so maybe it’s not only the rotten, infidel europeans who do not agree with the current american politics???
[quote=“Boomer”]One of my more liberal thinking family members sent this to me. I can
why is not consenting with american or israelian politics always seen equal as anti-americanism or anti-semitism???
israel is a state, judaism a religion and this shouldn’t be mixed up…
[quote=“WarMonkey”]The Economist on whole, not just that article, is excellent.
Subscribe or lead a life of intellectual mediocrity.
… well, at least look at their website more often, most articles are free. 
www.economist.com[/quote]
i love the economist. best magazine ever. one thing that always amuses me is that the british love using obscure french loan words. pain in the ass when i have to go to a french dictionary to look up words they use in their articles written in english. 
i used to subscribe to the print edition when their website first came up. that got me free access to their website. had to cancel it when i moved, but have still had free access to the economist online for about 5 years now. until they purge their subscriber database, i’ll be enjoying my access to all their articles and every weekly update on thursday evenings(us time). 
The headline from the NY TIMES Aug. 19, 1934. I guess Hitler was sort of invested with democratic powers after all. haha Rascal? Any comments.
freddy 
is back :twisted
Berlin, Monday, Aug. 20 – Eighty-nine and nine-tenths per cent of the German voters endorsed in yesterday’s plebiscite Chancellor Hitler’s assumption of greater power than has ever been possessed by any other ruler in modern times. Nearly 10 per cent indicated their disapproval. The result was expected.
The German people were asked to vote whether they approved the consolidation of the offices of President and Chancellor in a single Leader-Chancellor personified by Adolf Hitler. By every appeal known to skillful politicians and with every argument to the contrary suppressed, they were asked to make their approval unanimous.
Nevertheless 10 per cent of the voters have admittedly braved possible consequences by answering “No” and nearly [text unreadable] made their answers, ineffective by spoiling the simplest of ballots. There was a plain short question and two circles, one labeled “Yes” and the other “No,” in one of which the voter had to make a cross. Yet there were nearly 1,000,000 spoiled ballots.
38,279,514 Vote “Yes.”
The results given out by the Propaganda Ministry early this morning show that out of a total vote of 43,438,378, cast by a possible voting population of more than 45,000,000, there were 38,279,514 who answered “Yes,” 4,287,808 who answered “No” and there were 871,056 defective ballots. Thus there is an affirmative vote of almost 90 per cent of the valid votes and a negative vote of nearly 10 per cent exclusive of the spoiled ballots which may or may not have been deliberately rendered defective.
How Chancellor Hitler’s vote declined is shown by a comparison with the result of the Nov. 12 plebiscite on leaving the Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations. The tabulation follows:
Yesterday Nov. 12
Yes 38,279,514 40,600,243
No 4,287,808 2,101,004
Invalid 371,058 750,282
Per cent of noes 9.8 4.8
These results therefore show that the number of Germans discontented with Chancellor Hitler’s course is increasing but is not yet seriously damaging to it. He is the Fuehrer [leader] of the Reich with absolute power by the vote of almost 90 per cent of the Germans in it but the number of dissentients has doubled since the last test.
It is not yet a matter for international concern but there are other considerations which may be.
Dictatorship Now Complete
The endorsement gives Chancellor Hitler, who four years ago was not even a German citizen, dictatorial powers unequaled in any other country, and probably unequaled in history since the days of Genghis Khan. He has more power than Joseph Stalin in Russia, who has a party machine to reckon with; more power than Premier Mussolini of Italy who shares his prerogative with the titular ruler; more than any American President ever dreamed of.
No other ruler has so widespread power nor so obedient and compliant subordinates. The question that interests the outside world now is what Chancellor Hitler will do with such unprecedented authority.
Nazi opinion is not disposed to be altogether cheerful about the result. When one high official was asked by this correspondent to comment on it he said:
“Obviously we feel the effects of June 30.”
He referred to the execution of Ernst Roehm and other Storm Troops chiefs.
That is also the opinion of many other Germans, especially among the more substantial classes. They interpret the result as the beginning of a protest against the rule of arbitrary will and as an effort to force Chancellor Hitler back to the rule of law.
In their view the vote may induce the Fuehrer to steer henceforth a more moderate course and take account of the sensibilities of general opinion. Some of the more optimistic even hope it may induce him to get rid of some of his radical advisers to whom the opposition within Germany is great.
This view, however, is not shared generally and the dissent is borne out by the remark of a Nazi official who said bitterly, “We have become too soft.”
