Hitler's "Soft-Side" Portrayed in New German Movie

Anybody seen this new movie yet? What did you think?

Lifted from the Reuters news-wire:

I bet I'm not the only one here to have heard a totally sane German say that Hitler had his good points

Well I guess without wanting to go all Monty Python "What have the Romans ever done for us?" - He did bring us the autobahn...

To portray Hitler as a human being is totally insane this film is sure to bring sympathy of alot of Germans and maybe recreating a few nazi supporters along the way

I don't agree with his political agenda that's for sure - Professionaly he was a barbarian by our standards but we don't really know a lot about him personally as the violence and agression of his "business" life makes for better viewing / audience figures and therefore makes more money.

If he did have a "soft-side" then in the interests of balance I personally don't have a problem with it being portrayed in a film - The guy was a human and I reckon only by accepting that it is possible for some of us humans to be like him under the surface can we make ourselves better people and stop similar things happening again.

If this causes a rise in the number of Neo-Nazi groups, well so be it - There are laws to stop them practising their atrocities and I don't see that a film shouldn't be made for fear of the behaviour of a minority group.

Hitler was no human he was a monster the human devil to be more precise to make him look good is Neo-Nazi in itself

I don't have any problem with the film. In some ways it might not be a bad thing if it's made clear that he was not only an insane monster, but could also havae a likeable side. After all, the likeable side probably played a major part in getting people to listen to him in the first place - and that, at least, is somthing that could well happen again. So it's no bad thing if the filmgoing public is made aware of this.

Thats true I notice the American's play follow the leader no matter what which is rather worrying. If Bush charmed America into a world war they would prob follow but if Blair said it to the Brits we would prob tell him to "Piss Off!" and he would be out of power within days

What? You mean in the same way as Blair charmed his way into power in 1997 and then asked his press office and the civil service to create a case to justify taking us into an unjust war with Iraq...In the process Bush and Blair have also managed to piss off every Muslim nation in the land and that indeed is probably eventually going to lead to something far worse than a world war.
(A lot of weapons grade plutonium went missing after the USSR broke up and the Mafia took over - There are, as we all know, a lot of of pissed off Muslims in Chechnya with a lot of spare-change lying around.)

Think everything in your email has already happened to be honest - Pity we didn't understand the likes of Hitler a little better before 9/11 - Then perhaps we could have stopped the real "Insane Monster" aka George W getting into power and charming Blair into backing his "evil" masterplan to become the World's Superpower.

The film seems and interesting one, and I might go and see it.

Simply saying that Hitler was monster, is a rather trivia label for a very complicated personality who somehow managed to get himself in to a position of ultimate power. Lets face it, there are lots of people just like Hitler in the world today, it's just that they don't, thankfully, get themselves absolute power of a large powerful country very often.

Hitler had a very charming and persuasive side, especially with women. In the 20s when he was broke and the NDSAP was going nowhere, it was a number of rich women who bankrolled him, and helped him make the right connections in Society (Winifried Wagner for example). When you see interviews with the people who worked for him, they all say the same thing; he was a kind, charming, attentive boss. He always remembered their birthdays, theier kids names etc. Without this sort of interpersonal skills, he would not have got into power. If you see the interview with Winifried Wagner (from 1975), she stills regards Hitler as the kindly 'Onkel Wolf' who used to visit her in Bayreuth.

The whole Nazi 'system' was a very complicated and inefficient, run by probably the laziest dictator in history, who managed to cause the worst atrocities known to man.

"What? You mean in the same way as Blair charmed his way into power in 1997 and then asked his press office and the civil service to create a case to justify taking us into an unjust war with Iraq...In the process Bush and Blair have also managed to piss off every Muslim nation in the land and that indeed is probably eventually going to lead to something far worse than a world war.
(A lot of weapons grade plutonium went missing after the USSR broke up and the Mafia took over - There are, as we all know, a lot of of pissed off Muslims in Chechnya with a lot of spare-change lying around.)

