« The Role of France and Germany in Iraq | Main | Convinced of American "Conformism" »

Comments

Gabi, I am not excusing Schwarzer. As I said, I consider the analogy tasteless. Tasteless, because Auschwitz is, for her, a rhetorical trick. Using Auschwitz to make a political (or feminist) point is what I find unacceptable. I don't believe Schwarzer thinks they're the same, but her rhetoric runs away from her.

Another example: you've probably seen the Bush=Hitler signs or moveon.org ads. On the one hand, it's hard to think that these people actually believe in this analogy. On the other hand, the analogy is too seductive for them not to use it. It catches people's attention, it fits nice on a sign, and it makes them look intelligent.:-)

Ich habe niemals gesagt, dass diese schrecklichen Attentate veruebt werden, "WEIL SHARON AUF DEM TEMPELBERG WAR." Alles, was ich geagt habe, ist, dass dieser Besuch eine (bewusste oder unbewusste) Provokation darstellte, die von den palaestinensischen Extremisten/Terroristen (however you want to label them) zum ANLASS genommen wurde, diesen Teufelskreis von Gewalt (erneut) zu beginnen. Sharons Fehler bestand also darin, einen solchen Anlass zu bieten und eine Eskalation der Gewalt zu provozieren. Wie in jedem anderen Konflikt, so gibt es auch hier einen ANLASS und einen oder mehrere GRUENDE fuer das Ausbrechen der Gewalt. ANLASS und GRUENDE stimmen selten ueberein, haben aber miteinander zu tun. Ich wuerde also niemals behaupten: "Töten, weil Sharon auf den Tempelberg ging." Sondern eher so etwas wie: "Sharons Besuch des Tempelbergs loeste eine toedliche Welle der Gewalt aus." Oder auch: "Sharons Besuch des Tempelbergs gab den Terroristen den noetigen Vorwand fuer Ihre Anschlaege."

Gabi, "man tötet keine Menschen mit Bomben." Da stimme ich Ihnen voll zu. Und das gilt so bedingungslos fuer jeden Menschen in jedem Teil dieser Welt. Natuerlich gibt es keine Rechtfertigung fuer Selbstmordattentate, und natuerlich muss damit endlich Schluss sein. Aber ich bin nicht so naiv zu glauben, dass dieser Konflikt geloest ist, so bald keine Attentate mehr veruebt werden. Um ehrlich zu sein, habe ich ueberhaupt keine Vorstellung, wie dieser Konflikt jemals geloest werden kann. Und, Gabi, ich waere ernsthaft interessiert, wie eine REALISTISCHE Roadmap in Ihren Augen aussehem muesste, damit diese Region endlich Frieden findet. Sie scheinen sich sehr intensiv mit diesem Thema zu befassen, und ich hoffe, Sie haben ein paar Vorschlaege, die ueber das Niveau "Araber sind Luegner und Betrueger und muessen daher aus Palaestina verschwinden" hinausgehen.

Ceterum censeo Islam esse delendam.

Cato the Elder, that's not the smartest thing you've ever suggested. But I can comfort you:

Beati pauperes spiritu.

jo, we are not at war with a "tiny minority of extremists" or with people who have "hijacked the peaceful religion of Islam for their own evil purposes" or any of the other cant phrases that the PC media want us to believe. We are at war with the Islamic world. Europe and in particular France are beginning to find out what that means. Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that "cultural dialog" and "mutual respect and understanding" will suffice to avoid the war (of which Afghanistan and Iraq are nothing but the first small skirmishes - this war will likely last for the next 25 years and I do not expect to live to see it concluded!) will not avail us.

Note that in my Latin tag I am not saying "kill all the Moslems." But I most certainly am saying that Islam as an expansionist political ideology must be crushed. And it will be. Either that, or it will continue to try and take over the world.

Do you want your children to live under Sharia law?

Wieso ist ein Attentat der Beginn eines Teufelskreises der Gewalt, Jo?

"ich hoffe, Sie haben ein paar Vorschlaege, die ueber das Niveau "Araber sind Luegner und Betrueger und muessen daher aus Palaestina verschwinden" hinausgehen"

Wollen Sie damit sagen, meine Argumentation sei auf diesem Niveau?

