# Color footage of Berlin 1945 after the war ended



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

They Found This Old Footage From The 40?s, What It Shows Is Interesting


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Interesting to me:
The remains of the Reichstag, already a ruin in 1933, when it was an excuse for the Nazi takeover.
The ruins of The Adlon, Berlin's finest hotel, and the Kaiserhof, also once fine.
In the Reichskanzlerei garden, the ruins of the entrance of the Führerbunker, where Hitler's body was burned.
Every Berliner woman, and most of Berlin's girls, had been raped by the incoming Russians. But life went on, and the women had work to do.
Near the Reichskanzlerei, we see the Wilhelmstrasse entrance to the U-bahn (subway), through which many high-ranking Nazis finally tried to escape. They didn't make it.
And the wide avenue that began at the Brandenburg Gate, and which then featured a portrait of Stalin, is Unter den Linden, by then stripped of its trees for firewood.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

I don't feel a bit sorry for them. When you hitch your ride to a despotic regime, you get what you deserve. The people are ultimately responsible for that which they allow to take place in their name. Eisenhower was right. After viewing the carnage of the Final Solution at a liberated camp, he said that we should have killed more of them (Germans) as an example of having twice in the first half of the 20th century drawn the world into war.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

SouthernBoy said:


> I don't feel a bit sorry for them. When you hitch your ride to a despotic regime, you get what you deserve. *The people are ultimately responsible for that which they allow to take place in their name. *.......


History is often a mirror of ourselves.

It should humble us into voting responsibly. Sadly that group is fading into the minority.

It does make those of us realizing what is happening, think about just what kind of fate is in store for the US, especially with more and more riding the "(Fascist) Socialist Peace Train".

Perhaps the greatest nations are those who practice compassion and forgiveness with justice, knowing any nation can collapse from within.
Want and despair can easily fuel pride and arrogance which morph into brutality quickly.

Thanks for sharing Cait43.


----------



## pblanc (Mar 3, 2015)

Very interesting video. It is noteworthy that the vast majority of the surviving population consists of women, children, and old men. By early 1945 roaming Gestapo and SS thugs hung any able-bodied males they found in Berlin as deserters and cowards. Colonel Hans von Luck in his book Panzer Commander recounts how his executive officer whom he sent to Berlin to try to procure petrol, was mistaken for a deserter and hung.

The damage to Germany and Japan's major cities resulting from the Allied bombing campaigns was truly catastrophic. It is a testament to the hardiness of the German people that they were able to clear up the rubble and go on with life.

As much as some would like to ignore the fact, much of the Allied bombing of Germany and Japan can only be considered terror bombing. When the US Army Air Corps tested bombs for effectiveness for the bombing campaign of Japan they selected incendiaries. This is not because they were more effective at destroying Japanese industry but because the Japanese civilian population lived in paper houses. The British conducted night time bombing throughout nearly the entire war where the targets were cities, not specific installations of military significance. And although the US conducted "precision" daytime bombing of specific targets, for all the talk about the Norden bombsight that could put bombs "in a pickle barrel", the Air Corps knew full well that a great majority of the bombs dropped fell nowhere near their targets. I think it is noteworthy that despite the massive destruction and civilian death, there is no evidence that either the German or Japanese civilian population was anywhere close to taking their countries out of the war, nor did they have the means to do so.

Hitler and his cronies and the firebrands of the Japanese Army were largely responsible for taking both those nations to war. It is true that the general German and Japanese population were both buoyed up by Hitler and Japan's early wartime victories, and they must bear some responsibility, but I think it is unrealistic to consider that the general population could arrest the momentum of the warmongers any more than many of us can effectively influence the doings of "our" politicians in Washington, D.C today.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

CW said:


> History is often a mirror of ourselves.
> 
> It should humble us into voting responsibly. Sadly that group is fading into the minority.
> 
> ...


please keep that in mind next November. Hitler promised everything to the German people too. No government is capable of doing such a thing.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

pblanc said:


> , .............but I think it is unrealistic to consider that the general population could arrest the momentum of the warmongers any more than many of us can effectively influence the doings of "our" politicians in Washington, D.C today.


sounds like you have already drunk a fair amount of the koolaid. The opinion you are voicing is exactly what the ruling political class wants everyone to believe, so that they are perpetually re elected. Think about it. Why is it fair to have 40% of more of your income taken by your "government" to redistribute to others who do nothing for it? Do you enjoy supporting almost half of the population of this country? I don't. The entire political class needs to be thrown out and we need fresh blood and ideas in Washington, not resignation to the idea that nothing can ever change. If the individual does not unite and fight, more will be taken away.


----------



## pblanc (Mar 3, 2015)

RK3369 said:


> sounds like you have already drunk a fair amount of the koolaid. The opinion you are voicing is exactly what the ruling political class wants everyone to believe, so that they are perpetually re elected. Think about it. Why is it fair to have 40% of more of your income taken by your "government" to redistribute to others who do nothing for it? Do you enjoy supporting almost half of the population of this country? I don't. The entire political class needs to be thrown out and we need fresh blood and ideas in Washington, not resignation to the idea that nothing can ever change. If the individual does not unite and fight, more will be taken away.


And how precisely do you plan to throw the entire political class out, pray tell? An armed march on Washington, perhaps?

It is an unfortunate consequence of our political system that big money contributors determine the outcome of elections, not voters. Our politicians are primarily interested in only two things: getting elected, and getting reelected. Getting elected and getting reelected require them to suck up to big money interests. The big money interests do not care about either you or me. Short of some type of revolution, which I do not anticipate seeing in my lifetime, this is not going to change.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

pblanc said:


> And how precisely do you plan to throw the entire political class out, pray tell? An armed march on Washington, perhaps?
> 
> It is an unfortunate consequence of our political system that big money contributors determine the outcome of elections, not voters. Our politicians are primarily interested in only two things: getting elected, and getting reelected. Getting elected and getting reelected require them to suck up to big money interests. The big money interests do not care about either you or me. Short of some type of revolution, which I do not anticipate seeing in my lifetime, this is not going to change.


 I agree 100%. In my opinion, term limits for all elective office is the only solution however, I believe that also will never happen because those in power are only interested in protecting themselves. No, I am not advocating an armed march on Washington, what I believe will happen is that eventually the system will fail of it's own weight. Perhaps not in our lifetime, but it will eventually fail, because you can not take from half the population to support the other half. Eventually people figure out it's easier to sponge off the system than to contribute, then you have no providers and eventually, you have no production. That leads to overthrow of the status quo and people beginning to be self reliant.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

pblanc said:


> ...much of the Allied bombing of Germany and Japan can only be considered terror bombing...


Ah, the wonders of historical revisionism!

If the bombing was a "terror," then what would you call the Nazi's concentration camps, and, in particular, their death camps? And the randomly-aimed V1 and V2 rocket assault on England?
And what would you call what Japan's army did in Nanking? And what about their "comfort women" and their medical "experiments" on POWs?

Speaking as an ethnic German (well, at least half of me) and a Jew, I think that Germany got off pretty lightly. And at least the German people learned their lesson, and were able to acknowledge their guilt and apologize for what they'd done.
But the Japs, to this day, refuse to acknowledge their collective guilt, or to apologize, for beginning the war without any just cause, and for the individual and mass atrocities that they committed during it. I think that our two, war-ending, mass-destruction bombs were nowhere near enough.


----------



## pblanc (Mar 3, 2015)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Ah, the wonders of historical revisionism!
> 
> If the bombing was a "terror," then what would you call the Nazi's concentration camps, and, in particular, their death camps? And the randomly-aimed V1 and V2 rocket assault on England?
> And what would you call what Japan's army did in Nanking? And what about their "comfort women" and their medical "experiments" on POWs?
> ...


Well, they are all terrorist actions, obviously. The fact that one action was carried out in response to terrorist acts does not automatically mean that the response was not a terrorist act. For some non-revisionist history I suggest you look into the fire bombing of Dresden Germany, a city of absolutely no strategic significance whatsoever, and the firebombing of Tokyo Japan. I feel that deliberate mass killing of civilian non-combatants during war is an act of terror. The intent is to so demoralize the civilian population that it turns against the war effort, or so shock the military leaders of the nation that they sue for peace. One can argue that it is and was justified, but unfortunately it did not work on either count in either Japan or Germany.

If on the other hand you feel that the more non-combatant German and Japanese killed during the war the better, then the bombing campaign was extremely effective.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

pblanc said:


> ...If on the other hand you feel that the more non-combatant German and Japanese killed during the war the better, then the bombing campaign was extremely effective.


My sentiments, exactly.

When one political entity begins and pursues terrorism against other, previously inoffensive entities, then whatever retribution the originating entity receives is both warranted and just.
No amount of historical revision and whitewash will ever cover up the complicity of both the German and the Japanese people, in the evil and amoral behavior of their respective governments.

Yesterday, it was the Nazis and the Jap pro-war party. Today, it is Islamic extremism.
If the so-called moderate "good people" do not speak up against what their (at this time, religious) representatives are doing, then they become complicit, and, by extension, equally guilty.
To borrow a term from Christian religious thought, it is both right and just that they reap what they have sown (or, by inattention, have permitted to be sown).

BTW: I am a "_grand amateur_" of world history, as well as having lived through the period in question, so please try not to lecture me about it. I already know about Dresden. Perhaps you don't know about Hamburg.


----------



## pblanc (Mar 3, 2015)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> My sentiments, exactly.
> 
> When one political entity begins and pursues terrorism against other, previously inoffensive entities, then whatever retribution the originating entity receives is both warranted and just.
> No amount of historical revision and whitewash will ever cover up the complicity of both the German and the Japanese people, in the evil and amoral behavior of their respective governments.
> ...


I am not spouting revisionist history. I have studied history a great deal especially that of the WW1 and WW2. I am quite aware of the genocide carried out by Nazi Germany, the rape of Nanking, the murder of Allied POWs by the Japanese, as well as the Hamburg bombing. Had I been one of the Allied decision makers during WW2 I might very well have made many of the same decisions regarding the non-strategic bombing campaign and the use of the atomic bomb. My goal would have been to try to save Allied lives and shorten the war. And I would have accepted the fact that the intent was to terrorize the population. And you were the one who started this discourse by claiming I was promoting revisionist history so please don't ask me not to "not lecture you about it".

The difference between your position and mine, Steve, is that you feel that the Japanese and German people did not suffer enough and you would like to have seen more non-combatants killed during the war, and I wish it could have been fewer.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

pblanc said:


> ...My goal would have been to try to save Allied lives and shorten the war. And I would have accepted the fact that the intent was to terrorize the population....The difference between your position and mine, Steve, is that you feel that the Japanese and German people did not suffer enough and you would like to have seen more non-combatants killed during the war, and I wish it could have been fewer.


Well stated, and understood.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

That was an interesting video.

As I understand it the women of Berlin were raped as a direct retaliation of what German soldiers had done when they marched east.

It was estimated that 1 million allied solders would be killed if we had invaded Japan. We also dropped leaflets warning citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki warning the citizens though few believed it.

I watched a excellent movie recently "unbroken" great true story about an American hero who spent time in a Japanese prison camp. I highly recommend it. I remember seeing the guy lighting the Olympic torch but never realized the significance of what he went through or what a slap in the face it must have been to his captor who refused to meet with him.

War is truly a terrible thing.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Damn, at first I thought it was Chicago or the South Bronx, maybe Buffalo, Gary or any other city throughout the United States that Democrats have controlled.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

I guess they've reaped what they have sown. No one likes to see civilian casualties. However who's fault is it that allowed such regimes to flourish? Or put them into power in the first place? Just as those who elected a "Black Militant" to occupy the "outhouse". Politics is indeed very important. Those who choose to ignore it do so at their's and unfortunately other's own peril.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

rustygun said:


> That was an interesting video.
> 
> As I understand it the women of Berlin were raped as a direct retaliation of what German soldiers had done when they marched east.
> 
> ...


