General Question

Crusader's avatar

Since Hitler Wrote Mein Kamph in 1927 why did Rossevelt Administration continue to trade and enrich the Nazis-and Japanese- for nearly 10 years?

Asked by Crusader (576points) April 30th, 2009

Not until England was bankrupted and most of Europe under the sway of a minority-elected leader forced upon the German people did American interven militarily and then, not until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

63 Answers

Crusader's avatar

Better to isolate them with sactions from the beginning, I would think.

Crusader's avatar

Hmmm, you are all conspicuous in your silence. Presidential authority is very powerful, look at Bush. How can trade with a self-proclaimed genocidal megalomaniac be condoned?

MrKnowItAll's avatar

George Bush’s grandfather (Prescot) continued financing the Nazi’s during the war.

Crusader's avatar

Mr. Know,

If you mean buying the Gold from switzerland, yes. So did
many of Rossevelts friends. War for Profit. All are guilty.

3or4monsters's avatar

You asked this question 15 minutes ago and are criticizing readers for not commenting yet? Have patience.

I chose not to comment because what I know of WW2 doesn’t touch enough on US trade practices for me to give what I feel is an informed or educated opinion. Perhaps if you give people time to log in through the day and even read up on the subject a bit more, someone with that information might comment.

Crusader's avatar

My point here is that extremist ideology cannot manifest
without major privation and/or depravation.
Extremist ideology cannot be sustained without
support and/or indifference.
Extremist ideology cannot be expanded without

No One of any decency wants the manifestation,
sustainment, or expansion of extremist ideology.

‘The Love of Money is the Root of All Evil.’

quarkquarkquark's avatar

Because a minor aspect of a crazy leader’s history is insufficient to completely halt trade with a whole nation of people. This shit happens all the time. Are you implying something more?

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

Well Hitler wasn’t in control of Germany when he wrote Mein KampF (with an F) in fact he was in prison (and it was released in 1924, not 1927). The post WW1 democratic government that was installed was in control of Germany. In fact technically it was in control of Germany even after Hitler was elected Chancellor of it in 1933 (though it quickly turned into the Third Reich as Hitler consolidated his power).

(Oh and the NAZI’s were NOT a minority party, they were in fact the largest party in Germany, with roughly 43% of the population claiming to be members, in early 1930’s)

The United States (and virtually every other world power) continued to trade with The NAZI’s and the Japanese Empire for a long time. You seem to think this is out of the ordinary though. The same was true of the United States and our eventual enemies in WW1, or the Russians and Chinese throughout the Cold War.

As for the United States staying out of WW2 until Pearl Harbor, the American populace was VERY split on the issue, nearly 50/50. A lot of people wanted to aid our European brothers and fight the Japanese Empire’s expansion in the Pacific (mind you the concern in the Pacific theater had little concern with the conquered peoples there). But many were very hesitant to involve ourselves with a world war. And honestly who would blame them? People fear conflict and war, especially with an economy that was BARELY stabilized from the pits of the Great Depression. Not to mention the memories of WW1 were not that far removed from the situation. WW1 was a cruel war that was largely fought on the whims of the leaders of countries, and millions died on those whims. Many saw WW2 as just another implementation of this.

Though it’s worth noting that the US had been secretly helping England and the other allies for years prior to joining the war. And we were fully preparing for war (our pacific fleet for example more than doubled in size in the years prior to Pearl Harbor).

Crusader's avatar


Your answer is an oversimplification.
‘Whole nations of people’ have had trade halted historicall
and in modern times, very easy to find such references.
As far as ‘what I am implying..’ what are you implying?

cwilbur's avatar

The evils of fascism were not yet clear, and nationalism had not yet been so fully discredited. Hitler was rebuilding Germany and marshalling a recovery from World War I and the Great Depression. A lot of Americans admired him.

Look at how many Americans admired—and still admire—George Bush’s actions. How many people have you heard justifying his actions because it keeps Americans safe, and because the only people who have anything to fear are criminals? How many people have you heard saying things like, ”their rights don’t matter, because they’re not American”? That’s the sort of sentiment that brought Hitler to power, and those are the sort of sentiments shared by a lot of people in the 1930s. Even after Mein Kampf came out.

Crusader's avatar


It was not until 1927 the A. H.‘s book was circulated and widely available. How do you suppose Hitler ‘consolidated his power’ if not with inference, or support from US?

Yes, the Nazi party was only 31% and that was After the Nazi Brown Shirts intimidated, corrupted, and otherwise influenced illegally the polling.

Just because every other ‘world power’ traded with Germany doesn not make it Ethical. Is the USA not above such money driven end? Why decry torture now, when 100’s of Millions died for Money in the last century…

I do not blame the ‘people’ anywhere it is the Leadership that is responsible, always has been, always will be.