@Gabi
"Wieso ist ein Attentat der Beginn eines Teufelskreises der Gewalt"

Weil es in der Regel mit Vergeltungsschlaegen seitens der israelischen Armee beantwortet wird, was dann wieder zu neuen Selbstmordattentaten fuehrt usw. Aber ich hatte eigentlich mal ein bisschen Klartext von Ihnen erwartet und keine Gegenfrage. Wie wuerden Sie diesen Konflikt loesen?

Gabi,
"Wollen Sie damit sagen, meine Argumentation sei auf diesem Niveau?"

ich denke da z.B. an jenen Text, den ich seinerzeit als Pamphlet bezeichnete und Sie mich fragten, was ich mit Pamphlet meine.

Cato the Elder,
"Do you want your children to live under Sharia law?"

Of course not. But this "Clash of civilizations" is a myth. How is the Islam a more "expansionist political ideology" than, say, Christianity?

Retract all settlers from Gaza and West Bank. Nuke the shit out of that territories. Drop a Daisy Cutter on the Al-Aqsa Mosque. While we're at it, raze Mecca and Medina. That'll solve 99% of the world's most urgent problems.

Islam in 2004 is an expansionist political ideology much as Christianity used to be in the Dark Ages. Since then all major congregations except Islam have accomodated to the fact that in some societies they are a minority. Islam does not know the concept of minority. Islam demands dominance.

Wow, Kufr, you're so reasonable, so civilized, and so different from an Islamic terrorist who wants to nuke NYC and D.C. to solve 99% of the world's problems. Congratulations!

I haven't met any muslim who tried to "dominate" me. Have you? Has anyone dragged you to a mosque yet? Any experience like that? I did have muslim neighbors before I moved to the States. They didn't bother me at all - unlike the Chritians from upstairs...

"Islam demands dominance"? Where is your proof?

You haven't met any Muslim who explained to you that Islam is a dominant religion? Obviously, you haven't visited a Mosque, either. BTW, your reason and civility won't save your ass when the next plane crashes into your office building.

My reason and civility won't save me from the Ted Kaczynskis and Timothy McVeighs of this world either. Do want to bomb the whole world?

jo, Christianity sends out missionaries. Islam sends out suicide bombers. There seems to be a slight difference in the way each one tries to propagate the faith.

Now I suppose you'll reply with something like, "What about the Crusades, the Inquisition, the forcible conversion of Native Americans, etc." But that was then, this is now. Islam is the aggressor today. The Clash of Civilizations is real. From Spain to France, from Belgium to Denmark, from New York to Ingushetia, from Thailand to the Philippines, the Moslems seem to have trouble getting along with their neighbors. Why is this? Because of the "injustice" in "Palestine"? Bleh. The Palestinians are nothing but a convenient excuse.

Islam is what Christianity was in the bad old days - violent, expansionist, exclusivist, fundamentalist, militaristic.

Mal eine geschicthliche Analogie: Warum gibt es heute keine Flüchtlingslager voll mit "Beute-Deutschen" - Ostpreußen, Schlesiern usw.? Warum hocken sie nicht in der Misere, arm, verbittert, gewaltbereit?

Weil sie binnen zwei Generationen in Rest-Deutschland aufgenommen, integriert, akzeptiert und assimiliert wurden. Sie haben sich mal klar gemacht, dass sie trotz aller "Schlesien bleibt unser"-Rufe niemals ihre verlorenen Ländereien wieder erlangen würden.

Und was ist mit den "Palästinensern"? Sie werden seit Generationen von UNWRA und ihren "arabischen Brüdern" bewußt als permanente "Flüchtlinge" behandelt. Das ist etwas einmaliges in der Menschengeschichte. Warum? Weil sie als Spielball der Anti-Zionisten und Israel-Hasser mehr bringen, als wenn sie von ihren "Brüdern" aufgenommen und integriert würden.

Des Palästinensers schlimmste Feinde sind die anderen Araber.

Sorry, jo, die letzte Post (über Flüchtlinge usw.) war von mir. Entschuldigt die unbewußte Anonymität...!

Timothy McVeigh was sentenced to death. It's only fair if we treat terrorists and their supporting states the same way.

You want proof that Islamd demands dominance? Piece of cake.

How many Mosques are there in the Western World, for instance in the United States? How many Christian Churches are there in the Arab World, e.g. in Saudi-Arabia? How many Mosques are built in the Western World every year, e.g. in France? How many Christian Churches are built in the Arab World every year, e.g. in Egypt? QED.

