0
What else can I help you with?
What were the political views of Sigmund Freud?
I think he wasn't Left-wing progressivist in that sense he had no mercy for utopian Left ideologies (eg. Marxism) that distort human nature (read - "Civilization and Its discontents"). On the other hand it will be probably a mistake to called Freud "conservatist" in strict political and social terms. His ideas were shocking in his times (eg. child's sexuality, "Oedipus Complex"). He was of course staunch atheist too, which is not welcome in conservative circles. Maybe he was some kind of "realist-progressivist" in that he belived we will modificate our nature by scientific forces, but taking into account our inborn aggression ("death drive"), NOT only our economic issues (as socialists believe). Freud was in the middle between conservative restrictions of the civilization and utopian ideologists which postulate complete liberation of these restrictions (eg. "sexual freedom").
How did Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev decide to handle the blistering attack he received from China regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis?
The Sino-Soviet rift was already in full swing when the Cuban Missile Crisis made Nikita Khrushchev the target of another Chinese torrent against the policies of the Soviet Union. To add fuel to the fire, the Albanian Communist Party sided with China in denouncing the Soviet actions that in their words was just another page in Khrushchev's continuing betrayal of Marxism-Leninism. Once again, the imperialists had their way and the proponents of international socialist progress were thrown "under the bus".Khrushchev, never known as highly respected theorist on Marxist-Leninist thought decided to have one of the Soviet's leading ideologists, Boris Ponomarev, publish an editorial in Pravda to defend the Soviet's loyalty to class struggle and the international communist community.When the editorial appeared, the first thing Ponomarev did was to dismiss out of hand the Albanian objections to the Soviets, as Albania preaches allot to the world communist movement but in actuality stands aloof from it.Ponomarov then began to "school" the Chinese on the five methods that display the Soviet struggle against imperialism by deeds not just words or slogans. Among the most prominent was peaceful coexistence along with providing real support to communist parties around the world. Of course what was implied the Soviet's assistance to Cuba. This was followed by a long "laundry list" of Marxist-Leninist ideas that were developed by the Soviet Communist Party and then shared with the socialist world. And in so many words reminded all with an ear to hear that revisionists are those who do not grasp the full measure of Lenin's logical step forward that places imperialism as the last stage of capitalism.Insofar as the missile crisis itself was concerned, Ponomarov noted that Chairman Khrushchev saved the world peace that the American imperialists threatened,and showed the American people the threat of nuclear war posed by the American imperialist government and their NATO allies.He then reminded the communist world that the unbridled slander of China and Albania against the Soviet Union places them in the ranks of the imperialist propaganda machine that seeks to undermine class struggle and social equality. The editorial closed by calling for increasing unity of the socialist camp which was threatened by the Albanian and Chinese leadership.
Why did Japan join the Germans?
Before the war, Germany, Italy and Japan had formed a pact opposing the Communist International, which was Stalin's tool to spread communism throughout the world. Japan actually ended up aiding Germany very little during the war, and decided to disregard the pact and not fight against the USSR (after a short round of skirmishes that saw Japan lose badly). When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it was Germany and Italy who declared war on the US as a way of showing solidarity with Japan with the hopes that Japan would aid Germany against the USSR (it never materialized).
Why do Creationists not accept Evolution and vice versa?
The notion that Creationists cannot accept Evolution and vice-versa is not as great an issue as some would have us believe. There are a few, the Young Earth Creationists and perhaps a small group of zealous fundamentalists, who have a problem with Evolution. Let's examine the two camps and see what they have to say, and then look at some braying instigators to uncover their intent. Creation is the idea that God is the force behind abiogenesis. Man cannot demonstrate the mechanism wherein life began. The theory of biogenesis, that life only comes from life, represents limited understanding. Man, though he can procreate, cannot create life, cannot animate nonliving material. God doesn't have this problem. He can do anything! And He did. Just as is taught. Can science prove that God didn't do it? Didn't create us? No, it can't. Science stands mute before the idea. Creationists don't really have to "defend" God in this. Besides, they have the trump card! Science is powerless in the face of a supernatural event. Science and (by and large) its practitioners, as well as most of its followers and its users, don't really have a problem with Creation. Why should they? Evolution and Creation are largely compatible. Certainly they are not mutually exclusive. Evolution, particularly as it is represented by Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (MES), is fact. MES is the "state of the art" construct that explains the progression of life on earth. The idea that there is a veritable mountain of facts, a plethora of hard data, that support MES should come as no surprise. In fact, the data wasn't collected to support the idea but vice-versa. Consider that a hill of facts was just so much puzzling data until some thinking people, notably Darwin, offered an explanation for the appearance of things. The tree of life was a brilliant conceptual stroke. After the foundations were laid, later evolutionary developers continued to sketch out the limbs and branches of the tree, filling in gaps as new information became available. (Any suggestions that Evolutionists are in any way having trouble supporting their ideas demonstrates a frightening lack of understanding on the subject. Remember that the evidence was already in place. Evolution is the name given to the process explaining what is already laid out. Suggestion to the non-believer in Evolution: face the music. Or, perhaps, answer to God as to why what is arguably His finest gift, the mind of man, was "switched off" when it needed to be fully applied. It's a "You give them eyes and they cannot see" kind of thing....) Science and MES don't have a problem with Creation and Creationists. God initiated the chain of life. It doesn't conflict with existing data, with existing facts. No problem. The Young Earth Creationists and some zealots are the ones making all the noise. They tend to take The Bible literally. Surprising since there are obvious contradictions in Genesis. (The Qur'an, at least, offers a simple explanation for creation. Allah said, "Be." And it was. No details to slice and dice, or to fight over. The world slipped from His hand. End of story. On to other things.) The panorama of past life and the undeniable truth regarding its lengthy tenure here are ignored by these few cultists. Why? Who knows? Can illogic be explained? But there is method to their madness. It takes the form of Intelligent Design (ID). ID is their construct. It is a deceitful attempt to lay groundwork for the 'scientific' ideation of an "Intelligent Designer" behind the design itself. The Intelligent Designer (though He is unspecified) is God. ID is purely a scion of theological ideology. It's Bible teaching. But the smoke screen was put up so that the constraints keeping church and state separate as set down in the U.S. Constitution could be sidestepped, the objective being to get ID presented in public schools. And the zealous fundamentalists proved that they would lie in support of the deceit they intended to perpetrate on the people. Shame on them. There is an additional factor. Many Christians, though they are not Young Earth supporters, are actually subscribers to Evolution as presented in MES. And they, too, want ID taught in public school. This creates conflict. These folks, and there are a number of them, subscribe to ID to bring God into the classroom, and they seem to turn a blind eye to the lies and deceit practiced by those few Christian zealots to achieve this end. Shame on them. Does God need or even want His message leveraged by lies and deceit? Isn't there another individual whose stock and trade is lies and deceit? Yes, there is. He is the head of the third of the host who fell. Who are these zealots (and any Christians who, tho' they don't see a problem with MES, condone lies and deceit to promote the Bible) actually serving with their prevarication, their deviousness and fraud? Not God. That is the heart of the "problem" with the "opposition" between Creationism and Evolution. It isn't a battle of "scientific ideas" so much as an "issue" created and supported by those scurrilous fundamentalists to achieve a social and political agenda. That and the (O! so sad!) fact that some good God-fearing Believers were deceived by the methods of the radicals when they (the "good Christians") embraced the notion that ID could get the Bible into public schools. Creationists and Evolutionists aren't that far apart. The vast majority of one camp is a member of the other. The clubs are not mutually exclusive, as some would have us believe. It's just that radical and deceitful minority that wants to create an issue. And they drag some good Christians down with them when the latter support the lies and the deception perpetrated (in His name) by the former. As an aside, but on a related issue, the scientific community has, by and large, chosen to turn their backs on ID. Not because it isn't true science (which it clearly isn't), but because they feel that if they enter into debate with the myopic and politically motivated pseudo-intellectuals pushing it, they will give credibility to ID and the associated ideas (like irreducible complexity) that it offers. This is a mistake by scientists. Proponents of ID need to be "reeled back in" and "schooled" in what real science is and what it shows so conclusively about the history of the earth and the life on it. You are reading the first installment of the lesson. Here's one voice saying that ID is theory. A good theory. But it is no more supportable by science than the idea that intelligent aliens with advanced technology were the ones who animated mud on earth to start life. And, as it is just another hanging thought from the perspective of what can be proved by scientific method, it is philosophy. It belongs in a philosophy class. Oh, and because it was so clearly demonstrated that ID cannot uncouple itself from its theological beginnings, that philosophy class will have to be held somewhere other than in a public school. [The saddest tale in modern Christian debate is unfolding. It is a battle of politics and ideologies pitting Christian against Christian. In a time when it is more important than ever for Christians to unite and stand together against those violently dangerous and radical ideologists who are turning the world into a killing ground, they want to quarrel among themselves. And, because the majority of the people in this country identify themselves as Christians (making America "mostly" Christian), we are becoming our own worst enemy. We are becoming just like those we struggle against, becoming them.] Answer Because if there's no Creation, there's no fall of man[kind]." If there's no "Fall" (sin), then there's no need for a "Savior." If there's no need for a Savior, then there's no need for an intermediary (Priests, Pastors, Immams, Rabbis, etc.). If there's no intermediaries, then there will be no followers. If there are no followers, then there will be no Thithes. If there are no tithings, then there are no ......... Answer One problem Evolutionists have with creationism is that it is possible to test the theory of evolution. When such tests are carried out, they show that they achieved the result predicted by evolutionary theory. On a basic level, evolution theorises that if a population is subjected to an outside influence that favours the survival of some members of that population over others, eventually all that will remain in the population is those who survived. This seems to be a self evident truth. If you remove from a field of sheep all the sheep who have black wool, then all that will be left is white sheep. Some new sheep will be borne with black wool. Remove them too. If you do this every year, eventually there will be not black sheep borne. Look at the next field full of sheep you see. They are normally all white (or perhaps all black, the farmer removed the white ones). That's evolution. Answer this is a loaded question. evolution proponents don't accept creationism on the basis of evidence, given that creationism has none. creationists not only reject evolution, but astronomy, cosmology, geology, nuclear physics, and critical thinking... on the basis of faith alone.
Who are the top ten tyrants?
