Wake up

[Traitorfish]

The 'subversive forces' which he was afraid would start a revolution in the UK, with the death, suffering and general nastiness which those things generally carry with them.

Because capitalism had so firmly assured that the years 1914-1918 were to be remembered as the most peaceful and prosperous of the era.

It's quite flimsy reasoning. So odd, how a vocal pro-fascist leader led his own country to war against other fascists..

You realise that Mussolini came within a hair's breadth of invading Nazi Germany over the Anschluss, right?

 

[Dachs]

It's quite flimsy reasoning. So odd, how a vocal pro-fascist leader led his own country to war against other fascists..

man, communism was theoretically an internationalist ideology and you still got this

fascism was, notably, not internationalist

it's kinda like how a bunch of monarchies and republics fought each other in the first world war even though THEY'RE ALL MONARCHIES ZOMG

 

[del62]

Stange isn't it at the start of the war it was Stalin the head of the soviet communist party that aligned itself with the National Socialists of Germany, the old Duce wasn't sure which side to join at this stage, I guess he thought the Germans were the stronger and sided with them and ended up being hung.

Anyway the commies / the facists and the National Socialists have much in common (of course the national socialists were by far the worse, but was Mussolini' s Italy any worse than the Communist's in charge of the Soviet Union? I some how doubt it.

 

[kramerfan86]

haha not what again? The Iraq problems are an issue created BY war not apathy. The indian power outage is the end result of shotty infrastructure exacerbated by rapid growth, once again not sure how that is a world apathy problem.

The only thing you listed that even flirts with an apathy problem is Iran, which is still highly debatable because Iran has yet to do anything that suggests they are insane enough to nuke another nuclear power who has nuclear power allies.

Of course its you, so the whole topic is likely parody.

 

[Antilogic]

I know how you feel. For some reason, people just don't believe me when I point out that FDR gunned down 37 people in the streets of Pakistan with his AK-47. When they ask me where I heard it, I have to admit that I don't have a primary source, which is actually kind of embarrassing.

Was it a drive-by? Ba dum phish!

 

[innonimatu]

Democracy was, as he candidly admitted, simply the least objectionable option available to him

The least objectionable option for britain...

Noting, of course, that Churchill's objections to Bolshevism had nothing to do with ethical or humanitarian concerns, and everything to do with a hostility to what he described as "subversive forces". If it had been otherwise, he probably wouldn't have used his political office to actively increase and extend the suffering which you simplistically attribute to "communist revolution", however we're defining that.

Well, the russian communists weren't exactly behaving as saints either. He kind of had some personal reasons to be hostile to them, what with Churchill being a noble and them killing off russian nobles. Just saying.

That quote was about the use of tear gas for Iraqi revolt of 1920. We still use tear gas as riot control, so I see no problem.

From what I understand of WindFish's post, he's saying that Churchill used lethal gasses, which simply isn't the case.

It wasn't about what is used now as tear gas. A variety of "lachrymatory gases", with different lethality, were employed during WW2. And at one point he specifically advised the use of mustard gas. On a letter to Hugh Trenchard about reducing the garrison in Mesopotamia and replacing soldiers with cheaper use of air power, from August 1920:

I think you should certainly proceed with the experimental work on gas bombs, especially mustard gas, which would inflict punishment on recalcitrant natives without inflicting grave injury to them.

He was either a total fool (supposing that mustard gas was mostly harmless? just after ww1 about which he should know about very well?), or strategically adding that "without inflicting grave injury to them" already thinking about evading responsibility for any consequences.

 

[Mad Man]

I know how you feel. For some reason, people just don't believe me when I point out that FDR gunned down 37 people in the streets of Pakistan with his AK-47. When they ask me where I heard it, I have to admit that I don't have a primary source, which is actually kind of embarrassing.


That quote was about the use of tear gas for Iraqi revolt of 1920. We still use tear gas as riot control, so I see no problem.

From what I understand of WindFish's post, he's saying that Churchill used lethal gasses, which simply isn't the case.

Maybe not but Churchill aplaudid Mussolini for using poison gas on Ethiopians during the second Abyssinian War.

 

[Traitorfish]

Anyway the commies / the facists and the National Socialists have much in common,

They had flags and marching, and in the 1930s so did everyone else. Claims to any substantial ideological kinship are, as far as I've ever encountered, contrived liberal masturbation at the expense of the facts.

...but was Mussolini' s Italy any worse than the Communist's in charge of the Soviet Union? I some how doubt it.

Who are you talking to? Nobody so far has made any comment regarding the relative crapness of Italy or the Soviet Union.

 

[Angst]

It's quite flimsy reasoning. So odd, how a vocal pro-fascist leader led his own country to war against other fascists..

Your statement makes as much sense as saying that there should be European peace in the 1800s because they were all nationalists.

Fascism is technically an even more extreme type of nationalism. It has nothing to do with other countries and does not care about the spread of itself; all it cares for is the spread of itself within your country's own borders.

 

[Arwon]

Link to video.



Not really, no.

Link to video.

 

[choxorn]

Fascism is technically an even more extreme type of nationalism. It has nothing to do with other countries and does not care about the spread of itself; all it cares for is the spread of itself within your country's own borders.

And sometimes, spreading said borders.

 

[r16]

Beyond my typical objections/laughter at a MC thread, I have to question where the 660 million people figure came from.

it is yet another behind the scenes cloak and dagger Muslim action to make India look bad , which presumably makes Pakistan look better automatically .

where the Indian electric grid could not match the demands and crashed as Kramerfan86 already alluded to . A Turkish equivalent a few years back saw a generator fail in my city and the cascading failures put the entire Western Turkey section of the power grid out of order .

 

[del62]

Didn't California have power problems a few years ago?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's quite flimsy reasoning. So odd, how a vocal pro-fascist leader led his own country to war against other fascists..

Irony.

 

[Quackers]

Maybe my reasoning is off, but calling Churchill a "vocal supporter of fascism" - I am forced to disagree with it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You're not forced to give such abysmal reasoning to support your opposition though.

 

[Traitorfish]

Maybe my reasoning is off, but calling Churchill a "vocal supporter of fascism" - I am forced to disagree with it.

What about the statement do you regard as incorrect? Taking into account that, as we've pointed out, your previous claim that a pro-fascist would not go to war with a fascist is invalid.

 

[Cutlass]

Didn't California have power problems a few years ago?

Yes, but they were caused by free market deregulation.

 

[Quackers]

It wasn't that bad. After all, if Churchill was such a vocal supporter of Fascism why didn't he choose to ally with three, basicaly, fascist countries in the shape of Germany, Italy and Japan? These three fascist countries had achieved a internationalist-fascistic (whether that fits in with the theory or not) alliance and Churchill should have been allied up in no time - after all he was a "vocal supporter of fascism". I think the counter objection to my point (fascists do not have an internationalist urge) may be right in some cases but it isn't a good rule, after all we have the proof of the Axis to disprove that. Some people just don't have the right imagination

 

[holy king]

japan really wasnt fascist.