The Middle East part 2

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

EDIT: Martinovic, I don't know where you live but what would your country and many others have been like today had the Nazis won?

It would possibly have a lot more Biergartens than it had before...

I really wonder, why does everybody always think that the Nazis are the ultimate personification of evil, when even the contemporary soviet union was able to perpetrate much more evil?

In an ideal situation even back then, if Hitler hadn't used the jews as a scapegoat, and had actually allied with them, vowing to give them their promised land, heck, I bet the jewish lobby would even have pulled enough strings so that the U.S. would have allied with the 3rd Reich in their fight against the Soviet Union!

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

.

So, Britain lost? Really? Jolly good looking country today, chap!

What would they have looked like under the Reich's control?

As for Stalin, first of all, some estimate he killed anywhere between 20 to 30 million. But outside of the USSR, who are you suggesting should have fought against them?

Or was your point that had the Russian people been able to wage war against their own government, millions might have been saved?

EDIT: Regarding people killed by Hitler, I suggest you count all of those on all sides killed by the war initiated by Germany and Japan. That's way more than 7 million (don't know where you got that figure).

all im trying to say is you dont win a war just becuase you beat the enemy.  If the war didnt happen britian would be in a much better state, thats what i was trying to say.  ofcourse its the complete opposite for the USA, who if it had not been for the war, would still be trying to drag themselves out of the great depression (roosevelts new deal's failed terribly).  

the 7 million was a rough guess just for jews killed by Hitler.  If you include gypsies, Polish,russian  POW's and mentally ill etc.. the figure would be much more.  The point i was trying to make about russia whas that Stalin is just as evil, if not more evil than Hitler, yet history forgets this.

one thing that must be noted about Britian was we had the option to stay out of the war.  The argument that Hitler would have come for britian anyway is really not true.  Hitler never anticipated britian entering the war, he based the third reich on britians empire, and was very fond of us as a nation.  Indeed britian also at the time had a large faciast movment itslef. It has been sugested that one of Hitlers dreams was that Britian and Germany would rule europe together. Thank god that didnt happen.

[theavonlady 2]

so the question i would ask you is, how would life be like in britian for some ethnic groups Uder THE AVON LADY regime ?

All laundry must be placed in hampers and teeth must be brushed before beddy-bye time.

I won't bother replying to your other snide accusations against me.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

so the question i would ask you is, how would life be like in britian for some ethnic groups Uder THE AVON LADY regime ?

All laundry must be placed in hampers and teeth must be brushed before beddy-bye time.

I won't bother replying to your other snide accusations against me.

. theres some stuff coming out about Israeli soldiers disobeying orders. Not low rankers either, high ranking officeres refusing to put there soldiers in dangerous zones.

(@ avon lady : did you use to be part of the CFS community? i seem to remember a avon lady there and somone else called carrie)

[deanosbeano 0]

you know what i will tow the line and not comment myself.

except for this accusation thing. its all in euro thread. sry cant quote all, i havent the right to make topics too ot for ot like some.

Quote[/b] ]

Small fry, when compared to the professionals.

[Bernadotte 0]

BUZZARD @ Aug. 23 2006,19:18)]In an ideal situation even back then, if Hitler hadn't used the jews as a scapegoat, and had actually allied with them, vowing to give them their promised land, heck, I bet the jewish lobby would even have pulled enough strings so that the U.S. would have allied with the 3rd Reich in their fight against the Soviet Union!

We may never know how close it came to that.  Apparently, when the British released the Balfour Declaration of 1917 offering support for establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine, Germany had also been desperately trying to win the favour of the world's Jewish community.

Quote[/b] ]The war, in a grisly virtual stalemate at this point in time, found both Germany and Britain actively making overtures to the Zionist Movement in order to enlist the resources of this group in assisting their cause. Both sides were well aware of the significant Zionist influence within Bolshevik Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States. Further, Britain recognized that the natural sentiment of many European Jews was, in fact, with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Following the logic that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend†European Jews tended to view the Central Powers favorably given their role in defeating the overtly anti-Semitic Tsarist government in Russia. Well aware of this sentiment, Imperial Germany during this same period was actively courting the Zionist movement, both domestically and internationally, but was circumscribed in this effort by the fact that Palestine was then a component of the Ottoman Empire – a key ally of Germany within the Central Powers.

