It kills me to say something nice about the brood of bloodsuckers that are Comcast, but I can verify that Pockets of Comcast's net are seeing huge increases. In particular, I have seen speeds of 19-22Mb/s burst to testing sites, and almost 2.0MB/s non-bursting.
That's in the Denver region using both speedtest.net and DSL tools.
Give credit where it's due, but Comcast does appear to be amping up the bandwidth hugely.
Between this and the Zimbra announcement, Comcast has firmly passed Qwest as next to last evil corporation.
In England Moore neglected to mention that the UK is slowly dismantling the system that he praises. In Canada he got grilled by their press for misrepresenting how many people are dying waiting for opperations. In Cuba, ever dissident is cursing his name, or at least would be if they knew about him, but instead are thrown behind bars for daring to think diffrently then Da Capo.
That's the problem with Moore. He is good at making things entertaining... But his is not documenting things, he is making propaganda movies to back up his own point of view. That includes fibbing fibbing about Charles Heston, calling Launch Vehicles for satellites "ICBMS"
In short, Moore doesn't care to tell you the truth, he just wants to entertain you and outrage you so you will support his remarkably ill-formed opinion. He does no service to either liberal or conservative causes.
In this context, I have very little problems with what Google is doing. I am not a fan of HMOs or Moore. I have no problem with beating each other into a bloody pulp.
It's time for Sun to put their money where their mouth is. Linus was absolutely right recently when he noted that Sun wanted access to Linux's drivers. They also have co-opted gnome, and taken advantage of the renaissance that Linux brought to the (massively decaying) UNIX ecosystem.
Let's find a way to settle these license issues. ZFS looks to be great innovation, but Sun appears to be playing license games with the express purpose of keeping Linux at bay.
I love the Chavez apologists. At the risk of invoking a law that no doubt everyone on Slashdot is familiar with, I wonder if this will end up being the TCP/IP equivalent of Volksempfänger complete with filters to keep comments from more then 100-150 miles away.
It's amazing what people are willing to forget because someone is a enemy of their enemy. Chavez is rapidly militarizing, is the only leader in the entire world who seems not to have gotten the Communism is dead memo, and is now ruling by fiat.
All of your points here are true, but they are also speculation. Documentation wise, we can document the first strong anti-semitic comments from Hitler after World War I. Bearing in mind that Hitler was never a member of the Christian Socialist party, and also bearing in mind that the post-war program that Hitler was involved in, and also ended up teaching had a indoctrinated component of anti-semitic, it's pretty easy to see a link between World War I and Hitler's personal beliefs. The other documented source of Hitler's point of view comes not from the Church, but instead from the various Volk moments, and Wagner in particular. To dismiss this claim is to throw out the most solid information we have on Hitler's early intellectual exposures.
That's not to say that All of Europe (broadly speaking) was massively anti-semitic going into World War II. That's also not to say that the Grand Mufti in the Palestinian Mandate had started programs to wipe out the Jews even before the NSDAP existed. It's not even to say that there were not massive racist tendencies in America to turn a blind eye to the problem of the Jews. Or to that that not only the Church but most of the politicians, etc viewed the Jews as a problem.
But the bulk of the Historical evidence falls down in the Military indoctrination.
I would compare it, as a mater of fact, to what has been going on in the Middle East for the last 50 years. The military and political leaders there have consistently blamed the Jews for lost wars (even ones that didn't include Israel) heavy handed tactics by secret police, etc. They have made this ideology one of the cornerstones of their society.
You honestly don't expect me to take a review of a book entitled "It can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush" as some sort of historical reference right?
The reality is that Hitler didn't even succeed in rallying the Church around him any more or less then the rest of the German population. The earliest documentation of Hitler's anti-semeticism came in the post war years, where the Jews were blamed for the sudden inconceivable loss of World War I. You can speculate on earlier sources (and let's face it, all of Europe was Anti-semitic going into World War II) but the only place you can prove it is post war. If the UK had lost World War I, and the political leaders blamed the Jews just as the Germans did, the Holocaust could have occurred there just as easily.
As far as scholarship goes, leaving pulp political fiction out, and reviews from a guy who wrote:
n the West Jesus is held up as a model. But his teachings can be used only in a period just before the end of the world; he expected the end to come soon. You cannot practice his teachings in a world that will last; they are not practical. Mohammed, unlike Jesus, was a normal man; he had normal feelings, not the sado-masochistic feelings of Jesus which he got from the whole Judaic messianic complex. Mohammed is someone who can admire, can emulate, can respect.
