Wars where the "wrong side" won

Quote:

---

I disagree. Too many individual rights are trampled by States. As such I oppose extensions of States Rights.

---

Nice to see you openly oppose the constitution.

Quote:

---

Most of what I see are States making an end run around individual freedoms, and supporting business over the individual.

---

Thats not what states rights are about.

Quote:

---

On a related note, environmental laws are definitely an area that should be federally controlled since they extend so deeply into industry. Trying to comply with 50 sets of enviromental standards is not practical, and it is anything but efficient. Not to mention that so many environmental regs are poorly crafted by technically incompetent legal types. Setting a detection limit of zero for instance...a limit that can't be proven to have been achieved.

---

THe federal government sets the minimum standarss on this. The states can only make the laws stricter. But i guess since your against states rights you oppose this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soda
So essentially everyone's going to put down all the wars their country lost.

---

Not me I oppsed one that we won. We shouldnt even have been there. We helped AQ take over a nation and then invaded Iraq. Go figure. Some war on terror.

I agree with Plato, really. Sparta was not the wrong side. It was just as democratic as Athens, and if you look at its policies towards its citizens and who it saw as its citizens according to what kind of terms, Sparta was far more democratic than Athens.

And Panzer, I cannot believe my eyes. Take a look at the statistics, eh? 10 million was, at the time, half of the entire Jewish people, if not more. This would amount to what? 2 billion? 2.5 billion human citizens killed by communism to equal the percentage of the Jewish people killed in relation to the total numbers, but then in terms of world population? 100 million is peanuts in comparison, especially when one remembers that the Holocaust was a state-sponsored, concerted effort at genocide while those 100 million are an amalgamation of political enemies of the communist regime, people killed in proxy wars by both commies as NATO troops, and on and on. The two are simply incomparable.



~Wiz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Allied propaganda still sticks apparently.

Ive learned not to try and correct such falsities however..

---

So the nazi's didnt go looking for the holy grail, evidence of the Airian race, etc...

The Nazis began to believe their own propoganda and if hitler had conquered europe and won the war he would have done some serious ethnic cleansing.

You have learned to say someone is completely wrong and back it up with no evidence what so ever :dizzy2: , yeah I hope i pick up such a great trait one day... :embarassed:

Take a look at my post, yes? If one takes the Spartan and the Athenian terms of being a citizen, then one comes to the following conclusion: Athenian citizens (which used slaves, I assure you) had to have lived in the city for an extended period of time, and had to live within Attica to qualify.

Meanwhile, Sparta saw as its citizens the Spartiates, those who's sons were entered into the agogè. And these people were all seen as equal, everyone -- provided they had not run from battle -- was allowed into the public mess, or the gymnasium, or the citizens' council (forgot the real name), regardless of age, family or wealth. Helots and other such peoples were not Spartan citizens, but conquered peoples. If you say their fate was a cruel one, I tend to agree. But if you say that Sparta was less democratical and even not democratical at all just because these people, seen by the Spartans themselves as inhabitants of another polis, then I say you are suffering from hindsight.



~Wiz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard
I agree with Plato, really. Sparta was not the wrong side. It was just as democratic as Athens, and if you look at its policies towards its citizens and who it saw as its citizens according to what kind of terms, Sparta was far more democratic than Athens.

---

Oh please Athens is the model for democracy whlie Sparta is the model for a Republic. We of course took the best of them both. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Oh please Athens is the model for democracy whlie Sparta is the model for a Republic. We of course took the best of them both. ~;)

---

Isnt a republic just a represnetative democracy. Thats what we got.

Quote:

---

Isnt a republic just a represnetative democracy. Thats what we got.

---

No we are a democratic republic. Again its the republic part that garuntees the rights of minorities. The problem with democracy is its mob rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Oy, State's Rights is all about more freedoms. Where did you get those ideas, Red Harvest?

---

From watching them in action...especially in the South. Jim Crowe laws would be a good historical example of States Rights in action. There are a lot of others, and they typically are ones that the conservatives are in favor of. It is the State laws that I've found more likely to hinder my individual liberties, rather than Federal.

Where did you get the idea that State's Rights were about more freedoms? That's not even logical. State vs. Federal does change WHO sets the regs and more importantly, the level of scrutiny. It's harder to push through discriminatory acts (economic, racial, religious) at a Federal level. It is easier at a State level where the checks and balances are weaker and (different models of govt.) and local majorities find it easier to engage in "tyranny of the slim majority."

