BS: Voting for Hillary?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 09:33 PM

Maybe I'll write in Kucinich; it's the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 09:58 PM

I must have missed something..Who is 'Chongo'? As for O-Blabbo's skills, they are only at yapping...still, tell me ONE, JUST ONE accomplishment, other than talking a good talk. Talk is cheap...(his campaign wasn't)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 10:07 PM

After you get past the first part...      http://youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 10:44 PM

Those who see the amorphous all-powerful "dark forces" are indeed--at least on Mudcat- those who do not support Obama. Those who do support him are willing and able to think, do not eagerly search for scapegoats for every problem, and know that issues are much more complex than the first group believes. (No wonder one of his greatest strengths is among the highly educated.)

If this is not so, let's have some specific examples.

"Sanity"--a bit of a misnomer, to put it mildly--fits the comfortable simplistic approach to a T.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 11:01 PM

"(No wonder one of his greatest strengths is among the highly educated.)"


                Well, that seems to be the case, however there are different kinds of education, and while one is spending one's time researching European History, for instance, there are a number of other things that same individual might be missing out on.
                The composite of diverse experiences, one would think, should be the strength of Democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 11:53 PM

Oh, for pity's sake, Ron, stop trying to shoehorn people into these silly generalized sterotypical groups you make up to feed your political ill will...if you spent half the energy just discussing things and giving your own view of them instead of spending so much time attacking and belittling other people on these political threads, you'd be a lot less tiresome to listen to. You have no respect for anyone who don't agree with you on some political point or another, and you seem to think that's perfectly okay. It isn't okay. Stop and wonder why they should have any respect in return for you or pay any real attention to anything you say. I think Rig just talks back to you because it amuses him...

"Sanity"...didn't you know about Chongo? He's quite famous, he's from Chicago, and he's running for president...and I am not talking about Barack Obama! NO, I am talking about Chongo. Here's a video of him at The Monkey Bar a couple of years back in Chicago, cracking wise to the bartender. Chongo is the guy in the hat and sports coat. He's worked for years as a private detective in the Chicago area and wherever a case takes him. It's tough work and the pay is usually lousy, but Chongo loves it. He only decided to run for president because he felt it was time for a REAL change in Washington, not just a cosmetic one.

Chongo at The Monkey Bar

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 12:31 AM

Oh, ok, I watched your link. Thank you for sharing that. He makes a lot more sense than O-bongo (O-Blabbo). And Ron, the thing about pseudo intellectuals is, they are intensely boring. Amos, you had a good post a while back, but then,...even a broken clock is right twice a day. You'll all have to look to Little Hawk to explain that to you..I gotta get back to the studio.....

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:16 AM

GFS:

Stay up there a while longer, this time.

It won't do your music any good, but it will improve our lives over here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:25 AM

How is it, that you can type, and suck your thumb at the same time??

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 09:44 AM

re Hillary- Today's washington Post:

Haters Without a Cause
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, June 10, 2008; Page A23

I have sometimes wondered what would happen if the good reverends of this Earth got their way and lust -- evil, sinful lust -- vanished overnight. I fear motels and hotels would close, florists and jewelers would seek Chapter XI, restaurants would shutter, celebrity magazines would fold, divorce lawyers would have to defend the innocent, and, in general, the economy would crash. Something like this is going to happen now that Hillary Clinton is out of the presidential race.

Clinton has been a one-woman industry. By my inexact count, more than 50 books have been published about her, many of them highly critical and some so purple as to be suitable as evidence at their authors' competency hearings. One is called "Why the Clintons Belong in Prison." Another is "Hillary Clinton Nude: Naked Ambition, Hillary Clinton and America's Demise," and yet another is "Hillary's Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House." My favorite, though, is "The Hillary Clinton Voodoo Kit: Stick It to Her Before She Sticks It to You!" -- both a doll and a book of suggested spells. Given her palpable mendacity and her diabolical powers ("Hillary's Secret War: The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle Internet Journalists"), it is either dumb luck or part of her long-range evil plan that she has lost the Democratic nomination. Time will tell.

In addition to these books about Clinton, there are plenty of others that are just critical in an ordinary sort of way. This is not to say that no one has written admiringly or fairly of Clinton, but the big bucks clearly went to those who wrote with a blowtorch. I sometimes imagine the same dozen or so people obsessively buying anti-Hillary books over and over again. Otherwise, you would be hard-pressed to explain why a woman so vile got something like 18 million votes in the Democratic nominating contest.


