Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ~Caligula~ on June 12, 2002, 06:40:51 PM
-
I saw a show on History International about german POWs in England during and after WWII.
They were used to work on farms and rebuilt the few million homes that were destroyed by the LW.While they worked they were tought new values,and shown what western democracy is really about.Off course they weren`t happy to be away in uncertenty from their homes and families,but they all talked about how greatful they were to be treated fairly and how eye-opening it was for them to see something totally different from the way of life they were brought up in.They went home free from the nazi ideology that poisoned their minds up to that time.
It made me think if doing the same would be possible to the arabs? I know many think here I`m some kind of nazi,but my dislike for arabs doesn`t originate from their genetics or how they look.I belive the arabs could be just as good people as any other civilised nation on earth,if their heads wouldn`t be filled the fundamentalist BS their leaders brainwash them with,so they can maintain their strong grip on their people.
Some say forcing our culture on others is bad,and why is our culture better than theirs?
Well first off western democracy isn`t perfect by any means,but it`s definatelly the best system out there.
In WWII Germany and Japan (and some other nations) had to be beat hard,to rid them from the part of their culture that made them wanna go out and slay people,who just wanted to live their ordinary lives.Is their culture totally lost or altered?I don`t think so.It seems to me they are happier than ever.
So why all this can`t be done to the arabs?
Yes they have to be beaten in war first,to make them reallize they can`t win,but as sad as it sounds,that`s just how it works.
It`s something that`s gonna happen sooner or later,the only question is at what price?
If we let them get away with possessing nukes,ballistic missles and so on,they will hurt us awfully.
If the NATO acted now,it would be lot easier,and millions of lives could be saved on both sides.
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
I saw a show on History International about german POWs in England during and after WWII.
They were used to work on farms and rebuilt the few million homes that were destroyed by the LW.While they worked they were tought new values,and shown what western democracy is really about.Off course they weren`t happy to be away in uncertenty from their homes and families,but they all talked about how greatful they were to be treated fairly and how eye-opening it was for them to see something totally different from the way of life they were brought up in.They went home free from the nazi ideology that poisoned their minds up to that time.
Dude, I dont know exactly what kind of mental image you have of Germany and Germans pre 1945. But lets just say that they knew about the concept of democracy (since the NSDAP came to govern Germany through winning elections, then passing laws making Hitler supreme ruler of Germany). And they were no doubt grateful that they were in England as POW's instead of sitting in some French or US camp starving to death, or even worse, sitting in some Russian he**hole.
-
"Yes they have to be beaten in war first,to make them reallize they can`t win,but as sad as it sounds,that`s just how it works."
Yep and maybe peace could be made in Versailles :)
-
In WWII Germany and Japan (and some other nations) had to be beat hard,to rid them from the part of their culture that made them wanna go out and slay people,who just wanted to live their ordinary lives.Is their culture totally lost or altered?I don`t think so.It seems to me they are happier than ever.
So why all this can`t be done to the arabs?
Yes they have to be beaten in war first,to make them reallize they can`t win,but as sad as it sounds,that`s just how it works.
They were beaten in 1967. And occupied. Then they spent 25 years under military occupation. Then the PLO were brought in to keep order.
When exactly is the rehabilitation going to begin?
-
Nazi Germany was under Nazi reign for only... 1935?-1945.... Mid-east countries have basically been the same way for hundreds of years.
I doubt simply beating them will make them realize the "error of their ways".
The extremists will have to be exterminated for them to realise that we won't tollerate their toejam.
-SW
EDIT: forgot quotes
-
Dude, I dont know exactly what kind of mental image you have of Germany and Germans pre 1945. But lets just say that they knew about the concept of democracy (since the NSDAP came to govern Germany through winning elections, then passing laws making Hitler supreme ruler of Germany). And they were no doubt grateful that they were in England as POW's instead of sitting in some French or US camp starving to death, or even worse, sitting in some Russian he**hole.
Many of these germans grew up under nazi rule.They didn`t know any better than to be a nazi.The 10 years olds of 1933 were 22 years old men by 1945.That was all they ever saw,no forieghners,foreighn movies,no education other than the nazi one.
