I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...

A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
invasion and occupation of Norway.

A Goebbels bio written by an Austrian ex prisoner of the
nazis (Victor Reimann) seemed to answer some questions I
posed earlier in this forum. One was the role of Prussian and
Frederick the great type of mythology. Although it wasn't
natural to Hitler, Goebbels invoked it very heavily when the
war started turning bad. He decided to be surprisingly
frank about war reversals to the public in order to mobilize
them a-la-Prussia at war. It really seemed to be effective,
although I wonder why so many German civilians committed
suicide as the western front rolled thru.

I asked how the intellectuals were seduced by Hitler, and it
was Goebbles who accomplished that, as one of the few educated
and wordly nazis. Hitler normally couldn't stand such folks, but
maybe Goebbles handicap made him less threatening.

After Strasser didn't accept Bismark's offer to be the the breakaway
nazi chancellor of Germany (he and Goebbels drove it's left wing)
Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate." I
don't follow the Goering jab; I thought his drug and other
indulgences took a pause in the 30s. Strasser later executed.

I also took flak here on the question of Hitlers seduction of
his inner circle, and the possible role of platonic "man love".
Speer said Hitler loved Mussolini and Speer rather than Eva B.
Neither returned the love. Now in this Goebbels book the
relationship is depicted as complete rapturous love of Hitler
by Goebbels, which was masterfully manipulated by Hitler.
Goebbels was extremely left wing but his diary showed being
courted by Hitler who wanted his propaganda skills. Victor
shows Hitler playing hard to get, and then pinpoints the
platonic "wedding", then the immediate cruel subordination
of Goebbels to not expect special treatment even after having
sacrificing his ideology.

Well I still don't get how a pasty kook like Hitler seduced
everyone. The book said even Goebbels real marriage was an
arrangement to suit Hitler, who wanted her companionship
without appearing to have a girlfriend. Goebbels saw his
wife as an inconvenience in his nonstop womanizing lifestyle.
I had hoped the Goebbels story would shed light because
he was relatively intellectual. But as Victor says, he had no
loyalties, whether to his ideology or family. He just wanted
to hook up with the meanest, ***kicking dude in the nation.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)

I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...

A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
invasion and occupation of Norway.

A Goebbels bio written by an Austrian ex prisoner of the
nazis (Victor Reimann) seemed to answer some questions I
posed earlier in this forum. One was the role of Prussian and
Frederick the great type of mythology. Although it wasn't
natural to Hitler, Goebbels invoked it very heavily when the
war started turning bad. He decided to be surprisingly
frank about war reversals to the public in order to mobilize
them a-la-Prussia at war. It really seemed to be effective,
although I wonder why so many German civilians committed
suicide as the western front rolled thru.

I asked how the intellectuals were seduced by Hitler, and it
was Goebbles who accomplished that, as one of the few educated
and wordly nazis. Hitler normally couldn't stand such folks, but
maybe Goebbles handicap made him less threatening.

After Strasser didn't accept Bismark's offer to be the the breakaway
nazi chancellor of Germany (he and Goebbels drove it's left wing)
Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate." I
don't follow the Goering jab; I thought his drug and other
indulgences took a pause in the 30s. Strasser later executed.

I also took flak here on the question of Hitlers seduction of
his inner circle, and the possible role of platonic "man love".
Speer said Hitler loved Mussolini and Speer rather than Eva B.
Neither returned the love. Now in this Goebbels book the
relationship is depicted as complete rapturous love of Hitler
by Goebbels, which was masterfully manipulated by Hitler.
Goebbels was extremely left wing but his diary showed being
courted by Hitler who wanted his propaganda skills. Victor
shows Hitler playing hard to get, and then pinpoints the
platonic "wedding", then the immediate cruel subordination
of Goebbels to not expect special treatment even after having
sacrificing his ideology.

Well I still don't get how a pasty kook like Hitler seduced
everyone. The book said even Goebbels real marriage was an
arrangement to suit Hitler, who wanted her companionship
without appearing to have a girlfriend. Goebbels saw his
wife as an inconvenience in his nonstop womanizing lifestyle.
I had hoped the Goebbels story would shed light because
he was relatively intellectual. But as Victor says, he had no
loyalties, whether to his ideology or family. He just wanted
to hook up with the meanest, ***kicking dude in the nation.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791->,
says...
>
> I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.
>

Now there's a view of history that's best described as 'skewed by
political bias'.

Hitler actually prohibited at least three people from receiving their
Nobel Prizes.

His chances of winning one are best described as remote.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)

I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...

A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
invasion and occupation of Norway.

A Goebbels bio written by an Austrian ex prisoner of the
nazis (Victor Reimann) seemed to answer some questions I
posed earlier in this forum. One was the role of Prussian and
Frederick the great type of mythology. Although it wasn't
natural to Hitler, Goebbels invoked it very heavily when the
war started turning bad. He decided to be surprisingly
frank about war reversals to the public in order to mobilize
them a-la-Prussia at war. It really seemed to be effective,
although I wonder why so many German civilians committed
suicide as the western front rolled thru.

I asked how the intellectuals were seduced by Hitler, and it
was Goebbles who accomplished that, as one of the few educated
and wordly nazis. Hitler normally couldn't stand such folks, but
maybe Goebbles handicap made him less threatening.

After Strasser didn't accept Bismark's offer to be the the breakaway
nazi chancellor of Germany (he and Goebbels drove it's left wing)
Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate." I
don't follow the Goering jab; I thought his drug and other
indulgences took a pause in the 30s. Strasser later executed.

I also took flak here on the question of Hitlers seduction of
his inner circle, and the possible role of platonic "man love".
Speer said Hitler loved Mussolini and Speer rather than Eva B.
Neither returned the love. Now in this Goebbels book the
relationship is depicted as complete rapturous love of Hitler
by Goebbels, which was masterfully manipulated by Hitler.
Goebbels was extremely left wing but his diary showed being
courted by Hitler who wanted his propaganda skills. Victor
shows Hitler playing hard to get, and then pinpoints the
platonic "wedding", then the immediate cruel subordination
of Goebbels to not expect special treatment even after having
sacrificing his ideology.

Well I still don't get how a pasty kook like Hitler seduced
everyone. The book said even Goebbels real marriage was an
arrangement to suit Hitler, who wanted her companionship
without appearing to have a girlfriend. Goebbels saw his
wife as an inconvenience in his nonstop womanizing lifestyle.
I had hoped the Goebbels story would shed light because
he was relatively intellectual. But as Victor says, he had no
loyalties, whether to his ideology or family. He just wanted
to hook up with the meanest, ***kicking dude in the nation.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791->,
says...
>
> I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.
>

Now there's a view of history that's best described as 'skewed by
political bias'.

Hitler actually prohibited at least three people from receiving their
Nobel Prizes.

His chances of winning one are best described as remote.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791-...
>I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.

The nomination was a hoax nomination, staged by an anti-fascist
to highlight absurdity. Details at

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/protesting-nobel-appeasement-prize.html .


There is a vast range of individuals and institutions that may nominate
candidates;
the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.

One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)

I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...

A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
invasion and occupation of Norway.

A Goebbels bio written by an Austrian ex prisoner of the
nazis (Victor Reimann) seemed to answer some questions I
posed earlier in this forum. One was the role of Prussian and
Frederick the great type of mythology. Although it wasn't
natural to Hitler, Goebbels invoked it very heavily when the
war started turning bad. He decided to be surprisingly
frank about war reversals to the public in order to mobilize
them a-la-Prussia at war. It really seemed to be effective,
although I wonder why so many German civilians committed
suicide as the western front rolled thru.

I asked how the intellectuals were seduced by Hitler, and it
was Goebbles who accomplished that, as one of the few educated
and wordly nazis. Hitler normally couldn't stand such folks, but
maybe Goebbles handicap made him less threatening.

After Strasser didn't accept Bismark's offer to be the the breakaway
nazi chancellor of Germany (he and Goebbels drove it's left wing)
Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate." I
don't follow the Goering jab; I thought his drug and other
indulgences took a pause in the 30s. Strasser later executed.

I also took flak here on the question of Hitlers seduction of
his inner circle, and the possible role of platonic "man love".
Speer said Hitler loved Mussolini and Speer rather than Eva B.
Neither returned the love. Now in this Goebbels book the
relationship is depicted as complete rapturous love of Hitler
by Goebbels, which was masterfully manipulated by Hitler.
Goebbels was extremely left wing but his diary showed being
courted by Hitler who wanted his propaganda skills. Victor
shows Hitler playing hard to get, and then pinpoints the
platonic "wedding", then the immediate cruel subordination
of Goebbels to not expect special treatment even after having
sacrificing his ideology.

Well I still don't get how a pasty kook like Hitler seduced
everyone. The book said even Goebbels real marriage was an
arrangement to suit Hitler, who wanted her companionship
without appearing to have a girlfriend. Goebbels saw his
wife as an inconvenience in his nonstop womanizing lifestyle.
I had hoped the Goebbels story would shed light because
he was relatively intellectual. But as Victor says, he had no
loyalties, whether to his ideology or family. He just wanted
to hook up with the meanest, ***kicking dude in the nation.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791->,
says...
>
> I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.
>

Now there's a view of history that's best described as 'skewed by
political bias'.

Hitler actually prohibited at least three people from receiving their
Nobel Prizes.

His chances of winning one are best described as remote.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791-...
>I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.

The nomination was a hoax nomination, staged by an anti-fascist
to highlight absurdity. Details at

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/protesting-nobel-appeasement-prize.html .


There is a vast range of individuals and institutions that may nominate
candidates;
the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.

One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

dumbstruck sayth:
> Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
> liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
> me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate."

Sorry, I omitted the word "a" clubfoot; that is, Goering as the pervert
and Goebbels the limping devil. This from the once second highest
nazi and friend of Goebbels. Leading up to that, the Austrian book
I mentioned detailed Goebbels transforming Berlin from a left to
a nazi stronghold by amazingly choreographed red baiting and
theatrical violence. Little limping Goebbels was physically fearless.

But I just gotta quote his lovey dovey side from the mid 1920's. I
sure didn't expect a romance novel in a biography called Goebbels.
Joseph made speeches saying Germany needed a ruthless Lenin,
and Hitler was that man if he shed influences of the right. Hitler
came to consult his left wing in industrial heartland... extracts:

Goeb diary: We will play the coy beauty there and lure Hitler into
our parlor... The spirit of socialism is on the march.
Hitler: Our task is to smash Bolshevism!... We must inherit Russia!
Goeb: I feel obliterated... Horrifying!
Goeb next Hitler visit: Tall, fit, full of life, I like him... I can feel my
heart beating to the bursting point... Hitler embraces me. Tears are
in his eyes. I feel something like true happiness... Hitler is great.
next meeting: This man can really shake you... I love him... Such
a hotheaded fellow...
author Victor Reimann: Goebbels was completely enchanted... It
was, in a sense, their wedding night. The next day the dowry was
discussed. ...reproaching... But Hitler pulled his punches; the loved
one sulks a little on account of the partners escapades, but in the
end everything is forgiven and forgotten.
Goeb at Hitler bday: ...I love you, because because you are great
and simple at the same time

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)

I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...

A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
invasion and occupation of Norway.

A Goebbels bio written by an Austrian ex prisoner of the
nazis (Victor Reimann) seemed to answer some questions I
posed earlier in this forum. One was the role of Prussian and
Frederick the great type of mythology. Although it wasn't
natural to Hitler, Goebbels invoked it very heavily when the
war started turning bad. He decided to be surprisingly
frank about war reversals to the public in order to mobilize
them a-la-Prussia at war. It really seemed to be effective,
although I wonder why so many German civilians committed
suicide as the western front rolled thru.

I asked how the intellectuals were seduced by Hitler, and it
was Goebbles who accomplished that, as one of the few educated
and wordly nazis. Hitler normally couldn't stand such folks, but
maybe Goebbles handicap made him less threatening.

After Strasser didn't accept Bismark's offer to be the the breakaway
nazi chancellor of Germany (he and Goebbels drove it's left wing)
Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate." I
don't follow the Goering jab; I thought his drug and other
indulgences took a pause in the 30s. Strasser later executed.

I also took flak here on the question of Hitlers seduction of
his inner circle, and the possible role of platonic "man love".
Speer said Hitler loved Mussolini and Speer rather than Eva B.
Neither returned the love. Now in this Goebbels book the
relationship is depicted as complete rapturous love of Hitler
by Goebbels, which was masterfully manipulated by Hitler.
Goebbels was extremely left wing but his diary showed being
courted by Hitler who wanted his propaganda skills. Victor
shows Hitler playing hard to get, and then pinpoints the
platonic "wedding", then the immediate cruel subordination
of Goebbels to not expect special treatment even after having
sacrificing his ideology.

Well I still don't get how a pasty kook like Hitler seduced
everyone. The book said even Goebbels real marriage was an
arrangement to suit Hitler, who wanted her companionship
without appearing to have a girlfriend. Goebbels saw his
wife as an inconvenience in his nonstop womanizing lifestyle.
I had hoped the Goebbels story would shed light because
he was relatively intellectual. But as Victor says, he had no
loyalties, whether to his ideology or family. He just wanted
to hook up with the meanest, ***kicking dude in the nation.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791->,
says...
>
> I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.
>

Now there's a view of history that's best described as 'skewed by
political bias'.

Hitler actually prohibited at least three people from receiving their
Nobel Prizes.

His chances of winning one are best described as remote.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791-...
>I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.

The nomination was a hoax nomination, staged by an anti-fascist
to highlight absurdity. Details at

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/protesting-nobel-appeasement-prize.html .


There is a vast range of individuals and institutions that may nominate
candidates;
the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.

One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

dumbstruck sayth:
> Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
> liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
> me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate."

Sorry, I omitted the word "a" clubfoot; that is, Goering as the pervert
and Goebbels the limping devil. This from the once second highest
nazi and friend of Goebbels. Leading up to that, the Austrian book
I mentioned detailed Goebbels transforming Berlin from a left to
a nazi stronghold by amazingly choreographed red baiting and
theatrical violence. Little limping Goebbels was physically fearless.

But I just gotta quote his lovey dovey side from the mid 1920's. I
sure didn't expect a romance novel in a biography called Goebbels.
Joseph made speeches saying Germany needed a ruthless Lenin,
and Hitler was that man if he shed influences of the right. Hitler
came to consult his left wing in industrial heartland... extracts:

Goeb diary: We will play the coy beauty there and lure Hitler into
our parlor... The spirit of socialism is on the march.
Hitler: Our task is to smash Bolshevism!... We must inherit Russia!
Goeb: I feel obliterated... Horrifying!
Goeb next Hitler visit: Tall, fit, full of life, I like him... I can feel my
heart beating to the bursting point... Hitler embraces me. Tears are
in his eyes. I feel something like true happiness... Hitler is great.
next meeting: This man can really shake you... I love him... Such
a hotheaded fellow...
author Victor Reimann: Goebbels was completely enchanted... It
was, in a sense, their wedding night. The next day the dowry was
discussed. ...reproaching... But Hitler pulled his punches; the loved
one sulks a little on account of the partners escapades, but in the
end everything is forgiven and forgotten.
Goeb at Hitler bday: ...I love you, because because you are great
and simple at the same time

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:0d186f50-f2c5-4e65-8377-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations
>> can
>> of course express more or less original worldviews or political
>> convictions;
>> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed
>> for.
>>
>> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
> accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
> bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
> to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
> by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
> should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

Sry, do not get what you are on about.

IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.

"Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.

"This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
instance"

Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)

I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...

A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
invasion and occupation of Norway.

A Goebbels bio written by an Austrian ex prisoner of the
nazis (Victor Reimann) seemed to answer some questions I
posed earlier in this forum. One was the role of Prussian and
Frederick the great type of mythology. Although it wasn't
natural to Hitler, Goebbels invoked it very heavily when the
war started turning bad. He decided to be surprisingly
frank about war reversals to the public in order to mobilize
them a-la-Prussia at war. It really seemed to be effective,
although I wonder why so many German civilians committed
suicide as the western front rolled thru.

I asked how the intellectuals were seduced by Hitler, and it
was Goebbles who accomplished that, as one of the few educated
and wordly nazis. Hitler normally couldn't stand such folks, but
maybe Goebbles handicap made him less threatening.

After Strasser didn't accept Bismark's offer to be the the breakaway
nazi chancellor of Germany (he and Goebbels drove it's left wing)
Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate." I
don't follow the Goering jab; I thought his drug and other
indulgences took a pause in the 30s. Strasser later executed.

I also took flak here on the question of Hitlers seduction of
his inner circle, and the possible role of platonic "man love".
Speer said Hitler loved Mussolini and Speer rather than Eva B.
Neither returned the love. Now in this Goebbels book the
relationship is depicted as complete rapturous love of Hitler
by Goebbels, which was masterfully manipulated by Hitler.
Goebbels was extremely left wing but his diary showed being
courted by Hitler who wanted his propaganda skills. Victor
shows Hitler playing hard to get, and then pinpoints the
platonic "wedding", then the immediate cruel subordination
of Goebbels to not expect special treatment even after having
sacrificing his ideology.

Well I still don't get how a pasty kook like Hitler seduced
everyone. The book said even Goebbels real marriage was an
arrangement to suit Hitler, who wanted her companionship
without appearing to have a girlfriend. Goebbels saw his
wife as an inconvenience in his nonstop womanizing lifestyle.
I had hoped the Goebbels story would shed light because
he was relatively intellectual. But as Victor says, he had no
loyalties, whether to his ideology or family. He just wanted
to hook up with the meanest, ***kicking dude in the nation.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791->,
says...
>
> I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.
>

Now there's a view of history that's best described as 'skewed by
political bias'.

Hitler actually prohibited at least three people from receiving their
Nobel Prizes.

His chances of winning one are best described as remote.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791-...
>I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.

The nomination was a hoax nomination, staged by an anti-fascist
to highlight absurdity. Details at

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/protesting-nobel-appeasement-prize.html .


There is a vast range of individuals and institutions that may nominate
candidates;
the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.

One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

dumbstruck sayth:
> Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
> liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
> me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate."

Sorry, I omitted the word "a" clubfoot; that is, Goering as the pervert
and Goebbels the limping devil. This from the once second highest
nazi and friend of Goebbels. Leading up to that, the Austrian book
I mentioned detailed Goebbels transforming Berlin from a left to
a nazi stronghold by amazingly choreographed red baiting and
theatrical violence. Little limping Goebbels was physically fearless.

But I just gotta quote his lovey dovey side from the mid 1920's. I
sure didn't expect a romance novel in a biography called Goebbels.
Joseph made speeches saying Germany needed a ruthless Lenin,
and Hitler was that man if he shed influences of the right. Hitler
came to consult his left wing in industrial heartland... extracts:

Goeb diary: We will play the coy beauty there and lure Hitler into
our parlor... The spirit of socialism is on the march.
Hitler: Our task is to smash Bolshevism!... We must inherit Russia!
Goeb: I feel obliterated... Horrifying!
Goeb next Hitler visit: Tall, fit, full of life, I like him... I can feel my
heart beating to the bursting point... Hitler embraces me. Tears are
in his eyes. I feel something like true happiness... Hitler is great.
next meeting: This man can really shake you... I love him... Such
a hotheaded fellow...
author Victor Reimann: Goebbels was completely enchanted... It
was, in a sense, their wedding night. The next day the dowry was
discussed. ...reproaching... But Hitler pulled his punches; the loved
one sulks a little on account of the partners escapades, but in the
end everything is forgiven and forgotten.
Goeb at Hitler bday: ...I love you, because because you are great
and simple at the same time

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:0d186f50-f2c5-4e65-8377-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations
>> can
>> of course express more or less original worldviews or political
>> convictions;
>> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed
>> for.
>>
>> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
> accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
> bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
> to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
> by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
> should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

Sry, do not get what you are on about.

IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.

"Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.

"This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
instance"

Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>
> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>
> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
> instance"
>
> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
with high expectations of norseland. But to throw one more crumb
to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
even Switzerland may have felt. William Shirer used to travel between
Berlin and his family in Switzerland, and to his eye the Swiss flatlands
looked about to be overrun. Was his only false invasion prediction.

On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded. But instead of
Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning who was one of the
heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office. I believe he had
renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
accomplishment toward peace. It's not that hard compared with
evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever). Let's
move the example to Denmark to illustrate the principle. Nobel the
Swede gives a bunch of money to Danes to choose the physics prize.
Like any profiligate son of a bilionaire, Danes gain a bigger sense of
entitlement than responsibility, then waste it on banal kudos awards.

Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
adding salt to a plant killed it. Say there is a blind and deaf science
project student in Peru who should get some gesture - give a prize,
for his dead plant which was fed sugar. Happy Dane committeemen.

Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y who invented general
codebreak principles gives up. Finally Denmark gets invaded by Nazi's
due to their lack of radar and codebreaking. Bottom line, the peace or
any other delegated nobel prize should be as serious as the core group
and above all don't promote false, intellectually flabby peace concepts.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)

I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...

A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
invasion and occupation of Norway.

A Goebbels bio written by an Austrian ex prisoner of the
nazis (Victor Reimann) seemed to answer some questions I
posed earlier in this forum. One was the role of Prussian and
Frederick the great type of mythology. Although it wasn't
natural to Hitler, Goebbels invoked it very heavily when the
war started turning bad. He decided to be surprisingly
frank about war reversals to the public in order to mobilize
them a-la-Prussia at war. It really seemed to be effective,
although I wonder why so many German civilians committed
suicide as the western front rolled thru.