Genghis Khan: "the supreme warrior" (Founder and ruler of the Mongol Empire from 1206 till 1227) A Mongol legend says that Genghis Khan was born with a blood clot grasped in his fist - a sign that he was destined to become a great leader. The omen proved true, as the boy grew into the outstanding warrior of the 13th century who managed to forge the largest contiguous empire in history. Born Temujin, he experienced poverty, persecution and imprisonment after the death of his father, a tribal chief. But he rode the storm and his military genius helped him defeat rival tribes one by one. By 1206, he had become the ruler of almost all of Mongolia. It was then that Temujin was pronounced Genghis Khan - the king of kings. Under his command, the Mongols swept through China, Central Asia and across Eastern Europe. By the time of Genghis Khan's death, his empire extended across Asia, from the Pacific Ocean to the Black Sea, and his descendants maintained power in the region for hundreds of years. Genghis Khan's military conquests were often characterized by the utmost cruelty and wholesale slaughter of the defeated. At the same time, he proved himself an admirable statesman, having managed to unite and organize the Mongols and introduce civilian and military codes. And though violations were severely punished, to the present day the Mongol people recognize Khan as a great reformer. Henry VIII: "the Bluebeard king" (King of England from 1509 till 1547) The two things England's Henry VIII is best known for his six marriages, which was a rather shocking number for a Christian king, and his English Reformation initiative. In the first years of his reign, Henry gained the sympathy of his people and was seen as a good Catholic. He even wrote the "Defense of the Seven Sacraments", a book devoted to refuting Luther's arguments, and for that he received the title from the Pope as the Defender of the Faith. Nevertheless, when his personal wish to divorce his first wife collided with Rome's stance, Henry VIII did not only separate the Church of England from papal authority and proclaim himself its Supreme Head, but also began disbanding Catholic monasteries and appropriating their income and assets. His wife Anne Boleyn, who became the driving force behind the church reform, was later executed, thus sharing the fate of Sir Thomas More and thousands of other opponents of Henry's policies, either religious or civil, such as the forced enclosure of farm land. The wheels of state were suppressing the people's discontent by developing a spy network and increasing the number of executions. It is believed that more than 70,000 people were put to death during Henry VIII's rule, including two of his wives. Ivan IV: "the Terrible" (Tsar of All Russia from 1533 till 1584) The first Grand Prince of Moscow to be given the title of "Tsar of Russia", Ivan the Terrible showed signs of cruelty, deviousness and vengefulness since his childhood. The future tsar pronounced his first death sentence at the age of 13. The first part of his rule, though, was rather moderate - some believe due to the positive influence of his first wife, a kind and devout woman. After her death, which Ivan believed to have resulted from poisoning, a sharp change in his rule began. Having introduced the so-called "Oprichnina" regime, Ivan IV started terrorizing the country. Under the pretext of fighting treason among the court nobility, he ordered the brutal killing of people without proving their guilt - often just for fun - sometimes together with their kin and familiars. Ivan the Terrible showed great imagination in sentencing people to the most painful kinds of death, including burning people at the stake, impaling and boiling to death. In addition, he was married seven (eight, according to other sources) times and is believed to have killed at least two of his wives, as well as his eldest son. However, Ivan IV was one of the most educated people of his time and a talented conqueror. Under him, the territory of Russia expanded twofold. Maximilien Robespierre: "the incorruptible face of the Reign of Terror" (Considered to be de facto ruler of France from 1793 till 1794) The life and death of Maximilien Robespierre, one of the most prominent and influential figures of the French Revolution, vividly demonstrates how a sincere intention to ensure the virtue and sovereignty of the people, carried out fanatically, turned out to be a terror for the nation. Robespierre welcomed the 1789 rebellion with open arms. Being one of the leaders of the Jacobins, he ultimately dominated the newly established Committee of Public Safety which, fearing the sabotage of the Revolution, began political and administrative purges and mass executions of "the Revolution's enemies". "The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny," he used to say. According to different estimates, from 16,000 to 40,000 people were killed during the Reign of Terror, including Robespierre's former fellow-Jacobin, Georges Jacques Danton. As a result of Robespierre's associating Terror with Virtue, the French Revolution became an endless bloodbath. In 1794 he was overthrown by a conspiracy of members of the Convention and executed. Joseph Stalin: "the Father of Nations" (General Secretary of the Soviet Union from 1922 till 1953) A politician who walked over the dead bodies of both his associates and rivals on his way to power, Joseph Stalin was also a ruler who achieved an almost unprecedented economic miracle of modern times, having made a great industrial and military power out of a dilapidated and mostly agrarian country. "He found Russia working with wooden plows and left it equipped with atomic piles," Sir Winston Churchill is believed to have said about him. It was under Stalin that the Soviet Union won the Great Patriotic War against Nazi Germany in 1945, thus making USSR's contribution to defeating the Axis in World War Two hard to overestimate. And it was under Stalin, as well, that the Soviet people suffered the hardly bearable strains of collectivization and industrialization, the mass famine of the 30s, the notorious Purges and the creation of the gulag system that, according to different estimates, 14 to 40 million Soviet citizens went through - with many not surviving. Adolf Hitler: "the Fuhrer" (Chancellor of Germany from 1933 till 1945) The man who initiated the deadliest conflict in human history - World War II - actually started off as a spy. Following the ignominious defeat of Germany in World War I and the German 1918-1919 November revolution, Adolf Hitler's job was fishing for information on the activities of small political parties and groups. It was then that he tried becoming a speechmaker at a political gathering. He felt he was in his element and soon became leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party - the Nazis. After assuming the position as Chancellor of Germany, Hitler suppressed the political opposition in the country, established the Gestapo - the secret state police, a system of concentration camps, and started mass Jew-baiting, which later grew into a genocide of the Jews throughout Europe. Hitler wiped out one-third of the Jewish population of the world, an event known as the Holocaust. Democratic freedoms were, by that time, long gone in Germany. Planning to launch a large-scale aggression, Hitler initiated one of the largest economic and infrastructure development campaigns in the country's history. By 1938, Hitler's regime had occupied Austria and Czechoslovakia and, in 1939, by attacking Poland, he provoked the start of World War II which took the lives of over seventy million people, the majority of whom were civilians. After the defeat of Germany in 1945, Adolf Hitler committed suicide. Augusto Pinochet: "the Reformer-Dictator" (President of Chile from 1973 till 1990) Military dictatorship and political repressions versus economic liberalization and reforms - that is the controversial legacy of the 16 years of Augusto Pinochet's rule in Chile. After the coup d'etat of September 11, 1973, he headed the junta that exercised executive and legislative functions of the government, and in 1974 was declared President. Ideologists of Pinochet's regime were saying that democracy is something Chile could not afford at the time. So, the system of representative democracy was annihilated and the National Congress dissolved. Pinochet announced the country's communist party to be the junta's most dangerous enemy and started suppressing his political opponents, exercising mass arrests, summary trials, systematic torture and "disappearances", secret executions and detention. According to the Rettig Report, 2,279 people were killed for political reasons during the years of military rule under Augusto Pinochet. Later the Valech Report added that approximately 31,947 were tortured, and 1,312 exiled. The latter were chased all over the world by Pinochet's intelligence agencies while he was in power. Pol Pot: "Brother Number One" (Ruler of Democratic Kampuchea, now Cambodia, from 1975 till 1979) Saloth Sar, aka Pol Pot was an unusual dictator who had neither a personality cult nor was appropriating the assets of his persecuted opponents. Instead, he focused on destroying his own people. During the four years of the Khmer Rouge party regime in Democratic Kampuchea, about three million people - a fourth part of the country's population - were brutally wiped out. Pol Pot imposed a version of agrarian collectivization, forcing city dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work at collective farms and forced labor projects. The Khmer Rouge targeted everyone considered "potentially dangerous", which included the military, specialists of all kinds, including teachers and doctors, officials and educated people in general. Both education and religion were abolished. Schools were turned into prisons or sites for torture, which was widespread. Beating people to death with iron bars and hoes, running them over with bulldozers, burning or burying them alive, drowning and throwing to crocodiles were all popular with Pol Pot. Hundreds of thousands of Cambodian people dug their own mass graves, which are now referred to as The Killing Fields. Kim Jong Il: "the Dear Leader" (Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army from 1991 till present) According to human rights organizations, Kim Jong Il, son of the "Eternal President" Kim Il-sung, runs the world's most tightly controlled society. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea has been receiving the worst possible score, for the 34th straight year, on political rights and civil liberties from Freedom House. The people of North Korea have no right to leave the country or freely move inside it and, thus, most information learned about it comes from escapees. The UN resolution on human rights abuses in North Korea says the country practices torture, public executions, imposition of the death penalty for political reasons, as well as possessing a large number of prison camps and extensive use of forced labor, trafficking of women for prostitution and infanticide of children of repatriated mothers, and other sanctions on those repatriated from abroad. That is, however, not even scratching the surface of North Korea's atrocities. At the moment an estimated 250,000 people are confined in "reeducation camps". Furthermore, the early years of Kim Jong Il's reign were marred by a three-year famine which, according to different estimates, killed from 250,000 to three million citizens, and the humanitarian situation in the country remains precarious. Source:http://www.top100lists.net/world/top-10-most-notorious-tyrants.html
Why do Creationists not accept Evolution and vice-versa?
The notion that Creationists cannot accept Evolution and vice-versa is not as great an issue as some would have us believe. There are a few, the Young Earth Creationists and perhaps a small group of zealous fundamentalists, who have a problem with Evolution. Let's examine the two camps and see what they have to say, and then look at some braying instigators to uncover their intent. Creation is the idea that God is the force behind abiogenesis. Man cannot demonstrate the mechanism wherein life began. The theory of biogenesis, that life only comes from life, represents limited understanding. Man, though he can procreate, cannot create life, cannot animate nonliving material. God doesn't have this problem. He can do anything! And He did. Just as is taught. Can science prove that God didn't do it? Didn't create us? No, it can't. Science stands mute before the idea. Creationists don't really have to "defend" God in this. Besides, they have the trump card! Science is powerless in the face of a supernatural event. Science and (by and large) its practitioners, as well as most of its followers and its users, don't really have a problem with Creation. Why should they? Evolution and Creation are largely compatible. Certainly they are not mutually exclusive. Evolution, particularly as it is represented by Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (MES), is fact. MES is the "state of the art" construct that explains the progression of life on earth. The idea that there is a veritable mountain of facts, a plethora of hard data, that support MES should come as no surprise. In fact, the data wasn't collected to support the idea but vice-versa. Consider that a hill of facts was just so much puzzling data until some thinking people, notably Darwin, offered an explanation for the appearance of things. The tree of life was a brilliant conceptual stroke. After the foundations were laid, later evolutionary developers continued to sketch out the limbs and branches of the tree, filling in gaps as new information became available. (Any suggestions that Evolutionists are in any way having trouble supporting their ideas demonstrates a frightening lack of understanding on the subject. Remember that the evidence was already in place. Evolution is the name given to the process explaining what is already laid out. Suggestion to the non-believer in Evolution: face the music. Or, perhaps, answer to God as to why what is arguably His finest gift, the mind of man, was "switched off" when it needed to be fully applied. It's a "You give them eyes and they cannot see" kind of thing....) Science and MES don't have a problem with Creation and Creationists. God initiated the chain of life. It doesn't conflict with existing data, with existing facts. No problem. The Young Earth Creationists and some zealots are the ones making all the noise. They tend to take the Bible literally. Surprising since there are obvious contradictions in Genesis. (The Qur'an, at least, offers a simple explanation for creation. Allah said, "Be." And it was. No details to slice and dice, or to fight over. The world slipped from His hand. End of story. On to other things.) The panorama of past life and the undeniable truth regarding its lengthy tenure here are ignored by these few cultists. Why? Who knows? Can illogic be explained? But there is method to their madness. It takes the form of Intelligent Design (ID). ID is their construct. It is a deceitful attempt to lay groundwork for the 'scientific' ideation of an "Intelligent Designer" behind the design itself. The Intelligent Designer (though He is unspecified) is God. ID is purely a scion of theological ideology. It's Bible teaching. But the smoke screen was put up so that the constraints keeping church and state separate as set down in the U.S. Constitution could be sidestepped, the objective being to get ID presented in public schools. And the zealous fundamentalists proved that they would lie in support of the deceit they intended to perpetrate on the people. Shame on them. There is an additional factor. Many Christians, though they are not Young Earth supporters, are actually subscribers to Evolution as presented in MES. And they, too, want ID taught in public school. This creates conflict. These folks, and there are a number of them, subscribe to ID to bring God into the classroom, and they seem to turn a blind eye to the lies and deceit practiced by those few Christian zealots to achieve this end. Shame on them. Does God need or even want His message leveraged by lies and deceit? Isn't there another individual whose stock and trade is lies and deceit? Yes, there is. He is the head of the third of the host who fell. Who are these zealots (and any Christians who, tho' they don't see a problem with MES, condone lies and deceit to promote the Bible) actually serving with their prevarication, their deviousness and fraud? Not God. That is the heart of the "problem" with the "opposition" between Creationism and Evolution. It isn't a battle of "scientific ideas" so much as an "issue" created and supported by those scurrilous fundamentalists to achieve a social and political agenda. That and the (O! so sad!) fact that some good God-fearing Believers were deceived by the methods of the radicals when they (the "good Christians") embraced the notion that ID could get the Bible into public schools. Creationists and Evolutionists aren't that far apart. The vast majority of one camp is a member of the other. The clubs are not mutually exclusive, as some would have us believe. It's just that radical and deceitful minority that wants to create an issue. And they drag some good Christians down with them when the latter support the lies and the deception perpetrated (in His name) by the former. As an aside, but on a related issue, the scientific community has, by and large, chosen to turn their backs on ID. Not because it isn't true science (which it clearly isn't), but because they feel that if they enter into debate with the myopic and politically motivated pseudo-intellectuals pushing it, they will give credibility to ID and the associated ideas (like irreducible complexity) that it offers. This is a mistake by scientists. Proponents of ID need to be "reeled back in" and "schooled" in what real science is and what it shows so conclusively about the history of the earth and the life on it. You are reading the first installment of the lesson. Here's one voice saying that ID is theory. A good theory. But it is no more supportable by science than the idea that intelligent aliens with advanced technology were the ones who animated mud on earth to start life. And, as it is just another hanging thought from the perspective of what can be proved by scientific method, it is philosophy. It belongs in a philosophy class. Oh, and because it was so clearly demonstrated that ID cannot uncouple itself from its theological beginnings, that philosophy class will have to be held somewhere other than in a public school. [The saddest tale in modern Christian debate is unfolding. It is a battle of politics and ideologies pitting Christian against Christian. In a time when it is more important than ever for Christians to unite and stand together against those violently dangerous and radical ideologists who are turning the world into a killing ground, they want to quarrel among themselves. And, because the majority of the people in this country identify themselves as Christians (making America "mostly" Christian), we are becoming our own worst enemy. We are becoming just like those we struggle against, becoming them.] Answer Because if there's no Creation, there's no fall of man[kind]." If there's no "Fall" (sin), then there's no need for a "Savior." If there's no need for a Savior, then there's no need for an intermediary (Priests, Pastors, Immams, Rabbis, etc.). If there's no intermediaries, then there will be no followers. If there are no followers, then there will be no Thithes. If there are no tithings, then there are no ......... Answer One problem Evolutionists have with creationism is that it is possible to test the theory of evolution. When such tests are carried out, they show that they achieved the result predicted by evolutionary theory. On a basic level, evolution theorises that if a population is subjected to an outside influence that favours the survival of some members of that population over others, eventually all that will remain in the population is those who survived. This seems to be a self evident truth. If you remove from a field of sheep all the sheep who have black wool, then all that will be left is white sheep. Some new sheep will be borne with black wool. Remove them too. If you do this every year, eventually there will be not black sheep borne. Look at the next field full of sheep you see. They are normally all white (or perhaps all black, the farmer removed the white ones). That's evolution. Answer this is a loaded question. evolution proponents don't accept creationism on the basis of evidence, given that creationism has none. creationists not only reject evolution, but astronomy, cosmology, geology, nuclear physics, and critical thinking... on the basis of faith alone.
