• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

What are the causes of war?


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 13 March 2003 - 02:18 AM


What are the causes of war? How can these causes of war be reduced?

bob

Posted Image

Trench warfare in World War I.

Posted Image

Hiroshima after the atomic bomb in World War II

Posted Image

"I don't know how man will fight World War III, but I do know how they will fight World War IV : with sticks and stones."

~Albert Einstein


#2 bobdrake12

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 13 March 2003 - 02:19 AM

One of the reasons for a form of democracy, such as the Republic of the US, tends more towards the peace process rather than a tyrannical dictatorship will, is that the polictical leadership can be voted out.

It is my suggestion that we pursue a subject titled something like "causes of wars & how these causes can be reduced" by starting another topic.

What do you think?


I for one concur completely (no surprise there) and if I don't get a chance to start it feel free to Bob or anyone. It is afterall not a spinoff of this thread at all, it is the core issue from which numerous threads have in their turn really been spun off.

Originally posted by Lazarus Long

#3 bobdrake12

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 13 March 2003 - 02:21 AM

It is my suggestion that we pursue a subject titled something like "causes of wars & how these causes can be reduced" by starting another topic.


Undemocratic forms of government are the causes of war. I ask you this question, "Have we ever fought a major conflict against a democratic nation?"

Originally posted by Kissinger.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 13 March 2003 - 02:21 AM

I will stake out a Social Darwinist position early on as I think most of the rationalizations for war are more about convincing the rest of a group to participate then in fact dealing with the ACTUAL threats.

I will get back to this later but I thought I would like to just thank you for doing this first. I think the discussion is long overdue.

#5 bobdrake12

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 13 March 2003 - 02:22 AM

The first major war this nation ever faught it instigated with hostile action against Canada. The war was the war of 1812 and while officially it was against England we are lucky they were busy with Napoleon or American history would be considerably different, and shorter. The British were satisfied with an object lesson and they burned down our Capitol in Washington DC and torched much of the city.

The second major war we ever faught was against the Republic of Mexico in 1846. We started it (disputed) and we seized much of the land that we are now complaining the people who originally had the right to inhabit no longer do. We did so by force of arms and with no legal claim.
http://www.pbs.org/k.../mainframe.html

The third time this Nation went to war was the most deadly in its history to date and it is when we torn ourselves assunder in our own Civil War and this was one Democratic People against another and has less to do with slavery then the propagandists of history spin on to it.

The fact is that your assumptions are wrong and we never even went to war to "Make the World Safe for Democracy" although we claimed that to be the case in WWI. We certainly weren't encouraging Democracy in Guatemala for the last five decades, or Nicaragua, or El Salvador, or the Dominican Republic under Trujillo, and if you want I can fill up a page with all the dictatorships this country has installed and maintained.

Your assumption is just wishful but blindsided by a lack of understanding of our history.

Originally posted by Lazarus Long

#6 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 13 March 2003 - 02:46 AM

Ignorance and seclusion are my two most likely candidates for war troubles around the world. Democratic nations may have started wars in the past (including the U.S.) but it is getting tougher and tougher nowadays because of increased awareness and communication around the globe.

One thing that befuddles me is why many western nations will not do anything about Iraq. They know what is going on there. They know it is a human tradegy (goes back to increased communication). They also know any battle will be swift with very few casualties...ie. the benefits far outweigh the costs. All I can figure is that they remember the U.S. of old that supported dictators from time to time and fear a new imperialism. From where I stand I do not see Pax Americana being installed around the globe, but I suffer from a biased standpoint (I live in the U.S.).

I do not support imperialism, but I would like to see more of the world free.

#7 bobdrake12

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 13 March 2003 - 02:54 AM

One reported reason for war is essentially to steal from another country.

Countries are invaded for their land, wealth and natural resources.

The Nazi's used a term for this called the principle of lebensraum.

Check out the article below regarding how it worked.

bob

http://www.holocaust-trc.org/wmp15.htm

LEBENSRAUM: LIVING SPACE FOR THE GERMAN RACE

The main reason for the Nazi expansion into its neighboring western countries was built upon the principle of lebensraum. Even though it translates literally to mean only “living space,” lebensraum carried with it the desire for the Nazis to expand into other countries to provide living space for the growing German race.

During this time, the “inferior” races, such as the Jews and Gypsies, who occupied the new Nazi territories, were stripped of their possessions, jobs, and “resettled” in ghettos or concentration camps. This helped break the people’s will, asserted the strong power of the Nazis, and gave direct benefits to the Nazi regime.

When the Nazi Army successfully overtook and conquered the surrounding lands of France, Alsace, and Lorraine, the Reich immediately began its policy of racial restructuring. The German bureaucracy began by issuing orders for Jews in a particular town or city to submit an announcement of their possessions. This property was then gathered and confiscated, and the money was used directly by the bureaucracy.

The Nazis basic intent was to make survival for the Jews more difficult and to create a loss of identity for the Jews. For the most part, the Nazis were successful in accomplishing their two goals as well as devastating the lives of the for letters stating that their jobs no longer existed or that their possessions were to be handed over to the German Reich. The Nazis occupying the towns asserted that the consequence of dissension was severe punishment or death.

As the Jews were stripped of their belongings, they also were stripped of their purpose and their identity. By taking their positions at work, their personal possessions, and their money, the Nazis ensured a supreme hold on the Jewish population that allowed them to expand and exploit the Nazi’s power.

After the possessions of the Jews were taken and sold, the Nazis continued their plans of "resettlement.” During World War II, 70,000 individuals were deported in France and the Alsace-Lorraine region with the help of the French government in power, 3,300 of which were Jews.

Most of the deportees were shipped to concentration camps throughout Europe for slave labor or to be put to death. The Nazis maintained their clear purpose of cleansing Europe of the Jews, Gypsies, criminals, and foreign nationalists, and they carried these goals into the occupied territories for implementation. Through the goals of lebeusraum and “resettlement,” the Nazis tried to restructure the racial content of Europe and deeply scarred the lives of many Jews living in the occupied regions. The Nazis stripped away their lives and their identities in an effort to expand their own race at the expense and exploitation of the Jewish race.

Posted Image

#8 bobdrake12

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 13 March 2003 - 03:04 AM

More on the Nazi ideologyof Lebensraum.

Per the article below:

The Nazi modified theory of Lebensraum became Germany's foreign policy during the Third Reich.


bob

Lebensraum


[W]ithout consideration of "traditions" and prejudices, it [Germany] must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation.--- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf 1

The geopolitical concept of Lebensraum ("living space") was proffered by others in Germany decades before Adolf Hitler came to power. In 1871, for example, Lebensraum was a popular political slogan during the establishment of a united Germany. At this time, Lebensraum usually meant finding additional "living space" by adding colonies, following the examples of the British and French empires.