"Islam sends out suicide bombers"
Aren't generalizing a little bit? Nowhere in the Koran does it say that anyone is supposed to do that. And my muslim neighbors back home in Germany did get along with me and the other neighbors.

And about your East-Prussia comparison:
a) We started a world war for god's sake!
b) After almost 60 years (!), there are still people ("Heimatvertriebene") who want to get "their" land back (or money or whatever). In fact, Edmund Stoiber tried to blackmail the Czech Republic on their behalf.

And because Edmund Stoiber holds such a grudge against the Czech Republic he's secretly building Uranium enrichment centrifuges deep down in the vast dungeons of his Staatskanzlei. You're supplying your own counter-arguments, jo. Gawd, I hate it when the peaceniks fall over their own feet.

"Islam sends out suicide bombers"
Aren't generalizing a little bit? Nowhere in the Koran does it say that anyone is supposed to do that. And my muslim neighbors back home in Germany did get along with me and the other neighbors.

And about your East-Prussia comparison:
a) We started a world war for god's sake!
b) After almost 60 years (!), there are still people ("Heimatvertriebene") who want to get "their" land back (or money or whatever). In fact, Edmund Stoiber tried to blackmail the Czech Republic on their behalf.

jo, if you refuse to see the worldwide phenomenon of radical, violent Islam for what it is, then obviously nothing I can say will open your eyes. I'm glad you got along with your Moslem neighbors in Germany. May it always be so. Unfortunately I don't think things will be quite so rosy in 30 to 50 years when the demographics begin to tip and we see the emergence of "Eurabia." Somehow I doubt they'll be as tolerant to us then as we're expected to be to them now.

How many churches are there in Saudi Arabia? Hmm? But the West is expected to tolerate mosques popping up on every corner, preferably with government subsidies. You don't see anything out of balance in this picture?

As for my East Prussian analogy, yes, there are still some diehard irredentists. They are not living in permanent camps under UN sponsorship and launching attacks against Prague. See the difference?

The Palestinians are history's losers. They will never get "their land" back. Get used to it.

sorry about that, network problems

Kufr,
"And because Edmund Stoiber holds such a grudge against the Czech Republic he's secretly building Uranium enrichment centrifuges deep down in the vast dungeons of his Staatskanzlei. You're supplying your own counter-arguments, jo. Gawd, I hate it when the peaceniks fall over their own feet."

You lost me. But that doesn't matter since you're busy counting churches and mosques anyway. Have fun with that. Oh, and don't forget to count all the Starbucks cafes in the world. That might give you a sense of who is in charge these days.

Cato,
"things [won't] be quite so rosy in 30 to 50 years when the demographics begin to tip "

good point. that's what it really is all about. we're too busy enjoying ourselves that we don't make babies anymore. and in a couple generations we're going to be an insignificant minority outnumbered by the chinese, indians and, of course, by the islamic people. So we better destroy them now before they destroy us.

I didn't know that Starbucks conspiracy theory before.

"and in a couple generations we're going to be an insignificant minority outnumbered by the chinese, indians"

Racist! Imperialist fascist! You want to steal the Indians' gold! Soon the Asian Street will seeth and whine! Next time the Chinese flatten another student at Tien An Men square it's all your fault!

jo, if you're speaking from an ethnic perspective, "we" (Europeans and people of European descent) are already outnumbered by the Chinese, and probably by the Indians too. I have absolutely no problem with that. The Chinese and the Indians don't want to convert me to being Chinese or Indian. They leave me in peace. They don't demand special rights when they come here to live, or special deference to their religions.

Islam is not an ethnicity, it is a religiously based ideology. Divinely sanctioned from the beginning of time. Adam, Abraham, Moses and Jesus were all Muslims. Judaism and Christianity are perversions of the true faith of Allah. And the Moslems do want to convert me, or, failing that, kill me. At least, many of them do. The ones who don't aren't following the program.

I have a problem with that, you bet. I have a problem with their One World Religion plan. And if that means I have to kill them first before they can kill me, then God Bless the Marines!

But again I say, it is not the Moslems as people I want to destroy, it is the ideology. Just like I would have fought to destroy Nazism, not Germany or the Germans.

If they want jihad, we'll give them jihad. So viel wie wir austeilen werden können sie gar nicht essen.

Ich habe gerade Glenn Reynolds Posting dazu gesehen:

"GERMAN MEDIA: Hey, the holocaust wasn't all that bad! Look what the Americans did in Abu Ghraib!

This self-serving historical revisionism pretty much explains the German position on the war. Note to Germans: You're not fooling anyone but yourselves. And Michael Moore. And Al Gore. And maybe Guido Calabresi.

In other words, the people who want to be fooled. . . ."
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/016181.php

Versuche, Abu Ghraib mit dem Holocaust gleichzusetzen sind zutieft unehrlich und moralisch korrupt. Das gleiche gilt allerdings auch für Glenn Reynolds Posting.

Attempts to equate Abu Ghraib with the Holocaust are profoundly dishonest and morally corrupt. The
same goes for Glenn Reynold's post, though.

...auch wenn es schon eine alte Bemerkung ist:

"Man tötet keine Menschen mit Bomben..."

Während der Befreiung des Iraks wurden zwischen 6500 und 10.000 unbeteiligte Zivilisten, Frauen und Kinder durch amerikanische Bomben getötet.

Ich kann Ihnen versichern, daß der Tod durch eine Selbstmordattentäterbombe oder einer Friedenskampfbombe absolut der selbe ist.

Mann nennt das "Kollateralschaden". Auch darüber sollte man in diesem Zusammenhang nachdenken.

@Mathesar

Ok, let me re-think about it... 2 seconds... fine, 10.000 innocents dead. Acceptable.

Saddam could have killed 300.000 over that same time period. Being a psychopath, he has already done it in the past on several occasions and would likely to continue to have done so. But this would have never been reported much in the media, not even the Arab media. Maybe the media would have chosen to focus on the failing German economy, corruption in the FDP and the European Commission, the continuing eradication of 80.000 Chechnyan ( woman, children, dogs, cats, etc) by Russia, North Korea and Iran’s continued ambitions of nuclear bombs or perhaps Germany's performance in the EM.

During the D-Day landings, and the subsequent battle of Caen, over 10.000 civilians died. Which Frenchman would complain about the abject fact that there is was no alternative but to bombing and invasion?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

1) Who collected these numbers?
2) All these civilians died by bombing. Are you sure?
3) Were not some of these "people-rushed-to-hospital" also arriving with gun shot wounds? Were they combatants or innocents? We know that few Iraqis had the bravery to fight with an Iraqi uniform, because it meant certain death. In fact, Saddam didn't plan an organised resistance, he only planned an insurgency which could allow one to be confused between a civilian and an insurgent.

But then again, what was the alternative to the bombing, the Iraq War II? I have NEVER heard an alternative!

Here’s my cut on things: Saddam was a tyrannical leader of a middle-eastern country called Iraq. His own people feared him as well as his neighbours for his penchant for violence and corruption. For over a decade, the world didn’t know what to do with this crazy man, his grip held and tightened. Until one day, brave countries from very far away decided that his insanity could not continue, he was a threat to all people of the world. So a battle ensued that left many of the brave people, bad people and innocent people dead. But now, Iraq has the opportunity to live in peace, observe a constitutional government and grow a liberal democracy. The end.

Entertain me for a minute and tell me had Germany decided to act (hypothetically), I'm sure they would have had a better strategy. Right? Fewer would have died?

Hogwash!

@Mathesar

Ok, let me re-think about it... 2 seconds... fine, 10.000 innocents dead. Acceptable.

Saddam could have killed 300.000 over that same time period. Being a psychopath, he has already done it in the past on several occasions and would likely to continue to have done so. But this would have never been reported much in the media, not even the Arab media. Maybe the media would have chosen to focus on the failing German economy, corruption in the FDP and the European Commission, the continuing eradication of 80.000 Chechnyan ( woman, children, dogs, cats, etc) by Russia, North Korea and Iran’s continued ambitions of nuclear bombs or perhaps Germany's performance in the EM.

During the D-Day landings, and the subsequent battle of Caen, over 10.000 civilians died. Which Frenchman would complain about the abject fact that there is was no alternative but to bombing and invasion?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

1) Who collected these numbers?
2) All these civilians died by bombing. Are you sure?
3) Were not some of these "people-rushed-to-hospital" also arriving with gun shot wounds? Were they combatants or innocents? We know that few Iraqis had the bravery to fight with an Iraqi uniform, because it meant certain death. In fact, Saddam didn't plan an organised resistance, he only planned an insurgency which could allow one to be confused between a civilian and an insurgent.