Books aside, a vast industry of bloggers and conventional old-timey columnists clearly felt compelled to write at least one Clinton column a week, usually in scorn and contempt. Foremost among these was Dick Morris, the political consultant who once worked for Bill Clinton and was pensioned off apparently without a pension. He writes about almost nothing else. What Morris will do now, I can't imagine -- possibly start a "Draft Hillary" movement.

Years from now, historians will ponder the attention accorded Hillary Clinton and possibly compare her to Eleanor Roosevelt, another presidential wife who was inordinately admired and inordinately scorned. Maybe some historians will note that both are women and that maybe, just maybe, women come in for a special sort of vituperation -- a kind of contemporary version of burning at the stake.

The same historians might note also that many of Clinton's most persistent critics were women, and I myself have heard some of them vow that they would sooner vote for John McCain than Hillary Clinton -- even though they disagree with McCain on almost every imaginable issue, save love of country.

Was it, these historians will wonder, that Clinton did not leave her husband after his interludes with that abiding cliche, a woman half his age? This, after all, is the supposed fear of yet another abiding cliche: women of a certain age. So it is bad practice, as well as awful deterrence, for her to publicly forgive him for doing the unforgivable. I offer this topic for future historians to study since I would not, on a dare, go near it.

As for me, I too have been critical of Clinton. My columns, of course, were a model of rational thought and cool analysis, and were based entirely on the issues, such as they were. For a number of reasons, I did not think she should be the Democratic nominee, but I often had more problems with her critics than I did with her. Some of them, clearly, needed to be medicated.

Now, though, an eerie silence has settled over the land. With Hillary Clinton out of the race, thousands of computer keyboards have been stilled, dozens of books have been abandoned in mid-chapter, and enormously influential bloggers, most of them unknown to me, have vanished from the Web. Some anti-Hillary obsessives (see the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) must be feeling the sickening vertigo once experienced by Vaughn Meader, whose entire show business career was based on impersonating John F. Kennedy and who, in essence, died when Kennedy did.

It's over, ladies and gentlemen. Hillary Clinton lost. And so did you.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:00 AM

That's a good article and summation of the Obama vs Clinton primary season, beardedbruce. Thanks for posting it. This line resonates most for me:

"Maybe some historians will note that both are women and that maybe, just maybe, women come in for a special sort of vituperation -- a kind of contemporary version of burning at the stake."

I'm still waiting for Obama to denounce the sexist crap.

Oh wait, he never will because he has proven that dividing the Democratic party using sexism definitely worked to his advantage.

I believe misogyny is far healthier than racism in our nation.

That is, so long as we aren't talking women of color, like former Democrat Cynthia McKinney, who also was driven out into the wilderness by the establishment good ole boys and their female surrogates, and racists of all gender persuasions. But McKinney has been reviled for being female far more than she has for being African American.

Which is why I am thrilled to have her running for the Green nomination this year. Another establishment politician running *towards* the brave new world, rather than away from it, as Obama has and will continue to do.

As to remarks about those of us who choose not to vote for Obama being from the dark side--this article speaks to that sort of idiocy too, with this dead on the money put down:

"For a number of reasons, I did not think she should be the Democratic nominee, but I often had more problems with her critics than I did with her. Some of them, clearly, needed to be medicated."

Thanks again for posting it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:14 AM

Frankly, I think the dark forces of evil wanted her eliminated from the Democratic nomination so another Republican could be elected to follow George W. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:18 AM

Well, thanks for your opinion, but it's just an opinion, and obviously from a Clinton supporter. As I've stated before, between Clinton, Obama and McCain, we have no real choice. Their pasts speak for themselves...not the wishful thinking, that they were something, or stood for something that they are not. As stated before, we need another candidate, out of the box, that represent the values that a lot of the country seems to want to compromise with,..just to elect the personality of their choice..but one who has the America that made us strong..and none of these put before us, are it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: pdq
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:25 AM

The American people are so sick of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton that we want to puke.

The only way to save the Democratic Party is to banish both of them for life. Write them and suggest it be done soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:32 AM

"Well, thanks for your opinion, but it's just an opinion, and obviously from a Clinton supporter."

To whom are you directing this comment, Guest from Sanity?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:47 AM

BTW, I am an American people, and I am so fed up with the Clintons, Obamas, and McCains I want to puke.