Think everything in your email has already happened to be honest - Pity we didn't understand the likes of Hitler a little better before 9/11 - Then perhaps we could have stopped the real "Insane Monster" aka George W getting into power and charming Blair into backing his "evil" masterplan to become the World's Superpower. "

No1. The US are the world's only superpower and have been for a while. No2. If so much of this plutonium has gone missing then why hasn't anything happened already? I'll tell you why, because the terrorists are useless. Sept 11th was a fluke, the CIA missed every clue. If some guy in a batman suit can get into buckingham palace, oh and a guy dressed as bin laden too then why can't terrorists. I've lost count of the amount of times our security has been exposed. The truth is this terrorist threat has been exaggerated and bin laden is probably dead anyway. This plutonium, I am sure has been located by security services, otherwise the small band of useless terrorists would have tried to use it by now.

I'm not disputing that America is a super-power, It's actually my point.
It seems that in the case of George W Bush and Tony Blair power really does corrupt.
What Bush is trying to do is to complete what his Daddy couldn't finish by delivering a personal vendetta on Saddam whilst also concluding some family business with an Arab family who have had very well documented interests in Bush family businesses since the 1970's. The family in question are the Bin Ladins.

Again, the case of the missing plutonium and other equipment is well documented. The USSR's split up was very messy. There's a lot of backbiting about territory and religion particularly Islam which is not helping to heal old wounds and create peace. It's a lawless society and very difficult (I'm told) to track missing people and money let alone weapons equipment that the Russians deny to Western powers ever existed - The security/intelligence services are not miracle workers and aren't able to know all evil.

I don't see how you can brand Islamic terrorists as useless! These people if anything have shown themselves to be extremely clever - If they applied their skills to something constructive in Western capitalist culture they would be very, very rich - It is said many of them already do.

They spent years planning 9/11 (The Hamburg cell ring any bells?) and as long working out how to move money and make money out of money with no-one noticing to fund it - They even took flying lessons for crying out loud!
They also made billions of dollars out of 9/11 to it's thought fund future terrorist activities by buying and selling shares in organisations affected such as American Airlines and construction companies.
Again in the last fortnite these people have shown themselves to be well organised, prepared and well funded in their attack on School Number One in Beslan.
To call them useless is just plain daft.

Whether it be MI5, MI6, the CIA or the NSA these intelligence organisations are having real trouble tracking these people and their money down. It's partly due to the technology age and the way you can if you want to, hide behind a computer and thanks to the lack of border controls in Europe move around easily. (Interesting that with strict rules on population movement and control in Germany that the 9/11 terrorists chose it as their base - If it can happen in Germany it can happen anywhere in Europe. )

That's why the US and UK governments have created a culture of fear so that we will agree to let them pass laws that mean they can impinge on our civil liberties to monitor the internet etc and track down these people and stop them.
The problem I have with all that is that it as a direct result of Bush and Blair's actions that we are all under this threat in the first place.

In the past we have always been able to negotiate with terrorists because ultimately they were cowards and didn't want to get themselves killed for their cause - Islamic terrorists believe absoulutely that when they die they go to paradise so what have they got to lose?

Thanks to our lax border and population controls and the position Presidents "Dumb and Dumber" have put us in we are indeed under a real and present threat...As I'm sure Kenneth Bigley will tell you - He'll be beheaded in a couple of hours at the hands of "useless" terrorists thanks to our Prime Minister.

I wouldn't say the Islamic terrorists are useless, although it is not entirely clear what they are trying to achieve. If the Chechen terrorists wanted to ensure that the Russian Army stays in Chechnya for a very long time, then the Beslan school massacre was the right way to go about it. In doing that they've upped the ante to such a degree, then Putin has to do something radical or lose face.

9/11 although very dramatic, did nothing positive for Al-Qaeda's goals (for their reputation it was good), all they achieved was to increase Bush's power, and allow him to keep the US population scared, and therefore to have virtually a free hand to do what he liked. The complete chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan is the result.

The fact is that the US government and to some extent our government, really don't give a monkeys about the people and what they think. They have their agenda, and they only want to keep their corporate friends happy.

As for the ex-USSR and their weapons, well here's the situation. Irregularly and poorly paid soldiers, looking after hi-tech weaponry. Bloke turns up with suitcase full of cash, the chances of getting caught are small. Guess what happens.

Whether or net weapons grade plutonium has been traded is anyones guess. If a terrorist organisation has a bomb (even a dirty bomb would do), are they going to use it, and against whom? If somebody nuked NY or Tel Aviv, the response is going to be pretty extreme.