Their parents affraid of being reported to the Gestapo would most likely not try to convince them about the nazi regime being wrong,even if they felt that way.That`s just how dictatorships work,and Hitler`s Germany was problably the most harsh of them all,due to german efficiency.
They were beaten in 1967. And occupied. Then they spent 25 years under military occupation. Then the PLO were brought in to keep order.
Who was beaten?
The IDF could have marched in to Cairo,Damascus,Amman.But they didn`t.Other than their armies and some territories of wich the most was given back,they were left intact.Their leaders remained the same,they`re still toght to hate the west,they`re still backing international terrorism.
BTW what kind of order do You see the PLO keep?
Nazi Germany was under Nazi reign for only... 1935?-1945.... Mid-east countries have basically been the same way for hundreds of years.
I doubt simply beating them will make them realize the "error of their ways".
The extremists will have to be exterminated for them to realise that we won't tollerate their toejam.
-SW
So who are You consider the extremists?
Only the ones that blow themselves up in restaurants or those who dance on the streets after as well?
It`s not going to be easy,but we will have to find a way,because it IS the biggest problem of our time.
-
Are you also going to "exterminate" those ultra right-wing israeli politicians too or do you think that crise is made only by palestinian terrorists?
-
Heheh, since you're talking about education Caligula, maybe you should take a look at this article:
Washington Post, 23rd March 2002, by Joe Stephens and David B Ottoway
In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.
The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code.
As Afghan schools reopen today, the United States is back in the business of providing schoolbooks. But now it is wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism. What seemed like a good idea in the context of the Cold War is being criticized by humanitarian workers as a crude tool that steeped a generation in violence.
Last month, a U.S. foreign aid official said, workers launched a "scrubbing" operation in neighboring Pakistan to purge from the books all references to rifles and killing. Many of the 4 million texts being trucked into Afghanistan, and millions more on the way, still feature Koranic verses and teach Muslim tenets.
The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and that the books "are fully in compliance with U.S. law and policy." Legal experts, however, question whether the books violate a constitutional ban on using tax dollars to promote religion.
Organizations accepting funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development must certify that tax dollars will not be used to advance religion. The certification states that AID "will finance only programs that have a secular purpose. . . . AID-financed activities cannot result in religious indoctrination of the ultimate beneficiaries."
The issue of textbook content reflects growing concern among U.S. policymakers about school teachings in some Muslim countries in which Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism are on the rise. A number of government agencies are discussing what can be done to counter these trends.
President Bush and first lady Laura Bush have repeatedly spotlighted the Afghan textbooks in recent weeks. Last Saturday, Bush announced during his weekly radio address that the 10 million U.S.-supplied books being trucked to Afghan schools would teach "respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry."
The first lady stood alongside Afghan interim leader Hamid Karzai on Jan. 29 to announce that AID would give the University of Nebraska at Omaha $6.5 million to provide textbooks and teacher training kits.
AID officials said in interviews that they left the Islamic materials intact because they feared Afghan educators would reject books lacking a strong dose of Muslim thought. The agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts, AID spokeswoman Kathryn Stratos said.
"It's not AID's policy to support religious instruction," Stratos said. "But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children, which is predominantly a secular activity."
Some legal experts disagreed. A 1991 federal appeals court ruling against AID's former director established that taxpayers' funds may not pay for religious instruction overseas, said Herman Schwartz, a constitutional law expert at American University, who litigated the case for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Ayesha Khan, legal director of the nonprofit Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the White House has "not a legal leg to stand on" in distributing the books.
"Taxpayer dollars cannot be used to supply materials that are religious," she said.
Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university's education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.
During that time of Soviet occupation, regional military leaders in Afghanistan helped the U.S. smuggle books into the country. They demanded that the primers contain anti-Soviet passages. Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines, agency officials said. They acknowledged that at the time it also suited U.S. interests to stoke hatred of foreign invaders.
"I think we were perfectly happy to see these books trashing the Soviet Union," said Chris Brown, head of book revision for AID's Central Asia Task Force.
AID dropped funding of Afghan programs in 1994. But the textbooks continued to circulate in various versions, even after the Taliban seized power in 1996.
Officials said private humanitarian groups paid for continued reprintings during the Taliban years. Today, the books remain widely available in schools and shops, to the chagrin of international aid workers.
