opponents of war
Ken Warkentyne
educate us about the Gulf War.
In article <NT01X...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (mathew) wrote:
> "If this were 1938, those evil pacifists would have been suggesting that
> diplomacy and/or sanctions be tried against Hitler. I think I'll
> conveniently ignore the fact that that's exactly what did happen, and imply
> that pacifists would have said 'Hey, Adolf, that's fine; you just keep
> Austria'."
Didn't Chamberlain say something like 'Hey, Adolf, that's fine; you just keep
the Sudetenland?' Funnily enough, I seem to recall something about a war
taking place shortly thereafter. What was that you said about learning
history from tabloids?
--
Ken Warkentyne - war...@ltisun.epfl.ch | "CD's are in and therefore LP lovers
Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, | should go kill themselves."
EPFL, Suisse. | - Kurt Strain in rec.audio
Unix II
>Mathew tries some "translation" on a previous posters article to
>educate us about the Gulf War.
>
>In article <NT01X...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (mathew) wrote:
>> "If this were 1938, those evil pacifists would have been suggesting that
>> diplomacy and/or sanctions be tried against Hitler. I think I'll
>> conveniently ignore the fact that that's exactly what did happen, and imply
>> that pacifists would have said 'Hey, Adolf, that's fine; you just keep
>> Austria'."
>
>Didn't Chamberlain say something like 'Hey, Adolf, that's fine; you just keep
>the Sudetenland?' Funnily enough, I seem to recall something about a war
>taking place shortly thereafter. What was that you said about learning
>history from tabloids?
>--
Please Ken, get real.
In the time before WWII, it was the pacifists (and other anti-Nazi oppositio-
nals) who tried to press their governments to take actions against Hitler.
At that time the governments did not even think about doing anything against
him, instead many of them more or less admired the way he dealt with nasty
left-wingers, trade unions and other people and intended to use him as a
tool against the Soviet Union.
In fact, they committed exactly the same error non-Nazi right-wingers did
in 1933 when allowing Hitler to come into power.
Both believed they could "tame" the Nazis to use them for their own ends.
The open and clandestineous support mainly conservative governments gave to
Hitler started in 1936 (one could say in 1935 with the Saar referendum, but
I would not go so far). At that time, Hitler was allowed to remilitarize
the Rhine region, though that contradicted the Versailles peace treaty, and
to abandon restrictions on the size of the German army.
Left-wingers and pacifists, at that time, advocated to resist that action by
troop parades and other means while expressing the readiness to release
Versailles treaty rules considered as humiliating immediately once Germany
would abandon dictatorship.
Hitler would have had to give in in that case, as he had only a 100,000 men
army. Such a failure would have been prone to destabilize the dictatorship.
That exactly was what a lot of governments and (mainly right-wing) political
groups outside Germany wanted to avoid at any cost.
Collusion with Hitler went on instead. During the Spanish civil war, especial-
ly the U.K. declared to be "neutral", but intercepted logistics for the
legal Spanish government while letting pass German and Italian intervention
forces.
In the Austrian annexion case, no serious protests were even launched by the
governments. Only those people - german emigrees as well as mainly left-
wingers and some liberals - who had opposed the Nazi tyranny from the very
beginning and stated "Hitler means war" already since 1928, protested as
usual.
In the Czechoslovakia case, it was more important for the democracies to
oid cooperation with the Soviet Union than to stop Hitler, even when
he exceeded the Munich treaty and seized whole Czechoslovakia.
No wonder Hitler did not take the warnings about Poland utterly serious.
As a result, WWII started due to the continuous collaboration of - mostly
conservative - Governments with the Nazis and their incompetence to see
the threat.
The pacifists you want to blame were those who held no illusions about
Hitler from the very beginning.
So please if somebody intends use of "historical examples", (s)he should
inform a bit more about them.
>Ken Warkentyne - war...@ltisun.epfl.ch | "CD's are in and therefore LP lovers
>Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, | should go kill themselves."
>EPFL, Suisse. | - Kurt Strain in rec.audio
regards, es
---
Dr. Erhard Sanio Tempelhofer Damm 194 D-1000 Berlin 42 Germany
---
Magnus Kempe
so that honest people will know what to look at, and also where to read more.
In a fallacious article, uf...@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (i.e. Mr Sanio) writes:
[his version of pre-WWII years]
: The open and clandestineous support mainly conservative governments gave to
: Hitler started in 1936 [...]
:
: In the Czechoslovakia case, it was more important for the democracies to
: [av?]oid cooperation with the Soviet Union than to stop Hitler [...]
:
: As a result, WWII started due to the continuous collaboration of - mostly
: conservative - Governments with the Nazis [...]
