Nazi Concentration Camps

[Johnny Canuck3]

In the face of all the evidence you stick up for the ethnic cleansers like some faithful and unthinking servant. You clearly don't want peace in the region. Shame on you

Bullshit. It won't be possible to consider peace, without taking a balanced view of the actions of both sides.

You choose to ignore anything that might explain or exonerate the Israeli actions, for some reason that I can't fathom.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well said for someone who gives context-free short answers that generally have large and only semi-contextual cut and pastes attached to them. Bravo!

I'll stop repeating it when you start paying attention to it, so that:

a) You stop part-quoting and de-contextualising posts.

b) give at least some attention to historical context,
and
c) acknowledge that context matters.

The mere fact that I disagree with you, doesn't mean that my comments are without context. What it means, is that they are things you don't want to hear.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I didn't do either. I stated that the only people who produce arguments against what is accepted by the mass of historians as "accurate" (within the limits of knowledge on the subject) are right-revisionists..

You stated that your version of history was well settled, and accepted by all except right wing revisionists. The tenor of our discussion was my disagreement with your version.

Thus, the inference to be drawn from you comment, was that I was a right wing revisionist.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You stated "extermination" as a given when you replied to Spion's point about arms manufacture in Israel in the late 1940s with
"Good thing, too, or the work the Holocaust started, would have gotten finished in the Middle East.".
I'm saying that military disciple (inculcated by the colonialists and retained on independence) in the armies at that time was such that it would have been exceedingly unlikely that massacres requested by politicians would have been on the agenda..

If military discipline was a major factor in the arab armies of the day, they'd likely have made a better showing against Isreal in the various wars.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Of course we have, and in every case the underlying antipathy was so great as to have fallen into the category of "an ideology of hate" of one group against the other, whether Hutu-Tutsi, Serbian-Kosovar or Hindu-Muslim, to name but a few.
Your premise falls down on the degree of "anti-Semitism" of the man on the Arab street at that time. History shows us, for example, that the area's greatest anti-Semite, the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husayni, had been in effect deposed and exiled by his own people in Palestine. Arab anti-Semitism at the time was nowhere near the pitch necessary for "extermination", neither had it had time to be indoctrinated into several generations, as it has now.

How about if they'd readmitted and armed the Palestinians?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Strategy and tactics are based in history and on intelligence, You assess where to place and how to divide your forces to best effect so that you can cover as many eventualities as possible..

It's a military truism that most armies become well prepared to fight the last war that they were involved in. Thus, you get things like the Maginot Line, the Cold War massing of tank armies on both sides of the Iron Curtain, etc.

One of the successes of the Israeli military, was/is the ability to think outside such boxes.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Only if, like you, the thinker doesn't think strategically or tactically.

I didn't realize that we'd had any discussions on strategy and tactics.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Trouble is, he's provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever, execpt for one context-free quote from an Arab leader from several months after the zionists started their cleansing of the Palestinian Arabs..

One?

You should scroll back through the thread.

 

[Spion]

...other than the words of the arab leaders, who talked of an intention to exterminate the jews in Israel.

You haven't given any evidence at all of Arab leaders threatening extermination until after the Zionists had violently cleansed around 200 villages and several city quarters. In fact all but one of the quotes you provide are from years after they eventually cleansed 500+ villages and expelled 750,000 Arabs

I've provided evidence of Zionists desire for years prior to 1948 to clear Palestine of Arabs and of the military plan and orders to do so in 1948. It's a smoking gun.

Where's your evidence, Johnny? I can't fathom why you persist in this line of argument despite a shred of evidence to back up your claim

 

[Spion]

Bullshit. It won't be possible to consider peace, without taking a balanced view of the actions of both sides.

You choose to ignore anything that might explain or exonerate the Israeli actions, for some reason that I can't fathom.

If you present me with any evidence to 'explain or exonerate' why they ethnically cleansed the Arabs, I'll comment on it. So far you haven't presented anything, unless you mean me to understand that the holocaust gave Jews licence to treat others brutally.

Hundreds of thousands of Arabs were expelled from their homes and had their property stolen. How can peace be achieved without recognising that and doing something to fix it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

The mere fact that I disagree with you, doesn't mean that my comments are without context. What it means, is that they are things you don't want to hear.

No, Johnny, it means that you've trodden your normal path of context-light equivocation.
If it meant anything else, your arguments would have more validity, would be upheld by history.