"The pictures [in] the texts are horrendous to school students, but the texts are even much worse," said Ahmad Fahim Hakim, an Afghan educator who is a program coordinator for Cooperation for Peace and Unity, a Pakistan-based nonprofit.
An aid worker in the region reviewed an unrevised 100-page book and counted 43 pages containing violent images or passages.
The military content was included to "stimulate resistance against invasion," explained Yaquib Roshan of Nebraska's Afghanistan center. "Even in January, the books were absolutely the same . . . pictures of bullets and Kalashnikovs and you name it."
During the Taliban era, censors purged human images from the books. One page from the texts of that period shows a resistance fighter with a bandolier and a Kalashnikov slung from his shoulder. The soldier's head is missing.
Above the soldier is a verse from the Koran. Below is a Pashtu tribute to the mujaheddin, who are described as obedient to Allah. Such men will sacrifice their wealth and life itself to impose Islamic law on the government, the text says.
"We were quite shocked," said Doug Pritchard, who reviewed the primers in December while visiting Pakistan on behalf of a Canada-based Christian nonprofit group. "The constant image of Afghans being natural warriors is wrong. Warriors are created. If you want a different kind of society, you have to create it."
-
Very interesting reading CH3.
Be prepared to be burned alive by the rightwingies here ;)
:P
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And they were no doubt grateful that they were in England as POW's instead of sitting in some French or US camp starving to death, or even worse, sitting in some Russian he**hole.
-
Midnight, you really dont know all that much about history do you?
If you want, I can mail you my sources to that statement of mine (so we can keep the board free of another flame war). Simple fact of the matter is that the statement is correct, like it or not.
-
Caligula,
That is quite ignorant and arrogant post when you think of it..
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Midnight, you really dont know all that much about history do you?
If you want, I can mail you my sources to that statement of mine (so we can keep the board free of another flame war). Simple fact of the matter is that the statement is correct, like it or not.
A. Hortlund, you really don't have a clue when it comes to civil debate do you?
B. My "A" statement is a parody of your opening line. Why would I be interested in learning something from someone with that type of arrogant attitude?
C. You have no clue as to how much or how little I know about history.
D. The US is directly responsible for feeding and rebuilding most of Western Europe after the War. It was called the Marshall Plan. Would you like me to send you some information on it?
E. Why would your sources start a flame war if they are accurate?
-
midnight german pows in us camps had a higher mortality rate then the british camps. Theres quotes by us service man about with holding food and one I recall where a us service states that dumped xxx gallons of milk out after letting it sit in the sun for a number of days. All this was done in the sight of the pows who were not feed in some number of days.
Ill dig the quotes up and post umm later.
As for refeeding europe thats not initially true right at the end of the war. Once the marshall plan began this was true. But some may believe that the marshall plan had more to do with keeping the Soviets in check by winning the hearts of western europe.
Right as the war was about to end the "morganthau plan" was leaked which called for the deindustrialization of germany and the use of food stuffs to keep the population in check.
Hortlund is right but you knew that.
A civil debate with you is impossible from your previous posts. The fact you imply Hortlund was trolling undermines you call for a civil debate.
I await your name calling and accussations of being a Nazi revisionist. Dont let me down.
After all lets keep it civil :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
A. Hortlund, you really don't have a clue when it comes to civil debate do you?
B. My "A" statement is a parody of your opening line. Why would I be interested in learning something from someone with that type of arrogant attitude?
C. You have no clue as to how much or how little I know about history.
D. The US is directly responsible for feeding and rebuilding most of Western Europe after the War. It was called the Marshall Plan. Would you like me to send you some information on it?
E. Why would your sources start a flame war if they are accurate?
Well, if I sounded arrogant, I apologize. I guess the tone of my post was overly harsh. I felt wrongfully accused of just trying to provoke people with what I wrote. I can handle a civil debate, usually I try to match the level of whomever Im debating with.
Wheter you want to learn something from me despite my arrogant attitude or not is totally up to you. But you are completely right that I have no idea whatsoever as to what you know about history in general, and this subject in particular.
You are completely correct when you say that the Marshall aid rebuilt Europe. But that is not what Im talking about. I'm talking about the French and US POW camps in France and the situations in those camps in 1945-46. I'm talking about German POW's dying by the thousands starving and freezing to death in the winter of 45-46. The exact numbers will never be known, but they range from a low estimate of 56 000, and up to 800 000.
