Rabbi and Nazi Moonbat Brawl in Kansas City Airport
A fist-fight broke out at Kansas City International Airport (KCI) between a Rabbi and a neo-Nazi today. Rabbi David S. Fine was waiting for a flight when he spied a man, Stephen T. Boswell, wearing a red shirt sporting a swastika. He also noticed Boswell wearing a swastika necklace.
Fine was wearing a black suit and yarmulke.
Rabbi Fine approached Boswell and admonished him, saying that he should be ashamed wearing Nazi symbols in public. Boswell responded by calling Fine "unhuman."
According to a police report of the incident, Fine then threw a cup of coffee at Boswell and punched him in the head. "He walked up to me and got in my face. I was scared for my physical safety. I did what I felt I had to do," said Fine.
Police say Boswell then retaliated by repeatedly punching Fine in the head before an off-duty Kansas city cop broke up the fight.
Both men were arrested, then released on personal recognizance bonds. They are scheduled to appear June 22 in Kansas City Municipal Court.
Rabbi Fine was at KCI to catch a flight home to New York. And Boswell?--he'd just dropped off the infamous Jacques Pluss, who had been a guest speaker at a National Socialist Movement conference in Kansas City.
Pluss, an adjunct history professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University, was recently fired when it became known that his after-school activities included hosting a neo-Nazi internet radio program.
Since being fired, Pluss says he'll devote his time to the Jew-hating White Aryan Race Nation cause.
23 Comments:
I guess the Rabbi administered some
hands on theology. It is not a good
idea to beat up nuts. No doubt this lunatic will now concoct some sort of conspiracy.He will have his five minutes of fame with his lunatic pals.
It's probably just a coincidence that these Nazi collaborator wannabes with self-shaven heads had their little white-leftists-only anti-government circle jerk convention on the 10th anniversary of the bombing of the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City.
Oh, probably ; )
If someone's going to wear that sort of thing in public, they're either a broken in the head Nazi, or buddhist. And after Korea, I find it's not a good idea to get in a verbal altercation with either one.
"Rabbi Fine approached Boswell and admonished him, saying that he should be ashamed wearing Nazi symbols in public. Boswell responded by calling Fine "unhuman."
According to a police report of the incident, Fine then threw a cup of coffee at Boswell and punched him in the head. "He walked up to me and got in my face. I was scared for my physical safety. I did what I felt I had to do," said Fine"
What kind of an idiot is Rabbi Fine? He walks up to an obvious neo-nazi and "admonishes" him? Then chucks a cup of coffee at the guy and punches him in the head...gee, maybe, just maybe, Rabbi Fine, had you just minded your own business and left the crackpot alone with his hate symbols, nothing would have happened.
Walking up to a rabid dog and kicking it in the head is not a brave act -- it's stupid.
Oh, two things: 1) neo-Nazis are ultra-right, not left, Beamish, and 2) are you suggesting, Tremlett, that Buddhists are hate groups? What does that have to do with Korea?
Uncle Dan,
Perhaps you'd like to be the first person to ever coherently explain to me what is "right-wing" about Nazis, even "ultra right-wing" of either paleo-Nazi or neo-Nazi variety?
Call it the Mr. Beamish challenge.
The historical Nazis in Germany came to power on a leftist economic and social platform and quickly consolidated into a totalitarian state driven by a militant racial supremacy doctrines based largely in part on the then "progressive" eugenics movement and a state monopoly of control upon the means of production.
If this is what "neo-Nazis" want, they're not "right-wing." At all.
Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit indites,
"The historical Nazis in Germany came to power on a leftist economic and social platform and quickly consolidated into a totalitarian state driven by a militant racial supremacy doctrines based largely in part on the then "progressive" eugenics movement and a state monopoly of control upon the means of production.
If this is what "neo-Nazis" want, they're not "right-wing." At all."
That is exactly what they want, since they cannot earn it themselves. Ergo their hatred of Jewish people, and what Jewish people have made of themselves, as well as all other successful people--It is all based on a inferiority complex, fueled by envy, which is a stock leftist mental aberration.