Yes, we helped England, just enough to keep selling to Germany all the while and maintain parity.. And bankrupted them, what is your point?

Jack79's avatar

The answer to the original question is simple: because they mostly agreed with what he was saying. Modern history (rewritten in 1945) may want to ignore/hide the fact that Hitler was only mildly more antisemetic than the average politician of his era. The USA ambassador in Berlin characterised him as “a moderate leader promoting peace and stability in Europe” (which is more or less what the US administration had to say about Saddam Houssein 50 years later).

Crusader's avatar


Your responses are offensive in the exteme. To equivicate Bush with Hitler and America with Nazis is as broad a generalization and specious an argument as is possible.

After securing power, Hitler was Never publically abused,
(though many valient German leaders attempted to assassinate him, se Valkilry,) Bush Always was abused and confronted continuously, Hitler was Chancellor for Life, Bush had eight years, Hitler executed Germans and non-Germans alike with dictatorial powers, Bush Monitored people with expressed intentions to hurt Americans,(forget 911?) Hitler had an open hatred and policy of ostracization, marginalization, and eventually, erradication of Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexual (men,) political opponents, (anyone,) and, finally, Jews. Bush had men of middle-eastern decent Observed, and 200 or so incarcerated. Hitler has the Support of hypocrite Western/Eastern bankers and industrials openly,
bush had the support of the same catagory (including democrats)initially, then, when it was no longer profitable or politically expediant, reversed their support, Hitler denied free speech, Bush preserved the 1st amendment.

The ‘evils’ of fascism not clear? Not an effective position in the least, return to Propaganda School, you fail there.

Anyone with eyes and a translator (see All world leaders) could read the Very Obvious Evil Refererences in Mein Kampf.Hitler did Everything he said he would Do in the Book.

I know you and yours want to re-invent history, water it down, and villify peoples that were simply trying to live their lives like everyone else but whose leaders are insane and supported Wholesale by the very nations and peoples who now accuse them of savagery. First, reward the savagery, then destroy the savages, now, you are a hero, right? Wrong.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

@Crusader, I’m not saying it hasn’t been done, I’m saying it’s a big thing to do and therefore not something done easily or without much thought. If I was Roosevelt, I would have done the same. Authorship of a silly book is not a sufficient reason to stop trade that is economically good for everyone involved. Nobody in America—the public, or Congress—would have accepted this reason.

I’m not implying anything, but you seem to have a strong stance on this—you’re steering the conversation away from the simple answers—and it’s a fairly minor thing. Tell us what you’re thinking, we’re interested.

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

@Crusader you’ll notice it says publication date 1925 and mentions how it was written prior to that while Hitler was in prison, and was available as early as 1924.

If you look up info on the rise of Hitler you’ll also find that in the 1933 elections the NAZI party carried more than 43% of the vote and from that point after (thanks largely to the persecution of the German Communist party), they drastically grew in numbers and support.

(You should probably educate yourself on history before you attempt to use it to make an argument)

And you’re honestly trying to make this comparison for the sake of the torture argument? For starters if we simply cut off all trade with these nations, what would that accomplish? At least if there’s an open dialogue we can TRY to fix things without going to war.

And most importantly, there’s a HUGE difference between trading with a country that tortures, and torturing ourselves. They were the F*CKING NAZI’S, we’re the United States. You’re trying to throw us in the same boat as the f*cking NAZI’s you idiot.

Crusader's avatar


Again, no free passes for politicians of that era or any other as far as I am concerned. Associations with bankers, arms dealers, and industrialists is and can be Very lucrative. Anti-semitism was encouraged be the same people who profited from the war, understand? Profit, profit, profit…

All people simply want to do is live, love, and at least have some dind of activity do. Extremist ideology is a response to the denial of these. Tyranny and Anarchy are the result. Predicatably.

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

@Crusader Another thing you should keep in mind, is that it’s not like we KNEW the NAZI’s and the Japanese were torturing. They weren’t exactly advertising it. We didn’t realize how drastically the NAZI’s were torturing until we started taking back occupied territory in 1943–1945.

And yet another thing to keep in mind is that this is before the creation of the Geneva Convention. Ignoring for a moment that this type of torture is simply wrong and should be frowned upon without a treaty, it was technically allowed as no international treaty prohibited it. And lastly that we took this incident as a sign and made/signed the Geneva convention should be a pretty good pointer as to how we should treat this type of torture.