Look at the most dysfunctional states by most measures: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Nice to see you openly oppose the constitution.



Thats not what states rights are about.





THe federal government sets the minimum standarss on this. The states can only make the laws stricter. But i guess since your against states rights you oppose this.



Not me I oppsed one that we won. We shouldnt even have been there. We helped AQ take over a nation and then invaded Iraq. Go figure. Some war on terror.

---

1. Nope, I oppose States infringing on my individual liberty, which is an important part ot the constitution.

2. Perhaps not, but that is how they are being used in the current context, and how they have been frequently used for the last 150 years or so...

3. I oppose the infringement of my liberties by the States, yes.

4. No we waited longer than we should have. Serbia created the conditions through their own terrorism in Kosovo. Now that they've created a mess with ethnic cleansing you blame the victims. What an idiot. You support genocide as long as it is by Christians. I don't.

Quote:

---

From watching them in action...especially in the South. Jim Crowe laws would be a good historical example of States Rights in action. There are a lot of others, and they typically are ones that the conservatives are in favor of.

---

Oh my . So now conservatives are in favor of Jim Crowe Laws. My you get more moderate everyday. These laws were clearly unconstitutional and struck down.

Quote:

---

Where did you get the idea that State's Rights were about more freedoms? That's not even logical.

---

How about Californias medical pot law. Isnt that an example of a state granting more freedom and the federal government trying to deny it? And who on SCOTUS backed the states rights on this matter? The liberals or the conservatives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Oy.. Hitler definately believed in the Final Solution the whole way through. The Nazis documented almost everything they did--alot of it even with Videos. It seems clear from the start that nothing other than total Aryan supremecy was on Hitler's mind.

I think it would have been nice if the last assasination attempt had worked. Most of the men who would have taken over were against the Final Solution.

---

Panzerjager is correct regarding the Madagascar plan.

This site is opposed to Holocaust denier's and has some info on it.
http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.co...ence/pl112.asp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soda

So essentially everyone's going to put down all the wars their country lost.

---

Not at all: I picked one my country won ~D

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Also, if you look closely at history, the Final Solution was a direct response to Hitler's acceptance that the war was lost. If Germany had won the war... maybe, just maybe.. he would have allowed them to go to Israel or somewhere else, or at least not been so adamant about killing them.

---

Hitler built 5 deathcamps, that differented from the concentration-camps, as in the concentration-camps you worked yourself to death, while in the deathcamps you were killed almost immidiatly (unless you were very, very lucky). The names of these deathcamps is:
Chelmo, Sobibor, Treblinka, Belzec and Auschwitz-Birkenau (this one had a concentration part and a death part)

Chelmo began operations on December 7th, 1941 and stopped April 9, 1943
Sobibor operated from May 1942 to October 1943
Treblinka was opened for operation on July 23, 1942 and was finally closed in November, 1943 (although most of the operations ended after the rebellion 2 august 1943).
Belzec began operations March 17th, 1942 and ended operations December 1942
Auschwitz-Birkenau was established on May 31th, 1942 and liberated by Red Army soldiers on January 27, 1945

This only refers to the deathcamps dates, some was run as concentrationcamps before that.

As the Russian counteroffensive at Stalingrad began 9 november 1942, it shows clearly that the intent of extermination was there and had began long before Hitler accepted that the war was lost. Although losing the war seems to have increased his determination to get atleast one part "right" in his warped mind.

Im personally glad every war went as it did. Why? cause such a big change in history would mean that non of us would be here today. Think about in even a small war, thousands die. Those people would have married had different kids, their kids would have different kids etc..

Saxons vs Normans
Byzantines vs Crusaders 1204
WW1

Quite a few wars against Rome were lost by the "wrong" side: Rome against Carthage, Rome in the Gallic campaigns, Rome against the Dacians for instance. There were so many budding civilizations which were essentially destroyed by the Romans and replaced with their culture. In my opinion the world of that time would have been a more diverse place culturally speaking if there were more than just the Roman example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Quite a few wars against Rome were lost by the "wrong" side: Rome against Carthage, Rome in the Gallic campaigns, Rome against the Dacians for instance. There were so many budding civilizations which were essentially destroyed by the Romans and replaced with their culture. In my opinion the world of that time would have been a more diverse place culturally speaking if there were more than just the Roman example.

