Hitler, the Nazis and World War Two etc etc

[Adam Went]

Just on a brief side note, have we all seen the "ODESSA File" film or, more importantly, read the book by Frederick Forsyth?

Was reminded of it by the current discussions regarding Israel as a state and conflicts with Egypt, etc....the book is largely set in that sort of time period and, though it's largely fictional, does include some interesting passages from around that time. Mentions of the important figures of the day as well such as the iconic David Ben-Gurion....

Aside from the fact that it's a great read in its own right....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Phil H]

On post-war "guilt", I think there was a widespread shock in the west at what had been done by a European culture, and many things changed as a result.

Anti-semitism, at least in its overt, pre-War forms disappeared from civil society. Read the pre-war diaries and other accounts of the period and you will find a casual anti-Jewish attitude among much of the British upper classes (not only Moseley supporters either) and from personal experience among ordinary people too.

For instance in the 50s/60s my grandmother (born around 1887) would often refer to certain entertainers as "Jewboy" - it was not meant maliciously, or to denigrate, just a matter of fact (to her). It was part of the conventions of her upbringing and youth. I do not recall any remnant of that view being passed on to me at home or school.

I think this was a guilt resulting from the scale of the Holocaust and the numbers who died; the awful manner of their murder; the fact that it had gone on relatively unknown to the public (at least) and a recognition that "somehow" it related to pre-war attitudes, and to the reluctance to take in Jewish refugees from the fascist states.

I think it also relates to an immense sympathy for the circumstances of the Jews that resulted in widespread support for the creation of the state of israel and for something like five decades, a reluctance to criticse Israel's policies too strongly.

My surprise is that that assumption of an unspoken, tacit but real western support for Israel is not almost visibly eroding. Is that the result of what Israel has done, its perceived role in Middle Eastern tensions, or has sympathy simply transferred to the Palestinians?

It does sometimes seem now as if Israel is guilty of many of the same sort of "crimes" (not by any means all or in such an extreme way) as the fascist states. Is that also a process of time - or has the influx of Russian emigre Jews introduced a strain of policy based on experience under a totalitarian state (the former USSR)?

Phil

[jason_c]

I would dispute this 'growing anti-Americanism' in the UK.

Well, my perception is different.

Post the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, I both sense and dicoverin conversations, a much increased cynicism about the US, its culture and values and a feeling that the UK should not be "America's poodle", that very much draws on that.

This is in direct contrast to the views I have found through most of my life.

My discussions arise from a wide range of contacts with all manner of people, and are not mine (I am broadly and strongly pro-US).

The regime was perceived as particularly unlikeable, and I would say lost much of the UK sympathy post 9/11. Obama was initially greeted almost as a messiah here, but again is now seen much less positively.

Happy to expand on this,

Phil

Anti Americanism has always been with us, though it may have increased.

I'd agree with your points above but also add one thing. We are allowed to be anti American, both in polite company and the media. Im not sure we're allowed to be as anti Muslim, anti German or anti French today(i think were still allowed to call the French smelly, but not cowards).

[Roy Corduroy]

Anti Americanism has always been with us

Jason, Anti Americanism is with us here in America.

Now that I know the birth of Israel was all America's (and Britain's) "fault." Because we felt so "guilty." But yeah, that's it. Don't blame the Israelis for anything. Blame America. Everybody does. We do it ourselves. We're just one big guilty angst-ridden sucka. So yeah, just bring it on in bucketloads.

Roy

[Phil H]

Actually, I think Britain's role in the creation of Israel - a subject on which I am almost completely ignorant - must have been pretty divided.

On the one hand, it was based on the Balfour Declaration, but on the other the Zionist commandos had been killing British troops in Israel (still a British mandate) including many casualties in the King David Hotel incident.

I think we must have been eager to get out on one level, and much sympathy seems to have been directed to the pro-British Arabs (Jordan and Iraq - still a kingdom then).

Yet by 1956 Britain was conspiring WITh the Israelis and French against Nasser.

It's a complex world.

Phil

[Errata]

Actually, I think Britain's role in the creation of Israel - a subject on which I am almost completely ignorant - must have been pretty divided.

On the one hand, it was based on the Balfour Declaration, but on the other the Zionist commandos had been killing British troops in Israel (still a British mandate) including many casualties in the King David Hotel incident.


Phil

Oh Jeez... the Balfour Declaration. What a can of worms. A vague little statement. But complicated by the fact that the territory had already been promised to the Arabs three years earlier, and a year later to the Syrians. So there was certainly no pressure to adhere to the Balfour Declaration, and if they had intended to adhere to it, why promise it to the Syrians a year later?

To be fair however, there was a basic ideological split between between the Palestinian Jews, and the activities of the Irgun (the Jewish terrorist organization) were often roundly condemned by the Jewish leadership. Which may have given the British some sense that the Irgun was a splinter organization, and not sanctioned by the majority of Jews. Which is certainly debatable. Anti-Irgun sentiments certainly did not prevent Israel from electing one of the Irguni leaders as Prime Minister. (Menachem Begin).

[Robert]

Well of course, whatever guilt the Allies might have felt about the Jews, and whether or not the Allies were guilty of anything, one cannot expiate one's sins by giving away land that isn't yours. So any involvement of the Allies in the creation of the state of Israel has zero moral worth. By the same token, if I feel guilty about the starving people of the world, it will be impertinent for me to give the starving someone else's money.

[Phil H]

But at that time, and in that place, the land was not perceived as belonging to the Palestinians..

It was ex-Ottoman Empire land, divided between France and Britain as League of Nations mandates post WWI.

There were agreements like the Sykes-Picot agreement even before the war ended drawing lines on paper (rather like the mason-Dixon line in the US).

Lawrence of Arabia had strong views on the post war settlement. Jordan and Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria were all carved out of the area in the 1920s and after.

So in 1945 and after, the UN - taking over from the League - thought nothing of further sub-dividing the area to create Israel.

It was also a time when new nations were being created a lot (many of them utterly artificial) - Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia after WWI, the defacto division of Germany in 1945: because former empires had broken up.

Like it or not, that was the way the world worked then.

Phil

[Errata]

But at that time, and in that place, the land was not perceived as belonging to the Palestinians..

It was ex-Ottoman Empire land, divided between France and Britain as League of Nations mandates post WWI.

Phil

Not only was it not perceived to belong to the Palestinians, it did not in fact belong to the Palestinians. They have never been self -governing. They're due certainly, but any land given to them will be land that isn't theirs. Technically. The land didn't belong to the Jews either, although in theory a claim could be made from pre Roman times, but that's a seriously weak claim. But the land is theirs now.

Out of all of the kluge countries slapped together after WWI and WWII, I think my favorite disaster is Iraq. I mean, talk about not paying a bit of attention to the ethnic and religious realities of the region. That was just pitiful. I'm not sure that everyone wasn't better off under the Ottoman Empire. Well, probably the Kurds weren't, but their situation isn't that great currently.

[Phil H]

Historical claims to possess land are a bit difficult for me.

If there are ethnic Assyrians around (and I think there are) can they not claim the land once occupied by the Assyrian Empire? or the Etruscans?

Surely such a view made the Sudeten Germans right in 1937/38? What about the Boers in S Africa - they were there before the black tribes in some accounts.

And in fact Israel did not exist from several hundred years before the birth of Jesus - the Roman province was Judaea. David and Soloman ruled Judah and Israel was a break away nation, in a split "Holy Land".

Since Muslims conquered the area after the fall of the Roman and Byzantine province,, do they have a superior claim to the land? Or the crusaders? Could anyone claiming Frankish descent have a right to ownership? Maybe the Templars, the Hospitallers, the Order of St John or even the Prieurie de Sion?

What are the rules of the game?

By the way - on a separate but not unrelated matter - can someone knowledgable help me?

Did Mohammed actually visit jerusalem, or was it just in a dream. I have never been able to determine that from my reading - it always seems to be expressed vaguely.

Phil

[Robert]

I was making a moral, not a legal point. Since the territory wasn't British, any arrangement made by Britain - whether pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian or pro-Eskimo - is morally vacuous.

[Errata]

I was making a moral, not a legal point. Since the territory wasn't British, any arrangement made by Britain - whether pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian or pro-Eskimo - is morally vacuous.

I'd go with the moral ambiguity on this one. But it does raise the question of whether or not anybody had a moral right to make any kind of arrangement with the territory. And whether a simple withdrawal letting whoever is left fight it out is a more moral decision. I don't know the answers to those questions.

[Phil H]

I thought it was the UN that determined the creation of the state of Israel, having brought the British (old League of Nations) mandate to an end.

I don't think it was a unilateral decision by the UK.

Phil

[Errata]

I thought it was the UN that determined the creation of the state of Israel, having brought the British (old League of Nations) mandate to an end.

I don't think it was a unilateral decision by the UK.

Phil

In the end the British had no hand in it whatsoever. They withdrew without any succession. They didn't give it to anyone, just withdrew a couple of years before the UN voted on partition. Not that I blame them, but in the end no agreement with any party (Balfour or otherwise) was honored. They just left.

[Adam Went]

Phil H:

I think you'd find that feelings of "guilt" were limited to far less than the majority after the war, on all sides. Let's not forget that war crimes were not limited to the Axis powers, though theirs were by far the more severe. Look at the Nuremberg trials for instance with the high ranking Nazis, only Albert Speer really showed any genuine remorse - the rest remained in denial or stated that they were "just following orders", if they stated anything at all.

Personally I think it's just a little ridiculous to be chasing war criminals now, yet some organisations still try and do it. All of the major offenders have now either been brought to justice or are dead, the few that are remaining were very minor links in the chain and are now men who are well into their 80's and 90's - go after war criminals, absolutely - they deserve to be brought to justice - but i'm not sure what exactly it's going to solve by chasing people who are either too old or frail to stand trial, and certainly for it to drag on for months or even years as some recent cases have highlighted. It just re-opens 70 year old wounds.

If they wanted them they should have gone after them 30,40,50 years ago when they were after Eichmann and Mengele and the other big fish.

Cheers,
Adam.