In an era when the earth is gradually being divided up among states, some of which embrace almost entire continents, we cannot speak of a world power in connection with a formation whose political mother country is limited to the absurd area of five hundred thousand square kilometers.--- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf 2

Adding living space was believed to strengthen Germany by helping solve internal problems, make it militarily stronger, and help make Germany become economically self-sufficient by adding food an other raw material sources.

The concept of Lebensraum was discussed and developed during the following decades by scholars Karl Haushofer, Sir Halford Mackinder, and Friedrich Ratzel. In 1926, Hans Grimm's book Volk ohne Raum ("A People without Space") was published. This book became a classic on Germany's need for space and the book's title soon became a popular National Socialist slogan.

Hitler changed the concept of Lebensraum. Rather than adding colonies to make Germany larger, Hitler wanted to enlarge Germany within Europe.


For it is not in colonial acquisitions that we must see the solution of this problem, but exclusively in the acquisition of a territory for settlement, which will enhance the area of the mother country, and hence not only keep the new settlers in the most intimate community with the land of their origin, but secure for the total area those advantages which lie in its unified magnitude.--- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf 3

Hitler looked east for Germany's expansion in Europe. It was in this view that Hitler added a racist element to Lebensraum. By stating that the Soviet Union was run by Jews, then Hitler concluded Germany had a right to take Russian land.


For centuries Russia drew nourishment from this Germanic nucleus of its upper leading strata. Today it can be regarded as almost totally exterminated and extinguished. It has been replaced by the Jew. Impossible as it is for the Russian by himself to shake off the yoke of the Jew by his own resources, it is equally impossible for the Jew to maintain the mighty empire forever. He himself is no element of organization, but a ferment of decomposition. The Persian empire in the east is ripe for collapse. And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state.--- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf 4

Thus, in Nazi ideology, Lebensraum meant the expansion of Germany to the east in search of a unity between the German Volk and the land (the Nazi concept of Blood and Soil). The Nazi modified theory of Lebensraum became Germany's foreign policy during the Third Reich.



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

1. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971) 646.
2. Hitler, Mein Kampf 644.
3. Hitler, Mein Kampf 653.
4. Hitler, Mein Kampf 655.




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


Bibliography
Bankier, David. "Lebensraum." Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. Israel Gutman (ed.) New York: Macmillan Library Reference, 1990.

Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971.

Zentner, Christian and Friedmann Bedürftig (eds.). The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich. New York: Da Capo Press, 1991.


Copyright © 2003 About, Inc.

#9 bobdrake12

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 13 March 2003 - 03:14 AM

Democratic nations may have started wars in the past (including the U.S.) but it is getting tougher and tougher nowadays because of increased awareness and communication around the globe.


Mind,

The nightly news from the US' three major TV networks appear to usually carry roughly the same stories, with the same film footage and verbiage. Only the folks who read their soundbytes seem to be different.

The "tougher" nowadays appears to be the alternate media from the radio talk shows, to the Internet sources, to discussion groups like this one.


bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 13 March 2003 - 03:15 AM.


#10 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 13 March 2003 - 03:20 AM

The nightly news from the US' three major TV networks appear to usually carry roughly the same stories, with the same film footage and verbiage. Only the folks who read their soundbytes seem to be different.

The "tougher" nowadays appears to be the alternate media from the radio talk show, to the Internet, to discussion groups like this one.


This is an astute observation. Yes that is what I meant by "tougher". There are more outlets of information. Democratic countries with a robust communications infrastructure (cell phones, internet, TV, satellite communication) will have a harder time delivering propaganda. Sure, there is spin from the leaders but it is mostly transparent.

Also the three major networks ratings have been in a steady decline for over 10 years now, if they are dispensing propaganda - it is reaching less people.

Edited by Mind, 13 March 2003 - 03:20 AM.


#11 bobdrake12

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 13 March 2003 - 03:21 AM

http://www.yad-vashe...ogy_1933_2.html

Posted Image

February 3 1933: Hitler presents Lebensraum program

Hitler revealed his political goals in a speech to the leading army and navy commanders. He spoke of the need for an authoritarian state purged of Marxism and pacifism, the occupation of living space in the East for the German people, rearmament, and resistance to the Versailles Treaty. He stressed the importance of the military and promised not to involve it in domestic political disputes. Hitler’s purpose in making these remarks was to earn the generals’ support for his regime.

Copyright ©2003 Yad Vashem The Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority

#12 bobdrake12

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 13 March 2003 - 03:27 AM

Democratic countries with a robust communications infrastructure (cell phones, internet, TV, satellite communication) will have a harder time delivering propaganda.


Mind,

While I agree, I also believe it is essential for the democratic countries to have the freedom of speech similar to what the US has as guaranteed in its Constitution.

If the "alternative views" are silenced or censored by law, the communications infrastructure will be far less effective in combating propaganda.

bob

#13 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 13 March 2003 - 04:00 AM

Thanks for the slander Laz, I'll have to remember to tag you with a few myself [B)]

The fact is that your assumptions are wrong and we never even went to war to "Make the World Safe for Democracy"



What do you call WWII, the Cold War?? What do you call our reform of Japan and Germany? We have not always gone to war for democracy, but to say never is showing your bias.

Your assumption is just wishful but blind sided by a lack of understanding of our history.


Blow me. Sorry but I couldn't think of a better rhetorical response. lol

#14 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 13 March 2003 - 05:32 AM

What do you call WWII, the Cold War?? What do you call our reform of Japan and Germany? We have not always gone to war for democracy, but to say never is showing your bias.


I desire democracy and I have seen it defended by peoples all over the world, but you still fail to understand it is not a gift, it is a right.

In WWII we were defending ourselves and we weren't that sure on which side we would fight or for what reasons, until we were openly attacked. As far as natural catastrophes go that was a Kamakazi wind.

I see this very differently than you for sure but it wasn't slander it was fact. Oil is the White Man's Buffalo.

And the Native Americans were more often than not, more Democratic before the Europeans saved them from those Pagan notions too, or killed them. Let's get this straight war is the topic.

Slander is a reason to feel you can take equal measure but slander is not a call to kill. Saving face is an issue of slander. And American history is spun for the masses but there is plenty enough on and in the "record".

We are not a perfect people and Democracy isn't a shield against a tyranny of mass hysteria and much that passes for war is little less.

Our history is not a primrose path and the choices made had outcomes that not always justified the means. Am I glad to be born here and share a heritage of land and people and of blood and oath?

Everyday, I am, I do.

Get this straight the difference between you and I is I don't give a damn about spin, left or right, just lets begin by dealing with fact. People kill for survival based resources, territory as a consequence, and ritual mating as a characteristic derivitive of memetic induced eugenics that may have been influencing human development since written language.

