Heinrich Harrer (4)
Bill Speckart
In a recent thread Gui has been rehashing the Harrer/Hitler/Dalai Lama
connection. Below are my responses to some of his claims.
Gui wrote:
> As I have pointed out, Israel has been quite cool to the
> Dalai Lama. Most Tibet-hypocrites have avoided commenting
> on the phenomenon, some undoubtedly being afraid of revealing
> themselves as anti-Semites. Methinks Harrer's case is not
> completely irrelevant to Israel's coolness.
Quite cool? The Dalai Lama visited Israel in 1994. During
his visit he met with Israeli government's Environmental
Minister, Yossi Sarid. That doesn't sound cool to me --
in fact, it sounds quite warm. Cool would be denying him
a visa.
So youthinks the Harrer/Hitler/Dalai Lama connection has
made Israel "quite cool" to the Dalai Lama? Israel, more
than any other government in the world, would know about
such a connection. If such a connection existed anywhere
but inside of your mind, the Dalai Lama would never have
set foot in Israel and he most certainly would not have
met with _any_ government official.
Gui wrote:
> England had already lost India by the time the PLA crossed
> the Gold Sands River in 1950. England controlled Tibet
> during 1913-1950. It used violence and threats of violence
> to exclude Chinese troops from Tibet. Propaganda?
Smells like it to me. You say below you have "studied the
evidence." If you have evidence, why not post it? I'll
ask again, for the benefit of all readers: Please post
your evidence and sources. Otherwise, your postings on this
subject reek of mindless repetitions of CCP propaganda.
Gui wrote:
> I am an independent student of Tibetan affairs, writing
> without fear or favor. I studied the evidence and reached
> the conclusion that all the talks of Tibet enjoying some
> sort independence during 1913-1950 are wrong but they point
> to the fact Tibet was enduring English control during exactly
> the same period.
Quiz time. England controlled India in 1939 when Harrer was
interned. Question 1: If England controlled Tibet, why did
Harrer flee to Tibet? (2 points) Question 2: Why didn't
the English imprison him when he was in Tibet? (2 points)
It was a trick quiz -- the answer to both questions is the
same: England didn't control Tibet from 1913-1950, because
the Tibetan government controlled the affairs of Tibet.
Evidence: British legation in Tibet made a request to the
Tibetan government that Harrer and Aufschnaiter be forced
to leave Tibet. The Tibetan government gave them permission
to stay. That's not control in my Oxford English dictionary.
Harrer writes:
"At the beginning of our stay in Lhasa, the British tried
to have Peter Aufschnaiter and me forced out of Tibet,
but eventually they gave up and the British and we became
great friends. Later on I even built a tennis court within
the British Mission's compound...Gatherings at the tennis
court with the British, and later on with the Indians,
became social events. We played tennis at least once a
week, and in the evening we played bridge...The gatherings
soon became popular with all the foreigners...And the
Chinese secretary to the ambassador also enjoyed tennis
with us."
The British Mission also allowed Harrer and Aufschnaiter to
send mail via the British representative to India. I don't
think they would have been so friendly to Harrer and
Aufschnaiter if they _really_ believed they were Nazi
soldiers as you claim.
Gui
> In a recent thread Gui has been rehashing the Harrer/Hitler/Dalai Lama
> connection. Below are my responses to some of his claims.
>
> Gui wrote:
>
> > As I have pointed out, Isreal has been quite cool to the
> > Dalai Lama. Most Tibet-hypocrites have avoided commenting
> > on the phenomenon, some undoubtedly being afraid of revealing
> > themselves as anti-Semites. Methinks Harrer's case is not
> > completely irrelevant to Isreal's coolness.
>
> Quite cool? The Dalai Lama visited Isreal in 1994. During
> his visit he met with Isreali government's Environmental
> Minister, Yossi Sarid. That doesn't sound cool to me --
> in fact, it sounds quite warm. Cool would be denying him
> a visa.
If His Holiness the Pope Johannes-Paulus II went to
SG not as a guest of the ROS but as a common tourist
received by only a junior minister in the PAP cabinet
would you insist that the ROS government had received
His Holiness warmly during his tour?
Would the Holy Father have accepted the terms of his
admittance in the first place? Some warmth, some expert.
I think you are a purblind propagandist not to be taken
seriously even by the most casual of USENET readers. You
will regret the lines quoted above because I among others
will be able to have a great deal of fun using them to
ridicule you and reduce what's left of your credibility to
a shambles.