<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; WWII</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/wwii/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>The &#8216;Cycle of Violence&#8217; Fantasy in the Middle East</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/steven-plaut/the-cycle-of-violence-fantasy-in-the-middle-east/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-cycle-of-violence-fantasy-in-the-middle-east</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/steven-plaut/the-cycle-of-violence-fantasy-in-the-middle-east/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2014 05:12:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steven Plaut]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Palestinian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=247184</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Imagining how the media would have reported on WWII using today's logic regarding Israel. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/19366_1.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-247188" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/19366_1.jpg" alt="19366_1" width="283" height="203" /></a>Ernst Eduard vom Rath was a German diplomat representing the Third Reich in <span style="color: #000000;">Paris in 1938.  </span>In November of that year he was shot and mortally wounded by a 17-year-old <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Jew"><span style="color: #0b1480;">Polish Jewish</span></a> youth, <a href="http://www.roizen.com/ron/grynszpan.htm"><span style="color: #0b1480;">Herschel</span><span style="color: #0433ff;">Grynszpan</span></a><span style="color: #000000;">, who had been living in Germany.</span>  Vom Rath was 29 years old.  Ironically, vom Rath had earlier expressed anti-Nazi sympathies, evidently based on the Nazi treatment of Jews, and was under Gestapo investigation at the time for being politically unreliable.  He died of his wounds two days after being shot.  Hitler used the assassination <a href="http://www.holocaustandhumanity.org/kristallnacht/events-leading-up-to-kristallnacht/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">as an excuse to launch Kristallnacht</span></a>, a pogrom against German Jews, shortly after the death.<span style="color: #000000;">   My father attended school with <a href="http://www.roizen.com/ron/grynszpan.htm"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Grynszpan</span></a> and knew him casually; Dad escaped to America by the time of the assassination.</span></p>
<p>Now try to imagine how the Western media would report World War II if they were using the exact same rules of journalism that they apply to the Arab-Israeli conflict.   The assassination of vom Rath by a Jewish youth would be universally held up to illustrate that the German-Jewish conflict was a circle of violence, an ongoing bloody conflict whose roots are so old that no one remembers them, a conflict where each side claims it is retaliating for the violence that the other side perpetrated, a conflict whose causes are all blurred by eons of history.  Sure the Germans were murdering Jews, but then there was the vom Rath assassination, proving the violence was two-directional, symmetric.  Close investigation could probably find a few other examples of Jews using violence against Germans.  Innocent lives are being lost on both sides.  Such senseless tragedy.  Why can&#8217;t both sides just live and let live?</p>
<p>Of course, such a representation of World War II would not only be an absurdity but also an obscenity.   World War II was not about a &#8220;cycle of violence&#8221; between Germans and Jews.  It was unambiguously a campaign of annihilation and oppression of Jews committed by Germans.  The fact that one can identify a handful of outlier events such as the assassination of vom Rath does not convey any symmetry to the &#8220;conflict.&#8221;   Indeed to misrepresent the Nazi campaign of extermination against Jews as some sort of &#8220;symmetric&#8221; pair of movements of violence would be proof that the person so misrepresenting the situation was a Nazi-sympathizer and an anti-Semite.</p>
<p>The Middle East conflict is not a cycle of violence.  It is not a &#8220;symmetric&#8221; campaign of retaliation by Jews against Arabs and Arabs against Jews.  The Middle East conflict is as unambiguously a unidirectional campaign of violence and atrocities as was World War II.  It is about Arabs murdering Jews and not the inverse.  It is about Arabs seeking to deny Jews their human rights and their right to self-determination, and not the inverse.  The Middle East conflict consists of a century of atrocities perpetrated by Arabs against Jews.</p>
<p>But the Western media are willing to go to extreme lengths to force the conflict into the prism of symmetry and the &#8220;cycle of violence&#8221; fantasy.  Several months ago a Palestinian Arab teenager from East Jerusalem, <a href="http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/5936#.VIhy7DGUf-o"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Mohammed Abu Khdair, age 17,  was kidnapped and murdered</span></a> by a Jew.  The Jew was mentally ill and believed himself to be the messiah.   He was arrested and jailed by Israel.  The killer did not represent anyone, was not sponsored by anyone, and no one in Israel cheered his crime.  The killing of Abu Khdair came shortly after three Jewish teenagers were murdered by the Hamas in a well-planned operation.  That was an operation sponsored, financed and planned by the Hamas and cheered by most &#8220;Palestinians&#8221; and by many Israeli Arabs.   Many passed around candies in celebration.</p>
<p>Since the death of Abu Khdair, the media have exploited the case to sell their &#8220;symmetry cycle of violence&#8221; snake oil.  True, the &#8220;Palestinians&#8221; murder Jewish children all the time but here we have a single incident of an inverted crime, an Arab teenager murdered by a Jew.  The media obsession is far more than a postman-biting-dog stroke of interest in uncharacteristic news stories.  The media have used the death to manufacture the symmetry fiction and spread it.   After all, if it is symmetric, then both sides are wrong, which means both sides are right, which means there is no right and wrong about which to worry our pretty little heads.</p>
<p>The killing of Abu Khdair was as characteristic of the Middle East conflict as the killing of vom Rath was representative of the events comprising World War II.  And it is hardly the only &#8220;vom Rath anomaly&#8221; that drives the reporting of the anti-Israel media.   This week <a href="http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/188478#.VIh7tTGUf-o"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Ziad Abu Ein</span></a>, a terrorist murderer serving as a Palestinian Authority &#8220;cabinet minister,&#8221; died from a heart attack after being confronted by Israeli troops.   You see, the media are bleating in unison?  It is not just Palestinians who murder Israelis!</p>
<p>Arabs in the West Bank vandalize Jewish property so often that it is generally never even reported as news, even in the Israeli media, because it is so commonplace.  Arson attacks and vandalism of synagogues by Arabs are so frequent that they rarely make it out of the back pages.  But if a handful of teenage Jewish delinquents vandalize some Arab vehicles or paint graffiti on Arab buildings, not only is this highlighted on the front pages, but it is denounced as evidence of Jewish terrorism.  The media, including the Israeli leftist media, scream that such incidents are hate crimes.  Demands are made to define the graffiti painters as a terrorist organization.</p>
<p>Rock throwing by Arabs at Jews in Israel is even less likely to make it into the press or news or even the social media.   But if Arabs allege that some Jewish &#8220;settlers&#8221; threw some rocks at Arab cars or houses, then stop the presses!   All other news must be removed to page 3.  Arabs in the West bank vandalize Jewish property, including agricultural produce, more frequently than the sun shines in the Middle East.  No one hears about it because it is not considered &#8220;news.&#8221;  After all, dogs chasing postmen are just not very interesting or newsworthy.  But let some Arabs or leftists allege that Jewish &#8220;settlers&#8221; have vandalized some West Bank Arab olive trees and the media shrieks are deafening.  So deafening, in fact, that they drown out reporting about some cases of  Arabs and leftists <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/16/did-palestinians-destroy-their-own-olive-trees-and-then-blame-israel-settlers-say-they-have-the-video-to-prove-it/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">intentionally vandalizing</span></a> Arab olive trees as <a href="https://anneinpt.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/slandering-israel-palestinians-and-leftists-filmed-cutting-down-their-own-olive-trees/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">provocations to be blamed</span></a> on &#8220;settlers.&#8221;   And it goes without saying that the firing of thousands of rockets by Gaza terrorists at Israeli civilians is never important enough to be reported as news.  But let Israel fire back at the savages and there &#8211; you see &#8211; we are back in the symmetric cycle of violence.</p>
<p>The symmetry perversion has been played up by the media for so long that few can even keep straight the fundamental underlying truths behind the conflict.  There is a war in the Middle East because the Arabs, controlling territory nearly twice that of the United States (including Alaska), are unwilling for the Jews to control their own state smaller than New Jersey.  The Middle East conflict is not about unwillingness on the part of Jews to accept self-determination for Arabs, but rather by unwillingness on the part of Arabs to accept self-determination for Jews.  Middle East violence is about the campaign of terrorist aggression by the Arab world, including its &#8220;Palestinian&#8221; playthings, to murder as many Jewish children and other civilians as possible.  The number of innocent Palestinian civilians intentionally murdered by Israel is precisely zero.  Palestinians get killed when Israel shoots back and retaliates for Arab terror and aggression and rocket attacks.  When Arabs do not attack Jews, the Jews do not shoot back.  There is no anti-Arab Jewish terrorism.</p>
<p>Arab terrorism is not caused by Israeli &#8220;occupation&#8221; but rather by the removal of Israeli occupation.  The &#8220;Palestinians&#8221; have about as legitimate a claim to statehood and independence as did the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia.   Granting &#8220;Palestinians&#8221; independence will have precisely the same effect as did the granting &#8220;self-determination&#8221; to the Sudeten Germans.  The only reason Arabs demand that the &#8220;Palestinians&#8221; be granted a state is in order to use it to launch an all-out war of annihilation and terror against what would be the rump Israel.</p>
<p>Israel is the only country in the Middle East that is NOT an apartheid regime.  The only Arabs in the Middle East enjoying human rights are those living under Israeli  rule.   The treatment of Arabs by Israel is at least a thousand times better than the treatment of Arabs by Arab regimes.   The &#8220;stateless Palestinians&#8221; are Arabs, and Arabs control 22 states.   No one is stopping any Arabs uncomfortable about living in a Jewish state from moving to any of those 22 states and taking all their assets and wealth with them.  The Middle East conflict is about injustices perpetrated by Arabs against Jews and not the other way around.</p>
<p>None of this belies the possibility that if one seeks hard enough one can find incidents in which some Jews behave badly towards some Arabs.  Just as Hershel Grynszpan may have murdered the wrong German.  But that hardly makes the Middle East conflict a symmetric cycle of violence and injustice.  There was a handful of white slaves owned by slaveholders in the American south before the Civil War and there were <a href="http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist.html"><span style="color: #0433ff;">small numbers of black slave-owners</span></a>.   Using that to paint pre-Emancipation slavery as a symmetry of black and white slaves with black and white slave-owners would of course by an obscenity.   Use of the assassination of vom Rath to create fictional symmetry would be even worse.  But nothing can compete with the malicious, repugnant, and perfidious distortion of the Middle East conflict by the media as a symmetric conflict and a cycle of violence.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/steven-plaut/the-cycle-of-violence-fantasy-in-the-middle-east/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>You Can’t Stop Genocide Without Killing Civilians</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/you-cant-stop-genocide-without-killing-civilians/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=you-cant-stop-genocide-without-killing-civilians</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/you-cant-stop-genocide-without-killing-civilians/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2014 04:58:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[genocide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISIS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=242898</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Learning the lesson of Afghanistan.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ISIS-Mass-Killing.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-242900" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ISIS-Mass-Killing-450x286.jpg" alt="ISIS-Mass-Killing" width="321" height="204" /></a>By the time World War II was over entire cities had been devastated and hundreds of thousands of civilians had been killed by the Allies in one of the last wars whose virtue we were all able to agree on. The civilians were not limited to enemy German and Japanese civilians, but included French civilians in occupied territory, Jewish prisoners and numerous others who were caught in the war zone.</p>
<p>To the professional pacifist these numbers appear to disprove the morality of war, any war, but they were the blood price that had to be paid to stop two war machines once they had been allowed to seize the strategic high ground. There was no other way to stop the genocide that Germany and Japan had been inflicting on Europe and Asia except through a way of war that would kill countless civilians.</p>
<p>A refusal to fight that war would not have been the moral course. It would have meant that the Allies would have continued to serve as the silent partners in genocide. The same thing is true today.</p>
<p>War is ugly. It is made moral by why it is fought, not by how it is fought.  If we are fighting a war to prevent mass murder, our moral obligation is to win it as quickly as possible. Not as cleanly.</p>
<p>Our attempt to streamline the ugly parts into a drone taking out a terrorist target with no collateral damage is a moral fiction. Civilians die in drone strikes as in any other form of attack and believing that we can have our moral cake and eat it too has convinced some that any other kind of war is immoral.</p>
<p>If we had set out to win World War II as cleanly as possible the price for our morality would have been paid by our own soldiers as well as by the countless victims of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.</p>
<p>As we can see the way that American soldiers and Afghan civilians paid the price for Obama’s morality.</p>
<p>As I <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/the-great-betrayal/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">wrote in The Great Betrayal</span></a>, “the number of Afghan civilian casualties caused by American forces had dropped between 2009 and 2011, but civilian casualties caused by the Taliban steadily increased&#8230; 2009 proved to be the deadliest year for Afghan civilians with over 2,400 killed… with the Taliban accounting for two-thirds of the total. While the percentage of casualties caused by US forces fell 28 percent, the percentage caused by the Taliban increased by 40 percent making up for American restraint.  This fell into line with the increase in NATO combat deaths which rose from 295 to 520.”</p>
<p>“By 2011, the ISAF forces were responsible for only 14.2 percent of Afghan civilian deaths, while the Taliban were responsible for 79.8 percent of them.”</p>
<p>American soldiers were killing fewer Afghan civilians, but more Afghan civilians were dying. The rules of engagement allowed the Taliban to win which meant that they would be able to kill more civilians. Instead of helping Afghan civilians, we were causing more of them and more of us to be killed.</p>
<p>Obama’s moral approach to war was what the Jewish sages had called the “righteousness of fools.”</p>
<p>This issue takes on a renewed urgency as the United States confronts ISIS genocide in Iraq and Syria. To stop ISIS, we will have to do what we were unwilling to do when it came to fighting the Taliban. We will have to hit them and hit them hard.</p>