Crusader's avatar


This ‘Silly Book’ as you flippantly refer to it, was the template for the destruction of nearly 50 million people. I would suggest you re-evalute you priorities if this Wholesale Slaughter of Russians,(and other Slavs mostly,) Germans, Jews, British, Gypsies, and Americans, not to mention the 10’s of millions of Asians murdered in war and/or occupation in part because the rest of the world was busy fighting in the west or profiting from neutrality…

I refute your claim that ‘nobody’ would have done differently than Rossevelt, I admit that Americas banker-corruption-caused ‘depression’ resulting in the New Deal lent itself to little options by for Joe citizen. The perfect financial storm of the Great Depression made this New Deal almost necessary. However, any improved standard of living financed by the Blood of the World is not acceptable, there has Always been Milk and Honey in the US and land a-plenty, all else is Propaganda.

Crusader's avatar

I do not accept you statistics. They are contrived as is any concept of a reasoned discussion with you. (Since when has Wikipedia replace honest research, not in my world)
Open dialogue with torturers, not my topic, yours. And my point is you cannot have the Moral High Ground when you are either Supporting or Indifferent to the very principle you say you hold so dear..?\For profit, again, yours is Love of Money, equivicate it all you like.

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

@Crusader You don’t accept the statistics because they’re facts and they prove you wrong and make you look like the crazy idiot you are.

I pity you. Go get a few books and educate yourself. You can find the same info as is on wikipedia (i’ve taken classes on this).

quarkquarkquark's avatar

Look, @Crusader, I’m not saying this is okay in retrospect. In retrospect, we should have killed Hitler at birth or blocked the publication of Mein Kamf or attacked Germany preemptively. But at the time nobody really cared about the book. You are talking about drastically changing global trade because of the publishing history of Germany’s leader. Yes, Hitler was dangerous. Yes, he ended up killing millions of people. But there was no way for FDR to know that! You’re making this way more complicated than it has to be. Authorship of the book was not evidence that Hitler would go on to commit genocide, and even if it was, it was not sufficient reason to cease trade. If the world worked like this, there would be no trade.

Also, you keep misusing and misspelling the word equivocate.

Crusader's avatar


Please find anyone forum to express your vindictiveness.
I refuse to engage in such trivialities as the legitimacy of statistics, when, by definition, they are often unreliable, I take my position from a vast array of information, including Pulitzer Prize and Nober prize winning authors, thank you. Find another to undermine, if this subject is so inflammoatory as to become aggressive I obviously am extolling truth, why else would an intelligent mind pursue such an obviously biased agenda, unless you are paid to do so…I am unpaid and independent.

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

@Crusader Your ignorance or denial of FACTS (readily provable as they may be) aside, your entire argument is flawed.

There’s a HUGE difference between being the witness of a crime who does nothing, and being the criminal yourself.

Crusader's avatar


No, advancing, not killing Hitler was the plan. Too many coincidences for this not to be the scenario. A PTSD Lance -Corporal, without a formal education or previous military background, with two Iron Crosses from the WWI and a raging Antisemite? With Hydophophobia? Allowed to annex Czech Republic? Given a free pass by Chamberlein and Rossevelt? Allowed to invade Poland? Allowed to Invade and occupy France? Allowed to maintain power and encouraged to do so as author of Mein Kampf? Your denial of the obvious is as appalling as it is terrifying.

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

@Crusader The appeasement you speak of is a far cry from torture. Was NAZI Germany an aggressive imperialistic state? Yah of course they were. But prior to the war we had no idea the torturous things they were doing, so that’s a moot argument.

As much as we would frown upon and probably counter such an action in todays day and age, they’re hardly as evil as torturing. And moreover they were hardly unheard of in those days.

Crusader's avatar


You ‘readily provable’ facts have, as is the case throughout history, been written by the victors, try investigating some other source for truth, if you really care about truth, which, honestly, I doubt, but if so, more power to you.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

Okay, @Crusader. I don’t know if I agree or disagree because you refuse to tell me what you’re arguing. What is the “obvious” of which you speak? I deny nothing. Go, do not attack us, tell us your belief.

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

@Crusader You’re honestly debating the publication date of Mein Kampf, and the election results of the 1933 German election? What the hell purpose would we even have for changing those?

You’re ignorant. Please, go to school, read books, and learn something. Knowledge is power, and your ignorance frightens me.

Crusader's avatar

Westy said, ’...huge difference between witnessing a crime and commiting a crime…’

How it that even remotely an accurate statement when those ‘witnessing’ profited handsomely? This is like video-taping a Rape/Murder in Central Park and selling it, you did not actually Commit the crime, but neither did you attempt to stop it, furthermore, you profited from it. Get it?

