A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mendheim et al (OT)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 22nd 03, 11:52 AM
Mhoulsby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mendheim et al (OT)

snip

IMO, there are too many mavericks posting unorthodox, to put it politely,
views.


snip

any dirt will do, even porky dirt


snip

No bias in *your* view of history, then...

(don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of bias, since all historians are
biased... did you, for example, see "A History Of Britain" on the BBC written
by "porky" Simon Schama? That was full of "dirt" of all hues, and was certainly
biased, but not distorted.)

I have read nothing of the connection between Heine and Thiers. You write that
the latter arranged a pension for the former.

Why should that be "Hard to believe" (*notwithstanding* the cited later
oppression)?

Best
Mark

  #2  
Old July 24th 03, 08:43 PM
Chapman billy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mendheim et al (OT)

In article [email protected]
m26.aol.com, -remove- says...
snip

IMO, there are too many mavericks posting unorthodox, to put it politely,
views.


No bias in *your* view of history, then...


You are perfectly welcome to take seriously programmes
that consider Munich a triumph for Chamberlain. I give
them as much time as I give the Flat Earth mob: none.


I have read nothing of the connection between Heine and Thiers.


And I thought you could do almost anything with Google.

You write that the latter arranged a pension for the former.


Here's a quote from "Heine" by Francois Feijto (trans.
Mervyn Savill; published 1946 by Allan Wingate).

"His financial resources dried up just at the time when
he was abandoning his bachelor existence. In addition to
the money which his French publications brought in, his
only income was the allowance of four thousand francs
from his uncle Saloman. Under these circumstance,
Princess Belgiojoso, to whom Heine confided all his
worries, interceded through Mignet with Thiers, who
appreciated Heine's works, to subsidise him out of the
secret funds for Foreign Affairs."

(page 196)

Why should that be "Hard to believe" (*notwithstanding* the cited later
oppression)?


Heine was trenchant in his criticism of the French
political situation. This happened under both Thiers and
Guizot, who also continued the subsidy.

"When Guizot succeeded Thiers at the head of foreign
affairs he informed Heine, who had attacked him more than
once for his reactionary opinions, that he would continue
to pay him the subsidy."

(page 197)

"Heine continued to attack Guizot's home and foreign
policy just as violently. The majority of Heine's German
biographers - even the most indulgent - could never bring
themselves to understand how French statesmen, capable of
distributing a considerable pension to a foreign writer
without a quid pro quo, could possibly exist. In Germany
it would not have been possible."

(also page 197)



Best
Mark


Regards,

Simon.

  #3  
Old July 24th 03, 08:59 PM
Mhoulsby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mendheim et al (OT)

From: Chapman billy
Date: 24/07/03 19:43 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article [email protected]
m26.aol.com,
-remove- says...
snip

IMO, there are too many mavericks posting unorthodox, to put it politely,
views.


No bias in *your* view of history, then...


You are perfectly welcome to take seriously programmes
that consider Munich a triumph for Chamberlain. I give
them as much time as I give the Flat Earth mob: none.


Subtantiate this, if you please.

I have read nothing of the connection between Heine and Thiers.


And I thought you could do almost anything with Google.

You write that the latter arranged a pension for the former.


Here's a quote from "Heine" by Francois Feijto (trans.
Mervyn Savill; published 1946 by Allan Wingate).

"His financial resources dried up just at the time when
he was abandoning his bachelor existence. In addition to
the money which his French publications brought in, his
only income was the allowance of four thousand francs
from his uncle Saloman. Under these circumstance,
Princess Belgiojoso, to whom Heine confided all his
worries, interceded through Mignet with Thiers, who
appreciated Heine's works, to subsidise him out of the
secret funds for Foreign Affairs."

(page 196)

Why should that be "Hard to believe" (*notwithstanding* the cited later
oppression)?


Heine was trenchant in his criticism of the French
political situation. This happened under both Thiers and
Guizot, who also continued the subsidy.

"When Guizot succeeded Thiers at the head of foreign
affairs he informed Heine, who had attacked him more than
once for his reactionary opinions, that he would continue
to pay him the subsidy."

(page 197)

"Heine continued to attack Guizot's home and foreign
policy just as violently. The majority of Heine's German
biographers - even the most indulgent - could never bring
themselves to understand how French statesmen, capable of
distributing a considerable pension to a foreign writer
without a quid pro quo, could possibly exist. In Germany
it would not have been possible."

(also page 197)



Uh huh. What's your point, exactly?
  #4  
Old August 21st 03, 05:30 AM
Nick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mendheim et al (OT)

Chapman billy wrote in message m...
In article ,
says...
I have not yet come across any additional facts about Mendheim or Isaac
Hess. Yet I am pleased to find other people who may share some of my
interests in German Jewish history and culture....


Nick, Thanks for trying.


Dear Simon,

"Youth will be served, every dog has his day, and mine has been a fine one."
--George Henry Borrow (Lavengro)

You once asked me whether I have ever read "The Bible in Spain" by George
Henry Borrow (1803-1881). I have not, yet I do recall this passage from
from the novel "Sharpe's Rifles" by Bernard Cornwell:

"'So you're rich?' Sharpe could not help asking.
'Not I. But my aunt received a sufficiency to create trouble in the world.'
Louisa spoke very gravely. 'Have you any idea, Mr Sharpe, just how embarrassing
it is to be spreading Protestantism in Spain?'"

According to what I read today, most history undergraduates learn their
pre-university history from the TV; I hope this isn't true, as, IMO, there
are too many mavericks broadcasting unorthodox, to put it politely, views.


In a moderated professional forum for academic historians and independent
scholars, a lecturer at an American university posted some results of a survey
of undergraduates at the beginning of a course about the Second World War.
Most of the American students believed that the Soviet Union or China (or both)
had been enemies of the United States during that war. Nearly all of the
American students believed that the United States had won the war with little,
if any, assistance from any allied countries.

Some "historical documentaries" on television have many inaccurate "facts".
For example, one programme showed a map that claimed that Norway had already
been liberated from German occupation by the time of the D-Day invasion.
Around the 50th anniversary of India's independence, a major American news
source reported this "historical fact": British India had been partitioned
into three (not two) independent countries in 1947: India, Pakistan, and
Bangladesh. (Then what was the war in 1971 all about?)

"The nation acted to a threat from the dictator of Iraq. Now there are some
who would like to rewrite history--revisionist historians is what I call them."
--United States President George W. Bush (June 2003)

President Bush's denunciation of "revisionist historians" implies that there
already exists a completely accurate, balanced, and fair edition of history
that has been inscribed in stone somewhere (which Bush is privileged to read),
and that "revisionist historians" are those annoying people who pass by and
deface the sacred patriotic texts with scholarly graffiti.

Actually, any intellectually honest historian is in the profession of
'revisionism'. Reviewing and revising the current interpretations of
historical events is what historians are supposed to be doing.

As a general rule, professional historians are discouraged from becoming
engaged in public disputes with amateurs, who tend to feel qualified to do so
only because they have "read many history books". Having read many popular
books on health care does not qualify someone to be a doctor; having read many
popular books on history does not qualify someone to be a historian. A layman
might be able to observe an illness's symptoms without being able to diagnose
the underlying condition. Likewise, a layman might have memorized many
'historical facts' without knowing how to place them in a historical context
from which reasonable inferences could be drawn. And a reader of popular
history books tends to be quite unaware of their critical reputations among
professional specialists in that field.

For example, some American supporters of Israel continue to cite a 1984 book,
"From Time Immemorial: the Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine"
by Joan Peters (someone with no known scholarly credentials whatsoever).
"From Time Immemorial" was a work of pro-Zionist propaganda that was lavishly
promoted in the American media because it served a pro-Israeli political
agenda. It won the National Jewish Book Award. By 1985, the book began to
appear in editions overseas, however, and the critical reviews were damning,
including in Israel and the United Kingdom. Here's an excerpt from a review
by Albert Hourani, then an eminent historian at Oxford University:

"The whole book is written like this: facts are selected or misunderstood,
tortuous and flimsy arguments are expressed in violent and repetitive language.
This is a *ludicrous and worthless* book and the only mildly interesting
question it raises is why it comes with praise from two well-known American
writers."
--Albert Hourani (5 March 1985, The Observer)

An American scholar, Norman G. Finkelstein (a son of Holocaust survivors),
wrote a painstakingly detailed expose of Joan Peters's fraudulent methods,
"Disinformation and the Palestine Question", reprinted as a chapter of
"Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question"
edited by Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens.

In short, "From Time Immemorial" has been completely discredited in scholarly
circles, and yet the book continues to circulate among the general public.

"The historian has much to answer for. History--that is, written history--has
made and unmade States, given courage to the oppressed and undermined the
oppressor, has justified aggression and overridden law."
--C.V. Wedgwood (Velvet Studies, p. 154)

BTW, I share your view of G. It is a terrible thing to say, but he gives me
the impression that any dirt will do, even porky dirt.


"Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust" by
Daniel Goldhagen has been lavishly promoted and become a popular success,
complete with some endorsements from ignorant celebrities such as Stephen Fry
(whom I did like watching with Hugh Laurie in 'Jeeves & Wooster'). But the
book's standing among almost all academic historians of modern Germany is
quite low.

