Who REALLY hates Britain?

Well, I think it's safe to assume that all those guns would have been turned on the weakest in society, those least able to defend themselves, don't you think?

The notion that - had they been armed - the German people would have risen up and freed themselves from their Nazi oppressors is frankly laughable, the kind of deluded guff cooked up by Russ on one of his odder flights of fancy.

One of the reasons America is in such a terrible pickle over guns is the country's fatally flawed belief that guns are protectors of freedom, rather than instruments of oppression.

By that way, WTF has PC got to do with all this?

This story rumbles on, of course, but it seems to be getting more interesting/sordid by the day - now we learned that the Mail's sister paper, the MoS, sent an undercover hack to a private memorial service for Red Ed's uncle, presumably to dig up more Marxist anti-British hatred on Millband's family's part.

The MoS' editor, Geordie Grieg, apologised unreservedly to the Millibands and suspended those responsible. This, apparently, went down like a bag of cold sick with Mr Paul Dacre, editor of the Mail, and Grieg's boss. Dacre was not in the mood for any concessions - no apologies, no backtracking, carry on taking the fight to Milliband, etc etc.

What many in the Street of Shame can't understand is why Dacre, a master of all the dark arts, has allowed himself to get in such an awful pickle. The original article was a rare miscalculation on his part, one that offended many of his own readers' sense of decency and propriety. It has also made Milliband seem more sympathetic and likeable, and distracted attention from the Tories' conference. And of course it bought down a rain of disapproval from not just the Left, but also the Right.

Most catastrophically for the reclusive Dacre, he has now, as a result of his haughty intransigence, become the story. Hence, for those who enjoy a dash of schadenfreude every now and again, the deeply amusing sight of hacks camped outside Dacre's home, waiting for the old hypocrite to surface.

"incorrect propaganda" - as opposed to?

Frank,

i thought it was the Russians who did that?

Or am I thinking about some other atrocity?

Debs

No I would not call you a Marxist, just a leftist by your tone and what you write And your choice of rag And that as a leftie you find criticism difficult.

Milliband quotes his father as his greatest inspiration, therefore I take that to mean he too is influenced by Marxism, and lets not forget how the millibands climbed so easily in politics and the Labour Party, they are simply leftist Labour Party aristocracy, no better than so called uxbridge types the left like to call many tory politicians.

Ah, but the jewish folks would have guns too...

PC = political correctness..

As in jews = sacred cows, but of course cows aren't sacred, they're beef.

(To be clear - I don't like the idea of guns and am left leaning myself, but still ...)

Are you on drugs?

No Debs, the Palmiry massacres were by the Nazis, part of the Außerordentliche Befriedungsaktion.

Maybe you're thinking of Katyn? 

Uxbridge types Maze? Did they all go to Brunel then?

Until a visit many years ago the Anne Franke house/Jewish Museum in Amsterdam, there was a time line of persecution. I hadn't realised how over the years the Jews had been the brunt of blame for almost any bad thing going in the world and therefore the solution was to murder or deport them.

This policy obviously taken to a new level of terror and efficiency by the German Nazis, with help of some in invaded countries.

Some info :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews

Nationalism can be a force for good - many of the revolutions of 1848 were in part driven by nationalism, and the engines driving the old colonies' moves to independence in the 1950s, '60s and beyond were largely nationalistic in nature.

Civic or liberal nationalism, as opposed to xenophobic, exclusive or authoritarian forms of nationalism (of which Nazism and fascism are the two most depressing examples), are both, one could argue, pretty benign so I don't think the picture is as one-sided as you paint it.

Daily Mail headline generator for your amusement . Just hit refresh and off you go.

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

Jason.

Hilarious!

Maybe. But isn't this largely an academic notion? In reality it still led and leads to division, even when unification was/is the end goal, so the old baggage of us vs. them inevitably comes as a by-product. How about looking at it from a different angle, i.e. all of us being residents of this planet? So maybe we should start to focus on what's important, rather then wasting time with what differentiates us from them... Just a thought.

Dear Debs,

On another thread you said that you could not resist having a go at me. I had decided not to reply to you post in answer to mine [quotations are unedited], but think I now should counter you answer to mine with all reasonable robustness here.