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

@Crusader What I get is that you’re trying to justify torture. And there is no justification. You want me to say I wasn’t happy about us trading with the NAZI’s (despite the fact we had no idea the terrible things they were doing?) ? Ok, I wasn’t happy about it. But it’s hardly equivalent to torturing people.

Torture is WRONG. That we don’t do it is what makes us better than the evil people we are fighting. The second we give in and torture, we are no better than they are.

Crusader's avatar

We can debate semantics and statistics all day, irrefutably so. Personal attacks, begun by Westy and subtly encouraged by quark, (as well as attempting to implicate me as the ‘aggressor’ are perfect examples of duplicitous politics and their results.

Crusader's avatar

Ah Westy,

Now you have exercized the ipso-facto, the Upside-down argument, I am very familiar with this. No, I never justified torture in any of my posts, sorry to dissapoint you. And, yes, their was Plenty of evidence that the Nazi Party (Hitler) was Very Bad indeed. Or was the bombing of civilian populations in Spain and Holland not enough..among many such atrocities. Most of the steel delivered by the US industrialist, (all tanks, aircraft, bullets, guns, etc..)..Under Rossevelt. Too bad all this information is available on the internet, otherwise you would have burned all the True history books and replaced it with You Own Version..Just like the Nazis…

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

@Crusader “Personal attacks, begun by Westy and subtly encouraged by quark,”

Belligerent ignorance deserves belligerent intelligence.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

For Christ’s sake, I feel like I am in the dark. @Crusader—ignore what you see as personal attacks. You need to state a clear position and tell us what is “obvious,” tell us things as you believe they were or should have been.

Crusader's avatar

Ah, Westy,

And who are you to judge ignorance? And belligerant ignorance at that?Are you God?Have you a time-machine? Have you read Every book on EverySubject and dicerned the Absolute Truth from each? Your position is the unequivical support of Rossevelt, not whether a book was released on a certain date or the number of Germans supporting Hitler in the election, right? you ignore the pain and death of generations to support a position that has some evidence, but far from authoritative, are you that agenda-driven that you would ignore the same Nazi tactics in America if your demographic and you personally were the beneficiaries of such a policy?

quarkquarkquark's avatar

You’re getting caught up in meta-argument, both of you. Use facts and logic, not insults and accusations.

Crusader's avatar


I believe I have been quite clear about my position. Hitler, or any proponet of extremist ideology with overt violent implications, would Never had achieved any legitimate authority in my perfect world.

Obviously generations of Germans would be frustrated and furious over the deaths and privations and deprivations of the greed-caused WWI, (so, perhaps we should change that piece of history too, and not engage in WWI, )yet to exascerbate to condition and sit idly by, (and profit like the man in the trees in Central Park video-taping a murder/rape and selling it,)another, more horrifying episode unfold,(WWII) is just about inexcusable. Who but the Western Leaders and Neutral Eastern Leaders would even Consider such a thing? Did the sons/daughters of America, England, Canada, Austrailian Leaders fight? How about India? Where does this soon-to-be ‘liberated’ and divided massive former British colony fit into the equation?

I say, until the West, including Israel, can put aside their differnences, collectively, and stop trying to ‘appease’ extremist groups on the FAr Right And the FAr Left, and simply live in peace and harmony and not in acrimony, there will Never be any true understanding, much less forgiveness.

Accountability, Honesty, Love-(Agape,Charity)As far as I know and have experienced, only faith and practice of a socially conservative Christianity, (and fiscally Moderate) can result in this near- utopia. Logic, persuasion, and history are important to acknowledge, but such, (socially conservative , fiscally moderate,)belief And practice and the ethical consequences are infinately more effective than the most well structured arguement or the best funded and prepared corporate interest.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

So you’re arguing that Nazi Germany was bad. I agree. In a perfect world the Holocaust would never have happened. I also agree.

“I say, until the West, including Israel, can put aside their differnences, collectively, and stop trying to ‘appease’ extremist groups on the FAr Right And the FAr Left, and simply live in peace and harmony and not in acrimony, there will Never be any true understanding, much less forgiveness.”

This sounds nice. But in the case of Hitler, appeasement was an attempt at peace and harmony. The other option was military action, which is neither peaceful nor harmonious. Either way, it eventually happened. Too late, as you say.

Crusader's avatar


Yes, we agree that Nazi Germany was bad. Can we agree that the unpleasant nature of this government was subsidized by US businesss interests and a acquiesant position by the Rossevelt Administration? This was my original question.

Yes, in a perfect world, Republics would not subdidize dictatorships from the Ground Up hand selecting the Most potential violent and uncompromising individual. Hitler had No viable resources outside of the West, Us was the Largest trading partner, Trade slowed Only when England Blokaded the harbor.
Accept some of the responsibility for Once! Virtually Any ethnic group will become violent extremist when such behavior is Rewarded and the opposition is Murdered.