How we get out of this cycle of violence is anyone's guess.

The War against Iraq was not the continuation of a family feud. The war against Iraq was about securing oil, thus not having to rely on Saudi Arabia, which is threatening to become unstable and securing a strategic position in the Gulf, handy for a strike at Iran. To say it was Bush getting the guy daddy beat is far too simplistic. Being able to station troops in Iraq makes sense in order to check Iranian nuclear ambitions and also to avoid future energy crisises. Its also important to note that it isn't just Britain and America who went to war in Iraq, it was supported by many other countries. Just because France, Germany and Russia were vocally opposed does not constitute a majority viewpoint.
I believe you must have watched Farenheit 911 with your Bin Laden connections comment, well, George Bush Snr is a private citizen now, he's allowed to work for whoever he wants to, would you say he just has to give up work now he's no longer president? And of course he's going to use his knowledge and contacts in order to do his job the best he can, wouldn't you?
Yes the planning was extensive for 911, but all the inquiries held afterwards point to serious intelligence failures comparable to Pearl Harbour, so obviously they weren't so good as to not have been able to have been stopped. Now that lessons are being learnt, Islamic extremists are having less and less success, with the exception of places well outside the Western Intelligence Services home turf, i.e Indonesia.
As for those missing weapons, I, like you have heard many scare stories, but thats all they are, stories, there is just no evidence any terrorist group has come into possesion of WMD's, in fact, if they did, in Russia, we might expect to see Chechen Terrorists use them first, but in the latest atrocity, Beslan, they just had conventional explosives.
The terrorists have been over-hyped, because, we need a threat, and the US Defence industry needs a threat, to justify stustained levels of high spending. I also think you under-estimate the intelligence services, it's for sure they know where you are now, every site you've ever visited and have checked plenty of your e-mails. They know which countries you've visited and which shops and what you bought from them.
Mr Biggley has my sympathy, but he should know better than to go to Iraq in the current climate, and then have no protection.
We've faced a simlar foe before, in the fantatical Japanese. I have no doubt we will prevail again.

I agree that the terrorist threat has been hyped, and I think the US public are suceptible to this hype. After all, the US went through two world wars with virtually no civilian casualties, so the average yank regards the US as a safe place to live. 9/11 changed that, and now Bush is keeping them scared.

The security services, do have access to large amounts of information, but this is also a problem; they have too much information. Using Echelon to trawl Email and phone is probably effective when you have a specific target, but not so effective if you use it to trigger alerts based on key words or phrases. What the intelligence lacks in the Muslim world was good human intelligence. A lot of Al-Qaeda's activity is very low-tech and all the hi-tech stuff the CIA has won't help in tracking them.

Part of the problem in the Muslim world, is that most islamic countries are not democratic, in fact they are pretty brutal. They've sucessfully persuaded many of their citizens, that their problems are not due to misgovernance, rather because of the big bad USA. Of course Bush has reinforced this with Iraq and a lack of urgency to find a solution in Israel.

It is also interesting to note, that countries with a large well-educated muslim population (India, Malaysia, Indonesia) don't seem to have too many problems with militants...

I don't think that's quite true. While I would agree that it probably applies to Malaysia, it certainly doesn't apply to Indonesia.

India is at present probably a borderline case. While their problems in Kashmir have up till now been more of a traditional separatist struggle, there are some signs that the fundamentalists are starting to collect increasing support - possibly because they can point to apparent "successes" in other regions.

India is predominantly Hindu, not Muslim.

The evil side!

Using weapons of mass distraction on civilians,
Genocide,
Concentration camps,
Gassing civilians,
Ethnic cleansing,
Murder of over 30 million people,
Indiscriminately taking over countries,
Dividing the enemy, and concurring,
Oppression of concurred lands,
Destroying generation via forceful drug pushing,
Putting 2/3 of the world under one authoritarian ruler,

Well am I talking about Germany? No! The winner is….. (Drum roll….) Britain!

History is written by the victor, and generally speaking Britain has been the victor. As a result of which it has got away with one of the most brutal abuses upon this world, and the worst part is that it is that few brits even realize this!
Hitler was no nice guy! But he was human in just the same way as every British leader has been human, whilst at the same time endorsing all of the above points.