Ex-Marxists Support Hitler
A feature of the election was that former Marxists cast a far heavier vote for Chancellor Hitler than the so-called bourgeoisie. In Berlin especially, judging by their vote, former Communists still are Leader Hitler’s most loyal followers. In one voting district in Wedding, where a few years ago Communists fought from behind barricades against the police, the “yes” votes amounted to 949; the “no” votes and invalid ballots totaled 237.
In one district west of Berlin, inhabited mainly by business men and intellectuals, the “yes” vote only 840 and the “no” votes and invalid ballots totaled 351. Other tests provided similar results.
In the Communist districts protest votes with Communist inscriptions were rare. In Western Berlin they were more frequent. In one district five ballots had the name “Thaelmann” written in. [Ernst Thaelmann is an imprisoned Communist leader.] One ballot contained this inscription, “Since nothing has happened to me so far I vote ‘Yes.’” It was signed “Non-Aryan.”
Interesting also are the following results: the hospital of the Jewish community in one district cast 168 “Yes” votes, 92 “Noes,” and 46 ballots were invalid. The Jewish Home for Aged People in another district cast 94 “Yes” votes, four “Noes” and three invalid ballots. This vote is explainable, of course, by the fear of reprisals if the results from these Jewish institutions had been otherwise. It is paralleled by other results outside Berlin.
In all Bavaria Chancellor Hitler received the largest vote in his favor in the concentration camp at Dachau where 1,554 persons voted “Yes” and only eight “No” and there were only ten spoiled ballots.
Hamburg Leads Opposition
Hamburg, which only two days ago gave Herr Hitler the most enthusiastic reception he had ever received anywhere, led the country in the opposition vote. The official figures were: Total vote cast, 840,000; “Yes,” 651,000; “No,” 168,000; invalidated ballots, 21,000.
The “No” vote, in other words was 20 per cent of the total vote. Counting the invalid ballots as negative in intent, the total opposition votes exceeded 22 per cent. The percentage of the electorate voting was 92.4.
Hamburg is the home city of Ernst Thaelmann and on his triumphant entry into the city on Friday, Herr Hitler made it a point to drive past herr Thaelmann’s former home.
As far as observers could ascertain, the election everywhere was conducted with perfect propriety, and secrecy of the ballot was safe-guarded. The ballots were marked in regular election booths and placed in envelopes and these were put in the ballot boxes. After the voting had ended the ballot box was emptied on a large table and the vote was counted publicly in the regular manner. Appraising of individual votes seemed impossible.
One check on possible non-voters, however, was exercised by instructions that the voting authorizations issued to those who for one reason or another planned to be outside their regular voting district on election day must be returned unless used. The number of such authorizations issued for this election exceeded anything known before.
Throughout the day Storm Troopers stood before each polling place with banners calling on the voters to vote “Yes.” Otherwise voters remained unmolested. Inside the polling places uniforms and even party emblems had been forbidden, but the execution of this order was lax. In some apparently doubtful districts brown uniforms dominated the scene as a warning to would-be opponents.
Nazis Try for Record Vote
All past efforts in getting out the German vote were eclipsed in this election. During Saturday night a huge final poster was plastered on billboards everywhere. It said:
Your leader [Hitler] has traveled 1,500,000 kilometers by airplane, railway and motor car in the cause of Germany’s rebirth. You have but to walk 100 meters to your voting booth to vote “yes.”
All over Germany means were taken to get the Sunday late-sleeping population out of bed early. The polls opened at 8 o’clock, but in Berlin Storm Troops, Hitler Youth Troops and Nazi labor union groups took to the streets as early as 6 o’clock to wake the populace by shouting at them to do their duty
[quote=“fred smith”]The headline from the NY TIMES Aug. 19, 1934. I guess Hitler was sort of invested with democratic powers after all. haha Rascal? Any comments.
Berlin, Monday, Aug. 20 – Eighty-nine and nine-tenths per cent of the German voters endorsed in yesterday’s plebiscite Chancellor Hitler’s assumption of greater power than has ever been possessed by any other ruler in modern times. Nearly 10 per cent indicated their disapproval. The result was expected.
A feature of the election was that former Marxists cast a far heavier vote for Chancellor Hitler than the so-called bourgeoisie. In Berlin especially, judging by their vote, former Communists still are Leader Hitler’s most loyal followers.
Interesting also are the following results: the hospital of the Jewish community in one district cast 168 “Yes” votes, 92 “Noes,” and 46 ballots were invalid. The Jewish Home for Aged People in another district cast 94 “Yes” votes, four “Noes” and three invalid ballots. This vote is explainable, of course, by the fear of reprisals if the results from these Jewish institutions had been otherwise. It is paralleled by other results outside Berlin.
