Euro trash

[drdon326]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/134989p-120276c.html


Perversity & anti-Semitism lead Europeans
to call Israel greatest threat to peace

Can the Europeans who believe that Israel is the greatest danger to world peace name another country that has ever given back land that was legitimately captured in a defensive war and necessary for its own defense in exchange for a promise of peace?

How, then, to explain this afactual, ahistoric and immoral poll result? At one level, it is simply the latest manifestation of millennia-old efforts to blame the Jews for all the evils in the world. When plagues broke out in Europe, it was the Jews' fault. When wells were poisoned, obviously, the Jews did it. When Christian children were found murdered, who else but the Jews? A German parliamentarian recently blamed Stalin's mass murders on the "predatory" Jewish people, and the cardinal of Honduras has blamed the sex scandal in the Catholic Church on - you guessed it - the Jews.

But there is more at issue here than primitive anti-Semitism, though that surely plays a role in some of the polling results. A generation of Europeans has been miseducated by its own media and leaders about Israel. The United Nations has contributed to this miseducation by condemning Israel more frequently than any other nation, well out of proportion to its faults.

Criticism of Israeli policies is certainly fair game, but throughout Europe, criticism of Israel is rarely comparative, contextual or constructive. Instead, Israel is singled out for demonization and delegitimization. This is all part of a systematic Palestinian effort to supplement a terrorist campaign with a propaganda war. The poll shows it is succeeding. This very success contributes to a lack of progress toward peace.

The Palestinian leadership will not take the difficult steps needed to achieve peace so long as it continues to win the propaganda war while encouraging terrorism.

Among the greatest threats to world peace, therefore, is not Israel itself but European bigotry against the Jewish nation.

..................................................................

great article

[bluesoul]

1. What a load

of BS. But then it's not surprising, considering the author...

[drdon326]

2. LOL

I knew you would say that....ok, i'll bite....

what SPECIFICALLY ( and i mean SPECIFICALLY) do you disagree
with ??

g'head....make my day.

[bluesoul]

5. Well as an European

I find the title alone highly insulting and generalizing. If someone put something else before trash, this thread would be history in a minute. And I am not going even to mention the absurd accusations about how EVERYTHING was blamed on the Jews, as though if someone said it this was supposed to be the view of Europe as a whole or a majority of it. This is just beyond ridicolous and most of all insulting to the people that faught against Hitler and his policies...

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Fighting against Hitler

As an aside, a good chunk of those nations now classified in Euro DIDN'T fight against "Hitler and his policies."

[Violet_Crumble]

7. He spoke of people, not nations...

And he's right. Many fought back or resisted as best as they could. And they were doing it long before the US decided to fight...

Violet...

had to edit some gender impairedness on my part :)

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. And many sure as hell did not

Germans, Austrians, Italians, Eastern Europeans and let's not forget the French who sort of fought Hitler and then a bunch of them helped him, too.

[bluesoul]

13. East Europeans?

I know a good deal of East Europeans faught hardly against the Nazis and gave a lof of lives for that (Tito's Yugoslavia). Please don't generalize as I have a feeling your historical knowledge is very weak considering some of your statements...

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. People

How many examples do you want?

Germany -- Duh
Italy -- Part of the Axis, equally duh.
Austria -- Joined with Germany.
France -- Vichy worked with Germany.
Spain -- Not only did the Germans help Franco to power, he was a passive supporter of Germany throughout the war.
Finland -- Helped Germany against the Soviet Union.
Croatia -- Helped Germany.
Ukraine -- Many Ukranians served as subject troops, especially in the camps.

In addition, Germany had allies and troops from Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Bulgaria.

Europe's hands are pretty damn bloody when it comes to helping Adolph. Sure some opposed him, but the lion's share of that credit goes to the U.S., Britain and the Soviet Union.

[bluesoul]

20. And what is the Soviet Union

else then the Eastern European block? And the countries you mentioned aren't even most of Eastern Europe or Europe alone. Seems to me you would want to generalize and blame even those that faught against Hitler. The majority of Europe did. And no twisting of facts from your side will change it. Historical revisionism. Ones deny the holocaust. Others the resistance in so many countries and the lives they gave on which you spit...

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Not sure if either of us can prove the MAJORITY of Europe

Unless you count the Soviet Union as part of Europe.

Otherwise, it's probably impossible to count. How about France, do you count them on both sides of the equation? After all, the fought for a time, the helped for a time. The same goes for some of the other nations of Europe.

I am not spitting on the resistance. Those who resisted Hitler deserve credit. Many DID NOT resist Hitler. They deserve blame. But to claim Europe was some monolithic group against Hitler defies history.

[bluesoul]

28. It may have not

been monolithic, but you sure do would want to put it as the opposite, as though most of it sided with Hitler, which is against all well known facts. Tell me do you count those parts of Europe that were OCCUPIED as pro-Hitler as well? And all those Europeans killed by the Nazis and Fascists when they stomped into their countries...

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Like I said, I doubt we can prove one way or the other

So I am NOT pretending it was monolithic, but it sure was a hell of a lot of support for Hitler, not just in Germany.

If you resisted Hitler like Tito did, then you resisted. If you joined the German army, helped the German army, manned the camps, etc., then I would count that.

I'm not finding a lot of what I want on the web this morning breaking down the roles of individual nations. This is a start only.

http://www.feldgrau.com/axisa.html

[bluesoul]

36. It has

already been proven Muddle. It is clear who sided with Hitler and who didn't and fought against him strongly, giving many lives for freedom. You could pick any historical book that covers it and see for yourself. I am proud of my ancestors (grandparents) that fought against the Nazis and gave their lives.

NEVER AGAIN

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. You should be proud of your ancestors

But that doesn't excuse the millions in Europe who aided Hitler OUTSIDE the Axis.

[edzontar]

46. Muddle--why do you insist on such arguments?

It seems silly, frankly.

WW2 was a terrible and very complicated series of events--you can't just blanket condemn Europe--or even more ridiculously--ask for proof of a "majority" in one camp or another.

Arguments like this are pointless and go nowhere.

Europe is a big place. there is anti-Semitism. There was also much high-minded and sincere opposition to Bush's dirty little war.

[drdon326]

48. Fine...

now talk about the article posted.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Now we're not allowed to respond to posts in the thread?

That's a new one on me!

Violet...

[drdon326]

54. Ouch !!

Is that a personal attack??

now get me a Fosters out of the fridge.:)

[Violet_Crumble]

65. Ouch??

No. Believe me, you'd know one if I was behind one...

If yr going to insist on drinking crappy beer that is foisted off to gullible foreigners, then get it yr fucking self, cause the only beer that ever resides in my fridge is stuff that doesn't taste like stale goat's piss, not that I know what that tastes like, but I imagine Fosters would come pretty close :)

Violet...

[edzontar]

78. See below...and you might reconsider your TONE

I have every right to respond to another poster on this thread...

You are in no position to give "orders" here...try asking or suggesting next time, maybe?

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. I am not condemning Europe, nor am I defending it

But lots of Europeans aided Hitler. Lots of Europe SIDED WITH Hitler. It comes as no surprise to me that almost 60 years later that much of Europe would be anti-Semitic.

[Paschall]

58. Not condemning Europe?

Odd. I recall you saying on another thread that anti-Semitism is "ingrained" in European culture.

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. Isn't it?

How many thousand years of something being a fact does it take to convince you of that? How many examples of pogrom, death camps and Inquisitions do you need?

But that doesn't condemn Europe or all Europeans. It is just reality.

[Paschall]

70. "Ingrained"

"To work indelibly into the natural texture or mental or moral constitution."

"Thoroughly worked in: INNATE."

I've objected to this comment because your choice of words is highly offensive.

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. Do you NOT consider anti-Semitism to be a big part of Europe?

After a couple thousand years, isn't something so indelibly worked into the mental or moral constitution of Europe?