Democracy is wonderful, definitely better than sliced bread but it is not God in the Form of a State, it is by far not infallible.

I love democracy but that doesn't preclude that we all love each other even though we comprise almost warring factions of our own National Structure?

But war is what happens when an Economic Super Powers adopts a Right of Domain over all other less powerful States. I am not against Democratic Principles Mr. Kissinger I asking simply that they be applied.

That is WHY call a Congress, AN International Congress First.

Before starting the killing bath.

Democrats need not apply, how magnanomous of you.

Lets understand that Democracy is inclusive...

Oh wait that too is really another thread. Here we are talking war.

Why kill instead of cooperate?

Is that the question or do you have something else of mine you want?

#15 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 13 March 2003 - 08:43 AM

Let us be frank, shall we?

The first goal of the United States is its own national security. Democracy, freedom, liberty--all great concepts, but not #1 in our book. We are #1 in our book. This is how it should be. When a nation stops looking out for its own best interests that is when it disintegrates.

The US policy in the past has not always been to encourage democracy. If democracy happened, and that democracy was friendly to the US, then great. However, the secret to our "empire" has been the utilization of indirect force. Using direct force is a last resort since it is costly and has repercussions.

There has never been an urgency to democratize the world. It has always been believe that democratization would take place on its own time table. However...

However, we do not have the luxury of time in the Middle East.

The Middle East is a unique region of the world. Obviously, despotism and repression are not the sole contributors to terrorism. There are plenty of hot spots in the world where humanitarian crisises are occurring daily. Yet terrorism, of the size and scale we are debating, does not emanate from these regions. Why? Because part of the cause of terrorism is cultural. Isn't this an obvious truth? [huh]

When I say it should be the goal of the United States to democratize the Middle East I am painting with a broad brush. When I say the Middle East should be democratized I am saying we should destroy their culture. Hey, I said let's be frank didn't I?

What is the reason that despotism is so prevalent in the Middle East. Why hasn't democracy taken root? The answer is that the culture of the Middle East conforms to a tribal mindset. I think I mentioned this before, but let me mention it again. Yasser Arafat is an ineffectual leader who is way way past his prime. He looks like he should be in a nursing home. He would have been voted out of office many years ago in any western democracy. However, the tribalism within "Palestine" is reluctant to let General Arafat ride off into the sunset. They have personalized their leader. Arafat is a symbol of the Palestinian cause. This is indicative of much of the Middle East. When a leader passes on he is replaced by another supreme leader. The democratic process never has a chance to take hold.

By imparting our democratic principles and our culturally enlightened beliefs in humanitarian issues, we will break the horrible cycle that is taking place in the Middle East. Their culture may be greatly change, but that is a price I am willing to pay.

That is how the real world works. When cultures compete, one wins, one loses. They are the losers, we are the winners. We will change them to make them a better society. And in doing so we eleviate the threat posed to us by terrorism.

And if any of this is going to be possible, it will only be possible through war and direct force. Islamic culture is not going to roll over without a fight.

So to answer the question of the thread, the best way to reduce the causes of war are by reducing the threats to peace. (Hey, I have to be a little diplomatic after all of my blunt talk lol ).

#16 Thomas

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 0

Posted 13 March 2003 - 02:38 PM

I have a slightly different perspective - but only slightly.

- Thomas

#17 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 13 March 2003 - 07:10 PM

Let us be frank, shall we?

The first goal of the United States is its own national security. Democracy, freedom, liberty--all great concepts, but not #1 in our book. We are #1 in our book. This is how it should be. When a nation stops looking out for its own best interests that is when it disintegrates.


Yes let's...

You will never get to be number one by only thinking of yourself as opposed to the rest of the world for in that case you foster the idea that while you talk of defending the interests of others, all you are in fact doing is imposing your own specific interests. If you expect the world to cooperate with a US lead Hegemony instead of openly opposing it and covertly working around the Earth to undermine such a rule then realize that it ultimately relies upon killing and is actually much less appealing to their self interest.

Not killing is not a reward, it is a reduction of threat, from actual to simply problematic, and opportunity is the pathway out of our social crisis not charity. You fail to commit to your own acclaimed conviction in the power of the market place. But Free Markets demand Free Workplaces. You have never forgotten the class struggle aspect that has underlay so much of the global political polemic for centuries, Liberty, Brotherhood, and Equality?

Class war is inevitable but it can be resolved on a shop floor better than a battlefield. The problem underlying the species driven impulse or urge to war is a “Super-conscience.” All the rhetoric is communicative connection of competing interest but the drive is a manifestation of collective demand between competing Urban Technocracies. We are not dissimilar to Termites in this manner.

The drive to war is an Evolutionary Psychological Behavioral Paradigm (Meme) that has limited potential, pragmatic methods, and results are measured in factors that have been little understood by most of the practitioners. Ultimately what is universally understood, yet rarely if ever practiced is the idea that reward is more practical than punishment.

Here we are ready to squander our human capital in an act of dissipation and destruction predicated on a kind of Social Capitalism that treats the numbers and demands of beings around the globe as little more than a commodity whose worth is determined by supply and demand. Hence with a surplus supply of humans their individual worth is depreciated as consequence, until reduced to a form of liquid capital.

This is neither valid economic theory nor pragmatic policy, it is derivative of backward thinking and is consequential of historic cause and effect but the limits of Zeno’s paradox apply here and argue that we cannot solve a problem of the type we are facing by resorting to classic Evolutionary Psychological and in another sense Biological as well models for behavioral response. We have altered the rules. Weapons of Mass destruction generate consequences that blowback globally and cannot be avoiding by thinking that one group is affecting another region and thus keeping the destruction contained “Over There”.

More over the real concern is establishing a just, consistent, coherent, and generally respected Rule of Law such that enforcement is not a problem, it is a given. This will never be done at the point of a gun, at the edge of the blade, or with my hands at your throat. I can defend my rights, but I cannot impose them, it is a logical absurdity.

The use of military to evolve into a policing institution as a branch of joint governmental activity is coming about and needs to be the focus, not the mere threat of the use of force. These are the limits of force, if you demend negotiations at gunpoint then at least negotiate. Otherwise you are making yourself a target instead of a player. Negotiations take precedence over war, the real Mr. Kissinger NEVER EVER FORGOT THAT.

He ordered the wanton slaughter of nations and innocents all to demonstrate to a foe our serious earnestness of power. Ironically he did it so as to beat a retreat, and not let us be routed; he didn’t do it to win in Vietnam. History is unforgiving.

Why War?

I am unconvinced of its necessity so I will let Mr. Kissinger and others defend war, I will accept that war is at best only a legitimate defense. I see this question as crucial. I will accept the pragmatic application of war in defense of civil peace but I see it as becoming a vestigial behavior for our species or I see it making us self limit towards extinction.

