what would america be like in a cold war against a rightwing enemy like nazi germany?

[Straha]

what would america be like in a cold war against a rightwing enemy like Nazi germany??

my thoguhts
-a good war that has the same style proceedings like korea(the question is where??)
-a left wing style of McCarthyism with the religious right
-a libertarian counterculture
-an almost libertarian right wing and a more socially nuetral "religious left"
-civil rights movement not needed becasue Eisenhower got them equal rights in the early 50's
-no war on drugs
-a differently named version equal rights amendment in the 50's pushed by president eisenhower
-Fidel castro getting US support and Batista getting nazi support
-a slower but earleir pace to social and sexual revolutions
-the left supports the space program
-an earlier and more well managed
-President Martin Luthor King jr
-Carter in 1980 managing to be a leftwing version of reagan with a leftwing social policy but a hawkish foreign policy
-Carter being ranked as one of the nation's great presidents
-political correctnessappearign in the 50's and dying in the late 60's(its lessening now, it wasway wrose in the 90's)

[Xen]

A European style Socialist Democrat Party (perhaps the Democrats)
The Republicans adopt a Libertarian Platform
The religious right loses influence but is still there
Of course Higher Taxes too

[NapoleonXIV]

A likely place for the war would be in Yugoslavia, perhaps centered around the Croatian Fascists

I think Roman Catholicism would necessarily be far more liberal if it was not going to be in the Nazi camp and I don't think it would because of how influential US Catholics are on World Catholicism. (Main reason $$$) However, the similarity of Church hierarchy to Nazi Fuhrerprinzip would be an ongoing embarrasment to Rome, which would turn left to get away from this. Church would support abortion rights, liberation theology and general religious leftism. Some main supports of both religious fundamentalism (as positive support) and modern secularism (as something opposed to) would be knocked out.

[Michael E Johnson]

---political correctnessappearign in the 50's and dying in the late 60's(its lessening now, it wasway wrose in the 90's)---


Political correctness has been defined by the right-wing in the US (like liberal) and thats why its perceived as a bad thing.Whats its really about is trying to understand and address others not like you with respect and dignity.Of course the reason that political correctness is so resisted is that implict in its goal is that it wants to is elevate the downtrodden in society to equal status with those already (and always) in power. Those who are conservative in supporting the status quo ,which just so happens to usually include them on top, are naturally horrified by this notion.So political correctness is a great evil along with affirmative action ,ERA,abortion rights,gay rights etc etc. I really dont think that it follows that the US would have a more leftist political bent if we were confronting a facist power in Europe.Considering the United States long history of racism,anti-Semitism etc etc its equally likely that the US would be brought closer to the facist world-view ( ala Great Britian in HT's worldwar series.) Part of the reason that the United States grudgingly made Civil Rights somewhat of a priority in the OTL was because of the Soviet Union's constant harping about the US hypocrisy in declaring itself land of the free and still brutalising millions of its citizens.I guess its possible where the same thing would happen with a fascist power,but that would depend on how the fascist power played things.If it wanted the US in its camp ideologically it would be less vocal about such hypocrisy.

[Beck Reilly]

...Considering the United States long history of...anti-Semitism...

Actually, the United States is and has been one of the LEAST anti-Semitic nations in the western world. Take for example our support of Israel while Europe, almost in its entirety, supports the Palestinians. I challenge you to find me one piece of American history where the Jewish have been treated as badly in America as in Europe.

[zoomar]

"I really dont think that it follows that the US would have a more leftist political bent if we were confronting a facist power in Europe.Considering the United States long history of racism,anti-Semitism etc etc its equally likely that the US would be brought closer to the facist world-view ( ala Great Britian in HT's worldwar series.)"

Golly, for the second time today I agree with Michael Johnson!. The OTL Cold War was seen as a conflict between basic systems, yet throughout there were adaptive pressures to push the two systems to be more similar (the reds more open and democratic, the US more welfare-statist). Had the opponent been a super powerful fascist state, contrarian intellegensia in the US arts and media would have seen fascism as the wave of the future. My guess is the US would become more racist, more militaristic, and less democratic.

[PM Nixon]

I believe that if America got into a Cold War with a fascist nation, such as Nazi Germany, I think it's very possible the nation could be slightly more liberal than OTL. Of course, that is only if Nazi racism is extremely rampant, as in Americans knowing more about the Holocaust. There may be some rumors about anti-Semitic persecution, but the Nazis' real evil may not be known for some time behind the "Iron Curtain" that would be Germany, possibly Vichy France, and the other occupied portions of Europe. Really, things could go about the same as OTL's Cold War between the USA and the USSR, except it is very possible hard core right wingers may take the "Nazi" branding the way some liberals were seen as being "Communists" during the Cold War.

One factor in all of this may be the way WWII turns out. Is the Soviet Union destroyed, or severely weakened? Did Imperial Japan collapse to the USA? If so, this means the US may end up supporting Communist, or at least left-wing, governments, against right-wing insurgents resembling the Nazis. The USA will be involved in brushfire wars in Southern Europe and North Africa, as well as the Middle East. The Atlantic will be cluttered with US Navy and German Navy warships watching out for each other. If Britain is still independent and somewhat strong, they'll also get in the fray in the North Atlantic. Lastly, America will be paranoid like OTL, especially thanks to the Nazis early foray into "Wonder Weapons" such as the V-1 and V-2 rockets.

[Mark]

With the wars (WW1 at least), post-millenial Christians will loose influence (as in OTL). Pre-millenial Christians are not likely to agree with destroying the Jews, because they are God's chosen people and Israel will be re-established before Jesus returns (I'm trying to explain their theology, NOT claim ANYTHING about the nation of Israel OTL). Also, as more information comes out about the concentration camps, including the many Christians and others killed in them, Christians are likely to support the US government against the regime.

I think America might be more liberal in some ways, but I think the main focus of the Cold War would be freedom versus totalitarianism, and so similar to OTL.

[MerryPrankster]

"been defined by the right-wing in the US (like liberal) and thats why its perceived as a bad thing.Whats its really about is trying to understand and address others not like you with respect and dignity.Of course the reason that political correctness is so resisted is that implict in its goal is that it wants to is elevate the downtrodden in society to equal status with those already (and always) in power"

So attempts to shut down criticism of Jesse Jackson with shouts of "racism" and the Anti-Defamation League's (www.adl.org) criticizing Mel Gibson's Passion by stirring up pogrom fears, and your opening-post rant in "Secular Sensation" about Christianity being racist and anti-science are really an attempt to treat everyone with dignity?

Now, onto the subject...

In OTL, 13 US anti-WWII dissidents were put on trial as "domestic fascists." Some of them WERE actual fascists (one was a leader in the Silver Shirts, a fascist-wannabe movement), while one simply really hated Communism and one was even a Quaker (!). The trial turned into a media circus with "impassioned readings of Mein Kampf and it ended with a mistrial when the judge dropped dead in the middle of it.

Anti-FDR newspapers were also wiretapped and critics of FDR were denounced as either traitors or "dupes" of the Axis.

Read "The New Dealer's War" sometime to see the dark side of FDR's behavior during WWII. And FDR wasn't the most fanatical of the New Dealers...Wallace and Morganthau were fairly wacko.

I'd imagine if we were in a Cold War with Nazi Germany, you might have a leftist version of McCarthyism aimed at isolationists, pro-fascists (hey, McCarthy nailed a few real Communists), and others who oppose New Deal-type gov't (even if the New Deal in its original form was rather corporatist).

[Michael E Johnson]

I just read American Nightmare: The History of Jim Crow by Jerrold M. Packard and it really made something even more clear about this thread. I think its almost certain that in a Cold War with Nazi Germany-the US would be more right wing-especially in regard to racism. Much of the change that the US made in regards to racism in the US was motivated not only by Soviet charges of hypocrisy in regard to the American bastion of liberty brutalising 10% of it citizens-alot of that criticism came from the UN and European allies.For instance,the main reason that Eisenhower pushed for complete desegregation of Washington DC was becuase of UN delgates from Africa and Asia there being mistreated as if they were American blacks. In a world where there was no UN and the dominate power in Europe was virulently racist- I really think that white racists in the US would have been hard pressed to actually give up the Jim Crow system and their own views. Why would they willingly do it in a more racist -friendly TL when they had to be dragged kicking and screaming in OTL-the kindness of their hearts ? :rolleyes:


ps I really highly recommend this book.Based on some of the comments in regard to race I see here it could be informtive to some individuals.

[MerryPrankster]

I'm sort of inclined to agree with Michael. Assuming civil rights legislation gets off the ground, I imagine Nazi Germany would be inclined to cause trouble by helping out the more violent segregationists. Assault rifles and grenades delivered to Mississippi by U-boat?

However, if this is discovered, it could be the kiss of death for anti-segregationism. A bunch of SS "volunteers" found at Klan rallies would immediately bring on opprobrium, popular hatred, official action, and what-not, much like what happened to many of the blacklisted people.

Oy vey.

[Scott Rosenthal]

Matt: cribbing from Turtledove? how beneath you....smile...

I suspect that very little would be different, as both Nazi Germany and the USSR were totalitarian regimes with aggressive intent. This was the basis of our quarrel with them, the left/right ideologies might have been fodder for the extremists on both sides, but the character of the debate (read a paper from the 50s, for instance) was classic nationalism, with a bit of pro-liberty thrown in. Perhaps one might even argue that racism (as usual, Michael's fixation...) would be a harder sell, as it would appear to be 'siding with the enemy', and the Nazi form of racism included much of the currrent population of the US as well...

On the matter of political correctness, liberals love to chant the diversity mantra, until it includes diversity of thought and speech, and then those that disagree with the chosen philosophy must sacrifice their diversity. Good manners suggests that one should treat others with courtesy and (if earned) respect, but the current wave of speech codes and censorship in the name of 'what is right' is nothing more than thought control with a friendly face...

[MerryPrankster]

"Matt: cribbing from Turtledove? how beneath you....smile..."

What Turtledove book involves Nazis allying with Klan-types? Is it "In the Presence of Mine Enemies" (the new one) or perhaps one of his older works?

[wkwillis]

Revolutions die. Nazi Germany would have calmed down after the original Nazis died off, like Russia and China did.
Nazi Europe would have killed huge numbers of white people in Europe, but many fewer nonwhite people would have died. I assume that they conquered Russia, since if they did not conquer Russia they would not have been able to murder more than a few million people because they would have needed allies. I also assume that we took over the empires of the occupied countries and set them up as more or less democracies like India. If the Nazis took over the third world it would have been very megacidal.

