Europe - Thy Name Is Cowardice (article)

[SUBMAN1]

Wow! This one is kind of powerful! Definitely worth the read.

-S

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1532876/posts

(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, 'Europe - your family name is appeasement.' It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word 'equidistance,' now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement.
How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a 'Muslim Holiday' in Germany?

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our
(German) Govern ment, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State 'Muslim Holiday' will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European 'Peace in our time'.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by 'tolerance' and 'accommodation' but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those 'arrogant Americans', as the World Champions of 'tolerance', which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why?
Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the 'capitalistic robber barons' of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to 'reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive'.

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement?

Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

[Skybird]

That Menry Broder is a good one. I red his book, from which this is an excerpt.http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-462149,00.html

[SUBMAN1]

That Menry Broder is a good one. I red his book, from which this is an excerpt.http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-462149,00.html


You're in Germany - what is up with that Muslim Holiday BS? Is that true?

-S

[Onkel Neal]

I hope you don't mind, I added "Article" to the title of the thread. That article is very provacative and it would not take much looking for people to find similarly themed articles "America: the mental wasteland", etc. :-? I don't believe a flurry of such hit pieces would do a lot for the mood in here.

[SUBMAN1]

I hope you don't mind, I added "Article" to the title of the thread. That article is very provacative and it would not take much looking for people to find similarly themed articles "America: the mental wasteland", etc. :-? I don't believe a flurry of such hit pieces would do a lot for the mood in here.

You have a negative opinion of the mood here! Be more positive! That is why I have been posting a lot of jokes lately - to liven things up a bit. Anyway, this article was not written by an American - but by a European!

-S

PS. By the way, I'm catching you on # of posts. ;)

[Skybird]

You're in Germany - what is up with that Muslim Holiday BS? Is that true?

-S
It was brought up by a Green party member who serves as the republic's jester 24/7. He also finds it a good idea that the German national anthem should be supplemented with a second verse - in Turkish language. That helps integration, he says. :lol:

The holiday story was some months ago. It was laughed down by most people. Probably only a question of time until somebody puts it back on the agenda again, though.

[Smaragdadler]

just for skybird:


http://www.jungewelt.de/2007/01-17/020.php

http://www.henryk-broder.de/schmock_der_woche/

[Skybird]

just for skybird:


http://www.jungewelt.de/2007/01-17/020.php

http://www.henryk-broder.de/schmock_der_woche/

There is a difference between Broder, and the authors of the two articles you linked. Broder does not hide that this one book by him that the essays are about and that I red myself, is meant as a provocating polemic. the authors of the two essay are not less polemic - but they take themselves serious and think their niveau is any better. And their policy is obvious: defend Islam from another attack on it by deleting the credibility of the attacker. Islam must be successful, else the left would have to admit that it's ambitions and highflying plans to domesticate and tame it were a failure, and a dangerous folly from the beginning. And that cannot be because it shall not be. If the reality cannot be bend, than simply make people change their interpretation of it.

Discussion about Islam in Germany is based on intellectual illiteracy, and existing problems are always, always glossed over, ignorred, or declared to be the guilt of the germans, while the immigrants are always the poor, willing, misunderstood victims that are confronted with zero chances and german hostility. That the willingness of newcoming Muslims to integrate is decreasing, and never was that high as was stated by so many wannabe-experts, that the young seocnd generation Muhammedans in Germany are far more religiously ambitoned and redicalised and hostile towards Western standards, and that we have these many problems always and almost exclusively with Muhammedans, almost never (or at substantial lesser degrees only) with Europeans, Russian, Africans, peope from Asia, South America, North America, is ignored. It also is asked on rare occasions only if maybe there are well-justified reasons why more and more Germans (already a solid majority today) oppose Islam in general, and ongoing Islamic "immigration" in special. they all suffer from hallucinations only, I assume. Allowing such questions - that would be racism! The bad word that in Germany silences any unwanted debate immediately. There is always a lot of talking about their "rights" (even rights that they do not have, or that even Germans would not have), but there is never much talk about their duties, obligations and their need to integrate themselves. Broder wants to provoke discussion, and disturbing the intellectual paralysis, the sunday afternoon holiday mood of the fed up, sleepy, self-satisfied burgeoisie that thinks problems will get solved by ignoring them. Watering flowers is so much more peaceful, isn't it. Kreissler once called his country of origin, Austria, a nation of "Blumengiesser". I call the Germans the same.

Broder's polemic is well-dosed. He is basing on uncomfortable facts. He picks the facts, expresses them in an irnoic way, and shows up links by which they are belomnging together over time, because these time-links are often forgotten soon in our short-memory-culture with 20 seconds news-shows. His examples in that book are true, and can't be denied. Not many others dare to bring them up and insisting on the troubles being caused by Muhammedan ideology. If you hear such people in TV, you realise that they immediately come under massive fire from all camps, or are feeling so guilty that they put it in more and more gentle words voluntarily and even excuse themselves for being of that non-conformal opinion. Most islam discussion on TV - are basing on horrific incompetence and non-existant knowledge that is replaced by sexy catch-phrases and empty slogans, and also self-denial and historcal forging. the audience swallows it - for it has not knowlöedge basis by which to judge the quality of the crap that is presented. A flock of sheep. As to be expected, social scientist driven by the spirit of the rebellious 68-generation and pedagogical supertheories (that long since have prooved their failure and missing of realities), professional all-understanders, well-meaning mass-talkers with oh so wide and warm hearts, and political lefts are in the lead here.

If the one author accuses Broder of representing a low niveau, then he has not got Broder's intention, and I also would recommend him to read some of the books by Raddatz, whose writings are an intellectual tour de force through history, scripture and academical analysis of Islam, with lots of secondary literature, much of it from Islamic sources. This is academical hardcore. This is top class niveau, the author contributed to several works about Islam that internationally are considered to be standard works today, and he co-authored the encyclopedia on Islam, another voluminous standard work of western university libraries. They are difficult and long readings, usually, not as short and harmless like my usual essays :D. His reward was to be ignored in Germany, and when Muhammedans issued a fatwha against him and his life since then is in danger, police even said to reduce protection, for they would not be able to continue with it (rumour is cause of political pressure), so he had to flee Europe and now lives in America. He was literally executing europe's many illusions. For that he was kicked out. So that the usual show can go on over here...

Ironically, there are (or were) many hate-sites attacking Raddatz. And very many of them are/were not driven by Muhammedans, but non-Muhammedan Germans. Never threat the lull illusions of the burgeosie, it teaches us.

And wonder oh wonder, although of very different academical niveau, Raddatz in his books attacks the very same things and comes to the same conclusions like Broder. The difference is that he is not a Jew, and says little about Israel, and only talks about Judaism were it is needed to understand Christian faith. For compensation he brandmarks the foolishness of the churches' policies of the last fourty years, and attacks the last pope with irresistable argument. I liked to see such an expert sharing my bitter disgust for John Paul II.