Mr Sanio thus claims that conservative governments (i.e. non-"left-wing",
which means France and Great Britain--if one is to judge from the "facts"
he chose to give) bore the responsibility for Hitler's actions.
_BUT_, nowhere does he speak of Soviet Russia's role, nor does he speak about
Italy or Japan; nowhere does he cite the fact that Hitler was elected, or
that the "left-wing pacifists" of Germany used as much force as Hitler did.
Nowhere does he speak of the Molotov-Ribbentropp treaty. Nor does he say
that Soviet Russia, and its bloody purges, was the moral ideal of the leading
German marxists (the most consistent left-wingers). Nor does he say that
Mussolini was first a Marxist, then a socialist (is that "left-wing", or
what?).
For many years, before and after WWII, collectivists have claimed that the
alternative was fascism/nazism/totalitarianism vs. some form of socialism,
thus obliterating the very idea of a *free* society. Part of the gimmick
has been, and obviously still is, to blame "conservatives" for any and all
evils, e.g. the destruction of Europe; "conservatives" is an anti-concept
meant to link advocates of individual freedom [i.e. classical liberalism,
or laissez-faire capitalism] with the notion of one's blind clinging to
tradition (Note: I have already voiced my opposition to the use of such
empty terms as "conservatives"--empty terms are *empty*, except for vague
connotations [who wants vagueness?]).
In fact, *collectivist* states and ideologies, by their nature, cause
destruction, war, and mass-death--as in Nazi Germany (National Socialism),
in Soviet Russia ("True" Socialism paving the way for Communism), in Red China
(back-to-earth Socialism), and more recently in Irak (Baas Socialism).
For those who want to read about *facts* of modern history, look up: Paul
Johnson's _Modern History_ (also available in French). He does a good job
in writing history (not any kind of "my-wing" history).
--
Best Premises, Magnus Kempe (mag...@elcgl.epfl.ch)
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to
our ennemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
-- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
Ken Warkentyne
>[article about how, well before WWII, efforts to persuade Western
governments to apply pressure on Hitler were resisted by conservatives]
>As a result, WWII started due to the continuous collaboration of - mostly
>conservative - Governments with the Nazis and their incompetence to see
>the threat.
>The pacifists you want to blame were those who held no illusions about
>Hitler from the very beginning.
I'm not "blaming" pacifists for WWII.
I completely agree that timely sanctions can work. My point is that,
when they are not applied in time, we cannot rule out war as pacifism
would force us to do. Furthermore, there is a point where delaying war
becomes more costly than engaging in it. I believe that Chamberlain's
Munich treaty was such a mistake.
Sure we can talk about how sanctions *should* have been applied years
before or how Great Britain and France *should* have given the Arabs
a fair deal (or how the Turks *should* not have conquered the Arabs,
or how Alexander the Great *should* have stayed in Macedonia or how
Eve *should* not have taken the apple). However, when dealing with actual
problems, we cannot say "well, we could have avoided this problem a
few years ago so we can't do anything now."
--
Ken Warkentyne - war...@ltisun.epfl.ch
Laboratoire de Teleinformatique,
EPFL, Suisse.
mathew
> Didn't Chamberlain say something like 'Hey, Adolf, that's fine; you just keep
> the Sudetenland?' Funnily enough, I seem to recall something about a war
> taking place shortly thereafter. What was that you said about learning
> history from tabloids?
Yes, very good, you recognized my reference exactly. Do you want some sort
of a prize?
Well, if you do I'm afraid that you'll have to show that you understood it.
Judging by your final sentence, this is unlikely.
mathew.
BORIS Borcic
>the Sudetenland?' Funnily enough, I seem to recall something about a war
>taking place shortly thereafter. What was that you said about learning
>history from tabloids?
>--
>Ken Warkentyne - war...@ltisun.epfl.ch | "CD's are in and therefore LP lovers
>Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, | should go kill themselves."
>EPFL, Suisse. | - Kurt Strain in rec.audio
Au fond, l'on peut dire que le mur de Berlin fut bien vite
rebati sous la forme du _mur_de_Chamberlain_ destine a
retenir les pacifistes de vocation dans le camp de la juste
guerre... Pardon, de la Juste Guerre.
"Chant-Berlin ! Chant-Berlin !" Incantation magique suffisant aux
Sirenes pour disqualifier aux yeux du public quiconque s'oppose a
la guerre...
A propos, j'ai oui dire (mais cela doit etre pure medisance) que
ceux qui soutenaient Hitler a l'epoque etaient ceux qui comptaient
sur les Allemands pour faire la guerre aux Sovietiques... Si c'est vrai,
les assimiler aux pacifistes d'aujourd'hui est une pure escroquerie
De toute facons, s'il faut evaluer le jugement public sur les
evenements de l'epoque a l'aune des mecanismes de formation d'opinion
tels qu'on les voit a l'oeuvre aujourd'hui, on est en droit de douter
que les options politiques causatrices de la guerre aient ete correctement
identifiees par le plus grand nombre. Or, c'est bien a la trace
laissee dans la memoire publique que s'adresse l'incantation.
Je me souviens avoir entendu qu'Hitler a dit qu'il comptait commencer
la guerre plus tot qu'il ne l'a fait, mais que les allies n'ont pas
reagi a ses provocations... Si cela est le cas, se pourrait-il que
la connotation de "Chant-Berlin" surgisse non pas de ce que le retard-
ement de la IIe GM fit qu'elle fut pire que ce qu'elle aurait ete, mais
de ce que, une fois la guerre ouverte, Chamberlain apparut comme un
traitre, un collaborateur avec l'ennemi absolu.
Boris Borcic (bor...@divsun.unige.ch)
emee
--Boris Borcic (bor...@divsun.unige.ch)
Unix II
>Erhard Sanio:
>>[article about how, well before WWII, efforts to persuade Western
>governments to apply pressure on Hitler were resisted by conservatives]
Well, I put the blame mainly upon conservatives (which is not unjustified),
but want to emphasize here, that as well liberal and even some left-wing
governments showed mainly inaction and undecisiveness. So a "put all the
blame on the conservatives" stance would be biased as well.
My main point was contradicting misleading parallels between the situation
before WWII and the situation before and during the Gulf war, especially
attempts to blame "the pacifists".
>
>I'm not "blaming" pacifists for WWII.
>
>I completely agree that timely sanctions can work. My point is that,
>when they are not applied in time, we cannot rule out war as pacifism
>would force us to do. Furthermore, there is a point where delaying war
>becomes more costly than engaging in it. I believe that Chamberlain's
>Munich treaty was such a mistake.
means that I do not outrule any use of military means in any situation.
Yet, I consider war immoral under all conditions, thus the decision to
go on war a very serious one, which has to be waged against all alternatives
available.
I fully agree about the Munich treaty. Beyond acknowledging rape of Czecho-
slovakia, it was as well an official recognition of the annexion of
Austria (as Sudeten-"Germans" were Austrians at best, not Germans).
>
>Sure we can talk about how sanctions *should* have been applied years
>before or how Great Britain and France *should* have given the Arabs
>a fair deal (or how the Turks *should* not have conquered the Arabs,
>or how Alexander the Great *should* have stayed in Macedonia or how
>Eve *should* not have taken the apple). However, when dealing with actual
>problems, we cannot say "well, we could have avoided this problem a
>few years ago so we can't do anything now."
Right Ken, historical discussions should not be extended beyond a certain
point. My intention was always to stress actual and practical problems
e.g. whether there were alternatives to war and which expectations about
their success could be assumed.
Further on, I was frequently criticizing war propaganda. I have a lot of
backup that governments tend to lie even during peacetime, so I don't
trust them once they gained full control over the media during war.
Again, I doubt about the wisdom of the quick and dirty decision to consider
war the only alternative. Anyway we have to live with the consequences
of that decision.
>--
>Ken Warkentyne - war...@ltisun.epfl.ch
>Laboratoire de Teleinformatique,
>EPFL, Suisse.
regards, es
Magnus Kempe
: For those who want to read about *facts* of modern history, look up: Paul
: Johnson's _Modern History_ (also available in French). He does a good job
: in writing history (not any kind of "my-wing" history).
The original English title actually is:
A History of the Modern World
Ken Warkentyne
> war...@ltisun.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>> Didn't Chamberlain say something like 'Hey, Adolf, that's fine; you just keep
>> the Sudetenland?' Funnily enough, I seem to recall something about a war
>> taking place shortly thereafter. What was that you said about learning
>> history from tabloids?
>
> Yes, very good, you recognized my reference exactly. Do you want some sort
> of a prize?
I think this Mathew person wins first prize in this group for his capacity
to rant (produce empty tirades).
I am very glad that there are at least some intelligent people in this
newsgroup capable of presenting reasoned arguments against the war
rather than simply spewing out empty verbiage like yours.
> Well, if you do I'm afraid that you'll have to show that you understood it.
> Judging by your final sentence, this is unlikely.
Mathew goes to bed chanting "Chamberlain should have imposed SANCTIONS."
The pity of it is that a legitimate proposition (early sanctions would
have worked) is discredited by the nature of the person making the
proposition (not that it is easy to detect amongst the insults).
--
Ken Warkentyne - war...@ltisun.epfl.ch
Unix II
>I do not intend to convince the fanatics. I'll just point out a few facts,
>so that honest people will know what to look at, and also where to read more.
Right on Magnus. Nobody believes to be able to convince fanatics. Let's see
your facts.
>
>In a fallacious article, uf...@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (i.e. Mr Sanio) writes:
>[his version of pre-WWII years]
Just a stylistic remark. As we seem to agree to dislike fanatics, we should
avoid their style. To offer the conclusions or value-driven judgements before
having concentrated on facts and logic is the typical totalitarian style
(e.g. Stalinists: "..the renegade blah asserts.." "..the borgeouis ideologist
blah writes in his/hers misleading essay.." Nazis: ".. the decadent jewish
intellectual blah .." etc etc). Leave the conclusion to the reader afterwards,
that is much better. Btw., my article was real, not fallacious. I indeed
wrote it. If you meant the contents (I guess so), just offer your arguments.
>: The open and clandestineous support mainly conservative governments gave to
>: Hitler started in 1936 [...]
>:
>: In the Czechoslovakia case, it was more important for the democracies to
>: [av?]oid cooperation with the Soviet Union than to stop Hitler [...]
right, meant avoid. My modem eventually eats letters.
>:
>: As a result, WWII started due to the continuous collaboration of - mostly
>: conservative - Governments with the Nazis [...]
>
>Mr Sanio thus claims that conservative governments (i.e. non-"left-wing",
>which means France and Great Britain--if one is to judge from the "facts"
>he chose to give) bore the responsibility for Hitler's actions.
Well, one may pretty well add that even left-wing governments remained
passive and too much concentrated on domestic affairs (remember, it was the
time of the Great Depression). Thus I welcome that comment. Clearly not all
the blame is to put upon the conservatives. But that many of them showed
much sympathy for the way Hitler acted as a "strong nationalist leader"
and the way he managed "to restitute the inner order", i.e. putting especial-
ly left-wingers, pacifists and trade-union people into concentration camps.
Some even sympathized with Antisemitism. That can easily be proven from
official statements, parliament debates and newspapers during that time.
My main point was not about right vs. left, but about the way of rewriting
history today when blaming "pacifists" for Hitler's uprising. That is
mainly done by right-wingers thus I happened to confront them with their
own burden of responsibility.
>
>_BUT_, nowhere does he speak of Soviet Russia's role, nor does he speak about
>Italy or Japan; nowhere does he cite the fact that Hitler was elected, or
>that the "left-wing pacifists" of Germany used as much force as Hitler did.
I did not speak about the role of the Soviet Union til Munich as they played
none. Their responsibility for the Hitler-Stalin pact is notorious.
And Hitler was *not* elected in any free election. He was nominated after
a decision of non-Nazi right wing parties after having lost 2 million voters
in the elections of Nov. 6th, 1932 compared to elections of April 10th, 1932
with their share of votes falling back from 37.3% to 33.1% . The parties
nominating him had no majority in the Reichtag, thus Hitler ruled by emer-
gency orders violating the constitution from the very first moment.
After falling short from gaining majority even in the maipulated elections
of March, 1933, Hitler definitely abandoned any democratic camouflage.
That German pacifists used force is new to me. That demonstrations of most
political parties frequently resulted in violence during the period of
1928-1933 is well true but leads far from the question who allowed Hitler
to rearm Germany.
>Nowhere does he speak of the Molotov-Ribbentropp treaty. Nor does he say
>that Soviet Russia, and its bloody purges, was the moral ideal of the leading
>German marxists (the most consistent left-wingers). Nor does he say that
>Mussolini was first a Marxist, then a socialist (is that "left-wing", or
>what?).
Nor do I speak about Tchiang-kai-chek burning his adversaries in locomotives'
ovens nor about the cruelties of the Mongols, true. I even did not mention
Japan or the USA, as well not Canada. Instead I concentrated on whether the
blame for the uprising of Hitler in the international arena is to take on
pacifists weakening the will to resist his aggressive claims. That was my
question and I offered an answer. My intention was not to post a complete
world history.
>
> [ .. some stuff about Objectivisms being great and Ms. Ayn Rand its
prophet deleted .. ]
>
>
>For those who want to read about *facts* of modern history, look up: Paul
>Johnson's _Modern History_ (also available in French). He does a good job
>in writing history (not any kind of "my-wing" history).
Another Randroid? Once I get the time I'll surely try to get it.
>--
>Best Premises, Magnus Kempe (mag...@elcgl.epfl.ch)
regards, es
---
Dr. Erhard Sanio Tempelhofer Damm 194 D-1000 Berlin Germany
---
Scott P D
>: For those who want to read about *facts* of modern history, look up: Paul
>: Johnson's _Modern History_ (also available in French). He does a good job
>: in writing history (not any kind of "my-wing" history).
>
>The original English title actually is:
> A History of the Modern World
I think the book you are referring to is "Modern Times" by Paul Johnson,
the American Edition of which was published by Harper & Row in 1985.
It appeared earlier (1983) in the UK as "A History of the Modern World".
This book has recently been the subject of argument in rec.arts.books. To
describe it as "not any kind of my-wing history" is ludicrous. It is
very much a right wing perspective on the events of post WWI history. The
"facts" presented reflect this.
Paul Scott, Dept Computer Science, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Nathan Maman
U.II> In article <16...@disun4.epfl.ch> mag...@disuns2.epfl.ch
U.II> (Magnus Kempe) writes:
M.Kempe> I do not intend to convince the fanatics. I'll just
M.Kempe> point out a few facts, so that honest people will
M.Kempe> know what to look at, and also where to read more.
So you know facts everybody should be aware of ? What are you
going to say to those contradicting you or those facts ?
U.II> Right on Magnus. Nobody believes to be able to
U.II> convince fanatics. Let's see your facts.
I disagree: we should try to convince fanatics but we must try to use
their way of thinking to demonstrate what's going wrong. If we can't,
perhaps are we wrong or there are more that one truth ?
U.II> My main point was not about right vs. left, but about
U.II> the way of rewriting history today when blaming
U.II> "pacifists" for Hitler's uprising. That is mainly
U.II> done by right-wingers thus I happened to confront
U.II> them with their own burden of responsibility.
I think that sounds right. May I add that in every party there were
people acting the wrong way to avoid war and radicalisation ?
M.Kempe> For those who want to read about *facts* of modern
M.Kempe> history, look up: Paul Johnson's _Modern History_
M.Kempe> (also available in French). He does a good job in
M.Kempe> writing history (not any kind of "my-wing" history).
Everything is biased by the one who speaks. One may always keep that
in mind. What we can try to measure is the level of authenticity the
author gives of its own says.
--
Nat.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Address: M. Nathan MAMAN, INRIA Sophia-Antipolis, 06560 Valbonne, FRANCE |
| E-mail: ma...@mirsa.inria.fr, Phone: 33-93.65.77.95, FAX: 33-93.65.78.58 |
mathew
> For those who want to read about *facts* of modern history, look up: Paul
> Johnson's _Modern History_ (also available in French). He does a good job
> in writing history (not any kind of "my-wing" history).
Paul Johnson?! "*facts*"?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
Is this the same Paul "Loonybins" Johnson (as Private Eye calls him),
ultra-right-wing author of countless "Why oh why" pieces for the Daily Mail?
You know, the one who had a "road to Damascus" conversion to right-wing
thinking, and now churns out rabid prose in numerous grotty tabloids and
magazines?
Yes, I'm sure he'll give you the "*facts*".
mathew
[ If it's another Paul Johnson, I'd suggest that he change his name... ]
mathew
> In article <g40By1...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (mathew) wrote:
> > of a prize?
>
> to rant (produce empty tirades).
Well sorry, but what exactly *were* you trying to prove?
> The pity of it is that a legitimate proposition (early sanctions would
> have worked) is discredited by the nature of the person making the
> proposition (not that it is easy to detect amongst the insults).
"I can't answer your points, so I'll dismiss them on the grounds that I
don't like the way you put them across."
mathew
[ Bullshit-to-English translations a speciality ]
Erland Sommarskog
>Please Ken, get real.
>In the time before WWII, it was the pacifists (and other anti-Nazi oppositio-
>nals) who tried to press their governments to take actions against Hitler.
>At that time the governments did not even think about doing anything against
>him, instead many of them more or less admired the way he dealt with nasty
>left-wingers, trade unions and other people and intended to use him as a
>tool against the Soviet Union.
>Left-wingers and pacifists, at that time, advocated to resist that action by
>troop parades and other means while expressing the readiness to release
>Versailles treaty rules considered as humiliating immediately once Germany
>would abandon dictatorship.
This is undoubtedly not a neglible aspect. But if we assume the roles
above, who were the real pacifists in 1991?
More seriously, I think that the comparisons between the WWII
proceedings and the Gulf war demonstrations are worth making.
But in the case of WWII we didn't need any "pacifists", the
Western goverment were "pacifistic" enough and had to pay the
price for not acting in time as Erhard Sanio points out.
Kai Alexander Scharwacht (k...@unido.informatik.uni-dortmund.de) writes:
>But there is no, NO historical or other
>connection between these two wars. I think it should be unnecessary to
>discuss this as everyone should be able to see that there are complete
>different circumstances etc. according to these two wars.