The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination
You are aware that "Positive Christianity" was a code word for German Christian yes? And you do know what exactly the German Christians believed yes? If the answers to either of those questions was no, you need to go do some more homework. If the answers to the two questions were yes, you clearly have no interest in factual discussion just a misguided sense of personal hatred and vitriol that apparently supersedes your knowledge of Historical fact.
And again, your post fails to address some points that were raised. Namely that Hitler forced the Church to allow him to directly appoint bishops, ended the political party that was affiliated with the church, tried to destroy the confessing church, and threw in jail the leadership of both the catholic and the protest church. Moreover they forced as many churches as possible into the German Church movement (which created the confessing church in the first place), forced a pact onto Rome, etc.
You can dig up a single speech, and completely miss the context of it to make your point. I can dig up a lifetime of animosity towards the Church, Hitler putting to death it's leaders, and his statement that he would destroy the Protestent Church because it would not support him.
Hitler's private statements are more mixed. There are negative statements about Christianity reported by Hitler's intimates, Goebbels, Speer, and Bormann.[10] Joseph Goebbels, for example, notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." Albert Speer reports a similar statement: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[11] In the Hossbach Memorandum Hitler is recorded as saying that "only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age" were responsible for the demise of the Roman empire.[12]
The Mongol empire and the Greek empires collapsed much more quickly, and long term had much less affect then the Roman empire. As far as the Holocaust goes, Hitler was a bit different. Stalin killed millions of political opponents, and more through mismanagement. Hitler on the other hand had the goal of wiping out another people, and had several other groups in mind for after the Jews.
I've already explained in a different thread that History is written by the survivors, not the victors. For example Carthage and Rome. Or the fact that the crusade history is overwhelmingly western, not middle eastern.
History is the factual analysis of what happened. What you are arguing is that people's view of history is relativistic. That is also true, but it is also not the same thing as history itself being relativistic. Your second example is also a fallacy. History says nothing about right or wrong, it is a recording of what occurred. History records that the standard of living and average family size over the last 200 years has gotten way better in Europe, and is now getting better in third world countries as they adopt western practices. It says noting about weither that's a good thing or a bad thing, just that it occurred. History is written, it does not judge. (I hate the "history will judge" line that politicians on both sides of the aisle repeat so often).
Finally, you compare the view that history isn't relativistic as being childish. It is important to have a debate, but that debate should be over the specifics of what occurred, not what you think of why it occurred. There is a difference between honest scholarship, and trying to deny something for political merit. I have no problem with people who question if the Holocaust came out of Hitler's personal beliefs, or if Germany walked a "special path" because of World War II. Every man has a right to his opinion, but no one has a right to their own set of facts.
That's the difference between History and your opinion. History records MacArthur sitting on the deck of the Mighty Mo and Japanese pens signing the treaty. Your opinion is that no one won, because of the horrors of the war. I am willing to bet that there are a lot of Chinese, Jews, Germans, and Americans who survived because the Allies won who would disagree with you from their emotional point of view.
But history still records the end of the war one way or another.
Will people please please please do some research before they start posting crap like this. The pope never decreed anything about the Holocaust, and documentary evidence exists that they were worried about it, not applauding it. On top of that large portions of the Catholic and Protestent churches went to concentration camps for opposing Hitler. Please go look up the Confessing Church.
It was not Christians who came up with the star, Christians were not silent in the war, and the Nazis were not doing what was said to be correct about the History of the Jews.
Might I suggest Richard Evan's books on Nazi Germany?
You sound like Junior High Schooler insisting that BASIC is a better language for C, and that all operating systems are written in Assembly.
As someone who studied History, I can assure you that the debate on who was a more evil bastard: Hitler or Stalin occurs all the time. The Khymer Rouge and the Cambodian massacres are difficult, because the PC elements of the Vietnam war really taint the discussion.
The thing about the Holocaust that has really made it a issue, is that it occurred in Western Europe. The racism that led to the Holocaust wasn't a Germany only thing. The leaders in Vichy France were more then enthusiastic about helping the Germans, the same for the Poles etc. Germany got the short end of the stick because the started the whole thing, but it was endemic of the racism in Europe.
And the Holocaust was efficient beyond belief. It took Stalin 20 years to do what Hitler did in three.
