France, 1930's: A Fatal Flaw in Liberalism

[Peach]

Historically, unchecked Liberalism eventually morphs into either Fascism or Communism.

More bollocks. The only way that liberalism has ever "morphed" into fascism is by way of the fascists overthrowing liberalism in a coup or revolution. The liberals didn't become fascists, the fascists threw the liberals into concentration camps after taking over. And liberal regimes have never "morphed" into Communist ones in any way at all, including that one; Communist revolutionaries have overthrown monarchs, military dictators, and corrupt autocrats, but liberals, never.

National Socialism in Germany and Communism in the USSR.

Were two competing Liberal/Socialist ideologies with the exact same agenda.

Basically, both were touted as a workers utopia; where all allegiance and loyalty was directed to the state.

The New Deal was modeled after this European social experiment.

*******************************************************
Communism BEGAN in theory to apply to all nations. Fascism generally is a "nation as superior" idea. Schivelbusch is German and list "history of mentalities" as a method. I do not see FDR as either communist, nor fascist. Nor do I see the author's qualifications as a retrograde psychologist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?

"But why take any posters words for what to believe,..."

Hope you check it out, reggie....


About the AHR
The American Historical Review (AHR) is the official publication of the American Historical Association. Since 1895, the AHR has been the journal of record for the historical profession in the United States--the only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is published in February, April, June, October, and December. The AHR editorial office is housed at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.
The American Historical Review - American Historical Association

 

[Peach]

More bollocks. The only way that liberalism has ever "morphed" into fascism is by way of the fascists overthrowing liberalism in a coup or revolution. The liberals didn't become fascists, the fascists threw the liberals into concentration camps after taking over. And liberal regimes have never "morphed" into Communist ones in any way at all, including that one; Communist revolutionaries have overthrown monarchs, military dictators, and corrupt autocrats, but liberals, never.

******************************************************
Lenin overthrew the Russian Republic. Was Lenin a fascist? I would say yes. The mass killings of the Kulaks should be taken into account, from 700,000 (USSR) to 6 million (Solzhenitsyn). Authoritarian regimes are authoritarian regimes; no comparison to Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, nor Mussolini in the US.

Most Native Americans would vehemently disagree with you.

******************************************************
The many at fault are too numerous to mention. I was slammed for noting A. Jackson was known as "the Indian Killer".

 

[Sunni Man]

Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?

"But why take any posters words for what to believe,..."

Hope you check it out, reggie....


About the AHR
The American Historical Review (AHR) is the official publication of the American Historical Association. Since 1895, the AHR has been the journal of record for the historical profession in the United States--the only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is published in February, April, June, October, and December. The AHR editorial office is housed at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.
The American Historical Review - American Historical Association

One thing that I have learned while spending time on this board is that Liberals hate "truth".

Now, they love liberal based manufactured truth when it backs up their agenda.

But, pure unadulterated, truth for truth's sake, is an anathema to liberal thought.

 

[Peach]

Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?

"But why take any posters words for what to believe,..."

Hope you check it out, reggie....


About the AHR
The American Historical Review (AHR) is the official publication of the American Historical Association. Since 1895, the AHR has been the journal of record for the historical profession in the United States--the only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is published in February, April, June, October, and December. The AHR editorial office is housed at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.
The American Historical Review - American Historical Association

One thing that I have learned while spending time on this board is that Liberals hate "truth".

Now, they love liberal based manufactured truth when it backs up their agenda.

But, pure unadulterated, truth for truth's sake, is an anathema to liberal thought.
*************************************
I was taught a "psychological profile" history of the Civil War. Lincoln, Davis, Lee, and Grant were actually killing off Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Henry, etc. I didn't see the theory then, thus prefer just HISTORY.

 

[regent]

Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?

"But why take any posters words for what to believe,..."

Hope you check it out, reggie....


About the AHR
The American Historical Review (AHR) is the official publication of the American Historical Association. Since 1895, the AHR has been the journal of record for the historical profession in the United States--the only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is published in February, April, June, October, and December. The AHR editorial office is housed at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.
The American Historical Review - American Historical Association

Not impressed. Schaivalbusch's book apparently did not cause any great upheaval in history or with historians. These things are written as say Beard's book on the Constitution to create some interest and feedback from other historians. But even with Beard, and his quite famous and controversial book, in the end other historians pointed out the flaws and Beard changed his mind somewhat.
This New Deal book created little or no stir among historians and it seems relegated now to its own history. Nope, not impressed. For liberalism might start with the Declaration of Independence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?

"But why take any posters words for what to believe,..."

Hope you check it out, reggie....