But then again, what was the alternative to the bombing, the Iraq War II? I have NEVER heard an alternative!

Here’s my cut on things: Saddam was a tyrannical leader of a middle-eastern country called Iraq. His own people feared him as well as his neighbours for his penchant for violence and corruption. For over a decade, the world didn’t know what to do with this crazy man, his grip held and tightened. Until one day, brave countries from very far away decided that his insanity could not continue, he was a threat to all people of the world. So a battle ensued that left many of the brave people, bad people and innocent people dead. But now, Iraq has the opportunity to live in peace, observe a constitutional government and grow a liberal democracy. The end.

Entertain me for a minute and tell me had Germany decided to act (hypothetically), I'm sure they would have had a better strategy. Right? Fewer would have died?

Hogwash!

Tod durch Unterlassen, durch Wegsehen, Ignorieren, ist das auch Kolleteralschaden der "GUTEN HALTUNG"? Auch darüber sollte man nachdenken. Ich kann Ihnen versichern, daß der Tod durch fehlender Hilfe anderer absolut der gleiche ist. Wieviele Tote hätte man retten können, wenn man Saddam schon 1991 gestoppt hätte (die UNO wollte schon damals nicht, und auch die USA nicht, mit europäischem Lob sogar). Ich glaube, die Zahl geht in die Hunderttausende.

Starben nicht monatlich Tausende von Kindern, die Albright mit Clinton, den beiden Guten, gemeinsam mit der ganzen guten UNO in Kauf genommen haben? War deren Tod weniger gleich? Noch 2, 4 Monate länger Inspektionen wie es Clinton wollte (siehe Interview) und auch Schröder und chirac hätte ein Paar 1000 Kindern mehr den Tod gekostet. Macht das was? Die paar Toten, Mathezar? Aber wissen wo der Unterschied liegt, der entscheidende Unterschied? Die Selbstmordattentäter und Terroristen sind Mörder. Sie gehen bewußt in Restaurants, Busse, sehen die Kinder, Schulkinder, Babies, die Schwangere mit ihren Kindern und töten diese ganz bewußt. Ein Soldat, der die Bevölkerung vor Terror schützen will, versucht den Terroristen zu treffen und daß ist das Grausame am Krieg, manchmal werden unabsichtlich auch unschuldige menschen getroffen. Aber diesen bewußten Mord durch Terroristen an Unschuldigen vergleiche ich nicht mit der Verteidigung gegen Terror.

Haben Sie die verstümmelten Kinder gesehen, die der Selbstmordattentäter nicht umbringen konnte? Wissen Sie, wenn wir Bilder vergleichen, erfahren Sie nichts über die Welt, wie Sie funktioniert. Sie müssen auch immer noch das Gehirn einschalten und die Hintergründe kennen. Es reicht nicht, die Toten zu zählen.


@Ralf

In response to Glenn Reynolds’ (Instapundit’s) post:

"GERMAN MEDIA: Hey, the holocaust wasn't all that bad! Look what the Americans did in Abu Ghraib!
This self-serving historical revisionism pretty much explains the German position on the war. Note to Germans: You're not fooling anyone but yourselves. And Michael Moore. And Al Gore. And maybe Guido Calabresi.

In other words, the people who want to be fooled. . . ."

Ralf comments:

“Attempts to equate Abu Ghraib with the Holocaust are profoundly dishonest and morally corrupt. The same goes for Glenn Reynolds’ post, though.”

Really, Ralf? Do you really think that you’re so incredibly, stratopherically virtuous that you are qualified to conclude that Glenn is “profoundly dishonest and morally corrupt,” from those few paragraphs? In fact, Glenn’s comment is right on. He, not to mention David, is well aware of the wave of historical revisionism we’ve seen in much of the German media lately attempting to establish the “victim” status of Germany in World War II. The “historical revisionism” Glenn is referring to is hardly just a matter of one off-the-wall comment by Alice Schwarzer. It’s been increasingly prevalent, and evident to anyone with even a passing interest in the German media over the past year. Since you worked yourself into such a high moral dudgeon about the matter in your post over at Chicagoboyz, I’m surprised you didn’t see fit to even mention the fact for your American readers there. Could it all simply have escaped your attention? I suppose that’s what we must conclude, since one so obviously virtuous as yourself, capable of precise quantification of “moral corruption” based on a few lines in a blog, couldn’t have just conveniently “forgotten” to mention it.