<p>There was a time when we could have dealt a setback to ISIS with drone strikes. Obama golfed that golden time away. Pinpoint strikes will no longer stop the Islamic State. Only decisive force will.</p>
<p>The White House was panicked enough to relax the rules on “near certainty” allowing more freedom of action against ISIS, but it’s also not nearly enough. ISIS is not a group of terrorists hiding in caves. It operates like an army. It sustains its forces by maintaining a constant forward momentum. This is something that it has in common with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, both of whom were running fragile military and economic enterprises that depended on a steady stream of new conquests.</p>
<p>Stopping ISIS will require a willingness to either put boots on the ground or accept heavy civilian casualties. We once again have a choice between “Shock and Awe” or years of occupation.</p>
<p>We made the wrong choice in the past. We have to be willing to make the right one now.</p>
<p>We can break ISIS if we are willing to clear away the obstacles in the kill-chain by moving as quickly as the enemy does. Instead what we have is the worst of both worlds, a process of approving strikes that treats ISIS as if it were a ponderous conventional foe combined with minimal strikes better suited to the kinds of terrorist enemies we were fighting a decade ago.</p>
<p>Our enemy is mobile and resourceful. It knows our tactics and our limitations. Our people need to be free to take immediate and responsive action on the spot instead of relying on a process that has become too slow and inflexible under the bureaucratic pace of drone warfare.</p>
<p>Obama’s delays closed the door on our opportunity to rescue American hostages being held by ISIS. The dithering which has accompanied all of his military decisions is completely unworkable when confronting groups that have learned to quickly adapt and respond. If the war against ISIS continues to be run through the White House, filtered through its advisers and polls, then the war will be lost.</p>
<p>On the battlefield we have to be willing to accept that if we use large scale bombing to go after a military group that uses civilians as human shields, there will be large numbers of civilian casualties. But that number will be far less than what it would be if ISIS gets to carry out its genocides and continues to drag out the war across the region.</p>
<p>The lesson that we should take away from Afghanistan is that finicky attitudes about civilian casualties only end up costing more civilian lives.</p>
<p>Ending a war requires the use of decisive force. The alternative is the miserable situation in Israel in which it hurts Hamas enough to buy some time, but not enough to stop another war two years later.</p>
<p>Sparing terrorists to save civilians is morally and practically backward. Terrorists kill civilians. Sparing terrorists means that more civilians will die.</p>
<p>On September 10, 2001, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/31/clinton-on-sept-10-2001-could-have-killed-bin-laden-but-didnt/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Bill Clinton said that</span></a> he could have had Bin Laden taken out if not for the collateral damage in Kandahar. As a result of his inaction, 3,000 people in the United States and countless civilians in Afghanistan died. By trying to prevent 300 civilian casualties, he actually caused ten times and then a hundred times that many civilian casualties.</p>
<p>We can’t afford any more Clinton moralizing that sacrifices the World Trade Center to spare Kandahar and then has to bomb Kandahar anyway. We can either learn the lessons of Afghanistan or continue losing thousands of Americans to wars that never end.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><em>Don&#8217;t miss Shillman Journalism Fellow <strong>Daniel Greenfield</strong> on The Glazov Gang discussing <strong>&#8220;ISIS Rising&#8221;</strong>:</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9E8gGysQZzU" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/you-cant-stop-genocide-without-killing-civilians/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>82</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Case for Peace in Our Time</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/lloyd-billingsley/the-case-for-peace-in-our-time/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-case-for-peace-in-our-time</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/lloyd-billingsley/the-case-for-peace-in-our-time/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2014 04:48:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lloyd Billingsley]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Angelo M. Codevilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cold War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roosevelt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[To Make and Keep Peace Among Ourselves and with All Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=235474</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[But will the American ruling class give peace a chance?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/51lKW4N7eLL.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-235475" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/51lKW4N7eLL-233x350.jpg" alt="51lKW4N7eLL" width="179" height="269" /></a>Angelo M. Codevilla, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ourselves-Nations-Hoover-Institution-Publication/dp/0817917144"><i>To Make and Keep Peace Among Ourselves and with All Nations, </i></a>Hoover Institution Press, 2014, 209 pages, $24.95.</strong></p>
<p>The title derives from Abraham Lincoln, a noble proclamation that Angelo Codevilla finds for the most part unfulfilled. As the author notes, during the past 100 years in America peace prevailed in only two brief periods, from 1919-1941 and 1992-2001. As Codevilla sees it, peace is not only in short supply but positively endangered. Given the dynamics in play, outlined here in considerable detail, that should come as no surprise.</p>
<p>As the “precondition for enjoying the good things of life,” peace must be statecraft’s objective. The author charts Pericles and the war-weary Athenians, the Romans, and other lessons from history that will be of interest to scholars and statesmen alike. But <i>To Make and Keep Peace</i> speaks to all and deserves the broadest possible readership.</p>
<p>Angelo Codevilla, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University, is well aware that peace has enemies, among them pacifism and the type of progressive ideology dating from Woodrow Wilson. That progressivism “has become orthodoxy” and features “a pacifism as mindless as it was frenetic and provocative,” deployed by a “united ruling class intoxicated with its own virtue and ideology.”</p>
<p>The author cites president Franklin Roosevelt’s Sept 3, 1939 speech, which came after the Munich Pact, after the Stalin-Hitler Pact, after the invasion of Poland, and after the outbreak of WWII. Yet, the villain remained impersonal, “force itself,” and no nation threatened America any more than any other. Only on December 29, 1940, after fall of France, did FDR specifically indict “the Nazi masters of Germany.” But the willful blindness did not end there.</p>
<p>For Codevilla, “no illusions were greater nor proved more fateful than those about the Soviet Union.”  Affection for the Soviet Union and Communism “deformed US foreign policy, caused WWII to end not in peace but in Cold War, and occasioned conflict among Americans the consequences of which are with us yet.” The ruling class blend of gentry and intellectuals “believed that Stalin was the <i>sine qua non</i> of perpetual peace through the United Nations,” and that “staying on his good side was job #1.”</p>
<p>The Rooseveltians “debased America’s cause by identifying it with Stalin’s.” They treated the USSR’s partnership in starting the war as a non-event and  “by using the totalitarian tactic of airbrushing to try justifying their Soviet affections, they poisoned American political life.” The ruling-class consensus was, in effect, to facilitate the Soviet Union’s hold on their empire. In that climate, Americans of the “we win, they lose” view of the Cold War, in the style of Ronald Reagan, came to be regarded as enemies of peace. Codevilla marshals evidence that Senator Edward Kennedy offered to cooperate with the Soviets to defeat such Americans.</p>
<p>By then the ruling class, “had doubled down on its Wilsonian sense of intellectual-moral entitlement” and “came to regard its domestic political opponents as perhaps the principle set of persons whose backward ways must be guarded against and reformed.” Therefore, the author says, a loss of peace abroad feeds domestic strife and results in a loss of peace at home.</p>
<p>Other Wilsonians, “were anti-anti-Communists,” who wanted America engaged in the Cold War, “but on the other side.” This “New Left thinking” eventually spread throughout America’s foreign policy establishment.</p>
<p>President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed that there was no victory in Vietnam for anybody. The strategy was socio-economic “nation building” and the enemies were poverty, ignorance, and disease. The Communists “learned that US manpower does not matter so long as Americans fight without a serious plan for defeating or destroying the enemy.” That, says Codevilla, remains the US government’s default approach and “generates contempt and violence against America.”</p>
<p>These dynamics are also in play in America’s conflict with Islamic civilization, which “had been the West’s biggest problem from eighth century until 1683” when Poland’s king Jan Sobieski turned back the Muslims at the gates of Vienna. “Now the problem is back,” explains Codevilla, and “our culturally, historically illiterate ruling class missed the fact that a whole civilization mobilized against America.”</p>
<p>The seizure of the U.S. embassy in Iran in 1979 was an act of war but drew the response of a “minor irritation.” The Islamic world “learned that it was now safe to export its warfare to the West in general and America in particular.” Codevilla finds it no coincidence that “former anti-anti-Communists were now anti-anti-Muslim.” And as during the Cold War, the “progressives” blamed America’s troubles on their fellow citizens. President Barack Obama embodies that dynamic like no other, along with historical illiteracy.</p>
<p>The president is on record that “Islam has always been a part of America’s history,” which Codevilla describes as “the reverse of the truth.” And with the president, staying on the good side of Islamic militants appears to be job one. At the UN, Codevilla notes, Obama condemned in equal terms Americans who insult Muslims and Muslims who burn and kill Americans. And he called for imprisonment of the man who made the anti-Muslim video that Muslim leaders saw “as good cause for anti-American violence.”</p>
<p>Codevilla is right about that but could have explored this theme further. The President of the United States and the Secretary of State essentially parroted the propaganda of jihadists. It is as though in 1961 President John F. Kennedy and Secretary of State Dean Rusk had agreed with East German Communist bosses that the Berlin Wall was indeed the “Antifascist Protection Rampart” and offered to help keep Germans imprisoned in a Stalinist state.</p>
<p>The menace abroad, meanwhile, is not terrorism but “extremism” and homeland security is directed against “all citizens equally rather than against plausible enemies.” This fateful error, says Codevilla, “gave civil strife’s deadly spiral its first deadly turn.” And for the ruling class, extremism is embodied in their political opponents, “the conservative side of American life.”</p>
<p>As the author shows, “The FBI infiltrates the Tea Party as it once did the Communist Party – agent of the Soviet Union that it was.” President Obama called “enemies of democracy” the very groups the IRS subjected to punitive audits. Vice President Biden and the Senate majority leader called them “terrorists.” Readers will easily verify that those in charge use every opportunity “to direct blame, distrust, and even mayhem onto those they like the least.” In these conditions Americans “must learn to trust each other less than ever, while trusting the authorities ever more, forever.” Or will it be forever?</p>
<p>“Peace among ourselves and with all nations has to be won and preserved as it ever has been here and elsewhere,” contends the author. Codevilla hopes for new statesmen who will secure the respect of other nations and understand that wars are to be “avoided or won quickly.” Those responsible for terrorism should be held responsible, but “the longer we wait, the more force will be needed.” Since nuclear weapons are easily obtained, Codevilla argues, we need the best missile defense. We won’t get that from the man now running the show.</p>
<p>In 2012, Codevilla notes, “President Barack Obama communicated to Russia confidentially that, after his expected reelection, he would forswear missile defenses more thoroughly than before, previous commitments notwithstanding.” The president came through on that one, but it did not make for peace among ourselves or with all nations.</p>
<p>Terrorists and tyrants are getting the message that the time to act is now. The “domestic state of siege” is unlikely to lighten up along with attacks on those “on the conservative side.”  So it’s probably true that, as Angelo Codevilla says in the early going, “We cannot know whether America can ever live in peace again, what kind of peace we may win for ourselves, or what peace we may end up having to endure.”</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/lloyd-billingsley/the-case-for-peace-in-our-time/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Foresight of Patton</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-orlando/the-foresight-of-patton/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-foresight-of-patton</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-orlando/the-foresight-of-patton/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2014 04:10:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Orlando]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[general]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George S. Patton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=234351</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A man who could see Stalin's real agenda long before the rest of the world caught on. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="color: #1a1a1a;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/bourke-white-margaret-gen-george-patton.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-234354" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/bourke-white-margaret-gen-george-patton-283x350.jpg" alt="bourke-white-margaret-gen-george-patton" width="228" height="282" /></a>Nearly 70 years after the untimely death of U.S. General George S. Patton, suspicions linger as to the nature and circumstances surrounding the demise of this formidable military genius.  On a war-torn, two-lane highway in Mannheim, Germany, Patton’s car was struck on December 21, 1945 by a two-ton Army truck less than six months after the end of WWII hostilities in Europe.  The accident left Patton clinging to life in a Heidelberg hospital during a crucial period when the Allies were attempting to transition from the ravages of war to a sustained peace in Germany.  Within three weeks, Patton would lose his final battle, and the fate of post-war Germany would be sealed for several decades.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">At the time of his death, Patton had been relegated to a desk job, overseeing the collection of Army records in Bavaria.  That he had been an outspoken critic of Stalin and a vocal proponent of liberating Berlin and the German people from certain communist aggression triggered his sudden removal from the battlefield.  In the aftermath of war, the Western powers sought to sideline the mercurial Patton and his incendiary views.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">But Patton despised the politically driven circus and the media minions that carried out their dirty work.  Still, he continued to speak out against the Russians as an American witness to their brutality during and after the war.  As Stalin devoured Eastern Europe, Patton remarked, <i>“</i><span style="color: #1d1d1d;"><i>I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them… …the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.”</i></span></p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">In early May 1945, as the Allies shut down the Nazi war machine, Patton stood with his massive 3rd Army on the outskirts of Prague in a potential face off with the Red Army. He pleaded for General Eisenhower’s green light to advance and capture the city for the Allies, which also would have meant containment of the Russians. British Prime Minister Churchill also thought the move a crucial and beneficial one for post-war Europe and insisted upon it, but to no avail. Eisenhower denied Patton’s request, and the Russians took the region, which would pay dearly for years to come.  Earlier that year, at the February conference in Yalta, President Roosevelt, with Churchill at his side, extended the hand of friendship to “Uncle Joe” Stalin and signed his Faustian pact.  