About the AHR
The American Historical Review (AHR) is the official publication of the American Historical Association. Since 1895, the AHR has been the journal of record for the historical profession in the United States--the only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is published in February, April, June, October, and December. The AHR editorial office is housed at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.
The American Historical Review - American Historical Association

Not impressed. Schaivalbusch's book apparently did not cause any great upheaval in history or with historians. These things are written as say Beard's book on the Constitution to create some interest and feedback from other historians. But even with Beard, and his quite famous and controversial book, in the end other historians pointed out the flaws and Beard changed his mind somewhat.
This New Deal book created little or no stir among historians and it seems relegated now to its own history. Nope, not impressed. For liberalism might start with the Declaration of Independence.

Who the heck cares whether or not you are impressed????


You suggested all check out historians, do one's homework, and now, faced with a seminal work by Columbia University historian Garraty, as well as Schivelbusch, you are suddenly afraid to do so.

That says all one need know about your search for truth...and your intestinal fortitude.

Some purchase intellectual comfort cheaply.

 

[Dragon]

Now, try to be honest....
"And anyone who calls Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler peas in a pod..."
That's not what I said, is it.

Yes, actually, it is.

Should I point out that Mussolini's fascists, Hitler's National Socialists, and FDR's New Dealers were like three peas in a pod until the Holocaust was revealed

There you go. That is exactly what you said: that (except for the Holocaust) the Democrats under FDR and the Nazis under Hitler were identical. And it's nut-job stuff.

You simply mouth the Leftist "FDR was a saint" nonsense.

To say that Roosevelt was not a Nazi is not to say that he was a saint. Get a grip.

 

[Dragon]

National Socialism in Germany and Communism in the USSR.

I bet you believe everything advertising tells you, too.

There were, in fact, some Nazis who took the "socialist" part of the party's name seriously. They were murdered after Hitler came to power. After that, it was just a name.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now, try to be honest....
"And anyone who calls Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler peas in a pod..."
That's not what I said, is it.

Yes, actually, it is.

Should I point out that Mussolini's fascists, Hitler's National Socialists, and FDR's New Dealers were like three peas in a pod until the Holocaust was revealed

There you go. That is exactly what you said: that (except for the Holocaust) the Democrats under FDR and the Nazis under Hitler were identical. And it's nut-job stuff.

You simply mouth the Leftist "FDR was a saint" nonsense.

To say that Roosevelt was not a Nazi is not to say that he was a saint. Get a grip.

Seems that I must teach you vocabulary as well as history...
ex·act·ly/igˈzaktlē/
Adverb:
Without discrepancy (used to emphasize the accuracy of a figure or description).
In exact terms; without vagueness.


Clearly, "Hitler's National Socialists, and FDR's New Dealers ..."

Is not exactly " Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler peas in a pod."


So, the nuance is beyond your limited ability to see that I compare economic plans, you pretend that I have compared individuals.

You are dishonest as well as uneducated.


Let me go further and explain the flawed gambit that you have attempted to use: since you have not the depth of
knowledge of the subject that I have, the best a casuist such as yourself can do is- now watch and see the typical Leftist-Alinsky
methodology- attempt to smear the messenger, me, by claiming that I have equated Hitler and FDR.


But, you failed in this, as you have in so many other areas.
I actually enjoy revealing your contemptible attempts...
....As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
(Although, in your case, I would add that actual disinfectant might not be a bad idea either.)

 

[regent]

Well I care if I'm not impressed.
Historians like to kick up some dirt and with the kick might come something of note, so far these gentlemen seem to have made some dust. When the historical community goes bonkers, I'll go bonkers. Might make an interesting book, however, historical exposes that failed. For now, I'll stick with the larger school.

 

[Dragon]

[
Clearly, "Hitler's National Socialists, and FDR's New Dealers ..."

Is not exactly " Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler peas in a pod."

LOL is that the best you can do? Is that sort of pointless hair-splitting your best defense? Really, you would have been better off remaining silent.

That statement is equally false as saying the leaders themselves were identical, of course, and amounts to the same thing, unless you want to claim that one or both of them was a puppet figurehead and the underlings were the real power. Which is just about as crazy.

EDIT: And even then, you have to account for the radically different political outcomes of Nazi as compared to Democratic rule, just as I noted already.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
Clearly, "Hitler's National Socialists, and FDR's New Dealers ..."

Is not exactly " Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler peas in a pod."

LOL is that the best you can do? Is that sort of pointless hair-splitting your best defense? Really, you would have been better off remaining silent.

That statement is equally false as saying the leaders themselves were identical, of course, and amounts to the same thing, unless you want to claim that one or both of them was a puppet figurehead and the underlings were the real power. Which is just about as crazy.

EDIT: And even then, you have to account for the radically different political outcomes of Nazi as compared to Democratic rule, just as I noted already.

