What if Bush41 had continued to Baghdad and destroyed the Iraqi regime?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Maybe Ned isn't a neo-nazi but is rather an armchair revisionist historian synthesizing original interpretations of history based upon arbitrary Google derived assortments of source material.

Sure, that's possible.

It's also possible that he's trolling.

In any case, I think it is appropriate to show him how highly esteemed his arguments and sources on this topic are.

[Ned]

AFAIK, I linked to only two NAZI sites, one to give the original text of Hitler's October speach to the Reichstag. I explained at the time that it was the first site I found that had the text.

The other Nazi site that damned FDR I too questioned.

So, you guys that say that I relied on Nazi sites and am therefor a Nazi are being just a bit disengenuous.

[Ned]

Dr. Strangelove, history notes that Poland's bargaining position with Germany suddenly became very hostile after Hitler took Czechoslovakia. That act, by itself, would justify their hard line.

But the British guarantee, issued at the same time, must have had an effect.

Now there are some historians that suggest that Chamberlain himself wanted to avoid war and was trying to get the Poles to negotiate up until the very last minute. But, he was not successful.

Now as to the British expectations about German plans to attack west first, I really have to wonder. I have never seen this before and think it somewhat unreliable. Do you have any source material that supports this?

But beyond this, the Poles were promised specific aid in terms of British air support and a French attack. The French did attack, IIRC, but withdrew almost immediately. The Brits did nothing.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


molly, you never ever cease to amaze me. You seem to know everything and yet seem to know nothing.

Who owned Syria before 1916?

Who allowed large scale immigration of Jews prior to 1916?

Who was promised Syria as an incentive to go to war against the Ottomans?

Who signed a deal with the Zionist leaders at Versailles that welcomed Jewish immigration provided the Brits lived up to their end of the deal and gave them sovereignity over the whole of Syria save Lebanon as promised?

I am surprised you don't seem to know any of this.

I'm not surprised you think that list of vaguely connected questions answers mine, or indeed supports your blanket assertions.

They don't.

Who owned Syria before 1916?

Syria was 'owned' by the Ottoman Turks. So what ?

During the toing and froing between the independently minded (Albanian born) Khedive of Egypt and the Ottomans, immigration into the Middle East derived from a wide variety of sources, amongst them:

Circassians, Algerians, Egyptians, Druze, Turks, Kurds, Bosnians et cetera.

Ibrahim Pasha left colonies of Egyptians at Nablus and Jaffa, for instance.

Sephardic Jews were already in evidence in the Middle East, but large scale European Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe was a new phenomenon, founded as it was on European ideas of nationhood and a desire to get away from laws restricting what Jews could own or which professions they could follow and pogroms in Tsarist Russia, for instance.

Who allowed large scale immigration of Jews prior to 1916?

Where and when ?

Certainly the Ottomans encouraged Sephardic Jews to emigrate from Spain and Portugal to the lands of the Ottoman Empire- the settlement of Jews in Salonika, for instance. But that was in the 16th-17th Centuries.

Do you want to be more precise ? If you can...

Who was promised Syria as an incentive to go to war against the Ottomans?

Aren't you going to tell us ?

Who signed a deal with the Zionist leaders at Versailles that welcomed Jewish immigration provided the Brits lived up to their end of the deal and gave them sovereignity over the whole of Syria save Lebanon as promised?

Who, and where and when, indeed ?

The existing Jewish population in the Middle East, circa the 1870s:

The Jewish fellaheen- those who have worked the land for centuries... are not differentiated in their external appearance, their dress, their language or their daily life, from their non-Jewish neighbours.

Itzhak Ben-Zvi, 'Eretz-Israel', publ. 1918

The first modern Jewish colony of Petach Tikvah, founded in 1878, was formed mainly by Jews who already lived in the Middle East.

