Phases of the lunar cycle

An octogenarian correspondent to The Independent invokes a thoughtful historical precedent as he denounces the Prime Minister's callousness and stupidity in refusing to declare war on the United States:

I was old enough in the Thirties to know about the rise of Hitler, the Reichstag Fire, the ill-treatment of any opposed to the regime, the growth of an ideology of the superiority of race and blood, the utter contempt for democracy, the denial of rights to other people and nations. The invasion of Ethiopia and Albania by Mussolini and the use of the Spanish War as a rehearsal of war from the air. It was called unprovoked aggression then, nowadays it is called pre-emptive action.

I have been unable to understand why Tony Blair did not recognise that in America he was dealing not with a small group of neo-conservatives but with neo-fascists. They even have their own neo-concentration camps.

I am thirty years older than Tony Blair, and my generation have been there but he has not. We know about evil things. He seems to know nothing and feel nothing of the history of the 20th century and why those thousands of men went to France in 1944. Did nobody in Downing Street notice that a small group of vicious zealots had seized power in America? There was no reason for our country to be dragged into their stupidities and waywardness. I strongly resent that my country has become the third most hated in the world.

Comments

[Barry Meislin]

Priceless.

[Eamonn]

"I strongly resent that my country has become the third most hated in the world."

Britain - the plucky runners up yet again.

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

What a complete moron.

[Fabian]

Andy, this is not one of your interactive computer games. Please explain who you are calling a moron and why.

[chris in st louis]

I think I know which country is most hated (We're Number One! Thank you, World!), but which country is the second most hated? Just wonderin' . . .

[Eamonn]

The "vicious zealots" no doubt have alliegance to the second most hated country.

No doubt the "vicious zealots" took time off school to set fire to the Reichstag, at least in our octogenerian friend's mind.

[oliver]

Look on the bright side - we're only third (after Tibet and East Timor, is my guess) Or to take another tack we could fall back on the Simon Munnery line: "Thank God for the Germans. Without them, we'd be the most hated country in Europe."

[George]

Somebody must give this old gentleman to address for the democratic underground http://www.democraticunderground.com/
just to give him some friends in his dotage. They were made for each other.

[Timbeaux]

Is this guy for real? I'm no Bush apologist, but this is crazy. He can't see the Arab dictatorships as the fascists they are, but he can imagine Reichstag fires in Washington? Senility documented for the world.....

[Ross]

"but which country is the second most hated? "

Have a guess, is it-

(a) Saudi Arabia, which exports an hate filled ideology which inspires violence from Madrid to Bali, treats women like animals and funds terrorism.

(b) North Korea, which has killed millions of its own citizens, imprisoned millions of families and tested chemical weapons on them, for no reason, and menaces it's neighbours.

(c) Israel, which is jewish.

[GrimReaper]

"Did nobody in Downing Street notice that a small group of vicious zealots had seized power in America?"
I thought they only managed to bring down a couple of skyscrapers.

[PooterGeek]

Ross, snap! A few weeks back, I came up with a quick multiple choice test on this very question.

[Ross]

Pootergeek- The worrying thing is that there are people who would struggle to get the right answers on either quiz. The octogenarian letter writer for instance.

[David Crawford]

Grandpa Simpson has moved to England? Who knew.

[George Lee]

"Did nobody in Downing Street notice that a small group of vicious zealots had seized power in America?"

Damn, you Brits have been making the same complaint since 1776....

[ian]

Is anyone going to offer a considered response or are we just going to get abusive comments?

[squawkbox]

Anyone who could write or believe that has some major issues with logic and facts, and wouldn't understand a considered response. Under the circumstances, abusive comments are just fine (and more fun).

[ian]

nonsense

[Eamonn]

OK then , if we must.

The writer describes members of the US administration as fascists. This is blatant nonsense as the administration may be democratically voted out in November. On the other hand he fails to describe the Baathist regime as fascist, which it certainly was. Need we go on?

[lbom]

Even aside from the fact that the US administration can be voted out. After all:
- many of them are deeply religious and Bush himself obviously views his power as ordained from above (fascism being an atheistic political philosophy);
- they are often criticised for being too free market in their economic policies (granted, they've had protectionist outbursts); and
- their foreign adventures have not been concerned with territorial aggrandizement (if they had, they might have been easier to run).