Although tempting, try not to blame me for your inadequacies.
I see that explaining veracity to you is as useless as trying to blow out a lightbulb.

 

[Dragon]

Although tempting, try not to blame me for your inadequacies.
I see that explaining veracity to you is as useless as trying to blow out a lightbulb.

Well, par for your usual course, you have now been reduced to personal invective and pointless insults. Knowing this for the sign that you have lost the debate, and that you are completely incapable of graciously acknowledging this, I guess my work is done here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Although tempting, try not to blame me for your inadequacies.
I see that explaining veracity to you is as useless as trying to blow out a lightbulb.

Well, par for your usual course, you have now been reduced to personal invective and pointless insults. Knowing this for the sign that you have lost the debate, and that you are completely incapable of graciously acknowledging this, I guess my work is done here.

What a great illustration of the beauty and value of the internet in general, and the USMB, specifically.

An individual such as myself can provide interesting and well researched material, for which the opposition has no response much less rebuttal, and a dolt such as you can save face by posting " you have lost the debate, and that you are completely incapable of graciously acknowledging this,...."

I must admit, it is a great tactic...and far less time consuming than actual study.

I suppose I shouldn't reveal this, but anyone reading both of our posts knows you are a fool. Was that a buzz-kill?


And deep down, you and I both know you have more issues than the Reader's Digest.

 

[daveman]

Conservatism has no flaws:

At least they don't seem to see any.

Odd...you posted a picture of liberalism's foreign policy.

Odd. It was Republicans who let Bin Laden go. It wasn't Republicans who got him.

Bill Clinton was a Republican?

I know you're so utterly desperate to finally win an online debate, Derp, but man, that's pathetic even for you.

 

[daveman]

Oh, goody. I was just thinking to myself, "Y'know, we need a blowhard leftist around here to define what a 'real conservative' is based on his stereotypes and leftist programming".

Sorry, I didn't use any stereotypes. I just used a dictionary. I recommend the practice if you're confused about what a word means. I recommend it even more highly when you're wrong.

Yes, you used the Leftist dictionary.

I prefer the real one, thanks. You know, the one where the definitions aren't all blank allowing the flailing leftist in question to make up his own definition.

 

[daveman]

We really are confused in our discourse about the meaning of those two words "liberal" and "conservative." Another good example, besides the hijacking of the latter word by a radical movement that is about as conservative as Chariman Mao, is the idea that "classical liberals" held the same views as "movement conservatives" today.

Yes, classical liberals did indeed favor small, limited government. They also believed in economic equality, distrusted rich people, loathed capitalists and corporations, and were extremely wary of a strong, standing military. If you're going to call someone who is around today a "classical liberal," that person should share ALL of these positions, not just roughly half of one of them.

The truth is that modern liberals share almost all of these attitudes. While they don't share one hundred percent of them, and therefore shouldn't be called "classical liberals," to call them "liberals" is perfectly sound, as it recognizes that they and men like Locke, Smith, and Jefferson are almost entirely in agreement.

Conservatives -- real or "movement" -- come nowhere within shooting range of being classical liberals.

If that's true, then you have to admit that modern liberals aren't even on the same planet as classical liberals.

But you won't. You're desperate to have it both ways.

 

[rightwinger]

We really are confused in our discourse about the meaning of those two words "liberal" and "conservative." Another good example, besides the hijacking of the latter word by a radical movement that is about as conservative as Chariman Mao, is the idea that "classical liberals" held the same views as "movement conservatives" today.

Yes, classical liberals did indeed favor small, limited government. They also believed in economic equality, distrusted rich people, loathed capitalists and corporations, and were extremely wary of a strong, standing military. If you're going to call someone who is around today a "classical liberal," that person should share ALL of these positions, not just roughly half of one of them.

The truth is that modern liberals share almost all of these attitudes. While they don't share one hundred percent of them, and therefore shouldn't be called "classical liberals," to call them "liberals" is perfectly sound, as it recognizes that they and men like Locke, Smith, and Jefferson are almost entirely in agreement.

Conservatives -- real or "movement" -- come nowhere within shooting range of being classical liberals.

If that's true, then you have to admit that modern liberals aren't even on the same planet as classical liberals.

But you won't. You're desperate to have it both ways.

Never mind Dragon

Reading is not davemans strongest suit

 

[daveman]

Classical liberals shared almost all of the views of modern liberals...

Yes. Except for your support of overarching, burdensome government, your disregard for States' Rights, your distrust of the Constitution, your contempt for free speech that doesn't agree with you, your hatred for personal weapons, and your condemnation of personal liberty -- you're JUST LIKE the Founding Fathers.