Mal ein netter Leserbrief in der FAZ:

Zitate von Alice Schwarzer

Zum Artikel "Foltern Frauen wie Männer?" von Alice Schwarzer (F.A.Z. vom 22. Juni): "Genau wie am Ende einer sozialistischen Revolution nicht nur die Abschaffung von ökonomischen Klassenprivilegien, sondern die Aufhebung der Klassenunterschiede selbst steht, so darf die feministische Revolution nicht einfach auf die Beseitigung männlicher Privilegien, sondern muß auf die Beseitigung des Geschlechtsunterschiedes selbst zielen: Genitale Unterschiede zwischen den Geschlechtern hätten dann keine gesellschaftliche Bedeutung mehr. (Das bedeutet die Rückkehr zu einer ungehinderten Pansexualität - Freuds ,polymorphe Perversion' - und würde dann wahrscheinlich die Hetero-Homo-Bisexualität ersetzen.)"

"Nicht Penis und Uterus machen uns zu Männern und Frauen, sondern Macht und Ohnmacht . . . Nichts, weder Rasse noch Klasse, bestimmt so sehr ein Menschenleben wie das Geschlecht. Und dabei sind Frauen und Männer Opfer ihrer Rollen - aber Frauen sind noch die Opfer der Opfer."

"Frauen erkaufen sich menschliche Nähe, Hautkontakt, Zärtlichkeit und soziale Anerkennung durchs Bett. Eigene sexuelle Bedürfnisse werden gar nicht erst bewußt, sie sind zu unterdrückt und deformiert. Die Beziehungen zwischen Mann und Frau sind heute so eindeutig Machtbeziehungen (selbst da, wo Männer an ihrer Rolle zweifeln oder zerbrechen), daß auch die weibliche Sexualität nur wieder Ausdruck weiblicher Ohnmacht sein kann."

"Viele empfinden ihre sexuellen Kontakte mit dem Ehemann oder Freund als Prostitution."

"Es hat einer Gehirnwäsche von Jahrtausenden bedurft, um uns den Glauben an unsere eigene Minderwertigkeit, den Glauben an das ,stärkere Geschlecht' und diese tiefen Zweifel in uns selbst einzupflanzen."

"Man kommt nicht als Frau auf die Welt, man wird dazu gemacht."

"Und die Gebärfähigkeit ist auch der einzige Unterschied, der zwischen Mann und Frau bleibt."

Sie wissen, wer das geschrieben hat? Alice Schwarzer. Sie hat keine ihrer Schriften zurückgenommen. Auch ihre jetzigen Aussagen über das Verhältnis zwischen Frau und Mann entbehren jeglicher Realität: Das Milgram-Experiment zeigte, daß Frauen und Männer gewaltbereit sind unter autoritären Bedingungen. Gerhard Amendt von der Universität Bremen hat in einer Studie veröffentlicht, daß Gewalt in Beziehungen in einem erheblichen Ausmaß von Frauen ausgeht.

Dr. Holger Bertrand Flöttmann, Kiel

Text: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 02.07.2004, Nr. 151 / Seite 9

Abu Ghraib is Auschwitz Redux:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040704/lf_nm/germany_usa_camps_dc

Iraqi Prisoner Abuses Revive Nightmares for German POWs, By Erik Kirschbaum, Reuters

"(...) "We thought the Americans wanted us to starve to death," said Gerth, bursting into tears at memories of prisoners dying slow deaths, or of those who were buried alive when makeshift trenches dug for shelter collapsed in rain or of those shot by guards in suicidal runs at the barbed wire.

"It was a death camp," said 77-year-old Gerth, referring to one of the most notorious "Rhine Meadow camps" at Rheinberg, north of Cologne. Rare pictures of emaciated prisoners behind barbed wire bear a resemblance to the Nazi concentration camps, where six million Jews were killed. The concentration camps were being liberated as the Rhine camps were set up.