The previous analogy of an individual profiting from the video of a murder/rape did not go far enough, it seems.In point of fact, the ‘murderer’ (Nazi Germany,) was indoctrinated with Hate, and given the weapon, as well as a nice, quiet, protected ‘area’ to perpetrate his atrocities. Great footage for the ‘silent’ partner and Massive Profit.

Germany and the minority brainwashed Nazis were the Product of Western Hypocrites who continue to eliminate freedom in the USA to this day, ruling by Fear and Deception.

Consequently, your postulation that of ‘appeasement’ of Hitler is one of the greatest and damaging deceptions inflicted upon the World, Hitler was not ‘appeased’ he was Manifested, Subsidized, and allowed to Expand for Profit for the Few-and the Misery and Death of Many. Furthermore, I originally suggested Sanctions which would have severely curtailed the subsidizing of the Nazi movement, and Expansion would have been vitually impossible.

However, the Manifestation of the Nazi leader was inevitable, given the conditions after WWI, just like Every Other occupied country has its nationalist interested in violent extremism, it is the degree to which they assume power and authority that is in question here.

Thus, ‘peaceful and harmonious,’ was Never the intention of the Rossevlt Administration or most of the hyper-capitalistic amoral business community, quite the opposite; subsidize and empower the dictator, annihilate the resistance, (the conclusion of which was foregone given the industrial capacity of the West and Russian resolve and sacrifice,) secure the wealth of All Europe, dramatically reduce its historically Christian male, (and female,) population all for Profit and World Domination.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

It’s confusing for a lot of us to try and understand what you’re talking about. You are capitalizing a lot of words that don’t need capitalization, misspelling a lot of words, and not organizing or stating your thoughts very clearly. Please don’t take this as a personal attack. I’m only trying to understand

You’re arguing, in your final paragraph, that the Roosevelt Administration’s intention was to subsidize Hitler and support intended genocide?

In your back-and-forth with westy, you demonstrated a distrust of widely trusted documentation about Hitler’s rise to power and early attempts at diplomatic relations with Nazi Germany. I think you also implied that our friend was being paid to put forth his viewpoint. Let’s all be calm and rational—I would like to see some specific evidence for your rather expansive claims of malice on the part of the Allies.

Crusader's avatar


I believe my post is very legible. My belief is represented by historical timelines and easily understood. As the Final Solution wa not implemented until late in the War, very Soon after America’s intervention, Rossevelt’s knowledge and supportof Jewish genocide is uncertain, however, Slavic genocide was well on its way…So, yes, I believe that taking an indifferentposition, and/or actively contributing to Hitlers War Machine during the years between 1933 and 1940, (And supporting him subtley on his rise to power previously,) Was Criminal. As was the behavior of the business and banking communities and leadership at the time. All are guilty.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

Obviously, the (we like to believe) intelligent citizens of Fluther are having some trouble coming to grips with a rejection of all we’ve learned about the Second World War. Please cite some sources.

Crusader's avatar

Anyone interested can write me for citations or locate them easily enough.
Here is an exerpt from one regarding the American Nuetrality Act of of 1935; (after two years of selling raw material and arms to Germany,)

The Nuetrality Act was designed to keep the US out of a military conflict,

’ declining to use its vast industrial strength to aide its democratic friends, and defeat its totalitarian foes, the US provoked the aggressors into further aggression.’

Also, regarding arms deals to the Britain and France (for Cash) After the Nuetrality Act was in effect, (the Axis had industry and weapons now, it was time to ‘balance’ the equation, for further profit…)

‘Overseas demand for war goods brought a sharp upswing from the recession of 1937–38 and ultimately solved the decade-long unemployment crisis.’

A crisis perpetuated by corrupt bankers, and solved by amoral arms dealers, Prosperity for Blood Money. One would think humanity had evolved beyond the need for such slaughter for profit.

Note, Walt Disney made his initial fortune by the selling of ‘genuine blood-stained war material’ from WWI, Helmets, and bayonets in particular were popular. So much for ‘Its a small world after all..’

quarkquarkquark's avatar

Well, I think we can all agree that Walt Disney was a well-intentioned, if completely misguided, white supremacist prick.

I’m still unclear as to what you were arguing with westy about. Your views on the amorality of prewar international trade are hardly original. Do you or do you not believe there was actual malice involved on the part of any of the Allies? And what are you arguing for?