It doesn't mean all Europeans or even most share it. But it sure as hell is there in many and has been so for a damn long time.

[Paschall]

84. Big part of Europe? Of course not

Certainly anti-Semitism was a big part of European history in the 20th century, because the Holocaust was unprecedented for its barbarity.

But European civilization, at least since the Enlightenment has made steady--if sometimes faltering--progress toward rationality and humanism. Both of which exclude anti-Semitism, xenophobia, and racism of any kind. French Jews saw their lot improved immediately upon the French Revolution. Then, as I've mentioned elsewhere, when Napoleon was unable to secure Palestine as a Jewish homeland, he decreed France as the Jewish homeland.

The development of the European Union also refutes your notion of "ingrained" anti-Semitism, as the European Charter of Human Rights, and many other legal instruments of the Union ensure religious freedom and sanction religious discrimination.

European history is, of course, rather bleak when you look only at the atrocities, the wars, the bloodshed. But out of all that grimness has come perhaps some great hope for the future.

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. Aside from the Holocaust

Which is kind of hard to say. What about the pogroms, the anti-Semitism, the Inquisition. Don't you feel that roughly 2,000 years of activity from the destruction of Jerusalem to now indicate a trend?

Of course there is always hope. For every Hitler there is a Churchill. For every slaveholder, a John Brown. But despite the hope and attempts to fix things in Europe, anti-Semitism remains a big issue.

[Paschall]

90. Muddle, tell me

What first-hand experience do you have of Europe?

[Muddleoftheroad]

93. Second try

I tried posting this and my connection was lost.

One more time:

I've been there. Worked on two international business projects with Europeans. Have/had clients in Europe for phone/Internet dealings and have known many Europeans since I first moved to D.C. (Had lots of World Bank friends.)

None of that makes me an expert. Not sure if living there would either. The point is history. Europe has a lot of it and a common thread has been anti-Semitism. After 2,000 years, that's a big damn thread.

[Paschall]

94. Thanks for the response

"Been there" is not much experience, sounds like. I really suggest you try to get past the rhetoric and see that today both European conservatives and liberals alike are, in general, strongly committed to eradicating anti-Semitism.

You know, few of us Europeans have memories of, or are directly influenced by the Inqusisition. ;-)

[bluesoul]

95. True

Btw, Paschall, were are you from if I may ask?

[Muddleoftheroad]

96. Trends

You know, one event or two or three one could overlook. But when there have been numerous events and incidents of anti-Semtism since Rome destroyed Jerusalem, well, you sort of notice a trend.

As for eradicating anti-Semitism, I wish you and your fellow Europeans all the luck in the world to do so. I hope you succeed, soon.

[bluesoul]

97. Since opposing anti-semitism

is written in the EU constitution I don't think you'll have to worry about it...

[Muddleoftheroad]

98. Things change

Jews served with honor in the German army in WWI as well. And given the survey on European attitudes, I don't think we can stop worrying.

[rini]

150. maybe institutionalized is a better word

[Violet_Crumble]

166. It's a dandy word, but it sure ain't applicable to Europe...

Maybe you could try explaining why you think it is?

Violet...

[rini]

172. When an idea is institutionalized

that means it is such an integral part of society, through the use of " sayings" or attitudes that it is not taught, it just is. An example would be the common usage of ethnic jokes that are derogatory ("but I didn't mean it in a nasty way") or sayings such as "...them down," or some of my best friends are... or not inviting a member of a certain group to a social event. It is not usually discussed, it just is. That can apply to any group by the way.

[bluesoul]

61. Define much Muddle

Much as most in Europe is anti-semitic? You know you don't help your credibility with such generalized conclucions. And I also wonder how many times you've actually been here and talked to Europeans from different countries.

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. Much is a lot

Not a majority, not a little.

My friend dictionary.com says: "A large quantity or amount."

Works for me.

[BushCutters]

116. So, could this be part of the problem?

In the infancy of the current State of Israel, she had to choose between aligning with the West (US et al) or the East (USSR et al).

Hypothetical: if she had chosen to align with the USSR et al, would we even have this I/P forum?

[Muddleoftheroad]

121. Choice

I actually think you are pretty on target. In addition to ties with the American Jewish community, Israel has been on our side and was throughout the Cold War. Meanwhile, the Arab neighbors were Soviet client states.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. No-one claimed Europe was a monolithic group of people...

That would be as silly as claiming that the US was monolithic in its opposition to Hitler during the war, because everyone knows there were some, maybe even many depending on how you decide to define the word *many*, Americans who supported Hitler....

I still think yr confusing people with the governments that were in control of some countries. You make it sound like way way more people supported Hitler than opposed him, which is clearly untrue and understandably offensive to Europeans reading this thread...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Wow, Europeans are offended

I guess I'm going to have to live with that if they are offended by the truth.

Frankly, the people AND nations who can be the most proud of their actions during WWII are the Commonwealth nations. They fought Germany as soon as she invaded Poland and kept on fighting till the end. Even the Soviet Union, which incurred incredible casualties fighting Germany also had a peace treaty to divide Poland WITH Germany. I would also give major props to the Poles themselves who got crushed by the German war machine but still stood up to them.

[Paschall]

67. Except, of course, almost every observer...

...and European-wide study agree that Poland is the most anti-Semititic nation on the post-War Continent--even though the Jewish population of 3.3 million was reduced to 15-20,000 during the Holocaust.

In the 1990s, 30% of the Polish population said Jews had "too great a role" in the country's economy, media, and politics. The Roman Catholic Church played an active part in anti-Semitic attacks in Poland. Stanislaw Jankowsky, who was the chaplain of Solidarnosc and clost friend of Lech Welesa, compared the Star of David to the Nazi swastika.

Poland wasn't included in the EU poll, because it is not currently a member.

http://www.coe.int/T/E/Human_Rights/Ecri/

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. Even then

They were not very pro-Jewish. Perhaps then and maybe even now the Poles blame the Jews for the German attack. I don't know.

Anyhow, I was giving them props for fighting the Germans, not for enlightened behavior.

[Paschall]

72. Oh, so fighting the Germans...

...was not indicative of religious tolerance?

Why, then, would "rolling over for Hitler like a poodle" be indicative of religious intolerance, as you imply?

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. Rounding up Jews

The Vichy goverment rounded up Jews for the Nazis.

[Paschall]

80. And, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the Vichy government was illegitimate

When the French Republic was restored after the war, Vichy war criminals were tried before the Republic's courts...that is when the French mobs didn't get their hands on them first and simply kill them in the streets.

In regard to the trials of Vichy criminals, my French mother-in-law--who raised her brother's family while he was in concentration camp in Poland for Resistance activities--says, "We were too good to them. More deserved to die."

But rounding up Jews has nothing to do with combatting the German invaders, does it? And that was the subject of this sub-thread.

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. The subthread

Was about helping Hitler. Lots of French did. Lots of Europeans did, which is my entire point. Many Europeans did NOT fight the Nazi menace.

[Paschall]

85. Alright

But to be fair, more Europeans than Americans fought the Nazi menace, didn't they?

[Muddleoftheroad]

87. Undoubtedly

But much of Europe wasn't fighting a two-front war.

[Paschall]

89. No, they were just fighting a war at home

:eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. Very true

nt

[rini]

154. I do have experience with Europeans I had European born parents

and have lived there. Yes, many to this day blame the Jews/Americans for the war. The weirdest thing I ever heard was a German woman who blamed the US for forcing "damned democracy" down our throats. I couldn't help laughing and when she asked what was so funny, I said "that is the stupisest thing I have ever heard!" (I was young since then I've heard stupider) Needless to say we never became friends.

[rini]

152. All countries have

things they wish they hadn't done or could change, Europe (I am not going through every country)being old has more on it's plate than the US, Canada, or Australia. Actually, a lot more.

[Classical_Liberal]

104. Vichy was a puppet government the Nazies installed

after defeating France.