Here are some excerpts from a chapter, "The Past Distorted: the Goldhagen
Controversy" by Fritz Stern:

"The book is a deliberate provocation--I consider this a neutral judgment.
Provocations can shock people out of their settled, comfortable views; they can
also be self-promoting attacks on earlier work and professional standards....

Goldhagen's book comes in two related parts: the explanatory model, or 'the
analytical framework', as he also calls it, and the empirical evidence. The
parts are joined by a single intent: the indictment of a people. The duality
of presentation marks the style as well. Goldhagen depicts horror and renders
judgment in evocative and compelling phrases. He bolsters polemical certainty
with concepts drawn from the social sciences, relying on the vaporous, dreary
jargon of the worst of academic 'discourse'. Unintelligible diagrams distract,
even as horrendous photographs confirm....Astoundingly repetitive, the book
has 125 pages of notes but, regrettably, no bibliography, which would have
been a great convenience to other scholars.

To say it at once: the book has some merit, especially in the middle section,
which depicts three specific aspects of the Holocaust, and it has one
overriding defect: it is in its essence *unhistorical*. It is unhistorical
in positing that one (simplistically depicted) strain of the past, German
anti-Semitism, explains processes that the author strips of their proper
historical context; it is unhistorical in over and over again presenting
suppositions as 'incontestable' certainty. Sir Lewis Namier, a great English
historian, once remarked that 'the historical approach is intellectually humble;
the aim is to comprehend situations, to study trends, to discover how things
work: and the crowning attainment of historical study is a historical sense--an
intuitive understanding of how things do not happen'. Goldhagen's tone mocks
humility, and he seems to lack any sense 'of how things do not happen', of
how complex human conduct and historical change really are....

Goldhagen draws on the rich literature about German anti-Semitism even as he
dismisses it, distills what is useful for his thesis while ignoring whatever
might contradict or complicate it, and then celebrates the originality of his
own version. The result is a potpourri of half-truths and assertions, all
meant to support his claim that German anti-Semitism was unique in its abiding
wish to eliminate Jews, its 'eliminationist mind-set'. He suggests that one
needs to look at Germans as anthropologists look at preliterate societies;
they are not like 'us', meaning Americans or Western Europeans.

He considers but dismisses the need to compare German anti-Semitism to other
varieties, although we know that anti-Semitism was endemic in the Western
world....Goldhagen certainly knows that thousands of non-Germans were willing
executioners, willing auxiliaries to the Holocaust. But their motivation or,
indeed, their historical role is of no interest to him.

Even in his discussion of German anti-Semitism he fails to make the necessary
distinctions. There was a wide range of attitudes toward Jews, from those few
who did indeed see them as the enemy and chief corruptors of their society--as
'vermin' to be exterminated--to those men and women who welcomed Jews but
regretted what they saw as Jewish 'pushiness' or preeminence in some realms.
Goldhagen takes remarks out of context and treats almost equally the ranting
of the rabble-rouser and the private musings confined to a writer's diary.
Everything is grist for his mill.

A Goldhagen version of anti-Semitism in twentieth-century America might lump
Eleanor Roosevelt's early remarks about 'Jew-boys' in Franklin's law school
class with Henry Ford's championing of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'
or Father Coughlin's tirades. Only by summary judgment and indifference to
nuance can Goldhagen contend that in the nineteenth century 'German society...
was *axiomatically* anti-Semitic'...'It is *incontestable* that this racial
anti-Semitism which held the Jews to pose a mortal threat to Germany was
pregnant with murder' (my emphasis). Incontestable? I would say unprovable
and implausible....

It is generally accepted that the more the National Socialists tried to widen
their appeal, the more they muted their anti-Semitic theme. In one of Hitler's
key addresses in 1932, for example, he hardly alluded to Jews at all. Yet
Goldhagen insists: 'The centrality of antisemitism in the Party's world,
program and rhetoric--if in a more avowedly elaborated and violent form--
mirrored the sentiments of German culture.' Actually, it exposed the sentiments
of only *some* Germans. In the last free elections in 1932, some 67 percent
of the German electorate did not vote for Hitler, although there can be no
doubt that even among these were groups that harbored suspicion and dislike
of Jews. Perhaps many Germans had some measure of anti-Semitism in them but
lacked the murderous intent that Goldhagen ascribes to National Socialism.
Put bluntly: for Goldhagen, as for the National Socialists, *Hitler was
Germany.*"

--Fritz Stern (Einstein's German World, pp. 273-8)

For further reading:
"A Nation on Trial: the Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth"
by Norman G. Finkelstein and Ruth Bettina Birn

Many German historians and lawyers have done sterling service trying to get
at the truth: for instance the role of German historians in the lengthy
debate as to who was responsible for the Great War,


"Rathenau famously claimed that two hundred elderly men who knew one another
controlled the fate of Europe and the world. He should have added the old
truism that in war millions of young men butcher millions of other young men
who have done them no harm and whom they have never met--all on behalf of a
few old men who know one another only too well."
--Amos Elon (The Pity of It All, p. 302)

Yes, Fritz Fischer has become famous for writing "Griff Nach der Weltmacht"
and other critical works about Germany's policies and war aims (1914-18).

For further reading:
"In Hitler's Shadow: West German Historians and the Attempt to Escape from
the Nazi Past" by Richard Evans

Daniel Goldhagen, the American author of "Hitler's Willing Executioners", has
written that the German people generally have been significantly more ready to
face honestly the crimes of Germany's history than the American people have
been willing to face honestly the crimes of the United States's history.

and the psuedo-Darwinism that underpinned many of the beliefs of that time.


In April 1920, "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy" by
Lothrop Stoddard (Ph.D. Harvard) was published by Charles Scribner's Sons
in the United States. The book became a bestseller, and it might well have
significantly influenced the passage of more restrictive immigration laws
and the adoption of more punitive racial codes in the United States.

"I stated: 'The world-wide struggle between the primary races of mankind--the
'conflict of color', as it has been happily termed--bids fair to be the
fundamental problem of the twentieth century, and great communities like the
United States of America, the South African Confederation, and Australasia
regard the 'color question' as perhaps the gravest problem of the future.'

Those lines were penned in June, 1914. Before their publication the Great War
had burst upon the world....To me the Great War was from the first the White
Civil War, which, whatever its outcome, must gravely complicate the course of
racial relations."

--Lothrop Stoddard (28 February 1920, The Rising Tide of Color, pp. v-vi)

Here's a link to the online text of "The Rising Tide of Color":
http://www.africa2000.com/XNDX/STODDARD.hmtl

In November 1998, "My Awakening: a Path to Racial Understanding" by David Duke,
an extreme right-wing American politician (formerly a leader of the Klu Klux
Klan), was published by "Free Speech Books" in the United States.

"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."

"It's not we who lord it over things, it seems, but things which lord it over
us. But that's only because some people make use of things in order to lord
it over others. We shall only be freed from the forces of nature when we are
free of human force. Our knowledge of nature must be supplemented with a
knowledge of human society if we are to use our knowledge of nature in a
human way."
--Bertolt Brecht (The Messingkauf Dialogues)

Fritz Stern, perhaps the foremost expert on this subject, has argued that
the history of the assimilated Jews of Germany was much more than the
history of a tragedy; it was also, for a long time, the story of an
extraordinary success: 'We must understand the triumphs in order to
understand the tragedy.' We must see the German Jews in the context of
their time and, at the very least, appreciate their authenticity, the way
they saw themselves and others, often with reason.

--Amos Elon (The Pity of It All, p. 12)

I take it you know that it was a Rothschild who used the words "Ost Juden".


I don't recall that citation. By the way, Emma Rothschild, the Director of the
Centre for History and Economics at King's College, University of Cambridge,
is married to Amartya Sen, the Master of Trinity College, University of
Cambridge, the winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics.

Denk ich an Deutschland in der Nacht,
Dann bin ich um den Schlaf gebracht.'

'I think of Germany at night
The thought keeps me awake till light.'

--Heinrich Heine (Nachtgedanken)


Correct me if I'm wrong, but Thiers arranged for Heine, a very German, even
though Jewish, poet, to receive a French pension.


"He (Heine) claimed later that he had actually crossed the French border on
May Day (1831). This claim gave birth to the legend that the first of May
was chosen as the international workers' day (but it's not known as 'Labor Day'
in the United States) to commemorate Heine's escape to freedom. Heine's
stay in Paris was meant to be temporary. As it turned out, he remained there
until his death in 1856...

Heine very quickly won the admiration of France's leading writers--Victor
Hugo, Honore de Balzac, George Sand, Alexandre Dumas, Alphonse de Lamartine,
and Alfred de Musset....Dumas said, 'If Germany rejects Heine we will willingly
adopt him. Unfortunately, Heine loves Germany more than it deserves.'...

Heine loved Paris. He felt 'like a fish in water'...Interviews with Heine
continued to appear in the German press. His interviewers wondered endlessly
whether he was 'homesick'; the idea that so important a German poet preferred
to live in France mystified and disturbed them....

By 1835, the works of both Heine and Boerne--'evil, anti-Christian, blasphemous,
wilfully defying all virtue, humility, and honour'--headed the lists of banned
books in several German states....Although Heine and Boerne were the only Jews
among more than a dozen banned writers associated with Young Germany, it was
often derided as Young Palestine....