[MerryPrankster]

WK,

The Nazis were really evil SOBs. Get them in Africa and you might very well have Draka-land.

What extent of a Nazi victory do they need for us to have a "Cold War" with them? If they bite off only Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltics, that still leaves a fairly large, powerful, and mightily PO'd Russia that could be a danger to them directly. Now, if they occupied all the way to the Arkangel-Astrakhan Line (like they'd wanted to) and bombed the heck out of a lot of territory East, Russia might be down for a generation or more.

An unsubdued Britain can also bleed them on the peripheries and keep them from expanding beyond Europe, though challenging them on the Continent might be out of their range. The Nazis naval-wise weren't very good (hence no invasion of Britain); however, if Hitler really wants a "round two," the Nazis could theoretically use the resources of occupied Europe to gear up for the "final reunification of the German race" (the Brits being Saxons).

If you want WWIII in a Nazi-victory TL, a German assault on US-allied Britain will do nicely.

However, when do the Nazis start suffering from "imperial overstretch"?

In OTL, they challenged the US and USSR, all while sitting on several countries that disliked being sat on AND putting a lot of resources into exterminating one particular ethnicity (true, they killed others besides Jews, but when did the Nazis deprive the Wehrmacht of needed trains to kill Poles?). That's why they lost.

Now, let's assume the Nazis support fascist regimes a la the Warsaw Pact in Western and Southeastern Europe (Vichy France and the Eastern "Hitler groupies") while indulging in Teutonic Knight fantasies in Ukraine/Belarus/the Baltics. How long can they keep this up before something cracks? Their economy was inefficiently run and eventually a planned economy will break down.

Perhaps the US can help them along by backing anti-Nazi groups in Europe somewhere. The Eastern "lebensraum" would probably be a running sore for decades, esp. if the US occasionally drops goodies off via submarine or U-2.

Or, if you want to parallel OTL a bit, Switzerland can be the Nazis' Afghanistan. It's mountainous, the people are heavily-armed and resistant to central authority. According to Target Switzerland, the Nazis wanted to divide Switzerland among themselves, Vichy France, and Italy. If they tried that, things could get ugly? How could the US and friends supply the Swiss? In OTL Afghanistan, we had a friendly Pakistan to work with.

[Scott Rosenthal]

Matt: Turtledove penned a rather interesting short story called "Must and Shall", the POD of which was Lincoln getting killed at Fort Steadman, replaced by Hamblin (now there is an evil SOB for you...) who pushed the Radical Republican reconstruction line. The south was never reconciled, and even during WWII (the US remained neutral, at least early on) the US was forced to garrison the restive southern non-states. The story dealt with an FBI man hunting down a Nazi arms-smuggling ring in the Nawlins area...

[David Howery]

One thing overlooked here is that Hitler had a virulent hatred of the US, second only to that for the USSR. I remember reading a review of Hitler's untitled second book (published recently, although I haven't read it); the quotes in the review show that Hitler regarded the US as a nation of mixed race mongrels... plus, he thought we were lazy dollar-chasing hedonists who would never dare to get into a war. A world where the US and Germany square off in a cold war... seems doubtful the US would have too many Nazi admirers, nowhere near as many as there were US communists in OTL. Stalin and Krushev's rantings about us would be nothing compared to Hitler's. The commies swore that the revolution would overtake all of us, the decadent west would be buried... but they never said they'd enslave us all. Hitler would say just that (well, all of us who weren't pure germanics anyway... how much of the US could claim that in '46?). It's hard to see that many Americans would find this culture attractive (a few would, as there are always a handful of nuts around). Even the hardcore racists in the south might have a hard time with Nazi culture (how many of them would qualify as Germanic?)....

[Michael E Johnson]

---Perhaps one might even argue that racism (as usual, Michael's fixation...) ----

Why do I feel that this is a redirection? Racism is hardly my fixation-its been AMERICA's fixation from day one-to the benefit of whites at the expense of non-whites. Thats called reality. If I'm fixated with anything-its confronting those that want to deny or soft pedal that reality.

[Michael E Johnson]

---replaced by Hamblin (now there is an evil SOB for you...) ---

Interesting . I'm curious what do you think about Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis-you know the 2 actual traitors whos actions caused thousands of lives?

[MerryPrankster]

"the 2 actual traitors"

You advocate a one-world government (thus assuming national sovereignty is illegitimate, including the US), so how can you claim Lee and Davis are traitors?

You also claimed that a secessionist black regime in the Deep South would be just what America deserved; surely, if Lee and Davis are traitors, the leaders of that little operation would be traitors as well.

Darn it, how come nobody's really commented on my lengthy commentary on Nazism, imperial overstretch, etc? Everyone's fixating on Turtledove, race relations, etc. The size and power of a victorious Nazi Germany would have all sorts of effects on US politics, but we're all ignoring that.

[Michael E Johnson]

---You advocate a one-world government (thus assuming national sovereignty is illegitimate, including the US), so how can you claim Lee and Davis are traitors?

You also claimed that a secessionist black regime in the Deep South would be just what America deserved; surely, if Lee and Davis are traitors, the leaders of that little operation would be traitors as well.----

It sounds like you are saying that there is moral equivalancy between the Confederacy and a hypothetical black republic in the South. I'm not. In any succesful one world government national sovereignty wouldnt be totally abrogated but would probably follow a US federal model to a certain extent.Lee and Davis determined to destroy their country because they were afraid that their region wouldnt have its way PRIMARILY in regard to slavery,with the legal election of Abraham Lincoln. Their decision to fight caused thousands of lives. I know that calling them traitors seems to say that what the Confederacy fought for was wrong-I have to admit I dont support Confederate war -aims. :o

[MerryPrankster]

"Lee and Davis determined to destroy their country because they were afraid that their region wouldnt have its way PRIMARILY in regard to slavery,with the legal election of Abraham Lincoln"

Davis, correct. Davis was a twit. Lee, on the other hand, is several notches higher on the moral food chain. Remember, he opposed slavery and viewed secession as unwise.

However, "destroy their country" is a bit much. They simply wanted to separate their section from the rest of the country. During the unfortunate episode with the Alien and Sedition Acts, Jefferson and Madison advocated secession as a last resort against Federalist Party tyranny. Granted, the South's motives for secession are assuredly NOT as morally-high as Jefferson and Madison's.

What I'm trying to say here is that secession is not necessarily treason.

[MerryPrankster]

Now, in order to have a "Cold War" between the US and Nazi Germany, how crushing a victory would the Nazis need to have in Europe?

Does Britain have to have gone under the Nazi yoke?

The USSR? How much territory should Germany take from the USSR in order to replace the Soviets (the 20th Century's first terrorist state) as "the big scary thing" in the eyes of most of the world?

What about Switzerland and other European neutrals like Sweden and Ireland? How would they fit in? In my earlier "Big Post," I suggested an analog to the Afghan-Soviet War in Switzerland.

[Michael E Johnson]

--Davis, correct. Davis was a twit. Lee, on the other hand, is several notches higher on the moral food chain. Remember, he opposed slavery and viewed secession as unwise.----

Yet he fought for both. I have alot more respect for people that actually have the courage to stand up for their morals than those who seem to say why I dont really like this but I'm going to fight for it because everyone else is-sounds like alot of Germans in the late 1940's to me. Its clear that Lee's vaunted oppostion to slavery and doubts about secession werent important enough to him for him to stay loyal to the United States. It seems some people are determined to make Lee a "hero" in the Civil War- as head of the main Confederate army he was as gulity for what happened as Jefferson Davis or any other Confederate-and he got away with it scot free.

[MerryPrankster]

"I have alot more respect for people that actually have the courage to stand up for their morals than those who see to say why I dont really like this but I'm going to fight for it because everyone else is-sounds like alot of Germans in the late 1940's to me"

That's oversimplifying it. Lee would have gone with the Union if Virginia did; he did not wish to fight against "his own people". Remember, this is a time when people said, "the United States ARE" (not the "United States IS"); regiona loyalties were much bigger.

[Michael E Johnson]

---That's oversimplifying it. Lee would have gone with the Union if Virginia did; he did not wish to fight against "his own people". Remember, this is a time when people said, "the United States ARE" (not the "United States IS"); regiona loyalties were much bigger.----

So I guess he couldnt make distinctions? If he really thought what "his own people" were doing was wrong-why did he still support them ? Some in the South that grew up with the same regional loyalties supported the Union-why didnt Lee?

[MerryPrankster]

"why didnt Lee"

"Let erring sisters go in peace" perhaps.

[MerryPrankster]

Nobody wants to talk about Switzerland or the Third Reich's ultimate size?

(makes "sad puppy face")

[Straha]

"the 2 actual traitors"

You advocate a one-world government (thus assuming national sovereignty is illegitimate, including the US), so how can you claim Lee and Davis are traitors?

You also claimed that a secessionist black regime in the Deep South would be just what America deserved; surely, if Lee and Davis are traitors, the leaders of that little operation would be traitors as well.

Darn it, how come nobody's really commented on my lengthy commentary on Nazism, imperial overstretch, etc? Everyone's fixating on Turtledove, race relations, etc. The size and power of a victorious Nazi Germany would have all sorts of effects on US politics, but we're all ignoring that.

when I asked this thread I was assuming a nazi zone of influence over much of europe from the atlantic to the volga.

like this map

[MerryPrankster]

Judging from the map, what's left of Russia is a Nazi vassal and they've screwed over and annexed their Romanian allies too. My, they're more powerful than I imagined.

Of course, Britain is free.

[Scott Rosenthal]

Michael: Racism is a fixation for America only in the eyes of those who have no other interests themselves. I am sure that we agree that treatment of blacks (and latinos, and indians, and innumerable others, why do blacks get a special dispensation?) in our past was and remains a blight on America's history. We probably agree (though we would disagree as to the prevasiveness) that racism REMAINS a serious social problem, one that any true lover of liberty and decency should remain opposed to. One might even GUESS that we agree that without a determined fight against racism, our future will be blighted, both as a people and as a country... That said, the idea that America is uniquely racist or even unusually racist, is simply nonsense. None of this excuses our mistakes, of course, and none of it excuses us as a people from our obligation to do better in the future. To pretend, as you seem to (I will concede that I may be mistaken in my perception), that there have been no changes of substance, and that many of the injustices or even legitimate policy disagreements are nothing more or less than racism unchanged from the bad old days of the 19th century, is delusional at best. Disagreeing with the best way to cope with the problem, or whether or not there are OTHER problems that might be more significant is hardly softpedalling the issue...

