Yale historian Timothy Snyder: How to Stop Fascism

[CdnFox]

Just now, Five of swords said:

Oh...you care about truth?

Yeah, it's great you should try it. 

Quote

 

Then try managing to truthfully answer the actual question I asked at the very start.

If france/uk really just cared about poland and were scared about some evil dictator trying to conquer the world...why did they declare war on Germany instead of Stalin? Why not even declare on both? They did have a pact at that point...right?

 

That has been answered two times now clearly and specifically referring to that question 

France and britian and russia already had discussions with each other and poland about what to do if germany invaded poland and tried to start another world war.  IT was AGREED that russia would move into poland to create a buffer and to discourage the germans, and russia offered further to engage the germans if poland would allow them to go further into their country to fight them.  Poland was fine with the 'buffer zone" but was not ok with russian armies coming further in and engaging the germans outside of that, fearing they might not leave.  BRITIAN SUGGESTED RUSSIA SHOULD DO IT ANYWAY, permission or not but talks were still ongoing when the war broke out. 

So the reason is - that was the plan.  France and England EXPECTED russia to cross the border in the event of a german attack and russia crossed the boarder in response to a german attack. Why the hell would they declare war?

Quote

Just explain that. In some way consistent to your fake narrative.

Did three times now and the documents showing these negotiations and agreements are out there for all to see. 

you're an effing !diot.   Do you think the facts will change if you ask me a third time?

[Five of swords]

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah, it's great you should try it. 

That has been answered two times now clearly and specifically referring to that question 

France and britian and russia already had discussions with each other and poland about what to do if germany invaded poland and tried to start another world war.  IT was AGREED that russia would move into poland to create a buffer and to discourage the germans, and russia offered further to engage the germans if poland would allow them to go further into their country to fight them.  Poland was fine with the 'buffer zone" but was not ok with russian armies coming further in and engaging the germans outside of that, fearing they might not leave.  BRITIAN SUGGESTED RUSSIA SHOULD DO IT ANYWAY, permission or not but talks were still ongoing when the war broke out. 

So the reason is - that was the plan.  France and England EXPECTED russia to cross the border in the event of a german attack and russia crossed the boarder in response to a german attack. Why the hell would they declare war?

Did three times now and the documents showing these negotiations and agreements are out there for all to see. 

you're an effing !diot.   Do you think the facts will change if you ask me a third time?

So Stalin had just absorbed Estonia and Lithuania by intimidation, and they invaded Finland when Finland decided they did not want to be annexed.

 

The agreement on a joint invasion of poland ACTUALLY was decided by Germany and the ussr...lol...but let's ignore that irrelevant point.

 

Stalin actually openly proclaimed support for an ideology which intended global revolution and indeed promised to eventually conquer the 'capitalist' countries like the uk and the usa.

 

But the uk made an allowance for Stalin invading poland...because they were far more concerned about the threat Germany posed...because Hitler was concerned about the germans in danzig potentially getting bullied by the polish government. 

 

That is your story.

 

And France had by far the largest military in the world. And the uk had the largest empire in human history. And the usa and ussr were not exactly minor themselves.

 

But you think the uk was just terrified that if Hitler was allowed to protect danzig, his army would wind up on the shores of Australia.

 

The funniest thing about this narrative is if you see how the British empire collapsed immediately after 'WINNING' ww2, you cannot pretend to believe that the British empire even wanted to preserve itself. 

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

So Stalin had just absorbed Estonia and Lithuania by intimidation, and they invaded Finland when Finland decided they did not want to be annexed.

Absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. And every ounce of everything else is well documented. 

So - what's happened here is every single thing you brought up has been completely shot down in flames because you were bullshitting your way through it. 

Now - having realized that, you'd like to change the subject instead of addressing the fact you were wrong.

 Kid- go read an effing  book.  ALL of this stuff is THOROUGHLY documented.  You can even find the original paperwork scans if you look for most of it. You've already shown you're  a m0r0n who knows nothing, i've answered your juvenile questions already, you need to learn things on your own before we can continue this.  I don't have discussions with preschoolers or people of similar intelligence. 

27 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

The funniest thing about this narrative is if you see how the British empire collapsed immediately after 'WINNING' ww2, you cannot pretend to believe that the British empire even wanted to preserve itself. 

Just when i thought you couldn't get any stupider, you manage to find ways to impress. 

The brits didn't collapse 'right after wining the war', their empire continued for quite some time.  However - the cost in both men and money from two back to back world wars, combined with the rise of socialism in britian as well which had begun even in the first world war, hastened the decline of the british empire which had been weakening since the turn of the 20th century.  Broke and grieving, they just couldn't keep it up. 

Nothing 'funny' or 'surprising' about that. 