As far as the paleo-Nazis, this article from Wikipedia sums up their ideas of "socialism" pretty well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_socialism
Capitalists and conservatives in Germany feared that a takeover by the Communists was inevitable and did not trust the democratic parties of the Weimar Republic to be able to resist a communist revolution. Increasing numbers of capitalists began looking to the nationalist movements as a bulwark against Bolshevism. After Mussolini's fascists took power in Italy in 1922, fascism presented itself as a realistic option for opposing "Communism", particularly given Mussolini's success in crushing the Communist and anarchist movements which had destabilised Italy with a wave of strikes and factory occupations after the First World War. Fascist parties formed in numerous European countries.
Many historians, such as Ian Kershaw and Joachim Fest, argue that Hitler and the Nazis were one of numerous nationalist and increasingly fascistic groups that existed in Germany and contended for leadership of the anti-Communist movement and, eventually, of the German state. Further, they assert that fascism and its German variant, National Socialism, became the successful challengers to Communism because they were able to both appeal to the establishment as a bulwark against Bolshevism and appeal to the working class base, particularly the growing underclass of unemployed and unemployable and growingly impoverished middle class elements who were becoming declassed (the lumpenproletariat). The Nazi's use of socialist rhetoric appealed to disaffection with capitalism while presenting a political and economic model that divested "socialism" of any elements which were dangerous to capitalism, such as the concept of class struggle, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or worker control of the means of production.
--end quote--
Hitler never not an enemy of the captialist class, but did engulf them into the state collective. Again, from Wiki:
ibid above
In an economic sense, Nazism and Fascism are related. Nazism shares many economic features with Fascism, featuring complete government control of finance and investment (allocation of credit), industry, and agriculture. Yet in both of these systems, corporate power and market based systems for providing price information still existed.
Rather than the state requiring goods from industrial enterprises and allocating raw materials required for their production (as in socialist/communist systems), the state paid for these goods. This allows price to play an essential role in providing information as to relative scarcity of materials, or the capital requirements in technology or labor (including education, as in skilled labor) inputs to produce a manufactured good. Additionally, the unionist (strictly speaking, syndicalist) veneer placed on corporate labor relations was another major point of agreement. Both the German and Italian fascist political parties began as unionist labor movements, and grew into totalitarian dictatorships. This idea was maintained throughout their time in power, with state control used as a means to eliminate the assumed conflict between management labor relations.
--end quote--
There are no "market based" systems in true socialism (in what may be termed "lassiez-faire socialism" of Western Europe, there is a market, but the Bolsheviks were intent to destroy the private market and collective the Russian economy into its three year, seven year, and ten year plans). While both nazism and fascism mirror leftist socialism in the strict control of production and distribution of goods, the control is via a market rather than state run factories, farms, etc -- for example, observe the Chinese economy which is developing along what is called "red capitalist" lines.
As Hitler was the undying enemy of the Left, and developed his politcal and economic theories around nationalism and ideas very similar to Mussolini's fascism, it's only right to call Nazism 'far right.'
As far as neo-Nazis, they don't understand their forebearer's ideas, and accept only a very reactionary ideology based on race, fear, and hate-mongering. While certainly the "right wing" in our country are not nazis or fascists in any sense of the word, the conservative ideas contra immigration (just look at conservative historian Victor Davis Hanson's work on immigration and assimilation of foreigners) are mirrored in the neo-Nazis in the most reactionary way possible. As they are opposed to the collectivism of the left, and the assimilation and cultural pluralism that the left generally stands for, how you could call them anything but "ultra-right" escapes me, with the understanding that well-thinking folks in the right would naturally reject what the neo-nazis have to offer, and the vast majority do.
I think what you are suggesting is that neo-nazis are essentially nihilistic and opposed to government in general (ala the anarcho-syndicalists of the first half of the 20th century). However, the Paris Commune had really nothing to do with neo-nazi thinking, nor did the anarcho-syndicalists.
Uncle Dan,
I see "multi-culturalism" and "anti-immigration" as two sides of the same coin. Both ideas seek to preserve and promote cultural distinctiveness, but one is just a but more vocal and honest about which ghettoes they want other cultures to live in.
Uncle Dan wrongfully states,
"As far as neo-Nazis, they don't understand their forebearer's ideas, and accept only a very reactionary ideology based on race, fear, and hate-mongering."
