Something you don't read about in school...

[tss]

Los wrote:

BTW I don't know if this has been mentioned but there was a good book that came out a few years back (Sorry can't remember the name!) that details hundreds of thousands of German POW deaths that occured in "Western ALlied" POW camps in 1945-48 primarily due to disease, exposure ad malnutrition.

I haven't read the book (and to tell the truth, I can't remember its name), but I've read some discussion about it. The general opinion was that the author had done a sloppy research and gone after shock value. A large number of POWs were released without going through all official paperwork and the author counted all those cases as deaths.

However, it is true that conditions in Western Allied POW camps in Europe were quite horrible in 1945-47. I think that the generally accepted death count is about 50000 starved.

Last spring I happened to see a five minute snippet of a documentary (I had to run for a bus so I couldn't see more). In it, I saw pictures of skeletonlike prisoners. My first reaction was: "Oh, there is again some documentary about the Holocaust". I was quite surprised when the narrator next said that the men in the pictures were German POWs held by Americans. The pictures were taken by a Red Cross official who was inspecting the camps.

- Tommi

[Fionn]

I just want to pop in here and make a few points:

About Islam and the Quran (Koran)… I think it’s a shame most Westerners (although by no means all) seem to assume that all actions committed by Muslims during war and terrorist struggles are sanctioned by the Koran. Christian Serbs raped Muslim women in Bosnia and Kosovo in exactly the same way that Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina raped Christian (Orthodox Church) women in Bosnia…

It is always interesting to see how people readily dismiss the actions of the christians as being perpetrated by “bad individuals” but often simply assume that Islam condones and in fact encourages rapes and the other heinous acts which its followers sometimes commit during war.

Islam has a very similar outlook on what is right and wrong as Christianity BUT just as with every religion the world over during wars and even during peace some crackpots who profess to follow that religion will commit atrocities. When Christians nations fight their governments often utilise religious fervour as a motivational factor (the communist recognition AND utilisation of religion during the Second World War and the Nazi party’s usage of NSADP chaplains to motivate its troops are prime examples of this on the Eastern Front.. Neither Hitler nor Stalin had any love for Christianity, Stalin because he was a communist and Hitler because he felt that Christianity was a weak religion… In fact Hitler often bemoaned the defeat of the Muslim armies at Tours by Charlemagne (I may have the location wrong.. It’s been a while since I read any medieval history) since he felt that the certainty of Islam would have allowed him to USE IT to motivate his troops and instil them with more unquestioning devotion.

Anyways, the point is that a good leader wants committed troops and that those leaders utilise whatever motivational tools are at their disposal. Westerners have a great deal of difficulty understanding the cult of the suicide bomber. I’ve talked with many Muslims about these issues (about one-third of my year in college are Muslim and I am friends with people from Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Syria, Egypt, The West Bank, Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc) and suicide is actually a crime against Allah in their religion. The poor kids who actually do the suicide bombings usually haven’t even read the Quran for themselves and are given VERY “selective quotations” from the Quran and convinced that in a Jihad any method of killing one’s enemies is allowed which is NOT what the Quran says and is NOT what has been preached by the Imams in previous Jihads.

These kids are convinced that the Quran says it’s ok AND are told that their families will be given new homes, free healthcare, free schooling and a chance to get all the breaks they never got. So, motivated by a misunderstanding of the Quran and a desire to spend their lives for the betterment of their families they go out and blow themselves and a whole load of women and children up. After they die the Israeli government bulldozes the homes of ALL their family members in retaliation (official policy) and Hezbollah rehouses the families and allowes them access to special “martyrs” hospitals and schools.

The attitude of the Muslims from the gulf states and even Palestine and the West Bank has been that what these kids do is wrong BUT that they are being taken advantage by terrorist leaders who convince them, falsely, that the Quran advocates such actions.

