The War on Terrorism is the Correct Label

Latest entry on the SWJ Blog by Jim Guirard of the TrueSpeak Institute - The War on Terrorism is the Correct Label.

Quote:

---

Peter Beinert's "The War of the Words" essay in the Washington Post (Op-ed, April 1) is seriously lacking on several counts. He demonstrates the same blind spots and faulty analysis as the Pelosi-Murtha House Democrats do when they issue a cut-and-run document which, along with other nonsense, condemns use of the "Global War on Terrorism" label...

---

If you like this op-ed please go here - Real Clear Politics - and give it a vote - thanks...

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...istake/244667/

I am frequently hard on our intel community. Justifiably so. Sure, they are smart, hard working, and completely dedicated to the task of finding and describing threats. No issues there. They just don't understand the nature of the conflict we are in and refuse to evolve or listen to those who might be able to help them in that regard.

But when I read this today I had to agree completely. Particularly in regards to 9/11 being much more a crime than an act of war (one must take into account the nature of the actor, as well as the nature of the act when making such an assessment); and also in regards to the illogic of going into Iraq. I have never understood that one from the moment the first snowflake of "start thinking about Iraq" drifted down to my work station in the Army AOC from Secretary Rumsfeld's stand up desk.

Click the embedded link in the Atlantic article to get to the tape and transcripts of the full text of this exchange.

I'm not going to get into a legal argument with you about the legal and policy views of Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller. As to her, I had more than my fill following the Binyam Mohamed proceedings in the US and UK courts. They BTW reached strikingly different results. For those interested, do an Advanced Google Search on "Eliza Manningham-Buller" "binyam mohamed" - with about 15,500 results. BLUF: I disagree with her basic premises; and thus, her conclusions.

As to legal arguments, I've had my fill of making them. They simply tend to go around in circles - unless you are making them for an actual decision maker, who can cut them short and decide which one wins. So, IMO, legal arguments here are generally a waste of valuable time that could be spent (by me, at least) on much better things.

That being said, I've never seen the value (from policy and political standpoints) of relying solely on the criminal law, or solely on military force, to deal with such as AQ and their minions. In short, I see nothing wrong with "declaring war" (an AUMF) on a group of violent non-state actors. That, BTW, is really a political decision - not a legal decision. "Declaring war" on a tactic (terrorism) is an obvious misuse of language.

Why tie one hand behind your back (whether that one hand be the criminal law or military force) in confronting these knuckleheads ?

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

But when I read this today I had to agree completely. Particularly in regards to 9/11 being much more a crime than an act of war (one must take into account the nature of the actor, as well as the nature of the act when making such an assessment);

---

Possibly true on the crime bit. It is certainly arguable. It is also irrelevant. The international criminal justice system was and is no more prepared to deal with non state actors flying airplanes into buildings than was or is the US DoD. Anything done would have been ad-hocery to the tenth power and would have been of marginal value with all sorts of cock-ups. As, indeed, was the case...:wry:

I'd also note that if it was accorded status as a crime, implied is capture and trial of the perps -- that would have been a real circus. :rolleyes:

The only really effective response would be to track down and kill all those involved and their families unto fifth Cousins or thereabouts and the sooner the better. Rightly or wrongly, we do not operate that way; thus any action would have been of only marginal effectiveness and all things considered, the military was in a better position to take some sort of action than was law enforcement -- that's why they got the job. The facts that several pre-emptive efforts had been mounted but cancelled at the last minute by vacillating politicians and that both law enforcement agencies and the armed forces had adequate warning of the likelihood of such attacks but were ill prepared is an indictment of those Politicians and our ponderous political (and military...) system -- it is also reality.

Make no mistake, in the US, something had to be done simply because that's the way -- wrongly but universally -- we operate; the Pols must be seen as doing something -- even if it is wrong as is usually the case...