[Muddleoftheroad]

107. It was a FRENCH government installed...

After the Nazis defeated France. Big difference.

[edzontar]

111. Puppet Governments are almost always culled...

From the sort of rotten traitors that are willing to serve on them...Petain, Quisling, etc.

There is nothing "Different" about the French case!!!

[BushCutters]

117. However, the French do have a history:

ever heard of the Dreyfuss affair?

[edzontar]

119. All too true...but even in this case, as in others

There were also French people who stood up for Dreyfuss.

I mean, it is like the USA or any other nation---we had Dredd Scott after all.

[Muddleoftheroad]

120. Au contrair

France surrendered faster than they should have and then set up a client state. That's not exactly identical to how everyone else reacted.

[Classical_Liberal]

131. Bull

They didn't have enough military to fight they germans, so the surrendered and switched to guerilla tactics and the french resistence. The nazies set up Vichy not the french.

[The Magistrate]

161. If Second War History Is To Be Discussed, Ma'am

Be aware that the French were considered by most professional observers to have the best army in the world at the outbreak of the Second World War, and the largest in Europe outside the Soviet Union. The idea France did not have enough military power to fight the Germans is most innaccurate. France used that power poorly, while the German forces were wielded very well, and in a novel style, but matters could very well have gone other than they did. Similarly innaccurate is the idea that France then went over to guerrilla war on any scale. Resistance activity in Western Europe is the most consistently over-rated feature of that conflict in the popular histories. Its effects were negligible, and the number of people actively involved were miniscule. Partisan activity in Eastern Europe, on the other hand, reached a level that had at least real, if generally minor, military signifigance: Tito's partisans achieved genuine effect. In the Orient, Red Chinese guerrilla activity assumed a vast and effective proportion against the Japanese.

[Violet_Crumble]

167. And you really should mention...

That there should be no shame attached to a nation for their defences being over-run during WWII despite having what was seen as impregnable defences, otherwise we could all sit here hooting and chuckling about the British and the swift fall of Singapore. To it's very real credit in the inter-war era, France wasn't playing the appeasement game with Germany that Britain was into. France recognised the danger that a militarised and powerful Germany would pose and Frances fears were proved right...

The argument in this thread hasn't been that there was or wasn't a high level of resistance, but that the people under occupation aided and supported the Nazis. When it comes to resistance, of course it was romanticised after the war, but that doesn't mean that some didn't exist, or else how do you explain the Nazis abandoning using the French rail system because it was continually sabotaged? Or people like Nancy whatsername, who was called the White Mouse or something? I remember reading that when it came to Western Europe, one of the many factors in there not being a thriving resistance was that the terrain of Western Europe wasn't all that conducive to it, what with it mainly being flat land and all. Plus, I guess it all depends by what you define resistance as. For me, individual actions fall into that category, like the widespread Dutch practice of all getting up and leaving bars if anyone in German uniform came in to have a drink, or this story:

"Everyone can attack troops, in a minor way, if he wants to. The locus classicus is the elderly Frenchwoman who did not think well of the Germans, rested her weak heart by sitting on a bench in the Metro, and took care to trip up with her umbrella every pair of jackboots that passed. This was trivial, but she felt better for it, and twenty or thirty Germans a day had a moment of exasperation and felt worse."

I get a strong feeling that there might be one or two people here who are working backwards from their notions that Europe is a place of institutionalised anti-semitism and France is bad because it stood up to the Bush Administration on Iraq, and tweaking the history of WWII to try to make a point. It doesn't work that way. If they really want to get their teeth into support for Axis occupying powers, they don't have to go further than the initial reaction of people in SE Asia who at first saw the Japanese as liberating them from their European colonial masters, until they worked out that the Japanese weren't planning on giving them the independence they wanted either...

Violet...

[bemildred]

175. Corregidor.

Stalin got bitch-slapped pretty well too, and the US and
Stalin had warning.

[The Magistrate]

176. There Are Some Who Do Rather Chuckle Over Singapore, Ma'am

Grim as the consequences for so many were, and unkind as the doing is. A variously titled work by Col. Masanobu Tsuji, a firebrand who was operations chief of the 25th Army, is most instructive on the campaign, and well worth acquiring.

The truth is that there was some collaboration with the Nazis everywhere in Europe, and France was no better or worse in this regard than the rest. Post-war attitudes are often read back anachronistically in judging collaboration, as well. The various puppet governments erected in most European countries Hitler conquered were not de novo, but mostly represented genuine rightist political movements within those countries before the war, with substantial popular followings. It was a fairly common view in Europe during the late thirties that Nazis were preferable to Bolsheviks, if that was the choice on order, and it is understandable that this embarrassing fact has been largely dropped down a memory hole subsequent to the full flouresence of Hitlerite atrocity.

It is not my purpose to deny the existance of resistance in France, or to disparage the tremendous courage desplayed by many in such activities. But my definition of effective resistance is a strictly military one, and there the phenomenon in the west falls far short of signifigance. Far, far more disruption to the railway service was accomplished by the orthodox means of fighter-bomber attack, and carpet bombing of marshalling yards, than buy sabotage. In the east, partisan bodies moved in echelons numbering thousands, and forced the deployment of large bodies of soldiery behind the lines to secure communications in operations that fell little short, in many instances, of full-scale battle.

Finally, Ma'am, we are in agreement about what some seem to be doing in this un-wieldy conversation, and that it is a distortion of the facts.

[Muddleoftheroad]

179. No matter which way you look at it

Either from the perspective of 2,000 years of European anti-Semitism or just from the events themselves, an awful lot of Europeans aided the Nazis -- two million non-Germans putting on German uniforms alone. That ignore their numerous allies and the network of collaborators.

OK, so we count little old ladies tripping soldiers and people walking out of bars, I assume you count every little thing they did to HELP the German war machine -- making food, helping fix roads, working in factories, informing on others, hookers who served German soldiers, businesses that catered to German soldiers, etc.

[Classical_Liberal]

130. That's bizzare reasoning

The germans chose the leader, not the french.

[Muddleoftheroad]

134. He put himself in that position

By advocating surrender and then negotiating with the Germans.

[rini]

147. The only reason

Stalin fought the Nazis was becaue Hitler broke their pact when he invaded Russia.

[dutchdemocrat]

26. sure...

Puppet governments were put in place. You admit it pretty much with with Spain.

And there were PEOPLE willing to go along with the Germans.

Lion's share of opposition? USA?

Yea right...

America was a huge financier of the Nazi war machine and preferred to watch and wait for two years until Pearl Harbor forced them in.

Give credit where credit lies. With the Brits and their Commonwealth friends such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada for battling from day one.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Franco was no puppet

Franco outlasted all of the leaders of his time. Had he been a German puppet, Spain would have been in the war.

Yes, when Germany went to war with Britain, Canada, South Africa, India, Australia, etc. all fought and did their share. Had America entered into the war at that time, we would have been devasted. You now want to blame America for trading with the Germans prior to the war? Come on. As long as nations exist, they trade. Of course America traded with Germany.

As the war developed, FDR did his part getting the nation ready for war and helping Britain at the same time. You must recall that the idea of a European war was certainly nothing new. The Europeans had been killing one another on a regular basis for hundreds of years. Yes, WWII was different, but that was not necessarily immediately evident.

[Violet_Crumble]

168. Devastated?

How exactly? Why would it take the US so much longer than the nations which entered the war in 1939 to mobilise? Even if the US had entered the war with no preparation beforehand, it wouldn't have taken all that long for it to go from zero to full-speed when it came to being on a war-footing, and it was never at any risk of being devastated. And yes, I do want to blame those who traded with the Nazis AFTER the war started and BEFORE the US was pulled into it. And that spineless isolationist US Congress deserves scorn too for being opposed to just about every move FDR did make to try to assist his soon-to-be allies. And don't forget that even before war broke out in 1939, the US was just as aware as Britain and other nations that did go to war at the outset about how dangerous the Nazis were and that what was brewing wasn't just another little European tiff...

