Myths and Superstition
slotrot
http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/time-to-face-the-truth-about-world-war-ii.aspx
Ray O'Hara
"slotrot" <rtau...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:76c77bea-255b-4f8a...@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> Interesting reference to the Maginot Line and other military myths.
>
>
> http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/time-to-face-the-truth-about-world-war-ii.aspx
you can buy a Maginot fort for a condo these days.
The real story of 1940 isn't how revolutionary the still mostly horse drawn
Wehrmacht was but how incredible incompetent Gamelin and the French High
Command was.
and the bulk of casualties happened after the fall of Paris in the 2nd part
of the campaign overlooked by history.
if the BEF had fallen back with the French and not scuttled to the coast in
typical British fashion things might have gone differently.
steven DeMonnin
> "slotrot" <rtaub...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>
> news:76c77bea-255b-4f8a...@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Interesting reference to the Maginot Line and other military myths.
>
>
> you can buy a Maginot fort for a condo these days.
> The real story of 1940 isn't how revolutionary the still mostly horse drawn
> Wehrmacht was but how incredible incompetent Gamelin and the French High
> Command was.
>
> and the bulk of casualties happened after the fall of Paris in the 2nd part
> of the campaign overlooked by history.
> if the BEF had fallen back with the French and not scuttled to the coast in
> typical British fashion things might have gone differently.
Another major factor in France's defeat was the huge amount of fifth
column support the Germans had from the Communists. I was reading
some contemporary accounts and the communist activity in the French
rear was as damaging as the Wehrmarcht.
Ray O'Hara
"steven DeMonnin" <zood...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f07e72c4-4989-4a92...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
==========================================================================================
Now that is a myth, Communists and Fascists are deadly enemies.
Fascism is uber capitalism why exactly would the commie support people who
were going to toss them into concentration camps.
and there is the fact that the Marquis,the French resistance, was mainly a
communist organization.
and can you tell me where you read these myths:? I could use the laugh.
Bob Tiernan
.
> Communists and Fascists are deadly enemies.
.
Well, not as much as the Left wishes that to be.
One is merely more international in its outlook
while the other likes to keep a national identity.
International communism wouldn't have been that
interested in German or any other kind of
identity nationalism.
There's a reason the Nazi flag has a lot of red
in it.
But you are correct (for the wrong reasons, to
some point) that the French Commies were not
really trying to help the Germans win. I think
it's more like that they hated the French
republic of that time and was not interested in
defending it. They were, however, interested in
a new France afterwards and thus formed a key
portion if not the majority of the resistance.
.
> Fascism is uber capitalism
.
Oh nonsense. Talk about myths!
If it was uber capitalism then businesses could have
sold what they wanted to whomever they wanted.
They couldn't.
That's just for starters.
Bob T
Ray O'Hara
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.63.11...@shell1.pacifier.net...
The Fascists are capitalist dictatorships.
they are the antithisis of communism.
Hugh Lawson
>
> The Fascists are capitalist dictatorships.
> they are the antithisis of communism.
True; only those who want to twist history for a concealed
political purpose disagree with Ray on this.
--
Hugh Lawson
hu.l...@gmail.com
Ray O'Hara
"Hugh Lawson" <hu.l...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87hb8k9...@toshiba.xx.yy...
idiot rightwingers fixate on socialist in the name national socialist as
proof they were left wing.
but all you do is tell those people if that's their standard then they must
also believe the old DDR German Democratic Republic {East Germany}was a
democratic republic just like the USA because it says so right in the name.
Hugh Lawson
> "Hugh Lawson" <hu.l...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:87hb8k9...@toshiba.xx.yy...
>> "Ray O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> The Fascists are capitalist dictatorships.
>>> they are the antithisis of communism.
>>
>> True; only those who want to twist history for a concealed
>> political purpose disagree with Ray on this.
>>
>> --
>> Hugh Lawson
>> hu.l...@gmail.com
>
> idiot rightwingers fixate on socialist in the name national socialist as
> proof they were left wing.
They *have* to cook up idiot theories, because the have nothing else to
offer.
--
Hugh Lawson
hu.l...@gmail.com
steven DeMonnin
> "steven DeMonnin" <zooden...@gmail.com> wrote in message
In 1940 they were allied. They divvied up Poland, and Communists
gave tremendous support to the Nazis up unti June 1941.
I was reading contemporary accounts from the New Yorker.
Communists and Nazis take up the same political space. They are
enemies to the degree they poach each other's adherents. When it
suited, they allied.
It was their alliance from November 1932 to the end of January 1933
that killed off Weimar.
The point man for the Communists in France after the war never lived
down his pre June 1941 collaboration with the Nazis, which over time
killed off the Communist party in France.
So while the Communist resistance was a factor in France after June
1941, it was less about French liberation than messing around in
Hitler's rear for the benefit of Stalin. And Prior to June of 1941,
they were enthusiastic collaborators.
Ray O'Hara
===================================================================================
Russia and Germany divided up Poland but they weren't "allies".
and if you think communism and fascism occupied the same space you are
clearly uninformed about Fascism.
"Fascism might be more properly called Corpratism"
Benito Mussolini.
as for 5th columnists in France. I've read several books on France 1940 and
they all fail to mention these commie 5th columnists
Bob Tiernan
.
> I've read several books on France 1940
.
Golly!
Bob T
Ray O'Hara
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.63.11...@shell1.pacifier.net...
reading books are cool you should try it sometime.
steven DeMonnin
Back in 1922 Musso was considered a good communist. He hosted the
first communist international that year.
The only real distinction between communists and fascists is they call
each other dirty names. Their racism, bloodthirst and disdain for
freedom make them hard to distinguish one from the other.
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
> The only real distinction between communists and fascists is they call
> each other dirty names. Their racism, bloodthirst and disdain for
> freedom make them hard to distinguish one from the other.
Work at it a little, You can do it.
HL
slotrot
> "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier....@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
First though, you have to know how to read.
Ray O'Hara
no he can't Hugh, he knows what he learned on Fox News and thay say fascism
is left and Rush the pedofile junkie would never lie.
Hugh Lawson
I understand what you mean Ray.
Sometimes people misunderstand out of laziness, out of malice, to
confuse others, or merely to annoy an adversary. (Think of the Poltroon.)
HL
Bob Tiernan
.
> Sometimes people misunderstand out of laziness, out of malice...
.
Maybe it's all about other terms instead of left-right
which doesn't always work. But it's stupid to see
"fascism" as uber capitalism any more than it is
to see Vastro's Cuba as capitalist just because he
sells Cuban cigars for as much as he can get for them.
Recognizing that things have value, and then selling
them to someone doesn't make for a capitalist
economy.
Bob T
slotrot
China as well.
Hugh Lawson
You're right that fascism/nazism were not a simple projection of the
economic interests of capitalism into politics. But fascism did relate
differently to capitalism than historic communism did.
Historic fascism & nazism were anticommunist. That Mussolini had some
early interest in socialism, and that Hitler's party were named
"National socialist ..." is irrelevant to this.
Since communism promised to abolish capitalism, that put it into a
different relation with capitalism, than nazism/fascism had with
capitalism.
HL
Bob Tiernan
.
> Since communism promised to abolish capitalism, that put it
> into a different relation with capitalism, than nazism/fascism
> had with capitalism.
.
So now we go from "uber-capitalism" to "a different relation
with capitalism". Cute.
Bob T
Bob Tiernan
observed:
"The Tunisian Arabs had initially welcomed the Germans, whose
anti-semitism they applauded, and whose half-baked anti-capitalist
ideology they found sympathetic...."
But here's some good stuff, mostly gleaned from von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's
"Leftism Re-visited". Enjoy.