In so doing, the destiny of millions was reduced to mass starvation, blood revenge, and distant gulags. At the time, Patton understood the tragedy of this event and wrote, “<span style="color: #1d1d1d;"><i>We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see that they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it?”</i></span></p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">Berlin also was given to Stalin’s Army as red meat to feed the dictator’s appetite for killing Germans. To some, including Patton, this was an unnecessary and devastating concession.  In late April 1945, Patton claimed he could take Berlin in just “two days,” an assessment shared by the commander of the 9<sup>th</sup> Army, General William H. Simpson. As with Prague, Patton’s request to secure Berlin was denied. Sadly, after Patton finally reached the ravaged city, he wrote his wife on July 21, 1945, <i>&#8221; for the first week after they took it (Berlin), all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it (instead of the Soviets) had I been allowed.&#8221;</i></p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">Conventional wisdom holds that Eisenhower’s choice not to capture the eastern capital cities was sober decision-making or that he was bound by the Yalta agreements, though he originally planned for Berlin and Prague. Many would argue that in the spring of 1945 the U.S. was fatigued with war and its military was in no condition to fight World War III. <span style="color: #000000;">The Americans also needed the Russians to</span><span style="color: #000000;"> join the</span><span style="color: #000000;"> fight in the Pacific </span><span style="color: #000000;">w</span><span style="color: #000000;">ar, though the Russians never fulfilled th</span><span style="color: #000000;">at</span><span style="color: #000000;"> promise. Yet, </span>the “what ifs” of history echo in Patton’s words: <i>&#8220;The American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these.”</i></p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">Moreover, Patton’s notion of meeting the enemy “now, rather than later” in retrospect seems not the mere wiles of a warmonger unable to embrace peacetime, but rather a worthy and prudent strategy of a seasoned tactician, even if a gamble. Stalin’s own records prove that he told his leaders to “play down” the Berlin invasion, aware that it was Europe’s crown jewel. Eisenhower, for all his discernment and skill at war management, did not see the Russians coming as did Patton and Churchill, who both recognized the wisdom of stopping Stalin in his tracks and perhaps offering Eastern Europe a chance at liberation.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">Stalin had promised to liberate the capitals of Eastern Europe—Berlin, Prague, and Vienna—as well as Eastern Poland and the Baltic states. In his public broadcast dating back to November 1943 he promised, “The day is not far off when we will completely liberate the Ukraine, and the White Russia, Leningrad and Kalinin regions from the enemy; we will liberate . . . the people of the Crimea and Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Moldavia and Karelo-Finnish Republic.”  Instead, history proves that Stalin was responsible for the murder and/or starvation of some 40 million Russians and Ukrainians during his reign of terror.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">In light of the Red Army’s 20th century rampage, with unprecedented carnage and devastation and arguably the darkest time in Western history, was Patton not the sober warrior speaking truth to a political expediency or human fatigue?  Was he not correct about Russian post-war intentions? Would not his attempt to push back his future foes and prevent further genocide have been worth the risk of another battle to secure the eastern capitals? We know the answer now, but Patton knew the answer then.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">By the end of the war Patton was defeated. As Eisenhower prepared for the political stage, every misspoken or emotionally charged word uttered by his greatest fighting general threatened to undermine Eisenhower’s credibility and authority, as well as the progress of a post-war order. Patton’s outspoken and unsolicited opinions, coupled with his unwillingness to punish all German citizens during the de-Nazification period, caused Eisenhower to sideline the general. Patton believed in the righteous cause of the military and revealed his plans to fight those who were destroying its morale and who endangered America&#8217;s future by not opposing the growing Soviet threat.  As a result, he was silenced. He would later say, <i>&#8220;when I finish this job, which will be around the first of the year, I shall resign, not retire, because if I retire I will still have a gag in my mouth . . .”</i></p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">Never short on words or the courage to deliver them, one wonders what secrets Patton might have revealed to the world had he not met a premature end. His diaries are littered with criticisms of Eisenhower and General Omar Bradley, and at times he found fault with how the war was executed at what he believed was at the expense of American GIs? Were these convictions enough of a threat to put his own life in danger with his peers? Is it plausible that the Russians, weary of his anti-Soviet rhetoric, might have employed the NKVD for the ultimate dirty job?</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">In light of those who opposed Patton—enemies and allies alike—is it any wonder why 70 years later many still would question his untimely death?</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">Even today, his silence can be heard.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-orlando/the-foresight-of-patton/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>130</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bowe Bergdahl, Just Deserts</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ann-coulter/bowe-bergdahl-just-deserts/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bowe-bergdahl-just-deserts</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ann-coulter/bowe-bergdahl-just-deserts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2014 04:24:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ann Coulter]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bowe bergdahl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deserter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taliban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=233363</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bergdahl wasn't "left behind." He was left where he wanted to be. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/3065866291.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-233364" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/3065866291-450x291.jpg" alt="306586629" width="340" height="220" /></a>Death Penalty Month at anncoulter.com has already been interrupted by the psycho in Santa Barbara, and now it&#8217;s being interrupted by the Buddhist in Bagram.</p>
<p>Keeping to the spirit of Death Penalty Month, let&#8217;s review the execution of Pvt. Eddie Slovik. Slovik&#8217;s offense: desertion in wartime. (See the tie-in?)</p>
<p>Unlike Bowe Bergdahl, who deserted his unit, according to the accounts of his comrades, Slovik never actually deserted. He also didn&#8217;t call America a &#8220;disgusting&#8221; country or say he was &#8220;ashamed to be an American.&#8221;</p>
<p>Slovik was just a chicken.</p>
<p>In October 1944, as Allied forces were sweeping through France, Slovik left his position on the front lines, walked to the rear of his unit and handed a note to the cook, confessing his desertion. The letter explained that he was &#8220;so scared&#8221; that he had already abandoned his unit once, and concluded: &#8220;AND I&#8217;LL RUN AWAY AGAIN IF I HAVE TO GO OUT THERE.&#8221;</p>
<p>Slovik was like Bradley Manning minus the lipstick and eyeliner.</p>
<p>A lieutenant, a company commander and a judge advocate all tried to persuade Slovik to shred the letter and return to his unit, warning him that he&#8217;d be tried for desertion otherwise. Slovik refused.</p>
<p>In the middle of World War II, the military court-martialed Slovik, tried him and sentenced him to death.</p>
<p>Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower denied Slovik&#8217;s pardon request, saying it would encourage more desertions, just as the fighting was getting especially hot. Slovik was executed by firing squad and buried among the numbered graves of court-martialed rapists and murderers in an American military cemetery in France.</p>
<p>Contrast Slovik&#8217;s story with the beloved troop whose return just cost us the release of five of the most dangerous terrorists in the world.</p>
<p>Three days before he walked off his base, Bergdahl emailed his parents:</p>
<p>&#8211; &#8220;I am ashamed to be an american.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8211; &#8220;The US army is the biggest joke &#8230; It is the army of liars, backstabbers, fools and bullies.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8211; &#8220;These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8211; &#8220;The horror that is america is disgusting.&#8221;</p>
<p>These emails were given to the author of a 2012 Rolling Stone article on the case by Bergdahl&#8217;s own parents.</p>
<p>The overwrought soldier&#8217;s father, Bob, emailed back: &#8220;OBEY YOUR CONSCIENCE!&#8221; And then, according to the Rolling Stone profile reporting these emails &#8212; as well as the Army report on the incident &#8212; Bergdahl &#8220;decided to walk away.&#8221;</p>
<p>Bergdahl&#8217;s unit commander, Evan Buetow, told CNN&#8217;s Jake Tapper that intercepted Taliban &#8220;chatter&#8221; soon revealed that Bergdahl was looking for a member of the Taliban who spoke English. (Other than his father.)</p>
<p>Buetow said he couldn&#8217;t prove it, but he believed Bergdahl began helping the Taliban attack his own unit. After that, Buetow says, the assaults were much more direct, and Bergdahl would have known the unit&#8217;s tactics and how they would respond to an attack.</p>
<p>U.S. forces in the area spent the next two months on a single mission: trying to find Bergdahl. It is beyond dispute that any American killed during that time was killed on a mission to &#8220;rescue&#8221; Bergdahl from his new comrades.</p>
<p>Over the years, the Taliban produced several propaganda videos with Bergdahl &#8212; eating, doing push-ups and criticizing American foreign policy.</p>
<p>During the Vietnam War, POW Navy Vice Admiral James Stockdale disfigured himself so that he could not be used in a propaganda video. He slit his wrists to avoid being tortured for information.</p>
<p>When captured Navy aviator Jeremiah Denton was forced by the North Vietnamese to make a propaganda video, he blinked the word T-O-R-T-U-R-E in Morse code, over and over again, as he said these words:</p>
<p>&#8220;I don&#8217;t know what is going on in the war now. My only sources are North Vietnamese radio, magazines and newspapers. But whatever the position of my government, I agree with it. I support it. I will support it as long as I live.&#8221;</p>
<p>It was the first confirmation the U.S. had that the North Vietnamese were torturing POWs.</p>
<p>These men &#8212; and many more &#8212; had limbs torn from their sockets, their legs and backs shattered by the North Vietnamese. As Denton said of the repeated torture, he&#8217;d rather lose an arm than his honor.</p>
<p>When right-wingers get choked up about &#8220;the troops,&#8221; these are the sort of men we&#8217;re thinking of. Not Bowe &#8220;America is disgusting&#8221; Bergdahl.</p>
<p>But to Obama, Bergdahl was the picture of American manhood and military honor.</p>
<p>He released five of the most dangerous terrorists in the world &#8212; captured at great cost to our military &#8212; in order to give Bergdahl an exit plan from his Great Adventure. (Before he ever set foot in Afghanistan, Bergdahl had told a fellow soldier, &#8220;If this deployment is lame, I&#8217;m just going to walk off into the mountains of Pakistan.&#8221;)</p>
<p>Bergdahl wasn&#8217;t being &#8220;left behind&#8221; or &#8220;left on the battlefield.&#8221; He was being left where he wanted to be, with the poor, innocent Talibanists, far away from this &#8220;disgusting&#8221; country that made him &#8220;ashamed to be an American.&#8221;</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ann-coulter/bowe-bergdahl-just-deserts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Holocaust Heroine Motivated by Islam?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/holocaust-heroine-motivated-by-islam/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=holocaust-heroine-motivated-by-islam</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/holocaust-heroine-motivated-by-islam/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2014 04:08:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[concentration camp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Film]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Holocaust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Noor Inayat Khan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=221407</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Propaganda film company misrepresents WWII figure. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Noor-Inayat-Khan.jpg"><img class=" wp-image-221408 alignleft" alt="Noor Inayat Khan" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Noor-Inayat-Khan-450x321.jpg" width="315" height="225" /></a>In a recently released film titled “Noor Inayat Khan:  Enemy of the Reich,” the heroine was touted as a devout Muslim, motivated by her Islamic faith to save Jews during the Holocaust.  But the truth is that Khan was not a practicing Muslim at all.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In 1940, Khan joined the WAAF (Women’s Auxiliary Air Force) and became a wireless operator.  Subsequently, she attended bomber training school and eventually became Assistant Section Officer.  Finally, she was recruited to join the SOE (Special Operations Executive) in France, where she was posted to the Air Ministry and adopted the code name “Nora Baker.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">During the course of her service as a wireless operator in Nazi-occupied France, Khan assumed numerous identities, among which were “Madeline” and “Jeanne-Marie Renier.” </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The work of wireless operators was critical in assisting the Allied cause.  The possibility of detection and capture by the SS was always lurking in the background.  Khan knew the dangers prior to accepting her mission, but went forward anyway. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">After all the other operators in her unit were arrested by the SD (Sicherheistdienst; i.e. the Nazi intelligence agency), Khan was offered, but declined an opportunity to return to Britain.  As the sole remaining French operator, she was sought after by the SD which tried to track her down in common everyday places like subway stations.  However, she moved from place to place under various assumed identities, thus avoiding arrest and furthering the cause of freedom.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Eventually, someone who knew Khan betrayed her and turned her in to the SD.  She was arrested by the Gestapo on September 13, 1943 and was interrogated for over a month.  She refused to provide the SS with any information.  Unfortunately, she had kept notebooks with records regarding her wireless messages to Britain.  The SD eventually seized the notebooks and continued sending messages to Britain under Khan’s code name.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">On November 25, 1943, Khan made what constituted a second attempt to escape SD headquarters.  She was captured nearby.  The SD requested that she sign a declaration of refusal to make future escape attempts.  She declined and was therefore classified as “highly dangerous.” She was sent to Germany on November 27, 1943 where she was imprisoned at Pforzheim.  She was labelled as a “Nacht und Nebel” (Night and Fog), a designation for those who would disappear into the night. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">For ten months she sat in solitary confinement, with her hands and feet shackled.  A wire ran between her hands and feet, tying them together so she was curled up, unable to feed herself, clean herself or properly lie down.  Other prisoners were able to hear her cries at night, but in the presence of Nazis she remained stoic and refused to cooperate.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">On September 11, 1944, Khan and three other SOE agents were taken to Dachau concentration camp. There is some contention about whether or not Khan was singled out for overnight torture or beating.  Two days later, the SOE agents were fatally shot in the back of their heads and subsequently cremated.  Khan’s last recorded word was “[L]iberté!&#8221;</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">She was 30 years old when she was executed at the hands of the Nazis.  