General Robert E. Lee said, I believe after the South visited virtual slaughter on northern troops at Cold Harbor, that it is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow fond of it.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pblanc said:


> I am not spouting revisionist history. I have studied history a great deal especially that of the WW1 and WW2. I am quite aware of the genocide carried out by Nazi Germany, the rape of Nanking, the murder of Allied POWs by the Japanese, as well as the Hamburg bombing. Had I been one of the Allied decision makers during WW2 I might very well have made many of the same decisions regarding the non-strategic bombing campaign and the use of the atomic bomb. My goal would have been to try to save Allied lives and shorten the war. And I would have accepted the fact that the intent was to terrorize the population. And you were the one who started this discourse by claiming I was promoting revisionist history so please don't ask me not to "not lecture you about it".
> 
> The difference between your position and mine, Steve, is that you feel that the Japanese and German people did not suffer enough and you would like to have seen more non-combatants killed during the war, and I wish it could have been fewer.


My take on our actions in WWII, or any war in which we are the victims of aggression, is quite simple. We should take the attitude that we are willing to kill every damned thing in the enemy's country in order to save just one American life. To do otherwise is worse than a travesty; it's treason. The only way any nation can come close to guaranteeing they will be immune from aggressive nations is to make the thought of open hostilities with them so unbearable that no country will engage them in armed conflict.

A good deal of Japanese small arms manufacturing and assembly, as well as explosive ordinance, was produced from the civilian cottage industry. Whether or not one might think that we took extreme measures to bring Japan to her knees does not erase the fact that Japan attacked us... not the other way around.

And one other thing. If I was a Jew living in Europe during the war and had lost my entire family, my wife and children, my parents, my grandparents, bothers and sisters to the gas chambers of Treblinka or the mobile killing squads of one of the four Einsatzgruppen roaming the Ukraine and other invaded states, you can damned well bet I'd want to see every damned German dead from similar treatment. There would be no room in my heart for any thought of forgiveness... ever.


----------



## AZdave (Oct 23, 2015)

Yes interesting film. Different times, different war. It WWII both sides created collateral damage.

As an old man I can easily say, we need more collateral damage for the terrorist.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

AZdave said:


> Yes interesting film. Different times, different war. It WWII both sides created collateral damage.
> 
> As an old man I can easily say, we need more collateral damage for the terrorist.


Hitler could have very easily been halted in his tracks but he had the support of most of the German people as he rose to power. Had enough of them seen where he was leading that country (hell, he wrote about his plans in Mein Kampf) he could never have amassed such military power. But he was telling them what they wanted to hear and the Treaty of Versailles was viewed as a stab in the heart of Germany.

Hitler gave the people their villains to hate and upon whom to focus, their cause behind which to rally, and their direction, to follow him to glory and honor. They believed him and were willing to let him take them to that glory. Silly Germany. She got what she deserved.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

RK3369 said:


> please keep that in mind next November. Hitler *promised everything *to the German people too. No government is capable of doing such a thing.


November - Yes, when Hillary is elected I will remember just what kind of people elected her.

As for the Golden Promise, it seems with more and more people believing it, it may well be the _Apocalyptical Lie _that deceives the world.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

CW said:


> November - Yes, when Hillary is elected I will remember just what kind of people elected her.
> 
> As for the Golden Promise, it seems with more and more people believing it, it may well be the _Apocalyptical Lie _that deceives the world.


*"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."*
Benjamin Franklin


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

CW said:


> November - Yes, when Hillary is elected I will remember just what kind of people elected her.
> 
> As for the Golden Promise, it seems with more and more people believing it, it may well be the _Apocalyptical Lie _that deceives the world.


Well, consider this. Libtard Bernie Sanders wants to give everyone in the country a free college education. Think about it, isn't that just extending public school for another 4 years? And what will that mean to the value of a college degree. It will make a liberal arts, social sciences, etc degree basically worthless. Of just about the same value as a high school diploma is today. What kind of a job can the average citizen get with a high school degree? Not much of anything above minimum wage, and we all know you can't live on minimum wage.

The entire liberal philosophy is bent on destroying the social fabric of this country by equalizing everyone. The only problem will be, if everyone is equal and can get whatever they need from the government, who is going to produce what the government needs for redistribution? Liberal social policy simply does not work as shown by the results of the past 60 years of liberal social spending. Actually it's done nothing other than to make Americans more dependent on their government than ever before. Sad but true.