Didn't Orwell worry about how cheapened the word fascist as it has become a general-use insult for the Left?

[Chris]

No, I think George Bush is pretty clear that his power is ordained by the Electoral College on behalf of the people. (And don't start about Florida, I beg you.)

Wasn't it Alistair Cooke who defined 'fascist' as 'someone having an argument with a student,' and 'fascist bastard' as 'the same person, winning the argument'?

[lbom]

Chris - was talking in the wider sense, divine providence, endowed by creator, etc. Wasn't doubting Bush's understanding of the Constitution. The only thing that needs to be said about Florida is this.

[jaed]

OK, I can, if I twist my brain mercilessly enough, figure out what historical analogies the letter writer is getting at. (For example, pundits' criticism of the Dixie Chicks' outburst is the "ill-treatment of any opposed to the regime", etc.)

But where's the "ideology of the superiority of race and blood"?

[Eamonn]

The lunar cycle continues on the Independent letters page today....

"Sir: Your coverage of the D-Day commemorations has been balanced and informative but, now that we have properly remembered all those who gave their lives then and you have penned your editorial on the justice of the war (5 June), it is surely the moment to reassess more frankly the way that conflict was ended.

The Allied decision to accept nothing less than total victory, inspired by many of the same emotions that have driven US policy since 9/11, had terrible consequences beyond the carnage in France. The slaughter in Hamburg, the holocaust of Dresden, the destruction of beautiful European towns and cities, the bankruptcy of Britain, the enslavement of vast swathes of Eastern Europe might have been avoided by a negotiated surrender, a feasible outcome given that the defeat of Hitler was patently inevitable by the beginning of 1944.

Your article on the bombing of Normandy (5 June) begins the process. It should be pursued in the interests of historical truth.

W J CARY
Broadstairs, Kent"

I think a letter of apology and financial recompense from Bush and Blair to the living descendants of the top Nazis is called for. No doubt Mr Cary thinks we should also have negotiated a settlement with Hitler in 1940, as Chamberlain, Halifax and others favoured in the 1930s.

[Sean]

Okay, #1 and #2 are interchangeable: US/Israel

And I'll take the old dude's word about England being #3, but I wonder what young upstart is #4?

[lbom]

Eamonn: Makes you wonder where they find these people. Hamburg was bombed in the summer of 1943. Dresden, he's right, was bombed post D-Day (Feb '45) - but to use the word Holocaust is, well, a little insensitive, don't ya think? The destruction of beautiful towns and cities - was a little late to worry about that after 5 years of total war across Europe! The bankruptcy of Britain - to pursue this argument consistently (like Maurice Cowling did) would be to say we should've continued appeasement.

As for the enslavement of vast swathes of Eastern Europe... Well, the Nazis slaved some and slaughtered more; the Soviets slaughtered some and slaved more. At any rate, I'm not quite so sure Stalin was into negotiation, especially after previous ally Hitler had turned on him. And call me cynical but I don't think Stalin would've been swayed by 'human rights' considerations.

All that and the idea that Hitler was a wholly rational statesman willing to negotiate from '44. This is the same Hitler who thought himself Nietzschean ubermentschen?

Eek. Just makes me wonder, who should monitor the Indy's letters page - MI5 or mental health services?

[Ian]

1. It is perfectly possible for a person to be a fascist without necessarily being a member of a fascist regime. The fact that the American people have the power to vote out Bush II and more particularly his cronies doesn't prevent those cronies being neo-fascist.
2. The letter was about the US regime. It didn't mention Kim Il Sung, Mugabe or the Chinese government either. Am I to assume therefore that the writer supports those regimes? - of course not!

As it happens I don't agree with much of the letter either, but indulging in childish insults founded on irrational and illogical premises doesn't make much of a point.

[HJ]

"but indulging in childish insults founded on irrational and illogical premises doesn't make much of a point"

That’s good. It pretty well skewers the smug stupidity of that foolish letter.

By the way, it’s worth noting that this heroic and all-seeing anti-fascist would have been of military age himself 60 years ago, but has omitted any reference to his own role in the struggle. Modesty, I guess.

[Ian]

ad hominem attacks again.

[Martin]

"ad hominem attacks again."

Did he? Where?

They call him Hominem. Ad Hominem.

[ian]

try your dictionary

[ian]

Try your dictionary.