In any case the vast majority of the fighting in the Middle East is about land and resources. The fact that the two camps also follow different religions has merely given the leaders something simple to manipulate to motivate their troops. It also greatly simplifies the task of teaching your people who to hate and, in Israel, has been a very important and simple way of determining who to discriminate against and ethnically cleanse ( just go back to the early years of Israeli history and read some non-American accounts to see what I mean). Hell, Israel’s government, which now rails against terrorism was progenated from the largest terrorist group in the Palestine area. They even murdered two British officers who had gone to their leaders to negotiate for a truce.

The Middle East is a very complicated region where the real reasons for conflict are obscured by the propaganda issues and possibilities inherent in there being two distinct religious groups present. To say the fight there is due to religion is as incorrect as to say Catholics and Protestants or Nationalists and Unionists were at war in the North of Ireland. They were not. Republicans and Loyalists were at war. That not all Catholics were Nationalists and not all Nationalists were Republicans is something which complicated a news reporters job and is something that could not be conveyed in a 30 second soundbite so, to the rest of the world, it became a war between Catholics and Protestants and became widely misunderstood therefore. The same happened, I feel, in Bosnia (although not in Kosovo) and has happened in the Middle East. It is unfortunate these days that news reports are so short that only the most basic of pictures can be given and so incorrect generalisations become the conventional wisdom upon which decisions and opinions are based.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[tss]

In fact Hitler often bemoaned the defeat of the Muslim armies at Tours by Charlemagne (I may have the location wrong.. It’ been a while since I read any medieval history)

Just nitpicking...

It was Charlemagne's grandfather Charles Martell who won Muslims at Tours (Poitiers) in 732.

- Tommi

[Fionn]

Thanks Tss.. I knew I had gotten some part wrong, just didn't know which part

Was Martell of royal lineage or just a noble?

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Pixman]

....just by chance you crossed a diamond with a pearl, you turned it on the world, that's when you turned the world around. Did you feel lke Jesus? Did you realize that you were a champion in their eyes?

Get along Kid Charlemagne.

Fionn:

You mentioned a lot of Muslim friends and associates. Know any Indian Hindus? I do, and have read some on the Muslim incursion into the subcontinent. It was not pretty. Numerous as they were, a bunch of pacifistic Hindus were no match for an organized band of Muslims on a "holy" mission. These were not onesy twosy misguided Arab boys but whole armies wreaking some serious havoc.

Your comment about Hitler's yearning for Muslims to manipulate rather than Catholics and Evangelisch Protestants speaks volumes. The Muslim faith fits much more closely with the paternalistic and autocratic philosophy which helped drive the Nazi movement. The Germans, on the whole, ate this kind of stuff up. Even their legal system of today reflects this "there is a right way and a wrong way, and it is not for me to question" mentality. I say this because the entire German legal code is statutory. That is, there is no Common Law precedent system that leaves room for judges to make new interpretations and rulings based on changing technology, social mores, values, novel situations, etc.. (Does anybody remember what happened to the guy who stabbed Monica Seles on the tennis court when she was, hands down, the number one tennis player in the world? The answer is, not much because there were not specific legal codes to deal with such an odd occurrence) They actually believe that all possible legal situations may be anticipated and accounted for through statutes. The philosophy behind such a legal code is very dangerous. It reveals a mindset that is not prone to questioning authority. Hitler fed heavily off of this. Though no expert on the subject, I think there is some corrolary of strong obedience in the Muslim faith, which may contribute to the reference Fionn makes to Hitler.

Pixman

------------------

Fact is the enemy of truth. - Don Quixote

[buddy]

a true story for sage, sgt rock and whomever else. . .