So what is the difference? We won!

3 million Vietnamese dead, who cares America, won! 15,000 Iraqis dead (at the very least, and only looking at the last year) who cares America is going to write its own history books on the subject that will then be taken as law! Just as Britain did over the last 200 to 300 years!

So when we talk about Hitler as being a monster! No he was not. Monster mean that he is not human, devoid of humanity, and it acts as an excuse for us! By calling him a monster we are trying to show that he is different to us all. And so cleansing ourselves of this connection! The truth is that we are all to some way or the other guilty! Either for allowing such thing to happen (Bush, Blair), or because given the same position, our choices would hardly differ.

Bush uses the word “terrorist� to demonify his enemy’s, the fact that millions have died and are dieing as a result of American actions and foreign policies is never spoken of. I have hardly herd the word “state terrorism� used in connection with Americas actions in Cuba, Latin America, Africa or Asia!

So personally I would be very unwilling to call Hitler a monster, otherwise we may see that the monsters are all around. And who is there left to look under the bed for us!

If anyone contests the above list I am more than happy to elaborate on the issue!

Britain is a democracy, Nazi Germany wasn't, neither was Communist Russia. You think we're so bad, you obviously wish you lived in one of those countries.

Germany was a democracy at the time they voted Hitler into power. By the time they realised what they'd done, it was too late. Just like America really.

Strange, the President can't go to war without Congress agreeing. And last time I looked Bush had a six point lead in the polls over Kerry.

Actually, The US LOST in Vietnam! They were forced to withdraw, and South Vietnam became communist.


Equating the British Empire and Nazi Germany is way off the mark. The British wasn't the most enlightened empire at times, but in no way can it be compared to the third Reich. The whole things sounds like a troll to me...

I don't know where you got the figures for 30 Million deaths, or taking over 2/3 of the world (I would be interested to know).

In many of the former colonies, now that they are independant, the quality of life for the people there is worse than it was before. Eg most of the African colonies..

You are right, however, when you say that Bush doesn't care about deaths of innocent people caused by US foreign policy, unless if course they are American..

I think it is somewhat ignorant to say that past “terrorist� were useless. Most “terrorist� are freedom fighters IRA, ETA, etc. These are people who are fighting a war against a regime that they feel does not support their needs locally or religiously. None of the major freedom fighters of the last century had in mind the deaths of innocent civilians. I remember arguing with people as long ago as 10 years, that the IRA were not evil. That they had good reasons for doing what they did, and that most deaths were accidental (executions of high profile people excluded).

There intention was never to massacre innocent civilians, but rather to disrupt the normal daily routine and focus public attention to their goal. How easy would it have been to have killed a few thousand people on London tubes system? But the fact that they did not do this testifies to their more peaceful goals, rather than to a bloodthirsty attitude. And all said and done Northern Ireland is now almost on the brink of a permanent settlement (It is now the Unionist who are holding things up, and making a problem).

The situation with the Arab Muslims is that they have undergone a 5 centuries of oppression by western culture. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a military regime propped up by America and Europe, to ensure that the oil runs freely. Israel is used and funded by America to keep all other countries in the region in check. Israel does no wrong, and if it does America is there with its veto at the Security Council. Iraq ignored one resolution at the Security Council, Israel ignored over 30!

So it is not really surprising that the Muslims are getting pissed of. It was after all just a matter of time! And the whole thing with Osama Bin Laden, well “Selbst schuld� as they say around here. The CIA were funding these bustards for the last 2 decades, to fight against Russia, now it has bitten the hand that feed it. Oups! Well, shit happens!

Osama and his crew did do a mistake, and they are not the first ones in history to do it. They misjudged Americas lack for open warfare during a moment of peacetime for weakness. Any nation who feels itself attacked, and exposed, will defend itself rabidly. As America is defending itself for the attack against it, so too are the Arabs defending themselves for the attack against them. The only difference is that now they are playing dirty. Why? Because they have nothing to loose. And no way of winning! Unfortunately from now on it will be the innocent who will suffer!

