Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
it just didn't make sense. All is not, however, lost, as I am currently trying to pull what (few) strings I have to get an exemption for the color-blindess (odds are low, but possible) and, if I do, I will explore the possibility of doing two years _after_ my current job, although at 25 I will be getting rather old for that. Not too old. You need to be 27.5 yo to be still eligible for an officer commission in the Active Army, and 31 in the Guard. I know; I've already been down this road. For my part I already joined and was in Combat Arms. If a significant conflict occurred during the early to mid '90s I would be the one on the front line, and in some cases, with my finger on the trigger. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: On Hiatus :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
That's the truly shocking thing. Even in Nazi Germany, if you wanted out of the mass execution squads, (einsatzgruppen, I think, but I bet Damon will correct me) You are correct I think. Problem with Brin-L and my desire to keep up with other lists is that, invariably, I get way behind! Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: On Hiatus :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
At 11:47 21-03-03 -0500, Damon Agretto wrote: Problem with Brin-L and my desire to keep up with other lists is that, invariably, I get way behind! Quit those other lists, then. I mean, when you have Brin-L, why would you need any other lists? :-) Jeroen Brin-L Propaganda van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
I do remember seeing a history of WWII that indicated that the Nazis were first greeted as liberators in the USSR, until their behavior turned people against them. If they were as generous with terms of occupation in the USSR as they were in France, would the citizens of the USSR have fought as hard? This is absolutely true. But even WITH Nazi mis-management there was STILL support for the Nazis in occupied Soviet Union. To put this into perspective, the Waffen SS attempted to raise around 3 divisions of Ukranians in 1944. They needed around 45,000 volunteers, and expected to get less than that. As a result, over 200,000 Ukranians showed up to volunteer for service. This force was intended to defend the Ukraine against the advancing Soviets. I think this is quite telling of attitudes during the period (source: Stein, George H. _The Waffen SS: Hitler's Elite Guard at War_). Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: On Hiatus :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
Quit those other lists, then. I mean, when you have Brin-L, why would you need any other lists? :-) Well, Jeroen, if Brin-L can supply my gaming fix then you'd have a valid point! Anyone want to talk about Fading Suns RPG or Battletech? :) Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: On Hiatus :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
On 21 Mar 2003 at 12:13, Damon wrote: Quit those other lists, then. I mean, when you have Brin-L, why would you need any other lists? :-) Well, Jeroen, if Brin-L can supply my gaming fix then you'd have a valid point! Anyone want to talk about Fading Suns RPG or Battletech? :) MegaMek anytime. I do run the latest beta tho. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
At 12:13 21-03-03 -0500, Damon Agretto wrote: Quit those other lists, then. I mean, when you have Brin-L, why would you need any other lists? :-) Well, Jeroen, if Brin-L can supply my gaming fix then you'd have a valid point! Anyone want to talk about Fading Suns RPG or Battletech? :) All is Brin, so, sure, why not. I'd be more than happy to talk about Fading Suns RPG and Battletech. OK, I've never even *seen* either of them, let alone *played* either of them, so initially I probably won't have the foggiest idea as to what you're talking about, but hey, I'll just consider it a learning opportunity. REAL BIG GRIN Jeroen Games'R'Us van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
From: Damon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, Jeroen, if Brin-L can supply my gaming fix then you'd have a valid point! Anyone want to talk about Fading Suns RPG or Battletech? :) Not those but I'll talk Hero System (Champions) anytime! - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
Damon wrote: Quit those other lists, then. I mean, when you have Brin-L, why would you need any other lists? :-) Well, Jeroen, if Brin-L can supply my gaming fix then you'd have a valid point! Anyone want to talk about Fading Suns RPG or Battletech? :) I'm a GURPS man myself, but I've recently decided that Unknown Armies seriously Rocks My World. Mmmm, Conspiratorial Goodness! Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silence. I am watching television. - Spider Jerusalem ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
At 21:19 18-03-03 +, John Giorgis wrote: First question for you - do they have to irradiate the mail in your office because several people in *your* city have _died_ from anthrax? Didn't think so. How can you be sure that they don't irradiate the mail over here? I'm not sure if they *are* irradiating the mail, but I can assure you that we *do* have security measures in place for mail-handling. But why would someone want to irradiate the mail at your office? It's not like the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a strategic target or anything, so there would be nothing to gain from sending Anthrax-filled packages to the BLS. BTW, since the US started irradiating mail, exactly *how many* envelopes/packages have been found to actually contain Anthrax? Two? One? None? Second question for you - has a terrorist ever tried to fly a jetliner into a building two blocks down the street from you, Not so far -- but over the last five decades or so we have had our share of terrorist attacks. and the on the lawns of which you recently enjoyed a picnic lunch during your lunch break from work? No, but then I have never enjoyed a picnic lunch on a lawn during my lunch break from work. In fact, my lunch break is often non-existent, and when I *do* manage to take my lunch break, I usually eat at my desk. Third question for you, if a terrorist had a nuclear bomb where would the terrorist list my city of work and your city of work as a potential target. Uh huh. Fourth question for you, if a terrorist had a radiological, chemical, or biological weapon, where would the terrorist rate my list of work and your place of work as potential targets? Keep in mind that I walk through Washington DC's Union Station on my way to work each day. Yup. Sure thing, Mac. They'd certainly rate DC higher; however, they might very well pick a different target exactly because all those security measures make it more difficult to attack DC. Given all of that, if you have an ounce of compassion in you, you'll understand that I am telling the truth when I say that even my own parents have told me that I should seriously consider quitting my job, because they are genuinely worried that I could die on any day... and that I had to tell them, No, I am not quitting, because I love my city, and I love my country, and I'm not leaving because that would be letting the terrorists win - and that's the end of that discussion. Oh, you won't hear me argue that you're lying when you make such a statement -- but compassion has absolutely nothing to do with it. Massive personal attack snipped Anyhow, this was fun while it lasted, but I realize it is now time for me to boycott you again A boycott is supposed to have negative consequences for the boycotted party. What sort of negative consequences would I suffer from your boycott? I'll be spared your personal attacks, but I hardly consider that a *negative* consequence. Bye, bye. Spoken like a Teletubbie. :-) (The first thing I thought of when I read Giorgis's bye, bye was in fact the sound of Po (or was it Laa-Laa?) cheerfully saying bye, bye.) P.S. The Netherlands is still a republic! ;-) Not till we are invaded and assimilated by the Evil Empire of the United States of America. And when they try that, I'll happily volunteer to help drive those damned Americans into the North Sea. :-) Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
At 17:25 18-03-03 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote: With all those security measures in place, and with all that military hardware in position around DC, it is probably one of the safest urban areas in the country right now... Given all those security measures, chances are that I am taking more risk than him right now. Precedent. DC is a strategic target. You know, I'm rather surprised that an employee of the Dutch _Ministry of Defense_ would have difficulty with the concept of a 'strategic target', I am familiar with the concept of strategic target. I should point out though that I am a *civilian* employee, not a *military* employee, so I may not be completely familiar with every detail of every single military concept. I'm a network administrator; military strategy is not part of my job. and suspect that you may be unsubtly trying to troll the Americans on this list again. Your suspicion is unwarranted. DC was targeted by Muslim terrorists before: the attack on the Pentagon, where John *works* (did it completely escape your notice that if he had been in another section of the building he works in he might have been killed that day?) and the failed terror plane attack that was allegedly heading for the White House. John is living and working in a severe-risk area of this country. He works in a building that would be a _direct strategic target_ during any armed conflict with this country. He doesn't work at the Pentagon but at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The former is at 1 South Rotary Road in Arlington, VA, the latter is at 2 Massachusetts Ave., NE Washington DC. Unlike the Pentagon, the BLS does not qualify as a strategic target. And, you've already posted elsewhere that **nothing** can stop terrorist attacks. I don't recall saying that *nothing* can stop terrorist attacks. I do however recall saying that you can never completely eradicate terrorism -- unless you're willing to annihialate the entire human race for it. Heightened defenses will probably do nothing to stop a terror attack, and may not even stop a well-planned military one if it were fast enough. That's something that can neither be proven nor disproven. If someone decides to NOT bomb a building because of the heightened defenses, you'll never know about it. As soon as Iraqis start saying Kill the Dutch Infidels, and burning your flags and leaders in effigy I'm sure you'll have something to worry about. Since that doesn't seem to have happened yet, it seems infinitely more likely that your country isn't viewed as an important enough enemy of Iraq despite your support of the US. Some people over here seem to be worried, though. After the Sept. 11 attacks we went on Alert State Alpha. That got upped to Bravo, then downed to Alpha a few months ago, and since yesterday 16:00 hours we're back on Alert State Bravo. For a country that isn't an important enough enemy, we're taking a hell of a lot of extra security measures. BTW, it's quite possible that an attack will not be directed against The Netherlands itself but against American targets within our borders. American companies here have taken extra security measures, and we've stepped up the security around, among other locations, the embassies of the US and the UK. Let's see. The Netherlands is supporting the US, which makes it a potential target. I am stationed at an Army base that is the largest one in the southern part of the country, and which is home to an entire brigade. Adjacent to the base[*] there is a dual-purpose air field: part of it is in use as a regional civilian airport (Eindhoven Airport), with flights to and from cities all over Europe, and part of it is in use as an Air Force base (Welschap Air Force Base, the largest of the three Air Force bases in the south), which functions as a hub for much of Dutch military transport (both road and air transports). It is currently also being used by the US military for their air transports of troops and equipment to the Middle East. In a straight line, I only live a few kilometers from said locations. So, whether I am at work or at home, if the worst-case scenario happens (a nuclear attack), I'm history. Oh, but Hussein doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, right? So you have nothing to worry about! Er, I didn't say he *doesn't* have WMD's -- if I knew for sure, I would have a very close relation to Saddam Hussein, which might make for a very unpleasant conversation with Military Intelligence! What I have said is that despite the claims that he has WMD's, the evidence for it is sofar overwhelmingly lacking. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk Massive personal attack snipped I guess I'd better make note of the fact that your friendly local list managers observed and acted upon said personal attack in our usual manner. Which is to say, quietly and calmly whenever possible. But I thought you'd want to know that we've ahead of any complaints you or any other list member (with one exception, who was just plain quick) might feel urged to make. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
At 05:34 PM 3/18/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Jon Gabriel wrote: DC was targeted by Muslim terrorists before: the attack on the Pentagon, where John *works* (did it completely escape your notice that if he had been in another section of the building he works in he might have been killed that day?) and the failed terror plane attack that was allegedly heading for the White House. John is living and working in a severe-risk area of this country. He works in a building that would be a _direct strategic target_ during any armed conflict with this country. Actually, John doesn't work at the Pentagon. IIRC, the building he works at is on a *different* Metro line, even. (But I could be remembering incorrectly.) Either way, it's a bit away from the Pentagon. Not too far from the Capitol and White House, though, which are prime targets in and of themselves. And if you can't get close enough to either of *those* but you know which buildings are Federal buildings, you could probably blow *something* up, and there's a chance that his block could be targeted. And that would be a pity, because it probably would take out the place we had lunch, and I'd like to eat there *once* more before I die, at least. ;) Julia For that matter, so might John . . . -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
iaamoac wrote: Whenever I walk by there, I can't help but be astonished that it was *only* 60 years ago - and yet it seems so absolutely unthinkable today. Sure we can all talk about technological development over the last century, but our ethical development is almost as awe- inspiring - compared to ethical development over the previous range of human history. I was just thinking along those lines myself, with how in WWII, cites seemed to be routinely targeted (ie: London bombings, Dresden firebombing, Hiroshima, etc), while most people today would be horrified by such targetting of civilians. I wonder though if this is an ethical/moral evolution to the feeling that civilians (even enemy ones) are non-combatant and should not be targeted, or is it just that recent wars just have not been desperate enough to change our opinion. -bryon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
