PDA

View Full Version : A thought on the effects of US Republican dogmas



George.
10-10-2011, 06:55 AM
American right-wingers like to pile it on the "appeasers" who enabled Hitler, especially at Munich. It seems that they believe that thanks to Chamberlain being a wuss, the second world war ended up much harder to win than it could have been.

And yet the US Republican party was at least equally at fault. They vigorously promoted isolationism, even after the war had started. They made it impossible for FDR to answer France and Britain's pleas for help.

Imagine how it might have gone if the US had declared war on Germany, say, when the French government at Bordeaux pleaded for it. France would not have surrendered. Hitler would not have been so empowered, and would not have had a full year of peace in the continent to re-arm. Britain would not have faced Germany alone and with no army to speak of for a full year. Japan would not have found Pearl Harbor with its guard down. The whole thing might be over much quicker.

But of course, that didn't happen, because the Republican party, in its wisdom, was radically opposed to it.

skuthorp
10-10-2011, 07:02 AM
It'd be interesting to see a list of their financiers in that period in the light of what we know now about support for the fascists. I have the opinion that Chamberlin sacrificed his reputation in history to give britain some time.

Paul Pless
10-10-2011, 07:08 AM
Imagine how it might have gone if the US had declared war on Germany, say, when the French government at Bordeaux pleaded for it. France would not have surrendered. Unlikely. It only took France 35 days to fall. Mobilization took months for the United States. Any involvement in preventing France's collapse would have been token. . .

George.
10-10-2011, 07:14 AM
The French government was willing to move to Algeria and continue the fight if the US joined. When FDR answered that it wouldn't happen, the French government fell, and Petain & c. took over.

Paul Pless
10-10-2011, 07:27 AM
The French government was willing to move to Algeria and continue the fight if the US joined. When FDR answered that it wouldn't happen, the French government fell, and Petain & c. took over.The effect would have been the same. . .

George.
10-10-2011, 07:33 AM
You think the French Navy would have made no difference? Churchill wouldn't agree with that.

Also, the Nazis would have had to devote a lot more resources to subdue and occupy the whole of France, and would not have invaded North Africa. Once the Americans did arrive, instead of having to fight through North Africa they might have found a few hundred thousand French troops ready to join them in invading Europe.

TANSTAF1
10-10-2011, 07:57 AM
The Republican party has changed/is changing since then. It started in 1964 with Barry Goldwater and continued with Ronald Reagan. It was not just an East - West thing but also a blue blood/corporatist versus middle class and main street/blue collar thing. If the Tea Party succeeds in fully transforming the Republican Party then many of the remaining fascists will be out on the street begging for the Dems to take them in to join the rest of Obama's fascist cronies.

James McMullen
10-10-2011, 08:15 AM
. . . join the rest of Obama's fascist cronies.

Poe's Law applies to politics as well as religion apparently. Teh stupid, it burns!

TANSTAF1
10-10-2011, 08:48 AM
Here's some of Obama's fascist cronies who helped engineer billions of bailouts for Wall Street:

Daniel S. Loeb

Steven A. Cohen

Jamie Dimon

Lehman Brothers CEO Dick Fuld (bye, bye)

Merrill Lynch number-two Greg Fleming

BlackRock chief Larry Fink

Paul Volcker

Goldman Sachs executive Gary Cohn

Bear Stearns mortgage-bond whiz Warren Spector

Blackstone partner Mark Gallogly

investor Jacques Leviant

Morgan executive Tom Nides

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein

Morgan Stanley's former CEO John Mack

Citigroup chairman Robert Rubin

Goldman COO Gary Cohn

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan

The first three have had a recent falling out and of course Fuld wasn't enough of a crony. Too bad.

George.
10-10-2011, 09:01 AM
Obama would have made a fine Republican circa 1937.

Paul Pless
10-10-2011, 09:12 AM
Obama would have made a fine Republican circa 1937.By all accounts he was an okay junior senator from Illinois.

TANSTAF1
10-10-2011, 09:15 AM
Try again. The Republicans of 1937 were not Communists, nor National Socialists.

James McMullen
10-10-2011, 09:24 AM
But Obama's minions are apparently both, at the same time!

RonW
10-10-2011, 09:27 AM
Gee I am confused, I thought the democrats controlled the congress, the senate and the presidency
from 1933 through 1947....so how did these dirty republicans do this ?