After an intensive study of American documents and interviews with survivors and perpetrators, the Canadian writer and former publisher James Bacque concluded that just before and after the end of the war German POWs and civilians in American detention camps in Europe died from hunger, exposure, and disease causing conditions as bad as the worse of gulag, and for which General Eisenhower was directly responsible. Bacque's figures are stunning: "undoubtedly . . . over 800,000, almost certainly over 900,000, and quite likely over a million died."
Bacque's numbers are questioned though, mostly from american historians.
Basque's statistics, arguments, and documentation were subjected to careful and detailed study by a conference of historians organized by Stephen Ambrose, the director of the Eisenhower Center at the University of New Orleans. Papers from the conference have been published claim that Basque misread, misinterpreted, or ignored the relevant documents and that his mortality statistics are simply impossible.
However, the papers do show that some of the camps, particularly the transit camps that became known as the Rheinwiesenlager, were initially lethal, with thousands of German POWs dying, and that these deaths were the responsibility of the American government. While the final toll of the American transit camps was far from that alleged by Bacque, it still could have reached 56,000 dead.
No one really knows how many German soldiers died after the war, that is why the numbers vary so much. The general consensus among historians today though, is that the post war death toll for German citizens (soldiers and civilians) is between 1 000 000 and 4 500 000 (that is Germans dead from starvation, disease, exposure, violence etc, AFTER the end of the war).
And believe me correct sources can start very ugly flame wars. Just ask boroda and -am- about the winter war or the Soviet invasion of Germany 1945.
-
Found this after a quick google search, thought it might shed some light on Bacque's "numbers".
I believe it is worth pointing out that David Irving has publicly stated that James Bacque is a personal friend of his, and that he, David Irving, reviewed Bacque's work on "Other Losses" before it was printed. David Irving, of course, is the highly controversial person who sued an American professor in a British court for saying that he denies the Holocaust. Irving not only lost the case, but the presiding judge gave a devastating and scathing judgment against Irving and pointed that he is indeed a Holocaust-denier
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Found this after a quick google search, thought it might shed some light on Bacque's "numbers".
First, it is really sad, but this is the kind of response you get when you try to talk about allied warcrimes. Be they Dresden casualty figures, the fate of German POWs after the war, or the rape of 2 000 000 German women by Soviet soldiers... standard response, Imply that he is a revisionist[/b]
Is that the answer I'm gonna get? Because I really expected more from you than some Boroda-like moron reaction.
But in order for you not to be confused here, lets take Stephen Ambroses number of 56 000 then. 56 000 German POWs died after the war, as a direct result of the US governments actions.
Comments, thoughts, reflections?
Was I right or wrong when I said that German POWs were killed in US POW-camps or was I just trolling Midnight?
-
Actually, the more I think about it, the more that post of yours pisses me off Midnight. Take a look at what that quote of yours really say.
I believe it is worth pointing out that David Irving has publicly stated that James Bacque is a personal friend of his, and that he, David Irving, reviewed Bacque's work on "Other Losses" before it was printed.
Now exactly what the &#¤# is that supposed to mean? Does it say anything whatsoever about Bacque, his research, his figures, his methods, his findings?
No...
What it says is that David Irvine has claimed to be a friend of Bacque's, and that Irvin claims to have read Bacque's book before it was printed.
Guilt by association...I though you liberals were against that...
-
Are you a belligerent drunk too?
I didn't dispute what you wrote. I did try to shed some light on the huge numbers quoted by one of the people you mentioned. I have no doubt that many German soldiers died after the war ended.
One should be careful who one is calling a moron. Seems to me you just want to pick a fight Stevie.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Are you a belligerent drunk too?
I didn't dispute what you wrote. I did try to shed some light on the huge numbers quoted by one of the people you mentioned.
"Shed some light on it" Was that quote of yours your idea of sheading light on something? What you quoted was someone saying that David Irvine has claimed to be a friend of Bacque's, and that Irvin claims to have read Bacque's book before it was printed.
Is that your idea of "sheading some light on the huge numbers".
Exactly what would that light be? The light of stupidity?