---

Why are so many people here romanophob?
This civilisations were more integrated into the roman empire than destroyed.
Many cities in northern africa had a carthaginian influenced constitution with sufets on the top after the roman conquest. The punic language was spoken in the region until the 5th century. Greek culture remained dominant in the east, egypt kept it`s own culture until after the arab conquest... Also the celtic culture was not destroyed and replaced, it merged with the roman in gaul. Celtic language was still spoken at least in 400ad and written Last wills in celtic languages were accepted by the roman law. Distances were still measured in the celtic leugae, Celtic and other cultures gods like the horse godess epona were commonly adopted by the romans The oriental mithras or egyptian isis cult were very popular in large parts of the empire.

The roman world was a very diverse and tolerant one for centuries until the rise of christianity to the sole official religion and the political crisis in the late antiquity changed it completly.

I agree with cunctator.Romans didnt destroy cultures.They absorbed them.Many basic things in western civilization ar based on Roman culture. :bow:

I'm pretty happy that the Romans won.

Why you say. Because it has given us the common background that made Europe so dynamic for a long time. Now we are common due to our common beliefs. But previously we all tried to grow into successors to the Romans.

Hmm. I'm having a bit of difficulty seeing the defeat of the slave owning south, or of Nazi Germany, as an example of

Quote:

---

a clear dichotomy between two very different cultures, one of which (the loser) should seem very much preferable to modern eyes?

---

I wondered about the Romans and the gauls. Its certainly true the romans put an end to what would otherwise presumably have been a flourishing culture and empire in its own right. But is there any reason to suppose the Gauls would have been preferable to the Romans?

Alexander the great migfht be an example. Persia was a long standing and advanced civilisation, defeated by a yobbo who so far as I know neither improved the lot of the people in the lands he conquered not left behind any very meaningful or lasting political legacy. The sack of Persepolis says it all really.

Quote:

---

So the nazi's didnt go looking for the holy grail, evidence of the Airian race, etc...

The Nazis began to believe their own propoganda and if hitler had conquered europe and won the war he would have done some serious ethnic cleansing.

You have learned to say someone is completely wrong and back it up with no evidence what so ever , yeah I hope i pick up such a great trait one day...

---

I have learned that not accepting baseless propaganda about the nazis gets you called names. Luckily, Kraxis has more balls than me and stated the truth.

Quote:

---

It is interesting that people believe that the Nazis truly expected to conquer the world and kill off all but themselves. While the top rung of the Nazis were truly despicable people for the most part, they were not commonly moronic. Many were highly gifted people that knew how the world worked, and that 100 million (at best) arians couldn't possibly control the entire world.

---

Ive said this before and of course people accused of being sympathetic with the nazis.

Who told you that Hitler planned to kill all non-aryans? Thats ridiculous and shows that you have swallowed the perverbial kool aid.

Most Germans were not even aryan. :dizzy2:

Actually the conquest by Alexander did a lot of good in many places. India got a golden age due to the influx of ideas, goods and people. While Persia had a destinctive culture the spread of the Greek culture and its mix with local ones was better. The Persian culture was really only confined to Persis and parts of Media. The west also benefitted from this in that goods and thoughts from India advanced the culture at home.

So while Alexander was a hooligan, his actions lead to things even he could not comprehend.

PJ, what are doing? Shoting yourself in the foot?

I was responding to this

Quote:

---

He would have killed the blacks, asians, arabians, mexicans, and Native Americans. He would want a white race, and the aryans would be the blue eyed, blond haired people would be superior.

---

I was more or less on your side, but it seems you see nothing but opponents where ever you look.

Please take the discussions on States Rights and what the Nazi did/didn't do to the Backroom. Thank you.

Biggest myth's about Nazi Germany
1.They wanted to conquer the entire friggin planet.
2.They would exterminate anyone who wasn't an Aryan in the places they conquered.
These are both propaganda myths created by the US to make the Germans seem a more credible threat to the US.
(as a note Iran means Aryan nation)

The Nazi's in their social Darwinsim thought that there were cetain groups of people who were best suited to lead, others to function, and others to work. And lastly there was the human garbage that needed to go.

Their heirarchy of groups are,
Aryans (the master race or leader race)
Germans (Nazi's regarded the UK as German)
Latins and Germano-celts (these 3 are the functionary classes)
Slavs (the working class)
Jew's and Gypsies (the human garbage that needs to go)

Quote:

---

PJ, what are doing? Shoting yourself in the foot?

I was more or less on your side, but it seems you see nothing but opponents where ever you look.