So again, the book by Broder, "Hurra wir kapitulieren", is an intended, but well-founded, well-dosed polemic. The basis of argument is solid and well-researched, and then gets expressed with lots of irony. That is where the polemic is coming from.

that irony that comes from bitterness, because in principle Broder loves Europe, its promising past and high civilisation it once had reached, and can't get over it easily that now it is going down the drain, and all those precious values of humanism, "egalite, liberté, fraternité", are getting corrupted and silently murdered. I feel very much the same hidden sadness and bitterness.

[Penelope_Grey]

The whole purpose of trying to keep Hitler sweet was to buy time because the allies were not in a position to fight him. Furthermore, there is no shame in trying to find a non-violent solution to problems.

My mother always taught me that the superior person hates conflicts of any kind. Frankly this guy sounds like an old blow hard full of hot air.

[HunterICX]

Agreed penelope,

we have our ways, america his.
because if you want to see both side
both we arent CLEAN

we let the jews die by hitler and the muslims in kosovo.
how many indians died because america wanted to expend its terrirtory?

dont just tell half a story and DO NOT TAKE the last century as an example for cowardly europeans
Like we always talked, just take some mayor wars in history to tell the story on how we europeans are.

and do you really think we are cowards because we let the muslim do everything they want? FYI 1. they are not all bad the ones that adapt, 2. the ones who refuse to adapt we dont like, but we cannot express it because the governement will shut us up. the governement is controlled by cowardly left side morons who talk talk talk talk , when the PEOPLE want to see something DONE. and dont get me started , europe will be in trouble because the governement hasnt done anything and allowed the immigrants too much. and I can ensure you one day in the future it will turn out in a civil war in some countries because I,m pretty darn sure that some immigrants in high numbers want to claim a own part of the country. and that will turn out really nasty. but we will see what happens , nothing can be said this early

almost forgot..americans? If you follow the families back all the way down. you all have been a european.

so the guy who wrote that article only wrote a small portion of history. so thereby I cannot agree with him

[Skybird]

The whole purpose of trying to keep Hitler sweet was to buy time because the allies were not in a position to fight him. Furthermore, there is no shame in trying to find a non-violent solution to problems.

My mother always taught me that the superior person hates conflicts of any kind. Frankly this guy sounds like an old blow hard full of hot air.
Think of it. Islam is on a massive drive throughout the West. within a time frame of maximum 150 years, for simple demographicla reasons, the vast majority of Europeans countries will be Muslim dominated countries. On the othe hand, foreign religions and cultures in Islamic countries (in ALL Islamic countries) slowly but surely get eradicated, a process that is running since cneturies. The Islamic offer of dhimmitude (Schutzbefohlenheit) is a status of open discrimination, and attempted enforcment of submitting to Islam. It has as much to do with protection of a religious minoirty by islam, as was the paradise ghetto in Warsaw a paradise.

Hating conflict is noble (Islamic teachings love conflict, and even demands it, just a short side-remark, and calls those not willing to die in fight against infidels more or less openly stupid). But sometimes conflict, wanted or not, nevertheless is needed. But the West simply tries to well-mean it to the end. If your mother would have had her way with Hitler, as I understand you, than I maybe would wear a black uniform with skulls and bones on the collar patch, maybe.

[Skybird]

Possible I lost track of whom is meant with "that guy", Broder, or the author of subman's essays, or the authors of the two critical essays. If you feel targetted for wrong, you know why. I understood "that guy" to be meaning Broder.

[HunterICX]

Possible I lost track of whom is meant with "that guy", Broder, or the author of subman's essays, or the authors of the two critical essays. If you feel targetted for wrong, you know why. I understood "that guy" to be meaning Broder.

If you refer to my post I ment ''Henry Broder''

[TteFAboB]

I liked to see such an expert sharing my bitter disgust for John Paul II.

A Just War is ultimately defensive. Give the other cheek, then shoot them.

[The Avon Lady]

The whole purpose of trying to keep Hitler sweet was to buy time because the allies were not in a position to fight him.
Document this, please.
Furthermore, there is no shame in trying to find a non-violent solution to problems.
Fooling oneself and ignoring reality is often shameful.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
- Winston Churchill

[Penelope_Grey]

I studied it at A-Level I can't "document" it, Im recalling stuff I was taught, and even if I could there would always be a doubting Thomas somewhere to question it, the whole purpose of "peace in our time" was just to buy time so the UK could try and ramp up its military capacity in order to be in a better position to fight the third reich. The British Government knew it was a load of nonsense and that Hitler had no intention of honouring that agreement.

Fooling oneself and ignoring reality is often shameful.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
- Winston Churchill

No idea what you mean by that, but I refuse to lower my standards of behaviour and succumb to violence no matter what is going on if I behave violently then I am no better than them being violent. I am proud of the fact I have never had a fight in my life and that I have never given anybody reason to want to hurt me.

[Penelope_Grey]

Hating conflict is noble (Islamic teachings love conflict, and even demands it, just a short side-remark, and calls those not willing to die in fight against infidels more or less openly stupid). But sometimes conflict, wanted or not, nevertheless is needed. But the West simply tries to well-mean it to the end. If your mother would have had her way with Hitler, as I understand you, than I maybe would wear a black uniform with skulls and bones on the collar patch, maybe.

This is why I am glad I am outwardly an atheist. Because religion causes a hell of a lot of problems throughout the world.

I have no idea what you mean about Hitler, and wearing a black uniform. Sorry. But my mother always taught me to think for myself and to not be drawn into conflicts and to treat people as my equals as and where I find them. I will not be mean to somebody simply because they are Muslim, black, or from France, or they have a funny accent, overweight, whatever! If instead of seeing things as a battle all the time, like we have to fight for this, fight for that, I just think the world could be more peaceful if more were prepared to make the effort.

[The Avon Lady]

I studied it at A-Level I can't "document" it, Im recalling stuff I was taught, and even if I could there would always be a doubting Thomas somewhere to question it, the whole purpose of "peace in our time" was just to buy time so the UK could try and ramp up its military capacity in order to be in a better position to fight the third reich. The British Government knew it was a load of nonsense and that Hitler had no intention of honouring that agreement.
This is absolute rubbish.

It was Churchill and his colleagues that formed the Army League, which kept the rearmament issue in the public limelight. Chamberlain was a naive fool, believing to the very end that, like a battered wife, everything will be fine tomorrow.
No idea what you mean by that, but I refuse to lower my standards of behaviour and succumb to violence no matter what is going on if I behave violently then I am no better than them being violent.
You witness someone suffering from the violence of others and you can help the victim but it will require the counter-use of violence. Will you walk away? Is that your idea of higher standards?
I am proud of the fact I have never had a fight in my life and that I have never given anybody reason to want to hurt me.
Wouldn't we all like to be so fortunate!

I read your response to Skybird. I wish I could live in your cloistered virgin world.

[SUBMAN1]

I studied it at A-Level I can't "document" it, Im recalling stuff I was taught, and even if I could there would always be a doubting Thomas somewhere to question it, the whole purpose of "peace in our time" was just to buy time so the UK could try and ramp up its military capacity in order to be in a better position to fight the third reich. The British Government knew it was a load of nonsense and that Hitler had no intention of honouring that agreement.

Not to harp on your teachers or anything, but this to me seems like a case of your teachers trying to shed history in a better light than it truely was. This is a sad day if this is what they are teaching in schools.

-S

[fatty]

This is absolute rubbish.
...we must renew our determination to fill up the deficiencies that yet remain in our armaments and in our defensive precautions, so that we may be ready to defend ourselves and make our diplomacy effective...
;)
...believing to the very end that, like a battered wife, everything will be fine tomorrow.
The very end of what? Peace? His life? The Munich Agreement?
We have no quarrel with the German people, except that they allow themselves to be governed by a Nazi Government. As long as that Government exists and pursues the methods it has so persistently followed during the last two years, there will be no peace in Europe.
Uh oh, looks like he's not sure things may not turn out peachy after all! Refer back to my first quote if this one is too close to the war for you.

Chamberlain was unfortunately judged quite poorly by history. At first, the Munich Agreement was very well received at home and abroad; most Europeans remembered quite clearly the four hellish years of the Great War, and were not exactly eager for more. Certainly, if he could have known that Hitler was hardly a rational actor and that the then-enigmatic Soviets could be regarded as allies, things would have gone differently.
You witness someone suffering from the violence of others and you can help the victim but it will require the counter-use of violence. Will you walk away?
Come on now, things are never that one-dimensional. Who started the brawl? How? Who is involved? Does the "victim" deserve his punishment? Are there police nearby? What repercussions does intervention risk? Are the "attackers" armed? Et cetera, et cetera.

Vietnam and Iraq both had pretty good support when those wars started. As the casualties started to climb, though, positive public opinion fell like a stone. These things, Chamberlain's appeasement included, start out as good ideas and then don't work out exactly as planned. As they say, hindsight is 20/20.

Penelope_Grey, mind the hawks, will you? :D

[SUBMAN1]

This is absolute rubbish. ...we must renew our determination to fill up the deficiencies that yet remain in our armaments and in our defensive precautions, so that we may be ready to defend ourselves and make our diplomacy effective... ;)
...believing to the very end that, like a battered wife, everything will be fine tomorrow. The very end of what? Peace? His life? The Munich Agreement?
We have no quarrel with the German people, except that they allow themselves to be governed by a Nazi Government. As long as that Government exists and pursues the methods it has so persistently followed during the last two years, there will be no peace in Europe. Uh oh, looks like he's not sure things may not turn out peachy after all! Refer back to my first quote if this one is too close to the war for you.

Chamberlain was unfortunately judged quite poorly by history. At first, the Munich Agreement was very well received at home and abroad; most Europeans remembered quite clearly the four hellish years of the Great War, and were not exactly eager for more. Certainly, if he could have known that Hitler was hardly a rational actor and that the then-enigmatic Soviets could be regarded as allies, things would have gone differently.
You witness someone suffering from the violence of others and you can help the victim but it will require the counter-use of violence. Will you walk away? Come on now, things are never that one-dimensional. Who started the brawl? How? Who is involved? Does the "victim" deserve his punishment? Are there police nearby? What repercussions does intervention risk? Are the "attackers" armed? Et cetera, et cetera.

Vietnam and Iraq both had pretty good support when those wars started. As the casualties started to climb, though, positive public opinion fell like a stone. These things, Chamberlain's appeasement included, start out as good ideas and then don't work out exactly as planned. As they say, hindsight is 20/20.

Penelope_Grey, mind the hawks, will you? :D

Here we have another case of how actions speak louder than words. Chamberlain was all words back then - a dog with only a bark. Even the British knew this at the time - which is why we enter the Churchill era.

Enough said.

-S

[kiwi_2005]

When ever a foriegner lives in another country thats not his own he should repect the rules of that country - why should germany say yes to a muslim holiday??? And if they dont they will be branded racist or friends of the great satan (USA) by the extremists. If not already. Refuse to bend over backwards for these types.
I could imagine if i went to australia to live and demanded that the Treaty of Waitangi one of NZ national holiday's also be a holiday in Australia. I would be put on the next plane back to New Zealand. And i would deserve it.

[Penelope_Grey]

This is absolute rubbish.
Big thanks to fatty, it turns out my "absolute rubbish" was not quite as rubbish as you said. True he was all talk, but what I said about him stalling for time was right. And it was Chamberlain that declared war on Germany, not Churchill.

You witness someone suffering from the violence of others and you can help the victim but it will require the counter-use of violence. Will you walk away? Is that your idea of higher standards?
If I witness someone suffering violence at the hands of others I phone the police or call security if I am in a shopping center or something, I don't go around wearing red and blue spandex, therefore I don't act like a hero. If I get involved I could get beaten up myself, and for all I know I could be defending a rapist, or a child snatcher that many would say is getting a deserved kicking. What would you do? Run in fists swinging? You seem to be of the persuasion to leap before you look. Which is fine, I am not criticising you for your attitude the world needs quick reactors, yet I can't help but feel I am being criticised to some degree by you from the wording of your post.

Wouldn't we all like to be so fortunate!

I read your response to Skybird. I wish I could live in your cloistered virgin world.
I live on the same world as you, planet Earth. I imagine being an Israeli that has shaped your view of things differently to mine, as in your country conflict is a bit more everyday than most other places. However there was no need for caustic remarks just because I take a seemingly polar opposite view of things to you.

[Skybird]

This is why I am glad I am outwardly an atheist.
Welcome to the club - I am atheist, too. Which does not mean that I am not religious.

Because religion causes a hell of a lot of problems throughout the world.
Cults and theistic religions, to be precise.

I have no idea what you mean about Hitler, and wearing a black uniform.
It means that without conflict the Nazis still would be there, and me and my parents would have spend all our lives in a Nazi society that now would be many decades old - what could easily have led me to become a member of the SS - and being convinced that I am right and just in my Nazi beliefs - i would never have known anything else than Nazism.

