libertarianin.tom
akapowy dogmatyk
- 2 697
- 7 101
Rothbard o WWII:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/03/murray-n-rothbard/origins-2nd-world-war/
Pare fragmentow (Rothbard opisuje ksiazke Taylora, z ktorym sie zgadza).
"The central theme of Taylor is simply this: Germany and Hitler were not uniquely guilty of launching World War II (indeed they were scarcely guilty at all); Hitler was not bent on world conquest, for which he had armed Germany to the teeth and constructed a “timetable.” Hitler, in brief, (in foreign affairs) was not a uniquely evil monster or daimon, who would continue to gobble up countries diabolically until stopped by superior force. Hitler was a rational German statesman, pursuing — with considerable intuitive insight — a traditional, post-Versailles German policy (to which we might add intimations of desires to expand eastward in an attack on Bolshevism). But basically, Hitler has no “master plan”; he was a German intent, like all Germans, on revising the intolerable and stupid Versailles-diktat, and on doing so by peaceful means, and in collaboration with the British and French. One thing is sure: Hitler had no designs, no plans, not even vague intimations, to expand westward against Britain and France (let alone the United States). Hitler admired the British Empire and wished to collaborate with it. Not only did Hitler do this with insight, he did it with patience, as Taylor excellently shows; the legend (that perhaps all of us have accepted in one degree or another), is that Hitler annoyingly createdone European crisis after another, in the late1930s, proceeding hungrily onward from one victory to another; actually, the crises naturallyarose, were developed from external conditions (largely from the breakup of the inherently unstable conditions imposed by theVersailles-diktat), and by others, and which Hitler patiently awaited the outcome to use to his and Germany’s advantage."
Hitler praktycznie nie jest winny wojny!
Jakby mu kazdy dal dupy i sie nie bronil to wojny by nie bylo.
"Taylor’s history of the various crises is fascinating; for one thing, it shows that, because of this dawdling, Hitler’s policy, actually prudent, moderate, and passive (and even pacifistic) was also made to look warlike and belligerent by the almost totally irrational and sudden decisions of the nations concerned (the Austrians, the Czechs, and Poles) to betough, to take a “firm line” against the so-called “aggressor.”
Hitler byl pacyfista. To zli Polacy i Brytole doprowadzili do wojny.
" Poland was not only independent, it acquired enough territory to tyrannize over a large number of Germans (in the Corridor, Upper Silesia, and Danzig) and Ukrainians, and White Russians. "
Tak Polacy tyranizowali Niemcow, ze wiekszosc fabryk w Polace nalezala wlasnie do Niemcow....
Ruscy i Ukraincy tez woleli Polski terror (?) niz ten w ZSRR...
"As Taylor shows, Hitler had originally not the slightest intention to invade or conquer Poland; instead, Danzig and other minor rectifications would be gotten out of the way, and then Poland would be a comfortable ally, perhaps for an eventual invasion of Soviet Russia. But Beck’s irrational toughness blocked the path."
" the Hitler-Stalin pact was notan agreement for partition of Poland, as Munich was an agreement for partition of Czechoslovakia; it was rather a mutual agreement for neutrality and non-aggression, plus a German agreement not to penetrate to the Soviet sphere of influence. Poland had no legitimate complaint since all it wanted from Soviet Russia was neutrality."
Pakt Ribbentrop-Molotow byl pokojowy... taa... Nawet Ruscy po upadku ZSRR przyznali, ze nie byl. Tylko za PRL wciskali Polakom taka scieme.
I najlepsze fragmenty：
”Poland was another grotesque — or rather swollen — creature of Versailles.”
A Rosja oczywiscie groteskowa ani ”spuchnieta” nie byla. Wiezienie dla milionow roznych grup etnicznych wypelnione lagrami. Normalne panstwo...
”The reality of Eastern Europe is that it is always fated to be dominated by either Germany or Russia, or both. If East European politicians are to be rational, they must realize this and understand their fated subservience to one or both of these two Power; and, if there is to be peace in Eastern Europe, both Germany and Russia must be friends.”
”I still worry over whether Macedonia should properly be independent, or should be united to their presumably ethnic brothers in Bulgaria.”
Kazda jednostka ma prawo do secesji! Akap! Wolnosc!...a nie sorry, Polacy zawsze musza zyc pod butem panstwa Niemieckiego albo Ruskiego i wogole te same narodowosci powinny zyc w tym samym panstwie. Pewno Tajwan i Singapur powinny wedlug Rothbarda nalezec do ChRL...
Czytanie Rothbarda z lat 60tych to ciagla frustracja. Jak nie pokojowy Stalin i Hitler to znowoz libertarianski Che Guevara. Widac, ze Sowiecka agentura w tamtych czasach otaczala wiekszosc anty-systemowych myslicieli i robila im papke z mozgu. Tylko po co to znowu teraz publikowac skoro ujawnione po upadku ZSRR dokumenty przecza wiekszosci tez z tego artykulu？W latach 60tych mozna bylo zrozumiec ignorancje ale teraz???!!
P.S. i jak tu namawiac nacjololo do czytania Rothbarda i nawracania sie na libertarianizm? Przeciez jego historyczne dyrdymaly wkurwiaja nawet takiego kosmopolitycznego internacjonala jak ja.
