Hey everybody, I found a picture of Al!
Imp- Thanks for the entertainment, and tell your parents that I am very truly sorry for goading you into making such an ass out of yourself. Thanks for the little symphony of vitriol- it was in fact was music to my ears.
In the interest of mercy, I don’t think that I can carry on. I can’t in good consciousness let the slaugther continue. It is in fact analogous to a 6’3" 225 heavyweight boxing with a 5’ 10" 146 opponent- not pretty at all. But to throw and jab or two and watch as your opponent delivers himself knockout blows, well, the ref might throw me out of the ring for laughing so hard.
You haven’t won anything, refuted anything, proved anything, other than at your age you should be seen and not heard, and that indeed, experience is, as von Mises would tell you, a very, very good teacher.
Browne’s line about Austria and sogenannte “dominance” was in fact a statement of vast ignorance. Them Hapsburgs weren’t “dominating” anything, entirely, central, or east. Get yourself a Dick and Jane primer and learn how to read. The second sentence doesn’t change the meaning of the first, it is a very weak attempt by Browne to trick the other two people besides you into believing that Austria was some big, huge deal like the US is at present, and therefore the US can easily suffer the same fate. If you look up the definition of geo-politics in the dictionary, there are two big words in there, national and power. Austria had precious little to spare and was way down on that list, sliding fast. Period. End of story. Done. Over.
But that is just the start. You’re just like a wanna-be comedian whose first joke bombs and keeps going long after he should have ran, not walked off the stage.
Squirt- your next bad joke:
“you’d know that Stalin was purely an isolationist.” “purely an isolationist.” No I wouldn’t nor would anyone else because he wasn’t. You don’t know how funny you look, and not intentionally on your part, quoting Trotsky in an attempt to label Uncle Joe as “purely an isolationist.”
Get out a big book called a dictionary. Have your mommy help you lift it. I’m sure she won’t mind.
isolationist- a person who favors or works for isolationism.
isolationism- the policy or doctrine of isolating one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements etc. seeking to devote the entire efforts of one’s own country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilties.
“purely an isolationist” “purely” Right, my little urchin- sure, whatever.
Let’s see- Leon got the boot in 1929, after Uncle Joe consolidated absolute power in 1927.
So, the “purely isolationist” Uncle Joe did the following:
-immediately shut down the Comintern.
-cut off all contacts with German communists as not to meddle in the affairs of that nation.
-disengaged from any notions of a Popular Front.
-stayed out of the Spanish Civil War by not sending 2000 or so airmen and advisors and various NKVD agents, and receiving the Spanish gold stock.
-never shipped arms to China, nor advised them or even said “Hi” to them.
-avoided annexing the Baltic states.
- steered clear of Russia’s Imperial past and left the Finns alone.
-Avoided the Nazis like the plague and never ever signed any treaties with them, certainly not the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939.
-avoided Poland.
And those are just the big things he didn’t do.
Son, your line about the US as a “MEDDLING infidel” that “stations troops in their holiest cities” just might out do that “purely isolationist” one.
Since you have a very possibly infinite capacity for knowledge, please grace us ignorant simpletons with a list of all of the soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airment “stationed” in Mecca. I want to send them some literature on Larry Browne.
BTW, Harry Brown was wrong about Germany seeking an armstice in 1917.
South Korea, where they bitch about our troops but don’t want us to leave, has turned out a bit different from North Korea.
Your boy Harry has an opinion and some good points, but selling them by basically calling the reader ignorant and then getting the history hugely wrong ain’t gettin’ the job done, lad.
You say you work at Gold’s Gym. They pay you. Have your mommy explain to you the deductions, the fine print stuff. That is Uncle Sam robbing you. Since he is violating your individuality and thwarting your ego, you ought to the self-interested thing and make a citizen’s arrest. Do try and let us know how it all works out. We all want to keep laughing.
Youngin’- don’t try, on the other hand, to avoid paying taxes. You see, in this messy real world, the one that we all live in, that would be bad for you. You would end up in a place that very specifically wouldn’t give one big poo poo about your ego and individuality. And your heinie, the one that all 5’10" 146lbs of you uses to do SLDLs for reps with 245 lb, well, let’s just say that it would be used for something else, not directed by your ego.