Wrong! I say wrong again!
"Whatever you want to call a violent movement that idealizes Hitler's socialist Third Reich, "right-wing" doesn't cut it. Consider also the politics of the Neo-Nazi novel that inspires many of these killers. It is called the Turner Diaries. The book got a lot of attention after the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building because it was a favorite of Timothy McVeigh's.
It has been said that the book advocates the killing of federal officials. In fact, that's just the initial hook. Conspirators wipe out all their enemies, which include anyone who opposes their rise to total power. After taking over, they restart the calendar at the year zero, a goal associated with every socialist thinker from Rousseau to Pol Pot.
Also in the book, businessmen are portrayed as a greedy class that puts money before race, and Christians are demonized as stupid and evil. In the U.S. of the future, all free enterprise and free trade are abolished. Instead, we get a central-planning regime that distributes all resources, including food, on an equal basis. The citizens are pliable subjects of the socialist elite who exercise total power. The book ends with nuclear bombs, the invention of the socialist FDR, destroying all of Africa, China, and South America.
The plot, however crude, isn't entirely unfamiliar. It is just a version of the nightmarish dream of every variety of socialism: millennialist imaginings of a new age of history, hatred of businessmen, opposition to established religion, a belief in central planning, a love of central power, and a world government that crushes all opposition to the revolution.
No matter what they call themselves, the people who have similar dreams of total social and economic control today are on the left, not the right. (That there exists a venerable non-socialist tradition on the left is another issue for another day.) The uncomfortable truth is this: the differences between the fevered imaginings of Furrow, and those advanced in the academic socialist literature, do not concern ideological substance, but its particular shading and application."
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/socialist_origins_of_neonazism.htm
Uncle Dan more.
Here is some more neo-nazi insight!
"Recall Hitler and Mussolini's defensive anti-Commie, "Anti-Comintern Pact" of 1937 against the aggressor jew Commie "Allies" -- against those White race murdering aggressors Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill."
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2005/JohnC040105WhiteIntl.htm
They are all the same except for the name.
Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Tranzism, Neo-Nazism, Leftism and any other "ism", that is in direct opposition to common sense, human nature, meritocracy, and a divine retribution, are for those described in 2 Peter Chapter 22 verse 22--
--"The Dog is Turned to His Own Vomit Again."
Now that's hilarious! Using a far-right site, that uses convenient terms likes "Jihadistan," and contains rants about the "New World Order," to prove that neo-nazis aren't part of the far-right! LOL!
Perhaps I should go read marxists.com to find the "truth" about why Trotsky didn't really order the massacre of sailors at Kronstadt as well.
Ok, let's try this: even neo-nazis today say that Italian Fascism was close to Hitler's National Socialism. Does what Mussolini says here sound more like left-wing internationalism, or right-wing reactionary takes on the State and the people in it? What does he say about socialism?
Benito Mussolini
The Doctrine of Fascism
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity (11). It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual (12). And if liberty is to be the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State (13).
The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people (14).
No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State (16).
--end quote--
Next?
Quite well done, uncle dan, thank you for your contribution. I'll grant Nazi Germany's nationalization of their economy not qualifying as pure socialism establishes the non-Communism of the Nazis. The fact that Nazis opposed collectivism, "the concept of class struggle, 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' and worker control of the means of production" does establish an anti-Communist stance.
But I differ from your analysis in that right-winged-ness is not necessarily best judged from the point-of-view of the classic left wing.
On the other hand, in my opinion, nationalism and racialism are hallmarks of an extreme right wing. I believe that my own belief in a social order relying on a strong dominant culture, among other things, puts me on the right.
Take another example: Timothy McVeigh. I believe him to have been an extreme right-winger, but more in the American limited-government mold. Hitler's appropriation of all resources and people (conceptually when not actually) in service to "the state" (his dictatorship) is abhorrent to American conservatives.
2) are you suggesting, Tremlett, that Buddhists are hate groups? What does that have to do with Korea?
No, I'm relating that the swastika is also a Buddhist symbol, and I remember Korean Buddhists wearing swastika necklaces and - IIRC - t-shirts.
