 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
We see the Brits subdivisions inevitably ending in war. Their work in Europe lead directly to WWII. Their work in India has lead to the endless confilct between Pakistan and India, and their work in Arabia lead to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
|
I wouldn't blame the British for partitioning India. It wasn't their idea, it was the Muslim politicians. If anything the British did more to unify India than anyone ever did.
Kuwait was independent from Iraq by the 19th century, at which time Iraq had been part of the Ottoman empire for 300 years. Before that it was part of Persia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Were people involuntarily displaced in the partitioning of Kuwait and Iraq? It would be up to the people of Kuwait and Iraq to democratially elect to join the countries... Since this hasn;t happened, the western world has the moral obligation to stop Iraq from imposing their view on the people of Kuwait.
Just like the western world has the moral obligation top stop Israel from imposing their view on the palestinians. |
Just like the European world had a moral obligation after WW2 to give the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust the security they had been denied by 60 years of escalating European antisemitism. What's you're proposal for remedying that problem?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
Dear S Kroeze, I'm far from being ever present and sometimes miss replies.
As for your reply.
quote:
I understand this sentence as follows: The rabbinical courts didn't want to allow marriages between Jews and Christians/Muslims, BUT because the Supreme Court intervened it was finally allowed. |
Well to me this way of understanding seems odd, as to me it seems that if anything, the letters e.g. come to give an example to issues in which the court did not interviene.
Give your opinion, do you have any basis or any fact suggesting that at some point the rabinical courts actually tried to prevent such things? Other than the sentance which meaning we seem to disagree about?
You don't. It's a figment of an overly zealous imagination.
As for the rabinnical courts rulings of marriage, it simply means the following:
1) only the rabinnical orthodox court has authority to marry two jews in Israel (but if they marry elsewhere it's fine).
2) non jews, or the marriage of a jew and a non-jew is not permitted in the rabinnical orthodox court, and is therefore not under it's authority.
I would further add, that there has been some progress in talks with the orthodox establishment, and in some time in the future, there will be a non-religious marriage option.
quote:
So in the end we seem to agree that 'mixed' marriages are allowed (since when?). |
Since ever.
There never was a ruling by any court nor any law forbidding such marriages. Therefore - since ever.
quote:
Yet is still surprises me that the legislator(parliament) did NOT decree by law. |
Why would a legislator want to write a law for every concievable situation?
As long as such a marriage is not fobidden, it is allowed.
quote:
In a democratic constitutional state that would have been the only possible procedure. This incident -the way I understand it (and please correct me by some source when I am wrong)- shows that the possibility of 'mixed' marriages was not matter-of-course.
And this NOT being matter-of-course is suspect in my view! |
I already quoted an official figure from the Israeli interior minsiytry, about some 80,000 (or so) mixed married couples in Israel.
But it appears that you missed it, just as I missed your aforementioned reply.
quote:
It is obvious Arabs have not ALL civil rights 'Jewish' citizens possess.
Besides that there are many 'unwritten' discriminating laws. |
Incorrect.
Arabs have exactly the same civil rights as Jews have.
What you may be referring to is several segregation like laws, such as laws defining the nature of the Jewish agency and it serving the jews only.
However, this seems only natural to me, as there are similar (though much smaller) bodies like the Muslim brotherhood and so on, which only serve moslems and so on.
So while each society has a body which deals uniquely with it, the Jewish body is strongest, both because of it being older, and because of it's lobby.
Naturally, given the older age of the Jewish agency, and it's early existance and goal, it, unlike most muslim brotherhoods, owns land in Israel, a thing which is rare. But still, some 10% of the land of Israel is still in private hands (mostly arab iirc) and some 17% is owned by the Jewish Agency.
As far as unwritten laws go - that's a fiction since any law is based on it being written.
I agree there are discriminating policies, but it's hardly based on unwritten laws, but rather on the well known idea of political power.