So yes, other genocides, including what the Japanese did in WWII, what the Communists did in Vietnam, what the Arabs did to the Kurds, are important, but there is nothing so immediate as the Holocaust.
And you sir appear to be too stupid to understand the difference betwen Social Darwinism and Evolution, and too blinded by hatred to actually do your homework.
From Wikipedia:
The Holocaust
Main article: Holocaust
One of the foundations of Hitler's and the NSDAP's social policies was the concept of racial hygiene. It was based on the ideas of Arthur de Gobineau, eugenics, and social Darwinism. Applied to human beings, "survival of the fittest" was interpreted as requiring racial purity and killing off "life unworthy of life." The first victims were crippled and retarded children on an order signed by Hitler. After a public outcry, Hitler made a show of ending this program, but the killings in fact continued. This deadly program was called T-4 and many of its killers soon moved to death camps.
You are confusing motive with events. It is a fact that the United States invaded Iraq. It's a fact that Saddam Hussein was shooting at American planes before that. And it's a fact that Shia and Sunni groups are targetting civilians on either side. What is not a fact is the "why."
You argue that the Holocaust would have been down played if Germany had won the war. I can think of a direct Historical example where that is not true. During World War I, the Brits established a "starvation blockade" that basically strangled the German army and the German people. After the war, the UK and France basically raped Germany of what resources it had left, and left it to rot in the 1920s. Only the United States provided any aid at the time, and that was curtailed once the Great Depression hit. All of these facts are not beneficial to the UK or Germany, but are very well documented, and are being researched even now in depth.
The reality is that the Crusades have been thought on way in Islamic circles to justify a point: "Holy rules will be successful in Battle." Ironically enough, the West has swung to the opposite side ignoring the 300 years of previous warfare and focusing on the Crusades as if they just magically occurred out of thin air, and were due to nothing else but Rome's grab for power.
History has much to say about both (incorrect) views of History. But the political correctness that keeps the west from honestly looking at the Crusades, and the religious fervor and national identity issues keep the arab states from looking honestly at the crusades.
Sorry. You are very much wrong. Hitler was raised a Catholic, but expressed nothing but contempt for Christianity later in life. (Strangly enough, he once mentioned that it would be better for Germany if they had Muslim faith, as it was more appropriate for their race). Hitler in fact ordered both the disolution of the party that represented the Catholic faith in Germany (the Centre party) as well as the persecution of the protestant Church. Hitler attacked the basic premise of Christianity - grace and charity to the down trodden - as being essentially week. In this way he very much parroted Nietzsche's arguments against Christianity.
With one exception, none of the other leaders of Germany at the time said anything about Christian belief. They used the language in speeches now and then, but they overwhelmingly fell into one of three categories: A cult-ish series of beliefs around the divinity of nature (strangely not all that different from more modern new age beliefs), or "German Christian" basically Christianity with Christ replaced with German figures including Hitler himself or in science and in particular, Social Darwinism.
Nope. Take a look at what has actually been written in History. Take a look at the history of the Crusades, the 100 years war, etc. The protestant revolution, etc. All of them have various accounts, including accounts that agreed and disagreed with what occurred. History is written by the survivors. Even in the case of Carthage, where the city was "a desert" after the Romans were through with it. Who do you know more about: Hannibal or Scipio?
It's more of a political thing then a religious thing. Strangely, with one or two famous exceptions, you don't get Holocaust denial from the Germans.
Instead you get it from anyone who has anything to benefit from Holocaust Denial. You get it from other states that were complicit in the Holocaust, but were never fully exposed outside of the historical community (there is a reason why some French Historians are really touchy about Vichy France), the Middle Eastern countries (which were for the most part allied with the Axis powers) and the White Supremacists (who parrot the Nazi's Social Darwinist beliefs).
The Muslim's have particular reason not to be fond of the Holocaust. There was a large population of Jews in Jerusalem before the war that ballooned as the Nazi's let Jews leave for Israel before WWII started. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, most of the remaining Jews from the Ghettos and the concentration camps, the few that made it out of eastern Europe before either Hitler arrested them or Stalin jackbooted in, and many Jews from France (which had cooperated with the Nazi's) left for either America or Israel.
The logic after the war was that the Jewish people would not be safe unless they had a state to safe guard them. The UN came up with a partition plan to allow for a new Jewish state, but leave most of Palestine (which had never been a separate state) in Arab hands. The newly independent Arab powers rejected it, and started a war to push the surviving Jews into the sea and surprisingly lost.