That and Buddhists can be just as unpleasant and nasty as hardcore members of any religion.
J
Uncle Dan says,
"next."
What's next is going to be a Rightminded history lesson.
When I get the time.
Please do not go away.
You are a typical historical tyro, that does not understand the connection of the French Revolution's concept of egalitarianism, matastcizing, and bringing the world the death and destruction of socialism, fascism, nazism, progressivism, communism, neo-nazism,........
You also do not know that communism, fascism-nazism were warring socialist-marxist factions, and the term left wing, right wing were mistakenly given out just before WWII.
DID YOU EVEN READ MY POST WITH RESPECT TO THE TURNER DIARIES, AND NEO-NAZISM?
More to follow!
What hath I wrought?
Excellet post, Rightminded.
Let me be very clear again -- when refering to the Nazis as the "extreme right wing," we cannot take that idea out of the historical and cultural context that is meant. I realize that morons on the left like to bandy about the term "nazi" towards anyone on the right that is against anything remotely "leftist," and I of course took pains to show that 99% of "right-wing" folks in the United States would not only condemn Nazism, they are appalled by its sick, twisted doctrines.
But, you cannot ignore that the ideas of the National Socialists in Germany were appealing to what Hitler called a "volkish" doctrine that was targeted toward people against the Left, and Hitler himself hated the Left. His idea of "socialism," while having some ideas of economic collectivism that were seen in "classic" socialism, were tied around his ideas of race -- the nation was to be the caretaker of the race, and so "National Socialism" was both a political and economic ideology to nurture his ideas of the "Master Race" in Germany. Again, this is against the internationalism and open collectiveness of traditional "left wing" extremism found in Leninism and Trotskyism (interestingly, the bureauratic system that Stalin created was almost identical to National Socialism, simply without the heavily racist overtones.)
Trotsky, for example, believed in a doctrine called "permanent revolution," where the socialist state could not be contained in one nation, but had to be constantly exported to the next state and the next, or the rest of the world would rise up against the new socialist order. Hitler's expansionism was not to bring a "National Socialist" order to the rest of Europe, but to create "Lebensraum" for the Master Race, with certain "Aryan" people being allowed to participate to a lessar degree, while non-aryans were to be enslaved or liquidated. Thus, the ideology of the Bolsheviks and the National Socialists were largely opposed.
It is ludicrous to say that neo-nazis have anything to do with *American* ideas of the Right which believe (or should believe) in limited government, limited regulation, free-market captialism without government restraint, and due process and protection of civil liberties. However, at the far right sit some folks with xenophobic ideas, acceptance of super-militarism, and a desire to "purify the homeland" of all foreign cultural ideologies. That is why Fascism and Nazism are examples of the Right gone extreme, just as Marxism is an example of the Left gone seriously wrong.
For Rightminded: you needn't give me your "right-minded" history lesson, thanks anyway. I am very aware of how the French Revolution was a totalitarian experiment that helped fuel further extremists. To say, however, that fascism and communism were warring ideas based in Marxism is simply dead wrong, my friend. While both sides end up in collective totalitarianism, they come from different angles.
For prowlerneedsajump: well said!
At the great risk of distracting from a fine tavern brawl, may I comment on the original topic?
The rabbi was not correct in throwing coffee and punching the Nazi, but he was quite correct to confront him. It's the passive act of [i]not[/i] confronting evil that causes so much trouble in the world.
Has anyone been over to the DU to see their rightwing take on anti-semitisim? Just reading their comments made me want to go to war, but I couldn't find them. It's a good thing that I'm a leftwing conservative, I don't like to hate people, even jews. Gotta admire someone who can move as fast on the battlefield as we can. ;-)
My Dear fellow, Uncle Dan
The Greeks warned mankind, "the worst form of inequality, was trying to make things unequal, equal!"
The American Founding Fathers heeded the warning, and founded the philosophical idea that all men should be free to pursue their particular happiness. The primary role of government should be to guarantee that freedom.--YOU ARE FREE TO SUCCEED, AS WELL AS FAIL!
The intellectuals and politicians of the French Revolution did not heed the warning, and argued that government should guarantee not only freedom, but economic equality as well.--AND THE GATES OF HELL WHERE SWUNG WIDE OPEN!