I asked how the intellectuals were seduced by Hitler, and it
was Goebbles who accomplished that, as one of the few educated
and wordly nazis. Hitler normally couldn't stand such folks, but
maybe Goebbles handicap made him less threatening.

After Strasser didn't accept Bismark's offer to be the the breakaway
nazi chancellor of Germany (he and Goebbels drove it's left wing)
Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate." I
don't follow the Goering jab; I thought his drug and other
indulgences took a pause in the 30s. Strasser later executed.

I also took flak here on the question of Hitlers seduction of
his inner circle, and the possible role of platonic "man love".
Speer said Hitler loved Mussolini and Speer rather than Eva B.
Neither returned the love. Now in this Goebbels book the
relationship is depicted as complete rapturous love of Hitler
by Goebbels, which was masterfully manipulated by Hitler.
Goebbels was extremely left wing but his diary showed being
courted by Hitler who wanted his propaganda skills. Victor
shows Hitler playing hard to get, and then pinpoints the
platonic "wedding", then the immediate cruel subordination
of Goebbels to not expect special treatment even after having
sacrificing his ideology.

Well I still don't get how a pasty kook like Hitler seduced
everyone. The book said even Goebbels real marriage was an
arrangement to suit Hitler, who wanted her companionship
without appearing to have a girlfriend. Goebbels saw his
wife as an inconvenience in his nonstop womanizing lifestyle.
I had hoped the Goebbels story would shed light because
he was relatively intellectual. But as Victor says, he had no
loyalties, whether to his ideology or family. He just wanted
to hook up with the meanest, ***kicking dude in the nation.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791->,
says...
>
> I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.
>

Now there's a view of history that's best described as 'skewed by
political bias'.

Hitler actually prohibited at least three people from receiving their
Nobel Prizes.

His chances of winning one are best described as remote.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791-...
>I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.

The nomination was a hoax nomination, staged by an anti-fascist
to highlight absurdity. Details at

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/protesting-nobel-appeasement-prize.html .


There is a vast range of individuals and institutions that may nominate
candidates;
the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.

One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

dumbstruck sayth:
> Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
> liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
> me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate."

Sorry, I omitted the word "a" clubfoot; that is, Goering as the pervert
and Goebbels the limping devil. This from the once second highest
nazi and friend of Goebbels. Leading up to that, the Austrian book
I mentioned detailed Goebbels transforming Berlin from a left to
a nazi stronghold by amazingly choreographed red baiting and
theatrical violence. Little limping Goebbels was physically fearless.

But I just gotta quote his lovey dovey side from the mid 1920's. I
sure didn't expect a romance novel in a biography called Goebbels.
Joseph made speeches saying Germany needed a ruthless Lenin,
and Hitler was that man if he shed influences of the right. Hitler
came to consult his left wing in industrial heartland... extracts:

Goeb diary: We will play the coy beauty there and lure Hitler into
our parlor... The spirit of socialism is on the march.
Hitler: Our task is to smash Bolshevism!... We must inherit Russia!
Goeb: I feel obliterated... Horrifying!
Goeb next Hitler visit: Tall, fit, full of life, I like him... I can feel my
heart beating to the bursting point... Hitler embraces me. Tears are
in his eyes. I feel something like true happiness... Hitler is great.
next meeting: This man can really shake you... I love him... Such
a hotheaded fellow...
author Victor Reimann: Goebbels was completely enchanted... It
was, in a sense, their wedding night. The next day the dowry was
discussed. ...reproaching... But Hitler pulled his punches; the loved
one sulks a little on account of the partners escapades, but in the
end everything is forgiven and forgotten.
Goeb at Hitler bday: ...I love you, because because you are great
and simple at the same time

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:0d186f50-f2c5-4e65-8377-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations
>> can
>> of course express more or less original worldviews or political
>> convictions;
>> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed
>> for.
>>
>> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
> accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
> bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
> to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
> by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
> should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

Sry, do not get what you are on about.

IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.

"Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.

"This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
instance"

Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>
> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>
> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
> instance"
>
> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
with high expectations of norseland. But to throw one more crumb
to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
even Switzerland may have felt. William Shirer used to travel between
Berlin and his family in Switzerland, and to his eye the Swiss flatlands
looked about to be overrun. Was his only false invasion prediction.

On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded. But instead of
Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning who was one of the
heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office. I believe he had
renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
accomplishment toward peace. It's not that hard compared with
evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever). Let's
move the example to Denmark to illustrate the principle. Nobel the
Swede gives a bunch of money to Danes to choose the physics prize.
Like any profiligate son of a bilionaire, Danes gain a bigger sense of
entitlement than responsibility, then waste it on banal kudos awards.

Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
adding salt to a plant killed it. Say there is a blind and deaf science
project student in Peru who should get some gesture - give a prize,
for his dead plant which was fed sugar. Happy Dane committeemen.

Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y who invented general
codebreak principles gives up. Finally Denmark gets invaded by Nazi's
due to their lack of radar and codebreaking. Bottom line, the peace or
any other delegated nobel prize should be as serious as the core group
and above all don't promote false, intellectually flabby peace concepts.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> wrote in message
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...

> Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
> her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
> adding salt to a plant killed it. . . .
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
> recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y . . .

There is not much secret about how Nobel science prizes are
actually awarded (as distinct from nominators' lobbying efforts)
since investigations of this topic in the 1970s by Eugene
Garfield and Harriet Zuckerman. Garfield (founder of the
Institute of Scientific Information and the "citation index") got
to be very accurate in predicting future Nobel awards.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)

I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...

A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
invasion and occupation of Norway.

A Goebbels bio written by an Austrian ex prisoner of the
nazis (Victor Reimann) seemed to answer some questions I
posed earlier in this forum. One was the role of Prussian and
Frederick the great type of mythology. Although it wasn't
natural to Hitler, Goebbels invoked it very heavily when the
war started turning bad. He decided to be surprisingly
frank about war reversals to the public in order to mobilize
them a-la-Prussia at war. It really seemed to be effective,
although I wonder why so many German civilians committed
suicide as the western front rolled thru.

I asked how the intellectuals were seduced by Hitler, and it
was Goebbles who accomplished that, as one of the few educated
and wordly nazis. Hitler normally couldn't stand such folks, but
maybe Goebbles handicap made him less threatening.

After Strasser didn't accept Bismark's offer to be the the breakaway
nazi chancellor of Germany (he and Goebbels drove it's left wing)
Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate." I
don't follow the Goering jab; I thought his drug and other
indulgences took a pause in the 30s. Strasser later executed.

I also took flak here on the question of Hitlers seduction of
his inner circle, and the possible role of platonic "man love".
Speer said Hitler loved Mussolini and Speer rather than Eva B.
Neither returned the love. Now in this Goebbels book the
relationship is depicted as complete rapturous love of Hitler
by Goebbels, which was masterfully manipulated by Hitler.
Goebbels was extremely left wing but his diary showed being
courted by Hitler who wanted his propaganda skills. Victor
shows Hitler playing hard to get, and then pinpoints the
platonic "wedding", then the immediate cruel subordination
of Goebbels to not expect special treatment even after having
sacrificing his ideology.

Well I still don't get how a pasty kook like Hitler seduced
everyone. The book said even Goebbels real marriage was an
arrangement to suit Hitler, who wanted her companionship
without appearing to have a girlfriend. Goebbels saw his
wife as an inconvenience in his nonstop womanizing lifestyle.
I had hoped the Goebbels story would shed light because
he was relatively intellectual. But as Victor says, he had no
loyalties, whether to his ideology or family. He just wanted
to hook up with the meanest, ***kicking dude in the nation.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791->,
says...
>
> I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.
>

Now there's a view of history that's best described as 'skewed by
political bias'.

Hitler actually prohibited at least three people from receiving their
Nobel Prizes.

His chances of winning one are best described as remote.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791-...
>I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.

The nomination was a hoax nomination, staged by an anti-fascist
to highlight absurdity. Details at

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/protesting-nobel-appeasement-prize.html .


There is a vast range of individuals and institutions that may nominate
candidates;
the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.

One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

dumbstruck sayth:
> Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
> liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
> me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate."

Sorry, I omitted the word "a" clubfoot; that is, Goering as the pervert
and Goebbels the limping devil. This from the once second highest
nazi and friend of Goebbels. Leading up to that, the Austrian book
I mentioned detailed Goebbels transforming Berlin from a left to
a nazi stronghold by amazingly choreographed red baiting and
theatrical violence. Little limping Goebbels was physically fearless.

But I just gotta quote his lovey dovey side from the mid 1920's. I
sure didn't expect a romance novel in a biography called Goebbels.
Joseph made speeches saying Germany needed a ruthless Lenin,
and Hitler was that man if he shed influences of the right. Hitler
came to consult his left wing in industrial heartland... extracts:

Goeb diary: We will play the coy beauty there and lure Hitler into
our parlor... The spirit of socialism is on the march.
Hitler: Our task is to smash Bolshevism!... We must inherit Russia!
Goeb: I feel obliterated... Horrifying!
Goeb next Hitler visit: Tall, fit, full of life, I like him... I can feel my
heart beating to the bursting point... Hitler embraces me. Tears are
in his eyes. I feel something like true happiness... Hitler is great.
next meeting: This man can really shake you... I love him... Such
a hotheaded fellow...
author Victor Reimann: Goebbels was completely enchanted... It
was, in a sense, their wedding night. The next day the dowry was
discussed. ...reproaching... But Hitler pulled his punches; the loved
one sulks a little on account of the partners escapades, but in the
end everything is forgiven and forgotten.
Goeb at Hitler bday: ...I love you, because because you are great
and simple at the same time

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:0d186f50-f2c5-4e65-8377-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations
>> can
>> of course express more or less original worldviews or political
>> convictions;
>> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed
>> for.
>>
>> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
> accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
> bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
> to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
> by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
> should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

Sry, do not get what you are on about.

IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.

"Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.

"This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
instance"

Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>
> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>
> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
> instance"
>
> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
with high expectations of norseland. But to throw one more crumb
to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
even Switzerland may have felt. William Shirer used to travel between
Berlin and his family in Switzerland, and to his eye the Swiss flatlands
looked about to be overrun. Was his only false invasion prediction.

On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded. But instead of
Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning who was one of the
heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office. I believe he had
renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
accomplishment toward peace. It's not that hard compared with
evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever). Let's
move the example to Denmark to illustrate the principle. Nobel the
Swede gives a bunch of money to Danes to choose the physics prize.
Like any profiligate son of a bilionaire, Danes gain a bigger sense of
entitlement than responsibility, then waste it on banal kudos awards.

Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
adding salt to a plant killed it. Say there is a blind and deaf science
project student in Peru who should get some gesture - give a prize,
for his dead plant which was fed sugar. Happy Dane committeemen.

Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y who invented general
codebreak principles gives up. Finally Denmark gets invaded by Nazi's
due to their lack of radar and codebreaking. Bottom line, the peace or
any other delegated nobel prize should be as serious as the core group
and above all don't promote false, intellectually flabby peace concepts.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> wrote in message
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...

> Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
> her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
> adding salt to a plant killed it. . . .
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
> recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y . . .

There is not much secret about how Nobel science prizes are
actually awarded (as distinct from nominators' lobbying efforts)
since investigations of this topic in the 1970s by Eugene
Garfield and Harriet Zuckerman. Garfield (founder of the
Institute of Scientific Information and the "citation index") got
to be very accurate in predicting future Nobel awards.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
>> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>>
>> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
>> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
>> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>>
>> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize
>> for
>> instance"
>>
>> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
>> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.
>
> Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
> with high expectations of norseland.

Sry, did not intend to impugn your loyalties.

But to throw one more crumb
> to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
> even Switzerland may have felt.

We know on the basis of historical experience exactly how threatened they
felt.

>
> On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded.

Not many of them.
Depending on POV, it would be either Kissinger or Arafat. Or both.

But instead of
> Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
> German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning

Was he nominated?

> who was one of the heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office.

Among persons of power, I think sympathies and antipathies wrt. Hitler were
pretty evenly spread. A lot of centre and right-of-centre politicians - more
afraid of bolshevism than loss of democracy - were pretty enthusiastic about
the new Strong Man in Germany and his handling of trade unions, leftis
parties and workers in general. Very few would have had the foresight to
recognize keeping Hitler out of office for the (potential) peacekeeping move
that would have been.


I believe he had
> renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.

> Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> accomplishment toward peace.

Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
(Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

It's not that hard compared with
> evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever).

A very different exercise. One is qualitative, the other is quantitative.
The latter is fine for computers, the former still requires a human brain.

> Let's move the example to Denmark .....
> Say there is a physics student in Tibet .....
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X .....

If I read you right - take all caveats - you propose political criteria for
the Peace Prize; and political in the sense of Staatspolitik,
(international)
power brokerage driven by the demands of the day.
The few times that has been tried, the result has usually been rather
disappointing nominations.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)

I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...

A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
invasion and occupation of Norway.

A Goebbels bio written by an Austrian ex prisoner of the
nazis (Victor Reimann) seemed to answer some questions I
posed earlier in this forum. One was the role of Prussian and
Frederick the great type of mythology. Although it wasn't
natural to Hitler, Goebbels invoked it very heavily when the
war started turning bad. He decided to be surprisingly
frank about war reversals to the public in order to mobilize
them a-la-Prussia at war. It really seemed to be effective,
although I wonder why so many German civilians committed
suicide as the western front rolled thru.

I asked how the intellectuals were seduced by Hitler, and it
was Goebbles who accomplished that, as one of the few educated
and wordly nazis. Hitler normally couldn't stand such folks, but
maybe Goebbles handicap made him less threatening.

After Strasser didn't accept Bismark's offer to be the the breakaway
nazi chancellor of Germany (he and Goebbels drove it's left wing)
Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate." I
don't follow the Goering jab; I thought his drug and other
indulgences took a pause in the 30s. Strasser later executed.

I also took flak here on the question of Hitlers seduction of
his inner circle, and the possible role of platonic "man love".
Speer said Hitler loved Mussolini and Speer rather than Eva B.
Neither returned the love. Now in this Goebbels book the
relationship is depicted as complete rapturous love of Hitler
by Goebbels, which was masterfully manipulated by Hitler.
Goebbels was extremely left wing but his diary showed being
courted by Hitler who wanted his propaganda skills. Victor
shows Hitler playing hard to get, and then pinpoints the
platonic "wedding", then the immediate cruel subordination
of Goebbels to not expect special treatment even after having
sacrificing his ideology.

Well I still don't get how a pasty kook like Hitler seduced
everyone. The book said even Goebbels real marriage was an
arrangement to suit Hitler, who wanted her companionship
without appearing to have a girlfriend. Goebbels saw his
wife as an inconvenience in his nonstop womanizing lifestyle.
I had hoped the Goebbels story would shed light because
he was relatively intellectual. But as Victor says, he had no
loyalties, whether to his ideology or family. He just wanted
to hook up with the meanest, ***kicking dude in the nation.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791->,
says...
>
> I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.
>

Now there's a view of history that's best described as 'skewed by
political bias'.

Hitler actually prohibited at least three people from receiving their
Nobel Prizes.

His chances of winning one are best described as remote.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791-...
>I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.

The nomination was a hoax nomination, staged by an anti-fascist
to highlight absurdity. Details at

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/protesting-nobel-appeasement-prize.html .


There is a vast range of individuals and institutions that may nominate
candidates;
the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.

One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

dumbstruck sayth:
> Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
> liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
> me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate."

Sorry, I omitted the word "a" clubfoot; that is, Goering as the pervert
and Goebbels the limping devil. This from the once second highest
nazi and friend of Goebbels. Leading up to that, the Austrian book
I mentioned detailed Goebbels transforming Berlin from a left to
a nazi stronghold by amazingly choreographed red baiting and
theatrical violence. Little limping Goebbels was physically fearless.

But I just gotta quote his lovey dovey side from the mid 1920's. I
sure didn't expect a romance novel in a biography called Goebbels.
Joseph made speeches saying Germany needed a ruthless Lenin,
and Hitler was that man if he shed influences of the right. Hitler
came to consult his left wing in industrial heartland... extracts:

Goeb diary: We will play the coy beauty there and lure Hitler into
our parlor... The spirit of socialism is on the march.
Hitler: Our task is to smash Bolshevism!... We must inherit Russia!
Goeb: I feel obliterated... Horrifying!
Goeb next Hitler visit: Tall, fit, full of life, I like him... I can feel my
heart beating to the bursting point... Hitler embraces me. Tears are
in his eyes. I feel something like true happiness... Hitler is great.
next meeting: This man can really shake you... I love him... Such
a hotheaded fellow...
author Victor Reimann: Goebbels was completely enchanted... It
was, in a sense, their wedding night. The next day the dowry was
discussed. ...reproaching... But Hitler pulled his punches; the loved
one sulks a little on account of the partners escapades, but in the
end everything is forgiven and forgotten.
Goeb at Hitler bday: ...I love you, because because you are great
and simple at the same time

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:0d186f50-f2c5-4e65-8377-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations
>> can
>> of course express more or less original worldviews or political
>> convictions;
>> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed
>> for.
>>
>> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
> accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
> bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
> to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
> by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
> should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

Sry, do not get what you are on about.

IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.

"Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.

"This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
instance"

Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>
> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>
> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
> instance"
>
> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
with high expectations of norseland. But to throw one more crumb
to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
even Switzerland may have felt. William Shirer used to travel between
Berlin and his family in Switzerland, and to his eye the Swiss flatlands
looked about to be overrun. Was his only false invasion prediction.

On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded. But instead of
Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning who was one of the
heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office. I believe he had
renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
accomplishment toward peace. It's not that hard compared with
evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever). Let's
move the example to Denmark to illustrate the principle. Nobel the
Swede gives a bunch of money to Danes to choose the physics prize.
Like any profiligate son of a bilionaire, Danes gain a bigger sense of
entitlement than responsibility, then waste it on banal kudos awards.

Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
adding salt to a plant killed it. Say there is a blind and deaf science
project student in Peru who should get some gesture - give a prize,
for his dead plant which was fed sugar. Happy Dane committeemen.

Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y who invented general
codebreak principles gives up. Finally Denmark gets invaded by Nazi's
due to their lack of radar and codebreaking. Bottom line, the peace or
any other delegated nobel prize should be as serious as the core group
and above all don't promote false, intellectually flabby peace concepts.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> wrote in message
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...

> Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
> her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
> adding salt to a plant killed it. . . .
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
> recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y . . .

There is not much secret about how Nobel science prizes are
actually awarded (as distinct from nominators' lobbying efforts)
since investigations of this topic in the 1970s by Eugene
Garfield and Harriet Zuckerman. Garfield (founder of the
Institute of Scientific Information and the "citation index") got
to be very accurate in predicting future Nobel awards.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
>> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>>
>> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
>> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
>> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>>
>> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize
>> for
>> instance"
>>
>> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
>> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.
>
> Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
> with high expectations of norseland.

Sry, did not intend to impugn your loyalties.

But to throw one more crumb
> to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
> even Switzerland may have felt.

We know on the basis of historical experience exactly how threatened they
felt.

>
> On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded.

Not many of them.
Depending on POV, it would be either Kissinger or Arafat. Or both.

But instead of
> Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
> German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning

Was he nominated?

> who was one of the heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office.

Among persons of power, I think sympathies and antipathies wrt. Hitler were
pretty evenly spread. A lot of centre and right-of-centre politicians - more
afraid of bolshevism than loss of democracy - were pretty enthusiastic about
the new Strong Man in Germany and his handling of trade unions, leftis
parties and workers in general. Very few would have had the foresight to
recognize keeping Hitler out of office for the (potential) peacekeeping move
that would have been.


I believe he had
> renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.

> Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> accomplishment toward peace.

Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
(Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

It's not that hard compared with
> evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever).

A very different exercise. One is qualitative, the other is quantitative.
The latter is fine for computers, the former still requires a human brain.

> Let's move the example to Denmark .....
> Say there is a physics student in Tibet .....
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X .....

If I read you right - take all caveats - you propose political criteria for
the Peace Prize; and political in the sense of Staatspolitik,
(international)
power brokerage driven by the demands of the day.
The few times that has been tried, the result has usually been rather
disappointing nominations.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:47:43 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> "dumbstruck" sayth
> > renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> > other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> > impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...
>
> Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.
>
> > Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> > accomplishment toward peace.
>
> Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
> the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
> structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
> (Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

OK, I'll make a last try to get this back on my original track. I posted the
absurd direction Norway was headed for 1939 Peace prize discussed in
http://www.booktv.org/Series/AW/After-Words.aspx (then go to page
bottom for link: "Peace, They Say: A History of the Nobel Peace Prize,
The Most Famous and Controversial Prize in the World" which is too long
to pass this news group line length filters). That author is in your camp.

Your earlier link (thanks) reinforced this by saying the nomination of Hitler
for Peace was aimed to ridicule of the inevitable move towards Chamberlain
as Prize finalist. It's a shame the nominators were unable to convene due
to Chamberlains war (which soon engulfed Norway) which might have
publicized the weirdness of this Norway committee's continuing philosophy.

The Norway committee philosophy challenges Alfred Nobel's written intent,
as detailed by "Peace Prize Follies" (which maybe over criticizes Alfred)
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=1235
It was my mistake to think this was just a phenomena of recent decades,
and my mistake to think 1939 was a flukey exception. Apparently that
one (delegated) branch of the prize has always been perversely run, yet
thrives because the intentions and subject area ARE genuinely important.

My observations from the Goebbels book may not gel exactly into the
Prize discussion, but to me brought to life the heroic struggle of some
German figures to counter the populism of undemocratic left and right,
as well as the subversion by Goebbels. Hmm, I see a bad review for it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sw1oAAAAMAAJ&sitesec=reviews

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)

I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...