As far as observers could ascertain, the election everywhere was conducted with perfect propriety, and secrecy of the ballot was safe-guarded. The ballots were marked in regular election booths and placed in envelopes and these were put in the ballot boxes. After the voting had ended the ballot box was emptied on a large table and the vote was counted publicly in the regular manner. Appraising of individual votes seemed impossible.
Throughout the day Storm Troopers stood before each polling place with banners calling on the voters to vote “Yes.” Otherwise voters remained unmolested. Inside the polling places uniforms and even party emblems had been forbidden, but the execution of this order was lax. In some apparently doubtful districts brown uniforms dominated the scene as a warning to would-be opponents. [/quote]
Fred, this explains a lot. The Germans must have thought that Saddam’s 100% “keep Saddam!” vote a few months ago was a legitimate election with legitimate get-out-the-vote tactics.
Does “endorsed” have a different meaning beside what I found in the dictonary?
And thanks to MPDF for making a good point: a voting (not an election IMHO) under a dictatorship can hardly be considered proof of an agreement or investing someone with democratic powers.
BTW: I heard it’s unpatriotic to oppose the war in America. Is that your idea of democracy?
Sorry Rascal:
You can squeal all you want but when 90 percent of the Germans vote the man extraordinary powers, I would say that is a democratic action. Now while the storm troopers were out encouraging the vote and there was fear of reprisals, the article clearly points out that the ballot was secret and for the most part, voters were unmolested.
Now you can twist and squeal and use all sorts of verbiology but this pretty much sums it up. The Germans were for the most part behind and supportive of Hitler. You may wish to whitewash your history to be able to sit in moral judgment of America but the truth is that the Americans have done nothing anywhere near as bad as Hitler and the Germans. So whatever you studied in your little sensitivity classes in Germany was apparently not enough. Hey, anyone who disagrees with Bush gets front billing in the States. Only 65 percent of the people supported the war. There was a big vocal minority that did not. And they were not in any way hassled. America is not Hitler or Germany after all. Does anyone go to jail? Do they lose their job? The irony is that the only reason you have a right to speak your mind today is because of the USA. The natural German inclination is to “might is right.” I believe that deep down this is buried in your psyche and this is why you project such behavior onto the Americans. It is because given the power this is how a German would think and act.
I haven’t tried to whitewash anything, but you still fail to show what the stupid vote proves related to the earlier discussion. As far as I understand from the said article it was not an election.
Or do you really think if the Germans would have voted against Hitler he would have stepped down? Sure, fred …
Perhaps the Germans at the time were desperate and did in fact endorse him, not knowing what they are into, but they did not elect him in the first place. Makes a difference IMHO.
You really believe that, do you? Well, of course the Americans have never done anything like this against their own, with that you can score a point. Congratulations!
Let’s see Germany has invaded how many countries, killing how many people and the US? The best that any can come up with is Vietnam and then we do have the advantage of looking before and after the Americans were there don’t we? So, the massive refugee crisis and the killing fields were AFTER the Americans were there.
Well, 38 percent of the population of Germany voted for the Nazis and by way of extension Hitler. He was asked to take a leading role in the Cabinet because of the large vote his party received. This is similar to any parliamentary system. The party with the most votes has its leader take the reins of power or enters into a coalition if need be. Then as we have seen the populace (90 percent) with little (though some) coercion and secret balloting voted to give him extra powers in a (yes/no) vote.
Clinton won with 42 percent of the vote and became president in 1992. 4 percent difference. Chen Shuibian won with 39 percent that is only 1 percent more. Also, Clinton was never elected by the people either since it is done by an electoral college. Therefore no US president has been elected by the people. Mere verbiage and sophistry.
The simple fact remains that Germany is in no position to get on its high horse about morals or ethics ever. If it does want to do so then it must do so with some uniformity or like the United States, it will open itself up to criticism for failing to treat matters equally. I am very curious about the new Germany with its deep interest in American atrocities ala Noam Chomsky. What makes them more important than what went on in Saddam’s Iraq or in today’s China or Russia or Africa or… When I hear such vociferous anti-Americanism then I must draw one of two conclusions:
Certain Germans hate America because it is an example to them and their history, a history they can never expiate so America must be dragged down to the same dirty depths as Nazi Germany to make things “equal”
OR
It is a matter of being jealous or stupid.
Now I don’t really want to get back into this tired old debate. I just noticed the headline on the NY Times front page and thought it would be an interesting follow up. I am pleased that Germany is taking strong actions to patch things up with the US because I think the relationship is a very important one. Hell, the US had Clinton so I think Americans understand about weak leadership. Perhaps when Schroeder and his thug foreign minister are out, then relations will improve. I certainly look forward to seeing a return to the close relations of old. But this new generation of Germans with their “you are either with us or against us” attempts at moral superiority is so ludicrous that it is offensive.