Regarding the confederates, Davis richly deserved all of the condemnation that he got. A proud (arrogant, actually...and I speak as an expert on arrogance...smile...), powerful man, he was reduced to a pseudopensioner, his cause disgraced, his own position in history forgotten. I believe that you would find it difficult to obtain a more suitable revenge, but if it would please you to have had him hung, you won't find any argument from me.

As for Lee, he is more complex. I must agree with you (ALERT THE MEDIA) that his reasoning for joining the CSA was weak, though I suspect that it was quite sincere. That said, he is not simply a citizen who left, he was an officer in the United States Army, and was under an oath which EXPLICITLY forbade his choice to leave and join the CSA military. That he was quite willing to accept whatever fate the Union had in mind for him (in part because I suspect he was shrewd enough to know that they would do nothing to him) speaks in his favor, and his postwar behavior was exemplary and no doubt encouraged others to follow his example. That said, I still believe that those who defend him from the term 'traitor' are doing so more in deference to his (largely undeserved) reputation as a military genius, burnished by generations of Virginian haigiographers...

Hamblin was an evil of another order, however. Unlike the pride of Davis or the confusion of Lee, Hamblin loathed the south (and this had little to do with slavery, and everything to do with his hatred of the plantation owner's wealth...he would have fit in with the antiglobos of today quite nicely) and wanted it destroyed root and branch. Even the other Radical Republicans (a group of unpleasant individuals to a man) found him uncomfortable to share time wtih, and Lincoln freely admitted that he was a political ally, nothing more.

A final point, most of the ACW had far more to do with the structure of the govt than about slavery, the latter being what a prosecutor might refer to as proximate cause. There is no doubt that slavery was a factor, but Ms Fields notwithstanding, one need only review the letters from the soldiers themselves (who after all, knew why they were fighting and dying) to see that the overwhelming bulk of them fought (on both sides) because of their differing views of the Union, and the future of that organization... 20th century political correctness might have deluded many to embrace the idea of slavery/emancipation as the only worthwhile cause, but the truth is far more complex, and in its own way, far more uplifting than that...

[Straha]

Judging from the map, what's left of Russia is a Nazi vassal and they've screwed over and annexed their Romanian allies too. My, they're more powerful than I imagined.

Of course, Britain is free.

whats left of russia to the volga is a nazi vassal

[Michael E Johnson]

---Hamblin loathed the south (and this had little to do with slavery, and everything to do with his hatred of the plantation owner's wealth...he would have fit in with the antiglobos of today quite nicely) and wanted it destroyed root and branch.---

Since that wealth was built primarily through slavery-I have to say I dont find a desire to destroy or even better re-distriubte to the people who created it evil-if only that happened in one form or another.

[Michael E Johnson]

I was thinking that a one possible positive benefit of a Nazi-type enemy for the United States in the Cold War would be less influence of the conservative Christians in the US. Part of the religiousness that the US is bathed in today is related to a desire to counter the atheist Soviet state.See we love god we have to better.For instance influence of those politics is one of the reasons that "under god" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. A Nazi state that, while probably not overtly pro-Christian ,would most likely have tolerated Chrisitanity as long as it didnt get in front of supporting the state-which would possibly mean less of a Chrisitan explosion to counter the enemy in the United States.

[Michael E Johnson]

The book K is for killing by Daniel Easterman also presents an independent but fascist US that cozied up to Nazi Germany at the beginning of WW2.Through the hard work of a British agent Germany is implicated in the assissination of the US president Lindbergh and America stays neutral in WW2 under Joseph Kennedy.It's implied ,through fastforwards from " a new American Republic" in the 1970's,that Germany still looses fighting Britian and the USSR at the same time-but at a much greater cost.

[Michael E Johnson]

---To pretend, as you seem to (I will concede that I may be mistaken in my perception), that there have been no changes of substance, and that many of the injustices or even legitimate policy disagreements are nothing more or less than racism unchanged from the bad old days of the 19th century, is delusional at best. ----


I forgot this one that seems to be a favorite canard of consevatives.Any African -American my age that has parents and grand-parents knows that there have been major changes of substance since the 1960's. But those changes are ONLY 40 years old and seem to be under constant assualt by some of the same people and descendants of the same people who never wanted them to begin with.Thankfully racism doesnt matter as much to African-Americans as it use to in the United States,but it still matters to them alot more than most conservatives seem willing to admit.

[Paul Spring]

Hamblin was an evil of another order, however. Unlike the pride of Davis or the confusion of Lee, Hamblin loathed the south (and this had little to do with slavery, and everything to do with his hatred of the plantation owner's wealth...he would have fit in with the antiglobos of today quite nicely) and wanted it destroyed root and branch. Even the other Radical Republicans (a group of unpleasant individuals to a man) found him uncomfortable to share time wtih, and Lincoln freely admitted that he was a political ally, nothing more.

I would have to partly disagree with your opinion of Hamlin and the Radical Republicans. I don't think that they hated wealth, they just hated the idea of wealth gained from slavery. Some of them were pretty wealthy themselves, but they considered this wealth gained in a free society and therefore the moral opposite of wealth obtained from slavery. This may have been misdirected and hypocritical - after all, would they have acted differently if they had been born into a slaveowning family in a slave state - but I think that it was sincere. When they said that they hated the southern elite because they had gotten their wealth from slavery, I suspect that they meant exactly that. The same thing is, I suspect, true of the "antiglobos" of today - I disagree with them, and think they're misguided, but I think that most of them are quite sincere, and genuinely believe that big international corporations are doing more damage than good to people.

[Scott Rosenthal]

Paul: I apologize if I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't suggesting that ALL of the Radical Republicans (many of whom I feel were great men who history has treated rather shabbily) were evil, or even misguided. I was directing my comments SPECIFICALLY at Lincoln's putative successor, who very clearly DID hold the views that I described earlier.

Regarding the antiglobos, they fall into two categories: 1) Those too ignorant to know that they are spouting nonsense, and 2) those who know better, but see a useful road to power. Only an economic illiterate could possibly embrace much of what I hear described as gospel truth by some of these nutters. That said, group (1) does have many sincere (albeit ignorant) people with in it, and those can be salvaged through education and the simple process of growing up. Group (2) is hopeless and can only be dealt with my constant confrontation...

When you think of it, this is pretty much the way that the RR felt about the Confederacy...grin...

Cheers,

Scott

[zoomar]

It's amazing how this interesting question about a Nazi superpower turned into a discussion of the Confederacy, reconstruction, and whether or not RE Lee was a traitor.

Back to the original idea, I would have to say I agree with Michael that the US would be more right-wing if opposed by a Nazi superpower in a cold war. In fact, if the USSR had been defeated by Germany, the whole world would shift a lot to the right. Capitalist America was always more conceptually comfortable with fascism than communism (we didn't recognize the USSR until 1933 and recognized Hitler's and Mussolini's govts from day one) and in the 1940's the USA was still quite racist. Also, in the OTL cold war, the USSR (and PRC later) said all the right things about equality and racism, which forced US policy and ideals to shift leftward to maintain the support of 3rd world states - and to a less extent to ensure the civil rights movement in the US was not radicalized. Had the opponent been Nazisim, I don't see that ensuring equal rights for American blacks would have become a natoinal priority, and who knows, Japanese Americans might still be in concentration camps or deported. I guess I'm saying the WASP-dominated US would not necessarily get worse than it was in 1941, but it very likely would not have gotten anymore liberal, at least as regards race issues. Also, had the 3rd Reich become truly satiated with it's hold on Europe and whatever "final solution to its ethnic problems" it came up with. I don't see American policy ever going beyond containment to a Reaganesque policy to overthrow the "evil empire". I suspect that Imperial Japan would continue to be seen as the greater threat and worse enemy to US interests. I could even imagine (god forbid) the USA and Nazi Europe eventually finding common cause against non-white and expansionist Japan as the power struggles went thru the decades.

[fhaessig]

Actually, the United States is and has been one of the LEAST anti-Semitic nations in the western world. Take for example our support of Israel while Europe, almost in its entirety, supports the Palestinians.

<puzled>

Could you kindly explain to me what supporting or not supporting the policies of the state of Israel has to do with anti-semitism?

As far as I can tell there is no relationship between both, even though some people mix them.

Hint : STALIN supported Israel.

[fhaessig]

WK,


Now, let's assume the Nazis support fascist regimes a la the Warsaw Pact in Western and Southeastern Europe (Vichy France and the Eastern "Hitler groupies") while indulging in Teutonic Knight fantasies in Ukraine/Belarus/the Baltics. How long can they keep this up before something cracks? Their economy was inefficiently run and eventually a planned economy will break down.

Perhaps the US can help them along by backing anti-Nazi groups in Europe somewhere. The Eastern "lebensraum" would probably be a running sore for decades, esp. if the US occasionally drops goodies off via submarine or U-2.

Or, if you want to parallel OTL a bit, Switzerland can be the Nazis' Afghanistan. It's mountainous, the people are heavily-armed and resistant to central authority. According to Target Switzerland, the Nazis wanted to divide Switzerland among themselves, Vichy France, and Italy. If they tried that, things could get ugly? How could the US and friends supply the Swiss? In OTL Afghanistan, we had a friendly Pakistan to work with.


Concerning the economy, do you mean before Speer took over or after? Anyway, AFAIK, Nazi economy was more efficient than soviet one, especially in a 'peace' setting. Look how long it took for the USSR to collapse economically. The third Reich may take even longer.

About Switzeland, I am not sure the Swiss would hold the wermacht for very long, even in the 'alp reduce' ( sp? ). The Swiss strategy was never guerilla, it was to hold the line in the alps and to form a battle line there. Anyway, OTL, the main Swiss defence, AFAIK, was that they were indispensable to Nazi Germany as an outlet to the world and a place to acquire some material and components they were not producing ( as well as stash the loot, of course ).

[zoomar]

"Could you kindly explain to me what supporting or not supporting the policies of the state of Israel has to do with anti-semitism?

As far as I can tell there is no relationship between both, even though some people mix them"


I'm sorry fhaessig, I don't see how you can say they are completely unseparated. Putting the protection of the Jewish people in the hands of a powerful Jewish state, rather than gentiles, is percieved by many Jews, especially those who suffered at the hands of Europeans during the period 1935-1945, as the only way to ensure the survival of the Jewish people. Policies which would possibly weaken the "Jewish" identity Israel and lead to a multi-ethnic, secular state in Palestine - one in which Jews themselves might eventually become an electoral minority - are rightfully considered a threat to this vision.