They still refer to this as the Naqba (Catastrophe). All of the arab regimes therefore started to attack the underpinning of logic that led to the events in 1948. Namely that the Holocaust proved that the Jews needed a state to be free of persecution. Politically the Holocaust is something that Arab states have denied because it gives them a perceived political advantage.
It's much the same for the crusades. Muslim students aren't going to like it when someone points out that the crusades were a response to 300 years of un-ending warfare and expansion by the Muslim states; that the Muslims had pushed all the way out to what remained of the Roman Empire and was threatening to take out Constantinople.
Much like Elizabeth's Protestant Wind, the historical rememberence has been couched in religous terms to mask a political and historical reality. The crusades were initially about saving constantinople and Jerusalam and stopping the Islamic "hordes" fro reaching Europe, with religous fervor added in to appeal to the masses. The Spanish Invasion of England was about trying to end England as a independent power of Span, which was then put in religious terms to glorify it and the Virgin Queen. The crusades have also been touched up with this appeal from a Islamic point of view - since Religious leaders were also military leaders - something never generaly true about European leaders, the religious language became "if you are holy, you will win wars."
Therefore a factual based telling of the Holocaust and the Crusades might not be a good thing from a Arab point of view.
This is a particularly ironic (read: sadly mis-informed) comment, given that the Nazi's were social Darwinists rather then religious. And it's the secular schools that are de-emphasizing the Holocaust and the Crusades.
Sorry. History occurred one way. It's not a relative thing. You can argue the ifs and why, but at some point you have to look at the pure documented evidence and make a judgment. The mountain of evidence on the Holocaust can't not be washed away just because people think that people ought to decide for themselves if something occured or didn't. It did occur, and any belief otherwise can not be justified by the facts.
Preauth keys allow any web based service to redirect with authentication into the Zimbra server. You can use any LDAP server that implements the standard classes for authentication as well.
Go to www.zimbra.com/forums and use the search function.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why I documented non-burst speed above.
It kills me to say something nice about the brood of bloodsuckers that are Comcast, but I can verify that Pockets of Comcast's net are seeing huge increases. In particular, I have seen speeds of 19-22Mb/s burst to testing sites, and almost 2.0MB/s non-bursting.
That's in the Denver region using both speedtest.net and DSL tools.
Give credit where it's due, but Comcast does appear to be amping up the bandwidth hugely.
Between this and the Zimbra announcement, Comcast has firmly passed Qwest as next to last evil corporation.
If you can look it up, why do you need me to do it? Other then spreading FUD?
In England Moore neglected to mention that the UK is slowly dismantling the system that he praises. In Canada he got grilled by their press for misrepresenting how many people are dying waiting for opperations. In Cuba, ever dissident is cursing his name, or at least would be if they knew about him, but instead are thrown behind bars for daring to think diffrently then Da Capo.
That's the problem with Moore. He is good at making things entertaining... But his is not documenting things, he is making propaganda movies to back up his own point of view. That includes fibbing fibbing about Charles Heston, calling Launch Vehicles for satellites "ICBMS"
In short, Moore doesn't care to tell you the truth, he just wants to entertain you and outrage you so you will support his remarkably ill-formed opinion. He does no service to either liberal or conservative causes.
In this context, I have very little problems with what Google is doing. I am not a fan of HMOs or Moore. I have no problem with beating each other into a bloody pulp.
It's time for Sun to put their money where their mouth is. Linus was absolutely right recently when he noted that Sun wanted access to Linux's drivers. They also have co-opted gnome, and taken advantage of the renaissance that Linux brought to the (massively decaying) UNIX ecosystem.
Let's find a way to settle these license issues. ZFS looks to be great innovation, but Sun appears to be playing license games with the express purpose of keeping Linux at bay.
I love the Chavez apologists. At the risk of invoking a law that no doubt everyone on Slashdot is familiar with, I wonder if this will end up being the TCP/IP equivalent of Volksempfänger complete with filters to keep comments from more then 100-150 miles away.
It's amazing what people are willing to forget because someone is a enemy of their enemy. Chavez is rapidly militarizing, is the only leader in the entire world who seems not to have gotten the Communism is dead memo, and is now ruling by fiat.
Not good things.