A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
invasion and occupation of Norway.

A Goebbels bio written by an Austrian ex prisoner of the
nazis (Victor Reimann) seemed to answer some questions I
posed earlier in this forum. One was the role of Prussian and
Frederick the great type of mythology. Although it wasn't
natural to Hitler, Goebbels invoked it very heavily when the
war started turning bad. He decided to be surprisingly
frank about war reversals to the public in order to mobilize
them a-la-Prussia at war. It really seemed to be effective,
although I wonder why so many German civilians committed
suicide as the western front rolled thru.

I asked how the intellectuals were seduced by Hitler, and it
was Goebbles who accomplished that, as one of the few educated
and wordly nazis. Hitler normally couldn't stand such folks, but
maybe Goebbles handicap made him less threatening.

After Strasser didn't accept Bismark's offer to be the the breakaway
nazi chancellor of Germany (he and Goebbels drove it's left wing)
Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate." I
don't follow the Goering jab; I thought his drug and other
indulgences took a pause in the 30s. Strasser later executed.

I also took flak here on the question of Hitlers seduction of
his inner circle, and the possible role of platonic "man love".
Speer said Hitler loved Mussolini and Speer rather than Eva B.
Neither returned the love. Now in this Goebbels book the
relationship is depicted as complete rapturous love of Hitler
by Goebbels, which was masterfully manipulated by Hitler.
Goebbels was extremely left wing but his diary showed being
courted by Hitler who wanted his propaganda skills. Victor
shows Hitler playing hard to get, and then pinpoints the
platonic "wedding", then the immediate cruel subordination
of Goebbels to not expect special treatment even after having
sacrificing his ideology.

Well I still don't get how a pasty kook like Hitler seduced
everyone. The book said even Goebbels real marriage was an
arrangement to suit Hitler, who wanted her companionship
without appearing to have a girlfriend. Goebbels saw his
wife as an inconvenience in his nonstop womanizing lifestyle.
I had hoped the Goebbels story would shed light because
he was relatively intellectual. But as Victor says, he had no
loyalties, whether to his ideology or family. He just wanted
to hook up with the meanest, ***kicking dude in the nation.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791->,
says...
>
> I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.
>

Now there's a view of history that's best described as 'skewed by
political bias'.

Hitler actually prohibited at least three people from receiving their
Nobel Prizes.

His chances of winning one are best described as remote.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791-...
>I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.

The nomination was a hoax nomination, staged by an anti-fascist
to highlight absurdity. Details at

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/protesting-nobel-appeasement-prize.html .


There is a vast range of individuals and institutions that may nominate
candidates;
the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.

One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

dumbstruck sayth:
> Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
> liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
> me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate."

Sorry, I omitted the word "a" clubfoot; that is, Goering as the pervert
and Goebbels the limping devil. This from the once second highest
nazi and friend of Goebbels. Leading up to that, the Austrian book
I mentioned detailed Goebbels transforming Berlin from a left to
a nazi stronghold by amazingly choreographed red baiting and
theatrical violence. Little limping Goebbels was physically fearless.

But I just gotta quote his lovey dovey side from the mid 1920's. I
sure didn't expect a romance novel in a biography called Goebbels.
Joseph made speeches saying Germany needed a ruthless Lenin,
and Hitler was that man if he shed influences of the right. Hitler
came to consult his left wing in industrial heartland... extracts:

Goeb diary: We will play the coy beauty there and lure Hitler into
our parlor... The spirit of socialism is on the march.
Hitler: Our task is to smash Bolshevism!... We must inherit Russia!
Goeb: I feel obliterated... Horrifying!
Goeb next Hitler visit: Tall, fit, full of life, I like him... I can feel my
heart beating to the bursting point... Hitler embraces me. Tears are
in his eyes. I feel something like true happiness... Hitler is great.
next meeting: This man can really shake you... I love him... Such
a hotheaded fellow...
author Victor Reimann: Goebbels was completely enchanted... It
was, in a sense, their wedding night. The next day the dowry was
discussed. ...reproaching... But Hitler pulled his punches; the loved
one sulks a little on account of the partners escapades, but in the
end everything is forgiven and forgotten.
Goeb at Hitler bday: ...I love you, because because you are great
and simple at the same time

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:0d186f50-f2c5-4e65-8377-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations
>> can
>> of course express more or less original worldviews or political
>> convictions;
>> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed
>> for.
>>
>> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
> accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
> bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
> to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
> by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
> should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

Sry, do not get what you are on about.

IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.

"Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.

"This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
instance"

Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>
> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>
> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
> instance"
>
> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
with high expectations of norseland. But to throw one more crumb
to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
even Switzerland may have felt. William Shirer used to travel between
Berlin and his family in Switzerland, and to his eye the Swiss flatlands
looked about to be overrun. Was his only false invasion prediction.

On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded. But instead of
Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning who was one of the
heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office. I believe he had
renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
accomplishment toward peace. It's not that hard compared with
evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever). Let's
move the example to Denmark to illustrate the principle. Nobel the
Swede gives a bunch of money to Danes to choose the physics prize.
Like any profiligate son of a bilionaire, Danes gain a bigger sense of
entitlement than responsibility, then waste it on banal kudos awards.

Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
adding salt to a plant killed it. Say there is a blind and deaf science
project student in Peru who should get some gesture - give a prize,
for his dead plant which was fed sugar. Happy Dane committeemen.

Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y who invented general
codebreak principles gives up. Finally Denmark gets invaded by Nazi's
due to their lack of radar and codebreaking. Bottom line, the peace or
any other delegated nobel prize should be as serious as the core group
and above all don't promote false, intellectually flabby peace concepts.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> wrote in message
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...

> Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
> her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
> adding salt to a plant killed it. . . .
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
> recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y . . .

There is not much secret about how Nobel science prizes are
actually awarded (as distinct from nominators' lobbying efforts)
since investigations of this topic in the 1970s by Eugene
Garfield and Harriet Zuckerman. Garfield (founder of the
Institute of Scientific Information and the "citation index") got
to be very accurate in predicting future Nobel awards.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
>> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>>
>> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
>> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
>> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>>
>> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize
>> for
>> instance"
>>
>> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
>> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.
>
> Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
> with high expectations of norseland.

Sry, did not intend to impugn your loyalties.

But to throw one more crumb
> to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
> even Switzerland may have felt.

We know on the basis of historical experience exactly how threatened they
felt.

>
> On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded.

Not many of them.
Depending on POV, it would be either Kissinger or Arafat. Or both.

But instead of
> Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
> German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning

Was he nominated?

> who was one of the heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office.

Among persons of power, I think sympathies and antipathies wrt. Hitler were
pretty evenly spread. A lot of centre and right-of-centre politicians - more
afraid of bolshevism than loss of democracy - were pretty enthusiastic about
the new Strong Man in Germany and his handling of trade unions, leftis
parties and workers in general. Very few would have had the foresight to
recognize keeping Hitler out of office for the (potential) peacekeeping move
that would have been.


I believe he had
> renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.

> Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> accomplishment toward peace.

Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
(Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

It's not that hard compared with
> evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever).

A very different exercise. One is qualitative, the other is quantitative.
The latter is fine for computers, the former still requires a human brain.

> Let's move the example to Denmark .....
> Say there is a physics student in Tibet .....
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X .....

If I read you right - take all caveats - you propose political criteria for
the Peace Prize; and political in the sense of Staatspolitik,
(international)
power brokerage driven by the demands of the day.
The few times that has been tried, the result has usually been rather
disappointing nominations.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:47:43 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> "dumbstruck" sayth
> > renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> > other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> > impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...
>
> Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.
>
> > Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> > accomplishment toward peace.
>
> Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
> the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
> structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
> (Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

OK, I'll make a last try to get this back on my original track. I posted the
absurd direction Norway was headed for 1939 Peace prize discussed in
http://www.booktv.org/Series/AW/After-Words.aspx (then go to page
bottom for link: "Peace, They Say: A History of the Nobel Peace Prize,
The Most Famous and Controversial Prize in the World" which is too long
to pass this news group line length filters). That author is in your camp.

Your earlier link (thanks) reinforced this by saying the nomination of Hitler
for Peace was aimed to ridicule of the inevitable move towards Chamberlain
as Prize finalist. It's a shame the nominators were unable to convene due
to Chamberlains war (which soon engulfed Norway) which might have
publicized the weirdness of this Norway committee's continuing philosophy.

The Norway committee philosophy challenges Alfred Nobel's written intent,
as detailed by "Peace Prize Follies" (which maybe over criticizes Alfred)
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=1235
It was my mistake to think this was just a phenomena of recent decades,
and my mistake to think 1939 was a flukey exception. Apparently that
one (delegated) branch of the prize has always been perversely run, yet
thrives because the intentions and subject area ARE genuinely important.

My observations from the Goebbels book may not gel exactly into the
Prize discussion, but to me brought to life the heroic struggle of some
German figures to counter the populism of undemocratic left and right,
as well as the subversion by Goebbels. Hmm, I see a bad review for it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sw1oAAAAMAAJ&sitesec=reviews

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Monday, May 28, 2012 3:59:00 AM UTC+1, dumbstruck wrote:

> The Norway committee philosophy challenges Alfred Nobel's written intent,

The committee awarding physics prizes does that as well, awarding prizes for
purely theoretical work. It's unavoidable.

RW

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)

I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...

A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
invasion and occupation of Norway.

A Goebbels bio written by an Austrian ex prisoner of the
nazis (Victor Reimann) seemed to answer some questions I
posed earlier in this forum. One was the role of Prussian and
Frederick the great type of mythology. Although it wasn't
natural to Hitler, Goebbels invoked it very heavily when the
war started turning bad. He decided to be surprisingly
frank about war reversals to the public in order to mobilize
them a-la-Prussia at war. It really seemed to be effective,
although I wonder why so many German civilians committed
suicide as the western front rolled thru.

I asked how the intellectuals were seduced by Hitler, and it
was Goebbles who accomplished that, as one of the few educated
and wordly nazis. Hitler normally couldn't stand such folks, but
maybe Goebbles handicap made him less threatening.

After Strasser didn't accept Bismark's offer to be the the breakaway
nazi chancellor of Germany (he and Goebbels drove it's left wing)
Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate." I
don't follow the Goering jab; I thought his drug and other
indulgences took a pause in the 30s. Strasser later executed.

I also took flak here on the question of Hitlers seduction of
his inner circle, and the possible role of platonic "man love".
Speer said Hitler loved Mussolini and Speer rather than Eva B.
Neither returned the love. Now in this Goebbels book the
relationship is depicted as complete rapturous love of Hitler
by Goebbels, which was masterfully manipulated by Hitler.
Goebbels was extremely left wing but his diary showed being
courted by Hitler who wanted his propaganda skills. Victor
shows Hitler playing hard to get, and then pinpoints the
platonic "wedding", then the immediate cruel subordination
of Goebbels to not expect special treatment even after having
sacrificing his ideology.

Well I still don't get how a pasty kook like Hitler seduced
everyone. The book said even Goebbels real marriage was an
arrangement to suit Hitler, who wanted her companionship
without appearing to have a girlfriend. Goebbels saw his
wife as an inconvenience in his nonstop womanizing lifestyle.
I had hoped the Goebbels story would shed light because
he was relatively intellectual. But as Victor says, he had no
loyalties, whether to his ideology or family. He just wanted
to hook up with the meanest, ***kicking dude in the nation.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791->,
says...
>
> I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.
>

Now there's a view of history that's best described as 'skewed by
political bias'.

Hitler actually prohibited at least three people from receiving their
Nobel Prizes.

His chances of winning one are best described as remote.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791-...
>I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.

The nomination was a hoax nomination, staged by an anti-fascist
to highlight absurdity. Details at

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/protesting-nobel-appeasement-prize.html .


There is a vast range of individuals and institutions that may nominate
candidates;
the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.

One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

dumbstruck sayth:
> Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
> liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
> me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate."

Sorry, I omitted the word "a" clubfoot; that is, Goering as the pervert
and Goebbels the limping devil. This from the once second highest
nazi and friend of Goebbels. Leading up to that, the Austrian book
I mentioned detailed Goebbels transforming Berlin from a left to
a nazi stronghold by amazingly choreographed red baiting and
theatrical violence. Little limping Goebbels was physically fearless.

But I just gotta quote his lovey dovey side from the mid 1920's. I
sure didn't expect a romance novel in a biography called Goebbels.
Joseph made speeches saying Germany needed a ruthless Lenin,
and Hitler was that man if he shed influences of the right. Hitler
came to consult his left wing in industrial heartland... extracts:

Goeb diary: We will play the coy beauty there and lure Hitler into
our parlor... The spirit of socialism is on the march.
Hitler: Our task is to smash Bolshevism!... We must inherit Russia!
Goeb: I feel obliterated... Horrifying!
Goeb next Hitler visit: Tall, fit, full of life, I like him... I can feel my
heart beating to the bursting point... Hitler embraces me. Tears are
in his eyes. I feel something like true happiness... Hitler is great.
next meeting: This man can really shake you... I love him... Such
a hotheaded fellow...
author Victor Reimann: Goebbels was completely enchanted... It
was, in a sense, their wedding night. The next day the dowry was
discussed. ...reproaching... But Hitler pulled his punches; the loved
one sulks a little on account of the partners escapades, but in the
end everything is forgiven and forgotten.
Goeb at Hitler bday: ...I love you, because because you are great
and simple at the same time

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:0d186f50-f2c5-4e65-8377-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations
>> can
>> of course express more or less original worldviews or political
>> convictions;
>> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed
>> for.
>>
>> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
> accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
> bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
> to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
> by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
> should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

Sry, do not get what you are on about.

IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.

"Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.

"This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
instance"

Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>
> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>
> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
> instance"
>
> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
with high expectations of norseland. But to throw one more crumb
to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
even Switzerland may have felt. William Shirer used to travel between
Berlin and his family in Switzerland, and to his eye the Swiss flatlands
looked about to be overrun. Was his only false invasion prediction.

On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded. But instead of
Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning who was one of the
heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office. I believe he had
renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
accomplishment toward peace. It's not that hard compared with
evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever). Let's
move the example to Denmark to illustrate the principle. Nobel the
Swede gives a bunch of money to Danes to choose the physics prize.
Like any profiligate son of a bilionaire, Danes gain a bigger sense of
entitlement than responsibility, then waste it on banal kudos awards.

Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
adding salt to a plant killed it. Say there is a blind and deaf science
project student in Peru who should get some gesture - give a prize,
for his dead plant which was fed sugar. Happy Dane committeemen.

Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y who invented general
codebreak principles gives up. Finally Denmark gets invaded by Nazi's
due to their lack of radar and codebreaking. Bottom line, the peace or
any other delegated nobel prize should be as serious as the core group
and above all don't promote false, intellectually flabby peace concepts.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> wrote in message
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...

> Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
> her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
> adding salt to a plant killed it. . . .
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
> recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y . . .

There is not much secret about how Nobel science prizes are
actually awarded (as distinct from nominators' lobbying efforts)
since investigations of this topic in the 1970s by Eugene
Garfield and Harriet Zuckerman. Garfield (founder of the
Institute of Scientific Information and the "citation index") got
to be very accurate in predicting future Nobel awards.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
>> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>>
>> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
>> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
>> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>>
>> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize
>> for
>> instance"
>>
>> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
>> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.
>
> Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
> with high expectations of norseland.

Sry, did not intend to impugn your loyalties.

But to throw one more crumb
> to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
> even Switzerland may have felt.

We know on the basis of historical experience exactly how threatened they
felt.

>
> On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded.

Not many of them.
Depending on POV, it would be either Kissinger or Arafat. Or both.

But instead of
> Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
> German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning

Was he nominated?

> who was one of the heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office.

Among persons of power, I think sympathies and antipathies wrt. Hitler were
pretty evenly spread. A lot of centre and right-of-centre politicians - more
afraid of bolshevism than loss of democracy - were pretty enthusiastic about
the new Strong Man in Germany and his handling of trade unions, leftis
parties and workers in general. Very few would have had the foresight to
recognize keeping Hitler out of office for the (potential) peacekeeping move
that would have been.


I believe he had
> renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.

> Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> accomplishment toward peace.

Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
(Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

It's not that hard compared with
> evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever).

A very different exercise. One is qualitative, the other is quantitative.
The latter is fine for computers, the former still requires a human brain.

> Let's move the example to Denmark .....
> Say there is a physics student in Tibet .....
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X .....

If I read you right - take all caveats - you propose political criteria for
the Peace Prize; and political in the sense of Staatspolitik,
(international)
power brokerage driven by the demands of the day.
The few times that has been tried, the result has usually been rather
disappointing nominations.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:47:43 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> "dumbstruck" sayth
> > renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> > other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> > impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...
>
> Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.
>
> > Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> > accomplishment toward peace.
>
> Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
> the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
> structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
> (Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

OK, I'll make a last try to get this back on my original track. I posted the
absurd direction Norway was headed for 1939 Peace prize discussed in
http://www.booktv.org/Series/AW/After-Words.aspx (then go to page
bottom for link: "Peace, They Say: A History of the Nobel Peace Prize,
The Most Famous and Controversial Prize in the World" which is too long
to pass this news group line length filters). That author is in your camp.

Your earlier link (thanks) reinforced this by saying the nomination of Hitler
for Peace was aimed to ridicule of the inevitable move towards Chamberlain
as Prize finalist. It's a shame the nominators were unable to convene due
to Chamberlains war (which soon engulfed Norway) which might have
publicized the weirdness of this Norway committee's continuing philosophy.

The Norway committee philosophy challenges Alfred Nobel's written intent,
as detailed by "Peace Prize Follies" (which maybe over criticizes Alfred)
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=1235
It was my mistake to think this was just a phenomena of recent decades,
and my mistake to think 1939 was a flukey exception. Apparently that
one (delegated) branch of the prize has always been perversely run, yet
thrives because the intentions and subject area ARE genuinely important.

My observations from the Goebbels book may not gel exactly into the
Prize discussion, but to me brought to life the heroic struggle of some
German figures to counter the populism of undemocratic left and right,
as well as the subversion by Goebbels. Hmm, I see a bad review for it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sw1oAAAAMAAJ&sitesec=reviews

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Monday, May 28, 2012 3:59:00 AM UTC+1, dumbstruck wrote:

> The Norway committee philosophy challenges Alfred Nobel's written intent,

The committee awarding physics prizes does that as well, awarding prizes for
purely theoretical work. It's unavoidable.

RW

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On May 26, 8:01 am, dumbstruck wrote:
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> > the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> > of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> > that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> > One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern.

Chamberlain actually ran an intelligent foreign policy that almost
succeded in averting war entirely.

The Suddeten Germans, all 3.5 million of them didn't want to be in
Czecholovakia. They said they would accept Cantonic Democracy but the
Czech dominated Bennes Government wasn't negotiating.

There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak. US
President Wilson was suprised when he was told that 3.5 million
Germans had been forced in.

The crisis was brought about by two things.
1 Much delayed local council elections were taking place, this would
bring out German sentiment and possibly demonstrations during the
elections. Bennes looking for an excuse to send in troops faked
intelligence and told the French and British that the Germans were
about to invade. (Benes in 1928 had threatened to ethnically cleanse
the Suddenland if Germay and Austria united)

The so called planed invasion was nonsense, the Germans and the
Suddetens were still trying to negotiate, there were not even plans to
invade Czecholovakia. French and British officers were escorted along
the border and were given free reign.

Hitler was humiliated and infuriated as it made it look like he'd been
forced to back down and as if he was guilty of preparing to invade.
It was only then that he ordered draft plans to be prepared. Benes
had foolishly turned on the heat.

A plebescite/referdendum was to take place on the future of the
Suddetenland.

So Chaimberlin is 'guilty' of organising a plebescite as a way of
diffusing tensions and war.

Of course the Suddetens would vote to leave. Benes had seen to it
that 50,000 were sacked from the railways for lingusitic reasons and
they felt discriminated against in employment, land repossesions etc.

Apparently prior to the referendum Czech police started to visit and
beat up Suddeten independance activists. When Hitler found out he
became extremely agitated and he actually screamed at Halifax.

So if the Suddeten Germans wanted to go, why fight a war to force them
to stay? They also had a list of grievences, including a massacre of
Germans during council elections in 1920.

#######

The other great issue was the status of Danzig, an ethnic German city
on the Baltic coast of great cultural and historical significance to
Germans. Hitler wanted it in the ****. Only about 350,000.

And it was this unresolved issue that finally led to WW2.

Churchill, as usually was there on the sidelines egging war on as he
had done in WW1

Because Hitler by his progress and Churchill by his speeches had
undermined embarrased Chamberlain it ended by Chamberlain volunteering
to the Polish Dictator Beck a guarantee of its "independance". He
didn't actually guarantee the "borders" because he wanted to leave the
Danzig issue open to negotiation.

Both the Germans(Hitler) and the Poles (Beck) didn't see the subtelty.

The Poles, feeling they were backed up by Britain and France simply
refused to negotiate.

Hitlers dream of a reunited Germany was at an end it seemed.

Hitler had been offering the Poles a Polsih-German friendship and anti
Soviet alleigence (essentially a ticket to ride on any Easter
expansion)

Hitler, angered swored to "Brew them a Whitches drink"

His solution was to bring in the Soviets from the cold. The Soviets
had a ethnic problem on Poland as well. They had a been isolated as a
pariah state.

So instead of a return of Danzig to Germany and a Polish German
alleigence we end up with a Soviet-German friendship pact against
Poland.

It messed up everything, including the status of the Baltic states.


