Nazi Evil

this is a truism. hitler engaged in extreme military actions because he knew that the states that he attacked would respond with brutality?

well then, his actions were correct, deeming the defense of his people.

wrong! just look at the brits...now if that is not widescale, i do not know what is.

WHY would he attack people faaaar away from him? to engage in difficult logistics and qonquer hard to defend territories? that makes no sense.
of course hitler had to extend his conquest on a european level. that was a normal thing to do.

i totally agree with you on that one. he should have made the ukraineans his allies and let them duke it out with the russians.

germany beat the crap out of france 60 years back, and those were civilised, in many ways, even more civilisd opponents that the ones in the XX century. So if they did it once and was possible, why not try again?

of course. need danzig corridor now. fully explainable. i'd rather ask the question why was stalin so eager to share a border with germany?

i do not know about that. hitler would have attacked even if he was black or jewish. mindsets do not change. and i am pretty sure ruling the world was higher on his priority list that killing all the jews. the latter was just a perk.

there's nothing evil about a failed plan. that only means the ones that made the plan did not chose correctly. what has EVIL got todo with anything? because he killed people? well, people have been comiting genocide since the birth on man. nothing new here. just because one gets more specialised, doesn't make them EVIL. Hitler benefited from the technology. what do you think would have happened to the world if genghis han had the nuclear weapon? or caesar? or bismark?

genocide in the wide scheme of politics is simply a tool to destroy a tribe in order for your own tribe to thrive. the rest is liberal propaganda.

but people knowing is the only barometer available for EVILNESS. if they did not know, the nazis would have been good, not evil. since there are no scientific criteria to determine which actor is EVIL, it is a subjective measurement based on emotional factors. nothing more. add flowers and a white horse and you get a woman's novel.

no that is not the reason why Hitler decided to attack the soviet union. the reason was the foreign policy shift of the soviet union from a pro-axis stance towards a more supportive one regarding UK.
by attacking Poland, Hitler lost any freedom of action on the political scene. this went well until after the defeat of France, when Stalin found himself in a much worse situation than ever, having gambled on a prolonged Germany vs. France/UK war, with Germany depending on soviet resources.
as soon the USSR started sending signs of support to the UK by encouraging revisionist claims by Hungary and Bulgaria (thus getting themselves involved in the axis-dominated political sphere according to the Ribentropp-Molotov pact) vs. Romania, it started to dawn that Germany would have to defeat the USSR first before any signifiant military progress could be made against the UK.

Nazi Germany really started to become evil when the decision to implement the "Endlösung" was taken.
All other actions (agressions against neutrals, reclaims of perviously owned territories, active antisemitism, occupation) are not new, not even for Germany,

Hello Dead Cat,

I think I was confusing the reasons for the origin of the war and the conflict with Britain with Hitler's decision to attack the USSR.

As far as I have read, Hitler's decision to occupy Czechoslovakia and attack Poland was based on his idea of the need for 'Lebensraum'.

But, Hitler had also been interested in attacking the USSR since the 1920s, and later in the war I get the impression that what had started as a way of weakening Britain, became much more important to Hitler than the war with Britain.

I think you are right that it is only the Nazi actions later in the war that make them worthy of being called evil.

Hitler had from very early on always planned on a final solution for the Jewish problem, first by removing their wealth and possessions, then their lives, this did not come about at a late stage.

And lets not forget the ruthless way he dealt with the S A and Rohm, once their usefulness was over and the fear that they might offer an altenative to his way of thinking. There was only going to be a one-party state.

Not to mention the Political re-education centers, and the planned killing of the infirm, mentaly ill, physicaly handicapped, which is well documented.

Lebansraum was just an excuse to go to war, there was plenty of land in Germany at the time Hitler came to power to support the population, again it was used as an excuse to cross the Polish, French, Belgian, Dutch, Russian, Czech, Austrian borders.

Most of his campaigns started out well planned, it was only during certain stages he implimented changes, (particularly with regards Russia) much against the advice of his military staff.

Kevin in Deva.

wrong! just look at the brits...now if that is not widescale, i do not know what is.