*bites tounge and counts to ten*
And no, Im not a belligerent drunk.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Are you a belligerent drunk too?
One should be careful who one is calling a moron. Seems to me you just want to pick a fight Stevie.
Classy...
Perhaps you should re-read this thread and ask yourself who is picking fights with who.
Let me ask you, if you have no intention of questioning my numbers then why the /&¤# did you dive in to this thread head first accusing me of trolling?
-
Jane you ignorant slut!
Let me try one more time here.
I was looking into the huge disparity in the numbers you quoted regarding deaths of POW's.
High 800,000 - Bacque
Low 56,000 - Ambrose
Now Ambrose has been shown to be a plagerist, but not an inaccurate one.
Bacque has made some incredible claims regarding the genocide of Germans after the war. From page 141 of "Crimes and Mercies"
TOTALS OF DEATHS
Minimum Maximum
Expellees (1945-50) 2,100,000 6,000,000
Prisoners (1941-50) 1,500,000 2,000,000
Residents (1946-50) 5,700,000 5,700,000
_________ __________
Totals 9,300,000 13,700,000
Attributed to the all of the Allied forces (including the Russians) but mostly attributed to the Morgenthau Plan. This plan was proposed by Morgenthau (Sec. Treas. under Roosevelt) and set aside by Roosevelt, and later rejected by Truman. Some NAZI apologists claim that it was still secretly imposed upon poor Germany after the war. This is simply not true. (See the Berlin Airlift for directly refuting evidence of the starvation of Germans by the US.) Truman fired Morgenthau from his Cabinet.
The Morgenthau Plan is quoted extensively in many Neo Nazi and Anti Jewish websites I visited today. An entire book on the subject was written by David Irving. :p I wonder where Bacques sentiments lie?
-
see the Hortlund thats all he has "nazi revisionist"
btw The berlin airlift began in 1948
Secretary of State George C. Marshall initially proposed the plan in a 1947 commencement speech at Harvard University.
Marshall failed in China in his attempt to mediate ther Chineese civil war. China was over run by communists.
The economic/and infastructure in Europe was still in bad shape going into 1948. There was great concern that those in desperation would look to the Soviet Union. To demonstrate what my point even countries that werent devasted by ww2 recieved monies from the marshall plan
Marshall Plan Expenditures
Economic Assistance, April 3, 1948 to June 30, 1952
(in millions of dollars)
COUNTRY Total Grants Loans
Iceland 29.3 24.0 5.3
Ireland 147.5 19.3 128.2
Portugal 51.2 15.1 36.1
Sweden 107.3 86.9 20.4
Turkey 225.1 140.1 85.0
As for the Soviets, Marshall concluded that they had decided to stall in the expectation that the spreading social disintegration would work to their benefit. Their attitude reminded Marshall of the 1944 proposal by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau to break up and pastoralize Germany, and when he returned to Washington he reread then Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s vehement critique of the plan. It probably also reminded him of the Communist’s attitude during his 1946 mission to China.
Marshall’s second public address as Secretary of State came in an April 28 national radio speech on the Moscow Conference. Marshall still desired to avoid a rupture with the Soviet Union, but his optimism was rapidly waning. Europe, he asserted, needed American help for reconstruction and economic relief, and there must not be further delay on a German settlement. "Disintegrating forces are becoming evident. The patient is sinking while the doctors deliberate." He called for bipartisan unity on the reconstruction of Europe.
There was a real concern that western europe would turn to russia.
As for the MorgenthauPlan, Mr. Morgenthau himself said it was implemented.
In the New York Post for Nov. 24, 1947, he wrote,
The Morgenthau Plan for Germany [...] became part of the Potsdam Agreement, a solemn declaration of policy and undertaking for action... signed by the United States of America, Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Whether you believe or not is pointless, The fact is there was no relief for germany until 1948.
-
Originally posted by Naso
Very interesting reading CH3.
Be prepared to be burned alive by the rightwingies here ;)
:P
Nah, they'll just do what they always do when faced with the stink of their own hypocrisy; ignore it. ;)
-
The "light of stupidity" reflects too.
Pointing out the revisionist tendencies of Bacques as a way of questioning his inflated numbers is incredibly valid in this type of forum and I regret your ignorance of that fact. I am not trying to convict a criminal here Your Honor. I do hope that when you read a liberal newspaper or listen to a conservative talk show you take the politics of the information into account.