[quote=“fred smith”]
The simple fact remains that Germany is in no position to get on its high horse about morals or ethics ever.[/quote]
Forever ever? or when the last German who lived and breathed during the Nazi period dies?
Shall we never forgive Americans for the past of American Colonialism and Post-Bellum US Govt for wiping out Natives?
Should we hold a grudge against the Jews, because they openly admit to, in their Bible/Torah, of wiping out/putting to the sword the last man, man-child/non-virgin woman of their enemies in Canaan land? “The Jews for killing Jesus?”
The Italians for the sins of the Romans?
etc. etc.?
And does that not prove my earlier argument, that Hitler was not directly elected by the people - which is what you initially claimed and then started rephrasing!?
Sure, fred, if we just count the victims of the holocaust & war and compare them against the number killed by or with support of the US you “win”.
Doesn’t matter that the US and Americans are still responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands, you are just soooo much better in everything you do …
The simple fact remains that Germany has changed and the US hasn’t. And you do not or do not want to understand that, ever.
That’s just plain wrong, isn’t it?
I mean, there is the civil rights movement for one thing… not to mention the ability to continually re-invent itself economically every business cycle… and the constant innovation from US laboratories and universities. Plus the fact that it also sucks in an enormous amount of immigrants every year that it has to assimilate.
So, can we agree that the US has infact changed a lot and continues to change…?
Extra bit added after a little thought:
Oh, and in terms of imperialism…well, he US has never really had anything like the kind of history that Japan and the european powers have had (particularly the Brits, but france, italy, germany, too). Always been a somewhat "enlightened imperialist,’ in many respects… Never really sought to conquer but rather to open up countries to trade and to spread their values of capitalism and democracy.
US has been a strong voice in pushing for several gloabl organisations to promote such ideals - WTO, World Bank, IMF. In general, it has been a force for good in the world.
Perhaps the US has changed again, more recently, to be more active than it was in the past. To take on more responsibility and a more hands-on role in policing the world. Why? Well, i guess there is the argument that 'someone has to" after the fall of the Soviet block.
And more aggressive in foreign policy?
Sure.
May I respectfully suggest that blowing up the WTC will do that every time.
But to suggest that the US hasn’t changed… seems just … moronic.
so what’s the difference? europe gave up almost all there colonies, but america is trying to control the whole world, forcing countries to change there laws, so that america can export her cewing gum or gen manipulated meat. only the name has changed…it’s called globalisation now…
Rascal:
Okay, but I disagree with your assertion that the US has not changed and that the US must change anyway. It’s not like the US ever went around conquering the world and gassing millions of innocent victims. Bring up Vietnam all you want but I bet 10 to 1 that most Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians would have preferred the US to win that war.
Now to get off our perenniel pissing match. Quick question, do you think that Germany will get involved in Iraq eventually? What do you think the new Germany’s role should be in these types of conflicts? Finally, does it not seem to you that the US is demonized more among these younger Germans than more deserving dictators like Idi Amin, Mugabe, China’s leadership, Saddam Hussein, etc. etc. Gadafi, Chirac (haha) I mean if 30 percent believe that the US staged or was responsible for the world trade center bombing, is this not a similar problem to the 30 percent (perhaps initially) who believed that the Jews were responsible for Germany’s loss in WWI? Then, with this 30 percent, would not a large percentage perhaps believe that it was arranged by the Jews or the Mossad who run America anyway. I am stretching this a bit admittedly, but want to make the point of misguided views taking on a danger in the wrong minds.
Kenny:
Fair. Point taken regarding statute of limitations on evil actions, but these are after all the people who are howling loudest about evil Amerikkka now that they have as they say, “changed.” Why not remind them about the much greater atrocities in their newly civilized nations not so distant past.
Also why bring up the actions of how the native peoples were decimated in North America. Most of this was from disease, second, it was a territorial war like others that stretched throughout Europe until the most recent century, third, it was not like the native peoples had this peaceful pastoral existence and never fought among themselves either. I believe that efforts to remedy these past injustices began first and foremost in the United States. Witness the number of very lucrative Indian owned casinos and extensive welfare programs for Indians in America. Compare this with the treatment received by aboriginals in other nations. Though today, I would say that Canada, Australia, NZ are certainly exemplary as well (perhaps too much) but this is a topic for another thread.
Mesheel:
Forcing laws on people and forcing people to buy their chewing gum and genetically modified foods?! What are you French?! haha
[quote=“fred smith”]Bring up Vietnam all you want but I bet 10 to 1 that most Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians would have preferred the US to win that war.
[/quote]
That’s an interesting assertion. I’m sure the folks who have disfigured kids or stillbirths from DDT and Agent Orange exposure will surely agree with you.
Kenny:
Vietnam is another thread but there were no massive refugee flows like the boat people during the American presence in South Vietnam hitherto and forthwith to be known as the evil rape of the innocent rice-growing peasants who only wanted to be allowed to vote for Ho Chi Minh (though of course it was their last chance to do something freely right?) by nasty, American corporations intent on testing out new weapons programs and forcing Vietnam to buy its filthy coca cola and eat is nasty assed American hamburgers which as so symptomatic of its bankrupt cowboy culture so yes, yes, yes, yes, the United States was responsible for innocent deaths in Vietnam and now Iraq, but what came afterwards? Wasn’t it worth fighting to prevent that? I suppose the US should have left South Korea to its fate so that it too would be in the same boat as the North today? Would your average Vietnamese, Cambodian or Laotian prefer to be Thailand or Malaysia today or keep what they have? When I was working for APEC, we met a number of representatives from Vietnam and later Cambodia who secretly bewailed the two lost decades of communist rule (not to mention the number of deaths)
But given the freedom with which people bandy the DDT and Agent Orange birth defects around. Let’s have a list of numbers and proof of these claims. Especially DDT? I was not aware that it could cause birth defects in such massive numbers any more than many other common chemicals could. Please explain or link me to something. Would very much appreciate reading more about this.
Of course there have been changes but in the context of the discussion (agressive foreign policy, intervention in other countries etc.) I don’t agree that the US has changed that much, it still interferes and meddles around in other countries for it’s own selfish interests and then claims humanitarian ones. Strange though that there is not one single case where the US did interfere out of it’s own for purely humanitarian purposes in the way it does if they see their interests at stake.
I am sure what the US did - beside Vietnam - had been already been pointed out in the other threads.
Not surprised to see that you still fail to acknowledge or admit to that.
Furthermore I don’t see why only an attempt to conquere the world would justify a claim of wrong-doing, but perhaps you care to elaborate!?
Still can’t read? The question was not if they believe that the US staged or was responsible but if people thought it was possible. A small but significant difference.
I think the poll as it was asked is meaningless, same as asking “Do you think it’s possible that fred smith is an idiot?” (rather than “Do you think fred smith is an idiot?”). I can answer both questions differently without seeing a conflict.
But don’t you think that we can’t quickly pull out a few polls held in America which show how “stupid” and misguided the Americans are?
Fact is the poll you refer to cannot be directly related to anything else, unless you can show that the very same 30% support this and that(whatever fits your argument).
Sure fred, you are always right and we are always wrong. And you are not stretching anything, you just redicule yourself with this line of argumentation.
Rascal:
Yes, I saw that other thread for the 100th time. I believe Noam Chomsky included that in his 911 book.
Anyway, get this. I saw it and I just do not agree with its conclusions. To say that the US was involved in certain affairs is one thing but to lay all deaths directly at its door is another. This is assuming that the US is the prime actor in these conflicts. Sorry it ain’t or should that be past tense so wain’t. I am of the school of thought that the US should have stayed five to six more years in Indochina. I think that the Americans would have prevented a lot of terrible things from happening. The alternative could not possibly have been worse than what resulted. No?
And if you are so concerned about foreign intervention, why not pick on your close allies the French. Their record in the Middle East and Africa makes the US look like a bunch of school girls.
But to get on a more serious and hopefully constructive side of things, how do you rate US-Germany relations today? How will Germany get involved in future conflicts? If you do not know, I am sure that you have an opinion. Will Germany eventually get involved in Iraq? Should it? These matters are truthfully of greater interest to me. If it becomes a pissing contest of America evil or Germany evil, guess who will always lose. I guess that must be quite a burden for Germans to live with. I mean the Americans can look at Vietnam in much the same way the French can look at Algeria but what can the Germans do? Though in all fairness the Chinese and Russians have killed just as many as well.
spina bifidia among Vietnam Vet families:
description, claims, and class action by vets:
a CBS article about the current effects of A.orange:
cbsnewyork.com/siteSearch/health … 44755.html
How about an empirical experiment where we give you a few A.O. showers few times per month or spray your food with AO for a year? 
but seriously, there isn’t an accepted study, probably because it would open more doors, liability for the US govt not only vis a vis the Vietnamese, but also vets.
let me update this later when I have time.