Article

2004-05-14 Israel-Palestine

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bill Nelson 2004-05-14 12:00:00 AM|| || Front Page|| [11140 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "Hitlerâs armies lost the Second World War because the darkness of his cause could ultimately never inspire his divisions the way the cause of liberty could inspire the Allies."

Twaddle. I've seen it in print (I haven't independently checked this)that the Wehrmacht never lost a battle where the odds were anything like even and that they managed to inflict a 2:1 casualty rate on the enemy over WWII despite the very difficult fighting retreat from Russia(never a rout).Check also the biographies of some of the Luftwaffe guys like Rudel, Galland etc.

Posted by Anonymous4828 2004-05-14 12:50:21 AM|| 2004-05-14 12:50:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 the Wehrmacht never lost a battle where the odds were anything like even

That's because they were better equipped (except in the air).

Posted by Rafael 2004-05-14 1:11:32 AM|| 2004-05-14 1:11:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Twaddle. I've seen it in print (I haven't independently checked this)that the Wehrmacht never lost a battle where the odds were anything like even and that they managed to inflict a 2:1 casualty rate on the enemy over WWII despite the very difficult fighting retreat from Russia(never a rout).

The fact is the total casualties of the Soviet Union in all services from all causes is just over 11 million. I think the Wehrmacht and its allies lost around 9 million total. Not quite the 'rout' numbers some would have you believe.

Don't get me wrong, the Wehrmacht inflicted horrific casualties early on in the war in Russia, primarily from prisoners. It is worth noting that during the battle of Moscow, the German Army lost 300,000 men in irrecoverable losses, which by the time the battle was fought, ground units were down to half strength. Thus, the percetage of the losses at the end of the balle was about a third of thier forces. And this from a Red Army nearly wrecked by six months of losses. The 'odds' were quite a bit 'even.'

And so the story of combat losses for the Germans continue through the remainder of the war. The idea that Germans always fought where the odds were even is absurd. Fact is both armies throughout the war (the Red Army to a far lesser extent at the start and a far greater extent at the end ), first the Germans, and later the Red Army learned that operational manuver room can be gained by concentrating forces where the enemy was weakest and where the expectation of success was the greatest.

At the tactical level and there are plenty of decsriptions of battles to go along with this, plenty of battles took place where forces were 'even' and the Soviets won handily, primarily because of many many other factors (weather, errors in judgement by intel on enemy's disposition, strength and plans, supply problems, political interference, etc).

Ultimately Hitler lost the war because he failed to listen to his generals and failed to place his economy on a war footing.

Rafael: The Wehrmacht was not better equipped. The USSR had a superb army in 1941, the only problem being Stalin's paranoia wrecked the best of his officers and what was left to fight Hitler were crony's of Uncle Joe.

The Red Army was well equipped with very good equipment, much of it on par with the Wehrmacht, some of it inferior. New Soviet aircraft being deployed in 1941 was of excellent quality, Hitler destroyed on the ground thousands of obselete aircraft, and captured thousands of obselete armor vehicles.

The successes of the Wehrmacht can be attributed to incredibly poor judgement at the grand strategic level and a dearth of well educated, militarily focussed officers in the Red Army.

Posted by badanov 2004-05-14 1:29:46 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-05-14 1:29:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 When Abraham Lincoln humbly sauntered through the conquered Confederate capital of Richmond on April 2, 1865, he was mobbed by ecstatic crowds of newly freed slaves who held their children up to see the great emancipator. But President George W. Bush had to sneak into Baghdad last Thanksgiving in absolute secrecy. The Arabs hate their own liberators.

This is a terrible analogy. Or rather, it's a terrible contrast because the situations are actually quite similar - he just draws the wrong conclusions. The lesson is: Reconstruction is a long, dirty, unpleasant, and heartbreaking work (for both the occupier and occupied) but it must go on all the same.

Posted by John in Tokyo 2004-05-14 1:32:54 AM|| 2004-05-14 1:32:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 His premise is wrong: Islamic society has always been parasitic. It gained new ideas only by conquering new territories but lost the momentum of those intellectual infustions as the new citizens of the empire were subjugated and forced to convert to a "religion" that mandated every aspect of their lives while demanding that they give up the very intellectual inquiry from which ideas and in turn societal, technological, and artistic advancement spring. Islamic society today is what it has always been, a prideful, angry, wretched failure that lashes out violently at everything within reach, particularly those things that demonstrate its abject failure (i.e., nearly every other society on the face of the planet).

Posted by AzCat 2004-05-14 1:44:34 AM|| 2004-05-14 1:44:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Gene Simmons (May Yahwah Make Him Immortal) attacks Muslims.
Link

"Shout it! Shout it out LOUD!"

Posted by KISS Army of Satan 2004-05-14 2:51:37 AM|| 2004-05-14 2:51:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I think it is wrong to characterize this as a war between the West and Islam. Its really a war for the soul of Western civilization. The real war is between tranzi socialists who view everyone in the world as the same and all systems more or less equal, with only a few quaint customs making us different, and those who view Western society as a unique achievement that must be defended at all costs and to allow to be taken over by Islamicists or Communists for that matter would be a tradegy of unimaginable proportions.

Posted by Phil_B 2004-05-14 5:01:08 AM|| 2004-05-14 5:01:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 I respect Rabbi Boteach, but as is sometimes the case with him, he wanders all over the map, sometimes totally correct, and then suddenly it's almost as if he were making up facts. The most glaring example is his assertion of Islam as a "religion that once distinguished itself for its benevolence and religious tolerance...", and, "...A once-majestic civilization...".

