Exclusive TAV Interview: Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht Talks [Archive]

View Full Version : Exclusive TAV Interview: Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht Talks

TheGeneral

14th October 2005, 06:02

Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht has known Harriet Miers for more than 30 years. The following interview of Justice Hecht by "T.A.V." Editor John Lofton took place by telephone on October 10, 2005.

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=418

Areopagus

14th October 2005, 09:24

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=418

JL: The reason I’m so hot on this is, this particular issue – well, I was kind of warm, even before I read a book recently which was about Hitler and Nazi Germany and what happened to the judiciary. [The book is “Hitler’s Justice: The Courts Of The Third Reich” published by Harvard University Press in 1991.] It’s written by a man by the name of Ingo Muller, in German originally and it’s been translated here. And what was so exasperating about it, was that this man who exhaustively researched this found one middle level judge, Lothar Kreyssig, a devout Lutheran, who stood up to Hitler and “his laws” that were NOT laws, and said, “No, I will not enforce them because they contradict God’s law. In other words he did not say, “Well, I just put my religion aside, read the text of the law, and decide.” He didn’t say that at all, and to me it was astounding that just one middle level judge stood on God’s law and opposed Hitler’s law. I’m just saying that as a Christian judge you can’t park your religion at the door. That’s ridiculous! your faith is your life.

"It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Parker, Chief Prosecutor for the United States of America at the Nurnberg Trials

Citizens should be prepared to justify who they obey on Judgement Day.'I was just following orders,' is going to sound very lame.

Are subjects are obligated to obey rulers who issue commands contrary to the law of God? Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos http://www.constitution.org/vct/vindiciae.htm
Attributed to Philippe Duplessis-Mornay (1549-1623) and Hubert Languet (1518-1581). Published in Amsterdam by Valckenier in 1660

Civil power, in the root, immediately from God. The title, Lex, Rex, http://www.constitution.org/sr/lexrex.htm is a play on the words that conveys the meaning the law is king.

"[t]he government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not of men." Chief Justice John Marshall - Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 163 (1803).

The following excerpt from abortion survivor, Gianna Jessen, in her testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, July 20, 2000 http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67226.000/hju67226_0.HTM#54 describes what it is like to be born in a country with no regard for the rule of law, and is morally indistinguishable from Nazi Germany:

"I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I count it no small thing to speak the truth. I depend solely on the grace of God to do this. I am 23 years old. I was aborted and I did not die. My biological mother was 7 months pregnant when she went to Planned Parenthood in southern California and they advised her to have a late-term saline abortion.

A saline abortion is a solution of salt saline that is injected into the mother’s womb. The baby then gulps the solution, it burns the baby inside and out and then the mother is to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours.

This happened to me! I remained in the solution for approximately 18 hours and was delivered ALIVE on April 6, 1977 at 6:00 am in a California abortion clinic. There were young women in the room who had already been given their injections and were waiting to deliver dead babies. When they saw me they experienced the horror of murder. A nurse called an ambulance, while the abortionist was not yet on duty, and had me transferred to the hospital. I weighed a mere two pounds. I was saved by the sheer power of Jesus Christ.

Ladies and gentleman I should be blind, burned.....I should be dead! And yet, I live! Due to a lack of oxygen supply during the abortion I live with cerebral palsy. [...] Adolph Hitler once said: ""The receptive ability of the great masses is only very limited, their understanding is small; on the other hand their forgetfulness is great. This being so, all effective propaganda should be limited to a very few points which in turn, should be used as slogans until the very last man is able to imagine what is meant by such words."" Today's slogans are: ""a woman's right to choose"" and "freedom of choice,"" etcetera.

There was once a man speaking from hell, recorded in Luke 16, who said, ""I am tormented in this flame."" Hell is real and so is Satan, and the same hatred that crucified Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago, still resides in the hearts of sinful people today. Why do you think this whole room trembles when I mention Jesus Christ? It is because He is real, and He is able to give the grace for repentance that we need as Americans. We are proud and boastful and we kill without shame."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn. Stat., Tit. 22, 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth [410 U.S. 113, 175] Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. 1 While many States have amended or updated [410 U.S. 113, 176] their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. 2 Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 [410 U.S. 113, 177] and "has remained substantially unchanged to the present time." Ante, at 119.

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/03wills.htm Ten legal Reasons to Reject Roe[/INDENT]

bluebird

17th October 2005, 05:20

A great interview, I listened to all of it and found it very refreshing!
John Lofton is an excellent interviewer. He and Michael Peroutka are very clear thinkers and have a profound understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

I believe many attorneys and judges could personally benefit by listening to this interview.