Gerth said his weight fell to 110 lb from 176 lb in his month at Rheinberg. "We went days on end without food or water. Eating grass saved me. Those abused in Iraq will be haunted for life." (...)

Although the origins and scale of maltreatment in Iraq and post-war Germany are vastly different, the images from Iraq have revived memories of the conditions at 16 "Rhine Meadow camps" where thousands of Germans were held in open fields without shelter and a minimum of food in the months after the war ended. (...)

"The Rhine Meadow camps are a dark chapter in American military history," said Klaus-Dietmar Henke, a history professor at Dresden University. "There were certainly incidents of murder, executions, and thousands did starve to death. (...)"


@Simply Digital

Interesting, you didn't really highlight some of the other points that the article raised, like:

"Henke and U.S. historians have noted there was a world-wide shortage of food in 1945 and they estimated the death rate of German POWs in American hands was one to five percent, slightly higher than a one percent death rate of U.S. POWs in Germany and far below that for Germans in Soviet hands: 35 to 50 percent."

Any historian should also note that the Germans desired surrender to the Americans foremost to any other ally. They knew that they would be treated best there : the Soviets treated the Germans like animals(and vice-versa), the French and the British, along with the rest of Europe had a bone to pick with the Germans.

To get an idea of German POW treatment during WWII in the USA, have a look at:

http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/features/feature20/germanprisonersofwar.html

How were American, British and Canadians POWs treated whilst in German captivity? I heard that they lost quite a lot of weight too! Most of the Russian lost their lives!

For our English readers, they should be not only aware of the German media's desire to distort the truth, but also be aware of many German authors as well. This article would post well under "we suffered too, you know." For those that desire reading revisionist, self-styled historians, like Im Krebsgang by Günter Grass, here's the link: http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3423131764/qid=1089032541/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_0_1/302-6289266-8551222

Where did the German elite get such a big soap box to stand on and lecture those same people that helped them back on their feet, defended their freedom, and never got a thank you from them?

"Interesting, you didn't really highlight some of the other points that the article raised"

I've left them over for others to quote ;)

"For those that desire reading revisionist, self-styled historians, like Im Krebsgang by Günter Grass, here's the link:"

I saw an interview with Guenter Grass just around the time when "Im Krebsgang" was published. He put an emphasis on his observation that many German POWs made friends with Black GIs more than white GIs, like "We Germans suffered from non-Black GIs just like you Blacks suffered from them."


@Simply Digital

"I saw an interview with Günter Grass just around the time when "Im Krebsgang" was published. He put an emphasis on his observation that many German POWs made friends with Black GIs more than white GIs, like "We Germans suffered from non-Black GIs just like you Blacks suffered from them."

--Can you tell me when the interview took place, and on what channel? I'd like to watch it sometime.

Are you supporting what Günter Grass said? Yes or no? Or supplying endless quotes? But chew on these questions for a while:

Can you explain why so many Germans preferably sought surrender to the Americans?

Do you have any information as to the relative treatment of black POWs vs. white POWs held by the Germans?

Can you tell me which country it is that black people have the highest standard of living in the world?

Why did Günter Grass not mention the 100.000s of Germans who were captured by the Soviets and never returned? Died of disease, execution, insufficient housing, etc... Those caught by the Americans enjoyed a relative bounty in South Carolina.

"Suffer?" He/you/whoever use that word inappropriately and vainly. The Germans were the cause of the Second World War and were defeated in due time. The Nazis were of German origin and the Fuehrer had the full support of the German people. Only with the complete destruction of the country (Götterdämmerung) did the country begin to realize that war was perhaps wrong.

Günter Grass : deceptive, vain, self-centered, revisionalist, obfuscator, pretentious, conceited, high and mighty...

Grass counterfeits the pretension that the Germans were the unnecessary victims of an overly zealous bombing campaign carried out by the allies. To our English readers, you should be aware that there are German intellectuals who like to approach the idea that there was a better way in which the allies could have carried out the ending of the Second World War. The rambling spokesman and self-appointed chairman on this subject is Günter Grass, Nobel Prize winner for Literature.

He likes to assume, as he pretends that he holds the better understanding to ending of the Second World War, that the destruction of Dresden wasn't necessary. This is absurd. Was the destruction of Minsk and Warsaw necessary? Germans = aggressors.