If Churchill, who was mocked as lacking Judgement by the British
establishment (Liberal and Tory) had of left Chamberlain alone
1 Danzig would be back in German hands
2 There would be a German-Polish peace and security pact.
3 There would be no Soviet-German pact and therefore Finland,
Lithuania, Latvia would not have been retaken by the Stalin.

Churchill lacked Judgement.

Take him out of WW1 (which he pushed along, He was ecstatic, he lied
to cabinet about the existence of the Anglo-French naval treaty of
1905 which guaranteed war against Germany in the event of a Anglo-
German war, it was this treaty that caused the French to refuse to
declare neutrality to the Germans when the Germans asked them if they
would remain neutral in evento of a Russo-German war)

Take Churchills jingoistic trouble making out of the equation and
Chamberlains deft work might have succeded, WW2 never happens, or at
least the Baltic states remain independant.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)

I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...

A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
invasion and occupation of Norway.

A Goebbels bio written by an Austrian ex prisoner of the
nazis (Victor Reimann) seemed to answer some questions I
posed earlier in this forum. One was the role of Prussian and
Frederick the great type of mythology. Although it wasn't
natural to Hitler, Goebbels invoked it very heavily when the
war started turning bad. He decided to be surprisingly
frank about war reversals to the public in order to mobilize
them a-la-Prussia at war. It really seemed to be effective,
although I wonder why so many German civilians committed
suicide as the western front rolled thru.

I asked how the intellectuals were seduced by Hitler, and it
was Goebbles who accomplished that, as one of the few educated
and wordly nazis. Hitler normally couldn't stand such folks, but
maybe Goebbles handicap made him less threatening.

After Strasser didn't accept Bismark's offer to be the the breakaway
nazi chancellor of Germany (he and Goebbels drove it's left wing)
Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate." I
don't follow the Goering jab; I thought his drug and other
indulgences took a pause in the 30s. Strasser later executed.

I also took flak here on the question of Hitlers seduction of
his inner circle, and the possible role of platonic "man love".
Speer said Hitler loved Mussolini and Speer rather than Eva B.
Neither returned the love. Now in this Goebbels book the
relationship is depicted as complete rapturous love of Hitler
by Goebbels, which was masterfully manipulated by Hitler.
Goebbels was extremely left wing but his diary showed being
courted by Hitler who wanted his propaganda skills. Victor
shows Hitler playing hard to get, and then pinpoints the
platonic "wedding", then the immediate cruel subordination
of Goebbels to not expect special treatment even after having
sacrificing his ideology.

Well I still don't get how a pasty kook like Hitler seduced
everyone. The book said even Goebbels real marriage was an
arrangement to suit Hitler, who wanted her companionship
without appearing to have a girlfriend. Goebbels saw his
wife as an inconvenience in his nonstop womanizing lifestyle.
I had hoped the Goebbels story would shed light because
he was relatively intellectual. But as Victor says, he had no
loyalties, whether to his ideology or family. He just wanted
to hook up with the meanest, ***kicking dude in the nation.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791->,
says...
>
> I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.
>

Now there's a view of history that's best described as 'skewed by
political bias'.

Hitler actually prohibited at least three people from receiving their
Nobel Prizes.

His chances of winning one are best described as remote.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791-...
>I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.

The nomination was a hoax nomination, staged by an anti-fascist
to highlight absurdity. Details at

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/protesting-nobel-appeasement-prize.html .


There is a vast range of individuals and institutions that may nominate
candidates;
the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.

One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

dumbstruck sayth:
> Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
> liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
> me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate."

Sorry, I omitted the word "a" clubfoot; that is, Goering as the pervert
and Goebbels the limping devil. This from the once second highest
nazi and friend of Goebbels. Leading up to that, the Austrian book
I mentioned detailed Goebbels transforming Berlin from a left to
a nazi stronghold by amazingly choreographed red baiting and
theatrical violence. Little limping Goebbels was physically fearless.

But I just gotta quote his lovey dovey side from the mid 1920's. I
sure didn't expect a romance novel in a biography called Goebbels.
Joseph made speeches saying Germany needed a ruthless Lenin,
and Hitler was that man if he shed influences of the right. Hitler
came to consult his left wing in industrial heartland... extracts:

Goeb diary: We will play the coy beauty there and lure Hitler into
our parlor... The spirit of socialism is on the march.
Hitler: Our task is to smash Bolshevism!... We must inherit Russia!
Goeb: I feel obliterated... Horrifying!
Goeb next Hitler visit: Tall, fit, full of life, I like him... I can feel my
heart beating to the bursting point... Hitler embraces me. Tears are
in his eyes. I feel something like true happiness... Hitler is great.
next meeting: This man can really shake you... I love him... Such
a hotheaded fellow...
author Victor Reimann: Goebbels was completely enchanted... It
was, in a sense, their wedding night. The next day the dowry was
discussed. ...reproaching... But Hitler pulled his punches; the loved
one sulks a little on account of the partners escapades, but in the
end everything is forgiven and forgotten.
Goeb at Hitler bday: ...I love you, because because you are great
and simple at the same time

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:0d186f50-f2c5-4e65-8377-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations
>> can
>> of course express more or less original worldviews or political
>> convictions;
>> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed
>> for.
>>
>> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
> accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
> bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
> to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
> by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
> should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

Sry, do not get what you are on about.

IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.

"Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.

"This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
instance"

Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>
> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>
> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
> instance"
>
> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
with high expectations of norseland. But to throw one more crumb
to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
even Switzerland may have felt. William Shirer used to travel between
Berlin and his family in Switzerland, and to his eye the Swiss flatlands
looked about to be overrun. Was his only false invasion prediction.

On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded. But instead of
Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning who was one of the
heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office. I believe he had
renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
accomplishment toward peace. It's not that hard compared with
evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever). Let's
move the example to Denmark to illustrate the principle. Nobel the
Swede gives a bunch of money to Danes to choose the physics prize.
Like any profiligate son of a bilionaire, Danes gain a bigger sense of
entitlement than responsibility, then waste it on banal kudos awards.

Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
adding salt to a plant killed it. Say there is a blind and deaf science
project student in Peru who should get some gesture - give a prize,
for his dead plant which was fed sugar. Happy Dane committeemen.

Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y who invented general
codebreak principles gives up. Finally Denmark gets invaded by Nazi's
due to their lack of radar and codebreaking. Bottom line, the peace or
any other delegated nobel prize should be as serious as the core group
and above all don't promote false, intellectually flabby peace concepts.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> wrote in message
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...

> Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
> her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
> adding salt to a plant killed it. . . .
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
> recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y . . .

There is not much secret about how Nobel science prizes are
actually awarded (as distinct from nominators' lobbying efforts)
since investigations of this topic in the 1970s by Eugene
Garfield and Harriet Zuckerman. Garfield (founder of the
Institute of Scientific Information and the "citation index") got
to be very accurate in predicting future Nobel awards.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
>> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>>
>> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
>> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
>> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>>
>> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize
>> for
>> instance"
>>
>> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
>> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.
>
> Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
> with high expectations of norseland.

Sry, did not intend to impugn your loyalties.

But to throw one more crumb
> to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
> even Switzerland may have felt.

We know on the basis of historical experience exactly how threatened they
felt.

>
> On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded.

Not many of them.
Depending on POV, it would be either Kissinger or Arafat. Or both.

But instead of
> Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
> German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning

Was he nominated?

> who was one of the heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office.

Among persons of power, I think sympathies and antipathies wrt. Hitler were
pretty evenly spread. A lot of centre and right-of-centre politicians - more
afraid of bolshevism than loss of democracy - were pretty enthusiastic about
the new Strong Man in Germany and his handling of trade unions, leftis
parties and workers in general. Very few would have had the foresight to
recognize keeping Hitler out of office for the (potential) peacekeeping move
that would have been.


I believe he had
> renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.

> Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> accomplishment toward peace.

Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
(Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

It's not that hard compared with
> evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever).

A very different exercise. One is qualitative, the other is quantitative.
The latter is fine for computers, the former still requires a human brain.

> Let's move the example to Denmark .....
> Say there is a physics student in Tibet .....
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X .....

If I read you right - take all caveats - you propose political criteria for
the Peace Prize; and political in the sense of Staatspolitik,
(international)
power brokerage driven by the demands of the day.
The few times that has been tried, the result has usually been rather
disappointing nominations.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:47:43 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> "dumbstruck" sayth
> > renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> > other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> > impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...
>
> Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.
>
> > Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> > accomplishment toward peace.
>
> Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
> the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
> structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
> (Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

OK, I'll make a last try to get this back on my original track. I posted the
absurd direction Norway was headed for 1939 Peace prize discussed in
http://www.booktv.org/Series/AW/After-Words.aspx (then go to page
bottom for link: "Peace, They Say: A History of the Nobel Peace Prize,
The Most Famous and Controversial Prize in the World" which is too long
to pass this news group line length filters). That author is in your camp.

Your earlier link (thanks) reinforced this by saying the nomination of Hitler
for Peace was aimed to ridicule of the inevitable move towards Chamberlain
as Prize finalist. It's a shame the nominators were unable to convene due
to Chamberlains war (which soon engulfed Norway) which might have
publicized the weirdness of this Norway committee's continuing philosophy.

The Norway committee philosophy challenges Alfred Nobel's written intent,
as detailed by "Peace Prize Follies" (which maybe over criticizes Alfred)
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=1235
It was my mistake to think this was just a phenomena of recent decades,
and my mistake to think 1939 was a flukey exception. Apparently that
one (delegated) branch of the prize has always been perversely run, yet
thrives because the intentions and subject area ARE genuinely important.

My observations from the Goebbels book may not gel exactly into the
Prize discussion, but to me brought to life the heroic struggle of some
German figures to counter the populism of undemocratic left and right,
as well as the subversion by Goebbels. Hmm, I see a bad review for it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sw1oAAAAMAAJ&sitesec=reviews

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Monday, May 28, 2012 3:59:00 AM UTC+1, dumbstruck wrote:

> The Norway committee philosophy challenges Alfred Nobel's written intent,

The committee awarding physics prizes does that as well, awarding prizes for
purely theoretical work. It's unavoidable.

RW

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On May 26, 8:01 am, dumbstruck wrote:
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> > the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> > of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> > that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> > One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern.

Chamberlain actually ran an intelligent foreign policy that almost
succeded in averting war entirely.

The Suddeten Germans, all 3.5 million of them didn't want to be in
Czecholovakia. They said they would accept Cantonic Democracy but the
Czech dominated Bennes Government wasn't negotiating.

There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak. US
President Wilson was suprised when he was told that 3.5 million
Germans had been forced in.

The crisis was brought about by two things.
1 Much delayed local council elections were taking place, this would
bring out German sentiment and possibly demonstrations during the
elections. Bennes looking for an excuse to send in troops faked
intelligence and told the French and British that the Germans were
about to invade. (Benes in 1928 had threatened to ethnically cleanse
the Suddenland if Germay and Austria united)

The so called planed invasion was nonsense, the Germans and the
Suddetens were still trying to negotiate, there were not even plans to
invade Czecholovakia. French and British officers were escorted along
the border and were given free reign.

Hitler was humiliated and infuriated as it made it look like he'd been
forced to back down and as if he was guilty of preparing to invade.
It was only then that he ordered draft plans to be prepared. Benes
had foolishly turned on the heat.

A plebescite/referdendum was to take place on the future of the
Suddetenland.

So Chaimberlin is 'guilty' of organising a plebescite as a way of
diffusing tensions and war.

Of course the Suddetens would vote to leave. Benes had seen to it
that 50,000 were sacked from the railways for lingusitic reasons and
they felt discriminated against in employment, land repossesions etc.

Apparently prior to the referendum Czech police started to visit and
beat up Suddeten independance activists. When Hitler found out he
became extremely agitated and he actually screamed at Halifax.

So if the Suddeten Germans wanted to go, why fight a war to force them
to stay? They also had a list of grievences, including a massacre of
Germans during council elections in 1920.

#######

The other great issue was the status of Danzig, an ethnic German city
on the Baltic coast of great cultural and historical significance to
Germans. Hitler wanted it in the ****. Only about 350,000.

And it was this unresolved issue that finally led to WW2.

Churchill, as usually was there on the sidelines egging war on as he
had done in WW1

Because Hitler by his progress and Churchill by his speeches had
undermined embarrased Chamberlain it ended by Chamberlain volunteering
to the Polish Dictator Beck a guarantee of its "independance". He
didn't actually guarantee the "borders" because he wanted to leave the
Danzig issue open to negotiation.

Both the Germans(Hitler) and the Poles (Beck) didn't see the subtelty.

The Poles, feeling they were backed up by Britain and France simply
refused to negotiate.

Hitlers dream of a reunited Germany was at an end it seemed.

Hitler had been offering the Poles a Polsih-German friendship and anti
Soviet alleigence (essentially a ticket to ride on any Easter
expansion)

Hitler, angered swored to "Brew them a Whitches drink"

His solution was to bring in the Soviets from the cold. The Soviets
had a ethnic problem on Poland as well. They had a been isolated as a
pariah state.

So instead of a return of Danzig to Germany and a Polish German
alleigence we end up with a Soviet-German friendship pact against
Poland.

It messed up everything, including the status of the Baltic states.


If Churchill, who was mocked as lacking Judgement by the British
establishment (Liberal and Tory) had of left Chamberlain alone
1 Danzig would be back in German hands
2 There would be a German-Polish peace and security pact.
3 There would be no Soviet-German pact and therefore Finland,
Lithuania, Latvia would not have been retaken by the Stalin.

Churchill lacked Judgement.

Take him out of WW1 (which he pushed along, He was ecstatic, he lied
to cabinet about the existence of the Anglo-French naval treaty of
1905 which guaranteed war against Germany in the event of a Anglo-
German war, it was this treaty that caused the French to refuse to
declare neutrality to the Germans when the Germans asked them if they
would remain neutral in evento of a Russo-German war)

Take Churchills jingoistic trouble making out of the equation and
Chamberlains deft work might have succeded, WW2 never happens, or at
least the Baltic states remain independant.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <16f2687a-b342-4b7c-a4f8-
>,
says...
>
> On May 26, 8:01 am, dumbstruck wrote:
> > On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> > > the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> > > of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> > > that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
> >
> > > One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
> >
> > The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> > based on their pattern.
>
> Chamberlain actually ran an intelligent foreign policy that almost
> succeded in averting war entirely.

This will be the same Chamberlain whose policy of rearmament reached its
climax in late 1939?

While Hitler wouldn't be ready for war until about 1942/3 the Ukwas
ready in 1939.

Now, which year did the war start in...


> There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
> 500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
> nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak.

Going on the past 150 years, a small weak Germany is a really good
idea.

> The other great issue was the status of Danzig, an ethnic German city
> on the Baltic coast of great cultural and historical significance to
> Germans. Hitler wanted it in the ****.

And Poland wanted it to stay in Poland, odd that...

> Churchill, as usually was there on the sidelines egging war on as he
> had done in WW1

How, he neither in government nor had any power at all.

> Take Churchills jingoistic trouble making out of the equation and
> Chamberlains deft work might have succeded, WW2 never happens, or at
> least the Baltic states remain independant.

So you think a man not in power held that kind of political influence?

You're not terribly 'up' on this complicated 'democracy' stuff are
you...

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)

I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...

A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
invasion and occupation of Norway.

A Goebbels bio written by an Austrian ex prisoner of the
nazis (Victor Reimann) seemed to answer some questions I
posed earlier in this forum. One was the role of Prussian and
Frederick the great type of mythology. Although it wasn't
natural to Hitler, Goebbels invoked it very heavily when the
war started turning bad. He decided to be surprisingly
frank about war reversals to the public in order to mobilize
them a-la-Prussia at war. It really seemed to be effective,
although I wonder why so many German civilians committed
suicide as the western front rolled thru.

I asked how the intellectuals were seduced by Hitler, and it
was Goebbles who accomplished that, as one of the few educated
and wordly nazis. Hitler normally couldn't stand such folks, but
maybe Goebbles handicap made him less threatening.

After Strasser didn't accept Bismark's offer to be the the breakaway
nazi chancellor of Germany (he and Goebbels drove it's left wing)
Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate." I
don't follow the Goering jab; I thought his drug and other
indulgences took a pause in the 30s. Strasser later executed.

I also took flak here on the question of Hitlers seduction of
his inner circle, and the possible role of platonic "man love".
Speer said Hitler loved Mussolini and Speer rather than Eva B.
Neither returned the love. Now in this Goebbels book the
relationship is depicted as complete rapturous love of Hitler
by Goebbels, which was masterfully manipulated by Hitler.
Goebbels was extremely left wing but his diary showed being
courted by Hitler who wanted his propaganda skills. Victor
shows Hitler playing hard to get, and then pinpoints the
platonic "wedding", then the immediate cruel subordination
of Goebbels to not expect special treatment even after having
sacrificing his ideology.

Well I still don't get how a pasty kook like Hitler seduced
everyone. The book said even Goebbels real marriage was an
arrangement to suit Hitler, who wanted her companionship
without appearing to have a girlfriend. Goebbels saw his
wife as an inconvenience in his nonstop womanizing lifestyle.
I had hoped the Goebbels story would shed light because
he was relatively intellectual. But as Victor says, he had no
loyalties, whether to his ideology or family. He just wanted
to hook up with the meanest, ***kicking dude in the nation.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791->,
says...
>
> I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.
>

Now there's a view of history that's best described as 'skewed by
political bias'.

Hitler actually prohibited at least three people from receiving their
Nobel Prizes.

His chances of winning one are best described as remote.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791-...
>I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.

The nomination was a hoax nomination, staged by an anti-fascist
to highlight absurdity. Details at

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/protesting-nobel-appeasement-prize.html .


There is a vast range of individuals and institutions that may nominate
candidates;
the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.

One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

dumbstruck sayth:
> Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
> liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
> me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate."

Sorry, I omitted the word "a" clubfoot; that is, Goering as the pervert
and Goebbels the limping devil. This from the once second highest
nazi and friend of Goebbels. Leading up to that, the Austrian book
I mentioned detailed Goebbels transforming Berlin from a left to
a nazi stronghold by amazingly choreographed red baiting and
theatrical violence. Little limping Goebbels was physically fearless.

But I just gotta quote his lovey dovey side from the mid 1920's. I
sure didn't expect a romance novel in a biography called Goebbels.
Joseph made speeches saying Germany needed a ruthless Lenin,
and Hitler was that man if he shed influences of the right. Hitler
came to consult his left wing in industrial heartland... extracts:

Goeb diary: We will play the coy beauty there and lure Hitler into
our parlor... The spirit of socialism is on the march.
Hitler: Our task is to smash Bolshevism!... We must inherit Russia!
Goeb: I feel obliterated... Horrifying!
Goeb next Hitler visit: Tall, fit, full of life, I like him... I can feel my
heart beating to the bursting point... Hitler embraces me. Tears are
in his eyes. I feel something like true happiness... Hitler is great.
next meeting: This man can really shake you... I love him... Such
a hotheaded fellow...
author Victor Reimann: Goebbels was completely enchanted... It
was, in a sense, their wedding night. The next day the dowry was
discussed. ...reproaching... But Hitler pulled his punches; the loved
one sulks a little on account of the partners escapades, but in the
end everything is forgiven and forgotten.
Goeb at Hitler bday: ...I love you, because because you are great
and simple at the same time

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:0d186f50-f2c5-4e65-8377-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations
>> can
>> of course express more or less original worldviews or political
>> convictions;
>> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed
>> for.
>>
>> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
> accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
> bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
> to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
> by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
> should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

Sry, do not get what you are on about.

IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.

"Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.

"This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
instance"

Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>
> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>
> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
> instance"
>
> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
with high expectations of norseland. But to throw one more crumb
to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
even Switzerland may have felt. William Shirer used to travel between
Berlin and his family in Switzerland, and to his eye the Swiss flatlands
looked about to be overrun. Was his only false invasion prediction.

On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded. But instead of
Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning who was one of the
heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office. I believe he had
renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
accomplishment toward peace. It's not that hard compared with
evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever). Let's
move the example to Denmark to illustrate the principle. Nobel the
Swede gives a bunch of money to Danes to choose the physics prize.
Like any profiligate son of a bilionaire, Danes gain a bigger sense of
entitlement than responsibility, then waste it on banal kudos awards.

Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
adding salt to a plant killed it. Say there is a blind and deaf science
project student in Peru who should get some gesture - give a prize,
for his dead plant which was fed sugar. Happy Dane committeemen.

Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y who invented general
codebreak principles gives up. Finally Denmark gets invaded by Nazi's
due to their lack of radar and codebreaking. Bottom line, the peace or
any other delegated nobel prize should be as serious as the core group
and above all don't promote false, intellectually flabby peace concepts.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> wrote in message
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...

> Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
> her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
> adding salt to a plant killed it. . . .
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
> recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y . . .

There is not much secret about how Nobel science prizes are
actually awarded (as distinct from nominators' lobbying efforts)
since investigations of this topic in the 1970s by Eugene
Garfield and Harriet Zuckerman. Garfield (founder of the
Institute of Scientific Information and the "citation index") got
to be very accurate in predicting future Nobel awards.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
>> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>>
>> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
>> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
>> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>>
>> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize
>> for
>> instance"
>>
>> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
>> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.
>
> Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
> with high expectations of norseland.

Sry, did not intend to impugn your loyalties.

But to throw one more crumb
> to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
> even Switzerland may have felt.

We know on the basis of historical experience exactly how threatened they
felt.

>
> On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded.

Not many of them.
Depending on POV, it would be either Kissinger or Arafat. Or both.