All of your points here are true, but they are also speculation. Documentation wise, we can document the first strong anti-semitic comments from Hitler after World War I. Bearing in mind that Hitler was never a member of the Christian Socialist party, and also bearing in mind that the post-war program that Hitler was involved in, and also ended up teaching had a indoctrinated component of anti-semitic, it's pretty easy to see a link between World War I and Hitler's personal beliefs. The other documented source of Hitler's point of view comes not from the Church, but instead from the various Volk moments, and Wagner in particular. To dismiss this claim is to throw out the most solid information we have on Hitler's early intellectual exposures.
That's not to say that All of Europe (broadly speaking) was massively anti-semitic going into World War II. That's also not to say that the Grand Mufti in the Palestinian Mandate had started programs to wipe out the Jews even before the NSDAP existed. It's not even to say that there were not massive racist tendencies in America to turn a blind eye to the problem of the Jews. Or to that that not only the Church but most of the politicians, etc viewed the Jews as a problem.
But the bulk of the Historical evidence falls down in the Military indoctrination.
I would compare it, as a mater of fact, to what has been going on in the Middle East for the last 50 years. The military and political leaders there have consistently blamed the Jews for lost wars (even ones that didn't include Israel) heavy handed tactics by secret police, etc. They have made this ideology one of the cornerstones of their society.
The reality is that Hitler didn't even succeed in rallying the Church around him any more or less then the rest of the German population. The earliest documentation of Hitler's anti-semeticism came in the post war years, where the Jews were blamed for the sudden inconceivable loss of World War I. You can speculate on earlier sources (and let's face it, all of Europe was Anti-semitic going into World War II) but the only place you can prove it is post war. If the UK had lost World War I, and the political leaders blamed the Jews just as the Germans did, the Holocaust could have occurred there just as easily.
As far as scholarship goes, leaving pulp political fiction out, and reviews from a guy who wrote: n the West Jesus is held up as a model. But his teachings can be used only in a period just before the end of the world; he expected the end to come soon. You cannot practice his teachings in a world that will last; they are not practical. Mohammed, unlike Jesus, was a normal man; he had normal feelings, not the sado-masochistic feelings of Jesus which he got from the whole Judaic messianic complex. Mohammed is someone who can admire, can emulate, can respect.
I am not a Muslim but I think Ramadan has shown Mohammed to be a better guide than Jesus. I would suggest that you look at real scholarship that is occurring now. In particular, I would suggest works by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Kershaw or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Evans.
The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination
You are aware that "Positive Christianity" was a code word for German Christian yes? And you do know what exactly the German Christians believed yes? If the answers to either of those questions was no, you need to go do some more homework. If the answers to the two questions were yes, you clearly have no interest in factual discussion just a misguided sense of personal hatred and vitriol that apparently supersedes your knowledge of Historical fact.
And again, your post fails to address some points that were raised. Namely that Hitler forced the Church to allow him to directly appoint bishops, ended the political party that was affiliated with the church, tried to destroy the confessing church, and threw in jail the leadership of both the catholic and the protest church. Moreover they forced as many churches as possible into the German Church movement (which created the confessing church in the first place), forced a pact onto Rome, etc.
You can dig up a single speech, and completely miss the context of it to make your point. I can dig up a lifetime of animosity towards the Church, Hitler putting to death it's leaders, and his statement that he would destroy the Protestent Church because it would not support him.
For anyone else interested in honest research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Mysticism
Private statements
Hitler's private statements are more mixed. There are negative statements about Christianity reported by Hitler's intimates, Goebbels, Speer, and Bormann.[10] Joseph Goebbels, for example, notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." Albert Speer reports a similar statement: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[11] In the Hossbach Memorandum Hitler is recorded as saying that "only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age" were responsible for the demise of the Roman empire.[12]
The Mongol empire and the Greek empires collapsed much more quickly, and long term had much less affect then the Roman empire. As far as the Holocaust goes, Hitler was a bit different. Stalin killed millions of political opponents, and more through mismanagement. Hitler on the other hand had the goal of wiping out another people, and had several other groups in mind for after the Jews.
There are good reasons to focus on the holocaust.
I've already explained in a different thread that History is written by the survivors, not the victors. For example Carthage and Rome. Or the fact that the crusade history is overwhelmingly western, not middle eastern.
History is the factual analysis of what happened. What you are arguing is that people's view of history is relativistic. That is also true, but it is also not the same thing as history itself being relativistic. Your second example is also a fallacy. History says nothing about right or wrong, it is a recording of what occurred. History records that the standard of living and average family size over the last 200 years has gotten way better in Europe, and is now getting better in third world countries as they adopt western practices. It says noting about weither that's a good thing or a bad thing, just that it occurred. History is written, it does not judge. (I hate the "history will judge" line that politicians on both sides of the aisle repeat so often).