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

George.
10-10-2011, 09:31 AM
By all accounts he was an okay junior senator from Illinois.

He also ran a wicked campaign, you have to admit. :D

I voted for Marina for president, but secretly I didn't want her to win. Not yet. She was one of our best senators ever, but executive posts take something completely different. Cicero was a mediocre consul.

Phillip Allen
10-10-2011, 10:28 AM
American right-wingers like to pile it on the "appeasers" who enabled Hitler, especially at Munich. It seems that they believe that thanks to Chamberlain being a wuss, the second world war ended up much harder to win than it could have been.

And yet the US Republican party was at least equally at fault. They vigorously promoted isolationism, even after the war had started. They made it impossible for FDR to answer France and Britain's pleas for help.

Imagine how it might have gone if the US had declared war on Germany, say, when the French government at Bordeaux pleaded for it. France would not have surrendered. Hitler would not have been so empowered, and would not have had a full year of peace in the continent to re-arm. Britain would not have faced Germany alone and with no army to speak of for a full year. Japan would not have found Pearl Harbor with its guard down. The whole thing might be over much quicker.

But of course, that didn't happen, because the Republican party, in its wisdom, was radically opposed to it.

what the heck have you been reading? :) you started another philosophical thread and are in full cry on the path of philosophy this morning... good for you of course but, what got you into this mode?

Paul Pless
10-10-2011, 10:46 AM
He also ran a wicked campaign, you have to admit. :DChange you can believe in.

George.
10-10-2011, 11:41 AM
what the heck have you been reading?

Reading? :D

Actually, what got me on this one is a podcast I have been listening to while I cook. A history of WWII, in excruciating detail. The fall of France took three half-hour episodes, and that was just the government - the battles took another half dozen.

Paul Pless
10-10-2011, 11:45 AM
in excruciating detail. The fall of France took three half-hour episodestook longer to tell about it then it took to happen

does sound excruciating

BrianW
10-10-2011, 04:15 PM
Gee I am confused, I thought the democrats controlled the congress, the senate and the presidency
from 1933 through 1947....so how did these dirty republicans do this ?

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

Democrats have been playing the "blame the Republicans" for a lot longer than I thought. ;)

Peerie Maa
10-10-2011, 04:39 PM
Is post #9 libelous?

S.V. Airlie
10-10-2011, 04:44 PM
Is post #9 libelous?I don't think so. Public figures are treated differently if I recall.

wardd
10-10-2011, 04:49 PM
Democrats have been playing the "blame the Republicans" for a lot longer than I thought. ;)

the republicans have been at fault longer than you thought

RonW
10-10-2011, 06:11 PM
Brian W -
Democrats have been playing the "blame the Republicans" for a lot longer than I thought.

Yep they sure have, you seem to be the only one that admits the whole piece is nothing more then B.S.
I have no problem blaming both sides for what they have done. But our liberal friends from the left (far Left)
have been rewriting history for the last 60 years...
They really get flustered when you tell them what a fook up FDR really was.......

BrianW
10-10-2011, 06:18 PM
Brian W -

Yep they sure have, you seem to be the only one that admits the whole piece is nothing more then B.S.

Well, there was no "piece" provided. Just GeorgeDot's original post. I was buying it, until you pointed out that the Democrats ruled the Oval Office, Senate, and the House during the time GeorgeDot is blaming Republicans.

I'm interested in his thoughts on that.

PeterSibley
10-10-2011, 06:26 PM
Me too .BY:D

I'd blame it on the US isolationism of the era, parties aside .

Gerarddm
10-10-2011, 06:26 PM
That list was funny, until Obama came along in 2008 most of those types were reliably Republican. And now they are going back again.

Fascist, LOL. I love the Bilge, always good for a laugh.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-10-2011, 06:39 PM
The American journalist William L. Shirer did a book in the 1950s called "Midcentury Journey". He was visiting places he had covered before the war and compared their old lives with the new. His take on France was it wasn't ready to fight with the likes of Hitler and that there was a large number of French fascists were were inclined to capitulate rather than fight.
France suffered from insufficent heavy industies.The French favored the traditional small businesses that employed only family members. There was not an over abundance of venture capitalists. The wealthy favored using their millions to seek their pleasures and pray for the day when a monarchy would replace the republic.
The French army had not recovered from WWI. Their low birth rate did not fill the gap left by all those killed and maimed. The ranks of the army were filled with middle aged reservists. The army command was very much into politics. To get to the top a general had to have a well placed sponser in the government. His overall abilities didn't matter that much. And we all know how things went from bad to worse when the time came to defend their soil.