In France, Heine became the classic German poet of homesickness, an affliction
that during the first half of the next century would become widespread among
German Jews. He would now write his most beautiful poetry and his sharpest
critiques and satires of German politics and manners....He voiced the first,
most acute prophecies about German nationalism and militarism. His darkest
forebodings reveal a stunning, uncanny prescience. He warned his German
readers that they were their own worst enemies....

'A Winter's Tale' unleashed widespread criticism. Heine was accused of being
insolent, 'un-German from the bottom up'. The antisemitic historian Heinrich
Treitschke credited Heine with possession of a dubious gift shared by Frenchmen
and Jews alike, 'the graceful vice of making the mean and loathsome attractive
for a moment'. Yet his fame continued to spread inside Germany as well as
abroad, where he was swiftly becoming one of the great heroes of European
culture....

Heine certainly did not return to organised religion. He considered himself
the great Spinoza's Unglaubengenosse--his brother in disbelief--a term Freud
would later apply to himself. He continued to despise the 'rotten clergical
scum' of all faiths: rabbis, pastors, mullahs, and priests. He wanted no
Mass sung and no Kaddish said at his grave. On his tombstone he wished to
be identified only as a German poet. 'If I could walk with crutches, I'd go
to church, and if I could walk without I'd go to the whorehouse', he told a
visitor. He was still his own man, neither Jew nor Christian. His wife, whom
he had married in a Catholic ceremony only to please her, wept at his deathbed.
'Don't be afraid, my dear', he said. 'God will forgive me; that's his job.'"

--Amos Elon (The Pity of It All, pp. 140-8)

"In the German Imperial Reich, united under Prussian tutelage by Bismarck in
1871 after the defeat of the French, Heine was widely regarded as a subversive,
Francophile, and above all a Jew, three not inaccurate if somewhat
oversimplified characteristics, each of which the Teutomaniacal squareheads
increasingly dominant in the new country's cultural and literary establishments
construed as a capital crime....In fact, in came to a definite end in March
of 1933, when...all of Heine's writings were burned in public auto-da-fes all
over Germany. How many, among the millions watching those pyres on the town
squares, recalled the prophetic line from Heine's 'Almansor': 'Twas but a
prelude. For where books are burned, they end up burning people.'

The man who provoked controversy all his life has remained an embattled figure
in his native land ever since....Nietzsche called him the greatest lyricist
in the German language--'He possessed that divine malice without which I
cannot conceive of perfection.' Nor did the Final Solution prove all that
final for Heine; the troubles he caused in post-Nazi Germany, some of them
verging on the grotesque, demonstrate that unlike the certifiably Teutonic
Dichter und Denker of classical stature long since transformed into pigeon
roosts, he still retains the power to start riots, even in effigy. Attempts
to erect Heine monuments in several at the time West German cities led to
protest demonstrations and local government crises, and a proposal in 1953 to
rename the University of Duesseldorf, his hometown, after him was soundly
defeated after a long and acrimonious debate. In what used to be East Germany,
on the other hand, he was used as a totemic figure to legitimize the Communist
regime, a revolutionary exiled along with Marx and Engels as a resolute
opponent of the bourgeoisie. This process of more or less simplistic
politicization has tended to distort the core identity of the man, the more
so since his poetic reputation in Germany underwent an inevitable eclipse
with the rise of the modernist movement around the First World War."

--Ernst Pawel (The Poet Dying, pp. 192-3)

Hard to believe given that Frenchman's later brutal suppression of the Paris
Commune.


Wenn sich die Blutegel vollgesogen,
Man streut auf ihren Ruecken bloss
Ein bisschen Salz, und sie fallen ab--
Doch dich, mein Freund, wie werd ich dich los?

When leeches have sucked their fill of blood,
To get them off, some salt will do--
A bit on their backs and down they drop--
But friend, how shall I get rid of you?

--Heinrich Heine

By the way, Paul Verlaine was the press secretary of the Paris Commune.

On the origins of the Paris Commune of 1871:

"There were the appalling slums into which the workers were now concentrated
despite (and partly because of) the works of Haussmann; the vastly inflated
cost of living which had far outpaced wages; the long hours of work under
disgraceful circumstances; child labour still involving several thousands of
eight-year-olds in Paris alone; no security of employment, no sickness benefits,
no pensions; restrictions on the right to affiliate, on freedom of the Press,
and upon any means by which the workers might have achieved less intolerable
conditions. Rossel, a regular soldier of middle-class extraction who later
threw in his lot with the Commune, was moved by what he saw among the Parisians
under his command to exclaim: 'These people have good reason for fighting; they
fight that their children may be less puny, less scrofulous, and less full of
failings than themselves.' The workers' attitude to all the glories left by
the Second Empire was summed up simply by one who declared in Goncourt's
hearing: 'What is it to me that there should be monuments, operas,
cafe-concerts, where I have never set foot because I had no money?' As the
Communards would ultimately prove, there were those who would rather all these
glories of civilisation were expunged by fire than that the Parisian workers
should continue to forfeit their claims for a better life."
--Alistair Horne (The Fall of Paris, p. 295)

On the reprisals against the Communards and their suspected sympathisers:

"There seemed to be no end to the horror. Abroad it had already aroused
bitter comment. There were meetings of protest in London, addressed by
John Stuart Mill; and Thiers was not being entirely truthful when he claimed
that the British Press 'declared that greater humanity had never been displayed
toward greater criminals'. Exclaimed 'The Times' on May 29th:
'The laws of war! They are mild and Christian compared with the inhuman laws
of revenge under which the Versailles troops have been shooting, bayoneting,
ripping up prisoners, women, and children during the last six days. So far
as we can recollect there has been nothing like it in history....'"
--Alistair Horne (The Fall of Paris, p. 417)

On what someone concluded about why the Paris Commune was crushed:

"The proletariat stopped half-way; instead of proceeding with the
'expropriation of the expropriators', it was carried away by dreams of
establishing supreme justice in the country...institutions such as the Bank
were not seized....The second error was the unnecessary magnanimity of the
proletariat; instead of annihilating its enemies, it endeavoured to exercise
moral influence on them; it did not attach the right value to the importance
of purely military activity in cvil war..."
--Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (18 March 1908)

On some of the consequences of that conclusion:

"When the moment came for the revolution for which his whole life had been
a preparation, Lenin would not repeat the Commune's 'half-measures' and
'unnecessary magnanimity'. There could be no question of accepting, as the
Commune had demonstrated, 'the available ready machinery of the State', and
adapting it; everything had to be smashed and re-created in a new, proletarian
image. To Lenin and his followers, the supreme lesson of the Commune was that
the only way to succeed was by total ruthlessness....

To ensure that the revolution would not be frittered away by the paralysing
squabbles such as had arisen within so feebly democratic a body as the Commune,
Lenin split with his more moderate allies, the Mensheviks; then proceeded
remorselessly to crush the left-wing Constituent Assembly, until the extreme
Bolshevik dictatorship was complete. 'The Commune was lost', explained Lenin,
'because it compromised and reconciled'. His Red Army commissar, Trotsky,
criticised the Commune for not meeting the 'white terror of the bourgeoisie
with the red terror of the proletariat', and when civil war broke out in
Russia neither Trotsky nor Lenin was backward in the dispensation of terror.
How much of the ferocious brutality with which the Russian Reds fought for
survival was attributable to the ever-present memory of May 1871, may be judged
by the comment in retrospect of an old Bolshevik:

'In those grave moments, we said: 'Look, workers, at the example of the Paris
Communards and know that if we are defeated, our bourgeoisie will treat us a
hundred times worse.' The example of the Paris Commune inspired us and we
were victorious.'"

--Alistair Horne (The Fall of Paris, pp. 431-2)

Thomas Mo ...And no doubt it delights God to see splendour where He only
looked for complexity. But it's God's part, not our own, to
bring outselves to that extremity! Our natural business lies
in escaping--so let's get home and study this Bill.
--Robert Bolt (A Man for all Seasons)

--Nick
  #5  
Old August 22nd 03, 04:06 AM
Nick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mendheim et al (OT)

-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message ... (to Simon Spivack):
Simon Spivack wrote:
IMO, there are too many mavericks posting unorthodox, to put it politely,
views....
any dirt will do, even porky dirt


"In all the difficulties which attend a historian, there is none which is
greater than that of steering clear of offence."
--John Shebbeare (Lydia)

No bias in *your* view of history, then...
(don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of bias, since all historians are
biased... did you, for example, see "A History Of Britain" on the BBC
written by "porky" Simon Schama? That was full of "dirt" of all hues, and
was certainly biased, but not distorted.)


"'Yes, I am fond of history.'

'I wish I were too. I read it a little as a duty, but it tells me nothing
that does not either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with
wars or pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and
hardly any women at all--it is very tiresome: and yet I often think it odd
that it should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention. The
speeches that are put into the heroes' mouths, their thoughts and designs--the
chief of all this must be invention, and invention is what delights me in
other books.'

'Historians, you think', said Miss Tilney, 'are not happy in their flights of
fancy. They display imagination without raising interest. I am fond of history,
and am very well contented to take the false with the true....'

