman empire wasn't overthrown by it's non-citizens and slaves, but by a pressure from outside that the system was unable to cope with, perhaps due to increasing conformity and topheavyness.
In recent times we have seen several countries having undergone revolutions. However, those were mostly due to external subterfuge (like how Lenin was supported by Germany) combined with increasingly topheavy regimes - the last tzar didn't exactly have a good way to run his empire, plagued by war and famine. If you keep the peons fed and shoot insurgents, you'll probably remain in power for quite a while. As long as you can justify your rule, as Machiavelli predicted, you will rule. And keeping everyone fed is a good justification, people will endure that some of the free thinkers gets a bullet to the head now and then if the alternative is starvation for everyone AND free bullets to the head. And if you get ursuped, chances are higher that it is a man of the system rather than some peasant-turned-liberator-of-the-people. Alas <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Democracy, however good and flawed, also produces men of the systems. That is why I predict that at some point they too will topple and be replaced by something different. Perhaps better, let us all hope, perhaps worse. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And Immac makes excellent points as well. People think of the Nazis as only lasting a few years and that dictatorships are always doomed to revolution. But the North Koreans have lasted for 55 years. The Soviets lasted for 75. The Japanese and chinese emperors went for centuries. The caesars for a millenia.
The concept of a long-running, legally-maintained series of elected officials is far more rare than a long line of totalitarian dictators...
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 28 2003, 12:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 28 2003, 12:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The concept of a long-running, legally-maintained series of elected officials is far more rare than a long line of totalitarian dictators... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Democracies run well because they have so far seemed to promote freedom of thought as well as freedom of commerce. The day your elected official cannot provide jobs and economic opportunites, he will get ousted. The beauty of democracy is that it has it's own little revolution vent build in: the elections. Once and in a while the people get their chance to lit the torches and grab the pitchforks and storm the king's castle. Sort of. That does not make it impervious to threats and idiocy however. Abuse by the rulers, long lasting stagnation, famine and threat of war etc. will topple even a democracy.
Nazi Germany could very well have been running for a long time, perhaps with a more moderate Reichsvater. USSR ran for ages in spite of an abusive line of dictators, because they kept the peons fed. And shot the rest. I guess we're moving out of the topic now. Time to start a new ? I love it when MonsE is bored at work .)
None of the leaders of the Axis powers started off by promising to ethnically cleanse Europe. Granted, there were undertones of racial and religious hatred but it all boils down to the depression that these countries were experienced.
Hitler and Moussilini promised economic recovery. Ethnic and religious purity and supremacy were just 'Red Herrings' used to rally the populace and distract them from the actual situation.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 28 2003, 12:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 28 2003, 12:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Immacolata+Oct 27 2003, 06:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Immacolata @ Oct 27 2003, 06:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Oct 28 2003, 12:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Oct 28 2003, 12:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bah, I believe that if people get oppressed long enough, they either take over by theirselves or people in the upper levels dispatch the moron upsetting people and messing economy. Hasn't that been always the case in history? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Erm no. That's utopian Marxist thinking I am afraid. If history shows anything it isn't that systems are toppled over from below, it's rather that it gets top heavy and implodes. The roman empire wasn't overthrown by it's non-citizens and slaves, but by a pressure from outside that the system was unable to cope with, perhaps due to increasing conformity and topheavyness.
In recent times we have seen several countries having undergone revolutions. However, those were mostly due to external subterfuge (like how Lenin was supported by Germany) combined with increasingly topheavy regimes - the last tzar didn't exactly have a good way to run his empire, plagued by war and famine. If you keep the peons fed and shoot insurgents, you'll probably remain in power for quite a while. As long as you can justify your rule, as Machiavelli predicted, you will rule. And keeping everyone fed is a good justification, people will endure that some of the free thinkers gets a bullet to the head now and then if the alternative is starvation for everyone AND free bullets to the head. And if you get ursuped, chances are higher that it is a man of the system rather than some peasant-turned-liberator-of-the-people. Alas <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Democracy, however good and flawed, also produces men of the systems. That is why I predict that at some point they too will topple and be replaced by something different. Perhaps better, let us all hope, perhaps worse. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And Immac makes excellent points as well. People think of the Nazis as only lasting a few years and that dictatorships are always doomed to revolution. But the North Koreans have lasted for 55 years. The Soviets lasted for 75. The Japanese and chinese emperors went for centuries. The caesars for a millenia.
