i was wondering what the french had to say on d-day celebrations in their own country.
they will have a week of celebrations, but:
en tant que representant des etats-unis, c'est george bush qui recueillera l'hommage aux "combattants de la liberte" de la seconde guerre mondiale.
gerard,
Miterrand had alterior motive$ to opose the war and that skeleton, will fall out of his closet sooner than later.
Miterrand? the guy is dead for several years now.
by the way...i would assume french economical interests are just as valid and legitimate as US economical interests.
farenheit 9/11 ... sorry neo cons .
any film that gets a 15 min standing ovation must be worth watching.
i wonder if bush will go see it?!
avi,
medical surgery is in most cases a necessary evil. guns are just evil.
any thoughts on mr. taylor?s claims?.
u.s. demands greater oil output, lower prices.
"finance ministers from the united states and other major industrialized countries, hoping to affect the outcome of a battle within the organization for the petroleum exporting countries, formally demanded yesterday that oil-exporting nations raise production and lower prices to a level 'that is consistent with lasting economic prosperity,'" the new york times reports.
kilroy,
To arbitrarily say that small cars are the answer or no cars is showing a complete lack of understanding of the problem.
who says that??? no one is questioning necessary consumption...the critique is directed at the senseless wasting of important resources.
and now, for a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with jehovah's witnesses!
(or with contemporary politics.).
i was listening to regie hamm's album american dreams tonight (which i highly recommend), and i was struck by a line from the song old man.
euphemism,
But the worst atrocities of colonialism occurred back in the 19th century... which, btw, was a time when Germany had colonies as well.
yes certainly. but people from the colonies opposing collonialism even after WWII were eliminated by the colonial powers (as long as it was possible for them to do so). also the masses of the occupied countries were kept in poverty. you should read a book called the holocaust of the 20th century colionalism by some indian writer. quite interesting. some 30 million people starved in india in that century under british control.
i am certainly not defending what hitler and the nutzis did but unfortunately the others were not much better - that is my entire point. ideology wise they were not far away from each other.
So I guess you're saying there's really no reason why my grandfather had to spend his adolescence hiding from the Germans, right? He just wanted to spend his teen years as a refugee.
i am not saying this at all! jews were deported and many of them died due to mistreatment or murder. but planning the complete extermination of a population would be more than that. i don't think it is impossible that such a plan existed but a sinlge testimony is not enough to make a verdict in such an important matter imo.
Uh, no. Aside from a few small independent countries, it was split between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire.
yes...it very much depends on what you define as central europe. i would characterize it as the part of europe that belonged to the german empire plus austria, czechoslovakia, hungary, switzerland, poland as it existed between WWI and II. that he wanted control over most of these territories seems quite logical.
half of poland, the industrial areas of the czechia, austria, the rhineland (and elsass) plus some other small areas were populated by almost exclusively german people. again i find it ok that germany wanted these areas back.
And that is precisely why I reject a moral equivalency between the Allies and Axis in WWII. I you look at what the United States did to Japanese-Americans and to German and Japanese civilians during WWII, it is despicable and horrific.the allies were always great (to this day) at underlying what a democratic and free society they represent. this was certainly true for the white people compared to the situation in germany. but when looking at the colonies and other populations the situation was far less promising. the treatment of these people was absolutely compareable to the treatment of jews at least prior to the outbreak of the war.
then during the war you have to compare the war crimes committed on both sides. and again imo the magnitude of the crimes is quite comparable. it is quite possible that the germans were worse but not by a margin that would allow one to classify one side as representing good and the other as worse than evil.
But however wrong, it was done to defend a society that was far freer and more just than Nazi Germany, and that was on the path to even greater freedom and justice.
you mean this was the cause for british involvemtn in german politics? imo germany never posed a threat to britain or the west in general. hitler had made it very clear from the beginning that he did not want a war with the west. if britain was concerned about the freedom of poland then why was poland together with the other eastern european countries sold to stalin by chruchill et al.? somehow this doesn't make sense.
Am I comfortable with the thought that the democracies won by playing dirty? Hell no. But does it reduce them to the moral level of the evil they were fighting? Absolutely not.
imo if one steps bacl for a second and looks at what all sides did around this time none has the moral right to condemn the other. holliwood etc. has done a great job over the last 70 years in distorting the image of the US and allies as well as that of germany. it is hard to look through this to see what the actual situation over the entire 20th centrury was.
big tex,
With all due respect, I've noticed that you like to diverge conversations on to minute points of argument.
millions of lives are not a minute issues. neither are false allegations against enemies that serve the purpose of demonizing the enemy.
I choose to believe credible historical sources that suggest 6 million victims, although an approximation, is accurate. There was once on this board a neo-Nazi who, incredibly, attempted to make a similar argument regarding the number of victims. At the end of the day the total number, still in the millions by the way, is beyond horrific.
as i said the number even if 2 instead of 6 million is beyond horrific. but so was the killing of an equal number of germans by the allies. the issue is not whether what the germans did was an unbearable atrocity but whether the others were so much better that they are in a position to judge over germany (or now hussein etc.).
To even begin to compare such a hate-filled, racist, war mongering nation such as Nazi Germany to Britain or the United States is asinine.
sorry i disagree . just because they justify their atrocities with the label of defending democracy (while at the time having occupied half the planet) is imo asinine - or better a tad hypocritical.
But I think Euphamism makes a cogent point that to compare the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime to anything, real or imagined, done by the Allies during the war is nothing more than foolish revisionist history.
that also depends on the viewpoint and an accurate comparison of the situation. if you believe everyting that was broadcasted over the last 60 years than yes you are right. i on the other hand see what is going on right now for instance and am not so easily convinced that what is mainstream opinion necessarily reflects the actual situation.
To suggest Nazi Germany was anything other than the epitome of organized national evil is frightening in its inaccuracy.
again i am not defending germany and the crimes committed. i am simply comparing what was done on all sides and thereby come to the conclusion that neither side was much better.
But to try to equate the National Socialsts with the free democracies of England, France and the U.S. is beneath you.
free to whom? to the ruling class? yes. to the blacks and colonialized populations certainly not.
in general i am an enemy to dogmas....and a lot of what is taught about WWII is a dogma. the least that happens when one utters a diverging opinion is that one is accused of being a nazi (as if questioning certain accounts would mean one supports racism, hatred and murder - interestingly questioning the number of germans killed or japanese killed is perfectly acceptable). in several countries one can even get arrested for disagreeing with the main stream opinion. even scientific research and analysis is forbidden. i find that quite dangerous and unnecessary.
and now, for a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with jehovah's witnesses!
(or with contemporary politics.).
i was listening to regie hamm's album american dreams tonight (which i highly recommend), and i was struck by a line from the song old man.
euphemism,
When WWII started, Britain and France were both full-scale democracies, with universal suffrage and full civil rights. They were also both colonial powers, albeit greatly reduced from fifty years earlier. Conditions in the colonies were definitely inferior to the mainland, but nowhere near totalitarianism, either. The United States was a full democracy in two thirds of the country, although with less social equality than we have now. A third of the country was a democracy for Caucasians only, with blacks deprived of political and economic rights. The US also held some colonies, such as the Philippines and Puerto Rico.
i agree mostly with this. but you have to distinguish between what happened before the war and during the war - especially when the battle got more brutal on all sides. most of the atrocities committed happened from 1942-43 onward. at this time neither side had a lot of mercy for the others.
before the war germany was a dictatorship and people actively opposing the NAZI were put in labor camps (many socialists and communists) but not killed (in considerable numbers that is). no question france and britain were better in this respect (in the homeland that is). during the war active opposers were executed in germany. but the treatemnt of opposers in the UK was not much nicer during this time.
if you compare civil rights you have to compare the treatment of the collonialized people - what was done in the colonies - with what happened in germany before the war. in the colonies racial seperation, suppression, restriced education, forced labor, killing of revolting people etc. happened on a regular basis. It was most definitively totalitarian rulership in the colonies.
the treatment of jews before the war went into the critical and most destructive phase (after 1942/43) was quite comparable.
Even if you're correct... all he wanted to do was take over Central Europe, exterminate the Jews, and turn the rest of the population to slave labor. Remarkably humane!
central europe? you forget it was primarily german until 1918. hitler most definitively wanted back what germany lost in WWI (which is understandable imo). that the jews should be exterminated (Endlösung) is based on a single testimony (a writer at the wannsee conference supposedly heared this ... not a single written document from the time exists about it). so i am very sceptical about this account.
nevertheless ...no matter how many people were actually killed what happened is absolutely inexcusable!
big tex,
i don't buy everything in the mainstream teachings about WWII. after all history is written by the winners and a lot of money in forms of reparations was/is dependant on it.
i do not excuse anything of what happened - but i think it should not be exaggerated and be put into relation to what the others did when it comes to condemning one side.
It has long been accepted by credible historians that Nazi Germany was built for war from day one. Hitler outlined his plans in Mein Kampf. It was only through England and France's passivity that he was allowed to re-arm, occupy the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia.as i said above...you forget these were german territories prior to WWI and with the exception of parts of Czechoslovakia inhabited by germans. so was a large part of poland. i find it more than understandable that germany wanted these parts back.
Hitler was never interested in peaceful coexistence (ala the U.S. and Soviet Union), he was bent on creating an empire in Europe with the vast lands of Russia as his "colony".based on Mein Kampf that is possible.
As for the Holocaust, are you saying it did not happen? Are you saying Hitler was not the penultimate racist? His hatred of the Jewish people was more fanatical than his need need for conquest. In my opinion, this story is the epitome of hatred. Any other interpretation borders on racist ignorance.i am not saying it did not happen. obviously it did. and obviously hitler blamed the jews for WWII and the loss of WWI. the magnitude of the holocaust is however unclear. the 6 million are most likely a gross exaggeration (not that 2 million is a lot better but still). for instance the 6 million was based on the original number of 4 million people killed at auschwitz. this number was reduced to 1.2 million (including the death of all other detainees). the number of jews killed at auschwitz lies according to most historians somewhere between 500.000 and 900.000. Since no other sites of executions of this magnitude where ever suggested or found (facts in this matter are surprisingly rare) the 6 million would therefore have to be changed to about 2.5 to 3 million. i know still a horrendous number but 3 million more or less do matter imo. also one has to consider the circumstances and relate the actions to that of the allies. when hundreds of thousands of people together with nearly all cities (including red cross cities) are turned into rubble it is a unfortunately a logical consequence that the treatment of perceived enemies on the other side gets more brutal as well. alltogether i do not want to excuse any of this horrible ideology and what was done to jews and others (as you may know from my other posts i am a complete pacifist and hate mistreatment of people for whatever reason) but it is not quite accurate to portray germany as the manifestation of evil and the others as the pure defenders of freedom, democracy and civil rights - considering what all sides did prior and during the war.
and now, for a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with jehovah's witnesses!
(or with contemporary politics.).
i was listening to regie hamm's album american dreams tonight (which i highly recommend), and i was struck by a line from the song old man.
euphemism,
well it was a conflict about influence...japan got too powerful in the eyes of the US which was afraid about their influence (=market influence) in the pacific region. primarily britain but also france were afraid of a rearming and economically strengthening germany. hitler wanted back what germany had lost in WWI and possibly more territories in the east (according to Mein Kampf at least). both scenarios frightened britain and france because of the possible long term economical consequences. defending democracy or the rights of the poles had nothing to do with it. you have to consider that britain and france had occupied half the planet at this point. also poland together with the other eastern european countries was sold to stalin - a man more dangerous than hitler.
it is misleading to look at the current freedoms and civil rights in western countries and compare these standards with that of japan or germany 60 years ago. you have to compare the moral, ethical and racial standard of britain, france and the US back then to the actual standards of japan and germany back then. if you do that you will see that the moral outcry about german and japanese actions prior to 1940 was quite hypocritical.
PS: specifically about hitler killing millions of people and wanting to take over europe...hitler never wanted a war with the west. that is absolutely clear. and the killing of the million people occured as a consequence of the war turning more and more brutal.
and now, for a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with jehovah's witnesses!
(or with contemporary politics.).
i was listening to regie hamm's album american dreams tonight (which i highly recommend), and i was struck by a line from the song old man.
farkel,
what you state is a very one sided view and a great oversimplification of the situation. WWII was not really about freedom and democracy but about economical issues.
there are many people in the world who consider themselves "green" advocates and "green" friendly.
like john kerry- has 7-8 houses, private jets, @ 6 really big gas guzzling autos, including suv's.
people who talk green but whose lifesytles reveal their true sentiments.
grows,
excellent post!
with the exception of washable baby diapers and glass bottles (according to statistics the washing costs more energy than the production of a plastic bottle) i would in general say yes to all your questions.
problem is if we all want to life like the royals than the system will collaps.
black sheep,
we are increasing the CO2 level dramatically. it is not just giving the CO2 back to the atmosphere! now i am not overly concerned with global warming or other horror scenarios but i think we are taking an unncessary risk by using up so much energy - cutting down the forrests - polluting the oceans - etc.
there is the possibility that the whole eco system can collaps once a certain degree of damage was done. and then its bye bye baby for our civilization.
concerning the oil consumption: we need oil for many things not just as gas for cars and planes. plastic, drugs etc. is made from oil!
any thoughts on mr. taylor?s claims?.
u.s. demands greater oil output, lower prices.
"finance ministers from the united states and other major industrialized countries, hoping to affect the outcome of a battle within the organization for the petroleum exporting countries, formally demanded yesterday that oil-exporting nations raise production and lower prices to a level 'that is consistent with lasting economic prosperity,'" the new york times reports.
donkey,
When your postage stamp sized country (austria) becomes anything substantial please call back. Until then consider yourself ignored.
LOL thats what i call a pathetic response.
any thoughts on mr. taylor?s claims?.
u.s. demands greater oil output, lower prices.
"finance ministers from the united states and other major industrialized countries, hoping to affect the outcome of a battle within the organization for the petroleum exporting countries, formally demanded yesterday that oil-exporting nations raise production and lower prices to a level 'that is consistent with lasting economic prosperity,'" the new york times reports.
grows,
i read gold's homepage and it really seems he has a strong case. very interesting indeed!