@bee1101

Without wanting to completely take your post apart, I have indeed seen Fahrenheit 911 but more importantly like most people in my line of work I've seen most of the documentary evidence that supports Michael Moore's claims in the film (and in his previous books).
The film was not conspiracy theory or plain assumption (under Bush's new rules it wouldn't have got into the box office if it were!) but rather fact gained and understood from government and corporate documents and reports that were simply hidden away or "mislaid".
More worringly a lot of the information has always been available but news Editors in the States have been actively briefed by there companies' owners to avoid it at all costs.

Even if you're not aware of it yourself having seen the facts and supporting evidence most of what you say in your posts is either supposition or assumption and not supported by any kind of evidence - Some of it is just plain wrong.


It's not after his presidency that Bush Senior's businesses got involved with the Bin Ladins - It was before during and after.
The Bin Ladins and the Bush's are the closest of family friends and have invested millions in each others businesses for the past 30 odd years - This is a matter on public record.

George Bush is not a private citizen he is a former president and as such is still a public servant to one degree or another. There are rules about what he can and can't do - And he should have enough moral scruples not to involve himself in certain activities regardless.
Many of his presidential staff who he passed down to George W are involved or still own part of companies which are commissioned in the rebuilding of Iraq. For an administration to think it is right and proper to start a war with a country and then employ there own companies to rebuild the mess they created is corrupt to the core.

What a bizarre retort! - The bottom line in reports following 911 is that the terrorists are now one step ahead of the intelligence services - The conclusion was that Islamic terrorists are like house burglars - It doesn't matter what the intelligence provides or what defences you put up as a result - The truly determined will find a way and they have and continue to do so.

MI5 (civil servants not government employees who spin facts) have more or less publically thrown there arms in the air and released intelligence to the office of the Deputy Prime Minister saying something's going to happen hear - It's just a matter of time. It was at this point most households got a pack through the door telling them what to do in the event of a terrorist act.

The bottom line is that 9/11 happened - They weren't stopped. How on earth can you continue to say on that basis that the terrorists were lucky! It wasn't luck; It was strategic assault planning that your average Western Army would be proud of.


Sorry to burst your bubble here, but once again there is documentary evidence showing the shortfall between what should be in the kitty and what is actually there.
All the intelligence about the Chechens suggests that they would be very unlikely to use any kind of nuclear weapon on their own backdoorstep (particularly on territory they potentially want to take) and they or a similar former Soviet group are more likely to have acquired it in order to sell on to gain funds for weapons they want to use.
Apart from that, just because they weren't used in Beslan doesn't mean they don't exist.

You obviously don't remember the men charged with conspiring to cause radiological (nuclear), biological and gas explosions in the UK in August. To have been charged means there has to be evidence and a motive - They caught them this time but there are so many disenfranchised young Muslims in the UK who reckon they're off to see Paradise that it's only a matter of time.


.

Being a message board for Brits with connections in Germany I'm sure your words of support are of great comfort to those of us here who either work or have family and friends working as civilians or otherwise trying to earn a crust whilst doing something heroic by trying to help the majority of poor innocent people in Iraq rebuild the shit we created for them.
By the way, these workers are provided with protection (incidentally the first line of defence comes in the form of intelligence from MI6) but the terrorists again found a way.

The threat from terrorism may well have been hyped to justify war with Iraq but the simple fact of the matter is that had we not been forced into this unjust war in the first place we wouldn't be sat here wondering whether our governments are STILL lying to us.

I'm sure you don't feel that it's been hyped if you live in the Streets in the UK from which 118 Muslims have been taken and subsequently charged with conspiracy to murder and cause explosions, or if you're a Brit living in or on holiday in Turkey, Bahli, Jakarta, the US or anywhere else when there have been attacks on Western Interests.

Not trying to have a go for the sake of it - I've spent a lot of time through one of my lines of work gathering hard evidence to try to understand the reasons for war, the reasons for Bin-Ladin's hatred of the West and what is being done now to counter it and the reasons for some of those actions, so I'm a bit beyond putting up with supposition and assumptions and the hundred of idiot conspiracies doing the rounds - The truth in this case makes for much more shocking reading, but most of us simply don't want to know as we're rightly scared.