Finally, you compare the view that history isn't relativistic as being childish. It is important to have a debate, but that debate should be over the specifics of what occurred, not what you think of why it occurred. There is a difference between honest scholarship, and trying to deny something for political merit. I have no problem with people who question if the Holocaust came out of Hitler's personal beliefs, or if Germany walked a "special path" because of World War II. Every man has a right to his opinion, but no one has a right to their own set of facts.
That's the difference between History and your opinion. History records MacArthur sitting on the deck of the Mighty Mo and Japanese pens signing the treaty. Your opinion is that no one won, because of the horrors of the war. I am willing to bet that there are a lot of Chinese, Jews, Germans, and Americans who survived because the Allies won who would disagree with you from their emotional point of view.
But history still records the end of the war one way or another.
Never ask religion for how. Never ask science for why. Neither have the tools to address the other question. Neither needs to.
Will people please please please do some research before they start posting crap like this. The pope never decreed anything about the Holocaust, and documentary evidence exists that they were worried about it, not applauding it. On top of that large portions of the Catholic and Protestent churches went to concentration camps for opposing Hitler. Please go look up the Confessing Church.
It was not Christians who came up with the star, Christians were not silent in the war, and the Nazis were not doing what was said to be correct about the History of the Jews.
Might I suggest Richard Evan's books on Nazi Germany?
You sound like Junior High Schooler insisting that BASIC is a better language for C, and that all operating systems are written in Assembly.
As someone who studied History, I can assure you that the debate on who was a more evil bastard: Hitler or Stalin occurs all the time. The Khymer Rouge and the Cambodian massacres are difficult, because the PC elements of the Vietnam war really taint the discussion.
The thing about the Holocaust that has really made it a issue, is that it occurred in Western Europe. The racism that led to the Holocaust wasn't a Germany only thing. The leaders in Vichy France were more then enthusiastic about helping the Germans, the same for the Poles etc. Germany got the short end of the stick because the started the whole thing, but it was endemic of the racism in Europe.
And the Holocaust was efficient beyond belief. It took Stalin 20 years to do what Hitler did in three.
So yes, other genocides, including what the Japanese did in WWII, what the Communists did in Vietnam, what the Arabs did to the Kurds, are important, but there is nothing so immediate as the Holocaust.
Is there no one here smart enough to tell the difference between evolution and social Darwinism? Or that it wasn't creationists that killed the Jews?
From Wikipedia: The Holocaust
Main article: Holocaust
One of the foundations of Hitler's and the NSDAP's social policies was the concept of racial hygiene. It was based on the ideas of Arthur de Gobineau, eugenics, and social Darwinism. Applied to human beings, "survival of the fittest" was interpreted as requiring racial purity and killing off "life unworthy of life." The first victims were crippled and retarded children on an order signed by Hitler. After a public outcry, Hitler made a show of ending this program, but the killings in fact continued. This deadly program was called T-4 and many of its killers soon moved to death camps.
You are confusing motive with events. It is a fact that the United States invaded Iraq. It's a fact that Saddam Hussein was shooting at American planes before that. And it's a fact that Shia and Sunni groups are targetting civilians on either side. What is not a fact is the "why."
You argue that the Holocaust would have been down played if Germany had won the war. I can think of a direct Historical example where that is not true. During World War I, the Brits established a "starvation blockade" that basically strangled the German army and the German people. After the war, the UK and France basically raped Germany of what resources it had left, and left it to rot in the 1920s. Only the United States provided any aid at the time, and that was curtailed once the Great Depression hit. All of these facts are not beneficial to the UK or Germany, but are very well documented, and are being researched even now in depth.
The reality is that the Crusades have been thought on way in Islamic circles to justify a point: "Holy rules will be successful in Battle." Ironically enough, the West has swung to the opposite side ignoring the 300 years of previous warfare and focusing on the Crusades as if they just magically occurred out of thin air, and were due to nothing else but Rome's grab for power.
History has much to say about both (incorrect) views of History. But the political correctness that keeps the west from honestly looking at the Crusades, and the religious fervor and national identity issues keep the arab states from looking honestly at the crusades.
Don't blame History for the politics of man.