I have no doubt that many German soldiers & civilians died tragically after the war. I do take exception to placing the blame on the victors.
Lets see now...you pick a fight.....get your bellybutton kicked.....then blame your injuries on the other guy. Makes sense to me. :rolleyes:
As to the Morgenthau plan, and its implementation I found this information on the Lexis-Nexis website.
Morgenthau's plan, JCS 1067, and the Yalta agreements generated controversy from the outset. Secretary of War Henry Stimson dismissed deindustrialization as impractical and argued that Germany's resources were essential to the rebuilding of a prosperous Europe. State Department officials opposed a harsh peace because they feared a repeat of the post- World War I experience, when high reparations and war guilt assigned to Germany by the Treaty of Versailles helped spark a second global war. And U.S. occupation forces, only 5 percent of whom had German language skills, protested that they lacked the training to manage the wide array of civil affairs assigned to them. They also grumbled about rules that prohibited fraternization with the civilian population, particularly civilians of the opposite sex.
Nor did President Truman support a vindictive peace. He wholeheartedly supported plans to denazify and demilitarize Germany, as his directive to U.S. occupying forces in May 1945 indicated. But as a World War I veteran he agreed with the State Department about the disastrous impact of the Treaty of Versailles. In addition, reports of Germany's economic paralysis impressed him: transportation and communications in disrepair, banking facilities virtually nonexistent, and food chronically short. The president concluded that Germany had to rebuild so that American taxpayers would not have to feed and clothe its people.
The Truman administration undertook a number of initiatives that altered U.S. policy. At Potsdam in July 1945 (see Volume 2, Planning for the Postwar World: President Truman at the Potsdam Conference, July 17-August 2, 1945), the president persuaded Stalin to treat Germany as a single economic unit, to limit reparations, and to increase the authority of the four-member Allied Control Council to coordinate finance, transportation, and industry. After Potsdam, General Lucius Clay, the U.S. military governor, downplayed JCS 1067, developed plans to reconstruct German steel and coal industries, and increased permitted levels of production. Determined to conserve German resources, in May 1946 he halted all reparations out of the American zone.
Clay's actions unsettled relations with both the French and the Russians, but U.S. policy continued to emphasize rehabilitation. As Soviet-American relations deteriorated, U.S. officials increasingly circumvented the Allied Control Council, downplayed hopes for reunification, and worked instead to promote economic recovery in the non-Communist zones. In December 1946 the British and Americans combined their zones into "Bizonia" and the following year initiated plans to link the area's economy to the rest of Europe through Marshall Plan economic aid. Occupation authorities also softened proposals to dismantle large business organizations, such as I. G. Farben and Krupp, and pursued a more pragmatic policy of regulating unfair business practices and encouraging democratic trade unions.
And Wotan, If you have more luck than I did finding Morganthau's New York Post quote without the snips please let me know. I did find the site you got your info from. Paaleese!
-
Originally posted by CH3
Nah, they'll just do what they always do when faced with the stink of their own hypocrisy; ignore it. ;)
Actually I think it might have more to do with the fact that no one probably understands what kind of point you are trying to make...
Personally I think it must be either:
"Dont give any aid, weapons, food or money to arabs, because sooner or later they will turn on you anyway", or
"When the USSR were occupying Afghanistan, CIA helped finance the Mujahedin because they used the arabs as a tool against the Russians".
But neither one is really new, shocking or hypocritical, and I suspect that is why you didnt get any answer.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The "light of stupidity" reflects too.
Then why do you feel the urge to carry it around like a torch? Is this your way of saying "Sorry if my presence on these boards leads to an abrupt drop in average IQ here...but the light of stupidity reflects too"?
Pointing out the revisionist tendencies of Bacques as a way of questioning his inflated numbers is incredibly valid in this type of forum and I regret your ignorance of that fact. I am not trying to convict a criminal here Your Honor.