This is a point where I simply we not agree. I think there
are many similarities between the two wars.
I am not going to dispute with you on the main issue, but I
think there is one aspect you may have overlooked. In retrospect
it was evident that giving Hitler the Rhinelands, Austria,
Czechoslovakia and Memel was a mistake. It seems to me very
likely that this "guilt" was in the back of the minds of Bush
and the other Western leaders. No, not that mistake again,
they thought, and put hard against hard.
Their connection may its turn be a false one, Scharwacht thinks
so, I don't, but that's another issue.
--
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - som...@enea.se
Erland Sommarskog
>And Hitler was *not* elected in any free election. He was nominated after
>a decision of non-Nazi right wing parties after having lost 2 million voters
>in the elections of Nov. 6th, 1932 compared to elections of April 10th, 1932
>with their share of votes falling back from 37.3% to 33.1% . The parties
My memory says that the Nazi was up to 44% but I cannot give any
references on this point. At least after November elections there
was a nondemocratic majority in der Reichstag with Hitler having
230 seats and the communists 100.
In any case 44 or 37.3, it is frightening figures, even for the
chaotic Weimar republic.
Unix II
>Also sprach Erhard Sanio (uf...@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de):
>>And Hitler was *not* elected in any free election. He was nominated after
>>a decision of non-Nazi right wing parties after having lost 2 million voters
>>in the elections of Nov. 6th, 1932 compared to elections of April 10th, 1932
>>with their share of votes falling back from 37.3% to 33.1% . The parties
>
>My memory says that the Nazi was up to 44% but I cannot give any
>references on this point. At least after November elections there
>was a nondemocratic majority in der Reichstag with Hitler having
>230 seats and the communists 100.
Your memory tells you about the elections in March, 1933. At that time, the
Communist party was outlawed, most of the anti-Nazi press banned, the SA
and SS acted as police forces, thousands had already been killed and tens
of thousands imprisoned out of those opposing the Nazis from the left wing
to the center.
While there is no proof that those elections were a complete forgery, their
validity cannot be proven or accepted. At least they took place in an athmo-
sphere of terror and intimidation. There are lots of reports about SA "elec-
toral helpers" escorting people from which they could expect backup to the
electoral bureaus (people on the countryside, in middle class residential
areas or aged people's resorts) while threatening away people in industrial
areas.
Btw, the Nazis got 43.8% in those elections.
Anyway, it remains a plain myth that Hitler ever won free elections. In
fact, the Nazis were rather disappointed about the result of the March 33
elections and never tried again.
>
>In any case 44 or 37.3, it is frightening figures, even for the
>chaotic Weimar republic.
While the figures of 37 resp. 33 % for the Nazis in the last free elections
were indeed frightening, your claim about the "nondemocratic majority"
misses the facts.
During the whole period of the Weimar Republic, virtually the whole right
wing was "non-democratic". As well the "Deutschnationale Volkspartei" as
even parts of the catholic "Zentrum" and many splinter groups assembled
around them never accepted democracy. Most of them either favoured monarchy
or worse kinds of authoritarian rule. The waste majority of the administra-
tive and judicial body recruited out of that political camp openly sabotaged
democracy e.g. by sentencing right-wing political murderers for some months
or at most some years of prison while sentencing life-long prison for left-
wingers taking part in strikes or riots.
I remember statistics which show that there was 3 times as much political
violence from the right vs left resulting in 5 times as much killings but
only 1/20th of years in prison sentenced. Most of them were released
short after the sentence.
The pacifist journalist Carl von Ossietzky (later murdered by the Nazis)
was sentenced for 8 months (more than the foreign Secretary Rathenau kil-
lers) because in his paper "Weltbuehne" soldiers had been qualified as
murderers.
On the left wing, communists and other radicals favoured their dream of a
"workers' republic" instead of bourgeois democracy. Thus, they can also be
considered "non-democratic".
But as there was no way of cooperation between the left and the right, there
was kind of deadlock of the majority opposing the Weimar constitution.
That kind of "majority" had existed since the start of the Weimar Republic
and though it always remained a factor of instability, it can hardly be
considered the cause of its end.
There is a lot of blame to put on the major factions of the left which had
kind of numerical superiority over the adherents of a right-wing dictatorship
that they could not manage a compromise about at least limited cooperation
(as practised in the beginning of the twenties or later in France).
The communists insisted dreaming of a workers' revolution while the Social
Democrats looked out for a compromise with the right wing. Unfortunately,
out there (at that time), were virtually no democrats at all.
>--
>Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - som...@enea.se
regards, es
---
Dr. Erhard Sanio Tempelhofer Damm 194 D-1000 Berlin 42 Germany
---
Unix II
>>... [ possible actions to stop Hitler .. ]
>This is undoubtedly not a neglible aspect. But if we assume the roles
>above, who were the real pacifists in 1991?