Violet...

[Art_from_Ark]

43. Do you have any idea why Finland sided with Germany???

Because the Soviets stole a large part of Finland, after signing a non-aggression treaty with the Finns a few years earlier.

"In the winter dawn of 30 November 1939, four Soviet Armies with 23 divisions - some 460,000 men with over 2,000 tanks - began advancing across the length of Finland's 1,200 km long eastern border. Their objective was to occupy the entire territory of Finland by the end of the year, installing Moscow's puppet 'Terijoki Government' in Helsinki, and establishing a new 'Democratic Republic of Finland'. Their troops were issued with detailed written warnings not to cross into Sweden once they had reached Finland's western border, and the 7th Army included a military band for the victory parade in Helsinki."

http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/war1.html

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. So?

Yes, we can now go into detail about the Winter War and more and bore most folks here to hell.

They still SIDED WITH GERMANY. I don't care if it's because Adolph shipped them Austrian chocolates.

[Art_from_Ark]

63. Yeah, it would have been much better to side with Josef "Pogrom" Stalin

:eyes:

[BushCutters]

118. If it had saved more than 11,000,000 people,

including the more than 6,000,000 Jews slated for their 'final solution', yeah, it might ust have been much better...

[Art_from_Ark]

174. Surely you jest

Stalin was busy eradicating people in his own country, including during this pogrom from 1931



He had no more love for the Jewish people than Hitler did.

At the same time, Stalin had no love for the Finnish people, either, and he invaded their country to turn it into another Soviet "republick". He ended up stealing 25% of Finland, and deporting or arresting the Finns who had been living there. Why the hell would Finland want to fight WITH a country that had just invaded them and caused so much grief?

And surely you don't believe that the Americans would have come to their aid? Because they didn't.

Whether or not the Finnish people had any love for Hitler, Nazi Germany was about the only country that offered to help Finland expel the invaders. So it was a bargain with the devil, to fight the devil. The enemy of my enemy, and all that.

[The Magistrate]

177. Your Instinct, Sir, To Leave The Winter War Alone Was A Sound One

Relations between Finland and the Bolsheviks, and Finland and Russia, for that matter, had long been bitterly hostile. Finland had rebelled for independence against the Czars and been drowned in blood, and carved its independence early in the 20th century out of the chaos of the Russian Civil War, fighting as a local White power with assistance from the western Allies and German freikorps bodies, in a campaign marked by great massacre of suspected "Reds".

The Winter War was conducted at a time when Hitler and Stalin were allies, and Hitler refused any assistance to the Finns, even though the terms of the Hitler-Stalin pact apportioned that as a German sphere, and they begged him for such assistance. Both England and France made some attempt to assist the Finns, by supply of equipment, but had little to spare, and their exertons had no appreciable effect.

[Art_from_Ark]

178. You are correct in your assessment

The Winter War was fought at a time when the Hitler-Stalin Pact was in force. Britain and France were considering aid, but it was a half-hearted act at best. For its part, Finland just wanted to be Finland, and no doubt would have preferred to be neutral. However, after the end of the Winter War, they saw the need to have an ally who would help keep the uneasy peace between themselves and the Soviet Union. This is, I believe, where Hitler came in. The Germans had a non-aggression pact with Russia, so it is plausible that the Finns felt that the Russians would not unilaterally launch another attack against Finland if it meant fighting against the Wehrmacht. So German troops were invited to Finland. Unfortunately for the Finns, Germany broke the non-aggression pact with Stalin on June 21, 1941, an act which, in Stalin's mind, gave him the go-ahead to attack Finland again, which he did on June 25. For its part, Great Britain, which had declared war on Germany for invading Poland (but which, curiously, stood by as Stalin claimed his half of the country), declared war on Finland on December 6, 1941.

So for Finland, the choice was either fight with Germany, or capitulate.

[DavidMS]

163. With all due respect

The Austrians resisted the NS takeover untill 1938 and then capualted without a fight. They wouldn't have had much of a chance. They could have but there were enough swine in the country to make it difficult (quie a few former civil servants who were fired as part of a austerity plan in the 1920s joined the Austrian Nazi Party).

There was a large resistance movement in France, the Netherlands, etc.

Finland was allied to NS Germans in so far as they were both fighting the Soviet Union. However the Fins did not perticulary desire teritorial expansion as to prevent suffering the fates of Lativa, Lithunia and Estonia (asorbtion at bayonet point into the Soviet Union). The government of Finland refused to turn over their jewish citizens to the Nazi Pigs. It was a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend (at least to his face).

http://www.jchelsinki.fi/history.htm

There was a substantial trade-union based opposition to Hitler in Germany untill they were politicaly broken.

The Italians were not perticulary ideological in Facist Anti-Semitism:

http://members.tripod.com/gulnbla/history6.htm

The only thing that can be said is that with the execption of neo-nazis and other racist trash most of Europe does not defince their national character religiously or ethnicaly.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Uh, yes they did...

We're talking about people, not nations, Muddle. I studied European resistance and collaboration last year, and yr wrong when you claim that many people didn't resist as best they could. Even if people hadn't resisted, I don't think it justifies Europeans being called Euro-trash as they were in this article. While some people think it's just fine to make generalisations about groups of people as long as they're not Jewish, I think calling any group trash is nasty and more than likely borne out of a bigotry towards that group...


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. European resistance

Yes, many Europeans resisted. Many also aided Hitler.

As for the Euro Trash expression, it is a common term. Seriously, have you ever heard it before? Not sure if it travels.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. No, many people did not aid Hitler...

Yr confusing the people with their governments, some of which did aid Hitler...

So what if Euro Trash is a common term? So's other offensive terms and it doesn't make them any less offensive. And a European's pointed out that it's offensive to them, which makes sense to me, seeing as how I was offended when Mahathir referred to Australians as the white trash of Asia...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Many PEOPLE did

Governments and people intertwine. People manned the camps -- a lot of them from non-German nations. People fought on the side of Germany, again a lot from other nations.

I'm sorry you are offended by the term Euro Trash. I would be interested to here from some Euro posters to see if they feel the same. Here it is a fairly common term and I've known Europeans to use it. For the record, it wasn't MY term.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Europeans have already told you it's offensive...

Muddle, my suggestion to you is to do some serious reading on resistance and collaboration in European countries occupied by the Nazis during WWII because right now all you seem to be doing is saying 'It is because I say so!' while ignoring historical facts....

So what if an offensive term is one commonly used and sometimes used by members of the group it's aimed at? Does that mean the word nigger isn't offensive because you told me that some Afro-Americans use it? Both are offensive no matter who uses it or how commonly used it is...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. My suggestion is you also do some reading

About the many nations AND peoples who aided Hitler. You don't get to be a world power all on your lonesome you know.

As for Euro Trash, until today I've never heard anyone even mildly offended by it. I've heard people ignore it and heard people -- Americans and Europeans alike -- use it. If it is a pejorative term, it's a new one on me.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Okay, point me towards some books...

I'll go grab them and give them a read and see if they support what you say, depending on how you choose to define the word 'many' of course...

Calling any group of people trash is offensive and meant to be demeaning. Kinda like trailer trash and all. And judging by the content of the article, it was meant to be demeaning...


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. Reading list

Violet, sorry but it's not my job to provide you with a reading list for this course. What you read on your own time is your own choice. For starters though, you might try the link I provided in another post here for just a smidgen of info on nations that aided Hitler.

And, btw, trailer trash is ALSO a common term here. And even folks IN trailers use it.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. I didn't think you'd come through...

This isn't a course, Muddle. This is a thread on a board on the internet, and you suggested I do some reading, so I wanted you to point me in the right direction, because everything I've read on WWII doesn't support the claims you've made here. I'm aware that yr implication was that I haven't read anything and don't know my history about WWII, but that's not the case at all...