Exactly what are to trying to do then Midnight? First you accuse me of trolling when I say that German POWs died in US POW camps as a direct result of US government actions (something also known as a “crime against humanity”, you might have heard about that concept before). When I post sources for my statement, saying that the numbers range from 56 000 up to 800 000, you ignore the 56 000 figure (which is a horrible enough crime) and immediately try to accuse the historian responsible for the 800 000 figure of being a revisionist. But the real gem here is how you do it. You post a quote from someone you wont name, in that quote we are told that a known revisionist (Irving) claims to be friends with the historian (Bacque) and he claims to have read Bacques book before it came out in print. Now exactly how pathetic is that Midnight? Yet you return in this post pointing out his revisionist tendencies. Are you insane? The only thing you have done is posed a quote from an unknown origin where someone claims that Irvin has said that he is friends with Bacques. NOTHING ELSE. Is that “revisionist tendencies” to you? Because to the rest of the world it would be called “roadkill”. The only thing being pointed out here is your own *bites tounge*
The rest of your quote about what is valid in “this type of forum” etc speaks volumes about your personality and credibility I suppose.
I have no doubt that many German soldiers & civilians died tragically after the war. I do take exception to placing the blame on the victors.
Lets see now...you pick a fight.....get your bellybutton kicked.....then blame your injuries on the other guy. Makes sense to me.
I have no doubt that it makes sense to you. Most others seem to argue along the lines that when someone commits a crime against humanity (and try to remember exactly what the nature of such crimes are), they should be punished for it, regardless of the color of their uniform.
-
Accuse you of "trolling"? Why yes, I did. If you were not "trolling" I apologize for what you perceive to be an affront to your character. I saw it as nothing more than a good natured jibe. One can troll with facts also, so I don't know why my bobber so offended you.
As to the personal attacks you have made, I only feel the deepest sympathy for the Swedish judicial system. I have done much more than point out a tenuous relationship between Bacques and Irving. I have shown that Bacques uses the REVISIONIST mantra of the Morgenthau Plan in his writings. I have also shown how this plan was rejected by Truman, The State Department, and the Military Governor of Germany after the war.
Maybe you should try reading instead of biting your little forked tongue!
Maybe the deaths of millions of Germans if they occured, are due in greater part to the devastation of the land, economy and infrastructure of the country than to the policies of the United States.
Maybe if you were to attach some importance to finding a non-biased source for your tripe it might make more sense to people.
-
As much as I have grown to dislike Hortlund, I have to admit that he sort of has a point here.
-
"Hortlund" : Actually I think it might have more to do with the fact that no one probably understands what kind of point you are trying to make...
The point being that it somewhat perverse and hypocritical to talk about "re-educating" islamists when you were the significant cause of their extremism. Sorry it was lost on you the 1st time.
-
Originally posted by CH3
The point being that it somewhat perverse and hypocritical to talk about "re-educating" islamists when you were the significant cause of their extremism. Sorry it was lost on you the 1st time.
Yeah, the US is responsible for Islamic extremism...Because they gave schoolbooks to afghanistan with pictures of AK-47s and grenades. :rolleyes:
*Throws over a historybook* Start with chapter 1 "The Crusades"
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yeah, the US is responsible for Islamic extremism...Because they gave schoolbooks to afghanistan with pictures of AK-47s and grenades. :rolleyes:
*Throws over a historybook* Start with chapter 1 "The Crusades"
Perhaps you'd better start with another text. Chapter 1 "Geography"
Tronsky
-
Sure, and you can start with this one:
Basic understanding of complex concepts such as "Islam"
Chapter 1 Territorial spread of Islam.
Countrary to popular belief, the religion of Islam exists outside Afghanistan...
-
Islam was introduced into Afghanistan in approx 650.AD
The Crusades are linked first to the speech of Pope Urban II in 1095, and the First Crusade took Jerusalem in 1099. The real hatred between the Christians and Muslims didn't really begin until the Second and Third Crusades around the , and the later Counter Crusades under Zengi and Salah ed-Din.
Afghanistan became a center of Islamic power and Culture under the Ghaznavid Dynasty around 900-1100.AD, until the Islamic power base later moved to Egypt not long after the failure of the Seventh Crusade.
Late 20th Century Islamic extremism has bugger all to do with the Crusades.
Tronsky
-
Perhaps you can find examples of Islamic extremism pre 20th century though? <-- the point I was trying to make, or in other words, Islamic extremism has bugger all to do with what kind of books the US gave to Afghanistan during the cold war.