Contrary to popular belief, Fascism has its roots in the left, not the
right.
The founder of 20th Century Fascism [Mussolini]...was a fanatical
socialist in his youth.
George Bernard Shaw, well-known Fabian (Socialist) of the day, admired
Mussolini, saying that Fascists were "progressive".
The diaries of Russian Communist Victor Serge include references to how
Fascism appealed to the extreme left in Italy and Germany in the 20's and
30's, and wrote, "It is impossible to review the fascist phenomenon
without discovering the importance of its interrelations with
revolutionary socialism." Henri Guilbeaux [a Komintern founder] told Serge
that Mussolini was Lenin's real heir.
Massimo Rocca's "How Fascism Became a Dictatorship" has more: Mussolini's
plan, in his last days, to surrender to the Socialist Party after which
he'd be spared by his comrades from earlier days (someone else got to him
first, though).
Nazi writee Walter Haid wrote in 1935: "We call our movement National
Socialism, and with the victory of the movement Socialism has conquered
the People and the State."
Benito praised communists whenever they took over factories in local
revolts in Europe; he offered help to the Socialists when the latter
planned an anti-capitalist/anti-monarchical revolution in 1921; he hated
capitalists and the bourgeoisie. Hardly a conservative/right wing fellow.
As for Hitler, his party was the by-product of a series of parties. The
Czech Socialist Thomas Masaryk's "Encyclopedia" [Masarykuv Ottuv Naucny]
lists both the Czech and the German National Socialist Parties under the
"National Socialist" heading, obviously. There was the German Workers
Party (DAP) founded in the area known as Austria in 1903 which declared
"We are a liberty-loving nationalistic party that fights energetically
against reactionary tendencies as well as feudal, clerical, or
capitalistic privileges and all alien influences".
Among the goals: nationalization of mines and railroads i.e. goals of
various leftist progressive parties all over Europe. A move was made to
rename the DAP as the German Social Workers' Party or the National
Socialist German Workers' Party (DNSAP), but was dropped for the time
being so as to avoid confusion with the Czech party.
Professor Karel Englis of Masaryk University wrote about the program of
the successors of the original German Workers' Party: "German socialism
does not differ from Marxism in its critique of capitalism nor in its
concept of the class struggle." ["Sources et Documents Czechoslavaques",
Prague: Orbis, 1938]. In 1918 the name German National Socialist Workers'
Party was finally adopted, and the agenda was well within normal leftist
boundaries of the time, as Ciller put it:
"The German National Socialist Workers' Party is not a worker's party in
the narrow sense of the term: It represents the interests of all honestly
creative labor. It is a liberty-loving and strictly nationalist party and
therefore fights against all reactionary trends, against ecclesiastical,
aristocratic, and capitalist privileges and every alien influence of the
Jewish-commercial mentallity in all domains of public life.....it demands
the amalgamation of all regions of Europe inhabited by Germans into a
democratic, social-minded German Reich....it demands the elimination of
the rule of Jewish banks [i.e. alien, private] over business life and the
creation of national people's banks with a democratic administration". It
was not uncommon for leftist movements to be against groups such as
bankers, the clergy, Jews, aristocrats, and royalty.
There was, in 1919, another German Workers' Party started and to which
Hitler was an early member - he wanted it to change its name to Social
Revolutionary Party, but in the end the discarded DNSAP name was
rearranged into the NSDAP, or the National Socialist German Workers'
Party.
Hitler believed in the conformity, rather than the prohibitionary views of
those on the right. Thus he favored eliminating "local traditions...
...regional self-government.... [regional] flags...differences between the
Christian faiths", and the forced amalgamation of churches, all to further
his dream of "making the Germans themselves more uniform, even physically,
by planned breeding [Lebensborne] and the extermination, sterilization, or
deportation of those who deviated from the norm".