Was Genghis khan a barbarian?
Genealogy of Genghis KhanFirstly, I introduce Abu-al-Ghazi Bahadur was Khan of the Khanate of Khiva from 1643-63. He was very well educated and true historian. He spent 10 years in Persia before becoming Khan. He wrote a book, A General History of Turks; Moguls and Tatars. He mentions in the preface "I Abu-al-Ghazi Bahadur Khan have began to write this book. My father Arap Mahamet Khan descendant in a right line from Genghis Khan and was before me sovereign Prince of the country of Kharazm. I shall treat in this book of the house of Genghis Khan. This is true that before me several Turkish and Persian Authors have written upon this subject and I myself have eighteen different books of those Authors in my hands, some of which are tolerably well wrote; but as I perceive these books stand much is need of correction in many places and in others of large supplies, I Judged there was a necessity for having a more exact history. And for as much as our countries are very destitute of learned writers, I saw myself obliged to undertake this work."I Imtiaz Ahmed Mughal studied the above mentioned book written by Abu-al-Ghazi Bahadur. He wrote the true Turko Mogul history and Genealogy of Genghis Khan. I admire his great and distinct work in this regard and admit that he was a great Prince and true historian. Some scholars argue that Genghis Khan was Moghalls or Turkic and some said that his descendants (Temurid, Mughals of India, Argun and Tarkhan dynasties of Sindh Pakistan) were Turkic, not Moghalls. According to the Abu-al-Ghazi Bahadur the turko Moghalls were the same race and were descended from the Turk son of Yaphis, those were Turkish people and called Tarkhans (Tarkan). These Tarkhans were ancestor of Turko Moghall people. Later the word Tarkhan became the Turkish title means Turkish Prince, Commander, Ruler. It was a title used among the ancient Turks to denote a princely status just below that of Qaghan (Khaqan).So it is a debate less that Genghis Khan was a Turkic or Moghalls. It is true that he had both Turko Moghall ancestry. He sprung from the Posterity of Kayan, who went and inhabited in the country of Irgana-kon after the defeat of his father Il-Khan, descended from Oghuz Khan (ancestor of Toku Oguz tribe) the son of Kara Khan, son of Mungle (Mogul) Khan. The Ur-Mankakts was the leading tribe descended from Oghuz Khan, all the Moghall tribes are related to that tribe. From the three sons of Alan Ku sprung a numerous tribe; in the Moghall language sir named "Nirka" (Niron); that is a pure family. The descendants of the Qayan took the sir name of Kayat (signify smith) and those of Naguz took the sir name of Darulgin. They were called Irgana-kon smith because they had erected a foundry for Iron work in the valley of Irgana-kon. Kayat were descendant from the sixth son of Kabul Khan and the Borzugan Kayat sprung from the five sons of Yessughi Bahadur Khan who was the father of Temujin (Genghis Khan).Bortan Bayadur was the father of Yessughi Bahadur, whose father was Kabull Khan, the son of Tumana Khan, the son of Kaidu Khan, whose father was Dutumin Khan. The father of Dutumin Khan was Tokha Khan, his father was Budansir Mogak, born of the widow Alancu grand daughter of Yuldus Khan. The father of Yuldus Khan was Mengli Chodsa Khan, who was the son of Temirtash Khan, the son of Kaymazu Khan, son of Simsanzi Khan, son of Bukbendum Khan, son of menkoazin borell Khan, son of Kipzi Mergan Khan, son of Bizin Kayen Khan, son of Kaw Idill Khan whose father was Bertezena Khan. Between the reign of Bertezena and the flight of Kayan, who went and inhabited in the country of Irgana-kon, after the defeat of his father, there is a vacancy of 450 years; which is just the time that the Mogulls were confined within the mountains of Irgana-kon and were in perfect ignorance of the order of the succession and names of the Princess who reigned over the Mogulls in that interval, we are certain they were all of the posterity of Kayan. The father of Kayan was Il Khan, his father was Mengli Khan, the son of Yuldus Khan, who succeeded Ay Khan. Yuldus Khan having been neither the brother nor the son of Ay Khan or Kiun Khan, but only their relation. Ay Khan succeeded his brother Kiun Khan, whose father was Ogus Khan, the son of Kara Khan, the son of Mungl (Mogul) Khan, son of Alenza Khan (father of two twin sons, Mogul and Tatar), son of Kayuk Khan, son of Dibbakui Khan, son of Yelza Khan, son of Taunak Khan, whose father was Turk (ancestor of Turkish people), the son of Yaphis, the son of Nui (A.S), whose father was Zamach, son of Matushlach, the son of Prophet Idris (A.S), called in the language of Yunan Achnuch, whose father was Berdi, the son of Melahil, son of Shinan, son of Anus, whose father was prophet Shiss ,who was the son of Adam (A.S), sir named Saphi Yula.I say Mongols and Turks are relatives but not brothers. Both Mongolians and Turkish tribes used to be nomads live in a same place in Central Asia. But in terms of language and origin they are entirely different. Still there are many people who has Turkish root live in Mongolia and same in Turkey. It is hard to name someone who has ancestor who lived few thousand years ago Turkish, thus it is impossible to distinguish now.But Chingis khaan (Genghis khaan) was a real royal Mongol without a doubt regardless of what his name mean in Turkish language. In 13th Century Turkish impact in Mongolia was forgotten and Turkish rooted people were constituting very little part of Mongolian population.Thank you for the interesting information.But primarily it must be said: unfortunately, in the official historiography there are many pro-Chinese and Persian falsifications about the origin of Genghis Khan, his native nation and his Power.Therefore, the first thing we should know the truth about meaning of the names "Mongol" and "Tatar" ("Tartar") in the medieval Eurasia:the name "Mongol" until the 17th-18th centuries in fact meant belonging to a political community, and was not the ethnic name.While "the name "Tatar" was the name of the native nation of Genghis Khan … he and his people did not speak the language, which we call now the "Mongolian"…" (Russian academic-orientalist V. Vasiliev, 19th century). This is confirmed by many little-known facts from ancient and medieval sources.Also it must be said: now very few people know that Genghis Khan was a Turkic man and a great leader of the Turkic peoples, but some of his descendants forgot him. Tatars of Genghis Khan - medieval Tatars - were one of the Turkic nations, whose descendants now live in many of the fraternal Turkic peoples of Eurasia - among the Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Tatars, Uighurs, and many others.And few people know, that the ethnos (nation) of medieval Tatars, which stopped the Chinese and Persians expansion to the West of Eurasia in Medieval centuries, is still alive. Despite the politicians of the Tsars Romanovs and Bolsheviks dictators had divided and scattered this ethnos to many "different nations"...A well-grounded rebuttal of the chinese-persian myths about "incredible cruelty of nomadic mongol-tatar conquerors", and about "a war between the Tatars and Genghis Khan", as well as a lot of from the real Tatar (Turkic) History, what the official historians hidden from the public, you can learn in the book "Forgotten Heritage of Tatars" (by an independent Tatar historian Galy Yenikeyev). On the site of Smashwords is an electronic version of this book in English - it's easy to find on the Internet: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/175211Perhaps you know, that an outstanding Tatar historian-scientist D. Iskhakov wrote in 2000: "the real history of Tatars, of the people in every respect historical, is not written yet".However, this year was published an above mentioned book by Galy Yenikeyev, about the unwritten (hidden) real history of Tatars. In this book a lot of previously little-known historical facts, as well as 16 maps and illustrations in this book.Galy Yenikeyev presents in his works a new, or rather "well-forgotten old" information about the true history of the Tatars and other Turkic peoples. This historian wrote 5 books on History of Tatars of Eurasia, which published in Russian language in Russia (2007-2012). "Forgotten Heritage of Tatars" is the fifth book of Galy Yenikeyev, translated into English in the abridged version.And here (on the cover of the third book of Galy Yenikeyev) you can see the true appearance of Genghis Khan. There placed his lifetime portrait: http://tartareurasia.ucoz.com/publ/knigi_enikeeva_gr/kniga_quotpo_sledam_chjornoj_legendyquot/prodolzhenie/6-1-0-36Translation notes to the portrait: "...In the ancient Tatar historical source «About the clan of Genghis-Khan» the author gives the words of the mother of Genghis-Khan: «My son Genghis looks like this: he has a Golden bushy beard, he wears a white coat and goes on a white horse» [34, p. 14]. As we can see, the portrait of an unknown medieval artist in many ways corresponds to the words of the mother of the Hero, which has come down to us in this ancient Tatar story. Therefore, this portrait, which corresponds to the information of the Tatar source and to data from other sources, we believe, the most reliably transmits the physical appearance of Genghis-Khan...".Thank you for additional informations. Today there are much more books and so much information about Chingis khaan compared to 90s'. In fact most of the old historic information are written from non-Mongol standpoint. Many historians wanted their offspring to see him as a Monster to diminished his accomplishments in their writings and focused much on dark side. All I wanted to say is some of the facts about Chingis khaan are not accurate because of historians hatred to Mongolians.Until 2000s most people in this world considered him as a Monster and no one wanted to proclaim him as their predecessor. But after last few years' research it became clear that his impact on this whole world changed and improved this world in many areas. After that every nation who can be somewhat related to Chingis wished him to be his pride. Japanese say Chingis khaan was a samurai, Turks say he was a Turkic, and even Koreans want to proclaim him as Korean king.In fact there is no doubt about his origin. He was Mongolian. I would suggest each and everyone who wants to know more about Chingis khaan to read The SECRET HISTORY OF MONGOlIA (not turks or japans etc!) the only book in this world that covers everything about chingis khaan, from his predecessors, his birth, his childhood, his accomplishments, his failures, his death and even some information about his sons' life. The only true reliable is SHM!All the following information is from The secret history of Mongolia...Some people think he was Turkic because his name is Turkic. And also regarding the fact that Western world knows Mongolians as Tatars many people think he was Tatarian (which is considered to be Turkic descendent tribe). In fact Mongolians were consisted of many tribes and TATAR was just one of them. I have some explanation for those misconceptions...Those who claims that Chingis khaan is Turkic not Mongolians haven't even read SHM, the only history book about Chingis khaan and his ancestors written by Mongols. Because the only copy of this book (written in Mongolian language) is found from China and is not found elsewhere in this world.* First of all, Tatars are not Chingis Khaan's native nation. Actually it was the biggest enemy of Chingis Khaan. Many historians believe that tatar tribe was somewhat Turkic tribe (even though there's no fact relating Turks and Tatars are found in SHM). Chingis Khaan is the son of Yesukhei baatar (baatar means hero in Mongolian) the leader of Khiad tribe. Just because his oldest son was born right after he killed the leader of Tatar tribe - Temujin-Uge, he names his old son Temujin.That's why many people who hasn't read this book argues Chingis Khaan was turkic because his name is Turkic. In fact his father gave him that name just because he killed Turkic named man.The son of Temujin-uge, later gave Yesukhei baatar poisonous drink and killed him. From that moment Tatars turned out to be the biggest enemy of Temujin. At that time Temujin was a little child. The boy who killed Temujin's father was not even taller than a wheel of cart. After he conquered Tatars, he killed all men and women taller than a wheel of cart.* In addition Mongols are known as tatars in western world. That's the reason why many people around the world think Chingis is Tatarian. Chingis khaan hated Tatars until the day he died and discriminated them all life long so he wanted every Tatarians (who were kids shorter than a wheel of cart at the time Chingis conquered their tribe) to be in the front line of all the fights. Front line of the war was the most dangerous place for soldiers at that time and many of them never came back home alive.Some part of Great Mongolian empire was Turkic as many people assume, but neither Chingis Khaan nor his Khiad tribe people were. Answer From Imtiaz Ahmed Mughal : Genghis Khan belonged to Qiat Tribe, (,Turko Mughal ) which signify as smith. The name of Genghis Khan was Temujin,which means iron worker(black smith).According to Ibn Batutah the Genghis Khan was in his outset a blacksmith in the country of Khita .The historians societies such as GokTurks, Khazars, Oughurs,all were Turkic peoples descended from Ashina Clan, a subtribe of Xiongnu/Hun,they were iron worker and Manufactured weapons.Their rulers adopted the titles Khans, Tarkhan, Khakan Yabghu, Shad etc. We can deduce the fact that the title Tarkhan originally has something with the vocation identitely of Gokturks. Ashina clan the legendary father of the ancient Turkic people were engaged in metal working.Genghis Khan was descended from Oghuz/Oghur Turkic tribe,may be Mongolic because The Oghuz Kagan belonged to Mughal I-Amak, but it is certain that Genghis Khan descended from a Oghuz/oghur tribe,Wolf Nomads Tarkhan family especially The Ashina Clan (golden family), a sub group of Xiongnu/Hun. They were engaged in metal working. They erected a Foundry for iron work in a mountain called Ergenekon. They were true Mughals and called Arkanakon Smiths.