> I'm not trying to bust your chops here, but,

No problemo. I'll explain things as best I understand them and both of us 
will learn  abit more about how we both think. We may also both learn a 
little more about reality - maybe not ;-)

> the cutting most edge of technology was making a
> working atomic, and only capitalist America did this.
>
> This is history, a fact.

History is, said Henry Ford, even though he tried later to explain what he 
really meant, bunk :-).
At a good first approximation what you get at first try is a rough 
approximation to the truth from one perspective. Nothing is quite as 
straight forward as it seems. As far as I know, and people are welcome to 
question my knowledge, or to correct it using suitably substantiated 
sources, a considerable amount of the the development of the nuclear bomb 
was done by the British with the subsequent involvement of their very close 
friends the americans. For whatever reasons, and it will take more than 
history books to knwo why anything like this happens for sure, development 
was moved completely to the US. The proximity of aircraft carrier Britain to 
the continent probably was part of the rationale. The large excess of US 
manufacturing capability and general resources probnably didn't hurt either. 
As I understand it, and this is only from by brain (but much that comes from 
there seems mysteriously to be more than 50% correct) the US subsequently 
reneged on certain arrangements in the interests of security etc. Such 
concerns were not without foundation - given that the obvious next "enemy" 
after the war would be the USSR and that the near head of the UK secret 
servive was a soviet agent, as were a number of significant other members.

> And the nazis were certainly socialists, they nationalized everything.
> Check it out yourself.

This is being (IMHO of course) unfair on the definition of socialists. The 
best test is to take people nowadays who say that they ARE socialists and 
ask them to define socialism. The answers will certainly encompass some 
aspects of what Hitler and the Nazis did and were BUT there will be much 
that is different. A socialist is generally considered to be hard core left 
wing. Hitler would sit nicely out on the right wing in many respects. he 
used whatever he could to acheive his aims. Above all he was a patriot - and 
patriots come from all areas and are equally dangerous if left unchecked. 
Hitler's overwhelming desire was the betterment of Germany and seeing it 
assume its rightful place in the world. He saw himself as THE person who 
knew how to achieve this. Above all else Hitler strove to be a Dictator as 
HE knew best and everything ultimately had to conform to his plan. Thus 
nationalisation did indeed put things under state control, but thatw as 
neveessary to have them under Hitler's control so that's what happened. And 
so on in all areas. Hitler ultimately appointed himself supreme commander of 
the army - a major mistake for a person who is not trained as an expert in 
such areas no matter how intelligent and capable. It's fine to have your 
head of state as C-in-C as long as that role is as token as it needs to be 
when it needs to be.

Hitler was a very intelligent man, had a memory approaching photographic, 
was able to be a good listener when he wanted to be and took information and 
thought it through to draw his own often incisive conclusions. He had vast 
practical charaisma - he could instantly fine tune what he was saying to 
meet the style and expectations of a given audience. Which is not the man we 
usually hear of.

I am not a historian (whatever that is) but I have read from a wider range 
of sources than usual on aspects of the second world war and believe that I 
have a somewhat better than average degree of "inside" understanding of the 
German perceptions of the time - nothing earth shaking, but enough to see 
that the normal "history" is not quite what it seems. (As one would expect).

> But America, even with limited economic freedom, in the span of only
> 200 years, has outdone all of human history in terms of producing a 
> standard
> of living beyond all that has existed before.

It would be interesting to see how Greek civilisation appeared in its day, 
or Roman. How long for Rome to claw its way up from two orphans raised by 
wolves (or whatever the real start) to the mightiest power on earth. Trivial 
by our standards perhaps, but proportionately quite possibly a greater 
achievement.

> Thanks America, thank you!

Indeed. But you probably need to at least cast a glance towards those whose 
shoulders the US stood upon to get its great leap forward. Progress tends to 
be exponential (with fits and starts) and the curve from horses to moon 
rockets didn't just start with the Pilgrim fathers. The long low tail on the 
curve is an essential part of understanding it. One could view US technology 
as English technology with a protected environment and lots of room and 
resource added. An incomplete view but a not totally false one. Hubris needs 
to be actively avoided if lessons are to be learned.



            Russell McMahon 

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist