During World War II, many Arabs supported the Nazis (against the Jews) and several prominent leaders escaped to Berlin to spend time with Hitler and the other Nazis (e.g. the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini).
Let's say Hitler had better supported Rommel's Afrika Korps such that Rommel was able to win the war in North Africa. Let's say the Nazis then invaded and conquered the Mideast.*
I take it the Nazis would have started to exterminate the Jews in the Mideast. I take it the Arabs would've supported the Nazis since they would've shared a common hatred for the Jews.
But after the Jews were dead, what would be next? Arabs are non-Aryans. As such, wouldn't Hitler and the Nazis have considered the Arabs inferior? If so, then, at best, the Arabs would've been treated as second class citizens if the Nazis had won in the Mideast. So why such support among Arabs for the Nazis then and (it frequently appears) now? The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
By the way, if the Nazis had treated the Arabs as second class citizens, it would've been ironic given most Arabs are Muslim and sharia law sanctions the treatment of non-Muslims as second class citizens.
* As I understand it, this was a viable option at the time. It's arguable Hitler could have won the entire war if he had invaded the Mideast in lieu of invading Russia or at least prior to invading Russia.
For one thing, the British received something like 80% of their total oil supply from their Mideast colonies. If the Germans took over these lands, then they would've cut off the vast majority of the British oil supply and effectively caused the British military to grind to a halt.
For another thing, it almost certainly wouldn't have taken the 4 million German soldiers it took Hitler to invade Russia. Hitler could have arguably conquered North Africa and the Mideast with a quarter of that amount if not less. Not only would he have committed far less troops which could've been used elsewhere and for other purposes, but he arguably would've sustained a lot less losses in a North Africa/Mideast campaign than what he lost on the Eastern Front against Russia. Four out every five German soldiers killed in the whole of the Second World War were killed by the Russians. The German military was bled dry by the Russians.
Hitler could've then invaded Russia from the Mideast. If successful, which he arguably would've have been, Hitler would've achieved two key objectives: cutting Russia off from oil for use by the Soviet military and given the Nazi Wehrmacht access to Stalin's vast and rich oil fields in the Caucasus. In fact, this was a large reason why Hitler pushed so much to win the Battle of Stalingrad, which he eventually lost.
By the way, it's staggering to think the Germans lost approximately 850,000 soldiers in a single battle, the Battle of Stalingrad, and the Russians over 1.1 million, whereas the US and the UK lost approximately 900,000 combined in the entire Second World War. Of course, this shouldn't be taken to imply the US and UK did far less "work" in winning WWII than the Russians did, like so many World War II historians appear to think these days. For instance, Russia never had to supply the US or UK like the US and UK supplied Russia throughout the war. Russia never fought a multiple front war like the UK and particularly the US did. In fact, the US did the bulk of the fighting which contributed to the Japanese loss. And it probably speaks well of the strategic and tactical savvy of the US and UK in contrast to Russia and/or poorly of the strategic and tactical savvy of the Russians in contrast to the US and UK.
(Although arguably the best Allied general of the entire war was not Patton or Monty or Eisenhower, but William Slim in Burma and India. It's arguable the fighting in Burma kept the Japanese from conquering China. However the Pacific War was more renowned for its naval engagements and Chester Nimitz probably takes the cake as the best admiral among all forces. It's arguable Nimitz's plan to bypass the Philippines and take Taiwan was better from a strategic perspective than MacArthur's plan to invade the Philippines. For better or for worse, we went with MacArthur's plan. Georgy Zhukov was arguably the best general out of all the generals in World War II. Ahead of Patton, Monty, Rommel, Guderian, von Manstein. But Zhukov was ruthless and brutal too.)
Of course, Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 because he placed Nazi ideology ahead of military strategy. He considered Germans a superior Aryan race (e.g. he made ridiculous comments like German soldiers were far more physically durable than Russians and therefore didn't need to wear heavy winter clothing for the Russian winter which in many places where the Germans fought would've lower than -100 degrees Fahrenheit with wind chill factor). He hated the Jews most of all but only hated the Slavs and Bolsheviks slightly less. He wanted lebensraum or living space for his Aryan race. I should add, from what I've read, Hitler considered the British "Aryan cousins" and so felt war with them was unfortunate. He would've preferred the UK sit out of the war. Of course, this doesn't exonerate Hitler in the slightest. But if true I think it would explain at least in part Hitler's appallingly bad grasp of military strategy (e.g. the miracle of Dunkirk). His racist ideology helped bring him to power, but it also contributed to his downfall.
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Thursday, January 19, 2012
No place to call home
Just a few thoughts on Israel and the Palestinians:
- On the one hand, many liberals argue we should grant U.S. citizenship to thousands if not millions of illegal immigrants. They argue it's a moral or ethical issue.
On the other hand, many of these same liberals apparently don't expect Arab countries to do the same for (Palestinian) refugees in their nations.
Why the inconsistency? Do we have different moral or ethical standards between nations?
- It's true illegal immigrants aren't necessarily refugees. But in that case shouldn't a nation have more compassion for refugees than for illegal immigrants?
- At least as I understand it, many of these same liberals likewise demand Israel grant citizenship to Palestinians in Israel. But why should a nation, Israel, grant citizenship to refugees while other nations are exempted from doing so (e.g. Jordan, Lebanon, Syria)?
- In fact, again as I understand it, the Palestinian National Authority (PA) doesn't even recognize their own people as citizens (e.g. the refugees in Balata). I don't detect a strong moral outcry among these liberals for the PA to do so either. So why should Israel?
- If the PA started to recognize Palestinian refugees as citizens, then they would have to accept the fact that these Palestinians are no longer refugees. And the PA as well as many others including the rest of the Arab Muslim world can't have that. That would ruin everything.
White flight
Many whites subscribe to the right of return for the purported Palestinian "people" (PPP).
In the last century, many whites were indirectly or directly pressured to leave urban areas for suburbia as well as elsewhere. This phenomenon was known as "white flight." Just as the PPP had to flee their lands and properties due to war and other factors, these whites had to do the same in the face of "war" and other factors as well. Sure, this latter meaning of war isn't necessarily identical to the former meaning of war. But the Cold War wasn't identical to World War II. Nevertheless both were very real wars.
It's possible there are now thousands if not millions of descendants of whites who are unaware of their status as internally displaced persons. But as internally displaced persons, these whites should realize they have been historically dispossessed of their lands and properties. They should realize it was land which rightfully belonged to their parents, grandparents, and so on.
Hence, I think it'd be a good idea to form an organization to address this terrible and terribly overlooked travesty. It certainly doesn't receive enough attention in the public eye. I recommend we call it the White Liberation Organization (WLO).
We should support whites who wish to exercise their Right of Return to their ancestral lands, to these urban areas.
Furthermore, we should put pressure on the minorities and their descendants who dispossessed the whites of their lands to move out.
Sure, we might pretend to accept compromise for the time being, but our end game is to reclaim these urban areas in their totality for dispossessed whites. In the meantime we should advocate a two city solution or a multiple city solution in mixed minority areas. One city for whites, one city for African Americans, one city for Hispanic Americans, one city for Asian Americans, and so forth.
And we should lobby to receive greater recognition from the United Urbanites' General Assembly including those urbanites who were themselves unaffected by white flight.
But let's keep in mind we want nothing less than all urban lands and properties in the hands of dispossessed whites as well as the expulsion of those minorities and their descendants who pushed out whites. This must be the final solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Thursday, January 19, 2012
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
During World War II, many Arabs supported the Nazis (against the Jews) and several prominent leaders escaped to Berlin to spend time with Hitler and the other Nazis (e.g. the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini).
Let's say Hitler had better supported Rommel's Afrika Korps such that Rommel was able to win the war in North Africa. Let's say the Nazis then invaded and conquered the Mideast.*
I take it the Nazis would have started to exterminate the Jews in the Mideast. I take it the Arabs would've supported the Nazis since they would've shared a common hatred for the Jews.
But after the Jews were dead, what would be next? Arabs are non-Aryans. As such, wouldn't Hitler and the Nazis have considered the Arabs inferior? If so, then, at best, the Arabs would've been treated as second class citizens if the Nazis had won in the Mideast. So why such support among Arabs for the Nazis then and (it frequently appears) now? The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
By the way, if the Nazis had treated the Arabs as second class citizens, it would've been ironic given most Arabs are Muslim and sharia law sanctions the treatment of non-Muslims as second class citizens.
* As I understand it, this was a viable option at the time. It's arguable Hitler could have won the entire war if he had invaded the Mideast in lieu of invading Russia or at least prior to invading Russia.
For one thing, the British received something like 80% of their total oil supply from their Mideast colonies. If the Germans took over these lands, then they would've cut off the vast majority of the British oil supply and effectively caused the British military to grind to a halt.
For another thing, it almost certainly wouldn't have taken the 4 million German soldiers it took Hitler to invade Russia. Hitler could have arguably conquered North Africa and the Mideast with a quarter of that amount if not less. Not only would he have committed far less troops which could've been used elsewhere and for other purposes, but he arguably would've sustained a lot less losses in a North Africa/Mideast campaign than what he lost on the Eastern Front against Russia. Four out every five German soldiers killed in the whole of the Second World War were killed by the Russians. The German military was bled dry by the Russians.
Hitler could've then invaded Russia from the Mideast. If successful, which he arguably would've have been, Hitler would've achieved two key objectives: cutting Russia off from oil for use by the Soviet military and given the Nazi Wehrmacht access to Stalin's vast and rich oil fields in the Caucasus. In fact, this was a large reason why Hitler pushed so much to win the Battle of Stalingrad, which he eventually lost.
By the way, it's staggering to think the Germans lost approximately 850,000 soldiers in a single battle, the Battle of Stalingrad, and the Russians over 1.1 million, whereas the US and the UK lost approximately 900,000 combined in the entire Second World War. Of course, this shouldn't be taken to imply the US and UK did far less "work" in winning WWII than the Russians did, like so many World War II historians appear to think these days. For instance, Russia never had to supply the US or UK like the US and UK supplied Russia throughout the war. Russia never fought a multiple front war like the UK and particularly the US did. In fact, the US did the bulk of the fighting which contributed to the Japanese loss. And it probably speaks well of the strategic and tactical savvy of the US and UK in contrast to Russia and/or poorly of the strategic and tactical savvy of the Russians in contrast to the US and UK.
(Although arguably the best Allied general of the entire war was not Patton or Monty or Eisenhower, but William Slim in Burma and India. It's arguable the fighting in Burma kept the Japanese from conquering China. However the Pacific War was more renowned for its naval engagements and Chester Nimitz probably takes the cake as the best admiral among all forces. It's arguable Nimitz's plan to bypass the Philippines and take Taiwan was better from a strategic perspective than MacArthur's plan to invade the Philippines. For better or for worse, we went with MacArthur's plan. Georgy Zhukov was arguably the best general out of all the generals in World War II. Ahead of Patton, Monty, Rommel, Guderian, von Manstein. But Zhukov was ruthless and brutal too.)
Of course, Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 because he placed Nazi ideology ahead of military strategy. He considered Germans a superior Aryan race (e.g. he made ridiculous comments like German soldiers were far more physically durable than Russians and therefore didn't need to wear heavy winter clothing for the Russian winter which in many places where the Germans fought would've lower than -100 degrees Fahrenheit with wind chill factor). He hated the Jews most of all but only hated the Slavs and Bolsheviks slightly less. He wanted lebensraum or living space for his Aryan race. I should add, from what I've read, Hitler considered the British "Aryan cousins" and so felt war with them was unfortunate. He would've preferred the UK sit out of the war. Of course, this doesn't exonerate Hitler in the slightest. But if true I think it would explain at least in part Hitler's appallingly bad grasp of military strategy (e.g. the miracle of Dunkirk). His racist ideology helped bring him to power, but it also contributed to his downfall.
Let's say Hitler had better supported Rommel's Afrika Korps such that Rommel was able to win the war in North Africa. Let's say the Nazis then invaded and conquered the Mideast.*
I take it the Nazis would have started to exterminate the Jews in the Mideast. I take it the Arabs would've supported the Nazis since they would've shared a common hatred for the Jews.
But after the Jews were dead, what would be next? Arabs are non-Aryans. As such, wouldn't Hitler and the Nazis have considered the Arabs inferior? If so, then, at best, the Arabs would've been treated as second class citizens if the Nazis had won in the Mideast. So why such support among Arabs for the Nazis then and (it frequently appears) now? The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
By the way, if the Nazis had treated the Arabs as second class citizens, it would've been ironic given most Arabs are Muslim and sharia law sanctions the treatment of non-Muslims as second class citizens.
* As I understand it, this was a viable option at the time. It's arguable Hitler could have won the entire war if he had invaded the Mideast in lieu of invading Russia or at least prior to invading Russia.
For one thing, the British received something like 80% of their total oil supply from their Mideast colonies. If the Germans took over these lands, then they would've cut off the vast majority of the British oil supply and effectively caused the British military to grind to a halt.
For another thing, it almost certainly wouldn't have taken the 4 million German soldiers it took Hitler to invade Russia. Hitler could have arguably conquered North Africa and the Mideast with a quarter of that amount if not less. Not only would he have committed far less troops which could've been used elsewhere and for other purposes, but he arguably would've sustained a lot less losses in a North Africa/Mideast campaign than what he lost on the Eastern Front against Russia. Four out every five German soldiers killed in the whole of the Second World War were killed by the Russians. The German military was bled dry by the Russians.
Hitler could've then invaded Russia from the Mideast. If successful, which he arguably would've have been, Hitler would've achieved two key objectives: cutting Russia off from oil for use by the Soviet military and given the Nazi Wehrmacht access to Stalin's vast and rich oil fields in the Caucasus. In fact, this was a large reason why Hitler pushed so much to win the Battle of Stalingrad, which he eventually lost.
By the way, it's staggering to think the Germans lost approximately 850,000 soldiers in a single battle, the Battle of Stalingrad, and the Russians over 1.1 million, whereas the US and the UK lost approximately 900,000 combined in the entire Second World War. Of course, this shouldn't be taken to imply the US and UK did far less "work" in winning WWII than the Russians did, like so many World War II historians appear to think these days. For instance, Russia never had to supply the US or UK like the US and UK supplied Russia throughout the war. Russia never fought a multiple front war like the UK and particularly the US did. In fact, the US did the bulk of the fighting which contributed to the Japanese loss. And it probably speaks well of the strategic and tactical savvy of the US and UK in contrast to Russia and/or poorly of the strategic and tactical savvy of the Russians in contrast to the US and UK.
(Although arguably the best Allied general of the entire war was not Patton or Monty or Eisenhower, but William Slim in Burma and India. It's arguable the fighting in Burma kept the Japanese from conquering China. However the Pacific War was more renowned for its naval engagements and Chester Nimitz probably takes the cake as the best admiral among all forces. It's arguable Nimitz's plan to bypass the Philippines and take Taiwan was better from a strategic perspective than MacArthur's plan to invade the Philippines. For better or for worse, we went with MacArthur's plan. Georgy Zhukov was arguably the best general out of all the generals in World War II. Ahead of Patton, Monty, Rommel, Guderian, von Manstein. But Zhukov was ruthless and brutal too.)
Of course, Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 because he placed Nazi ideology ahead of military strategy. He considered Germans a superior Aryan race (e.g. he made ridiculous comments like German soldiers were far more physically durable than Russians and therefore didn't need to wear heavy winter clothing for the Russian winter which in many places where the Germans fought would've lower than -100 degrees Fahrenheit with wind chill factor). He hated the Jews most of all but only hated the Slavs and Bolsheviks slightly less. He wanted lebensraum or living space for his Aryan race. I should add, from what I've read, Hitler considered the British "Aryan cousins" and so felt war with them was unfortunate. He would've preferred the UK sit out of the war. Of course, this doesn't exonerate Hitler in the slightest. But if true I think it would explain at least in part Hitler's appallingly bad grasp of military strategy (e.g. the miracle of Dunkirk). His racist ideology helped bring him to power, but it also contributed to his downfall.
No place to call home
Just a few thoughts on Israel and the Palestinians:
- On the one hand, many liberals argue we should grant U.S. citizenship to thousands if not millions of illegal immigrants. They argue it's a moral or ethical issue.
On the other hand, many of these same liberals apparently don't expect Arab countries to do the same for (Palestinian) refugees in their nations.
Why the inconsistency? Do we have different moral or ethical standards between nations?
- It's true illegal immigrants aren't necessarily refugees. But in that case shouldn't a nation have more compassion for refugees than for illegal immigrants?
- At least as I understand it, many of these same liberals likewise demand Israel grant citizenship to Palestinians in Israel. But why should a nation, Israel, grant citizenship to refugees while other nations are exempted from doing so (e.g. Jordan, Lebanon, Syria)?
- In fact, again as I understand it, the Palestinian National Authority (PA) doesn't even recognize their own people as citizens (e.g. the refugees in Balata). I don't detect a strong moral outcry among these liberals for the PA to do so either. So why should Israel?
- If the PA started to recognize Palestinian refugees as citizens, then they would have to accept the fact that these Palestinians are no longer refugees. And the PA as well as many others including the rest of the Arab Muslim world can't have that. That would ruin everything.
White flight
Many whites subscribe to the right of return for the purported Palestinian "people" (PPP).
In the last century, many whites were indirectly or directly pressured to leave urban areas for suburbia as well as elsewhere. This phenomenon was known as "white flight." Just as the PPP had to flee their lands and properties due to war and other factors, these whites had to do the same in the face of "war" and other factors as well. Sure, this latter meaning of war isn't necessarily identical to the former meaning of war. But the Cold War wasn't identical to World War II. Nevertheless both were very real wars.
It's possible there are now thousands if not millions of descendants of whites who are unaware of their status as internally displaced persons. But as internally displaced persons, these whites should realize they have been historically dispossessed of their lands and properties. They should realize it was land which rightfully belonged to their parents, grandparents, and so on.
Hence, I think it'd be a good idea to form an organization to address this terrible and terribly overlooked travesty. It certainly doesn't receive enough attention in the public eye. I recommend we call it the White Liberation Organization (WLO).
We should support whites who wish to exercise their Right of Return to their ancestral lands, to these urban areas.
Furthermore, we should put pressure on the minorities and their descendants who dispossessed the whites of their lands to move out.
Sure, we might pretend to accept compromise for the time being, but our end game is to reclaim these urban areas in their totality for dispossessed whites. In the meantime we should advocate a two city solution or a multiple city solution in mixed minority areas. One city for whites, one city for African Americans, one city for Hispanic Americans, one city for Asian Americans, and so forth.
And we should lobby to receive greater recognition from the United Urbanites' General Assembly including those urbanites who were themselves unaffected by white flight.
But let's keep in mind we want nothing less than all urban lands and properties in the hands of dispossessed whites as well as the expulsion of those minorities and their descendants who pushed out whites. This must be the final solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)