He hated multinational societies (such as his nation of birth) because of
the difficulty of forcing uniformity among the masses. Hitler's failed
Putsch of 1923 was crushed, in part, by Bavaria's conservative Prime
Minister von Kahr (later a executed during the mass executions in the
summer of 1934), and Hitler added more conservatives to his hate list.
Anyway, analyses of the five major elections in Germany from 1928 to 1933
show non-Nazi ideologist candidate totals remaining constantly in the
majority, while the Nazi totals grew concurrently with decreasing totals
of Demo-Liberal candidates (German People's Party, German Democratic
Party, Economic Party).
Non-voters began to participate each time, but the key factor in the rise
of Nazi totals was the switch, to the National Socialists, by various
progressive, Leftist, and middle-roader candidates ("moderates"?). Thus
the resistance to the Nazis, electorally, was hardly from the atheists,
leftists, progressives etc (note, too, that during the Russian Civil War
of 1918-20 the major opponents of the Red Army were essentially
monarchists (religious) and anarchists (ideologically motivated), not
democrats and liberals).
Hitler claimed that "National Socialism is Socialism in evolution...There
is more that unites us with than divides us from bolshevism.....above all
the genuine revolutionary mentality. I was always aware of this and I have
given the order that former Communists should be admitted to the party
immediately" [Hermann Rauschning, "Gesprache mit Hitler", Zurich-NY 1940].
Communist Erwin Sinko claimed that fascism, nazism, and communusm were all
similar. Hitler also confessed that he erred in siding with Franco instead
of the "red" Spaniards, as he found out too late.
Alfred Rosenberg ["Der Mythus des 20 Jahrhunderte" 1943] wrote that to be
a Nazi one had to be a socialist because it was important to crush
"international capitalism" and to eliminate private property beliefs.
Marxism/socialsim had anti-Jewish roots (as well as being anti-Christian -
see below), so all this is no surprise. Marx himself wrote: "What is the
secular basis of Judaism? Practical needs, egoism. What is the secular
cult of the Jew? Huckstery. What is his secular God? Money" [Marx, "Die
Fruhschriften"]. (Max Nomad, in "Apostles of Revolution" [Boston, 1939]
mentions a 1938 dispatch from New York Times reporter Walter Duranty, then
in the Soviet Union, which stated that Stalin had up to then killed more
Jews than Hitler". This reference in the dispatch was deleted in the New
York Times article based on the dispatch.) But, as K-Leddhin writes: "No
wonder Goebbles declared....that National Socialism was `anti-Semitic',
because it was socialistic" [Goebbles, in "Der Nazi-Sozi, Fragen und
Antworten fur den Nationalsozialisten", Munich, 1932]. As for the
Christians, they by and large resisted Nazification, protested policies
such as "mercy killings" of the insane, and one may have problems with
Pope Pius the umpteenth, but he was not speaking for all Christians. Much
evidence exists that there were plans to exterminate Christianity after
victory was achieved (which never happened, fortunately), and in the end
this "crushing" was done by the Nazi's Communist rivals in
Soviet-dominated Europe after the war.
Some claim that the Nazis were not socialist, or only mildly so, because
many, or certain, entrepreneurs and manufacturers remained in their
positions i.e. complete nationalization of production did not occur, thus
"proving" the capitalistic or at least "corporate" partnership with the
government. But this is nonsense. Moa's China allowed "patriotic
capitalists" to keep their positions and thus their standing, somewhat,
for they had the know-how to produce important goods. German businessmen,
at least those who cared to, became no more than stewards of their own
companies in that planned economy, and therefore worked for the
totalitarians. The Krupps, I'm sure, knew more about their business than
any picked replacements, but they were controlled nevertheless. As Ludwig
von Mises wrote, these businessmen had only two choices in that system:
allow oneself to become a mere shop manager, or be "liquidated". In
democratic countries, such as the Weimar Republic, big buisiness financing
of various parties was common, just like in the US. The system almost
demands it in order to buy favors, or stem more controls. In Germany
before Hitler the liberal German People's Party of Stresemann received
much more than the Nazis. The Nazis received plenty of money from
membershup dues, so for the most part businessmen paying money to parties
does not imply collaboration.