--Jane Austen (Northanger Abbey)

Dear Mr. Houlsby,

Here are the words of some diverse modern historians on what they do:

"I believe--these are the simple premises of my efforts--that present and
past are indissoluble, that life and work are hard to separate even if the
connections may remain obscure and partly unconscious. These are commonplaces
that have replaced the older notions of a J.B. Bury, who believed in history
as science, or a Fustel de Coulanges, who said--in genuine modesty, I
believe--"It is not I speaking, but history speaking through me." The
reckless subjectivity that has invaded our field in some areas might make one
regret the passing of the older austerity, exemplified in Leopold von Ranke's
wish to 'expunge the self', but I believe that only totalitarian societies
can extinguish the self. In all other situations, historians are unlikely to
escape their own times or their own complicated selves."
--Fritz Stern (Einstein's German World, pp. 200-1)

"In short, that there is no clear difference between fact and fiction.
But there is, and for historians, even for the most militantly antipositivist
ones among us, the ability to distinguish between the two is absolutely
fundamental."
--Eric Hobsbawm ('The New Threat to History' in the "New York Review of Books"
16 December 1993, p. 63)

"I was attracted to history, in the first place, by reading Karl Marx.
I mean that Marx gave me the awareness that it is an instrument without which
we cannot understand what is happening to the world. I was persuaded by his
idea that history can be seen and analysed as a whole, and it has..I wouldn't
say laws because that is too reminiscent of old-style positivism; it has a
structure and a pattern, which are human society's story of evolution over a
long period of time....

In the ten years which followed the war, our generation learned its history
in regular seminars held by historian friends and members of the Communist
Party of Great Britain, the so-called Commmunist Historian Group: Christopher
Hill, Maurice Dobb, E.P. Thompson, the mediaevalist Rodney Hilton, myself, and
others. Also after the war, there was a debate with historians, many of them
French, from other countries. I had a lot of sympathy for the Annales School,
with one difference, however. They believed in a history that never changes,
in the permanent structures of history, while I, on the other hand, believe in
history that changes.

Above all, a Marxist interpretation suggests that, in having understood that
a particular historical stage is not permanent, human society is a successful
structure because it is capable of change, and thus the present is not its
point of arrival. Second, one can study the modus operandi, the ways in which
a particular social system functions, and why it generates or fails to generate
the forces of change...That is why the history which interests me is analytical;
that is to say, history attempts to analyse what happened rather than just
uncovering it. I don't mean that it can be used to understand exactly why the
world developed in a certain manner, but it can tell us how various elements
coming together within a society serve to create a historical dynamic, or
conversely, fail to cause it."

--Eric Hobsbawm (On the Edge of the New Century, pp. 4-6)

"And conversely, we are constantly confronted by Western ideologists--
Mr. Fukuyama, the Doctor Pangloss of the 1990s, comes to mind--for whom the
rich world's superiority simply expresses its discovery of the best of all
possible designs for arranging human affairs, as demonstrated by its historic
triumph. In simpler words, these ideologists have the conviction that
Westerners know better--which is far from self-evident. As the tragic record
of Western economic advisors in post-Soviet Russia shows, it may be difficult
for intelligent and well-intentioned academics and consultants even to grasp
what is happening in environments so different from their own, and shaped by
such different histories and cultures.

Indeed, in a world filled with such inequalities, to live in the favoured
regions is to be virtually cut off from the experience, let alone the reactions,
of people outside those regions. It takes an enormous effort of the imagination,
as well as a great deal of knowledge, to break out of our comfortable,
protected, and self-absorbed enclaves and enter an uncomfortable and unprotected
larger world inhabited by the majority of the human species."

--Eric Hobsbawm (On the Edge of the New Century, pp. 166-7)

Francis Fukuyama ('Doctor Pangloss' is a famous character in Voltaire's novel,
'Candide') is an American neoconservative political theorist, who's most known
for his dogmatic 1992 book, "The End of History and the Last Man", wherein,
employing Hegelian discourse, he contends that, in effect (not a quotation):
"History is over now, and the United States has won it."

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so."
--Bertrand Russell

--Nick
  #6  
Old August 22nd 03, 04:52 AM
Mhoulsby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mendheim et al (OT)

From: (Nick)
Date: 22/08/03 03:06 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message
... (to Simon Spivack):
Simon Spivack wrote:
IMO, there are too many mavericks posting unorthodox, to put it politely,
views....
any dirt will do, even porky dirt


"In all the difficulties which attend a historian, there is none which is
greater than that of steering clear of offence."
--John Shebbeare (Lydia)

No bias in *your* view of history, then...
(don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of bias, since all historians are
biased... did you, for example, see "A History Of Britain" on the BBC
written by "porky" Simon Schama? That was full of "dirt" of all hues, and
was certainly biased, but not distorted.)


"'Yes, I am fond of history.'

'I wish I were too. I read it a little as a duty, but it tells me nothing
that does not either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with
wars or pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and
hardly any women at all--it is very tiresome: and yet I often think it odd
that it should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention. The
speeches that are put into the heroes' mouths, their thoughts and
designs--the
chief of all this must be invention, and invention is what delights me in
other books.'

'Historians, you think', said Miss Tilney, 'are not happy in their flights of
fancy. They display imagination without raising interest. I am fond of
history,
and am very well contented to take the false with the true....'

--Jane Austen (Northanger Abbey)

Dear Mr. Houlsby,

Here are the words of some diverse modern historians on what they do:

"I believe--these are the simple premises of my efforts--that present and
past are indissoluble, that life and work are hard to separate even if the
connections may remain obscure and partly unconscious. These are commonplaces
that have replaced the older notions of a J.B. Bury, who believed in history
as science, or a Fustel de Coulanges, who said--in genuine modesty, I
believe--"It is not I speaking, but history speaking through me." The
reckless subjectivity that has invaded our field in some areas might make one
regret the passing of the older austerity, exemplified in Leopold von Ranke's
wish to 'expunge the self', but I believe that only totalitarian societies
can extinguish the self. In all other situations, historians are unlikely to
escape their own times or their own complicated selves."
--Fritz Stern (Einstein's German World, pp. 200-1)

"In short, that there is no clear difference between fact and fiction.
But there is, and for historians, even for the most militantly antipositivist
ones among us, the ability to distinguish between the two is absolutely
fundamental."
--Eric Hobsbawm ('The New Threat to History' in the "New York Review of
Books"
16 December 1993, p. 63)

"I was attracted to history, in the first place, by reading Karl Marx.
I mean that Marx gave me the awareness that it is an instrument without which
we cannot understand what is happening to the world. I was persuaded by his
idea that history can be seen and analysed as a whole, and it has..I wouldn't
say laws because that is too reminiscent of old-style positivism; it has a
structure and a pattern, which are human society's story of evolution over a
long period of time....

In the ten years which followed the war, our generation learned its history
in regular seminars held by historian friends and members of the Communist
Party of Great Britain, the so-called Commmunist Historian Group: Christopher
Hill, Maurice Dobb, E.P. Thompson, the mediaevalist Rodney Hilton, myself,
and
others. Also after the war, there was a debate with historians, many of them
French, from other countries. I had a lot of sympathy for the Annales
School,
with one difference, however. They believed in a history that never changes,
in the permanent structures of history, while I, on the other hand, believe
in
history that changes.

Above all, a Marxist interpretation suggests that, in having understood that
a particular historical stage is not permanent, human society is a successful
structure because it is capable of change, and thus the present is not its
point of arrival. Second, one can study the modus operandi, the ways in
which
a particular social system functions, and why it generates or fails to
generate
the forces of change...That is why the history which interests me is
analytical;
that is to say, history attempts to analyse what happened rather than just
uncovering it. I don't mean that it can be used to understand exactly why
the
world developed in a certain manner, but it can tell us how various elements
coming together within a society serve to create a historical dynamic, or
conversely, fail to cause it."

--Eric Hobsbawm (On the Edge of the New Century, pp. 4-6)

"And conversely, we are constantly confronted by Western ideologists--
Mr. Fukuyama, the Doctor Pangloss of the 1990s, comes to mind--for whom the
rich world's superiority simply expresses its discovery of the best of all
possible designs for arranging human affairs, as demonstrated by its historic
triumph. In simpler words, these ideologists have the conviction that
Westerners know better--which is far from self-evident. As the tragic record
of Western economic advisors in post-Soviet Russia shows, it may be difficult
for intelligent and well-intentioned academics and consultants even to grasp
what is happening in environments so different from their own, and shaped by
such different histories and cultures.

Indeed, in a world filled with such inequalities, to live in the favoured
regions is to be virtually cut off from the experience, let alone the
reactions,
of people outside those regions. It takes an enormous effort of the
imagination,
as well as a great deal of knowledge, to break out of our comfortable,
protected, and self-absorbed enclaves and enter an uncomfortable and
unprotected
larger world inhabited by the majority of the human species."

--Eric Hobsbawm (On the Edge of the New Century, pp. 166-7)

Francis Fukuyama ('Doctor Pangloss' is a famous character in Voltaire's
novel,
'Candide') is an American neoconservative political theorist, who's most
known
for his dogmatic 1992 book, "The End of History and the Last Man", wherein,
employing Hegelian discourse, he contends that, in effect (not a quotation):
"History is over now, and the United States has won it."

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so."
--Bertrand Russell

--Nick


Yes, quite......

