Posted on 07/20/2014 10:25:50 AM PDT by WXRGina
I think a better strategy for Hitler would have been to maintain his alliance with Stalin, at least in the short term.
The forces used in Barbarossa could obviously have pretty easily conquered North Africa and swept all the way to the Persian Gulf. Stalin gets Romania, Bulgaria, Persia and Turkey. The Med becomes a German lake. Hitler’s fuel problems are over.
Spend perhaps five years using his newly acquired resources and the industrial power of all of Europe to build up an army and possibly even a navy that would allow him to quickly crush Stalin when he finally attacks and then turn on the West. World domination.
What rot.
The Declaration of Independence and Constitution based on the Doctrin of Negative Rights is THE most radical, revolutionary social and political shift in human history. EVERYTHING else is merely a shifting around of subject status under various guises, the French Revolution being merely another socialist experiment in seeing how far the people could be pushed in the name of the collective "we" before they realized it was yet another ruling elite "them' under a different name.
If Kirk believed his own words he was a fool, otherwise he was just another RINO seditionist trying to parse away and trivialize the universality of the doctrine of innate human freedom promulgated by the Founders.
Fwiw.
NationalSozialistDeutsheArbeiterPartei
National Socialist German Workers Party
Abbreviation. NAZI
Curious how the left easily float the smear of "Nazi" and "Fascist". This on anyone who offers a dissenting view. Especially one that flies in their face . This is their special weapon.
As for Adolf Hitler, he nearly got killed in WW1 as a dispatch runner. The German police fired on him and his comrades in the 1920's, as they marched on the government. 23 were killed. Hitler survived and was sentenced to five years in prison. He was let out after one year and the rest is history.
During WW2, we were cheerfully told that all the German people supported Hitler. The rotten communists in England demanded atrocities to be visited on Germany at the end of the war.
Fortunately wiser heads prevailed.
Love your tag line.
Indeed they would.
Yep, we can hear that weird whirring sound... them spinning in their graves.
“If Kirk believed his own words he was a fool, otherwise he was just another RINO seditionist trying to parse away and trivialize the universality of the doctrine of innate human freedom promulgated by the Founders.”
Evidently you haven’t got the slightest idea of who Russell Kirk is or the role he played in the modern conservative movement.
I agree. If Hitler hadn’t wasted his best divisions by turning on Stalin he would have been in an incredibly strong position for tying up fuel supplies and the Mediterranean.
The biggest obstacle for his long term goal was Nazism itself. It was essentially a ruthless criminal enterprise operating as a political party. The SS exemplified this, being the armed wing of the Nazi party rather than part of the regular German military. A documented act of cruelty against the German people had been a requirement for joining the SS. A regime that operated like that simply couldn’t last. Eventually your home grown enemies will find a way to turn on you.
” By comparison, our forebears went from monarchal subjects in a hierarchal society to republican citizens in a comparative blink of an eye. Way radical. “
Feel free to argue your case against Kirk. The American revolution was to preserve existing rights against the encroachments, the usurpations, of the King. Rights that American colonials believed that they already had and that they had been practicing without interference for a very long time. These rights were already spelled out in the Bill of Rights of 1689, a document we forget because we tend not to look back into English political history. But this document was well known to American colonials.
The colonials had stated repeatedly their willingness remain British subjects if George III respected their rights. He didn’t, and so the American colonies seceded from the United Kingdom. Hamilton and few others wanted to establish a monarchy over here and make Washington a king. But Washington and the majority chose to build upon the Continental Congress that they had been operating under since before war erupted. The new government was an evolution and codifying of what had already been operating in the American colonies.
If you want a radical revolution then look to what happened shortly afterwards in France. Edmund Burke knew the difference between the two, supported the American effort and deplored the French. Burke’s writings on this are one of the reasons Kirk featured him in ‘The Conservative Mind’ and ‘Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered’.