From: Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:47:20 -0500 iaamoac wrote: Whenever I walk by there, I can't help but be astonished that it was *only* 60 years ago - and yet it seems so absolutely unthinkable today. Sure we can all talk about technological development over the last century, but our ethical development is almost as awe- inspiring - compared to ethical development over the previous range of human history. I was just thinking along those lines myself, with how in WWII, cites seemed to be routinely targeted (ie: London bombings, Dresden firebombing, Hiroshima, etc), while most people today would be horrified by such targetting of civilians. I wonder though if this is an ethical/moral evolution to the feeling that civilians (even enemy ones) are non-combatant and should not be targeted, or is it just that recent wars just have not been desperate enough to change our opinion. I personally think that the new modern technological and cultural globalism has had a lot to do with this. I believe that war started to become unpopular in the 60's when television cameras brought the violence into our living rooms. We began seeing our enemies as 'just-like-us' human beings thanks to tv, newspapers and still photo cameras. The net has compounded this effect. I believe that this has changed our perception of war. Jon _ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
At 16:33 17-03-03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: What risk would that be? The only action he is involved in is posting Bush-regime propaganda to a mailing list; what risks he is exposing himself to by doing that (other than having his arguments shot to barrels time and time again)? He lives in the DC area. With all those security measures in place, and with all that military hardware in position around DC, it is probably one of the safest urban areas in the country right now... Given all those security measures, chances are that I am taking more risk than him right now. Let's see. The Netherlands is supporting the US, which makes it a potential target. I am stationed at an Army base that is the largest one in the southern part of the country, and which is home to an entire brigade. Adjacent to the base[*] there is a dual-purpose air field: part of it is in use as a regional civilian airport (Eindhoven Airport), with flights to and from cities all over Europe, and part of it is in use as an Air Force base (Welschap Air Force Base, the largest of the three Air Force bases in the south), which functions as a hub for much of Dutch military transport (both road and air transports). It is currently also being used by the US military for their air transports of troops and equipment to the Middle East. In a straight line, I only live a few kilometers from said locations. So, whether I am at work or at home, if the worst-case scenario happens (a nuclear attack), I'm history. [*]The air field is almost literally on the other side of the fence; all that separates the two fences is a local two-lane road. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What risk would that be? He lives in the DC area. With all those security measures in place, and with all that military hardware in position around DC, it is probably one of the safest urban areas in the country right now... First question for you - do they have to irradiate the mail in your office because several people in *your* city have _died_ from anthrax? Didn't think so. Second question for you - has a terrorist ever tried to fly a jetliner into a building two blocks down the street from you, and the on the lawns of which you recently enjoyed a picnic lunch during your lunch break from work? That's what I thought. Third question for you, if a terrorist had a nuclear bomb where would the terrorist list my city of work and your city of work as a potential target. Uh huh. Fourth question for you, if a terrorist had a radiological, chemical, or biological weapon, where would the terrorist rate my list of work and your place of work as potential targets? Keep in mind that I walk through Washington DC's Union Station on my way to work each day. Yup. Sure thing, Mac. Given all of that, if you have an ounce of compassion in you, you'll understand that I am telling the truth when I say that even my own parents have told me that I should seriously consider quitting my job, because they are genuinely worried that I could die on any day... and that I had to tell them, No, I am not quitting, because I love my city, and I love my country, and I'm not leaving because that would be letting the terrorists win - and that's the end of that discussion. So, look right here you sanctimonious son-of-a-bitch, I don't need you belittling the very real risks I take each day. I do not need your criticism of my choice to pass up jobs that could possibly pay me 25%-50% more than I am earning right now, while working in some town international terrorists have probably never heard of, because I find myself motivated to perform some sort of public service with my life to make this world a better place. You don't know my mind, and you don't know how prepared I am to die, should the unthinkable happen, simply because I am an employee of the greatest country in the history of civilization, the United States of America. Still, its no wonder that you oppose this war, because any asshole like yourself that could possibly believe that he is at more of a risk on some military base in the Netherlands than in the capitol of the free world must have been asleep on September 11th and is pretty clueless to boot. Anyhow, my insults aside, I recognize very well that you could not have written something so stupid unless you are either a moron or else intentionally trying to flame-bait me. And, I recognize, that I am now giving you *exactly* what you wanted. So, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, Jeroen - quote the Etiquette Guidelines to me one more time! Who knows, maybe if you flame-bait me one more time, you might even get me moderated? Some people flame-bait by dropping f-bombs, and some people, like you, flame-bait by posting the ridiculous and insulting with a veneer of seriousness clothed in a sheep's-clothing of far-left- liberalism. I have hopes that someday everyone else on this List will realize that you post your ridiculous notions like this just to get everyone's goat, and maybe we can all devote more of our attentions to those great discussions we have on here that seem to enlighten us all. Well, I can hope. Anyhow, this was fun while it lasted, but I realize it is now time for me to boycott you again - since you remain fundamentally unserious about these discussions - and you are now succeeding once again in getting my goat. Bye, bye. JDG P.S. The Netherlands is still a republic! ;-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:45:34 +0100 At 16:33 17-03-03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: What risk would that be? The only action he is involved in is posting Bush-regime propaganda to a mailing list; what risks he is exposing himself to by doing that (other than having his arguments shot to barrels time and time again)? He lives in the DC area. With all those security measures in place, and with all that military hardware in position around DC, it is probably one of the safest urban areas in the country right now... Given all those security measures, chances are that I am taking more risk than him right now. Precedent. DC is a strategic target. You know, I'm rather surprised that an employee of the Dutch _Ministry of Defense_ would have difficulty with the concept of a 'strategic target', and suspect that you may be unsubtly trying to troll the Americans on this list again. But, in the spirit of trying to fill what may well be a perilous gap in the Dutch education system: (*sigh*) DC was targeted by Muslim terrorists before: the attack on the Pentagon, where John *works* (did it completely escape your notice that if he had been in another section of the building he works in he might have been killed that day?) and the failed terror plane attack that was allegedly heading for the White House. John is living and working in a severe-risk area of this country. He works in a building that would be a _direct strategic target_ during any armed conflict with this country. By your argument, American citizens in Juneau, Alaska should be horribly concerned because they are currently defenseless from Iraqi terror attacks. I'm sure they're not Juneau simply isn't a strategically valuable part of the country. The areas of the US that would be targeted in an attack are our capitol and certain key cities. New York is on the list and so is DC. The reason for this is that certain targets are more valuable than others. Attacking, say, Alaska would lack both shock and military value. And, you've already posted elsewhere that **nothing** can stop terrorist attacks. Heightened defenses will probably do nothing to stop a terror attack, and may not even stop a well-planned military one if it were fast enough. Considering all of these facts, please explain how you justify your opinion that JDG is in ...probably one of the safest urban areas in the country right now? As far as I can see, that's a crock. As soon as Iraqis start saying Kill the Dutch Infidels, and burning your flags and leaders in effigy I'm sure you'll have something to worry about. Since that doesn't seem to have happened yet, it seems infinitely more likely that your country isn't viewed as an important enough enemy of Iraq despite your support of the US. Let's see. The Netherlands is supporting the US, which makes it a potential target. I am stationed at an Army base that is the largest one in the southern part of the country, and which is home to an entire brigade. Adjacent to the base[*] there is a dual-purpose air field: part of it is in use as a regional civilian airport (Eindhoven Airport), with flights to and from cities all over Europe, and part of it is in use as an Air Force base (Welschap Air Force Base, the largest of the three Air Force bases in the south), which functions as a hub for much of Dutch military transport (both road and air transports). It is currently also being used by the US military for their air transports of troops and equipment to the Middle East. In a straight line, I only live a few kilometers from said locations. So, whether I am at work or at home, if the worst-case scenario happens (a nuclear attack), I'm history. Oh, but Hussein doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, right? So you have nothing to worry about! And since it's the American forces currently using your airbases that you have a problem with, don't worry. I'm sure the Iraqis don't understand what a strategic target is either. Jon _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
Jon Gabriel wrote: DC was targeted by Muslim terrorists before: the attack on the Pentagon, where John *works* (did it completely escape your notice that if he had been in another section of the building he works in he might have been killed that day?) and the failed terror plane attack that was allegedly heading for the White House. John is living and working in a severe-risk area of this country. He works in a building that would be a _direct strategic target_ during any armed conflict with this country. Actually, John doesn't work at the Pentagon. IIRC, the building he works at is on a *different* Metro line, even. (But I could be remembering incorrectly.) Either way, it's a bit away from the Pentagon. Not too far from the Capitol and White House, though, which are prime targets in and of themselves. And if you can't get close enough to either of *those* but you know which buildings are Federal buildings, you could probably blow *something* up, and there's a chance that his block could be targeted. And that would be a pity, because it probably would take out the place we had lunch, and I'd like to eat there *once* more before I die, at least. ;) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
Nick Arnett wrote: If there's anything I really want to criticize, it's the if you're not for us, then you're against us attitude that seems to pervade discussion (if it can be called that) of this war. I'm not talking about here on the list so much as on the international stage. It lumps together and marginalizes anyone who doesn't jump on the bandwagon. It also says If you don't do exactly as we want, then we'll consider you an enemy. It worries me greatly that our government has to resort to intimidation bordering on extortion in order to attempt an action that they consider so obvious and self-evident. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dan Minette ... Maybe some numbers would help. How many escaped from France with French help? Gautam claimed that the French record was much worse than other countries. Do you have numbers that indicate that the French did a heroic job fighting the actions of the Vichy goverment that was imposed on them, but that they were just overmanned. It would also help to give some numbers of non-Jewish Frechmen who were tortured, killed or imprisoned for protecting Jews. In Vivarais-Lignon/Le Chambon, the French saved about 5,000, including 3,500 Jews. That seems to be the single largest such effort in the country. A historian, Lucien Steinberg, says that smaller efforts took place throughout France. It seems that many people who helped to protect Jews during the war did not speak of it later (which again reflects poorly on France's attitude toward Jews, I am sorry to observe). It is doubtful than any sort of accurate numbers could be compiled. Here is a paper that describes French resistance and German responses: http://muweb.millersville.edu/~holo-con/laub.html The German strategy from Berlin was to hold hostages and execute many times more of them for any Germans assassinated by the resistance. Apparently the German army officers in France were uncooperative with this policy. Here are paragraphs relevant to our present discussion: Serge Klarsfeld, a French lawyer and leading authority on the Holocaust in France, estimates that 330,000 Jews lived in France at the end of 1940. Approximately 80,000 Jews or 24% of the Jewish population living in France eventually perished in German concentration camps during the second World War.(19) In contrast, 105,000 of 140,000 or 75% of Jews living in the Holland perished in Nazi death camps.(20) These numbers are, in light of the political and administrative chaos that gripped Western Europe, estimates. But they indicate that a substantial number of Jews who lived in France during 1940 managed to survive the war. This brings us back to the question raised by Gauleiter Mutschmann at the beginning of this discussion. How did so many Jews who lived in France survive the war? Raul Hillberg, Robert Paxton, François Bédarida, and other historians argue that a shortage of manpower undermined German efforts to exterminate all Jews living in France. During the War the SS never controlled more than three brigades or 3,000 Ordnungspolizei. This small contingent eventually arrested less than 5% of the 330,000 Jews during the Occupation. French police caught most of the 80,000 Jews who later perished on German concentration camps. But the Wehrmacht had plenty of soldiers stationed in France throughout the war. In August 1940 the Oberkommando des Heeres posted 105 Landesschützen battalions in the Occupied Zone. The number of battalions declined to 60 by May 1942, but they still represented a paper strength in excess of 75,000 soldiers.(21) In addition, the army stationed dozens of regular and SS divisions throughout France while they absorbed new troops. So, it would seem that internal disagreements in the German army saved quite a few French Jews, which the Vichy government managed to work around, to a certain extent. It seems clear that French collaboration with the Nazis, no matter what their intentions, was not very successful. By the way, Klarsfeld's research is behind a great deal of France's recent public statements of responsibility in WWII. Gautam said that the German armies didn't even bother going into Vichy controlled territory. Do you dispute this? If not, they are unusual puppets who gained power without the help of the German army. The Vichy government was established via an armistice with the Germans. Of course, the French came to that table with their army defeated. Although there was not an occupying army in the area that the Vichys claimed, there certainly was a Nazi presence -- the very officers described above, who were rather resistance themselves to carrying out Hitler's orders, especially with regard to the hostages. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
Matt Grimaldi wrote: It also says If you don't do exactly as we want, then we'll consider you an enemy. It worries me greatly that our government has to resort to intimidation bordering on extortion in order to attempt an action that they consider so obvious and self-evident. Who has the US government intimidated/extorted (other than Iraq)? I'd agree the US has attempted to buy off some nations, but I haven't perceived the US as threatening any of them in a direct or indirect manner. But maybe I'm overlooking/missing something. -bryon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
At 19:20 16-03-03 -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: If the US was under such occupation, what would happen? Well, I hope to God that if I wasn't dead, I'd be helping to smuggle Jews out of the country, and I'm confident that the rest of the population would do the same. That's very unlikely. It is easy to say I would do that, but when the time for action comes, and people suddenly realise that they have a fairly high chance of being caught and subsequently executed, most people will quickly change their minds. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 19:20 16-03-03 -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: If the US was under such occupation, what would happen? Well, I hope to God that if I wasn't dead, I'd be helping to smuggle Jews out of the country, and I'm confident that the rest of the population would do the same. That's very unlikely. It is easy to say I would do that, but when the time for action comes, and people suddenly realise that they have a fairly high chance of being caught and subsequently executed, most people will quickly change their minds. Spoken like a true collaborationist. JDG - Who knows that Gautam is very much willing to put his money, err... his life, where his mouth is when it comes to doing the right thing - and - supporting US foreign policy/national defence. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
At 20:39 17-03-03 +, John Giorgis wrote: If the US was under such occupation, what would happen? Well, I hope to God that if I wasn't dead, I'd be helping to smuggle Jews out of the country, and I'm confident that the rest of the population would do the same. That's very unlikely. It is easy to say I would do that, but when the time for action comes, and people suddenly realise that they have a fairly high chance of being caught and subsequently executed, most people will quickly change their minds. Spoken like a true collaborationist. No, spoken like someone who knows that with most people in such a situation, their survival instinct kicks in and takes over. So, in your opinion, all those Europeans who *didn't* hide Jews or helped them get out of Europe during WW2 were collaborating with the Nazis. Your insults just never end, do they? So, why haven't you signed up for military service so you can actively help liberate the Iraqi people from their current dictator? After all, following your logic, your lack of real action makes you a collaborator with the Iraqi regime... JDG - Who knows that Gautam is very much willing to put his money, err... his life, where his mouth is when it comes to doing the right thing - and - supporting US foreign policy/national defence. Apparently not -- unless he signed up for military service in the front lines in Iraq, and didn't bother to tell us about it. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War) No, spoken like someone who knows that with most people in such a situation, their survival instinct kicks in and takes over. But, Gautam provided plenty of counterexamples in other countries where the Nazis attacked. Examples where people's lives were saved So, in your opinion, all those Europeans who *didn't* hide Jews or helped them get out of Europe during WW2 were collaborating with the Nazis. Your insults just never end, do they? No, just cowards. That's pretty well the definition, not willing to take even a moderate risk to oneself to prevent great harm to another? So, why haven't you signed up for military service so you can actively help liberate the Iraqi people from their current dictator? After all, following your logic, your lack of real action makes you a collaborator with the Iraqi regime... He's clearly willing to take a lot more risk than you are. He is at risk for this action. JDG - Who knows that Gautam is very much willing to put his money, err... his life, where his mouth is when it comes to doing the right thing - and - supporting US foreign policy/national defence. Apparently not -- unless he signed up for military service in the front lines in Iraq, and didn't bother to tell us about it. So, its only the infantry who qualifies in your book? All the other people who risk their lives merit your contempt. Considering the fact that I just talked to a mother of one of many soldiers who are going to be at risk this afternoon, your posturing leaves an even worse taste in my mouth than usual. Look, I've been on record stating that the risks outweigh the potential benefits in Iraq. Not by much, but I thought they did. But, at this point, things have progressed to where the only thing that prevents the risks for stopping outweighing the benefits from stopping is the, very unlikely, capitulation by Hussein. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
At 15:34 17-03-03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: No, spoken like someone who knows that with most people in such a situation, their survival instinct kicks in and takes over. But, Gautam provided plenty of counterexamples in other countries where the Nazis attacked. Examples where people's lives were saved Note that I said most people, not all people. Sure, there were people who risked their lives back then to help others, but as a percentage of the total population, that was a relatively small group. So, in your opinion, all those Europeans who *didn't* hide Jews or helped them get out of Europe during WW2 were collaborating with the Nazis. Your insults just never end, do they? No, just cowards. That's pretty well the definition, not willing to take even a moderate risk to oneself to prevent great harm to another? You call getting yourself and your family killed or sent to a concentration/death camp a moderate risk? Yikes... So, why haven't you signed up for military service so you can actively help liberate the Iraqi people from their current dictator? After all, following your logic, your lack of real action makes you a collaborator with the Iraqi regime... He's clearly willing to take a lot more risk than you are. He is at risk for this action. What risk would that be? The only action he is involved in is posting Bush-regime propaganda to a mailing list; what risks he is exposing himself to by doing that (other than having his arguments shot to barrels time and time again)? JDG - Who knows that Gautam is very much willing to put his money, err... his life, where his mouth is when it comes to doing the right thing - and - supporting US foreign policy/national defence. Apparently not -- unless he signed up for military service in the front lines in Iraq, and didn't bother to tell us about it. So, its only the infantry who qualifies in your book? All the other people who risk their lives merit your contempt. Absolutely not. Anyone who puts his life at risk for a cause they believe in has my respect -- even when that cause itself is questionable. However, JDG mentioned Gautam being willing to risk his life, but I don't see either of them do anything that comes even close to that. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:34:58 -0600 - Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War) No, spoken like someone who knows that with most people in such a situation, their survival instinct kicks in and takes over. But, Gautam provided plenty of counterexamples in other countries where the Nazis attacked. Examples where people's lives were saved So, in your opinion, all those Europeans who *didn't* hide Jews or helped them get out of Europe during WW2 were collaborating with the Nazis. Your insults just never end, do they? No, just cowards. That's pretty well the definition, not willing to take even a moderate risk to oneself to prevent great harm to another? Moderate risk? It was a _major_ risk. A HUGE risk. People who were discovered protecting Jews were treated like Jews. They risked not only their own lives but those of their families. They may have been cowards but I can understand their fear. Those who 'prevent(ed) great harm' during WW2 were heroes in every sense of the word. It is truly unfortunate that there weren't more of them. Jon _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:01 PM Subject: Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War) At 15:34 17-03-03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: No, spoken like someone who knows that with most people in such a situation, their survival instinct kicks in and takes over. But, Gautam provided plenty of counterexamples in other countries where the Nazis attacked. Examples where people's lives were saved Note that I said most people, not all people. Sure, there were people who risked their lives back then to help others, but as a percentage of the total population, that was a relatively small group. So, in your opinion, all those Europeans who *didn't* hide Jews or helped them get out of Europe during WW2 were collaborating with the Nazis. Your insults just never end, do they? No, just cowards. That's pretty well the definition, not willing to take even a moderate risk to oneself to prevent great harm to another? You call getting yourself and your family killed or sent to a concentration/death camp a moderate risk? Yikes... How many non-Jews were sent to concentration camps for helping the Jews? How many were put to death? If I read Gautam right, many people did fight the Holocaust with relatively minimal risk. So, why haven't you signed up for military service so you can actively help liberate the Iraqi people from their current dictator? After all, following your logic, your lack of real action makes you a collaborator with the Iraqi regime... He's clearly willing to take a lot more risk than you are. He is at risk for this action. What risk would that be? The only action he is involved in is posting Bush-regime propaganda to a mailing list; what risks he is exposing himself to by doing that (other than having his arguments shot to barrels time and time again)? He lives in the DC area. Absolutely not. Anyone who puts his life at risk for a cause they believe in has my respect -- even when that cause itself is questionable. However, JDG mentioned Gautam being willing to risk his life, but I don't see either of them do anything that comes even close to that. I think Gautam stated that he is color blind on the list. I don't think it is out of turn to say that he found out when he was exploring how he could serve his country. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