But instead of
> Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
> German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning

Was he nominated?

> who was one of the heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office.

Among persons of power, I think sympathies and antipathies wrt. Hitler were
pretty evenly spread. A lot of centre and right-of-centre politicians - more
afraid of bolshevism than loss of democracy - were pretty enthusiastic about
the new Strong Man in Germany and his handling of trade unions, leftis
parties and workers in general. Very few would have had the foresight to
recognize keeping Hitler out of office for the (potential) peacekeeping move
that would have been.


I believe he had
> renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.

> Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> accomplishment toward peace.

Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
(Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

It's not that hard compared with
> evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever).

A very different exercise. One is qualitative, the other is quantitative.
The latter is fine for computers, the former still requires a human brain.

> Let's move the example to Denmark .....
> Say there is a physics student in Tibet .....
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X .....

If I read you right - take all caveats - you propose political criteria for
the Peace Prize; and political in the sense of Staatspolitik,
(international)
power brokerage driven by the demands of the day.
The few times that has been tried, the result has usually been rather
disappointing nominations.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:47:43 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> "dumbstruck" sayth
> > renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> > other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> > impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...
>
> Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.
>
> > Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> > accomplishment toward peace.
>
> Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
> the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
> structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
> (Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

OK, I'll make a last try to get this back on my original track. I posted the
absurd direction Norway was headed for 1939 Peace prize discussed in
http://www.booktv.org/Series/AW/After-Words.aspx (then go to page
bottom for link: "Peace, They Say: A History of the Nobel Peace Prize,
The Most Famous and Controversial Prize in the World" which is too long
to pass this news group line length filters). That author is in your camp.

Your earlier link (thanks) reinforced this by saying the nomination of Hitler
for Peace was aimed to ridicule of the inevitable move towards Chamberlain
as Prize finalist. It's a shame the nominators were unable to convene due
to Chamberlains war (which soon engulfed Norway) which might have
publicized the weirdness of this Norway committee's continuing philosophy.

The Norway committee philosophy challenges Alfred Nobel's written intent,
as detailed by "Peace Prize Follies" (which maybe over criticizes Alfred)
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=1235
It was my mistake to think this was just a phenomena of recent decades,
and my mistake to think 1939 was a flukey exception. Apparently that
one (delegated) branch of the prize has always been perversely run, yet
thrives because the intentions and subject area ARE genuinely important.

My observations from the Goebbels book may not gel exactly into the
Prize discussion, but to me brought to life the heroic struggle of some
German figures to counter the populism of undemocratic left and right,
as well as the subversion by Goebbels. Hmm, I see a bad review for it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sw1oAAAAMAAJ&sitesec=reviews

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Monday, May 28, 2012 3:59:00 AM UTC+1, dumbstruck wrote:

> The Norway committee philosophy challenges Alfred Nobel's written intent,

The committee awarding physics prizes does that as well, awarding prizes for
purely theoretical work. It's unavoidable.

RW

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On May 26, 8:01 am, dumbstruck wrote:
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> > the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> > of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> > that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> > One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern.

Chamberlain actually ran an intelligent foreign policy that almost
succeded in averting war entirely.

The Suddeten Germans, all 3.5 million of them didn't want to be in
Czecholovakia. They said they would accept Cantonic Democracy but the
Czech dominated Bennes Government wasn't negotiating.

There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak. US
President Wilson was suprised when he was told that 3.5 million
Germans had been forced in.

The crisis was brought about by two things.
1 Much delayed local council elections were taking place, this would
bring out German sentiment and possibly demonstrations during the
elections. Bennes looking for an excuse to send in troops faked
intelligence and told the French and British that the Germans were
about to invade. (Benes in 1928 had threatened to ethnically cleanse
the Suddenland if Germay and Austria united)

The so called planed invasion was nonsense, the Germans and the
Suddetens were still trying to negotiate, there were not even plans to
invade Czecholovakia. French and British officers were escorted along
the border and were given free reign.

Hitler was humiliated and infuriated as it made it look like he'd been
forced to back down and as if he was guilty of preparing to invade.
It was only then that he ordered draft plans to be prepared. Benes
had foolishly turned on the heat.

A plebescite/referdendum was to take place on the future of the
Suddetenland.

So Chaimberlin is 'guilty' of organising a plebescite as a way of
diffusing tensions and war.

Of course the Suddetens would vote to leave. Benes had seen to it
that 50,000 were sacked from the railways for lingusitic reasons and
they felt discriminated against in employment, land repossesions etc.

Apparently prior to the referendum Czech police started to visit and
beat up Suddeten independance activists. When Hitler found out he
became extremely agitated and he actually screamed at Halifax.

So if the Suddeten Germans wanted to go, why fight a war to force them
to stay? They also had a list of grievences, including a massacre of
Germans during council elections in 1920.

#######

The other great issue was the status of Danzig, an ethnic German city
on the Baltic coast of great cultural and historical significance to
Germans. Hitler wanted it in the ****. Only about 350,000.

And it was this unresolved issue that finally led to WW2.

Churchill, as usually was there on the sidelines egging war on as he
had done in WW1

Because Hitler by his progress and Churchill by his speeches had
undermined embarrased Chamberlain it ended by Chamberlain volunteering
to the Polish Dictator Beck a guarantee of its "independance". He
didn't actually guarantee the "borders" because he wanted to leave the
Danzig issue open to negotiation.

Both the Germans(Hitler) and the Poles (Beck) didn't see the subtelty.

The Poles, feeling they were backed up by Britain and France simply
refused to negotiate.

Hitlers dream of a reunited Germany was at an end it seemed.

Hitler had been offering the Poles a Polsih-German friendship and anti
Soviet alleigence (essentially a ticket to ride on any Easter
expansion)

Hitler, angered swored to "Brew them a Whitches drink"

His solution was to bring in the Soviets from the cold. The Soviets
had a ethnic problem on Poland as well. They had a been isolated as a
pariah state.

So instead of a return of Danzig to Germany and a Polish German
alleigence we end up with a Soviet-German friendship pact against
Poland.

It messed up everything, including the status of the Baltic states.


If Churchill, who was mocked as lacking Judgement by the British
establishment (Liberal and Tory) had of left Chamberlain alone
1 Danzig would be back in German hands
2 There would be a German-Polish peace and security pact.
3 There would be no Soviet-German pact and therefore Finland,
Lithuania, Latvia would not have been retaken by the Stalin.

Churchill lacked Judgement.

Take him out of WW1 (which he pushed along, He was ecstatic, he lied
to cabinet about the existence of the Anglo-French naval treaty of
1905 which guaranteed war against Germany in the event of a Anglo-
German war, it was this treaty that caused the French to refuse to
declare neutrality to the Germans when the Germans asked them if they
would remain neutral in evento of a Russo-German war)

Take Churchills jingoistic trouble making out of the equation and
Chamberlains deft work might have succeded, WW2 never happens, or at
least the Baltic states remain independant.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <16f2687a-b342-4b7c-a4f8-
>,
says...
>
> On May 26, 8:01 am, dumbstruck wrote:
> > On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> > > the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> > > of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> > > that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
> >
> > > One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
> >
> > The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> > based on their pattern.
>
> Chamberlain actually ran an intelligent foreign policy that almost
> succeded in averting war entirely.

This will be the same Chamberlain whose policy of rearmament reached its
climax in late 1939?

While Hitler wouldn't be ready for war until about 1942/3 the Ukwas
ready in 1939.

Now, which year did the war start in...


> There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
> 500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
> nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak.

Going on the past 150 years, a small weak Germany is a really good
idea.

> The other great issue was the status of Danzig, an ethnic German city
> on the Baltic coast of great cultural and historical significance to
> Germans. Hitler wanted it in the ****.

And Poland wanted it to stay in Poland, odd that...

> Churchill, as usually was there on the sidelines egging war on as he
> had done in WW1

How, he neither in government nor had any power at all.

> Take Churchills jingoistic trouble making out of the equation and
> Chamberlains deft work might have succeded, WW2 never happens, or at
> least the Baltic states remain independant.

So you think a man not in power held that kind of political influence?

You're not terribly 'up' on this complicated 'democracy' stuff are
you...

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Saturday, June 9, 2012 4:59:08 PM UTC+1, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:

> Because Hitler by his progress and Churchill by his speeches had
> undermined embarrased Chamberlain it ended by Chamberlain volunteering
> to the Polish Dictator Beck a guarantee of its "independance".

Beck was not "Polish Dictator". He was Poland's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

RW

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)

I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...

A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
invasion and occupation of Norway.

A Goebbels bio written by an Austrian ex prisoner of the
nazis (Victor Reimann) seemed to answer some questions I
posed earlier in this forum. One was the role of Prussian and
Frederick the great type of mythology. Although it wasn't
natural to Hitler, Goebbels invoked it very heavily when the
war started turning bad. He decided to be surprisingly
frank about war reversals to the public in order to mobilize
them a-la-Prussia at war. It really seemed to be effective,
although I wonder why so many German civilians committed
suicide as the western front rolled thru.

I asked how the intellectuals were seduced by Hitler, and it
was Goebbles who accomplished that, as one of the few educated
and wordly nazis. Hitler normally couldn't stand such folks, but
maybe Goebbles handicap made him less threatening.

After Strasser didn't accept Bismark's offer to be the the breakaway
nazi chancellor of Germany (he and Goebbels drove it's left wing)
Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate." I
don't follow the Goering jab; I thought his drug and other
indulgences took a pause in the 30s. Strasser later executed.

I also took flak here on the question of Hitlers seduction of
his inner circle, and the possible role of platonic "man love".
Speer said Hitler loved Mussolini and Speer rather than Eva B.
Neither returned the love. Now in this Goebbels book the
relationship is depicted as complete rapturous love of Hitler
by Goebbels, which was masterfully manipulated by Hitler.
Goebbels was extremely left wing but his diary showed being
courted by Hitler who wanted his propaganda skills. Victor
shows Hitler playing hard to get, and then pinpoints the
platonic "wedding", then the immediate cruel subordination
of Goebbels to not expect special treatment even after having
sacrificing his ideology.

Well I still don't get how a pasty kook like Hitler seduced
everyone. The book said even Goebbels real marriage was an
arrangement to suit Hitler, who wanted her companionship
without appearing to have a girlfriend. Goebbels saw his
wife as an inconvenience in his nonstop womanizing lifestyle.
I had hoped the Goebbels story would shed light because
he was relatively intellectual. But as Victor says, he had no
loyalties, whether to his ideology or family. He just wanted
to hook up with the meanest, ***kicking dude in the nation.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791->,
says...
>
> I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.
>

Now there's a view of history that's best described as 'skewed by
political bias'.

Hitler actually prohibited at least three people from receiving their
Nobel Prizes.

His chances of winning one are best described as remote.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791-...
>I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.

The nomination was a hoax nomination, staged by an anti-fascist
to highlight absurdity. Details at

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/protesting-nobel-appeasement-prize.html .


There is a vast range of individuals and institutions that may nominate
candidates;
the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.

One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

dumbstruck sayth:
> Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
> liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
> me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate."

Sorry, I omitted the word "a" clubfoot; that is, Goering as the pervert
and Goebbels the limping devil. This from the once second highest
nazi and friend of Goebbels. Leading up to that, the Austrian book
I mentioned detailed Goebbels transforming Berlin from a left to
a nazi stronghold by amazingly choreographed red baiting and
theatrical violence. Little limping Goebbels was physically fearless.

But I just gotta quote his lovey dovey side from the mid 1920's. I
sure didn't expect a romance novel in a biography called Goebbels.
Joseph made speeches saying Germany needed a ruthless Lenin,
and Hitler was that man if he shed influences of the right. Hitler
came to consult his left wing in industrial heartland... extracts:

Goeb diary: We will play the coy beauty there and lure Hitler into
our parlor... The spirit of socialism is on the march.
Hitler: Our task is to smash Bolshevism!... We must inherit Russia!
Goeb: I feel obliterated... Horrifying!
Goeb next Hitler visit: Tall, fit, full of life, I like him... I can feel my
heart beating to the bursting point... Hitler embraces me. Tears are
in his eyes. I feel something like true happiness... Hitler is great.
next meeting: This man can really shake you... I love him... Such
a hotheaded fellow...
author Victor Reimann: Goebbels was completely enchanted... It
was, in a sense, their wedding night. The next day the dowry was
discussed. ...reproaching... But Hitler pulled his punches; the loved
one sulks a little on account of the partners escapades, but in the
end everything is forgiven and forgotten.
Goeb at Hitler bday: ...I love you, because because you are great
and simple at the same time

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:0d186f50-f2c5-4e65-8377-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations
>> can
>> of course express more or less original worldviews or political
>> convictions;
>> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed
>> for.
>>
>> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
> accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
> bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
> to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
> by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
> should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

Sry, do not get what you are on about.

IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.

"Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.

"This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
instance"

Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>
> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>
> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
> instance"
>
> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
with high expectations of norseland. But to throw one more crumb
to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
even Switzerland may have felt. William Shirer used to travel between
Berlin and his family in Switzerland, and to his eye the Swiss flatlands
looked about to be overrun. Was his only false invasion prediction.

On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded. But instead of
Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning who was one of the
heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office. I believe he had
renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
accomplishment toward peace. It's not that hard compared with
evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever). Let's
move the example to Denmark to illustrate the principle. Nobel the
Swede gives a bunch of money to Danes to choose the physics prize.
Like any profiligate son of a bilionaire, Danes gain a bigger sense of
entitlement than responsibility, then waste it on banal kudos awards.

Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
adding salt to a plant killed it. Say there is a blind and deaf science
project student in Peru who should get some gesture - give a prize,
for his dead plant which was fed sugar. Happy Dane committeemen.

Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y who invented general
codebreak principles gives up. Finally Denmark gets invaded by Nazi's
due to their lack of radar and codebreaking. Bottom line, the peace or
any other delegated nobel prize should be as serious as the core group
and above all don't promote false, intellectually flabby peace concepts.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> wrote in message
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...

> Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
> her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
> adding salt to a plant killed it. . . .
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
> recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y . . .

There is not much secret about how Nobel science prizes are
actually awarded (as distinct from nominators' lobbying efforts)
since investigations of this topic in the 1970s by Eugene
Garfield and Harriet Zuckerman. Garfield (founder of the
Institute of Scientific Information and the "citation index") got
to be very accurate in predicting future Nobel awards.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
>> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>>
>> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
>> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
>> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>>
>> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize
>> for
>> instance"
>>
>> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
>> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.
>
> Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
> with high expectations of norseland.

Sry, did not intend to impugn your loyalties.

But to throw one more crumb
> to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
> even Switzerland may have felt.

We know on the basis of historical experience exactly how threatened they
felt.

>
> On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded.

Not many of them.
Depending on POV, it would be either Kissinger or Arafat. Or both.

But instead of
> Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
> German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning

Was he nominated?

> who was one of the heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office.

Among persons of power, I think sympathies and antipathies wrt. Hitler were
pretty evenly spread. A lot of centre and right-of-centre politicians - more
afraid of bolshevism than loss of democracy - were pretty enthusiastic about
the new Strong Man in Germany and his handling of trade unions, leftis
parties and workers in general. Very few would have had the foresight to
recognize keeping Hitler out of office for the (potential) peacekeeping move
that would have been.


I believe he had
> renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.

> Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> accomplishment toward peace.

Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
(Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

It's not that hard compared with
> evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever).

A very different exercise. One is qualitative, the other is quantitative.
The latter is fine for computers, the former still requires a human brain.

> Let's move the example to Denmark .....
> Say there is a physics student in Tibet .....
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X .....

If I read you right - take all caveats - you propose political criteria for
the Peace Prize; and political in the sense of Staatspolitik,
(international)
power brokerage driven by the demands of the day.
The few times that has been tried, the result has usually been rather
disappointing nominations.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:47:43 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> "dumbstruck" sayth
> > renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> > other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> > impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...
>
> Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.
>
> > Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> > accomplishment toward peace.
>
> Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
> the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
> structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
> (Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

OK, I'll make a last try to get this back on my original track. I posted the
absurd direction Norway was headed for 1939 Peace prize discussed in
http://www.booktv.org/Series/AW/After-Words.aspx (then go to page
bottom for link: "Peace, They Say: A History of the Nobel Peace Prize,
The Most Famous and Controversial Prize in the World" which is too long
to pass this news group line length filters). That author is in your camp.

Your earlier link (thanks) reinforced this by saying the nomination of Hitler
for Peace was aimed to ridicule of the inevitable move towards Chamberlain
as Prize finalist. It's a shame the nominators were unable to convene due
to Chamberlains war (which soon engulfed Norway) which might have
publicized the weirdness of this Norway committee's continuing philosophy.

The Norway committee philosophy challenges Alfred Nobel's written intent,
as detailed by "Peace Prize Follies" (which maybe over criticizes Alfred)
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=1235
It was my mistake to think this was just a phenomena of recent decades,
and my mistake to think 1939 was a flukey exception. Apparently that
one (delegated) branch of the prize has always been perversely run, yet
thrives because the intentions and subject area ARE genuinely important.

My observations from the Goebbels book may not gel exactly into the
Prize discussion, but to me brought to life the heroic struggle of some
German figures to counter the populism of undemocratic left and right,
as well as the subversion by Goebbels. Hmm, I see a bad review for it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sw1oAAAAMAAJ&sitesec=reviews

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Monday, May 28, 2012 3:59:00 AM UTC+1, dumbstruck wrote:

> The Norway committee philosophy challenges Alfred Nobel's written intent,

The committee awarding physics prizes does that as well, awarding prizes for
purely theoretical work. It's unavoidable.

RW

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On May 26, 8:01 am, dumbstruck wrote:
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> > the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> > of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> > that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> > One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern.

Chamberlain actually ran an intelligent foreign policy that almost
succeded in averting war entirely.

The Suddeten Germans, all 3.5 million of them didn't want to be in
Czecholovakia. They said they would accept Cantonic Democracy but the
Czech dominated Bennes Government wasn't negotiating.

There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak. US
President Wilson was suprised when he was told that 3.5 million
Germans had been forced in.

The crisis was brought about by two things.
1 Much delayed local council elections were taking place, this would
bring out German sentiment and possibly demonstrations during the
elections. Bennes looking for an excuse to send in troops faked
intelligence and told the French and British that the Germans were
about to invade. (Benes in 1928 had threatened to ethnically cleanse
the Suddenland if Germay and Austria united)

The so called planed invasion was nonsense, the Germans and the
Suddetens were still trying to negotiate, there were not even plans to
invade Czecholovakia. French and British officers were escorted along
the border and were given free reign.

Hitler was humiliated and infuriated as it made it look like he'd been
forced to back down and as if he was guilty of preparing to invade.
It was only then that he ordered draft plans to be prepared. Benes
had foolishly turned on the heat.

A plebescite/referdendum was to take place on the future of the
Suddetenland.

So Chaimberlin is 'guilty' of organising a plebescite as a way of
diffusing tensions and war.

Of course the Suddetens would vote to leave. Benes had seen to it
that 50,000 were sacked from the railways for lingusitic reasons and
they felt discriminated against in employment, land repossesions etc.

Apparently prior to the referendum Czech police started to visit and
beat up Suddeten independance activists. When Hitler found out he
became extremely agitated and he actually screamed at Halifax.

So if the Suddeten Germans wanted to go, why fight a war to force them
to stay? They also had a list of grievences, including a massacre of
Germans during council elections in 1920.

#######

The other great issue was the status of Danzig, an ethnic German city
on the Baltic coast of great cultural and historical significance to
Germans. Hitler wanted it in the ****. Only about 350,000.

And it was this unresolved issue that finally led to WW2.

Churchill, as usually was there on the sidelines egging war on as he
had done in WW1

Because Hitler by his progress and Churchill by his speeches had
undermined embarrased Chamberlain it ended by Chamberlain volunteering
to the Polish Dictator Beck a guarantee of its "independance". He
didn't actually guarantee the "borders" because he wanted to leave the
Danzig issue open to negotiation.

Both the Germans(Hitler) and the Poles (Beck) didn't see the subtelty.

The Poles, feeling they were backed up by Britain and France simply
refused to negotiate.

Hitlers dream of a reunited Germany was at an end it seemed.

Hitler had been offering the Poles a Polsih-German friendship and anti
Soviet alleigence (essentially a ticket to ride on any Easter
expansion)

Hitler, angered swored to "Brew them a Whitches drink"

His solution was to bring in the Soviets from the cold. The Soviets
had a ethnic problem on Poland as well. They had a been isolated as a
pariah state.

So instead of a return of Danzig to Germany and a Polish German
alleigence we end up with a Soviet-German friendship pact against
Poland.

It messed up everything, including the status of the Baltic states.


If Churchill, who was mocked as lacking Judgement by the British
establishment (Liberal and Tory) had of left Chamberlain alone
1 Danzig would be back in German hands
2 There would be a German-Polish peace and security pact.
3 There would be no Soviet-German pact and therefore Finland,
Lithuania, Latvia would not have been retaken by the Stalin.

Churchill lacked Judgement.

Take him out of WW1 (which he pushed along, He was ecstatic, he lied
to cabinet about the existence of the Anglo-French naval treaty of
1905 which guaranteed war against Germany in the event of a Anglo-
German war, it was this treaty that caused the French to refuse to
declare neutrality to the Germans when the Germans asked them if they
would remain neutral in evento of a Russo-German war)

Take Churchills jingoistic trouble making out of the equation and
Chamberlains deft work might have succeded, WW2 never happens, or at
least the Baltic states remain independant.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <16f2687a-b342-4b7c-a4f8-
>,
says...
>
> On May 26, 8:01 am, dumbstruck wrote:
> > On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> > > the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> > > of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> > > that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
> >
> > > One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
> >
> > The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> > based on their pattern.
>
> Chamberlain actually ran an intelligent foreign policy that almost
> succeded in averting war entirely.