She was posthumously given numerous awards including the British George Cross and the French Croix de Guerre.  She was commemorated on a British stamp themed “remarkable lives.” And, on November 8, 2012, a bust of Khan was unveiled in London’s Garden Square.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">So what motivated Khan’s acts of bravery and courage? </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">According to Unity Production Foundation’s (UPF) Alex Kronemer, a Muslim convert and the co-founder of UPF, Khan’s courage, integrity, and zeal in her quest against Nazism was motivated by her Muslim faith.  Though “Enemy of the Reich” does not expressly make this assertion, the film, which consists primarily of interviews, is replete with this insinuation.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Additionally, in his opening statements at the film’s Washington, DC screening in February, 2014 at the Warner Theatre, Kronemer asks why Khan would risk her life and what would compel her to put herself in potential danger to save the Jews.  His answer was her faith.  “What compelled her was her great sense of humanity for other people, religions, other races, and Nazi ideology was opposed to her beliefs.”   Kronemer explained that in recent years, some stories had come to his attention of Muslims hiding Jews to save them during the Holocaust.  He wondered why he had never heard of any stories about the role of Muslims in World War II.  He claims that he produced this film, as well as other pro-Muslim and pro-Islam films to “tell the full story” of Muslims.  Enemy of the Reich is the tenth such film.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Many interviewed in the film asserted that Khan’s motivation was “idealism” and “her ideology.”  She believed that all life has value and she had a tolerant view of all religions.  Her nephew, who is Sufi, assumed “it must have been her faith.  Only that faith could have carried her….. Her message is that the human soul is of Divine Source, all humans must be free, and every human is sacrosanct.”  Indeed, prior to becoming a British spy, Khan built a career writing children’s stories, which taught that all conflict should be resolved through love and non-violence.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">However, there are numerous flaws with the film’s assertions.  While it is true that Khan appeared to be motivated by her belief system, as many people are, it is inaccurate to assume that only people of “faith” have virtue and courage.  And, research reveals that Khan was not a devout Muslim.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Khan grew up in a home with an Indian Sufi father and an American mother.  Her father’s brand of Islam was a far cry from traditional or authoritative Islam and indeed, it would be considered heretical by traditional Islamic standards. </span></p>
<p>Contrary to the film’s proclamation that “Sufis are first and foremost Muslim,” Khan’s father’s version of Sufism expressly disavows belonging to any particular religion including Islam.  He belonged to the Christi Order within the mystic tradition, which emphasizes love, tolerance and openness.  It is known for welcoming seekers of all faiths, and confines itself to no particular doctrine or ideology.  It emphasizes the universality of all faith traditions, not favoring one over another.  It seeks to spread the message of unity and the divinity in all living beings.  Her father believed that there is really only one universal religion and there are many paths to God and he was primarily concerned with inner soul.  So even if Khan were “religious” in the same sense that her father was, it would be inaccurate to conclude that her faith was “Islamic” in any true meaning of the word.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The producer of the film could only conclude that Khan was Muslim by assuming that all Sufis are Muslim and then extrapolating that Khan’s father was Sufi and thus Muslim, so Khan must have been also.  However, according to Sharabani Basu, author of Khan’s biography titled “Spy Princess: the life of Noor Inayat Khan,” Khan was not a “practicing Muslim” despite the fact that she was influenced by her liberal Sufi upbringing. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Additionally, the film conspicuously omits the fact that Khan was engaged to a Jew prior to the outbreak of World War II.  It’s hard to believe that this was an accidental oversight on the part of UPF, rather than the intentional omission of information that would tip off the audience to the fact that Khan could not have been the devout Muslim that UPF claims she was.  Islamic doctrine dictates that while Muslim men are permitted to marry Jewish or Christian women, Muslim women are confined to marry Muslim men only.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">That Khan’s marriage to her fiancé never came to fruition is of no consequence.  What is important is the fact that Khan, while certainly motivated by a loving, virtuous ideology, was not motivated by Islam as UPF producers would have you think.  The film holds itself out as honoring this courageous Holocaust heroine.  But on some level, it stains her memory by attributing to her false motives, in a narrative that constitutes nothing more than an Islamist propaganda lie.</span></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/holocaust-heroine-motivated-by-islam/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Abetting the Holocaust: Arthur Hays Sulzberger and the New York Times</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/downplaying-the-holocaust-arthur-hays-sulzberger-and-the-new-york-times/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=downplaying-the-holocaust-arthur-hays-sulzberger-and-the-new-york-times</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/downplaying-the-holocaust-arthur-hays-sulzberger-and-the-new-york-times/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2013 05:50:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Denial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Holocaust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=212711</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Abetting the coming Holocaust: the Times merely repeats itself.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/sulzberger.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-212717" alt="sulzberger" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/sulzberger.jpg" width="240" height="240" /></a>As the <em>New York Times</em> enables the anti-Jewish axis created by Islamic Nazis in the Middle East who are preparing a new Holocaust of the Jews, it is important to remember that this is nothing new and has happened before. Take ten minutes to view this talk, posted below, by Anna Blech: &#8220;Downplaying the Holocaust: Arthur Hays Sulzberger and the New York Times.&#8221;</p>
<p>Anna Blech won first prize at the New York City History Day competition for her research paper, &#8220;Downplaying the Holocaust: Arthur Hays Sulzberger and The New York Times.&#8221; For this paper, she also was awarded The Eleanor Light Prize from the Hunter College High School Social Studies Department and membership in the Society of Student Historians. Anna&#8217;s paper on anti-slavery sentiment in pre-Civil War children&#8217;s literature was published in <em>The Concord Review</em>. Anna was a finalist at the 2013 Intel International Science and Engineering Fair, where she won third place in microbiology for her project, &#8220;Reinventing Antibiotics.&#8221; She has received national and regional Scholastic Writing awards, mostly for her one-act musical comedies, and she is an active member of the Hunter theater community.</p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Q2PQCNQH2lY" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/downplaying-the-holocaust-arthur-hays-sulzberger-and-the-new-york-times/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>107</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Should We Study War?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-thornton/why-should-we-study-war/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=why-should-we-study-war</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-thornton/why-should-we-study-war/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2013 05:30:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[churchill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human nature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thermopylae]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=212080</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What military history tells us about human nature.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Jacques-Louis_David_004_Thermopylae.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-212081" alt="Jacques-Louis_David_004_Thermopylae" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Jacques-Louis_David_004_Thermopylae-450x330.jpg" width="270" height="198" /></a>Originally published by <a href="http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/162466">Defining Ideas</a>.</em></p>
<p>In the latter years of World War I, Winston Churchill met with the novelist and poet Siegfried Sassoon. Sassoon was a winner of the Military Cross––he single-handedly routed 60 Germans and captured a trench on the Hindenburg Line––and a fierce pacifist. Sassoon’s reminiscences of that meeting reveal how odd my title question would have struck most people before our time. He recalled that during their conversation, Churchill “gave me an emphatic vindication of militarism as an instrument of policy and stimulator of glorious individual achievements.”</p>
<p>After Sassoon left, he wondered, “Had he been entirely serious . . . when he said that ‘war is the normal occupation of man’? [I]t had been unmistakable that for him war was the finest activity on earth.” Churchill, remember, had served under fire in India, Sudan, Cuba, and South Africa even before his service in the trenches, so his comments were not the braggadocio of the armchair militarist unfamiliar with the horrors of war.</p>
<p>Many of us moderns, of course, find Sassoon’s beliefs, expressed in his poems and novels, about the futility and misery of war more attractive than Churchill’s idealization of it, and consider such enthusiasm untoward, if not sinister. Such attitudes have made war a disreputable topic of study. Once vigorous in the academy, military history programs are rarely found at universities and colleges today, even as  “peace studies” programs have proliferated. Reasons for this change are not hard to find. America’s historically unprecedented military power, its enormous wealth, and since 1865 its freedom from battle on its own soil and from foreign invasion have all insulated Americans from war, and enabled the perception that rather than a foundational and ennobling experience of humanity, war is an unnatural anomaly, a species of barbarism from our benighted past, and hence an unsavory topic of formal study, even as it remains a lucrative (and, to many people, low-brow) subject for books, movies, cable television channels, and video games.</p>
<p>In contrast to the modern disdain for studying war, most people before the twentieth century would have found Churchill’s comments unexceptional, indeed banal, and they would have considered self-evident the answer to the question raised in this essay’s title. The ancient Greeks were one of the most civilized, artistic, and cultured peoples in history. But they never questioned the eternal necessity of war. “War is the father of all,” Heraclitus said of the original “creative destruction.”  Plato in the <em>Laws</em> has Cleinias say, “Peace is only a name; in reality every city is in a natural state of war with every other.” The arch-realist Thucydides in his <em>History of the Peloponnesian War</em> has an Athenian ambassador tell the Spartans that states fight one another because of the constants of human nature such as fear, honor, and self-interest, and invoke higher ideals such as “justice” only when they cannot achieve their aims by force.</p>
<p>All these Greeks agree with Churchill that war is a non-negotiable necessity and a legitimate “instrument of policy,” given the realities of human nature and its perennial passions and interests. In a harsh world of limited resources and violent men, war is as critical for the survival of civilization as agriculture, and as such, it would be as great a folly not to study war, as it would be to ignore the craft and skills of farming.</p>
<p>So too with Churchill’s praise of war as the “stimulator of glorious individual achievements.” From the beginnings of Western literature in Homer’s <em>Iliad</em>, and of history in Herodotus’ <em>Histories</em>, the glorious deeds of warriors, their bravery and self-sacrifice for honor and community, have been celebrated and admired. Who can forget the doomed valor of Hector, when despite knowing he is fated to die at the hands of Achilles, says before his last charge, “But now my death is upon me. Let me at least not die without a struggle, inglorious, but do some big thing first, that men to come shall know of it”?</p>
<p>And even today, in an age of historical amnesia, the last stand of the vastly outnumbered Thespians and Spartans at Thermopylae is still remembered, when, as Herodotus writes, the Greeks, their spears and swords shattered, “defended themselves with knives, if they still had them, and otherwise with their hands and teeth, while the Persians buried them in a hail of missiles.”</p>
<p>Those before us knew that for all its horrors and misery––which our ancestors acknowledged as much as its glories––war is when the best that men are capable of is manifested, and great deeds worthy of memory are achieved. And they understood as well that the commemoration of these deeds by men “who knew their duty and had the courage to do it,” as Pericles said of his fellow Athenians, creates models of virtue and honor for subsequent generations to study and emulate. Only in that way can a civilization survive in a world of limited resources and ruthless aggressors.</p>
<p>Churchill’s comments, then, suggest two reasons for the study of war, one practical, and the other philosophical. If war is an unavoidable and necessary instrument of statecraft, then we should study the origins, conduct, successes, and failures of wars in order to find, as the Roman historian Livy describes the purpose of history, “what to imitate,” and to “mark for avoidance what is shameful in the conception and shameful in the result.” This need is particularly pressing in a democracy, where the military is subordinated to the civilian government, and the voters have the responsibility to debate and deliberate policies, and to choose leaders whose charge is to serve the security and interests of the citizens both in the short and in the long term.</p>
<p>Two historical examples, one ancient, one modern, illustrate the importance of military history for teaching the lessons of the past. In 415 B.C., over ten years into the war against Sparta, the democratic Assembly of Athens voted to send an expeditionary force 800 miles to attack the rich and powerful city of Syracuse. In Thucydides’ telling, this decision was based neither on short-term nor on long-term strategic national interests and security, but on the promise of an expanded empire and the greater revenues that would be available to the citizens through the tribute of subject states.</p>
<p>The charismatic and ambitious Alcibiades was a prime mover of the expedition. He dangled the lure of greater empire, telling the Assembly, “We shall either become masters, as we very easily may, of the whole of Hellas [Greece], or in any case ruin the Syracusans, to the no small advantage of ourselves and our allies.” As for the Assemblymen, Thucydides writes, “The idea of the common people and the soldiery was to earn wages at the moment [the treasury increased the pay for rowers, and the commanders of the ships promised bonuses as well], and make conquests that would supply a never-ending fund of pay for the future.” The expedition sailed, and became one of the most famous military disasters in history. The Athenians lost 6000 men and 200 ships, the whole expeditionary force and a relief fleet as well.</p>
<p>This disaster offers many lessons. First, dispassionate knowledge of the enemy and the logistics of war are critical for success. According to Thucydides, the Athenians were “ignorant of [Sicily’s] size and of the number of its inhabitants, Hellenic and barbarian, and of the fact that they were undertaking a war not much inferior to that against the Peloponnesians.” Thus the Athenians woefully underestimated the power and resources of the Syracusans and the dangers of resupply and relief when 800 miles from home, both factors in the ultimate debacle. Next, parochial self-interest, the selfish desire for personal wealth and glory rather than the safety and well being of the state as a whole, are dangerous motives for undertaking a war, as they obscure the limits and obstacles a more sober consideration might reveal.</p>