--- J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apparently not -- unless he signed up for military service in the front lines in Iraq, and didn't bother to tell us about it. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk Not an entirely unfair question, although rather ironic coming from you, Jeroen. Since, after all, you have previously argued that one reason the Netherlands should not support the US is that it would make them more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, thus apparently elevating cowardice to a virtue. Certainly, you don't seem to attach any moral taint to failing to act bravely in this horrific situation. However, I can make several answers. The first, of course, is that I didn't claim I would be a member of the resistance. I said that I _hoped_ I would be. A crucial difference. I said I was confident that most Americans would be. I am - I have virtually infinite faith in the courage and decency of the American people. My own? I have some evidence that I am willing to risk my life, but it was a fairly unique circumstance, not enough for me to speak with any certainty. If I was _not_ willing to do so, however, when it came to the test, a coward is exactly what I would be. As for why I haven't joined up - I am sort of curious as to what level of risk would be necessary before I qualified as someone who was willing to risk his life for a cause. I'm confident that your response will be some no-doubt ingenious explanation. The short answer, however, is that I tried. Before receiving an offer to work at my current job, I had decided to join the military. I am color blind, like approximately 10% of the male population, and thus under American military rules not allowed to serve in line positions. When I received my offer for my current job, several friends in the military told me to not, under any circumstances, decline it to join up. Since they were veterans, I felt that they had some moral authority with which to speak. I thus decided to explore my options in the reserves, but the color-blindness disqualifies me from most positions. Between that and my workload, and since there's no chance I could have joined the combat arms anyways, it just didn't make sense. All is not, however, lost, as I am currently trying to pull what (few) strings I have to get an exemption for the color-blindess (odds are low, but possible) and, if I do, I will explore the possibility of doing two years _after_ my current job, although at 25 I will be getting rather old for that. So, the answer is, no, I haven't put my life on the line by anything more dramatic than living in Manhattan, and so I can't be certain how I would act in such a situation. I know what I would expect of myself - that, to be blunt, I would rather be dead than someone who wasn't willing to act in that way. But, for reasons not entirely under my control, I can't actually be certain. Yet. But then, I didn't claim that I was. I just said what I hoped I was capable of doing, and what I would expect of both myself and others in that situation. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:33:17 -0600 - Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:01 PM Subject: Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War) At 15:34 17-03-03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: No, spoken like someone who knows that with most people in such a situation, their survival instinct kicks in and takes over. But, Gautam provided plenty of counterexamples in other countries where the Nazis attacked. Examples where people's lives were saved Note that I said most people, not all people. Sure, there were people who risked their lives back then to help others, but as a percentage of the total population, that was a relatively small group. So, in your opinion, all those Europeans who *didn't* hide Jews or helped them get out of Europe during WW2 were collaborating with the Nazis. Your insults just never end, do they? No, just cowards. That's pretty well the definition, not willing to take even a moderate risk to oneself to prevent great harm to another? You call getting yourself and your family killed or sent to a concentration/death camp a moderate risk? Yikes... How many non-Jews were sent to concentration camps for helping the Jews? How many were put to death? If I read Gautam right, many people did fight the Holocaust with relatively minimal risk. If that's what Gautam is saying, then I think I'll probably disagree. 6 million Jews and 12 million non-Jews died. I will hunt for online statistics on how many of those non-Jews were killed for helping Jews and let you know what I find. Jon _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
- Original Message - From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:25 PM Subject: Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War) From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:34:58 -0600 - Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War) No, spoken like someone who knows that with most people in such a situation, their survival instinct kicks in and takes over. But, Gautam provided plenty of counterexamples in other countries where the Nazis attacked. Examples where people's lives were saved So, in your opinion, all those Europeans who *didn't* hide Jews or helped them get out of Europe during WW2 were collaborating with the Nazis. Your insults just never end, do they? No, just cowards. That's pretty well the definition, not willing to take even a moderate risk to oneself to prevent great harm to another? Moderate risk? It was a _major_ risk. A HUGE risk. People who were discovered protecting Jews were treated like Jews. They risked not only their own lives but those of their families. They may have been cowards but I can understand their fear. But, didn't the Danish protect most of their Jews? Wasn't the government involved? Was any action taken against those who did? And, I quickly looked at the Anne Frank website where I obtained: quote During the hiding period Anne Frank kept a diary. In it she described daily life in the back anexe, the isolation and the fear of discovery. Anne's diary survived the war: after the betrayal it was found by Miep Gies, one of the helpers. When it was confirmed that Anne would not be returning, Miep gave the manuscripts to Otto Frank. In 1947 the first Dutch edition appeared. Since then the diary has been published in more then 55 languages. end quote It seems that the helpers were not sent to concentration camps. Further at http://auschwitz.dk/Annefrank.htm we have quote In addition, four people acted as helpers for the people in the annex, and brought them food, supplies and news of the world outside the darkened windows. These protectors had placed themselves at great personal risk because they could have been arrested and jailed for helping Jews. All of these people worked at the business that had belonged to Otto Frank. end quote I'm reminded of stories told by Russian house guests that illustrated how many levels of resistance is possible. He was asked, on several occasions, to join the Communist party. He always politely refused, saying now is not the right time, but maybe later. Most of the well educated behaved in the same way: a very minor resistance to the the Soviet government. They did not show the courage of the Refusenicks. But, they showed a bit of courage. There are always many levels of being able to resist. I may or may not be willing to put my childrens lives at risk to hide Jews, I see in a later post that you are looking at who was sent to concentration camps for helping Jews. That would be worth determining. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How many non-Jews were sent to concentration camps for helping the Jews? How many were put to death? If I read Gautam right, many people did fight the Holocaust with relatively minimal risk. If that's what Gautam is saying, then I think I'll probably disagree. 6 million Jews and 12 million non-Jews died. I will hunt for online statistics on how many of those non-Jews were killed for helping Jews and let you know what I find. Jon I wouldn't go so far as to say _minimal_ risk. What I was saying was that there was minimal risk to declining to actively participate in the Holocaust. That's the truly shocking thing. Even in Nazi Germany, if you wanted out of the mass execution squads, (einsatzgruppen, I think, but I bet Damon will correct me) all you had to do was ask. It's just that people didn't. I was further arguing that in Vichy France (for example) there wasn't much risk to helping people escape because the Germans _weren't there_. There were a few officers, certainly, but the occupation of Southern France didn't occur until after Operation Torch. But risk or no risk, I'm probably holding people to a more exacting standard than Dan is. I believe that it is better to be dead than to consent to some things, even if consenting is no more than _passively_ consenting and failing to actively resist. When the Danes succeeded in doing what they did it's not as if the Germans put all of Denmark to the sword - by the standards of what they did to the rest of Europe, they didn't do much at all. My argument is that - given the multiple successful examples of resistance - more should have been done. Dan seems to think that I think it was because of cowardice. There may have been some of that. I think the major reason was that it was Jews who bore the brunt of it, and they didn't really care. Had it been Catholics (for example) I think things might have been different. But we have a relative scale here, in terms of most effective to least effective resistance: Serbs and Russians (militarily) Danes (saving their Jews) and, at the bottom, France (which did neither). Given that some people did manage to do it, what's your explanation for why others, in basically the same circumstances, failed? Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
At 16:56 17-03-03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: Moderate risk? It was a _major_ risk. A HUGE risk. People who were discovered protecting Jews were treated like Jews. They risked not only their own lives but those of their families. They may have been cowards but I can understand their fear. But, didn't the Danish protect most of their Jews? But how many Jews *in absolute numbers* were saved/rescued/protected in the various European countries? FREX, Denmark is a considerably smaller country (in both population and square kilometers) then France; 10,000 Jews in Denmark would be a higher percentage of the population than 20,000 Jews in France. And, I quickly looked at the Anne Frank website where I obtained: quote During the hiding period Anne Frank kept a diary. In it she described daily life in the back anexe, the isolation and the fear of discovery. Anne's diary survived the war: after the betrayal it was found by Miep Gies, one of the helpers. When it was confirmed that Anne would not be returning, Miep gave the manuscripts to Otto Frank. In 1947 the first Dutch edition appeared. Since then the diary has been published in more then 55 languages. end quote It seems that the helpers were not sent to concentration camps. That is correct. Two of them (Miep Gies and Bep Voskuijl) weren't in the house when the residents were arrested. The other two (Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler) were arrested; Kleiman however fell ill and was sent home, Kugler managed to escape during an air raid. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk But how many Jews *in absolute numbers* were saved/rescued/protected in the various European countries? FREX, Denmark is a considerably smaller country (in both population and square kilometers) then France; 10,000 Jews in Denmark would be a higher percentage of the population than 20,000 Jews in France. I have the numbers... stand by briefly. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
Dan Minette wrote: How many non-Jews were sent to concentration camps for helping the Jews? How many were put to death? If I read Gautam right, many people did fight the Holocaust with relatively minimal risk. Not that I don't take Gautam at his word, but Nick has posted an article that contradicts his contention that the French didn't protect French Jews. Why do you continue to favor Gautam's statements? Also, France today has one of the highest Jewish populations in Europe, if not the highest. Wouldn't this suggest that, at least to some degree, France is more hospitable to Jews than many European nations? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not that I don't take Gautam at his word, but Nick has posted an article that contradicts his contention that the French didn't protect French Jews. Why do you continue to favor Gautam's statements? Also, France today has one of the highest Jewish populations in Europe, if not the highest. Wouldn't this suggest that, at least to some degree, France is more hospitable to Jews than many European nations? Doug Actually, I don't think it did. France's record was better than I thought it was, without question. _But_, the article certainly didn't say that France protected its Jews. As Erik pointed out, most of the 80,000 Jews handed in were handed over by the French police. That is a pretty damning statistic, to put it mildly. The articles also seem to argue that aiding the escape of Jews wasn't pursured very harshly. Finally, they also mention the (considerable) freedom of action given the Vichy regime from 1940 to 1942. I'm not saying that France would have done the killing without the defeat - of course not. Eliminationist anti-semitism is a fairly unique German creation that stretches back to Martin Luther. I'm saying that they looked the other way, and I think the articles support that pretty well. With the exception of Denmark, I don't think there was a _single_ country in Western Europe that has much to be proud of in terms of how it handled this situation. Poland, as Nick correctly points out, the saddest case, had _one-third_ of its population killed by the Nazis. France did not exactly have to deal with that sort of oppression. I will freely admit that, based on Nick's sources, France's record was better than I thought - I think that any honest reading of those same sources would also say that the kindest thing you could say about that record is abysmal. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Erik Reuter Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:17 P To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War) On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:53:28AM -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: http://muweb.millersville.edu/~holo-con/laub.html French police caught most of the 80,000 Jews who later perished on German concentration camps. Any idea why the French police caught 80,000 Jews? What did the French police expect would happen to them if they had simply gone about business as usual instead of rounding up Jews? I'm afraid they may have done it rather willingly under the Vichy rule. If it has sounded as though I'm suggesting that the Germans compelled the French to round up Jews, that's not what I intended. Rather, the German defeat opened the door for extremist conservative Catholics to act upon the anti-Semitism they couldn't act upon when France was a republic that granted compete rights to Jews, as has France after WWII and since. There was serious and deadly collaboration, without question. Those people went to Auschwitz via the hands of their own neighbors. One might be tempted to ask why, given the degree of collaboration, such a small number of Jews perished in comparison to the rest of Europe. I'm at a loss to imagine any reason other than that the conservatives were in the minority, while the majority of French people protected the Jews. If the majority of French people favored evacuation of the Jews (to put it as mildly as they might have rationalized it to be, especially before the 'final solution' began), surely the losses would have been far, far greater, don't you think? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda ... Actually, I don't think it did. France's record was better than I thought it was, without question. _But_, the article certainly didn't say that France protected its Jews. As Erik pointed out, most of the 80,000 Jews handed in were handed over by the French police. That is a pretty damning statistic, to put it mildly. It is, to be sure, but *who* is it damning? To me, it speaks to the existence of a dangerous minority in that nation, because if they were the majority, far more would have died, don't you think? The overall record of France in comparison to the rest of Europe speaks well of the nation as a whole, especially considering that there were *local* authorities who clearly were trying to remove as many Jews as possible. It seems to me that you and I are finally converging on some facts that put all this into perspective. I have a greater appreciation (accompanied by dismay and revulsion) of the crimes of the Vichys and their sympathizers. And the statistics of the Holocaust have sunk in even deeper than ever before. As I've grown older, I am more and more astonished that the Holocaust happened in my own father's lifetime. I often find myself thinking that humanity hasn't evolved much in the 50 years that have passed, at least in the biological sense of evolution. Perhaps our memes have made more progress than our genes, though. I am resigned to supporting the present war partly because I can't set aside a war my father fought in as an event in distant history that could not be repeated today. I sure don't know if this is the right time to attack Iraq or if some other approach would be best, but it's not as though we ever will know those things. This not being heaven, we have to make rotten choices sometimes. The articles also seem to argue that aiding the escape of Jews wasn't pursured very harshly. Finally, they also mention the (considerable) freedom of action given the Vichy regime from 1940 to 1942. I'm not saying that France would have done the killing without the defeat - of course not. Eliminationist anti-semitism is a fairly unique German creation that stretches back to Martin Luther. Have Protestants redeemed themselves (oh, how theologically incorrect) through their protection of Jews in WWII? ;-) I'm Lutheran, but I don't worship Luther... despite his picture on my wall. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 06:41:33PM -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: If the majority of French people favored evacuation of the Jews (to put it as mildly as they might have rationalized it to be, especially before the 'final solution' began), surely the losses would have been far, far greater, don't you think? Well, I'd hope in my country, if the police started rounding up an ethnic group and shipping them out, that the majority of people would march in the streets and force the police to stop. Were the French too afraid of the German armies to do something like this? (That isn't a rhetorical question, I'm trying to understand ) -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:54 PM Subject: Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War) --- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How many non-Jews were sent to concentration camps for helping the Jews? How many were put to death? If I read Gautam right, many people did fight the Holocaust with relatively minimal risk. If that's what Gautam is saying, then I think I'll probably disagree. 6 million Jews and 12 million non-Jews died. I will hunt for online statistics on how many of those non-Jews were killed for helping Jews and let you know what I find. Jon I wouldn't go so far as to say _minimal_ risk. What I was saying was that there was minimal risk to declining to actively participate in the Holocaust. That's the truly shocking thing. Even in Nazi Germany, if you wanted out of the mass execution squads, (einsatzgruppen, I think, but I bet Damon will correct me) all you had to do was ask. I also am discussing many different levels of resistance. It's just that people didn't. I was further arguing that in Vichy France (for example) there wasn't much risk to helping people escape because the Germans _weren't there_. There were a few officers, certainly, but the occupation of Southern France didn't occur until after Operation Torch. But risk or no risk, I'm probably holding people to a more exacting standard than Dan is. I think that is a valid statement. But, that also means that failure to meet my standards is worse than failure to meet Gautam's. I allow that people can often do only little things I believe that it is better to be dead than to consent to some things, even if consenting is no more than _passively_ consenting and failing to actively resist. I wonder about passive resistance. Is it possible that the relatively low numbers of deaths in France is due to people happening to lose documents, not do their job well, etc. when asked to help with the roundup of Jews. Is the lower amount of resistance in Western Europe as much a matter of the behavior of the Nazis as the nature of the conquered country. I do remember seeing a history of WWII that indicated that the Nazis were first greeted as liberators in the USSR, until their behavior turned people against them. If they were as generous with terms of occupation in the USSR as they were in France, would the citizens of the USSR have fought as hard? When the Danes succeeded in doing what they did it's not as if the Germans put all of Denmark to the sword - by the standards of what they did to the rest of Europe, they didn't do much at all. My argument is that - given the multiple successful examples of resistance - more should have been done. Dan seems to think that I think it was because of cowardice. There may have been some of that. I think the major reason was that it was Jews who bore the brunt of it, and they didn't really care. I certainly wouldn't argue that anti-Semitism had a lot to do with it. Had it been Catholics (for example) I think things might have been different. But we have a relative scale here, in terms of most effective to least effective resistance: Serbs and Russians (militarily) Danes (saving their Jews) One possibility is that the government in France was evil too; so that it was harder to save the Jews without heroism. Is it possible that there were French who helped to hide the Jews in plain sight by passively resisting the Vichy, and that had something to do with the relatively low numbers of deaths? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 7:28 PM Subject: Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War) Dan Minette wrote: How many non-Jews were sent to concentration camps for helping the Jews? How many were put to death? If I read Gautam right, many people did fight the Holocaust with relatively minimal risk. Not that I don't take Gautam at his word, but Nick has posted an article that contradicts his contention that the French didn't protect French Take Gautam's word over Nick's? But I wasn't arguing with Nick here. I didn't see a counter to this particular arguement in Nick's posts. I think he did a nice job getting numbers, and pointing to other possibilities. This was a continuation of my disagreement with Jeroen. I think I responded to Jon, but he and I were just tossing possibilities back and forth, my real disagreement is with Jeroens defense of the lack concern for the lives of others. I was considering Nick's source, looking at other sources on that subject, etc. Its not that I don't appreciate his responding with the information I asked for, its that I was engaged in a parallel discussion. Also, France today has one of the highest Jewish populations in Europe, if not the highest. Wouldn't this suggest that, at least to some degree, France is more hospitable to Jews than many European nations? That's an interesting point. If France's record on anti-Semetism is so bad, why wouldn't it have lost almost all of its Jewish population after WWII, as did so many other countries. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I've grown older, I am more and more astonished that the Holocaust happened in my own father's lifetime. I often find myself thinking that humanity hasn't evolved much in the 50 years that have passed, at least in the biological sense of evolution. Perhaps our memes have made more progress than our genes, though. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I'd hope in my country, if the police started rounding up an ethnic group and shipping them out, that the majority of people would march in the streets and force the police to stop. Whenever I have the occasion to walk from the Bureau of Labor Statistis Building to the Frances Perkins (Main) Labor Department Building, I pass by one of the newest, most moving, and perhaps least- known memorials in all of Washington, DC. It is a memorial to the Japanese-Americans who were rounded up into internment camps. Whenever I walk by there, I can't help but be astonished that it was *only* 60 years ago - and yet it seems so absolutely unthinkable today. Sure we can all talk about technological development over the last century, but our ethical development is almost as awe- inspiring - compared to ethical development over the previous range of human history. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Erik Reuter ... Well, I'd hope in my country, if the police started rounding up an ethnic group and shipping them out, that the majority of people would march in the streets and force the police to stop. Were the French too afraid of the German armies to do something like this? (That isn't a rhetorical question, I'm trying to understand ) I'm not even sure where to look for an answer. I've been reading up on the whole subject the last couple of days, but that question doesn't get addressed much. I think that's partly because only in the last few years have the French even been willing to acknowledge that it happened. But I'll offer a couple of personal thoughts. About 20 years ago, I was fairly gung-ho to be a journalist in Central America, after spending some time there and realizing what terrible things were happening in Guatemala, El Salvador, etc. I had met a number of expatriates from those countries in Mexico, people who were quite assured that they would be tortured if they returned. Thinking about torture in theory is one thing; putting yourself in a situation where it is really possible is quite another, I discovered. I'm not particularly afraid of death, but I think I learned too much about torture to be able to carry on with the journalistic ideas I had back then. I eventually had to admit to myself that I just couldn't do that, working independently. It would be another story, I think, if I were assigned there with backing of a large organization. These days, my decisions about putting myself in danger are greatly influenced by my family, which was largely irrelevant 20 years ago. For example, it was a difficult day when I disassembled my climbing gear, acknowledging what I'd known was true since I got married -- that I wouldn't be doing any more serious rock or mountain climbing. When I felt like I was only risking my own neck, I was willing to take a lot more chances. Risking one's own family, even a bit, to save strangers, even neighbors, is a tougher decision than I imagined it to be when I was younger. I don't mean to excuse French collaboration. But I think we can imagine many reasons to have compassion for those who did not actively resist. And there certainly are plenty of anecdotes of passive resistance, such as the people of Le Chambon who just couldn't seem to remember the names of the Jews living there. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of iaamoac ... Whenever I walk by there, I can't help but be astonished that it was *only* 60 years ago - and yet it seems so absolutely unthinkable today. Sure we can all talk about technological development over the last century, but our ethical development is almost as awe- inspiring - compared to ethical development over the previous range of human history. Yep. My best friend's mother-in-law, who I see fairly often, was interned, and there are many others here in California, of course. When compensation was finally made available, she had no interest. I've been close to war, but not in it, and I'm fairly sure that none of us really know how we would react if we were truly there. Speaking of which, in addition to the other stuff I wrote in my last message, I also worked on establishing a virtual library in Sarajevo to replace the one that burned. The Soros Foundation was going to fund it and their first comment on my supply list was that I needed to add a flak jacket and helmet. And don't forget to sit on the flak jacket on final approach, they noted. Talk about reality hitting fast... But the war heated up and we had to scrap the whole plan, so the closest I got to sitting on a flak jacket was pricing them in surplus stores. (That's where you have to get them these days if you're a civilian; it seems that the typical bullet-proof vest is useless against snipers with full-metal-jacket projectiles...) Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda ... 1. Your claims to know French history would be more convincing if you displayed _knowledge of_ French history and 2. Apparently not. I guess it was too much to ask. I had dinner with George Rutler Proclaiming that I don't know what I'm talking about and dropping names... means what? Not an honored debate approach, IIRC. My preference is that you just say what I wrote here that was incorrect, and explain why. All you've said so far is that there was anti-Semitism in France, which no one disputes. But I strongly dispute your characterization of it as more than a minority who took advantage of the destruction of the French army by the Nazis. Do you have any actual facts about that, or are generalizations, name-calling and name-dropping the best you are going to offer? You brought this up as a reason that France should not oppose our country's war initiative, giving it currency, else at this point, I'd almost surely drop the whole subject. I would hope that as a graduate of Harvard, orbiting among many scholars, special forces troops and whoever else's light you are radiating, you are not just bashing the French because it is fashionable, but is based in facts. So, will you offer facts and not generalizations? In the meantime... Vous parlez l'histoire Francais comme une vache de droite. Et si vous comprenez (sans assistance), peut-etre vous connaissez plue que je pense. (Which probably has some errors, but I don't get to practice much these days, despite almost a decade of studying French and France.) Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