For instance, the Orthodox establishment has huge political power, and therefore orthodox schools recieve huge funds, disproportionate to the numnber of funds that go to normal state schools, and the smaller funds that are channelled into arab schools.
now before you go on ranting about more seperation - let me explain to you the idea of arab , state and orthodox schools.
In Israel, minorities have a right to establish their own schools and have their own teaching program.
A person is free to choose into which school he goes.
Most arabs, feeling closer to the issues studied in the arab program, choose to go to arab schools. But some go to general state schools.
Most orthodox, feel closer to the orthodox schools, and go there.
It's simply another option for people to better teach their culture.
quote:
I still define a Jew by religion, not by 'race'. |
Then you would be drifting in your own universe, since you have zero incluence over this.
The definition of Jew is best left to jews. I don't go around choosing who is muslim or palestinian.
Your sayings that only those who honor Talmud are jews, is as stupid as me saying that only Shiites are true muslems.
Or like saying that protestants are not real christians.
It is silly - please understand that.
You can't cancel out a whole flow of judaism just because it doesn't fit what you think judaism is!!
quote:
To me 'race' is a most abhorrent concept. |
You also should understand that you're not living in a fairy tale world with only one kind of people.
Call it race, ethnicity or kuala-lumpur - people from different heritages and blood lines have different genetic characterstics.
Furthermore - even forget race.
There is a thing called nationality.
Palestinians, be they moslems or christians, are after all palestinians once they have defined themselves to be such, and accepted their national image and heritage.
Jews are the same = they, whether believe in judaism or not, accept their heritage and history and national image as parts of the Jewish (hebrew) nation.
Hearing you come and say what constitutes a real jew, after reading some encyclopedia on world religions (am I right?) seems absurd.
quote:
I am still eagerly waiting for the day when Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history, will -in his boundless benevolence- reveal title and writer of the ONLY reliable and recently published academic study on Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history. |
That's exactly the point.
There isn't an only reliable source. Almost each source has a bias or a goal, therefore you must consider those. And you fail to do that, time after time.
Instead of accepting neturei karta as an opinion of a minority of jews, you have said things which make it seem as if you believe them to be the ultimate authority on everything jewish, even though they are a minority
Instead of reading academic reports striving to be impartial, you are reading books which are published to advance an already known goal. When you pick up "the rape of palestine" you know that the author has already decided what he wants to tell you.
It doesn't mean it's not a reliable source. You just need to learn to address the inherent bias in its analysis of events.
Even most your book titles sound alike and present a consitent view:
"Zionism and Dictators"
"The siege and saga of Zionism"
it only misses "Zionism the false prophecy" (or something like that. it's a real book) to be complete.
Please, at least, try to balance your view by reading as much pro-Israeli books or books by zionist authors.
And as far as your view of my knowledge and sources - I studied judaism and bible from some among the best of Israeli teachers. I've read chapters from the talmud, and other sources.
I've also read dozens of books, heard several lectures, watched dozens of history shows.
So excuse me if I can't always remember every resource by heart and that I do not intend to translate the entire Israeli law to english.
At least I don't go around copying and pasting paragraphs from a "why is Israel inherently evil - including well researched quotes" internet site, which is what you seem to be doing, considering how easily you skipped from one source to another, following the same subjects and so on.
Either that, or you have wrote a paper on it, basing it on several books, and keep it handy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
Siro, look past 1920. |
Ok.
Jews were attacked in europe.
Some Jews decided it was high time to stop being nomads without a state.
Those jews decided to return to their old time homeland - Israel & Judea, now renamed Palestine, rejoin the small number of jews living there, and form a state.
They slowly immigrated, began purchasing lands, farming them and developing them.
Some of the local leaders became scared for their power, seeing the Jewish influence rise, and began inciting the local population against the Jews.
Both Jews and Arabs get a conflicting promise for a national home in Palestine.
78% of Historical Palestine is given as a present to an Arab, non-palestinian dynasty called "The Hashemites" and is proclaimd - "Trans Jordan".