I think your original question is misleading. By using Mein Kampf (and that is its actual spelling) as a pivot point, you launched us into a discussion in which we may have been unnecessarily hard on you. Your suggestion is that the Roosevelt Administration, along with Neville Chamberlain and the proponents of what is known among almost everybody as appeasement, neglected the obvious destructive potential of the new Nazi government in favor of continued or increased international trade. Correct? I now need to hear a specific situation that you would prefer to have occurred. An earlier blockade or embargo? A coup against Hitler? A small-scale invasion or a divestment campaign?

Crusader's avatar


Yes, we have an accord on Disney. Though he was, in fact, appealing to the base natures in us all, blood lust, he tried to compensate with a childrens theme park-of all races- all nice and good, but the seed money was quite tainted…

AS far as Malice is concerned it depends on your definition. I personally believe that they were at least accessories to the crime, like the analogy of video-taping a murder/rape and selling it for proft. While not directly commiting the crime all allowances for the crime (means and manufactured motive) were made. Accomplises are prosecuted, too. As are War Profiteers.

And, no, Mein Kampf is quite relevant. It has always confused me why the author of such a volatile text, one that definately had an appeal for the survivors of decimated Germany afte WWI, (it was a best seller…) was provided such leeway and for so long, especially considering the authority the West had over occupied Germany at the time. WWII was Easily preventable, and Mein Kampf was the most obvious reference and insight to a man, a society, a war that was on the horizon. Any critical thinking, well-informed mind will arrive at the same conclusion.

Yes, Chamberlain and Rossevelt were in league together to profit through appeasement, neglecting, and as often as not, deliberately exercizing willful ignorance towards the Nazi inevitable threat.

A preferred specific situation other than what occured? Well, I have mentioned this several times, I will again.

First, maintain Direct involvement with the fledgling Weimar Republic, not abandon it as was done in 1931.
Next continue to support Germany with no/low interest rate loans through 1933 at least, And, as of 1928 at the latest demand a suspension of restitution payments for the allied powers as insisted in the Versaille treaty. Germany is a versitile and industrious place, its economic increase was inevitable and not requiring a military economy, as post-WWII industriousness and prosperity has proven, as well as German prosperity previous to WWI, (the actual cause for WWI)

These prudent and honest measures would have sown prosperity and improvement for All, not just a select Few.

Given that these measures were Not taken, War was far from inevitable, yet continued trade, appeasement, (allowing for occupation and appropriation of sovereign neighbors,) and an unwillingness to confront middle-east Oil interests, who favored Germany and Hungary as they were allies as the Ottoman Empire during WWI, as well as the Japanese question, a very profitable one as well, prevented any real chance for a lasting peace. Or peace of any kind. Nuetrality is not an option, yet ethics and honesty need to be the foremost concern for an Empire, otherwise it is just tyranny, destined to fail.

That said, in a world that conceals avarace, greed, deception, and racial superiority with religion and political expediency, Empire needs to acknowledge this and act accordingly to preserve order, law, and sovereignty. If the entire world employed the same principles of accountablilty, honesty, and charity, all would be wonderful, yet this is not, any never will be completely the case. We all want leisure, comfort, delicacies, and attractive mates, yet not all can obtain them.

Either through personal achievements or artificial constructs are they achieved. I am an advocate of the former as it represents often thrift, industriousness, and ability. To thwart a demographic that is a threat based upon their capacity to express self-control and productivity and encourage the opposite is unethical, divisive, and inevitably, lends itself to violent conflict. To encourage a philosophy of complete intolerance, uncompromising aggressiveness, and ethical ambiguity for profit knowing full well the consequences is demonic.

mattbrowne's avatar

Why did the Roosevelt administration continue to trade after “Mein Kampf” was published? Here are a couple of reasons that come to mind

1) Very few people both inside and outside of Germany read the whole book i.e. the whole series of books
2) There was a lack of intensive scrutiny
3) May found it too long and too boring
4) Most of the few people who read the book were not fully convinced that Hitler actually meant everything what he wrote (this really changed when WW2 began)
5) It took Roosevelt quite a while till he rejected the Wilsonian neutrality stance

cwilbur's avatar

@Crusader: fascism is fascism. It’s no less evil when it’s George Bush separating the world into “us” and “them” and using the fear of the other to whip up popular support.

If you’re offended, good. The things George Bush did in the name of “protecting American freedom” were ugly, disgusting things, and they did very little to protect American freedom and quite a bit to enrich his cronies.

mattbrowne's avatar

@cwilbur – Yes, I agree the things George Bush did in the name of “protecting American freedom” were ugly and disgusting. But it wasn’t fascism or Nazism. Far from it. In a truly fascist state people will knock on your door 10 minutes after you post a ‘treacherous’ Fluther comment like the one above. They pull you away from your computer so fast and no one will read you your rights. Sophie Scholl distributed anti-war leaflets at the University of Munich in 1943. The Nazis executed her by guillotine only a few weeks later.

