Those wacky palestinians are at it again!

April 9, 2002

Okay let's get this straight all terrorism is bad no matter what cause it's for?

<<<Okay tell that to the Zionist Terrorist who bombed the British from their mandate in Palenstine.>>>

Nobody is saying that, throughout history, Jews have been without sin. They have done bad things in the past.

However, THAT act is quite irrelevant today.

<<<Nice to see your keeping an open mind and avoiding racist genralisations Dr. Tom. Not all Palenstinains are sucide bombers nor are all Muslims.>>>

However, finding rational Muslims is becoming a progressively more difficult act than it need be. Do you have any idea how many Muslims deny that the Holocaust ever happened---and how many say that if it DID happen, it was justifiable?

Heck, even the most fundamentalist of Christians tend to be more open-minded that a WIDE array of "mainstream" Muslims.

Do you know that "Mein Kampf" is a BIG seller in Palestine presently---and that the Palestinians sucked up to Hitler back in the '30's?

The Palestinians Authority is NOT a good group and a lot of Palestinians aren't terribly nice or kind people. They are blinded by religious fervor borne when a church completely runs a state as the Muslim Church tends to run most Middle Eastern countries.

<<<Sorry Mike but this shows naviety. What about Hirosama, Nagisaki and all the bombs dropped on Germany and Japan during WW2? Does this mean FDR and Churchill are evil?>>>

World of difference between acts of war and acts of terror. The Allies were in an officially expressed war with those countries and were doing what was necessary to end the war as quickly as possible.

It can be argued that the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was actually a more humane act than attempting to take Japan by force.

And the fire-bombing of Dresden WAS an atrocity we should not have done---but we did make amends over the years for the act.

<<<The reason we excused these acts of "evil" (man I hate that word) was because that it was for a good cause, national survivual and that there was no other way.

Well on these justifications surely this (from the terrorist perspective) covers all major terrorist campagins espeacilly the "Palenstinian" one. >>>

Absolutely not. Palestinians are SPECIFICALLY targeting civilians with no expressed goal whatsoever. Their ONLY goal is to kill as many Israeli civilians as humanly possible. There is no nobility in that. None whatsoever.

-=Mike

...And if the Nobel Committee actually takes away Peres's Peace Prize but not Arafat's, what little respect I have for that group will cease to exist.

April 9, 2002

Sorry Mike but this shows naviety. What about Hirosama, Nagisaki

*Snip*

You are aware that the US dropped several thousand pamphlets over both those cities (in Japanese, obviously) days before the actual Nuclear bombs were dropped. Right?

(Please, tell me thats wrong if it is wrong, I need to go and advise my school that their history books are wrong then )

April 10, 2002

The new Newsweek has one of the most depressing stories I've ever seen, about one of the recent suicide bombers. It was a young teenage girl, and the only civilian casualty of the explosion was also a teenage girl. They put the two pictures up side-by-side, and both girls appear to be pretty, smiling, happy young women. The really scary part is (if you didn't know that Palestinians tend to have darker skin than Israelis, which gives it away here) you can't really tell from looking at the photos which one was the killer, and which one was the victim...

April 10, 2002

Yeah, that was really sad. Historically girls have never been suicide bombers. Men are the ones who kill and die, I guess because they're looking forward to a paradise of raping virgins for eternity (amusingly enough, according to a WSJ article, they may just be looking forward to a diet of white raisins for eternity). I always thought girls were more sensible, but I suppose anyone can be indoctrinated with bullshit if you get her early enough.

April 10, 2002

<<Do you know that "Mein Kampf" is a BIG seller in Palestine presently---and that the Palestinians sucked up to Hitler back in the '30's?>>

1. Mike, I'm still waiting for you to deliver me a quote from Arafat expressing his deep hatred of the Jews. I can understand why a lot of Palestinians would be buying "Mein Kampf" (although I really don't think the majority of Palestinans would have the time or the money to pop over to their local Borders to pick up that book. They have to worry about surviving and all that...), but I refuse to believe Arafat is stupid enough to be an open anti-semite unless you show me some proof.

2. The fact that Palestine made nice to Hitler in the 1930's is totally irrelevant right now. Henry Ford sucked up to Hitler. Time Magazine named Hitler Man of the Year. We both know how reluctant a number of the major European powers were to put a muzzle on the Fuhrer until it was too late. What about America bringing over a number of Nazi scientists after WWII? (Werner Von Braun being one of the most famous examples) It's real easy, but it's also real ignorant, to label all Palestinans as anti-semetic. I don't deny the fact that some Palestinians may feel that way (and I'm still looking for a little proof from your direction), but the actual ideas of Adolf Hitler have little to do with this. To an angry Palestinian, this is more of a matter of "get off my land and stop firing weapons at me" rather than some attempt to create an Aryan race...

<<<Okay tell that to the Zionist Terrorist who bombed the British from their mandate in Palenstine.

Nobody is saying that, throughout history, Jews have been without sin. They have done bad things in the past.