When, in 1939, rumors were spread that the Soviets and Hitler were going
to form a partnership (hinting that they were quite alike, rather than
different), many leftist intellectuals published a large ad in which they
belittled the "slander" of those who were comparing the Soviets with the
National Socialists. Two days later came the Soviet-German pact, and six
days later Poland was invaded by both the Germans and the Russians.
Leftist people in the west had been taken, though some decided that the
Nazis were better than they thought.
American UP reporter Robert Best, a socialist foreign correspondent, was
in Austria during the Nazi take-over in 1938. He sided with International
Socialism, then moved into National Socialism. He stayed in Vienna after
the take-over, stayed on even after Poland was invaded and the big war was
on, and "became a radio announcer for the Nazis, and agitated against the
land of his birth. Surprising? The Nazis were progressive, built
superhighways, provided the people with cheap cars and cheaper radios, and
rode the wave of the future:. [von Kuehnelt-Leddihn].
Even more interesting is Herbert Read (before he was knighted) who favored
destruction. In his book "To Hell With Culture" [1941]. He wrote that it
was necessary to destroy all "nondemocratic, aristocratic or capitalist"
cultures. "To the rubbish heap and furnace with it all! Let us celebrate
the democratic revolution with the biggest holocaust in the history of the
world. When Hitler has finished bombing our cities, let the demolition
squads complete the good work" Later he wrote (in 1943): "Communism is an
extreme form of democracy, and it is totalitarian: but equally the
totalitarian state in the form of fascism is an extreme form of democracy.
All forms of socialism, whether state socialism of the Russian kind, or
national socialism of the British kind, are professedly democratic, that
is to say, they all obtain popular assent by the manipulation of mass
psychology."
In short, Nazism is very much rooted in the leftist/socialist dogma,
despite the myth-making of socialsist who want to distance themselves from
Hitler. Disowning him is one thing, but calling him a "right-winger" is
another matter.
---------
Ray O'Hara
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.63.11...@shell1.pacifier.net...
Clearly Bob you haven't a clue.
Corporations did very well under Fascism. nothing was nationalized ,no
property confiscated except that belonging to certain proscribed groups.
Capital was free to make as much as they wanted while labor lost all its
rights like unionizing and striking.
so it was uber-capitalism.
Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, he is lying to you.
Ray O'Hara
China as well.
===========================================================================
China is now a fascist state and did so without missing an oppression.
do you and Bob and the rest think capitalism is freedom? and communism
oppression. well you are wrong.
Singapoer is very capitalistic abnd the people have no political rights
Sweden is very socialistic and it has great political freedom.
clearly you and he have fallen for our propaganda.
Ray O'Hara
Fascism is Capitalism you damn fools.
Spain under Franco was CAPITALIST, Marcos in the Philipines was a fascist
are you saying it was socialist?
Fascists protect capital from labor.
Ray O'Hara
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.63.11...@shell1.pacifier.net...
Hugh like you is clueless.
now tell me, what socialistic policies did Hitler impliment? or Marcos or
Samoza, or Franco. none thats what. they protected the rich.
slotrot
> "slotrot" <rtaub...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
And of course the U.S. is the bastion of freedom where police, with
the blessing of the supreme court, may now enter your residence
"without a warrant" almost as they please. Now that's freedom. Is
that your 4th amendment right?
Of course ray, we were talking about economics and capitalism, not
freedom. China is far from a free and open society.
Hugh Lawson
>
> Fascism is Capitalism you damn fools.
> Spain under Franco was CAPITALIST, Marcos in the Philipines was a fascist
> are you saying it was socialist?
No. I'm not saying Marcos was socialist.