This will be the same Chamberlain whose policy of rearmament reached its
climax in late 1939?

While Hitler wouldn't be ready for war until about 1942/3 the Ukwas
ready in 1939.

Now, which year did the war start in...


> There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
> 500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
> nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak.

Going on the past 150 years, a small weak Germany is a really good
idea.

> The other great issue was the status of Danzig, an ethnic German city
> on the Baltic coast of great cultural and historical significance to
> Germans. Hitler wanted it in the ****.

And Poland wanted it to stay in Poland, odd that...

> Churchill, as usually was there on the sidelines egging war on as he
> had done in WW1

How, he neither in government nor had any power at all.

> Take Churchills jingoistic trouble making out of the equation and
> Chamberlains deft work might have succeded, WW2 never happens, or at
> least the Baltic states remain independant.

So you think a man not in power held that kind of political influence?

You're not terribly 'up' on this complicated 'democracy' stuff are
you...

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Saturday, June 9, 2012 4:59:08 PM UTC+1, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:

> Because Hitler by his progress and Churchill by his speeches had
> undermined embarrased Chamberlain it ended by Chamberlain volunteering
> to the Polish Dictator Beck a guarantee of its "independance".

Beck was not "Polish Dictator". He was Poland's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

RW

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Jun 10, 3:22 am, Bill wrote:
> In article <16f2687a-b342-4b7c-a4f8-
> f355217ca...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>, eunome...@yahoo.com.au
> says...
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 8:01 am, dumbstruck wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> > > > the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> > > > of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> > > > that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> > > > One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> > > The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> > > based on their pattern.
>
> > Chamberlain actually ran an intelligent foreign policy that almost
> > succeded in averting war entirely.
>
> This will be the same Chamberlain whose policy of rearmament reached its
> climax in late 1939?
>
> While Hitler wouldn't be ready for war until about 1942/3 the Ukwas
> ready in 1939.
>
> Now, which year did the war start in...

Britain of course was ready for war: Chaim Home radar was in place,
Spitfires were tooled up and in mass production, Hurricane was in mass
production, navy destroyer production was up. Important 4 engined
bombers unmatched by any other nation were undetaking test flights
(Halifax, Manchester/Lancaster, Sterling) and the excellent
Wellington. The Hampton matched the Do 17.

And of course Hitlers 1934 rearmament was a response to Frances
decision not to abide by its Treaty of Verailes limmitations in that
year.




>
> > There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
> > 500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
> > nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak.
>
> Going on the past 150 years, a small weak Germany is a really good
> idea.

You have no idea of European History it seems.

It's also clear you hate Germans.

Germany did not fight single war from its formation in 1871 to 1914
though the French and British fought several.

The 16 divided German principalities were invaded no less than 25
times from Louise the XIV through to Napoleon the the IV Franco-
Prussian war. Most German wars were in the nature of minor civil
wars.

That leaves only Frederick the Great (King of Prussias) partial
annexation of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth.

That was a result of the Polish King allowing a Russian army to march
and be provisioned through his country in order to attack Prussia. No
King could tollerate this so he after he unexpectadly won he annexed
Poland to his empire. They were treated far better than for instanve
the Irish were under the British given the poor economic state of
Poland.



>
> > The other great issue was the status of Danzig, an ethnic German city
> > on the Baltic coast of great cultural and historical significance to
> > Germans. Hitler wanted it in the ****.
>
> And Poland wanted it to stay in Poland, odd that...


Danzig, was never, ever part of Poland, or the Polish Lithunaian
commonwealth or any of its predescors or succesrors.

It was always and ethnically German city-state.


>
> > Churchill, as usually was there on the sidelines egging war on as he
> > had done in WW1
>
> How, he neither in government nor had any power at all.

However he made speaches, wrote articles, helped books with names such
as "the guilty ones"


He wanted war, he worked for war. He had influence.

Churchill had a history of wanting war: the war on the Boer nation in
Sth Africa, the first world war, then russian (in 1922) and of course
the 2nd world war.

A jingo and a trouble maker who added fuel to fire.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)

I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...

A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
invasion and occupation of Norway.

A Goebbels bio written by an Austrian ex prisoner of the
nazis (Victor Reimann) seemed to answer some questions I
posed earlier in this forum. One was the role of Prussian and
Frederick the great type of mythology. Although it wasn't
natural to Hitler, Goebbels invoked it very heavily when the
war started turning bad. He decided to be surprisingly
frank about war reversals to the public in order to mobilize
them a-la-Prussia at war. It really seemed to be effective,
although I wonder why so many German civilians committed
suicide as the western front rolled thru.

I asked how the intellectuals were seduced by Hitler, and it
was Goebbles who accomplished that, as one of the few educated
and wordly nazis. Hitler normally couldn't stand such folks, but
maybe Goebbles handicap made him less threatening.

After Strasser didn't accept Bismark's offer to be the the breakaway
nazi chancellor of Germany (he and Goebbels drove it's left wing)
Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate." I
don't follow the Goering jab; I thought his drug and other
indulgences took a pause in the 30s. Strasser later executed.

I also took flak here on the question of Hitlers seduction of
his inner circle, and the possible role of platonic "man love".
Speer said Hitler loved Mussolini and Speer rather than Eva B.
Neither returned the love. Now in this Goebbels book the
relationship is depicted as complete rapturous love of Hitler
by Goebbels, which was masterfully manipulated by Hitler.
Goebbels was extremely left wing but his diary showed being
courted by Hitler who wanted his propaganda skills. Victor
shows Hitler playing hard to get, and then pinpoints the
platonic "wedding", then the immediate cruel subordination
of Goebbels to not expect special treatment even after having
sacrificing his ideology.

Well I still don't get how a pasty kook like Hitler seduced
everyone. The book said even Goebbels real marriage was an
arrangement to suit Hitler, who wanted her companionship
without appearing to have a girlfriend. Goebbels saw his
wife as an inconvenience in his nonstop womanizing lifestyle.
I had hoped the Goebbels story would shed light because
he was relatively intellectual. But as Victor says, he had no
loyalties, whether to his ideology or family. He just wanted
to hook up with the meanest, ***kicking dude in the nation.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791->,
says...
>
> I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.
>

Now there's a view of history that's best described as 'skewed by
political bias'.

Hitler actually prohibited at least three people from receiving their
Nobel Prizes.

His chances of winning one are best described as remote.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791-...
>I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.

The nomination was a hoax nomination, staged by an anti-fascist
to highlight absurdity. Details at

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/protesting-nobel-appeasement-prize.html .


There is a vast range of individuals and institutions that may nominate
candidates;
the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.

One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

dumbstruck sayth:
> Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
> liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
> me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate."

Sorry, I omitted the word "a" clubfoot; that is, Goering as the pervert
and Goebbels the limping devil. This from the once second highest
nazi and friend of Goebbels. Leading up to that, the Austrian book
I mentioned detailed Goebbels transforming Berlin from a left to
a nazi stronghold by amazingly choreographed red baiting and
theatrical violence. Little limping Goebbels was physically fearless.

But I just gotta quote his lovey dovey side from the mid 1920's. I
sure didn't expect a romance novel in a biography called Goebbels.
Joseph made speeches saying Germany needed a ruthless Lenin,
and Hitler was that man if he shed influences of the right. Hitler
came to consult his left wing in industrial heartland... extracts:

Goeb diary: We will play the coy beauty there and lure Hitler into
our parlor... The spirit of socialism is on the march.
Hitler: Our task is to smash Bolshevism!... We must inherit Russia!
Goeb: I feel obliterated... Horrifying!
Goeb next Hitler visit: Tall, fit, full of life, I like him... I can feel my
heart beating to the bursting point... Hitler embraces me. Tears are
in his eyes. I feel something like true happiness... Hitler is great.
next meeting: This man can really shake you... I love him... Such
a hotheaded fellow...
author Victor Reimann: Goebbels was completely enchanted... It
was, in a sense, their wedding night. The next day the dowry was
discussed. ...reproaching... But Hitler pulled his punches; the loved
one sulks a little on account of the partners escapades, but in the
end everything is forgiven and forgotten.
Goeb at Hitler bday: ...I love you, because because you are great
and simple at the same time

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:0d186f50-f2c5-4e65-8377-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations
>> can
>> of course express more or less original worldviews or political
>> convictions;
>> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed
>> for.
>>
>> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
> accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
> bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
> to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
> by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
> should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

Sry, do not get what you are on about.

IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.

"Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.

"This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
instance"

Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>
> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>
> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
> instance"
>
> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
with high expectations of norseland. But to throw one more crumb
to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
even Switzerland may have felt. William Shirer used to travel between
Berlin and his family in Switzerland, and to his eye the Swiss flatlands
looked about to be overrun. Was his only false invasion prediction.

On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded. But instead of
Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning who was one of the
heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office. I believe he had
renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
accomplishment toward peace. It's not that hard compared with
evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever). Let's
move the example to Denmark to illustrate the principle. Nobel the
Swede gives a bunch of money to Danes to choose the physics prize.
Like any profiligate son of a bilionaire, Danes gain a bigger sense of
entitlement than responsibility, then waste it on banal kudos awards.

Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
adding salt to a plant killed it. Say there is a blind and deaf science
project student in Peru who should get some gesture - give a prize,
for his dead plant which was fed sugar. Happy Dane committeemen.

Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y who invented general
codebreak principles gives up. Finally Denmark gets invaded by Nazi's
due to their lack of radar and codebreaking. Bottom line, the peace or
any other delegated nobel prize should be as serious as the core group
and above all don't promote false, intellectually flabby peace concepts.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> wrote in message
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...

> Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
> her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
> adding salt to a plant killed it. . . .
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
> recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y . . .

There is not much secret about how Nobel science prizes are
actually awarded (as distinct from nominators' lobbying efforts)
since investigations of this topic in the 1970s by Eugene
Garfield and Harriet Zuckerman. Garfield (founder of the
Institute of Scientific Information and the "citation index") got
to be very accurate in predicting future Nobel awards.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
>> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>>
>> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
>> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
>> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>>
>> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize
>> for
>> instance"
>>
>> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
>> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.
>
> Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
> with high expectations of norseland.

Sry, did not intend to impugn your loyalties.

But to throw one more crumb
> to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
> even Switzerland may have felt.

We know on the basis of historical experience exactly how threatened they
felt.

>
> On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded.

Not many of them.
Depending on POV, it would be either Kissinger or Arafat. Or both.

But instead of
> Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
> German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning

Was he nominated?

> who was one of the heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office.

Among persons of power, I think sympathies and antipathies wrt. Hitler were
pretty evenly spread. A lot of centre and right-of-centre politicians - more
afraid of bolshevism than loss of democracy - were pretty enthusiastic about
the new Strong Man in Germany and his handling of trade unions, leftis
parties and workers in general. Very few would have had the foresight to
recognize keeping Hitler out of office for the (potential) peacekeeping move
that would have been.


I believe he had
> renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.

> Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> accomplishment toward peace.

Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
(Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

It's not that hard compared with
> evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever).

A very different exercise. One is qualitative, the other is quantitative.
The latter is fine for computers, the former still requires a human brain.

> Let's move the example to Denmark .....
> Say there is a physics student in Tibet .....
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X .....

If I read you right - take all caveats - you propose political criteria for
the Peace Prize; and political in the sense of Staatspolitik,
(international)
power brokerage driven by the demands of the day.
The few times that has been tried, the result has usually been rather
disappointing nominations.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:47:43 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> "dumbstruck" sayth
> > renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> > other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> > impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...
>
> Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.
>
> > Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> > accomplishment toward peace.
>
> Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
> the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
> structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
> (Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

OK, I'll make a last try to get this back on my original track. I posted the
absurd direction Norway was headed for 1939 Peace prize discussed in
http://www.booktv.org/Series/AW/After-Words.aspx (then go to page
bottom for link: "Peace, They Say: A History of the Nobel Peace Prize,
The Most Famous and Controversial Prize in the World" which is too long
to pass this news group line length filters). That author is in your camp.

Your earlier link (thanks) reinforced this by saying the nomination of Hitler
for Peace was aimed to ridicule of the inevitable move towards Chamberlain
as Prize finalist. It's a shame the nominators were unable to convene due
to Chamberlains war (which soon engulfed Norway) which might have
publicized the weirdness of this Norway committee's continuing philosophy.

The Norway committee philosophy challenges Alfred Nobel's written intent,
as detailed by "Peace Prize Follies" (which maybe over criticizes Alfred)
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=1235
It was my mistake to think this was just a phenomena of recent decades,
and my mistake to think 1939 was a flukey exception. Apparently that
one (delegated) branch of the prize has always been perversely run, yet
thrives because the intentions and subject area ARE genuinely important.

My observations from the Goebbels book may not gel exactly into the
Prize discussion, but to me brought to life the heroic struggle of some
German figures to counter the populism of undemocratic left and right,
as well as the subversion by Goebbels. Hmm, I see a bad review for it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sw1oAAAAMAAJ&sitesec=reviews

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Monday, May 28, 2012 3:59:00 AM UTC+1, dumbstruck wrote:

> The Norway committee philosophy challenges Alfred Nobel's written intent,

The committee awarding physics prizes does that as well, awarding prizes for
purely theoretical work. It's unavoidable.

RW

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On May 26, 8:01 am, dumbstruck wrote:
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> > the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> > of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> > that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> > One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern.

Chamberlain actually ran an intelligent foreign policy that almost
succeded in averting war entirely.

The Suddeten Germans, all 3.5 million of them didn't want to be in
Czecholovakia. They said they would accept Cantonic Democracy but the
Czech dominated Bennes Government wasn't negotiating.

There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak. US
President Wilson was suprised when he was told that 3.5 million
Germans had been forced in.

The crisis was brought about by two things.
1 Much delayed local council elections were taking place, this would
bring out German sentiment and possibly demonstrations during the
elections. Bennes looking for an excuse to send in troops faked
intelligence and told the French and British that the Germans were
about to invade. (Benes in 1928 had threatened to ethnically cleanse
the Suddenland if Germay and Austria united)

The so called planed invasion was nonsense, the Germans and the
Suddetens were still trying to negotiate, there were not even plans to
invade Czecholovakia. French and British officers were escorted along
the border and were given free reign.

Hitler was humiliated and infuriated as it made it look like he'd been
forced to back down and as if he was guilty of preparing to invade.
It was only then that he ordered draft plans to be prepared. Benes
had foolishly turned on the heat.

A plebescite/referdendum was to take place on the future of the
Suddetenland.

So Chaimberlin is 'guilty' of organising a plebescite as a way of
diffusing tensions and war.

Of course the Suddetens would vote to leave. Benes had seen to it
that 50,000 were sacked from the railways for lingusitic reasons and
they felt discriminated against in employment, land repossesions etc.

Apparently prior to the referendum Czech police started to visit and
beat up Suddeten independance activists. When Hitler found out he
became extremely agitated and he actually screamed at Halifax.

So if the Suddeten Germans wanted to go, why fight a war to force them
to stay? They also had a list of grievences, including a massacre of
Germans during council elections in 1920.

#######

The other great issue was the status of Danzig, an ethnic German city
on the Baltic coast of great cultural and historical significance to
Germans. Hitler wanted it in the ****. Only about 350,000.

And it was this unresolved issue that finally led to WW2.

Churchill, as usually was there on the sidelines egging war on as he
had done in WW1

Because Hitler by his progress and Churchill by his speeches had
undermined embarrased Chamberlain it ended by Chamberlain volunteering
to the Polish Dictator Beck a guarantee of its "independance". He
didn't actually guarantee the "borders" because he wanted to leave the
Danzig issue open to negotiation.

Both the Germans(Hitler) and the Poles (Beck) didn't see the subtelty.

The Poles, feeling they were backed up by Britain and France simply
refused to negotiate.

Hitlers dream of a reunited Germany was at an end it seemed.

Hitler had been offering the Poles a Polsih-German friendship and anti
Soviet alleigence (essentially a ticket to ride on any Easter
expansion)

Hitler, angered swored to "Brew them a Whitches drink"

His solution was to bring in the Soviets from the cold. The Soviets
had a ethnic problem on Poland as well. They had a been isolated as a
pariah state.

So instead of a return of Danzig to Germany and a Polish German
alleigence we end up with a Soviet-German friendship pact against
Poland.

It messed up everything, including the status of the Baltic states.


If Churchill, who was mocked as lacking Judgement by the British
establishment (Liberal and Tory) had of left Chamberlain alone
1 Danzig would be back in German hands
2 There would be a German-Polish peace and security pact.
3 There would be no Soviet-German pact and therefore Finland,
Lithuania, Latvia would not have been retaken by the Stalin.

Churchill lacked Judgement.

Take him out of WW1 (which he pushed along, He was ecstatic, he lied
to cabinet about the existence of the Anglo-French naval treaty of
1905 which guaranteed war against Germany in the event of a Anglo-
German war, it was this treaty that caused the French to refuse to
declare neutrality to the Germans when the Germans asked them if they
would remain neutral in evento of a Russo-German war)

Take Churchills jingoistic trouble making out of the equation and
Chamberlains deft work might have succeded, WW2 never happens, or at
least the Baltic states remain independant.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <16f2687a-b342-4b7c-a4f8-
>,
says...
>
> On May 26, 8:01 am, dumbstruck wrote:
> > On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> > > the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> > > of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> > > that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
> >
> > > One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
> >
> > The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> > based on their pattern.
>
> Chamberlain actually ran an intelligent foreign policy that almost
> succeded in averting war entirely.

This will be the same Chamberlain whose policy of rearmament reached its
climax in late 1939?

While Hitler wouldn't be ready for war until about 1942/3 the Ukwas
ready in 1939.

Now, which year did the war start in...


> There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
> 500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
> nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak.

Going on the past 150 years, a small weak Germany is a really good
idea.

> The other great issue was the status of Danzig, an ethnic German city
> on the Baltic coast of great cultural and historical significance to
> Germans. Hitler wanted it in the ****.

And Poland wanted it to stay in Poland, odd that...

> Churchill, as usually was there on the sidelines egging war on as he
> had done in WW1

How, he neither in government nor had any power at all.

> Take Churchills jingoistic trouble making out of the equation and
> Chamberlains deft work might have succeded, WW2 never happens, or at
> least the Baltic states remain independant.

So you think a man not in power held that kind of political influence?

You're not terribly 'up' on this complicated 'democracy' stuff are
you...

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Saturday, June 9, 2012 4:59:08 PM UTC+1, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:

> Because Hitler by his progress and Churchill by his speeches had
> undermined embarrased Chamberlain it ended by Chamberlain volunteering
> to the Polish Dictator Beck a guarantee of its "independance".

Beck was not "Polish Dictator". He was Poland's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

RW

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Jun 10, 3:22 am, Bill wrote:
> In article <16f2687a-b342-4b7c-a4f8-
> f355217ca...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>, eunome...@yahoo.com.au
> says...
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 8:01 am, dumbstruck wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> > > > the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> > > > of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> > > > that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> > > > One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> > > The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> > > based on their pattern.
>
> > Chamberlain actually ran an intelligent foreign policy that almost
> > succeded in averting war entirely.
>
> This will be the same Chamberlain whose policy of rearmament reached its
> climax in late 1939?
>
> While Hitler wouldn't be ready for war until about 1942/3 the Ukwas
> ready in 1939.
>
> Now, which year did the war start in...

Britain of course was ready for war: Chaim Home radar was in place,
Spitfires were tooled up and in mass production, Hurricane was in mass
production, navy destroyer production was up. Important 4 engined
bombers unmatched by any other nation were undetaking test flights
(Halifax, Manchester/Lancaster, Sterling) and the excellent
Wellington. The Hampton matched the Do 17.

And of course Hitlers 1934 rearmament was a response to Frances
decision not to abide by its Treaty of Verailes limmitations in that
year.




>
> > There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
> > 500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
> > nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak.
>
> Going on the past 150 years, a small weak Germany is a really good
> idea.

You have no idea of European History it seems.

It's also clear you hate Germans.

Germany did not fight single war from its formation in 1871 to 1914
though the French and British fought several.

The 16 divided German principalities were invaded no less than 25
times from Louise the XIV through to Napoleon the the IV Franco-
Prussian war. Most German wars were in the nature of minor civil
wars.

That leaves only Frederick the Great (King of Prussias) partial
annexation of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth.

That was a result of the Polish King allowing a Russian army to march
and be provisioned through his country in order to attack Prussia. No
King could tollerate this so he after he unexpectadly won he annexed
Poland to his empire. They were treated far better than for instanve
the Irish were under the British given the poor economic state of
Poland.



>
> > The other great issue was the status of Danzig, an ethnic German city
> > on the Baltic coast of great cultural and historical significance to
> > Germans. Hitler wanted it in the ****.
>
> And Poland wanted it to stay in Poland, odd that...


Danzig, was never, ever part of Poland, or the Polish Lithunaian
commonwealth or any of its predescors or succesrors.

It was always and ethnically German city-state.


>
> > Churchill, as usually was there on the sidelines egging war on as he
> > had done in WW1
>
> How, he neither in government nor had any power at all.

However he made speaches, wrote articles, helped books with names such
as "the guilty ones"


He wanted war, he worked for war. He had influence.

Churchill had a history of wanting war: the war on the Boer nation in
Sth Africa, the first world war, then russian (in 1922) and of course
the 2nd world war.

A jingo and a trouble maker who added fuel to fire.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Monday, June 11, 2012 3:43:19 PM UTC+1, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:

> Germany did not fight single war from its formation in 1871 to 1914
> though the French and British fought several.

Germany fought a limited-scale colonial war in China, putting down the Boxer uprising.

> That leaves only Frederick the Great (King of Prussias) partial
> annexation of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth.
>
> That was a result of the Polish King allowing a Russian army to march
> and be provisioned through his country in order to attack Prussia. No
> King could tollerate this so he after he unexpectadly won he annexed
> Poland to his empire. They were treated far better than for instanve
> the Irish were under the British given the poor economic state of
> Poland.

Did the UK wage Kulturkampf on the Irish?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrze%C5%9Bnia#Wrze.C5.9Bnia_school_strike_of_1901

> > And Poland wanted it to stay in Poland, odd that...
>
>
> Danzig, was never, ever part of Poland, or the Polish Lithunaian
> commonwealth or any of its predescors or succesrors.

It's been part of the Kingdom of Poland from the XVth century until 1793.

>
> It was always and ethnically German city-state.

The Poles constituted up to 10% of the pre-war population.

RW

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)

I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...

A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
invasion and occupation of Norway.

A Goebbels bio written by an Austrian ex prisoner of the
nazis (Victor Reimann) seemed to answer some questions I
posed earlier in this forum. One was the role of Prussian and
Frederick the great type of mythology. Although it wasn't
natural to Hitler, Goebbels invoked it very heavily when the
war started turning bad. He decided to be surprisingly
frank about war reversals to the public in order to mobilize
them a-la-Prussia at war. It really seemed to be effective,
although I wonder why so many German civilians committed
suicide as the western front rolled thru.

I asked how the intellectuals were seduced by Hitler, and it
was Goebbles who accomplished that, as one of the few educated
and wordly nazis. Hitler normally couldn't stand such folks, but
maybe Goebbles handicap made him less threatening.

After Strasser didn't accept Bismark's offer to be the the breakaway
nazi chancellor of Germany (he and Goebbels drove it's left wing)
Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate." I
don't follow the Goering jab; I thought his drug and other
indulgences took a pause in the 30s. Strasser later executed.

I also took flak here on the question of Hitlers seduction of
his inner circle, and the possible role of platonic "man love".
Speer said Hitler loved Mussolini and Speer rather than Eva B.
Neither returned the love. Now in this Goebbels book the
relationship is depicted as complete rapturous love of Hitler
by Goebbels, which was masterfully manipulated by Hitler.
Goebbels was extremely left wing but his diary showed being
courted by Hitler who wanted his propaganda skills. Victor
shows Hitler playing hard to get, and then pinpoints the
platonic "wedding", then the immediate cruel subordination
of Goebbels to not expect special treatment even after having
sacrificing his ideology.

Well I still don't get how a pasty kook like Hitler seduced
everyone. The book said even Goebbels real marriage was an
arrangement to suit Hitler, who wanted her companionship
without appearing to have a girlfriend. Goebbels saw his
wife as an inconvenience in his nonstop womanizing lifestyle.
I had hoped the Goebbels story would shed light because
he was relatively intellectual. But as Victor says, he had no
loyalties, whether to his ideology or family. He just wanted
to hook up with the meanest, ***kicking dude in the nation.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791->,
says...
>
> I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.
>

Now there's a view of history that's best described as 'skewed by
political bias'.

Hitler actually prohibited at least three people from receiving their
Nobel Prizes.

His chances of winning one are best described as remote.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791-...
>I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.

The nomination was a hoax nomination, staged by an anti-fascist
to highlight absurdity. Details at

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/protesting-nobel-appeasement-prize.html .


There is a vast range of individuals and institutions that may nominate
candidates;
the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.

One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

dumbstruck sayth:
> Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
> liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
> me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate."

Sorry, I omitted the word "a" clubfoot; that is, Goering as the pervert
and Goebbels the limping devil. This from the once second highest
nazi and friend of Goebbels. Leading up to that, the Austrian book
I mentioned detailed Goebbels transforming Berlin from a left to
a nazi stronghold by amazingly choreographed red baiting and
theatrical violence. Little limping Goebbels was physically fearless.

But I just gotta quote his lovey dovey side from the mid 1920's. I
sure didn't expect a romance novel in a biography called Goebbels.
Joseph made speeches saying Germany needed a ruthless Lenin,
and Hitler was that man if he shed influences of the right. Hitler
came to consult his left wing in industrial heartland... extracts:

Goeb diary: We will play the coy beauty there and lure Hitler into
our parlor... The spirit of socialism is on the march.
Hitler: Our task is to smash Bolshevism!... We must inherit Russia!
Goeb: I feel obliterated... Horrifying!
Goeb next Hitler visit: Tall, fit, full of life, I like him... I can feel my
heart beating to the bursting point... Hitler embraces me. Tears are
in his eyes. I feel something like true happiness... Hitler is great.
next meeting: This man can really shake you... I love him... Such
a hotheaded fellow...
author Victor Reimann: Goebbels was completely enchanted... It
was, in a sense, their wedding night. The next day the dowry was
discussed. ...reproaching... But Hitler pulled his punches; the loved
one sulks a little on account of the partners escapades, but in the
end everything is forgiven and forgotten.
Goeb at Hitler bday: ...I love you, because because you are great
and simple at the same time

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:0d186f50-f2c5-4e65-8377-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations
>> can
>> of course express more or less original worldviews or political
>> convictions;
>> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed
>> for.
>>
>> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
> accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
> bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
> to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
> by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
> should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

Sry, do not get what you are on about.

IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.

"Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.

"This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
instance"

Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>
> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>
> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
> instance"
>
> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
with high expectations of norseland. But to throw one more crumb
to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
even Switzerland may have felt. William Shirer used to travel between
Berlin and his family in Switzerland, and to his eye the Swiss flatlands
looked about to be overrun. Was his only false invasion prediction.

On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded. But instead of
Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning who was one of the
heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office. I believe he had
renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
accomplishment toward peace. It's not that hard compared with
evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever). Let's
move the example to Denmark to illustrate the principle. Nobel the
Swede gives a bunch of money to Danes to choose the physics prize.
Like any profiligate son of a bilionaire, Danes gain a bigger sense of
entitlement than responsibility, then waste it on banal kudos awards.

Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
adding salt to a plant killed it. Say there is a blind and deaf science
project student in Peru who should get some gesture - give a prize,
for his dead plant which was fed sugar. Happy Dane committeemen.

Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y who invented general
codebreak principles gives up. Finally Denmark gets invaded by Nazi's
due to their lack of radar and codebreaking. Bottom line, the peace or
any other delegated nobel prize should be as serious as the core group
and above all don't promote false, intellectually flabby peace concepts.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> wrote in message
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...

> Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
> her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
> adding salt to a plant killed it. . . .
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
> recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y . . .

There is not much secret about how Nobel science prizes are
actually awarded (as distinct from nominators' lobbying efforts)
since investigations of this topic in the 1970s by Eugene
Garfield and Harriet Zuckerman. Garfield (founder of the
Institute of Scientific Information and the "citation index") got
to be very accurate in predicting future Nobel awards.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
>> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>>
>> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
>> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
>> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>>
>> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize
>> for
>> instance"
>>
>> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
>> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.
>
> Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
> with high expectations of norseland.

Sry, did not intend to impugn your loyalties.

But to throw one more crumb
> to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
> even Switzerland may have felt.

We know on the basis of historical experience exactly how threatened they
felt.

>
> On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded.

Not many of them.
Depending on POV, it would be either Kissinger or Arafat. Or both.

But instead of
> Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
> German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning

Was he nominated?

> who was one of the heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office.

Among persons of power, I think sympathies and antipathies wrt. Hitler were
pretty evenly spread. A lot of centre and right-of-centre politicians - more
afraid of bolshevism than loss of democracy - were pretty enthusiastic about
the new Strong Man in Germany and his handling of trade unions, leftis
parties and workers in general. Very few would have had the foresight to
recognize keeping Hitler out of office for the (potential) peacekeeping move
that would have been.


I believe he had
> renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.

> Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> accomplishment toward peace.

Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
(Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

It's not that hard compared with
> evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever).

A very different exercise. One is qualitative, the other is quantitative.
The latter is fine for computers, the former still requires a human brain.

> Let's move the example to Denmark .....
> Say there is a physics student in Tibet .....
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X .....

If I read you right - take all caveats - you propose political criteria for
the Peace Prize; and political in the sense of Staatspolitik,
(international)
power brokerage driven by the demands of the day.
The few times that has been tried, the result has usually been rather
disappointing nominations.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:47:43 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> "dumbstruck" sayth
> > renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> > other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> > impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...
>
> Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.
>
> > Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> > accomplishment toward peace.
>
> Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
> the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
> structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
> (Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

OK, I'll make a last try to get this back on my original track. I posted the
absurd direction Norway was headed for 1939 Peace prize discussed in
http://www.booktv.org/Series/AW/After-Words.aspx (then go to page
bottom for link: "Peace, They Say: A History of the Nobel Peace Prize,
The Most Famous and Controversial Prize in the World" which is too long
to pass this news group line length filters). That author is in your camp.

Your earlier link (thanks) reinforced this by saying the nomination of Hitler
for Peace was aimed to ridicule of the inevitable move towards Chamberlain
as Prize finalist. It's a shame the nominators were unable to convene due
to Chamberlains war (which soon engulfed Norway) which might have
publicized the weirdness of this Norway committee's continuing philosophy.

The Norway committee philosophy challenges Alfred Nobel's written intent,
as detailed by "Peace Prize Follies" (which maybe over criticizes Alfred)
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=1235
It was my mistake to think this was just a phenomena of recent decades,
and my mistake to think 1939 was a flukey exception. Apparently that
one (delegated) branch of the prize has always been perversely run, yet
thrives because the intentions and subject area ARE genuinely important.

My observations from the Goebbels book may not gel exactly into the
Prize discussion, but to me brought to life the heroic struggle of some
German figures to counter the populism of undemocratic left and right,
as well as the subversion by Goebbels. Hmm, I see a bad review for it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sw1oAAAAMAAJ&sitesec=reviews

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Monday, May 28, 2012 3:59:00 AM UTC+1, dumbstruck wrote:

> The Norway committee philosophy challenges Alfred Nobel's written intent,

The committee awarding physics prizes does that as well, awarding prizes for
purely theoretical work. It's unavoidable.

RW

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On May 26, 8:01 am, dumbstruck wrote:
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> > the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> > of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> > that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> > One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern.

Chamberlain actually ran an intelligent foreign policy that almost
succeded in averting war entirely.

The Suddeten Germans, all 3.5 million of them didn't want to be in
Czecholovakia. They said they would accept Cantonic Democracy but the
Czech dominated Bennes Government wasn't negotiating.

There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak. US
President Wilson was suprised when he was told that 3.5 million
Germans had been forced in.

The crisis was brought about by two things.
1 Much delayed local council elections were taking place, this would
bring out German sentiment and possibly demonstrations during the
elections. Bennes looking for an excuse to send in troops faked
intelligence and told the French and British that the Germans were
about to invade. (Benes in 1928 had threatened to ethnically cleanse
the Suddenland if Germay and Austria united)

The so called planed invasion was nonsense, the Germans and the
Suddetens were still trying to negotiate, there were not even plans to
invade Czecholovakia. French and British officers were escorted along
the border and were given free reign.

Hitler was humiliated and infuriated as it made it look like he'd been
forced to back down and as if he was guilty of preparing to invade.
It was only then that he ordered draft plans to be prepared. Benes
had foolishly turned on the heat.

A plebescite/referdendum was to take place on the future of the
Suddetenland.

So Chaimberlin is 'guilty' of organising a plebescite as a way of
diffusing tensions and war.

Of course the Suddetens would vote to leave. Benes had seen to it
that 50,000 were sacked from the railways for lingusitic reasons and
they felt discriminated against in employment, land repossesions etc.

Apparently prior to the referendum Czech police started to visit and
beat up Suddeten independance activists. When Hitler found out he
became extremely agitated and he actually screamed at Halifax.

So if the Suddeten Germans wanted to go, why fight a war to force them
to stay? They also had a list of grievences, including a massacre of
Germans during council elections in 1920.

#######

The other great issue was the status of Danzig, an ethnic German city
on the Baltic coast of great cultural and historical significance to
Germans. Hitler wanted it in the ****. Only about 350,000.

And it was this unresolved issue that finally led to WW2.

Churchill, as usually was there on the sidelines egging war on as he
had done in WW1

Because Hitler by his progress and Churchill by his speeches had
undermined embarrased Chamberlain it ended by Chamberlain volunteering
to the Polish Dictator Beck a guarantee of its "independance". He
didn't actually guarantee the "borders" because he wanted to leave the
Danzig issue open to negotiation.

Both the Germans(Hitler) and the Poles (Beck) didn't see the subtelty.

The Poles, feeling they were backed up by Britain and France simply
refused to negotiate.

Hitlers dream of a reunited Germany was at an end it seemed.

Hitler had been offering the Poles a Polsih-German friendship and anti
Soviet alleigence (essentially a ticket to ride on any Easter
expansion)

Hitler, angered swored to "Brew them a Whitches drink"

His solution was to bring in the Soviets from the cold. The Soviets
had a ethnic problem on Poland as well. They had a been isolated as a
pariah state.

So instead of a return of Danzig to Germany and a Polish German
alleigence we end up with a Soviet-German friendship pact against
Poland.

It messed up everything, including the status of the Baltic states.


If Churchill, who was mocked as lacking Judgement by the British
establishment (Liberal and Tory) had of left Chamberlain alone
1 Danzig would be back in German hands
2 There would be a German-Polish peace and security pact.
3 There would be no Soviet-German pact and therefore Finland,
Lithuania, Latvia would not have been retaken by the Stalin.

Churchill lacked Judgement.

Take him out of WW1 (which he pushed along, He was ecstatic, he lied
to cabinet about the existence of the Anglo-French naval treaty of
1905 which guaranteed war against Germany in the event of a Anglo-
German war, it was this treaty that caused the French to refuse to
declare neutrality to the Germans when the Germans asked them if they
would remain neutral in evento of a Russo-German war)

Take Churchills jingoistic trouble making out of the equation and
Chamberlains deft work might have succeded, WW2 never happens, or at
least the Baltic states remain independant.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <16f2687a-b342-4b7c-a4f8-
>,
says...
>
> On May 26, 8:01 am, dumbstruck wrote:
> > On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> > > the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> > > of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> > > that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
> >
> > > One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
> >
> > The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> > based on their pattern.
>
> Chamberlain actually ran an intelligent foreign policy that almost
> succeded in averting war entirely.

This will be the same Chamberlain whose policy of rearmament reached its
climax in late 1939?

While Hitler wouldn't be ready for war until about 1942/3 the Ukwas
ready in 1939.

Now, which year did the war start in...


> There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
> 500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
> nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak.

Going on the past 150 years, a small weak Germany is a really good
idea.

> The other great issue was the status of Danzig, an ethnic German city
> on the Baltic coast of great cultural and historical significance to
> Germans. Hitler wanted it in the ****.

And Poland wanted it to stay in Poland, odd that...

> Churchill, as usually was there on the sidelines egging war on as he
> had done in WW1

How, he neither in government nor had any power at all.

> Take Churchills jingoistic trouble making out of the equation and
> Chamberlains deft work might have succeded, WW2 never happens, or at
> least the Baltic states remain independant.

So you think a man not in power held that kind of political influence?

You're not terribly 'up' on this complicated 'democracy' stuff are
you...

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Saturday, June 9, 2012 4:59:08 PM UTC+1, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:

> Because Hitler by his progress and Churchill by his speeches had
> undermined embarrased Chamberlain it ended by Chamberlain volunteering
> to the Polish Dictator Beck a guarantee of its "independance".

Beck was not "Polish Dictator". He was Poland's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

RW

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Jun 10, 3:22 am, Bill wrote:
> In article <16f2687a-b342-4b7c-a4f8-
> f355217ca...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>, eunome...@yahoo.com.au
> says...
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 8:01 am, dumbstruck wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> > > > the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> > > > of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> > > > that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> > > > One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> > > The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> > > based on their pattern.
>
> > Chamberlain actually ran an intelligent foreign policy that almost
> > succeded in averting war entirely.
>
> This will be the same Chamberlain whose policy of rearmament reached its
> climax in late 1939?
>
> While Hitler wouldn't be ready for war until about 1942/3 the Ukwas
> ready in 1939.
>
> Now, which year did the war start in...

Britain of course was ready for war: Chaim Home radar was in place,
Spitfires were tooled up and in mass production, Hurricane was in mass
production, navy destroyer production was up. Important 4 engined
bombers unmatched by any other nation were undetaking test flights
(Halifax, Manchester/Lancaster, Sterling) and the excellent
Wellington. The Hampton matched the Do 17.

And of course Hitlers 1934 rearmament was a response to Frances
decision not to abide by its Treaty of Verailes limmitations in that
year.




>
> > There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
> > 500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
> > nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak.
>
> Going on the past 150 years, a small weak Germany is a really good
> idea.

You have no idea of European History it seems.

It's also clear you hate Germans.

Germany did not fight single war from its formation in 1871 to 1914
though the French and British fought several.

The 16 divided German principalities were invaded no less than 25
times from Louise the XIV through to Napoleon the the IV Franco-
Prussian war. Most German wars were in the nature of minor civil
wars.

That leaves only Frederick the Great (King of Prussias) partial
annexation of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth.

That was a result of the Polish King allowing a Russian army to march
and be provisioned through his country in order to attack Prussia. No
King could tollerate this so he after he unexpectadly won he annexed
Poland to his empire. They were treated far better than for instanve
the Irish were under the British given the poor economic state of
Poland.



>
> > The other great issue was the status of Danzig, an ethnic German city
> > on the Baltic coast of great cultural and historical significance to
> > Germans. Hitler wanted it in the ****.
>
> And Poland wanted it to stay in Poland, odd that...


Danzig, was never, ever part of Poland, or the Polish Lithunaian
commonwealth or any of its predescors or succesrors.

It was always and ethnically German city-state.


>
> > Churchill, as usually was there on the sidelines egging war on as he
> > had done in WW1
>
> How, he neither in government nor had any power at all.

However he made speaches, wrote articles, helped books with names such
as "the guilty ones"


He wanted war, he worked for war. He had influence.

Churchill had a history of wanting war: the war on the Boer nation in
Sth Africa, the first world war, then russian (in 1922) and of course
the 2nd world war.

A jingo and a trouble maker who added fuel to fire.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Monday, June 11, 2012 3:43:19 PM UTC+1, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:

> Germany did not fight single war from its formation in 1871 to 1914
> though the French and British fought several.

Germany fought a limited-scale colonial war in China, putting down the Boxer uprising.

> That leaves only Frederick the Great (King of Prussias) partial
> annexation of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth.
>
> That was a result of the Polish King allowing a Russian army to march
> and be provisioned through his country in order to attack Prussia. No
> King could tollerate this so he after he unexpectadly won he annexed
> Poland to his empire. They were treated far better than for instanve
> the Irish were under the British given the poor economic state of
> Poland.

Did the UK wage Kulturkampf on the Irish?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrze%C5%9Bnia#Wrze.C5.9Bnia_school_strike_of_1901

> > And Poland wanted it to stay in Poland, odd that...
>
>
> Danzig, was never, ever part of Poland, or the Polish Lithunaian
> commonwealth or any of its predescors or succesrors.

It's been part of the Kingdom of Poland from the XVth century until 1793.

>
> It was always and ethnically German city-state.

The Poles constituted up to 10% of the pre-war population.

RW

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
<> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:7f25be2e-a8dc-413e-8f93-...

>> > There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
>> > 500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
>> > nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak.
>>
>> Going on the past 150 years, a small weak Germany is a really good
>> idea.
>
> You have no idea of European History it seems.
>
> It's also clear you hate Germans.
>
> Germany did not fight single war from its formation in 1871 to 1914
> though the French and British fought several.

The German empire was proclaimed during the siege of Paris, and the Kaiser
was proclaimed emperor in...
Berlin? Of course, obvious choice, the capital... right?
Wrong.
In Versailles, i.e. in occupied territory.
That's as explicit as it gets as a signal of what a country is up to.

What I always find surprising is that you seem to believe that nobody will
catch you at doing this.

While we're at it, of course Germany fought "single" colonial wars all the
way to 1914, in East Africa, Samoa, Cameroon and South West Africa.

You have no idea of German history it seems.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)

I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...

A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
invasion and occupation of Norway.

A Goebbels bio written by an Austrian ex prisoner of the
nazis (Victor Reimann) seemed to answer some questions I
posed earlier in this forum. One was the role of Prussian and
Frederick the great type of mythology. Although it wasn't
natural to Hitler, Goebbels invoked it very heavily when the
war started turning bad. He decided to be surprisingly
frank about war reversals to the public in order to mobilize
them a-la-Prussia at war. It really seemed to be effective,
although I wonder why so many German civilians committed
suicide as the western front rolled thru.

I asked how the intellectuals were seduced by Hitler, and it
was Goebbles who accomplished that, as one of the few educated
and wordly nazis. Hitler normally couldn't stand such folks, but
maybe Goebbles handicap made him less threatening.

After Strasser didn't accept Bismark's offer to be the the breakaway
nazi chancellor of Germany (he and Goebbels drove it's left wing)
Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate." I
don't follow the Goering jab; I thought his drug and other
indulgences took a pause in the 30s. Strasser later executed.