Violet...

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. More

However, the site I have posted from seems the best so far.

Here is more about them:

"Feldgrau.com is a non political German military history research site. Our focus is on the German armed forces during the most tumultuous period of the 20th century, the time between 1918 and 1945.

We've been online since February of 1996 and have had over one million visitors! Our main focus is on the operational histories of the units and organizations that made up the German army, navy, airforce and all associated auxiliary formations, both during the Weimar period and the NSDAP era.

Feldgrau is a massive work in progress; our motto is "information kept secret is lost". There are many sections here that aren't yet complete but we hope to have the entire site finished before the end of 2003."

They have tons of info including links on:

"Freiwillige - Foreign Volunteers - The history of the extensive foreign volunteer formations that served within the German Armed Forces during WWII.

Alliierte - Axis Allies - The history of the European Axis-allied nations that fought alongside Germany during WWII.

Kollaboration - Axis Collaboration - The history of the collaborationist formations that assited the German Armed Forces during WWII."

According to their information, 2 million foreigners served IN the German military, in addition to the many outright German allies and collaborators.

[Violet_Crumble]

75. That link didn't support yr claim...

Yr claim was that the majority of people in Occupied Europe aided Hitler. All I saw was some basic info on numbers of troops and countries, none of which support the claim you made. Anyway, I'm sorry. I assumed since you were so sure of everything you've claimed that you'd actually done some real reading, y'know, along the lines of reputable history books on the subject, not some internet site...

Shockingly, Europeans seem more aware of their own history than you do, and accusing Europeans from countries that were occupied by the Nazis as not wanting to talk about their pro-Hitler roles is completely out of line, especially since every European or descendant of Europeans in this thread has pointed out that they're quite aware there were collaborators...


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. Majority was not my claim

And in post 24, I even said I doubted whether either of us could prove the majority was on one side or the other. It's too complex for that.

My claim was a lot of Europeans aided Hitler. That is so obvious as to be a given. Not only did millions serve in Hitler's armed forces OUTSIDE of the Axis, but the other Axis allies also aided Hitler. Then there were the collaborators and such like those in Vichy.

For all that Europeans might be aware of some version of their history, they sure don't make it easy to find on the web. And the site I found seems not only legitimate, but well-informed, apolitical and very substantial. It is also supported by three book dealers and publishers.

[bluesoul]

83. Muddle about those millions

As you might know the population of Germany alone at the time was around 60 mio!

[Muddleoftheroad]

92. Your point?

nt

[Violet_Crumble]

169. But in post 42 you claimed it was the truth...

You replied to a post where I said: 'You make it sound like way way more people supported Hitler than opposed him, which is clearly untrue and understandably offensive to Europeans reading this thread...'

with:

'Wow, Europeans are offended. I guess I'm going to have to live with that if they are offended by the truth.'

That's why I thought that you'd claimed that a majority supported Hitler, because you appeared to be agreeing with me saying that you were making it sound like a majority supported him....

The reason why you might be finding it hard to find much detailed information on the web is because the vast majority of it's in books. I've got one called 'The Penguin History of the Second World War' by Peter Calvocoressi, Guy Wint, and John Pritchard that should be easy for you to get hold of and has a chapter on European resistance. It dispels the claims you've made here, though. And there's another one called 'Resistance: European Resistance to Nazism 1940-1945' by MRD Foot that'd be a good one to take a look at...


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

170. Books

I read lots of books, but I don't have all of them at home. Most, due to cost, are at the library. And that makes them a little hard to research. When I get a chance, I will see if I can track down the books you mention.

Did you look over the web site I included? Interesting information about how many Europeans aided the Nazi army, not taking into account the massive number that aided their civilian authorities, helped them round up Jews, etc.

[bluesoul]

29. Common term?

Maybe in your world. To most of us it's HIGHLY offensive, like the anti-semitic remarks that offend Jews, or anti-Arab remarks that offend Arabs. Seems to me the offending certain people is just fine and dandy as long they're not youknowwho...

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. Again, I didn't write the headline

If you find it offensive, fine. It is a common term in America to describe a certain type of young, uber-hip, smarmy European. I have even seen it used in advertising.

[rini]

155. to kinda sorta tie this with the article

There was no European country who allowed Jews fleeing the Nazis to settle there. Instead there were signs in the shops "no Jews or dogs allowed." Those who resisted were, by and large, fighting for their national honor, and didn't give a durn about Jews. A sad but sorry truth.

[Aidoneus]

21. you wrongly conflate "ruling elites" with whole peoples

That's the same mistake the former make, and it's not worth endorsing.

While the ruling establishments in some of these countries sided with the fascists to preserve their own monopolies on economics, the popular resistance in many of these places was fierce.

[Scurrilous]

23. The French sorta fought the Nazis during the blitkrieg...

..the French sorta fought the Nazis in North Africa, the French sorta fought the Nazis in Italy, and the French sorta fought the Nazis at Normandy and helped liberate Europe. Oh, and along the way they sorta
incurred roughly 640,000 casualties. Freakin' euro-trash anti-semites.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. The French also sort of helped the Germans

The French also sort of surrendered vastly faster than they should, while they still had armies in the field. The French sort of created a subject government that aided the Germans. The French sort of aided the Germans in rounding up Jews as well.

Many brave French fought the Germans, but the French history of World War II is not one just of the brave resistance fighter blowing up trains.

[Scurrilous]

55. Who's talking about blowing up trains...

..I'm talking about the Free French Forces. They fought in Libya and Egypt against the Afrika Corps. They fought against the Italians in Eritrea and Ethiopia. 100,000 Free French fought against the Nazis in Italy and by the time of the Normandy invasion they had 400,000 troops available. These Free French Forces were a whole different group than the Maquis or the Resistance. They fought Hitler and the Nazis every step of the way, never rolled over, and contributed greatly to the final Allied victory.

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. Free French

While the Free French forces OUTSIDE of France fought, the French INSIDE France were helping Hitler, rounding up opposition and capturing Jews.

[Scurrilous]

68. Maybe someday you can...

...take a little trip to France. There you can find what's left of the villiage of Oradour-sur-Glane. There's a visitors center there. Oradour-sur-Glane was a village in the Limousin region of Vichy France that came under direct German control in 1942. As a result of increased Resistance activity in the vicinity, the Nazis razed Oradour-sur-Glane to the ground and killed 197 men, 240 women, and 205 children. This is just one villiage. The people inside occupied France paid a heavy price during WW2. They were not all collaborators or quislings.

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. Many were and many were not

The Vichy government was not a fiction. It controlled a huge chunk of France. It was run by French.

Again, those who fought Hitler deserve TONS of credit. Those who helped him deserve being remembered as well.

[edzontar]

103. And Mr. Muddle, what those resistance folks and their families recieved...

From the Germans was TONS of death and destruction, with nearly 700, 000 French soldiers killed and many more thousands of civilians and resisters shot, gassed, and worked to death, including many thousands of French CITIZENS who were also Jewish and shipped off the the death camps.

They were ALSO French.

And what I am at this point is TONS of annoyed by your refusal to decline, remove, and other wise disavow your slanderous statements about "poodles" and the like....

I am STILL waiting.

[Muddleoftheroad]

108. Did I say the French didn't suffer?

They did -- a lot. They also surrendered too damn fast. Hell, even their army at the time was stunned by that.

I didn't slander France in any way. So I have nothing to disavow.

[edzontar]

114. OH, so saying "the French" are surrender poodles, etc.

Isn't that an insult?

What about insisting that the French people as a group bear the blame for Vichy and other collaborators?

Or the bit about "Blaming the French" for the WAY that they lost to the Germans?

I suggest that you take a good look at this thread and consider all of the poeple you provoked and offended with your thoughtless comemnts.

Can't you even admit that the impression you gave is one of collective guilt for an entire people--"Europeans," "French" et al.