However, THAT act is quite irrelevant today.>>>

-So, the actions of these Zionist Terrorists, which have a direct link to what is going on today, is totally irrelevant, and the fact that Palestine "sucked up" to Hitler makes them all anti-semites who deserve nothing better than to be bombed into oblivion. Mike, I may be putting words into your mouth, but to excuse the Jews for past mistakes and to not excuse Palestine for past mistakes isn't the most enlightened or intelligent way to view the world.

April 10, 2002

"Nice to see your [sic] keeping an open mind and avoiding racist genralisations Dr. Tom."

How is that racist? Let's see, the Palestinians specifically and repeatedly target civilians for their terrorist attacks, they have used an ambulance to deliver a bomb, and they recently rigged a bomb to detonate again once rescue workers had arrived. Precisely what would you call them? "Freedom fighters?" Bullshit. They're pond scum because their ACTIONS MAKE THEM pond scum. It's a simple conclusion to draw. Nice of you to use a buzzword like "racist," though, to try and lend credence to your argument... what was your argument again?

"As a fellow athesit myself the one thing I can't stand is extreme, fundamentlist, reactionary atheism. Jesus whether you believe he was the Son of God or not, is the most important phyisolpher [sic] ever and a man who is of vast importance to the three major monoetheist religions."

He's "the most important philosopher ever" if he in fact existed, and said and did the things he is claimed to have said and done. Besides, how does not caring about a church make me an "extreme, fundamentalist, reactionary" atheist? I love how you liberals use buzzwords to try and drum up support for what you're saying, instead of actually saying things of substance. I don't care if the take hostages in a church. Why? Because I'm some inflexible, heartless atheist? No, because it's just another building to me. Why is the murder of a nun more important than the murder of a layperson? Clergy are people, too, but when one of them is killed, it's all over the news because of their "significance." I don't place any more or less signficance on their deaths than those of any other person -- or any more or less significance in using a church in a terrorist action than using any other building to be a coward and endanger the lives of innocent people needlessly.

Is that clear enough for you, or do you have some more buzzwords stashed away and ready to go?

April 10, 2002

they have used an ambulance to deliver a bomb

They have attempted to use an ambulance to deliver a bomb. It makes little difference in the moral sense, true, but let's try to keep the facts straight.

April 10, 2002

<<Do you know that "Mein Kampf" is a BIG seller in Palestine presently---and that the Palestinians sucked up to Hitler back in the '30's?>>

1. Mike, I'm still waiting for you to deliver me a quote from Arafat expressing his deep hatred of the Jews.>>>

His ACTIONS speak far louder than his well-rehearsed words.

Hitler avoided using gratuitous anti-Semitism to the foreign press early in his reign---didn't make him less of an anti-Semite.

<<<I can understand why a lot of Palestinians would be buying "Mein Kampf" (although I really don't think the majority of Palestinans would have the time or the money to pop over to their local Borders to pick up that book. They have to worry about surviving and all that...), but I refuse to believe Arafat is stupid enough to be an open anti-semite unless you show me some proof.>>>

His actions are the proof. Nothing speaks louder.

<<<2. The fact that Palestine made nice to Hitler in the 1930's is totally irrelevant right now. Henry Ford sucked up to Hitler. Time Magazine named Hitler Man of the Year.>>>

As has been reiterated by Time repeatedly, "Man of the Year" deals SOLELY with what person had the biggest impact on the news of the world---it's not necessarily an award of praise.

<<<We both know how reluctant a number of the major European powers were to put a muzzle on the Fuhrer until it was too late. What about America bringing over a number of Nazi scientists after WWII? (Werner Von Braun being one of the most famous examples)>>>

If we didn't get them, the Soviets would have gobbled them up. Not in our best interests whatsoever.

And our European allies, by and large, are timid and unwilling to fight for ANYTHING.

<<<It's real easy, but it's also real ignorant, to label all Palestinans as anti-semetic. I don't deny the fact that some Palestinians may feel that way (and I'm still looking for a little proof from your direction), but the actual ideas of Adolf Hitler have little to do with this. To an angry Palestinian, this is more of a matter of "get off my land and stop firing weapons at me" rather than some attempt to create an Aryan race...>>>

They wish the absolute destruction of the Jewish people. Using your logic, I could argue that no Israeli hates Palestinians due to their fear over suicide bombers.

<<<Okay tell that to the Zionist Terrorist who bombed the British from their mandate in Palenstine.

Nobody is saying that, throughout history, Jews have been without sin. They have done bad things in the past.

However, THAT act is quite irrelevant today.>>>

<<<-So, the actions of these Zionist Terrorists, which have a direct link to what is going on today, is totally irrelevant, and the fact that Palestine "sucked up" to Hitler makes them all anti-semites who deserve nothing better than to be bombed into oblivion.>>>

Nope. What Israel did in the 1940's doesn't affect today's situation.

And I didn't say that Palestinian anti-Semitism makes them worthy of annihilation. Heck, I wish they'd be more open about their hatred. I was pointing out that finding rational, "mainstream" Muslims is becoming a greater challenge in today's world.

Sadly, before it's all said and done, I fear that there will be a war between the Muslim world and the western world. Not something I hope for, but it does seem to be inevitable.