Well, hard to say. My point never was to build up some highly moral
attitude. And one might judge that waging war after the Kuwait invasion
was the correct choice once one is convinced that sanctions were no viable
way inside a tolerable period, sufferings in Kuwait exceeded the probable
sufferings on every side during wartime (and afterwards), the threat of
mass destruction armament in Iraq was too high etc . Though I do not agree,
I grant those opinions the same moral value at least as mine, while I re-
fuse to speak for those refusing any kind of violence (As I told some
time ago, I consider their opinions honorable but impractical).
At least I can tell who are definitely no pacifists at all, namely war
hysteria propagandists. The outburst of rabid nationalism (though I had
expected it after the Falklands' experience) and entusiasm for violent
solutions was indeed frightening. Same applies to the manipulation of
free press during wartime far exceeding military security considerations
and making a totalitarian propaganda machine out of press and media cove-
rage (no "Saddam did the same"-flames, please. Saddams regime i s tota-
litarian, nothing else to be expected from). It discovers totalitarian
threats inside open societies.
Further on, all those who made that war a "moral" one claiming to speak
for "the World" without displaying the least attitude of self-criticism
are not at all "pacifists" and deserve not a bit of trust. Chamberlain
at least admitted his errors leading to a situation where war was the
only solution (and was replaced afterwards).
Today several political leaders are basing their electoral campaigns on
their "heroic" decisions, which is "realpolitik", granted, anyway dis-
gusting and contemptible. The deserve at least some suspicion that they
might consider wars as a means to escape domestic turmoils (such as
"reading their lips" carefully).
>More seriously, I think that the comparisons between the WWII
>proceedings and the Gulf war demonstrations are worth making.
>But in the case of WWII we didn't need any "pacifists", the
>Western goverment were "pacifistic" enough and had to pay the
>price for not acting in time as Erhard Sanio points out.
I agree that the comparisons are worthwhile to be made. But it is
not true that the governments before WWII were "pacifistic" at all.
In fact, they were blinded for the actual threat - they concentrated
on stabilizing or even extending their colonial empires (the widest
extension of colonial rule was achieved in 1939), clandestineously
admired or envied the methods of fascist dictators (at least tolerated
them). Those following a more ideological agenda stared at the "threat"
of workers' parties and labour unions and the ideological influence of
the Soviet Union. The keywords at that time (same as today) were
"realpolitik" and "self-interest" rather than "pacifism".
Exactly like today, morale, respect for self-determination, for civil and
human rights, for human lives ranged at the absolute bottom of the agenda
if they did (and do) at all. They are sometimes abused as propaganda slo-
gans (like the repression against Kurds *in Iraq* - nowhere else, or am-
nesty reports about atrocities in Kuwait during the occupation or in Iraq,
not in Syria, Saudia, Egypt or elsewhere). Beyond that, they do not play
any role at all. Thus I do not expect any improvement, much more the same
errors to be repeated again til there will be some bit-too-big war, some
day.
>Kai Alexander Scharwacht (k...@unido.informatik.uni-dortmund.de) writes:
>>But there is no, NO historical or other
>>connection between these two wars. ..
>
>This is a point where I simply we not agree. I think there
>are many similarities between the two wars.
I support that there are some parallels which should neither be ignored
nor overused.
>I am not going to dispute with you on the main issue, but I
>think there is one aspect you may have overlooked. In retrospect
>it was evident that giving Hitler the Rhinelands, Austria,
>Czechoslovakia and Memel was a mistake. It seems to me very
>likely that this "guilt" was in the back of the minds of Bush
>and the other Western leaders. No, not that mistake again,
>they thought, and put hard against hard.
>Their connection may its turn be a false one, Scharwacht thinks
>so, I don't, but that's another issue.
I think that the main problem with historical parallels or "experience"
is that everybody may draw arbitrary conclusions out of historical evi-
dence even without evil intentions. As historical events are not a lab
experiment but unique situations, any of those parallels implies a re-
duction which can be considered adequate or not.
A parallel I would stress in both cases is not "Look what a moral and
justified stance to go on war". Instead, I would dare to say that in
both cases wrong decisions before led to the need to do *something*,
where it remains questionable, IMHO, that this *something* meant "war
is inevitable" in the second one.
A much more fruitful access would be, IMHO, to analyze how those situations
can be avoided.