...

From a historical perspective, a fascinating “what-if†of the Twentieth Century concerns the hypothetical of Imperial Germany issuing its own version of the Balfour Declaration in October or November of 1917, prior to the December 2nd issuance by Britain. Were the Imperial German Foreign Office able to reconcile the Turkish side of this issue and make such a declaration, the impacts of such an event could have significantly re-written the history of the latter half of the last century.

[*Pete* 0]

so.....there is a chance that EVEN IF Germany had won the second world war, Israel would exist today.

hahahah!!

and the same problems in the middle-east would still exist, except that Germany, not USA, would be providing weaponry to Israel.

[*Pete* 0]

but seriously, i am suprised that Israel doesnt seem to notice that they are infact living in peace with those neighbours whose territory it does not occupy anymore.

and Israel seems to have constant problems with those nations/people whose territory it does occupy.

instead of being in a constant war-state becouse of the tensions in the region Israel could release those tensions by giving back the territories that the UN states does not belong to Israel.

i heard that Israel is now willing to give back the territories they occupied from Syria, is this true?

[billybob2002 0]

so.....there is a chance that EVEN IF Germany had won the second world war, Israel would exist today.

hahahah!!

and the same problems in the middle-east would still exist, except that Germany, not USA, would be providing weaponry to Israel.

Actually, Israel would be still apart of Palestine and the inhabitants would be Arabs.

Oh, [ZG]BUZZARD, the United States would not have sided with Nazi Germany because FDR was anti-Nazi and he would have likely gotten the United States earlier in the war against the Nazis and Japanese if he could. Additionally, and importantly, what did you smoke when posting that crap? The Jewish lobby pulling strings to make the US enter a war....

[Bernadotte 0]

so.....there is a chance that EVEN IF Germany had won the second world war, Israel would exist today.

hahahah!!

and the same problems in the middle-east would still exist, except that Germany, not USA, would be providing weaponry to Israel.

Well, if Germany had convinced the Ottomans to give Palestine to the Zionists then it's not all that certain that they would have lost WWI.  In that case, there would not have been a Holocaust and Israel would have been born immediately as the more secular multi-ethnic state that Herzl had originally envisioned.

Furthermore, an intact Ottoman Empire would have retained control over the entire oil-rich Middle East (minus Palestine).

[xawery 0]

Well, if Germany had convinced the Ottomans to give Palestine to the Zionists then it's not all that certain that they would have lost WWI.

How so?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Well, if Germany had convinced the Ottomans to give Palestine to the Zionists then it's not all that certain that they would have lost WWI.

How so?

indeed how so? Germany were starved out of the first war basicly.

[Nemesis6 0]

The interesting thing about the so-called "truce" is that several countries that are going to be keeping the peace don't even recognize Israel.

I can just picture it now -

Indonesian soldier - "Hey, Sanjay, why do we have to keep the peace between Palestine and Lebanon?"

Indian soldier - "We don't. We have to keep the peace between Israel and Lebanon."

Indonesian soldier - "That's what I said: Why do we have to keep the peace between Palestine and Lebanon?"

Indian soldier - "Look, Mohammed, we've had this discussion before. Let's just go kidnap some Israelis... I mean Palestinians."

Indonesian soldier - "But I don't wanna kidnap Palestinians! They are Muslims like me!"

Indian soldier - "When I say "Palestinians" I mean Israelis. I do that to help you understand me because every time I mention "Israeli", you pretend to have no idea what or who I'm talking about."

Indonesian soldier - "I don't understand... Are you a Zionist agent?"

[Bernadotte 0]

Well, if Germany had convinced the Ottomans to give Palestine to the Zionists then it's not all that certain that they would have lost WWI.

How so?

From the Balfour Declaration article in Wikipedia:

1.  The War was deadlocked in summer 1917 and the USA was still a year away from sending forces.

2.  Germany had plenty of Acetone with which to make Cordite explosive for munitions.  Britain did not and only got their Acetone supply guaranteed when Weizmann exchanged his new synthesis technique for the Balfour Declaration.