<<<Mike, I may be putting words into your mouth, but to excuse the Jews for past mistakes and to not excuse Palestine for past mistakes isn't the most enlightened or intelligent way to view the world. >>>

The mistakes of Israel I'm forgiving occurred in the 1940's.

Palestinians are committing horrible atrocities against Israeli innocents RIGHT NOW.

World of difference.

-=Mike

April 10, 2002

RE: DR TOM

"As a fellow athesit myself the one thing I can't stand is extreme, fundamentlist, reactionary atheism. Jesus whether you believe he was the Son of God or not, is the most important phyisolpher [sic] ever and a man who is of vast importance to the three major monoetheist religions."

>He's "the most important philosopher ever" if he in fact existed, and said and did the things he is claimed to have said and done. Besides, how does not caring about a church make me an "extreme, fundamentalist, reactionary" atheist? I love how you liberals use buzzwords to try and drum up support for what you're saying, instead of actually saying things of substance. I don't care if the take hostages in a church. Why? Because I'm some inflexible, heartless atheist? No, because it's just another building to me. Why is the murder of a nun more important than the murder of a layperson? Clergy are people, too, but when one of them is killed, it's all over the news because of their "significance." I don't place any more or less signficance on their deaths than those of any other person -- or any more or less significance in using a church in a terrorist action than using any other building to be a coward and endanger the lives of innocent people needlessly.>

On the first point about whether he's real or not, it doesn't really effect his impact on the world in that its his ideas that are relevant today rather than him as a person. However there is plenty of documentarly evidence that he did exist.

I think that the fact your not bothered about the fact Jesus' birthplace is a battleground and the distress this might cause to those who hold faith around the world underlines one your (other rightwingers) main faults in that you cannot emphayise with other people. As you don't care about Jesus then you can't take into count other people's feelings and fight for them as in the old anti-holocaust poem When they came for the Jews I did nothing as I'm not a Jew, etc, etc. When they came for me no did anything as no one else was left"

The reason the killing of people like Nuns is shocking is because much like Aid workers they are reconginsed to be impartial and there to help people. Plus there is no doubt when someone kills a Nun they are making a wider point not only against the Christian Church(s) but also our wider Judaeo-Christian society.

"Nice to see your [sic] keeping an open mind and avoiding racist genralisations Dr. Tom."

To call a whole race of people "pond scum" is an abhornet statement. Although I agree with you that most Palenstinans hate Israel maybe Israel should think why a whole people hate them. The fact this an extreme and highly powerful and well armed minority is carrying out this attacks and to tar all Palenstians with the same brush is undoubtedly racist, maybe not intenionally but racist none the less. And that is may agrument that to call an entire people "pond scum" because of the actions of a few is a racist statement (although I'm not calling you a racist, I hate it when people throw that around).

Are the likes of Hamas Freedom Fighters? No personally I don't think they are, its quite obivous they want Israel gone. Is Sharon and the settlers acting out of Israeli self-defence? Equally no, Sharon wants all Palenstians out of the West Bank and Gaza and a greater Israel on the lines of Judeua in its place.

Are the PLO Freedom Fighters? Yes in the sense that they wantt a state of their own and Freedom from colonial Israeli rule. Are the marjoity of Israelis motivated by self-defence? Yes in the sense that they are being terrorised by "Terrorist". Have both been dehumanize to the extent that they have given in to the base desires of the extermists? Yes.

Israel as the right to self defence in its 1948 borders, the undoubte dbestr thing for Israel to do is to pull the settlers out give the Palenstains they own state and have stringent border controls. Such containment will be far easier than the present situation. The fact they don't is largely motivated by the likes of Sharon wanting a greater Israel and hopping if they hold on long enough that Jordan (which is 60% Palenstian) will become the Palenstine state. Such imperlist ambitions are out of place and totally against to moderate, acceptable wish for the Jews to have their own homeland where they never have to fear persuction.

Arafat has always maintained that he will either achieve his aim of a state of Palenstine by either peaceful or violent means as shown by him turning up at the UN with both a gun and an olive leaf. He has recently embraced the Islamist rethoric but that is only an act of saving his own skin. Te Olso agreement and the later Camp David did not leave a viable Palenstine state but practically a autonamous colony of Israel, which settlers and Israeli check posts dotted around the place. Plus it left no solution to the problem of Jersualem. As he should have continued neogiations but rememebr everything blew up when Sharon met the settlers. I believe that Arafat is not being entirely strict with the Islamists but his actions are no different than that of Musharraf and Arafat is not theartening Israel with Nuclear weapons.

April 11, 2002

<<Do you know that "Mein Kampf" is a BIG seller in Palestine presently---and that the Palestinians sucked up to Hitler back in the '30's?

1. Mike, I'm still waiting for you to deliver me a quote from Arafat expressing his deep hatred of the Jews>>

<His ACTIONS speak far louder than his well-rehearsed words.

Hitler avoided using gratuitous anti-Semitism to the foreign press early in his reign---didn't make him less of an anti-Semite.>

Hitler never hid his anti-semitism to his people, having made it clear that he wanted them destroyed in Mein Kamphf and in election speeches. It also should be noted that he started kicking out Jews before WW2 but the European countries refused them.