The 22% of Historical Palestine demanded today is not the occupied Territories. Rather it's Israel + the Occupied Territories.
Historical Palestine includes Jordan. Jordan never existed as a unique country. It was torn up from the geographic unit known as palestine by the Brittish.
Jordan: 92,000 km^2
Israel + Palestine: 28,000 km^2
Historical Palestine: 120,000 km^2
120,000 * 22% = 26,400 km^2 ~~ Israel
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
Dr Strangelove, they offered the zionist movement an inhabited part of Uganda in 1901, 40 years before the holocaust... |
Why not offer Jews the south pole while you're at it? 
Jews have and always had a connection to Israel and Zion (=Jerusalem).
It is mentioned in holy scriptures, prayer and even daily tradition and heritage (next year in jerusalem).
It's unreasonable to put jews on the moon, so to speak.
quote:
Furthermore, why is it that the palestinians (who historically have treated the jews a lot better than europeans) should be forced to give up land for a jewish state? |
Why forced?
It were palestinian land lords who sold land to jews. More often than not at outrageous prices. I've even read sources dating to those times, outraged that a peace of swamp in Palestine costed more than fertile land in the US.
Furthermore, there was no reason why the two people couldn't get along.
Jews would have a state on lands they bought - Palestinians would have a state on lands they owned.
Instead, several social and religious reasons lead the palestinians to "not want Jewish neighbours" so to speak.
1) Local landlords feared Jewish competition. Jews brought new methods and soon began drying the swamps and became a serious economic competition. Very quickly, Jews, having a tiny portion of lands, out produced the whole Palestine in citrus fruits (source - one of the brittish mandate reports iirc. i followed it given Kamrat X's link one time).
2) Religious leaders had the idea of "holy moslem lands" which say that infidels should never again reconquer lands from moslems.
3) Local folks, esp. nomads, saw the lands and water as something shared and free. When Jews began putting up fences around their property, they felt robbed. I have a source on this dating to that time.
4) The intelligent layers, saw this as yet another european cultural invasion, and seeked to restore their honour by rebuffing it.
So generally, no one was in the right mood for accepting the Jewish dreams about buying lands and forming a state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
 |
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
Since September 2000, 593 people have been killed on the Israeli side:
Jan. 1, 2001: Netanya - no Israelis killed, 60 injured.
May 18, 2001: Netanya shopping mall - five Israelis killed.
June 1, 2001: Dolphinarium nightclub in Tel Aviv - 21 Israelis killed.
Aug. 9, 2001: Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem - 15 Israelis killed.
Aug. 12, 2001: Kiryat Motzkin - no Israelis killed, 21 injured.
Dec. 1, 2001: Double suicide bombing on Ben Yehuda pedestrian mall in Jerusalem - 11 Israelis killed.
Dec. 2, 2001: Bus in Haifa - 15 Israelis killed.
March 2, 2002: Mea Shearim, Jerusalem - 11 Israelis killed.
March 9, 2002: Moment Cafe in Jerusalem - 11 Israelis killed.
March 20, 2002: Bus in Kfar Musmus - seven Israelis killed.
March 27, 2002: Hotel in Netanya - 29 Israelis killed.
March 31, 2002: Restaurant in Haifa - 15 Israelis killed.
April 10, 2002: Bus in Haifa - eight Israelis killed.
April 12, 2002: Female bomber at the market in Jerusalem - six Israelis killed.
May 7, 2002: Pool hall in Rishon Letzion - 15 Israelis killed.
June 5, 2002: Bus near Megiddo Junction - 17 Israelis killed.
June 18, 2002: Patt Junction in Jerusalem - 19 Israelis killed.
June 19, 2002: French Hill intersection Jerusalem - seven Israelis killed.
July 17, 2002: Tel Aviv - two Israelis, three foreign workers killed.
Aug. 31: Jerusalem Hebrew University, seven killed in bombing.