This is fascism.

ru2bz46's avatar

@mattbrowne Good to see you on this thread. You may be a liberal, but you usually have a voice of reason. ;-)

cwilbur's avatar

The Bush administration was a solid, intentional step towards fascism. We didn’t get all the way there—it seems that some people can learn from history—but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t fascism.

I mean, look at what we had. An authoritarian centralized government: the “unitary executive,” and signing statements indicating just what parts of the laws the Bush administration intended to enforce. An external enemy that we were in perpetual war with: Islamist terrorists. Abandoning civil liberties in favor of ideological purity and external expansion: did you miss the USA PATRIOT act, all the rhetoric from McCain and Palin about “true Americans” being white Christian Republicans, and the war of aggression in Iraq?

These are the hallmarks of fascism. The fact that we pulled back before we actually made it all the way to the abyss is a credit to the American voters. The fact that its attempt at fascism discredited the Republican party so badly is a further credit to the American people.

Crusader's avatar


Ah, now you redefine your position, Bush admin. was not actually Fascism but ‘a solid, intentional step towards fascism’ how convenient. Does you affirmative-action (conservative)tax-payer funded college educating prepare you for such arbitrary responses? And what has this to do with the thread topic? Are you so agenda-driven and accusatory that you would crucify your ‘enemy’ even as he attempts to establsih a working dialogue? This has been done before, and will again, nothing new under the sun, please do not flatter yourself.

If it is not fascism, what is it? Retribution for 5,000 innocent people and their families? (Forget 911?) Providing a sense of unity and protection for all Americans, not just those who personally benefit from a political agenda such as is evidenced in all public primary, secondary, and university institutions? Not to mention 99% of media. You have it All and want more, it is not enough to have the money , authority, and (mis guided) love of your ‘followers’ but you want to villify, demonize, and mischaracterize any and all who would deny you what you perceive as an ‘entitlement.’

With such influences across America increasing and accountability, honesty, and charity on the wane, the ‘unitary executive’ was the Only option. Precisely because of the Hate you have for the Only demographic willing to remain resolved to the Benefit of All in an accountable, honest, and charitable way. And if some are not Perfect, that certainly is Not any justification to be selfish, dishonesy, and irresponsible-individuals make their Own decisions, conservative have More consequences for their behavior than liberals, liberals will be rewarded financially, and academically for the Same behavior conservatives are Crucified for. In addition, Accountable, Honest, and Charitable (white)conservatives are penalized in any case with such law as affirmative action, and prosecuted by illegal organizations such as the ACLU and the NAACP. Racists, heterophobes all.

This ‘experiment’ in liberalism was to designed to placate the foreign power hypocrite masoginist authoritarian countries and their ‘leaders’. You are the beneficiary of such geo-political manuevers. If it was a purely domestic endeavor, you would certainly Never have such authority based upon your ethnicity, gender, or ascribed sexual orientation. Hypocrites, especially Islam Love you for this, for helping to position their Theocratic, masoginistic, racist agenda in America. But the Despise you personally. They Hate me for thwarting their ignoble efforts, but Love me for the degree of faith which I possess. At least they honor Jesus as a prophet, yet the Quran makes allowances for dishonesty, irresponsibility, and selfishness to the ‘infidel’ as well as the persecution of women and homosexuals. Who is really your ally here? In 5 years? In 10? In 20? Perhaps you enjoy a better lifestyle nowbecause of illegal quotas, they future be darned, yet there is always a consequence, a reaction for every action…yet as a homosexual you will not have any posterity to concern yourself with so, what the heck right? Live for now, who cares about the future, or future generations, you won’t have any…

Crusader's avatar


First I would like to thank you for your historical perspective a balanced and honest approach-in terms of Mrs. Scholl…

However, in terms of the Mein Kampf you are way off.

1.) It was a Best Seller, enabling Hitler to be financally independent and self-sufficient, several Million copies were sold domestically and hundreds of thousands abroad.
2.) Lack of intense scrutiny of a Book written by the Chancellor for Life of the Germany-a country bitter from WWI, try again.
3.) Too long and boring? You obviously have not read it. Though at many times it is inflammatory and divisive, 9like liberal propaganda) and I do Not agree with any of the persuasions to advocate violent retaliation or ethnic cleansing, it Is a visceral read, like a horror novel from Christian Hater Steven King. Far from boring.
4.)Not convinced he meant what he stipulated in his manifesto?
His rise to power and the disenfranchisement of Jews in Krystalnacht was not evidence enough? The Ghettos? Invasion of neighboring countries? What world are you living on?
5.) Yes, it took quite a while for Rooselvelt to cease the nuetrality stance, though this was not Wilson’s He entered into WWI, remember? The difference? Roosevelt, and his corporate and banking associates, and selected arms dealer friends profited from Both Sides, The Axis and the Allied powers, until the axis had the edge and profit was no longer viable.