Sorry. But my mother always taught me to think for myself and to not be drawn into conflicts and to treat people as my equals as and where I find them. I will not be mean to somebody simply because they are Muslim, black, or from France, or they have a funny accent, overweight, whatever!
Neither do I. the only reason making me do so is their ideology, and when that ideology is expaning and tries to rule my own home. Nazis. Scientologists. Islam. Note that for example I do not attack Hindus, although there are a lot of bad things to remark about hinduism: widow burning. Apes under the protection of religion - helping to spread desease and being a problem in villages were they steal food - people die of starvation becaue of this. A highly injust and inhuman caste system. Point is, they do stay were they are and do not try to expand over all the world, submitting and ruling others and make them like they are themselves. I must not like their system, but I also must not try to see my thoughts through in other parts of the world were i am not welcomed, and whereI am not at home. - Ideologies that I use to attack are not that self-restrictive, and they do not care if they are welcomed by the locals or not: they try to enforce their presence against their will. And this is where I stop debating, get my sword ready, draw a line and tell them: not one step further.

If instead of seeing things as a battle all the time, like we have to fight for this, fight for that, I just think the world could be more peaceful if more were prepared to make the effort.
"Those without swords can still die upon them." Not seeking battle in the first to push one's own agenda is one thing, and noble. Defending against someone who does - is another. You sound like having a good heart. There is nothing wrong in that, but vulnerability is no virtue, but simply vulenrability - not more. You can have a good heart and not like to fight - and learn fighting nevertheless:_ to defend yourself, or to protect the weak and those in need of help. Ever red about the king Arthur mythology? I love the old sagas, Arthur, Percivale, Dietrich of Bern, the Nibelungen. Much truth and insight about humans included in them.

Be careful when dealing with people who are totally different from you. That you are disgusted by conflict, does not mean that others share your attitude. For them conflict to overcome you may very well be a legitimate tool. What do you do then? Turn the other cheek? Maybe they want your head.

I also recommend to study Islam, judge it by it's own content. check if history is in congruence with it, or not, and if it is triggered by it's teachings, or not. I suspect you have many wellmeaning illusions about it. Do not believe me because I say it. Gain the independant knowledge you need to form your own opinion - so don't trust Islamic statements as well. There is so much manipulation in the media. Go your own way to knowledge. Read. Travel. Do not so much listen to people representing predefined interests: politicians, clerics, members of this or that camp. And when you're sure of what you've found, stand by it, and defend it.

Even if people like you and me eventually would find themselves on opposing sides, then. ;) In that case I still could respect you more even when opposing me when I can see you have understandable reasons to think the way you do, than if you just parrot other's words and do not know what you are talking. An opponent with priciples I like better than an opponent who has none.

[Wim Libaers]

When ever a foriegner lives in another country thats not his own he should repect the rules of that country - why should germany say yes to a muslim holiday??? And if they dont they will be branded racist or friends of the great satan (USA) by the extremists. If not already. Refuse to bend over backwards for these types.

Or maybe the US would brand them as racist? Really, the original article may have some truth in it, but also plenty of nonsense. This part, for example:

"And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed."

Oh, did he? Where is he fighting against Islam? Islam may be fighting against him, but he's not consciously fighting back, merely trying to keep two of Islam's variants from killing each other in Iraq. Or take Afghanistan, where he's fighting the Islamic Taliban with the "help" of his Islamic "ally" Pakistan. And Blair, if he realizes the danger of Islam, then surely he has done everything to hinder it's presence in his home country? Well, no, he didn't.

Bush and Blair may have the courage to send their armies to war, but assuming they are also aware and willing to name and attack Islam as the enemy seems ridiculous. They have to many "allies" there. And they need the oil.

[baggygreen]

but wim,

for anyone in the west to openly come out and say "im fighting an aggressive and unrepenting islam" would be for that person to incur the wrath fo the west with calls such as racism, religious supemist, etc.

Whereas popular opinion says it is ok for islamic mullahs to come out and preach hatred of the west and its generic values, it is not acceptable for us to do the same. which is nothing but stupidity.:damn:

[The Avon Lady]

This is absolute rubbish.
...we must renew our determination to fill up the deficiencies that yet remain in our armaments and in our defensive precautions, so that we may be ready to defend ourselves and make our diplomacy effective...
Great foresight! 11 months before the Nazi invasion of Poland and that's all you can come up with?!

But you selectivelty quote from Chamberlain's Oct. 3 parliamentary debate on the Munich Agreement. Why not quote Chamberlain in full:

"While we must renew our determination to fill up the deficiencies that yet remain in our armaments and in our defensive precautions, so that we may be ready to defend ourselves and make our diplomacy effective--[Interruption]--yes I am a realist--nevertheless I say with an equal sense of reality that I do see fresh opportunities of approaching this subject of disarmament opening up before us, and I believe that they are at least as hopeful to-day as they have been at any previous time. It is to such tasks--the winning back of confidence, the gradual removal of hostility between nations until they feel that they can safely discard their weapons, one by one, that I would wish to devote what energy and time may be left to me before I hand over my office to younger men."

Absolute rubbish, the fool. :down:

[GlobalExplorer]

This is absolute rubbish.
...we must renew our determination to fill up the deficiencies that yet remain in our armaments and in our defensive precautions, so that we may be ready to defend ourselves and make our diplomacy effective...
Great foresight! 11 months before the Nazi invasion of Poland and that's all you can come up with?!

But you selectivelty quote from Chamberlain's Oct. 3 parliamentary debate on the Munich Agreement. Why not quote Chamberlain in full:

"While we must renew our determination to fill up the deficiencies that yet remain in our armaments and in our defensive precautions, so that we may be ready to defend ourselves and make our diplomacy effective--[Interruption]--yes I am a realist--nevertheless I say with an equal sense of reality that I do see fresh opportunities of approaching this subject of disarmament opening up before us, and I believe that they are at least as hopeful to-day as they have been at any previous time. It is to such tasks--the winning back of confidence, the gradual removal of hostility between nations until they feel that they can safely discard their weapons, one by one, that I would wish to devote what energy and time may be left to me before I hand over my office to younger men."

Absolute rubbish, the fool. :down:

With hindsight, yes. But this is a very respectful civilian attitude, and you cannot blame people for the fact that they are civilians.

What everyone seems to miss is that even the Jews did not take up arms against the Nazis. They allowed themselves to be led to slaughter like cattle.

There is a very gruesome scene in the film "Sunshine" by Istvan Szabo that illustrates this perfectly. In that scene olympic champion Adam Sors is tortured to death by Hungarian Nazis, in front of his son.

After the war, he tells his story his uncle, who asks:

Uncle: "So you watched how your father was tortured to death .. why didn't you do anything?"

Son: "I couldn't do anything."

Uncle: "How many were they?"

Son: "12 or 13"

Uncle: "And how many were you?"

Son: "About two thousand. .. but .. they had guns .."

I am saying that even the Jews themselves did not realize the need to take up arms against the Nazis before it was to late. Nor did Britain, nor the German population. Of course if they had known what we know today, it would have been different. But you cannot blame them for the fact that they wanted peace, at least no in the way you are doing it.