<p>Finally, politicians like an Alcibiades––who according to Thucydides was “exceedingly ambitious of a command by which he hoped to reduce Sicily and Carthage, and personally to gain in wealth and reputation by means of his success”­­––will end up sacrificing the state as a whole in order to further their own ambitions. These are all dangers that the citizens should beware when contemplating the use of force to pursue policy, and when deliberating and evaluating the aims which war will achieve.</p>
<p>The modern lesson comes from the origins of World War II. As Winston Churchill said in his famous “Sinews of Peace” speech in Fulton, Missouri in 1946, “There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could have been prevented in my belief without the firing of a single shot.” Churchill was referring to the period before 1935, when Germany’s serial violations of the Versailles treaty, particularly its clandestine programs for rebuilding its army and armaments industry, were met with indifference or appeasement. But even later, timely military action could have stopped Nazi Germany at a fraction of the 50 million dead World War II cost.</p>
<p>In 1936, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, the territory between the French border and the Rhine River, in violation of the Versailles treaty. His 36,000 policemen and green army recruits faced nearly 100 French and Belgian divisions, who did not fire a shot. Later Hitler would admit that the Germans would have had to “withdraw with our tails between our legs” had the French resisted. Two years later, England and France abandoned their ally Czechoslovakia, and Germany absorbed this strategically critical country. Yet if England and France had fought back with force, an outnumbered Germany would have been defeated, as Poland and the Soviet Union would likely have followed their ally France’s lead. A French advance east from the Maginot Line would have opened a second front and overwhelmed Germany’s manpower and materiel. As historian Williamson Murray writes, “Germany would have faced overwhelming Allied superiority . . . The results would have been inevitable and would have led to the eventual collapse of the Nazi regime at considerably less cost” than the butcher’s bill of World War II.</p>
<p>Once Hitler’s ambitions became obvious even to the appeasers after the debacle of Munich, the French and British announced that they would protect Poland’s territorial integrity should Germany invade. But this was the wrong place and time to draw that particular red line. The occupation of Czechoslovakia had strengthened Germany and put the Wehrmacht on the southern border of Poland, beyond the state-of-the-art fortifications the Czechs had built in their mountainous western region. And Germany now possessed the military hardware of the Czechs and the Skoda works, one of the largest arms manufacturers in Europe. In fact, the Panzer 35(t) and 38(t) tanks used in the invasion of Poland were actually Czech tanks produced by Skoda. Given Germany’s advantages, there simply was not much England and France could do militarily to help the Poles, which explains the 8 months of “phony war” marked by the Allies’ inaction after Hitler invaded Poland.</p>
<p>The lesson we should learn from this sorry history is that preemptive war is a necessity when facing a determined aggressor, and that the time and place of a potential conflict, and the capacity to wage war until its successful conclusion, must be carefully considered and prepared for when making treaty commitments and pledging the nation’s blood and treasure. This means that often a nation cannot merely wait to react to aggression, but must anticipate where the blow will fall.</p>
<p>To use the simile of the great fourth-century Greek orator Demosthenes, when he chastised the Athenians for serially failing to react to Philip of Macedon’s aggression, a nation must not deal with an aggressor the way a barbarian boxes: “The barbarian,” Demosthenes said, “when struck, always clutches the place; hit him on the other side and there go his hands. He neither knows nor cares how to parry a blow or how to watch his adversary.” Given that Hitler had 13 years earlier laid out his plan of conquest in <em>Mein Kampf</em>, the Allies should have anticipated the sequence of aggression that would culminate in the attack on Poland, and resisted the Germans in 1936 in the Rhineland, or in 1938 in Austria or Czechoslovakia.</p>
<p>The larger lesson, however, of this “low dishonest decade,” as W.H. Auden called the thirties, is that success in war depends on morale, not material superiority. Long before 1938, England and France had lost their nerve, and simply did not have the will to fight. Instead they had bought into the illusions of internationalism and collective security, pacifism and disarmament, which had merely fed the alligator of Nazism, to paraphrase Churchill, in the vain hope that they would be eaten last. And this brings us to the philosophical lessons the study of war teaches. Contrary to our modern therapeutic utopianism, the history of war shows us the unchanging, tragic reality of human nature and its irrational passions and interests that will spark state aggression and violence.</p>
<p>The modern world, in contrast, rejects the notion that human nature comprises destructive passions and selfish interests that will start wars only force can stop. On the contrary, to the modern optimist, humans are universally rational and peace loving, if only the external, warping constraints on these qualities––ignorance, poverty, parochial ethnic and nationalist loyalties, the oppression of priestly and aristocratic elites––can be removed. Then people will progress to the realization that their true interests like peace, freedom, and prosperity will be achieved not by force but by international trade, economic development, democracy, and non-lethal transnational institutions that can adjudicate conflict and eliminate the scourge of war.</p>
<p>This influential belief was famously expressed by Immanuel Kant in his 1795 essay “Perpetual Peace.” In it Kant imagined a “federation of free states” that would create a “pacific alliance . . . different from a treaty of peace . . . inasmuch as it would forever terminate all wars, whereas the latter only finishes one.” In his conclusion, Kant expressed the optimism that would become an article of faith in subsequent centuries: “If it is a duty, if the hope can even be conceived, of realizing, though by an endless progress, the reign of public right––perpetual peace, which will succeed to the suspension of hostilities, hitherto named treaties of peace, is not then a chimera, but a problem, of which time, probably abridged by the uniformity of the progress of the human mind, promises us the solution.”</p>
<p>Throughout the nineteenth century international institutions were created to realize this dream and lessen, if not eliminate, the savagery and suffering of war. The First Geneva Convention in 1864 and the Second in 1906 sought to establish laws for the humane treatment of the sick and wounded in war. The first Hague Convention in 1899 established an international Court of Arbitration and codified restrictions on aerial bombardment, poison gas, and exploding bullets.  The preamble to the first Hague Convention explicitly acknowledged its Kantian aims: “the maintenance of the general peace” and the “friendly settlement of international disputes” that both reflected the “solidarity which unites the members of the society of civilized nations” and their shared desire for “extending the empire of law, and of strengthening the appreciation of international justice.” One wonders how such optimism made sense of the Franco-Prussian War three decades earlier, when two of the world’s most “civilized nations” suffered nearly a million casualties, including 170,000 dead.</p>
<p>Even after the industrialized carnage of World War I showed international solidarity and universal progress to be a fantasy, the Versailles treaty established the League of Nations, the transnational institution intended to realize Kant’s dream of a “federation of free states” that would keep the peace and promote global progress. But within a few years the League had been exposed as ineffective, since the same sovereign nations that had fought each other so brutally in the war continued to pursue their zero-sum interests, frequently with force. No more effective has been the United Nations, a “cockpit in the Tower of Babel,” as Churchill feared it might become, that also has failed at its foundational goal of maintaining peace, becoming instead an instrument of the member-states’ nationalist interests, one that frequently supplements and abets, rather than controls or limits state violence.</p>
<p>Familiarity with the history of war should disabuse people of these Kantian illusions. Studying the causes and nature of armed conflict reveals that technological progress, better education and nutrition, global trade, and increased prosperity has not eliminated or reduced wars, but often made them more brutal and destructive. Military history teaches us that war is not a distortion of a peace-loving human nature that not yet has sufficiently progressed beyond such savage barbarism, but rather is a reflection of a flawed human nature, and the necessary instrument for states to protect their security and pursue their interests, whether these are rational and good, or irrational and evil. The study of war, in short, can remind us of the tragic wisdom evident on every page of history: that humans are fallen creatures prone to destructive violence that only righteous violence can check.</p>
<p>The lessons we can learn from studying war, of course, are more numerous than the few discussed here. Our judgment of any war, whether of its origins or its conduct, must be based on the record of history rather than the utopian fantasies of a world that will never exist. From the standard of history, in any conflict we should always expect mistakes, unforeseen consequences, civilian casualties, deaths from friendly fire, barbarism, and cruelty. All of these contingencies can be found in every war, including the so-called “good war,” World War II, from the Market Garden disaster in September 1944 that cost the Allies 16,000 casualties, to the harvesting of gold teeth from the Japanese dead in the South Pacific. These evils are the costs of using violence to defend our security and interests, and should be expected, though never condoned, the moment the decision to go to war has been made.</p>
<p>We also should expect­­––particularly in constitutional states where citizens are responsible for the decision to go to war––impatience, second-guessing, and frustration with these unfortunately perennial evils of armed conflict. And we should not be surprised when the citizens want to punish the politicians and leaders who started and managed the war. After news of the disaster in Sicily reached Athens, Thucydides writes, the people “were angry with the orators who had joined in promoting the expedition, just as if they had not themselves voted it.” We recently experienced the same phenomenon during the Iraq war in 2004, when many of the same Senators who had voted to invade Iraq year earlier, a decision based on the same intelligence the Bush administration had studied, responded to growing criticism of the war by turning against it and attacking the president.</p>
<p>Leon Trotsky allegedly said, “You may not believe in war, but war believes in you.” Though likely a mistranslation, the sentiment is still valuable. War and its horrors will always be with us, along with its unavoidable suffering and cruelty, “such as have occurred and always will occur as long as the nature of mankind remains the same,” as Thucydides writes. And as long as we cherish our way of life, with its freedom and human rights, its prosperity and its opportunity, we will at times have to make the awful decision to send our citizens to fight, kill, and die to defend those goods from those who want to destroy them. The more we know about war, the better equipped we will be to make that choice and see our efforts succeed.</p>
<p><em>This essay is based on a speech delivered at Hillsdale College.</em></p>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>David Horowitz</strong> on<strong> The Glazov Gang </strong>discussing his new collection of conservative writings, <strong><a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/productlist.html?key=SZLFMGIYTBFM">The Black Book of the American Left, Volume I: My Life and Times:</a></strong></em></p>
<p><strong>Part I:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QL9WUvnJ_Cs" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Part II:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eeN2K6romr8" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-thornton/why-should-we-study-war/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Diana West Invents a New Conspiracy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/diana-west-invents-a-new-conspiracy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=diana-west-invents-a-new-conspiracy</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/diana-west-invents-a-new-conspiracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 04:41:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diana west]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radosh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Rebuttal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203390</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Instead of a rebuttal she launches an attack.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/rebuttal-for-blog.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-203391" alt="rebuttal for blog" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/rebuttal-for-blog-273x350.jpg" width="273" height="350" /></a>Diana West is still on the attack over <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/editorial-our-controversy-with-diana-west/">my decision</a> to remove a review from Frontpage that could be looked at as endorsement of her embarrassingly kooky book which has pulled the wool over a number of conservative eyes. Her attack which is published today on <a href="http://Breitbart.com" target="_blank">Breitbart.com</a> accuses Ronald Radosh and me of trying to &#8220;suppress&#8221; her views because we are closet liberals and pro-communists.</p>
<p>It is a political truism that cover-ups often turn out worse for the guilty parties than the faults they seek to hide. So it is with Diana West’s campaign of slander against Ronald Radosh and myself because she is incapable of answering our criticisms of her poorly conceived, ill-informed, conspiracy mongering book.</p>
<p>She is incapable of responding to the specifics of our critique – her misrepresentation of the pro-Soviet Harry Hopkins as an actual Soviet spy, her preposterous claim that Lend-lease and D-Day were Soviet plots or that the decision shared by Winston Churchill to suppress the facts of the Katyn massacre was a Kremlin design. So she accuses us of a conspiracy to suppress her work because it challenges the “liberal consensus.”  This is a consensus that denies the sorry history of Communist subversion, infiltration and malevolent anti-Americanism. According to West we decided to conduct “a scorched earth policy to preserve and protect the conventional narrative as promulgated by mainstream academia.”</p>
<p>If you are not already laughing, you should be. Radosh and I have collectively spent 50 years writing several million words and nearly twenty books attacking the liberal consensus, and exposing the anti-American agendas of radicals and Communists, specifically those who infiltrated and finally took over academia.</p>
<p>West has a revealing answer to such objections:</p>
<blockquote><p>“‘But FrontPage is a conservative site,’ I can hear people say. This stopped me, too, at first. Then I realized that the books Radosh cites in his ‘take-down’&#8211;not to debate my ideas, but to impugn them&#8211;are written by academics from Yale, Harvard, and Stanford. That’s liberal academia.”</p></blockquote>
<p>That’s her answer! Here we have West’s methodology – and the methodology of her book &#8212; on full display. Instead of actually dealing with the objection, she finds a liberal link she can use to link us to her conspiracy. As everybody knows a conservative academic’s lot in universities like Yale, Harvard and Stanford – not to mention Emory where Harvey Klehr is a professor – is embattled. But West does not even bother to characterize the actual views of the academics Radosh cites. For her, their mere association with institutions on which she can pin a label is sufficient to impugn their views and damn them as part of a liberal conspiracy against her. And that is the problem with her book. To believe it you’d have to believe that Churchill, Eisenhower, and the American General Staff were all Soviet agents or dupes, along with every conservative historian critical of West’s conclusions.</p>
<p>I did say that “Diana West should not have written this book,” but that was not because I wanted to suppress her views (I’ve actually given them more publicity than anyone) but because her book is an embarrassment to her and to every conservative misled by it. That was also the reason I removed Frontpage’s endorsement of her book (I did not suppress the Frontpage review as she falsely claims, but allowed it to appear elsewhere). She has now published an eBook called <i>The Rebuttal</i> with that quote on the cover and all her personal attacks on Radosh and me inside. The subtitle is this: “Defending American Betrayal From The Book Burners.” Book burners. And she still has the gall to call <i>us</i> calumniators.</p>
<p>In closing let me clarify something that seems generally misunderstood. There are a lot of facts in West’s book with which neither Radosh nor I have any quarrel. These pertain to the large numbers of Soviet sympathizers, and significant numbers of Soviet agents in Washington and Hollywood that West writes about. Our quarrel is with the unwarranted conclusion she draws from this, which is that American policy in World War II was run by the Kremlin. As Samuel Johnson once said of another writer’s work, what is true in Diana West’s <i>American Betrayal</i> is not original and what is original is not true.</p>
<p><strong>Postscript: </strong>And BTW, West&#8217;s &#8220;rebuttals&#8221; are not rebuttals. Despite a Yale education, she doesn&#8217;t seem to know the meaning of the word. Here is one typical self-refuting example from her new book:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Radosh: </strong></p>
<p>She argues that during the New Deal the United States was an <em>occupied power</em>, its government <em>controlled</em> by Kremlin agents who had infiltrated the Roosevelt administration and subverted it. (Emphasis added.)</p>
<p><strong>3) FALSE: The phrase “the United States was an occupied power” does not appear in American Betrayal. This connotes a state of military occupation that is not under consideration.</strong></p>
<p><strong>FACT: I argue at length that the strategic placement of hundreds of agents of Stalin’s influence inside the US government and other institutions amounted to a “de facto occupation” (p. 114). Later (p. 193), I write: “The vast and deep extent of Communist penetration, heretofore denied, had in fact reached a tipping point to become a de facto Communist occupation of the American center of power.”</strong></p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a></strong><strong>.</strong><em><strong>  </strong></em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/diana-west-invents-a-new-conspiracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>552</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Diana West vs. History</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jeffrey-herf/diana-west-vs-history/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=diana-west-vs-history</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jeffrey-herf/diana-west-vs-history/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2013 04:29:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeffrey Herf]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diana west]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lend Lease]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nazis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ron radosh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Second Front]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199989</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As a historian of modern Germany, I find it depressing that West's nonsense finds some fans.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/war1.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-199994" alt="war" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/war1.jpg" width="274" height="217" /></a>Ronald Radosh’s riposte to Diana West fantasies about Soviet control over American foreign and military policy during World War II is most welcome and very well done. It is depressing that West’s nonsense finds some fans. Yet error and Radosh’s convincing criticism draws welcome attention to the complexity of World War II and of the alliance of the Western democracies with the Soviet Union. Winston Churchill, who as much as any one person saved Western civilization in 1940 and 1941, put it best. When asked how he, whose political career was bound up with anticommunism since he advocated armed intervention to overthrow the new Bolshevik regime in 1917-1918, could support an alliance with Stalin he famously replied: “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would rise in the House of Commons to make a speech in favor of the devil.” In 1941, Hitler invaded the Hell of Stalin’s Russia and Churchill made a remarkable speech on the BBC to offer an alliance with the previous Soviet foe.</p>
<p>As a historian of modern German history, including the Nazi era, I would add the following by drawing on a vast and excellent scholarship by historians of Germany and Europe that West appears to have ignored.</p>
<p>1.  The idea that the United States was dominated by the Soviet Union and entered World War II as a result of that influence was a core theme of Nazi propaganda. The Nazis, of course, asserted that an international Jewish conspiracy had created the alliance between the Americans and the British with the Soviet Union. The Nazis were particularly enraged at Franklin Roosevelt who, they believed, had robbed them of the chance to win the war in Europe. (For the relevant material see my book <i>The Jewish Enemy:  Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the Holocaust</i>.)  In spring 1945, Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Germany’s Minister of Propaganda, attacked the “Anglo-Saxon powers,” the United States and Great Britain for, in effect, stabbing Nazi Germany in the back as it was fighting the “Jewish Bolshevik” threat. West’s argument about Soviet domination over American policy evokes disturbing parallels to the Nazi interpretation of World War II.</p>
<p>2.  Peter Hoffmann, the leading historian of the German resistance to Hitler, makes clear that Klaus von Stauffenberg, the leader of the attempted anti-Nazi coup of July 20, 1933, and his fellow conspirators did not have the support of the vast majority of the German officer corps. Indeed, as historians Omer Bartov, Christopher Browning, Saul Friedlander among others in this country, and a host of historians in Germany in recent decades such as Horst Boog, Ulrich Herbert, Manfred Messerschmidt and Juergen Foerster have overwhelmingly demonstrated, the German general staff and officer corps distinguished itself not only by its criminality in fighting a racial war of extermination on the Eastern Front but also by its fanatical determination to fight the war to the very last day. West’s suggestion that the United States or Britain should have had anything to do with the German army after its participation in the Holocaust and these massive crimes is grotesque. The generals and senior officers belonged in war crimes trials, not in a new alliance with the Western democracies. As it was, too many of them successfully avoided trial and punishment in the postwar years. The dismantling of the German military was a precondition for peace and stability in postwar Europe.</p>
<p>In making this suggestion of an alliance with remnants of the Nazi regime, West unintentionally also echoes Soviet propaganda following World War II. It was the Soviet Union, the Communist states and Communist parties in Europe who claimed that West Germany and the American-led NATO alliance were simply a new version of the former “fascist” anticommunism of the Nazi regime. The leaders of the postwar alliance—Truman, Marshall, Eisenhower, Acheson among others—all understood that the defeat and definitive end of Nazism as a political force was a precondition for an effective containment of Communism in the Cold War. Joseph McCarthy didn’t understand that distinction. Perhaps Diana West does not either.</p>
<p>3.  Some ex-Nazi intelligence officers paraded their anticommunist credentials and supposed knowledge of the Soviet Union after the war and some were, for a time, hired by the CIA. Richard Breitman, Norman Goda and Timothy Naftali’s work on US intelligence and the Nazis offers important material on these issues. The results of the “intelligence” about the Soviet Union offered by the ex-Nazi was often embarrassingly stupid. American intelligence officials concluded that their supposed knowledge of the Communist regimes was generally worthless.</p>
<p>4.  There is a shameless quality to the arguments then and since by the isolationist right in the United States. Having fought Roosevelt’s efforts to warn early on about Hitler’s danger and to intervene in the European war the “isolationists” then attacked him—and Truman—for the fact that the Red Army was in Berlin. Had Roosevelt not intervened in the war, it would likely have ended with the Red Army on the coast of France. Had the United States intervened earlier, the Red Army might have been at the Soviet-Polish border in May 1945.</p>
<p>5.  Some official Soviet histories of World War II argue that the only reason the US entered the European war was to prevent the Soviet Union from expanding further or, in communist terminology, to prevent “revolutionary” developments in Western Europe as well. Apparently those Soviet historians had not been informed that in reality Roosevelt was Stalin’s stooge. In fact, as Robert Dallek, Warren Kimball and Gerhard Weinberg have all pointed out, American entry into the war in Europe had everything to do with the defense of American national security and, initially preventing the defeat of Britain in 1940.  One implication of West’s argument is that the United States should not have intervened in World War II in Europe and thus should have stood by passively as Nazi Germany dominated Europe and, as Weinberg and Goda have pointed out and as Admirals of the United States Navy understood by 1939, posed a direct threat to the continental United States. What non-intervention in a war against a regime of such radical evil and huge global ambitions had and has to do with conservatism immersed in the Western moral and political tradition is hard to discern.</p>
<p>We scholars often complain that what we do does not reach a broad enough audience, that much of what we do is miscontrued and that the great simplifiers have an easier time finding a mass echo. West’s claims not only fly in the face of the work of historians of Soviet espionage. They also display striking ignorance of the findings of many historians of both World War II, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and the Cold War in Europe. Ronald Radosh deserves the congratulations and thanks from many fellow historians who have worked for decades to write accurately and truthfully about these events. He has done the kind of thing that distinguished historians of the first rank need to do when our discipline is attacked because it presents work that unsettles some conventional wisdom or another.</p>
<p><strong>Dr. Jeffrey Herf is a professor of modern European history at the University of Maryland specializing in 20th century Germany. He is the author of <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0674213041" target="_blank">Divided Memory: The Nazi Past in the Two Germanys </a></em>(Harvard University Press), <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/War-Other-Means-Resistance-Euromissiles/dp/0029150302/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1376026948&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=War+By+Other+Means%3A+Soviet+Power%2C+West+German+Resistance+and+the+Battle+of+the+Euromissiles" target="_blank">War By Other Means: Soviet Power, West German Resistance and the Battle of the Euromissiles</a></em> (Free Press) and <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Modernism-Technology-Culture-Politics/dp/0521338336/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1376027004&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=Reactionary+Modernism%3A+Technology%2C+Culture+and+Politics+in+Weimar+and+the+Third+Reich" target="_blank">Reactionary Modernism: Technology, Culture and Politics in Weimar and the Third Reich</a> </em>(Cambridge University Press).</strong></p>
<div>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jeffrey-herf/diana-west-vs-history/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>167</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact with Hitler</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ben-shapiro/the-collaboration-hollywoods-pact-with-hitler/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-collaboration-hollywoods-pact-with-hitler</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ben-shapiro/the-collaboration-hollywoods-pact-with-hitler/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2013 04:29:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Shapiro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self-censors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact with Hitler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new book reveals how the film industry aided the Nazi dictator -- and helps us understand why it self-censors itself today to protect Islamists. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/pact.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-199160" alt="pact" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/pact-239x350.jpg" width="239" height="350" /></a>In his blockbuster new book, <i>The Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact with Hitler</i>, Ben Urwand documents how the film industry went out of its way in the lead-up to World War II to help Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler. Scripts dealing with the German military, including <i>All Quiet on the Western Front</i>, were run by the German government for approval. Full scenes dealing with German treatment of Jews were cut from several movies. Entire projects were quashed because of actual or presumed Nazi disapproval.</p>
<p>After <i>All Quiet on the Western Front,</i> “every studio started making deep concessions to the German government, and when Hitler came to power in January 1933, they dealt with his representatives directly,” Urwand writes. The German government utilized what it called “Article 15,” which allowed the government to ban a company’s entire slate of films if even one of the films was considered anti-German.</p>
<p>In 1933, the German government went even further: they threatened to ban <i>all </i>American films in the country if Herman Mankiewicz and Sam Jaffe went ahead with an anti-Nazi film called <i>The Mad Dog of Europe</i>. The Hays Office, which ran the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association of America, tried to shut down the film. The picture eventually ended up being killed thanks to objections from Hollywood funders. “The episode,” writes Urwand, “turned out to be the most important moment in all of Hollywood’s dealings with Nazi Germany. It occurred in the first year of Hitler’s rise to power, and it defined the limits of American movies for the remainder of the decade.”</p>
<p>Nothing has changed.</p>
<p>Since September 11, 2001, the film and television industry has consistently refused to portray Islamists as enemies of the United States. As early as 2002, Hollywood was already cutting Islamic villains from mainstream films – <i>The Sum of All Fears</i>, based on the Tom Clancy book in which Palestinian terrorists gain access to a nuclear device, was altered so that the villains were now, ironically enough, neo-Nazis. That’s not atypical.</p>
<p>Even when Hollywood attempts to portray Islamist villains, it has to apologize for it. In 2005, Fox backed off the Islamic villains in its hit series <i>24</i> after pressure from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and forced star Kiefer Sutherland to read CAIR-approved text: “Now while terrorism is obviously one of the most critical challenges facing our nation and the world, it is important to recognize that the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism. So in watching <i>24</i>, please, bear that in mind.”</p>
<p>Americans are typically portrayed as the moral equivalents of jihadists in film. In <i>The Kingdom </i>(2007), Muslim terrorists bomb a US military installation; the end of the film features the Muslim terrorists and US trackers mirroring each other in their xenophobic rhetoric, pledging to “kill them all.” <i>Rendition </i>(2007) portrayed American anti-terror techniques as the cause of terrorism across the globe. <i>The Green Zone</i> (2010) suggested that Americans invaded Iraq for oil.</p>
<p>As in the 1930s, the question for Hollywood isn’t merely principle, but money. Middle Eastern money now funds a solid share of filmmaking around the globe. Alnoor Holdings, based in Doha, began a $200 million film fund in 2010; Imagenation Abu Dhabi launched a $1 billion film fund in 2008. And regional potentates have invested a fortune in oil money in various US media entities.</p>
<p>The same holds true with China, which is the fastest-growing movie market on the planet. The communist regime pours hundreds of millions of dollars into filmmaking, and just as the Nazis did during the 1930s, pledges to cut off distribution for any films that are considered too anti-Chinese. That’s how the army which invades America in the remake of <i>Red Dawn</i> which was initially Chinese became North Korean after a re-do.</p>