I saw the 'highway to hell', the road from Kuwait City to Basra, where we creamed the Iraqis retreating with mucho stolen merchandise in stolen vehicles. Unbelieveable. Anyway, I'm smoking a Marlboro and up comes 3 Arabic-types. They asked for some cigarettes, we introduced ourselves and had a conversation about where we all were from. I squatted in the dirt and drew a rough drawing of the US and Indiana (blah, blah, blah) and as we were all squatting there I started asking them if they liked the allied troops - "American, very much" they all agreed. They loved everyone. So I, motivated out of curiosity mainly, asked them how they liked the Israelis. Their collective faces went emotionless - I mean deadpan - they stood up, literally dusted themselves off and left without another word. I guess my point is that I tend to agree with Sgt. Rock - many muslims in that part of the world see everyone else as inferior and unclean. They would, if they could, push Israel into the sea without another thought. People are people, I know, and there is good and bad wherever you go, but that type of intolerance is simply very, very ugly - and, it seemed to me, very commonplace.

[Fionn]

Pixman,

Yes, I know quite a few Hindus, mainly from India. Also some Sikhs, a few Taoists, a few atheists, some more agnostics, even one person who still puts great faith in his tribe's witchdoctors (he's from Africa).

As for the incursions from the Middle East into India I would like to caution you in your assumptions. You show a common Western conceit (and it's a bit racist unfortunately). I actually touched on the point I'm about to make in my initial post but will couch it in stronger and barer terms now so everyone can see it clearly.

You write NOT of an incursion of armies FROM the Middle East but of an incursion by Muslims. You say these armies committed great atrocities and infer that their doing so was in some way related to them being Muslim. I think the reason they committed many atrocities was simply because that was they way things were done back then, whether Christian or Muslim.

One other point I'd like you to consider Pixley is if those armies had been Christian would you have blamed the RELIGION or the LEADER AND HIS MEN for the atrocities? There is a certain racism in many Westerners vis a vis Islam whereby anything evil done by a Moslem is DUE to Islam whereas its a simple manifestation of the cruelty of ALL HUMANS regardless of religion.

The Muslim faith in its purest form DOES allow for interpretation. Again the view of Islam as a faith demanding blind obedience etc is quite flawed. Imams make rulings on ethical issues which their followers are FREE to accept or argue against. If the followers argue against those rulings they must do so by quoting the Quran whereupon all present will discuss how the writings of the Quran should be interpreted.

While it is true to say that a true follower's life must be based on the Quran it does NOT state it must be based on unquestioned obedience. This is a misunderstanding which permeates Western understanding of Islam. Sure there are Islamic fundamentalists who behave as despicably as Christian, Hindu, Sikh etc fundamentalists BUT they actions of these people are NOT manifestations of inherent leanings of those religiions but rather of inherent failures in those humans.

Again, if Christians did it we'd condemn their INDIVIDUAL actions but because so few of us have had much contact with Islam we all too often condemn those INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS by assuming the whole is responsible.

FWIW I lived with a very religious and fundamental Muslim and his rather lapsed friend (also a Muslim but very lapsed) for close to a year and I've seen my friend, Khaled, studying the Quran and preparing arguments against what his Imam had interpreted the Quran as saying. I've met Chinese, American, European and Middle Eastern Muslims and found most of the preconceptions about them to be quite incorrect (although some of their attitudes and certainty are disagreeable to me).

As for Hitler's comments... Hitler was NOT commenting about any militaristic bent to Islam but merely referring to the fact that true "followers of Mohammed" had a great faith and CERTAINTY which his propaganda machine would find easier to mould into HIS FAITH and CERTAINTY IN HIM than it would find moulding opinions of Christians.

Don't forget that Christianity has borrowed a whole hodge-podge of things from older religions which are nasty too. Christmas falls on the date of an ancient sun-god festival, the original idea of heaven was drawn from old Sumerian religions and the idea of a HOLY WAR in which all who died bypassed purgatory (a Roman Catholic idea which was also borrowed from Sumerian-descended religions) shows many signs of being adapted from valhalla. It is even discussed as being so in old vatican documents from the time of the crusades. When Christianity wanted to motivate people it borrowed from other religions and invented the notion of a holy war. In that Holy War the Christians once slit the throats of forty thousand Muslim men, women and children of Acre and surrounding lands simply out of spite AFTER they had surrendered. Paintings made by Roman Catholic painters of the time show the men going about god's work in captured villages by raping women before slitting their throats all the while being blessed by monks.