GE

[Takeda Shingen]

Stay on topic.

Thanks,
The Management

[Penelope_Grey]

Welcome to the club - I am atheist, too. Which does not mean that I am not religious.

When I looked up the word atheist, it said it was a word to describe a person who denies or does not believe in the existence of supreme or godly beings. So how can you be an atheist and religious?

It means that without conflict the Nazis still would be there, and me and my parents would have spend all our lives in a Nazi society that now would be many decades old - what could easily have led me to become a member of the SS - and being convinced that I am right and just in my Nazi beliefs - i would never have known anything else than Nazism.

Well, you say without conflict the Nazis would still be here, the german people voted in an extreme right wing party with strong military tendancies and then they were surprised when Hitler went to war? No disrespects for any German past or present, but had they not voted in Hitler and his Nazi buddies in the first place, then quite possibly things would have been fine. We will never know for sure.

I understand full well that sometimes conflict is unavoidable and often people are forced into it. But the crux of the matter is Chamberlain did his best to prevent an outbreak of hostilities, Avon Lady snarls at him for that, but I personally think at the time he was doing the right thing. Nobody wanted another all out war especially after the Great War, he was trying to find a peaceful solution. Not only that Britain was not in a position to fight the Third Reich, lots say had Hitler waited a while longer before the war started it would have turned out better for him, my real question is why didn't America do something? Or better still, Germany's next door neighbour, the French? America was not interested in the least, and France had their own agenda with the Germans. It was left in the British Lap. To sort out, and despite the Empire and such forth, the British were just not ready. That appeasement bought the UK valuable time to prepare.

As Antony Hopkins in Mask of Zorro said, "you would have fought very bravely, and died very quickly" Had Germany beaten the UK, then what? They would have been unstoppable.

Neither do I. the only reason making me do so is their ideology, and when that ideology is expaning and tries to rule my own home. Nazis. Scientologists. Islam. Note that for example I do not attack Hindus, although there are a lot of bad things to remark about hinduism: widow burning. Apes under the protection of religion - helping to spread desease and being a problem in villages were they steal food - people die of starvation becaue of this. A highly injust and inhuman caste system. Point is, they do stay were they are and do not try to expand over all the world, submitting and ruling others and make them like they are themselves. I must not like their system, but I also must not try to see my thoughts through in other parts of the world were i am not welcomed, and whereI am not at home. - Ideologies that I use to attack are not that self-restrictive, and they do not care if they are welcomed by the locals or not: they try to enforce their presence against their will. And this is where I stop debating, get my sword ready, draw a line and tell them: not one step further.

I don't agree with postive discrimination any more than I do negative discrimination. In the UK Sikhs are exempt from wearing a crash helment due to their religious requirements to wear a turban. That kind of thing is unfair. I don't agree with it, EVERYBODY should wear a helmet. I can't say I hate the muslim religion or anything, I do understand they have a war doctrine and such, but I remember that its only a handful that use their religion as a shield to carry out criminal acts. Therefore I avoid trying to tar them all with the same brush.

"Those without swords can still die upon them." Not seeking battle in the first to push one's own agenda is one thing, and noble. Defending against someone who does - is another. You sound like having a good heart. There is nothing wrong in that, but vulnerability is no virtue, but simply vulenrability - not more. You can have a good heart and not like to fight - and learn fighting nevertheless:_ to defend yourself, or to protect the weak and those in need of help. Ever red about the king Arthur mythology? I love the old sagas, Arthur, Percivale, Dietrich of Bern, the Nibelungen. Much truth and insight about humans included in them.

The simple truth of it all is, I am a coward. I admit that. Freely. I am afraid of my own shadow. Which is why I approve fully of non-violent solutions to problems in as many areas as is possible. I don't criticise them that fight, they do what I am afraid to do, simple as that.

Be careful when dealing with people who are totally different from you. That you are disgusted by conflict, does not mean that others share your attitude. For them conflict to overcome you may very well be a legitimate tool. What do you do then? Turn the other cheek? Maybe they want your head.

I wouldn't know. I would hope that people wouldn't want to do such things to me. Maybe its wrong for me to hope. But it really makes me sad to think that so many people would just walk all over me with no regard for me to get what they want. I cannot be aggressive and nasty, its just not who I am.

Even if people like you and me eventually would find themselves on opposing sides, then. ;) In that case I still could respect you more even when opposing me when I can see you have understandable reasons to think the way you do, than if you just parrot other's words and do not know what you are talking. An opponent with priciples I like better than an opponent who has none.

So, do you see me as a parrot and not knwoing what I am on about or are you saying that generally?

[The Avon Lady]

The Jews were not a government nor did they run a national homeland of their own at the time.

While Jews were familiar with the rabidness of Hitler's and the Nazi's antisemitism, almost none of them could imagine Germany's building annihilation and extermination facilities.

My late great grandfather, donned his prayer shawl and phylacteries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefillin), kissed his surviving family members goodbye and tossed himself into the flames of the Warsaw Ghetto during its final days. Months earlier, he had managed to mail one of his sons elsewhere in Europe a cryptic letter - the only way to get it past the Nazi censors. He used biblical verses to describe what was going on and the attrocities the Nazi were commiting.

The response to the letter of his son and relatives was that the old man had gone completly senile. Most of the same family would later be rounded up themselves and reduced to ashes in the ovens of this or that extermination camp.

There are articles around on the psycology of the likes of Neville Chamberlain and how he could be so blind to reality - because contrary to his claims he wasn't a realist at all. He was a dreamer who dozed off on the job.

Appropriately, read my sig's bottom line quote.

[Takeda Shingen]

Warning #2

Stay on topic. Last chance. If you want to start a thread titled 'Politics of the Nazi State', go ahead. Just keep it off of this, or other threads.

Thanks,
The Management

[Penelope_Grey]

Warning? Why?

Hitler, Appeasement, and treatment of the jews are all mentioned in the original post.

[GlobalExplorer]

Avon Lady, believe me, I am really sorry and ashamed for that.

My grandfather was a truck driver in the Wehrmacht, and was writing cryptic letters himself, deliberately misspelling and questioning the war - my grandmother thought he was insane. Unfortunately that was as far as it went, at least in those cases I know of first hand.

Just wanted to say that I agree that history made Chamberlain a fool, but I still kind of respect people like him, and civilians will always be at a disadvantage against people using violence.

[GlobalExplorer]

Warning #2

Stay on topic. Last chance. If you want to start a thread titled 'Politics of the Nazi State', go ahead. Just keep it off of this, or other threads.

Thanks,
The Management

If you're going to close the thread, please give a reason, as i don't see any, otherwise I will have to talk to Neal.

P.S. I just posted before that warning.