Crusader's avatar


You say Bush encouraged Us vs. Them?
After a brutal, deadly terror attack, some justification there.
However, even during peace and prosperity you and yours continue to attack and characterize us vs. them throughout society against the same ‘White Christian Republicans’ that only simply want to live their lives in their own way (like you) and occassionally discuss the merits of their belief with you personally, since there is separtation of Church and State you have all the legitimate power anyway, theirs is a personal choice not federally supported over any other.

Very little to protect America? No terror attacks for 8 years, his Entire administration, is a good start I should think. And the Volunteer, Highly paid military is still meeting and exceeding quotas, a dangerous, yet rewarding life, and Voluntary Career.

Yours is the intolerant Hate Group.

cwilbur's avatar

@Crusader: I’ve been snapping my fingers for the last 20 minutes, and no tigers have attacked anywhere in the city of Boston. Clearly my finger-snapping is preventing tiger attacks.

Bush and his cronies were torturing al-Qaeda operatives for seven years, and no terrorist attacks happened inside the United States. Clearly, the torture was effective in preventing terrorist attacks.

Do you see the parallel reasoning?

mattbrowne's avatar

@Crusader – It took quite some time before ‘Mein Kampf’ became a bestseller. Simply counting the numbers of printed copies can also be misleading. From 1936 on every married couple received a free copy at the civil registry office. Not many of them actually read the book, let alone the whole thing.

In his book ‘The Second World War’ Winston Churchill felt that after Hitler’s ascension to power no other book deserved more intensive scrutiny than ‘Mein Kampf’, and called the book the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message. (see article)

Over time more and more people realized that Hitler meant every word he wrote, but this took time. Even many Jews didn’t realize at first that the ghettos were just created to become a giant waiting rooms for the trains to the extermination camps. You were asking why the Roosevelt administration continued to trade. My point was that the true dimensions of Hitler’s plan took a while for everyone to realize.

I have not read ‘Mein Kampf’ and I won’t. It’s too disgusting and it’s promoting one of the most perverse ideologies ever invented. I’ve read many books about the Third Reich and talked to my parents and grandparents to get the picture. It’s okay if historians study ‘Mein Kampf’ and share theirs summaries with me.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

@Crusader; your arguments have a certain feel to them. I get the impression of a fairly bright high school student who has just learned a bunch of facts in his history class and is eager to use them to support his viewpoints. You obviously see yourself as having a “conservative” or “moderate Christian” agenda and have stated many times that you think the USA would be better off based on Christian or conservative values. This is by no means a minority viewpoint, but you don’t come off as a scholar, and sometimes you don’t even come off intelligent. You reel off lists of facts, many of which are often flawed (in that they misstate or entirely leave out some aspects) and when presented with opposing facts or statistics you dismiss them out of hand as incorrect or biased. You present statistics of your own, and when confronted with other members’ statistics, you say that statistics are widely acknowledged to be incorrect “by definition.” When you are proved wrong, you ignore the proof entirely and continue on with your original argument without addressing the issue.

I agree with you on some topics: I don’t think what we refer to as “torture” should be dismissed on the basis of its definition; I (in principle) believe trade and economic well-being should be sacrificed for a greater good, if only a potential one.

Unfortunately, you have not shown that you are capable of mature argument.

Crusader's avatar

The letter rather than the spirit of the law, same as the Pharasees and Saducees of 2,000 years ago. Evidently nothing has changed. It is time for a new chosen people.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

This is what I’m talking about. I have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about.

KalWest's avatar

I think you hit the nail on the head! Great answer

Krag's avatar


quarkquarkquark's avatar

Interesting that @Crusader ‘s argument devolved into meaningless nonsense.

cwilbur's avatar

@quarkquarkquark: Devolved? It started there.

V_Scofield's avatar

Very few people actually bothered to read “Mein Kampf”. It was written by a crazy jailbird who dropped out of high school and didn’t get accepted into art school, after all. Not to mention being a huge rant. In the forties, millions of copies were sold and kept on people’s bookshelves for show without being opened. I found it in a library fairly recently and opted to buy “The Theory and Practice of Hell: The German Concentration Camps and the System Behind Them” and “All’s Quiet on the Western Front” over “Mein Kampf”, even if it would give me a closer look into the mind of the monster.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther