Thread: Universal Peace and the Kellogg-Briand Pact

Originally Posted by wendylove

At best, they stop the war a couple of months. However, America just came in on the last second and started acting like they won it for everyone. Russia and England would have won it alone, actually just Russia.

If your plan is based on lighting war, then fighting Russia during the winter would be the biggest mistake ever. Hitler must have been on drugs(he actually was on drugs since he had parkinson's).

Also, America's use off the nukes was proberly a crime against humanity and militarily unnecessary.


We would have still had defeated Germany.

Saying, that Russia proberly won the war. Which, kind of gives Stalin some justification.

That is a lot of empty speculation. What is a fact is that we drove the Nazis out of Western Europe. Russia did not.

The nukes ended the war. Japan was not about to surrender, and probably would have otherwise been like North Vietnam and never surrendered. They were not even ready to surrender after the first nuking.

Nice treaty, but can be ignored.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is a lot of empty speculation. What is a fact is that we drove the Nazis out of Western Europe. Russia did not.

The nukes ended the war. Japan was not about to surrender, and probably would have otherwise been like North Vietnam and never surrendered. They were not even ready to surrender after the first nuking.

Soviet Union lost 23,100,000, U.S.A lost 418,500.

U.S.A came into the war long after it started.

Anyone read The Forgotten Soldier? Amazing book.
Anyways, it wasn't Russia that won the war. It was a combination of the Allies, Russia, unconventional behind the lines fighting, and the fact that Germany was fighting a two front war with more two nations that had more resources.

I'm sorry UM but your assumption that all dictators are trying to take over the world is by far the most asinine thing you have ever said. Nobody in WW2 wanted world domination. Stalin wasn't trying to dominate the world with the USSR, thr US is not trying to dominate the world right now, either.

Hitler only wanted control over the inferior people in what he considered his region of the world. Plus the Germans felt deep resentment against the slavic people over WW1.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Soviet Union lost 23,100,000, U.S.A lost 418,500.

U.S.A came into the war long after it started.

We had a better military than the Soviet Union, and we did in fact drive the Nazis out of Western Europe. We started later than we should have, but we took care of Western Europe with the help of Britain. Do you give the U.S. credit for doing anything to stop the Nazis? Do you have any appreciation at all?

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I'm sorry UM but your assumption that all dictators are trying to take over the world is by far the most asinine thing you have ever said. Nobody in WW2 wanted world domination. Stalin wasn't trying to dominate the world with the USSR, thr US is not trying to dominate the world right now, either.

I am not saying that all dictators are trying to take over the world. Not all of them think they can. I said all dictators would do it if they could. Hitler actually had a good shot at it.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Hitler only wanted control over the inferior people in what he considered his region of the world. Plus the Germans felt deep resentment against the slavic people over WW1.

A dictator is as powerful as the world lets him be. Hitler took over countries one by one very quickly. He was a threat to world take over. If he thought he had reached a limit, he would have quit. However, he did not plan to just take over his region and then say, "Well, I could take over more countries, but I don't want to." That is not what dictators are. Dictators are power seeking machines. Just like fish will eat and eat until they have eaten so much that they die, dictators take every bit of power they have access to. They are not satisfied completely with something just because it is what they had their sights on for a while. The Nazi regime was a threat to the entire world.

Okay first of all if you ever try to assert I'm not thankful for the defeat of a Fascist again then I'm going to have to ask you to shoot yourself in the face. You act like just because I think American policy is completely fucked up, it's like I'm anti-american. I'm more a patriot than you will ever be. Over and over again you advocate fascist decrees within the United States and a foreign policy that puts Hitler's to shame, and then you dare act like I support Hitler just because I think he wasn't trying to dominate the world.

Secondly, if Hitler was trying to dominate the world that was the worst planned attempt since Pinky and the Brain. His entire war-machine was fueled by a coal reserve he was just lucky enough to get his hands on. He originally annexed areas in Serbia, then Poland, why? Because he didn't want lower people to have power over the superior Germanic people. That was his motivation for conquest, everything that came afterwards was merely cause and effect. He wanted control over the Germanic and Slavic regions of the globe, but he had no intentions of ever invading the UK until they declared war on him, or the United States even after they started an undeclared war in the Atlantic. He wanted Japan to control Asia, US to control the wastern hemisphere, Britain to control the Indies and him to get his region. He wanted the whole world to be set up with the superior race ruling the lesser races because he was an advocate of eugencis so to him this was a utopian society.

And if you call me anti-american for saying that, then every history teacher in the US needs to be locked up or deported, apparently.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Okay first of all if you ever try to assert I'm not thankful for the defeat of a Fascist again then I'm going to have to ask you to shoot yourself in the face. You act like just because I think American policy is completely fucked up, it's like I'm anti-american. I'm more a patriot than you will ever be. Over and over again you advocate fascist decrees within the United States and a foreign policy that puts Hitler's to shame, and then you dare act like I support Hitler just because I think he wasn't trying to dominate the world.

First of all, my question about appreciation was addressed to Dreamworld. Do you have two accounts here? Second of all, it was a question, not an assertion. If you see anything in my posts about you or Dreamworld supporting Hitler, you are hallucinating. Get yourself some help.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Secondly, if Hitler was trying to dominate the world that was the worst planned attempt since Pinky and the Brain. His entire war-machine was fueled by a coal reserve he was just lucky enough to get his hands on. He originally annexed areas in Serbia, then Poland, why? Because he didn't want lower people to have power over the superior Germanic people. That was his motivation for conquest, everything that came afterwards was merely cause and effect. He wanted control over the Germanic and Slavic regions of the globe, but he had no intentions of ever invading the UK until they declared war on him, or the United States even after they started an undeclared war in the Atlantic. He wanted Japan to control Asia, US to control the wastern hemisphere, Britain to control the Indies and him to get his region. He wanted the whole world to be set up with the superior race ruling the lesser races because he was an advocate of eugencis so to him this was a utopian society.

If you believe anything Hitler said, you are gullible. If you think there ever comes a point where a dictator can use his newly gained power to get more power but doesn't feel like doing it, you have a lot to learn about the personality nature of a dictator.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

And if you call me anti-american for saying that, then every history teacher in the US needs to be locked up or deported, apparently.

You are quite paranoid.

Okay UM, I'll withdraw all above statements. The only thing that concerns me about your post is that you appear to draw a line between dictators and other world leaders, asserting anyone that is a dictator is a pure power addict. If that's true, then every power addict is a dictator, and not all people considered dictators are even really dictators at all.

I'm just curious if you define the term better. Let's give a few names here, and perhaps you can explain if they're a dictator or not and why. I think this is relevant to the thread because my whole goal is to observe what the true causes are of war and if there's any real possibility of prevention. All I can gather is that you believe, along with what is probably the majority of people on Earth, that there are some people that just want power for powers sake, like they feed off of it. if that's true, in a M.A.D. world, it seems like world destruction is inevitable.

So here goes:
Lenin
Mikhail Gorbechev
Ngo Dinh Diem (S Vietnam)

Hugo Chavez
Fidel Castro
Augusto Cesar Sandino

Bashar al-ASAD
Saddam Hussein
ABDALLAH bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud (compare the government of Saudi Arabia)

The Rockefellers
The Waltons
Ronald Reagan
George W Bush