---

LoL i know, I used your example to back me up. I was responding to the same person you were but you worded my thoughts perfectly so I quoted you instead of reiterating the same thing. . ~:confused:

Quote:

---

I have learned that not accepting baseless propaganda about the nazis gets you called names. Luckily, Kraxis has more balls than me and stated the truth.

---

^see..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cunctator

Why are so many people here romanophob?
This civilisations were more integrated into the roman empire than destroyed.

---

Oh, I'm not romanophob and I do appreciate the legacy they left behind. It's just when there are situations like Caesar attacking Gaul for no real reason other than personal gain and extinguishing a budding culture before it has any real oppurtunity to develop it does seem that there was a lot of potential which was never realised due to Roman conquests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cunctator

Many cities in northern africa had a carthaginian influenced constitution with sufets on the top after the roman conquest. The punic language was spoken in the region until the 5th century. Greek culture remained dominant in the east, egypt kept it`s own culture until after the arab conquest... Also the celtic culture was not destroyed and replaced, it merged with the roman in gaul.

---

It's not just a matter of keeping their own culture, it's also a matter of allowing that culture to develop over time. Once these regions were provinces of Rome they were allowed to keep a lot of their beliefs, but generally this seems to have been the case mainly to keep the peace. The final goal was to slowly Romanize conquered areas, a goal which was generally achieved. Once conquered by Romans the developement of a unique identity in many regions ground to a halt, to be combined with or replaced by Roman standards. An example would be the lack of development in Greek styled art or writing after Roman conquest; most artists followed the Roman aemulatio idea, not to innovate but to improve.

Just to make it clear, I'm no Rome hater; the above would apply to any one nation conquering another and actually staying there, it's simply that due to the enormous success of the Romans in this regard it's more readily apparent and the effects more noticeable.

Perhaps in this context my original post wasn't really justified. There wasn't a wrong side as such, it's simply a shame that one group came to dominate at the cost of so many developing cultures.

Rome wound absorb most idols and gods.
Has anyone ever read the Turtledove book
Gunpowder Empire?

This is a parallel universe story, that essential says that Aurelius lived, and led the legions into Teutoburger Forest and won.

In the period, one character goes to the main temple, and along the sides were Roman gods, Greek gods, Celtic gods, Mithades, Jesus, Ahura Mazda, etc.


I'm somewhat suprised no one has mentioned the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans and the Spanish.

Also, the
Charles and the Russians (Northern War)
Mohammed and the "others" (Mohammed was in a town, he converted them to Islam, and the "others" wanted him to stop, so they besieged him)

The Wizard

Quote:

---

Take a look at my post, yes? If one takes the Spartan and the Athenian terms of being a citizen, then one comes to the following conclusion: Athenian citizens (which used slaves, I assure you) had to have lived in the city for an extended period of time, and had to live within Attica to qualify.

Meanwhile, Sparta saw as its citizens the Spartiates, those who's sons were entered into the agogè. And these people were all seen as equal, everyone -- provided they had not run from battle -- was allowed into the public mess, or the gymnasium, or the citizens' council (forgot the real name), regardless of age, family or wealth. Helots and other such peoples were not Spartan citizens, but conquered peoples. If you say their fate was a cruel one, I tend to agree. But if you say that Sparta was less democratical and even not democratical at all just because these people, seen by the Spartans themselves as inhabitants of another polis, then I say you are suffering from hindsight.

---

Even if you just compare the two groups of citizens, there is really to way to suggest Sparta was as democratic as Athens. First I don’t see what you mean “had to have lived in the city for an extended period of time, and had to live within Attica to qualify”
To be an Athenian citizen you had to have (during the period of the Periklean citizenship law) two Athenian parents (only a father before it was implemented or while it was suspended), in Sparta you have to have two Spartan parents. What the difference?
Second, Sparta was less democratic. If you could not pay your mess ‘fee’ you were dropped into the rather large class of disenfranchised Spartans. There was not broad freedom of speech, movement or economic activity (as there was at Athens). At Sparta there was no serious attempt to insulate the courts from corruption; and in fact the procedure for selecting magistrates was easily manipulated. There was no public archive, no procedure to audit the magistrates. Sparta retained two kings, who had fairly broad powers. There was no mechanism in the assembly to allow a citizen to either edit or introduce a motion, nor to guarantee one man one vote. At Sparta there was no legal framework of basic protections for metrics (not that there were any). Nor, as far as I know was there any possibility or example of a foreigner becoming a naturalized Spartan (Contrasted with the large number of mass and individual grants of citizenship that occurred at Athens). Sparta was a closed totalitarian oligarchy.