* Gautam Mukunda [Sat, 15/03/2003 at 20:12 -0800] Since they seem to be made by someone who knows a _lot_ less of France's history than I do, no, not really. The Vichy government was a collaborationist government of France that ran southern France _without German occupation_ for much of the early war. German troops did not move into Vichy-controlled areas for at least a couple of years after 1940. German demands for the exportation of Jews were met with more alacrity in France than they were in _Italy_, an actual honest-to-God Axis power. You forgot to mention that Germans had 1.5 Millions French hostages held in captivity in Germany. There is no record of significant efforts to prevent the massacre of the Jews by the Vichy government, which had much more independence than dilettantes in French history realize, by the French Catholic Church, by the Resistance, or by anyone else of significance in French society. There is tremendous record of ordinary people helping to hide and protect Jews. People taking jew children and pretenting they were theirs, civil servants making false papers to give Jews false identity with a French sounding name, local priests disobeying hierarchy to forge baptism certificates. That said the Vichy government was the disgusting reunion of a bunch of far rightists and catholics, catholics whose official stance at the time was Jews were guilty of having killed Jesus. That said it's completely true that the government at that time could have saved a lot more of people. It's also true that that part of history has been downplayed for decades, but that's true that the current society had had the courage to review the period and even tried a former Vichy prefect. What I want to point out here, and that I confirm with all the friendly relationships I have all over the world, is that it's completeley unfair to judge individuals, or infer their thoughts by the acts of their government. When American tourists in France are told to identify themselves as Canadian to avoid trouble, that says something too. Looks surrealistic to me. I'm interrested in having more information on that (offical travel advice links etc.). But I reassure all the Americans who wants to travel here. They don't need to fear the mob. We're not even stampeding hamburgers and breaking californian wine bottles in gutters for not having exactly the same opinion on Iraq. -- Jean-Marc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 01:02:47AM -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Proclaiming that I don't know what I'm talking about and dropping names... means what? Not an honored debate approach, IIRC. Nick, in a previous message you ended with this paragraph: Given your earlier misrepresentation of French gratitude about its liberation in WWII and now this comment, I'm wondering if you simply don't know much about France or you have some anti-French prejudice, or it is carelessness driven by your distaste for their position regarding Iraq... or what? In any event, I hope the clarifications are appreciated. This paragraph was totally unnecessary to discuss French history, and even if you didn't say Gautam is ignorant, prejudiced, and careless, that insult still came through clearly. This, combined with your insults in an earlier thread, certainly looks to me like you picked this fight. And you criticizing someone for dropping names??? Next, will you be criticizing someone for defending their argument with their resume? It looks to me that you are the one who is having trouble discussing French history using an honored debate approach. My preference is that you just say what I wrote here that was incorrect, and explain why. That would be my preference, too, but I would like to see you lead by example, Nick. Vous parlez l'histoire Francais comme une vache de droite. Et si vous comprenez (sans assistance), peut-etre vous connaissez plue que je pense. Here's how google translated that :-) You speak the French history like a cow about right-hand side. And if you understand (without assistance), perhaps you know liked that I think. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
On 15 Mar 2003 at 20:44, Nick Arnett wrote: realize, by the French Catholic Church, by the Resistance, or by anyone else of significance in French society. You might want to look up the Dreyfuss Affair for more information on how deeply anti-Semitism was set into the elites of French society. Zola (who wrote J'Accuse!) was driven into exile and, many people believe, murdered for his role in exposing this. I am quite familiar with the history of anti-Semitism in France. And you have vastly exaggerated it. No one, least of all me, is arguing that there hasn't been an anti-Semitic group in France, dating back to the very anti-Semitic pre-revolutionary government. But if nations are to be labeled by the actions of their minorities, we're all in trouble. France has a VERY strong Neo-Nazi majority, especially at present. I won't say he exagerated it. And you can't judge the whole of a nation on it's minorities, but you must take it into account. Nearly all the French Jewish communities are on a high alert status, and some have been for years. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
* Andrew Crystall [Sun, 16/03/2003 at 13:10 -] France has a VERY strong Neo-Nazi majority, especially at present. ^ /me doesn't bother to answer. -- Jean-Marc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
On 16 Mar 2003 at 14:17, Jean-Marc Chaton wrote: * Andrew Crystall [Sun, 16/03/2003 at 13:10 -] France has a VERY strong Neo-Nazi majority, especially at present. ^ /me doesn't bother to answer. sigh minority. I've been up for ~30 hours. If you want to be an idiot, be an idiot. Nothing I don't expect. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Crystall ... France has a VERY strong Neo-Nazi majority, especially at present. The majority of people in France today are neo-Nazis? I'm starting to wonder if I've completely lost my mind. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
At 13:26 16-03-03 +, Andy Crystall wrote: France has a VERY strong Neo-Nazi majority, especially at present. ^ /me doesn't bother to answer. sigh minority. I've been up for ~30 hours. If you want to be an idiot, be an idiot. Nothing I don't expect. Andy, please limit yourself to attacking the *arguments* you disagree with and refrain from attacking the *people* you disagree with. Insulting your opponents does not provide any positive contribution to the discussions whatsoever but only serves to disrupt this list. Thank you for your cooperation. Quote from the Etiquette Guidelines (full text available at www.brin-l.com ): Personal attacks, whether direct or indirect are not welcome. These should be handled off list, and if you disagree with some controversial point, direct the attack at the argument, not the person. Jeroen Architectus Websiticum van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
On 16 Mar 2003 at 9:14, Nick Arnett wrote: France has a VERY strong Neo-Nazi majority, especially at present. The majority of people in France today are neo-Nazis? I'm starting to wonder if I've completely lost my mind. Once again, it was a misstype - minority. I was thinking of something else (related to support by certain countries for Israel) at the time and I made a mystake. It is, however, a signifiant minority. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:14 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Crystall ... France has a VERY strong Neo-Nazi majority, especially at present. The majority of people in France today are neo-Nazis? I'm starting to wonder if I've completely lost my mind. Okay, now I realize what you meant to write. Sorry, had just woken up and should have known. I don't mean to diminish the significance of right-wing extremists in France and hope that nothing I've written suggests that it is not a meaningful political issue. As I wrote earlier, it goes back to the revolution itself, before which anybody who wasn't French and Catholic was terribly discriminated against. There is a fundamental difference between the U.S. and French traditions of democracy. Although they were contemporaneous, with similar goals and values, our country was much more free to embrace the ideals of democracy because we were not shrugging off an aristocracy. There was no U.S. tradition to contend with, in other words. France still retains some aspects of aristocracy that never existed here. For example, here in Silicon Valley, we get a number of French executives whose primary motivation for relocating is that it is almost impossible to be an entrepreneur in France. In the upper circles of power, the position you were born into still matters far more than it ever has in the United States. There's also the matter of French preservation of language and culture. It is a country where it can be illegal to use a foreign word in business. When computers first became widely available, phrases such as le software and le hardware came into use, but the French authorities stomped out that sort of thing (making me almost illiterate when I try to speak about technical matters in French). That which is not French is resisted, which historically extended to ethnic and religious differences and unfortunately persists today. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Erik Reuter ... in an earlier thread, certainly looks to me like you picked this fight. Absolutely. I jumped into the thread because I found what I read to be important and inaccurate. So, sure, I started the argument, quite deliberately. It bothers me greatly to see a war being justified by unfair characterizations of an entire nation, a nation that I probably know better than any outside the U.S., with the possible exception of some of Latin America. And I probably do have a soft spot for France -- French is the only second language I've ever learned well (starting when I was 10 years old and hated it), my father fought there in WWII and made lifelong friends who treat me like family, I proposed to my wife in the middle of Notre Dame cathedral, I love the food there, and I can make a pate de foie gras en croute that even a wealthy, somewhat snooty Frenchman complimented (although he's actually Basque, so maybe he doesn't count). And Gautam's comments about gratitude hit hardest, since I've been personally thanked so many times by French strangers. I am quite uncertain of how to respond to idea that my criticisms imply an accusation of facism, so perhaps I blew that. And you criticizing someone for dropping names??? Next, will you be criticizing someone for defending their argument with their resume? Who one had lunch with doesn't have any bearing on an argument unless that person provided authoritative, germane information at lunch. Otherwise all it says is, I hang out with important people, therefore I must be important. I know a lot about this; I'm often inclined to do the same and have worked pretty hard to break the habit. It comes from being surprised that one is privileged enough to associate with the powerful, which is to say that its roots are in self-esteem deficiencis. I'm talking about my own issues now. The same Frenchman who appreciated my foie gras did a great deal to help me recognize and deal with that (in a typically blunt and demanding French manner!). His usual line was, Nobody cares. Irritated the hell out of me, but it eventually got through. Here's how google translated that :-) You speak the French history like a cow about right-hand side. And if you understand (without assistance), perhaps you know liked that I think. I used a couple of idioms in the first sentence, so that automatic translators would not do well. There are probably volumes written about the use of cows in French idoms, puns and jokes. I don't get most of them, but the one I've alluded to here is probably the most common. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
* Andrew Crystall [Sun, 16/03/2003 at 13:26 +] On 16 Mar 2003 at 14:17, Jean-Marc Chaton wrote: * Andrew Crystall [Sun, 16/03/2003 at 13:10 -] France has a VERY strong Neo-Nazi majority, especially at present. ^ /me doesn't bother to answer. sigh minority. Excuse me, I didn't read past the first line, so missed the fact you made a slip I've been up for ~30 hours. If you want to be an idiot, be an idiot. Nothing I don't expect. ^ Is that me ? -- Jean-Marc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
---Original Message--- From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's also the matter of French preservation of language and culture. It is a country where it can be illegal to use a foreign word in business. When computers first became widely available, phrases such as le software and le hardware came into use, but the French authorities stomped out that sort of thing *** Interesting to note that if these policies were carried out anywhere else in the world, we probably would have one word to describe them: racism. JDG - French Exception, Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
---Original Message--- From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's also the matter of French preservation of language and culture. It is a country where it can be illegal to use a foreign word in business. When computers first became widely available, phrases such as le software and le hardware came into use, but the French authorities stomped out that sort of thing *** Interesting to note that if these policies were carried out anywhere else in the world, we probably would have one word to describe them: racism. JDG - French Exception, Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
On 16 Mar 2003 at 10:21, Nick Arnett wrote: France has a VERY strong Neo-Nazi majority, especially at present. The majority of people in France today are neo-Nazis? I'm starting to wonder if I've completely lost my mind. Okay, now I realize what you meant to write. Sorry, had just woken up and should have known. I don't mean to diminish the significance of right-wing extremists in France and hope that nothing I've written suggests that it is not a meaningful political issue. As I wrote earlier, it goes back to the I don't see it as political. This is because, simply of my background. I see in terms of threat. There are constant attacks against Jews in many forms in France, far worse than the small slips in the media which constitute the majority of attacks in the UK. I also don't tend to get on personally with the French. I was living a few years back with a French Jew, and there was an incident when he pulled a knife in me (for which I got the blame, since the witness came it about the time I took the knife and showed the Frenchman the floor). in France. In the upper circles of power, the position you were born into still matters far more than it ever has in the United States. I won't say it's entirely unimportant over here - it helps, certainly. There's also the matter of French preservation of language and culture. It is a country where it can be illegal to use a foreign word in business. When computers first became widely available, I've never really understood this. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:05:53 -0500 (EST), John D. Giorgis wrote: ---Original Message--- From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's also the matter of French preservation of language and culture. It is a country where it can be illegal to use a foreign word in business. When computers first became widely available, phrases such as le software and le hardware came into use, but the French authorities stomped out that sort of thing *** Interesting to note that if these policies were carried out anywhere else in the world, we probably would have one word to describe them: racism. While the word software was recently invented, and the French have had their own word for hardware for quite some time, I think racism is a bit extreme. I am assuming France has only the one official language. Dean ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Crystall ... There's also the matter of French preservation of language and culture. It is a country where it can be illegal to use a foreign word in business. When computers first became widely available, I've never really understood this. Nobody does! I'm not so sure that the French do. And who can explain the whole cow thing? Actually, I suppose it is representative of the frequent use of agricultural metaphors, like my little cabbage, as a term of endearment. France is sort of like Japan. You spend a month or two there and you think you understand the culture. But after a few more months, you realize that you don't have a clue about most of it. On the other hand they are opposites -- the Japanese tend to assimilate foreign culture and the French resist it. People are so... weird. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vous parlez l'histoire Francais comme une vache de droite. Et si vous comprenez (sans assistance), peut-etre vous connaissez plue que je pense. (Which probably has some errors, but I don't get to practice much these days, despite almost a decade of studying French and France.) Nick Mais tu parles l'histoire Francais comme un imbecile arrogant, pour je parle francais aussi. I don't get to practice much either, but I can still read and write the stuff. Despite, in my case, _also_ almost a decade studying French and France. At least it took for one of us. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vous parlez l'histoire Francais comme une vache de droite. Et si vous comprenez (sans assistance), peut-etre vous connaissez plue que je pense. Here's how google translated that :-) You speak the French history like a cow about right-hand side. And if you understand (without assistance), perhaps you know liked that I think. Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, I translated it, without google, as You speak of the history of France like a right-wing cow. And if you understand that (without assistance), perhaps you know what I think. Stanley would be proud of me - it's been five years since I tried to read or write French... Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