WHY would he attack people faaaar away from him? to engage in difficult logistics and qonquer hard to defend territories? that makes no sense.
of course hitler had to extend his conquest on a european level. that was a normal thing to do.

i totally agree with you on that one. he should have made the ukraineans his allies and let them duke it out with the russians.

germany beat the crap out of france 60 years back, and those were civilised, in many ways, even more civilisd opponents that the ones in the XX century. So if they did it once and was possible, why not try again?

of course. need danzig corridor now. fully explainable. i'd rather ask the question why was stalin so eager to share a border with germany?

i do not know about that. hitler would have attacked even if he was black or jewish. mindsets do not change. and i am pretty sure ruling the world was higher on his priority list that killing all the jews. the latter was just a perk.

there's nothing evil about a failed plan. that only means the ones that made the plan did not chose correctly. what has EVIL got todo with anything? because he killed people? well, people have been comiting genocide since the birth on man. nothing new here. just because one gets more specialised, doesn't make them EVIL. Hitler benefited from the technology. what do you think would have happened to the world if genghis han had the nuclear weapon? or caesar? or bismark?

genocide in the wide scheme of politics is simply a tool to destroy a tribe in order for your own tribe to thrive. the rest is liberal propaganda.

but people knowing is the only barometer available for EVILNESS. if they did not know, the nazis would have been good, not evil. since there are no scientific criteria to determine which actor is EVIL, it is a subjective measurement based on emotional factors. nothing more. add flowers and a white horse and you get a woman's novel.

No, Hitler didn't know that. Most of the things that make the Nazis evil are not linked to the actual fighting but more to the pointless brutality to civilians and prisoners that happened afterwards, which was a consequence of the Nazis racial ideas.

I was not just talking about the size of the empire, but the nature of the empire and the way it is acquired. Britain acquired it's empire slowly over about 200 years, and because British people would not pay much for it, mostly it was done using local troops, and by taking over already existing local administrations. The serious fighting that had to be done was quite limited, and spread over a long period.

Places where the population was sparse were colonised directly by Europeans, but developed places like India weren't, and most of India was ruled by Indians, the army was nearly all Indian and so on.

Hitler seems to have envisaged actually destroying Russian, Polish etc. culture, moving all the people away from their homes and colonising the areas directly with Germans, with Russians playing no role.

Germany did beat France in the Franco-German war. But, when the Germans fought then, their aims were much more modest than Hitler's, and they encountered fierce opposition all the same.

The more relevant example would be the WW1, where the strength of National feeling and industrial development of the countries involved meant that the war was fierce, drawn out and cost millions of lives.

If you are going to have a war, a war like Bismark contrived is the better kind, as short as possible, and a settlement you think your opponent will be able to accept. A war which goes on and on and is massively destructive should only be fought if it is totally neccessary and unavoidable, because it is not usually of benefit to anyone.

By the 1930s, all the European Empires were becoming problems, because the people in them were starting to resent and contest European rule. Therefore, trying to create a new empire with people even more likely and able to contest what you were doing, and from which they gain no advantage anyway, is not a normal or wise policy choice.

As far as the Danzig corridor and the justification for attacking Poland goes, here's Hitler himself:

'It is not Danzig that is at stake. For us it is a matter of expanding our living space in the east and making food supplies secure...'
Hitler in May 1939

Suparatu, the evil thing is not that the plan failed, it is the content of the plan itself. Attacking other countries just to steal their resources and enslave their populations is evil, especially if you do it like the Nazis did, deliberately setting out to maximise their opponents suffering.

'The Victor will not be asked afterwards if he told the truth or not. When starting and waging a war it is not right that matters, but victory. Close your hearts to pity. Act brutally. The stronger man is right. The greatest harshness.'
Hitler to his generals just before the invasion of Poland.


Genocides have happened since the birth of man, but they have been evil since the birth of man too.

I presume you wouldn't mind if some Hungarians shot you and your family, or if I said 'I am just going to France now to gun down some Frenchmen in the street to steal their cars etc.' because according to what you were saying there would be nothing evil or strange about that sort of behaviour?

I think you will find that people have been addressing the question of whether there is a scientific measure of evil for a long time; the usual conclusion is that, in various ways there is. Try any philosopher who thought about morals; start with Kant and his universal moral law, he's 18th C. , but it continues. Then you have the ethical and moral thought based on the religions, which is even more ancient.

What you have been writing, it sounds like you are a psycopath, and I don't mean this as an insult, but in a clinical sense, if you follow that logic in your day to day life as well as in politics.

Some quotes by General Blaskowitz, commander of the German occupation force in Poland after the 1939 campaign:

'It is incorrect to slaughter a few ten-thousand Jews and Poles, as is happening at the moment; for this will neither destroy the idea of a Polish state in the eyes of the mass of the population, nor do away with the Jews. On he contrary, the way the slaughter is carried out causes great harm, complicates the problems and makes them more dangerous than they would have been if premeditated and purposeful action were taken.

......

However, the worst damage which will be caused to the body of the German nation by the present conditions is the boundless brutalisation and the moral depravity which in the shortest time will spread like an epidemic among the best German human material.

When high officials of the SS and police call for atrocities and brutalities and publicly praise them, then within the shortest spell only the brutal will rule. Wth astonishing speed men of the same sick leanings and character will come together, in order to give full vent to their beastly and pathological instincts...etc'

by not allowing referendums in areas like german bohemia, austria, silesia where the results would be obvious, there were quite a few territories with german ethnical majority outside the borders.
of course the first aim was to get those territories back.
a matter of prestige, just like demanding the return of the colonies, the latter being a pure prestige issue as there never was any economical gain from any. with the exception of Togoland, which was self sufficient, all other colonies were a burden.

the crossing of the french frontier wasn't in any case an issue of lebensraum as germany was allready at war with france at that time.

"the crossing of the french frontier wasn't in any case an issue of lebensraum as germany was allready at war with france at that time."

Please explain this reference, with regards "that time".

The main reason of taking France was to avenge the humiliation of the treaty of Versailles, and to plunder French resources to make up for the humiliating repatriations after WW1.

Kevin in Deva.

Hi NCR,

The attack on France was not really to avenge the humiliation of Versailles or to recover reparations. Matters were more pragmatic.

Alsace and Lorraine were specific territorial goals and it was certainly hoped to enlist the French economy in the German war effort.

However, the immediate impetus to attack France was to force a favourable peace in the West (including with the UK) so that the attack on the USSR could go ahead unhindered.

All this Versailles/humiliation/reparations stuff was just Hitler's alibi to whip up popular sentiment. Hitler wanted territory and economic support off France and peace with the UK so that he could have a free hand acquiring lebensraum off Slavs in the East, regardless of whether they were Communist or not.

Cheers,

Sid.

at that time= 1940.

france declared war on Germany on sept. 3 1939.
by the time Germany attacked in the west, they were at war since 8 months.

by not allowing referendums in areas like german bohemia, austria, silesia where the results would be obvious, there were quite a few territories with german ethnical majority outside the borders.
of course the first aim was to get those territories back.
a matter of prestige, just like demanding the return of the colonies, the latter being a pure prestige issue as there never was any economical gain from any. with the exception of Togoland, which was self sufficient, all other colonies were a burden.

the crossing of the french frontier wasn't in any case an issue of lebensraum as germany was allready at war with france at that time.

Reincorporating the ethnic Germans living inside the Reich was only one factor; I think that if Hitler had only done that, he would have had few problems from France and UK.

But, as in the case of Czechoslovakia, he also incorporated areas that contained no ethnic Germans, and which, apparently, most Reich Germans had little real enthusiasm for occupying.
The reasons for this were economic and empire building, as Hitler himself made clear repeatedly when explaining his actions. I made some quotes with regard to Poland in a previous post.

France and Britain declared war on Hitler because he wanted to seize Poland as Lebensraum, as well as Czechoslovakia. Offers to give Hitler overseas colonies were turned down, partly because he needed to seize richer countries to support the Germany economy which he had destabilised by ordering massive armaments production.

Hitler appears not to have expected to have to go to war with France and the UK at that time, and was surprised at their declaration of war over Poland. Then, he has to attack France. But since he had always talked of that anyway...

Pointless brutality towards civilians is not a new thing in history. Empires have done it over and over again.

This is the whole point of conquest. To steal other people’s land and resources. Where do you live? Chances are people have fought and killed each other for that piece of land that you now walk everyday on. And I do not see the trend going away anytime soon.

Again with the emotional arguments? Who actually is affected by those anyway? Arguments like this do not even belong in intelligent conversation. Also, the actions you mention have nothing incorrect about them if you plan if to wipe out the eventual resistance. Also, since you seem to consider that violence is such a "strange" thing, as you say, you must base your conclusion on close and careful scrutiny of the history of mankind, and realise that people killing people is quite a "strange " occurence. Right?