My own observation (possibly misinformed, I admit) is that the popular attitude of many Europeans (if not their governments) has gone beyond mere criticism of the extreme policies of the Sharon government to questioning whether or not a self-identified Jewish State in Palestine which excludes palestinian arabs from residence and citizenship is a good thing. Given the recent history of Europe I don't see how that cannot be interpreted as anything other than anti-semetic.

Regarding Switzerland, I'm not sure the Nazis would feel the need to invade it. Switzerland provided a convenient outlet for unofficial contact between the allies and Germany during WW2, and there's no reason it could not retain this value in a cold war with the US. Plus they were largely good Aryans who might well behave themselves without requiring German administration (as I suspect most Finns, Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians would have in this ATL)

[Peter]

My own observation (possibly misinformed, I admit) is that the popular attitude of many Europeans (if not their governments) has gone beyond mere criticism of the extreme policies of the Sharon government to questioning whether or not a self-identified Jewish State in Palestine which excludes palestinian arabs from residence and citizenship is a good thing. Given the recent history of Europe I don't see how that cannot be interpreted as anything other than anti-semetic.

Anti-semitism=racism towards jews

So it is racist to be against the apartheid state of Israel and the idea of an ethnically cleansed Israel? Well, in that case I guess I am anti-semic and I am proud over it.

Hypocrat.

[David Howery]

<groan> Please, let's not start this whole argument up again... :(

[pisces74]

With Russia out of the picture I'd guess we'd see America adapt an almost socialist view ala Canada or Sweden- lite. That would allow us to look down our nose at the fascists, and solve domestic race issues at home. "Sure you're different but we're all equal comerade!" After all the USSR isn't the pinko commie bad guys in this TL and we'd almost assurdly would take a contrary view to the reich. Hell, if the Seige mentality got bad enough we may even see a UCAS develop.

And Michael, contrary to what your history teacher told you in class The ACW was fought over money. the north was simultaneously raking in huge dividends on manufactured goods, while paying a pittance to southern plantations for raw materials. When the south tried to buy silimilar machine tools from europe to be on par with the yankee, the feds installed crippling tariffs, and tried to increase overhead by abolishing slavery. The war wasn't about the white man keeping the black man down, it was about the yankee keeping the southron down. Which seems perfectly acceptible since they were all WMCA anyway.

[The Ubbergeek]

But slavery was a major sore.

[Faeelin]

Concerning the economy, do you mean before Speer took over or after? Anyway, AFAIK, Nazi economy was more efficient than soviet one, especially in a 'peace' setting.

Wasn't the Reich heading for major economic problems before the war?

Likewise, I think it says a lot that the USSR, absent the industries of the Ukraine and western Russia, was able to outproduce the Reich.

Look how long it took for the USSR to collapse economically. The third Reich may take even longer.

On the other hand, the USSR wasn't involved in brilliant policies like starting a guerilla war that would last decades, or killing off some of its best and brightest citizens.

Edit: Oops. Didn't realize how old this thread was.

[Wendell]

The Kaiser's Germany calls the shots in Europe?

[Straha]

The Kaiser's Germany calls the shots in Europe?
why not? What's the worst that could happen?

[Wendell]

why not? What's the worst that could happen?
WEll, some of Hitler's ideas were already gaining support, but without his rabid antisemitism prevailing in politics, the Junkers might just get the bomb first...

[Straha]

THere might not be the genocide of the nazis but antisemitism would still be big in a kaiser europa. Instead of deathcamps we'd have the german version of KKK-type toughs burning down jewish houses and shooting jewish people combined with mass deportations.

[Wendell]

THere might not be the genocide of the nazis but antisemitism would still be big in a kaiser europa. Instead of deathcamps we'd have the german version of KKK-type toughs burning down jewish houses and shooting jewish people combined with mass deportations.
I agree, but the mass deportations might not happen that fast. I'd expect the government to formally encourage them to leave first. Nonetheless, a scenario like this provokes many questions.

[Ivan Druzhkov]

On the other hand, the USSR wasn't involved in brilliant policies like starting a guerilla war that would last decades, or killing off some of its best and brightest citizens.

Well, on that last point, there were the purges of the 1930's, which were generally pretty hard on everyone. Granted, he did keep a few around in special "intellectual prisons", but it was still pretty dire.

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Regarding Switzerland, I'm not sure the Nazis would feel the need to invade it. Switzerland provided a convenient outlet for unofficial contact between the allies and Germany during WW2, and there's no reason it could not retain this value in a cold war with the US. Plus they were largely good Aryans who might well behave themselves without requiring German administration (as I suspect most Finns, Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians would have in this ATL)

After the war is over, there's no need for it. And the Germans regarded the Swiss Germans as mongrels (because they lived peacefully with other ethnicities) and traitors to the Aryan idea (for the previous reason, but also because they were a democracy and they had a bad opinion of Nazi Germany). Switzerland's on the list.

I see the board was quite crazy before I joined. Opposing Israeli treatment of Palestinians is anti-Semitism? Conservatives oppose PC because they're trying to "keep the black man down"? WTF?

[benedict XVII]

Actually, the United States is and has been one of the LEAST anti-Semitic nations in the western world. Take for example our support of Israel while Europe, almost in its entirety, supports the Palestinians. I challenge you to find me one piece of American history where the Jewish have been treated as badly in America as in Europe.

Please stop using "Europe" as a term when you refer to anti-semitism. Every European country has its own history in this respect and you cannot assimilate us all to what Nazi Germany did.

I would actually argue it was probably much better being a Jew in Belgium, Holland, the UK, Scandinavia or even Francethan in the US before WWII. We did not have quota's in elite universities, clubs forbidden for Jews, etc. like the US.

Many European non-Jews risked their freedom, physical integrity and lives and the ones of their loved ones to save fugitive Jews. And did you know that the French Président du Conseil between 1936 and 1938 was a man called Léon Blum - yes, a Jew! - perfectly democratically elected? Did you know the Belgian Minister of Finance in 1940, Camille Gutt, was a Jew? When has a Jew held the highest executive power in the US? Not yet so, and France has already had 3 Jewish Prime Ministers: Blum, Mendès-France and Fabius. Did you know the Danes managed to save almost their entire Jewish population by carrying them across the Oresund to Sweden in one night, defying German boat patrols? Did you know the Belgian administration refused to execute the Nazi orders to perform the census of Jews in the country, and that it was - tragically - a naive Jewish organization that prepared the administration for the Shoah instead?

So, when you talk about European anti-semitism, please bring nuance, and avoid the holier-than-thou comments.

And I don't think having some criticism regarding Israel's behaviour towards Palestinians is Anti-Semitism. It is healthy that democratic nations challenge each other when they cross certain lines, and it doesn not imply support for terrorism. Go spend some time in the Occupied Territories first!

[The Ubbergeek]

Never forget the Dreyfuss Affair, who proved that many frenchmen opposed the pre-WW2-like antisemitism.

[benedict XVII]

I'm sorry fhaessig, I don't see how you can say they are completely unseparated. Putting the protection of the Jewish people in the hands of a powerful Jewish state, rather than gentiles, is percieved by many Jews, especially those who suffered at the hands of Europeans during the period 1935-1945, as the only way to ensure the survival of the Jewish people. Policies which would possibly weaken the "Jewish" identity Israel and lead to a multi-ethnic, secular state in Palestine - one in which Jews themselves might eventually become an electoral minority - are rightfully considered a threat to this vision.

My own observation (possibly misinformed, I admit) is that the popular attitude of many Europeans (if not their governments) has gone beyond mere criticism of the extreme policies of the Sharon government to questioning whether or not a self-identified Jewish State in Palestine which excludes palestinian arabs from residence and citizenship is a good thing. Given the recent history of Europe I don't see how that cannot be interpreted as anything other than anti-semetic.



Zoomar, I'm afraid your view of Europeans is indeed misinformed on this topic. And I can forgive you, given the way I see it represented in a lot of US media...

Europeans (if you exclude some tiny extremist groups who get more media resonance than they deserve) do support a State of Israel with a Jewish majority, and appreciate the way in which it has built a thriving (if a bit dysfunctional in certain respects) democracy in the Middle East. There was a real outcry over here after the recent declarations by the new Iranian President, so don't get mistaken. Jews are also regularly represented in European Governments in the highest functions, and we have the most stringent laws against, e.g., Holocaust denial. It is true that a number of perfectly disgusting incidents have taken place in recent years, most often the fact of young people issued from Arab emigration, in fact a sort of import of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and only very few with native Europeans. All those incidents are systematically condemned, and ceremonies to condemn them are almost systematically attended by the highest ranking officials. In any case, I would argue that anti-Arab or anti-Black racism is a much deeper and widespread problem than Anti-Semitism and one that has much more profound impact on the daily lives of the affected populations. It is also objectively much safer living as a Jew in Europe than in Israel, sadly enough. I don't mean Anti-Semitism is absent or should not be fought, I am just saying things need to be put in perspective.

As to the relation between Europe and Israel, you have to understand we live very close to what is arguably the longest lasting and most explosive conflict in the world today. We also have sizable Jewish and Arab populations, with a constant risk of importing violence close to our homes. So, yes, we are very concerned about what is going on over there. We condemnd terrorism irrevocably, but we do not believe that terrorism gives Israel the right to do everything it does to the Palestinian population.

To give a few examples, colonization of occupied territories is explicitly condemned by the Geneva Convention, it has objectively bgrown into one of the key obstacles to peace. And please, I know some Israeli lawyers have elaborated bogus legal arguments to justify it, but I'm quite confident event they don't believe it. I may go as far as saying colonization works against Israel's best interest!

Another example is the construction of the separation Wall. All the reports in the US would make you believe that the Court of The Hague condemned the building of the Wall, and that this is totally unfair to the Israelis as it prevents them from fighting terrorism. In reality, the Court of The Hague said that, though Israel has a right to build a Wall if it deems it necessary for its security, it should do so within its internationally recognized boundaries, and not encroach on Occupied Territories. I find this perfectly reasonable, but I don't know how many Americans are aware of the true content of the judgement.