As much as the judge tried to help his friend Harriet, he was truthful and it became apparent that he's a little confused as to where man's laws come from. This really is inexcuseable, judges Must know this and be clear about it or they should not be deciding cases.

If Ms. Miers does not present her judicial philosophy any clearer than Judge Hecht attempted I'm afraid she won't convince me that she's ready for the Supreme Court. The correct understanding of judicial authority is crucial for all judges but particularly for a Supreme Court justice.

Michael A. Peroutka

19th October 2005, 01:13

I am most grateful to John Lofton for asking Justice Nathan Hecht these questions that he probably has not been asked before.

When I first listened to this interview I was amazed at the judge's lack of understanding of the role of the judiciary. While he admits that only the legislature has the authority to make law, he goes on to say that courts make law. This is as clear an example as I have seen of the violation of what logic books call the rule of non-contradiction. That is, something cannot be both "A" and, at the same time be "not A".

Either courts make law or they don't -- and they don't.

But Americans have been sold the lie for so long that courts make law that they think it's true. It's like I tried to make clear in my remarks recently in Ohio when I quoted Josh Billings who said. "It ain't what a man don't know that makes him a fool. It's all the things he does know -- that just ain't so!"

This (Courts make law) is one of those many, many things that the American people know that "just ain't so"!

I wonder whether forum readers would like to help me make a list -- perhaps leading to a book on the subject -- of all the things that Americans know that "JAS" (just ain't so). I would be happy to offer a modest prize for the best entries. Here's a start:

America is a democracy.

Court rulings are law.

The First Amendment requires separation of church and state.

Democrats and Republicans are two different parties.

The War Between the States began over the issue of slavery.

Federal Judges are appointed for life.

I would be grateful for your additions to this list and/or your comments on these items.

Thanks for listening to the program and for participationg in the American View Forum.

Michael Anthony Peroutka

endangered

19th October 2005, 03:44

The list you propose is as infinite as man’s willingness to be ignorant of the truth. (2Pe 3:5)

Ignorance, bias and neglect are three companions that the world loves.

Nevertheless, I have a few things to add.
1. Lee Harvey Oswald acted as a lone gunman when he shot John Fitzgerald Kennedy. This is an example of a lie that is not believed by very many today but they still remain ignorant of the truth surrounding the event so that the lie is as good as ever. If people would just think through what happened that day and what the implications are they would eventually realize how corrupt America really is.
2. The Federal Reserve (as its name implies) is owned by the Federal Government. Nobody wants to be bothered with the facts about how banks work and what money really is. As long as they can get what they want from the stores, they’re happy.
3. The Theory of Evolution. Here is another lie that not very many believe yet it is widely accepted and all the falsehoods that accompany it.

Michael A. Peroutka

19th October 2005, 09:32

Dear Endangered:

This is exactly what I was looking for and your examples are excellent!

On a personal note, the Lee Harvey Oswald/JFK example is something that woke me up years ago. In the early 1990s I read David Lifton's book called "Best Evidence". If you are familiar with this book, you'll know it's a little like reading a anatomy textbook -- you need to keep plowing through it. (Maybe it's also like reading "War and Peace".).

Anyway, after reading it I proceeded to read practically everything about the assasination. I was fascinated -- and appalled -- that I could have swallowed such a big lie. It is terrifying to think that they actually sold the single bullet theory and the lone gunman theory and all the other rubbish to the American people. Of course, very few persons who actually read anything about the assasination really believe any of the rubbish. And, of course, the proponent of the biggest lie, Arlen Specter, is still very actively with us and still spinning the spin. It was an awesome display of the manipulative power of the central government in conjunction with their media propagandists.

But, I am grateful for the experience because it showed me that the big lie was possible and that, clearly, I ought to be on the lookout for it elsewhere -- maybe everywhere.

Thanks for your input and for your insight. Please feel free to develop these points further. I am becoming convinced that this might be a thesis worth pursuing.

Michael

Michael A. Peroutka

19th October 2005, 09:39

Dear Endangered:

Oh, and one more thing about Harriet Miers. John Lofton informed me yesterday that the White House has now confirmed that Bush NEVER MADE ANY PROMISE THAT HE WOULD APPOINT A THOMAS or SCALIA-LIKE PERSON TO THE Supreme Court!!!!!

We will be talking about this on our next American View program to air this Sunday.

This "promise" by Bush has been repeated so often that it has become the centerpiece of the "Trust me" defense of the President's nomination of this woman.

Well. It looks like he never promised it at all. So why...how...is it so widespread???

