Thread: Universal Peace and the Kellogg-Briand Pact

If Hitler hadn't turned on the USSR they'd still be speaking German in Buckingham Palace today. He got greedy.

The way I see it right now, the world has three very large problems:
- dependency on fossil fuels that cause volatile market fluctuations
- the overpopulation of human beings
- the fundamental irreconcilable differences between Islam and Christianity

Oil will continue to rise in price as the supply dwindles. When the cost of oil reaches the price of renewable energies, everyone will jump ship over to wind/solar/hydro and oil will slowly crash. The world economy will become much more stable after our energy supplies come primarily from renewables. Population will begin to level off as food production drops as a result of the scarcity oil-based crop yield enhancers.

Then it's just down to a battle of the theologies that hopefully won't end in nuclear fire.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

If Hitler hadn't turned on the USSR they'd still be speaking German in Buckingham Palace today.

You forgot about the country that drove the Nazis out of Western Europe... and had nukes.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You forgot about the country that drove the Nazis out of Western Europe... and had nukes.

This is a case where my brain ran faster than my ability to type, and I forgot to also add "it Japan hadn't brought the US into the war" etc.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

This is a case where my brain ran faster than my ability to type, and I forgot to also add "it Japan hadn't brought the US into the war" etc.

Cool deal. Thanks. It is just that when somebody brings up WWII, the first thing I think of is all of the shit my grandfathers went through when they fought in it.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

- the overpopulation of human beings

Population will begin to level off as food production drops as a result of the scarcity oil-based crop yield enhancers.

What overpopulation are you talking about?
And there will be no scarcity of yield enhancers because the base chemicals can be built up from substances other than oil, not to mention something else would be produced if it was cheaper or oil began to run out.

Originally Posted by adam has a dream

What overpopulation are you talking about?

You surely can't be under the impression that nearly 7 billion human beings (rising by tens of millions per year) is more than a little taxing on our planets ecosystem.

And at that, share your own thoughts on the original issue maybe.

Yeah, I'm conflicted with the United States standpoint on the war. My grandfather fought as a liaison between FDR and the French Underground and I feel like if Pearl Harbor would have happened maybe Germany would control the slavic world. His intentions were not world domination, he just wanted control over eastern europe, he thought the British could have the Indies, US got the Americas, Japan would rule Asia and Italy would rule Africa. He had a superiorty complex thinking some people were better and therefore should be in charge of other people.

So how do you deal with people with that mindset in the world? Everything seemed so beyond anyone's ability to control. The Germans wanted their pride back and felt deep resentment against slavic people, the Japanese wanted their investments to be protected, the Chinese wanted a government controlled by the working class. Hitler was not a black and white enemy, you know. Nobody knew people were being gassed to death, and the term fascism didn't have the stigma it does today. Hitler was just a motherfucker trying a very outrageous form of government, and mostly the American people wanted us to stay out of the war, sure they rooted for Britain but people were disillusioned by war and sick of fighting them. It's like how most of the country went against the Iraq war, granted in this situations we had inspectors there, there were no weapons, and the administration started making shit up so they could have their war. One could say the same thing happened in WW2, though, because we had the Japanese diplomatic code broken and we knew Pearl harbor was coming but FDR wanted to fight the Germans and Congress wouldn't allow it unless we were attacked.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Yeah, I'm conflicted with the United States standpoint on the war. My grandfather fought as a liaison between FDR and the French Underground and I feel like if Pearl Harbor would have happened maybe Germany would control the slavic world. His intentions were not world domination, he just wanted control over eastern europe, he thought the British could have the Indies, US got the Americas, Japan would rule Asia and Italy would rule Africa. He had a superiorty complex thinking some people were better and therefore should be in charge of other people.

So how do you deal with people with that mindset in the world? Everything seemed so beyond anyone's ability to control. The Germans wanted their pride back and felt deep resentment against slavic people, the Japanese wanted their investments to be protected, the Chinese wanted a government controlled by the working class. Hitler was not a black and white enemy, you know. Nobody knew people were being gassed to death, and the term fascism didn't have the stigma it does today. Hitler was just a motherfucker trying a very outrageous form of government, and mostly the American people wanted us to stay out of the war, sure they rooted for Britain but people were disillusioned by war and sick of fighting them. It's like how most of the country went against the Iraq war, granted in this situations we had inspectors there, there were no weapons, and the administration started making shit up so they could have their war. One could say the same thing happened in WW2, though, because we had the Japanese diplomatic code broken and we knew Pearl harbor was coming but FDR wanted to fight the Germans and Congress wouldn't allow it unless we were attacked.

