• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is the NATO?

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I am asking all the people who live in a NATO country:
what exactly is the NATO? :)

When I was very little, at school, I thought the NATO was a great organization meant to spread peace and to solve the international controversies through diplomacy and political support.
I thought the NATO was synonym with values, with principles of decency, honesty, equality, freedom, solidarity and cooperation.

But when I became an adult, I started feeling nausea, every time I used to think of NATO. Nausea and fear.
Now I feel like vomiting.
Because the NATO has turned out to be a warmongering organization meant to make the ongoing conflicts escalate... and to turn all conflicts into economic operations.

So ...I was wrong when I was little :)
I thought the NATO was synonym with peace and peacekeeping. Now I know that NATO is synonym with Military-Industrial Complex, with Industries producing Warfare and with Warmongers.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I am asking all the people who live in a NATO country:
what exactly is the NATO? :)

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a political and military defensive alliance where the member states commit to protect each other from outside aggression.

When I was very little, at school, I thought the NATO was a great organization meant to spread peace and to solve the international controversies through diplomacy and political support.

No. That's what the UN is supposed to be for.
NATO is a defensive alliance meant to demotivate outsiders to attack any member state.

I thought the NATO was synonym with values, with principles of decency, honesty, equality, freedom, solidarity and cooperation.

But when I became an adult, I started feeling nausea, every time I used to think of NATO. Nausea and fear.
Now I feel like vomiting.
Because the NATO has turned out to be a warmongering organization meant to make the ongoing conflicts escalate... and to turn all conflicts into economic operations.

I don't remember NATO ever starting a war.

Note also that the treaty commits members to protect other members in case of them being attacked.
There is no commitment at all to help other member states when they themselves are the aggressors.


So ...I was wrong when I was little :)

It rather sounds like you were wrong both now AND when you were little.

I thought the NATO was synonym with peace and peacekeeping. Now I know that NATO is synonym with Military-Industrial Complex, with Industries producing Warfare and with Warmongers.
No.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a political and military defensive alliance where the member states commit to protect each other from outside aggression.
Yes. A defensive alliance.
That is, using warfare only in case of defense.
No. That's what the UN is supposed to be for.
NATO is a defensive alliance meant to demotivate outsiders to attack any member state.
No, you're wrong.
It's defense against real attacks.
Not potential or "predictable" attacks...which can also be caused by paranoia.
I don't remember NATO ever starting a war.
I do remember the NATO favoring the escalation of the conflicts in Syria and in Libya.
Note also that the treaty commits members to protect other members in case of them being attacked.
Only if the other members are fair and don't stab other member states in the back.
Considering how we have been treated by certain NATO members, we are free from any commitment.
From any obligation.
There is no commitment at all to help other member states when they themselves are the aggressors.
Like the United States....aggressors in countless wars in the last decades.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
No, you're wrong.
It's defense against real attacks.
Not potential or "predictable" attacks...which can also be caused by paranoia.

Off course it's defense against real attacks.
But the existence of the treaty likewise is also supposed to, and does, demotivate states to mount attacks against member states.
Because it tells those states "if you attack country X, you'll automagically have to face countries A, B, C, D, E, ... also", because an attack against one, is considered an attack against all as per the treaty.

Pretty obvious. :shrug:


I do remember the NATO favoring the escalation of the conflicts in Syria and in Libya.

If that is what you wish to call fighting back against oppression and genocidal maniacs instead of letting them go on massacres....
Note also that this was not some solo NATO operation, but rather the implementation of UN security council resolutions by UN mandate.

You should brush up on your history a bit.

Only if the other members are fair and don't stab other member states in the back.
Considering how we have been treated by certain NATO members, we are free from any commitment.
From any obligation.

I have no idea what you are babbling about.
Spouting Russian or extreme-right propaganda again?

Like the United States....aggressors in countless wars in the last decades.

Such as?
Note which ones were with NATO backing / mandate and which weren't.

This is about NATO after all.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Off course it's defense against real attacks.
But the existence of the treaty likewise is also supposed to, and does, demotivate states to mount attacks against member states.
Because it tells those states "if you attack country X, you'll automagically have to face countries A, B, C, D, E, ... also", because an attack against one, is considered an attack against all as per the treaty.