And CyberGnu says the numbers that were posted were pure propaganda. Ok so lets see maybe there were soldiers at all these places hummm. So Israel hit one soldier and some innocents and some of these flakes scream bloody murder. But did you scream as loud for these murders of civilians CyberGnu?
I think the only propaganda going is the ones who dismiss the obvious....And the lastest bombing is ok because it's revenge right....Flakes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
 |
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
Dearest Sirotnikov,
You raised several interesting points, but since my time is limited I will only address part of your post.
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
quote:
I am still eagerly waiting for the day when Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history, will -in his boundless benevolence- reveal title and writer of the ONLY reliable and recently published academic study on Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history. |
That's exactly the point.
Instead of reading academic reports striving to be impartial, you are reading books which are published to advance an already known goal . When you pick up "the rape of palestine" you know that the author has already decided what he wants to tell you. |
Who has written the 'Rape of Palestine'?
Have you read the book?
What makes you think the author is anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic?
quote:
It doesn't mean it's not a reliable source. You just need to learn to address the inherent bias in its analysis of events. |
It is either a reliable source and worth reading- or it is NOT a reliable source and NOT worth reading.
Doubtless you will not believe me, but nevertheless I try -using my rather limited intellectual powers- to search for and read books that are reliable.
That is why I started searching for literature in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
In the Western world -and I live in the Western world- this is considered the most reliable and impartial encyclopaedia produced. In my view there are many other good encyclopaedias though.
When you, the infallible Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history, are willing -in your boundless benevolence- to reveal title of a better, more reliable encyclopaedia, Please do!
I still do not speak, read or write the Language of the Supreme Divine Being, so please recommend something written in English, French, German or Spanish.
I sincerely hope there has been produced an encyclopaedia better than the Britannica since it is obvious it has not found favour with you.
I understand my inadequate command of languages is a problem, but please do not reject this simple historian!
After the Britannice I consulted:
J.M.Romein, J.Haak, Apparaat voor de studie der geschiedenis,1979
this book is in accordance with custom consulted by ALL Dutch historians when searching for literature in a formerly unknown field.
It seems to me you are rather suspicious of Dutch historical studies and universities.
Doubtless you will have excellent reasons for your distrust, but could you please give your reasons?
And -far more important- could you, the infallible Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli and WORLD history, -in your boundless benevolence- please reveal title and author of a better, more reliable bibliography, Please do!
I still do not speak, read or write the Language of the Supreme Divine Being, so please recommend something written in English, French, German or Spanish.
I sincerely hope there has been produced a bibliography better than the Apparaat voor de studie der geschiedenis since it is obvious it has not found favour with you.
I understand my inadequate command of languages is a problem, but please do not reject this simple historian!
I consulted several other bibliographies -doubtless ALL of dubious quality, as we live in a Dark Age- but I will not bother you with trivialities.
Next I consulted
The Middle East Journal, Washington,
as you doubtless will know, by far the most respected and prestigious scientific journal, searching for reviews of recently published scholarly publications and articles in other journals.
When you have reasons to distrust The Middle East Journal, Washington, please say so, giving your reasons.
And -far more important- could you, the infallible Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history, -in your boundless benevolence- please reveal the title of a better, more reliable scholarly journal, Please do!
I still do not speak, read or write the Language of the Supreme Divine Being, so please recommend something written in English, French, German or Spanish.
I understand my inadequate command of languages is a problem, but please do not reject this simple historian!
I also asked several times Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history, to mention -in his boundless benevolence- titles and writers of some reliable and recently published academic study on Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history.
Unfortunately my pleas were not granted until now.....
quote:
Even most your book titles sound alike and present a consitent view:
"Zionism and Dictators"
"The siege and saga of Zionism"
it only misses "Zionism the false prophecy" (or something like that. it's a real book) to be complete. |
Is my conclusion justified that ALL books are unreliable and that it is a waste of time to read any historical study at all?
quote:
Please, at least, try to balance your view by reading as much pro-Israeli books or books by zionist authors. |
This is the reason -since I have apparently failed to secure any of these pro-Israeli books or books by zionist authors- I again implore Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history, -in his boundless benevolence- to reveal at least some titles and writers of the ONLY reliable and recently published academic studies on Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history.
quote:
And as far as your view of my knowledge and sources - I studied judaism and bible from some among the best of Israeli teachers. I've read chapters from the talmud, and other sources. |
Could you, Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history, -in your boundless benevolence- please reveal the names of the best of your Israeli teachers; please also list the titles and authors of your other reliable sources on Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history.
I have obviously failed to find them.
quote:
I've also read dozens of books, heard several lectures, watched dozens of history shows. |
So you even watched dozens of history shows and are allowed to believe the information presented?
You are so immensely favoured in Israel!
When a student of me would list a history show as a reliable source, I would immediately tear up his essay.
quote:
So excuse me if I can't always remember every resource by heart and that I do not intend to translate the entire Israeli law to english. |
Of course I do not expect a Sirotnikov to remember every resource by heart, yet I would nevertheless be immensely pleased when this Sirotnikov would be able to mention a few of those dozens of books, containing the TRUE and ONLY reliable History of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history.
quote:
At least I don't go around copying and pasting paragraphs from a "why is Israel inherently evil - including well researched quotes" internet site, which is what you seem to be doing, considering how easily you skipped from one source to another, following the same subjects and so on. |
I am extremely sorry to disappoint you on this issue.
You will doubtless not believe me, but I sat -some fifteen years ago- for my B.A. examination. Afterwards I pursued another career, but at least I learned the basic techniques of an historian.
When you would ever start a study of History at a university, you would soon discover that ALL historians are basically 'copy and paste artists'.
They do not 'copy and paste' from the Internet, but instead 'copy and paste' primary and secondary sources. Yes, some times they will paraphrase their sources -I have done so too several times- but it is still the same technique.
I have already tried to explain to your 'friend' musex what line historians usually take: they read a lot and then decide what fragments to combine.
Historians do not repeat one another; on the contrary, they often disagree with one another.
They generally read thousands of pages, written by eyewitnesses, journalists etc. They read inscriptions, diaries, codes of law, minute books, government orders, letters, surveys, statistical material, bills, books/pamphlets written during the period they are studying etc; they spend thousands of hours searching archives; they visit locations where important events occurred, often they interview politicians, eyewitnesses, soldiers, public servants etc.; they study maps, land registers etc.
Often they will quote verbatim their sources; if not, they will provide a footnote with a source reference. This makes it possible for other historians/people to read/check these source with their own eyes.
Since you claim to have studied History from the best of Israeli teachers, I presume it will not be necessary to explain to you the difference between primary and secondary sources.
Since I do not live in Israel, New York or London, it is rather difficult for me to visit the archives where the most important sources are kept. Consequently I have hardly read any primary sources, though that would have been best.
Perhaps -I doubt it- you noticed that most studies frequently quote those primary sources.
But I am essentially curious, not really lazy -only a bit- and I do not have reading problems. And I truly like visiting a library and searching for books, articles and reviews. I am forced to visit the university library on a regular basis anyway.
I am still willing to read some books or articles you recommend; so far you have only given the title of a book on Israeli form of government, not my main interest, though useful.
(it seemed to be a book meant for secondary education; am I correct?)
When you keep refusing to recommend some reliable studies the inevitable conclusion will be that they do not exist.
As I have told previously, Late Antiquity and Early Byzantium is my field of knowledge, but that does not exclude some proficiency when studying another region or historical period.
I do not advise you to pursue historical studies; it seems to me you lack the essential qualities of an historian: curiosity, diligence, excellent reading skills and the joy to delve in libraries and archives -no offense meant.
quote:
Either that, or you have wrote a paper on it, basing it on several books, and keep it handy. |
You're welcome!