Sorry. You are very much wrong. Hitler was raised a Catholic, but expressed nothing but contempt for Christianity later in life. (Strangly enough, he once mentioned that it would be better for Germany if they had Muslim faith, as it was more appropriate for their race). Hitler in fact ordered both the disolution of the party that represented the Catholic faith in Germany (the Centre party) as well as the persecution of the protestant Church. Hitler attacked the basic premise of Christianity - grace and charity to the down trodden - as being essentially week. In this way he very much parroted Nietzsche's arguments against Christianity.
With one exception, none of the other leaders of Germany at the time said anything about Christian belief. They used the language in speeches now and then, but they overwhelmingly fell into one of three categories: A cult-ish series of beliefs around the divinity of nature (strangely not all that different from more modern new age beliefs), or "German Christian" basically Christianity with Christ replaced with German figures including Hitler himself or in science and in particular, Social Darwinism.
Nope. Take a look at what has actually been written in History. Take a look at the history of the Crusades, the 100 years war, etc. The protestant revolution, etc. All of them have various accounts, including accounts that agreed and disagreed with what occurred. History is written by the survivors. Even in the case of Carthage, where the city was "a desert" after the Romans were through with it. Who do you know more about: Hannibal or Scipio?
It's more of a political thing then a religious thing. Strangely, with one or two famous exceptions, you don't get Holocaust denial from the Germans.
Instead you get it from anyone who has anything to benefit from Holocaust Denial. You get it from other states that were complicit in the Holocaust, but were never fully exposed outside of the historical community (there is a reason why some French Historians are really touchy about Vichy France), the Middle Eastern countries (which were for the most part allied with the Axis powers) and the White Supremacists (who parrot the Nazi's Social Darwinist beliefs).
The Muslim's have particular reason not to be fond of the Holocaust. There was a large population of Jews in Jerusalem before the war that ballooned as the Nazi's let Jews leave for Israel before WWII started. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, most of the remaining Jews from the Ghettos and the concentration camps, the few that made it out of eastern Europe before either Hitler arrested them or Stalin jackbooted in, and many Jews from France (which had cooperated with the Nazi's) left for either America or Israel.
The logic after the war was that the Jewish people would not be safe unless they had a state to safe guard them. The UN came up with a partition plan to allow for a new Jewish state, but leave most of Palestine (which had never been a separate state) in Arab hands. The newly independent Arab powers rejected it, and started a war to push the surviving Jews into the sea and surprisingly lost.
They still refer to this as the Naqba (Catastrophe). All of the arab regimes therefore started to attack the underpinning of logic that led to the events in 1948. Namely that the Holocaust proved that the Jews needed a state to be free of persecution. Politically the Holocaust is something that Arab states have denied because it gives them a perceived political advantage.
It's much the same for the crusades. Muslim students aren't going to like it when someone points out that the crusades were a response to 300 years of un-ending warfare and expansion by the Muslim states; that the Muslims had pushed all the way out to what remained of the Roman Empire and was threatening to take out Constantinople.
Much like Elizabeth's Protestant Wind, the historical rememberence has been couched in religous terms to mask a political and historical reality. The crusades were initially about saving constantinople and Jerusalam and stopping the Islamic "hordes" fro reaching Europe, with religous fervor added in to appeal to the masses. The Spanish Invasion of England was about trying to end England as a independent power of Span, which was then put in religious terms to glorify it and the Virgin Queen. The crusades have also been touched up with this appeal from a Islamic point of view - since Religious leaders were also military leaders - something never generaly true about European leaders, the religious language became "if you are holy, you will win wars."
Therefore a factual based telling of the Holocaust and the Crusades might not be a good thing from a Arab point of view.
Please mod parent up. That's a very very insightful comment. I used the last of my mod points yesterday.
This is a particularly ironic (read: sadly mis-informed) comment, given that the Nazi's were social Darwinists rather then religious. And it's the secular schools that are de-emphasizing the Holocaust and the Crusades.
Sorry. History occurred one way. It's not a relative thing. You can argue the ifs and why, but at some point you have to look at the pure documented evidence and make a judgment. The mountain of evidence on the Holocaust can't not be washed away just because people think that people ought to decide for themselves if something occured or didn't. It did occur, and any belief otherwise can not be justified by the facts.
Preauth keys allow any web based service to redirect with authentication into the Zimbra server. You can use any LDAP server that implements the standard classes for authentication as well.
Go to www.zimbra.com/forums and use the search function.