Alot of people had pretty shameful records with regard to their pre-war dealings with Hitler and other fascits. Loyld Geogre thought a good statesmen as did Churchill of Mussolini. Also there is an old American Newsreel praising Hitler and the Nazi style of government. The Americans also left in place all the Vichy France regimes in Africa and didn't even have them end the anti-semitism.

No that isn't true. May I remind you that Appeasement was an Anglo-Saxon policy not an European. France (as the only democratic European power) wanted to at Treaty of Versaille to contain Germany so she would never attack France again. France wanted to invade Germany after the Rhineland Invasion, France wanted to invade after Czechoslovika was invaded. It were France who wanted France and Britian to join a Grand Alliance with Russia. If we had followed France's lead then there would have been no WW2.

Having Britian overruled France on all these things primilary because of the liberal theories of self-determination as pushed by the Americans far away and with Russia over America's haterd of communism.

Appeasement was caused by two things

1) A justifying of aggresion because the reasons seemed fine 2) Not caring about other people or as Chamberlian put "That those in Czechoslovika are a different people in a far away land who have nothing in common with us"

America shared both of these with Britian (which at the time was not considered a European country) and at Versialle in act of historical vandalism destory both the Austrio-Hungrian Empire and Ottoman Empire and stopped Britian and France feeling the breach intstead leaving a weak bunch of countries just waiting to be toppled by a resurgent Germany. And after all this Uthopian nonesense they then don't join their own baby.

No not all Palenstians weren't Israel destruction and when there is some peace and teh Palenstians are treated as equals by Israel then theis will further subside.

And again not all Israelis are acting out of self-defence but of a desire to push all Palenstians out of the West Bank.

<<<Okay tell that to the Zionist Terrorist who bombed the British from their mandate in Palenstine.?

Nobody is saying that, throughout history, Jews have been without sin. They have done bad things in the past.

However, THAT act is quite irrelevant today.>>>

<<<-So, the actions of these Zionist Terrorists, which have a direct link to what is going on today, is totally irrelevant, and the fact that Palestine "sucked up" to Hitler makes them all anti-semites who deserve nothing better than to be bombed into oblivion.>>>

<Nope. What Israel did in the 1940's doesn't affect today's situation.>

That as late as the 1980s someone heavily involed in the Zionist bombings was made Prime Minster and that the bombers are consider by many to be heroes hints that they are still relevant today.

Well if America didn't keep propping up Islamist dictatorships spewing out Islamist propaganda then Muslims would be far more "reasonable".

<Sadly, before it's all said and done, I fear that there will be a war between the Muslim world and the western world. Not something I hope for, but it does seem to be inevitable.>

Oh come on! Most Arab governments can't survive with out Americain help. If their is an American/Arab war it will because America has provoked the Muslim masses to such a state that they take part in an Islamist revolution.

<<Mike, I may be putting words into your mouth, but to excuse the Jews for past mistakes and to not excuse Palestine for past mistakes isn't the most enlightened or intelligent way to view the world. >>

<The mistakes of Israel I'm forgiving occurred in the 1940's.

Palestinians are committing horrible atrocities against Israeli innocents RIGHT NOW.>

Tell that to the 100 Palenstian dead and those who are facing famine and homelessness because of Israel.

April 11, 2002

200-500, actually.

Mr Cooling is usually full of shit, but this once he has his history straight. The Europeans bought us time to get off our asses and realise that Hitler was indeed a grave threat. For several years, as people were dying, and as the Holocaust took shape, we did nothing, because we thought we could use Fascism to counter Communism. However...

If we had followed France's lead then there would have been no WW2.

...this is extremely doubtful. Be wary of historical revisionism. The time was right for a Führer; I don't believe a quick treaty here or there would have prevented Hitler's ascendance. World War II in general and German anti-Semitism in particular were practically inevitable for social, economic, and cultural reasons. There was a great deal of resentment in Germany after the first World War ended, and hatred of the Jews had been developing in German pseudoscience and occultism over many years. An earlier alliance with Russia might have saved a few thousand lives, perhaps even tens of thousands, but ultimately, I believe, the war would have proceeded along much the same lines.

April 11, 2002

<<Do you know that "Mein Kampf" is a BIG seller in Palestine presently---and that the Palestinians sucked up to Hitler back in the '30's?

1. Mike, I'm still waiting for you to deliver me a quote from Arafat expressing his deep hatred of the Jews>>

<His ACTIONS speak far louder than his well-rehearsed words.

Hitler avoided using gratuitous anti-Semitism to the foreign press early in his reign---didn't make him less of an anti-Semite.>

<<<Hitler never hid his anti-semitism to his people, having made it clear that he wanted them destroyed in Mein Kamphf and in election speeches. It also should be noted that he started kicking out Jews before WW2 but the European countries refused them.>>>

I know the European countries---and the U.S as well---weren't hospitable to Jewis refugees.

However, our knowledge of what Arafat says to his people is limited due to our lack of knowledge of the Arabic language and the difficulty we have in obtaining information from the area. We do know that he says the right things to the foreign press---and Hitler did the same thing during the early years of his reign.