It should be borne in mind that these images were sanctioned by the church and were the "acceptable" face of the war. Let's talk about the wonderful things Christianity has sanctioned before we go casting stones shall we?

Certainly Islam looks at anyone who isn't a Muslim as an infidel. That's certainly true. Being an infidel means you haven't heard the word of Allah and accepted it and it means you won't get into Heaven (Paradise)... Umm, guys, talk about double standards here. Christianity, last time I looked, says that non-Christians won't get into heaven either. It also holds that non-Christians haven't heard the words of the one true God either. Seems to me that Christianity and Islam say the same sorts of things about non-believers but we choose to believe the Moslems are some sort of savages because they are more fortright about it.

It always used to be a joke between Khaled and myself that I was an infidel who would burn in the pits of hell while he'd be up in Paradise.. I'd always retort that according to MY God ( whom Khaled would say was merely a construct we believed in because we hadn't heard the words of the one true God) I'd be up in Heaven watching him roast in hell. See, both religions teach the same thing.. They also both teach that THEIR believers are the tolerant ones and that the believers in other gods are misguided and intolerant. It'd all be quite funny if so many people didn't swallow the whole thing hook line and sinker.

As for Israel... You're saying that the Arabs in Saudi Arabia didn't like to be reminded of a country whose government originated from the terrorist organisation which fought the British after World War II and which, used as its standard tactic, the murder of Arabs in isolated farms in an effort to intimidate Arabs living in villages to move away before they too were killed. A country which continues to operate segregation and blatantly racist politics, laws and regulations against the people who lived there prior to the mass influx of Jews, which admits to carrying out illegal attacks in Arab countries (remember in Jordan Israeli agents were captured after attempting to kill an official living there only two years ago) and which has done so, all the while, under the protection of the USA and other Western powers.

Hell, I'm not surprised that, at their moment of victory, when you reminded them of the fact that USA was supporting a country which had ethnically cleansed their fellow Arabs and which continues to racially discriminate against, they felt a bit crestfallen.

If I had just helped free a neighbouring state from oppression and had some GI remind me that millions of other Irish people were being oppressed, tortured and racially discriminated against and ethnically cleansed (by new Jewish settlements) I'd be a little bit annoyed and crestfallen too.

How would you feel if someone took over Nevada against America's will and began to drive Americans out of their homes and pen them up in substandard, crowded areas simply because they felt they had a right to the land. Wouldn't you feel you had a right to strike back against these invaders (which is what Arabs feel them to be).

To my knowledge many Jews and Christians lived quite happily in the region which Israel occupies now prior to the creation of Israel. Arabs are quite tolerant people once you don't cross them and take their lands just like most of us. If you cross them, ethnically cleanse them, torture their old and young, drive them from their lands and racially segregate and oppress them with unfair laws then they get upset JUST LIKE WE WOULD IF IT HAPPENED TO US.

I'm sorry for going on but the stereotyping of Moslems by the West annoys me. I know no-one here is knowingly racist but most westerners really, really, just have picked up a huge amount of almost instinctively accepted stereotypical rationalisations of Islam which are promoted by the media (which doesn't have the time in its 1 minute news slots to fully explore the issues and complexities... I suggest reading Chomsky's discussion about Hermeneutics and observations of media behaviour over the past 30 years to examine this farther.) .

I've been there, done that, bought the T-shirt and changed MY opinions a lot. I believed all the stereotype stuff myself before. I'm not making any judgements over whether or not Israel should survive or not I'm just saying that if you read your history of the late 40s and early 50s in the Middle East you might realise that these hatreds aren't the result of blind religious hatred but are the RESULT of the many murders and ethnic cleanising which preceded the creation of Israel.

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[This message has been edited by Fionn (edited 10-07-99).]

