these two snippets give a taste of some of the restrictions imposed on russian jews under the tsars.
here’s another piece that gives insight into why germans may have taken to anti-semitism (always present but not at flash-point) with special alacrity after the great war:
and in the early life of the ussr, jews were allowed by stalin to set up an experimental colony at birobidzan:
“Only under the fresh impression of the murders and atrocities perpetrated by the supporters of the Soviets were Germans and Italians able to block out the remembrance of the traditional restraints of justice and morality and find the impulse to bloody counteraction. The deeds of the Fascists and of other parties corresponding to them were emotional reflex actions evoked by indignation at the deeds of the Bolsheviks and Communists. As soon as the first flush of anger had passed, their policy took a more moderate course and will probably become even more so with the passage of time.”
mises, liberalism. p. 49.
mises shows the background to the reactionary movements, but omits to mention the heavy presence of jews in the communist revolutions. sadly, his latter prediction turned out to be wrong.
Another holocaust, you all have heard about Pearl Harbor, how many have heard about Mers-el-Kébir?
Churchill illegally without reason fired on his french allies murdering 1,297 in cold blood in a premeditated unsuspecting bloodbath on his “allies”.
Why don’t you hear about this things? Have you ever considered that everything is biased toward the allies, that were not, but a Churchill/Roosevelt/Jewish band that betrayed everybody (Polish, French, Greeks, Japanese, Chinese…) and allied themselves with the worst demon on earth, the bolsheviks? Financing them, giving them steel, ammunition and everything to destroy Europe to ruins so that Churchill could go on with his war, against the will of his people, the government, the royalty, the military just backed by jewish financiers refusing offer after offer of honorable peace? Hitler offered his own divisions to support the British colonies! This peace offers were censored and never talked in Britain where Churchill told them Hitler was demanding everything!
to be honest, i don’t know; it all depends on the political situation at the time; what do people at the time expect the politicians to do? what sort of results are they expecting? what is the likely result? what resources are available and are they up for the recommended task/s to solve the issue?
however, this question does have a similarity to Iraq today; knowing what we know, is not doing anything correct? where do we draw the line?
my guess is that once you start invading a country, you’re asking for trouble; much less trying to build a nation there without any pre-conceived plan.
anyway, i think US should train the iraq army and security as best possible within a timeframe and then withdraw back to diplomacy. that’s it… if the iraqis continue to get killed, so be it; everyone’s done their best in the 8yrs there, can’t expect to stay forever.
might sound like a jerk; but people die everyday for lots of reasons, if i bothered about all of them, i might as well just watch paint dry.
at the end of the day, it boils down to politics for me; it matters not what is essentially right or wrong according to one’s beliefs… as long as it’s politically correct and makes moral sense at the time, then that is what will be deemed “correct”… in iraq today, “broken economy”, “gridlocked congress”, “deficit government”, “unfunded liabilities”, “wild financial sector”, “healthcare” are all coming to roost; are there more compelling reasons to be politically correct and be morally sensible?
LOL, so let’s say they did not exist. What does that change? Instead of being guilty of 27 million counts of murder the Nazis are now only guilty of 25 million? Whoa, that totally changes the picture!
to mrokl:
make your own mind up after considering both sides of the debate. here’s one of the revisionist texts.
interestingly, bert blumert followed rothbard (apparently) in his non-emotional view of the holocaust question, more concerned with the very real danger of p.c. totalitarianism. he’s now dead, so can’t be pursued for his irreverence (p. 215).