[Takeda Shingen]

Warning? Why?

Hitler, Appeasement, and treatment of the jews are all mentioned in the original post.

Because this was coming:

(From Post 31)

The Jews were not a government nor did they run a national homeland of their own at the time.

While Jews were familiar with the rabidness of Hitler's and the Nazi's antisemitism, almost none of them could imagine Germany's building annihilation and extermination facilities.

My late great grandfather, donned his prayer shawl and phylacteries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefillin), kissed his surviving family members goodbye and tossed himself into the flames of the Warsaw Ghetto during its final days. Months earlier, he had managed to mail one of his sons elsewhere in Europe a cryptic letter - the only way to get it past the Nazi censors. He used biblical verses to describe what was going on and the attrocities the Nazi were commiting.

The response to the letter of his son and relatives was that the old man had gone completly senile. Most of the same family would later be rounded up themselves and reduced to ashes in the ovens of this or that extermination camp.

There are articles around on the psycology of the likes of Neville Chamberlain and how he could be so blind to reality - because contrary to his claims he wasn't a realist at all. He was a dreamer who dozed off on the job.

Appropriately, read my sig's bottom line quote.

This is the beginning of a side-discussion regarding the personal politics of genocide. I have seen it over and over again on this forum, and was, as such, keenly aware of the fact that this left turn was imminent. Accordingly, here it is. Anticipation of members' modus operandi is key to the job. Impressive, no?

Back to the [topical] discussion.

[Takeda Shingen]

If you're going to close the thread, please give a reason, as i don't see any, otherwise I will have to talk to Neal.

Be my guest.

Link to Mr. Stevens' PM: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/private.php?do=newpm&u=209959

[The Avon Lady]

This is the beginning of a side-discussion regarding the personal politics of genocide. I have seen it over and over again on this forum, and was, as such, keenly aware of the fact that this left turn was imminent. Accordingly, here it is. Anticipation of members' modus operandi is key to the job. Impressive, no?
No.

What are you yammering about?

GlobalExplorer, while the shame and apology are greatly appreciated, I was in no way relating what happened decades ago to anyone here on the forum and I hope you weren't thinking otherwise.

[GlobalExplorer]

I think you are out of your mind.

This woman is telling the story of how her grandfather and family was killed by Nazis, and why shouldn't that be acceptable on this board?

[Takeda Shingen]

This woman is telling the story of how her grandfather and family was killed by Nazis, and why shouldn't that be acceptable on this board?

It is acceptable, but in it's own thread. This is forum policy. We have problems when threads wander. This is the last that I intend to state here in this format.

[baggygreen]

I see that history should not be forgotten, and indeed it cannot be forgotten when ones family has died. My own family have horrific stories, as im sure many millions do.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and while now it is obvious that action was needed, that was dubious at the time.. I can see a link between AL's post and the original post, tedious perhaps to some, but still a link. Appeasement resulted in atrocities and death on a vast vast scale, and AL's post provides an example of that. Appeasement today will result in similarities between past and present.

I believe there is a phrase which goes something like this..
"those who forget history, are doomed to repeat it"

[Skybird]

When I looked up the word atheist, it said it was a word to describe a person who denies or does not believe in the existence of supreme or godly beings. So how can you be an atheist and religious?

To reject to simply, arbitrarily "believe" in a given idol is prerequisite for me for true religion (religion cannot be defined to be religion only when it is a theistic religion, a view that is especially popular with religious fundamentaliosts from all camps), that always means: mystical experience. A god that is thought or believed only, will die the moment the believer that thinks of him will die. The immediate experience of the present, and believing some hear-say, some old scriptures, some old sages - both are totally different things. Theism is about idols whose fundament is stuff that has been thiught out by people who are long since dead. God, Jawhe, Allah, the thousand gods in hinduism, Vayrajana, etc etc: words in old books only, dust and sound.

Well, you say without conflict the Nazis would still be here, the german people voted in an extreme right wing party with strong military tendancies and then they were surprised when Hitler went to war? No disrespects for any German past or present, but had they not voted in Hitler and his Nazi buddies in the first place, then quite possibly things would have been fine. We will never know for sure.

That election was accompanied by massive intimidation and manipulation, and soemtimes it is even argued by historians that Hitler repeatedly violated the constitution. And no, many Germans were not unaware of the evil that Hitler was to set loose. but in 1939, Germany already was ruled by fear and intimidation. If there would have been no war, there also would have been no truly free elections, only alibi elections like in the GDR. The Nazis would have stayed in power, for violance was the only thing that was able to make them go. You only need five guys taking on their black gloves - to make a parade of hundreds turn around.

I understand full well that sometimes conflict is unavoidable and often people are forced into it. But the crux of the matter is Chamberlain did his best to prevent an outbreak of hostilities, Avon Lady snarls at him for that, but I personally think at the time he was doing the right thing. Nobody wanted another all out war especially after the Great War, he was trying to find a peaceful solution. Not only that Britain was not in a position to fight the Third Reich, lots say had Hitler waited a while longer before the war started it would have turned out better for him, my real question is why didn't America do something? Or better still, Germany's next door neighbour, the French? America was not interested in the least, and France had their own agenda with the Germans. It was left in the British Lap. To sort out, and despite the Empire and such forth, the British were just not ready. That appeasement bought the UK valuable time to prepare.

that argument of buying time that was needed, and premature attack on Germany would have caused defeat in war, is interesting. However, after the attack on Poland, Britain did declare war due to earlier treaty obligations - and did not attack. Which is somehow contradicting to the wish of buying more time. that declaration of war was not needed for that purpose.

As Antony Hopkins in Mask of Zorro said, "you would have fought very bravely, and died very quickly" Had Germany beaten the UK, then what? They would have been unstoppable.

Do not understimate hitler's obsession with mysticism, and national thanatos. He was driven by an obession to destroy - even himself, finally. A sick pervertion of last-man-standing-heroism.

I don't agree with postive discrimination any more than I do negative discrimination. In the UK Sikhs are exempt from wearing a crash helment due to their religious requirements to wear a turban. That kind of thing is unfair. I don't agree with it, EVERYBODY should wear a helmet. I can't say I hate the muslim religion or anything, I do understand they have a war doctrine and such, but I remember that its only a handful that use their religion as a shield to carry out criminal acts. Therefore I avoid trying to tar them all with the same brush.

You simplify it, I think, and there is more to islam than like you see it, but okay, I have been there in so many words before, I will not repeat all what I wrote over the last couple of years - that would fill a whole book, probably. Please understand. If you are fluid in German language, eventually, I recommend the writings by Hans Peter Raddatz for a start. Difficult reading, though.

The simple truth of it all is, I am a coward. I admit that. Freely. I am afraid of my own shadow. Which is why I approve fully of non-violent solutions to problems in as many areas as is possible. I don't criticise them that fight, they do what I am afraid to do, simple as that..