The concept of a long-running, legally-maintained series of elected officials is far more rare than a long line of totalitarian dictators... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not saying dictators can't last, I'm saying hard core oppressors won't last. For example Hitler had dozens of his closest Generals scheming behind his back to take over. Everyone was just waiting for the right opportunity, because Hitler wasn't someone godly like Caesar or Japanese emperors. Over hyped? Definately but people would have accepted the next guy in the line easily. Now unless he would have been a dumbarse like Hitler, he wouldn't have continued executing his finest workers. Germany was too top-heavy(to quote Immac) with several people sharing the power.
Also I'd like to add that, like in PM that I sent to MonsE(dunno if he got it), WW2: winter war, ruskies attacking Finland wasn't economical in anyway. It was strategical in military defense way, but not economical. Unless you want to go deep deep philosophical and say it was done to protect the economy, but I know you won't because it's a bullcrap answer really <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> With that kind of thinking pattern I could draw a connection between Black Sabbath and cheese-sandwich. Edit: I read MonsE's answer after posting this. Yeah, he did do what I feared the most <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
It's 0:07 in here so I think it's time for sleep. I'm actually going to get over 7 hours of sleep tonight; must be a new record. Good night everyone.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Oct 27 2003, 05:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Oct 27 2003, 05:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not saying dictators can't last, I'm saying hard core oppressors won't last. For example Hitler had dozens of his closest Generals scheming behind his back to take over. Everyone was just waiting for the right opportunity, because Hitler wasn't someone godly like Caesar or Japanese emperors. Over hyped? Definately but people would have accepted the next guy in the line easily. Now unless he would have been a dumbarse like Hitler, he wouldn't have continued executing his finest workers. Germany was too top-heavy(to quote Immac) with several people sharing the power. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am inclined to disagree. Hitler was in the process of creating his own cult. Just watch, "Triumph of The Will" directed by Leni Riefenstahl.
It is propaganda but it gives you an idea of what was being fed to the German people. In the war for the minds of the German people. Hitler was a demagogue. Remove Hitler and you removed the will behind the people. It happens all the time to such political institutions founded on the belief in one person.
An example of this happened in US politics as well. Read "All the King's Men" by Robert Penn Warren. It gives a bit of an idea as to what happens when people follow such a leader, <b>edit:</b> and that leader is removed. There really is no other person that can take over after a demagogue.
In short, no other man could have taken over after Hitler and maintained the Nazi conquests. The country would have collapsed with Hitler.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Oct 28 2003, 12:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Oct 28 2003, 12:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also I'd like to add that, like in PM that I sent to MonsE(dunno if he got it), WW2: winter war, ruskies attacking Finland wasn't economical in anyway. It was strategical in military defense way, but not economical. Unless you want to go deep deep philosophical and say it was done to protect the economy, but I know you won't because it's a bullcrap answer really <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> With that kind of thinking pattern I could draw a connection between Black Sabbath and cheese-sandwich. Edit: I read MonsE's answer after posting this. Yeah, he did do what I feared the most <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
It's 0:07 in here so I think it's time for sleep. I'm actually going to get over 7 hours of sleep tonight; must be a new record. Good night everyone. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Im sure that the war on Finland was just a part of the genereal tendency to land grabbing in that time. The russians had gorged themselves on territory already. Perhaps Finland itself was of insignificant value in an economic sense, but it would be more territory and more people to feed into the already large USSR economy. Few more laborers, wheat growers, raw material to mine. What ever the actual stated reason (not the one given to Finland, but the one the planners had for doing it), it would essentially boil down to economy. If only outright old fashioned GREED for more, more, more!