<<<Alot of people had pretty shameful records with regard to their pre-war dealings with Hitler and other fascits. Loyld Geogre thought a good statesmen as did Churchill of Mussolini. Also there is an old American Newsreel praising Hitler and the Nazi style of government. The Americans also left in place all the Vichy France regimes in Africa and didn't even have them end the anti-semitism. >>>

The world was quite anti-Semitic at that point, America included.

<<<No that isn't true. May I remind you that Appeasement was an Anglo-Saxon policy not an European. France (as the only democratic European power) wanted to at Treaty of Versaille to contain Germany so she would never attack France again. France wanted to invade Germany after the Rhineland Invasion, France wanted to invade after Czechoslovika was invaded. It were France who wanted France and Britian to join a Grand Alliance with Russia. If we had followed France's lead then there would have been no WW2.>>>

Read "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". All of the European countries cowered at the thought of another conflict. Britain definitely led the appeasement charge, but France joined right alongside them.

And France's demands in the Treay of Versailles were rather absurd. You can't tell a country to pay massive reparations then take away the means they have for actually making good on the debt.

<<<Having Britian overruled France on all these things primilary because of the liberal theories of self-determination as pushed by the Americans far away and with Russia over America's haterd of communism.

Appeasement was caused by two things

1) A justifying of aggresion because the reasons seemed fine 2) Not caring about other people or as Chamberlian put "That those in Czechoslovika are a different people in a far away land who have nothing in common with us">>>

You seem to believe that France really wanted to fight when they clearly did not. German generals approached several European countries, France and Britain included, BEGGING them to fight Hitler because his regime would fall.

They refused. All of them.

<<<America shared both of these with Britian (which at the time was not considered a European country) and at Versialle in act of historical vandalism destory both the Austrio-Hungrian Empire and Ottoman Empire and stopped Britian and France feeling the breach intstead leaving a weak bunch of countries just waiting to be toppled by a resurgent Germany. And after all this Uthopian nonesense they then don't join their own baby.>>>

The Austro-Hungarian empire was dead before Versailles. It was an inept country with no real power whatsoever. They split it up terribly (Yugoslavia is one of the worst ideas for a state ever unleashed upon the world), but it's not like Austria-Hungary was anything more than a German satellite state anyway.

<<<No not all Palenstians weren't Israel destruction and when there is some peace and teh Palenstians are treated as equals by Israel then theis will further subside.>>>

When they stop unleashing suicide bombers, perhaps that can happen. Until that happens, however, Israel would be foolish to not watch them closely.

<<<And again not all Israelis are acting out of self-defence but of a desire to push all Palenstians out of the West Bank.>>>

And not al Palestinians are acting out of anger at their "unfair treatment"---many wish the death of Jews.

<<<Okay tell that to the Zionist Terrorist who bombed the British from their mandate in Palenstine.?

Nobody is saying that, throughout history, Jews have been without sin. They have done bad things in the past.

However, THAT act is quite irrelevant today.>>>

<<<-So, the actions of these Zionist Terrorists, which have a direct link to what is going on today, is totally irrelevant, and the fact that Palestine "sucked up" to Hitler makes them all anti-semites who deserve nothing better than to be bombed into oblivion.>>>

<Nope. What Israel did in the 1940's doesn't affect today's situation.>

<<<That as late as the 1980s someone heavily involed in the Zionist bombings was made Prime Minster and that the bombers are consider by many to be heroes hints that they are still relevant today.>>>

Yup.

TODAY'S problem was started by Arafat walking away from the negotiating table and unleashing the intifada upon Israel.

It's up to Arafat to stop it. Not Israel.

<<<Well if America didn't keep propping up Islamist dictatorships spewing out Islamist propaganda then Muslims would be far more "reasonable". >>>

The governments we're supporting our funding this bilge. And it's not like the people in the street disagree with the sentiments.

And Muslims around the world aren't exactly the most open-minded group of people out there.

<Sadly, before it's all said and done, I fear that there will be a war between the Muslim world and the western world. Not something I hope for, but it does seem to be inevitable.>

<<<Oh come on! Most Arab governments can't survive with out Americain help. If their is an American/Arab war it will because America has provoked the Muslim masses to such a state that they take part in an Islamist revolution.>>>

These people HATE us. They HATE our way of life.

I also love that you assume America would initiate such a conflict, not the countries that support and train terrorists.

<<Mike, I may be putting words into your mouth, but to excuse the Jews for past mistakes and to not excuse Palestine for past mistakes isn't the most enlightened or intelligent way to view the world. >>

<The mistakes of Israel I'm forgiving occurred in the 1940's.

Palestinians are committing horrible atrocities against Israeli innocents RIGHT NOW.>

<<<Tell that to the 100 Palenstian dead and those who are facing famine and homelessness because of Israel. >>>

If Arafat called off the dogs and the suicide bombers surrendered, there'd be no suffering.

The plight of the Palestinians is Arafat's fault---not Israel's.

-=Mike

April 11, 2002

200-500, actually.