Yet already in the 1870s, the Turkish local ruler of Jerusalem and its environs attempted to restrict the number of new Jewish immigrants- Mehmed Sherif Ruaf Pasha (ruler from 1877-1889):

...tried earnestly to enforce the entry restrictions against Jews, and he made difficulties for FOREIGN Jews already residing in his Mutasarriflik who wished to become Ottoman subjects.

Neville Mandel, 'Arabs and Zionism'


So please, Ned, do stop talking rot.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
It is interesting that molly, and many many others for that matter, often call me a liar.

That's possibly because:

you state something as if it's true

you are corrected

then you restate what you've said before, later.


If you know something to be untrue, and repeat it, you're a liar.

Most of the time though, you just appear to be posting out of wholesale ignorance of the subjects you rant about.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
AFAIK, I linked to only two NAZI sites, one to give the original text of Hitler's October speach to the Reichstag. I explained at the time that it was the first site I found that had the text.

The other Nazi site that damned FDR I too questioned.

So, you guys that say that I relied on Nazi sites and am therefor a Nazi are being just a bit disengenuous.

I think it's three, at least.

I started off easy, saying something about walking and talking like a duck after the second.

Then, after claiming that Britain, not the Nazis, were responsible for WW2... repeatedly... you did it again.
**** it, I have only so much patience for people who insist on acting like idiots.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned
Dr. Strangelove, history notes that Poland's bargaining position with Germany suddenly became very hostile after Hitler took Czechoslovakia. That act, by itself, would justify their hard line.

Negotiate? What? What country is going to negotiate giving up its land? Was Germany going to give them something in return? The border hadn't even been established by Poland, but by an multiparty conference. It seems to me that the proper venue for negotiations was the League of Nations.

But the British guarantee, issued at the same time, must have had an effect.

Now there are some historians that suggest that Chamberlain himself wanted to avoid war and was trying to get the Poles to negotiate up until the very last minute. But, he was not successful.

Now as to the British expectations about German plans to attack west first, I really have to wonder. I have never seen this before and think it somewhat unreliable. Do you have any source material that supports this?

But beyond this, the Poles were promised specific aid in terms of British air support and a French attack. The French did attack, IIRC, but withdrew almost immediately. The Brits did nothing.

I don't think that the British or French ever promised specific actions in support of the Polish defense of their homeland. Britain did stage some air attacks. More importantly Britain began a sea embargo of Germany. As I've said above neither power anticipated an offensive so late in the year. When the German attack did come they expected Poland to hold out over the winter. The question of a land offensive was a difficult one. After all, they could hardly have done what the germans did and march through Belgium and the Netherlands. An offensive from Lorraine into the Saar would have been difficult. Even the Gemans did not think it possible to stage a major offensive on such a limited front over such difficult terrain. To do the militarily smart thing, extend the offensive into neutral Belgium was unthinkable. It's apparent from the way that the British and French prepared that they thought that the Germans would eventually be unable to resist the temptation to invade France, and you know what? They were right.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Negotiate? What? What country is going to negotiate giving up its land? Was Germany going to give them something in return? The border hadn't even been established by Poland, but by an multiparty conference. It seems to me that the proper venue for negotiations was the League of Nations.

Germany of 1939 sounds a lot like the Palestinians trying to get land back they lost in a war. In fact, if you actually listen to the Arab and Palestinian leaders talk, they are very anti-Semitic and say just as loathesome things about Jews as Hitler once did. Yet, today, the whole world sees justice in the Palestinian demands. But, you say, in a different time and place, the Germans had no similar right or justice on its side and by making its demands, the world had a right think that that country was the ultimate evil and its leader the greatest derranged madman who ever lead breathed? People here rejoice in the destruction of Germany and think that the millions that were killed in WWII were a proper price to pay to kill one man.

At the very same time Germany was trying to regain territories it lost as a result of WWI, Stalin was doing the same or worse. Stalin attacked Romania, Finland, Poland and the Baltic states. Yet Stalin was "Uncle Joe" in the eyes of the propagandists of the time, a man of infinite virtue and understanding, a man you could trust.