Michael

Areopagus

19th October 2005, 09:49

The list you propose is as infinite as man’s willingness to be ignorant of the truth. (2Pe 3:5)

3. The Theory of Evolution. Here is another lie that not very many believe yet it is widely accepted and all the falsehoods that accompany it.

The fantasy of macro-evolution isn’t even a theory, it is a fantasy that has replaced the fact of Creation, see Romans Chapter 1.

This fantasy has had an enormous impact on Constitutional Law.

Do Laws and Standards Evolve?
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=432

The single most influential jurist of the Twentieth Century was United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. His massive treatise, The Common Law, supplanted Blackstone's Commentaries as the premier text for law students.

Darwinian Roots of Judicial Activism
http://www.americasfuture.net/2001/jan01/01-0128a.html

Pearcey analyzes "the crucial role played by the Darwinian view of origins" in the development of American legal philosophy. "Darwinism is not only a biological theory," she emphasizes; "it is also the basis for a comprehensive world view -- implying a new philosophy of mind, knowledge, morality, and law." Pearcey sees a direct connection between Darwinism and the postmodern view that "the only objective and absolute truth is that there are no objective and absolute truths." She argues that a "thorough-going critique" of judicial activism "must begin with Darwinism as a scientific theory." Pearcey advocates taking "the intellectual battle into science itself. The controversy over Darwin versus design is not a peripheral issue," she insists, "but lies at the heart of the cultural crisis of our day."

Evolution and the Law:"A Death Struggle Between Two Civilizations" by David Barton
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=18

The Evolution of Genocide by Rebecca Messall
http://www.humanlifereview.com/1999_winter/messall_w2000.php

My greatest mistake as a pro-life person was in thinking Roe v. Wade arrived by itself. I didn't want to link abortion to other controversial subjects, which scared or confused me, detracting from the obvious atrocity of butchering a living, unborn child. Because of my narrow focus, I ignored the horrific world-view and the socio-political-financial machinery fueling abortion.

Like many pro-life people, I felt that the origin of the species was a matter of God's choice of methods--but not a pro-life concern. Busy in local pro-life matters, I believed evolution was an "education dispute," a controversy I could, gratefully, sit out.

I realized that evolution by natural selection has been the fundamental pro-life issue since Darwin himself. His argument that biologically inferior people threaten to deprive intellectually superior people of food and resources established a scientific-sounding rationale for genocide, which is used today by the abortion-based population control and family planning establishments, as well as others bent to this day on improving the race by laboratory methods.

What's Wrong With the Science Establishment?
http://www.humanlifereview.com/2000_fall/meehan_f2000.php

How Darwinism led to the Holocaust And how it is destroying respect for human life today -From Darwin to Hitler, Weikart, Richard
http://www.hebookservice.com/products/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=c6573&sour_cd=HEB002901

Since the defeat of Nazism, evolutionists have been at pains to conceal the obvious connection between Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" and Hitler's ideology of a death-struggle between superior and inferior races. Their chief tactic: to claim that Hitler's "social Darwinism" was a perversion of "true" Darwinism. But in this stupendous work of intellectual history, Richard Weikart conclusively proves that Hitler's views were not only based firmly on core Darwinian principles, but widely echoed by leading Darwinist scientists, philosophers, and ethicists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries -- and that it was only after worldwide revulsion at the horrors of the Holocaust that such views disappeared from the Darwinist "mainstream."

With impeccable documentation, Weikart demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers of the pre-Hitler era believed -- and celebrated the fact -- that Darwinism overturned traditional Christian ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. In its place, they exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Thus, whatever "improves" the race by favoring the strong and eliminating the weak is justified morally -- and this included not only euthanasia and abortion for certain groups, but even infanticide and genocide, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis.

One justice's vision of role of the courts
http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/csmonitor/s/20041116/20041116092212.html

"In his speech to the Federalist Society, Scalia offered a detailed description of his approach to constitutional interpretation. In his view, Supreme Court justices overstep not only their authority but also their expertise when they try to answer some of society's most divisive moral questions in legal cases such as abortion. He says moral issues should be resolved by elected political leaders, not unelected judges."

"Other than offering the anecdote of the fundraising letter, Scalia did not mention the chief-justice issue during his lecture. Instead, he focused on what he sees as the problem of judges becoming involved in issues that he believes have no place in a court of law."

"He offered examples from the US Supreme Court - abortion, gay rights, the death penalty, gender equality at military schools, and assisted suicide."

"Under a regime of static law, it was not difficult to decide whether under the American Constitution there was a right to abortion or to homosexual conduct or to assisted suicide," he said. "When the Constitution was decided, all those acts were criminal throughout the United States and remained so for several centuries. There was no credible argument that the Constitution made those laws invalid."