As it is, they don't and they're not. That's nothing to do with you saying things I supposedly don't want to hear (rather antithetical to argument, wouldn't you say?), that's to do with you talking ahistoric crap.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You stated that your version of history was well settled, and accepted by all except right wing revisionists. The tenor of our discussion was my disagreement with your version.

Thus, the inference to be drawn from you comment, was that I was a right wing revisionist.

No, that's an inference that can be drawn, especially I suspect, by people who're sensitive to that sort of thing.

As I said, if your conscience takes you down that path, then tough. Just don't put words in my mouth that I haven't uttered. If I thought you had actually indulged in revisionism I'd call you on it plainly rather than through implication.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If military discipline was a major factor in the arab armies of the day, they'd likely have made a better showing against Isreal in the various wars.

Do you know what the main problem was?

I'll give you an opportunity to "google" an answer, and see if yours agrees with history, or has a "spin" to it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How about if they'd readmitted and armed the Palestinians?

How about, instead of what ifs, you concentrate on the thread in hand?

Just for once.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Hundreds of thousands of Arabs were expelled from their homes and had their property stolen. How can peace be achieved without recognising that, and doing something to fix it?

I think we should give them Serbia, teach those twats a lesson.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's a military truism that most armies become well prepared to fight the last war that they were involved in. Thus, you get things like the Maginot Line, the Cold War massing of tank armies on both sides of the Iron Curtain, etc.

Actually the truism is more accurately that most armies are well-equipped to fight the last war they were involved in, Iraq being an example. It isn't about personnel, so much as materiel. Conceptions can be changed, so can personnel deployments. Thinking of new uses for ordnance designed for another purpose, and then re-deploying it is more problematic.

One of the successes of the Israeli military, was/is the ability to think outside such boxes.

Inaccurate. It wasn't originally ability, it was necessity. A big difference, and one, for example, that the various insurgents in Iraq have benefitted from.
Where the IDF has ability now is anchored in the fact that they've never forgotten to the same extent as other modern armies have that a battle is not won purely by reacting, by weight of numbers or ordnance. It is won by thinking and then acting as appropriately to the situation as resources make possible.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I didn't realize that we'd had any discussions on strategy and tactics.

We've had a few over the last 4 years.

 

[Spion]

Do you know what the main problem was?

There were lots of 'problems' with the Arab armies, not least of which was a disadvantage in terms of numbers.

"By May 1948 the Haganah had mobilised and deployed 35,780 troops - 5,000-10,000 more than the combined troop strength of the regular Arab armies that invaded Palestine on 15-16 May . . . The Haganah's successor, the IDF, by July 1948 had 63,000 men under arms." (Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited - 2004 edition, p17, citing Pa'il, Meir, From the Haganah to the IDF, Tel Aviv, 1979, p285)

It would be fair to say also that the Haganah was led by people that had been planning for years to expel the Arabs. The Arab armies were reacting to events that took them by surprise

 

[ViolentPanda]

There were lots of 'problems' with the Arab armies, not least of which was a disadvantage in terms of numbers.

"By May 1948 the Haganah had mobilised and deployed 35,780 troops - 5,000-10,000 more than the combined troop strength of the regular Arab armies that invaded Palestine on 15-16 May . . . The Haganah's successor, the IDF, by July 1948 had 63,000 men under arms." (Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited - 2004 edition, p17, citing Pa'il, Meir, From the Haganah to the IDF, Tel Aviv, 1979, p285)

It would be fair to say also that the Haganah was led by people that had been planning for years to expel the Arabs. The Arab armies were reacting to events that took them by surprise

After the numbers issue, the biggest problem (IMO) was a lack of a more that nominally-unified command structure, so that deployments and orders had to be relayed through and ratified by the various defence ministries.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You haven't given any evidence at all of Arab leaders threatening extermination until after the Zionists had violently cleansed around 200 villages and several city quarters.

Even assuming that that had transpired, does that make it alright for the arab leaders to threaten extermination?

A bit out of proportion, don't you think, especially when dealing with a people who had just faced the threat of extermination within the preceding decade?

If the arabs were just spouting rhetoric, was that a well thought out avenue to pursue?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Where's your evidence, Johnny? I can't fathom why you persist in this line of argument despite a shred of evidence to back up your claim

Which line of argument: the one wherein I note that arab leaders threatened extermination?

It's not a line of argument, it's a fact.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No, Johnny, it means that you've trodden your normal path of context-light equivocation.
If it meant anything else, your arguments would have more validity, would be upheld by history.

History's not through yet, is it?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

, that's to do with you talking ahistoric crap.

No matter how much you try to equivocate it away, those arab leaders did say those things. Nothing 'ahistoric' about it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No, that's an inference that can be drawn, especially I suspect, by people who're sensitive to that sort of thing.

As I said, if your conscience takes you down that path, then tough. Just don't put words in my mouth that I haven't uttered. If I thought you had actually indulged in revisionism I'd call you on it plainly rather than through implication.

Either you're being dishonest, or else maybe logic just isn't your strong suit.

A: This area of history is well settled.

B: Those who think otherwise, are right wing revisionists.

C: You [i.e. JC] think otherwise.

D: ?

What is the next step in the logical progression, VP?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Do you know what the main problem was?
.

There were lots of problems, with the main one being that their armies were for shit.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

How about, instead of what ifs, you concentrate on the thread in hand?
.

But this whole discussion is about a 'what if'.

Were the arab leaders spouting rhetoric? The only way to pursue that question, is to engage in a little 'what if'.

You've gone on about how the generals wouldn't have committed atrocities. That's a type of 'what if'.

I've now presented you with a scenario wherein a massacre would have been possible. ie the readmission and arming of the palestinians, after an arab military victory against israel.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Actually the truism is more accurately that most armies are well-equipped to fight the last war they were involved in, Iraq being an example. It isn't about personnel, so much as materiel. .

Your trying to be pedantic here, is like a dog paddler trying to swim the Bosporus.

It's not about materiel, or not just about materiel, it's about war fighting doctrine.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Inaccurate. It wasn't originally ability, it was necessity.

Well, without the ability, even necessity couldn't make them do it...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

There were lots of 'problems' with the Arab armies, not least of which was a disadvantage in terms of numbers.

"By May 1948 the Haganah had mobilised and deployed 35,780 troops - 5,000-10,000 more than the combined troop strength of the regular Arab armies that invaded Palestine on 15-16 May . . . The Haganah's successor, the IDF, by July 1948 had 63,000 men under arms." (Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited - 2004 edition, p17, citing Pa'il, Meir, From the Haganah to the IDF, Tel Aviv, 1979, p285)

It would be fair to say also that the Haganah was led by people that had been planning for years to expel the Arabs. The Arab armies were reacting to events that took them by surprise

Transjordan's Arab Legion was considered the most effective Arab force. Armed, trained and commanded by British officers, this 8,000–12,000 strong force was organised in four infantry/mechanised regiments supported by some 40 artillery pieces and 75 armoured cars. Until January 1948, it was reinforced by the 3,000-strong Transjordanian Frontier Force.[88]

In 1948 Iraq had an army of 21,000 men in 12 brigades and the Iraqi Air Force had 100, mostly British, planes. Initially the Iraqis committed 3,000[89] to 5,000[citation needed] men to the war effort including four infantry brigades, one armoured battalion and support personnel. These forces were to operate under Jordanian guidance[90] During the first truce the Iraqis increased their force to about 10,000[91]. Ultimately, the Iraqi expeditionary force numbered around 15,000 to 18,000 men.[92]

In 1948 Egypt was able to put a maximum of around 40,000 men into the field, 80 percent of its military-age male population being unfit for military service and its embryonic logistics system being limited in its ability to support ground forces deployed beyond its borders. Initially, an expeditionary force of 10,000 men was sent to Palestine under the command of Maj. Gen. Ahmed Ali al-Mwawi. This force consisted of five infantry battalions, one armoured battalion equipped with British Mark IV and Matilda tanks, one battalion of sixteen 25-pounder guns, a battalion of eight 6-pounder guns and one medium-machine-gun battalion with supporting troops.

The Egyptian Air Force had over 30 Spitfires, 4 Hawker Hurricanes and 20 C47s modified into crude bombers.

By the time of the second truce the Egyptians had 20,000 men in the field in thirteen battalions equipped with 135 tanks, (...) and 90 artillery pieces.[94]

Syria had 12,000 soldiers at the beginning of the 1948 War grouped into three infantry brigades and an armoured force of approximately battalion size. The Syrian Air Force had fifty planes, the 10 newest of which were World War II-generation models.

The Lebanese army was the smallest of the Arab armies, consisting of only 3,500 soldiers.[96] Of these a token force of 1,000 was committed to the invasion.

Saudi Arabia sent a contingent of 800[98]–1,200[99] men to fight with Egyptian forces.

Yemen also committed a small expeditionary force to the war effort.

..............................

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War#Arab_forces

 

[ViolentPanda]

If the arabs were just spouting rhetoric, was that a well thought out avenue to pursue?

Is it ever?
"Act in haste, repent at leisure" and all that.