Europe - Thy Name Is Cowardice (article)

[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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

This is absolute rubbish.

Originally Posted by Neville Chamberlain, October 3, 1938

...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...

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

...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?

Originally Posted by Neville Chamberlain, September 1, 1939

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.

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

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?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by fatty

The very end of what? Peace? His life? The Munich Agreement?

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.

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by fatty

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.

[GlobalExplorer]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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?

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

"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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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?