I also took flak here on the question of Hitlers seduction of
his inner circle, and the possible role of platonic "man love".
Speer said Hitler loved Mussolini and Speer rather than Eva B.
Neither returned the love. Now in this Goebbels book the
relationship is depicted as complete rapturous love of Hitler
by Goebbels, which was masterfully manipulated by Hitler.
Goebbels was extremely left wing but his diary showed being
courted by Hitler who wanted his propaganda skills. Victor
shows Hitler playing hard to get, and then pinpoints the
platonic "wedding", then the immediate cruel subordination
of Goebbels to not expect special treatment even after having
sacrificing his ideology.

Well I still don't get how a pasty kook like Hitler seduced
everyone. The book said even Goebbels real marriage was an
arrangement to suit Hitler, who wanted her companionship
without appearing to have a girlfriend. Goebbels saw his
wife as an inconvenience in his nonstop womanizing lifestyle.
I had hoped the Goebbels story would shed light because
he was relatively intellectual. But as Victor says, he had no
loyalties, whether to his ideology or family. He just wanted
to hook up with the meanest, ***kicking dude in the nation.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791->,
says...
>
> I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.
>

Now there's a view of history that's best described as 'skewed by
political bias'.

Hitler actually prohibited at least three people from receiving their
Nobel Prizes.

His chances of winning one are best described as remote.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:2ac10952-f8bf-4453-8791-...
>I ran across fun-facts that may inspire comment or corrections...
>
> A cspan booktv program (probably online now) about Nobel peace
> prize said that Hitler got one nomination around 1939, but a ton of
> nominations made notorious Chamberlain a sure winner if the prize
> hadn't been put on hold during war years. Another example of the
> rogues gallery of warlords, do-nothings and appeasers that win
> this Norwegian (vs standard Swedish) version of the Nobel. Ironic,
> because Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs and his possible
> sellout of a Hitler assassin-to-be paved the way for the Nazi
> invasion and occupation of Norway.

The nomination was a hoax nomination, staged by an anti-fascist
to highlight absurdity. Details at

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/protesting-nobel-appeasement-prize.html .


There is a vast range of individuals and institutions that may nominate
candidates;
the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.

One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.

The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

dumbstruck sayth:
> Strasser said "From now on Germany is in the hands of a born
> liar from Austria, a perverted ex-officer, and clubfoot, and believe
> me, the last is the worst of the lot. He is the devil incarnate."

Sorry, I omitted the word "a" clubfoot; that is, Goering as the pervert
and Goebbels the limping devil. This from the once second highest
nazi and friend of Goebbels. Leading up to that, the Austrian book
I mentioned detailed Goebbels transforming Berlin from a left to
a nazi stronghold by amazingly choreographed red baiting and
theatrical violence. Little limping Goebbels was physically fearless.

But I just gotta quote his lovey dovey side from the mid 1920's. I
sure didn't expect a romance novel in a biography called Goebbels.
Joseph made speeches saying Germany needed a ruthless Lenin,
and Hitler was that man if he shed influences of the right. Hitler
came to consult his left wing in industrial heartland... extracts:

Goeb diary: We will play the coy beauty there and lure Hitler into
our parlor... The spirit of socialism is on the march.
Hitler: Our task is to smash Bolshevism!... We must inherit Russia!
Goeb: I feel obliterated... Horrifying!
Goeb next Hitler visit: Tall, fit, full of life, I like him... I can feel my
heart beating to the bursting point... Hitler embraces me. Tears are
in his eyes. I feel something like true happiness... Hitler is great.
next meeting: This man can really shake you... I love him... Such
a hotheaded fellow...
author Victor Reimann: Goebbels was completely enchanted... It
was, in a sense, their wedding night. The next day the dowry was
discussed. ...reproaching... But Hitler pulled his punches; the loved
one sulks a little on account of the partners escapades, but in the
end everything is forgiven and forgotten.
Goeb at Hitler bday: ...I love you, because because you are great
and simple at the same time

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:0d186f50-f2c5-4e65-8377-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations
>> can
>> of course express more or less original worldviews or political
>> convictions;
>> that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed
>> for.
>>
>> One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern. The committee chooses not strictly upon
> accomplishments, but tries to reward even feeble gestures of even
> bloodsoaked warlords as a motivator. Also awards imprisoned people
> to motivate the jailors to release. This sloppiness would never be done
> by the Swedish nobel physics prize for instance, and the Norwegians
> should have been cured of it if the actual 1939 award led to Quisling.

Sry, do not get what you are on about.

IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.

"Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.

"This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
instance"

Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>
> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>
> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize for
> instance"
>
> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.

Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
with high expectations of norseland. But to throw one more crumb
to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
even Switzerland may have felt. William Shirer used to travel between
Berlin and his family in Switzerland, and to his eye the Swiss flatlands
looked about to be overrun. Was his only false invasion prediction.

On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded. But instead of
Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning who was one of the
heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office. I believe he had
renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
accomplishment toward peace. It's not that hard compared with
evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever). Let's
move the example to Denmark to illustrate the principle. Nobel the
Swede gives a bunch of money to Danes to choose the physics prize.
Like any profiligate son of a bilionaire, Danes gain a bigger sense of
entitlement than responsibility, then waste it on banal kudos awards.

Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
adding salt to a plant killed it. Say there is a blind and deaf science
project student in Peru who should get some gesture - give a prize,
for his dead plant which was fed sugar. Happy Dane committeemen.

Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y who invented general
codebreak principles gives up. Finally Denmark gets invaded by Nazi's
due to their lack of radar and codebreaking. Bottom line, the peace or
any other delegated nobel prize should be as serious as the core group
and above all don't promote false, intellectually flabby peace concepts.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> wrote in message
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...

> Say there is a physics student in Tibet who is being jailed. Award
> her nobel in physics because she had a school science project where
> adding salt to a plant killed it. . . .
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X who invented radar gives up for lack of
> recognition. Also passed-over Peruvian genius Y . . .

There is not much secret about how Nobel science prizes are
actually awarded (as distinct from nominators' lobbying efforts)
since investigations of this topic in the 1970s by Eugene
Garfield and Harriet Zuckerman. Garfield (founder of the
Institute of Scientific Information and the "citation index") got
to be very accurate in predicting future Nobel awards.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
"dumbstruck" <> skrev i melding
news:90310b3a-5ec4-4fcf-a08d-...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:35:14 PM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
>> IIRC, the first "feeble gestures of even bloodsoaked warlords as a
>> motivator" would be Kissinger, in the seventies (?) - way after WWII.
>>
>> "Also awards imprisoned people to motivate the jailors to release" ...
>> I would consider this a noble effort, in line with Amnesty International.
>> Example (failed): Ossietzky, 1936.
>>
>> "This sloppiness would never be done by the Swedish nobel physics prize
>> for
>> instance"
>>
>> Too busy guiding German troop transport trains to help invade Norway ...?
>> And physics can be measured, as opposed to peace.
>
> Uff da! You have got my loyalties reversed; I'm a lefse muncher
> with high expectations of norseland.

Sry, did not intend to impugn your loyalties.

But to throw one more crumb
> to the Swedes, we probably underestimate how threatened they and
> even Switzerland may have felt.

We know on the basis of historical experience exactly how threatened they
felt.

>
> On the warlord subject, I refer to terrorists awarded.

Not many of them.
Depending on POV, it would be either Kissinger or Arafat. Or both.

But instead of
> Chamberlain, the nobel-north committee had even a good choice of
> German nominees. How about chancellor Bruning

Was he nominated?

> who was one of the heroic figures that almost kept Hitler out of office.

Among persons of power, I think sympathies and antipathies wrt. Hitler were
pretty evenly spread. A lot of centre and right-of-centre politicians - more
afraid of bolshevism than loss of democracy - were pretty enthusiastic about
the new Strong Man in Germany and his handling of trade unions, leftis
parties and workers in general. Very few would have had the foresight to
recognize keeping Hitler out of office for the (potential) peacekeeping move
that would have been.


I believe he had
> renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...

Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.

> Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> accomplishment toward peace.

Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
(Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

It's not that hard compared with
> evaluating string theory physics (probably worthless forever).

A very different exercise. One is qualitative, the other is quantitative.
The latter is fine for computers, the former still requires a human brain.

> Let's move the example to Denmark .....
> Say there is a physics student in Tibet .....
> Meanwhile Tibetan genius X .....

If I read you right - take all caveats - you propose political criteria for
the Peace Prize; and political in the sense of Staatspolitik,
(international)
power brokerage driven by the demands of the day.
The few times that has been tried, the result has usually been rather
disappointing nominations.

MVH,

T

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:47:43 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> "dumbstruck" sayth
> > renegotiated the WW1 money issues and was on the cusp of finalizing
> > other issues that could save democracy. But one of his solutions
> > impacted Hindenburg's (I earlier misspoke Bismark) private estate, so...
>
> Yes, I guess there was a lot of that around.
>
> > Anyway, the Nobel-north committee doesn't even try to measure
> > accomplishment toward peace.
>
> Oh, I think they endeavour to do so, as far at it is possible; usually on
> the theory of peace (AKA theory of war) du jour. Conflict resolution,
> structural violence (poverty) (Yunus, Maathai), environmental concerns
> (Gore), specific campaigns (Corrigan, Williams), etc.

OK, I'll make a last try to get this back on my original track. I posted the
absurd direction Norway was headed for 1939 Peace prize discussed in
http://www.booktv.org/Series/AW/After-Words.aspx (then go to page
bottom for link: "Peace, They Say: A History of the Nobel Peace Prize,
The Most Famous and Controversial Prize in the World" which is too long
to pass this news group line length filters). That author is in your camp.

Your earlier link (thanks) reinforced this by saying the nomination of Hitler
for Peace was aimed to ridicule of the inevitable move towards Chamberlain
as Prize finalist. It's a shame the nominators were unable to convene due
to Chamberlains war (which soon engulfed Norway) which might have
publicized the weirdness of this Norway committee's continuing philosophy.

The Norway committee philosophy challenges Alfred Nobel's written intent,
as detailed by "Peace Prize Follies" (which maybe over criticizes Alfred)
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=1235
It was my mistake to think this was just a phenomena of recent decades,
and my mistake to think 1939 was a flukey exception. Apparently that
one (delegated) branch of the prize has always been perversely run, yet
thrives because the intentions and subject area ARE genuinely important.

My observations from the Goebbels book may not gel exactly into the
Prize discussion, but to me brought to life the heroic struggle of some
German figures to counter the populism of undemocratic left and right,
as well as the subversion by Goebbels. Hmm, I see a bad review for it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sw1oAAAAMAAJ&sitesec=reviews

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Monday, May 28, 2012 3:59:00 AM UTC+1, dumbstruck wrote:

> The Norway committee philosophy challenges Alfred Nobel's written intent,

The committee awarding physics prizes does that as well, awarding prizes for
purely theoretical work. It's unavoidable.

RW

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On May 26, 8:01 am, dumbstruck wrote:
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> > the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> > of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> > that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> > One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> based on their pattern.

Chamberlain actually ran an intelligent foreign policy that almost
succeded in averting war entirely.

The Suddeten Germans, all 3.5 million of them didn't want to be in
Czecholovakia. They said they would accept Cantonic Democracy but the
Czech dominated Bennes Government wasn't negotiating.

There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak. US
President Wilson was suprised when he was told that 3.5 million
Germans had been forced in.

The crisis was brought about by two things.
1 Much delayed local council elections were taking place, this would
bring out German sentiment and possibly demonstrations during the
elections. Bennes looking for an excuse to send in troops faked
intelligence and told the French and British that the Germans were
about to invade. (Benes in 1928 had threatened to ethnically cleanse
the Suddenland if Germay and Austria united)

The so called planed invasion was nonsense, the Germans and the
Suddetens were still trying to negotiate, there were not even plans to
invade Czecholovakia. French and British officers were escorted along
the border and were given free reign.

Hitler was humiliated and infuriated as it made it look like he'd been
forced to back down and as if he was guilty of preparing to invade.
It was only then that he ordered draft plans to be prepared. Benes
had foolishly turned on the heat.

A plebescite/referdendum was to take place on the future of the
Suddetenland.

So Chaimberlin is 'guilty' of organising a plebescite as a way of
diffusing tensions and war.

Of course the Suddetens would vote to leave. Benes had seen to it
that 50,000 were sacked from the railways for lingusitic reasons and
they felt discriminated against in employment, land repossesions etc.

Apparently prior to the referendum Czech police started to visit and
beat up Suddeten independance activists. When Hitler found out he
became extremely agitated and he actually screamed at Halifax.

So if the Suddeten Germans wanted to go, why fight a war to force them
to stay? They also had a list of grievences, including a massacre of
Germans during council elections in 1920.

#######

The other great issue was the status of Danzig, an ethnic German city
on the Baltic coast of great cultural and historical significance to
Germans. Hitler wanted it in the ****. Only about 350,000.

And it was this unresolved issue that finally led to WW2.

Churchill, as usually was there on the sidelines egging war on as he
had done in WW1

Because Hitler by his progress and Churchill by his speeches had
undermined embarrased Chamberlain it ended by Chamberlain volunteering
to the Polish Dictator Beck a guarantee of its "independance". He
didn't actually guarantee the "borders" because he wanted to leave the
Danzig issue open to negotiation.

Both the Germans(Hitler) and the Poles (Beck) didn't see the subtelty.

The Poles, feeling they were backed up by Britain and France simply
refused to negotiate.

Hitlers dream of a reunited Germany was at an end it seemed.

Hitler had been offering the Poles a Polsih-German friendship and anti
Soviet alleigence (essentially a ticket to ride on any Easter
expansion)

Hitler, angered swored to "Brew them a Whitches drink"

His solution was to bring in the Soviets from the cold. The Soviets
had a ethnic problem on Poland as well. They had a been isolated as a
pariah state.

So instead of a return of Danzig to Germany and a Polish German
alleigence we end up with a Soviet-German friendship pact against
Poland.

It messed up everything, including the status of the Baltic states.


If Churchill, who was mocked as lacking Judgement by the British
establishment (Liberal and Tory) had of left Chamberlain alone
1 Danzig would be back in German hands
2 There would be a German-Polish peace and security pact.
3 There would be no Soviet-German pact and therefore Finland,
Lithuania, Latvia would not have been retaken by the Stalin.

Churchill lacked Judgement.

Take him out of WW1 (which he pushed along, He was ecstatic, he lied
to cabinet about the existence of the Anglo-French naval treaty of
1905 which guaranteed war against Germany in the event of a Anglo-
German war, it was this treaty that caused the French to refuse to
declare neutrality to the Germans when the Germans asked them if they
would remain neutral in evento of a Russo-German war)

Take Churchills jingoistic trouble making out of the equation and
Chamberlains deft work might have succeded, WW2 never happens, or at
least the Baltic states remain independant.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <16f2687a-b342-4b7c-a4f8-
>,
says...
>
> On May 26, 8:01 am, dumbstruck wrote:
> > On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> > > the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> > > of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> > > that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
> >
> > > One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
> >
> > The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> > based on their pattern.
>
> Chamberlain actually ran an intelligent foreign policy that almost
> succeded in averting war entirely.

This will be the same Chamberlain whose policy of rearmament reached its
climax in late 1939?

While Hitler wouldn't be ready for war until about 1942/3 the Ukwas
ready in 1939.

Now, which year did the war start in...


> There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
> 500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
> nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak.

Going on the past 150 years, a small weak Germany is a really good
idea.

> The other great issue was the status of Danzig, an ethnic German city
> on the Baltic coast of great cultural and historical significance to
> Germans. Hitler wanted it in the ****.

And Poland wanted it to stay in Poland, odd that...

> Churchill, as usually was there on the sidelines egging war on as he
> had done in WW1

How, he neither in government nor had any power at all.

> Take Churchills jingoistic trouble making out of the equation and
> Chamberlains deft work might have succeded, WW2 never happens, or at
> least the Baltic states remain independant.

So you think a man not in power held that kind of political influence?

You're not terribly 'up' on this complicated 'democracy' stuff are
you...

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Saturday, June 9, 2012 4:59:08 PM UTC+1, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:

> Because Hitler by his progress and Churchill by his speeches had
> undermined embarrased Chamberlain it ended by Chamberlain volunteering
> to the Polish Dictator Beck a guarantee of its "independance".

Beck was not "Polish Dictator". He was Poland's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

RW

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Jun 10, 3:22 am, Bill wrote:
> In article <16f2687a-b342-4b7c-a4f8-
> f355217ca...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>, eunome...@yahoo.com.au
> says...
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 8:01 am, dumbstruck wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-10, Tronscend wrote:
> > > > the committee receives many hundred nominations each year. Nominations can
> > > > of course express more or less original worldviews or political convictions;
> > > > that, however, is not something that the committee itself can be blamed for.
>
> > > > One can, of course, blame them for some of the choices they have made.
>
> > > The author said Chamberlain the appeaser was certain to be chosen,
> > > based on their pattern.
>
> > Chamberlain actually ran an intelligent foreign policy that almost
> > succeded in averting war entirely.
>
> This will be the same Chamberlain whose policy of rearmament reached its
> climax in late 1939?
>
> While Hitler wouldn't be ready for war until about 1942/3 the Ukwas
> ready in 1939.
>
> Now, which year did the war start in...

Britain of course was ready for war: Chaim Home radar was in place,
Spitfires were tooled up and in mass production, Hurricane was in mass
production, navy destroyer production was up. Important 4 engined
bombers unmatched by any other nation were undetaking test flights
(Halifax, Manchester/Lancaster, Sterling) and the excellent
Wellington. The Hampton matched the Do 17.

And of course Hitlers 1934 rearmament was a response to Frances
decision not to abide by its Treaty of Verailes limmitations in that
year.




>
> > There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
> > 500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
> > nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak.
>
> Going on the past 150 years, a small weak Germany is a really good
> idea.

You have no idea of European History it seems.

It's also clear you hate Germans.

Germany did not fight single war from its formation in 1871 to 1914
though the French and British fought several.

The 16 divided German principalities were invaded no less than 25
times from Louise the XIV through to Napoleon the the IV Franco-
Prussian war. Most German wars were in the nature of minor civil
wars.

That leaves only Frederick the Great (King of Prussias) partial
annexation of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth.

That was a result of the Polish King allowing a Russian army to march
and be provisioned through his country in order to attack Prussia. No
King could tollerate this so he after he unexpectadly won he annexed
Poland to his empire. They were treated far better than for instanve
the Irish were under the British given the poor economic state of
Poland.



>
> > The other great issue was the status of Danzig, an ethnic German city
> > on the Baltic coast of great cultural and historical significance to
> > Germans. Hitler wanted it in the ****.
>
> And Poland wanted it to stay in Poland, odd that...


Danzig, was never, ever part of Poland, or the Polish Lithunaian
commonwealth or any of its predescors or succesrors.

It was always and ethnically German city-state.


>
> > Churchill, as usually was there on the sidelines egging war on as he
> > had done in WW1
>
> How, he neither in government nor had any power at all.

However he made speaches, wrote articles, helped books with names such
as "the guilty ones"


He wanted war, he worked for war. He had influence.

Churchill had a history of wanting war: the war on the Boer nation in
Sth Africa, the first world war, then russian (in 1922) and of course
the 2nd world war.

A jingo and a trouble maker who added fuel to fire.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
On Monday, June 11, 2012 3:43:19 PM UTC+1, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:

> Germany did not fight single war from its formation in 1871 to 1914
> though the French and British fought several.

Germany fought a limited-scale colonial war in China, putting down the Boxer uprising.

> That leaves only Frederick the Great (King of Prussias) partial
> annexation of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth.
>
> That was a result of the Polish King allowing a Russian army to march
> and be provisioned through his country in order to attack Prussia. No
> King could tollerate this so he after he unexpectadly won he annexed
> Poland to his empire. They were treated far better than for instanve
> the Irish were under the British given the poor economic state of
> Poland.

Did the UK wage Kulturkampf on the Irish?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrze%C5%9Bnia#Wrze.C5.9Bnia_school_strike_of_1901

> > And Poland wanted it to stay in Poland, odd that...
>
>
> Danzig, was never, ever part of Poland, or the Polish Lithunaian
> commonwealth or any of its predescors or succesrors.

It's been part of the Kingdom of Poland from the XVth century until 1793.

>
> It was always and ethnically German city-state.

The Poles constituted up to 10% of the pre-war population.

RW

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
<> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:7f25be2e-a8dc-413e-8f93-...

>> > There were also 2.5 million Slovaks and 1 million Hungarians and
>> > 500,000 Ruthenian Ukranians who also had been forced into the bizzare
>> > nation (by Clemcieu) who wanted to make Germany small and weak.
>>
>> Going on the past 150 years, a small weak Germany is a really good
>> idea.
>
> You have no idea of European History it seems.
>
> It's also clear you hate Germans.
>
> Germany did not fight single war from its formation in 1871 to 1914
> though the French and British fought several.

The German empire was proclaimed during the siege of Paris, and the Kaiser
was proclaimed emperor in...
Berlin? Of course, obvious choice, the capital... right?
Wrong.
In Versailles, i.e. in occupied territory.
That's as explicit as it gets as a signal of what a country is up to.

What I always find surprising is that you seem to believe that nobody will
catch you at doing this.

While we're at it, of course Germany fought "single" colonial wars all the
way to 1914, in East Africa, Samoa, Cameroon and South West Africa.

You have no idea of German history it seems.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)
In article <7d33e291-cbb9-4e83-9bd1->, Roman W
says...

>Germany fought a limited-scale colonial war in China, putting down the Boxer
>uprising.

Not to mention wars against the Pondos and others in their African colonies.


--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with
210lb. rapists.

--
soc-history-war-world-war- mailing list
http://www.robomod.net/mailman/listinfo/soc-history-war-world-war-ii
)