Interestingly (or uninterestingly, if you're an adherent of the views expressed
through the medium of Ms. Austen's typically adept characterisation) Mr.
Spivack has been unable to substantiate his assertion that his namesake Mr.
Schama supports the contemporarily popular policy of appeasement pursued by Mr.
Chamberlain's administration of His Majesty's government.

Perhaps this was because I charged Mr. Spivack to "subtantiate" (sic) said
assertion. Mea culpa. I mist learn to typ.

No doubt Mr. Spivack might equally assert that because his namesake, Mr.
Schama, stated that after the resounding victory of Parliament's army in the
decisive battle of the English Civil War, at Naseby on June 14, 1645 "...God
was clearly on the side of Parliament", then Mr. Schama (who is Jewish) truly
believes that God is a Puritan... Hmmm......

Now, "appeasement", as Government Policy, of course, (while maintaining an
intrinsic similarity) meant something rather different at the time of, say,
Baldwin's government, from what it meant in Chamberlain's time.

In the latter case, here in Britain we were in the position of needing to
rearm, as quickly as possible. We had limited resources available to us. What
was not altogether clear was whether we should be concentrating upon preparing
for a desert war (in north Africa, against Italy) an air war (in northwestern
Europe, against Germany) or a naval war (in the Pacific, against Japan). This
dilemma perhaps goes some way towards explaining the reason why pursuing a
policy of appeasement (which bought time while the above question was beginning
to clarify) was considered, in late 1930s Great Britain, by the-powers-that-be,
not only to be expedient, but actually rather prudent.

Its popularity, by contrast, derived, in large measure, from the memory of the
terrible toll exacted by the 1914-18 conflict with Germany and its allies.

Of course, if it had not been for Mitchell, Royce and, perhaps most especially,
Turing, we would have lost WWII.

"Le voilą donc connu, ce secret plein d'horreur."

Voltaire


Mark
  #7  
Old August 23rd 03, 02:04 AM
Nick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mendheim et al (OT)

Chapman billy wrote in message m...
In article ,
Mark Houlsby says:
I have read nothing of the connection between Heine and Thiers.
You write that the latter arranged a pension for the former.


Here's a quote from "Heine" by Francois Feijto (trans. Mervyn Savill;
published 1946 by Allan Wingate).

"His financial resources dried up just at the time when he was abandoning his
bachelor existence. In addition to the money which his French publications
brought in, his only income was the allowance of four thousand francs from
his uncle Saloman. Under these circumstance, Princess Belgiojoso, to whom
Heine confided all his worries, interceded through Mignet with Thiers, who
appreciated Heine's works, to subsidise him out of the secret funds for
Foreign Affairs." (page 196)


"Men, like planets, have both a visible and an invisible history."
--George Eliot (Daniel Deronda)

Dear Mr. Houlsby and Mr. Spivack,

Here are some relevant excerpts from "Heinrich Heine: a Modern Biography"
by Jeffrey Sammons (1979: Princeton University Press), which might be at
some variance with what was cited earlier in this thread:

"For years he (Heine) had been trying to maintain his claims to genuine
progressive spokesmanship, while fending off radical changes of apostasy.
A whole strategy of his life was damaged by this revelation, and he responded
to it at once with a public explanation. He denied that the state pension had
in any way compromised his views, declaring it was one of the numerous acts of
generosity of the French government toward exiles seeking freedom. The pension
made up for the loss of income incurred by the Federal decree of 1835. Guizot,
Heine says, was pleased to continue the pension in November 1840, the first and
last time Heine ever spoke to him....the statement that Guizot *continued* it
implies strongly that it was granted by the other leading politician of the
July Monarchy, Adolphe Thiers, whom Heine elsewhere describes as solicitous of
his welfare...."
--Jeffrey Sammons (Heinrich Heine, pp. 223-4)

Why should that be "Hard to believe" (*notwithstanding* the cited later
oppression)?


Heine was trenchant in his criticism of the French political situation.
This happened under both Thiers and Guizot, who also continued the subsidy.

"When Guizot succeeded Thiers at the head of foreign affairs he informed
Heine, who had attacked him more than once for his reactionary opinions,
that he would continue to pay him the subsidy." (page 197)

"Heine continued to attack Guizot's home and foreign policy just as violently.
The majority of Heine's German biographers - even the most indulgent - could
never bring themselves to understand how French statesmen, capable of
distributing a considerable pension to a foreign writer without a quid pro
quo, could possibly exist. In Germany it would not have been possible."
(also page 197)


"Heine is careful to say that *Guizot* required no services from him; he does
not mention Thiers, who undoubtedly arranged the pension. It is very doubtful
that Thiers did not have something in mind besides charity when he made this
arrangement. Under the same heading of 'Service extraordinaire' are a number
of men who did write for the advantage of the French government and were
compensated for doing so. Heine's stipend, roughly equal to the annual salary
of a French university professor, was too large to be a mere gratuity; others,
who were supported on humane grounds, such as the blind and paralysed historian
Augustin Thierry, whom Heine mentions in this connection, received much less.
Heine had just renewed his contract with the Augsberg 'Allgemeine Zeitung', to
which Thiers had previously close connections, and indeed in his first articles
he spoke very admiringly of Thiers' person and statesmanlike gifts, if not
uncritically of his policies, although a comparison with the partisan Parisian
press of the time shows that he generally supported them...Heine did ultimately
conclude that Thiers was without a sense for the 'ideal needs of mankind' and
the 'great social institutions'.

It looks very much as if someone got wind of the secret pension at the time.
Insinuations that he was writing in the 'Allgemeine Zeitung' as an agent of
Thiers appeared in a French newspaper in 1840, planted by Heine's German
enemies in Paris. He published a notice defending himself and repeated the
defence to Campe. There is too much guesswork involved to judge this matter
with certainty. One would need to know to some details of how the arrangement
came about in the first place, but this is wholly obscure. It does seem that
the original motivation cannot have been as innocent as Heine makes out, and
such a connection must necessarily have put his much vaunted political
independence under some strain. On the other hand, Heine's reportage does not
show him unduly attachd to French policies and purposes. To a remark in the
'Allgemeine Zeitung' that he was paid not so much for what he wrote as for what
he did not writer, he riposted that the 'Allgemeine Zeitung' knew perfectly
well, not so much from what it printed of his as from what it did not print,
that he was not a 'servile writer'. This seems fair, and Heine appears truthful
when he indicates that he exchanged no favours with Guizot, though from time to
time he praised him personally as he did Thiers in articles for the 'Allgemeine
Zeitung', passages that in the book version after the Revolution he tended to
delete."

--Jeffrey Sammons (Heinrich Heine, pp. 224-5)

"We are not accustomed to carry things with the same hand, or to look at 'em
from the same point."
--Charles Dickens (Bleak House)

--Nick
  #8  
Old September 22nd 03, 01:20 AM
Nick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mendheim et al (OT)

-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message ...
From:
(Nick)
Message-id:
...
"'Yes, I am fond of history.'

'I wish I were too. I read it a little as a duty, but it tells me nothing
that does not either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with
wars or pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and
hardly any women at all--it is very tiresome: and yet I often think it odd
that it should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention. The
speeches that are put into the heroes' mouths, their thoughts and designs--
the chief of all this must be invention, and invention is what delights me
in other books.'

'Historians, you think', said Miss Tilney, 'are not happy in their flights
of fancy. They display imagination without raising interest. I am fond of
history, and am very well contented to take the false with the true....'

--Jane Austen (Northanger Abbey)

"I believe--these are the simple premises of my efforts--that present and
past are indissoluble, that life and work are hard to separate even if the
connections may remain obscure and partly unconscious. These are commonplaces
that have replaced the older notions of a J.B. Bury, who believed in history
as science, or a Fustel de Coulanges, who said--in genuine modesty, I
believe--"It is not I speaking, but history speaking through me." The
reckless subjectivity that has invaded our field in some areas might make one
regret the passing of the older austerity, exemplified in Leopold von Ranke's
wish to 'expunge the self', but I believe that only totalitarian societies
can extinguish the self. In all other situations, historians are unlikely
to escape their own times or their own complicated selves."
--Fritz Stern (Einstein's German World, pp. 200-1)

"In short, that there is no clear difference between fact and fiction.
But there is, and for historians, even for the most militantly antipositivist
ones among us, the ability to distinguish between the two is absolutely
fundamental."
--Eric Hobsbawm ('The New Threat to History' in the
"New York Review of Books" 16 December 1993, p. 63)

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so."
--Bertrand Russell


Yes, quite.


'The ignorant peasant without fault is greater than the philosopher with many;
for what is genius or courage without a heart?'
--Oliver Goldsmith (The Vicar of Wakefield)

Dear Mr Houlsby,

I am afraid that most people tend to confuse what they may believe is thinking
for themselves with simply reiterating what they have been taught that they
should believe, without any further thought.

Interestingly (or uninterestingly, if you're an adherent of the views
expressed through the medium of Ms. Austen's typically adept characterisation)


Would an anachronism be avoided by referring to Our Jane as 'Miss Austen'? :-)

Mr. Spivack has been unable to substantiate his assertion that his namesake
Mr. Schama supports the contemporarily popular policy of appeasement pursued
Chamberlain's administration of His Majesty's government.


Evidently, Simon Spivack did not make that assertion, but you had misunderstood
him to have done so within the context of your discussion.

