Democratic Brown Shirts are at it again

[wydileie]

Sort of, but ultimately he ended up having a quasi Communist administration anyways, so really it was 2 sides of the same coin.

His brown shirts are equal to antifa/blm imo.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

How was it quasi communist?  He threw every socialist and communist out of the government and had a literal war on communists and those who sympathized with them.  He ran under the "national socialist" banner to get elected but he was no socialist.  Call him a nationalist in the extreme or even a fascist but no one hated communists more than Hitler.  I wish we did the same here.  Instead they have taken us over.

He took over private sector companies and nationalized them, he literally stole money from german citizens and funneled it into his war machine.

I realize that you worship the guy, but stop pretending that he wasn't fascist/communist/ king/dictator (whatever term a person chooses to describe him as.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Fascist and communist are not alike at all beyond authoritarianism.

Incorrect.  They have much in common.  

For starters, they both REJECT free-market economics in favor of a system managed by the government.  

They both entail state control of media, education, healthcare, and every other facet of society.  

They both ban or enact strict gun-control laws.  

Communists own the means of production.  Fascists figured out that it's better to let citizens (subjects) run the business as long as they take direction from the state.  Take China, for example.  They abandoned communism in exchange for fascism as it permitted more economic freedom (but not total economic freedom) and prosperity for the state and its corrupt elites.  

Communism and fascism are ideological branches from the same leftist tree, so to speak.

This is correct. They are very similar. The only reason Hitler targeted the communists was to cultivate nationalism and point the people at a common enemy. Ideologically, they arenâ€t so different.

[davebucknut]

How was it quasi communist?  He threw every socialist and communist out of the government and had a literal war on communists and those who sympathized with them.  He ran under the "national socialist" banner to get elected but he was no socialist.  Call him a nationalist in the extreme or even a fascist but no one hated communists more than Hitler.  I wish we did the same here.  Instead they have taken us over.

He took over private sector companies and nationalized them, he literally stole money from german citizens and funneled it into his war machine.

I realize that you worship the guy, but stop pretending that he wasn't fascist/communist/ king/dictator (whatever term a person chooses to describe him as.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Fascist and communist are not alike at all beyond authoritarianism.

Incorrect.  They have much in common.  

For starters, they both REJECT free-market economics in favor of a system managed by the government.  

They both entail state control of media, education, healthcare, and every other facet of society.  

They both ban or enact strict gun-control laws.  

Communists own the means of production.  Fascists figured out that it's better to let citizens (subjects) run the business as long as they take direction from the state.  Take China, for example.  They abandoned communism in exchange for fascism as it permitted more economic freedom (but not total economic freedom) and prosperity for the state and its corrupt elites.  

Communism and fascism are ideological branches from the same leftist tree, so to speak.

This is correct. They are very similar. The only reason Hitler targeted the communists was to cultivate nationalism and point the people at a common enemy. Ideologically, they arenâ€t so different.

At the end of the day you end up with an overly intrusive govt controlling you, either by cutting you out entirely or running you like a mob boss who tells you how and what you're allowed to do and takes exorbitant amounts of money from you.

In the end they both control and an overly infringing and obstructive manner.

To me they all end up on the same path of a having monarchs/kings/dictators putting their boot on the neck of the little guy.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[zigbee]

Once again, is English your second language?  To say the wrong enemy implies more than one enemy.  To repeat, he implied both were enemies but we eliminated the wrong one.

Maybe you need to learn English....wrong means WRONG ONE.   Both means defeat both.   I chose the WRONG car, I chose the WRONG DOOR, I chose the WRONG house in directions....where does it mean more than one?  He chose the WRONG FOOD...I could go on forever.  Let me give you a hint:  MAYBE he should have said that the US should have defeated BOTH?   Make sense?  Sounds and reads the US and Allies chose the WRONG enemy.

That I actually have to explain this is sad.  Patton used the term enemy with regard to the Soviet Union and Germany.  Roosevelt and other fools considered the USSR our ally.  But Patton said we defeated the wrong enemy, meaning Hitler.  Defeating the right enemy would have meant defeating Stalin.  And if you choose the wrong car, or wrong door or wrong house, that implies you were choosing among more than one option.  If there was no option to choose another car, then there was no choice to begin with.

And again, you are making my point.  There were NOT multiple options available to the Allies.  The US was coming out of depression, over 400 K killed in battle and disease, and to think they just eschew the USSR and what they were doing vs Hitler is mind boggling.   Were the victors going to partition USSR the same as Germany?  There would have been constant battles and wars in that part of E Europe to Asia.  Winning a war means planning for peace and this makes zero sense.  The US was in no position to rule the entire world in the mid 1940s.  China is a good example along with the USSR of those nations not being feasible to defeat and rule post WWII.

Going off on a tangent doesn't help you.  What Patton said was clear.  We defeated the wrong enemy.  The real threat to America's future was Stalin, not Hitler.  I've tried logic and reason.  You seem immune to both.

The American people would NOT have supported conflict with the Soviet Union.  They just wanted the war to end and to be done with it.

Negotiating peace with Hitler?   That's reasonable????????????   To restore his borders and leave a mad man in charge of a nation who was in the midst of a holocaust?? You think that is reasonable???   K9 is spot on.

[Alabuckeye]

For the record Patton hated BOTH the Nazi ***** and the Commie *****.  He did say while we have the equipment and while we are here we should get it on with Russia.  He was reprimanded for his implications.

We didn't have nearly enough men or material in Europe to take on the Soviets in April/May of 1945.

Yep.....shoot, 5ish years later when my dad was in the army, half of the group he went thru Ft Bragg with went to Korea, and half went to Germany(including him).  He's told me several times that the entire reason they were in Germany was to 'slow down the Soviets' if they started WWIII.  We knew we didn't have the resources/men to engage them, so we put enough there to be a deterrent.