Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
...It's just a shame he got a bit racist and paranoid"
Fuck off. Just fuck off.
What's gotten into everyone??
a guy at work's got it as his screensaver.
I only ask because you said literally
I thought I was the only one. Really irritating.
He only got as far as he did cos he had money to spend. I would've liked to see how he'd got on at a lower league facist dictatorship
whether that means he was good or not......
Also, since MT died, my facebook feed has been mercifully free of stupid comments from either extreme of the political spectrum, so I'm quite happy that I obviously have good friends.
I've just been avoiding FB. FOrgot.
(please don't die!)
and maybe only two that's been in the DUUUUUUUUURRRRRR THATCHEEERRRRRRRR category
so not too shabby
few witty quips, some interesting article and some cool video clips which show an informed reason why people may not show any respect to Thatchers death. Then I saw my sisters feed, it was brutally idiotic.
becuz of taxesssss
dead excited to go to Itchy and Scratchyland joke
bit worrying the amount of people I know irl who I'm 100% sure read these forums
nobody else has seen the simpsons
"Hitler was a smashing leader, but he had more then enough vendettas."
More people 200 years from now will probably see him as an interesting topic/character of study rather than evil incarnate like a lot of people now see him.
Not saying its a good thing or owt, but views will change, probably in our own lifetimes.
If I asked you on your view of Genghis Khan, who was undoubtedly a bit of a cunt, what would you say? Bear in mind that he was a genocidal warlord that killed millions with his armies.
But still. Hitler was a genocidal cunt. And the sentiment seems to be expressed by the sort of smug protofascist golem fuckwits that can fuck off anyway.
evil incarnate is interesting to many people
to sum him up you would need to understand the nature of the extant empires and kingdoms at the time.
I think that you would find that he tolerated nations religeons and different skin caste and appearance, he judged a people more by their actions, some nations/empires had some appalling characteristics and he judged mostly from these.....of course this is also generalisation, but hey, he had limited resource.
Please bear in mind that the christians and muslims were having a good old ding dong. The seljuk turks were oppressing the armenians horribly.
The chinese empire had slavery and little freedom to rise according to your own virtues. (although the storm that they endured because of this was extreme)
The various caliphates were not particularly nice to their own people and Persia had its own peculiar disgusting horridness to humans.
The punishments that the mongols inflicted were NO WORSE than those practiced by china persia christian europe and islam upon many people, in fact they were less refinedly horrible, they were straight forward and matter of fact.......If your people aligned yourself with Genghis as the BIG MAN, then you were alright and he would protect your people, if your own local 'big man' did not recognise this and chose to enter war with him, then yes, you would have strife and war on your head.........but isnt that the same as with every single empire?
The khans did it quick and efficiently for the end purpose
The US China Uk japan germany islamic nations christian nations australia france etc etc have done bad stuff without having the final aim as being the object (they have digressed into prolonged horridness)
It is to do with the nature of the power.....genghis did not inherit a power structure he had to build his power, through impressing people through action.
In the end he had advisors/ministers to help with his budhist, chinese, muslim and christian subjects and he did not oppress these religeons (as long as they remained reasonable)
not having a large burocracy supplying him with figures that pleased him.
It reads as though you're on chummy first name terms with him... you know, Genghis.
so I think that that makes me entitled
leaving aside the genocides, purges, the paranoia, the war-mongering and the utter evilness of his political philosophy, all of which are frankly a little bit negative, what else does he have?
On the plus side there's the autobahn, but on the minus side, he decided that conquering Russia in the winter, when you're already fighting a massive war on the other side of your borders, was a brilliant scheme, well, that is a sign of effective and realistic politician who thinks things through.
or 'people's car' and he's also the reason the olympic flame goes on tour around the host nations. Not all bad then
lower than it would have been naturally compared with its peer nations, thus he harnessed the knowledge and the actuality of this difference and through the skillful use of PR(opoganda) managed to align many Germans expectations with that which he gradually dragged them into.
He thus ended up successfully mobilising a people to ends/means that were horrendous.
One could say that Stalin was the most successful premier, as he was playing the premier game and did so very successfully......i.e. look at the years in power, look at his influence and look at how many he influenced both in his nation and abroad, one could also factor in the ammount of hostile challanges that there were to the powerbase in Russia/USSR, he managed to fend them all off.......of course this was with regard to the benefit of himself and his aims of winning the premier game.....which is of course the biggest game in the world and one which most people seem to be oblivious of.
With their mouths? Or is it just one of them tedious copy and paste social meedja things?
Utter cunts, all. But still real people opening their mouths and this bullshit coming out.
to say that someone was ruthlessly effective and achieved a lot....made their mark.........should not be regarded as a good leader unless that mark, and what they achieved was actually good.
Its a bit like an arsonist.....yes by being destructive they could leave a very big mark.....the point the people mentioning hitler are trying to make is that it is not the ammount of influence that you have had, but the QUALITY of the influence that you have had, you should be measured by the nature of the effects you have had, not the size of them.
Unless women are just great liars and size is the most important
And would have worked really well if it hadn't been racist. And sometimes with stuff about how much nicer the Nazi uniforms were than our British uniforms.
I was assuming they were drawing an analagy to show that you shouldnt just call a 'strong powerful' leader successful
Maybe it started like that but people didn't really understand the analogy they were forwarding so just added some extra bullshit.
Nazi uniforms were snazzier though.
spike milligan made observations about the visual effect of the british and nazi uniforms.
Apparently the british uniforms were soup traps (Cant remember which of his books that was in)
One of the people who was saying this seemed to have a bizzare sort of crush on Rudolph Hess though.
there was a thread on the festivals board that started a competition to see who could get the most replies on the social board by the end of the day
...good leader. It's just a shame he got a bit racist and paranoid.
and also the same said about Mussolini from a Roman acquaintance.
Italian roads are mental. I can't speak for the quality of the infrastructure, but it seems Il Duce didn't want to instigate any sort of rules. It's just a fuck tonne of honking to get anywhere.
and if i meet another person whose car is out of order because they hit a pothole i think i might be due a prize of some sort.