Experience, son- you simply got to go fetch yourself some. Then one day you will know just dumb and ignorant it is to link to an article by Jonah Goldberg on NRO making fun of libs by sarcastically invoking long-dead commies to ‘prove’ to me that Stalin was “purely an isolationist.”
If I don’t stop laughing I’ll never get to work, or eat, or go schralp some of the fresh kind up in them hills.
Because I care even if you don’t and peace out,
Dickhead.
PS Make sure to run along and tell Mommy and Daddy that I really am sorry.
[quote] Originally posted by GDollars,
Glad to hear you’re not a Chomskyite, but anyone labelling Stalin an isolationist tends to remind me of that crowd. As I said earlier, I’m not sure how anyone can make that claim, nor justify Russian agression in Finland and partitioning Poland. And that’s not even going into the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Please don’t excuse that as Soviet security concerns or the like, that sounds like the worst kind of apology for communism. [/quote]
Not apologising for communism. Stalin’s policies more closely resembled that of an isolationist with the exceptions that I mentioned above of Finland and Poland. During the war and after the war is a different topic altogether. I was looking more at the Soviet Union leading up to WWII.
[quote]
As for World War I, U.S. entry was “perhaps the worst mistake in American foreign policy history?” Are you serious? You think the Germans declaring open season on American shipping and trying to incite the Mexicans to invade should have been ignored? And you think withdrawing into some isolationist shell and allowing Europe to be dominated by a Germany that was, by 1918, effectively a military dictatorship, would have been a good idea? Make no mistake about it, American entry into the war, not the tank, was the decisive factor in ending the war in 1918. [/quote]
I don’t see how Germany was ever going to dominate Europe. Especially considering the alliance system in place and with France and Russia on either side. As far as retreating into isolationism, I’m not sure idle threats of invasion from Mexico and sinking American merchant shipping constitutes sending hundreds of thousands of American (ill-prepared) troops halfway across the world to die in a meat-grinder. Also, consider how much opposition there was in America to this.
[quote]
And as for Versailles and World War II, if you’re writing a senior thesis on this, you should be fully aware of the minimal effect of reparations payments and the fact that the German economy was ruined by war and the Depression, not by Versailles. As I said, a case can be made for the importance of Versailles, but more in its psychological and territorial impact on Germany. I think Germany’s militarism, anti-Semitism, history of authoritarian governments, and the shaky state of the Weimar Republic had a lot more to do with Hitler’s rise to power than Versailles. [/quote]
I think the territory taken away from Germany by Versailles was a huge psychological motivator for National Socialist and other German nationalists/conservatives. Consider Hitler’s almost reckless attempts early on to acquire the demilitarized zone and other German territory that had been taken away. You make good points about Hitler’s rise to power, but I think many scholars have over looked Versailles impact. A book I’m using as a source goes into this in detail ( I believe it is called ‘Prelude to War’ but since I’m at work I’ll have to confirm the name after I get home).
[quote]
And to dismiss World War II as beginning as a regional conflict is a little much, when three of the six greatest powers in the world in 1939, all with global reach, were at war from day 1. If it hadn’t been Danzig, it would have been something else. You seem to imply the U.S. should have stayed out, do you really believe that?[/quote]
The war in Europe was a regional conflict that escalated into a World War, thanks to Germany. Of the Allies’ enemies, only Germany had the industrial capacity to wage war on a global scale. Japan had influence in East Asia, but didn’t have the raw materials to do much else. Heck, the U.S. funded thier imperialist efforts with scrap metals and oil for a good portion of the 1930s. And Italy, well they basically just got in the way.
I wasn’t trying to imply that the U.S. not get involved in WWII, I think that was inevitable. I was just saying that war, at least in Europe, could have most certainly been avoided.
JeffR,
What has happened to me? I think most of what you questioned was answered above, if not I’ll get to it tomorrow.
Dustin
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Read this:
passmoreshistory.homestead.com/files/Unit_15_Lesson__2_Standard_country_information.doc
Note the GDP less than France, Germany, and England.
Catch how much less landmass in the Empire compared to the others.
Note the relative weakness of the armed forces.
