From: y77878g78tg6y767f6f@fdtgs.co   
      
   "selene1022"  wrote in message   
   news:1135867156.230562.151410@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   > What a long, thoughtful reply. I'm impressed.   
   >   
   > I think most of us looking back would agree with H the younger about   
   > aerial bombing.  Dresden was of no military purpose, other than to send   
   > a not so subtle message to Stalin. The same could be said of Hiroshima.   
   >  Then again, we must ask ourselves, what would have been the price   
   > without bombing? What would it have taken to make Japan and Germany   
   > surrender?   
   >   
   > I think he's also a bit off the mark on the 1933-36 bit as well.  He   
   > seems to forget that both the US and UK were in the depths of a   
   > depression.  The thirties were, as we should remember, the political   
   > decade. Both communism and fascism had an appeal that is shocking to us   
   > now. At least Hitler was feeding people and putting them back to   
   > work--which was more than FDR could say. They just didn't think he was   
   > serious about all that master race stuff. And then there was the added   
   > bonus that he provided a buffer between Stalin and the west. He hated   
   > communists.   
   >   
   >  Foreign policy wouldn't have stopped Hitler--he broke every treaty he   
   > ever made.  Short of invading Germany, what could have been done? And   
   > let's remember, the horrors of the first Great War were still fresh on   
   > everyone's mind. Britain would have had to go it alone.  France, as   
   > usual, was useless.  Italy was already fascist.( PH didn't mention the   
   > Spanish Civil War, where did he stand on that?)   
   >   
   > As it was, it took Pearl Harbor to drag America in, and Germany to   
   > declare war on US. I'd like to see a good "what if" essay--if you know   
   > of one, let me know.   
   >   
   > As for the British Empire, I think I'll let Orwell be our guide   
   > there...   
   >   
   > And getting back to the N word. I am just old enough to remember the   
   > segregated South.  I hate the word. I know exactly what it means, and   
   > how it was used--all the more reason to keep it in movies like   
   > Dambusters. We should never forget--the next generation will never   
   > understand if we put it all down the memory hole.   
   >   
   > Back to my Faulkner example.  I've gone from the Unvanquished, to a   
   > re-read of Absalom.  Faulkner uses the N word on every page. Should we   
   > toss him out of the Canon?  If that happens, for one,  an important way   
   > of understanding the complexities of race and racism in the South would   
   > be lost. Faulkner can tell us what history books can't begin to touch.   
   >   
   > And if the BNP sniggers, so what. Is it a surprise? It is just another   
   > way of showing them for what they are.   
   >   
   > That dog's name tells more about the cultural history of wartime   
   > Britain than a dozen dissertations.   
   >   
      
      
      
   Exactly. But he's a type of fella who won't back down... The main thing is   
   that he *is* saying he's in favour of censoring it but reckons that   
   censorship on TV is not the same as censorship elsewhere. That's bollox.   
   He's a clever cock but he's slipped up there.   
      
   ROBBIE   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)