Fear often is a reasonable and logic reaction. It can save your life. There is nothing bad in that fear exists. Also, civilization has changed man's psyche, most normal people need to learn to overcome natural inhibitions to use physical force (psychological preparation for that is what separates good from bad security and self defense-trainers, and much military drill is only about this).
However, only few people are born with high levels of courage. But: courage can be learned. I would even say most people need to learn it, are not given it in form of a free gift.
One only needs to wish to learn it - then first parts of fear have already gone.

I wouldn't know. I would hope that people wouldn't want to do such things to me. Maybe its wrong for me to hope. But it really makes me sad to think that so many people would just walk all over me with no regard for me to get what they want. I cannot be aggressive and nasty, its just not who I am.

Hope is not a strategy.

When I was a young schoolboy, I was shy, and weak, and lonely. After having got a pretty beating one afternoon, I felt so ashamed that I wished never to be weak again, so I started in martial arts and sword fighting, and I had a wonderful private master, and later, another very good one. My former interest in meditation and buddhism helped me in that decision, and to bring up the needed endurance. Shyness turned into natural restraint that simply is part of my character, I can'T escape it, and why should i want anyway. Physical weakness became strength, but I still hate to fight and avoid it if possible - what is not always the case, I learned. But I know that I CAN fight, if I see a reason that is worth it. Weakness is not a virtue, but weakness. Strength must not be a virtue, but it can be - when you learn the responsebility it comes with. Weakness leaves you with no option. Strength opens you additonal options. If you are strong enough, you win even without needing to fight, if the others are only clever enough.

That shy and weak little boy that I once were - later started to travel the oriental world by feet for almost one and a half year and kind of all by himself, came through several dangerous situations and fights and did two adventurous jobs in the middle east for which he got a pretty payment :D Some scars, yes, but I am still there. :) Most people seeing me today nevertheless describe me as a shy, unobtrusive guy. Which leaves me the tactical advantage of surprise, if needed. :cool: :lol:

So you see: courage can be learned, and it's worth it. And when you have understood that you are fearsome right now - this excuse no longer is available to you from thnat time on. Mean!

So, do you see me as a parrot and not knwoing what I am on about or are you saying that generally?

Hell, generally, of course. Although, as I said, I think your view of Islam tells your good intentions, but is flawed. Unfortunetyl, this wetsern well-meaning is what Isdlam makes maximum use of to push it's agenda. That's why I said you should study it more carefully. Good intentions are one thing. Reality is something different, sometimes.

[The Avon Lady]

Hope is not a strategy.
:arrgh!: Hey! :arrgh!:

:p

[Penelope_Grey]

That election was accompanied by massive intimidation and manipulation, and soemtimes it is even argued by historians that Hitler repeatedly violated the constitution. And no, many Germans were not unaware of the evil that Hitler was to set loose. but in 1939, Germany already was ruled by fear and intimidation. If there would have been no war, there also would have been no truly free elections, only alibi elections like in the GDR. The Nazis would have stayed in power, for violance was the only thing that was able to make them go. You only need five guys taking on their black gloves - to make a parade of hundreds turn around.

So it took conflict to get rid of Nazis, by this logic, standing up to them could have stopped them in the first place before they even came to power. What happened in getting rid of the Nazis was the cure. When in fact prevention is better than cure.

I was once picked on in Primary School when I was 8 years old, the bully was in the same year as my brother they were both 11 years of age. This bully fancied himself as the schoolyard hardman. He used to make us hand over our snack money or else. EVERYBODY complied because they were all afraid of him, except me. I refused and he tipped a bucket of water over me for it, soaked me to the skin, I got off lightly really. When my brother found out he came and gave this bully the beating the fight culminated and ended decisively when Mike broke the bully's nose.

Now, if all the others had have rallied round me, when I refused to pay, what could he have done? He couldn't have hurt all of us there was too many. That single even taught me its not smart to be a hero. And you usually get hurt for doing the right thing. I choose now to be a coward and to stay out of harms way because it is a lot better than the alternative. Of course the bully left me alone then after he got a taste of his own blood, but, had the others supported me, just as if the majority of Germans had supported the opponents of the Nazis then there would have been no need for a fight.

Am I wrong? Possibly. Am I living on a fairy tale world? Perhaps. But I still believe and always will do, striving for non-violent solutions to problems is the greatest courage of all. Look at Gandhi! Now there is a man who was truly inspirational. That man would never have dreamt of picking up a gun to make change no matter how he suffered. Yet it was a gun that killed him. Gandi had more guts than the SOB that pulled the trigger did.

People can bash Neville Chamberlain all they want and they can blame him for whatver they see fit, he was in an awkward positon and so was the Country. The mouthpiece that wrote that article says about appeasing hitler, why didn't the French do something? they had a bigger army than the Germans did! Why did the Russians side with Hitler, their ideological opposite no less! There are plenty of people to blame besides Chamberlain.

that argument of buying time that was needed, and premature attack on Germany would have caused defeat in war, is interesting. However, after the attack on Poland, Britain did declare war due to earlier treaty obligations - and did not attack. Which is somehow contradicting to the wish of buying more time. that declaration of war was not needed for that purpose.

This has confused me now. I don't understand completely what you mean here. How was not attacking immediately after the declaration of war contradictory to the wish of buying more time? Declaration of war not needed for what purpose?

Since the UK had a guarantee with Poland to ensure their sovreignty in the event of an attack the UK was obliged to declare war.

courage can be learned.

I am courageous. It takes more guts to not fight and to walk away and be seen by other people who do be violent as a coward, than it does to fight and brawl. I say I am a coward because people have called me one over my lifetime. I am a jumpy person, and I am not brave or strong, or an aspiring hero. I am just somebody trying to do waht I think is right. I express my own courage in my way.

[Skybird]

So it took conflict to get rid of Nazis, by this logic, standing up to them could have stopped them in the first place before they even came to power. What happened in getting rid of the Nazis was the cure. When in fact prevention is better than cure.
Yes indeed. If only people would have dared to step up as long as there was time. but they didn't.

I was once picked on in Primary School when I was 8 years old, the bully was in the same year as my brother they were both 11 years of age.
(...)
Now, if all the others had have rallied round me, when I refused to pay, what could he have done? He couldn't have hurt all of us there was too many.

Yes indeed. If only people would have dared to rally around you. But they didn't.

That single even taught me its not smart to be a hero. And you usually get hurt for doing the right thing. I choose now to be a coward and to stay out of harms way because it is a lot better than the alternative.

You don't try to contradict yourself now, do you? first you tell us that conflict cannot replace reason, then you tell us to shy away from conflict that might be needed to fight evil is more about not egtting hurt yourself. Leave me with the question: is there anything left you would be willing to take a rsik for? Nothing worth in your life to be defended? Running away is safe. It secures survival beyond the immediate moment. But what about longterm conseqeunces? The survival of others tht you love? Is it all centred just around your own immediate interest? If so, you leave me unimpressed. There is no glory in headlessly sacrificing oneself. But there is also no glory in not caring a bit for others. It is egoism, which leads directly to anarchism. In anarchism, the strongest rules. Sooner or later you will find someone who is strong enough to deny you the option to run away. Then you are left with your own statement: "So it took conflict to get rid of Nazis, by this logic, standing up to them could have stopped them in the first place before they even came to power. What happened in getting rid of the Nazis was the cure. When in fact prevention is better than cure."

Of course the bully left me alone then after he got a taste of his own blood, but, had the others supported me, just as if the majority of Germans had supported the opponents of the Nazis then there would have been no need for a fight.

Yes indeed. If only the others would have supported you. But they didn't. There are plenty of "if only"s in your reply, Penelope. You knwo what I told people over and over again when they came for meditation? that much of it is about learning to realize the difference between what we wish things to be, and what they really are.

Am I wrong? Possibly. Am I living on a fairy tale world? Perhaps. But I still believe and always will do, striving for non-violent solutions to problems is the greatest courage of all.

More contradicting yourself. first you admit you are probably wring. then you say you live in a fairy tale world. And finally you say that you still believe it. I do not judge the quality in it, I only point out the contradiction in your argumentation.

Look at Gandhi! Now there is a man who was truly inspirational. That man would never have dreamt of picking up a gun to make change no matter how he suffered. Yet it was a gun that killed him. Gandi had more guts than the SOB that pulled the trigger did.

I am sure there have been many Ghandis in the world, and most of them you never hear of, because they get killed early on. It was a question of probability that sooner or later one of them would make a slioghtly longer stand. Look at India today and tell me if you see much of ghandi's heritage still alive. Also, he was against the British empire, which beside many negative side-effects was an extremely civilised example amonst all history's empires. It caused some terrible violence, and betrayel, but it also helped some substantial dveelopement, and also prevented much local excesses of violance - that flamed up again after the British left. Don't get me wrong, I do not declare it as holy, but there have been worse empires than the British has been. Also, they got over it. If Ghandi would have been up agai8nst Hitler, stalin, MaoTsetung, Hussein, Tamerlan or one other of this callibre, we wpould not remeber him today, for history would naver have taken note of him. He would have been dead from very early on. Maybe an symbolic act of his that we remember, but no substantial changes. Take the White rose, for example. A resitance group in Germany, by very young people, led by a brother and a sister. That me still remember them, today is because of their courage, and integrity. But it was a symboli act of theirs only - it did not really hinder the Nazis in any way.

I also wonder why Ghandi apparently seems to be an idol of yours. You admire his altruistic deeds, his courage to challenge an empire in the face of brutal violence. You also wrote: "That single even taught me its not smart to be a hero. And you usually get hurt for doing the right thing. I choose now to be a coward and to stay out of harms way because it is a lot better than the alternative."

People can bash Neville Chamberlain all they want and they can blame him for whatver they see fit, he was in an awkward positon and so was the Country. The mouthpiece that wrote that article says about appeasing hitler, why didn't the French do something? they had a bigger army than the Germans did! Why did the Russians side with Hitler, their ideological opposite no less! There are plenty of people to blame besides Chamberlain.
Yes. But the failure of others does not make the failure of chamberlain less obvious. Too many failed - that is the point.

that argument of buying time that was needed, and premature attack on Germany would have caused defeat in war, is interesting. However, after the attack on Poland, Britain did declare war due to earlier treaty obligations - and did not attack. Which is somehow contradicting to the wish of buying more time. that declaration of war was not needed for that purpose.

This has confused me now. I don't understand completely what you mean here. How was not attacking immediately after the declaration of war contradictory to the wish of buying more time? Declaration of war not needed for what purpose?

A declaration of war is a provocation. If you want to buy time, you better do not provoke a hostile reaction before you are finished with your preparation. You would prefer to leave the future enemy unknowing.

I am courageous. It takes more guts to not fight and to walk away and be seen by other people who do be violent as a coward, than it does to fight and brawl. I say I am a coward because people have called me one over my lifetime. I am a jumpy person, and I am not brave or strong, or an aspiring hero. I am just somebody trying to do waht I think is right. I express my own courage in my way.

Okay, you cleared that one, then. I was wondering anyway. that you show up here and defend your opinions against some alraedy harsh opposition shows that you are not really a coward at all.

[Skybird]

Hope is not a strategy.
:arrgh!: Hey! :arrgh!:






http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Amour/0009.gif

[The Avon Lady]

Hope is not a strategy.
:arrgh!: Hey! :arrgh!:


http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Amour/0009.gif
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/4995/coop20slappedvi8.jpg

[turnerg]

^^^^^^
ouch!!!!

I like the old Teddy Roosevelt idea of Speak softly and carry a big stick.

[SUBMAN1]

This woman is telling the story of how her grandfather and family was killed by Nazis, and why shouldn't that be acceptable on this board?
It is acceptable, but in it's own thread. This is forum policy. We have problems when threads wander. This is the last that I intend to state here in this format.
Quite frankly, I think the thread is still on topic. If it turns into landing spaceships on the moon, then yes, you'd be right. :p

-S

[AJ!]

Wow! This one is kind of powerful! Definitely worth the read.

-S

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1532876/posts

(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, 'Europe - your family name is appeasement.' It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word 'equidistance,' now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement.
How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a 'Muslim Holiday' in Germany?

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our
(German) Govern ment, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State 'Muslim Holiday' will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European 'Peace in our time'.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by 'tolerance' and 'accommodation' but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those 'arrogant Americans', as the World Champions of 'tolerance', which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why?
Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the 'capitalistic robber barons' of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to 'reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive'.

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement?

Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
you know ive never read something so true before............ Im far from a strong america supporter but they really have saved europes bacon too many times to count when it should have been europe saving itsself.......

NATO is absolutly pathetic.... theres more chance of world peace then them reaching a agreement :nope:

[Skybird]

Hope is not a strategy.
:arrgh!: Hey! :arrgh!:


http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Amour/0009.gif
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/4995/coop20slappedvi8.jpg

http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Amour/0074.gif

[Camaero]

That was really a good article. In the words of Jim Morrison: "WAKE UP!!!":rock:

[The Avon Lady]

Hope is not a strategy.
:arrgh!: Hey! :arrgh!:


http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Amour/0009.gif
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/4995/coop20slappedvi8.jpg
http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Amour/0074.gif
http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Combat/0243.gif

[Skybird]

EDIT: I give up. This damn forum software is killing my nerves too frequently.