If a juror, having no prior knowleged of these events were to look at the three cases, Germany-Poland, Palestine-Israel, Stalin-Poland-Romania-Finland-Baltics states, one would have to conclude that the worst violator of international order was Stalin and not Hitler and that the solution to the German-Polish dispute was through negotiations, just as is the solution to Palestinian-Israeli disputes.

Now you say, the proper place for such negotiations was at an international table, and not just between Germany and Poland. But, were not such internatinal mediations offered by any number of parties prior to the war? Italy, the Vatican and the US all made such offers.

Who did not accept?

In particular, did Briton accept?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


Germany of 1939 sounds a lot like the Palestinians trying to get land back they lost in a war.

Only to someone on crack, or who is trolling.

Sweet jeezus, and you wonder why you get a rough ride?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ned
Germany of 1939 sounds a lot like the Palestinians trying to get land back they lost in a war.

Except not, because the Palestinians didn't lose a war - the Arab states did, and the Palestinians ended up with the bill. I'd say it's a different ballgame from Germany's territorial losses in WWI, for which it had nobody to blame but itself.

I'm not going to go any further into that analysis, because the differences seem too obvious - the Germans had far larger intentions than restoring the Polish corridor and Alsace-Lorraine to their sovereignty. In only the most basic sense were Palestine and Germany of 39 alike: they both had irredentist claims. But of course, most states have had irredentist claims, and many have acted upon them. The very fact of their existence is hardly a meaningful indicator of similar situations.

[Arrian]

@ Ned playing the victim. 3/10.

Your rudeness is usually carefully veiled, but it's there. I've seen it plenty ("The Left this, the Left that, Liberals this Liberals that... Europe this Europe that..." always very insulting crap). You post nonsensical, badly-source crapola as if it were the TRUTH (instead of saying, "hey, I found this on the net, is there anything to it?) and then, when proven wrong, you simply shift to another ridiculous assertion. The goalposts are always moving. Tricksey Neddy. Wicked, Tricksey, False.

So yeah, I call bull**** on your "woe is me, you people are rude to me!" whine. There are a lot of different folks here at 'poly, from different countries, with differing views of politics and history. Yet there is near-unanimous rejection your crazy theories and your supposed civility. I'm sure it's US, not you.

-Arrian

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

At the very same time Germany was trying to regain territories it lost as a result of WWI, Stalin was doing the same or worse.

When did Nazi Germany 'lose' the Sudetenland ?

Or Austria ?


Or Czechoslovakia ?

Oops! It didn't.

Judas on a moped, you take the cake.


And why was Stalin able to move against Poland ?

Because of his pact with Hitler- a pact Hitler was more than happy to make, because it removed the Polish barrier between Germany and Russia, and because the Baltic States had no love for Stalin's Russia.

After the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Stalin had Hungary, Rumania, and Nazi Germany directly bordering Russian territory, along with a hostile Finland.

How convenient for Operation Barbarossa.

[Ecthy]

Makes you wonder why BOTH parties actually removed Poland in the first place. Stalin must have bitten because he knew Hitler was going to remove the Poland barrier anyway and this way he could at least grab some territory before.

Talk about early warning.

[Arrian]

I'm not sure anybody really knows what Stalin was thinking...

He sure did some odd things right before Barbarossa kicked off...

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Makes you wonder why BOTH parties actually removed Poland in the first place. Stalin must have bitten because he knew Hitler was going to remove the Poland barrier anyway and this way he could at least grab some territory before.

Talk about early warning.

Ecthy, The NA pact Hitler signed with Stalin had secret clauses that essentially divided Poland between the two and gave Stalin a green light to take the Baltics.

Note that at the close of the war, Stalin kept everything he had been given by Hitler.

Then he took the whole of Eastern Europe as well.

Stalin's aggressiveness in extenting his empire was unmatched.