But is banishing them the answer? No. Is censoring them democratic? No.

Level the playing field, and let other citizen candidates participate in the presidential election process who can't compete on the corporate duopoly level. Then, and only then, do we stand a chance of taking our democracy back from the corporate candidacies of Clinton/Obama/McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:51 AM

A good theory, Fantz. Not yet part of the real world, but it would be a big improvement.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:49 AM

The article you provided is pretty amusing, BB! ;-) Yes, a lot of people don't have Hillary Clinton to write furious diatribes about now, and they must be feeling quite lost....kind of the way a lot of critics and columnists and political cartoonists and standup comedians felt the day or so after Nixon finally left office.

The end of an entire critical era! (sob)

Well, there is always the hope that Hillary will somehow confound them all and RETURN to the forefront, once again wielding a commanding control over the political process and threatening to turn the entire USA into a prison camp with secret underground torture facilities and other even more terrible stuff!

So, to those whose reason for living is to expose the incredible evil of Hillary Clinton I say, don't give up hope! She may be back for another round sooner than you think.

(And I say this even though I am one of those who doesn't trust Hillary any farther than I can throw a lead refrigerator...and yes, I do prefer Obama by quite some measure over her...still, BB, I think your article makes some rather amusing and apt points.)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:49 AM

Richard Cohen sure has changed his tune with regard to Hillary over the last several months. Here's something he had to say about her back in 2007...

This week Hillary Clinton announced her health care plan. Good for her. But you never had any doubt, did you, that she was going to have one -- and a plan for everything else. The issue with Hillary Clinton is not whether she's smart or experienced but whether she has -- how do we say this? -- the character to be president. Behind her, after all, trails the lingering vapor of all those gates: Travel, File, Whitewater, and other scandals to which she was a part only through marriage. In a hatless society, she is always wearing a question mark.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/hillary_missed_her_moveon_mome.html


Perhaps he just sees it as his duty to find a way to smear whoever is the Democratic nominee (when he wrote the above, he believed Hillary was going to be the nominee).

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:56 AM

Mandatory health care presided by HMO's does not solve the economic problem of providing care for everyone. Only Single-Payer on the order of Medicare will do this.
The rest is just political posturing by both candidates. Kucinich is the only candidate that
has suggested Single-Payer and he was put out of business by the insurance companies.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:39 PM

GfS.:

 
  
  ........................./´¯/) 
  ......................,/¯..// 
  ...................../..../ / 
  ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ 
  ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ 
  ........('(...´(..´......,~/'...') 
  .........\.................\/..../ 
  ..........''...\.......... _.·´ 
  ............\..............( 
  ..............\.............\ 
  

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 02:21 PM

Nader has been calling for a single payer system for far longer than Kucinich has been--the latter is a johnny come lately by comparison.

And CarolC, how do you, one of the staunchest advocates of a just and equitable solution to the Israeli/Palestinian war on Mudcat, square your voting for Obama with the stands he is taking in this regard?

I am referring to his most recent dance to the tune of the US Israeli lobby as his very first act as the Democratic party nominee?

I draw your attention to this article by my former US Senator Abourezk about it over at Counterpunch here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/abourezk06102008.html

Abourezk is a respected Middle East expert, so I'm curious to see what you have to say about his article.

I expect Bobert to deny that Obama has adopted/co-opted right wing Republican stands on many issues (like this one, the Cuban embargo, a pretty bogus "health care reform" plan, etc), because he refuses to examine Obama's stands on issues even when you put them directly under his nose. He is a robot clone like Ron Davies.

But you are not generally like that, so I can't help but wonder how you are coming to the conclusion that Obama deserves your support.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 02:44 PM

I would also like to report, in regards to the Abourezk article, that Abourezk was an Obama supporter until last Wednesday, I believe, when Obama spoke before AIPAC.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 07:16 PM

Electoral politics involves people posturing and bending the truth and frequently telling lies in order to get adopted as a candidate, and then in order to get elected - and of course also to get the financial backing they need, especially in the American system, where there is no cap on how much candidates can spend, and where TV time can be bought.

It's a mistake to put too much faith in anything candidates aiming to get elected say, whether that's stuff you welcome or stuff you deplore. Whatever happens all you can do is hope they are better than you fear, even if they won't be as good as you hope. Of course it's all very unsatisfactory and imperfect.