[4]----Well, why only "in the 90-s" (or in 2000)" ? - Tatars knew and remembered that Genghis Khan was their ancestor and tribesman since ancient times. Besides, this is stated in many ancient sources - about it is spoken as in the Tatar historical sources, so in many sources of other Nations: Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Turkish and West European.Only this theme was taboo - as in official history of the Romanov's, so and during the Soviet-Bolshevik regime.But now is revealed the historical truth about that the native ethnos of Chingiz-Khan was one of the medieval Turkic ethnoses - medieval Tatars - the ancestors of the modern Tatars and other fraternal Turkic peoples.Referred to you the anti-Tatar "The secret history of Mongolia" - rather, "Тhe Secret history of the Mongols" - was composed by Chinese historians in the second half of the 14th century. These Chinese historians were ideologists of those who fought then against the Tatars of the Horde in China.After anti-Tatar data of the composition "about the war Tatars against the Chingiz-Khan" etc. was repeated by Persian Rashid ad-Din, who was an enemy of the Tatars of the Golden Horde.So, these are only in these two "sources" and in the derivative from them there are report that "Tatars were the enemies of the Chingiz-Khan".But many other sources of those times reported that "Tatars are a Turkic tribe, and their king is the Chingiz-Khan" (Arabic Ibn al-Asher, 1219), "in 1187 Tatars had elected a King for themselves, whose name was Genghis-Khan" (Marco Polo, 13-th century), "Tatar's Khan Temuchin declared himself as Emperor and Tatars named his "Genghis-Khan" (a lot of Chinese sources).Such sources, I repeat, are very much, but they are not very known to the General public at the present time.However, recently were published books by independent Tatar historian Galy Yenikeyev, about the unwritten (hidden) real history of Tatar Nation.So, about everything above mentioned and a lot of the true history of the Tatars and other fraternal Turkic peoples, which was hidden from us, had been written, in detail and proved, in the book "Forgotten Heritage of Tatars" (by Galy Yenikeyev)."...In the ancient Tatar historical source «About the clan of Genghis-Khan» the author gives the words of the mother of Genghis-Khan: «My son Genghis looks like this: he has a golden bushy beard, he wears a white fur coat and goes on a white horse» [34, p. 14]. As we can see, the portrait of an unknown medieval artist in many ways corresponds to the words of the mother of the Hero, which have come down to us in this ancient Tatar story. Therefore, this portrait, which corresponds to the information of the Tatar source and to data from other sources, we believe, the most reliably transmits the appearance of Genghis-Khan...".
Contributions of Karl max and four others on conflict theory of deviant?
on the basis of various works of social scientists ,Dhruv Tanwani understands following matte-.Marx, Karl (1818-1883), was a Jew German philosopher, social scientist, and professional revolutionary. Few writers have had such a great and lasting influence on the world. Marx was the chief founder of two of the most powerful mass movements in history--democratic socialism and revolutionary communism.Marx todayToday, Marx is studied as both a revolutionary and an economist. His importance as a pioneer in the social sciences is being recognized increasingly. Marx has often been attacked because he rebelled against all established societies, because he was an arrogant writer who scorned his critics, and because of his radical views.In sociology, Marx's work is also regarded with increasing respect. Without his contributions, sociology would not have developed into what it is today. Marx wrote on social classes, on the relationship between the economy and the state, and on the principles that underlie a political or economic system.Many people still turn to Marx for an explanation of current social, economic, and political evils. But most of them are unlikely to agree with his view of the ease and speed with which the working class will overthrow the class system and set up a Communist classless society.Other writings. Marx and Engels also wrote about all sorts of events in and influences on national and international affairs--personalities, overthrowing of governments, cabinet changes, parliamentary debates, wars, and workers' uprisings.Marx also wrote about the practical problems of leading an international revolutionary movement. The major source of these comments is his correspondence with Engels and other friends.Theory of class Struggle-Class struggle is the active expression of class conflict looked at from any kind of socialist perspective. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, leading ideologists of communism, wrote "The [written][1] history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle".[2]Marx's notion of class has nothing to do with social class in the sociological sense of upper, middle and lower classes (which are often defined in terms of quantitative income or wealth). Instead, in an age of capitalism, Marx describes an economicclass. Membership of a class is defined by one's relationship to the means of production, i.e., one's position in the social structure that characterizes capitalism. Marx talks mainly about two classes that include the vast majority of the population, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Other classes such as the petty bourgeoisie share characteristics of both of these main classesLabour (the proletariat or workers) includes anyone who earns their livelihood by selling their labor power and being paid a wage or salary for their labor time. They have little choice but to work for capital, since they typically have no independent way to survive.Capital (the bourgeoisie or capitalists) includes anyone who gets their income not from labor as much as from the surplus value they appropriate from the workers who create wealth. The income of the capitalists, therefore, is based on their exploitation of the workers (proletariat).What Marx points out is that members of each of the two main classes have interests in common. These class or collective interests are in conflict with those of the other class as a whole. This in turn leads to conflict between individual members of different classes(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle)According to Marx, all history is a struggle between the ruling and working classes, and all societies have been torn by this conflict. Past societies tried to keep the exploited class under control by using elaborate political organizations, laws, customs, traditions, ideologies, religions, and rituals. Marx argued that personality, beliefs, and activities are shaped by these institutions. By recognizing these forces, he reasoned, people will be able to overcome them through revolutionary action.Marx believed that private ownership of the main means of production was the heart of the class system. For people to be truly free, he declared, the means of production must be publicly owned--by the community as a whole. With the resulting general economic and social equality, all people would have an opportunity to follow their own desires and to use their leisure time creatively. Unfair institutions and customs would disappear. All these events, said Marx, will take place when the proletariat (working class) revolts against the bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production).In shot there are two main classes in society, one 'have not' and other 'have' one. Due to clashing interests of both classes, struggle starts. This is universal phenomenon .Any change occurred in means of production , brings change in economic classes. Social change takes place due to this economic factor.Concept of classMax Weber held that classes are aggregate of individuals, "Who have the same opportunities of acquiring goods, the same exhibited standards of livings".Each particular class have its own particular social behaviour,its standared and occupations. According to Ogbern and Nimkoff,"Bysocial class ,we mean one or two or morebroad groups of individuals ,who are ranked,by members of community in socially superior and inferior positionsIn words of Karl marx,"A social class is aggregate of persons who perform the same function in the organization of production."Generally a class means any group of persons ,which have equal status and similar way of life in all regards ,called class. When people have almost same economic ,social and educational level of standard of living ,they come in same category of class. The determination of class is not limited to particular type of profession or particular type of income range. For example if two persons are doing same work in any shop,they do not form particular class ,because one is owner of the shop and other one is just employee over there.The other thing Karl Marx cleared about class ,that there should be facility of reciprocal relations of give and take in classes .By this way they develop economic un- satisfaction, which creates class consciousness. All farmers cannot form same class as there are some ,who are conscious about their pathetic conditions while other ignore it. According to Karl Marx there are five basis, which are responsible for making separate class. Bendix and Lipset, describe it in following simple way.1-There should be struggle among various classes on basis of distribution of means of economic resources.2-People in same class can easily exchange their views, so that its program and views be can properly propagated .3-A Class consciousness is very important among classes. This feeling make them unite and they think over at their historical roles.4-There is one more basis that the lower class should have maximum un-satisfaction over their status, as being exploited by owners. As they are unable to control economic structure so their dissatisfaction increased day by day.5-Class should have a political organization, which is consequence of economic structure and Class consciousness.Not all class struggle is violent (as with strikes and lockouts). Class agony may instead be expressed as low worker morale, minor damaging and stealing, and individual workers' abuse of lower authority and hoarding of information. It may also be expressed on a larger scale by support for socialist or populist parties. On the employers' side, the use of union-busting legal firms and the lobbying for anti-union laws are forms of class struggle.Class Formation is a universal Phenomenon-Marx noted that many other classes existed, but said that as time moved forward, these other classes would disappear, and things would become stratified until only two classes remained, which would become more and more polarized as time went on.Man is not only social being but he is class animal. From olden days to modern present society, due to his economic needs ,he is divided in to various classes. In his book Communist Manifesto ,Marx writes, ,"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle. Free man and slave ,patrician and plebian, lord and serfs, guild master and journeyman ,in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one- another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden ,now open fight, a fight that each time ended either in a reconstitution of society at large or in the common ruin of the contending classes."It is clear from above statement that all the time there are two classes, who fight for their benefits. every where labor is compelled to sell his efforts to earn his bread. Due to unbalance in distribution of means of production, this class struggle prevails .In short every social change is occurred due to change in economic relation and change in means of production.Not only hunting stage had proof of exploitation but agricultural stage also called age of slavery. The rich and prosperous of the society hold ownership of animals ,land agricultural tools etc. this class of people formed separate class of owners, while the other class who don't have such property of animals and tools called slaves. The slaves were badly treated by their owners. The condition of slaves was so pathetic that they do not have any freedom to raise the voice against their owners. Inhuman behavior of owners had crossed all limits of barbarous .After this agriculture stage the history repeats itself in form of monarchs. They were not only land lords but they had political power also. The poor land lesser were survive at the mercy of these high class people. The maximum exploitation was always intension of these landlords. They had to involve themselves in domestic things as well as war related things of monarchs. This was age when tried to raise their voice against exploitations, but up till they were in unorganized form.With the inventions of machines ,big industrial age had incepted. The industrialization was based on capital, as big machines need money to buy. The land and capital was main sources of prestige.The class who have all the means of production called capitalist and the class who had not any thing except