<p>In some ways, Hollywood’s self-censorship today is significantly worse than self-censorship during the 1930s. During that period, at least, there were concerns about the rise of the Nazis; Carl Laemmle, who produced <i>All Quiet on the Western Front</i>, said, “&#8221;I am almost certain that [Adolf] Hitler&#8217;s rise to power … would be the signal for a general physical onslaught on many thousands of defenseless Jewish men, women and children.” He was right. But today’s Hollywood honchos don’t see the threat of Islamism; they see instead the threat of the United States. They don’t see the threat of China; they see the threat of US imperialism. Unlike their predecessors, they are ideologically aligned, in too many cases, with America’s enemies. And when finances and ideological interests are aligned on behalf of America’s enemies, American viewers are in serious trouble.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ben-shapiro/the-collaboration-hollywoods-pact-with-hitler/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>39</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Islamism&#8217;s Tactical Advantage</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-puder/islamisms-tactical-advantage/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=islamisms-tactical-advantage</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-puder/islamisms-tactical-advantage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2013 04:06:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Puder]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fascism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Multiculturalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Correctness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=194985</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When a nation loses the will to defend itself. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Koran-book1.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-195106" alt="Koran-book" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Koran-book1.jpg" width="255" height="186" /></a>America and the democratic West faced the European-based totalitarian ideologies of Nazism (National Socialism), Fascism, and Communism, and triumphed over them all.  Another totalitarian ideology has arisen in recent decades, this time not in Europe, but the Muslim Middle East, called Islamism.  It is a political perversion of Islam, albeit it is rooted in Islamic traditions and scriptures.  What makes this 21<sup>st</sup> Century Islamist totalitarian ideology different from the other destructive ideologies of the 20<sup>th</sup> century is the adoption of multiculturalism and political correctness (PC) in the democratic West that have tied the West’s hands in combatting this evil.</p>
<p>During World War Two, the Western allies did not mince words about the Nazi (German) and Fascist (Italy and Japan) enemies they faced.  American G.I.’s knew exactly who the enemy was, and so did the home front, which supported its fighting men and women. The American government helped define the nature of the enemy to the general public.  The British and Commonwealth governments did the same.</p>
<p>In the cultural sphere, Broadway and Hollywood, as well as the existing media (printed press and radio), supported the war efforts and helped define the enemy America was fighting.  And although the leftist influence in academia was growing as early as the 1940s, the culture in general respected patriotism, religious values, and traditions.</p>
<p>The Cold War that pitted the West against Soviet Communism was fought with similar clarity.  The West rejected the so-called “science” of Communism as a totalitarian tract that destroyed individualism and personal initiative.  It saw Communism as a system that rejected religion and social stability.</p>
<p>President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union “an evil empire” that locked its people up, preventing freedom of movement and thought. Reagan expressed in his March 8, 1983 speech a truth that the Obama administration refuses to accept about Islam.  He said, “I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet doctrine illustrates an <a href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganEvilEmpire1983.html">historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers</a> for what they are.  We saw this phenomenon in the 1930s.” What was true about Communism is true about Islamism.</p>
<p>There are those who differentiate between Communism and Islamism by saying that one (Islamism) is a religion, whereas the other is supposedly a political system. In reality, both are totalitarian systems. Both are radical ideologies that divide the world into the select and the profane. Both deny individuality and suppress free will, treat manmade dogma as infallible truth and seek to impose it by force. The ideologies of Communism and Islamism reject commonly perceived morality and insist that right and wrong are determined not in terms of Judeo-Christian values, but rather by the interests of their specific groups.  For the Communists it is the proletariat, and for the Islamists, the <i>ummah</i>.</p>
<p>In recent decades, U.S. administrations have treated the defense of freedom as an alternative to ideology.  Instead, America and the West need to confront Islamism as an insult to sanity. Likewise, we need to emphasize our own beliefs in universal Judeo-Christian values that distinguish between right and wrong.</p>
<p>Today, however, the government (the Obama administration), the sycophantic media and academia do not support the efforts to define and defeat radical Islam or Islamism.</p>
<p>The opposite is true.  The media and academia have employed political correctness and multicultural standards that obscure and obfuscate the dangerous nature of Islamism, hiding behind such “civil society” organizations as CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), MSA (Muslim Students’ Association), etc., that are supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. Many of these organizations have intimidated Americans with concocted charges, including &#8220;Islamophobia&#8221; and racism, and have been allowed to “re-educate” U.S. law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the military on “how to deal with Islamism.”  The FBI can no longer talk about Islam, and they can&#8217;t talk about jihad. The U.S. has permitted “the fox to guard the chicken coup.”</p>
<p>Victor Davis Hanson wrote that “Obama operatives suggested that radical Islamists were no more likely than any other groups to commit acts of terrorism. In fact, the very idea of terrorism — not to mention a war against it — was supposedly a Bush administration construct <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/01/the_obama_borg_118181.html">unfairly aimed at Muslims</a>. ” Obama, according to Hanson, “sincerely believed that there was no intrinsic connection between Islamism and terror; or, if there was, Islamic radicalism was no more dangerous than right-wing or supposedly Christian-inspired terror. Or if Islamic radicalism did arise, it might be mitigated by multicultural sympathy and outreach, mostly by contextualizing the violence as an inevitable result of prior Western culpability.”</p>
<p>In his May 1, 2013 article, Hanson ridiculed the Obama administration, pointing out that</p>
<blockquote><p>Vladimir Putin proved more helpful than did our own <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/01/the_obama_borg_118181.html">FBI and CIA </a>directors in the Tsarnaev case. After all, the FBI had interviewed, but not detained, a number of men who later proved to be Islamic terrorists, such as the Tsarnaevs, Nidal Hasan, Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, and David Coleman Headley. One wonders what common complaint or malady these subjects shared — anti-abortion zealotry, tax resistance, homophobia, secret tea-party sympathies, several tours in Anbar Province, nativist anger at illegal immigrants, or simple head injuries?</p></blockquote>
<p>A Washington Post editorial (April 25, 2012) slammed the Obama administration. “The notion that there is a legitimate form of Islamism reflects serious intellectual failing on the part of the Obama administration.  President Obama seems to believe the Islamists are legitimized simply by participating in the <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/25/obama-embraces-islam/">political process</a>[.]” The editorial goes on to say that</p>
<blockquote><p>No matter what the source of the delusion, no political movement that exalts the Koran can peaceably coexist with the concept of freedom at the root of Western governance. Islamist notions of democracy are constrained by the strictures of their religion. Radical Muslims reject the humanistic values that gave birth to modern Western government; the self-evident truths regarding everyone’s inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are infidel heresy to the Islamists. There are no inalienable rights under political Islam, only submission to the will of Allah.</p></blockquote>
<p>America and the West cannot defeat Islamism and its terrorist components as long as the Obama administration insists on using euphemisms such as “overseas contingency operations.”  Obama rejected George W. Bush’s own euphemism of “War on Terror.”  In both cases, the terms used obscure the enemy we are fighting with nebulous euphemisms.  The Obama administration prefers to avoid using the term &#8220;Long War&#8221; or &#8220;Global War on Terror” so as not to offend Muslims. Words such as “terror” or “war,” let alone adding the word &#8220;Islamic,&#8221; are strictly verboten by the Obama administration.</p>
<p>In December of 2011, the administration released a strategic plan for dealing with domestic terrorism. It made not a single mention of <a href="http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130424/OPINION01/130429657">radical Islamism</a>.  And, in 2010, the Pentagon released an 86-page report on the Fort Hood shooting. Though the perpetrator was a radical Islamist who corresponded directly with top al-Qaida terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, the report labeled the attack &#8220;<a href="http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130424/OPINION01/130429657">workplace violence</a>.&#8221;</p>
<p>As long as we in America (and of course in Europe) are shackled by political correctness and an array of misleading euphemisms, we will not be capable of defeating radical Islamism.  We might have to give up our way of life on the altar of multiculturalism and PC because of the cowardly and morally feeble, self-proclaimed “educated classes and political elites” who have lost the will to defend our civilization.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-puder/islamisms-tactical-advantage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is World War II Still Being Fought?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/walid-shoebat-and-ben-barrack/is-world-war-ii-still-being-fought/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=is-world-war-ii-still-being-fought</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/walid-shoebat-and-ben-barrack/is-world-war-ii-still-being-fought/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2012 04:25:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Erdogan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islamic Center of Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim brotherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=171457</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What exactly is the motivation behind the Islamic Center of Washington, DC?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/walid-shoebat-and-ben-barrack/is-world-war-ii-still-being-fought/erdogan-4/" rel="attachment wp-att-171472"><img class=" wp-image-171472 alignleft" title="Erdogan" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Erdogan-450x301.jpg" alt="" width="270" height="181" /></a>In 2007, President George W. Bush spoke at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. and was introduced by the mosque’s director; the latter had a history that included time spent as a representative of an organization that has enabled Al-Qaeda. This was also the same mosque at which Bush spoke six days after 9/11/01 with Nihad Awad – Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) – at his side.</p>
<p>Before delving into the history of the Islamic Center of Washington of Washington, D.C., consider the Ground Zero mosque for a moment. It was named ‘Cordoba House’ and the <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cordoba-house-mosque-ground-zero-slaps-new-park51-article-1.201064" target="_blank">name was changed</a> as opposition to the mosque grew and people began to learn more about the <em>symbolic</em> significance of the initial word choice, which was a city in Spain.</p>
<p>Via Raymond Ibrahim at <a href="http://www.meforum.org/2678/ground-zero-mosque" target="_blank">MEF:</a></p>
<blockquote><p>…the Christian city was conquered by Muslims around 711, its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. The original mosque of Cordoba—the namesake of the Ground Zero mosque—was built atop, and partly from the materials of, a Christian church. Modern <a id="_GPLITA_0" title="Click to Continue &gt; by Text-Enhance" href="http://shoebat.com/2012/12/27/is-world-war-ii-still-being-fought/#">day</a> Muslims are well aware of all this. Such is the true—and ominous—legacy of Cordoba.</p>
<p>More pointedly, <strong>throughout Islam’s history, whenever a region was conquered, one of the first signs of consolidation was/is the erection of a mosque atop the sacred sites of the vanquished:</strong> the pagan Ka’ba temple in Arabia was converted into Islam’s holiest site, the mosque of Mecca; the al-Aqsa mosque, Islam’s third holiest site, was built atop Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem; the Umayyad mosque was built atop the Church of St. John the Baptist; and the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque upon the conquest of Constantinople.</p></blockquote>
<p>With that as a premise, shouldn’t Americans take a second look at the motivation behind the <a href="http://theislamiccenter.com/" target="_blank">Islamic Center of Washington, DC?</a> If Islamic fundamentalists were to follow the formula of their forefathers and wanted to construct a symbol of <em>future</em> conquest, wouldn’t they seek to do so at the heart of the Capital of the country that won the war?</p>
<p>Check out this excerpt from the history page of the mosque’s website:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Foundation’s membership quickly grew to include representatives from every Islamic nation in the world and American citizens. They all supported the Foundation’s appeal for funds. They managed to raise enough money that enabled them to purchase the land that the Center sits on now on Washington’s “Embassy Row”. <strong>They purchased the land on April 30, 1946, and laid the cornerstone on January 11, 1949.</strong></p></blockquote>
<p>Take note of those two dates in bold.</p>
<p>Generally, when people think of the defeated axis of enemies in World War II, Japan, Italy, and Nazi Germany come to mind but the Nazis <a href="http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/mbhood_en.html" target="_blank">had an ally</a> that was never defeated. In fact, that ally never stopped fighting; that ally was the Muslim Brotherhood.</p>
<p>Again, if one accepts the notion that symbolism in Islam is very important, consider the date the land was purchased. Adolf Hitler’s death occurred one year earlier, on April 30, 1945.</p>
<p>Via <a href="http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/death_of_adolf_hitler1.htm" target="_blank">History Learning Site:</a></p>
<blockquote><p>None of the bunker’s survivors heard the shot that killed Hitler. At 15.15 on April 30th, Bormann, Goebbels, Heinz Linge, Hitler’s valet, Otto Gunshce and Artur Axmann, Head of the Hitler Youth, entered Hitler’s sitting room. Gunsche and Linge wrapped the body of Hitler in a blanket and carried it to the Reich Chancellery garden.</p></blockquote>
<p>Coincidence? Possibly.</p>
<p>How about January 11, 1949 – the date the cornerstone was laid. That date <em>could</em> be significant.</p>
<p>Tuesday 11 Raby` al-awal 1368 A.H. Laying the cornerstone on Jan 11, 1949 in the Islamic calendar is a day prior to <strong>the 12th day of Rabi-al-Awwal, which marks the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad, but keep in mind that Saudi Arabia is 10 hours ahead of the United States. While it was the 11th in the United States, it was very possibly the 12th in Saudi Arabia.</strong></p>
<p>On June 28, 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower was on-hand to dedicate the mosque. <a href="http://www.britishpathe.com/video/news-flashes-eisenhower-opens-mosque-in-washington" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the video of a news report at the time.</p>
<p>During his speech, Eisenhower <a href="http://m.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/850orgbk.asp" target="_blank">said the following:</a></p>