As another example, Israel has put a whole number of restrictions for Arabs living in East-Jerusalem. It is annexed, but they cannot get the Israeli nationality even if they wished. If they leave Jerusalem for a few years, they cannot come back and resettle there, even for people whose families have lived in the City for hundreds of years! This is a very soft and smart form of ethnic cleansing. But it is in my view totally unacceptable from a moral standpont.

As far as refugees are concerned, I can accept that the Jewish character of Israel would be irremidiably affected by massive returns, and that this is no solution to reach a lasting peace in the region. But I am shocked by the denial of "official" Israel in the role that it played in their plight. In fact, Israel could not have existed without mass transfers of populations, and it was bound to be a tragedy. Some symbolic gestures of recognition could go a long way towards reconcilation, and I'm relieved to see more and more Israelis are becoming aware of the draker side of their history and willing to address it.


And again, all this is no excuse for Palestinian terrorism, corrupt and incompetent leadership, hate-filled speech and schoolbooks, etc. But this goes both ways, no excuse either way, keep both sides accountable for their actions.

And by the way, please do not use Europe or Europeans as a blanket term for Nazi Germany.

[Wendell]

Please stop using "Europe" as a term when you refer to anti-semitism. Every European country has its own history in this respect and you cannot assimilate us all to what Nazi Germany did.

I would actually argue it was probably much better being a Jew in Belgium, Holland, the UK, Scandinavia or even Francethan in the US before WWII. We did not have quota's in elite universities, clubs forbidden for Jews, etc. like the US.

Many European non-Jews risked their freedom, physical integrity and lives and the ones of their loved ones to save fugitive Jews. And did you know that the French Président du Conseil between 1936 and 1938 was a man called Léon Blum - yes, a Jew! - perfectly democratically elected? Did you know the Belgian Minister of Finance in 1940, Camille Gutt, was a Jew? When has a Jew held the highest executive power in the US? Not yet so, and France has already had 3 Jewish Prime Ministers: Blum, Mendès-France and Fabius. Did you know the Danes managed to save almost their entire Jewish population by carrying them across the Oresund to Sweden in one night, defying German boat patrols? Did you know the Belgian administration refused to execute the Nazi orders to perform the census of Jews in the country, and that it was - tragically - a naive Jewish organization that prepared the administration for the Shoah instead?

So, when you talk about European anti-semitism, please bring nuance, and avoid the holier-than-thou comments.

And I don't think having some criticism regarding Israel's behaviour towards Palestinians is Anti-Semitism. It is healthy that democratic nations challenge each other when they cross certain lines, and it doesn not imply support for terrorism. Go spend some time in the Occupied Territories first!
How did Jews fare better in Europe? Marx didn't think so.

[The Ubbergeek]

How did Jews fare better in Europe? Marx didn't think so.

How did Jews fare better in USA? The country was VERY Protestant and some other minorities had not much love for the Jews... Remember that the KKK is against ANYTHING non-WASP, non-conservative.

[Wendell]

How did Jews fare better in USA? The country was VERY Protestant and some other minorities had not much love for the Jews... Remember that the KKK is against ANYTHING non-WASP, non-conservative.
The same United States with its first Jewish senator in the 1800's? To be fair, Jews weren't prevalent in Klan-dominated states. Non-conservative how? Every southern state went for FDR in 1932...

[benedict XVII]

How did Jews fare better in Europe? Marx didn't think so.

Marx had essentially Eastern Europe in mind, where the situation was completely different from from Western Europe.

And I don't know what Marx knew of the US.

[benedict XVII]

The same United States with its first Jewish senator in the 1800's? To be fair, Jews weren't prevalent in Klan-dominated states. Non-conservative how? Every southern state went for FDR in 1932...

France had its first Jewish delegates to the Convention in the 1790's...

I don't see why the fact that the South went for FDR in 1932 reflects on the situation of even the few Jews that lived there. Have you ever heard of Father Coughlin or Lindbergh's opinion on Jews?

[Wendell]

Marx had essentially Eastern Europe in mind, where the situation was completely different from from Western Europe.

And I don't know what Marx knew of the US.
Read Marx's On the Jewish Question.

[benedict XVII]

Read Marx's On the Jewish Question.

Haven't read it. Which period is he referring to? Not the XXth century obviously. Which countries is he comparing? Does he look at the specific situation in the XIXth century?

Anyway, this is the first time I see Marx being taken as a legitimate authority on this Board!

[raharris1973]

Zoomar, let me do a little word substitution with your statement:

I don't see how you can say they are completely unseparated. Putting the protection of the Jewish people in the hands of a powerful Jewish state, rather than gentiles,especially Arab gentiles, is percieved by many Jews, especially those who suffered at the hands of Arabs in member states of the Arab League during the period 1945-1973, as the only way to ensure the survival of the Jewish people. Additionally those member states of the Arab League and even many of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, have had conditions which have resulted in the vastly disproprtionate emigration of religious minorities, not only Jews. Policies which would possibly weaken the "Jewish" identity Israel and lead to a multi-ethnic, secular state in Palestine - one in which Jews themselves might eventually become an electoral minority - are rightfully considered a threat to this vision.

My own observation is that the popular attitude of about 300 million Muslims has always gone beyond mere criticism of the extreme policies of the Sharon government to questioning whether or not a self-identified Jewish State in Palestine which excludes palestinian arabs from residence and citizenship is a good thing or can ever be permanently tolerated or is anything that they are bound to respect. Given the recent history of Muslim majority countries I don't see how that cannot be interpreted as anything other than anti-semitic.

Of course one could always say that Muslim majority countries have a "tan man exemption" wherein countries where the people are tan, brown or some darker shade than Europeans or white Americans are not held to any standard or minority rights and mob violence against unpopular groups is regarded simply as inevitable as bad weather. However, I would argue that is an example of "the soft bigotry of low expectations".

[Wendell]

Haven't read it. Which period is he referring to? Not the XXth century obviously. Which countries is he comparing? Does he look at the specific situation in the XIXth century?

Anyway, this is the first time I see Marx being taken as a legitimate authority on this Board!
Yes. He wrote this about the state of affairs in the XIXth century focusing on Europe, having never experienced the United States himself. Marx, however, noted that the American (Federal) government was nonsectarian, and religiously tolerant. He compared this with Germany, which, having an explicitly Christian based state, always found a way to restrict the rights of its Jewish community. Marx, in this work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question), chiefly opposing the position of fellow young Hegelian Bruno Bauer. The latter's view was that held to varying degree by the European polities of the day.

[Paul Spring]

Wasn't the Reich heading for major economic problems before the war?

Likewise, I think it says a lot that the USSR, absent the industries of the Ukraine and western Russia, was able to outproduce the Reich.



On the other hand, the USSR wasn't involved in brilliant policies like starting a guerilla war that would last decades, or killing off some of its best and brightest citizens.

Edit: Oops. Didn't realize how old this thread was.

Have you ever looked at a map and seen how enormous the USSR was even without the Ukraine and western Russia? There was a lot of industrial development in these areas by WWII, and a lot of industrial plant was moved there ahead of the Germans. Also, unlike the Germans the Soviets didn't have to worry about much strategic bombing because the Germans had few long-range bombers.

Another key factor often overlooked was that lend-lease from the US provided the Soviets with vast quantities of material ranging from food to radios that filled in key gaps in their wartime production, allowing them to focus production on weapons.

As for killing off lots of its citizens, have you ever heard of Stalin's purges?

[The Ubbergeek]

Germany was an haven for many jews from neighboor states of the eastern side before the rise of the Nazis and antisemitism or so some said.

[raharris1973]

on the question of anti-semitism. The fact of Jewish Prime Ministers in France has always struck me as impressive. I wonder though how much it has to do with France being at that time under a system of a parliamentary cabinet, where the leader you end up with is more dictated by the party you choose and its coalition choices than by the leader's personal qualities, which count for more in the "President as elected monarch" system we have in the US and present-day France. Under a cabinet system, a Jewish President may have been more likely.

"Europeans (if you exclude some tiny extremist groups who get more media resonance than they deserve) do support a State of Israel with a Jewish majority, and appreciate the way in which it has built a thriving (if a bit dysfunctional in certain respects) democracy in the Middle East. There was a real outcry over here after the recent declarations by the new Iranian President, so don't get mistaken…
As far as refugees are concerned, I can accept that the Jewish character of Israel would be irremediably affected by massive returns, and that this is no solution to reach a lasting peace in the region.”

Really, if so this is encouraging. Are you sure you’re not assuming your personal opinion, which you think is common sense, is actual majority opinion. Is there a chance you’re in a more reasonable minority that coexists with a majority having more fashionable, pro-“global south” opinions. The people who deny that Israel has a right to deny a “right of return” are extremely vocal in British editorial columns, on international English language internet boards, and even on American talk-radio call-in shows. If you stacked all the paper ever printed on the subject, and sorted it into piles based on opinions favoring a binational or Arab state, a two-state solution or Greater Israel, the first category would probably be the heaviest. People of the first persuasion are dominant in a lot of academic disciplines, it’s just that they have no power over even more important paper, the dollars the US sends to Israel. Anyway, the volume of media that rejects right of Israel to maintain itself as a Jewish nation-state has tended to make me think that this is majority opinion everywhere outside the US, Israel, Canada and Australia. On the scale of world opinion, in recent years a two-state solution has seemed like the radically pro-zionist choice. But you think it’s all a matter of media magnification?

I would suspect that if you polled all the residents on undeveloped countries, even excluding majority Muslim ones, who probably would find rejectionism to be the dominant attitude towards Israel.




“It is true that a number of perfectly disgusting incidents have taken place in recent years, most often the fact of young people issued from Arab emigration, in fact a sort of import of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and only very few with native Europeans.”

Right after intifadeh II started in 2000, we had at least one incident like that in New York city. I would be willing to bet dollars to shekels to dinars that despite the pro-Israeli bias of US policy and its opinion scribes, in terms of actual person-to-person violent incidents of Jewish and Arab violence, the majority of the time, the Jews are the victims and not the perpetrators, as in Europe. As indeed in every country except Israel proper. Now there may be more serious incidents of anti-Arab or anti-brown people violence in the US compared to anti-semitic attacks, but I would bet the perpetrator in all but the tiniest fraction of incidents is a white Christian American and not a Jewish person.



“As to the relation between Europe and Israel, you have to understand we live very close to what is arguably the longest lasting and most explosive conflict in the world today. We also have sizable Jewish and Arab populations, with a constant risk of importing violence close to our homes. So, yes, we are very concerned about what is going on over there.”