Let us examine the Nazi Party of 1933. It was led by a man who had been jailed for the Munich Putsch. It had policies based on biological racism, and a record of violence against those it regarded as enemies. It was avowedly anti-democratic

Only 44 per cent voted for the Nazis.

As I said earlier, the problem was that the Germans of the time had not the responsibility to vote for democratic parties with decent values and  leaders as opposed to one led by a man, jailed for treason.

I find it astonishing that with this remove of time that anyone can have sympathy with a country that willingly voted in such numbers as 44 per cent for a party that was obviously out to grab power at whatever cost given half an opportunity.

Unfortunately not enough Germans opposed the Nazis soon enough, or sort to remove them before their grip on Germany made a war inevitable.

Nowadays, we can look at modern Germany with admiration and pride that they are our colleagues in Europe, but I think my grandfather in Norway was right when he commented that the Germans of the Nazi and late pre-Nazi era dissevered the hatred they gained across the civilised world.

I find your sympathy for the Germans who allowed Hitler the chance to usurp power to be sentimental, at the very minimum, and also deeply misguided in the face of historical fact. You may not agree, but I bet you will not be part of the far right vote here in the UK at the next General Election either, for exactly the same reason why you would not have followed Nazism in the 1920s and early 1930s had you lived in Germany.

ATB from George

PS: On the issue of those [including Hitler] who were not German born but held Nazi ideals or took part in it, I have already answered you on this point on 2/10/2013 when you made the same point. Why you repeated the comment I have no idea, unless you don't read the posts of people who reply to your posts.

Dear George,

You really shouldn’t have troubled yourself on that account, wasn’t you i couldn’t resist having a go at - it was those bloody bankers!

Kindest Regards

Debs

Dear Debs,

We only know each other from the Forum, but I think I have a handle on your philosophy, which I admire, even if I don't always agree with you.

But I think that the Germans of the period 1923 to 1933 in particular have rightly been shamed - and are not widely sympathised with nowadays, by a German populace that no longer thinks that 44 per cent of the voters can be easily be absolved for the resulting catastrophe.

Of course there were non-German Nazi, and they are just as bad, but no other country than Germany was responsible for the inevitability of war in 1939.

I hope you respect me no less for my robust, but hopefully civil correspondence in this thread.

ATB from George

Apparently Hitler seemed to think selectively disarming the Jews was necessary (but what did he know - he was just the guy who wanted to kill them all):

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

But this is just from a peer reviewed law journal, not an unimpeachable source like the Mail or the Guardian...

Dear Dr. Mark,

Your post makes me more than ever sure that I'll never visit the USA.

Good old highly regulated - in terms of gun control - Blighty seems far preferable to me ...

There are far too many guns in Syria as well as the USA and it does not seem to be doing the underdogs any good.

ATB from George

George - I do not own a firearm because I don't know well enough how to use them...and don't have the time, money, nor inclination to learn.

However, I think that history shows despots prefer an unarmed populace.

That's a shame. And I would have been so pleased to show you the bicycle trails and the Norwegian Immigrant Museum here in Minneapolis. Thanks a lot Dr. Mark.

You know George, I like the UK too, but cancelled my plans to visit after hearing that London's street corners were dominated by machete wielding jihadists.  Better safe than sorry, eh?  

ATB.

Hook

I don't want to get killed in the cross-fire between gun toting citizens, and the underdogs.

Sorry, that was a cheap shot, but the fact is that there is an element in the USA - a powerful one so it seems from outside - that is so far to the political right compared to normal conservatives in Norway or the UK that it makes me quake at the thought no less than a future possible renaissance of Nazism in Germany.

But perhaps the reports of jihadists in Britain are actually exaggerated as well. Both groups exist, but perhaps neither are of significance, or worth being too worried about. The Security Services do have to have people to watch, or else they will get interested in "normal" people, so as to keep their jobs!

ATB from George

PS: Dr. Mark,

I understand your point. You are clearly not part of the loony fringe, yourself.

Dear George,

I'm old enough to remember the bitterness of my grandparents and parents towards the Germans and even worse the Japanese after WWII.

As this is an extremely emotional subject I'm going to let your gentle words speak for me.

Thank you.

Tom.

No offense...but... I don't believe anybody thats a Subject of the Crown really knows freedom.  The US Constitution made every man a sovereign and guarantees sovereignty over his life and property.