General Chat

I know, but that is not really what this site is about is it?

...oh, I don't know..... :-D :-D

You're both, in your ways, in agreement! :-D :-D

I don't think he ever set out to be a dictator, it just kind of evolved.

Given the mindset of the German people and the pressure of repartions, he was just very lucky in the timing of the beginning of National Socialism.

Oh dear, I'm away.

I think I will pull out of this discussion. This is not really the forum for anything deep and political. Not a place for Hitler is it? .

Thats it,,,,, the thin line of genius and maddness ,,,,,he held peoples attention not just a few but 1000's at a time and they adored him,,,,you can see it in their faces in old b/w films they show.......he set himself up to be a leader but was manic for self importance.

Chairman Mao set himself up as a leader,,,,,look what happend =dictarorship set in.

I don't think Hitler was a genius. He managed to persuade those who were skilled in their own fields to be involved in his movement. What he had, in my opinion, was the gift of oratory by which he could hold the attention of many, the Nuremburg Rallies being a case in point and a gifted propagandist in Goebels.

He was able to tag his discontent on to the general discontent of a nation. An opportunist second to none.

Kim Jong Un was born to his position, somebody else did the stuff to get the family in charge.

he was brought up with it and knew one day the position would be his,,,,,,,,much like the royals...he was destine to be one day.


Hitler on the other hand wanted to be a controller ,supreme ruler ,create a pure race and used all his found power to try and do so.

.actually he was a mad genius that brainwashed a nation to his way of thinking.,who else could hold thousands and thousands ++ of people captivated as he did.

The Krays,,it was the fear of their name they created, not by being brave themselves...his gang land boys did the *works* to make them a force to be reckoned with.....

Kim Jong Un was born to his position, somebody else did the stuff to get the family in charge.

Assad, of course, was never intended to b running Syria, it was his brother who inherited the position that somebody else did the stuff to get the family where they were.

Donald Trump, I think, was born into a family that was already well on the way to mucho money.

Hitler, on the other hand, had no money, wasn't even very bright and had some extremely silly ideas. Read Mein Kampf. If you didn't know what developed from that ideology you would liken it to Monty Python. How ever did he do it?

It is the same with the Kray twins. They were not particularly bright or even desperately hard from what I can gather and one was really not quite right at all, yet they struck fear or something into the hearts of many.

How did they do it?

Kay, just about sums them both up!! :-D

So,how would you set about that then?

By oppression and having total total control and instilling fear.by any means.....also they make their followers belive them to be supreme rulers,,,,,,,,,,,in other words.....

be a nutter and megalomanic..


:-D.

I am always intrigued by how they become dictators.

Looking forward to listening to 'Analysis' on BBC Radio 4 this evening, the topic under discussion concerns how dictators survive in office.

My worry with Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un - which this thread is about - is that they both have a vast amount of 'growing up' to do :-(

Unstable dictatorships & Islamic terrorist groups can cause consternation worldwide & many sleepless nights for political leaders.

I think many of us said a while back we wouldn't be surprised if the idiots on both sides did something stupid, not sure any of us put a time limit on it...so if it's been six months of "peace" great but that's because they knew the Worlds press would be looking closely to the area....now the games are over lets see who knows....

Rollo,please explain your second paragraph. It makes no sense at all.

Which would explain why aircraft carriers are sailing in the waters.

Nuclear weapons aren't too safe, either......

Continuing Satellite imagery shows China is gradually taking over the South China Sea.

China & the US are at loggerheads concerning the man-made islands where, we are told, now have anti-aircraft batteries & fighter jets ready for action.

Deadly dangerous I'd say.

I wouldn't say the north Koreans have always been willing to talk if they think they can get something out of the talks, otherwise the fact they've said they'll talk wouldn't be news worthy!!
They do, however have a history, over many years, of saying that any snub or perceived insult is a 'declaration of war'.

HMS Queen Elizabeth isn't due to sail into the waters until 2021.
However, HMS Sutherland will sail through the disputed region on her way home from Australia, this year.
The intention isn't to start a war, it is, as you say, a freedom of navigation exercise, which is where a warship sails through a disputed bit of sea to send the message “you can’t stop us doing this”. The idea is to reinforce the notion that international waters, where anyone has right of free passage, can’t be unilaterally claimed by one country.

The Chinese response is hardly war-like either. A spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said:
"Currently the South China Sea is calm and tranquil. We hope other countries won't begin stirring up trouble."

Meanwhile Chinese state propaganda publication, the Global Times demanded that the RN should "behave modestly" while transiting the South China Sea - and said that the MoD is "trying to validate its existence and grab attention".

I agree about the South China Sea, Rollo.

It has always been a bone of contention.

My son has a certificate which was my Dad's, issued to those in the Fist Fleet to enter the South China Sea after the fall of Singapore. He left behind a wonderful collection of photos, clippings and other items as he was in both the Pacific Fleet and the Atlantic.

Japan, which had forsaken military spending following WW2 has begun to re-arm - and wouldn't you when faced with a rising China and the two Koreas fronting up to each other and only coming together when it is expedient for the North to do so?

I have not boned up on Asia for a while because I have thought that it is only a matter of time before domination begins - and it has done so. At one time, in the fairly recent past, while the USA had the largest weaponry, China had the largest number of armed forces personnel. By now, I expect Trump and Obama advisors have ensured that that has been rectified - and if not, it is about time because it would be wise to do so, not as an ego-booster but as a safeguard.

Regardless of the age-old animosity between Japan and China, inward investment (especially Japan to China) is not only done for profit but with the bigger picture in mind. Chinese influence has been spreading around the world for decades, eg mining in Africa. A finger in most pies.

So, the prospect of North and South Korea uniting when it suits, the Japan/China surprising entente cordiale and the fact that most smaller Asian countries will fall in line behind the larger ones does not bode well for the western world this century.

Meanwhile, if we think about a split Europe and the animosities therein, squabbles between Russia and its surrounding states, we may find it safer to line up with a bombastic, egotistic US President because one thing is sure and that is that we don't have the clout to take on Asia without a powerful alliance - and I expect others, such as France, will fall into step behind us.

That is, of course, if the Middle East has not blown itself to kingdom come in the meantime.