Just to set the record straight, here was my exact reply to Dread from PM:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Russia attacking Finland creates a safe zone against people attacking one of the most important manufacturing/transportation/logistical centers of the entire country, Leningrad. Without the economics of Leningrad sitting right on the edge of disaster, there is no invasion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So neener <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
Bah, I believe that if people get oppressed long enough, they either take over by theirselves or people in the upper levels dispatch the moron upsetting people and messing economy. Hasn't that been always the case in history? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm no. That's utopian Marxist thinking I am afraid. If history shows anything it isn't that systems are toppled over from below, it's rather that it gets top heavy and implodes. The roman empire wasn't overthrown by it's non-citizens and slaves, but by a pressure from outside that the system was unable to cope with, perhaps due to increasing conformity and topheavyness.
In recent times we have seen several countries having undergone revolutions. However, those were mostly due to external subterfuge (like how Lenin was supported by Germany) combined with increasingly topheavy regimes - the last tzar didn't exactly have a good way to run his empire, plagued by war and famine. If you keep the peons fed and shoot insurgents, you'll probably remain in power for quite a while. As long as you can justify your rule, as Machiavelli predicted, you will rule. And keeping everyone fed is a good justification, people will endure that some of the free thinkers gets a bullet to the head now and then if the alternative is starvation for everyone AND free bullets to the head. And if you get ursuped, chances are higher that it is a man of the system rather than some peasant-turned-liberator-of-the-people. Alas <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Democracy, however good and flawed, also produces men of the systems. That is why I predict that at some point they too will topple and be replaced by something different. Perhaps better, let us all hope, perhaps worse. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And Immac makes excellent points as well. People think of the Nazis as only lasting a few years and that dictatorships are always doomed to revolution. But the North Koreans have lasted for 55 years. The Soviets lasted for 75. The Japanese and chinese emperors went for centuries. The caesars for a millenia.
The concept of a long-running, legally-maintained series of elected officials is far more rare than a long line of totalitarian dictators...
The concept of a long-running, legally-maintained series of elected officials is far more rare than a long line of totalitarian dictators... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Democracies run well because they have so far seemed to promote freedom of thought as well as freedom of commerce. The day your elected official cannot provide jobs and economic opportunites, he will get ousted. The beauty of democracy is that it has it's own little revolution vent build in: the elections. Once and in a while the people get their chance to lit the torches and grab the pitchforks and storm the king's castle. Sort of. That does not make it impervious to threats and idiocy however. Abuse by the rulers, long lasting stagnation, famine and threat of war etc. will topple even a democracy.
Nazi Germany could very well have been running for a long time, perhaps with a more moderate Reichsvater. USSR ran for ages in spite of an abusive line of dictators, because they kept the peons fed. And shot the rest. I guess we're moving out of the topic now. Time to start a new ? I love it when MonsE is bored at work .)
None of the leaders of the Axis powers started off by promising to ethnically cleanse Europe. Granted, there were undertones of racial and religious hatred but it all boils down to the depression that these countries were experienced.
Hitler and Moussilini promised economic recovery. Ethnic and religious purity and supremacy were just 'Red Herrings' used to rally the populace and distract them from the actual situation.
Bah, I believe that if people get oppressed long enough, they either take over by theirselves or people in the upper levels dispatch the moron upsetting people and messing economy. Hasn't that been always the case in history? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm no. That's utopian Marxist thinking I am afraid. If history shows anything it isn't that systems are toppled over from below, it's rather that it gets top heavy and implodes. The roman empire wasn't overthrown by it's non-citizens and slaves, but by a pressure from outside that the system was unable to cope with, perhaps due to increasing conformity and topheavyness.
In recent times we have seen several countries having undergone revolutions. However, those were mostly due to external subterfuge (like how Lenin was supported by Germany) combined with increasingly topheavy regimes - the last tzar didn't exactly have a good way to run his empire, plagued by war and famine. If you keep the peons fed and shoot insurgents, you'll probably remain in power for quite a while. As long as you can justify your rule, as Machiavelli predicted, you will rule. And keeping everyone fed is a good justification, people will endure that some of the free thinkers gets a bullet to the head now and then if the alternative is starvation for everyone AND free bullets to the head. And if you get ursuped, chances are higher that it is a man of the system rather than some peasant-turned-liberator-of-the-people. Alas <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Democracy, however good and flawed, also produces men of the systems. That is why I predict that at some point they too will topple and be replaced by something different. Perhaps better, let us all hope, perhaps worse. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And Immac makes excellent points as well. People think of the Nazis as only lasting a few years and that dictatorships are always doomed to revolution. But the North Koreans have lasted for 55 years. The Soviets lasted for 75. The Japanese and chinese emperors went for centuries. The caesars for a millenia.