Competition is both healthy and unhealthy; war is Socially Darwinist behavior as it applies survival of the fittest to old socioeconomic paradigms but in today’s world, and more over among those that demand the rights of Personal Transcendence from Transhumanist Cybernetics to Buddhism, we are seeing that the competition is becoming cutthroat. Humans are becoming better able to determine their individual and collective course, and this is the purpose of establishing a “Globally Approved” rule of law first. Otherwise, without it one has nothing legitimate to defend, no right of enforcement, and no rights to enforce.

I am trying to point out there is an order of events that need not begin with war but acknowledge that the threat of war as a core issue in common that must be addressed publicly before a world of individual citizens such that like watching the men walk on the Moon we see our future before us and grasp how what is being done is felt in common. Spectacle has its purpose and when going well is best not rushed.

The rules of the competition are changing and there are still healthy and unhealthy polarities of choice but Total War no longer functions as a rational choice for legitimate Nations to entertain. It is simply no more effective at solving the issues than using a hammer to fix a Motherboard, which is why I say the institution of war is becoming obsolete. But slowly, too slowly for the powers that be to ever acknowledge.

So sex, wealth, power, and trying to be immortal through selfish genes all contribute to war, but politics is just the language of the physics of power and only one of the ways the species known as homo sapiens negotiates with its behaviors and goals derived from its Evolutionary Biology and Psychology.

War as a game is reserved to children but when the players are irresponsible with their tools they become dangerous even to themselves, like all children playing with guns. There are simply better ways to resolve current crises then resorting so quickly to war as an option. War is not the only option and that is why I say bringing the parties to the floor and demand open negotiation of issues. The United States is definitely staring down the barrel of a gun at Iraq. I know that population is feeling the heat; I expect Saddam is weighing his endgame strategy by now. Create an offer he cannot refuse.

The only way to do that constructively is if the world does so in a single voice, but the United States acting unilaterally is having a counterproductive result and ignoring this is foolhardy. It is not too late to change the rhetoric of rational discourse between member States that are no longer agreeing to disagree but planning the alternatives.

This is why I call for Congress BEFORE calling for Counting Coup.

WE have failed to date to call for such Congress and in fact have been hiding, trying to say we won’t participate unless the whole system of justice comes back to Washington DC for final approval. The real issue is it will be a cold day in hell before the Cowboys in our system grant the Yankees a transfer of power back toward their concerns and away from their opposing centers of interest. If the UN does in fact transcend the serious threat it is facing and stays in the United State then ironically the real global shift of power isn’t so much from the US to China, it is from DC to NYC.

From China’s perspective there is a subtle distinction but in all most important aspects the differences from its perspective are moot. But China is willing anyway because they think they are regaining a Popular Voice”. They don’t see themselves the villain Mr. Kissinger; they see themselves simply as an aggressive competitor.

The real issue is will we trade instead of going to war?

#18 bobdrake12

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 14 March 2003 - 01:56 AM

Weapons of Mass destruction generate consequences that blowback globally and cannot be avoiding by thinking that one group is affecting another region and thus keeping the destruction contained “Over There”.


Lazarus Long,

The impact could be global such as nuclear winter.

bob

http://www.carleton....astrophe63.html

Posted Image

Nuclear Winter Effect on Climate

For nuclear exchanges involving principally urban areas only 500 megatons required to generate nuclear winter.

o Sun would be shut off for months.

o Temperatures would plummet perticularly in continental interiors.

o Would take several seasons for climate to return to normal.

http://www.oceansonline.com/nukes.htm

Posted Image

Nuclear explosions could eject enough dust into our atmosphere to create what scientists call "nuclear winter." While the threat of nuclear war has subsided in recent years, the nuclear arsenal continues to grow.

Edited by bobdrake12, 14 March 2003 - 01:58 AM.


#19 bobdrake12

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 14 March 2003 - 02:31 AM

Not only was Nazi Germany expansionist but so was Japan prior to WWII. This expansionism eventually lead to WWII.

bob

http://www.pomperaug...r/lobbypage.htm

Was the Bombing of Pearl Harbor the Real Reason that the United States Entered World War Two, or was Their Involvement Inevitable?

Two score and nineteen years ago, on the seventh day of the twelfth month, at 0625 hours, Japanese planes disembarked from their Pacific carriers and successfully executed a surprise attack on the American primary Pacific naval base, Pearl Harbor. The Japanese managed to cripple the American Pacific fleet of battleships as well as take the lives of more than two thousand American soldiers. Following the ruthless attack, on December 8, 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt successfully asked Congress for a declaration of war against Japan. Thus, America found itself in World War Two and abandoned its comfortable tradition of isolationism. However, was US involvement in WWII a direct result of the Japanese attack, or was US involvement inevitable?

Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor war had been circulating throughout the world for ten years in Asia, six years in Africa and two years in Europe. In 1931, the Japanese began it’s first steps in creating a Japanese empire throughout Asia by invading Manchuria. This invasion would mark the beginning of Japan’s long campaign to end Western Influence within the Pacific and Asia. In 1937, Japan moved further with it’s campaign and entered Northern China. Japan was able to sieze the city of Nanking in the war with China and furthered to extend it’s influence throughout Asian nations. However, much of the Japanese acts were overlooked due to fasscist expansion in Europe.

Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler fueled international tensions with their hopes for expansion and war. Mussoilini sent Italian troops in 1935 to Ethipoia to conquer the African nation. While the League of Nations attempted at stopping Japan’s and Italy’s exapnsion the League proved to be unsuccesful with their bids for peace. Finally, Axis aggression became too large a threat to world peace and allied nations responded upon Germany’s invasion of Poland on September 7, 1939 by declaring war on the axis powers. However, throughout this period America remained neutral, trying to steer clear of another world war. And axis expansion continuted As Italy was able to acquire the majority of Northern Africa, and the majority of Europe was in Axis control, and Japan’s influenced stretched throughout much of Asia and the Pacific.

Yet the Japanese saw the United States as the major threat of Japanese expansion in Asia and knew that something had to be done about the United States navy in order to continue expansion easily. And thus lead to the attack on the United States Naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7, 1941.

Pearl Harbor proved to be one of the major turning points of World War II. The event is what many see as the United States prime reason for the entrance into the war. Whether or not Pearl Harbor was the factor which in fact brought the United States to war with the axis powers can best be deduced through looking at why would the United States have entered World War II before the bombing the bombing of Pearl Harbor, wether or not President Franklin Roosevelt had complete knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor, what were Japan's motives in the bombing of Pearl Harbor and was the attack a success for the japanese, and what effects did the bombing of Pearl Harbor have on the United States of America.