[Xyphorus]

Fionn, Charles Martel was the "mayor of Austrassa and Neustria" (714 to 741). Mayor, meaning ruler. Austrassa is roughly the geographical location of Benelux low-countries today, and Neustria refers to the Northern Part of today France. Martel was from the Caroligian dynasty, but it is rather Charlemagne who consolidated the territories, and became the King of Franks, by becoming emperor in 811.

Martel did stop the Maures' invasion in Poitiers (South of tours) in 732. Geographicaly you were not that far when you said Tours If he had not stopped the Islamist invasion, Notre Dame could have been a Mosque. And that could have been interesting!

Regarding your comments about Islam and how it is perceived by most Westerners, I could not agree more with you. Islam is like any religion, it has its hard-liners, and its moderates. But, keep in mind that Western Europeans are more in daily contact with Muslims than North Americans. They can see the many political and religious faces of islam. I am French and lives in the U.S, and I can tell you from my own experience that the U.S media is very bais in its coverage of the Middle East situation. As you pointed out, they seem to forget the early period of Palestine/Israel conflict, as for instance that the Irgoon (spe?)was an jewish terrorist organisation even in today standards. They use blind violence to achieve their means, and got what they wanted: an almost ethnically pure Jewish state. Do the U.S media ever run a documentary about the slaughter of Sabra and Shatila Palestinian camps? No. Do they mention in which horrific conditions the Palestinian refugees live in the Gaza strip or annexed/occupied territories? No. So, the Palestinians got more radical, and used and still use today terrorism as a political mean to acheive a bit of autonomy.

I am in no way a "defender/advocat" of the Palestinian or Israeli cause. But, as mentionned earlier in the thread in a discussion about Communism, the Palestinians are also fighting from their land and their freedom. Since Israel won the 1967 war, it occupies and promotes new settlements in all former Palestinian territories. What does the world expect from the Palestinians, to stand by and get wiped out, like the Native Americans. They have been cornered, and also used by some other fellow islamist countries.

They certainly have chosen the wrong path in embrassing the strategy of global terrorism.

This region of the world is so rich, so full of hate and strategical allainces, that we surely will not see the end of it soon.

Well, signing off!

Karl

[Fionn]

Thanks for speaking up Karl, I was a bit worried that my comments would be misinterpreted when they are in fact merely an attempt to show a side which is often missed out and forgotten in today's media-created conventional wisdom.

FWIW I agree that terrorism has been the wrong way to go but I think that outside states have cynically utilised the dissafected Palestinian youths and created terrorist groups which further THOSE STATES' aims and not the aims of the Palestinians. Of course, that's as it has always been... It sucks for the Palestinians and those whom they kill in terrorist attacks for little gain though.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Mattias]

Pixman,

Reading your last post it suddenly became clear to me what I had liked about your previous ones. At least I got the feeling you were voicing the opinion that there, despite all, still are values that could be considered absolute. Now, the beauty of it, as I saw it, was that you didn’t seem to attribute these values to any specific religion, race, ideology or whatever. They just are there, for one and all.

Now, I might have misinterpreted you totally there... but...

Suddenly you take pot shots on Roman Law. Why??

All of continental Europe has developed and still develops under national adaptations of this legal tradition. You don’t seriously think we are some kind of moles blind to the obvious questions that can be raised against the validity of our system of law or government, do you?

For sure, these generalisations of yours contains pieces of important issues. But we confront these very issues daily. They are part of the evolution of our legislation, parts of our system of government, our principles for division of power and our concept of justice.

We deal with them having the same ultimate goal in mind as you have, a just and free society.

As much truth as your words may hold, they nevertheless become pretty much pointless as you, intentionally or not, disregard just about everything that governs these matters in actual real life over here.

What happened in Germany in the 30s was probably the greatest collapse ever of a legal system in terms of loss of basic justification. The reasons for this catastrophy, however, is not to be found in the legal system as such but in Nazi power politics that in short order completely removed the legal foundations, but kept the outer semblance of law in order to justify their essentially unjust actions.