Januszowe gadanie o Hitlerze to przy rewizjonizmie Rothbarda pikus.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/03/murray-n-rothbard/origins-2nd-world-war/
Pare fragmentow (Rothbard opisuje ksiazke Taylora, z ktorym sie zgadza).
"The central theme of Taylor is simply this: Germany and Hitler were not uniquely guilty of launching World War II (indeed they were scarcely guilty at all); Hitler was not bent on world conquest, for which he had armed Germany to the teeth and constructed a “timetable.” Hitler, in brief, (in foreign affairs) was not a uniquely evil monster or daimon, who would continue to gobble up countries diabolically until stopped by superior force. Hitler was a rational German statesman, pursuing — with considerable intuitive insight — a traditional, post-Versailles German policy (to which we might add intimations of desires to expand eastward in an attack on Bolshevism). But basically, Hitler has no “master plan”; he was a German intent, like all Germans, on revising the intolerable and stupid Versailles-diktat, and on doing so by peaceful means, and in collaboration with the British and French. One thing is sure: Hitler had no designs, no plans, not even vague intimations, to expand westward against Britain and France (let alone the United States). Hitler admired the British Empire and wished to collaborate with it. Not only did Hitler do this with insight, he did it with patience, as Taylor excellently shows; the legend (that perhaps all of us have accepted in one degree or another), is that Hitler annoyingly createdone European crisis after another, in the late1930s, proceeding hungrily onward from one victory to another; actually, the crises naturallyarose, were developed from external conditions (largely from the breakup of the inherently unstable conditions imposed by theVersailles-diktat), and by others, and which Hitler patiently awaited the outcome to use to his and Germany’s advantage."
Hitler praktycznie nie jest winny wojny!
Jakby mu kazdy dal dupy i sie nie bronil to wojny by nie bylo.
"Taylor’s history of the various crises is fascinating; for one thing, it shows that, because of this dawdling, Hitler’s policy, actually prudent, moderate, and passive (and even pacifistic) was also made to look warlike and belligerent by the almost totally irrational and sudden decisions of the nations concerned (the Austrians, the Czechs, and Poles) to betough, to take a “firm line” against the so-called “aggressor.”
Hitler byl pacyfista. To zli Polacy i Brytole doprowadzili do wojny.
" Poland was not only independent, it acquired enough territory to tyrannize over a large number of Germans (in the Corridor, Upper Silesia, and Danzig) and Ukrainians, and White Russians. "
Tak Polacy tyranizowali Niemcow, ze wiekszosc fabryk w Polace nalezala wlasnie do Niemcow....
Ruscy i Ukraincy tez woleli Polski terror (?) niz ten w ZSRR...
"As Taylor shows, Hitler had originally not the slightest intention to invade or conquer Poland; instead, Danzig and other minor rectifications would be gotten out of the way, and then Poland would be a comfortable ally, perhaps for an eventual invasion of Soviet Russia. But Beck’s irrational toughness blocked the path."
" the Hitler-Stalin pact was notan agreement for partition of Poland, as Munich was an agreement for partition of Czechoslovakia; it was rather a mutual agreement for neutrality and non-aggression, plus a German agreement not to penetrate to the Soviet sphere of influence. Poland had no legitimate complaint since all it wanted from Soviet Russia was neutrality."
Pakt Ribbentrop-Molotow byl pokojowy... taa... Nawet Ruscy po upadku ZSRR przyznali, ze nie byl. Tylko za PRL wciskali Polakom taka scieme.
I najlepsze fragmenty：
”Poland was another grotesque — or rather swollen — creature of Versailles.”
A Rosja oczywiscie groteskowa ani ”spuchnieta” nie byla. Wiezienie dla milionow roznych grup etnicznych wypelnione lagrami. Normalne panstwo...
”The reality of Eastern Europe is that it is always fated to be dominated by either Germany or Russia, or both. If East European politicians are to be rational, they must realize this and understand their fated subservience to one or both of these two Power; and, if there is to be peace in Eastern Europe, both Germany and Russia must be friends.”
”I still worry over whether Macedonia should properly be independent, or should be united to their presumably ethnic brothers in Bulgaria.”
Kazda jednostka ma prawo do secesji! Akap! Wolnosc!...a nie sorry, Polacy zawsze musza zyc pod butem panstwa Niemieckiego albo Ruskiego i wogole te same narodowosci powinny zyc w tym samym panstwie. Pewno Tajwan i Singapur powinny wedlug Rothbarda nalezec do ChRL...
Czytanie Rothbarda z lat 60tych to ciagla frustracja. Jak nie pokojowy Stalin i Hitler to znowoz libertarianski Che Guevara. Widac, ze Sowiecka agentura w tamtych czasach otaczala wiekszosc anty-systemowych myslicieli i robila im papke z mozgu. Tylko po co to znowu teraz publikowac skoro ujawnione po upadku ZSRR dokumenty przecza wiekszosci tez z tego artykulu？W latach 60tych mozna bylo zrozumiec ignorancje ale teraz???!!
P.S. i jak tu namawiac nacjololo do czytania Rothbarda i nawracania sie na libertarianizm? Przeciez jego historyczne dyrdymaly wkurwiaja nawet takiego kosmopolitycznego internacjonala jak ja.
Januszowe gadanie o Hitlerze to przy rewizjonizmie Rothbarda pikus.
