egafd.com

The nazis also delegated the co-ordination of the transportations to the camps to prominent members of the Jewish community, who were trusted by their fellow-Jews. In the Netherlands the co-ordinators were Abraham Asscher, a diamond merchant and a prominent member of the liberal party, and David Cohen, professor in ancient history.
Moreover, the Jews were a well integrated and respected part of the population. That anyone would want to set them apart from the rest of the population and kill them just for being Jews was a bizarre thought.
These are important reasons why the holocaust was such a 'success'.

This is also true for many other countries, like Belgium, France, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania and Latvia. I don't think its true for Poland, where antisemitism was an everyday matter.

The Germans occupied the Netherlands in May 1940. Already in November 1940 many Jews in the civil service were fired. Among them Eduard Meijers, professor in civil law at the university of Leyden. Meijers outlived the concentration camp Theresienstadt and returned in 1945. Before a crammed lecture-room he gave his first lecture in almost five years. His first sentence: 'Like I already said in my previous lecture...'

I know this story has little relevance to this thread, but it is one of the most poignant WWII stories that I know.

Officer Dibble wrote:

> "Look at the way Europe swept across Africa with its superior
> weaponry."
>
> Hmm, an intriguing point, Jerry. So, that being the case, just
> why were Europe?s weapons that much so superior?

It's a complex question as to why different regions developed in different ways and different speeds, very well tackled by the masterful book, "Guns Germs and Steel", which neatly disproves racial theories of superiority:

One of the key reasons for the Europeans winning control of Africa was the sheer brutality and savagery of the Europeans took Africans by shock. This is documented in another interesting book, "Dark Continent" which also debunks the myth of European racial superiority:

> "It took the Africans a couple of centuries to organise a
> resistance, and they finally drove Europe out in the 1950s"
>
> ?Drove Europe out?? You have an interesting way of looking at
> things, Jerry. I was under the impression that the European
> powers voluntarily gave up their colonies due to economic
> problems brought on by the 2nd World War and a changing
> political climate at home. Here?s a quote from Wickipedia -

No European empire quit Africa voluntarily - why would they? Rebellions and resistance were growing, and as you say, Europe was impoverished by WW2 and therefore unable to maintain the effort required to crush African resistance.

One of the few good things that can be said about the British empire is that the Brits knew when to quit and did leave relatively peacefully. But the French, Belgians and Portuguese used incredible brutality to attempt to crush African independence movements before they called it a day. Not that the Brits were non-brutal, but certainly less so than the other European powers.

"which neatly disproves racial theories of superiority"

Hmmm. Who said anything about racial superiority? Is that what you've been wrestling with, Jerry?

I haven't read the books you allude to, but I have had a quick shuffty at the reviews, and, as I anticipated, it seems that the authors here have clear agendas. For instance, one reviewer observed -

"Diamond basically says that certain civilizations got lucky; they happened to live in areas with more useful plant and/or animal life, mineral resources, and so on, than other civilizations. He convincingly argues for explanations that do not involve any racial superiority/inferiority between civilizations."

Diamond's agenda is to construct a case that will neutralize the notion that there are subtle biological differences between races (whether there is or there isn't). But I don't buy that since there is clearly a huge range of variation - i.e., inequality - within any biological system. Diamond would have been better off arguing that 'Hey, of course there are differences, but they don't matter all that much because in a biological system everything has a place and a purpose'. And as for Mark Mazower...Well, he reveals his hand when he dismisses the excess of Stalin (who was responsible for more deaths than Hitler, remember) with his attitude that - you can't make an omelet (or a worker's paradise) without breaking some eggs. I wonder if Mazower would dismiss the crimes of Hitler in such a Cavalier fashion?


"No European empire quit Africa voluntarily - why would they?"

Britain did, and I have already outlined the reasons.


"the Brits knew when to quit and did leave relatively peacefully."

Yes, that's what I was saying. So if they left peacefully and voluntarily they were not driven out, were they?


"But the French, Belgians and Portuguese used incredible brutality to attempt to crush African independence movements"

OK, take that up with them then. But I trust this is not one of those perverse white European bashing posts? So, hey, in the interests of even handedness maybe you would also care to condemn contemporary African barbarity, the likes of which we see in Rwanda, Dadfur, The Congo, Liberia, Ivory Coast and also the appalling crime rates in cities like Nairobi and Johannesburg - often held up as the most dangerous and barbarous cities in the world?







But we have been over this umpteen times before, haven't we? Since WW2 Africa has been the beneficiary of billions of dollars worth of aid and loans. But unlike Germany and Japan is now in a worse state than when we colonials left 'em to it. Murder, mayhem, brutality, crime, corruption and abject incompetence are endemic - surely this suggests at least something about the calibre of the people we are talking about, even to the most blinkered observer?



Officer Dibble