[/quote]
I can’t access the link, but concerning your stats, what of them? As I already stated earlier on this thread, Russia was also in economic, military and political turmoil during the time period. France had already been militarily humiliated by the fledling Prussian state some 40 years prior, and knew that it would be no match for the German-Austrian alliance. Britain also feared the alliance enough to form it’s own with France - it’s centuries old enemy.
The alliance system was a key factor in the progression of Europe towards WWI - to deny the political and military significance of Germany’s chief ally is pure foolishness. Moving on:
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Oh, on the preludetowar website:
“The Austro-Hungarian Empire, ruled by the wealthy Habsburg family covered a vast area encompassing not only Austria and Hungary, as the name suggests, but also a large part of the Balkans, including what is now Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.”[/quote]
Woops, stop right there. Do not go any further. Proceed immediately to Harry Browne’s article for a direct comparison:
“In 1914 Austria dominated Europe the way the U.S. dominates the world today. The Austrian Empire included what is now Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia, as well as parts of Italy and Romania.”
The intelligence level of a smart child is not required to draw a linguistic connection between those two paragraphs; with some effort, I bet that even a Pro-Bush chickenhawk could do it.
Harry Browne is not ignorant of basic historical facts. To the contrary, his understanding and knowledge of history is far superior to that of the general populace, and certainly to those members of this forum who are presently lambasting him over a single word while choosing to ignore his central argument.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
You and your pal, Browne, are the only fools that would hold up a “disintegrating” empire as the “dominant geo-political” entity of Europe.[/quote]
Just because the empire was slowly disintegrating doesn’t mean that it wasn’t dominant in it’s region of influence. Rather, the latter is a DIRECT REFLECTION of the former, and this is as much a salient aspect of Browne’s piece as any other point made by him directly.
“Many Serbs thought Bosnia should be part of Serbia instead of Austria. When the Austrian Emperor’s heir apparent, Archduke Ferdinand, visited Bosnia, he was murdered by a Bosnian Serb protesting Austrian domination.”
If Austrian domination of the Balkans wasn’t a key issue, then why oh why did Russia feel the need to spring to the aid of it’s little neighbor, knowing full well the consequences that such an action would bring?
In summary, Browne’s context is crystal clear - he’s not making military or economic comparisons, but rather commenting on the GEO-POLITICAL influence of the Austro-Hungarian empire at the time. Considering the entire theme of his piece (conveniently ignored by most of the bashers on this thread) was ANTI-IMPERIALISM [catch that, Mr. schrauper the wise and all-knowing dickhead?], it is not hard to understand his motivation behind calling the most imperial nation of WWI “dominant”.
Now that that’s settled, you should crawl out of the 20 foot ditch you’ve dug yourself into and read the rest of Browne’s piece.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
It’s been fun (and easy) to refute your silly arguments.
[/quote]
Yeah, it’s never hard to “refute” someone else’s argument when you make it up for them as you go along. Unfortunately for you, neither Harry Browne nor I played any part in advancing the notion that Austria-Hungary was necessarily superior, economically or militarily, to the other European powers. Therefore, your rebuttal of that particular argument has no relevance to this discussion. It is a reflection of your ignorance and stubborn mindedness.
As for the other comments on this thread, I’ll get around to addressing them as soon as I can. In the mean time, Dustin is doing a great job keeping of the neo-liberal commies at bay. Fear not, Dustin! Reinforcements are slowly-but-surely on their way.
Stalin’s goal was always to consolidate power in the Soviet Union and neighboring states, largely to cement his own status as the “Supreme Soviet”. That certainly wasn’t how it began in the early days of the Revolution! By the standards of his fellow revolutionaries, Stalin was, therefore, an isolationist. There is no better way to illustrate this than by highlighting the numerous critiques of his policys written by the Trotskyists.
You triumphantly reference “Poland” as a glorious morsel of historical fact to invalidate my observation of Stalin’s policies - as if Europe was the same post 1945 as it had been during WWI. It wasn’t, so your brilliant counter-example is null and void. The nature of the Cold War prompted both sides to participate in a continually escalating race for global influence. Let’s not forget that all of this could have been avoided, as Harry Browne notes, if America hadn’t intervened in the first world war, and Germany, Austria, and perhaps even imperial Russia had remained stable.
