This Came From an Editorial in a German Publication????

[Everose]

[QUOTE=Busyman]Vintage j2. Nary an original thought so you use a German (translator's?) words?



Maybe I am misunderstanding your meaning here, Busyman. Are you saying that J2 never has original thoughts and always uses other peoples words?

[BigBank_Hank]

I don't think that his statement is as idiotic as yours, yours is just more of the tedious insult the poster rather than make any attempt at a coherent comment that goes on around here. The Soviets played a huge role in the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany, some would argue that the defeat of the 6th army at Stalingrad was the turning point of WWII.

I tend to side with Vidcc myself that the war was one by a group effort. Without american aid Moscow would have fallen, without Soviet/Britian remaining free of Nazi oppression america would have never dared step foot in Europe.

Yeah ok.

It was the Russian and not the 101st Airborne who broke the back of the Nazi’s attempt to push back the front in the battle of the bulge. And it was probably the Russian navy who also broke the back of the Japanese navy in Midway and Coral Sea. The Russians took Berlin because we let them take it.

[Cheese]

Yeah ok.

It was the Russian and not the 101st Airborne who broke the back of the Nazi’s attempt to push back the front in the battle of the bulge. And it was probably the Russian navy who also broke the back of the Japanese navy in Midway and Coral Sea. The Russians took Berlin because we let them take it.

Did you even read my post? I find it's helpful to read people's post that I'm quoting myself.

I declared in the latter part of my post that I believed that the war was won by the combined effort of the Allies, not one country by itself.

Please keep up or shut up. Either's good for me.

[BigBank_Hank]

You made a comment and I responded the only difference is I did so without insulting you.

[manker]

You made a comment and I responded the only difference is I did so without insulting you.

With probably the most condescending post of the year.

I'd say that's pretty offensive.

[ilw]

did a quick google search and found an actual translation of the german text.

A few days ago Henryk M. Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe -- your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore 300,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, to issue bad grades to George Bush. A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by suggesting that we should really have a Muslim holiday in Germany.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians and directed against our free, open Western societies. It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than the great military conflicts of the last century -- a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but only spurred on by such gestures, which will be mistaken for signs of weakness.

Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Reagan ended the Cold War and Bush, supported only by the social democrat Blair acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic fight against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrary-we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to the intolerant, as world champions in tolerance, which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy-because everything is at stake.

While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in American know their priorities, we timidly defend our social welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive. We'd rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage. Or listen to TV pastors preach about "reaching out to murderers." These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with shaking hands when she notices a robber has broken into a neighbor's house. Europe, thy name is cowardice.

Personally i think that Russia was hugely important in winning the war, obviously not the war in the pacific, but the fight against Nazi Germany. I don't know how you would measure importance in winning a war, is it in terms of number of enemy killed or amount of materiel used by you or against you, because russia would probably win in those terms, and perhaps even britain would rank higher than america. The simplest thing to say is that the allies combined were enough, if any one hadn't been there it all might have gone differently (except the french :-" )
@BBH i think its a bit late to be taking the moral high ground when you just insulted mogadishu

[Everose]

With probably the most condescending post of the year.

I'd say that's pretty offensive.

Is sarcasm condescending, Manker? Dang. I better watch it.

[manker]

Is sarcasm condescending, Manker? Dang. I better watch it.

Oh definitely

The above example wasn't proper sarcasm tho' as it wasn't particularly witty or ironic.

[Biggles]

The man is most definitely on the economic right of European poltical thinking.

Regardless of his meanderings on our moral compass, with regards international affairs, he clearly has a problem with EU social and welfare programmes and the general economic direction overall. A Christian Democrat leaning pretty much to the right of his party I would say.

Europe does have right wing parties some of them pretty scary - fortunately none in power as such. There was a Nazi rally in Dresden the other day with 5000 neo-Nazis on the march.

Although the piece alludes to the moral justness of deposing Hitler and the old Soviet Order it nevertheless simply creates a new bogeyman - the Muslim. The same thinking just dressed in a currently acceptable target?

Curiously, many in old East Germany are nostalgic for the Ostie days (those Commies must have really brutalised them ) The Soviet Bloc was a dead hand of bureacracy and things had to change but their evilness post Stalin was a tad overplayed in my view. Incidently, despite the old "you'd be talking Russian now" mentality none of these former bloc countries stopped doing business in their own tongues.

Hank - The Russians were essential to WW2. Without their heroics (and they really did display enormous grit) the D-Day landings would not have been possible. A great proportion of the Wermacht died on the Eastern front. By 1945 we were not so much racing to defeat Germany but to ensure the Russians did not get to Berlin first (although they did).

The question is, would the world really be a better place if Europe returned to the gun and started marching to impose order on the world? I would humbly suggest you don't want that. If the 20th century shows anything it is that when Europe starts shooting it forgets to stop. The Liberal consensus we have adopted may be alien to Islam and, it would seem, to right wing conservatives but it has given us peace and prosperity and the opportunity to enjoy our eccentricities without slaughtering each other wholesale.

Islam is not a threat - some towns and cities have significant numbers of immigrants but the population of Europe as a whole is predominately white European - in the case of Scotland 99.3% white European. There has been some rather ridiculous stories about the Islamification of Europe (who or where these have come from I have no idea). This is nonsense. We do have Muslims and we do try to be tolerant but I personally do not think Europe is particularly multi-cultural. I fear it would not take much of an attempt to try and Islamify Europe to generate some pretty unpleasant things. (1930s deja vu).

In summary, I do not understand his accusation of cowardice. In order to be a coward one must display a fear of something. Fear is not a current European pre-occupation. If his argument is that we are not pouring money into fruitless wars due to some sort of economic cowardice how can he explain our economic risk-taking in Kyoto? Whereas the US has been troubled by the economic consequences of Kyoto.

Apologies, this response has grown legs and walked a tad.

On the plus side - it does at least show that arguments that might seem not to get the light of day in Europe do exist - albeit they are not perhaps mainstream.

[BigBank_Hank]

@BBH i think its a bit late to be taking the moral high ground when you just insulted mogadishu

And @ Manker

I’m not trying to take the high ground on this one I’m trying to show Cheese just how much of a hypocrite he is. Here is an example:

I don't think that his statement is as idiotic as yours, yours is just more of the tedious insult the poster rather than make any attempt at a coherent comment that goes on around here

Please keep up or shut up. Either's good for me.

He did the exact thing the he came out and criticized me for.