Mr Cooling is usually full of shit, but this once he has his history straight. The Europeans bought us time to get off our asses and realise that Hitler was indeed a grave threat. For several years, as people were dying, and as the Holocaust took shape, we did nothing, because we thought we could use Fascism to counter Communism.>>>

However, almost every single German officer said the exact same thing at the time---if ANYBODY ever stood up to Hitler, he'd have fallen. If France had decided to attack when theybegan invading land, they'd have been wiped out since Germany, by their own accounts, had little more than 1 or 2 divisions capable of fighting.

If Europe decided to take care of their own problem and attack Hitler, rather than sit back until he already gobbled up most of the continent, things would have been better for all involved.

America shouldn't have gotten involved early on because it was a European problem and Europe should take care of it.

However...Quote

If we had followed France's lead then there would have been no WW2.

<<<...this is extremely doubtful. Be wary of historical revisionism.>>>

Actually highly doubtful. If France got what they wanted at Versailles, the German depression (which, mind you, made ours look like the salad days of the late 1990's) would have been MUCH worse. Dictators need horrible conditions to gain power and lord knows the ecoomic disaster that was Germany provided that.

<<<The time was right for a Führer; I don't believe a quick treaty here or there would have prevented Hitler's ascendance. World War II in general and German anti-Semitism in particular were practically inevitable for social, economic, and cultural reasons. There was a great deal of resentment in Germany after the first World War ended, and hatred of the Jews had been developing in German pseudoscience and occultism over many years. An earlier alliance with Russia might have saved a few thousand lives, perhaps even tens of thousands, but ultimately, I believe, the war would have proceeded along much the same lines. >>>

If Britain or France attacked Germany at any point before about 1937 or so, Hitler's regime would have toppled quickly.

-=Mike

April 12, 2002

if ANYBODY ever stood up to Hitler, he'd have fallen

Possibly true, Mike, but if it hadn't been Hitler it would have been someone else. As you mentioned, dictators tend to rise during periods of economic depression. If people have no food, hate can take its place.

To some degree, the Europeans didn't unite against Hitler immediately simply because they were tired. Had they attacked Germany pre-emptively in 1937, World War II might merely have been delayed by a decade or so. And if Hitler had been replaced by a sane commander in 1943, like the brilliant Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, Germany might have won the war.

April 12, 2002

There is absolutely no way Germany would have won WW2 short of getting their atomic project to succeed (since once the US had nukes they could have just leveled Berlin and the main German divisions and presto-war over). However, it's also well accepted that they would have been much more successful had it not been Hilter leading them. The German Wehrmacht counted among its leaders some of the greatest strategists and field commanders in the history of armed conflict: Heinz Guderian, who invented Blitzkrieg (and who published a book about it BEFORE the war, and still the Allies couldn't stop him); Eric Von Mannstein, who might very well have defeated the Soviets had Hitler not interfered (Mannstein wanted to attack Kursk quickly, but Hitler forced him to wait and this allowed the Soviets to build up their army, resulting in the biggest armed battle in history); Erwin Rommel as Marney already mentioned; and a host of others. Hitlers ridiculous errors, from the Battle of the Bulge, to Kursk, to his decisison to give up on Moscow and attack Leningrad and Stalingrad (because of the f'ning NAMES of the cities), along with many others, insured that the Germans would lose the war, and in a much more decisive fashion that they otherwise might have.

April 12, 2002

Fair enough. As I said, historical revisionism and "what if" scenarios lead to a very slippery slope. At the very least, the war would have gone on longer and many more people would have died. It was probably for the best that Hitler was never replaced by a sane, competent commander.

April 12, 2002

Germany and Hitler were not attacked early by the rest of Europe for many reasons, pehaps the most important, at least initially, was that he was a democraticaly elected leader who gained power not by force, but by being the leader of the largest and most popular party in Germany at the time, therefore it would be hard to defend any attack with the reasoning that it was on a ruthless dictator who had assumed power by force.

Secondly, Hitler's early breaches of the treaty of Versailles were internal and by the 1930's, common opinion was that some of the terms of the treaty were too harsh and that Hitler was seen to be righting wrongs. When he started annexing countries such as Austria, or Sudeten Czechoslovakia, Hitler's excuse was self-determination of German people. He was not attacked after this as there was no appetite for war in the whole of Europe (except Hitler's head), also no-one was prepared for war, in terms of ammunition, equipment, or even soldiers, but as a precaution, the armies were built up and treaties signed.

When Hitler inaded Poland, for which no self-determination arguement could be made, the Allies were forced to act.

It's easy, with hindsight, to say Germany should have been attacked earlier, but Britain and France's armies weren't much better than Germany's and Russia had signed a non-aggression pact with Germany.

Also, The whole world was in the grip of a depression so countries were more concerned with home issues.

Before anyone starts accusing Britain, France and Europe as being unwilling to fight, look at the larger picture, and try to see it from a 1930's view without the benefit of hindsight.

April 12, 2002

and Russia had signed a non-aggression pact with Germany.

Yeah, like a couple of weeks before Hitler invaded Poland.

April 12, 2002

I'm wondering how long it's going to be before Sharon compares Arafat to Eichmann.