This whole “if America hadn’t intervened in World War I there would have been no Hitler or Stalin” argument is the dumbest piece of counter-factual bullshit I have ever heard. How do you know? Would Tsarist Russia, which narrowly avoided collapse in 1905, have endured economic and societal upheaval in the 1920’s and emerged intact? Who knows? Not your arrogant, dogma-spouting ass, and not some fringe politician with a shaky grasp of history who is ignored by everyone except impressionable high schoolers. It’s like those media idiots who claim we sowed the seeds of 9/11 in the '80’s and should have known better. We funded the Afghans to fight the Soviets when the Soviets were the primary threat to our liberty then. We fought the Afghans two decades later. Big deal.
Youngin’- it’s truly amazing how much ignorance and stupidity I can coax out of you with a few taps on a keyboard. But as I can’t in good conscious pick on the weak and feel bad for your parents for what I am doing to their poor, misguided child, I have to stop.
I have written a thesis on the subject. You’re way out of your league.
I care, I really do,
Dickhead
Al, your hero wrote this:
“In 1914 Austria dominated Europe the way the U.S. dominates the world today.”
I’ve read your response twice. I still have no idea why you are still defending this ridiculous statement.
I posted three links for you. They all showed CLEARLY that Austria-Hungary did not possess Europe’s dominant military, economy, or land mass.
The United States has the dominant military, culture, and economy of the planet.
Again, please explain how in the hell the A-H Empire was as dominant as the United States of today.
If I understand your post, you say that A-H dominanted the areas it already dominated?!?
We call that a good old-fashioned dodge.
Just admit you and your hero are clueless and move on.
Oh, you’ve got dustin on your side!!!
Terrific!!!
Now you’ve got a partner to share your love of CHE speeches, “Tactical Knives,” and Bruce Lee.
Have a great time!!!
JeffR
My God!!!
“Al Shades wrote:
Stalin’s goal was always to consolidate power in the Soviet Union and neighboring states, largely to cement his own status as the “Supreme Soviet”.”
That’s how dictators act. See Hussein and Hitler.
(I love you Makkun.)
“That certainly wasn’t how it began in the early days of the Revolution!”
Yes, Lenin did not want to consolidate power and become supreme. He wanted to become the little Communist. May Day was just a parade.
“By the standards of his fellow revolutionaries, Stalin was, therefore, an isolationist.”
An isolationist in the tradition of Alexander the Great.
“There is no better way to illustrate this than by highlighting the numerous critiques of his policys written by the Trotskyists.”
Oh my GOD!!!
“You triumphantly reference “Poland” as a glorious morsel of historical fact to invalidate my observation of Stalin’s policies - as if Europe was the same post 1945 as it had been during WWI. It wasn’t, so your brilliant counter-example is null and void. The nature of the Cold War prompted both sides to participate in a continually escalating race for global influence.”
You ding-dong. The USSR took half of Poland in 1939. Does anyone else think the Cold War started in 1939?
“Let’s not forget that all of this could have been avoided, as Harry Browne notes, if America hadn’t intervened in the first world war, and Germany, Austria, and perhaps even imperial Russia had remained stable.”
Good old Harry Browne-star!!!
Please raise your hands if you think the Kaiser was a “peace-lovin’” man. See African colonial expansion.
There can be a compelling case for A-H disintegrating due to sectional strife aka…not even dominating their own “empire.”
Oh, betting your counter-factual argument on the stability of Mother Russia makes me laugh.
JeffR
Al, are you starting to get raw yet from all this penetration?
JeffR,
I’m not taking sides, I’m simply stating what I believe to be true in context to the historical period in question. History in general is very subjective, so all the silly name calling that has occurred in this thread by board members is unnecessary.
We can all disagree and still debate the topic at hand.
Dustin
Dustin.
"I’m not taking sides, I’m simply stating what I believe to be true in context to the historical period in question. History in general is very subjective, so all the silly name calling that has occurred in this thread by board members is unnecessary.
We can all disagree and still debate the topic at hand.
Dustin"
Dustin, I was sorry to see that you had drifted so far into the absurd. I thought I knew you.
History is what I say it is. No other interpretation is necessary.
Thanks!!!
JeffR
Dustin,
The last comment was meant in jest to make fun of our pal Al.
I use “infalliable logic.”