Quote:

---

and also in regards to the illogic of going into Iraq. I have never understood that one from the moment the first snowflake of "start thinking about Iraq" drifted down to my work station in the Army AOC from Secretary Rumsfeld's stand up desk.

---

I'm surprised that a Stratagerist doesn't understand that. Not agreeing with it is one thing, not understanding it is another. It wasn't illogical, it resulted from flawed thinking in some aspects but there was a sound logical basis.

The need to be seen doing something to effectively respond to probes from the ME over almost 30 prior years; doing that without greatly disturbing world oil trade; the geographic centrality of Iraq; its size and ease of access by air, sea and land; the pariah status of its leader; base locations the US has long wanted in the area (for what reason is a different question...); halting the conversion of international oil trade from dollars to Euros, disrupting the French, German and Russian economic hegemony in the area and returning it to a UK /US fief; disrupting the EU Constitutional process -- literally dozens of good reasons. Shame about the terribly flawed execution. That, however was the fault of the US Army, not Bush or Rumsfeld. ;)

Flawed execution does not denote an illogical effort. The fact that it was rushed was due to US domestic politics. Bush believed something needed to be done, he accepted the dippy neocon plan and had it modified to suit his purposes -- do something significant to get the attention of folks in the ME (in contrast to his four predecessors who swatted flies and as opposed to Afghanistan which is not part of the ME; Afghanistan was do not attck the US on its soil, Iraq was do not attack US interests anywhere...), do it in order to lock in his successor, do that in the first term just in case he did not get reelected, do it to spend lots of money to also hog-tie said successor...

One can disagree with any or all that but none of it is illogical. Though any or all can be 'wrong' in the view of some.

Nah, it was logical, just not done very well -- yet more examples of how the US domestic political scene totally drives our foreign policy and how the US Army isn't quite as good as it likes to say it is (I think it knows better but it cannot say that). :wry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

One can disagree with any or all that but none of it is illogical. Though any or all can be 'wrong' in the view of some.

---

To identify logic to strategic actions of many players in recent times (America being but one) I imagine that you are making assumptions and deductions. For example, you were told that intervention into Iraq was necessary because of WMDs, whereas my small populous get the line that commitment to Afghanistan is necessary for democracy/int'l security/stability to prevail. It seems that we all assume realism occurs behind the scenes, yet idealism is all that is preached to the masses (of course it's a little more blurred than that, but for the sake of argument I'd suggest that this generalisation is more or less correct).

I don't think that the US is alone, either - Stratfor has done some recent articles on the German actions in the Eurozone crises, and alleges that Berlin is trying to increase her control over the Euro block but cannot/ will not speak in those terms.

Heading back to the opening posts, the term 'war on terror' can only be described as an opiate for the masses, rendering the complexities of geopolitics as part of the mythic good-v-evil struggle that is as easily retweeted as the central plot of any of the Star Wars movies.

Essentially, I wonder if the topic here is less the accuracy of words and more about how we are governed and led, and about how the governing elite in a democracy establishes support for and sells their plans to their constituency.

I tend to prefer "Phony War on Terrorism" or "Stupid War on terrorism".

Because well, you wouldn't attack Saddam and side with his Kurdish foes if you were waging war on terrorism. The Kurds were the only ones harboring terrorists, after all.

Same for Florida - and I don't mean a flying school. It's well-known that there are extremist exile Cubans who fit the "terrorist" label if you look at them with open eyes.

Then there are the domestic right wing terrorists who are being vastly underrated as a threat in comparison to foreign terrorists. (So maybe "terrorism" isn't the dominant characteristic?)

Maybe I should mention the fact that the U.S. is now fighting together with Libyan rebels, some of whom were apparently once handed over to Libya as terrorists?

Or maybe it should be called "war with terror", for the permanent media bombardment with terror topics qualifies as terror itself, even though it free rides on others' violence?


I still kept my fingers off the hottest topics...

While I believe the acts much more a "crime" than an act of war, I believe that states should exercise extra-judicial authorities in responding to such crimes. Any trial would be either a travesty or a farce. We know AQ did it, so go out and punish AQ. That does not mean "declare a war" on them, or issue warrants for their arrest, trial and possible punishment if proven guilty. There is a middle ground, more like how Israel relentlessly, and without fanfare, hunted down and terminated certain Nazi war criminals.

We need to be pragmatic. Anytime a state adopts a program of punishment that is as hard on the taxpaying citizens as it is on the criminals it seeks to punish; and equally, is of a design that really does little to resolve a problem and in many ways makes it worse (think "war on drugs", "war on terror", and probably a few of the other pseudo-wars as well) it is bad policy.

AQ is the symptom. Put a death warrant on the symptom. That done, now stop and think about what the roots of the problem are that gave rise to those symptoms, that allow an organization such as AQ to have influence, that fuel the widespread revolutions sweeping the Middle East, that have so damaged US reputation in the same region in increasing degree since a peak of positiveness at the end of WWII and design new policies for more appropriately engaging that important region of the world. Waging a war instead only serves to distract from the critical tasks, and to overly focus on military actions over civil actions.

Being a nation that operates under the rule of law does not mean that we are a slave to the laws that are currently on the books. We could have written new laws to support what we needed to do that would have met much broader approval than our decision to employ existing laws in the context of war. The current laws we operate under are wholly inappropriate and illogical to the problem we apply them against. They guide us into programs of actions that make the problem worse as often as they help.

Its like we needed to play a game of soccer, but the only rule books avilable were for Chess and American Football, and we resigned ourselves to having to pick one to follow. We should have just written rules for soccer that fit the game and go play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris jM

For example, you were told that intervention into Iraq was necessary because of WMDs

---

Nobody who was paying attention took that rationale seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

AQ is the symptom. Put a death warrant on the symptom. That done, now stop and think about what the roots of the problem are that gave rise to those symptoms, that allow an organization such as AQ to have influence, that fuel the widespread revolutions sweeping the Middle East, that have so damaged US reputation in the same region in increasing degree since a peak of positiveness at the end of WWII and design new policies for more appropriately engaging that important region of the world.

---

It has yet to be demonstrated that the root causes of AQ's war on the US are the same as those that "fuel the widespread revolutions sweeping the Middle East". I have yet to see it convincingly argued that AQ's war on the US was a reaction to American policy. The assumption that this is the case seems to me a very shaky basis for policy.

Addressing root causes is never a bad thing, but you can't address them unless you have a clear idea of what they are and a concrete, realistic plan to alter them. Do we have either?

I would be very hesitant to draw a parallel between AQs war and the troubles in Ireland. The similarities seem rather superficial and the differences very profound.

I agree, vehemently, that the term "war on terror" is absurd and should be retired.

I also agree that the string of attacks that culminated an 9/11 were not attacks on "freedom" or "democracy".

It's possible that for the people who carried out the attacks, "an external enemy was... a unifying way of addressing some of their own frustrations". I don't think that was an issue at all for the people who provided the planning and support that allowed the attacks to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

I agree, vehemently, that the term "war on terror" is absurd and should be retired.

---

Let's not make "War on terror" politically incorrect phrase . Terror is a real threat and it can't be ignored but at the same time we need to adrress issues of disgruntled few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

We know AQ did it, so go out and punish AQ.

---

The very idea of justice is to avoid exactly that.

The U.S. believed to know a lot...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_%28ACR-1%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident


Opinion is not a satisfactory criterion for negating persons' right to live. You need more. Like a fair trial, for example.


Besides; where's the evidence that links today's "AQ" franchise-takers to the 'original' crime? I thought masterminds, helpers, financier etc are all dead or captives. The only links seem to be ideology and the (loose) organisation. Would you accept being trialled for murder when grabbed by a foreign power because someone in the U.S. Armed Forces committed murder in Iraq?


The Western civilization has developed a sense of justice and sets of procedures to seek justice that are at odds with your statement.
Feel free to follow your belief, but don't expect to get away unscathed, unsanctioned if it's adopted as national policy. Getting away with something in the UNSC does not equal getting away with it without sanctions. The whole AQ mess is pretty much sanctioning for much lesser actions long ago.

Quote:

---

from Chris jM
Essentially, I wonder if the topic here is less the accuracy of words and more about how we are governed and led, and about how the governing elite in a democracy establishes support for and sells their plans to their constituency.

---

Regards

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boobaloo

Let's not make "War on terror" politically incorrect phrase . Terror is a real threat and it can't be ignored but at the same time we need to adrress issues of disgruntled few.

---

To declare a war on a tactic, or even a small club of men who wish to do one harm through the application of that tactic, does far more harm than good. It causes one to lose perspective; perspective on the true danger of that "threat." Not everything that threatens us is a threat to us, at least not an existential threat. However, we can in many ways become an existential threat to our own well being through the pursuit of excessive and poorly conceived responses to such problems.

No, "war on terror" is a horrible phrase and concept. It misapplies the term "war" in ways that have led us to excessive approaches and abuses of the sovereignty of others that are in fact "legal" under the term. Legal does not ensure that something is also Just or Right. It also has served to elevate a tactic and those who employ such tactics to a level of importance far in excess to the actual risk they pose to our nation and our populace.

"War on AQ" is not much better.

Chris jM:

Quote:

---

"To identify logic to strategic actions of many players in recent times (America being but one) I imagine that you are making assumptions and deductions. For example, you were told that intervention into Iraq was necessary because of WMDs, whereas my small populous get the line that commitment to Afghanistan is necessary for democracy/int'l security/stability to prevail.'

---

In order, Yes, but more deduction than assumption and that overlaid with some knowledge. For the WMD bit, see Dayuhan's response. Can't speak for other nations but in the US, it appears only some of our pathetic news media took that seriously -- though a good many of the left leaning spouted it as a slam to the Bush administration. We get the same bit of Afghanistan -- don't know about En Zed but here most snicker.:wry:

Quote:

---

"Essentially, I wonder if the topic here is less the accuracy of words and more about how we are governed and led, and about how the governing elite in a democracy establishes support for and sells their plans to their constituency. "

---

I do not wonder; that's a hard truth engendered by soft politicians who try to be all things to all people and who will avoid reality if at all possible in order to present a vision of good governance. When you sell myths, you start believing them... :rolleyes:

Fuchs:

Quote:

---

"I still kept my fingers off the hottest topics... "

---

Yes you did -- and we're quite proud of you for doing so. ;)

Bob's World:

Quote:

---

"Being a nation that operates under the rule of law does not mean that we are a slave to the laws that are currently on the books. We could have written new laws to support what we needed to do that would have met much broader approval than our decision to employ existing laws in the context of war. The current laws we operate under are wholly inappropriate and illogical to the problem we apply them against. They guide us into programs of actions that make the problem worse as often as they help."

---

I couldn't agree more. Don't know what you've done about it but I consistently vote and work against incumbents in an effort to send a message to politicians that their venality needs to be reined in a bit. It should also be noted that not only those laws but our habits and proclivities lead us to to inappropriate responses. So to do our capabilities...

All that can be fixed and you'll not see change of any magnitude until all three issues are addressed.

Quote:

---

"Its like we needed to play a game of soccer, but the only rule books avilable were for Chess and American Football, and we resigned ourselves to having to pick one to follow. We should have just written rules for soccer that fit the game and go play."

---

Yep, we should have -- but as I have to keep reminding you, the American political milieu is not capable of or inclined to do that for several reasons that cannot be simply wished away.

You can write about what should happen into eternity but until you can address / accept / adapt to that reality, you'll see no differences. You also should pay heed to Dayuhan's response...

JMM:

Quote:

---

"Good point ...."

---

Indeed.

And that is what this thread is really about... :cool:

In her comments (7 Sep 2011) imposing a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence, Judge Colleen McMahon said:

Quote:

---

"The essence of what occurred here was that a government, understandably zealous to protect its citizens, created acts of terrorism out of the fantasies and the bravado and the bigotry of one man in particular and four men generally and then made these fantasies come true," she said. "The government made them terrorists. ... I am not proud of my government for what it did in this case."

---

If this judge truly believed the "essence of what occured here" (that ... "The government made them terrorists"), then the courage of her convictions ought to have compelled her to find that the defendants were entapped as a matter of law and to dismiss the charges.

Confusion, inconsistency or hypocrisy as to "terrorism" ?

Regards

Mike

Whatever it is, there certainly is a lot of it going around. :wry:

or Is It ? That's the bottom line to a debate (sponsered by Intelligence Squared and Slate) involving people of higher pay grades than I - 7 Sep 2011, It's Time to End the War on Terror, For the Motion: Peter Bergen, Juliette Kayyem; Against the Motion: Richard Falkenrath, Michael Hayden; Moderator: John Donvan (50-page transcript).

At Lawfare, analysis of the debate is by John Mattiace, "an attorney practicing in New Jersey, who earned his J.D. from Seton Hall Law School in 2010. While in law school, he studied Islamic Law at the American University in Cairo, Egypt and served as an intern to the Staff Judge Advocate of the XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg in North Carolina":

Quote:

---

The debate was accompanied by direct audience voting, with the side having generated the biggest percentage change in opinion deemed to have “won” the debate. By this metric, the debate was won by Hayden and Falkenrath, with their side having changing the minds of 15 percent of the audience, and the other side having only changed the minds of 3 percent. On the other hand, a plurality at the end of the debate still favored ending the war on terror; the overall vote at the end was 46 percent for ending it, with 43 percent against ending the war and 11 percent undecided.

---

I find it possible to harmonize both positions for the simple reason that the two sides were talking past each other (ships in the night):

The Hayden-Falkenrath side makes a telling ROE point (not really disputed by Bergen-Kayyem):

Quote:

---

Hayden and Falkenrath framed the debate by defining the notion of “war” largely as the legal state which was created by the passage of the AUMF shortly after September 11. They reasoned that this legal state, undergirded by the AUMF, gives the government the authority to carry out acts of war, such as the killing of bin Laden, legally. As Hayden put it:

Quote:

---

The point we want to make is the legal construct–the legal belief that we are a nation at war; that we are a nation in conflict; and we have a right, because we are in that status, to use the legal tools and the legal authorities that a nation at war is allowed to use. What it is we’re supporting is to keep all available tools on the table–to keep a menu of options from law enforcement, diplomacy, or to arm[ed] conflict in order to keep you safe.

---

....
Thus, Hayden and Falkenrath’s position is that without this legal state of war, the government can no longer legally carry out such acts like the killing of bin Laden or the various “number twos” of al Qaeda. Hayden specifically used the killing of bin Laden to strengthen his position. He put the killing in stark terms, describing it in the following way:

Quote:

---

Let me give you a slightly different description of [bin Laden’s killing]. A heavily armed agent of the United States government was in a room with an unarmed man who was under indictment in the United States judicial system and was offering no significant resistance to the heavily armed agent of the United States government, and that heavily armed agent of the United States government killed him.

---

Hayden’s rhetorical purpose is clear with the inclusion of the phrases “under indictment in the United Stated judicial system” and “offering no significant resistance.” Any attorney hearing or reading this description in a vacuum would be instantly troubled by these facts and even a first year law student could “issue spot” the various Fifth and Fourth Amendment violations. Even someone with no legal training at all would be revolted. But that same action taken by the same “heavily armed agent of the United States” does not constitute a violation of the Constitution, nor any criminal statute, precisely because the country is in the legal state of war. ......