I'm a bit beyond typing too now - Me fingers are knackerd! :doh:

George Bush Snr is a former president, but he should be allowed a life and to indulge in whatever business he sees fit. No matter what his links with the Bin Laden family, we should emphasise the importance of America's relationship with Saudi Arabia. It's a relationship we all benefit from economically and the instability in the kingdom, at least goes some way to explaining the interests in play when considering invading Iraq. The idea that President Bush and his administration wish to screw the american people is absurd. These people are americans and have devoted their lives to politics. So they have business interests, well, so do the democrats, in fact you'd be hard pressed to find a politician who doesn't. Halliburton, Cheney's former paymasters, just lost a big contract in Iraq, but you've overlooked that of course.
Farenheit 911 was a piece of propaganda. Everyone knows war is terrible, people die, innocents and combatants, but sometimes it's neccesary. Mr Moore also pointed out that the Taliban were in Texas for discussions about a pipeline project, and that they were shown around, red carpet out etc. Well, who was President at the time that happened? Clinton, that's who, did he think about invading Afghanistan in order to free their oppressed citizens?? I don't think so. Did he do much about the genocide in Somalia? If you ever kid yourself that any national government operates with anything other than national interest at heart then you are naive.
The bottom line of the 911 reports weren't that the terrorists are one step ahead, it was that a catalogue of intelligence failures led to 911. eg. had one report from a field agent of suspicious arabs taking flying lessons been acted on, the plot would have been foiled years before.
Our intelligence services have since been doing a great job, of course, if you want to travel to places like Iraq and Indonesia, you shouldn't expect them to be as safe as western countries. As for your chechen point, well of course they aren't going to use them in their own backyard, but I seem to remember they managed to get quite a few men up to Moscow for that theatre siege. You'd have thought if they don't mind killing hundreds of children then they would have few reservations about using WMD in Moscow.
I seem to recall people were warned by the government about nuclear attack in the cold war, i don't seem to recall it occuring though. Of course we are at risk, but we are no more at risk now than we have been for decades.
People can choose to work abroad, but I'm sorry, if you join the army you know the risks and you join willingly. If you go to Iraq to work you also know the risks.

@Bee1101

I've never felt the need to write anything like this in reponse to another member's posts before - What an absolute load of ill-informed tosh

There; I've done it!

First point, with the above list I meant the list the list that I started with, not the comments about it. North Vietnam won, and thank god for that because it gave America such a bloody nose that they stopped going into direct war for at least 2 decade. They afterwards got other people to do this for them. Usually corrupt military dictatorships that had no problem killing their own people.

Second,
30 Million people (The official estimate for the Opium wars against China, runs at 20 to 30 Million!) If you also include the effect of forcing opium on China (this devastated the intellectual middle and upper classes, crippling the nation). Plus India, Australia, Most of North America, Half of Africa. These people did not give up on their own accord.

Britain was / is a democracy, but I can never remember reading the India or Egypt, having voting rights for the British parliament who ruled over them (or are you saying that “everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others�?). Or perhaps you mean Indian, or Egyptians, who cares. Vietnamese or Iraqis, who cares?

Thirdly, Why is it that almost every colonized country, took such a long time correct it’s situation! The only none western country to have made it was Japan, and the reason for this is that they did not allow themselves to be colonized! It took about 30 years for other Asian country to shrug of the effects of colonization!

Africa is a mess due to the effects of Colonization along with the cold war. Tribes that had historically been enemy were placed under the one flag! At the point of independence, hardly any local civil servants had been trained, and the whole governmental structure was a botched up job! Our rules their land!

Fourthly, Communist Russia! Well without communist Russia, Germany would most probably have won the war! Communist Russia (all the time excluding Stalin) was better for the average Russian than the Monarchy that they had before. Or do you consider being a serf a good carrier move?

Fifth, It was taught in schools in my Mum’s days that the British Empire had 2/3 or the globe. This was the famous pink bit on the Map! I am not sure if it really was 2/3, but it was defiantly over half. My mum is 55, so if one of our Silver Surfers could please confirm this, it would be appreciated!

The Last British colonies became independent in the mid 70’s. That is about 30 years ago, which is not so long when people talk about the benevolent empire. No empire is benevolent!

About comparing the British Empire with Nazi Germany, that was not really my intention, but rather to point out that the British who have a bloodied history should not be the first to go around finger pointing, less the finger be pointed at us. The same things that are today being said about Hitler were said about Napoleon during and after his time! Nowadays we think of Napoleon as the short ruler of Europe (Short in height and time)! Who is to say how Hitler will be remembered in the future.

