“I would not wish to have it pointed out to me by some Whiz Kid, at this late stage of the game, that World War II was a colossal mistake, an international misunderstanding for which the United States was proportionately responsible.
World War II was nothing of the kind. It was an event wherein the military giants of those several Axis states decided that they could get away with an incredible land grab, a nation grab, a super- Napoleonic concept of defacement of a world-sized map.
They did this with the enthusiasm of their nationals behind them. In minor dissension may have sounded the voices of a few ardent patriots and heroic philosophers; but those were not the majority. An horrific chorus shouted, ‘Duce!’ or ‘Banzai!’ or ‘Heil Hitler!’ Eventually because of the sacrifices offered and endured by our men and the entire populations of Allied countries, the enemy went down to defeat. Enemy cities were pulverized or fried to a crisp. It was something they asked for and something they got. In reverse fashion, if we keep listening to the gospel of apology and equivocation which all too many politicians and savants are preaching today in the United States, we will be asking for the same thing. And in time may achieve it....Like witch doctors, defense intellectuals have created jargon which tends to becloud understanding. I submit that military strategy and subsequent national defense policies are understandable if clearly presented. Moreover, the average citizen must be familiar with these subjects because, through his franchise, he makes the most fundamental and far- reaching defense decisions.”1—Curtis Lemay, 1965, 1968 “Why not admit it clearly, so as to break a taboo and a political interdict, which is felt in the flesh and the Christian conscience—that Islam has been the most appalling torment that ever struck the Church? Christian sensibility has remained traumatized until now.”2
—Father Michel Hayek, 1967
“The most superficial scanning of the statements produced in connection with the Indo-Pakistan War of 1965 and the Arab-Israeli War of 1967 provides abundant evidence of the continuing power of the jihad concept in its original drastic and military intent.
Fighting the unbeliever is a religious duty of the collectivity and secures religious merit; however ‘secular’ the issues, the simple fact of their involving a confrontation between Muslim and non-Muslim suffices for popular sentiment, and hence for governmental direction, to identify the armed dispute as religious warfare. Denials of this fact by the authorities when they address themselves to a Western audience have no meaning beyond constituting an attempt, inevitable in the present international situation, at making their point in a manner likely to be acceptable to a forum averse to the spirit of the religious crusade and altogether disposed to take for granted the separation between religious sentiment and political action....What is truly and unqualifiedly reprehensible lies elsewhere. It is to be found in the projection of internal Western selfcriticism on to the plane of comparative culture studies, in the reification of Western complexes, in the conferring of objective existence to what is little more than a stage setting for a Western cathartic monologue. Psychological and political needs, anguish kept alive by the weight of four dead centuries, pride and ambition supported by dependence on loaned weapons, they combine quaintly to sustain this deliberate illusionism sprung from history undigested and, almost typical of a faltering denial of reality, proclaimed as a new moral gospel. Transferred to the printed page this mood assumes various shapes of which perhaps the most objectionable—to those promoted to cultural donors as much as to those demoted to recipients, for it is the inadequate system of coordinates which inevitably oversimplifies historical process and works offensive injustice to both artificially constituted ‘parties’—is to be found in such Western writing as tries to buy friendship by self-debasement...Whatever the motivation, learning or stylistic skill, it is this kind of scholarship and parascholarship which is reducing the incentive of the societies most in need of them for self-comprehension and more than momentary self-esteem to identify with modern historical scholarship, regardless of the constellation of the hour of publication....Self-criticism in the Anglo-Saxon and French style, itself a fairly recent phenomenon of great pedagogical value, must not be abused to mislead.
Why accept anyone on his own terms unless there is reason for accepting the terms? This goes first of all for ourselves; but only arrogance would exempt the others.”3—Gustave von Grunebaum, 1970
“The anti-colonial left, whether Christian or not, often goes so far as to sanctify Islam and the contemporary ideologies of the Muslim world....Understanding has given away to apologetics pure and simple.”4
—Maxime Rodinson, 1974
“We found regulations [i.e., the dhimma, or pact imposed upon non-Muslim dhimmis living under the sharia] a) that abrogate, undermine and gut the prerequisites for integrity and identity; b) regulations in the social area which demoralize the individual. On the basis of these two more or less preliminary factors, c) [Muslim] proselytizing becomes active.
a) Regulations that abrogate, undermine and gut the prerequisites for integrity and identity: Geographic integrity is shattered by implanting Islamic nuclei. The sectarian reference point of Dhimmi communities is removed, and further sectarian pruning occurs according to Islamic standards. The autonomy of Dhimmis is reduced to an insubstantial thing. b) Regulations in the social area which demoralize the individual: The discriminatory measures are not a normative expression of the different position of the Dhimmis, but are consciously instituted for their degradation. The social environment of the Dhimmis is characterized by fear, uncertainty and degradation. c) The proselytizing method is not aimed at conversion, but at setting traps for the Dhimmis.
We were able to determine that, in all these points, the Dhimma we are presented with is not identical to the actual one. Dhimmis' real estate holdings are granted. They are driven out the moment that Islamic nuclei appear in the area. Dhimmis' possession of their churches is granted. These are closed or razed the as soon as a mosque is established in their neighborhood. Dhimmis are granted freedom of their religious practices.