This is why I believe the system is eventually going to collapse on itself from it's own weight and demands. And for that eventuality, we need to be prepared. Having to turn in our means of self defense is not in agreement with the need to be ready for the future.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

RK3369 said:


> ...The entire liberal philosophy is bent on destroying the social fabric of this country by equalizing everyone.


Progressives believe fervently in equality of outcome. But this nation was founded on the premise of equality of opportunity. Only equality of opportunity is mandatable and assurable, and can apply equally to everyone.
People who think rationally and critically understand that equality of outcome cannot be mandated or assured. The feckless among us will quickly lose everything that they are given, because that which costs nothing is seen by them to have no value.
But, of course, most people are not capable of rational, critical thinking. This is partly because it is not taught by our schools, but also partly because it is not taught by parents, either.



RK3369 said:


> ...The only problem will be, if everyone is equal and can get whatever they need from the government, who is going to produce what the government needs for redistribution? Liberal social policy simply does not work as shown by the results of the past 60 years of liberal social spending. Actually it's done nothing other than to make Americans more dependent on their government than ever before...


A better example of why equality of outcome will never work is seen in the collapse of the Soviet Union. "To each according to his need" gave everyone an excuse not to work very hard, and not to turn in high-quality work results. "From each according to his ability" then became an enabler of laziness and sloppiness.
Someone once said that "Socialism works very well, until you run out of other people's money."


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Progressives believe fervently in equality of outcome. But this nation was founded on the premise of equality of opportunity. Only equality of opportunity is mandatable and assurable, and can apply equally to everyone.
> People who think rationally and critically understand that equality of outcome cannot be mandated or assured. The feckless among us will quickly lose everything that they are given, because that which costs nothing is seen by them to have no value.
> But, of course, most people are not capable of rational, critical thinking. This is partly because it is not taught by our schools, but also partly because it is not taught by parents, either.
> 
> ...


Very well stated!


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Hitler quote:
*"Society's needs come before the individuals needs."*
Adolf Hitler quote: Society's needs come before the individuals needs

Hilary Clinton quote:
*"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."*
We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society. - Hillary Clinton at BrainyQuote


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Progressives believe fervently in equality of outcome. But this nation was founded on the premise of equality of opportunity. Only equality of opportunity is mandatable and assurable, and can apply equally to everyone.
> People who think rationally and critically understand that equality of outcome cannot be mandated or assured. The feckless among us will quickly lose everything that they are given, *because that which costs nothing is seen by them to have no value.*
> But, of course, most people are not capable of rational, critical thinking. This is partly because it is not taught by our schools, but also partly because it is not taught by parents, either.
> 
> ...


Ownership of property is one of the fundamental keys to freedom. When people have no buy in to this, they have little concern. Some excellent examples are project housing. The quote you included at the end was from Margaret Thatcher, as I recall.

I agree with your post completely.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Cait43 said:


> Hitler quote:
> *"Society's needs come before the individuals needs."*
> Adolf Hitler quote: Society's needs come before the individuals needs
> 
> ...


Edward Kennedy echoed similar sentiments during a senate hearing once. Funny how that mindset seems to permeate leftist thought.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

For Society to function and succeed, the individual must be responsible for his contribution to add to the whole. 

And although the level of output varies from person to person, the leveling of the playing field is best done through Charity, not coercion.

Herein lies the other side of the sword, if successfulness breeds greed and hording, the notion of being my brother's keeper (through compassion) becomes a burden and must be coerced, taxed, or legislated.
Such conduct misleads many to see socialism/communism as the cure-all.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> Edward Kennedy echoed similar sentiments during a senate hearing once. Funny how that mindset seems to permeate leftist thought.


Leftist thought permeates our public school system, colleges and universities. The teachers unions are a core constituency of the Democratic Party. We can't expect them to make comparative quotes between the Nazi and Democratic Parties. Hell, most kids today are probably not even aware of the Nazi Party how they came to power or World War Two for that matter.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

desertman said:


> Leftist thought permeates our public school system, colleges and universities. The teachers unions are a core constituency of the Democratic Party. We can't expect them to make comparative quotes between the Nazi and Democratic Parties. Hell, most kids today are probably not even aware of the Nazi Party how they came to power or World War Two for that matter.


and hear nothing but anti military and anti USA policy from their teachers. But who do they think is going to be there to defend their right to make such absurd statements when the military is essentially neutered and our borders are open to anyone who wants to walk across them and set off a bomb? I still say you have to go back to the "big brother" school of diplomacy, your "big Brother" has gotta be bigger than the other country's "big brother" or somebody's [email protected]@ is gonna get whomped, and I dont' want it to be ours.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

RK3369 said:


> and hear nothing but anti military and anti USA policy from their teachers. *But who do they think is going to be there to defend their right to make such absurd statements when the military is essentially neutered and our borders are open to anyone who wants to walk across them and set off a bomb?* I still say you have to go back to the "big brother" school of diplomacy, your "big Brother" has gotta be bigger than the other country's "big brother" or somebody's [email protected]@ is gonna get whomped, and I dont' want it to be ours.


That's beyond their comprehension. Never in my widest dreams did I ever think that a radical "Black Militant" would ever occupy the "out house". All because people do not think. 


> What good fortune for governments that the people do not think." - Adolf Hitler


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

Interestingly enough, Germany was the center of knowledge for a while - engineering, chemistry, physics......

Was there in intellectual divide [a cyclic drought of the ability to learn], or did those in power create the divide by denying education to all those able to learn [ or worse - selecting who and just what was to be learned]?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

CW said:


> Interestingly enough, Germany was the center of knowledge for a while - engineering, chemistry, physics......
> 
> Was there in intellectual divide [a cyclic drought of the ability to learn], or did those in power create the divide by denying education to all those able to learn [ or worse - selecting who and just what was to be learned]?


No, it was the aftermath from World War One. When Germany had to pay war reparations after they were beaten to a pulp. Hitler came along and restored German pride using demagoguery and propaganda, scapegoating and blaming the Jews for all of Germany's problems. He convinced the German people that they were far superior to the rest of the world and set about creating a master race of which all the others were inferior to. Then set about for their eventual extermination. Hitler and his cohorts were the Pied Piper's of Hamelin and lead their followers into the abyss. Very similar to those who follow and voted for "The Black Militant" in chief.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

CW said:


> ...successfulness breeds greed and hording...


This Socialist mantra is, of course, only an excuse for the urge to "level the playing field." In the general case, it isn't the least bit true.
Most successful people do not merely amass, nor do they hoard. In fact, most charitable giving comes from the extremely successful.

The myths of Socialism are based solely upon the envy of those who prefer not to work very hard (for whatever reason).
The funniest part is that those Socialist myths originate in the "revolutionary" thinking of the children of the hard-working rich. These coddled children, since they need not work, have infinite time for the political theorizing with which they occupy their bored minds.
Generally speaking, these Socialist myths have their direct origin in the suppressed, or otherwise unacknowledged, guilt of the idle rich.

I suggest that there is great irony in National Socialism, as practiced by Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party. Socialism has its origins within the Eastern-European Jewish community, which created the concept out of the old-testamentary command to make the earth a better place for the Jews to live. The concept is called _Tikkun Olam_ in Hebrew, which means "fix the world."
The concept had been widely broadened (here's the irony) by German-Jewish thinkers, by the end of the 1930s, to include making the world a better place for _everybody_, not just the Jews. Levelling, stolen from 18th-century British political thought, was key to making the world that better place for everyone. Socialism, and its origin, Marxist (not Russian) Communism, were serious attempts at accomplishing practical levelling.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> .... Most successful people do not merely amass, nor do they hoard. In fact, most charitable giving comes from the extremely successful.
> 
> .... Generally speaking, these Socialist myths have their direct origin in the suppressed, or otherwise unacknowledged, guilt of the idle rich.
> 
> ...


Excellent points Steve. {I did say IF.....}

I don't know of too many poor philanthropist. Also its been said: "A poor man never gave me a job."

But it does seem the philanthropy gene does not often pass to the kids.

As for the Fix the World concept it does seem to be a more common call of liberals, where conservatives are more of take the plank out of your own eye... [then you can see who to smack... ]
It also seems to be the theme of OWG - OWR: One world government/religion. Your take on this??

As for pure communism, its not bad when you have a benevolent dictator, but I ain't seen one yet.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

There's still that irony, that both Socialism (and especially German National Socialism) and Russian "Communism" adopted the concept of _Tikkun Olam_, while persecuting its inventors as grasping, money-grubbing exploiters of the working class.

There's further irony in that rich industrialists, "the enemies of the worker," are the ones who provide the working class with jobs. They are also the ones who drive innovation, lifting the workers out of drudgery and back-breaking discomfort, into smooth efficiency.

The final irony is that it is the working industrialists who actually contribute to the upkeep of those unable to work, through charity and (dare I say it) voluntary acts of levelling.

One World Government? Yeah, that's entirely possible, and not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends upon what's done with it.
The Euro is failing as a currency because it prevents each member nation from developing and controlling its own economy, subsuming them involuntarily into the economic failures of Greece and (soon) Spain.
If each member nation retains its autonomy, while coöperating in a world government with everyone else, the system could work very well. It's what the UN was supposed to be, before the Progressives let the "third-world"'s kleptocracies take the place over.

One world religion? No, I don't think so. Rather, I think it would more likely devolve into no religion at all. Progressivism sees itself as the only necessary religion, and Socialism is based upon the replacement of faith and hope with politics and economics.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

CW said:


> Excellent points Steve. {I did say IF.....}
> 
> I don't know of too many poor philanthropist. Also its been said: "A poor man never gave me a job."
> 
> ...


There is nothing good about communism. It can only, and it has to, work through the threat of coercion, force, and fear. The instinct of Man is to own property and to covet things. This is part of the instinct of self-preservation. He has to learn to share; he is not born with this trait.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

SouthernBoy said:


> There is nothing good about communism. It can only, and it has to, work through the threat of coercion, force, and fear. The instinct of Man is to own property and to covet things. This is part of the instinct of self-preservation. He has to learn to share; he is not born with this trait.


Pure communism works through a nurturing charity borne of love. You are quite correct in the respect that natural man must be coerced - by government, faith, or some mechanic.
But there have been attempts by small social groups [ early Christians, communes, family clans...],
but they only exist until one or more feel the tug of nature and the drive of survival of the fittest /god helps those who help themselves and destroys the delicate attempt at nirvana.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

CW said:


> Pure communism works through a nurturing charity borne of love. You are quite correct in the respect that natural man must be coerced - by government, faith, or some mechanic.
> But there have been attempts by small social groups [ early Christians, communes, family clans...],
> but they only exist until one or more feel the tug of nature and the drive of survival of the fittest /god helps those who help themselves and destroys the delicate attempt at nirvana.


I would argue that there is no such thing as pure communism and would love to hear its definition. Communism removes the concept of private property ownership. Russia allowed a little of this to a degree but I would have to imagine that "pure communism" completely does away with private property, both personal and real. This is one of the reasons I despise John Lennon's song, "Imagine" and always change radio stations when I hear it.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> I would argue that there is no such thing as pure communism and would love to hear its definition. Communism removes the concept of private property ownership. Russia allowed a little of this to a degree but I would have to imagine that "pure communism" completely does away with private property, both personal and real. This is one of the reasons I despise John Lennon's song, "Imagine" and always change radio stations when I hear it.


Can you "imagine" that! John Lennon was hardly broke and destitute. I doubt he gave away most of his fortune so he could achieve a Spartan Living.


----------



## AZdave (Oct 23, 2015)

WOW a 70 year old film clip is still very relevant today! Almost like a mirror...


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

AZdave said:


> WOW a 70 year old film clip is still very relevant today! Almost like a mirror...


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"-- Santayana


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

SouthernBoy said:


> I would argue that there is no such thing as pure communism and would love to hear its definition. Communism removes the concept of private property ownership. Russia allowed a little of this to a degree but I would have to imagine that "pure communism" completely does away with private property, both personal and real. This is one of the reasons I despise John Lennon's song, "Imagine" and always change radio stations when I hear it.


Acts 4:32 NKJV
Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common.

Keep in mind, with man, this is not possible, with God, ALL things are possible.

Can man imitate this level of communism? Maybe for a short time. In my prior post, I state it will eventually fail as man's nature rises[or more correctly - degrades] to the occasion.
IMO History supports this view.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

CW said:


> Acts 4:32 NKJV
> *Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common.*
> 
> Keep in mind, with man, this is not possible, with God, ALL things are possible.
> ...


This still goes against the most basic grain of humans and even were that not the case, I would never want to live under something like this. I want what is mine to be mine; not shared willie nillie with others without my permission. I hope I don't across as being a jerk with this... it's just my opinion.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

SouthernBoy said:


> This still goes against the most basic grain of humans and even were that not the case, I would never want to live under something like this. I want what is mine to be mine; not shared willie nillie with others without my permission. I hope I don't across as being a jerk with this... it's just my opinion.


Well there are the verses about being a cheerful giver, as well as giving the worker his due wages.

And I suspect I feel much the same about my "property" as you do. {I remember choking when son asked to use my pickup....}

Perhaps a very good read on this subject is the nautical fiction: _Mr Midshipman Easy_. Where a young "level-ist" learns that _some of us are more equal than others_.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

CW said:


> *Well there are the verses about being a cheerful giver*, as well as giving the worker his due wages.
> 
> And I suspect I feel much the same about my "property" as you do. {I remember choking when son asked to use my pickup....}
> 
> Perhaps a very good read on this subject is the nautical fiction: _Mr Midshipman Easy_. Where a young "level-ist" learns that _some of us are more equal than others_.


I have no problem with charity and helping others worthy of help. I donate hundreds of dollars every year to various charities. There is a difference between people, though no fault of their own, are suddenly faced with problems for which outside help is needed and those who have chosen a path of failure through deliberate choices they have taken in their lives and continue to take. Those folks do not have my sympathy nor do I wish to offer them my help. The difference between my train of thought with this and that of the government is that people like me elect to be discriminate with their largess whereas the government makes no distinction between the parasites and the truly needy.

I have known a number of people over the years who have lived under communism and I have yet to hear one of them saying that they believe that system is better than ours. Quite the contrary. In a nutshell, communism, and even socialism, is evil by definition and those trying to incorporate these systems into our own are the devil's spawns. Unfortunately, Franklin's warning has taken root and is being nurtured by the likes of Obama and his many minions, as well as his controllers. They need us for the time being because it is we who produce and drive the economy of this nation. Once they no longer need us, the final end of this experiment in self-government will have been brought to a close and we will receded into the pages of history.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SouthernBoy said:


> ...I have known a number of people over the years who have lived under communism...


Respectfully, I say, "No, you haven't."
Nobody has ever lived under Marxist Communism, as originally conceived, and Russian "communism" wasn't anything like Marx's concept and philosophy.

Communism doesn't exist, because human beings are imperfect.
In any group or society, some people are stronger-willed than others, and these leader-types will tend to amass power, control, and even goods and mates, at the expense of the follower-types.
Equally in any group or society, some people are workers, and some are slackers. The slackers will become unproductive takers unless they are ejected from the commune.

In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, most "Hippie" communes devolved into disaster and dissolution exactly because of the leaders-and-slackers problem. Those communes which actually prospered did so because the leaders were strong enough to eject the slackers and to control the workers. But almost all of the communes finally failed anyway, because the workers eventually tired of the leaders' control.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> *Respectfully, I say, "No, you haven't."*
> Nobody has ever lived under Marxist Communism, as originally conceived, and Russian "communism" wasn't anything like Marx's concept and philosophy.
> 
> Communism doesn't exist, because human beings are imperfect.
> ...


Really?

While I agree that so-called pure communism, and evil unto itself, does not and has most likely never existed, the forms of communism which have infested nations all over the world for over a century have certainly existed and still do to this day. The people I mentioned have lived in Russia, Russian satellite countries, Vietnam, Cambodia, and a few others. I would bet they might disagree with the idea that they lived in something else other than communism.

*"and these leader-types will tend to amass power, control, and even goods"*
This is how it works in these places. The puppet masters of the proletariat amass the trappings of wealth through privilege and power. This is what has taken place in all of these countries and to a degree in our own country. The difference is that we can also obtain wealth.

Communism in any form is evil to its core. There is nothing good about it.


----------