It is also about time that the Germans got over this stigma attached to the war! I have lived in a number of countries, and Germany is probably the last one that would go through such a thing again!

Thats what you normally say when your liberal pansy case has been blown apart.

It's actually a response to your unfounded, ignorant and just completely incorrect assumptions based on nothing more than your own opinion rather than any fact.

Like all of us you're obviously entitled to an opinion but you're really supposed to check that what you are saying is factually correct before expressing it!

I mean for crying out loud one of your entire arguments was based on your believing that Germany was a communist country in the 1930s! Apart from being basic history how do you think someone like Hitler got into power in the first place if Germany wasn't democratic???

I think you'd better learn to read properly. I never said that.

yeah what does it prove, did you spot the RUSSIA after communist??? oh dear, you just made yourself look so dumb anything you say from now on is irrelevant.

Er...yes I did you doughnut - I suggest you have a crack at basic sentence construction before writing anything else.

In English the way you constructed that sentence should rightly lead the reader to believe you are stating that both "Nazi Germany" and "Russia" were/are communist.

That's certainly how I read it, and how the next couple of people who posted replies read it.

You also stated -
I made the point to you that in fact this is not true and he is not allowed to simply do as he pleases - That's the deal when you become an Ex-president so you then change your tune and said in your opinion he should be allowed to do what he wants.

It's fair enough to express your thoughts as opinions but not to present them as facts unless they are correct - It is very misleading for those of us reading your posts to understand what is fact and what it is just your opinion.

No seeing as I said democracy first, I suggest you check out what I wrote again. There is nothing wrong with it. You're just a numpty. George Bush is a private citzen, I'm not aware of any restrictions on who he can work for, is there? and if he isn't allowed to work for the Carlyle group, then why is he?

I've not seen the film yet but it's at the top of my agenda of things to do.

It's important to show that Hitler was a human being, because only then can we understand the horror of what he did as a human being. Yes he behaved like a monster and he was an evil meglomaniac, but I don't think that every sensible individual will think that he was a pussy cat, just because the film portrays his "softer" side. I'd say that he was seriously mentally ill, a bit like few other world leaders who I won't care to mention at the moment...

As for the other comments on here, I wouldn't say that terrorism has been "over-played". It's been a threat for decades, simmering under the hood of Islam and other extremist views. Whereas western goverments have been politically terrorising other countries for years and years, the new terrorist organisations we're seeing at the moment are terrorising other countries in a more abrupt and visual manner. Now the terrorists have the means to cause mass damage. Just wait until Iran can make nuclear weapons and smuggle them across the border to Afganistan where the terrorists are rubbing their hands in glee for their next plot...

@Bee1101

Blimey O'reilly - There's just no telling some people eh?


So as we're on a pedantic bent since you started the sentence by saying Britain is a democracy and then went on to say "Nazi Germany wasn't" and likened it in similarity to Communist Russia by then saying "neither was Communist Russia" , what pray tell was Nazi Germany if it wasn't accoriding to you a democracy???

True, but other ex-colonies have got throught the turmoil and are doing ok (India, Malaysia, Egypt I'll exclude Aus, NZ and Canada). The fact is in Africa, the tribal aspect is still very strong, and all the leaders are on the take. Look at Nigeria. Nigeria should be one of the wealthiest countries inAfrica, but the leaders just fill their pockets then disappear.


Communist Russia was a mixed bag for the people. Under Stalin it was a nightmare. Not just the deportations and the executions, but he also deliberately caused famine in the Ukraine, leading to the deaths of several million, and then came Hitler. After Stalin, it was better and all I can say is the only good thing about it was that everyone was entitled to free education.

You are right to say that Empires are not benign, but it does not mean that they do not have something to offer the people. The Roman empire existed for about 1000 years, and was at times extremely brutal. However, it was a stable society, that flourished, likewise for the British empire. There are no societies where everyone is equal, I just hope that the democratic model we have now iworks out better than the Empire model..