Whatever your intention--and I am not all concinced that you didn't mean eveything you wrote--this appears to be the message that you have been sending out!!

You have disrespected the souls of thousands of heroic dead.

[Muddleoftheroad]

124. Not what I said

I said, "The French rolled over for the Germans like a poodle begging for a treat." If I could name another French animal that rolls over, I'd have considered that. The only French animal I could name is the poodle.

If it's an insult, it's an insult to the French military and political leadership of the time. I'm guessing they're all pretty much dead.

As I just noted in another post, a poster emphasized how much Europe had fought Hitler. I was pointing out that many in Europe did just the opposite. I stand by that statement.

Yes, I do blame the French for surrendering so fast. So sue me. I admire the way the English or the Soviets held on much more.

If people are provoked by this thread, then they need to read more history. Europe's history is not all sugar and light. Much of it is quite dark. When the darkness hit with Hitler, many brave Europeans fought -- millions to their death. Many others took Hitler's side. You should not recall the one without the other.

So, should Europe bear no guilt for 2,000 years of mistreating the Jewish people?

And, for the record, I haven't disrespected a single soul who fought for freedom against Hitler. I've disrespected those who did not or those who choose to ignore those who did not.

[Scurrilous]

128. If you admire the British so...

..and denigrate the French for surrendering so quickly, how do you feel about the BEF's rapid retreat before the Nazis in France. The British didn't fare much better than the French. Thank God for the English Channel or the Nazis would have rolled right over the British as they did most of Western Europe at the outset of the war.

[Muddleoftheroad]

132. All armies retreat sooner or later

But even when England was pretty much standing alone in Europe, it still stood.

And for the record, the Channel didn't stop us from invading back into Europe and it didn't necessarily stop the Germans going to England. Englishmen and women fighting those same Germans did.

[edzontar]

129. Ok Muddle, let's agree to this....

The "French" is a term that can mean a number of things depending what figure of speech you use.

"The French" can be a trope standing for "the French Government" or their Army--but more generally this would be taken to mean the French people "as a whole," which would clearly be unfair.

I would still maintain that singling out the French for special discredit in their defeat is unfair as wll--after all, Poland, Holland, Belgium, Norway, etc. were similarly overwhelmed, and I don't see ypou ragging on those folks.

On thw whole, I am sure that none of these governments, and certainly none of these populations were especially thrilled to be conquered.

There WERE collabrators and traitors, to be sure. Plus lots of people--elderly, children, etc., who were in no position to offer serious resistance.

But many DID fight back.

So go EASY, man, Europe is a wonderful continent to visit. Most of the people are friendly enough. Their history is bloody and horrible, to be sure, and there are bad things to be found in their current politics (just like here).

But there is also much to admire in terms of art, music, literature, countryside, etc.

And the food, let us not forget that--especially in France and Italy.

If you look around, you will notice that there are many monuments dedicated to the memories of the partisans and the victims of the Holocaust and Nazi terror.

This will not bring these murdered souls back, nor will it ever wash away the crimes of those years.

But their names and faces are there in many of the public squares--in Italy especially--and it is not possible to forget them after you see these moving, human monuments.

[Muddleoftheroad]

133. Again, yes, many fought Hitler, many did not

Two million foreign members of the German army. That's not allies, that's people who fought on the side of Germany. There were also several smaller nations allied to Germany in addition to Italy.

I disagree that I am unfairly singling out France which was much more of a power and had been for years. Had France continued to fight, the mighty Axis war machine would have had its hands full.

Yes, Europe is indeed beautiful, the people have been friendly and I've had a nice time there.

Again, this thread blossomed as I merely tried to correct the record.

[rini]

157. France stands out

because it was the largest, not best armed army, in Europe. They were defeated because of outmoded defense strategies. Some were heroic freedom fighters, some collaboraters, some cared about the Jews, most didn't. They helped my family escape into Morroco. But many more were either led to their deaths or just considered expendable.

[Paschall]

77. "Outside" on some days, "inside" on others

My French father-in-law parachuted into France several times from his command headquarters in London as he helped organize logistics for the FFF. "Outside" were good days as there was less chance of being killed; nonetheless the FFF's work was "inside," and he made the dangerous journey repeatedly. You're not making much of a point. Inside, outside. :shrug:

[Classical_Liberal]

100. Let's see, you blame the Eastern Europeans and the French

for losing? Gosh that makes sense.

[Muddleoftheroad]

101. I blame the French for HOW they lost

They still had armies in France. They surrendered. If you want to see how to stand up to the German war machine, take a look at what the Soviet Union did.

[Classical_Liberal]

102. The Solviet Union was bigger had awful winters

and Stalinist. Never the less blaming them for losing is pretty damned silly. They also had a bitchin resistence movement, that over time might have overtaken Germany.

[Muddleoftheroad]

109. The Soviets also fought much harder

They destroyed whole cities doing so, but they fought pretty damn well. And, since I am no fan of the former Soviet Union, that says a lot that I am saying so.

[rini]

156. uh, the Soviets didn't lose

n/t

[edzontar]

105. Vive la France!!!! Vive la Resistance!!!!

There is this scene in "Casablanca", in Rick's cafe, where the exiles, French, Czech, and otherwise, join in to a rousing rendition of "La Marsellaise" to dorwn out the Nazi's fascist beer-hall song.

This is one of the great cinematic moments in a great film, and its theme is the unity of Fascisms's enemies, and the defint embrace of freedom!!!!

I always get a little teary-eyed when i see that scene.

I guess I forgot that the French are a bunch of surrender-monkeys and poddle-clipping cowards.

Vive la France, indeed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

110. Vive la Resistance

However, never forget that the same France that brought you that also brought you Marshall Petain and Vichy.

[edzontar]

112. YOU obviously never will!!!!

So ALL the French who are ever born or ever lived should bear the colelctive blame for Petain and Vichy?

By that logic, should every American take personal blame for McCarthy, Wallace, KKK, Nixon, et al?

[bluesoul]

113. Or for

the genocide against Indians...

[edzontar]

115. Thank you, Mr. Blue.

Can you believe we even have to argue this?

[Muddleoftheroad]

122. You are losing track of this thread

The point here was that another poster emphasized how Europe had fought the Nazis. I pointed out, many posts ago, that many in Europe also aided the Nazis, allied with them or fought beside them.

The rest has come from that molehill of a debate.

[edzontar]

125. True enough--but lay off the French for a bit, OK?

You are starting to sound like Dennis Miller.

[Muddleoftheroad]

135. Nothing against the French

I'm pretty sure the French I am critical of are long since dead.

[Darranar]

144. So now YOU join the French-bashing?

[dutchdemocrat]

16. Name them

Austria, Yes, Italy yes.

I am sure Poland loved being mowed over. Accusing the French is pretty low.

And...

Don't dare say Holland, part of my family spent time over in Germany working as slave labour.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. See my other post

And no, the French comment is NOT low. The French rolled over for the Germans like a poodle begging for a treat. They still had armies in the field after the blitz. Many other nations fought harder and cooperated less.

[edzontar]

64. I am of French descent.

How dare you write such hateful twaddle about people long dead whose lives and expereinces you know nothing about ?

The French arny was out-fought and many of its soldiers escaped to Britian and North Africa to fight another day.

There were Vichy fascists and Nazi collaborators, yes.

(Just as we have Bush-supporters and ignorant hateful bigots in this country today).

In your post, you slander a whole people, whom I happen to be descended from, with your thoughtless, ignorant remarks.

I hope you will apologize.

[drdon326]

25. Thats it??

you said it was a load of bs and thats all you could say??

listen, hit the alert button....asking you your opinion
should be considered a personal attack.

"But there is more at issue here than primitive anti-Semitism, though that surely plays a role in some of the polling results. A generation of Europeans has been miseducated by its own media and leaders about Israel. The United Nations has contributed to this miseducation by condemning Israel more frequently than any other nation, well out of proportion to its faults."

do you disagree with that??