S.Kroeze
Last edited by S. Kroeze on 01-08-2002 at 07:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
the numbers are 3 TIMES that of Israelis. |
Do those numbers include the bombers? the ones attacking? innocents? army? those killed by suicide bomers from their own side? Break it down show some thought....
Seems to me the attacks I posted were not millitary missions on the part of the Israelis. Those attacks are in markets and universities and pizza... well you get the idea. None of those attacks can be justified as millitary targets if people are going to simply post numbers They are meaningless as far as facts go.
From what I have read so far those numbers you posted include the suicide bomers, people attacking Israelis, victims of the suicide bombers, people killed by their own side as spies...
So maybe a break down of the numbers would provide a clearer picture? What do you think?
Last edited by blackice on 01-08-2002 at 07:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
Blackice, I assume you have found a reliable study this time, instead of the propaganda crap you posted ten pages ago?
Although, maybe you didn't fully understand why it was a pile of fetid dingos kidneys? Do you want me to explain it in simpler words for you? From the word 'flakes' I assume you understand two-syllable words, I could try to limit myself to your vocubulary. Umm, I mean... To words you know. There we go.
Last edited by CyberGnu on 01-08-2002 at 08:04
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Dr Strangelove, they offered the zionist movement an inhabited part of Uganda in 1901, 40 years before the holocaust...
Furthermore, why is it that the palestinians (who historically have treated the jews a lot better than europeans) should be forced to give up land for a jewish state?
Morally, there is no answer to that question.
A moral solution to the issue of a jewish state would either have been to partition off a part of Europe (maybe old East Preussia), or a part of the US (say Arizona or New Mexico). |
Uganda was never uninhabited.
From 1940 to 1950 the US accepted 500,000 jewish refugees. How many did Sweden take in?
Why give them US territory? The US didn't make them wear yellow stars. The US didn't put them in ovens. The US didn't collaborate with those who did those things as some Scandinavian nations which happened to make the kind of high grade steel needed to make high velocity anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns upon which the Wehrmacht relied did.
The US didn't refuse to take back its own citizens after they were released from concentration camps like certain European nations did. The US didn't chase off many of those who tried to return.
Talking about what should have been done doesn't help anyone beyond allowing the person making the suggestion to intellectualize and thereby insulate himself from his share of the collective guilt.
Come on and 'fess up to your share 'gnu. Your nation helped the Nazis build and maintain their war machine. You helped put these people in the situation they're in. It's up to you to make it up to them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
inhabited part of Uganda
Sweden is the wrong country to attack... Look up Raol Wallenberg. Furthermore, it was either sell steel or be invaded. Oddly enough, I'd rather make money than get killed... I also would rather eat than see my children starve...
This is not a Siro'esqe refutation of a minor issue instead of the point of the post, however. You say that the US had no responsibility to help the jews. Granted, but the US choose to become involved by working aggressively for the establishment of a jewish state in palestine.
Either the US could have worked for a jewish state in Europe, in the US, or not at all. Working to steal land from an independent group is not morally defensible. |
There were no uninhabited parts of Uganda, unless they were planning on moving them onto the lake!
Wallenberg was one man. What about the rest of you?
Sweden could have resisted. Hitler didn't want Sweden. The only reason he invaded Norway was to outflank the British Navy. He didn't bother with invading Sweden, because to do so offered no military advantage. Sweden could have built up its forces in 1939 to 1941 in order to make Sweden defensible, because Sweden could have defended itself. Sweden wouldn't have to allow itself to be taken by surprise like Norway was. By 1942 Hitler didn't have the forces to spare to invade Sweden. Then Sweden could have refused to continue to collaborate. Facing only the axis forces available in Norway Sweden could have successfully defended itself. The British and US navies would have worked with Sweden to keep German reinforcements from reaching Scandinavia. It was "do-able", if not in 1942, then in 1943, but Sweden never tried. Swedish ores stopped reaching Germany only when the Soviet Union was finally able to send sufficient quantities of submarines into the Baltic sea.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-08-2002 02:05
|