Pretty obvious. :shrug:
Right.
But lately I have seen that Russia would be a much more loyal partner than other NATO members.
Who stabs other member states in the back.
If that is what you wish to call fighting back against oppression and genocidal maniacs instead of letting them go on massacres....
Note also that this was not some solo NATO operation, but rather the implementation of UN security council resolutions by UN mandate.
Didn't you read Hillary's emails?
Gaddafi was killed because he was creating a new currency meant to liberate Western Africa from CFA Franc.
You should brush up on your history a bit.
I still have long term memory.
I have no idea what you are babbling about.
Destroying Libya has signified to stab Italy in the back.

Spouting Russian or extreme-right propaganda again?

Such as?
Note which ones were with NATO backing / mandate and which weren't.

This is about NATO after all.
Why?
One question: is the United States a privileged member of the NATO?
Or the law is equal for all, in the NATO?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Because the NATO has turned out to be a warmongering organization meant to make the ongoing conflicts escalate... and to turn all conflicts into economic operations.

It is a defensive organization originally designed to stop Soviet expansion. Now, with Putin in power, it is again extremely important.

Without NATO, let me ask you this question: How good is your Russian? :shrug:
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I am asking all the people who live in a NATO country:
what exactly is the NATO? :)

When I was very little, at school, I thought the NATO was a great organization meant to spread peace and to solve the international controversies through diplomacy and political support.
I thought the NATO was synonym with values, with principles of decency, honesty, equality, freedom, solidarity and cooperation.

But when I became an adult, I started feeling nausea, every time I used to think of NATO. Nausea and fear.
Now I feel like vomiting.
Because the NATO has turned out to be a warmongering organization meant to make the ongoing conflicts escalate... and to turn all conflicts into economic operations.

So ...I was wrong when I was little :)
I thought the NATO was synonym with peace and peacekeeping. Now I know that NATO is synonym with Military-Industrial Complex, with Industries producing Warfare and with Warmongers.
False.

But since you are a putin fan you will naturally have a bias against NATO. NATO has helped resolve international issues and conflicts to reduce the need for massive militaries. It is putin that has resulted in many European nations to rebuild their militaries, and that's because putin is a threat. That is the problem with corrupt authoritarian leaders, they do not have a globalist agenda that is cooperative and non-agressive.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I am asking all the people who live in a NATO country:
what exactly is the NATO? :)

When I was very little, at school, I thought the NATO was a great organization meant to spread peace and to solve the international controversies through diplomacy and political support.
I thought the NATO was synonym with values, with principles of decency, honesty, equality, freedom, solidarity and cooperation.

But when I became an adult, I started feeling nausea, every time I used to think of NATO. Nausea and fear.
Now I feel like vomiting.
Because the NATO has turned out to be a warmongering organization meant to make the ongoing conflicts escalate... and to turn all conflicts into economic operations.

So ...I was wrong when I was little :)
I thought the NATO was synonym with peace and peacekeeping. Now I know that NATO is synonym with Military-Industrial Complex, with Industries producing Warfare and with Warmongers.

NATO was a product of the Cold War, which came about after WW2. Despite being allies during WW2, there was still a great deal of antagonism and mistrust between the USSR and the Western Allies. That came about largely because the Western powers were capitalist, and the idea of a socialist state where people were treated equally was offensive to capitalists.

They were also deathly afraid that such ideas could spread among their own workers, so the Western governments embarked on a policy of containing the primary socialist state at the time (the USSR), as well as pushing the Red Scare dogma among the masses. (An early example was the Palmer Raids during the Wilson Administration, led by a young government attorney named J. Edgar Hoover.)

Of course, the same anti-socialist fear was evident in Europe, as exemplified by the growth of fascism and right-wing dictatorships forming throughout Europe during the 1920s and 30s. They were pretty much against the Bolsheviks from the very beginning, back in 1917, even before Stalin's rise to power, before the purges, before even the slightest hint of "Soviet expansionism" ever came about. The West even sent interventionist forces to fight against the Reds in the Russian Civil War, before any legitimate pretext for being anti-socialist was even in place yet. Moreover, Russia was hardly any kind of military threat at that point, since they were forced to sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and were in a devastated, weakened state - crippled and unable to do much of anything.

The West's fear of socialism is, and always been from the start, purely ideological. So, because the West chose to hate them for no good reason, the Soviets began to develop a fear and strong dislike for the West. It's only natural. This was long before Stalin even came on the scene. Stalin's rise could be seen as a consequence of that fear of the West, as people tend to gravitate towards whom they see as a strong leader when there is great fear (however it doesn't mitigate or excuse any of Stalin's crimes).