On balance it seems pretty likely that Obama is likely to be better than the only other candidate who could be elected.

Of course getting elected isn't the only game in town, and it's not the one that Nader is engaged in. That's what I meant by "candidates aiming to get elected", because that's not the only reason for standing in an election. For some candidates what is involved is different - they are out to use the electoral process to get people thinking about certain issues and certain changes, and building a movement of people who will keep on pushing for those changes, and bringing those issues into the forefront.

And the hope has to be that that is going to have an impact on how the actual people elected will behave and put constraints on how they act. There's a pincer movement involved - and people who are working outside the system and the people with essentially similar hopes and vision working inside the system need to recognise that they both have a part to play in that rather than kick hell out of each other.

A first past the post system does screw things up - unlike one where people rank candidates, which means that votes for a campaigning candidate without a hope of getting elected won't damage a perhaps second best but electable candidate's chances, as happened in the case of Gore. Of course that's not what you've got or are going to get in a hurry. But it's silly to work up hatreds over what are essentially transient tactical decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 07:22 PM

Well said, McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 08:54 PM

Pdq and Fantasma got it right, so did some of the others, and whoever said not to count Hillary out was right too. She's a slimy little witch, that might wriggle her way back in..( I hope not) The Clinton's and Bush's have enjoyed their two family dynasty, wa-a-a-y too long!! McLame has so much dirt on him, he'll do whatever his blackmailer controllers want him to do or say. O-blah-blah, changes stripes every time his past was revealed(thanks to the Clinton machine)..no integrity there. I think I'd be interested(maybe)in a Barr-Ventura ticket, but don't know if that's even in the cards. As for Amos...hey, now all you need is some crayons..then you can color you pic showing your IQ

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 09:26 PM

GFS - Remember when Jesse Ventura quit the Perot party--United We Stand--or whatever it was, when Pat Buchanon snagged onto the right to run for president under it's banner?

                      I don't see him teaming up with Bob Barr.

                      I have a lot of respect for Jesse Ventura, and I would happily support him in any number of endeavors, but I'd have a real hard time getting behind Bob Barr.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:21 PM

Rig...Ventura can't get on the ballot. He also refused to run with McLame, when he was asked. Wanted nothing to do with the republican, or Democratic parties

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:38 PM

With regard to my position on the Middle East and Obama's stance on it, I square it by being aware that of the three candidates who were still in the race when I voted in the primary, I think he is the most likely to shake off the pro-apartheid lobby and do something different for a change. I'm not saying he will do it, but I think he's the most likely of the three. And I really, really don't want Hillary to be our next president.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:28 PM

From the point of view you express, Carol, I can see why you don't want Hillary to be president, but it was the Bush Administration that allowed itself to be lead down the primrose path by Wolfowitz and Pearle.
                        Do you thing McCain would be more objective than Bush?
                        I do agree that on this one issue, Obama probably offers America the best deal, but, of course, there are other issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:58 PM

Of all the issues there are, for me, Obama's the best candidate of the three. I'm still a Kucinich supporter, not an Obama supporter, but I still think I would like to see what Obama will do with the presidency. So I will probably vote for him in the general election.

I'm also not happy with the Clintons because a part of the reason Mr. Bill lied about how things transpired in the round of peace negotiations over which he presided, was to help Hillary get elected to Congress. A lot of people have died because of those lies. That's way too much history for me.

I think McCain would be less objective than Obama. McCain's got the right-wing Christian Zionists to answer to.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:30 AM

I really don't think McLame needs to worry who he should answer to,..he'll do exactly as he's told!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 08:26 AM

"I'm also not happy with the Clintons because a part of the reason Mr. Bill lied about how things transpired in the round of peace negotiations over which he presided,..."


                      Carol - What are you referencing here?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 12:45 PM

I see it about the way Carol does. I'm still a Kucinich supporter also (and I applaud his efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney in Congress!), but Kucinich is no longer an official candidate for president. There's only Obama and McCain (and Nader). I would prefer to see Obama get the job than McCain, given that choice. I know Nader won't get the job, but I think it's fine that he's running. I hope he gets in the debates (but I very much doubt that he will).

And I can't vote in that election anyway, because I'm Canadian.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:20 PM

Near the end of the Clinton presidency, Clinton pushed for peace talks between Arafat and Barak. Arafat didn't want to engage in talks at the time, because there hadn't been sufficient time to do the groundwork for them. But Clinton insisted because he wanted to have a successful peace process as a part of his legacy. Arafat agreed on the condition that he would not be blamed if they didn't work out.