their labor, called labor class. To gain maximum profit from labor of poor class , they exploit them badly. Now they had come forward to organize themselves against the capitalist.Causes of Conflict and Class struggle-1-Importance of Property-Property is main root of all evils. The division of classes is not based on occupation but it is based on property. In every society there is clear cut division of classes called "have one" and "have not". The class which have property ,have great influence in society as well as in political field. Due to property, one observe class consciousness and class quarrels.2-Development of Proletariat- class struggle starts with development of Proletariats .Due to large scale production all labor saturated at one place, though separate and unknown to each other with the feeling of competition, but they are one on demand of more wages. By this way they unite on the issue to fight with capitalists. This unity of mind lead them to make strong organization ,and they develop particular consciousness in them.3-Emergence of Political Powers from Economic Power- Economic determinism is a theory for interpreting history which states that a society's economic system shapes its social, political, and religious institutions. German social philosopher Karl Marx first fully developed the theory in the mid-1800's, though other thinkers had introduced the idea earlier. It became one of the essential principles of his political philosophy, Marx rejected the idea that individuals, religion, or other factors cause political changes in society. Instead, he attempted to show that political changes result only from alterations in how a society produces and distributes goods and services. For example, he believed the political systems of capitalistic countries resulted from the growth of factories and other economic developments. .Therefore, classes with little political strength can gain power only by changing the economic system.4-Polerization of classes- In capitalist system of society, not only existence of capitalist and labor classes is there but this system allows other classes to take birth in society. For example to supplement the needs of labors ,new small capitalist open their shops and business sectors. They also employ labor and ultimately once again all labor jointly fight against all capitalist class. In a way there is always two classes capitalist and labor calss, and they develop particular consciousness of we feeling in them.The members of whole society's are member of either of labor class or of capitalist class.5-Accumulation of Surplus value by the capitalists- Surplus value and Profit is the amount of money a company has left over from the sale of its products after it has paid for all the expenses of production. These expenses include costs of such things as raw materials, workers' salaries, and machinery. They also include a reasonable return on the owner's investment, a salary for the labour the owner supplies to the firm, and other costs that are hard to calculate.Surplus value and Profits are vital to the economic system of countries where private enterprise is encouraged. In such countries, profits belong to the owners which is actually earned by labors. One of the chief reasons for operating a business is to make a profit, for it they exploit more and more by paying less wages and providing less facilities.6- Increasing Poverty- To exploit more and more by paying less wages and providing less facilities to labors have increased the poverty in the system. Poverty is the state or fact of being in want. People are poor if they lack enough income and resources to live adequately by the accepted living standards of their community.Poverty causes suffering among millions of people. People who live in poverty are less likely to eat the foods they need to stay healthy or to receive good medical care when they are ill. Their children may not have enough to eat. The very poor have more diseases and die at younger ages than other people do. Many low-income families live in city slums or rural areas that do not provide the basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing. The only work available may offer low, uncertain income and little security. Many poor people work in dangerous or unhealthy conditions.Poverty brings despair, anger, or lack of interest in anything except one's own worries. Financial, emotional, and medical problems strain family ties.Studies show that large numbers of children born into low-income families remain poor all their lives. Many come to feel as helpless as their parents.In some parts of the world, poor people value large families as a source of family security--to help work the land or to take care of elderly parents. Underprivileged children may suffer from lack of nourishment for healthy growth during their important early years. They can seldom expect to attend good schools that will educate them for a full life.7-Alienation by Poverty-Alienation is the feeling of being isolated from certain aspects of one's environment. Alienation may occur when a person's emotional ties with another person, group, institution, or belief are disrupted. Sometimes, entire groups become alienated.Alienation takes different forms and may have various consequences. Alienated persons may become disoriented or hostile, feel helpless, withdraw within themselves, or reject established values. Many social scientists see a relationship between alienation and such behavior as crime, mental illness, and voter apathy. In the beginning this Alienation make them weak and helpless but later on they stand for resentful class consciousness.8-Increase in class consciousness. This unity of mind lead them to make strong and recognized organization ,and they develop particular deprived class consciousness in them. Sometimes they attempt to create working-class unity through terror. The lack of clean water, sewerage, and adequate housing meant that diseases, which make them violent and insist for strikes and lock outs. When there is strike among labor ,their class consciousness works great.9-Revolution- It is a term that generally refers to a fundamental change in the character of a nation's government. Such a change may or may not be violent. Revolutions may also occur in other areas, including cultural, economic, and social activities. People who work to replace an old system with a new one are called revolutionaries.Some of history's most widespread revolutions did not have political beginnings. The Industrial Revolution of the 1700's and early 1800's changed the basic nature of Western society from rural to urban The invention of the telephone, and other advances in technology and communications during the late 1800's and the 1900's, have also caused revolutions in industry and everyday life.10-Dictatorship of Proletariat/ Labor- Most dictatorships are established through violence, force, and sometimes political trickery. Dictatorship is a form of society in which an individual, a committee, or a group holds absolute power. The deprived class when holds this type of power they however, call themselves "people's republics" or "people's democracies." The main aim of this type of revolution is to eliminate the capitalist class to make joint ownership of means of productions. by this way they will form' classless' system in society. In that system ,there is no place for exploitation of either class.Marx says in such dictatorships there is no place for violence so there is no need to fear from this.Let the capitalist, restlessly think over this….For labors there is nothing to loose while they can get victory over the world.In the end it is important to mention the Communist Manifesto . It was a pamphlet written jointly with Engel on the eve of the German revolution of 1848. Its full title is the Manifesto of the Communist Party. The manifesto is a brief but forceful presentation of the authors' political and historical theories. It is the only work they produced that can be considered a systematic statement of the theories that became known as Marxism. The Communist Manifesto considers history to be a series of conflicts between classes. It predicts that the ruling middle class will be overthrown by the working class. The result of this revolution, according to Marx and Engel's, will be a classless society in which the chief means of production are publicly owned.Criticism of class struggle theory-Although it is very important and fundamental theory but due to some unaccepted things ,he is being criticized by some thinkers.their point of criticism are as below-1-Not appropriate for modern societies -According to Mills he has given views on Polerization of classes, Alienation by Poverty, Revolution and Dictatorship of Proletariat is necessary in capitalist system of society .But when one thoroughly does the study of capitalism, we do not see all such consequence and conditions in this system. Some have quoted the examples of USA ,England, Germany and Japan ,where we do not see any symptom of such poverty or class Polarization. Rather such system has attracted many people to work in it. Now every where we can see maximum workers participation in factories and they play active role in schemes of social security, life and health insurance, medical plans, leave and cash plans etc, implemented by department of personnel management.2-Existence of middle is overlooked-In evry society - Middle class is a group of people between the upper class and the lower class in a society. Sociologists use the term social stratification to describe the process of dividing societies into classes. This process is based on many factors, chiefly a person's occupation. Other factors include income, power, reputation, and wealth. The majority of middle-class people work for a living and do not inherit great wealth. Most middle-class occupations do not involve manual labour. They include those of business owners and managers, clerks, lawyers, doctors, and teachers.Many values held by middle-class people became the principal values of society. These values included acting according to the moral standards of the community, achieving financial success, advancing in a job, and owning property. During the 1950's and early 1960's, many middle-class people were more concerned with achieving their goals than with changing conditions in society. But from the mid-1960's on, more members of this group, particularly the younger and better educated, became active in society. They objected to certain conditions, rather than simply accepting them. For example, many middle-class people supported peace movements and protested against racial discrimination.Therefore history also have proof of this class, but Marx has fail to notice this class ,so this overlooking is big drawback of this theory.3- Existence of cooperation is overlooked- The members cooperate in many areas, including politics and economics. They have achieved the most success in creating a single economic market. The various areas of cooperation are sometimes referred to as the union's various "pillars." Without cooperation even society can not be constituted. Actually one can understand the meaning of quarrel when there is absent of cooperation. This is overlooked by a thinker like KarlMarx?4-Against the historical evidence. The theory of Marx is not supported by history. There are evidence in history that with the development of industrialization, one can observe improving working condition and new and useful implementation of laws. Now a days workmen compensation act, Maternity leave, law of social security and medical facility, provident fund, Gratuity etc are some examples of better status of workers. Now they are called workers or personnel or human resource instead of calling them labor or poorer. In these circumstance concept of exploitation is appropriate.5-Overlooking of Socio -Cultural and other factors. Karl Marx's theory is in fact a theory of Economic determinism . It is a theory for interpreting history which states that a society's economic system shapes its social, political, and religious institutions. In every society there are many other factors also. There is great importance of social , cultural and other activities. There are many proofs in history that many scientists and artists have worked very hard not for sake of money.6-Pridiction of elimination of capitalism not true- Marx believed that the triumph of Communism was inevitable. He taught that history follows certain unchangeable laws as it advances from one stage to the next. Each stage is marked by struggles that lead to a higher stage of development. Communism, Marx declared, is the highest and final stage of development. Marx called for the abolition of capitalism, but now there is mixed economy at global level. we can see socialism and capitalism are working together.In the end we can say the Karl Marx views that," The workers would first establish a socialist state. Its government would be a dictatorship of the proletariat, a government controlled by workers, that would work to establish a classless Communist society. After classes had been eliminated, everyone would live in peace, prosperity, and freedom. There would be no more need for governments, police, or armies, and all these institutions would gradually disappear". are not seen in any society.Considering all his contribution there is great name of Karl Marx in social sciences.In sociology, Marx's work is also regarded with increasing respect. Without his contributions, sociology would not have developed into what it is today. His importance as a pioneer in the social sciences is being recognized increasingly.
What would happen if Germany won World War 2?