Edited by bobdrake12, 14 March 2003 - 02:37 AM.


#20 bobdrake12

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 14 March 2003 - 02:43 AM

Expansion through war by one power and the attempt to control that expansion by another power usually will lead to a major war.

Check out how the dominoes fell one by one as the US' attempts to control Japanese expansion (driven by Japan's need for more raw materials and markets throughout Asia) eventually led to WWII.

Japan needs more raw materials and markets throughout Asia > Japan invades Manchuria and then China > US becomes a protector of China > US felt threatened about China attacking the Philiipines > US outlaws the sale of war materials such as petroleum to Japan > this action helped trigger Japan's signing of the axis alliance between Italy and Germany > US sees the axist alliance as a threat > US places a larger embargo on Japan disabling the sale of oil, steel, and iron > Japan sees the US as a major threat to its Asian campaign and attacks Pearl Harbor

bob

http://www.pomperaug...MOTIVESMATT.htm

What Were Japan's Motives in Bombing Pearl Harbor and was the Bombing a Success for the Japanese?

To ascertain Japan's motives in the bombing of Pearl Harbor it is best to view Japan's relationship with the United States. The relationship began on August 6, 1853 when an expedition lead by United States Commodore Matthew Perry landed on the shores of Japan seeking open trade with the country. Tensions between the nations first arose in 1898 when the United States issued an open door policy within China for the United States feared missing out on valuable trade with China which had been dominated by Western Powers as well as Japan who were holding spheres of influence within China. The policy allowed all nations to trade openly with China. This angered Japan for it lost valuable trading rights with China and was forced to give up its lands in Korea and China. Also in 1898 and 1899 the United States acquired the Philippines and the Hawaiian islands which angered the Japanese for Japan sought to create a Japanese empire throughout Asia and the United States' expansion into the Pacific would only hinder Japanese plans of Asian domination.

The Great Depression of the 1930’s lead Japan to increase its imperialistic endeavors for Japan needed to access more raw materials and markets throughout Asia. Thus, in 1931, in protest of the League of Nations Japan invaded Manchuria, increasing world tensions. In 1937, Japan continued its expansion into China and was able to capture the city of Nanking in Northern China. Upon the beginning of war in Europe Japan furthered its conquest of China and the United States felt a need to act for it looked on itself as a protector of China. Also Americans felt threatened for now the Japanese were capable of attacking the American colony of the Philippines by air. Thus, in 1940, President Roosevelt outlawed the sale of much needed war materials such as petroleum to Japan. This act help trigger Japan's signing of the axis alliance between Italy and Germany. Seeing this alliance as a threat, Roosevelt then placed a larger embargo on Japan disabling the sale of oil, steel, and iron, materials which Japan would need in order to continue the war and expansion. Japan now saw the United States as a major threat to its Asian campaign and felt that the United States was the only power capable of hindering the development of a Japanese empire in Asia. Thus, the Japanese planned and concentrated an attack upon the main base of the United States Pacific Fleet, in Pearl Harbor Hawaii. The economic restrictions brought forth by the United States and the United States’ relentless attempts to control Japanese expansion lead the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor.

The attack in and of itself proved to be a great victory for Japan. The United States suffered 3,5 81 casualties while the Japanese suffered a mere 64 deaths. The Japanese were successful in destroying or damaging eighteen ships, including five battleships. The Japanese were also able to destroy 188 planes while damaging 162 while the Japanese only lost twenty-nine ships out of 353 which attacked. The surprise attack proved to be a momentous victory for the Japanese.

Edited by bobdrake12, 14 March 2003 - 03:14 AM.


#21 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 14 March 2003 - 04:31 AM

Not only was Nazi Germany expansionist but so was Japan prior to WWII. This expansionism eventually lead to WWII.  


And so were we as the articles you posted point out. We were a competing expansionist power and our spheres of influence came into conflict. The interesting thing about this isn't that they were bad and we were good, it is that all three, Japan, Germany, and the USA were late comers to the era of global colonialist expansion and most of the original parties to that action had already grown weary of the many foreign occupations and this was true BEFORE WWII, not just a consequence afterward.

I said early on territoriality as it determines access to resources is a motive for war. None of the examples in any way counters this claim, in fact quite to the contrary, they demonstrate it. What unites "Collective Conscience" is relevent but not specific.

Unity is established through tribe, state, family, gender, ethnicity, class, education, religion, language, and a few more as well, but how we determine our sense of unity does not automatically determine how we will be motivated to go to war, but as the various alliegences enter into competitive conflict then the alliances begin to come into play.

War is a classic form of competition and without weapons of mass destruction serves some eugenic purpose from an evolutionary standpoint, but the use of such weapons eliminates all potential advantage gained for our species through this form of competition and compromises the Natural Selection process which in turn throws evolution as we have evolved out. Again and again I say we must see this as a paradigm shift from Natural Selection to Human Selection and examine the commeasurate behaviors this change implies. If we claim that we are simply following the edits of evolution then it is valid to manipulate the species as mindless. If we claim the rights of individual liberty then the responsibility for all actions is transferred to us collectively and individually.

War is something all too many are comfortable with because they think themselves stronger, but war is also not just about defending legitimate trade, it is about exploitative economics, cycles of theft and revenge, murder and vendettas, rape and enslavement spanning centuries and finding impetus in epic and biblical associations.

War is about lust and the Rape of Sabine Women to build a Roman State and insure gentic diversity and fecundity of species. War is what we see but it is also what we don't see. War is our left arm braced against our right in a form of isotonic exercise that strengthens the survivors of such conflict and insures the human races' advance in that manner BUT THIS IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE UNDER THE CURRENT APPLIED METHODS.

#22 bobdrake12

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 14 March 2003 - 05:18 AM

War is a classic form of competition and without weapons of mass destruction serves some eugenic purpose from an evolutionary standpoint, but the use of such weapons eliminates all potential advantage gained for our species through this form of competition and compromises the Natural Selection process which in turn throws evolution as we have evolved out.


Lazarus Long,

One such category of weapons of mass destruction would be biological. But once the plague is out of the bottle, can it really be controlled?

bob

http://www.millenniu...ugs.Plague.html

Biological Weapons -- Plague (excerpts)

Plague is an infectious bacterial disease affecting both animals and humans.

In the United States, the last urban plague epidemic occurred in Los Angeles in 1924-25. Since then, human plague in the United States has occurred mostly as scattered cases in rural areas. Globally, the World Health Organization reports 1,000 to 3,000 cases of plague every year.

Since reports exist showing mass production and aerosol dissemination of plague have been developed, the readily available of this bacteria in microbe banks around the world, the high fatality rate in untreated cases and the potential for secondary spread, a biological attack with plague is a serious concern. - Johns Hopkins University on behalf of its Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies


Symptoms

Within 1 -6 days after exposure, the first signs of illness show up - fever, headache and weakness, which can lead to shock and death within 2 - 4 days. It takes three major forms depending on what part of the body the disease primarily affects.

Septicemic plague: fever, shaking chills, extreme exhaustion, abdominal pain, shock and bleeding into skin and other organs. Complications of septicemia include septic shock, blood clotting disorder, coma, and meningitis (inflammation of membranes surrounding the brain or spinal chord).

Pneumonic plague: high fever, shaking chills, often cough up blood, have difficulty breathing due to severe pneumonia. Rapid shock and death follow if not treated early

Bubonic plague: enlarged, tender lymph nodes usually in the groin, armpits, or cervical areas - the most readily identifiable symptom of plague - fever, chills and extreme exhaustion

How does it spread

It can move from animal to animal and from animal to human by the bites of infected fleas or by handling an infected animal. It can also be transmitted by inhaling the "spray" of infected people or animals cough.

However, person-to-person transmission isn't common and hasn't been seen in the U.S. since 1924.

Wild rodents like ground squirrels, prairie dogs, woodrats, and various mice in the Western US can be infected with plague. Human outbreaks are usually associated with infected rats and rat fleas.


PERSONAL NOTE: It does occur in "civilized" regions of the US. This summer, plague was found in our area and Colorado Springs. It was discovered when residents noticed previously occupied prairie dog villages were suddenly quiet. Health officials took rags on sticks and shoved them down village tunnels to get a sampling. As feared, they tested positive for plague. These massive tunneling systems were subsequently fumigated. As a precaution, where outside pets like Seismo and Taco may be exposed to these carriers, they should be treated with Frontline or similar products.

Diagnosis

As soon as a diagnosis is made, the patient should be hospitalized, medically isolated, and local and state health departments should be notified.

Lab work is done to verify the results which include blood cultures and ab exam of lymph node specimens.


Treatment

Antibiotic drug therapy should begin ASAP - within 24 hours of first symptoms. Streptomycin, tetracycline, and chloramphenicol are highly effective if begun early. Chloramphenicol is specifically indicated in treating plague meningitis.

Mortality

Mortality is 50% - 90% in untreated cases and 15% of treated cases. The mortality of untreated pneumonic plague approaches 100%.

Edited by bobdrake12, 14 March 2003 - 06:10 AM.


#23 bobdrake12

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 14 March 2003 - 05:25 AM

More information on plague war can be found by clicking on the URL below.

http://www.pbs.org/w...e/shows/plague/

Posted Image

bob

#24 bobdrake12

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 14 March 2003 - 06:45 AM

War is something all too many are comfortable with because they think themselves stronger, but war is also not just about defending legitimate trade, it is about exploitative economics, cycles of theft and revenge, murder and vendettas, rape and enslavement spanning centuries and finding impetus in epic and biblical associations.


Lazarus Long,

I have included an account of The Nanking Massacre, 1937 below.

bob

http://www.index-chi.....cre, 1937.htm

Modern History Sourcebook: The Nanking Massacre, 1937

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

The Japanese occupation of Nanking, the capital of the Republic of China, lead to one of the greatest horrors of the century . This eyewitness report was filed by a New York Times reporter.


Aboard the U.S.S. Oahu at Shanghai, Dec. 17 [1937].

Through wholesale atrocities and vandalism at Nanking the Japanese Army has thrown away a rare opportunity to gain the respect and confidence of the Chinese inhabitants and of foreign opinion there....

The killing of civilians was widespread. Foreigners who traveled widely through the city Wednesday found civilian dead on every street. Some of the victims were aged men, women and children.

Policemen and firemen were special objects of attack. Many victims were bayoneted and some of the wounds were barbarously cruel.

Any person who ran because of fear or excitement was likely to be killed on the spot as was any one caught by roving patrols in streets or alleys after dark. Many slayings were witnessed by foreigners.

The Japanese looting amounted almost to plundering of the entire city. Nearly every building was entered by Japanese soldiers, often under the eyes of their officers, and the men took whatever they wanted. The Japanese soldiers often impressed Chinese to carry their loot....

The mass executions of war prisoners added to the horrors the Japanese brought to Nanking. After killing the Chinese soldiers who threw down their arms and surrendered, the Japanese combed the city for men in civilian garb who were suspected of being former soldiers.

In one building in the refugee zone 400 men were seized. They were marched off, tied in batches of fifty, between lines of riflemen and machine gunners, to the execution ground.

Just before boarding the ship for Shanghai the writer watched the execution of 200 men on the Bund [dike]. The killings took ten minutes. The men were lined against a wall and shot. Then a number of Japanese, armed with pistols, trod nonchalantly around the crumpled bodies, pumping bullets into any that were still kicking.

The army men performing the gruesome job had invited navy men from the warships anchored off the Bund to view the scene. A large group of military spectators apparently greatly enjoyed the spectacle.

When the first column of Japanese troops marched from the South Gate up Chungshan Road toward the city's Big Circle, small knots of Chinese civilians broke into scattering cheers, so great was their relief that the siege was over and so high were their hopes that the Japanese would restore peace and order. There are no cheers in Nanking now for the Japanese.

By despoiling the city and population the Japanese have driven deeper into the Chinese a repressed hatred that will smolder through tears as forms of the anti­Japanism that Tokyo professes to be fighting to eradicate from China.

The capture of Nanking was the most overwhelming defeat suffered by the Chinese and one of the most tragic military debacles in the history of modern warfare. In attempting to defend Nanking the Chinese allowed themselves to be surrounded and then systematically slaughtered....

The flight of the many Chinese soldiers was possible by only a few exits. Instead of sticking by their men to hold the invaders at bay with a few strategically placed units while the others withdrew, many army leaders deserted, causing panic among the rank and file.

Those who failed to escape through the gate leading to Hsiakwan and from there across the Yangtze were caught and executed....

When theJapanese captured Hsiakwan gate they cut off all exit from the city while at least a third of the Chinese Army still was within the walls.

Because of the disorganization of the Chinese a number of units continued fighting Tuesday noon, many of these not realizing the Japanese had surrounded them and that their cause was hopeless. Japanese tank patrols systematically eliminated these.

Tuesday morning, while attempting to motor to Hsiakwan, I encountered a desperate group of about twenty­five Chinese soldiers who were still holding the Ningpo Guild Building on Chungahan Road. They later surrendered.

Thousands of prisoners were executed by the Japanese. Most of the Chinese soldiers who had been interned in the safety zone were shot in masses. The city was combed in a systematic house­to­house search for men having knapsack marks on their shoulders or other signs of having been soldiers. They were herded together and executed.