April 12, 2002

I've never really heard Jewish people (or even politicians) bring up the Holocaust frivolously. They don't need to. It isn't cocktail party small-talk to them, and they all know what they went through.

April 12, 2002

"I've never really heard Jewish people (or even politicians) bring up the Holocaust frivolously. They don't need to. It isn't cocktail party small-talk to them, and they all know what they went through. "

Earlier this year Sharon compared US efforts reaching out to Muslim countries in support of the war on terror to the Allied powers allowing the Nazis to take Czechoslovakia.

April 12, 2002

I love you too Marney.

The Treaty of Versaille was not an overly harsh treaty by the standards of the time. Changing reperations was the norm ion warfare at the time (and still is; we made Saddam pay for the Gulf War) and the amount the Germans had to pay was no more than they made France pay after the Franco-Prussian war, plus the payments were spread out more.

The Germany lost hardly any terrority that was rightly theirs. The colonies she lost had always been loss makers, Asalise-Lorriane was taken from France in the Franco-Prussian war, the Terrority in Eastern Europe used to make the lesser states were from former Russian terrority handed over to the Germans in 1917 or the Austrian-Hungrian Empire. The only terrority that Germans had a geniue case was with Danzig and that was made a Free City.

The War Guilt clause although wrong was understandably as everyone knows that the victors write History.

The main problem with Versaille was that the Americans and the French were writing different treaties. The Americans wanted a fair and just treaty motivated by an haterd of Empire(basically a wishy-washy liberal one) which lay behind the setting up of the smaller states like Czechoslovika and Poland and the League of Nations.

Although the League of Nations was damaged by America's refusal not to join but to be honest Britain and France were glad to run the show. It was the Abyssina crisis that did teh League in.

The French however wanted the "German Problem" solved which was that as the largest country in Europe Germany would always dominate it. This lay behind the demiltarisation of the Rhine-Land and the limits imposed on the German Armed Forces, however these measures were no more stringent than the current ones on Iraq, indeed less so as no inspection regime was set.

The British were stuck in the middle as usual (plus Loyld Geogre although sympathyising with America could see that the public wanted to see Germany pay) and strived for a comprimse. The British fudge the Reperations issue, agreeing in princable to it but kicking it into the long grass in the hope of convincing France to ease up on the demands.

These were reconciled in the Treaty and France convinced herself that the smaller states would provide a ring to contain Germany and was glad to no longer need Russia. These was mistaken as many of the smaller states in particular Poland deluded themselves into thinking that they were themselves Great Powers.

On the question of the Austria-Hungrian Empire the obivous answer would have been to give Britian or France either some or all of it, at least giving them some thought hold in Eastern Europe. Perhaps even giving the old Russian terrority back to Russia to try and shore up the Tsarist regime might have been in order. And we are still suffering the legacy of post-imperalism (as shown by the British and the Americans setting up states like Iraq and Saudi Arabia) in the Middle East.

The oppucation of the Rhur coalfields although regreatable and harsh were no different to the 1999 bombings on Iraq for er the Americans withdrawing the Inspectors!?!

The post war years France slipped to junior power status and was unable to act without British support. France wanted to act against Hitler yet this was vetoed by the British. France and Russia wanted to liberate Stalin (Stalin had intense loyalty to the Czech Prime Minster who had warned him of a would be coup) yet the British rejected this.

A Grand Alliance would have neutred Hitler as Hitler was fearful of fighting a war on both fronts. Plus Russia could lean on countries like Finland and Rumania that sold essential supplies to Germany (indeed in 1940 Hitler was VERY upset about Soviet action in Finland).

The British (with quiet backing from America) were to blame for WW2. They were fooled by Hitler's claimed to self-determination when the only action that was justifabliy so was Danzig the one they rejected. The sudentanland was never part of Germany and most Germans saw Austrians as foreigners. The breaking of Arms restrictions had been going for years before Hitler and all reperations were canceled in 1927. The only genuie injustice that the Germans had suffered at the hands of Versaille was the War Guilt Clause.

Hitler came to power not because of Versaille but because of the way Germany was defeated (by a BRITISH naval blockade). This left thousands of German soldiers deep in France having to trudge back. This lead Hitler to think that a Jewish/Marxist plot had caused Germany to surrender. Even without France's contrubiton to Versaille he would have got to power due to the loss of pride and prestige of the Germany nation and the fact that the Prussian Generals stayed in power. Indeed the one country that did the most to create the situation for a dictatorship was America by forcing on Germany a repubulican consituation that was weak and had no nationlistic value.

Lots of Love

Will

xxxx

April 12, 2002

I love you too Marney.

Of course you do, because I'm pretty!

Earlier this year Sharon compared US efforts reaching out to Muslim countries in support of the war on terror to the Allied powers allowing the Nazis to take Czechoslovakia.

Huh. I missed that one.

April 12, 2002

They're at it again, folks...

Bomber strikes Jerusalem market

At least 50 wounded, six killed in suicide attack; Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade claims responsibility

The Associated Press

April 12, 2002, 12:25 PM EDT

JERUSALEM -- A female suicide bomber blew herself up at a bus stop in Jerusalem's crowded outdoor market Friday, killing six people and wounding about 50, police said.