3.  It would have helped to mobilise the financial resources of the world's Jewish community on behalf of the Central Powers instead of the Allies.

4.  It would have further secured Germany's eastern front and trade links through Russia given the Zionists' influence with the Bolsheviks.

I'm not saying that these issues would have been enough to tip the scales against the Allies, but I do believe that the possibility of a German victory would have been significantly enhanced. And btw, a German victory would not necessarily have culminated with Britain's surrender, but perhaps only a ceasefire leaving the continent under Central Power control.

[deanosbeano 0]

Quote[/b] ]The interesting thing about the so-called "truce" is that several countries that are going to be keeping the peace don't even recognize Israel.

What will that matter when israel start killing U.N peacekeepers ?

surely they are even more legitimate targets than the other blue helmets they have slaughtered ,if they dont recognise israel ?

like lambs to the slaughter huh.do you think they will snipe them or just bomb them from afar ?.maybe you can send your little 1.2.3.4 and they can use it has a dialogue and say we heard this over the airwaves ?.

the interesting thing about the truce is written within it is the original U.N resolution and the boundaries set out in it and i dont think israel recognises that because it occupies land that is not theres. so both sides are probably as bad as eachother huh ?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Well, if Germany had convinced the Ottomans to give Palestine to the Zionists then it's not all that certain that they would have lost WWI.

How so?

From the Balfour Declaration article in Wikipedia:

1.  The War was deadlocked in summer 1917 and the USA was still a year away from sending forces.

2.  Germany had plenty of Acetone with which to make Cordite explosive for munitions.  Britain did not and only got their Acetone supply guaranteed when Weizmann exchanged his new synthesis technique for the Balfour Declaration.

3.  It would have helped to mobilise the financial resources of the world's Jewish community on behalf of the Central Powers instead of the Allies.

4.  It would have further secured Germany's eastern front and trade links through Russia given the Zionists' influence with the Bolsheviks.

I'm not saying that these issues would have been enough to tip the scales against the Allies, but I do believe that the possibility of a German victory would have been significantly enhanced.  And btw, a German victory would not necessarily have culminated with Britain's surrender, but perhaps only a ceasefire leaving the continent under Central Power control.

not really true, The british and french made breakthroughs in 1917. The USA didnt really help all to much in the actual fighting. They had to learn the lessons that the frenh and british already learned. Of course they must get some merit, but the war was already won by the time they arrived in my view. British commanders had changed by then. History tells the wrong story, and makes people think that 1914-15 tactics were used all the wat through the war. Infact massive troop casultys (were talking thousands in hours) ended with the introduction of the creeping barrige in early 1917.

[Bernadotte 0]

I'm not saying that these issues would have been enough to tip the scales against the Allies, but I do believe that the possibility of a German victory would have been significantly enhanced.

not really true

What's not really true?

I've only suggested that munitions, supply routes and financial resources were significant factors for each side in the conflict.  And that the Balfour Declaration assisted the Allies with these needs while, in part, hindering the Central Powers.

The british and french made breakthroughs in 1917.

Could you be more specific about those 1917 breakthroughs and how an Allied victory became a certainty as a result of them, regardless of the situation with munitions, supply routes and financial resources?

The USA didnt really help all to much in the actual fighting.

I'm referring to how the situation would have evolved in 1917.  The actual impact of America landing 10,000 troops per day from summer 1918 is irrelevant to the circumstances of 1917 when Balfour was negotiated.  The fact remains that US forces were not there in 1917.

Btw, the dates are interesting.  The Arab revolt against the Ottomans in exchange for British promises of independence began in June 1916 and resulted in the Allied capture of Jerusalem in Dec 1917.  However, just a few weeks earlier in Nov 1917, the British also promised to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine.

How convenient!!  

Quote[/b] ]"The Balfour declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis - again, an interesting history for us, but not an honourable one."

-- Jack Straw

LOL  He can't even bring himself to use the term "Zionists."  He refers to them as Israelis, even though Israel would not be around for another 30 years.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

i was disagreeing with  the first point.