HL
Ray O'Hara
========================================================================
and China is now a capitalistic society.
you're the one arguing Freedom and Capitalism and Socialism and Oppression
are pairs. all you did in your last post was give further examples of my
point. Nazies were Capitalists. look who backed his rise to power, I.G
Garben, AG Benz, Blohm & Voss, Heinkel and other big corporations and under
the Nazis they did very well until the bombing started.
but what you thought you were doing was America bashing.
Ray O'Hara
when you agreed with BT and DeMonnin you certainly did.
Ray O'Hara
"Bad Jim" <jc...@csa.gov> wrote in message
news:0001HW.CA0AA246...@news.astraweb.com...
> On Mon, 30 May 2011 19:39:55 -0400, Bob Tiernan wrote
> (in article <Pine.GSO.4.63.11...@shell1.pacifier.net>):
>
> [snip]
>
>> In short, Nazism is very much rooted in the leftist/socialist dogma,
>> despite the myth-making of socialsist who want to distance themselves
>> from
>> Hitler. Disowning him is one thing, but calling him a "right-winger" is
>> another matter.
>>
>> ---------
>
>
> In truth the only "Fascist" was Mussolini. Used to describe other
> people,it
> is more a political slur than a well defined and agreed upon political
> doctrine. When you want to discredit someone, call them a Fascist... or
> Racist... or both.
>
> The thing which all these regimes have in common, be they left or right,
> is
> Totalitarianism.
>
> --
> Bad Jim
>
Jonah Goldberg is a meg-idiot whose writings are invariably wrong.
he isn't pushing history he is push an anti-democrat agenda and he routinely
lies to do so.
any who find him credible probably also worships Glenn Beck and Andrew
Breitbart.
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
> when you agreed with BT and DeMonnin you certainly did.
You are shameless, Ray.
HL
slotrot
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not me arguing " Freedom and Capitalism and Socialism and Oppression"
are pairs. You must be reading someone else's mail.
Not at all. You are talking about freedoms and political systems.
I'm saying a recent supreme court decision regarding unwarranted
police searches in the U.S. is a affront to the 4th amendment.
What is happening to your court systems when they, the supremes, are
usurping your Consitutional rights?
steven DeMonnin
OK, so show me how one can be distinguished from another, without the
distinguishing feature being just rhetorical labeling? Racist? both
check. total economic control? both check. Militaristic? both
check. Bloodthirsty and pointless terror policies? Both check.
The Nazis didn't suppress just communists and socialists. They
suppressed everyone, including boy scouts and and the Stahlhelm (And
independent veterans organization.) Again, like Communists, they
made sure there were no independent organizations.
Both Stalin and Hitler had the same basic rule. There is only one
church of Socialism, and they each felt that they were the only
prophet.
You say I just march to Fox's drummer. But I can point out
alliances both prior to and after 1933.
All you have his your fingers in your ears.
The fact they are similar does not mean they are identical.
And Contemporary reports show the Germans were getting lots of fifth
column help from Stalin's stooges.
steven DeMonnin
What matters is less the label, then what they actually do.
It is very bad to fall into the trap of feeling that even though a
particular dictator is boodthirsty, autocratic and disdainful of basic
human rights, because he says he is my kind of nice guy, that makes
things all better.
What matters is not the label, but the actions.
slotrot
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Fighting the 5 fascisms in Wisconsin & Ohio
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
February 21, 2011
The escalating confrontations in Wisconsin and Ohio are ultimately
about preventing the United States from becoming a full-on fascist
state.
The stakes could not be higher---or more clear.
As defined by its inventor, Benito Mussolini, fascism is "corporate
control of the state." There are ways to beat around the Bush---Paul
Krugman has recently written about "oligarchy"---but it's time to end
all illusions and call what we now confront by its true name."
" But it's stupid to see
> > "fascism" as uber capitalism"
The definition provided and attributed to Mussolini, contradicts Mr.
Tiernan's assertion. ( I believe the second quote is his) Who does
control the federal government? And if Republicans are more
committed to the corporations than say the Democrats, what does that
make the Republicans?