‘Russell Kirk was a leading figure in the post-World War II revival of American interest in Edmund Burke. Today, no one who takes seriously the problems of society dares remain indifferent to “the first conservative of our time of troubles.” In Russell Kirk’s words: “Burke’s ideas interest anyone nowadays, including men bitterly dissenting from his conclusions. If conservatives would know what they defend, Burke is their touchstone; and if radicals wish to test the temper of their opposition, they should turn to Burke.” Kirk unfolds Burke’s philosophy, showing how it revealed itself in concrete historical situations during the eighteenth century and how Burke, through his philosophy, “speaks to our age. “This volume makes vivid the four great struggles in the life of Burke: his efforts to reconcile England with the American colonies; his involvement in cutting down the domestic power of George III; his prosecution of Warren Hastings, the Governor-General of India; and his resistance to Jacobinism, the French Revolution’s “armed doctrine.”’
Evidently you haven’t got the slightest idea of what the Doctrine of Negative Rights is or the role it played in the history of the world.
You lost all credibility with that whopper.
Cherish your kirk if you wish. My historians of the revolutionary era are Wood, McDonald, Bailyn, Stourzh, Jensen, Adair, Storing, and primary source documents .
“Evidently you haven’t got the slightest idea of what the Doctrine of Negative Rights is or the role it played in the history of the world.”
On the contrary I know exactly what it is. I notice that in your reply you didn’t mention your own familiarity with Russell Kirk. I’ll take that to be a confirmation that you know nothing of him.
I don't give a damn who he was. The idea that you can invoke a name without any personal support of a particular idea or argument that you are making your own, especially in order to dismiss the fundamental genius and revolutionary impact of the Doctrine of Negative Rights on American history is more than personally cowardly - it's ridiculous.
If there is some argument you believe Kirk espoused that you agree with in this matter, out with it. But to invoke his name and expect people to simply toss the very meaning of their country in the trash is some sort of mental illness. If Kirk negated the fundamental importance and uniqueness of Negative Rights, then hold your hat and sit down - I disagree with him. And repeating his name with an aura of breathlessness and showing contempt for someone who doesn't share your codependency is NOT an argument.
A fetish, yes. I'll give you that. But the invocation of his name is irrelevent. And there are oh, I don't know, one or two people through history who might agree with my understanding of the specific American importance of this issue.
Thank you for sharing your fetish with everyone. If you ever want to actually own your own words and discuss specific issues, feel free to share. Otherwise, get help.
“<>Hamilton and few others wanted to establish a monarchy over here and make Washington a king.<> You lost all credibility with that whopper.”
Evidently you didn’t take notes when you were reading Wood, McDonald, Bailyn et al.
On June 18, 1787 Hamilton offered the Constitutional Convention what was dubbed “the British Plan” due to its all too strong resemblance to the British form of government. Hamilton’s plan had a ‘Governor’ rather than a President, and that Governor held office for life.
Now maybe to you a Governor-for-Life doesn’t constitute a monarch as long as he wasn’t called a king. If so I’d call that a whopper.
“I don’t give a damn who he was.”
I never would have guessed. The post WWII conservative renaissance began with essentially two men, Russell Kirk and William F Buckley. Kirk wrote the first major book of the movement in 1953, ‘The Conservative Mind’ and in 1955 he helped Buckley found National Review.
” If Kirk negated the fundamental importance and uniqueness of Negative Rights, then hold your hat and sit down - I disagree with him. “
He didn’t. You seem to have drummed up the idea that he did all on your own.
“And repeating his name with an aura of breathlessness and showing contempt for someone who doesn’t share your codependency is NOT an argument. “
You’ll have to describe how breathlessness manifests itself in online posting, I’m sure it will be interesting.
It used to be that the conservative reading public had a rudimentary knowledge of heavyweights among conservative thinkers, many of whom had written for National Review. Kirk was one, James Burnham another. You’re evidence that that era is long gone.