The Second World War was, without a doubt, a great gamechanger and watershed event in history. While the West tends to view both the Nazis and Soviets as equally repugnant and evil (although there are multiple variations on this viewpoint), they sided with and cooperated with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler. Stalin was ostensibly seen as the lesser of two evils at the time, so the West chose to side with the USSR against Germany. And the USSR was certainly glad to receive the help and support of the West. Churchill, FDR, and Stalin agreed on a cooperative relationship, along with coordinated military strategies.

But the original mistrust was still there. Between the US and Britain, we cooperated very closely with each other - very friendly and almost "family" like relationship. But with the Soviets, it was different. Friendly on the surface, but still the underlying mistrust and suspicion were there.

The main concern the Soviets had, especially as the war was drawing to a close and Allied victory was in sight, was what to do about Germany. That was the key sticky point, even among the Western Allied governments. The Russians and the French wanted Germany to be totally dismantled, stripped of industry and technology so that it would be virtually impossible for them to make war ever again. Essentially, turning Germany into a giant goat pasture. The British and Americans considered this, but opted instead to rebuild the western part of Germany under their occupation. This infuriated the Soviets, as they believed that the Western Allies were going to rebuild and rearm the Germans to use them to fight against the Russians again. They also thought the Western Allies were being "too soft" on the German Nazis. Patton's refusal to de-Nazify and his statement that "we fought the wrong enemy" probably would not have set well with the Russians.

So, with anti-Soviet paranoia running rampant in the West (launching the political career of not just Joe McCarthy, but also Richard Nixon), along with J. Edgar Hoover in charge of the FBI, which had become almost a semi-independent agency at that point, the US attitude towards the USSR was one of deep suspicion and fear. The National Security Acts and the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency also came about due to this Red Scare mentality at work. For their part, the Soviets were equally paranoid under Stalin. They, too, were very suspicious and fearful of the West, so they ostensibly felt it necessary to install Soviet-friendly governments in the countries they were already occupying. (As I recall, Greece and Italy did not fall automatically into the Western fold, so there were concerns that they might turn communist, but the US was able to prevent that.) Another notable anomaly was Yugoslavia, which was communist but not pro-Soviet. Albania was another story altogether.

But in any case, the battle lines had been drawn in Europe, with the formation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact soon after. This was considered "Ground Zero" in the event of all-out conflict between East and West. But most of the actual fighting took place elsewhere, in far-flung locales such as Korea and Vietnam. Africa, Latin America, and especially the Middle East also became "fronts" in the Cold War, which carried a strong ideological pretext, not a nationalistic one. China was also a complicating third element, as they started off as a Soviet ally when they turned communist, but their relationship deteriorated in the years to follow to the point where they became enemies.

NATO was useful, functional entity within that framework, as were its sister organizations, CENTO and SEATO (which are now defunct). Together, they formed the operational implementation of the US policy of containment, which the Soviets saw as "encirclement" by the West, which they saw as an attempt to bottle up and isolate them from the rest of the world.

NATO and the West always held the upper hand. The Soviet Bloc was in a far weaker and more disadvantaged position, with the West keeping the pressure on incessantly, along with the Sino-Soviet schism that the West was able to turn to their advantage. Their fear of the Chinese actually started to overshadow their fears of the West, who may not have seemed all that bad anymore.

I don't think they ever actually "surrendered" to the West or that the West "won" the Cold War. The Russians themselves just decided to relent on their own volition, as Gorbachev seemed more willing to work with the West and appeared more reasonable than any of his predecessors. After 40 years, it didn't appear that either side was going to attack the other, so there wasn't really any real point in maintaining large military forces on both sides. In a sense, it demonstrated that, whatever paranoid or fearful or xenophobic attitudes they might have carried towards the West, those had dissipated to a great degree. When I was there, I saw that they loved American rock music, American blue jeans, and all kinds of other things about the West they admired and idolized.

The Warsaw Pact disbanded, and the countries previously occupied by the Soviets had elected new democratic governments which were pro-Western and quite resentful of the Soviet Union's long-term occupation of their countries and turning them into vassal states. So, even as the Russians were demonstrating that they were no longer fearful of the West and made numerous peaceful gestures, the West still seemed to not trust them and kept them somewhat at bay. The West did not disband NATO, but instead expanded it, and therein lay part of the problem and planted the seeds for further dissension.

A key event which probably soured the Russians' view of America was back in 1999, when the US bombed Belgrade. It's probably something that most Americans have forgotten about, but it's something that didn't set well with them. Likewise, our incursions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan probably did not warm us to the Russians' hearts or make us appear like the "good guys" we purport to be. We have troops and bases in over 80 countries across the world, so when a country as powerful as ours, with such a tremendous global reach, feels threatened by something, it does make one wonder about the state of the world and our role in it.

So, as it stands, we still have NATO in place, along with similar agreements with our Allies in other parts of the world. The Pacific Rim has been getting a great deal of attention these days, as worries about China persist. Japan has wanted to bolster its alliance with the US, and South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia are also strong allies of the U.S. I've heard talk of a Pacific version of NATO, or perhaps they could just rename NATO to remove the "North Atlantic" portion of it and make it a world-wide organization. They do much more than simply patrol the North Atlantic.

Of course, the result has been to drive the Russians and the Chinese into each other's arms. India seems to be a wild card, although they've generally tried to stay out of any East-West disputes. The Middle East and Africa, and possibly Latin America, could find themselves as Cold War pawns again, if they're not already.

I don't know what the future holds in all of this, whether we're locked in an eternal war between Oceania, Eastasia, and Eurasia - or what it might be. In a few months, we'll get to decide who the "Big Brother" for our side gets to be. Ugh.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
The West's fear of socialism is, and always been from the start, purely ideological. So, because the West chose to hate them for no good reason, the Soviets began to develop a fear and strong dislike for the West. It's only natural. This was long before Stalin even came on the scene. Stalin's rise could be seen as a consequence of that fear of the West, as people tend to gravitate towards whom they see as a strong leader when there is great fear (however it doesn't mitigate or excuse any of Stalin's crimes).
Here we go again. Yes, it's all the west's fault. Those poor Russians did absolutely nothing, and the west chose to just hate them because they're big meanies. So, naturally Russia had to become a real villain.
The Second World War was, without a doubt, a great gamechanger and watershed event in history. While the West tends to view both the Nazis and Soviets as equally repugnant and evil (although there are multiple variations on this viewpoint), they sided with and cooperated with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler. Stalin was ostensibly seen as the lesser of two evils at the time, so the West chose to side with the USSR against Germany. And the USSR was certainly glad to receive the help and support of the West. Churchill, FDR, and Stalin agreed on a cooperative relationship, along with coordinated military strategies.
The west does not at all tend to view Nazis and Soviets as equally repugnant. That's simply ridiculous.

I'm sure there are some nuggets of truth in that post, but they're mixed in with a lot of slanted narrative.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
False.

But since you are a putin fan you will naturally have a bias against NATO. NATO has helped resolve international issues and conflicts to reduce the need for massive militaries. It is putin that has resulted in many European nations to rebuild their militaries, and that's because putin is a threat. That is the problem with corrupt authoritarian leaders, they do not have a globalist agenda that is cooperative and non-agressive.
This thread is not about Putin.
What the NATO did in Libya is unforgivable. And this because of gold-hunger. Gold owned by Gaddafi.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Here we go again. Yes, it's all the west's fault. Those poor Russians did absolutely nothing, and the west chose to just hate them because they're big meanies. So, naturally Russia had to become a real villain.
The Russians never did anything against Italians.
The NATO stabbed us in the back, by undoing Libya and its ancient splendor.

So Russia is 100,000 better than the NATO.
The west does not at all tend to view Nazis and Soviets as equally repugnant. That's simply ridiculous.
Also because it was the Soviets who defeated the Nazis and took Berlin.
It's incoherent to hate the Russians, now.
I'm sure there are some nuggets of truth in that post, but they're mixed in with a lot of slanted narrative.
With all due respect, but you are not very good at refuting other users' claims.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
NATO was a product of the Cold War, which came about after WW2. Despite being allies during WW2, there was still a great deal of antagonism and mistrust between the USSR and the Western Allies. That came about largely because the Western powers were capitalist, and the idea of a socialist state where people were treated equally was offensive to capitalists.

They were also deathly afraid that such ideas could spread among their own workers, so the Western governments embarked on a policy of containing the primary socialist state at the time (the USSR), as well as pushing the Red Scare dogma among the masses. (An early example was the Palmer Raids during the Wilson Administration, led by a young government attorney named J. Edgar Hoover.)

Of course, the same anti-socialist fear was evident in Europe, as exemplified by the growth of fascism and right-wing dictatorships forming throughout Europe during the 1920s and 30s. They were pretty much against the Bolsheviks from the very beginning, back in 1917, even before Stalin's rise to power, before the purges, before even the slightest hint of "Soviet expansionism" ever came about. The West even sent interventionist forces to fight against the Reds in the Russian Civil War, before any legitimate pretext for being anti-socialist was even in place yet. Moreover, Russia was hardly any kind of military threat at that point, since they were forced to sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and were in a devastated, weakened state - crippled and unable to do much of anything.

The West's fear of socialism is, and always been from the start, purely ideological. So, because the West chose to hate them for no good reason, the Soviets began to develop a fear and strong dislike for the West. It's only natural. This was long before Stalin even came on the scene. Stalin's rise could be seen as a consequence of that fear of the West, as people tend to gravitate towards whom they see as a strong leader when there is great fear (however it doesn't mitigate or excuse any of Stalin's crimes).

The Second World War was, without a doubt, a great gamechanger and watershed event in history. While the West tends to view both the Nazis and Soviets as equally repugnant and evil (although there are multiple variations on this viewpoint), they sided with and cooperated with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler. Stalin was ostensibly seen as the lesser of two evils at the time, so the West chose to side with the USSR against Germany. And the USSR was certainly glad to receive the help and support of the West. Churchill, FDR, and Stalin agreed on a cooperative relationship, along with coordinated military strategies.

But the original mistrust was still there. Between the US and Britain, we cooperated very closely with each other - very friendly and almost "family" like relationship. But with the Soviets, it was different. Friendly on the surface, but still the underlying mistrust and suspicion were there.

The main concern the Soviets had, especially as the war was drawing to a close and Allied victory was in sight, was what to do about Germany. That was the key sticky point, even among the Western Allied governments. The Russians and the French wanted Germany to be totally dismantled, stripped of industry and technology so that it would be virtually impossible for them to make war ever again. Essentially, turning Germany into a giant goat pasture. The British and Americans considered this, but opted instead to rebuild the western part of Germany under their occupation. This infuriated the Soviets, as they believed that the Western Allies were going to rebuild and rearm the Germans to use them to fight against the Russians again. They also thought the Western Allies were being "too soft" on the German Nazis. Patton's refusal to de-Nazify and his statement that "we fought the wrong enemy" probably would not have set well with the Russians.

So, with anti-Soviet paranoia running rampant in the West (launching the political career of not just Joe McCarthy, but also Richard Nixon), along with J. Edgar Hoover in charge of the FBI, which had become almost a semi-independent agency at that point, the US attitude towards the USSR was one of deep suspicion and fear. The National Security Acts and the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency also came about due to this Red Scare mentality at work. For their part, the Soviets were equally paranoid under Stalin. They, too, were very suspicious and fearful of the West, so they ostensibly felt it necessary to install Soviet-friendly governments in the countries they were already occupying. (As I recall, Greece and Italy did not fall automatically into the Western fold, so there were concerns that they might turn communist, but the US was able to prevent that.) Another notable anomaly was Yugoslavia, which was communist but not pro-Soviet. Albania was another story altogether.

But in any case, the battle lines had been drawn in Europe, with the formation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact soon after. This was considered "Ground Zero" in the event of all-out conflict between East and West. But most of the actual fighting took place elsewhere, in far-flung locales such as Korea and Vietnam. Africa, Latin America, and especially the Middle East also became "fronts" in the Cold War, which carried a strong ideological pretext, not a nationalistic one. China was also a complicating third element, as they started off as a Soviet ally when they turned communist, but their relationship deteriorated in the years to follow to the point where they became enemies.

NATO was useful, functional entity within that framework, as were its sister organizations, CENTO and SEATO (which are now defunct). Together, they formed the operational implementation of the US policy of containment, which the Soviets saw as "encirclement" by the West, which they saw as an attempt to bottle up and isolate them from the rest of the world.

NATO and the West always held the upper hand. The Soviet Bloc was in a far weaker and more disadvantaged position, with the West keeping the pressure on incessantly, along with the Sino-Soviet schism that the West was able to turn to their advantage. Their fear of the Chinese actually started to overshadow their fears of the West, who may not have seemed all that bad anymore.

I don't think they ever actually "surrendered" to the West or that the West "won" the Cold War. The Russians themselves just decided to relent on their own volition, as Gorbachev seemed more willing to work with the West and appeared more reasonable than any of his predecessors. After 40 years, it didn't appear that either side was going to attack the other, so there wasn't really any real point in maintaining large military forces on both sides. In a sense, it demonstrated that, whatever paranoid or fearful or xenophobic attitudes they might have carried towards the West, those had dissipated to a great degree. When I was there, I saw that they loved American rock music, American blue jeans, and all kinds of other things about the West they admired and idolized.

The Warsaw Pact disbanded, and the countries previously occupied by the Soviets had elected new democratic governments which were pro-Western and quite resentful of the Soviet Union's long-term occupation of their countries and turning them into vassal states. So, even as the Russians were demonstrating that they were no longer fearful of the West and made numerous peaceful gestures, the West still seemed to not trust them and kept them somewhat at bay. The West did not disband NATO, but instead expanded it, and therein lay part of the problem and planted the seeds for further dissension.

A key event which probably soured the Russians' view of America was back in 1999, when the US bombed Belgrade. It's probably something that most Americans have forgotten about, but it's something that didn't set well with them. Likewise, our incursions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan probably did not warm us to the Russians' hearts or make us appear like the "good guys" we purport to be. We have troops and bases in over 80 countries across the world, so when a country as powerful as ours, with such a tremendous global reach, feels threatened by something, it does make one wonder about the state of the world and our role in it.

So, as it stands, we still have NATO in place, along with similar agreements with our Allies in other parts of the world. The Pacific Rim has been getting a great deal of attention these days, as worries about China persist. Japan has wanted to bolster its alliance with the US, and South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia are also strong allies of the U.S. I've heard talk of a Pacific version of NATO, or perhaps they could just rename NATO to remove the "North Atlantic" portion of it and make it a world-wide organization. They do much more than simply patrol the North Atlantic.

Of course, the result has been to drive the Russians and the Chinese into each other's arms. India seems to be a wild card, although they've generally tried to stay out of any East-West disputes. The Middle East and Africa, and possibly Latin America, could find themselves as Cold War pawns again, if they're not already.

I don't know what the future holds in all of this, whether we're locked in an eternal war between Oceania, Eastasia, and Eurasia - or what it might be. In a few months, we'll get to decide who the "Big Brother" for our side gets to be. Ugh.
Interesting.
I see Patton's sentence differently.

Fascism was born in 1922, okay? National Socialism much later and it basically copied most of it. It became something original because it was Italian Fascism plus insane, obsessive and destructive Anti-Semitism.
And this destructive Anti-Semitism was synonym with AntI-Bolshevism, because, you know, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky were all Jews.
So Hitler basically said: Communists = Jews = Evil to kill

This is light years away from Fascism. First of all, because Mussolini was a socialist and never stopped being one. Secondly because he was not an anti-Semite. His first mistress was a Russian Jew, Balabanoff. A socialist politician. The most important mistress was Margherita Sarfatti, another Jewish intellectual. Many fascists were Jews and great supporters of Mussolini. Included Sarfatti's father.

Fascism was tainted by Nazism. Because when Hitler rose to power, he became so powerful and anti-Semitism started infecting Italian Fascism.
From that moment onward, Fascism destroyed itself. It became something monstrous. It became Italian Nazism, made up of anti-Semitism and anti-Communism.


So what I am wondering is: maybe it's someone from the other side of the ocean who paid Hitler to found Nazism, in order to wage war against the Bolsheviks of Russia.
Several people in Italy and in other European countries believe someone in the US paid Hitler to wage a war against Communism and Russia.
 
Last edited:

Wu Wei

ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
I am asking all the people who live in a NATO country:
what exactly is the NATO? :)

When I was very little, at school, I thought the NATO was a great organization meant to spread peace and to solve the international controversies through diplomacy and political support.
I thought the NATO was synonym with values, with principles of decency, honesty, equality, freedom, solidarity and cooperation.

But when I became an adult, I started feeling nausea, every time I used to think of NATO. Nausea and fear.
Now I feel like vomiting.
Because the NATO has turned out to be a warmongering organization meant to make the ongoing conflicts escalate... and to turn all conflicts into economic operations.

So ...I was wrong when I was little :)
I thought the NATO was synonym with peace and peacekeeping. Now I know that NATO is synonym with Military-Industrial Complex, with Industries producing Warfare and with Warmongers.
eye-roll-robert-downey-jr-8mssmj3ab9awwf8t.gif


You don't seem to understand how things work, or what they really are.... and you like to call a lot of folks warmongers.... well...not the Russians who invaded the Ukraine..or the Chinese who continually threaten Taiwan or harass boats in the Philippines ..... but everyone else appears to be.....it is pointless to discuss this further with you so...have fun storming the castle
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Here we go again. Yes, it's all the west's fault. Those poor Russians did absolutely nothing, and the west chose to just hate them because they're big meanies. So, naturally Russia had to become a real villain.

Look, if you don't have anything of substance or anything factual to present, why bother? What's with this "Here we go again" business? This is purely your choice. You're not required to "go again."

The west does not at all tend to view Nazis and Soviets as equally repugnant. That's simply ridiculous.

It's not "ridiculous." I said there were multiple variations on that viewpoint. But that's not really the topic. I was just including that as background information.

I'm sure there are some nuggets of truth in that post, but they're mixed in with a lot of slanted narrative.

Am I required to march in lockstep behind a particular Western narrative which many people besides myself have opposed and questioned, both in the West and throughout the world?

I wouldn't say the West has been "big meanies," but the West also has its own cross to bear. Let's not be coy about this and pretend like we don't know what I'm talking about.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
This thread is not about Putin.
Sorry to inform you of this but putin's invasion of Ukraine, and threats against NATO is very much relevant to any discussion of NATO. I know you are a putin fan, but he's a global threat and war criminal. That's not a very good look for you.
What the NATO did in Libya is unforgivable. And this because of gold-hunger. Gold owned by Gaddafi.
Wow, talk about an irrelevant issue. Gaddafi got away for decades for his involvement with the Lockerbie bombing. Someone should have taken him out back in 1989.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Interesting.
I see Patton's sentence differently.

Fascism was born in 1922, okay? National Socialism much later and it basically copied most of it. It became something original because it was Italian Fascism plus insane, obsessive and destructive Anti-Semitism.
And this destructive Anti-Semitism was synonym with AntI-Bolshevism, because, you know, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky were all Jews.
So Hitler basically said: Communists = Jews = Evil to kill

This is light years away from Fascism. First of all, because Mussolini was a socialist and never stopped being one. Secondly because he was not an anti-Semitic. His first mistress was a Russian Jew, Balabanoff. A socialist politician. The most important mistress was Margherita Sarfatti, another Jewish intellectual. Many fascists were Jews and great supporters of Mussolini. Included Sarfatti's father.

Fascism was tainted by Nazism. Because when Hitler rose to power, he became so powerful and anti-Semitism started infecting Italian Fascism.
From that moment onward, Fascism destroyed itself. It became something monstrous. It became Italian Nazism, made up of anti-Semitism and anti-Communism.


So what I am wondering is: maybe it's someone from the other side of the ocean who paid Hitler to found Nazism, in order to wage war against the Bolsheviks of Russia.
Several people in Italy and in other European countries believe someone in the US paid Hitler to wage a war against Communism and Russia.

If someone in the US paid Hitler to wage a war against Russia, then who paid him to declare war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
You don't seem to understand how things work, or what they really are.... and you like to call a lot of folks warmongers.... well...not the Russians who invaded the Ukraine..or the Chinese who continually threaten Taiwan or harass boats in the Philippines ..... but everyone else appears to be.....it is pointless to discuss this further with you so...have fun storming the castle
I live in Europe, okay?
I have no idea of what Asia geopolitics is. And honestly I have no idea of how things work in the Pacific Ocean, and in the Indian Ocean.
I exclusively know the geopolitics of Europe. In detail. I also speak 6 European languages.

I don't understand why American people who have never been to Europe claim to know what's going on in Europe.

I am humble, and I would never claim I know what's going on in Taiwan.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
If someone in the US paid Hitler to wage a war against Russia, then who paid him to declare war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941?
The ones who paid him are not the American Government, of course.
It deals with shady banking élites who have nothing to do with FDR or the Congress. They are so sneaky, that they have the gift of invisibility.
So he declared war on the US Government. Not on those élites.
 
Top