Any legal system is vulnerable to this kind of assault, any and all.

M

[Lee]

Fionn: There have been a lot of horrible things done in the

name of christianity and the catholic church certainly shouldn't

have been endorsing those sorts of paintings as a good way to

have fought a war (of course, the catholic church teaches a

lot of things to this day in it's church traditions that

aren't supported in the Bible, but that's another story...).

But that sort of conduct isn't what christianity is all

about. The problem is that men are so very fallible and often

don't teach accurately what the Bible says. That's why it's each

individual's responsibility to read the Bible for himself (with

prayerful seeking of guidance and understanding from God)

to check out what men say is in the Bible and see if they have it

right. Relying on men to be perfect and lead you on exactly the

right path is dangerous and foolish. You have to do your

homework and read for yourself. God expects you to care enough

about finding out the truth to take at least a little time to

read the letter he wrote to *you*.

Oh, and the Israelies were taking back land that was given to

them by God himself. They may not have always gone about

exactly the right way of waging the battle to retake it, but it

was by right their's. Some may disagree with that, but I stand by

what God says in the Bible on the subject. If the tribes of

Israel had not been captured and scattered to and fro almost 2

thousand years ago, they would never have left there in the

first place and none of this would have had to have happened.

But the Bible said that Israel would become a nation again and,

against all odds, it did. Isn't it cool how God's never wrong?

Pixman: I'm glad to hear your wife is well.

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, I need to close this thread up. Generally I try to do this around 135k for safety and loadtime reasons, but we are at 170k+ right now

I think this has been a very deep thread. Almost makes me think you guys do things other than play games all day I have a feeling that this thread could continue to morph and expand forever, so now is not such a bad time to shut it down. Waaaaaaaay off topic anyhoo

I do want to say a word of thanks to everybody that posted to this thread. There are numberous topics in this thread that could have started a huge flame war, but there was not even a hint of that. I am very happy and proud that people here kept it on the intellectual level.

And now I take the liberty of the last word...

Earlier I had stated that the theory of Commnuism is not necessarily the be all, end all of evil. Though since it could never work on a large scale its value as a political organization of course makes any possible good impossible to realize. However, the notion that private property is the litmus test of any "legit" society is very Western and should not be applied blindly to the rest of the world. I like my private property, thank you very kindly , but I was brought up in a society where such designations are necessary since it is the founding principle of pretty much every social rule there is. However, much greed comes from this, and that in turn is the root cause of many of Western society's ills (haves and have nots). Obviously Communism doesn't solve these problems, but again it is because of the execution of those principles (i.e. the necessary use of force) not necessarily because the ideas themselves are wrong. Of course, ideals that are not practical for a given situation/time/place are not very useful.

The Native American peoples had no concept of strict personal property, and neither do many other tribal cultures around the world. Life works out for them as well, if not better in some ways, as Western cultures. To say that those societies are not ligitimate SIMPLY because they do not have private property is an unacceptable conclusion IMHO. I try not to force my Western belief system on someone else's simply because it is different.

Yes, something can be morally and legally wrong even if it is the majority's wish, but a government backed by the majority of the population should not be dismissed out of hand simply because you do not agree with its principles. I may not agree with the government in question, and might even find it disgusting, but that doesn't make it illegit. US States sometimes pass laws that are in violation of the Constituion and even human rights, but I don't think we should send in the Army to straighten them out by putting bullets in people's heads. Externally I do not agree with the policy of the former government of Israel on many issues, and even think they were/are agressive, immoral, and harmful to Middle East peace, but I would never go so far as to say it is not a legitimate government because of MY beliefs. That is for the Israelies to decide, not me. The same applies to Finnland 1918. If the majority wanted to try out Communism (which, BTW hadn't been proved to be an evil at the time), it is not for me to sit in judgement. I am not a Finn, so it is initially none of my concern. This could change as time goes on of course, but until it does it is none of my business.

Steve