[bluesoul]

30. Yes I disagree

with that! Generations of Europeans being "miseducated" is just BS. As though we've been all taught to be hating Jews. It's offending even, since it's highly generalizing. But that's what mr Dershowitz likes to do when confronted with criticism he doesn't like..

[rini]

146. the term

Euro-trash is a common usage term that is non-derogatory. It connotates a (pardon the old fashioned term) Yuppie.
As for Euopeans fighting Hitler and his policies those that fought, in general, fought against losing their nation. With the exception of Demmark I cannot think of one single country, no I just remembered Bulgaria, that cared about its Jewish population. Again, there were exceptions to this, but individuals, not countries.

[DarkPhenyx]

41. Hell, I can name three countries off teh top...

...that gave back land captured in the legitimate defense of itself. The United States, France, England. Eventually the Soviet Union, but I don't really feel comfortable adding them to that list.

Isreal, the State and Governmet not the people, are a growing foul presence in the world. It is Isreal that is causing it's own problems these days.

[rini]

145. I was disappointed

I really did expect better.

[OhioStateProgressive]

4. certainly questionable for sure

I do beleive Europeans in general have a problem with anti-semitism...but I would tend to be more of the opinion that the USA under George Bush is the worlds biggest threat towards peace


i like your icon


"each small candle lights a corner of the dark..."

[Violet_Crumble]

3. I'm not European but I can name another country...

Can the Europeans who believe that Israel is the greatest danger to world peace name another country that has ever given back land that was legitimately captured in a defensive war and necessary for its own defense in exchange for a promise of peace?

What about the Allies giving Germany and Japan back to the people living in those places?

btw, whoever wrote that article believes that it's necessary for Israel to hold onto the Occupied Territories for its defence? How does that work?

Violet...

[Gimel]

8. Psst, Violet

As far as the OT, I don't think it's happened yet, Violet. Everytime it gets close, there's a new wave of suicide attacks on Israeli cities. Too bad, some are opposed to the idea of peace.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Want to explain what that was about?

Psst, Gimel. What hasn't happened yet? I was asking for someone to explain the belief that Israel is holding on to the Occupied Territories because it's essential to the defence of Israel. So I don't understand what yr referring to when you say it hasn't happened yet....

Yeah, it is too bad some are opposed to the idea of peace, terrorist groups, Sharon and his cronies, and just about every fool who voted for Sharon amongst them....

Violet...

[Gimel]

15. My mistake

I thought you were relating to the quoted line:

captured in a defensive war and necessary for its own defense in exchange for a promise of peace?

[Violet_Crumble]

27. I see...

Yr saying the promise of peace hasn't happened yet. Gotcha. I was focusing on 'necessary for its own defense' which is why I asked the question 'whoever wrote that article believes that it's necessary for Israel to hold onto the Occupied Territories for its defence? How does that work?'

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Proximity

Notice how the U.S. and Britain still kept troops in both places for a long, long time? Notice how the Soviet Union trust the Germans so little they created a subject state.

Israel is a lot closer to the captured territories than any of those nations was.

[dutchdemocrat]

10. Dershowitz should look at the real reason for rising anti-Zionism

Not a good article at all. The poll (that Dershowitz fails to link too) is likely the one from Sweden which 52 per cent said Israel was the biggest threat to world peace on a list of 12 countries.

Wolf Blitzer was on about the Swedish poll two days ago and then ripped into France alluding that the European intelligentsia are holding hands with Islamic terrorists.

Dershowitz gets kudos for being a brilliant lawyer and prof at Harvard, but I did not think the op-ed piece and its inflammatory header "Euro trash - Perversity & anti-Semitism led to "Europeans" aka the Swedes, to call Israel the greatest threat to peace". The article is weak and purely a knee-jerk reaction.

--------------

I think Soros got it right. Instead of blaming the Europeans for a rise in Anti-Zionism, he blames the US and Israel.

Soros blames U.S., Israel
for anti-Semitism
Jewish billionaire says Mideast policies need to change

Posted: November 11, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Billionaire George Soros, who says his highest calling in life is to turn George Bush out of office, told a New York audience of wealthy Jews that that the policies of Israel and the U.S. are partly to blame for the rise of anti-Semitism around the world.

"There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe," Soros told the Jewish Funders Network, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. "The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that. It's not specifically anti-Semitism, but it does manifest itself in anti-Semitism as well. I'm critical of those policies. If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish," he said. "I can't see how one could confront it directly."


http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35535


A little about the country behind the Poll (note the link)

“Sweden is considered a pioneer in Holocaust education. In November 1997, the Swedish government introduced a large-scale educational program, called the Living History Project, to educate Swedes about anti-Semitism. For this project, a free book was distributed about the Holocaust to every household in Sweden and minority comminutes were given the book in their own language. A website devoted to the Holocaust was designed and Uppsala University opened an institute designated for the study of the Holocaust and other genocides. Uppsala University also hosted an international conference on Holocaust education, in 1998. In January 2000 Sweden hosted an international gathering to promote awareness of the Holocaust, which was attended by heads of state from numerous countries throughout the world.”

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/vjw/Sweden.html

[Melsky]

33. Thanks for posting about Soros

I agree with him fully.

[Lurking Dem]

88. Yes, the REAL reason for anti-Zionism

(was the euphamism intended?) is because Jews/Israel deserve it.

What a familiar argument.

[Kellanved]

12. he did not do his research

There is a certain, alarming, level of anti-Semitism, sometimes in a pseudo-intellectual cloak of anti-Israel arguments, in any European nation.
No doubt about it.
The media has deficits in pointing out the role of the neighbouring states - be it in supplying terrorists or the simple fact that they're keeping the Palestinians at their borders with no place to go. This reporting has improved - it was far worse a few years ago.

However, at the "leaders" part the BS starts: the German Parliamentarian was ousted by his Party and is now in Parliament as an independent (or will be by the end of the week) - anybody familiar with the rules of the German Parliament knows that this is about the same as not being in Parliament at all.
Why was he thrown out?
It did take two weeks until the Conservatives finally did that step: the public pressure did not fade, but continued to build, throwing the conservatives out of all other public debates. Every "little" xenophobic remark by conservative politicians was published, instead of ignored as before.
A General supporting the statement was sacked in an heartbeat, the Government showed that it does not tolerate any such notion - people supporting the outrageous claims (and there more than I hoped, most of whom were considered educated (especially by themselves)) were shown on TV as idiots - and rightly so.

I'm not sure about the "poll" that was leaked - I hope that the region, not the nation, was considered the danger for world peace by many of those polled.


On Edit: I've visited the Board of the German conservative party (the media reported that it reads like a board of a far right anti-semitic organization; so I decided to have a look) ; it seems that most members there think that Hohmann said the right thing (never mind that a simple look in a history book would show otherwise) and should be congratulated for his spine and not thrown out :crazy: :puke: .

[Classical_Liberal]

106. I'll bet Likud's fundy christian supporters have a higher percentage of

antisemites than modern Europe.

[Paschall]

49. Completely unfounded propaganda

"Having been exposed for years to virulent anti-Israel media coverage and anti-Israel bias from their leaders, it is not surprising that so many Europeans have had their views poisoned."

"A generation of Europeans has been miseducated by its own media and leaders about Israel."

"...Israel is singled out for demonization and delegitimization."

"Among the greatest threats to world peace, therefore, is not Israel itself but European bigotry against the Jewish nation."

I dare say Mr. Dershowitz would be unable to justify these absurd claims.

[bluesoul]

56. He couldn't!

And he knows it. It just feels fine to him to generalize and accuse entire nations and even continents of such things. That most of it is about criticism and not hatred is apparently not worth even considering for people like him.. Sad

[edzontar]

57. It is by Alan Dershbag--and this is not an "article"

It is an OPINION piece...

That said, lemme tell ya. My Dad worked with Mr. Dershowitz at Harvard.