This makes sense. My only beef with what I perceive as the common European stance is that beyond condemnations of terrorism, which is the absolute least anyone should do, there’s not enough condemnation of the underlying ideology of rejectionism. Christian states maybe should have some colonial guilt for their actions in the Muslim Middle East, but if you look at the historical record shouldn’t the reverse also be true? Likewise, Israel has wronged the Palestinians in particular, but the Muslim Middle East has abused many of its religious minorities, so the “black and white” view of Muslim-west relations that is even more pervasive among intellectuals in Muslim countries than in Israel or other western countries wears a little thin. Plus, while its understandable that many in several European countries see US support for Israel, and its unwillingness to use leverage for peace, as a problem threatening them due to contagion effects, shouldn’t that condemnation go double for all the states like Iran, Saddam’s Iraq and Syria that have a deliberate policy of supporting rejectionist rivals of Arab governments or authorities that are trying to negotiate peace.

[raharris1973]

"To give a few examples, colonization of occupied territories is explicitly condemned by the Geneva Convention, it has objectively grown into one of the key obstacles to peace. And please, I know some Israeli lawyers have elaborated bogus legal arguments to justify it, but I'm quite confident event they don't believe it. I may go as far as saying colonization works against Israel's best interest!"

I've got a question for supporter's of settlements. The Nazis were the worst enemy of the Jews in history, right, and the complicity of the German people was criminal? Certainly worse than the PLO or any of the Arab states. Nazi Germany was eventually occupied by outside powers. In that part of Germany occupied by democratic powers, however, did the democratic powers ever go so far as to settle their own civilians and set them up in colonies giving them preferential access to water and roads, and basically structuring everything for the convenience of safety of American, French and British civilians to the exclusion of Germans? Did you have a situation where Allied civilians were free to walk about armed, while the Germans were not? Did the Allies ever claim Germany was their homeland and no German was ever entitled to govern there ever again?

The answer to all this is no. That being the case, what ever gave democratic Israel the right to impose settlements and a colonial regime that the democratic powers never even considered imposing on the Nazis?

Even if war in the Middle East ever justified an occupation at any point in time for some reasons, shouldn't the Israelis have made sure to not do anything to the Palestinians that wasn't done to the Nazis? As we've noted and I'll reiterate, the Palestinians were never the threat the Nazis were. Shouldn't any occupation have focused solely on security and handing back the territory to some governing authority that would not use it to make war?

The only thing that I can come up with is the biblical claim. But of course you should realize that's never going to be persuasive to more than a couple million people and rejected by just about everyone else of the world's people.
Maybe I'm being secular here, and am being slightly disrepectful to a revered book, but eff making the bible a practical guide for geopolitics. I reject it for the same reason I find alot of Saudi law offensive.





Other notes on Benedict's post:

More from Benedict's post. By the way, I apologize if they way I wrote an earlier post about "francophone" Europe assumed you're a native French-speaker not a native Flemish speaker- I don't know what your heritage is.

Good clarifications on the seperation wall also, electoral discrimination in Jerusalem and not using European as a proxy for Nazi.

"I'm relieved to see more and more Israelis are becoming aware of the draker side of their history and willing to address it."

Well that's nice but mainly its being used against them.

[Faeelin]

Have you ever looked at a map and seen how enormous the USSR was even without the Ukraine and western Russia? There was a lot of industrial development in these areas by WWII, and a lot of industrial plant was moved there ahead of the Germans. Also, unlike the Germans the Soviets didn't have to worry about much strategic bombing because the Germans had few long-range bombers.

Canada also looks big on a map. This does not mean that the Yukon is an industrial giant.


As for killing off lots of its citizens, have you ever heard of Stalin's purges?

Yes. However, the purges had a semirational basis, and while crippling, were not as wasteful as the systematic extermination of Slavs would have been.

Mind, the third reich would also probably be less popular in the third world than the USSR was.

[benedict XVII]

Yes. He wrote this about the state of affairs in the XIXth century focusing on Europe, having never experienced the United States himself. Marx, however, noted that the American (Federal) government was nonsectarian, and religiously tolerant. He compared this with Germany, which, having an explicitly Christian based state, always found a way to restrict the rights of its Jewish community. Marx, in this work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question), chiefly opposing the position of fellow young Hegelian Bruno Bauer. The latter's view was that held to varying degree by the European polities of the day.

Marx is referring to Germany, it seems. In Belgium or France, there had been no state religion since the French Revolution, and all citizens were perfectly equal. In fact, in Belgium, Judaism has been one of the religions recognized and financed by the State ever since Independence in 1830 (We do not have the concept of separation between Church and State as in the US, but a concept of equality of treatment between all religions, a sort of neutrality if you wish).

Again, Europe is a complex beast, and you should avoid generalizations.

[Douglas]

I've got a question for supporter's of settlements. The Nazis were the worst enemy of the Jews in history, right, and the complicity of the German people was criminal? Certainly worse than the PLO or any of the Arab states. Nazi Germany was eventually occupied by outside powers. In that part of Germany occupied by democratic powers, however, did the democratic powers ever go so far as to settle their own civilians and set them up in colonies giving them preferential access to water and roads, and basically structuring everything for the convenience of safety of American, French and British civilians to the exclusion of Germans? Did you have a situation where Allied civilians were free to walk about armed, while the Germans were not? Did the Allies ever claim Germany was their homeland and no German was ever entitled to govern there ever again?

The situation is just slightly different in Israel. The Jews are original inhabitants of the region, not newcomers. It is the equivalent of returning portions of North America to the Native American Indians. In 1948 the Jews were given a sizeable, but not outrageously large portion of British-owned Palestine to make a new nation in, IIRC slightly more than 50%. It did not include Jerusalem.

The Arab neighbors of Israel attacked immediately after independence, declaring that they would drive the Israelis into the sea. They encouraged the Arab civilians to flee to get out of the way of their glorious armies of conquest. Said armies of conquest were smashed by the plucky Jews, and sent home. Israel took more land than they were originally given: they took IIRC another 10% or so of the total land of Palestine. As victors in a war of national survival, this is perhaps not completely unjustified.

Israel's 1956 pre-emptive war against Egypt is not entirely justified, but is not unreasonable considering the situation at the time.

In 1967, the Arab nations, still with the intention of annihilating Israel, attacked again. They were defeated once more, and Israel captured the West Bank. Again...they won the war. They gained territory. This is far from unreasonable.

While Israel's policies in the late 70s and early 80s regarding Lebanon were not entirely justified, again, it is not unreasonable to think that a nation with so many neighbors around it that wish for its annihilation would use force to defend itself in other countries rather than at home.

The Palestinian "refugees" lost their rights to the lands occupied by Israel after the 1948 war because they fled to give aid and comfort to Israel's enemy. Israel did not have to allow these people, who were completely for their nation's destruction, to return to the land they occupied, because they would have surely been de facto traitors had they returned, undermining Israel's fragile security position.

Israel has the right to the lands they have conquered as fair spoils of war. If they do not, then what right do the Arabs have to it, who conquered it in the seventh or eighth century? At least the Israelis were defending themselves in these wars.

The Israelis belong in Israel. The Palestinians tried to destroy the nation of Israel the day it began. They have lost a lot of sympathy for first trying to destroy Israel, then complaining that Israel wouldn't let them return, and then, while Israel is beginning the arduous process of forgiving them and giving them back some land in Palestine, blowing up Israelis.

[The Ubbergeek]

(Radical) Zionist propaganda. I don't like to say that, since it will ensure me being flammed, but...

Palestinians exist. And they were there first. We got to admit it.

[Nicole]

(Radical) Zionist propaganda. I don't like to say that, since it will ensure me being flammed, but...

Palestinians exist. And they were there first. We got to admit it.
No, they weren't. The Jews were in the region prior to the Palestinians, however the Jews were expelled by the Romans... Admittedly there is a gap of 2000 years. The Palestinians, and more specifically the refugees, who are culturally closely related to the Syrians (in fact, Palestine has often been grouped with Syria...)

[The Ubbergeek]

No, they weren't. The Jews were in the region prior to the Palestinians, however the Jews were expelled by the Romans... Admittedly there is a gap of 2000 years. The Palestinians, and more specifically the refugees, who are culturally closely related to the Syrians (in fact, Palestine has often been grouped with Syria...)

And? The Jews, encouraged by religion, made their houses elsewhere. Only afte the rise of fascism and radical nationalism they wanted again a new - the old - home.

Now, there wasn't maybe as much Palestinians before (any good census before Israel?), but...

The Palestinians have as much right to live there. They were the first to apparently resettle there en masse, sort of. And anyway, even if not, they have as much right, by merely being there en masse since a loooong time. The lands that became Israel weren't depopulated, do not listen to Radical Zionists.

I agree with a jewish state. But the Palestinians deserve one, too.

[Nicole]

I agree with a jewish state. But the Palestinians deserve one, too.
What about the borders- Should Palestine get East Jerusalem, for example, especially considering possible Palestinian mistreatment of Jewish holy sites, specifically the Western Wall?

[The Ubbergeek]

What about the borders- Should Palestine get East Jerusalem, for example, especially considering possible Palestinian mistreatment of Jewish holy sites, specifically the Western Wall?

I wonder if those reports aren't like, manipulated... I smell islamophobia in here...

It's not like the Israelians wouldn't mistreat Islamic holy site, like the Dome... After, why would you respect a shrine to the religion of your worst ennemy? It work both way... I'm sure some radical zionist or any israelian radical for that mater, would like to 'pork up' some big mosque or blast away the Dome...

Do not forget that some palestinians are first, laic political activists (and there is also CHRISTIAN palestinians...), and respect at least teh care for good public relations...

I disagree with the anti-israelian bias of many of my fellow sovereignists, but that does not means that I agree with palestinian-bashing.

Anyway, jerusalem, if ask myself, should have a special status. What exactly, I dunno... But neitheir Israel not palestine should have the hand on it completly, at the very least....

Each side will have to make compromise.

[raharris1973]

"The situation is just slightly different in Israel. The Jews are original inhabitants of the region, not newcomers. It is the equivalent of returning portions of North America to the Native American Indians"

The genetic ties are arguable, and there's a gap of 2,000 years.

[Nicole]

I wonder if those reports aren't like, manipulated... I smell islamophobia in here...

It's not like the Israelians wouldn't mistreat Islamic holy site, like the Dome... After, why would you respect a shrine to the religion of your worst ennemy? It work both way... I'm sure some radical zionist or any israelian radical for that mater, would like to 'pork up' some big mosque or blast away the Dome...

Do not forget that some palestinians are first, laic political activists (and there is also CHRISTIAN palestinians...), and respect at least teh care for good public relations...
Ah, but the Dome is under the control of Muslims, and the Israeli Government has rejected and managed to prevent it's radicals from blowing it up- The Palestinians, who I know are not all fundamentalists, seem to have a much harder time controlling their fundamentalists...
Also, though the comparison is not perfect, note the Jordanian actions during their control of the Old City of Jerusalem resulted in the destruction of much of the Jewish Quarter's Judaism (though, oddly enough, a thriving of the Armenian Quarter that has been reversed in recent years)

I disagree with the anti-israelian bias of many of my fellow sovereignists, but that does not means that I agree with palestinian-bashing.

Anyway, jerusalem, if ask myself, should have a special status. What exactly, I dunno... But neitheir Israel not palestine should have the hand on it completly, at the very least....

Each side will have to make compromise.
I'm trying not to bash the Palestinians- Just looking at the facts on the ground. We have to look at what Israel will do, as they hold the city. Judging by the fact that they've proclaimed it "the Eternal Capital of Israel" and the fact that it has been annexed by Israel, I feel justified in saying that a return of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians (yes, they've proclaimed it their capital as well, however the Israelis hold the city) is unlikely, and any such demand, even a neutral entity, due to the unlikelhood of it's happening, is an obstacle to peace... A best-case (and unfortunately also unlikely...) scenario would be West Bank minus East Jerusalem but nothing else, and Gaza Strip state.

[Wendell]

Marx is referring to Germany, it seems. In Belgium or France, there had been no state religion since the French Revolution, and all citizens were perfectly equal. In fact, in Belgium, Judaism has been one of the religions recognized and financed by the State ever since Independence in 1830 (We do not have the concept of separation between Church and State as in the US, but a concept of equality of treatment between all religions, a sort of neutrality if you wish).

Again, Europe is a complex beast, and you should avoid generalizations.
Marx does touch on France in his analysis, nonetheless. Also, the U.S. position seems to be more like what you describe Belgium's to be.

[The Ubbergeek]

Ah, but the Dome is under the control of Muslims, and the Israeli Government has rejected and managed to prevent it's radicals from blowing it up- The Palestinians, who I know are not all fundamentalists, seem to have a much harder time controlling their fundamentalists...
Also, though the comparison is not perfect, note the Jordanian actions during their control of the Old City of Jerusalem resulted in the destruction of much of the Jewish Quarter's Judaism (though, oddly enough, a thriving of the Armenian Quarter that has been reversed in recent years)


I'm trying not to bash the Palestinians- Just looking at the facts on the ground. We have to look at what Israel will do, as they hold the city. Judging by the fact that they've proclaimed it "the Eternal Capital of Israel" and the fact that it has been annexed by Israel, I feel justified in saying that a return of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians (yes, they've proclaimed it their capital as well, however the Israelis hold the city) is unlikely, and any such demand, even a neutral entity, due to the unlikelhood of it's happening, is an obstacle to peace... A best-case (and unfortunately also unlikely...) scenario would be West Bank minus East Jerusalem but nothing else, and Gaza Strip state.

Well, if you were opprossed for God know how long, you might explode one day at some opportunities...

Palestina will be the Gaza Strip, the West bank, and they HAVE to have some things to say on Jerusalem also.

[Wendell]

Well, if you were opprossed for God know how long, you might explode one day at some opportunities...

Palestina will be the Gaza Strip, the West bank, and they HAVE to have some things to say on Jerusalem also.
How far would YOU go with Jerusalem?

[The Ubbergeek]

Frankly, by this point, I ahve no good idea. Just an idea of what NOT to do, to do the least harming for BOTH sides.

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Any Palestinian state would be demilitarized (or left with a token army), and the communications between the Gaza Strip and its West Bank territory would be under Israeli control. If the West Bank territory is partitioned into 2 or 3 chunks, the communications between these would also be under Israeli control.

Israel would have the Palestinians by the nuts (I don't really mind), so you can bet they'd be very careful about Jewish holy places.

As to why the Palestinians can get East Jerusalem: Israel's nuts are in US hands, so the White House can force the partition of the city to improve its reputation in the Muslim world. The fact is that Israel has a large influence on American policy towards the "Holy Land". An intelligent approach would leave the United States more popular, but Israel smaller. I mean really, getting all the Muslims of the world to hate you just so you can unconditionally support a small state isn't exactly a sound foreign policy.

[The Ubbergeek]

The Palestenians will have to be independant. Not at the services of the Israelians. Freedom or death, as Washington said. Liberty to the peoples.

[General_Paul]

Ok, if the United States was involved in a Cold War against a right wing enemy like Nazi Germany, I can see the US trying to distance its self from any policies which could be deemed "nazi", or "right wing", or anything that looks mildly associated with the fascist regime in Europe. This could all depend on if the USA fights a war with Japan. Maybe if the Russian campaign goes well in '41, and we don't see a drive on Kiev, instead the renewed drive on Moscow like the generals wanted, we can have occupied Moscow by '42. And I don't think that Adolf Hitler would want to take on the USA while he was trying to pin down the Russian Bear, so, if he's in Moscow by the time that Pearl Harbor is bombed, and the Wermarcht is eliminating Russian resistance, Hitler might forgo declaring war on the USA, and tell the Japanese that they're on their own for this one.

Because of this, we might see a dissolution of the Tri-Axis pact, making the Dual-Axis pact of Germany and Italy. If the Japanese go it alone against the USA, and the Germans don't declare war, the UK will be forced to sue for a peace, most likely at present front lines. Hitler will be a very happy camper, seeing their capitulation as the beginning of the "Unification of the Germanic Races", and thus not wanting to strip the British Empire completely. Instead, he might follow what he wanted to do in his second book, allow the UK to keep her overseas empire, probably asking for war reparations, and perhaps the installation of a fascist into power, or on the ballot. Or, the UK could pull a victory off in North Africa, THEN sue for peace. Since the Wermacht will STILL be tying down resistance in occupied Russia, and they control the Caspian Sea Oil reserves, the North African campaign might be abandoned in favor of returning the veteran fighters to the fatherland.

After the Japanese are forced to a capitulation, most likely in 1944, or 1945, with or without use of the Atomic Bomb, we could see immediate factionalization. If Roosevelt dies as OTL in April, 1945, and Truman takes charge, the CIA, or whatever this TL's equivalent association may be, will probably preach the Domino Theory. The US will most likely go into the UK as a stop gap measure, sending in US Marines to "Stabilize an unstable regime", or something along those lines, using the Irish Free State as a base of operations, seizing UK assets in N. Ireland first, then going to Scotland, then making the drive down into England and Wales. Seizing the Prime Minister and both Houses of Parliament can put the USA in a definate winners arena, giving them a place to operate covert ops, base nuclear bombers/IRBM's, and overall cause menace to Nazi overseas shipping.

This TL may also see the extending of a protectorate over Canada in response to British capitulation, as well as protectorate status for Greenland and Iceland in response to growing threats in Europe and a need to secure US Air Space. Hell, this TL may see the acceptance of Communism overseas, in places like Vietnam, where the Vichy French Government was trying to extend control. If the US of A believes it is in their best interest to support communist rebels lead by Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, then most likely they will do so in an effort to forestall the Domino's from falling. Cambodia would likely be the next fight arena, with the rise of Pol Pot, we could see a US lead "intervention" into Cambodia, with help from Vietnamese forces in the area.

The remnants of the USSR would likely be propped up by US cash flow, with a capital in Petropavlosk, or Vladivostok being created, and the remnants of the Soviet Parliament, those that survived anyways, being brought to the capital to help re-establish the rightful government of Russia. The United States will most likely help to modernize the Russian navy, rebuild the shattered Soviet Armies, and Air Forces, and sell surplus tanks, rifles, aircraft, etcetera, to the Soviets for pennies on the dollar. With Japanese capitulation in '44 or '45, we can see definate need for occupation, and the formation of a Coalition Government, with the intended goal of founding a Democratic Japan. China will likely also see US intervention in the Civil War, Mao Tse Tung might have his hands full with Nationalist Chinese led by Chiang Kai-Shek, supplied by the United States, and armed with some of the latest weaponry. This world would likely be a paradox to us: Capitalists and good Communists, working side by side to defeat Fascism. An occupied Britain, filled with angry fascists, and US Armed Forces trying desparately to prop up the desparately needed liberal government under whomever takes control.

[Nicole]

As to why the Palestinians can get East Jerusalem: Israel's nuts are in US hands, so the White House can force the partition of the city to improve its reputation in the Muslim world. The fact is that Israel has a large influence on American policy towards the "Holy Land". An intelligent approach would leave the United States more popular, but Israel smaller. I mean really, getting all the Muslims of the world to hate you just so you can unconditionally support a small state isn't exactly a sound foreign policy.
Even without US aid, by now Israel could sustain itself- I seriously do not see Israel giving up East Jerusalem without losing it in a war...

[Wendell]

I don't think that a Fascist could/would get elected in Britain then. The real questions will concern Iberia, if we use the aforementioned example.

[General_Paul]

I don't think that a Fascist could/would get elected in Britain then. The real questions will concern Iberia, if we use the aforementioned example.

If the Germans were the clear benefactors in the peace treaty, then they might force the British to allow a Fascist to be elected for one term of Prime Minister, to allow the transition to Facist Europe.

[Wendell]

If the Germans were the clear benefactors in the peace treaty, then they might force the British to allow a Fascist to be elected for one term of Prime Minister, to allow the transition to Facist Europe.
The majority in Parliament elects the PM, not the populace at large.

[eschaton]

No, they weren't. The Jews were in the region prior to the Palestinians, however the Jews were expelled by the Romans... Admittedly there is a gap of 2000 years. The Palestinians, and more specifically the refugees, who are culturally closely related to the Syrians (in fact, Palestine has often been grouped with Syria...)

Actually, there's been recent genetic studies which show that Israelis and Palestinians are closer related to one another genetically than either is to any other population.

Remember the following things.

1. There is no proof anywhere that Israel was entirely composed of Jews during biblical times.

2. Most of the Jews in Roman Palestine converted to Christianity.

3. Most of the Palestinians converted to Islam (though not all...around 40% of ethnic Palestinians are Christian, though some of this may date to converts during the crusades).

Of course, there are ethnic differences. Palestinians, like most culturally arab populations, have had an admixture of sub-saharan African (around 10%). But Ashkenazi Jews surely mixed with Europeans as well.

[raharris1973]

Fenkmaster: "In 1967, the Arab nations, still with the intention of annihilating Israel, attacked again. They were defeated once more, and Israel captured the West Bank. Again...they won the war. They gained territory. This is far from unreasonable."

RH- Whoa now, basic gap in historical knowledege here. The Israelis attacked first in 1967, starting with the Egyptian air force. Where did you get that idea that the Arabs actually attacked first? I thought that idea had disappeared by the 90s when the Palestinians started to realize American opinion was kind of important. Plus, nobody has won a war till the other side acknowledges, so, for some of the Arab parties, the war is still going on.


"The Palestinian "refugees" lost their rights to the lands occupied by Israel after the 1948 war because they fled to give aid and comfort to Israel's enemy. Israel did not have to allow these people, who were completely for their nation's destruction, to return to the land they occupied, because they would have surely been de facto traitors had they returned, undermining Israel's fragile security position."

Oh yeah, I can see why the Israelis did what they did, from a security perspective. Benedict and I were earlier discussing how we don't see refugee return as a solution. Still, we have not been accepting the same arguments from the different territorial groups in Bosnia, they could make an argument that the minority nationalities repatriated are an automatic fifth column, yet we've pressured them all to accept minority returns. Same with Kurds returning to Kirkuk.

"Israel has the right to the lands they have conquered as fair spoils of war. If they do not, then what right do the Arabs have to it, who conquered it in the seventh or eighth century? At least the Israelis were defending themselves in these wars."

Fair spoils of war again only counts if the other side accepts it. Also, most of the time when adjacent territory is conquered by a country, it's people are integrated into the political system. The US let the French in Louisiana become citizens, it let Mexicans in the territory it took from Mexico become citizens. The Germans let Alsace-Lorrainers become citizens. But Israel made the decision to take the land in the West Bank while ignoring the people who were there. Israel's got to choose someday between incorporating the land *and* the Palestinian people, which puts the Jewish majority at risk, or separating from the Palestinian people. Even Sharon characterizes this as Israel's inevitable choice. The view you expressed here is soooo 1980s.


"The Ubbergeek
Sovereignist anti-Liberals Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 118

(Radical) Zionist propaganda. I don't like to say that, since it will ensure me being flammed, but...

Palestinians exist. And they were there first. We got to admit it."

Oh stop feeling so persecuted. Americans are freely allowed to say the Palestinians exist. The President says so. People are allowed to disagree with our Israel policy. They do all the time on call-in talk radio (C-Span). The only thing somebody can't do is win elective office in most of the country is if they dispute aid for Israel or deny it's right to exist. So yes, people with your opinions are powerless politically, but not denied free speech, or persecuted.

[The Ubbergeek]

(Radical) Zionist propaganda. I don't like to say that, since it will ensure me being flammed, but...

Palestinians exist. And they were there first. We got to admit it."

Oh stop feeling so persecuted. Americans are freely allowed to say the Palestinians exist. The President says so. People are allowed to disagree with our Israel policy. They do all the time on call-in talk radio (C-Span). The only thing somebody can't do is win elective office in most of the country is if they dispute aid for Israel or deny it's right to exist. So yes, people with your opinions are powerless politically, but not denied free speech, or persecuted.

But at the end, that is more or less the same. You can't go far by siding with the 'wrong' side. A subtile way to ensure a biaised direction - the other opinion is snufled.

[CalBear]

"RH- Whoa now, basic gap in historical knowledege here. The Israelis attacked first in 1967, starting with the Egyptian air force. Where did you get that idea that the Arabs actually attacked first? I thought that idea had disappeared by the 90s when the Palestinians started to realize American opinion was kind of important. Plus, nobody has won a war till the other side acknowledges, so, for some of the Arab parties, the war is still going on."

I have to respond to this quote. I apoligize for it being off topic, but really...

Israel attacked first in 1967, this is true as far as it goes, but only to beat the Arab states to the punch. The Arab States were poised to attack Israel in June of 1967, that they did it so badly that their plans were discovered is not the fault of the discoverer, nor is the discoverer's protective reaction. Play with fire, face the results. The result of the '67 war was a massive defeat for the Arab states. Jordan be came Jordan because it lost the West Bank and stopped being Trans-Jordan. To say a war isn't over until you acknowledge it to be may be the single silliest thing I have read on this board to date, including in the ASB section. You lose a war when you get your ass kicked up between your shoulder blades (e.g. Egypt et al in '67, Syria & Egypt in '73, Japan & Germany in '45, etc). Geman insurgents fought for 6 years after the end of WW II, would you seriously say that the Gemans didn't lose the war until 1951? Israel is to be held to a different standard? Bull cookies.

Israel gained the "Fort Apache" mentality that dominates its military & foreign policy thanks to it's neighbors, most of who still deny (in 2005!) the the Israeli state has a right to exist. Those neighbors have tried time & again to put their belief in effect, they have always failed (although '73 was very touch and go). If they has succeeded, even once, the world wouldn't have an "Israeli refugee problem", as the Arab states, starting in 1948 ("...the surviving Jews would be helped to return to their native countries, but my estimation is that none will survive"- Ahmed Shuqeiri (later to be PLO chief) quoted in Churchill and Churchill, p. 52 OR Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.") have proclaimed the intent to slaughter the people of the new Israeli state.

The Palestinian refugee situation exists for one reason, the Arab States do not accept the Palestinian "refugees" as citizens, despite the fact that three generations have been born on their soil. Why? To try to destroy Israel through public opinion since they can't pull it off through force of arms. What to point a finger of blame for the "refugee" problem? Aim it a Damascus, Cario & Beruit, not Tel Aviv.

It is simplistic to see the world as black & white. Israeli troops and police have commited crimes, of that there is no question. But there are standards of behavior that are generally acknowleged as acceptable by society world wide. In that standard, Hijacking aircraft & cruise ships, killing bus loads of civilians, kidnapping & killing Olympic Athletes (my personal favorite as it violated the Olympic Truce, a tradition going back to the 5th Century BCE), killing peace envoys, and showing up with a side arm when invited to speak at the UN are unacceptable. Yet when the Palestinian terrorists do these, and even more ghastly, things, most of the world shrugs it's shoulders and BLAMES ISRAEL. If the Israelis respond? Then they are murderers. (News Flash: Tossing grenades into a bus full of kids or detonating a bomb in a hotel lobby is murder. Killing the person who planned that attack is JUSTICE.)

Flame away, just meet one requirement 1st. Have 6,000,000 of your relatives turned into air pollution because they had the gall to be born before you start typing. Might change you viewpoint just a hair.

BTW: Save the anti-semite insults. I'm not Jewish, and I hardly even know any Jews. Doesn't mean I can't see BS when it's spread.

[Wendell]

This topic certainly changed course....

[raharris1973]

I must be doing something right.

Being accused of being an apologist for zionist propaganda on in one post, and then being suspected of being ready to whip out anti-semitic whoppers in the next, hmm.

[orbeyonde]

The one thing I am confused about the Palestinian people is who are they exactly?

Prior to 1948, there were no Palestenians. There were only Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese. After Israel won the 1948 war, this new ethnic group came into existence. Isnt that convenient?

[Wendell]

The one thing I am confused about the Palestinian people is who are they exactly?

Prior to 1948, there were no Palestenians. There were only Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese. After Israel won the 1948 war, this new ethnic group came into existence. Isnt that convenient?
All of those Arab countries are arbitrary. Among Arab stastes, only Lebanon, Egypt, Oman, Morocco, or Syria can claim any sort of historical legitimacy.

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

The one thing I am confused about the Palestinian people is who are they exactly?

Prior to 1948, there were no Palestenians. There were only Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese. After Israel won the 1948 war, this new ethnic group came into existence. Isnt that convenient?

Right, and there were no Arabs in Mandate Palestine. It's not like the Jews were less than half the population or anything. To suggest that the Palestinians are Arabs from the former mandate is just anti-Semitic propaganda.

To raharris1973: I know your pain.

To CalBear: Trans-Jordan became Jordan in 1950, a year after annexing part of the other bank of the river. They kept their name after losing the area in 1967. The last conventional war between Israel and the Arabs was in 1973, so that's kind of off topic when you talk about the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation today. (Lebanon doesn't count, and if it did, Israel attacked first.) Also, who have you heard spewing anti-Semitism or justifying terrorism on this thread?

To The Ubbergeek: Don't average Americans have the right to not vote for people they disagree with? Don't they also have the right to their own opinions, even if those opinions are misinformed? A democracy is a place where anyone can be president IF ENOUGH PEOPLE THINK SO.

[benedict XVII]

Marx does touch on France in his analysis, nonetheless. Also, the U.S. position seems to be more like what you describe Belgium's to be.

Marx is as always very theoretical in his approach. And btw, there is a big difference between the US and Belgium: Belgium does fund recognized religions/philosophies, including their priests, schools, etc. No separation of Church and State, but equal treatment. No official religion, but a nominative list of religions recognized by the Consitution: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican, Israelite, Muslim and Free-Thinker.

[Wendell]

Marx is as always very theoretical in his approach. And btw, there is a big difference between the US and Belgium: Belgium does fund recognized religions/philosophies, including their priests, schools, etc. No separation of Church and State, but equal treatment. No official religion, but a nominative list of religions recognized by the Consitution: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican, Israelite, Muslim and Free-Thinker.
Why not just separate the institutions in Belgium?

[benedict XVII]

Why not just separate the institutions in Belgium?

Because of the heritage of the Concordat. The confiscation of Church property was compensated by guaranteeing the payment of the salaries to priests and the maintenance of church buildings. At the time of independence, the choice was between returning church property, or continuing the Concordat regime; out of fairness for other religions, the Concordat system was extended to them. As to the schools, when 65% of the children go to Catholic schools, it is extremely difficult for a politician to cut their funding... Some tried in the 1950's, and learned their lesson a bitter way at the subsequent election.

[Wendell]

Because of the heritage of the Concordat. The confiscation of Church property was compensated by guaranteeing the payment of the salaries to priests and the maintenance of church buildings. At the time of independence, the choice was between returning church property, or continuing the Concordat regime; out of fairness for other religions, the Concordat system was extended to them. As to the schools, when 65% of the children go to Catholic schools, it is extremely difficult for a politician to cut their funding... Some tried in the 1950's, and learned their lesson a bitter way at the subsequent election.
Well, I learn something new every day:D Merci.