"Of course, society remained free to decriminalize those acts [through legislation], as many states have," he added. "But under a static Constitution, judges could not do so."

exmarine

19th October 2005, 10:33

The fantasy of macro-evolution isn’t even a theory, it is a fantasy that has replaced the fact of Creation, see Romans Chapter 1.

This fantasy has had an enormous impact on Constitutional Law.

Yes, but the larger enemy is SECULAR HUMANISM. Neodarwinism and abortion are both merely outgrowths of the secular humanist worldview. It is secular humanism (declared a religion by the U.S. Supreme Court) that has been established and enforced by the courts as the de facto state religion of the United States of America. it is no wonder and no accident that ID theory or creationism has not even gained a foothold in public schools - the evolutionists have the power of the secular-humanist federal government behind them (see Edwards vs. Aguillard SCOTUS decision - 1987).

Ostensibly, the secular humanists tell us that our schools must be "religion-neutral," but we Christians know that is a farce - there is no such thing as "religion neutral." It's nonsense. Everyone has a basic presupposition regarding a belief and duty toward God which forms the foundation of their worldview. That most basic presupposition about God permeates all areas of a person's life. Ergo, we see that secular-humanism permeates and infects the curriculum of all government schools and universities. Secular humanists cannot be or reflect anything other than what they are - godless atheists.

And that is the precise reason why schools are NOT religion-neutral - they are blatantly secular-humanist.

endangered

19th October 2005, 11:15

Before this gets too carried away, you should consider it from the other side. What do people generally believe that is actually true? It is a much shorter list, practically non-existent in fact.

Even Christians don’t perceive the darkness that surrounds them.

TimV

19th October 2005, 12:25

and that it was only after worldwide revulsion at the horrors of the Holocaust that such views disappeared from the Darwinist "mainstream."

They continued for awhile, but people only pay attention to what they want to, or are manipulated into believing. For an example one can look at the Norwegian Tyskerbaster policies.

From a social Darwinistic point of view, the Germans made some wise choices. The state sponsored killings started in the mid 1930's with the T-4 euthanasia program. The Germans lost WW1 largely because of the illegal British blockade which caused over a 100,000 Germans to starve to death. So a committee of doctors was set up to make up a list of institutionalised Germans who could be euthanized to free up resources like food and hospital beds for wounded soldiers expected in the war that they knew was coming. The target was set at 5% of the criminally insane, human vegetables etc.. who were alive at that time. The numbers work out suspiciously close to the number of Germans who died of starvation during WW1, and whether that is a coincident or not I don't know.

There were 6 stations set up in the Reich where those selected were transported to gas chambers which used carbon monoxide gas to kill them. The numbers that eventually were murdered were approximately 80 thousand adults and 6-7 thousand children. The people killed were overwhelmingly ethnic German. The program ended IIRC in 1942 because of public outrage.

After Soviet territory fell to Germany the program continued under various names, the bureaucratic designation of 14f13 being the most infamous. Insane asylums and hospitals dealing with those same types of people had the patients sent off to various kinds of gas chambers, all of which used CO gas to kill them. Later two farm buildings outside the Auschwitz compound were converted to an experimental center for killing "useless eaters" starting with a group of several hundred Russian POWs who were too weak to work as slave labor. In this camp a common pesticide with the active ingredient of hydrogen cyanide was used, based largely of methods that had been successfully used to fumigate grains, cloths etc..

All this made sense to the Darwinist mindset, the phrase I used earlier of "useless eaters" was actually used on official documents.

TimV

19th October 2005, 12:33

Jaime

19th October 2005, 03:51

1) Bush is a conservative.
2) The Branch Davidians started the fire.
3) The BATF/FBI did nothing illegal in the Davidian massacre.
4) The uS has never done anything in the middle-east that could be considered an act of war.
5) The a-bomb had to be used on Japan.
6) The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor without provocation.
7) WW-1 saved the World, at least Europe, for democracy.
8) The Lusitania was sunk without provocation.
9) The Philipine-American War was honorable and just.
10) The Spanish-American war was honorable and just.
11) We (insert self-hating Southerner here) are better off having lost the war.
12) The conquest of the South was needed to "save" the union.
13) Lincoln was a christian.
14) The uS was born in 4 July 1774.

etc, etc.

exmarine

19th October 2005, 04:36

TimV

19th October 2005, 04:50

I agree with the list. Jaime, isn't there a typo in the 1774 part? Didn't you mean 1776?

Jeffrey Butler

19th October 2005, 05:00

I have started a new thread with this contest. Please move all lists and conversation regarding it to THIS THREAD (http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292).

