Sam H asked:
>In the years just prior to WWII
>Germany's economy was thriving quite well under Hitler. Does this
>mean that Hitler was good for Germany?
Yes, he managed to turn the economy and give people something to do. In a
sense he was also good for western Europe since after the war the Europe
that was rebuilt was stronger financially than before. The EU is also an
indirect result of Hitler. What he wasn't good for was the people that
died, were wounded and those who inflicted the wounds and killed people. He
also wasn't good for eastern Europe since they fell under Moscows control
afterwards, and the Palestinian people still suffer from what happened
after WW II. But the later can probably be blamed on the UN, and the US
unwillingness to do something about the situation. The US only bombs
countries it disslikes, not all countries are treated the same. The
russians wanted to get troups into Israel and the west bank in 1967
together with the americans to stop the war from escalating, but the US
wasn't interested.
Ah well, I guess we will not come any further on this. Why do we keep
getting these useless debates from time to time? I'm thinking more about
"guns", I have no idea how many times we've taken it up and everyone says,
more or less, the same thing as the last time. If we were on a newsgroup we
would be ignored by others by now ;-)
>Depends on the people who are conducting the opinion polls and how
>they ask the questions and whose opinions they are asking for. It
>depends upon whether the opinion surveys are directed to people like
>you or to people like me.
To be valid they need to be directed to people that match the population,
and of course enough people must be asked as well. A diffrence between 35%
and 65% is unlikely to be because of a small failure so either they are
activly trying to lie or they are (with a few percents plus and minus)
correct.
//Bernie