<blockquote><p>The countries which have sponsored and built this Islamic Center have for centuries contributed to the building of civilization. With their traditions of learning and rich culture, the countries of Islam have added much to the advancement of mankind. Inspired by a <strong>sense of brotherhood,</strong> common to our innermost beliefs, we can here together reaffirm our determination to secure the foundations of a just and lasting peace.</p></blockquote>
<p>“Brotherhood” is indeed an interesting word choice. Eisenhower ended his speech thusly:</p>
<blockquote><p>Our country has long enjoyed a strong bond of friendship with the Islamic nations. .  .  . Under the American Constitution, .  .  . this Center, this place of worship, is <strong>as welcome as could be any similar edifice of any religion. Indeed, America would fight with her whole strength for your right to have your own church and worship according to your own conscience.</strong> Without this, we would be something else than what we are.</p></blockquote>
<p>Doesn’t the “conscience” of the Muslim “Brotherhood” involve <a href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/20" target="_blank">destroying America</a> from within?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/20.pdf" target="_blank">Yes, it does.</a></p>
<p>President George W. Bush returned to the Washington, DC mosque for the RE-dedication ceremony in 2007, fifty years after Eisenhower did it originally. The man who introduced Bush in the clip below is the mosque’s director, Abdullah M. Khouj, who began his tenure there in 1984. <a href="http://m.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/850orgbk.asp" target="_blank">According to</a> the <em>Weekly Standard’s</em> Stephen Schwartz, Saudi officials took over the mosque in 1983 and Khouj was subsequently appointed. Khouj has been a representative for the Muslim World League (MWL):</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Khouj represented the Muslim World League (MWL), founded in Saudi Arabia in 1962 as an international agency for the propagation of Wahhabism.</strong> In 2006, relief branches of the MWL in Southeast Asia would be designated by the U.S. Treasury as financing fronts for al Qaeda. In addition, Khouj was admitted to the United States as a diplomat, allegedly serving as an attaché at the Saudi Embassy, but actually <strong>dedicated to advancing the most radical interpretation of Islam in history.</strong></p></blockquote>
<p>The MWL is significant for many reasons but one such reason is its involvement as the umbrella organization for the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). This is the same IMMA where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, worked as an assistant editor for at least twelve years until leaving in 2009, to work for Clinton at the State Department. The man responsible for launching the IMMA was none other than Abdullah Omar Naseef, who was the <a href="http://www.shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/3000_Americans_for_Three_Saudi_Princes_091012.pdf" target="_blank">Secretary General of the MWL</a> when Khouj became the Director of the Washington mosque.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Abedin_Affairs_with_Al_Saud_0813123.pdf" target="_blank">Saudi Manifesto,</a> reveals the MWL / IMMA connection:</p>
<blockquote><p>“It <strong>[Muslim Minority Affairs] will work under the umbrella of the Muslim World League (MWL)</strong> and the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) and World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY) and others.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Remember, Naseef also founded the <a href="http://www.shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/3000_Americans_for_Three_Saudi_Princes_091012.pdf" target="_blank">Rabita Trust,</a> an entity that was headed by <a href="http://www.shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/3000_Americans_for_Three_Saudi_Princes_091012.pdf" target="_blank">Al-Qaeda founder Wael Hamza Julaidan</a> and identified by the U.S. Treasury Department in October of 2001 as a terrorist organization. If Naseef was commissioned by the Saudi Royal family to found the IMMA, it would seem to indicate a willingness on the part of the Brotherhood and the Saudis to work together in some respects, the furthering of Islam in foreign lands, for example.</p>
<p>That’s what the IMMA is all about.</p>
<p>It’s important to remember that Khouj – the man who introduced Bush at the Washington, D.C. mosque re-dedication ceremony – was a representative of the MWL at the time of his being named director, according to Schwartz. The Rabita Trust was founded in 1988 by Naseef, four years after Khouj became the Director of the mosque.</p>
<p>Before watching the video of Bush’s 2007 speech inside the mosque, consider that less than six years earlier, the Rabita Trust had been <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6411" target="_blank">shut down by the Bush administration</a> as a “Global Terrorist Entity”. As a representative of the MWL, Khouj ultimately worked for an organization whose Secretary General from 1983-1993 was none other than Al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef.</p>
<p>Note at the 1:15 mark in the video below that Bush references Eisenhower’s speech from 1957 and quotes the former president. Said Bush:</p>
<blockquote><p>“He (Eisenhower) asked that together we commit ourselves ‘to peaceful progress of all men under one God.’”</p></blockquote>
<p>This had not been the first time that Bush had conflated Islam and Christianity. William Murray, of the Religious Freedom Coalition <a href="http://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2012/08/12/journal-of-911-events-posted-in-october-2001/" target="_blank">chronicled his experiences</a> in the days after 9/11 and wrote the following about what he witnessed on 9/14/01 at the National Cathedral, where then head of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) – Muzammil Siddiqi – was in attendance:</p>
<blockquote><p>Our Christian President had bowed his head to prayers offered to other gods, prayers that may have been for those who would destroy our nation and enslave our children to an alien religion. At that moment the hand of protection of the true God was removed from our nation.</p></blockquote>
<p>Here is Bush at the 2007 re-dedication ceremony inside the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.</p>
<p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/S-gOUQ6xdd0" frameborder="0" width="400" height="315"></iframe></p>
<p>According to Schwartz, the mosque was built at the urging of various Muslim groups, to include the Turks. In 1998, before becoming Prime Minister of Turkey – Recep Tayyip Erdoğan – quoted from <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2270642.stm" target="_blank">the following poem</a> during a speech:</p>
<blockquote><p>“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…”</p></blockquote>
<p>Go figure. Today, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamist government of Turkey seem to be working together.</p>
<p>And World War II may have a new front.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/walid-shoebat-and-ben-barrack/is-world-war-ii-still-being-fought/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hollywood Revs Up Propaganda Machine For Obama</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/hollywood-revs-up-propaganda-machine-for-obama/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hollywood-revs-up-propaganda-machine-for-obama</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/hollywood-revs-up-propaganda-machine-for-obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2012 04:51:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Shapiro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=139325</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It’s World War II again -- but this time the Republicans are the enemy.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/holly1.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-139330" title="holly" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/holly1.jpg" alt="" width="288" height="216" /></a>In the years after September 11, 2001, conservatives bemoaned the fact that Hollywood seemed completely uninterested in helping spur Americans to action against a brutal terrorist enemy bent on the destruction of the West. Conservatives hearkened back to World War II, and wondered where our Frank Capras, our Jimmy Stewarts, our Hollywood patriots were.  Why did Hollywood not go to war?</p>
<p>Answer: they were just waiting for Barack Obama to become president.</p>
<p>As it turns out, Hollywood didn’t give a fig about Islamic terrorism until a liberal could enter office. Until Obama grabbed the White House, Americans were treated to goodies like <em>Green Zone</em> and <em>In the Valley of Elah</em> and <em>Syriana</em>, suggesting that America was a force for evil in the world, and that  America’s jihadi enemies were at least partially justified in their anger at the United States.</p>
<p>But since President Obama took office, Hollywood seems to have turned a corner. All of a sudden, they <em>hate</em> Islamic terrorism. And the Obama administration is overjoyed.</p>
<p>And why not? They know that Hollywood is the best propaganda tool available – they have seen Obama’s image lovingly crafted by the likes of Tom Hanks and Davis Guggenheim – and now they can’t wait to see the results of that propaganda mastery on the big screen.</p>
<p>Which is why the Obama administration is granting unprecedented access to filmmakers to make a film about Obama’s killing of Osama Bin Laden.</p>
<p>For months, conservatives suggested that the Obama administration’s cozy relationship with Hollywood was endangering American security on this issue. Why, after all, should America’s security secrets be leaked to the Tinseltown lefties <em>just in time </em>for Obama’s re-election campaign? Wasn’t this problematic? Didn’t it create risks for teams still in the field?</p>
<p>And for months, the Obama administration made noises suggesting that Hollywood had barely received any sort of special access. Sure, they admitted, screenwriter Mark Boal had talked with White House officials, and director Kathryn Bigelow got to see ‘the Vault,” where CIA officials showed her a model of the Bin Laden compound. “We don’t have a partnership” with Boal and Bigelow, insisted Admiral William McRaven. But Defense Department Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Douglas Wilson said, “We need to be careful here so we don’t open the media floodgates on this.” The Obama administration didn’t want the public to know, in other words,  about their level of cooperation with a clearly political film.</p>
<p>And so, apparently, they hid it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/hollywood-revs-up-propaganda-machine-for-obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>45</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eric Kurlander: Empathy for Hitler? What in the World is Oliver Stone Talking About? &#8211; HNN</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/eric-kurlander-empathy-for-hitler-what-in-the-world-is-oliver-stone-talking-about-hnn/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=eric-kurlander-empathy-for-hitler-what-in-the-world-is-oliver-stone-talking-about-hnn</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/eric-kurlander-empathy-for-hitler-what-in-the-world-is-oliver-stone-talking-about-hnn/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:35:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob Laksin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Adolf Hitler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[approach]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cannot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[connection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consultant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decent human]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[director]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[director oliver stone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[empathy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first world war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[furor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gaab]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[german chancellor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[great depression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[historian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history of america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hitler and the nazis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HNN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internal circumstances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jeffrey Gaab]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jewish groups]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mini-series]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nazi movement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nazism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[novel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oliver Stone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[person]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peter Kuznick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[point of departure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political crises]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[precise point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ron radosh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scapegoat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secret history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sensationalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[series]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Showtime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stalin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Versailles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[versailles treaty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[week]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weimar Republic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=46999</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week the director Oliver Stone caused quite a stir when, in describing his new Showtime mini-series, &#8220;A Secret History of America,&#8221; he declared that Adolf Hitler was an &#8220;easy scapegoat throughout history… [who]&#8216;s been used cheaply.&#8221; &#8220;We can&#8217;t judge people as only &#8216;bad&#8217; or &#8216;good,&#8217;&#8221; Stone continued. Even Hitler was &#8220;the product of a [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.hnn.us/articles/122342.html"><img src='http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/51tAa8ZT0HL._SL500_AA240_.jpg' alt='' /></a></p>
<p>Last week the director Oliver Stone caused quite a stir when, in describing his new Showtime mini-series, &#8220;A Secret History of America,&#8221; he declared that Adolf Hitler was an &#8220;easy scapegoat throughout history… [who]&#8216;s been used cheaply.&#8221;  &#8220;We can&#8217;t judge people as only &#8216;bad&#8217; or &#8216;good,&#8217;&#8221; Stone continued.  Even Hitler was &#8220;the product of a series of actions.  It&#8217;s cause and effect.  People in America don&#8217;t know the connection between WWI and WWII.&#8221;  “You cannot approach history,” Stone added in reference to Stalin and Hitler, “unless you have empathy for the person you may hate.&#8221;</p>
<p>The furor, as one can imagine, was immediate; not only from historians and Jewish groups, but journalists and politicians as well.  As Ron Radosh wrote in his own scathing HNN reply to Stone and the director’s main consultant, the historian Peter Kuznick, it&#8217;s hardly novel for academics to argue that Nazism was a product of external and internal circumstances.  Without the First World War, Versailles Treaty, or the Great Depression, the Nazi movement could never have achieved the success that it did.  And without the repeated social and political crises that defined the latter years of the Weimar Republic, Hitler would not have been named German Chancellor in January 1933.  We don’t need “empathy” for Hitler to understand the way that people, even Hitler and the Nazis, were shaped by circumstances.  So what in the world is Stone talking about?</p>
<p>One can only speculate as to the director’s precise point of departure.  But I’m going to presume that Stone, despite his penchant for sensationalism, is hardly going to make the case that Hitler was a decent human being.  The question he probably intends to answer is the same one I address in my recent book, Living With Hitler (reviewed by Jeffrey Gaab in the September 2009 HNN newsletter):  How could so many educated, liberal-minded Germans have actively supported, or at the very least passively accommodated, a fanatic like Hitler?</p>
<p>via <a href="http://www.hnn.us/articles/122342.html">What in the World is Oliver Stone Talking About?</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/eric-kurlander-empathy-for-hitler-what-in-the-world-is-oliver-stone-talking-about-hnn/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1235/1327 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 04:48:55 by W3 Total Cache -->