Many people wonder 'What if...' when reflecting upon major historical events. Fortunately, there are a lot of excellent fiction writers who ponder the same things we do. In fact, there is a whole genre of fiction dedicated to just such speculation called 'Alternate History' or 'Alternative History.' Here is a list of just a few Alternate History books that deal with the topic of WW2:In the Presence of Mine Enemies by Harry TurtledoveFatherland by Robert HarrisThird Reich Victorious: The Alternate History of How the Germans Won the War by Peter G. TsourasDisaster at D-Day: The Germans Defeat the Allies, June 1944 by Peter G. TsourasThe Hitler Options: Alternate Decisions of World War II by Kenneth MacKseyThe Moscow Option: An Alternative Second World War by David DowningInvasion: The Alternate History of the German Invasion of England, July 1940 by Kenneth MacKseyRising Sun Victorious: The Alternate History of How the Japanese Won the Pacific War by Peter G. TsourasA Damned Fine War by William Yenne, Bill YenneIf Britain Had Fallen by Norman LongmateThey might have won if they didn't stop bombing the British airfields in 1940. The Japanese could never have won, because they were not aware of the mass industrial capabilities of the United States. So it's likely that Germany could have won if Hitler listened to his generals, and equipped his troops on the eastern front with winter clothings.Providing German troops with winter clothing would have been helpful to the comfort of the Germans that is true, but I very much doubt it would have had much difference on the outcome of war on the Eastern front.Military Strategy errors, and an opposing force with superior tanks in number and effectiveness, as well as seemingly unending man and woman power that had a fierce fighting ability that the Germans underestimated as well as the sheer size of the Soviet Union to try and conquer were major factors as well as the weather.For a near realistic view of what would have happened if Germany had won or at least forced a ceasefire without their own surrender, read Robert Harris's 'Fatherland'It is a fictionally written situation novel, but excellently written, for it so very nearly could have been.If Germany had won in Soviet Union in '41 (when the Germans had reached Moscow's gates), and Britain in '40, It could be that America and Nazi Germany may have been in a face off in a Cold War, much like the real one between the USA and USSR.If Nazi Germany had not declared war on America when Japan carried out the attacks on Pearl Harbor, there may have been no open hostilities between Nazi Germany and USA, and possibly, Japan, enraged by deceit by its ally may have declared war on Nazi Germany also.The Nazi conquered Soviet Union would have had plentiful supply of oil for Nazi Germany's war machine, Japan would find two large enemies a handful.Or maybe if Japan did not decalre war on Nazi Germany, small wars would have taken place globally, between American backed and Nazi Germany backed factions in countries around the world whilst America fought Japan. (Again as did happen in the real Cold war between USA and USSR.)It probably would depend on whether they wished to engage in such tactics, or just sit out the cold war, waiting and waiting for one side either to crumble, or offer hand of friendship and reconciliation and easing of stance, parralel to Gorbachev's ( then leader of Soviet Union)actions in the 80's, and Hitler's view of where America stood in his ideology, somewhere to be conquered, to be wary of, or a big country to make friends with.Of course in a cold war, hot war could break out any moment, and victory in the large USSR would have even more inflated the Nazi view of undefeatable superiority but Nazi Germany would have had to assemble a huge naval and aerial fleet to even attempt an invasion of America, the build up would have takan a while to do this, but the later the cold war dragged on from early fourties onwards, the more chance both sides would have nuclear weapons and assurance of mutual destruction.USA having Atomic and nuclear ability in '45, could possibly mean that Nazi Germany would also scramble to find WMD ability if they did not have the ability already (There was a factory in occupied Norway where they were looking at the means of making a H--bomb, only an allied sabotage raid stopped it, may not have been carried out with occupation and defeat of Britain which was a nerve centre of commando raids)Hitler may have softened with age (You never know!) but if not, his succesors or overthrowers would have been key.Nazism in Germany may well have imploded the longer it existed with the advent of new youth and dissillusionment.All in all, just one scenario in a scenario in a scenario.... that may have been.We will never know, all we can do to look at such matters and look at such a situation and assess any form of possible realism in discussion is speculate on such a matter by looking at history since WW2, and try to look at the political, social and geographical consequences of any alternate history.please excuse my spelling, im from Germany.if Germany would not have supported japan after pearl harbor and declared war on the united states, the American people would have never brought up the motivation to mobilize such a vast production of arms and masses of volunteer military personal.Surely, the war between japan and America would have ended in victory for America simply judging by the availability of raw oil which was the trigger for pearl harbor. But the main motivation for the people of America was the propaganda machinery of the USA government against nazi Germany (which today appears rather harmless to what horror realy went on within nazi teretories) and its allies. America would not have landet on the french coast and engaded in the war of Europe but would "temporaly" have all hands full with the war on japan. u must keep in mind; the American nuclear ability that endet the war agains japan was based on the work of nazi sientists imigrating or simply being kidnaped or arested after the fall of the 3rd Reich.so the war would probably not have ended in 45 but much later.so where are we?America busy with japan,.. no allied offensive in west Europe,.. Stalingrad taken by the Nazis now on their way towards moscow (thanks to the Reich´s ability to conzentrate large amounts of units in the east,.. No sherman tanks for british troops in north Africa,.. Germany being the first world power with nuclear weapons, jet planes(volksjaeger) and medium to long range missiles (V2)............................................. It would have ben a dark....dark futureIf Germany had won WW2, several things must have happened before hand. For example, Hitler actually letting the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, Kreigsmarine and the Waffen SS run the war and not himself. All of the officers in those departments were more worried about how much power they had instead of getting the job done which needed to be done. The plan was flawed in some respects. Germany should have invaded Britain when they had the chance. Either that or wait until 1945 to start the war when they would have more resources to spare but then again, the allied forces would have done the same. When Germany invaded Russia, USSR, they were driving to Moscow and then split to Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow. What they could have done was take Moscow and spend the winter there. In the mean time, the built up forces along the supply routes to take Leningrad and Stalingrad while bring up supplies to enable the troops to survive the winter. North Africa could have been the decisvie campaign if Erwin Rommel would have gotten what he needed in a timely manner and if the Italian military so incompetent. If Germany had done so, the war would have been won, and there might be a chance that Americans and the Germans sign a peace accord. but who knows what would have happened? all we can really say is what Germany did wrong in the war and that we all might be speaking German this instant or the gestapo knocking on our doors to torture us before interrogations.Just not happening. Even if the US hadn't been involved at all, no lend-lease, nothing. Germany probably would have lost. The first Lend lease shipments didn't reach Russia until 1942. Taking moscow wouldn't have made a huge difference. The Soviets had already moved their production facilities behind the Ural mountains. That means that they weren't planning on giving up until the war got to at least that point. Germany's Supply lines were horribly over-extended. Of course it didn't help that Hitler was a psychopath and a bigot. If he had been a rational militarist he would have treated the Russian people decently and been welcomed as a saivior, especially in the Ukraine. Moscow was as far as the Germans could push, and after that the superior population and resources of the Soviet Union would crush them.What if he had though, through some miracle? perhaps by taking Britain, and/or the Suez and the oilfields of Iraq by fully supporting the pro-axis revolution there in 1941 (going through Vichy controlled Syria)? then slowly building until the point that the Soviet Union could be crushed and all of Eurasia,Affrica, and Oceanea could be brought under Axis control... A dark future indeed. On the other hand, peace could have been the Nazi party's worst enemy, reducing the drive toward national alignment and allowing the anti-nazi forces within the government to plan a revolution.The simple fact is that if the Generals who were involved in the bomb plot against him had known as much about explosives as the average modern American 12 year old (for example knowing that an unfuses block of explosives in the same bag as a fused block of explosives will be detonated by the fused block when it explodes) Hitler wouldn't have survived it.All the Germans would have needed to beat England was complete control over the skys. If the Luftwaffe had been able to wipe out the RAF then a similar landing to D-Day in the form of Operation Sealion would have been a success. A possible invasion strategy would have been to drop in parachute divisions, similar to that of normany, and to secure an airfield close to shore. Fly in several divisions to attack the coast at the same time as the landings would be taking place.The only problem is that Germany never thought such landings would be possible without securing a major port, which would still be incredibly difficult even with air superiority. If they could land on a stretch of beach close to an airfeild, with the use of similar Higgins boats, used at D-Day it could have been done. With Britain under attack Churchill would have pressed the Americans however, who may have responded, unless already occupied with the war in the pacific. So the Kreigsmarine would have been busy making certain to blockade Britain from Canadian and American supplies and/or reinforcments.With Britain occupied and taken care of the Nazi's could then head east. Being sure to start Barbarossa early enough in the year, to take moscow by the fall. Also securing better supply lines, and maintaining air superiority over the soviets would ensure quick victory. Hitler allowing his generals to work would have been helpful as well, and maybe allowing tactical retreats here and there would have been smart as well. As already said, heading into Russia as liberators and not torturing the civilians would have helped get many more deserters from the Red Army, as well as have civilians disobey Stalin's scortched earth policies, allowing the German army food and shelter. As far as North Africa was concerned Hitler should have driven to take Iraqi oilfields without as much resistance from British troops, as they were already defeated.Had Hitler actually been able to secure Nuclear weapons, the Nazis would surly have used them. America would not have made peace, since Canada was still at war with Germany, and the Germans invading Canada would for sure have brought the Americans in.In the end it is impossible to say if the Nazis ever could have won, whether they were overthrown in government, or defeated by the Americans. But had they taken England the war may well have turned for the worse, and dragged on for many more years, with unimaginable lasting reprucussions.Hitler was a brillant leader and oritor but lacked ability in war planning. Every day Germans saw the third Reich much as we see America today: justified in the undertaking of war to protect our homeland through any means necessary. Thus, I feel a victorious thied Reich would prosper after winning ww2. That said, German victory would have led to a much more stable world order in that many middle eastern states would be nazi colonies and a similar cold war senerio would have developed betheen the us and Germany as did with the ussr. Although with the defeat of russia Germany's econimic and industrial power would be great, Hitler's successors would be more easly seen as ineffectave and much less capable of running the state as the information age comes about (successors chosen by power,corruption, and non democratic means). As Hitler's influence fades, so does his Reich!The only way Germany wins the war is if it ends in 1940 after the Battle of France. AT BEST, Germany gets pre WWI borders, plus Austria, Sudetenland, Schleswig Holstein and Alsace Lorraine. From that point on Germany probably goes the route of Franco's Spain. Once the United States gets the A-Bomb in 1945, its an automatic victory for the Allies. The Manhattan project had very little to do with German scientists taken after the Allied occupation of Germany, but it DID have a lot to do with the emigration of Albert Einstein who left Germany precisely due to Hitlers fanatical anti-Semitism.Make no mistake about it, Hitler was NOT a good leader, if we judge Hitler by his own Machiavellian standards, he was a miserable failure, after all if the ends truly do justify the means, in the end Germany was in ruins.The question here is WHAT IF Germany had won the war, not HOW Germany could have won the war. Picturing a victorious Nazi Germany cannot be an easy task. The various forces and power centers within the Nazi system suppressed during the war would have no doubt boiled to the surface. It would only be the person of Hitler who would keep the system together. Hitler was obviously ailing towards the end of the war and it is doubtful that he would have lived much past, say 1950. Massive resettlement of Germans in the east would definitely have occured, at the expense of the local population ofcourse. Poles would be pushed east to make way for the arriving Germans. A victorious Nazi party would tighten its grip, even further, on life in the Reich, but its long term prospects would be vague. There can be no doubt that as time goes by other voices would appear. The United States would for sure not be very friendly to Germany, even more so if Britain had been invaded. Open hostilities between the United States and Germany, while not totally out of the question, is not likely, especially if Germany wins the way, meaning defeating Russia before Pear Harbor. A victorious Third Reich would not last for long, perhaps to the end of the century, but after this disintegration would happen. As to how Germany could have won the war itself, that is a different matter. I am one of those who believe that the invasion of Britain, operation Sealion, was not feasible and doomed to failure if undetaken. Germany's path to victory against Britain would be by taking an indirect route, by depriving Britain of its empire and bringing it to its knees economically, following Admiral Raeder's Mediterrerean strategy. Immediately following the fall of France, as air battles rage over the British skies, Hitler should push Mussolini into cooperating for an attack on Malta, which at the time was lightly defended. At the same time begin putting pressure on Franco to reach some agreement on an attack on Gibraltar, which is an alot more difficult nut to crack, but would still fall if faced with a determined German onslaught. An attack on Malta in, let's say, July 1940, would see the island fall in a week or so, maybe a little more. An attack on Gibraltar would take long to prepare for and longer to execute. An attack on late summer 1940, around September, could see the rock fall in a month or so. So there we have it, by October 1940 the Mediterranean has become an axis lake. Germany can now, with little diversions, build up its forces in Libya and attack Egypt, if it has not already done so. With the Mediterranean sealed to them, Britain might decide to evacuate it and not put up much of a fight for Egypt. The Suez canal would probably fall to the Germans and Italians before the end of the year. After a little regrouping the Germans can then move on into Palestine and the rich oilfields of Iraq. The Germans would also now more easily take Greece and hop over and take control of Cyprus. Turkey would now most likely read the writing on the wall and join the axis. Britain would have to give up at this point, Churchil would be kicked out, if he had not resigned by now. Germany would seem unstoppable. With plenty of oil at hand, total control over Europe, the Mediterranean basin and the Middle East, probably Iran as well (the Shah was pro-German), Britain would be unable to maintain its empire. India would be directly threatened from both Germany and Japan, which at this point would be eyeing the pacific with very greedy eyes. When Germany does invade the USSR, it will not only be a full frontal assault as it was historically, but the Germans would also push through the Caucasus and quickly grab the vital oil fields there. With such a pincer movement, Russia would crumble quickly. Japan might even take a direct interest in the Russian far east in this case.If Germany had won world war 2 i doubt Hitler would stop at conquering Europe. Being the man hes known to be he would attempt takin over pretty much the world. His power would grow with every country he took over. he wouldn't stop until the aryan race ruled the world.Finally! an intelligent to 'what if Germany had won ww2?' But! I don't believe that the superpower 3rd Reich would have ended up in a stalemate with the US. Japan was Hitler's ally. Without nazi scientists to make nukes and the third Reich helping Japan's effort - they would have annialated any opposition from the US. An invasion would have happened and the US would have come under axis control. The Nazi's weren't into stalemates, they were aggressors looking for your weakness. With that, the war would be over.Some people say, that if the axis had won, that it would have probably collapsed by the end of the century is difficult to say. The Nazi's weren't like us. If you rebelled, your whole family was slaughtered, your best friends, your colleagues, your dog! would be dead. Sure there would be resistance groups, but I don't think such a machine would loosen it's grip for a long, long time. Perhaps a thousand years. When Hitler died, chances are, he would chosen a successor, so no power struggle could ensue, thus keeping the empire together. It would have been rome with nukes! and rome lasted a long time, because no other force in the world had the ability to bring it down.Eventually, like rome, the 3rd Reich would have collapsed in on itself. but not till after 1000 years.It really was a fight between GOOD & EVIL. Thank God We Won!The Nazi doctrine was another form of society, like democracy and communism, but much more radical.The goals of the state held importance, not those of the individual. Militarism was coveted, discipline to one leader, and the most radical departure, belief in racial struggle, where the so called Aryans, or those of Germanic blood are considered the pedigreed among the races of the human species.The problem with this philosophy is it doesn't bode well for non-Germans, who make up the majority population on the planet. So Nazi Germany was programmed to fail from the start. The odds that 80-90 million Germans could impose their will on all the other peoples of the earth were very long indeed.The Possibility of Germany winning ww2 was a very remote chance 1. Germany's Panzer Divisions would have drained many 100,000s of gallons of Gas/oil which meant that they could have drained a whole supply in 1 push towards a objective. Which means they wasted more resources to secure the objective.2 The allies had superior numbers compared to the axis mainly because the Chinese ( Even though the Chinese didnt do much during ww2 but defend their territories during ww2,eventually they could have signed a decleration of war on Germany if the war dragged on in the 1950's)The Russians ,and the Us. The total of soldiers would have been in the 100 millions if the war dragged on.. 3. Germany vs America's Economic and Production power wasnt even in the same level of economic and Production Power... 4. Germany was loosing more soldierrs then they can replace. (They were using 14 year old boys to reinforce some of their lines)I think the Third Reich would have fallen within about thirty years, even if it had signed a peace treaty with America.1)The Nazi regime was a based on the personality cult of a psychotic. Leadership contests after Hitler had been put in a mental assylum could well have destroyed the regime.2)The economic policies of the Nazis were largely based on huge national projects which are exhaustive (such as road building), and warfare. It is hard to invisage a successful Nazi ideology working in peacetime.3)It is also hard to see how Nazism could translate to foreign countries during peace-time. It was based on German history (in opposition to French/British history) and the ideal of the Aryan German race. It would have been hard to avoid resistance building up in occupied countries that weren't at war. It wasn't like setting up a colony, where at first you had the advantage of guns and communications to suppress the natives. French and British governments would have to fashion their own ideology to keep the people suppressed, which would in time become so different that the Reich would split apart.4)Nazism encouraged IMBECILES. children growing up through Nazi youth were taught to be utterly stupid. it is hard to imagine a successful generation of leaders being created by it.Even if Germany had won, the Axis Empire wouldn't have lasted long. Hitler was too arrogant of a leader and the empire would have been too large to maintain.To give the Germans any chance at winning the Second World War, we must go even further to 1914. If Germany won those crucial victories in August 1914 and humbled the Triple Entente we could well have seen a world power in 1939. Also, with the diminishment of the Kaiser's influence and the growth of in popularity of small radical parties such as the Nazis. With Hitler still at the helm with a proper navy, an army that had never faced defeat nor the chaos of 1919 he could have well have won the war - for a while at least. With this massive army the obsolete Royal Navy would have been destroyed. With better leadership in the Luftwaffe, and a larger, professional army Britain would have collapsed in 1940. Yet it would still take 1 million men to occupy the isles. Even with the British Empire in collapse and the Nazis' Panzers rolling into the Middle East, the immensely strong capitalist Russia (remember Germany won in 1914 so the revolution of 1917 never happened) , once under attack, with expert leadership (no Stalin so no massacres) with an army rivalling that of Germany's could easily have pushed the Germans to the Oder. The Third Reich, a chaotic empire with too long supply lines still faced a war on two fronts - a guerrilla war in Britain and the Russians in 1943 The Japanese, in all this chaos, invaded the German islands in the west Pacific (no Versailles remember?) and would have helped the previous British colonies get back on their feet by giving them membership in their Sphere of Asian influence. As the Russians charged into Nazi Belorussia, the Germans, holding Einstein captive, developed and dropped two nuclear bombs on Russia. This however had little impact on the Russian advance. In the middle of all this, the United States eventually (inevitably) declared war on the Nazis for sinking their shipping (and being an annoyance)and along with Scots, Irish and Brits landed in Ireland and Scotland in 1945 and with 7 months had reclaimed Britain. In 1947 D-Day was triumphant and as both Russians and Americans sped towards Berlin, Hitler kills himself. World War 2 ends, 8 years after in began. As the capitalist Russians and Americans shook hands over the corpse of Germany, war clouds gathered over Japan and so on...I want to start ing this fascinating question by saying giving some of my credentials: I am 24 and working toward a PhD in Political Science with an emphasis on American Politics. This is clearly a comparative government and International Relations question and I hope that my History is up to date. First, Hitler would not have stopped until all of Russia west of the Urals, North Africa, and probably the middle east for oil reserves. Native ethinic groups of these areas most likely would have been enslaved and a new era of imperialism would have began. Germany would become the new Hegemon, bust most likely the age of intense Nazism would end with his death. Germany has a tradition of democracy and most of the leaders in order of sucession Hitler had hand picked (Donitz, etc) were not hardcore Nazis in the literal sense. They were of aristocratic blood, intellectuals, internationalist, and others who had suppressed their beliefs for their own selfish career oriented causes. The empire that was to last 1000 years would only probably have lasted as long as the Soviet Union proved to last, maybe even to a lesser extent. Germans had already experienced democracy and leaders upon Hitler's death would have probably slowly began an enlightened transformation back to such. A new cold war most likely would have developed as well. Those areas left unconquered by Germany would have remained either colonies of the former European nations such as Britain and France. France would most likely would have established a puppet regime but would have been left on its own to govern. Hitler didnt think lesser of the English, French, Spanish, or any other western country. Nazi sympathizers would have risen to power briefly in countries like Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa and thus new wars would have been encouraged in their respective local areas. thus, we could probably imagine Latin America ruled by Chile, Argentina, and/or Brazil, sub Sahara Africa ruled by the Afrikanas, and India still controlled by a more nazi sympathetic Britain. The only likely independent state unmoved by serious forms of nazism would be the the United States, due mostly to its ability to easily isolate itself from international conflict. But it wouldn't end there. social mobilization is inevitable in the third world and many disenfranchised groups would likely lead resistance movements against their fascist oppressors. These groups would likely see the former allied leaders as heros and martyrs, thus embrace ideologies vastly contradicting to Fascism. An alternate form of cold war may occur between the United States, which in no way could have ever possibly be beaten on its own soil by the Japanese or the Germans, and the fascist Europe. It would thus have been the US that supported and armed guerrillas in Latin America or in Africa against the Nazi leaning ideologists. Despite this, Germany would only have lasted as long as Hitler then most likely turned to Democratic forms gradually as not to obstruct the nazi leaning organizations. Germany would definitely however be the strongest nation in the world, even likely with oil reserves the most powerful nation on earth for a very long time unchallenged in superiority. It would have possessed the Atomic Bomb, missle technology, and a capitalist economy that would together dominate the world and surpas the United States in might. This proves most likely true, since missle technology was adopted by the US's welcoming of rocket scientists like Werner VonBraun. Jews most likely would cease to exist, or if they remained, in small numbers scattered throughout Siberia and the United States. The final solution would have been a total reality with no survivors. the plan may also have extended out to include more prominantly other ethnic and religious groups that werent western European or christain. Slovaks, Gypsies, and Poles, ofcourse would likely have been the initial targets included alongside Jews, followed maybe by Muslims, sub saharan africans, and maybe even possibly east Asian ethinic groups. Noone can predict the limits of Hitler's madness in this field. He simply hated so many groups that werent "Aryan" that anyone could have been a candidate. this is a fascinating question that only history could have ed. we can only all thank god that the simple s to complex problems posed by Hitler didnt dominate after the war. We can for now say that we have preserved the principles of the enlightenment; the idea that each of us is equal before the law and that we are born with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property that would prove dificult for any fair government to take away.I believe that Hitler made many mistakes in his rulership as Dictator of Germany. One for example was letting the English and French troops escape at Calais across the English channel into the UK to come back and fight another day. Another one of Hitlers mistakes was the Invasion of the USSR. Just because Stalin was a communist, the notion of Hitler invading him was the biggest mistake ever. History tends to repeat itself even when the lesson is learned. Hitler created two fronts the day he invaded the USSR and thus had to divide his army to fight. Because of his strong alliance with Italy he had no fear for the time of getting invaded from the rear. But his West side exposed to the UK and of course the D-Day target the beaches of Normandy a place to just called for an invasion. Also the late introduction of the V1 and V2 rocket missles althoguh not very likely a turning point could have given the sneak