Hitler definitely wanted world domination. Every dictator is going to go for that if he can. He was going to say what he had to say to keep people's guards down, but don't believe him. Without the Allied Powers, the Nazis would have ended up taking over the world and killing all non-whites, crippled, sick, and opposition. Dicatorships don't reach a point where they can have more power but still go, "Ah, that's all the power we want."

I see you want to argue about Iraq some more. We had intelligence from six governments and certain officials at the U.N. saying the opposite of what you said (That makes Bush a reporter and not a liar, but the people who say he is a liar on that ground are lying.), not finding WMD's does not prove their nonexistence any more than not finding Bin Laden proves his nonexistence, and the war is about much, much more than WMD's. We have been over this. If you want to get into this again, do it in an Iraq thread. We have about twenty of them now.

You forgot about the country that drove the Nazis out of Western Europe... and had nukes.

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.

This is a case where my brain ran faster than my ability to type, and I forgot to also add "it Japan hadn't brought the US into the war" etc.

We would have still had defeated Germany.

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

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

A dictator is a sole, absolute ruler of a nation or group of nations. They are so dangerous because they do not have anybody to answer to within the nation, not a voting public and not anybody who is authorized to ever have power over them. I don't know about all of the people on your list, but many of them seem to fit the description, but definitely not the four at the bottom. Ronald Reagan was a national leader, but he had the FBI to answer to if he ever went too far, and he had a Congress to send his bills through and a Supreme Court to decide what the laws really mean, so he had limits on what he could do. He was not an absolute ruler. If he had gone into Mexico or Canada and taken over, he would have been recalled out of office by the voting public. WE have power over our presidents in that way. If he had killed members of Congress and the Supreme Court, he would have died in prison. People like Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler did not have such consequences to face. They only had other nations to face, and that is the only reason they were taken down. Short of interference from other nations and possibly a lucky overthrow from within, they had not limits on what they could do.

I believe we CAN have an era of peace. It won't be easy.

but the people who can bring peace will not be the governments of any nation. but only when the people of a country demand it. Its not an easy thing to achieve, because it requires us to do something, rather than to sit back and expect some magical even to happen or that the government or economy will care if we do nothing. its a scary thing when we go to war and the people aren't even sure why we are at war. whose war are we fighting?

on the grander scale: the world economy is out of control, because control is in the hands of elite. who only care about themselves and not the suffering of the world. when are we going to wake up and realize all modern wars have a level of involvement with these elite? when are we going to do something about it?

on the personal scale: we can never have peace if there is no peace at home. how many households have peace? so much suffering starts at home. households are where killers and haters are born.

just for a second imagine a peaceful world. what kind of people are in it? if you are not willing to be that person, then you can't begin to talk about peace.

UM, Ronald Reagan DID practically annex Nicaragua.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

UM, Ronald Reagan DID practically annex Nicaragua.

He did not do it, and he had to be accountable to the people I talked about. Imagine Saddam Hussein as the absolute ruler of the United States. What all would he own now?

Right, so your point is that in a dictatorship, there is no accountability.

But when Reagan annexed Nicaragua, there wasn't any accountability either. His administration was judged as guilty for war crimes by the world court and yet these actions haven't been answered to.

And when the Waltons jump into a small town and start conquering up its economy, there's no accountability either. One could say people don't have to shop at walmart, but people don't have to join the dictator's army either, it's just the leadership system in place.

So there are lines, the Waltons can't start conquering the world and if Reagan had overstepped his boundaries too much Congress would have done something.

But, there's boundaries on every dictator, no one can just jump ahead and start conquering the world. I believe the point you were making is a dictator WOULD if he COULD and that's my point about Reagan, Bush, the Waltons, the Rockefellers and millions of other so called "patriots of a free world." If they COULD they would have done just as much bullshit as Hitler, they had to answer to a system of checks and balances that have thus far prevented it. Well, Hitler had to answer to checks and balances, too, it was called the Rest of the World.

The difference is that Reagan and Rockefeller have their own country to answer to if their country has a problem with what they do. The country was not (in high enough numbers) against what Reagan did in Nicaragua, and the other people in the government saw substantial justification in it. If he had invaded Canada and said, "Hey, I want their oil," he would have been tried for war crimes. More importantly, we had the power to recall him out of office. Dictators don't have to face that. That is a huge difference.