[Matthew]

On 7/12/2024 at 11:07 AM, impartialobserver said:

One reason that I have such a universally low opinion of politicos is this. If the opposing party wins, that candidate is a fascist, a dictator, a Nazi, totalitarian.

I think the problem isn't alarm about authoritarian tenancies, it's that everyone is so sloppy about it. Hitler has left the average know-nothing person today with an incredibly low bar of what to expect from their government. So unless a politician is gearing up for an imminent genocide, everything is basically fine. Therefore many reasonable complaints about the nuances of policy manifest as sloppy, imprecise, inaccurate, and unnecessary nazi comparisons.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Matthew said:

I think the problem isn't alarm about authoritarian tenancies, it's that everyone is so sloppy about it. Hitler has left the average know-nothing person today with an incredibly low bar of what to expect from their government. So unless a politician is gearing up for an imminent genocide, everything is basically fine. Therefore many reasonable complaints about the nuances of policy manifest as sloppy, imprecise, inaccurate, and unnecessary nazi comparisons.

I agree that Nazi comparisons happen too casually.  

From your post, I'm most interested in what the average citizen expects from their government.  The bar seems lowest in the USA to me. You might think the way improve that would be to enact programs that improve the lives of citizens. But the activist governments of Obama and Biden didn't seem to do enough turn people on. 

That's puzzling to me because ostensibly the American Healthcare program should have resonated in the way Electrification, Medicare and so forth resonated in the mid 20th century. 

I lived in France for a while, and it was a common wisdom that no generation should do worse than the previous one.  I heard somebody say it on TV, a worker being interviewed about the economy. 

And on this continent, that idea seems absurd.  Instead, we seem to believe that the economy doesn't grow, it cycles up and down from a constant so that workers can afford vacations in one generation, and be starving the next.

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The bar seems lowest in the USA to me.

From a global perspective, I don't think that's true. Americans expect and receive a lot in terms of government services, independent courts, efficient and effective bureaucracies, and a political culture that is mostly devoid of casual corruption (lobbying and super pacs notwithstanding). But in terms of reasonably citicizing ethics and a clear constitutional order, the US system and the discourse of the population is lacking and inconsistent.

 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's puzzling to me because ostensibly the American Healthcare program should have resonated in the way Electrification, Medicare and so forth resonated in the mid 20th century. 

I agree. With the ACA in 2010, Democrats used an existing republican model for that legislation. So left leaning people dislike its limited scope and reliance on private health insurance corporations. Out of pure dishonest partisan politics republicans disliked it with the usual strained comparisons to communists and Nazis.

Unlike the rollout of those other things you mentioned, the ACA had to contend with 24 cable news and social media which aplified negative misinformation about it.

[Michael Hardner]

37 minutes ago, Matthew said:

1. From a global perspective, I don't think that's true. Americans expect and receive a lot in terms of government services, independent courts, efficient and effective bureaucracies, and a political culture that is mostly devoid of casual corruption (lobbying and super pacs notwithstanding). But in terms of reasonably citicizing ethics and a clear constitutional order, the US system and the discourse of the population is lacking and inconsistent.

2. Unlike the rollout of those other things you mentioned, the ACA had to contend with 24 cable news and social media which aplified negative misinformation about it.

1. I see your point.  But for wealthy countries, there seems to be no expectation of advances for labour such as holidays, minimum wage increases, healthcare and childcare reform.
2. Understood... but how is that seen in retrospect ?  David Frum predicted that the success of ACA would lead to electorage support, generally, for Democrat programs.  And Trump's government pretty clearly tried to gut it and was stopped by their own party... so it must be popular.  These are some of the things that foreigners can't fathom about US politics.

[User]

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Understood... but how is that seen in retrospect ?  David Frum predicted that the success of ACA would lead to electorage support, generally, for Democrat programs.  And Trump's government pretty clearly tried to gut it and was stopped by their own party... so it must be popular.  These are some of the things that foreigners can't fathom about US politics.

The ACA was anything but some success for health care as a whole. 

Like many leftist notions, they hurt health care for everyone to help out a small handful of folks. 

The entire thing was supported on one of the biggest lies ever told, that you get to keep your doctor!

Health care is more expensive than ever, whatever success you can claim the ACA had is something you have to quibble over, like trying to argue it would have been even more expensive without the ACA, which is specious at best. 

The repeal of ACA did not fail because of any kind of huge popularity behind it. It is like any other highly contentious partisan program, Democrats barely passed it and Republicans were just barely unable to repeal it. More a function of how our Congress works than anything else. 

 

[WestCanMan]

14 hours ago, Matthew said:

I think the problem isn't alarm about authoritarian tenancies, it's that everyone is so sloppy about it. Hitler has left the average know-nothing person today with an incredibly low bar of what to expect from their government. So unless a politician is gearing up for an imminent genocide, everything is basically fine. Therefore many reasonable complaints about the nuances of policy manifest as sloppy, imprecise, inaccurate, and unnecessary nazi comparisons.