The concept of a long-running, legally-maintained series of elected officials is far more rare than a long line of totalitarian dictators... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not saying dictators can't last, I'm saying hard core oppressors won't last. For example Hitler had dozens of his closest Generals scheming behind his back to take over. Everyone was just waiting for the right opportunity, because Hitler wasn't someone godly like Caesar or Japanese emperors. Over hyped? Definately but people would have accepted the next guy in the line easily. Now unless he would have been a dumbarse like Hitler, he wouldn't have continued executing his finest workers. Germany was too top-heavy(to quote Immac) with several people sharing the power.
Also I'd like to add that, like in PM that I sent to MonsE(dunno if he got it), WW2: winter war, ruskies attacking Finland wasn't economical in anyway. It was strategical in military defense way, but not economical. Unless you want to go deep deep philosophical and say it was done to protect the economy, but I know you won't because it's a bullcrap answer really <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> With that kind of thinking pattern I could draw a connection between Black Sabbath and cheese-sandwich. Edit: I read MonsE's answer after posting this. Yeah, he did do what I feared the most <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
It's 0:07 in here so I think it's time for sleep. I'm actually going to get over 7 hours of sleep tonight; must be a new record. Good night everyone.
I'm not saying dictators can't last, I'm saying hard core oppressors won't last. For example Hitler had dozens of his closest Generals scheming behind his back to take over. Everyone was just waiting for the right opportunity, because Hitler wasn't someone godly like Caesar or Japanese emperors. Over hyped? Definately but people would have accepted the next guy in the line easily. Now unless he would have been a dumbarse like Hitler, he wouldn't have continued executing his finest workers. Germany was too top-heavy(to quote Immac) with several people sharing the power.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am inclined to disagree. Hitler was in the process of creating his own cult. Just watch, "Triumph of The Will" directed by Leni Riefenstahl.
It is propaganda but it gives you an idea of what was being fed to the German people. In the war for the minds of the German people. Hitler was a demagogue. Remove Hitler and you removed the will behind the people. It happens all the time to such political institutions founded on the belief in one person.
An example of this happened in US politics as well. Read "All the King's Men" by Robert Penn Warren. It gives a bit of an idea as to what happens when people follow such a leader, <b>edit:</b> and that leader is removed. There really is no other person that can take over after a demagogue.
In short, no other man could have taken over after Hitler and maintained the Nazi conquests. The country would have collapsed with Hitler.
Also I'd like to add that, like in PM that I sent to MonsE(dunno if he got it), WW2: winter war, ruskies attacking Finland wasn't economical in anyway. It was strategical in military defense way, but not economical. Unless you want to go deep deep philosophical and say it was done to protect the economy, but I know you won't because it's a bullcrap answer really <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> With that kind of thinking pattern I could draw a connection between Black Sabbath and cheese-sandwich. Edit: I read MonsE's answer after posting this. Yeah, he did do what I feared the most <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
It's 0:07 in here so I think it's time for sleep. I'm actually going to get over 7 hours of sleep tonight; must be a new record. Good night everyone. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Im sure that the war on Finland was just a part of the genereal tendency to land grabbing in that time. The russians had gorged themselves on territory already. Perhaps Finland itself was of insignificant value in an economic sense, but it would be more territory and more people to feed into the already large USSR economy. Few more laborers, wheat growers, raw material to mine. What ever the actual stated reason (not the one given to Finland, but the one the planners had for doing it), it would essentially boil down to economy. If only outright old fashioned GREED for more, more, more!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Russia attacking Finland creates a safe zone against people attacking one of the most important manufacturing/transportation/logistical centers of the entire country, Leningrad. Without the economics of Leningrad sitting right on the edge of disaster, there is no invasion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So neener <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->