The truth is that at one point in history, the Caliphate was the ruling power over much of the civilized world. I guess that you would have to refer to them as majestic, since they were the kings of much of the world, but, as Azcat mentions, they got that way by accumulation, not by invention.

Of greater concern to me is that Rabbi Boteach, who should really know better, is perpetuating that myth of Islam's "golden age" when they were benevolent and tolerant. The laws of Dhimmi always applied, and while Jews and Christians weren't immediately killed for the sake of their being Jewish or Christian, they were always considered the second class citizens. Rather than just copy this web site, I recommend anyone who's interested click on over to this brief encapsulation: http://www.geocities.com/muslimfreethinkers/jews_islam.htm of what it was like to be a "protected people" in the so-called golden age of Islam. After reading this, decide for yourself if the rulers of that time were truly benevolent, or just saying, "I'm the boss, and by my greatness, i allow you to live and work here because I feel pity for you lesser creatures. Still, don't even think of doing..... or you will be killed horribly, and all the possesions you have only because I allow you to have them, will be forfeit.'

Posted by Dripping Sarcasm 2004-05-14 5:16:01 AM|| 2004-05-14 5:16:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 re: #6

First off, Go Gene Go!

However, after reading the article, you can't help but smile when
you think that there must be a better spokesman for moments when it's time to call someone "vile". Still, he's git a great way with words, and since most everyone else seems afraid to call it like is, why not Gene Simmons?

And, as for this excerpt:...The radio station today fielded calls from Muslims upset at the comments, including Australian Muslim of the year Susan Carland, who said Australian Muslims rejected extremism and did not fit Simmons' stereotype.

Umm...Muslim of the year? WTF?

...Ms Carland said she had two degrees, was doing her honours and "certainly do not walk behind my husband".

Osama says," Not yet."

Posted by Dripping Sarcasm 2004-05-14 5:34:17 AM|| 2004-05-14 5:34:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Even if allah came upto me in the street and offered me 100 virgins and $10million . I would tell him i would rather have my honest bang for buck lady , an honest conscience and a solid unbiased education than what he seems to offer .

Posted by MacNails 2004-05-14 7:24:16 AM|| 2004-05-14 7:24:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 ...Ms Carland said she had two degrees, was doing her honours and "certainly do not walk behind my husband".

Wait till her husband gets a load of this, she is gonna get her *ss whipped.

Posted by Ol_Dirty_American 2004-05-14 7:27:22 AM|| 2004-05-14 7:27:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Ms. Carland's response was difficult to understand, speaking from inside her burqa

Posted by Frank G 2004-05-14 8:13:57 AM|| 2004-05-14 8:13:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Notice tht Ms. Carland is doing her honors (and most likely earned her degrees) in a western society and not in someplace like Iran or Saudi-Arabia under Islamic rule.

The Chairman of the Islamic Council of Victoria called it 'Unfortunate' (not false...).

In fact all of those quoted were living in the West.

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-05-14 9:32:24 AM|| 2004-05-14 9:32:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Professor Bunyip says that Carland was not always singing this same song.

Posted by Angie Schultz 2004-05-14 10:41:02 AM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com] 2004-05-14 10:41:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Nice link Angie, pow!

Dripping Sarcasm, exactly as I read it.

Posted by Lucky 2004-05-14 12:50:05 PM|| 2004-05-14 12:50:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Intelligent post, AzCat. Way back when, St. Basil the Great ran an underground schools for Orthodox Christian boys, when the bad guys took over, because the Arabs wouldn't allow Christians to be educated. Always the same story.

Still, I wonder if it might be important to distinguish between Islamic fanatics, and the nominal Moslems, who really don't give a sh-t about Islam. The latter aren't that bad, really. They mostly just like to talk and party. Or, if they consider themselves religious, they live by a code coming from pre-Islamic times, through which they interpret Islam in their personal lives.

BUT it still bugs me: How come the "better" Moslems never call the "badder" Moslems to account? Are they afraid of them? I think they're afraid of them.

Sounds like missy Carland had to "submit" to her Islamic man and change her tune. Ha!! Even though she's living in the West. Imagine that . . .

Posted by ex-lib 2004-05-14 5:22:27 PM|| 2004-05-14 5:22:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 I almost missed this article and I think it's great. Oh sure, lots of what he says is what we wish were true rather than what is...but so what? You catch more flies with honey.

I thought he did a great job of expressing what ails the Islamic world and what makes us strong. I give it a bravo (despite it's wishful flaws).

Posted by B 2004-05-16 8:58:27 AM|| 2004-05-16 8:58:27 AM|| Front Page Top

19:41 Faisal the Goyem
17:34 Faisal the Goyem
16:42 Gentile
16:42 Gentile
08:58 B
13:09 Evert V. in NL
13:07 Bulldog
04:15 Super Hose
03:31 Super Hose
01:00 Anon666
00:23 Frank G
00:21 Frank G
00:03 Lucky
23:46 Laurence of the Rats
23:45 Pappy
23:13 Super Hose
23:12 Eric Jablow
23:08 Robert Crawford
23:01 Anonymous4828
23:01 mojo
22:58 Eric Jablow
22:58 Anonymous4828
22:54 Anonymous4828
22:50 Super Hose