You parse away context from my postings, and you do not supply your own words and thoughts - only idol worship. You speak as a collectivist, holding up the names of leaders you demand others agree with outside of any particular issue you personally support, explain or hold yourself. You also directly lie about specific issues, namely the one I refuted, the Doctrine of Negative Rights, which your hero did indeed attempt to diminish quite pointedly and at length as a subsidiary and pre-existing issue - which it certainly was not.
Finally, your collective dismissal of the entirety of my knowledge of politics, conservativsm, critical thinking and basically everything else, solely for my disagreement with your hero, and lacking any personal discussion of specific issues by yourself, is an excellent example of a collectivist's wrath over not being kneejerk-followed and intellectually obeyed.
Kirk and Buckley were elitist RINOs. They upheld conservative principles for corporate matters and distinguished between the relationships of people and corporations, corporations and government and people and government. Invocation of their posistions without careful discrimination of applicability concerning these three basic relationships is the age-old RINO technique that has resulted in the modern Republican Party, saying all the right things,a nd consistently doing all the wrong - with no one able to understand "how" it happened.
Your heroes were not conservative - they parsed conservatism away from small business freedom from regulations into corporate control of "conservative" regulatory domination. You're a poseur who invokes names, not a true student of political dynamics who dares address the core issues that have balkanized the Republican Party. Your ignorance of the use of decades of Delphi tactics by these people against conservative ideology while claiming to support it erases you from the discussion - you literally don't recognize what they did, how they did it, or even that they did it. Instead, to people like you, the Left just "rose" and conservatives just "fell," no doubt because of lack of appropriate worship, such as I am displaying here.
That's why you come in here with the lowest possible obedience meme - worship of name only. Which is not only intellectually insulting and highly condescending to anyone who reads your wroshipful screeds, but also fits the entire concept of RINOs and Leftist leader-worship perfectly. Except, of course, that you are doing it in the name of a philosophy that rejects such collectivism, which you obviously believe makes you clever, but actually reveals a tawdryness to which you remain oblivious.
Boy, you must be a quick reader. You managed to go from never having heard of Russell Kirk to declaring him an elitist RINO in less than a week.
But you should have stuck with just acknowledging that you’d never heard of him since that would have spared you from making what has to be the stupidest estimation of Russell Kirk ever written. Kirk was as far from an apologist for corporate power and the Republican establishment as any major conservative thinker ever has been. He was concerned primarily with the moral order as the basis for western civilization.
Capitalism and the Moral Basis of Social Order by Russell Kirk
“A number of Americans, fancying that the world is governed mainly by economic doctrines and practices, are inclined to think that an era of international good feeling lies before us. I intend to sprinkle some drops of cold water on such hasty hopes. I have no faith in the notion that an abstract “democratic capitalism” is about to gain acceptance throughout the world.
We find fairly widespread in these United States a “capitalistic” version of Karl Marx’s dialectical materialism – more’s the pity. It is not a theoretical “democratic capitalism” that can preserve, unaided, order and justice and freedom. Materialism was an American vice when Alexis de Tocqueville travelled in the United States. That vice has not diminished in power. People who maintain that production and consumption are the ends of human existence presently will find themselves impoverished materially, as well as spiritually.....”
Reading comprehension I’d clearly not your strong suit - the established subject was your quote that Kirk minimized the Doctrine of Negative Rights (not that you made that statement yourself, never that, you’re just an acolyte randomly quoting your god Kirk, of course).
But then, you were just tasked with a single goal and you’re sticking to it - undermining the discussion of actual conservative issues in context, by getting conservatives to worship name over argument, accept lack of personal statements in exchange for name loyalty, and attacking anyone who calls you on your crap.
What a good little collectivist handler you are. Cost you your soul, but hey, look at all the little gold stars you got on your report card to replace it!
Carry on, worshipper. I’m no longer interested in wasting time with someone who won’t even own their own thoughts. Worms revolt me.
Dr. A. Roberts presents Why Hitler Lost the War: German Strategic Mistakes in WWII; speech to the U.S. Army War College:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5agLW7fTzBc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.