Nazi Germany was Nazi as Communist Russia was Communist. If you've got a problem with this and don't think its right maybe you could lecture the academics at the Universities I studied at, they saw nothing wrong with calling hitlers germany nazi germany and stalins russia communist russia.
One further thing before I go and spend some of my free time, because I have better things to do than lecture you about what is right and what is wrong. Saudi Arabia didn't actually want Saddam gone, it doesn't suit them to sit next to a democratic, stable Iraq. Great lobbying from the Carlyle group there then. Good work for your Saudi paymasters Bush Snr.

I am not personally sure about India. I have always had mixed feeling in this regard. India has such a huge poverty level that is almost incomprehensible. Yes it has done well over this last decade (mainly due to the technology bubble), but it still is in my opinion a complete disaster (all be it a democratic disaster)!

Yes most African leaders and almost the whole establishment are on the take! This has partly been with European help, the French are experts in giving handouts in return for contracts, and Swiss bank, still have billions in dirty money that should have been used for their citizens. America funded and supported some of the bloodiest regime and well as numerous insurgencies!

Aus, NZ, Canada, are successful precisely because their native populations were either wiped out or became a minority.


My point entirely! China under communism over this last 2 decades is better in my opinion than China with the same kind of government as India! Totalitarian does not necessarily mean it is bad, there as sufficient examples of bad democracies after all!


My point was not to say that the British empire was bad per say, but rather that we should not just look upon our past as the little angles of history. Something that the British education system never stops to do!
History is! People made decisions based upon their views, expectations and interests as they saw it. They still do!

Democracies are generally the best option for a population. I have still to be convinced if capitalism and globalization are the best options for the majority of the world populous?

Just for a moment imagine if Churchill had not been an idiot and declared war on Hitler!

Which of you would have missed the chance of become “Her Majesties Governor to Punjab� or “Royal director of Sidney University�, and any one of a few thousand titles that the Empire would have still required if Churchill had kept his fingers to himself.

Did going to war really help the Polish? No! Over half the population died, anyway. Once as the Germans came in, then as the Russian went by!

So, why the war? Because the Britain and France felt threatened by the balance of power shifting too much in Germany’s favor.

The explanation of the Jews being gassed and killed, hardly interested anyone in Britain, France or the USA in those days (anyone in Power that is). And a large majority of the powerful men and women were on the extreme right (To say that they were Nazi is perhaps wrong, but they were certainly not far off the mark). After all it was Churchill who sent the army again picketing men women and children! Most of Hitler’s early thoughts and speeches were influenced by Henry Ford (big time Jew hater)!

According to most historians Hitler had no intention of going to war with either Britain or France. He even tried to get the two on his side in order to go against the Russians who he felt were the greater threat!

He admired the British Empire and wished to attain the same situation with Russia as the German equivalent to India!

Please before the hate mail (posts), come flying in, just take a minute and think about the above! To my defense I never like Hitler and would most likely have joined the Internationale if I had lived in those days!

Actually it was Chamberlain who declared war, Churchill did not become Prime Minister
until 10 May 1940 when Chamberlain resigned. Was declared on 1st September 1939.


True, but Polish independence was only achieved in 1919. Once Germany had absorbed Czecheslovakia, It was considered that Hitler had gone too far. Therefore Both France and UK guaranteed Polish independence.

Better said he no desire to to war with Britain, but to think he could annex half of eastern Europe without bringing in either France or Britain was frankly naive. There was no way that Britain could have declared neutrality, and leave all the other european nations in the lurch.


Hitler could have succeeded in the east if he had made it a war of liberation from communism. Enough people in the Ukraine, belarus, baltic states would have been up for getting rid of Stalin. But he didn't, it was a racist war against the slavic 'Untermenschen' in which he alienated all his potential allies. He under estimated the Soviets, and their ability to learn from their mistakes, move their industry east of the Urals and most of all to suffer horrendous casualties but not give in.

My mistake! But Churchill certainly was one of the main proponents of war!


Leaving the other European nation in the lurch was not really the issue. The balance of power was the issue. Had Eastern Europe not been o the doorstep nobody in Whitehall would have given a dam! It was naïve, but at the time Britain ruled most of the world, France had large holdings, and Germany thought that Eastern Europe was not a big call. Plus large Germanic population meant that there were legitimate ground for action in this direction!


I am not sure if Britain and France would have been anymore ready to allow this than the conquest of Poland.
Yes the Russian only won due to their immense sacrifice, in terms or land and people.