---

These are points I've made over and over again for the last three years.

On the other side of debate, Bergen-Kayyem went little to law and more to a "state of mind":

Quote:

---

Bergen and Kayyem ended up agreeing with Hayden and Falkenrath that the legal tools that allow the Executive to kill people like bin Laden should not be taken away. Kayyem specifically stated that:

Quote:

---

There is authority for the President to use force, including killing Bin Laden, under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. I support that.

---

Nevertheless, they argued that the term “war” means more than a simple legal state in the context of the phrase “war on terror.” Bergen described their position as follows:

Quote:

---

[W]e’re just calling for an end of this all-encompassing, global conflict that has cost us so much money. We’re not calling for [the end of] a global police action against terrorists, certainly. We reserve the right for a certain kind of war-like activities, but it’s time to stop this sort of grandiose approach, where we’re at war with any person who’s ever said the word “Jihad” around the world, which is going to cost us a lot of money.

---

Kayyem argued that the war on terror represented many negative things listing the following:

Quote:

---

the enhanced interrogation, the dark side, the with us or against us, the indiscriminate interviewing [of] particular Arab and Muslim communities, the registration of Arab immigrants, military tribunals that adhere to standards unrecognized in military law, the color code alerts, the breathless press conferences, the rejection of the law of wars, the treating of the Geneva Conventions as quaint, secret wiretapping and violation of established law, the disdain for the judiciary–those were also part of that war.

---

Bergen also added that:

Quote:

---

The War on Terror was not the war on Al-Qaeda and its allies. It was an open-ended conflict against a tactic that produced a lot of enormous problems for this country, including the Iraq War and all that, the legacy we have from that. . . . We’re not just debating about what happened today. It’s about a mindset which causes countries some serious economic problems–which we are still trying to recover from.

---

Thus, Bergen and Kayyem’s position is that the “war on terror” does not only represent a legal structure but also carries with it a sort of grandiose global notion of war and includes things like warrantless wiretapping, black sites, rendition, harsh interrogation, the spending of over a trillion dollars and acts like the Iraq war. Overall, they contended that because the country has moved past these things and by extension changed its mindset, it should cease framing its counterterrorism as a war.

---

While many of the things said by Bergen-Kayyem are true or have elements of truth, various things that are "bad" do not necessarily follow from an AUMF vs a group or groups of Violent Non-State Actors. Just because you have a broad hunting license, doesn't mean you have to kill everything in the woods.

As to mindset, a starting point (and the ultimate defense against terrorism as a tactic) would be the civilian population's refusal to be terrorized. Soldiers accept risks in the field; civilians should also accept risks in this kind of conflict (the risks not being anywhere close to existential with respect to the civilian population as a group).

The problem, of course, with barring the door to any AUMF basis is simply that tools will be lost - e.g., UBL being a member of a declared hostile force.

Those who want to move us from "war" to "peace" - and cherry pick statements from new-found "allies" that seem to agree with that, had best look more carefully at all the consequences of their allies' positions.

Regards

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

Opinion is not a satisfactory criterion for negating persons' right to live. You need more. Like a fair trial, for example.

---

Germany seemed to have a difficult time with respecting a persons' right to live and fair trails up until 1945 (to exclude the occupied eastern portion of Germany that got to experience a little Soviet Utopia for nearly half a century). In its case it took a severe case of Götterdämmerung to finally knock most of the martial spirit out of it, and now the Germans seem to get along so well with others. :wry:

AQ and the Taliban seem to need a bit of their own Götterdämmerung to calm them down and make them play well with others.

While the US certainly tries to impose its will on others, we at least try not to do so in a genocidal fashion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Umar Al-Mokhtār

Germany seemed to have a difficult time with respecting a persons' right to live and fair trails up until 1945 (to exclude the occupied eastern portion of Germany that got to experience a little Soviet Utopia for nearly half a century). In its case it took a severe case of Götterdämmerung to finally knock most of the martial spirit out of it, and now the Germans seem to get along so well with others. :wry:

AQ and the Taliban seem to need a bit of their own Götterdämmerung to calm them down and make them play well with others.