By the way, I’m not 5 foot 10 and 145 pounds. I have a muscular leg that weighs that much.
JeffR
Hey Al,
I would love for you to explain to me how U.S. intervention in WWI led to the fall of Imperial Russia? Somehow I am failing to appreciate your infallible logic on this conclusion.
Thanks.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Dustin.
"I’m not taking sides, I’m simply stating what I believe to be true in context to the historical period in question. History in general is very subjective, so all the silly name calling that has occurred in this thread by board members is unnecessary.
We can all disagree and still debate the topic at hand.
Dustin"
Dustin, I was sorry to see that you had drifted so far into the absurd. I thought I knew you.
History is what I say it is. No other interpretation is necessary.
Thanks!!!
JeffR
[/quote]
Oh I see, thanks for setting me straight, I guess.
Dustin
Here is some Grade A government propaganda for all you devotees of Uncle Joe’s isolationism.
From Twenty Century Russia by Donald W. Treadgold (RIP), Fifth Edition.
I’ll just stick to the money shots:
Chapter 13 Finding A Soviet Foreign Policy pp208-209
“The phrase, “Soviet foreign policy,” is a self-contradictory one. The adoption of the very name “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” from which the word “Russia” was absent, was designed for the adminstrative convenience of the Communists in handling the anticipated world-wide revolutions of coming years.”
blah, blah, blah, “…even after the Soviets had spend two generations making their intentions plain, no one seemed to take them seriously.”
“Since they came to power in 1917, the Russians Communists have not visibly changed their objectives, but their tactics have undergone some transformation.”
And now for the Ur-money shot: “…the aim of Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev has been Communist power throughout the world.”
Granted, this guy can’t possibly be blessed with the sublime intellectual gifts of a Larry Browne, nor could he have the finely honed reasoning skills of a juvenile non-pacifist egoist, anarchist individualist, but come on, it is something.
[quote]schrauper wrote:
Here is some Grade A government propaganda for all you devotees of Uncle Joe’s isolationism.
From Twenty Century Russia by Donald W. Treadgold (RIP), Fifth Edition.
I’ll just stick to the money shots:
Chapter 13 Finding A Soviet Foreign Policy pp208-209
“The phrase, “Soviet foreign policy,” is a self-contradictory one. The adoption of the very name “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” from which the word “Russia” was absent, was designed for the adminstrative convenience of the Communists in handling the anticipated world-wide revolutions of coming years.”
“Since they came to power in 1917, the Russians Communists have not visibly changed their objectives, but their tactics have undergone some transformation.”
And now for the Ur-money shot: “…the aim of Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev has been Communist power throughout the world.”
[/quote]
If one comes to the conclusion that Stalin was an isolationist, at least some form, why does that mean that person is a commie apologist?
World communist revolution was Marx’s goal. I think most are aware of this. Stalin, however, made no attempt to consolidate large areas of land until the Red Army took Berlin.
I don’t equate small conflicts over disputed territory as being an imperialist (I’m also not condoning it).
What happened during and after the war is a different story.
Dustin- I’m not calling anyone a commie apologist for saying the Stalin was a isolationist. I’m saying that they are mislabeling him. They had shit going on all over the world. Stalin didn’t turn his back on Trotsky-style revolution on principle. He did it because it wasn’t working and was forced to try other methods. Who cares what them damn commies said- it’s what they did that counted. They aped earlier Russian behavior and pressed on their neighbors, i.e. acted as imperialists and therefore not isolationists. Trying to influence, weaken and eventually cause revolution in other countries isn’t exactly isolationist behavior either, but it was SOP for your basic Bolshie as well as the Chi-Com model (see Tibet).
They murdered enough people domestically to hate their guts.
Dustin:
"If one comes to the conclusion that Stalin was an isolationist, at least some form, why does that mean that person is a commie apologist?
World communist revolution was Marx’s goal. I think most are aware of this. Stalin, however, made no attempt to consolidate large areas of land until the Red Army took Berlin.
I don’t equate small conflicts over disputed territory as being an imperialist (I’m also not condoning it).
What happened during and after the war is a different story."
WHAT ABOUT TAKING HALF OF POLAND IN 1939?
OR FINLAND IN 1940?
Come on!!!
JeffR