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
> You say I just march to Fox's drummer.
I don't recall saying that, but since you bring it up:
Where else do you get your ideas about Communism and Nazism?
Why is important for you to believe that Nazism=Communism?
How does it relate to your political aims?
HL
Hugh Lawson
> It is very bad to fall into the trap of feeling that even though a
> particular dictator is boodthirsty, autocratic and disdainful of basic
> human rights, because he says he is my kind of nice guy, that makes
> things all better.
Do you get a lot of opposition to that point?
HL
Ray O'Hara
he believes it because Rush Limbaugh and Fox News tell him he believes it.
he doesn't know any better otherwise.
They tell him that is what he believes because the President is Black and a
Democrat.
MITO MINISTER
> On May 26, 5:15 am, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "steven DeMonnin" <zooden...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:d4ca2481-14b1-44ed...@f15g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 22, 8:18 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "steven DeMonnin" <zooden...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:f07e72c4-4989-4a92...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
> > > On May 21, 6:20 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "slotrot" <rtaub...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > > > > Interesting reference to the Maginot Line and other military myths.
>
> > > > >http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/time-to-face-the-t...
>
> > > > you can buy a Maginot fort for a condo these days.
> > > > The real story of 1940 isn't how revolutionary the still mostly horse
> > > > drawn
> > > > Wehrmacht was but how incredible incompetent Gamelin and the French High
> > > > Command was.
>
> > > > and the bulk of casualties happened after the fall of Paris in the 2nd
> > > > part
> > > > of the campaign overlooked by history.
> > > > if the BEF had fallen back with the French and not scuttled to the coast
> > > > in
> > > > typical British fashion things might have gone differently.
>
> > > Another major factor in France's defeat was the huge amount of fifth
> > > column support the Germans had from the Communists. I was reading
> > > some contemporary accounts and the communist activity in the French
> > > rear was as damaging as the Wehrmarcht.
>
> > > ===========================================================================
> > > ===============
>
> > > Now that is a myth, Communists and Fascists are deadly enemies.
> > > Fascism is uber capitalism why exactly would the commie support people who
> > > were going to toss them into concentration camps.
> > > and there is the fact that the Marquis,the French resistance, was mainly a
> > > communist organization.
>
> > > and can you tell me where you read these myths:? I could use the laugh.
>
> > In 1940 they were allied. They divvied up Poland, and Communists
> > gave tremendous support to the Nazis up unti June 1941.
>
> > I was reading contemporary accounts from the New Yorker.
>
> > Communists and Nazis take up the same political space. They are
> > enemies to the degree they poach each other's adherents. When it
> > suited, they allied.
> > It was their alliance from November 1932 to the end of January 1933
> > that killed off Weimar.
> > The point man for the Communists in France after the war never lived
> > down his pre June 1941 collaboration with the Nazis, which over time
> > killed off the Communist party in France.
>
> > So while the Communist resistance was a factor in France after June
> > 1941, it was less about French liberation than messing around in
> > Hitler's rear for the benefit of Stalin. And Prior to June of 1941,
> > they were enthusiastic collaborators.
>
> > =========================================================================== ========
>
> > Russia and Germany divided up Poland but they weren't "allies".
>
> > and if you think communism and fascism occupied the same space you are
> > clearly uninformed about Fascism.
> > "Fascism might be more properly called Corpratism"
> > Benito Mussolini.
>
> > as for 5th columnists in France. I've read several books on France 1940 and
> > they all fail to mention these commie 5th columnists
>
> Back in 1922 Musso was considered a good communist. He hosted the
> first communist international that year.
>
> The only real distinction between communists and fascists is they call
> each other dirty names. Their racism, bloodthirst and disdain for
>
> - Show quoted text -
In 1915 Benito was a socialist and spat on the Italian flag. He then
became a nationalist and joined the Italian army.