>Sorry to disagree but Hitler was the quintessential Socialist.  It just so
happens that most Socialists are also fascists because the two tendencies
are closely related.

It's okay to disagree and with the ongoing discussion on the list there will come a time when we all  have to agree to disagree and move on. If you are making a generalisation that extremes of political view often lead to the same impact on peoples and society, then yes, I could go with that. Authoritarian right-wing regimes and centralised socialist ones do, on the face of it, appear to end up at the same focal point of population control and denial of individuality. But, we are talking about the most extreme examples here. 

>Actually one of the reasons the Socialists support Iraq (witness the large leftist pro-Saddam demonstrations this weekend,) 

Wrong. I took part in the peace march in London. I am not a Socialist and I am most certainly not pro-Saddam, nor was anyone else that I saw. The march was attended by probably the broadest cross-section of society that one could get. I walked with Christians, Quakers, muslims, the old and young, men and women, the disabled, well-dressed types, hippy-types and so on and so on. Yes there were socialists, along with the conservatives, liberals, floaters and don't cares. This whole expression is nothing to with labels and "isms", and completely about humanity.

(Aside: By the way, early on in the debate on this list you linked to an article in the Daily Mirror - one of the tabloid newspapers over here in the UK. Correct if I'm wrong, but I think you were suggesting it was of some significance that a left-leaning newspaper had come out in support of aggression against Iraq. In fact the Daily Mirror financially sponsored the peace march in London and has a policy totally opposed to Prime Minister Blair and President Bush. I assume the article was an opinion column.)

>...Socialists never met a dictator they didn't like, with the possible exception of Augusto Pinochet
(who fought the communist insurgents and willingly walked away from power,
bloodlessly,)

I  guess one could say "The Disappeared" were bloodless.

>Slobo Milosovich who was defending against an Islamic invasion.

Interesting. This is new. I daren't wonder who Hitler would say he was defending against.

> ... Whilst I think Slobo is a rotten individual...he has still not been convicted.  Surely after this time, we should
have the damning information needed to convict him.

The evidence is massive and the trial continues. It's not over yet. On the subject of which, there has been no dispute in the discussion about how heinous an individual Saddam is. How about indicting him on crimes against humanity and bringing him before the International Criminal Court? This, I contend, would clearly demonstrate a world order based on multi-national consensus and serve as warning to all the little tinpot dictators out there that they will be sorted out.

>I would venture to say the most virulent anti-Semitism is found in socialist/statist regimes and this is true to this day.

I don't know. How does one measure the degree of virulence such that one can say one philosophy is "worse" than another? As indicated earlier, and where I agree with you, authoritarian and centralised governments can end up being the same although the roads to that point are from completely opposing philosophical viewpoints.

>And just because one is a statist country does not mean one doesn't go to war against another statist country.
> Remember that in the late 1930's the Soviet Union was closely allied with Nazi Germany, they did Poland together. They are the ones who helped Hitler rearm in secret and were even supplying him with raw materials up to and into the beginning of operation Barbarossa in 1941.

Hitler held a very deep personal hatred of Stalin which, along with the intention of securing oil supplies in the Caucasus to fuel the Nazi war machine, led to Operation Barbarossa and his policy of Total War against Russia. Perhaps their personal enmity says more about them as individuals than it does about the far-left or the far-right. Hitlers invasion of Russia and the black hole of men, material and resources it led to "tore the guts out of the Nazi war machine" as Churchill said. If, as you say, Hitler and Stalin were allies before the war, then they could have come to terms of agreement after the initial phase of Barbarossa. If that had happened, we would ALL be speaking German. The fact that they didn't suggests to me that it would be highly doubtful they were ever allies. Again, perhaps it was expedient for them that they left each other alone for the slaughter to come later.

>There was also a large communist element in the US, Canada and England that was working to try to prevent
people from viewing Hitler as a bad person.

They weren't communists, they were fascists (but that again brings us full circle to the initial point).

>It was only after Hitler, the National Socialist, attacked Communist Russia that these communists changed their tune and starting demanding that America go to war against Hitler and support Uncle Stalin.

I'm not clued-up on the US position prior to entry into the war in Europe. I understand that the US government wanted to come to our aid but the people were opposed to getting involved in another "foreign adventure". I'm happy to be enlightened if this simplistic view is incorrect.

>Remember the USSR and China, China and Viet Nam.  Sharks have no problems attacking each other.

You're right of course. One doesn't have to look far into history to see countless cases where former allies become bitter enemies. We are experiencing one such case now with the British and US posture towards Iraq. This hypocrisy is not lost on the populace and that is precisely why I marched on Saturday.

As Yosef says, Peace


Richard Ali
Smith & Williamson Corporate Services Limited




The contents of this email are confidential to the intended recipient and may not be disclosed.  Although it is believed that this email and any attachments are virus free, it is the responsibility of the recipient to confirm this.

Smith & Williamson Corporate Finance Limited - A member of M&A International Inc. http://www.mergers.net  Registered in England No. 4533970.  Regulated by the FSA. 
Smith & Williamson Investment Management Limited, Registered No. 976145.  Regulated by the FSA.
Smith & Williamson Pension Consultancy Limited - Independent Intermediary.  Registered No. 3133226. Regulated by the FSA.
Smith & Williamson Unit Trust Managers Limited, Registered No. 1934644.  Regulated by the FSA.
Smith & Williamson Limited - A member of Nexia International.   Registered in England No. 4534022.  Regulated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales for a range of investment business activities.

Registered Office: No. 1 Riding House Street, London W1A 3AS
Telephone: 020 7637 5377 http://www.smith.williamson.co.uk

Nexia Audit Limited - A member of Nexia International.  Registered in England No. 4469576. Registered to carry on audit work and regulated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales for a range of investment business activities.

Registered Office: No. 1 Riding House Street, London W1A 3AS
Telephone: 020 7637 5377 http://www.nexiaaudit.co.uk

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *