2007-07-08 11:52:43 · 13 answers · asked by RP McMurphy 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
She was....She just called herself Neville Chamberlain at the time. That worked out well huh?
2007-07-08 12:19:35 · answer #1 · answered by Ken C 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just because the a lot of the answers above me clearly don't have any idea about what socialism is, I'd like to say that there is no "all-powerful" dictator like Hitler at the head of a truly socialist government. Hitler used the "on the side of the people" approach, and then went and did the complete opposite. Just like the a lot of the leaders today, regardless of what they call themselves. As to the question of whether the conservatives would have supported Hitler or not; I do think there are people who most certainly would have supported Hitler. It's more important to focus on the present, and learn from the mistakes in the past. Not to dwell on whether modern day conservatives would have supported Hitler or not.
2016-05-17 04:54:25 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most definitely and we would all be saying hi hilter today. They also would not of used our WWII vets to study domestic violence, homelessness, alcoholic and drug addiction, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of other research projects and study groups done on our Veterans (they are still going on today with our young vets). Camp Pelosi would have answered all the questions!
2007-07-08 13:14:53 · answer #3 · answered by pacer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Before Pearl Harbor, a majority of Americans did not want to get involved in the war. Mrs. Pelosi is not alone in her fuzzy-headed thinking.
2007-07-08 11:57:10 · answer #4 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
opening dialogue with hitler would be a lot different then with seriya or iran. these countries can be stopped before an all out war but apparently all republicans want is oil, money, power and war to wipe out all muslims
2007-07-08 13:28:34 · answer #5 · answered by Tom 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They did.
The British gave parts of Europe to Hitler to appease him.
It didn't work. Most people learned that lesson. Even the Democrats you scorn with lame questions like this one.
Everyone wants an end to the insanity. We just don't think this way will work, and will only end in more terrorism the longer it goes on.
Maybe you heard the new Prime Minister speaking today saying that England is facing 15 more years of terrorist threats. I think they learned too. Pity it was too late.
2007-07-08 11:58:35 · answer #6 · answered by Floyd G 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Several countries in the Middle East are scared to death of the outcome in Iraq. Don't you think they could be helping? Just trying to show your tough doesn't cut it. If they're so worried about it, let them help. That would require dialog.
No option should be left off the table. If so, we are failing to take advantage of any options available to get this thing taken care of. Completely irresponsible.
2007-07-08 12:08:29 · answer #7 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, if only because she wouldn't have had the courage to attack Germany at all. After all, they didn't attack us. But she would've been calling for a dialogue with the Japanese after the Pearl Harbor attack.
2007-07-08 12:00:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, becasue she's a coward and a traitor. She would actually have more in common with Stalin so it's possible she'd hate Hitler, who know's
2007-07-08 12:19:43 · answer #9 · answered by mrharderson 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am unsure if there is a correct answer to such a hypothetical question. I guess my opinion is called for in this case.
absolutely.
2007-07-08 13:15:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