The blast went off shortly after 4 p.m. when the Mahane Yehuda market was crowded with shoppers hunting for pre-Sabbath bargains. Moments after the explosion, witnesses saw five bodies that rescue workers had covered with white sheets, and glass shards, twisted metal, blood and body parts were strewn across the asphalt.

Police Chief Mickey Levy said the bomber failed to reach the heart of the market or get onto a bus because of tight security, and that she set off the blast while trying to get on a bus.

"She set off a bomb. As a result, more than 50 people were wounded, three of them seriously, and there are apparently six dead," he said.

Israeli TV also said six people were killed, but neither Levy nor the television specified whether that incuded the bomber. A photographer saw the severed head of a woman on the pavement.

Initial reports said the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, a militia linked to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, claimed responsibility. Israel Radio identified the bomber as Nidal Daraghmeh, a woman from the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank.

The Jenin camp has been the scene of the deadliest fighting during Israel's 2-week-old military offensive in the West Bank, launched to crush Palestinian militias. The camp has been sealed by Israel for more than a week.

There have been several suicide bombings at Mahane Yehuda in the past.

A witness who gave only his first name, Shimon, said he was standing at a bus stop when the blast went off. "The body of the terrorist fell on me and we were pushed into the Hava bakery," he told Israel Radio. "I couldn't move around because there were pieces of flesh and bodies around me."

David Baker, a spokesman for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said the blast was "another murderous attack by Palestinian terrorists against innocent Israelis at the busiest time of the week in the busiest market in Jerusalem."

"It is clear that (Palestinian leader Yasser) Arafat and the Palestinian Authority exist for one purpose, spreading terror," he said.

TV reports said visiting Secretary of State Colin Powell was at a nearby helipad at the time aof the explosion, and that Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer took him for a brief helicopter ride to view the scene.

I think it's time to take Israel off the leash.

April 12, 2002

Quote

if ANYBODY ever stood up to Hitler, he'd have fallen

Possibly true, Mike, but if it hadn't been Hitler it would have been someone else.>>>

Well, we know who it would've been. It would've been the Communists---who would've not been any better---but theywould have targeted political enemies, not just "non-Aryans".

<<<As you mentioned, dictators tend to rise during periods of economic depression. If people have no food, hate can take its place.

To some degree, the Europeans didn't unite against Hitler immediately simply because they were tired. Had they attacked Germany pre-emptively in 1937, World War II might merely have been delayed by a decade or so. And if Hitler had been replaced by a sane commander in 1943, like the brilliant Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, Germany might have won the war.>>>

That's somewhat unlikely as the military could have ruled Germany starting in about 1920-21 when they suppressed all of the Communist uprisings all over the country. That the civilian government somehow survived this chaos shows that the military might not have been able to rule.

Though, for what it's worth, the civilian government had been ruled by executive decree since 1930---so even without Hitler, Germany wasn't stable.

-=Mike

April 12, 2002

<<<There is absolutely no way Germany would have won WW2 short of getting their atomic project to succeed (since once the US had nukes they could have just leveled Berlin and the main German divisions and presto-war over). However, it's also well accepted that they would have been much more successful had it not been Hilter leading them.>>>

True---but Hitler's willingness to take idiotic risks helped Germany a lot. A sane commander wouldn't have made the grabs for land that Hitler wanted. Again, most German generals disagreed with Hitler left and right about his plans--but since they took an oath of allegiance to him (not Germany), they had to follow.

<<<The German Wehrmacht counted among its leaders some of the greatest strategists and field commanders in the history of armed conflict: Heinz Guderian, who invented Blitzkrieg (and who published a book about it BEFORE the war, and still the Allies couldn't stop him); Eric Von Mannstein, who might very well have defeated the Soviets had Hitler not interfered (Mannstein wanted to attack Kursk quickly, but Hitler forced him to wait and this allowed the Soviets to build up their army, resulting in the biggest armed battle in history); Erwin Rommel as Marney already mentioned; and a host of others. Hitlers ridiculous errors, from the Battle of the Bulge, to Kursk, to his decisison to give up on Moscow and attack Leningrad and Stalingrad (because of the f'ning NAMES of the cities)>>>

I actually thought Hitler's refusal to allow a retreat when his 6th Army (I believe that was the one) was completely tied down and immobile near Stalingrad) was his biggest single error.

However, having superior military leaders is hardly a guarantor of success. The Confederacy had considerably better generals than the Union had---but the Union had such a huge advantage in them in almost every category that the advantage was negligible.

Germany lacked the resources to win a fight with the U.S---and the Nazis were well aware of that and desperately wanted us to not get involved.

<<<, along with many others, insured that the Germans would lose the war, and in a much more decisive fashion that they otherwise might have.>>>

BUT, again, Hitler took gambles that no sane man would have taken and, for years, they paid off. Who knows what kind of shape Germany would have been in if not for Hitler's borderline psychotic leadership.

-=Mike

...Ah, heck, it wasn't "borderline psychotic"---the guy was f'n nuts

April 12, 2002