Here, I see another parallel. Attempts to achieve balance by armament failed
in both cases. Allowing Germany to be rearmed was wrong, arming Iraq in or-
der to contain Iran was wrong, too. Arming Turkey, Egypt, Syria and Saudia
now (and clearly as well Israel in order to avoid imbalance) can hardly be
an intelligent idea. Maybe when Saddam Hussein will vanish during the next
months, years or decades, the "need" may arise to rearm Iraq in order not
to allow a "power vacuum" (That might even occur when Saddam remains in
power though not immediately).
Thus, I would not deny parellels between WWII and the Gulf war, but deny
that any adequate conclusion has been drawn out of those parallels.
Therefore, I am looking forward for the next situation when more or less
inevitable consequences have to be taken from a similar situation - either
in Mideast or in any other region.
>--
>Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - som...@enea.se
Kai Alexander Scharwacht
> I grant those opinions the same moral value at least as mine, while I re-
> fuse to speak for those refusing any kind of violence (As I told some
> time ago, I consider their opinions honorable but impractical).
Sure they are impractical at the moment. But I think it is nice if we
could try to get a little bit forward to that point where they are
pratical. But I don't believe that I'm still living when that point
is reached ... :-(
> >Kai Alexander Scharwacht (k...@unido.informatik.uni-dortmund.de) writes:
> >>But there is no, NO historical or other
> >>connection between these two wars. ..
> >This is a point where I simply we not agree. I think there
> >are many similarities between the two wars.
> I support that there are some parallels which should neither be ignored
> nor overused.
Ok, that comes more closely to my point: Sometimes this discussion relies
too much on the comparison of these two wars. No war is fully comparable
with another war; in every war there are new aspects. The problem is that
sometimes the people her reduce the aspects that much that the wars look
the same, what they aren't; and that is the thing that I would like to
avoid. Let alone the weapons are much more dangerous today. Look at the
tactical planes of some militarists, and you will have something you're
can be afraid of ! It would've been a nice thing if Bush and SH had dis-
cussed the same way as we do before starting war (and it would've
been much nice if SH had stayed out of Kuwait ...).
Cheers,
--
Kai A. Scharwacht
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Kai A. Scharwacht, IRB, Dept. of Comp. Sci., | |
| University of Dortmund, P.O. Box 500500, | "Beam me up, Scotty, |
| 4600 Dortmund 50, West-Germany | there's no intelligent |
| Phone/Fax +49 231 755 (2444/2386) | life down here !" |
| E-Mail ks@unido.{UUCP|BITNET} | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kai Alexander Scharwacht
[..Stuff concerning comparison of WWII and GWII deleted..]
> Their connection may its turn be a false one, Scharwacht thinks
> so, I don't, but that's another issue.
ACK, because that shouldn't be the point of the discussion IMHO.
Otherwise we surely will talk up to new years day and still won't
come to an agreement, I guess ...
Fergal Toomey
>More seriously, I think that the comparisons between the WWII
>proceedings and the Gulf war demonstrations are worth making.
>But in the case of WWII we didn't need any "pacifists", the
>Western goverment were "pacifistic" enough and had to pay the
>price for not acting in time as Erhard Sanio points out.
So many people have made the comparison between Hitler and Hussein, both
on the net and elsewhere, that I just have to speak out. Hitler's motivation
was largely ideological; he believed in Fascism, a philosophy which is
based on the idea that aggression and brutality are signs of strength and
virtue, while compromise and negotiation are signs of weakness. His belief
in these ideas is very clear from his writings and his speeches.
Hussein, on the other hand, is a man who believes that nothing is too brutal,
*or* too cowardly, as long as it furthers his own career. The brutality
element is well-publicised, eg. the Kurdish massacres. The fact that he was
willing to back down if he thought it would be advantageous is clear from the
Iran-Iraq war, in which the Iraqis ended up fighting to force a ceasefire. The
Iranians refused to talk as long as Saddam was in charge (just like the
americans :-) ), and that's why the war went on for so long. Saddam was willing
to negotiate an end to it, but not if it meant the end of his career.
This can be contrasted with, for example, the battle of Stalingrad, where
Hitler refused to withdraw for ideological reasons (he did not believe in
giving up "German" territory) even though it meant the loss of 600,000 men.
How do you think Saddam would have acted in those circumstances?
Conclusion: Hitler would not have withdrawn from Poland if he had been offered
a carrot, but Hussein would probably have withdrawn from Kuwait if he had been
offered some way of saving face.
This is not to say that anything should have been offered to Saddam, I know
a lot of you disagree with that for various (ideological) reasons. But the
idea that Saddam was a loony who never backs down, so widely publicised by
the Allies, is quite clearly false. In my opinion, the numerous comparisons
with Hitler, coming even from the President of the United States (who should
have known better), were designed mainly to make people believe that war was
inevitable.
>Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - som...@enea.se
Fergal Toomey.