They went ahead with the process, in which proposals and counter-proposals were made. The process continued past the first round at Camp David, and were being conducted at Taba in Egypt. At that point, Arafat wanted the process to continue, but both Clinton and Barak were at the end of their terms in office, and the talks ended when Netanyahu was not willing to continue them when he replaced Barak.

Instead of telling the truth about how it happened, Clinton signed on to the Israeli propaganda in which Arafat was supposed to have "walked away" from the peace process, and he helped them to spread this lie. His doing so helped Hillary get elected to Congress.

This lie was the cause of a lot of deaths, because the peace movement in Israel became very discouraged when they were told that Arafat "walked away" from the peace process because he didn't really want peace, and a very large number of them abandoned the movement all together and became rather bitter about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:30 PM

Everything I heard indicated that Afafat did walk away from the negotiations.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:34 PM

That's the problem. They (presidents and national leaders) play politics. If the USA really wanted peace it could have easily avoided every single war it has been in since the end of the Korean conflict, because they have all been wars which were fought entirely at the convenience of the USA...and not because of any real threat posed to the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:34 PM

Of course. That's the propaganda they put out about it. He didn't walk away from the negotiations. He wanted them to continue, but as I said, Netanyahu didn't want anything to do with them when he took office. It was Netanyhu who walked away from them, not Arafat.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:45 PM

Well I simply don't understand why America feels like it has to keep involving itself in Israel's business, and like I've said before, I'm tired of paying for it.

                     LH - I'm not sure that the US had to involve itself in Korea either, for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 06:14 PM

Yeah...well, Korea's a hard call. The USA didn't have to involve itself there, true. But given the general circumstances at the time I think American involvement was virtually inevitable.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 06:19 PM

You've got to wonder if the US had kept its nose out of WWI what the world would look like today.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 06:22 PM

Velcome to der Eiffel Tour, mein herr.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 06:53 PM

Amos, Germany defeated France decisively in the Franco-Prussian war...and France remained France. They did not all start speaking German, and the Germans went home to Germany after receiving some concessions. ;-)

If Germany and Austria-Hungary had won the First World War (a bit unlikely, I think) it would not have changed the status of the Eiffel Tower one iota. There would have been some negotiation, some concessions made here and there in border regions such as Alsace-Lorraine, and Europe would have settled down into another lengthy interwar period as the various western nations quickly got things back to a state of normality. A French government would have fallen in the first postwar election and been replaced by a new one, and much soul-searching would have been done for a few years as the French argued about exactly what had gone wrong, but France would have remained, as ever, "La Belle France". England would have remained, as ever, the ruler of the oceans and the arbiter of her own destiny.

Germany's overseas ambitions in Africa and Asia would have been given a boost, and the Kaiser's monarchy would have remained in place.

You would never have seen the rise of the Nazis!!!!

Russia would have had its revolution in 1917, and the Germans and Austrians and the rest of western Europe would have eyed the Bolsheviks with the deepest suspicion from that point on, and the Russians would have been isolated in their Soviet enclave to the East...despised and blockaded by all the western powers.

Yes, it would have been a quite different world...and perhaps a more stable one in a number of respects than what did happen.

The great powers would have been Germany, the UK, and the USA...with France falling back a little in prestige, but still a major player with an extensive overseas empire.

And those various competing empires would, I am sure, have eventually stumbled into another great war...but with who on what side exactly? That's a little hard to say.

The Germans in 1914-18 were not monsters. They were highly intelligent and civilized people like any other people in Europe. If they had won WWI it would not have ended "life as we know it" in Europe or anywhere else. It would not have resulted in the destruction of any other great national culture in Europe or elsewhere. It would not have initiated some "reign of terror". It would simply have put Germany in a more favorable and prosperous position, relatively speaking, vis-a-vis the other great powers.

And competitive imperial struggles would have gone on between the great powers...as they always do.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 10:41 PM

You may well be right, meinherr Hawk. I am not qualified to try to extrapolate that scenario with any accuracy. It is exceedingly interesting to thik the change would have obviated the later ascent of National Socialism and the Fuerher.

