Wally:I could not agree more.  As I see it we are born in this country and not by our volition.  As citizens Ithink we have the duty to vote and take part in the political,processes at all governmental levels.  We alsohave a duty to defend our country when it is imperiled, to strive to obey all laws, to serve on juries andto contribute to paying for the cost of governing us.  A two year service to America in the military or aneducational function or in a labor cadre, is a reasonable sacrifice to make for the benefits of living in acountry of such great opportunity and potential.  All able bodied young people would be required to servewithout exception for beauty, brains or brawn of social status.  This would be a true experience in on-the-ground democracy.  It would, however, be mandatory with a small remuneration and a higher education chit as you indicated.  Even high school drop-outs ( I was one once) would be welcomed withopen arms.  I even have an idea of how we would staff the agency.  Those going into the military would have their own cadre, but those electing otherwise would be served by military veterans, teachers andsocial workers--the iron triangle!I would vote that you be appointed Hefe.

He did not pick the Generals.  He instituted a Social Darwinism of sorts by executing those that failed.  It was simple, succeed and prosper or fail and either be killed by the enemy or your own side.  He was the ultimate source of authority, yes but he did not direct military policy.  Unlike Hitler he understood he was not a military genius and so let his generals plan campaigns he merely set them goals.  They could achieve them or suffer the consequences.  Leadership through fear of reprisal is not leadership, it is tyranny.Yes, I have read the Gulag Archipelago, ad I don't think anyone in America today is seriously suggesting we do something similar.  Yes, everyone had to work, but then the alternative was starve or go to the camps.  If Stalin was so great why were the Nazi's initially greeted as liberators?  It was only when the people realized that the Nazis were more brutal than the Bolsheviks that they began to wholeheartedly support Stalin. I is also significant that Stalin revved the Orthodox Church and re emphasized traditional Russian(not Soviet Russian) patriotic themes to garner support during the war, even though all these things had been ruthlessly suppressed prior to the war.  He even had to bring the Patriarch of Moscow out of a camp when he reestablished the Orthodox Church and allowed it's free worship again.  He even put chaplains back into the Red Army.  He was cunning yes, but it was the cunning of a loan shark not the greatness of an inspiring leader.His pre-war purges have a direct relation to the horrendous losses the Russians suffered in the opening campaign.Semantics:  He picked the ones that won and not all officers  that failed to live up to his expectations were executed--just a lot.  As the ultimate source of authority---he was the leader and it makes no difference at all whether he won through fear and intimidation or through inspired leadership.  In bothWorld Wars the powers hired and fired Generals looking for winners.  In the armed forces all leadership is tyrannical.  Do you imagine men would vote to hurl themselves into machine gun fire?  While workingin Boston in the 1970's I had a supervisor who was a Marine captain in the Pacific War.  He told me thatamong other duties the "gunny" had the task of making sure the grunts left their holes and moved forward when the officer led the group.  Failure to do so brought  severe negative consequences.I hope that you are correct about nobody in America wanting to set up camps.  How about some for illegal aliens or those suspected of criminal acts such as terrorism?  To refer to Wally's comment--it would get the lazy ones off the street and their labor could not only defray the cost of their detention, but help pay down the national debt.The people who welcomed the German troops were ignorant of the true aims of Hitler--so were many others.  Of course you would support someone who was going to merely to exploit you (Stalin) thansomeone who was going to work you to death, kill you or render you into soap and mattress stuffing.As we agreed--Stalin was cunning--the Conflict was called the Great Patriotic War and "Mother Russia"not Communism are just a few examples of this.  So--in the end I disagree with you.  If anybody but Stalin (horrid creature that he was and no shrine to him exists in my house) had been in charge, there isa very very good chance, according to all I have read, that the Soviet system would have been oustedand German troops would sit on the top of the Urals.  Just in case Homeland Security searches my home--I do have a bottle of Vodka from Georgia (the European one) which bears the picture of the" greatleader.  We had training sessions in the former Soviet republics and a friend brought it back for me.  I am staring at it as I type.  His visage is on the label in full military uniform.  I was told that it is verypopular there, but as he was Georgian there is some excuse.One final point.  The Russian losses in the fall of 1941 were horrible, but in the end did not count for much.  With almost infinite space and almost limitless manpower resources the defeat of Russia would have been hard.  With aid from the allies and lots and lots of Studebaker trucks it got very hard.  In fact,due to heroic efforts on the part of the Russian people and sacrifices of soldiers it became imposible.Stalin reaped the rewards.  The quarterback gets to have access to the cheer leader pool; it is theDarwinian way. There is no doubt that he was the quarterback as much as we hate to admit it.

Wally:  I am not Swift–that is why my proposal was immodest!

Wally:I am surprised that you posed that question.  Many people, some in my own family, are neither physically or mentally disabled, but have a real problem dealing with the fact that society expects them to work a regular job.  Some people are just disorganized, others are lazy and shiftless, still others have personality quirks which make the bridle at being told what to do.  I have known  some who are goofy, others too fey for work and still others who find the idea of holding a regular job to be foolish.  There are lots of people who fall into these categories and are not physically or mentally disabled--bruised a bit by the society inwhich we live, but sick--no.  I have read that all nations  have these "outsiders" even the Japanese!It was not so long ago that the factory whistle and the tyranny of the clock did not regulate the livesof people who worked, before the Industrial Revolution, more in tune with their nature and theirdesires rather than respond to the wishes of the master of cubicles.  You must have had students towhom the whole concept of responsibility for time and place, or an ordered life and of the necessity ofobeying orders was either absurd or whimsical.So, in my opinion we are faced with the fact that these will always be with us and must be provided foreither out of Christian charity or some other motive such as the fear they may steal from us, damage our shrubbery or eat our dogs.  I refer you back to the numbered list.  Look carefully at number 3--it was Hitler's choice.

Now that was unfair–foul!Stalin was one of the most amoral wretches that I ever read about.  He was loutish, crude and totallywithout compassion for anyone.Yet--he is revered by many Russians because he saved them from the fascists--he really did.  The historyof Russia is, as we all know, very different than that of most European nations--scratch a Russian, find a Tartar!  Russians liked, loved, hated, loathed, cursed and prayed to him depending upon their situation.  For a long time I read the whole of the Gulag Archipelago every year.  No, he was not my hero and should have been strangled at birth.