No, there are no scientifical measures to quantify the relevance of subjectivity. By only mentioning the fact that there are, not to mention bringing Kant into the discussion, clearly shows the limits of your perspective.

This is ridiculous. What on earth are you talking about? Try that argument in a military schools and see what happens.

Man, look, I know that this might come as a surprise to you but there are no GOOD sides is a war, to speak a language you might understand. The only thing that matters is whether you win or lose. Morality is only an argument as long as your survival, as a person or group is not threatened. Once it is, ALL moral barriers are gone.

Also, a second conclusion I draw from your assertion is that your knowledge of history is pretty shallow. If it were not, you would have not written that silly conclusion, since you would have KNOWN that even the best of regime have and my bet is WILL use again genocide as a political tool. I will give you the best example I know – during the Peloponnesian war, Athens, the mother of democracy, perhaps the only TRULY WORKING democracy the world has even known, killed all the male population of the island Melos, the only reason being that it did not want to get involved alongside Athens in its fight against Sparta. That was it. The Result - 500 men killed in a few hours, all lined up and speared, one by one, one after the other. I do not expect you to know about it, since they do not tech it in democracy camp.

I assure you, no Athenian lost any sleep over it, since it knew that by this act, no other city state under its command will rebel against it.

There are examples from the WW2 period as well – the best ones – Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why are these acts of genocide NOT seen as EVIL? Because – one: the ones that did it won the war. Two – it saved a lot of us soldiers lives, which was the whole point, to break the will of the enemy. Which it did.

So your argument does not hold/ Especially in a military forum. I do not know what have you been thinking…

Gee, Superlube has jumped even further back in time for a comparasion, we have gone from the Native Red Indian, to the Greeks, (via Nagasaki and Hiroshima.)

The Greek democracy was very democratic, IF, you were a true born Greek citizen of the correct class, it represented the upper classes of a military state, and them only, no other race was allowed to have a say, lower classes and slaves were excluded from decision making.

Sounds just like Nazi Germany, One party, to rule over all.

Of course we must mention a similar soceity under the God-Emperor had evolved in Japan, one class to rule all others, to expand the Empire into China, Korea, Burma etc...etc..

Another true democracy

Kevin in Deva.

Pointless brutality towards civilians is not a new thing in history. Empires have done it over and over again.

This is the whole point of conquest. To steal other people’s land and resources. Where do you live? Chances are people have fought and killed each other for that piece of land that you now walk everyday on. And I do not see the trend going away anytime soon.

Again with the emotional arguments? Who actually is affected by those anyway? Arguments like this do not even belong in intelligent conversation. Also, the actions you mention have nothing incorrect about them if you plan if to wipe out the eventual resistance. Also, since you seem to consider that violence is such a "strange" thing, as you say, you must base your conclusion on close and careful scrutiny of the history of mankind, and realise that people killing people is quite a "strange " occurence. Right?

No, there are no scientifical measures to quantify the relevance of subjectivity. By only mentioning the fact that there are, not to mention bringing Kant into the discussion, clearly shows the limits of your perspective.

This is ridiculous. What on earth are you talking about? Try that argument in a military schools and see what happens.

Man, look, I know that this might come as a surprise to you but there are no GOOD sides is a war, to speak a language you might understand. The only thing that matters is whether you win or lose. Morality is only an argument as long as your survival, as a person or group is not threatened. Once it is, ALL moral barriers are gone.

Also, a second conclusion I draw from your assertion is that your knowledge of history is pretty shallow. If it were not, you would have not written that silly conclusion, since you would have KNOWN that even the best of regime have and my bet is WILL use again genocide as a political tool. I will give you the best example I know – during the Peloponnesian war, Athens, the mother of democracy, perhaps the only TRULY WORKING democracy the world has even known, killed all the male population of the island Melos, the only reason being that it did not want to get involved alongside Athens in its fight against Sparta. That was it. The Result - 500 men killed in a few hours, all lined up and speared, one by one, one after the other. I do not expect you to know about it, since they do not tech it in democracy camp.

I assure you, no Athenian lost any sleep over it, since it knew that by this act, no other city state under its command will rebel against it.