Additionally, destruction and humiliation were necessary for Germans to fully abandon and depart from their faux belief of genetic and ideological supremacy. I am concerned. Any distortion of the truth: Germans victims not the aggressors presents German youths with misunderstanding of the conflict and leaves the door open for revisionalists to present the struggle in a different manner.

Ironically, had Grass been born during the time of Thomas Mann, perhaps he too would have moved to Santa Monica, California and Switzerland and freely been allowed to hyperbolize. There he would have enjoyed the last bastions of freedom of speech.

@James,

"Can you tell me when the interview took place, and on what channel? I'd like to watch it sometime."

Can't remember exactly, but I think it was in 2002 on "Kulturzeit", ARD. Maybe there's a transcript on the web.

"Are you supporting what Günter Grass said? Yes or no? Or supplying endless quotes?"

Is this a sincere question? Grass is a Trottel, and no sane person, i.e. no one besides the German leftists, could agree with him. I remember a time in the early 90s when I was not sure how to think of him, but when he said "Die einzige wählbare Partei [in Deutschland] ist die PDS" in some Berlin radio show I was finished with him. So, no, I do not support him.

"But chew on these questions for a while:"

MEEK! Wrong target.

"Can you tell me which country it is that black people have the highest standard of living in the world?"

Must be China.

"Why did Günter Grass not mention the 100.000s of Germans who were captured by the Soviets and never returned? Died of disease, execution, insufficient housing, etc..."

That's an easy one. Because the Soviet system was not bad per se, you know, it was only a flawed execution of a good idea.

"The Germans were the cause of the Second World War and were defeated in due time."

You should listen to Schröder more carefully. Actually, the Germans were liberated by the French.

[Note to self: Perhaps I should insert markers to indicate where I ressort to sarcasm? -- Yes, you should. ed.]

"The Nazis were of German origin and the Fuehrer had the full support of the German people. Only with the complete destruction of the country (Götterdämmerung) did the country begin to realize that war was perhaps wrong."

I'm not sure how thoroughly that realization succeeded.

"Günter Grass : deceptive, vain, self-centered, revisionalist, obfuscator, pretentious, conceited, high and mighty..."

In short: a typical German leftist.

"Any distortion of the truth: Germans victims not the aggressors presents German youths with misunderstanding of the conflict and leaves the door open for revisionalists to present the struggle in a different manner."

That process is already at full throttle. You know, no one in the Wehrmacht committed any terror acts whatsoever. The Reemtsma exhibition is full of faked imagery. Soon someone will find out that a private clerk of Philip Reemtsma spent some time in Tel Aviv in 1979. Connect the dots.

I come from Poland. Eight members of my family were kill in Auschwitz and Birkenau. That was horrible. I'm afraid that it can happen again - in Iraq. We should do everything to stop all wars worldwide.

Agnieszka,
Germany started the war and the killing.
Saddam Hussein killed his own people.
How did the world react to Nazi Germany? First with appeasement and then as last option with war.
The same answer was necessary in Iraq. War was the last option to prevent more deaths under Saddam Hussein und to prevent the horror when Terrorists and evil dictators work together and will use biological or chemical weapons against people. When this would ever happen, then the world would have a very serious problem.

Can you imagine Nazi Gerrmany with nuclear weapons? Can you imagine this???

So, war stopped Hitler.

War stopped Saddam Hussein.

Peace is wonderful. But when evil people use massive terror, then appeasement might not be enough. Dialog did not stop Hitler. Dialog would never have stopped Saddam.

It happened already, Agnieszeka. I am sad about the victims under Saddam Hussein. I am sad that the world did not help them sooner.

And if you meant that you worry about the terrorists, then I would like to tell you, I am sure, the civilized world will win when more countries like the US and UK get up against them.

As to Alice Schwarzer, her appearance and feminism, here's number 24 of Rush Limbaugh's Undeniable Truths of Life:

24. Feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.

PS That can't be a real picture of Alice Schwarzer. Right?

Try searching for:
dachau abu ghraib mannheim cia

You'll learn how the CIA learned from the Germans the torture "science" they have done in the KZ Dachau and how it came to Abu Ghraib.

I'm sorry, but it is fascist Nazi style what the US has been doing under Bush. There is a direct connection. Granted, they haven't killed millions in concentration camps - only about a million Iraqis, most of them in their homes...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

June 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30