--- Jean-Marc Chaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Andrew Crystall [Sun, 16/03/2003 at 13:10 -] France has a VERY strong Neo-Nazi majority, especially at present. ^ /me doesn't bother to answer. -- Jean-Marc I think he means minority. TO which I disagree, btw. I don't think France has any significant neo-Nazi minority. Most of the (many) anti-Semitic acts that have happened recently in France are a product of unassimilated Arab immigrants, not most Frenchmen. I think that France's hostility to Israel is _partly_ driven by anti-semitism, but it's all the sort that, in the US, would be called WASP Anti-semitism - very polite and dripping with condescension, not the sort that burns down synagogues. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
--- Jean-Marc Chaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Gautam Mukunda [Sat, 15/03/2003 at 20:12 -0800] You forgot to mention that Germans had 1.5 Millions French hostages held in captivity in Germany. Well, sure. Shit happened to a lot of people in the Second World War. That doesn't change a moral obligation to _do_ something. Denmark managed. The Serbs were oppressed by the Croatian Ustasi, a secret police so nasty that they frightened Hitler - but they still ran the most effective partisan campaign of the war. The Russians had _20 million_ of their own civilians killed as Hitler ran, essentially, a war of extermination against the Russian population, and they still ran a fabled partisan campaign as well. Poland lost _one-third of its population_ during the war, and the Polish resistance was clearly more effective than France's as well. Of all of the countries that Hitler conquered, France probably had the weakest internal resistance. That said the Vichy government was the disgusting reunion of a bunch of far rightists and catholics, catholics whose official stance at the time was Jews were guilty of having killed Jesus. That said it's completely true that the government at that time could have saved a lot more of people. It's also true that that part of history has been downplayed for decades, but that's true that the current society had had the courage to review the period and even tried a former Vichy prefect. Yeah, but it also elected Francois Mitterand, a former Vichy official, so that's kind of a mixed bag, isn't it? I'm not denying the (tremendous) courage of individual Frenchmen who resisted, or the remarkable feats of Charles de Gaulle - who, among other things, might have bee the best armor officer of the war, if he'd only ever gotten a chance to prove it - but French society, as a whole, didn't seem to care. You can't just dismiss Vichy as right-wing cows - Marshall Petain was a national hero. The closest equivalent would be, I don't know, Colin Powell or something like that. Jean-Marc Nick had the example of what if the US was conquered and the Aryan nations started butchering Jews. That's exactly wrong. It's, what if the US was conquered and the Council of Foreign Relations started butchering Jews? That would be different. Even more would be - what if that happened, and there was no significant resistance to it in the US? No one did anything important to stop it? And neighboring, similarly conquered countries (like Denmark), _did_ manage to save their Jews, and did fight to stop it? That would be an accurate analogy. From that, I don't think it's unfair to draw a judgment, and my judgment is that, overall, the population of France at the time wasn't going to get too worked up over killing Jews. Did individual Frenchmen do something? Yes. But across the society this was a moral failure on a catastrophic scale. What this has to do with Iraq, I have no idea. Does anti-semitism play a role in French policy in the Middle East? Surely. More important is fear of unassimilated Arab immigrants in France - the strategy of Let's let millions of people in and then treat them like shit apparently not working out too well. But France's opposition to the war has been carried to a point where it seems clearly motivated largely by a desire to (secondarily) wound the US as much as possible and (primarily) break British influence in the EU to transform it into a Franco-German Co-Dominion. Neither of these is the act of a _friend_, to put it mildly. Or how would you feel if your friend threatened other friends of yours to prevent them from helping you out? That wasn't just Chirac snapping, that's clearly the policy of the French government. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And you criticizing someone for dropping names??? Next, will you be criticizing someone for defending their argument with their resume? Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have to admit, it didn't occur to me until afterwards that Father Rutler would count as dropping names - I'm not Catholic, and his presence in Catholic circles wasn't something I was really aware of. He's just a friend of mine to me. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
At 11:05 16-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: There's also the matter of French preservation of language and culture. It is a country where it can be illegal to use a foreign word in business. When computers first became widely available, phrases such as le software and le hardware came into use, but the French authorities stomped out that sort of thing *** Interesting to note that if these policies were carried out anywhere else in the world, we probably would have one word to describe them: racism. Apples and oranges. Language purism is something wildly different from racism. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
At 11:19 16-03-03 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: People are so... weird. Nah. All of us are normal, it's just you who's weird. :-) Jeroen Jokes'R'Us van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
At 12:37 16-03-03 -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Mais tu parles l'histoire Francais comme un imbecile arrogant, pour je parle francais aussi. It's been twenty years since my last French class, but somewhat to my surprise I had no problem translating that sentence to English. I could also tell that it is insulting... Gautam, please limit yourself to attacking the *arguments* you disagree with and refrain from attacking the *people* you disagree with. Insulting your opponents does not provide any positive contribution to the discussions whatsoever but only serves to disrupt this list. Thank you for your cooperation. Quote from the Etiquette Guidelines (full text available at www.brin-l.com ): Personal attacks, whether direct or indirect are not welcome. These should be handled off list, and if you disagree with some controversial point, direct the attack at the argument, not the person. Jeroen Architectus Websiticum van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:37 PM Subject: RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War) --- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vous parlez l'histoire Francais comme une vache de droite. Et si vous comprenez (sans assistance), peut-etre vous connaissez plue que je pense. (Which probably has some errors, but I don't get to practice much these days, despite almost a decade of studying French and France.) Nick Mais tu parles l'histoire Francais comme un imbecile arrogant, pour je parle francais aussi. I don't get to practice much either, but I can still read and write the stuff. Despite, in my case, _also_ almost a decade studying French and France. At least it took for one of us. May I make a suggestion that will probably be ignored. I'm betting both Nick and Gautam are accurately reflecting what they were taught. I'm guessing they were taught different things. I'd be interested in either a detailed examination of the proposition that the Vichie government was representative of the attitude of the French or that the Dryfuss affair was the work of a minority. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: May I make a suggestion that will probably be ignored. I'm betting both Nick and Gautam are accurately reflecting what they were taught. I'm guessing they were taught different things. I'd be interested in either a detailed examination of the proposition that the Vichie government was representative of the attitude of the French or that the Dryfuss affair was the work of a minority. Dan M. Dan - that sounds fine. I think the argument is simple: 1. Other countries in Western Europe managed to save a far higher proportion of their Jews 2. Other countries in Europe managed to run far more effective partisan Resistance campaigns 3. The _French_ Resistance was, from a military standpoint, neglible (see John Keegan's The Second World War, and any number of other books on the subject), probably the least significant of that of any occupied country. 4. The Vichy government had considerably more independence from German control than the governments of other occupied nations - in part because the Vichy portion of France was not, in fact, occupied until much later in the war. 5. Despite this fact, Jews in this part of France were shipped off to their deaths, not just without any protests on the part of the Vichy government, but with its active connivance. 6. After the war, instead of dealing with the realities of the extent of collaboration, France engaged in a purposeful glorification of the Resistance and a cover-up of the extent of Vichy complicity in the murder of France's Jews. This to the extent that Francois Mitterand, an official in the Vichy government (who later claimed to have worked with the Resistance, a claim that has recently been cast into some doubt) was elected President of France. The extent of the collaboration, however, was barely dealt with at all - see Coco Chanel, for example (a good reason to never buy your girlfriend Chanel No. 5, I guess). As far as I know, no one contests any of these facts. If the people of France did not, at least, look the other way at the murder of their Jews, then how come they didn't do something about it? We know that it _was possible_, because Denmark (and Bulgaria, interestingly enough) succeeded in saving them. It wasn't the extent of German repression - German rule was arguably less repressive in France than in any other Occupied Country. After the war, why didn't they make a real effort to expose what happened? Why did it have to wait 50 years? _Germany_ (admittedly, at gun point) has done a far better job of dealing with its record in the Second World War than France has. To be fair, Austria has done a far worse job. I would submit the reason was that the murder of Jews wasn't something that France was going to get all that upset about. This doesn't make it _alone_ in European history - it makes it one of the crowd. With the exception of Denmark (again), was there _any_ country in Europe that cared very much? The relevance of all of this to current events is not, as far as I can tell, terribly clear, except for the fact that opponents of the war seem to make the argument that we should not fight because France does not want us to. Proponents of liberating Iraq argue, fairly imo, that if that was our criterion, either Nazis or Communists would currently be ruling Europe. So that's not a terribly good argument. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dan Minette ... May I make a suggestion that will probably be ignored. I'm betting both Nick and Gautam are accurately reflecting what they were taught. I'm guessing they were taught different things. I'd be interested in either a detailed examination of the proposition that the Vichie government was representative of the attitude of the French or that the Dryfuss affair was the work of a minority. Perhaps it isn't clear that this is about context, not facts. Clearly, Gautam knows the facts. My objection is the failure to contextualize the Vichy government as a puppet of the Nazis, with policies that did not exist before or after. Its behavior should never be interpreted as representative of France. The words that sparked this were, The Vichy government could, at the least, have pretended to care about preserving the lives of its Jewish citizens, instead of shipping them off with enthusiasm, in a comparison of national behavior during WWII. Substitute an appropriate description and the sentence becomes almost oxymoronic: The Nazi puppet government could, at the least, have pretended to care about preserving the lives of its Jewish citizens, instead of shipping them off with enthusiasm. Who would expect Nazi puppets *not* to collaborate? Perhaps what Gautam meant to say was that The people of France could have fought harder against the Nazis and their puppet French government, which collaborated by shipping Jews off with enthusiasm. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps it isn't clear that this is about context, not facts. Clearly, Gautam knows the facts. My objection is the failure to contextualize the Vichy government as a puppet of the Nazis, with policies that did not exist before or after. Its behavior should never be interpreted as representative of France. The words that sparked this were, The Vichy government could, at the least, have pretended to care about preserving the lives of its Jewish citizens, instead of shipping them off with enthusiasm, in a comparison of national behavior during WWII. Substitute an appropriate description and the sentence becomes almost oxymoronic: The Nazi puppet government could, at the least, have pretended to care about preserving the lives of its Jewish citizens, instead of shipping them off with enthusiasm. Who would expect Nazi puppets *not* to collaborate? Perhaps what Gautam meant to say was that The people of France could have fought harder against the Nazis and their puppet French government, which collaborated by shipping Jews off with enthusiasm. Nick I would go so far as to say that the people of France could hardly have fought less hard. But the Vichy government, as I've pointed out several times, and as you've never even attempted to rebut, had a non-trivial degree of independence from Nazi control. They didn't just ship the Jews off - they seem to have done it without even batting an eye. _In Germany itself_ the Nazi government did not force _anyone_ to participate in the murder of Jews. Anyone who opted out was free to do so. Danny Goldhagen documented this extensively, but it's always been fairly clear. In Vichy France, which was not even under German occupation, there was (obviously) considerably more freedom to act. People did not do so. They did not even try. My comments were in fine context, and - despite all of your gratuitous insults - you have not even attempted to rebut their central context, which is that everyone in France, from Vichy to the average Jean Winebottle in Paris, had a choice to act differently, and they almost all failed. Italy was an Axis country - it did not participate in the same way. Bulgaria was an allied Axis power - it succeeded in saving almost all of its Jews. Denmark was a country under occupation, with an occupation government, and they managed it too. But France, where the German boot fell lightest - in France, things didn't go so well. The parable to the US you made was a poor one, but it is illuminating in one sense. If the US was under such occupation, what would happen? Well, I hope to God that if I wasn't dead, I'd be helping to smuggle Jews out of the country, and I'm confident that the rest of the population would do the same. If we failed to do so, and only America east of the Mississippi was occupied, but America west of the Mississippi was run by a government that, although under threat of enemy attack, was not, in fact, occupied, and America west of the Mississippi kept shipping its Jews off to death camps too - well then, I'd say that everyone save those who fought or died fighting was complicit in what happened. There was more than enough sin to go around. You seem reluctant to judge everyone but the American government (and conservatives in general, I guess - I'm not going to forget the fascist slander, implied though it might have been) but this is a situation that cries out for judgment. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda ... I would go so far as to say that the people of France could hardly have fought less hard. But the Vichy government, as I've pointed out several times, and as you've never even attempted to rebut, But I have. I pointed out that it only came into existence as a result of the defeat of France's army and the nation's surrender. I have pointed out that it was a puppet of the Nazis. Do you disagree? despite all of your gratuitous insults If I have insulted you, it was not intentional. Do you consider any correction of your statements to carry an implicit insult? - you have not even attempted to rebut their central context, which is that everyone in France, from Vichy to the average Jean Winebottle in Paris, had a choice to act differently, and they almost all failed. I strongly disagree and can't quite see why you wouldn't regard what I've written as an explicit rebuttal. Many in France helped to hide Jews and get them out of the country. I have even profiled one well-known such person. He could not remember anything that happened to him before he was about 11 years old; his first memory was being moved from house to house in France, ahead of the Nazis. His name then was Wolfgang Grajonca; the world knew him better as Bill Graham, concert promoter and one-time manager of the Rolling Stones (who cannot be managed, in Graham's words). In the rush to get him and other Jewish children away from the Nazis, he was separated from his sister and did not find her again for decades, quite a story of loss and reunion. Italy was an Axis country - it did not participate in the same way. Bulgaria was an allied Axis power - it succeeded in saving almost all of its Jews. I thought Bulgaria was the only other nation under occupation to have a puppet government openly collaborate in the manner of the Vichys. Is that not correct? more than enough sin to go around. You seem reluctant to judge everyone but the American government (and conservatives in general, I guess - I'm not going to forget the fascist slander, implied though it might have been) but this is a situation that cries out for judgment. What is this fascist slander you bring up? If I've said you are a fascist, it was far, far from intentional. At most, I think you carelessly lump large groups of people together in the worst possible light, as though the Vichys represent all French people, the peacenik extremists represent all those opposed to war, etc. If you see that as a step toward fascism, that's your interpretation, not mine. I wouldn't go there; it is a less-than=worthless slippery slope argument. I'm not the least bit reluctant to criticize the Nazis or their pals in the puppet government that Petain, etc., created after the nation surrendered. But I'm not going to equate them with the lawfully elected government of France before or after the Nazis, which you still seem willing to do. I'm not reluctant to criticize the Iraqi government, either. In fact, there's hardly anyone I'm hesitant to criticize, which is probably more of a character flaw than a strength, on balance. If there's anything I really want to criticize, it's the if you're not for us, then you're against us attitude that seems to pervade discussion (if it can be called that) of this war. I'm not talking about here on the list so much as on the international stage. It lumps together and marginalizes anyone who doesn't jump on the bandwagon. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 10:03 PM Subject: RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda ... I would go so far as to say that the people of France could hardly have fought less hard. But the Vichy government, as I've pointed out several times, and as you've never even attempted to rebut, But I have. I pointed out that it only came into existence as a result of the defeat of France's army and the nation's surrender. I have pointed out that it was a puppet of the Nazis. Do you disagree? But, why was the resistance less than in other occupied countires? - you have not even attempted to rebut their central context, which is that everyone in France, from Vichy to the average Jean Winebottle in Paris, had a choice to act differently, and they almost all failed. I strongly disagree and can't quite see why you wouldn't regard what I've written as an explicit rebuttal. Many in France helped to hide Jews and get them out of the country. Maybe some numbers would help. How many escaped from France with French help? Gautam claimed that the French record was much worse than other countries. Do you have numbers that indicate that the French did a heroic job fighting the actions of the Vichy goverment that was imposed on them, but that they were just overmanned. It would also help to give some numbers of non-Jewish Frechmen who were tortured, killed or imprisoned for protecting Jews. Italy was an Axis country - it did not participate in the same way. Bulgaria was an allied Axis power - it succeeded in saving almost all of its Jews. I thought Bulgaria was the only other nation under occupation to have a puppet government openly collaborate in the manner of the Vichys. Is that not correct? Gautam said that the German armies didn't even bother going into Vichy controlled territory. Do you dispute this? If not, they are unusual puppets who gained power without the help of the German army. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
Dan Minette wrote: Maybe some numbers would help. How many escaped from France with French help? Gautam claimed that the French record was much worse than other countries. Do you have numbers that indicate that the French did a heroic job fighting the actions of the Vichy goverment that was imposed on them, but that they were just overmanned. It would also help to give some numbers of non-Jewish Frechmen who were tortured, killed or imprisoned for protecting Jews. To be fair, shouldn't you be asking them both for a citation? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given your earlier misrepresentation of French gratitude about its liberation in WWII and now this comment, I'm wondering if you simply don't know much about France or you have some anti-French prejudice, or it is carelessness driven by your distaste for their position regarding Iraq... or what? In any event, I hope the clarifications are appreciated. Nick Since they seem to be made by someone who knows a _lot_ less of France's history than I do, no, not really. The Vichy government was a collaborationist government of France that ran southern France _without German occupation_ for much of the early war. German troops did not move into Vichy-controlled areas for at least a couple of years after 1940. German demands for the exportation of Jews were met with more alacrity in France than they were in _Italy_, an actual honest-to-God Axis power. There is no record of significant efforts to prevent the massacre of the Jews by the Vichy government, which had much more independence than dilettantes in French history realize, by the French Catholic Church, by the Resistance, or by anyone else of significance in French society. You might want to look up the Dreyfuss Affair for more information on how deeply anti-Semitism was set into the elites of French society. Zola (who wrote J'Accuse!) was driven into exile and, many people believe, murdered for his role in exposing this. Nor do I think I was misrepresenting anything about French gratitude - I don't think anything you say quite qualifies as demonstrating that I am misrepresenting anything. When a bestselling book in France is about how Americans were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, that rather says something about French society. When American tourists in France are told to identify themselves as Canadian to avoid trouble, that says something too. When France expelled American soldiers - another incident you might want to examine, and prompting the SecDef at the time to ask De Gaulle, in one of the great moments in American diplomatic history, Does that include the ones buried in Normandy?, that wasn't exactly an expression of gratitude either, come to think of it. I wonder if given your earlier arrogant sanctimoniousness on related topics you simply don't know much about France and world politics in general, or you have some need to preen in your own perceived superiority, or you're driven by your contempt for people from conservative positions, or what? I hope this clarification helps. Now, are we done? Do you want to at least pretend to be civil to me, and stop calling me a fascist or a bigot, and I'll stop calling you an arrogant prick and a fool, or does this have to continue? I don't want it too, but I'm not willing to put up with it in silence, either. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda ... Since they seem to be made by someone who knows a _lot_ less of France's history than I do, no, not really. The Vichy government was a collaborationist government of France that ran southern France _without German occupation_ for much of the early war. Hmmm. So, if the U.S. army were to be defeated, and some neo-Nazis in, say, Idaho, took control and began wiping out all the non-Aryans, would you say that they represented America, assuming that Idaho wasn't occupied at the time? I don't think so. But that's what you would have us believe happened in France. Apparently, you do know the history and you're just twisting it to suit your present purposes. Get real. The French army had been defeated. Are you suggesting their defeat had nothing to do with the Vichys being able to do what they did? Why didn't it happen sooner? Are you suggesting that the majority of French people supported them? Let's hear your version of how many did? If it's more than 20 percent, how about supplying some references? independence than dilettantes in French history Yeah. Very impressive. You have no idea what I know about France and its history, yet here comes another insult. Name-calling doesn't make you any more correct. realize, by the French Catholic Church, by the Resistance, or by anyone else of significance in French society. You might want to look up the Dreyfuss Affair for more information on how deeply anti-Semitism was set into the elites of French society. Zola (who wrote J'Accuse!) was driven into exile and, many people believe, murdered for his role in exposing this. I am quite familiar with the history of anti-Semitism in France. And you have vastly exaggerated it. No one, least of all me, is arguing that there hasn't been an anti-Semitic group in France, dating back to the very anti-Semitic pre-revolutionary government. But if nations are to be labeled by the actions of their minorities, we're all in trouble. Now, are we done? Do you want to at least pretend to be civil to me, and stop calling me a fascist or a bigot, Posturing yourself as a victim of name-calling doesn't make you any more correct, either. If you're feeling like I'm describing a fascist when I correct your misrepresentations, that's for you to figure out, but I haven't said anything like that. I've said that you've gotten some things about France quite wrong lately and I'm sticking to the issues, not your personality. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, are we done? Do you want to at least pretend to be civil to me, and stop calling me a fascist or a bigot, Posturing yourself as a victim of name-calling doesn't make you any more correct, either. If you're feeling like I'm describing a fascist when I correct your misrepresentations, that's for you to figure out, but I haven't said anything like that. I've said that you've gotten some things about France quite wrong lately and I'm sticking to the issues, not your personality. Nick 1. Your claims to know French history would be more convincing if you displayed _knowledge of_ French history and 2. Apparently not. I guess it was too much to ask. I had dinner with George Rutler a few days ago, and he mentioned to me the Biblical verse on seeing a mote in your neighbors eye but not the beam in your own. Sci-fi fans may know it from another context. Since you use Christianity constantly as a way to parade moral superiority over others, perhaps that will speak to you? Perhaps not. I'm done, though. I don't have the time or energy to waste on you. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