I prefer not to comment here on your dispute with Mr. Spivack beyond stating
that I have appreciated both some of your and his contributions to this forum.
I hope that you and he may be able to resolve your differences soon with mutual
satisfaction.

No doubt Mr. Spivack might equally assert that because his namesake,
Mr. Schama, stated that after the resounding victory of Parliament's army in
the decisive battle of the English Civil War, at Naseby on June 14, 1645
"...God was clearly on the side of Parliament", then Mr. Schama (who is
Jewish) truly believes that God is a Puritan... Hmmm...


Perhaps you should not hypothesise more on what Mr. Spivack might assert.

God might be an Englishman (according to R.F. Delderfield), yet how many
Puritans can be found amongst the English today? :-)

'What has emerged in place of the stiff upper lip of Trevor Howard and the
trembling lower lip of Celia Johnson is the most effervescent youth culture
in the world.'
--Jeremy Paxman (The English: a Portrait of a People, p. 231)

Now, "appeasement", as Government Policy, of course, (while maintaining an
intrinsic similarity) meant something rather different at the time of, say,
Baldwin's government, from what it meant in Chamberlain's time.

In the latter case, here in Britain we were in the position of needing to
rearm, as quickly as possible. We had limited resources available to us. What
was not altogether clear was whether we should be concentrating upon preparing
for a desert war (in north Africa, against Italy) an air war (in northwestern
Europe, against Germany) or a naval war (in the Pacific, against Japan). This
dilemma perhaps goes some way towards explaining the reason why pursuing a
policy of appeasement (which bought time while the above question was
beginning to clarify) was considered, in late 1930s Great Britain, by
the-powers-that-be, not only to be expedient, but actually rather prudent.


I lack the time now to discuss the 1938 Munich Crisis in detail.

Prime Minister Chamberlain was then advised that the Royal Air Force (nearly
all of its fighter squadrons were still equipped with biplanes) was thoroughly
unprepared to fight the Luftwaffe (which was armed with the Messerschmitt
Bf-109 fighter, which had ruled the skies in the Spanish Civil War).

"It is worth recording that, at the time of the Munich crisis in September 1938,
six Gladiator squadrons were still operational with Fighter Command, compared
with two of Hurricanes (a monoplane) and no Spitfire squadrons; the balance of
its strength comprised Hawker Furies and Demons, and Gloster Gauntlets. By the
outbreak of war one year later the transformation to monoplane fighters was
almost complete."
--Francis Mason (The British Fighter Since 1912, p. 245)

Its popularity, by contrast, derived, in large measure, from the memory of
the terrible toll exacted by the 1914-18 conflict with Germany and its allies.


"When Daladier landed at Le Bourget after returning from Munich there was a
large crowd to acclaim him. Chamberlain was equally popular. There was a
brief vogue for buying Chamberlain umbrellas--which people called 'mon
chamberlain'--and one paper set up a fund to buy him a country house in France.
An opinion poll in October 1938, the first ever undertaken in France, showed
that Munich was approved of by 57 per cent of the population."
--Julian Jackson (The Fall of France, p. 149)

Freeman Dyson was a thirteen-year-old English schoolboy in 1937.

"The older generation had fought The War and built the the War Cloister. They
were determined that we should constantly be reminded of their tragedy. And
indeed our whole lives were overshadowed by it. Every year on November 11
there was the official day of mourning. But much heavier on our souls weighed
the daily reminders that the best and the brightest of a whole generation had
fallen. English life had sunk into sloth and mediocrity, we were told, because
none were left of those who should have been our leaders. The missing generation
was conspicuous by its absence in the government and in the professions.
Everywhere tired men of sixty-five were doing the work that vigourous men of
forty-five should have done. The arithmetic was simple. Our school put out
each year a graduating class of eighty boys. Our six hundred dead (from The
War of 1914-1918) were more than seven complete years. The classes of 1914,
1915, 1916 were wiped out. Few survived from the eight years 1910-1917.

We of the class of 1941 were no fools. We saw clearly enough in 1937 that
another bloodbath was approaching. We knew how to figure the odds. We saw
no reason to expect that the next round would be less bloody than the one
before. We expected the fighting to start in 1939 or 1940, and we observed
that our chances of coming through it alive were about the same as if we had
belonged to the class of 1915 or 1916. We calculated the odds to be about
ten to one that we should be dead in five years.

Feeling ourselves doomed, we were comforted by the thought that the whole
society in which we lived was doomed equally. The coming war would certainly
bring massive bombing of civilian populations. We expected bombing, not with
old-fashioned high explosives, but with poison gas such as the Italians had
recently been using in Ethiopia, or with the anthrax bombs that Aldous Huxley
described in 'Brave New World'. We expected biological weapons to be used
more and more recklessly, until some new Black Death would get out of control
and destroy half the population of Europe. Gas had been used recklessly by
both sides in World War I, and there was no reason to hope that germ warfare
would lend itself to any greater restraint. We then expected World War II to
end with man-made plagues destroying our civilisation, just as inevitably as
forty-five years later we are expecting thermonuclear weapons to do the job
in World War III.
....
We were not so naive as to blame our predicament upon Hitler. We saw Hitler
only as a symptom of the decay of our civilisation, not as the cause of it.
To us the Germans were not enemies but fellow victims of the general insanity.
The first book I read in German was Remarque's 'All Quiet on the Western Front',
describing the German class of 1914 torn to pieces by The War in the same way
as their English contemporaries. Remarque's book is as powerful a memorial to
them as our War Cloister is to our six hundred. My tears stained the pages of
my German dictionary as I came to the end of the story. We did not bother to
read 'Mein Kampf'.

We looked around us and saw nothing but idiocy. The great British Empire
visibly crumbling, and the sooner it fell apart the better so far as we were
concerned. Millions of men unemployed, and millions of children growing up
undernourished in dilapidated slums. A king mouthing patriotic platitudes
which none of us believed. A government which had no answer to any of its
problems except to rearm as rapidly as possible. A military establishment
which believed in bombing the German civilian economy as the only feasible
strategy. A clique of old men in positions of power, blindly repeating the
mistakes of 1914, having learned nothing and forgotten nothing in the
intervening twenty-four years. A population of middle-aged nonentities, caring
only for money and status, too stupid even to flee from the wrath to come."

--Freeman Dyson (Weapons and Hope, pp. 109-12)

Of course, if it had not been for Mitchell,


Reginald Joseph Mitchell (1895-1937) was the chief designer of the Supermarine
Spitfire fighter. After being diagnosed with cancer, Mitchell defied his
doctors' orders to rest and follow a prescribed course of treatment.
Instead, Mitchell urgently continued working on his design because he believed
that it was more important for his country that his work should approach its
completion than that his life could be prolonged.

R. J. Mitchell's life was dramatised in the 1942 film, 'The First of the Few'.

(Reginald Joseph Mitchell (1895-1937) should not be confused with
Reginald Price Michell (1873-1938), a British chess master.)

The Hawker Hurricane, not the more glamourous and less numerous Spitfire, was
Fighter Command's workhorse in the Battle of Britain. The Hurricane was slower
than the Spitfire, yet it was preferred in the vital role of intercepting the
Luftwaffe's bombers. The Hurricane had these advantages over the Spitfi

1) The Hurricane could withstand more battle damage.
2) The Hurricane was a more stable gun platform.
3) The Hurricane probably was easier for the inexperienced pilots to fly.

Royce


The North American P-51 Mustang became a successful long-range escort fighter
in the United States's strategic bombing of Germany only after it was installed
with a British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.

and, perhaps most especially, Turing, we would have lost WWII.


Some historians have contended that the United Kingdom did lose that war in
the sense that, at least partly as a consequence, it lost most of the British
Empire not long afterward.

O, ye of little faith! Should you not have simply trusted the Americans to
"save the world" then, as they like to keep saying that they always have and
will again? :-)

"Le voilą donc connu, ce secret plein d'horreur." --Voltaire


'Perhaps, on the whole, more power is lost than gained by habits of secrecy.'
--Anthony Trollope (The Eustace Diamonds)

--Nick
  #9  
Old September 22nd 03, 02:08 AM
Mhoulsby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mendheim et al (OT)

From: (Nick)
Date: 22/09/03 00:20 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message
...
From:
(Nick)
Message-id:
...
"'Yes, I am fond of history.'

'I wish I were too. I read it a little as a duty, but it tells me nothing
that does not either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings,

with
wars or pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and
hardly any women at all--it is very tiresome: and yet I often think it odd
that it should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention. The
speeches that are put into the heroes' mouths, their thoughts and

designs--
the chief of all this must be invention, and invention is what delights me
in other books.'

'Historians, you think', said Miss Tilney, 'are not happy in their flights


of fancy. They display imagination without raising interest. I am fond of
history, and am very well contented to take the false with the true....'