Battles like the Messines Ridge showed how new british and french tactics were emplyed to break german lines.  Ofcourse the 3rd battle of Ypres shows how tanks could be defeated and the advance was a failure.  I cant show how they lead to the end of the war, that is impossible.  But it shows that the British and French were gaining the upper hand, so in my opinion it is untrue that there was still a deadlock in 1917.  I think were also forgetting the British controlled alot of the mediteranian and middle east, so the germans getting re-supplied might not have happened, and they certinly would have dealed the the bolshaviks as at the time there regime was so unstable.

Germany lost the war from the day it began.  They simply didnt have the resorces to fight a massive war on two fronts.  That was the entire purpse of the  Schlieffen Plan, to end the war quickly in France so germany could tackle Russia.  War is not just won on the battlefield.  The British blockade has a massive effect on German morale,  the population literally starved.  This made people loose faith in the Kaiser.  An important reason why the armitice was signed by the "november criminals" as they became to be known by the Nazis.

[billybob2002 0]

What's not really true?

I've only suggested that munitions, supply routes and financial resources were significant factors for each side in the conflict.  And that the Balfour Declaration assisted the Allies with these needs while, in part, hindering the Central Powers.

How did the Balfour Declaration assist the Allied cause, again? You are using Wikipedia paragraphs, which lack sources, to conclude that somehow the Declaration got, basically, the Jews on the Allied side.

LOL  He can't even bring himself to use the term "Zionists."  He refers to them as Israelis, even though Israel would not be around for another 30 years.

And he didn't use the word Arabs, instead of Palestinians, too!

Making a fuss that Mr. Straw didn't use Arabs (Palestinians) and Jews (Israelis)....

[Bernadotte 0]

How did the Balfour Declaration assist the Allied cause, again?

Is this just some Billybob spam or do you really expect me repeat what I've already posted?    

LOL  He can't even bring himself to use the term "Zionists."  He refers to them as Israelis, even though Israel would not be around for another 30 years.

And he didn't use the word Arabs, instead of Palestinians, too!

Making a fuss that Mr. Straw didn't use Arabs (Palestinians) and Jews (Israelis)....

LOL  Obviously you have just as much trouble with using the term "Zionist" as he does.  

[billybob2002 0]

Is this just some Billybob spam or do you really expect me repeat what I've already posted?

Clearly you are not seeing that the "military and political context" section of the Wikipedia article about the Balfour Declaration lacks zero sources and you are using it has gospel. I'm not asking you to repeat what you said but to find real sources. You may of noticed the second sentence gave you a hint to do so.

LOL  Obviously you have just as much trouble with using the term "Zionist" as he does.

Moreover, you have trouble using the term "Arabs" in reference to modern day Palestinians due to the fact there is a difference between a Mandate Era Palestinian and a modern day Palestinian...

Anyway, the British didn't make a promise to "Palestinians" but to Arabs. Additionally, they didn't make a promise to Zionists but to Jews on the whole and not just Zionists. Yeah, the Declaration mentions the Zionists but the fact is that Declaration includes the whole Jewish population.

Again, you are making a fuss out of nothing. He is just trying to be PC-ish by not calling them Arabs and Jews.  

the problem with wikepedia is it is writen by people, its not a creditable resorce or source, its jsut a bunch of peoples opinions.

Aye.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

the problem with wikepedia is it is writen by people, its not a creditable resorce or source, its jsut a bunch of peoples opinions.

[EiZei 0]

the problem with wikepedia is it is writen by people, its not  a creditable resorce or source, its jsut a bunch of peoples opinions.

You ever notice that source list in the bottom? Helps a lot.

[denoir 0]

the problem with wikepedia is it is writen by people, its not  a creditable resorce or source, its jsut a bunch of peoples opinions.

Random sampling and testing of articles have shown wikipedia to be nearly as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica, which is considered to be the most reliable encyclopedia in existence.  [1]

[billybob2002 0]

the problem with wikepedia is it is writen by people, its not  a creditable resorce or source, its jsut a bunch of peoples opinions.

You ever notice that source list in the bottom? Helps a lot.

There are no sources for the section in question though.