These are, however, pruned back according to Islamic standards and religious practices are oppressed below the level of perceptibility. So, we had to cross out the idea of tolerance in the area of religion. It is irrelevant. Dhimmis are granted the validity of their internal law. Criminal jurisdiction, however, is excepted. Arbitration awards of Dhimmi courts are neither enforceable, nor legally binding, nor is this jurisdiction exclusive: it is not autonomous. If the Dhimmi turns to the Sharia court, then Islamic law is valid even against the religious law of the Dhimmis. Since this, on the other hand, is not valid for the Dhimmi, a legal vacuum arises. Through the Dhimma, non-Mulims are required to pay the jizya and fulfill all other obligations imposed on them...but the Dhimmis are not left in peace. The security (caring custody, protection, etc.) granted the Dhimma is shown in practice to be a direct cause of fear, uncertainty and degradation. For instance, fear of the consequences of disregarding the dress code arises first from the Dhimma community, as does the fear of heightened risk in conforming to the dress code. It is vouchsafed to the Dhimmis that none of their number will be made Muslim ‘by force.' However, Dhimmis were put into situations from which they could only save themselves by conversion. The Dhimmis' right of abode, of ownership of real estate only remains guaranteed if no Muslims move into this neighborhood, since they are disturbed by the presence of non-Muslims, at least in their devotions— in other words, as soon as a mosque is built. The possession of churches cannot be maintained, since a church may not be closer than a mile from a mosque. Possession of churches may therefore only exist if no mosque is built in the area. The Dhimmis’ autonomy would only be guaranteed if they had not come under the domination of the Muslims, since the restriction of their jurisdiction is a product of the political dominance of Islam. [Emphasis added.]..,[W]hoever—consciously or not—downplays or misrepresents the morally negative aspects of the Dhimma or even distorts it into its (moral) opposite, because he would otherwise have to partially revise his pre-conceived evaluation of Islamic culture, he is behaving like the Marxist ‘researcher’ who simply demonizes every manifestation of ‘evil’ feudalism, instead of, or without (even therefore) investigating the functional accomplishments of feudalism.
The Marxist ‘researcher’ acts this way, because there is no place for critical examination of his own position in his preconceived conception of the world and science. For him ‘scientific socialism’ is a dogma. Orientalist studies must defend itself from degenerating into an obstinate ‘scientific Islamophilia.’ Or it will deserve the teasing name of “orchid specialty” (obscure and unimportant specialty) and not that of a science.”5—Karl Binswanger, 1977 “Western journalists or scholars picture Islam as a system that is open-minded, liberal, vague, and humanist as their own Western systems....Western writers who give accounts of Islam to a Western public often do not stress those elements in Islam that would be offensive or nonsense in the eyes of their Western readers. They rather see it as their duty to present Islam in as acceptable a light as possible to the West....In general, they take on the role of counsel for the defense....Two characteristics of Islam are particularly offensive to the general Western reader: its totalitarian claim to universal validity and its theocratic demands....The smallest details of daily life are subject to the provisions of Islamic law, not excluding personal hygiene and metabolism. Muslims, it is well known, identify all prescripts of Islamic Law totally and vehemently with the Command of God. To many, moreover, it is not immediately obvious that the rule of Islamic Law of the land implies the use of force in order to implement a religion, namely Islam, since no state can exist if it rejects the use of force to compel the observance of its laws. Once this is clear, questions about the status of lax Muslims, of non-Muslims, and of exMuslims who live in Muslim territory inevitably arise. Since Muslims themselves are not at all embarrassed by the political aspirations of their religion they fail to see why others should be.”6
—Johannes J. G. Jansen, 1986
“It is of the essence of a totalitarian ideology that it enforces its right to regulate the totality of life.
The Koran, hadith, the fatwas represent one continuous endeavor in this respect; they aim at controlling every single aspect of life....The ideology is premised not just on the belief that believers are eternally separate from, and eternally superior to non-believers. It is premised on eternal hostility between the two. Fanaticism and terrorism, aggression are inevitable results of this world view. Accordingly, the ideology makes it well-nigh impossible for Muslims to live peaceably in societies in which Muslims are just one of several communities. Indeed, it makes it impossible for an Islamic state to live peaceably in a world where there are non-Islamic States also.”7—Arun Shourie, 1995
“The rise of Islam was both an economic and social revolution, offering new wealth and freedom to dominions it assimilated under the banner of a universal brotherhood guided by the message of the Prophet.”8
—Charles Lindholm, 2002
In response to Lindholm: “Yes, no doubt it was the best of all possible worlds; that is if one had not been one of the multitude slain, the myriads enslaved, or the remainder expropriated, suppressed, and degraded.”9
—Philip Carl Salzman, 2008
12.
More on the topic “I would not wish to have it pointed out to me by some Whiz Kid, at this late stage of the game, that World War II was a colossal mistake, an international misunderstanding for which the United States was proportionately responsible.:
- It is common practice to hold states responsible for their wrongdoings. Consider the following examples: in the aftermath of World War II, West Germany accepted responsibility for the crimes of the Holocaust,
- Racial Violence in the United States since the Civil War
- In late June, 1980, the new Secretary of State of the United States, Edmund Muskie, flew from Europe to a meeting of the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
- Explorations of war commemoration in the Gilded Age of the United States have suggested a growing public infatuation with military history.1
- As a specialist in international politics, I have always believed that my primary business is to study states, those important political, legal and administrative units into which the world is divided.
- As the United Nations has developed and as its role in world affairs has been adapted to the necessities and possibilities created and the limitations established by the changing realities of international politics, collective legitimization has emerged as one of its major political functions.
- Holding States Responsible
- 32 ARE STATES RESPONSIBLE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE IN THEIR OWN RIGHT?
- Most people think of international organizations in general as parts of an effort to prevent international war.
- IX The Game of the World
- A new political order emerged in Eastern Europe after the First World War as nation-states replaced the empires that had, until recently, ruled the region.
- United States of America