--Jane Austen (Northanger Abbey)

"I believe--these are the simple premises of my efforts--that present and
past are indissoluble, that life and work are hard to separate even if the


connections may remain obscure and partly unconscious. These are

commonplaces
that have replaced the older notions of a J.B. Bury, who believed in

history
as science, or a Fustel de Coulanges, who said--in genuine modesty, I
believe--"It is not I speaking, but history speaking through me." The
reckless subjectivity that has invaded our field in some areas might make

one
regret the passing of the older austerity, exemplified in Leopold von

Ranke's
wish to 'expunge the self', but I believe that only totalitarian societies
can extinguish the self. In all other situations, historians are unlikely


to escape their own times or their own complicated selves."
--Fritz Stern (Einstein's German World, pp. 200-1)

"In short, that there is no clear difference between fact and fiction.
But there is, and for historians, even for the most militantly

antipositivist
ones among us, the ability to distinguish between the two is absolutely
fundamental."
--Eric Hobsbawm ('The New Threat to History' in the
"New York Review of Books" 16 December 1993, p. 63)

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so."
--Bertrand Russell


Yes, quite.


'The ignorant peasant without fault is greater than the philosopher with
many;
for what is genius or courage without a heart?'
--Oliver Goldsmith (The Vicar of Wakefield)

Dear Mr Houlsby,

I am afraid that most people tend to confuse what they may believe is
thinking
for themselves with simply reiterating what they have been taught that they
should believe, without any further thought.


Yes, quite.

Interestingly (or uninterestingly, if you're an adherent of the views
expressed through the medium of Ms. Austen's typically adept

characterisation)

Would an anachronism be avoided by referring to Our Jane as 'Miss Austen'?
:-)


Is it anachronistic to refer to a proto-feminist in that manner? Would she
disapprove? Does she care (what's left of her)? Does anyone?

Mr. Spivack has been unable to substantiate his assertion that his namesake


Mr. Schama supports the contemporarily popular policy of appeasement

pursued
Chamberlain's administration of His Majesty's government.


Evidently, Simon Spivack did not make that assertion, but you had
misunderstood
him to have done so within the context of your discussion.


Evidently. Whatcha tryna do, antagonise the guy even more?


I prefer not to comment here on your dispute with Mr. Spivack beyond stating
that I have appreciated both some of your and his contributions to this
forum.


For my part, I have appreciated his and yours in like manner.

I hope that you and he may be able to resolve your differences soon with
mutual
satisfaction.


Given that it is he who has placed certain preconditions upon the proximity of
my posts to his, perhaps it is to Simon that you need to repeat this assertion
(I know that you did so in the Zaitsev thread). For my part, I wish no such
restrictions. Evidently, Simon doesn't appreciate being misinterpreted. Equally
he has envisaged our (his and my) posting in the same thread in parallel. Will
we observe this phenomenon shortly, I wonder? :-)


No doubt Mr. Spivack might equally assert that because his namesake,
Mr. Schama, stated that after the resounding victory of Parliament's army

in
the decisive battle of the English Civil War, at Naseby on June 14, 1645
"...God was clearly on the side of Parliament", then Mr. Schama (who is
Jewish) truly believes that God is a Puritan... Hmmm...


Perhaps you should not hypothesise more on what Mr. Spivack might assert.


"Perhaps, perhaps" (Geri Halliwell)

"Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps" (Farres/Davis)

God might be an Englishman (according to R.F. Delderfield), yet how many
Puritans can be found amongst the English today? :-)

'What has emerged in place of the stiff upper lip of Trevor Howard and the
trembling lower lip of Celia Johnson is the most effervescent youth culture
in the world.'
--Jeremy Paxman (The English: a Portrait of a People, p. 231)

Now, "appeasement", as Government Policy, of course, (while maintaining an
intrinsic similarity) meant something rather different at the time of, say,
Baldwin's government, from what it meant in Chamberlain's time.

In the latter case, here in Britain we were in the position of needing to
rearm, as quickly as possible. We had limited resources available to us.

What
was not altogether clear was whether we should be concentrating upon

preparing
for a desert war (in north Africa, against Italy) an air war (in

northwestern
Europe, against Germany) or a naval war (in the Pacific, against Japan).

This
dilemma perhaps goes some way towards explaining the reason why pursuing a
policy of appeasement (which bought time while the above question was
beginning to clarify) was considered, in late 1930s Great Britain, by
the-powers-that-be, not only to be expedient, but actually rather prudent.


I lack the time now to discuss the 1938 Munich Crisis in detail.


Phew! :-)

Prime Minister Chamberlain was then advised that the Royal Air Force (nearly
all of its fighter squadrons were still equipped with biplanes) was
thoroughly
unprepared to fight the Luftwaffe (which was armed with the Messerschmitt
Bf-109 fighter, which had ruled the skies in the Spanish Civil War).


Yes, quite.

"It is worth recording that, at the time of the Munich crisis in September
1938,
six Gladiator squadrons were still operational with Fighter Command, compared
with two of Hurricanes (a monoplane) and no Spitfire squadrons; the balance
of
its strength comprised Hawker Furies and Demons, and Gloster Gauntlets. By
the
outbreak of war one year later the transformation to monoplane fighters was
almost complete."
--Francis Mason (The British Fighter Since 1912, p. 245)


Yes, quite.

Its popularity, by contrast, derived, in large measure, from the memory of
the terrible toll exacted by the 1914-18 conflict with Germany and its

allies.

"When Daladier landed at Le Bourget after returning from Munich there was a
large crowd to acclaim him. Chamberlain was equally popular. There was a
brief vogue for buying Chamberlain umbrellas--which people called 'mon
chamberlain'--and one paper set up a fund to buy him a country house in
France.
An opinion poll in October 1938, the first ever undertaken in France, showed
that Munich was approved of by 57 per cent of the population."
--Julian Jackson (The Fall of France, p. 149)

Freeman Dyson was a thirteen-year-old English schoolboy in 1937.

"The older generation had fought The War and built the the War Cloister.
They
were determined that we should constantly be reminded of their tragedy. And
indeed our whole lives were overshadowed by it. Every year on November 11
there was the official day of mourning. But much heavier on our souls
weighed
the daily reminders that the best and the brightest of a whole generation had
fallen. English life had sunk into sloth and mediocrity, we were told,
because
none were left of those who should have been our leaders. The missing
generation
was conspicuous by its absence in the government and in the professions.
Everywhere tired men of sixty-five were doing the work that vigourous men of
forty-five should have done. The arithmetic was simple. Our school put out
each year a graduating class of eighty boys. Our six hundred dead (from The
War of 1914-1918) were more than seven complete years. The classes of 1914,
1915, 1916 were wiped out. Few survived from the eight years 1910-1917.

We of the class of 1941 were no fools. We saw clearly enough in 1937 that
another bloodbath was approaching. We knew how to figure the odds. We saw
no reason to expect that the next round would be less bloody than the one
before. We expected the fighting to start in 1939 or 1940, and we observed
that our chances of coming through it alive were about the same as if we had
belonged to the class of 1915 or 1916. We calculated the odds to be about
ten to one that we should be dead in five years.

Feeling ourselves doomed, we were comforted by the thought that the whole
society in which we lived was doomed equally. The coming war would certainly
bring massive bombing of civilian populations. We expected bombing, not with
old-fashioned high explosives, but with poison gas such as the Italians had
recently been using in Ethiopia, or with the anthrax bombs that Aldous Huxley
described in 'Brave New World'. We expected biological weapons to be used
more and more recklessly, until some new Black Death would get out of control
and destroy half the population of Europe. Gas had been used recklessly by
both sides in World War I, and there was no reason to hope that germ warfare
would lend itself to any greater restraint. We then expected World War II to
end with man-made plagues destroying our civilisation, just as inevitably as
forty-five years later we are expecting thermonuclear weapons to do the job
in World War III.
...
We were not so naive as to blame our predicament upon Hitler. We saw Hitler
only as a symptom of the decay of our civilisation, not as the cause of it.
To us the Germans were not enemies but fellow victims of the general
insanity.
The first book I read in German was Remarque's 'All Quiet on the Western
Front',
describing the German class of 1914 torn to pieces by The War in the same way
as their English contemporaries. Remarque's book is as powerful a memorial
to
them as our War Cloister is to our six hundred. My tears stained the pages
of
my German dictionary as I came to the end of the story. We did not bother to
read 'Mein Kampf'.

We looked around us and saw nothing but idiocy. The great British Empire
visibly crumbling, and the sooner it fell apart the better so far as we were
concerned. Millions of men unemployed, and millions of children growing up
undernourished in dilapidated slums. A king mouthing patriotic platitudes
which none of us believed. A government which had no answer to any of its
problems except to rearm as rapidly as possible. A military establishment
which believed in bombing the German civilian economy as the only feasible
strategy. A clique of old men in positions of power, blindly repeating the
mistakes of 1914, having learned nothing and forgotten nothing in the
intervening twenty-four years. A population of middle-aged nonentities,
caring
only for money and status, too stupid even to flee from the wrath to come."

--Freeman Dyson (Weapons and Hope, pp. 109-12)

Of course, if it had not been for Mitchell,


Reginald Joseph Mitchell (1895-1937) was the chief designer of the
Supermarine
Spitfire fighter. After being diagnosed with cancer, Mitchell defied his
doctors' orders to rest and follow a prescribed course of treatment.
Instead, Mitchell urgently continued working on his design because he
believed
that it was more important for his country that his work should approach its
completion than that his life could be prolonged.

R. J. Mitchell's life was dramatised in the 1942 film, 'The First of the
Few'.

(Reginald Joseph Mitchell (1895-1937) should not be confused with
Reginald Price Michell (1873-1938), a British chess master.)


Or Keith Michell, the actor and one-time pop star.

Or Joni Mitchell, (born Roberta Joan Anderson, on November 7th 1943, who wrote,
among other things, "California" [which I recently quoted in these groups]
"Woodstock", "Big Yellow Taxi", "Both Sides, Now" and many, many more of the
finest songs ever written).

The Hawker Hurricane, not the more glamourous and less numerous Spitfire, was
Fighter Command's workhorse in the Battle of Britain. The Hurricane was
slower
than the Spitfire, yet it was preferred in the vital role of intercepting the
Luftwaffe's bombers. The Hurricane had these advantages over the Spitfi

1) The Hurricane could withstand more battle damage.


Right, its fuselage was mostly linen, which made it easier to "patch up" and
return quickly to battle....

2) The Hurricane was a more stable gun platform.
3) The Hurricane probably was easier for the inexperienced pilots to fly.


You omitted an important capability:

4) Its turning circle was smaller than perhaps any of the enemy's aircraft.
This enabled the Hurricane's pilots to outmanoeuvre their foes and attack them
from behind.

Royce


The North American P-51 Mustang became a successful long-range escort fighter
in the United States's strategic bombing of Germany only after it was
installed
with a British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.


Yes, indeed.

and, perhaps most especially, Turing, we would have lost WWII.


Some historians have contended that the United Kingdom did lose that war in
the sense that, at least partly as a consequence, it lost most of the British

Empire not long afterward.


Yes, quite.

O, ye of little faith! Should you not have simply trusted the Americans to
"save the world" then, as they like to keep saying that they always have and
will again? :-)


Surely you don't mean to imply that Americans DON'T do this?! :-)

"Le voilą donc connu, ce secret plein d'horreur." --Voltaire


'Perhaps, on the whole, more power is lost than gained by habits of secrecy.'
--Anthony Trollope (The Eustace Diamonds)


"That I, or any man should tell everything of himself, I hold to be impossible.
Who could endure to own the doing of a mean thing? Who is there that has done
none?"

--Trollope (an Autobiography)

"We often happen to blurt out something which might in some way be dangerous to
us; but we are not deserted by our reticence and discretion in the case of
those things that might make us ridiculous, because here the effect follows
close on the cause."

--Schopenhauer ('Psychological Remarks', Parerga and Palipomena)

"There are no secrets except the secrets that keep themselves."

--Bernard Shaw (Back to Methuselah)

--Mark
  #10  
Old September 24th 03, 07:53 AM
Nick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mendheim et al (OT)

-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message ...
From:
(Nick)
Message-id:
-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message
...
(snipped)
Interestingly (or uninterestingly, if you're an adherent of the views
expressed through the medium of Ms. Austen's typically adept
characterisation)


Would an anachronism be avoided by referring to Our Jane as 'Miss Austen'?


Is it anachronistic to refer to a proto-feminist in that manner?


'There is no difference between Time and of the three dimensions of Space
except that our consciousness moves along it.'
--H.G. Wells (The Time Machine)

Dear Mr Houlsby,

If Jane Austen had been a RAF fighter pilot in the Battle of Britain, then she
should have flown the Spitfire because 'in...Hampshire, *Hurricanes* hardly
ever happen' (from 'My Fair Lady'). :-)

When she was sixteen years old, Jane Austen wrote a satirical manuscript,
'The History of England by a partial, prejudiced, & ignorant Historian.
(Note: There will be very few Dates in this History)'. Someone today may
purchase a book with a complete facsimile of the original text.

Would she disapprove? Does she care (what's left of her)? Does anyone?


Have you ever met some of the members of the Jane Austen Society? :-)

http://www.janeausten.soci.freeuk.com/

Now, "appeasement", as Government Policy, of course, (while maintaining an
intrinsic similarity) meant something rather different at the time of, say,
Baldwin's government, from what it meant in Chamberlain's time.
In the latter case, here in Britain we were in the position of needing to
rearm, as quickly as possible. We had limited resources available to us.


I doubt that Prime Minister Chamberlain thought of his policies as though he
were the absolute national leader of the United States. :-)

What was not altogether clear was whether we should be concentrating upon
preparing for a desert war (in north Africa, against Italy) an air war
(in northwestern Europe, against Germany) or a naval war (in the Pacific,
against Japan). This dilemma perhaps goes some way towards explaining the
reason why pursuing a policy of appeasement (which bought time while the
above question was beginning to clarify) was considered, in late 1930s
Great Britain, by the-powers-that-be, not only to be expedient, but
actually rather prudent.


I lack the time now to discuss the 1938 Munich Crisis in detail.

Of course, if it had not been for Mitchell,

(snipped)
The Hawker Hurricane, not the more glamourous and less numerous Spitfire,
was Fighter Command's workhorse in the Battle of Britain. The Hurricane was
slower than the Spitfire, yet it was preferred in the vital role of
intercepting the Luftwaffe's bombers. The Hurricane had these advantages
over the Spitfi

1) The Hurricane could withstand more battle damage.


Right, its fuselage was mostly linen, which made it easier to "patch up"
and return quickly to battle.


The fuselage was not made of linen. The early model Hurricanes had wings that
were composed of metal frames covered by fabric; the later model Hurricanes
had all-metal stressed-skin wings.

James 'Ginger' Lacey, a famous RAF fighter ace of the Battle of Britain, once
fondly described the Hurricane as being a collection of non-essential parts,
which could be shot up without eliminating anything really important. :-)

http://www.the-battle-of-britain.co..../Hurricane.htm

2) The Hurricane was a more stable gun platform.


That characteristic was important when engaging bombers in combat.

3) The Hurricane probably was easier for the inexperienced pilots to fly.


That was especially true for taking off and landing the aeroplane safely.

You omitted an important capability:


I was writing in this specific context, comparing the Hurricane with the
Spitfire *only* in regard to the successful interception of bombers.

4) Its turning circle was smaller than perhaps any of the enemy's aircraft.
This enabled the Hurricane's pilots to outmanoeuvre their foes and attack
them from behind.


Both the Hurricane and the Spitfire enjoyed ample margins of superiority in
speed and manoeuverability over every Luftwaffe bomber, which normally enabled
each of them to reach advantageous firing positions. Any minor differences
between the Hurricane and the Spitfire in manoeuverability would have been
irrelevant in the operational role of intercepting bombers, wherein firepower
and the capacity to withstand battle damage were much more significant factors
in the fighter's expected success.

In general, an average RAF pilot in a Hurricane or Spitfire could out-turn an
average Luftwaffe pilot in a Messerschmitt Bf-109E in the Battle of Britain.
But there's evidence that the best Bf-109E pilots could use a special technique
(flying with 'slats-out') and out-turn the Hurricane and the Spitfire. As I
recall, when one expert Luftwaffe pilot was questioned after the war about his
claim that his Bf-109E consistently had been able to out-turn the Spitfires in
his dogfights in the Battle of Britain, he replied that if what he was saying
had not been true, then he should not have expected to survive to say it.

Royce


The North American P-51 Mustang became a successful long-range escort
fighter in the United States's strategic bombing of Germany only after it
was installed with a British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.


Yes, indeed.


British scientists and engineers made vital contributions to the United States
war effort, especially early in the war. The Americans were able to base their
lavishly funded research and development programmes on what already had been
achieved by the British, with fewer resources. The Americans were granted the
the most advanced British technology in radar, sonar, and jet engines, not to
mention the life-saving 'miracle drug', penicillin. Those contributions also
significantly helped United States industries to gain advantages over British
industries in postwar economic and technological competition.

When the American M-4 Sherman tank, in British and Canadian Army service, was
armed with a much more potent British '17 pounder' gun, it became a realistic
threat even to the German Panther and Tiger tanks. Oddly enough, the Americans
decided not to arm their forthcoming Sherman tanks with the '17 pounder' gun.
Evidently on account of their characteristic nationalism, the Americans
preferred to continue building their Sherman tanks with the less potent but,
more significantly for them, "all-American" 75mm gun. When in combat with the
German Panther and Tiger tanks, did the American crews take pride in knowing
that their Sherman tanks were armed with the American 75mm gun instead of the
more potent British '17 pounder' gun?

and, perhaps most especially, Turing, we would have lost WWII.


Some historians have contended that the United Kingdom did lose that war
in the sense that, at least partly as a consequence, it lost most of the
British Empire not long afterward.


Yes, quite.


Some countries, such as Poland, tend to become the historical victims of their
geography. With Hitler on one side and Stalin on the other, how could Poland
have preserved its de facto national independence after 1939? From September
1939 to June 1941 (when Germany invaded the Soviet Union), Stalin also brutally
treated the Poles who had fallen under his empire.

O, ye of little faith! Should you not have simply trusted the Americans to
"save the world" then, as they like to keep saying that they always have
and will again? :-)


Surely you don't mean to imply that Americans DON'T do this?! :-)


I expect the Americans to strive to make the world safer for Coca-Cola (or
even for Pepsi), but not necessarily to help provide safe drinking water for
all those other people who need it. If there promises to be profit in it for
a United States corporation, then it may seem more likely to be done sooner.

'Money is neither god nor devil, that it should make one noble and another
vile.'
--Anthony Trollope (Phineas Finn)

--Nick
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mendheim et al michael adams rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 1 July 22nd 03 07:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.