While economic equality, is an appealing idea to many, the reality is that as government goals, freedom and economic equality are mutually exclusive. When people are free, those with greater intellectual capacities, creative abilities, physical prowess, initiative, or good luck will probably end up with the most economic wealth. The only way a government can create economic equality is to TAKE WEALTH FORCIBLY FROM THE MOST PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY AND REDISTRIBUTE IT TO LESS PRODUCTIVE CITIZENS. The economically successful lose their freedom so that the un-successful can share the wealth. The more economic equality the government guarantees, the more it must restrict the freedoms of its most productive people.
The original political philosophy that promised both freedom and equality was socialism.
NOW PAY CLOSE ATTENTION HERE UNCLE DAN. communism, progressivism. fascism-nazism (National Socialism) are all directly related, and their roots are firmly planted in socialism. The difference is based on the degree of violence used to redistribute societal wealth, how far a particular society will let you go, as well as, the degree of socialist con, their willing to live with.
Communistic-socialism proved to be a powerful rallying cry for revolution in economically backward countries where tyrants ruled, especially in countries like Russia and China. However, intellectual supporters of the socialist dream soon discovered that it was hard to sell communistic-socialism in democracies or even in those nondemocratic countries where rulers had allowed the population a degree of economic freedom.--IN SHORT SOCIETIES WITH A FORM OF MIDDLE CLASS!
The voters in the Western democracies not only didn’t want socialism, they were terrified of the prospects of a violent communistic-socialist revolution. In the United States, most citizens quickly decided that socialism was un-American.
Not willing to give up the impossible dream that a government could guarantee both freedom and equality, the utopians proposed an alternative to socialism : the idea of a strong, nationalistic government which would allow private enterprise and privately owned property, but would control and regulate it to insure that the property owners and entrepreneurs served the public good instead of their own selfish greed. Under this scheme, politicians promised that they could achieve the goals of socialism without the otherwise inevitable pain of communistic-socialistic revolution and confiscation.
WHAT THEY WERE PROPOSING WAS PROGRESSIVE SOCIALISM RATHER THAN REVOLUTIONARY
COMMUNISTIC-SOCIALISM!
The philosophical con to make socialism easier to swallow in Europe, in which people were permitted to retain property and personal wealth while the state regulated how private property and wealth would be used to achieve the common good was given a name by Benito Mussolini when he founded the Fascist Party in Italy. He promised to give the Italians the same things that Roosevelt promised to give Americans. Mussolini called the political process for doing that fascism--the most influential orchestrater of fascism was Giovanni Gentile.
LIKE MARXISTS-LENINISTS-SOCIALISM, GENTILE, THE FATHER OF FASCISM, HELD THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS UNREAL, RESTRICTED, AND UNFREE OUTSIDE THE MULTIPLE RELATIONSHIPS ESTABLISHED IN COMMUNITY WITH OTHERS. MUSSOLINI HIMSELF, WAS A FORMER REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALIST LEADER!
In like manner, Adolph Hitler promised the Germans equality and prosperity through regulation and control of private wealth and industry. Hitler called his movement National Socialism (which was shortened to the acronym Nazi) because he was promising the same utopian benefits as the socialists promised, but without the pain of the immediate confiscation of all property and wealth. Like the democratic progressives, the fascist tyrants argued that the fascist way to prosperity and equality was the only hope for defeating the Communists.--WARRING SOCIALIST FACTIONS, SIR--I REPEAT, WARRING SOCIALIST FACTIONS!
Fascism was and is a political philosophy in which a strong central government permits, but regulates and taxes, private wealth and property in order to achieve the UTOPIAN SOCIALIST IDEAL.
SO YOU SEE UNCLE DAN, THESE ABOVE MENTIONED ISMS ARE NOTHING MORE THEN SOCIALISM COMING AT MANKIND FROM ANOTHER "ANGLE," BASED ON WHO THEY ARE DESIGNED TO CON!
P.S. Most of what was written above, was taken from this mans excellent work! It is well worth the read. http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2928
P.P.S. More to follow, with respect to how warring socialist factions began to be referred to as being on the left, or on the right.
"Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...
What hath I wrought?
Excellet post, Rightminded."
Thanks Mr. B!
The above coming from you, means allot to me!
"Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...
What hath I wrought?
Excellet post, Rightminded."
Thanks Mr. B!
The above coming from you, means allot to me!
Very informative, right-minded. I don't disagree, but wish to make a different point.
We saw in the 20th century two ideologies that became incredibly dangerous because they broke through existing stasis. The regimes became imperialistic and successfully nationalized and mobilized resources.
Both were defeated and relegated to infamy. So why should we now pay them too much homage by allowing them to taint valuable terminology "left" and "right" to describe modern politics?
The Left wants "left" to mean, not Communism, but policies that are fair to the little guy. The Right wants "right" to mean, not Hitlerism, but policies that enhance individual responsibility.
We've reached stasis again in the West by securing the principle of government by consent. Within the peace, we have competing ideologies. Economic aspects are the most visible differentiator of present-day left and right, but not the only.
I see the direction of the left as quickening the fall of Western civilization. It always seeks to weaken any powerful institution - even the "family" itself - other than its own elites.
Even though fear of the fall of the US into European or Canadian style socialism keeps me awake nights, we might do well to focus our prophylactic attentions on where the left is making the most headway: the US courts.
The courts have moved on from the economical anti-hierarchizing of the Roosevelt era and onto the "emancipation of the individual" as it sees it. In doing so, the judges are making themselves the high priests of a post-modern order.
Despite the puny efforts of Republicans to promote originalism on the bench, this threat is proceeding far more rapidly than the movements toward massive redistribution of wealth.
The culture war, properly understood, determines the new left and right.
So Uncle Dan, as promised, we have in Europe, all these rival SOCIALIST gangs, running amok, just prior to the out break of WWII. They are all coming at their victims, from different angles, in an attempt to enslave them.
There are the Moscow backed communists, with their terrifying record of murder and rapine as the hallmark of their "revolutionary socialism."
Then there are the fascists in Italy, whose creator was a marxist-leninist, and whose spokesperson is a former revolutionary socialist saying, "yeah were socialists and we will enslave you, but at least we are not shrieking Moscow Bolsheviks."
Then there are the German national socialists, saying the same thing as the Italian fascists, and making the same promises as FDR. However, at least they have the decency to attach the word socialist to their moniker, and they even warn the indolent masses setting on their indolent asses, by broadcasting their evil, in the book, "My Struggle."
OK UNCLE DAN, PAY ATTENTION! RED ALERT! RED ALERT!
Up until this time, communists, fascists,and nazis were all referred to as being on the LEFT!
THEN IT HAPPENED!
"The path by which Germany came to be at war again in 1939 is complicated. There is still much argument about when, if ever, there was a chance of avoiding the final outcome. One important moment, clearly, was when Mussolini, formerly wary of German ambitions in Central Europe, became Hitler's ally. After he had been alienated by British and French policy over his Ethiopian adventure, a civil war broke out in Spain when a group of generals mutinied against the left wing-republic. Hitler and Mussolini both sent contingents to support the man who emerged as the rebel leader, General Franco. This more than any other single fact gave an ideological color to Europe's divisions. Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were all now identified as fascist and Moscow foreign policy began to coordinate support for Spain within western countries by letting local communists abandon their attacks on other left-wing parties and encouraging 'Popular Fronts'. THUS SPAIN CAME TO BE SEEN AS A CONFLICT BETWEEN RIGHT AND LEFT;
"THIS WAS A DISTORTION", BUT IT HELPED TO ACCUSTOM PEOPLE TO THINK OF EUROPE AS DIVIDED INTO TWO CAMPS."--History of the World by J.M. Roberts--Oxford University Press
Most of the World has had it wrong ever since, and thus has let the leftist nazis off the hook, for even more millions of leftist murders!--ONE DAY I AM GOING TO GET OUT MY BOOKS, SEARCH THE NET, AND GET A TRUE NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE MURDERED BY THE SOCIALISTS, THAT GOT THEIR IDEA FROM THOSE DAMN STINKY FRENCHMEN, WITH THEIR HIGHLY OVER RATED FOOD!
Post a Comment
<< Home