And I know from his expereince that A. D. is a completely unscrupulous, publicity-seeking, ethically-challenged legal whore of the very worst sort.

He has dedicated his life to winning aquittals on appeal for high-profile, wealthy murderers.

Nice guy.

Also, note that he has justified torture when it is used against "Arabs" --in complete violation of international law and standards.

As for the so-called "Article," this is just one more example of the sort of specious and overarching arguments that would-be defenders of Israel throw out which accuse anyone who dares to criticize Israelis policies as anti-Semitic.

I am so very very sick of this horsepoop.

Stick a fork in it...this one is DONE!

[Classical_Liberal]

99. Another right wing crackpot

who thinks settlements are just honkey dory and any Eurotrash that doesn't like it is an antisemite. By the way this is a right wing rag that never turns a profit, and is subsidized by repukes.

[Forkboy]

123. Well,I hope no one gets offended when I post a "Jewish Trash" story.

[edzontar]

126. Touche!!!

n/t

[drdon326]

127. lol

i think you mean "AMERI-TRASH".

[Forkboy]

136. Dont you like Americans?

[meti57b]

137. Dersh rocks and rules!!.

... and if someone refered to the bush administration as Ameri-trash, I would find that entirely acceptable. And in fact, you can throw in the schvantzenagger administration into that category, too, along with haley barbour.

[Forkboy]

138. Sorry,but nobody who favors torture

ever "rocks and rules".

[meti57b]

140. Would you kindly name anyone who he has tortured? or even anyone ...

who was tortured on his behalf?

[Forkboy]

141. So he has to do the actual torturing

before you'll dislike him? Just saying it was ok isn't enough?

[Forkboy]

143. By this logic

I should like Rumsfeld...I mean he hasn't actually killed anybody himself.

[meti57b]

153. there's a difference...dumbsfeld is actually in a position of authority

where he can have people killed and he has done it.

[Forkboy]

159. So if a person thinks torture is ok

but can't/wont do the actual torture it's ok? Do I have this right,because that sure seems to be what you're getting at.

[meti57b]

160. People think all kinds of things and say all kinds of things ...

As far as I know, you still do have those civil liberties. You can think whatever you want to think about whatever you want to think it about. You draw the line when it comes to acting it out or if there is the ability to cause someone to act it out simply by expressing your opinion about it.

Patriot III hasn't been implemented yet.

[Forkboy]

162. This isn't about civil liberties

Dersch can say any damn thing he pleases....the point is at what point will someone stop taking him seriously? I personally feel that after a person has advocated the sticking of needles under people's fingernails and asking courts to issue "tortune warrants" that they've pretty much crossed that point.

[bluesoul]

139. It wasn't about

an administration but an ENTIRE continent. But I guess Dersh rocks cause he says we're all trash, right?

[meti57b]

142. The continent has a little more to worry about from bush than Dersh.

[rini]

148. Yes, it is a great article.

I hadn't heard the part about the sex scandals and I must admit it gave me the only laugh I've had all day. I thought of a few responses, but......well

Anyway anti-semitism in Europe is institutionalized. To be honest in many ways it is institutionalized in our country also. However, in Europe it goes a lot deeper than ours. In Poland, lamb is called Jew's meat. However, most Europeans don't recognize their own prejudices.


If you don't know it's broke, you can't fix it. At least in this country most people are willing to examine everything and fix what's broke.

[bluesoul]

149. Institutionalized

my butt. Sorry Rini that is way more then just generalizing, it's demonizing. Your accusations are as far as possible from the reality. Which doesn't surprise me really...

[rini]

158. I am truly sorry you feel that way

it goes once again to if the problem is not acknowledged, it can't be fixed.

[bluesoul]

165. The problem to be fixed is not with us

its with you.

[rini]

171. I guess I once again don't understand

If institutionalized anti-semitism in Europe is not the problem of Europeans, then whose problem is it? And why?

[bluesoul]

173. It certainly is not

a problem as you would like to make it look like, far from that, and it certainly ain't "institutionalized". Those are ignorant remarks whose only purpose is to take comfort because of the criticism aimed at Sharon and his policies, that have nothing to do with anti-semitism but simply opposing policies that have nothing to do with a democracy, international law and UN conventions. I could say that you wish it was so, so you could so easily dismiss the opionion of Europeans as pure anti-semitism, but unfortunately for you, it is not so. We just don't want the same things that have happened before happening again. And it's not Israel whose existence is in real danger, but Palestinians, driven from their homes, their land, a massive wall/fence built on their land, surrounding them and closing them into huge ghettos and bantustans without access to other vital parts of the land. Too hard for you to understand, hey?

[edzontar]

151. This is not an "Article"--its an editorial....

And an ignorant, useless one at that.

[Jack Rabbit]

164. Attempt at a critique

Alan Dershowitz is a trial lawyer and a good one. In his musings on the Middle East, he writes like one. Mr. Dershowitiz has assumed the state of Israel as his client, although I don't know and will not presume to know if anyone in the government of Israel requested his services. I will assume Mr. Dershowitiz is speaking for himself.

Nevertheless, he uses a courtroom advocate's approach. He presents the case for his client and, when he believes it would do some good, denigrates his adversary. By itself, this does not paint a realistic picture of circumstances. Mr. Dershowitz expects others to speak up for the Palestinians or, in this case, for Europeans, whom he accuses of anti-Semitisim.

Mr. Dershowitz bases this charage on reults of a recent poll taken in Europe. Respondents were given a list of countries and asked to name those each responsent felt was a threat to world peace. More respondents named Israel than any other country.

Mr. Dershowitz would have us believe that this is proof of anti-Semitism. This would be true if it were impossible for a reasonable person to state that Israel is a threat. However, Israel is a nation situated in an unstable reagion, possesses weapons of mass destruction, and has a right wing government. The Prime Minister of Israel, General Sharon, has never shown any inclination to persue peace. He was a sworn enemy of the Oslo peace process, even when it showed promising signs. Sharon has always placed the rights of Israeli settlers in land that lays beyond Israel's borders over those of the Arab people who have inhabited the land for centuries. He is one espouses a rightwing ideology in that he places the interests of his group tantamount over those of others, even at the expense of the rights of members of the alien group.

It might be noted that other most often named nations also possess at least some of these characteristics: possession of weapons of mass destruction; part of an active conflict or situated in an unstable region; and have leaders who are possessed of a rightwing ideology or are generally unblanaced. These nations included the United States, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and Syria.

Based on that, it does not unreasonable to name Israel as a threat to world peace, even if the situtation in which she finds herself is not entirely of her own making. It may also be said of the other nations on the list, including the United States, that the circumstances that make each a threat were not entirely of its own making. For example, he United States did not ask to be attacked on September 11, 2001, by al-Qaida. A certain response is expected and creates a dangerous and threatening situation.

Mr. Dershowitz also provides some historical background as to Isreal's circumstances. Mr. Dershowitz also provides his own interpretation of these events. Again, his case would be better if his facts and interpretation of those facts were beyond dispute. Without going into detail, let us simply accept as a self-evident truth that Mr. Dershowitz are not beyond dispute. Honest people can disagree over these facts and their interpetation. Honest people on this board do.

Consequently, it is disingenuous of Mr. Dershowitz to charge that Europeans or anybody else who calls Israel a threat to world peace are necessarily anti-Semitic. Whether one agrees that she is in fact such a threat, one must grant that it is not unreasonable to say so.

My own take on the poll is that reflects some degree of anti-Semitism. Exactly how much cannot be told from the poll results. I could be wrong about that. However, it would seem to me that a reasonable person would be more likely to name the United States as a threat to world peace than Israel. An irrational hostility to all things Jewish in some individuals is a possible explanation for this phenomenon. However, just because some respondents to the EU poll may have been irrational anti-Semites does not mean all or even a majority of those who cite Israel as a threat do. There are good reasons for coming to that judgment, whether it is the truth or not.