It is when considering questions like this that I wish Asimov's psychohistorical analysis was a real subject.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 11:40 PM

Why isn't it. If an enterprising history professor really wanted to teach some aspect of an element of history, he/she could simply propose that some important detail of the past was changed--Napoleon wins at Waterloo, or something--and then challenge the class to hypothesize what the developments of that would be. It would seem to me that the students would have to do a lot more detailed research than they otherwise would have to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 12:58 AM

Would have should have could have....I think Little Hawk's analysis is very interesting. I don't think many people give it that much thought. I know that Germany's woe, brought on by the sanctions put upon it after WWI were the cause of their economic downturn, and the rise of Adolf, so Hawk's theory could very easily be correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 06:39 PM

Adolf Hitler himself would have been changed radically if Germany had won that war. He would have emerged from it as a minor war hero (he won some medals for courage under fire) from a victorious army in a victorious and stable and confident country. He would not have been carrying the deep hatreds, resentments, and bitter desire to get even that the defeat of Germany aroused in him...and the country around him would have been secure as well, not good ground for any kind of revolutionary political changes such as the Nazis.

So Hitler probably would have become a painter instead! ;-) (He had some reasonable talent in that respect, and an interest in painting as a career.) He would have lived a much happier and much less notable life in that case, and done no harm to anyone in all probability.

I think that on the whole Europe (and the world in general) (and the Jews!) would have been considerably better off if the Germans had won the First World War.

But it's only a hypothetical notion...

As to what would have happened if Napoleon had won at Waterloo? I'll tell you what would have happened. It would have gained L'Empereur a bit more glory and it would have temporarily created some considerable confusion in the fortunes of the British and Prussian armies....but it would probably only have staved off an inevitable French defeat by the united powers of western Europe for another 6 months or a year at most. The jig was up for Napoleon and France by 1815. They were growing very exhausted by the wars, and desperately short of manpower for their armies. Most of the veteran French soldiers had been decimated in the last 2 decades of campaigning and there was no one to replace them but raw young recruits, and not enough of them either. The British naval blockade was unbreakable. All the great powers of western Europe were united in their desire to crush Napoleon and end his reign...and the military forces they had at hand to do it were overwhelming, ultimately unstoppable by the much weaker French army.

So Napoleon would have had one more victory feather in his cap if he had won at Waterloo, and that's all. It would not have delayed his final defeat for long.

****

Here's another interesting possibility. What would have happened if Hitler had had a bit better grasp of reality and had not attacked Russia in 1941...and had attacked them at all, in fact...but had simply continued sensibly to deal with what was already on his plate...fighting the British Empire in western Europe and the Med? And furthermore, what if he had had enough sense NOT to declare war on the USA immediately after Pearl Harbour? Those changes in decision making could have had profound effects on history.

It would have been very good news for the Russians...and rather bad news for the English...but I don't think Hitler could ever have successfully invaded the UK regardless, so it would probably have eventually come down to a mutually negotiated end to hostilities between the western Allies and the Germans by '44 or '45.

And then another pause of some years to consolidate positions...before the next great power war.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 07:00 PM

"What would have happened if Hitler had had a bit better grasp of reality and had not attacked Russia in 1941..."


                   It seems like the die was cast, and that Russia would have attacked him. But what if he'd just consolidated his holdings earlier on. He probably could have held everything he had up until that point.

                   But what about using "what if(s)" to teach history?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 07:18 PM

I don't think the Russians would have attacked Nazi Germany. Stalin was very eager to avoid such a conflict, and was happy to supply the Nazis with everything they wanted through trade, as long as they left the Soviet Union alone.

In fact, Stalin was so eager not to fight the Germans that he simply ignored repeated warnings from the British that the Germans were planning an attack in the Spring of '41. And he turned a blind eye to German reconn. flights over Russian forward areas and other obvious signs that a German invasion was imminent.

He seems not to have wanted to even consider the awful thought of a fullscale war with the Germans and the losses that it might entail for his country.

This makes it seem quite unlikely to me that he would have initiated an attack on Hitler's "Fortress Europa".

***

A more likely scenario from the Russian point of view might have been another limited border war with the Japanese in the disputed Japanese-held areas at the north edges of China and Korea. The Japanese were eager to avoid just such a scenario, because they had had their fingers burned by the Russians in the last go-round in the late 30's. Zuikov was the Russian commander there, and he beat the Japanese badly in the ground fighting, although they did better in the air combat.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 07:30 PM

700!