Many were killed where they were found, including men innocent of any army connection and many wounded soldiers and civilians. I witnessed three mass executions of prisoners within a few hours Wednesday. In one slaughter a tank gun was turned on a group of more than 100 soldiers at a bomb shelter near the Ministry of Communications.

A favorite method of execution was to herd groups of a dozen men at entrances of dugout and to shoot them so the bodies toppled inside. Dirt then was shoveled in and the men buried.

Since the beginning of the Japanese assault on Nanking the city presented a frightful appearance. The Chinese facilities for the care of army wounded were tragically inadequate, so as early as a week ago injured men were seen often on the streets, some hobbling, others crawling along seeking treatment.

Civilian casualties also were heavy, amounting to thousands. The only hospital open was the American managed University Hospital and its facilities were inadequate for even a fraction of those hurt.

Nanking's streets were littered with dead. Sometimes bodies had to be moved before automobiles could pass.

The capture of Hsiakwan Gate by the Japanese was accompanied by the mass killing of the defenders, who were piled up among the sandbags, forming a mound six feet high. Late Wednesday the Japanese had not removed the dead, and two days of heavy military traffic had been passing through, grinding over the remains of men, dogs and horses.

The Japanese appear to want the horrors to remain as long as possible, to impress on the Chinese the terrible results of resisting Japan.

Chungahan Road was a long avenue of filth and discarded uniforms, rifles, pistols, machine guns, fieldpieces, knives and knapsacks. In some places the Japanese had to hitch tanks to debris to clear the road.


From F. Tillman, "All Captives Slain,'' The New York Times, December 18, 1937, pp. 1, 10.



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

This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.

Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.

©Paul Halsall Aug 1997
halsall@murray.fordham.edu

#25 bobdrake12

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 14 March 2003 - 07:19 AM

War is what we see but it is also what we don't see.


Lazarus Long,

I have had the opportunity to talk with a number of Nazi captors.

One prisoner was treated very well.

All of the others were not.


bob

http://english.gfh.org.il/uprising.htm

Posted Image
Catalogue # 2698

Armed Germans threatening a group of women and children caught during the suppression of the Warsaw ghetto uprising in 1943.



http://www.britannic...&pager.offset=0

Posted Image

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

Michael Berenbaum


Warsaw Ghetto Uprising resistance by Polish Jews under Nazi occupation in 1943 to the deportations from Warsaw to the Treblinka extermination camp. The revolt began on April 19, 1943, and was crushed four weeks later, on May 16.

As part of Adolf Hitler's "final solution" for ridding Europe of Jews, the Nazis established ghettos in areas under German control to confine Jews until they could be executed. The Warsaw Ghetto, enclosed at first with barbed wire but later with a brick wall 10 feet (3 metres) high and 11 miles (18 km) long, comprised the old Jewish quarter of Warsaw. The Nazis herded Jews from surrounding areas into this district until by the summer of 1942 nearly 500,000 of them lived within its 840 acres (340 hectares); many had no housing at all, and those who did were crowded in at about nine people per room. Starvation and disease (especially typhus) killed thousands each month. Beginning July 22, 1942, transfers to the death camp at Treblinka began at a rate of more than 5,000 Jews per day.

Between July and September 1942, the Nazis shipped about 265,000 Jews from Warsaw to Treblinka. Only some 55,000 remained in the ghetto. As the deportations continued, despair gave way to a determination to resist. A newly formed group, the Jewish Fighting Organization (Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa; ZOB), slowly took effective control of the ghetto.

On January 9, 1943, Heinrich Himmler, the chief of the SS (the Nazi paramilitary corps), visited the Warsaw Ghetto. He ordered the deportation of another 8,000 Jews. The January deportations caught the Jews by surprise, and ghetto residents thought that the end had come. Making use of the many hiding places that they had created since April, Jews did not report as ordered. The resistance sprang into action. Jewish fighters could strike quickly, then escape across the rooftops. German troops, on the other hand, moved cautiously and would not go down to cellars. When the German deportation effort ended within a few days, Jews interpreted this as a victory. From then on, the resistance dominated the ghetto.

The resistance fortified hideouts and strengthened fighting units in preparation for the next battle. As one ZOB leader recalled, "We saw ourselves as a Jewish underground whose fate was a tragic one, the first to fight. For our hour had come without any sign of hope or rescue."

Having withdrawn, the Germans suspended deportations until April 19, when Himmler launched a special operation to clear the ghetto in honour of Adolf Hitler's birthday, April 20. April 19 was also the first day of Passover, the Jewish holy days celebrating freedom from slavery in Egypt. Before dawn, 2,000 SS men and German army troops moved into the area with tanks, rapid-fire artillery, and ammunition trailers. While most remaining Jews hid in bunkers, by prearrangement, the ZOB and a few independent bands of Jewish guerrillas, in all some 1,500 strong, opened fire with their motley weaponry--pistols, a few rifles, one machine gun, and homemade bombs--destroying a number of tanks, killing German troops, and holding off reinforcements trying to enter the ghetto. The Germans withdrew in the evening. The next day the fighting resumed and casualties mounted. The Germans used gas, police dogs, and flamethrowers in an effort to rout the Jews from their bunkers, leaving the city under a pall of smoke for days. On the third day, the Germans' tactics shifted. They no longer entered the ghetto in large groups but roamed it in small bands. Then they made a decision to burn the entire ghetto.

The Germans had planned to liquidate the ghetto in three days. The Jews held out for nearly a month. Resistance fighters succeeded in hiding in the sewers, even though the Germans tried first to flood them and then force them out with smoke bombs. Not until May 8 did the Nazis manage to take the ZOB headquarters bunker. Civilians hiding there surrendered, but many of the surviving ZOB fighters took their own lives to avoid being captured alive; so died Mordecai Anielewicz, the charismatic young commander of the underground army. The one-sided battle continued until May 16, becoming sporadic as Jewish ammunition was exhausted. Total casualty figures for the uprising are uncertain, but the Germans likely lost several hundred soldiers during the 28 days that it took them to kill or deport over 40,000 Jews. SS Major General Jürgen Stroop supervised the coup de grace: the dynamiting of the Great Synagogue of Warsaw. Thereupon he wrote his report: "The Warsaw Ghetto Is No More."

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was nothing less than a revolution in Jewish history. Jews had resisted the Nazis with armed force. The significance and symbolic resonance of the uprising went far beyond those who fought and died. As Anielewicz wrote to his colleague Yitzhak Zuckerman, "My life's dream has now been realized: Jewish self-defense in the Ghetto is now an accomplished fact...I have been witness to the magnificent, heroic struggle of the Jewish fighters."