There are examples from the WW2 period as well – the best ones – Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why are these acts of genocide NOT seen as EVIL? Because – one: the ones that did it won the war. Two – it saved a lot of us soldiers lives, which was the whole point, to break the will of the enemy. Which it did.

So your argument does not hold/ Especially in a military forum. I do not know what have you been thinking…

I know that is the whole point of conquest, but that's why it isn't any good.

You are obviously not going to agree that the Nazis could be called evil if you don't see anything wrong with imperialistic conquest and exploitation. And don't or can't distinguish between different types of conquest and exploitation.

You are also confusing my use of the word evil with your own understanding and use of the term. I never accepted your assertion that it was an entirely subjective term and am not using it in this way.

But, you are confusing me, because you appear to be arguing from an entirely amoral persepctive, as if no morality exists or can be deduced, or has any effect in the world. My understanding of Kant is limited to what I have read, I was thinking particularly of this passage:

'Kant holds that there is an objective moral law....It binds us to act, or abstain from acting, simply on the grounds that the action is required by the law or forbidden by it.'

Walker, Ralph, Kant

Again, where the f**k are you getting all your ideas about their being a GOOD side in wars from???

You wrote that if there is an evil side in wars there had to be good, but I didn't. It doesn't automatically follow that one side being evil the other is Good. This is a bizarre way of thinking.

This seems to be linked to different understandings of the word evil. Strictly, the judgement of the Nazis as being evil has nothing to do with them being in a war in itself. It has nothing to do with 'sides'.

I also draw the conclusion that your ability to distinguish one action from another and place it in context is seriously flawed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not genocides, because they don't fit the definition of what a genocide is. Many people are killed, much suffering is caused, in this respect they ressemble each other. But then there are many differences as well.

Saying that all events when suffering is caused and people killed are identical is like saying that all four legged animals are giraffes, because these animals have four legs, and giraffes have four legs, so all animals must be giraffes.

As for all the rubbish you were talking about military schools, didn't you see the quote by General Blaskowitz I put up? Just because you are a soldier it does not follow that you are an amoral beast.

Whatever knowledge of history you have, you don't really seem to know how to use it appropriately to escape from just seeing historical events as Propaganda for particular political systems or Nations, as they presently exist today.

Again with the emotional arguments? Who actually is affected by those anyway? Arguments like this do not even belong in intelligent conversation. Also, the actions you mention have nothing incorrect about them if you plan if to wipe out the eventual resistance. Also, since you seem to consider that violence is such a "strange" thing, as you say, you must base your conclusion on close and careful scrutiny of the history of mankind, and realise that people killing people is quite a "strange " occurence.



No, there are no scientifical measures to quantify the relevance of subjectivity. By only mentioning the fact that there are, not to mention bringing Kant into the discussion, clearly shows the limits of your perspective.



This is ridiculous. What on earth are you talking about? Try that argument in a military schools and see what happens.

Man, look, I know that this might come as a surprise to you but there are no GOOD sides is a war, to speak a language you might understand. The only thing that matters is whether you win or lose. Morality is only an argument as long as your survival, as a person or group is not threatened. Once it is, ALL moral barriers are gone.

Also, a second conclusion I draw from your assertion is that your knowledge of history is pretty shallow. If it were not, you would have not written that silly conclusion, since you would have KNOWN that even the best of regime have and my bet is WILL use again genocide as a political tool. I will give you the best example I know – during the Peloponnesian war, Athens, the mother of democracy, perhaps the only TRULY WORKING democracy the world has even known, killed all the male population of the island Melos, the only reason being that it did not want to get involved alongside Athens in its fight against Sparta. That was it. The Result - 500 men killed in a few hours, all lined up and speared, one by one, one after the other. I do not expect you to know about it, since they do not tech it in democracy camp.

I assure you, no Athenian lost any sleep over it, since it knew that by this act, no other city state under its command will rebel against it.

There are examples from the WW2 period as well – the best ones – Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why are these acts of genocide NOT seen as EVIL? Because – one: the ones that did it won the war. Two – it saved a lot of us soldiers lives, which was the whole point, to break the will of the enemy. Which it did.