While the US certainly tries to impose its will on others, we at least try not to do so in a genocidal fashion.

---

Tell the Seminoles.
Oh, wait. Hmm, blame the Canadians.


Your version of German history is the comic book version. I doubt that the average coal or metal worker had much "martial spirit", ever.
In fact, I doubt that "martial spirit" had a significant role at all.
I do so in part because Germany was essentially for 43 years in a row in continental peace after 1871 (supposedly its most militaristic period!) and in part because we rebuilt a pretty much respected military within about ten years ('54-'64) after supposedly losing most of that spirit.


Besides - others having done a mistake is no excuse to repeat it or something similar: It's a lesson that should be learned and understood!

the Cherokee, Sioux, Lakota, Cheyenne, etc… and remind me the part of US History where the US Army acted like so many Einsatzgruppen during our movement west? And no, I don’t blame the Canadians; we took the land by conquest. No apologies, it was that kinda century, the old 19th.

Spare me please Fuchs, but then again 5,820,960 is just a statistic, according to Remarque. And as to your innocent “average coal or metal worker:” I’ll grant you they were probably non-martial, and also very non-aware as they blithely ignored the goings on at Bergen-Belsen, Bernburg, Buchenwald, Dachau, Flossenbürg, Kaufering, Mittelbau-Dora, Neuengamme, Ohrdruf, Ravensbrück, Sachsenhausen. All we’ve got is Guantanamo, should I feel cheated? :eek:

While we were marching ever westward quelling those pesky Redmen and wiping out their way of life, the Germans were busy bringing Schleswig and Holstein into the Teutonic fold and clearing up those minor border disagreements with Austria and France, with that first victory march down Les Champs-Elysées. :D

While the US adventure in the Philippines was not without its bloodshed and atrocity, let’s not forget Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft für Südwest-Afrika, the Schutzgebiet Deutsch-Ostafrika, Kamerun, and Togoland. I’m sure both the Maji Maji and Herero have fond memories of the kind German occupation and view those years as ones of Utopian peace and prosperity.

Yes, the Germans had a nice peaceful stretch there from just after the kicking of France’s ass, and very gently occupying the Alsace-Lorraine, to the willful violation of Belgian neutrality. However, in the German Army’s defense, I do not buy most of the stories of German troops committing atrocities in Belgium and Luxembourg, most smack of propaganda.

Certainly the Germans had some internal difficulties with Weimar trying to stave off the Spartakusbund, Bolsheviks, and hyperinflation, but at least most of the deaths were German, well except for those Friekorps “peacekeeping” activities in the Baltic and Silesia. Ernst von Salomon does a nice job recalling the soft ministrations of the Eiserne Brigade on the Slavic people.

Then came 1933 and the slippery slide into the horrors perpetrated by a nation of morons who seemed eagerly to dance to the tune of an Austrian Bohemian piper. You should be proud!

Yes, Fuchs, I have several shelves filled with the comic book versions of German History. But it seems you not only have the comic book version of American history, but the comic book one of German history as well. Seems you think the German people have very little blood on their hands outside the “aberration” of 1939-45.

While you certainly are free to bash the US as much as you want, when you want to take on the air of moral superiority it helps if you actually have some moral high ground to stand upon when you look down your nose at us.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” ~Joe

Maybe you should try to read more sensibly. You might spot relevant words such as "continental" in critical places, or even read till the last line and learn about the key meaning of a forum post.


Btw, by the time of the Holocaust, the average German worker was either in military service or working 60+ hours/week. How much time is left for caring about politics and incredible rumours after working 60 hrs/week (breaks not counted) and having a wife, several children plus getting awake at night quite often because of air raid alarms?