When leftists think of fascism, they think about "a guy who says things that they don't like". 

Eg, when Trump calls MS-13 animals, and the MSM reports that "Trump referred to immigrants as animals", leftists celebrate it as truth and then run with the narrative that Trump is horrible.

FYI that's not 'fascism'. That's just the MSM lying and making a partisan attack (which is a key component of fascism), and you being gullible. That's not Trump being fascist, it's just you being stupid. People in 1933 Germany followed Hitler like he was a shining light for the same reason that you'll follow Dems like they're shining lights: because of overwhelming propaganda.

I can't prevent you from getting constantly sucked in by CNN BS, but here's the deal with fascism: it doesn't mean "people say things that I don't like", it means that the gov't is seizing undemocractic control of democratic institutions.

FYI institutions like the IRS and FBI are supposed to be apolitical, and when they're weaponized by 1 political party, that's a serious step towards fascism.

The DOJ is supposed to be apolitical, and when it's weaponized by 1 political party, that's a serious step towards fascism. The attacks against Trump and the protection of Hillary and Joe have been ridiculous.  (I'll go off on a tangent for you and TELL you how the legislative and judicial branches are designed to work in a democracy... The legislative branch is elected and, as representatives of the populace, they're supposed to enact popular laws. The judicial branch is appointed, and it's their duty to interpret the laws created by the legislative branch, and enshrined in the constitution, and apply those democratically arrived-at laws practically to real-life scenarios. For the judicial branch to make a decisive and wide-ranging ruling like Roe v Wade, when the word abortion isn't even in the constitution, is called "ruling from the bench", and it's not democratic at all. The proper thing to do was to dump it on its head, and get legislators at the state level or federal level to create actual laws, based on public will, period. Eventually, if the majority of people feel like you do, then you'll get your way. Chill out. That's democracy. It's not time to protest at SCJ's homes when they finally do the ight thing after 50 years. Nine people don't form a democracy, even when you personally like their decision. Similarly, when they make a decision that you don't like, it's not time to expand the SC to 13 and put 4 people there who are all appointed by 1 party. FYI it was an overt attempt at fascist control of the DOJ for the Dems to float the idea of a Dem-owned & operated SC.) 

The MSM is actually a critical component of a healthy, functioning democracy, and when they're 100% partisan, that's a serious step towards 1-party rule (fascism). The MSM constantly lie and you don't care. You should care. A bought-and=paid-for MSM can work against you as easily as they can for you. You'd hate it if you called Trump an animal and the MSM said that you referred to all white people as "animals". Raise your standards, Matthew. 

I'm out of time for you right now. /lesson. 

[Michael Hardner]

For Reference - this was the first poll that came up on Google about the ACA

It is apparently popular - 62% support 37% do not support

https://www.kff.org/interactive/kff-health-tracking-poll-the-publics-views-on-the-aca/#?response=Favorable--Unfavorable&aRange=twoYear

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

From your post, I'm most interested in what the average citizen expects from their government.  The bar seems lowest in the USA to me. You might think the way improve that would be to enact programs that improve the lives of citizens. But the activist governments of Obama and Biden didn't seem to do enough turn people on. 

More and more what people in north america want from their gov't primarily is less gov't.  They don't want the gov't to 'solve' their problems or give them money etc, they want the go'vt to get the hell out of the way and enable them to solve their own problems and make (and keep) their own money. 

The more socialist idea of 'gov't will take care of us' has proven to work poorly and people are done with it in Canada and the US. 

[User]

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

For Reference - this was the first poll that came up on Google about the ACA

It is apparently popular - 62% support 37% do not support

https://www.kff.org/interactive/kff-health-tracking-poll-the-publics-views-on-the-aca/#?response=Favorable--Unfavorable&aRange=twoYear

For reference, you are citing the poll in 2024 when most folks are not even thinking about it anymore. 

If you follow that same polling group back in time, you will see that it did not hold majority support for much of the time after it was passed, it was not until 2018, after all attempts to kill it failed, that it has slowly grown in support as time fades memories. 

So no, it was not apparently popular at all when it passed, after it passed, or for all the years it was fought over up until about 2018. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, User said:

 

If you follow that same polling group back in time, you will see that it did not hold majority support for much of the time after it was passed, it was not until 2018, after all attempts to kill it failed, that it has slowly grown in support as time fades memories. 

So no, it was not apparently popular at all when it passed, after it passed, or for all the years it was fought over up until about 2018. 

 

I agree with what you wrote but... as I posted in another thread time heals all wounds sort of.  Everybody was against Free Trade here because it was going to end life and banish us back to the mines, seas and forests.  Today we have call centres.

@August1991