Free Republic

Luckily for us, Hitler started the war six years before the Kriegsmarine building plan (the 'Z-Plan') was completed. When the war began, Adm. Raeder's comment was, "There is nothing left for us to to but die with honor."

As US Gen. Carl Spaatz so eloquently put it, "I'd hate to see how it would have gone if Hitler hadn't been on our side."

Nothing builds mutual respect like a war against each other. Maybe it's time to go to war with France?

For better or worse he changed the course of human history...

How? By tying down a few Turks in the middle of nowhere?

The Ottoman Empire was defeated the old-fashioned way: by hard-fought campaigns in the Caucasus, Mesopotamia and Palestine. Moreover, the Turkish Army was simply unprepared for a serious war (for example, see Edward Erikson's "Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War", which is probably the best English account of the Ottoman Army in World War One). Lawrence only merits a single reference in the book, so trivial was the Arab revolt.

Lawrence was definitley a remarkable guy, but "Pillars of Wisdom" is a blatant bit of self-promotion. It should not be taken as an objective evaluation.

Hey, sick, but could you have broken up the Ottoman Empire yourself?

The Arab revolt was a joke, which did nothing but tie down a few Torkish battalions in an otherwise inactive theater of war. Rafael de Nogales, a mercenary officer who commanded a Turkish cavalry division in Palestine encountered Lawrence's men on a number of occasions. In his memoirs "Four Years Beneath the Crescent", he expresses little but contempt for the Arab raiders. So long as any Turkish unit maintained a semblance of order, the Arabs would run away. They were bandits, nothing more. This is evident even in "Seven Pillars of Wisdom", as most of the serious battles are not fought by Arabs, but by Muslim troops of the British Army brought to Aqaba from India.

50 000?

That number consists overwhelmingly of quasi-military police forces (the Ordenspoliti and the Sikkherspoliti) and the Kriegsmarine auxillaries. Only the Waffen-SS units fought outside of Norway itself. This was generally the pattern throughout occupied Europe. Numerous locals would serve in the security forces, but few fought for the Germans outside of their own countries. Many in Europe regarded the war as the final struggle with Communism. Although they had no love for the Germans, the feeling was that one had to choose sides (it was for this reason that the Germans avoided using western European volunteers against the Anglo-American forces). Besides, the Germans were so starved for manpower that they were happy to recruit as many locals as possible.

I can't quite agree with you on Norwegian anti-Semitism. Half of Norway's Jews were killed during WW II. They had little local support, as the Norwegian Jews were descended from German Hanse traders in the late Middle Ages. Accordingly, they have always been considered outsiders, religiously and ethnically. The original Norwegian constitution (1814) even denied citizenship to Jews. Thankfully, Norwegians did defeat a recent attempt at an official ban on Israeli products.

As for occupation, sure the Norwegians didn't like it. That said, 50,000 of them served with the German military in WW II, including 10,000 with the Waffen-SS (Norway officially admits to 7,000 with the SS; the 10,000 number comes from German records). Norway was also the most active particpant in the Lebensborn program: An effort to have local women bear the children of German soldiers.

Actually, Norway has been a comparatively active participant in the War on Terror. Norwegian special forces have been operating in Afghanistan since the get-go (as one might imagine, they are good at high-altitude, cold-weather warfare). Hence, Norway has been specifically cited as a target in a number of al-Qaeda ramblings. Likewise, Norway has been restructuring its armed forces to act in concert with US forces overseas. They've scrapped their coastal fleet for large, long-range warships. They've also scaled back the army to make it a more professional force with increased SpecOps capabilities.

The problem with Norwegians is two-fold: (1) They don't understand what it is like to live in a heterogenous society, so they assume that any problems in America are the result of our racism; and (2) like most Europeans, they don't like Jews. Between these two things, the average Norwegian is ready to believe that Israel and America are to blame for the problems in the Middle East. However, the Norwegian military is pro-US, and various Norwegian governments prefer to work with the US, if only behind closed doors. After all, they're not in the EU, so they like the US as a counter-balance to the Eurocrats.

What is there about Princeton that makes Kennedy overreact?

JFK was thrown out of Princeton. He spent part of his freshman year there before he was asked to leave. The official story is that JFK was "sick" so he had to transfer to another university (makes sense, no?). If you ever visit P-ton (a lovely campus), there is a little plaque commemorating JFK's few months there. I believe it is in the Class of 1938 Hall, in the Wilson residential college.

"The real question is why the President is once again appointing a lawyer ~ we already know what lawyers are like. Personally, I'd prefer someone who'd managed a large company to a profitable year."

How about hiring a successful accountant to do open heart surgery? Law requires lawyers because it is dense stuff, built-up over the 1,000+ years of the common law. Common sense is no help in legal matters, as most Anglo-American legal doctrines are counter-intuitive in nature. One does not have to be a judge to be in the Supremes, but a thorough legal education (evinced by a sound and well-articulated judicial philiosophy) is necessary.

"belongs to the ABA but not the Federalist Society"

That is a damning fact.

Well put. Miers' law school would not be an issue if there were more solid evidence of her qualifications for appointment to SCOTUS. At this point, her qualifications seem to be that she's Dubya's personal lawyer.

Can you imagine how much Freepers would have freaked out if Bubba had appointed one of his cronies?

It is not a question of "hurt feelings", but of privacy and slander. In American law, you can say most anything about so-called "public" figures (i.e,. politicians, celebrities, etc.), so long as you do not know the information to be untrue. Private individuals, in contrast, are more protected by privacy laws. It is especially applicable in this case, because it is very difficult for the plaintiff to prove that he's not gay. It is simply a "he said - (s)he said" situation.

It's not so much a testament to Greta's popularity as it is a reminder of how unbearable O'Reilly has become.

Frankly, I think that Scarborough is the best conservative on evening TV these days. He's polite, modest and well-informed. The same cannot be said of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

..neither will putting a bunch of demographic groups we know typically don't make it through their initial enlistments (white females).

No argument there, my friend.

There are definitely some good conscript armies still out there, and you have cited the best example, the IDF. The ROK army is good, but even they're considering cutting back their reliance on conscripts. As for the American examples, I don't find them too persuasive. Our combat performance in the wars of the 20th century was mixed. US dominance in airpower and artillery often disguised sub-optimal performance on the ground.

The trade-off between quality and quantity cannot be avoided. Countries like the ROK and Israel have to err on the side of quantity, given the massive and immediate threat to their national existence. We are not so threatened, and can afford to err on the side of quality. Putting a bunch of less-motived and less well-trained draftees into body-bags won't help in the War on Terror. That said, Bush was a fool for not using the post-9/11 environment to expand the size of the US ground forces.

A new screen name is needed: chamberlainbuff.

Anyone with any sense is opposed to a draft. The mass conscript army was a mere historical aberration (1789-1945) within the overall context of military history. War is for professionals.

Abazid and Cheney are talking about two different things. Abazid is talking about the insurgency in terms of current operational capabilities. Cheney, in contrast, is talking about long-term strategic viability.

War is ultimately a political phenomenon. When a strong constitutional government is established in Iraq, the insuregncy will be toast. Until then, they will receive enough supplies and reinforcements from elsewhere in the Arab world to remain a security threat.

Friend 1 clearly has issues. Tolkien was a devout Catholic writing what he felt to be an archetypal human story in the context of Germanic folklore. It ain't about a homosexual relationship.

Camus was a terrific writer, as was Malraux. I'm not familiar with Levinas' works. Which of his books would you suggest for a first-time reader?