dictator a few months to hold off the US and British attacks and try something. One of the biggest misteries is what Hitler was creating in those huge laboratories dug deep into mountains. Were all of them found were all even documented. You can look back and see Lionardo DiVinchi's drawings that were way ahead of his time, maybe a select handful of scientists were developing WMD's that surpass our greatest beliefs. I believe they created weapons and technlogies that either Stalin found and disclosed or Hitler hid so well that we still havent found them. I mean Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project with his inside spies in our State department and Pentagon resources whats to make us believe he found technology ,hid it ,and is passing it down until the time was ready.Could Hitler have been developing Cold fusion to power his war machines and is that why the Russian colleges and institues of science are soo astounded by it? Whatever the reason Hitler failed WWII because of novice mistakes and had he been more dependent and listened to his Generals and staff maybe we would all be speaking German or in some peoples case dead. And if we had decided to conquer the Pacific THeater rather than the European first what then would have happened. Could we have used the bomb on Berlin and other main German cities instead ofHiroshima and Nagasaki. Would that have scared the great USSR into backing down sooner during the Cold war or making the Mother country even more hungry for nuclear power.Hitler didnt 'let the British off' at Dunkirk. He stopped the Panzers because Goering assured him that the Luftwaffe could destroy the British without the Panzers help. At many points the Germans made errors. But so did the allies. If The French and Brits had attacked Germany in 1939, in the months after the invasion of Poland when the vast majority of the Wermacht were in the East the war would have been over. If the Brits and French had grouped their tanks together after the Panzer fashion instead of using them as infantry support, the Germans could have been thrown back, especially as the Germans found the Brit Matilda tanks impossible to knock out (though they would quickly become obsolete). And talking of the vetoed German jet engine, Wittle, the British RAF officer, had a viable Jet engine design in the late 1920's. If the RAF had put this into production then the Luftwaffe would have been shot out of the skies. Germany was winning in the early stages of the Battle of Britain because the RAF, outbnumbered 4 to 1 coudnt afford to lose the planes that the Germans could. This still doesnt take away from the fact that even massively outnumbered the British pilots were shooting down more planes than the Nazi airmen. Furthermore, the Nazis would have gained the A bomb years before the Manhattan Project if the Brits and Norwegians hadnt sabotaged their earlier attempts. That said the Manhatten project had little to do with Nazi scientists though its debatablt the moonlanding could have took place without them.At least two of the previous posts have made this false comment that the US atomic bomb was built with the help of "Nazi scientists". Not true. You are getting the Manhatten Project confused with the post-WWII rocket programs of the US and USSR, the race to develop ever bigger intercontinental ballistic missiles, the Space Race. The post-WWII rocket programs did indeed utilize a great many "Nazi scientist" - Germans who had worked for the Reich to build the V2 and V1 programs.The Manhatten Project had very few Germans - there were a number of European refugees, scientists like Teller and Fermi and Szilard, but a great deal of the work was done by American scientists and engineers. Hitler's racism drove the best and the brightest of European scientists to work for his enemies.It is hard to imagine the U.S. NOT getting involved in a war with Nazi Germany, whether Pearl Harbor occurred or not, whether Germany declared war on the U.S. or not.Roosevelt was increasingly getting the U.S. involved in supporting the British, through Lend-Lease, sending in military "observers", etc. For example, it is now known (although a secret for a long time) that when the British sank the Bismark, there was a U.S. Navy pilot helping the British to fly the American-built Lend Lease PBY seaplane that through pure luck spotted the damaged Bismark (after the British fleet had managed to lose track of it), and there was another U.S. Navy officer aboard one of the British battleships that engaged the Bismark in the final gun battle. Sooner or later, like Vietnam, these American military advisors would have gotten involved in some direct conflict against the Germans, and this would have been enough of an excuse for either the Germans or the U.S. to declare war.The ONLY scenario that I can think of where Germany won WW2 would have been if Germany had successfully built an atomic bomb before the Soviets did, and/or if the Germans had also built a fleet of strategic bombers, similar to the US B-29. Then, the Germans could have firebombed or atomic bombed all of the Soviet cities and heavy industry, similar to what the U.S. did later with Japan, and just wiped out the Soviets. With this capability, Germany also could have bombed Great Britain, and prevented the U.S. and British from building up the supplies and the forces for an invasion of Europe. This would also have prevented the U.S. and British from establishing the bombing campaign that crippled Germany's synthetic fuel plants, which was the final blow that wiped out Germany's ability to wage a modern, mechanized war.In such a scenariao, Germany would not be able to defeat the U.S. completely, just hold it at bay. And, so, as mentioned in some of the previous posts, in this scenario, Germany would replace the USSR in a post-WWII world as the dictatorship ruling Europe, and there would a similar nuclear standoff and Cold War with the U.S.In this same scenario, Nazi Germany would of course be able to complete the Final Solution and eliminate all traces of this genocide (I think many of the fictional accounts have this same idea). There would be no State of Israel, as there would be no surviving Jewish refugees. In fact, German troops would be in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, controlling the oil fields there. In their vaction time, the Nazi troops would take over British Palestine and do their best to eliminate the last vestiges of Jewish culture there as well.I agree with those who think that this Nazi Empire would not last beyond Hitler's lifetime. There would be too many former underlings fighting for power after Hitler's death.The outcome of this question is highly dependent on whenGermany is assumed to have won. Historically speaking, the highest likelihood for a German victory would have been relatively early. For the purposes of this speculation, let's make several assumptions:The Battle of Britain and the early Battle of the Atlantic go slightly better for Germany than in reality. This forces Britain to reach a negotiated peace deal; thus, Britain is out of the war in mid-1941.Germany does NOT declare war on the United States immediately after Pearl Harbor. Thus, coupled with #1, means that the United States does not become embroiled in the European Theater, and Germany and the United States do not go to war.Hitler still decides to attack the Soviet Union.The outcome here is that Germany most likely would have defeated the Soviet Union, since they would have been able to add about 25-30% more divisions to the invasion, and the Soviets would not have had US backing for war material.The terms of a negotiated peace with Britain would likely have resulted in a significant reduction of the British Empire. So, by about 1944, Germany would now have controlled these countries:NorwayPolandDenmarkThe NetherlandsBelgiumFranceAustriaHungaryCzechoslovakiaBulgariaYugoslaviaGreeceMost of the Soviet Union west of the Ural mountains.In addition, Germany would likely have gained possession of Gibraltar, Malta, and possibly Egypt, plus probably what is now Kenya, from the peace agreement with Britain.The Soviet Union would have lost the western 1/3 of the country, with most of its valuable arable land and industry. Britain would likely have had significant problems continuing holding on to most of the Far East part of the Empire (now that Egypt and the Suez were lost to the Germans).Given Hitler's personality, it is difficult to see him presiding over any significant period of peace. Indeed, he would probably have found an excuse to start some other conflict after a number of years (say in the early 1950s). What that would have looked like is anyone's guess.However, in the scenario just outlined, here are some consequences:The great Anglo-American alliance which has defined most of the 20th-century's military balance never comes into being (Britain is force to surrender before the US can really help, poisoning US-British relations). NATO (and the Warsaw pact) never exist.Poland permanent disappears. The Western half is absorbed into Greater Germany, is depopulated of Poles, and completely filled with Germans. The Eastern half is joined to the portions of Russia, the entirety of which is a giant slave labor camp.Israel never comes into being. There is no great post-war Jewish migration to Palestine.Most likely, the Holocaust goes on with even more ruthlessness. A sanguine estimate is twice as many are killed, possibly eliminating 90%+ of all Jews in the Old World. Great Britain and the U.S. are effectively the only place that Jews now live in the entire world.India gains its independence not through a peaceful struggle, but as a result of a weak Britain being unable to manage it in the face of violent revolutionThe United States defeats Japan well before the August 1945 date. Able to concentrates its full industrial output on a Pacific War, the US wins an entirely non-nuclear contest by late 1944. No invasion of Japan occurs, but the US effectively burns the entire nation of Japan to the ground using incendiary bombs, and 50% of all Japanese die from starvation and deprivation before the Emperor forces a surrender.Fascism (and not Bolshevism) likely becomes the philosophy of revolutions and revolutionaries of the rest of the 20th century.Communism effectively dies with the defeat of the Soviet Union. Mao doesn't succeed in China, even though the US defeats Japan. The Nationalists control China, which becomes a democratic republic (albeit one with significant autocratic tendencies)The US develops, but does not use, the Atomic Bomb. However, it would likely be used in whatever conflict Hitler decides to start in the 1950s. By then, Germany has developed The Bomb, and World War 3 is a nuclear war, fought in the 1950s (likely in Africa or the Middle East to start).The Pope loses all credibility with his inability to have any influence (or make a principled stand) during the conflict. Vatican City ends up in a German vassal state (as Italy turns into after Mussolini's incompetence forces Germany to effectively run the country for him). Consequently, Catholicism suffers drastically, likely losing huge numbers of converts to various Evangelical Protestant churches. Africa and Asia go Protestant, not Catholic. Even Latin/South America see significant Protestant gains. The Catholic Church loses much of its European property to confiscation, and probably well over half its total wealth.As far as casualty counts go, here's what happens:The United States and British Empire countries lose about half the number of people. Not having to fight an extended European campaign significantly reduces the Anglo-American body count. The US casualties in the Pacific are about double, but this is still insignificant compared to the non-losses from the European theater.Japan effectively doubles its dead, almost all of the additional consisting of Japanese mainland civilians, killed by US firebombing or (mostly) by widespread famine as a result of the complete collapse of the Japanese food system as a result of US bombing and elimination of the Japanese Merchant Marine by US submarines.The U.S.S.R. lose 1/4 to 1/3 less people in the war, but German brutality and deprivation in the occupied Western Russia easily make up for it. Likely, the U.S.S.R. loses 40-50 million instead of 26 million by 1950.The Holocaust consumes 12-15 million people. Virtually all European Jews not in Britain or Sweden die by 1950. Those given sanctuary in Switzerland, Spain, or Italy are eventually turned over to the Germans, and killed. The same goes for the Roma, who are also virtually exterminated. The German Euthanasia plan spreads to all German-occupied countries, resulting in 1-2 million mentally ill being killed..Germany possibly had the ability to win the war, but Hitler made too many mistakes because he didn't listen to his generals.First of all, the German Wehrmacht should have captured all the 400,000 British soldiers in the "Kettle of Dunkirk" (80% of the British forces and equipment !) instead of letting them escape across the Channel.And then immediately invade the U.K. with all the German soldiers, airplanes and ships available.After the British defeat Germany had all the time and manpower to deal with Russia. But the attack should have started no later then April in order to finish with Moscow before the Russian winter began.Then, Germany would have signed a non-aggression pact with the U.S., leave Americans and Japanese alone on the battlefield and start to build up the "New Order" that Germany wanted to establish.So, in that case the Cold War would have taken place between Germany and America whereas Russia and China would only be "minor players".It is possible that after Hitler's death democratic reforms would have been implemented in Germany and its satellite neighbors France, Italy, Russia and Spain. Similar to the Glasnost and Perestroika reforms that were actually established under Gorbachev.On the other hand, National Socialism was much more market-, consumer- and technology-oriented then Communism. And when you imagine that the Germans controlled most oriental oil fields and all the former British and French colonies, it is not unlikely that the majority of the Europeans would have arranged with the authoritarian system because the living standard in Nazi Europe would not be lower then in democratic Britain or America.The people to suffer of course would be all the Jews, Africans, Arabs and handicapped who did not meet the Aryan racial standards.No one can imagine how far the holocaust and euthanasia programs would have gone.No one can imagine how many tens of millions of "inferior" human beings would have died in gas chambers or in medical and pharmaceutical experiments,So, when you consider this, we should all be glad that the German "End Sieg" did not happen.Obviously things could be worse and he had not only the power but also enough stole money to continue an endless war and enough madness to try to be the owner of the entire planet and then I do`nt know what would happen because he won`t have more countries to conquerHitler planned to move on to the US and have a world dictatorship.