Some aspects of the Warsaw uprising were common to all ghetto insurrections. Resistance came at the end, when all hope for survival was abandoned and when trust in the leadership of the Nazi-created Judenräte ("Jewish Councils") was lost. More than 300,000 had died at the extermination camps; the rail cars were at the station. The fighters knew that they were bound to lose. There was no longer a choice between life and death, but the honour of the Jewish people was at stake. They chose to die fighting and to inflict casualties on the enemy.

Jewish fighters faced overwhelmingly superior forces. Even if they are understated with regard to their losses, the German figures reported after the battle reflect the mismatch. Of the Jews captured, the Germans shot 7,000 and transported 7,000 to the death camp at Treblinka, 15,000 to Majdanek, and the remainder to forced-labour camps. The Germans captured 9 rifles, 59 pistols, and several hundred grenades, explosives, and mines. Among the Germans and their collaborators, the stated losses were 16 dead and 85 wounded.

© 2003 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Edited by bobdrake12, 14 March 2003 - 07:46 AM.


#26 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 14 March 2003 - 10:22 AM

And during the Warsaw Uprising the American and British Press downplayed or ignored the significance of the event and no Allied nation so much as air dropped food into the battle in support of the Polish Jews.

The story of what was going on in the Death Camps in Europe was intentionally kept out of the general media and the Holocaust was never an aspect of why the US faught the war. It only became a rationalization applied after the fact when the debate surrounding the creation of the State of Israel (another UN Action) became acrimonious with the realization that the West had known all along at the highest levels of government about the Holocaust and had determined not to acknowledge it because of fears of having to open the borders to migrations of Eastern European Jews. Germany had even secretly offerred Jews to many Nations instead of putting them all to death and the US like most Nations had clamped down their borders and refused.

Yes there is always a lot going on behind the scenes.

#27 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 14 March 2003 - 03:09 PM

From the report on Nanking:

The Japanese appear to want the horrors to remain as long as possible, to impress on the Chinese the terrible results of resisting Japan.


There are those that say the slaughter was in response to the attempted invasion of Japan hundreds of years earlier by Kublai Khan. While it was a defeat for China, they wreaked havoc on the Japanese and came from the region centered around Nanking. The fleets left from Shanghai not far from there on the coast and sank in the Kamakazi winds and myth and history merged, with God inevitably choosing only the worthy.

This epic quality of Jihad, Crusade and evangelical politics is not to be ignored in this discussion at all. It isn't mere tribalism and reflects issues more profound and arcane. These motives are generally not given credence by those that are by definition "unbelievers". Clearly the conflicts of the Middle East possess this most dangerous quality and are not to be treated like a simple social engineering experiment in neighborhood urban renewal.

It would be lovely if the simplistic explanations so many have for these conflicts were in fact true. It would be lovely because if things were that simple these problems would long ago have been solved. The fact is that they are not.

All wars of aggression are evangelical in nature regardless of the secular nature of the state commiting the aggression and this is a quality derivitive of "Faith Based Thinking" as it relates to the exercise of power n the Physics of Politics and the principle of "conversion by the sword." This is as true of Richard's decimation of Acre in the Crusades and Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia.

#28 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 14 March 2003 - 03:36 PM

Most people have only become aware of the spiritual dark side of Hitler's Third Reich through movies but it was true that the Gestapo was in an earnest search of the "Spear of Destiny" purported to have pierced Christ's side, the Arc of the Covenant and literally hundreds if not thousands of "Sacred Objects" were sought throughout the world.

People should ask why?

The great theft of art was consequential of this search not the prime motive for the search. What was the tactical importance of such sacred and arcane objects to a purportedly atheistic non secular state and political movement?

Religion can be seen as both a sincere quest for peace on a large collective scale and religion, not tribalism can also be seen as one of the greatest causes of war as it dominates so many ethnic aspects that few people ever question in themselves.

Is it the beliefs that are to blame, or is it the believers? Both? Or none?

#29 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 14 March 2003 - 03:57 PM

War is also a clash of Classes, not just Cultures.

WWII for example is clearly a war of the MiddleClass against Oligarchy and the defense of Democracy is a derivation of that fact. Economic Class is the conceptual savanna that this primate species has moved into and must adapt to. The methodologies run the gammut from pillage and theft to mutually beneficial trade and charity. War is only one aspect.

A very not told story of WWII and the holocaust that I learned from survivors is something most American Jews are totally ignorant of. Many wealthier Jews at first welcomed Hitler as a benefactor against the homespun labor movements they were facing on their shop floors.

They thought the rhetoric was exaggerated and for Public Consumption, not a bulwark of governmental policy. They felt a kinship of Class as opposed to Religion and never expected to get marched to the death camps. They thought their wealth made them immune and gave them membership to the winning side and they were disabused of this notion in the most violent manner.

The heritage of this historical, yet little known fact is the deep division in Israel between Labor and Likud. They don't trust each other, they don't trust each other's motives, and they have long memories. In fact they all say. " May we never forget" when ever referring to the Holocaust.

Another event is entering the lexicon of mythos and will be added to the story of the Bible as the Next Age testament is being written as we all speak. The test this time will be a text that truly unites divergent and competing forces into a doctrine of common cause.

The problem with religion as a factor in war is that it is "Self Prophetic" the crisis must come in part because human society is programmed to clash. What is still in question (thank God) is the outcome. Religion is where we find much of the sub and supra conscience programming for our species as it transcends any one generation and develops memetic paradigms for large scale behavioral adaptation.

#30 bobdrake12

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 14 March 2003 - 09:00 PM

There are those that say the slaughter was in response to the attempted invasion of Japan hundreds of years earlier by Kublai Khan. While it was a defeat for China, they wreaked havoc on the Japanese and came from the region centered around Nanking. The fleets left from Shanghai not far from there on the coast and sank in the Kamakazi winds and myth and history merged, with God inevitably choosing only the worthy.


Lazarus Long,

Yes, revenge can be used to start a war even if the root cause occurred hundreds of years before.

Also revenge can be used as the "battle cry" for the current war as exemplified by the term, "Remember Pearl Harbor", which used by the US during WWII.

bob

http://www.squareone.org/Hapa/r6.html

Posted Image

REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR

© 1941
Lyrics: Don Reid, Sammy Kaye, Music: Don Reid

Sheet Music:

Recordings:
CD:


History in ev'ry century
Records an act that lives forevermore.
We'll recall, as into line we fall
The thing that happened on Hawaii's shore

Let's remember Pearl Harbor
As we go to meet the foe
Let's remember Pearl Harbor
As we did the Alamo.

We will always remember
how they died for Liberty
Let's remember Pearl Harbor
And go on to victory.

Let's remember Pearl Harbor
As we go to meet the foe
Let's remember Pearl Harbor
As we did the Alamo.

We will always remember
How they died for Liberty
Let's remember Pearl Harbor
And go on to victory

Edited by bobdrake12, 14 March 2003 - 09:03 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users