So your argument does not hold/ Especially in a military forum. I do not know what have you been thinking…

If the kind of actions I was referring to were killing civilians, the kind of 'military school' which promotes that as a viable tool in conflict would be a perverted one. Which military schools include massacre of civilians on their teaching program? Hmm...
The ones run by clinical psycopaths perhaps?

There are various tests to judge whether someone is a psycopath. Some involve showing images and measuring the subject's emotional response. A psycopath can in those cases be indentified as someone whose emotional reactions don't differ when shown a picture of a carved up body, or a family scene or something like that, as an example. People who have zero empathy for others.

You seem to confuse the fact that it happens in each generation as in some way making it unimportant or inevitable. Do you think it likely that many of the people who get involved in such acts just go out and think, 'I'll go shopping. get some ham, kill some kids on the way home with my machete, then get on with my jigsaw'.

But, your other points are interesting...

What I don't understand is:
i) Why you do not ever make any comment about conquest as a choice of behaviour, because obviously if, like Hitler, you choose conquest and war from thin air, you are not abandonning morality because you are threatened, only because you want to gain benefits for yourself by taking from others.

ii) You are also apparently justifying genocide as a 'political tool' simply because it has been used in the past, with the hint that it is impossible for any state to avoid using it. This is balls. Genocides such as in the 20th Century go way beyond being 'political tools'. Hardly any state consciously uses genocide, because it usually totally changes the politics of a situation in the process, and rarely actually has any clearly defined conventional political goal. You happened to have picked a borderline, and in a 20th Century context, confusing example, given it's tiny scale in comparaison.

Hitler murdering the Jews was a consequence of his anger and frustration at loosing the war, and his paranoid and irrational fears of a non existent Jewish conspiracy, in which every Jew in the world was supposed to be directly involved.

iii) Empires have treated people like that across history, to different extents, and it has usually been a major cause of their collapse. The Hitler example of it is an excellent one; if you treat people like that, the chances are you will get nowhere, with a high chance of at one time being totally destroyed yourself.

Returning to Kant as a readily available and convenient example, judging the nazis as immoral can be done in reference to this principal:

'Every action is right if it or its maxim allows each person's freedom of choice to coexist with the freedom of everyone in accordance with a universal law.'

and

'What are the ends which are also duties? They are: one's own perfection and the happiness of others.'

I would call the Nazis evil because it combines the massive way they violated the above ideas, with a certain amount of emotional response given the scale of the effects caused by this disregard of morality, and a way of marking them out as exponents of behaviour and attitudes not to adopt.

If most states are to some extent imoral in their actions in the light of the above, that is not surprising; the Nazis stand out not as evil in opposition to good but an example of one of the worst ways of behaving. This is what I meant.

The fact that in democracies, where in theory there is freedom of speech and freedom of information, some books, symbols and songs are forbidden, is an offense of the government toward the average citizen.
The government estimates that the citizen is not intelligent enough to understand that "Mein Kampf" is not a good book. So because the tax payer is too stupid to understand that "Mein Kampf" is not the path to follow, the government, in his great wisdom, forbid the book under harsh penalties.

Why is that? If cigarettes are available in the commercial booth next door, this does not mean I have to buy cigarettes. If booze (i.e. alcoholic drinks) is available in the pub accross the street, this does not mean I have to enter there to take a drink. What is the government afraid for? Some people are becoming interested in certain materials because they are forbidden. We have to remember that making some drugs legal in Western Europe cut the wings of the illegal traffic.

This story with the Red Star in the U.S. makes me sick. Years ago the Red Star was bad, bad, bad! The evil symbol of communism. Now the chain of stores Macy's chose the Red Star as its symbol. You can buy caps from the street, with the Red Star on it. Now it is cool to wear T-shirts with Che Guevara on them, and Hollywood made a movie with Che Guevara, and this movie was in all American theaters about 3...4 years ago. The same Che Guevara who assisted Fidel Castro in his successful attempt to seize political power, and the same Che Guevara who was killed by the C.I.A. agents in the jungle of the South America. The Red Star still makes me sick. My first 23 years of life were in a Communist country. Why now is cool to wear the Red Star? Why the Red Star is O.K. now, but the Svastika has to be forbidden?

Let the brain of the average guy to filter the information. If the government does not trust the average guy to throw "Mein Kampf" into the well-deserved trash bin, why should the average guy trust the government?

This post has been edited by Florin on November 11, 2006 04:30 am