BrianW
10-10-2011, 06:47 PM
Me too .BY:D

I'd blame it on the US isolationism of the era, parties aside .

The most likely scenario.

But then, where's the fun, if we're not blaming the party we don't like. True or not.

ccmanuals
10-10-2011, 06:53 PM
And your team goes crazy when we point out what a loser Reagan was. :)

RonW
10-10-2011, 07:40 PM
CC-
And your team goes crazy when we point out what a loser Reagan was.

Not me, I thought he was a (D) quality actor, and in the 1950's was president of the liberal actors guild, john wayne
did not like or respect him. And he actually belonged to the socialist/communist party.
In the early 60's during the goldwater conservative revolution reagan became a conservative.
He took the national debt from 900 billion to 2.7 trillion tripling it. Yes he did build up the military after viet nam
kinda depleted it. He also dipped into and borrowed from the social security fund.
And let's not forget his little 007 agent ollie north that traded drugs and guns and was here and there and even thought we
should declare martial law and fight terroism, ollie north that is.

And I for one do not appreciate a trickle down economy where the people are mice that feed from the scraps.
But with that being said he also did a lot of good and helped turned the economy around as well as the fuel shortages
of the carter administration. But let's not forget what a clown carter was, so it was kinda easy to do a better job.

ccmanuals
10-10-2011, 07:55 PM
Careful Ron, those folks that you run with here have a purity test. :)

George.
10-11-2011, 06:07 AM
Well, there was no "piece" provided. Just GeorgeDot's original post. I was buying it, until you pointed out that the Democrats ruled the Oval Office, Senate, and the House during the time GeorgeDot is blaming Republicans.

I'm interested in his thoughts on that.

OK, here are my thoughts:

1) There was an election in 1940.

2) The Democrats are a party of wusses who live in mortal fear of red-baiting and of being branded as unpatriotic. Sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper. Republicans at the time had defined patriotism as isolationism, and the red-meat crowd bought it.

3) Because of 1 and 2, FDR couldn't get a declaration of war passed.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
10-11-2011, 06:27 AM
Try again. The Republicans of 1937 were not Communists, nor National Socialists.

Yup, Obama is both of those things. I mean, what else can you call him when he takes billions of dollars of government money and hands it over to private corporations? What else can you call the guy who signs a health care bill that forcibly gives corporations millions of new customers? He's a Commie Socialist, alright. No doubt about it.

Some idjit tried to tell me that bailouts made Obama a corporatist. I just had to laugh. What a maroon.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-11-2011, 06:35 AM
Of course, Obama could just have let the US financial system collapse...

George.
10-11-2011, 06:43 AM
He could also have come up with a proper stimulus, back when his party controlled Congress.

TANSTAF1
10-11-2011, 06:44 AM
Instead he took measures to make sure it crashed much harder in the future. The chickens will come home to roost.

Stupid, inefficient organizations need to be allowed to fail so the system can be purged of incompetents. Instead he threw good money after bad.

Bailing them out allows the cronies to think they can gamble with someone else's money (the taxpayer's) at no risk to their own.

George.
10-11-2011, 07:12 AM
We had a bank bail-out in Brazil when the Asian and Russian crises of the late 1990's hit. Bank deposits by investors were covered, but the bankers lost their banks. No moral hazard. When 2008 came around, our banks were solid.

In the US, they didn't bail out the banks. They bailed out the bankers. There is a difference.

TANSTAF1
10-11-2011, 07:21 AM
We had a bank bail-out in Brazil when the Asian and Russian crises of the late 1990's hit. Bank deposits by investors were covered, but the bankers lost their banks. No moral hazard. When 2008 came around, our banks were solid.

In the US, they didn't bail out the banks. They bailed out the bankers. There is a difference.

I did not know that. I think you are making a difference between an investor (depositor of funds) and a stock (share) holder, right? Too bad that wasn't what was done here.

George.
10-11-2011, 07:29 AM
Right. Shareholders should have lost their pants. Instead, they are lining up to go again.