Please resume discussion about Program 26!

exmarine

19th October 2005, 05:20

But for an "everyone knows" example I would say one of the biggest, if not the biggest example is what people think of WW2. For one think they believe that we Americans won the war. At my church the other day the pastor spoke of D-day being decisive, when it was quite a tame affair compared to battles like Stalingrad or Kursk. It was the Soviets that did the killing and dying during that war, not us.

I don't mean to be pedantic here, but you may want to reconsider your wording above. Americans did win the war against Japan almost single-handedly; and Americans certainly helpled win the war against Germany; and Americans certainly did alot of fighting and dying. I think your wording does a disservice to the men who fought and bled and died over there.

The veterans of D-Day or Anzio or Salerno certainly do not believe the battle was "tame." It certainly was not - it was the biggest amphibious invasion in history. The Battle of the Bulge was one of the biggest battles of the war - over one million men involved, with 81,000 American casualties (19,000 dead) and 100,000 German. In addition, 18,500 American aircraft were shot down over Europe.

The Soviets certainly did a lot of fighting and most of the dying but they deserve no praise. Stalin killed perhaps 30 million of his own citizens in his variouis pogroms, he invaded Poland, Finland, annexed the Baltic States, murdered thousand of Polish officers in the Katyn Forest, and sacrificed his men like cannon fodder.

Jaime

19th October 2005, 05:55

I edited my list once because I messed up the numbering. And now, I'm pointed out 'nuther typo. Should I correct the entry to 1776?

Re. WW-2. It is my understanding that the Germans had about 75% of their war machine fighting the eastern front.

TimV

19th October 2005, 05:57

I don't mean to be pedantic here, but you may want to reconsider your wording above. Americans did win the war against Japan almost single-handedly;

Before we even got into the war the Japanese sent an army into Soviet territory, and was totally crushed by Zhukov. After we dropped the bomb a huge Japanese army was overrun and captured in a brilliant military attack by the Soviets. The Japanese didn't have the technology and manufacturing ability to fight with a major power.

and Americans certainly helped win the war against Germany; and Americans certainly did a lot of fighting and dying. I think your wording does a disservice to the men who fought and bled and died over there.

The Soviets killed 15 times more Germans than we did, and even the Romanians lost more soldiers in Europe than we did. Our main contribution was material aid.

The Battle of the Bulge was one of the biggest battles of the war - over one million men involved, with 81,000 American casualties (19,000 dead) and 100,000 German.

The Battle of the Bulge was certainly not a big, vicious battle compare to war in the East. The Soviets lost 300,000 men dead just taking Berlin. That's 15 times as many casualties suffered by an Allied force in a battle that most people have never heard of.

The Soviets certainly did a lot of fighting and most of the dying but they deserve no praise. Stalin killed perhaps 30 million of his own citizens in his variouis pogroms, he invaded Poland, Finland, annexed the Baltic States, murdered thousand of Polish officers in the Katyn Forest, and sacrificed his men like cannon fodder.

A very chauvinistic statement. There weren't any guiltless parties during that war. Americans committed atrocities as well as every other group of participants. There is no white or black, just various shades of grey. How does anyone deserve any praise for taking part in a war that should have been avoided?

exmarine

19th October 2005, 07:40

Before we even got into the war the Japanese sent an army into Soviet territory, and was totally crushed by Zhukov. After we dropped the bomb a huge Japanese army was overrun and captured in a brilliant military attack by the Soviets. The Japanese didn't have the technology and manufacturing ability to fight with a major power.

Here we go - the "brilliant" Soviets! What are you - a Soviet apologist? Do you really think Zhukov softened them up for us in one battle? The fact is that if Zhukov had not been in Manchuria fighting the Japanese, he would likely have been murdered by the tyrant Stalin along with most other top Russian generals in his military purges.

Yeah, the Japanese were such over-rated wimps that the Russians lost a previous war to them. That's the one where the Russian Navy was sent to the bottom of the ocean (Russo-Japanese War). Oh yeah, the Japanese were wimpy foes - anyone could beat them with better technology - that's why 6,000 Marines died on Iwo Jima in a 30 day battle where virtually all of the Japanese defenders fought to the death. While you are on all-things-in-American-history-must-be-ridiculed kick, care to disparage the U.S. Marines? Please do - I want it on record for all to see.

You know, what you are saying on this thread borders on America-bashing. It reminids me of my time spent in the university with America-hating revisionist liberal professors. It's one thing to be patriotic, and want smaller government and no foreign entanglements. It's quite another to disparage American fighting man heroes, and put a pro-Soviet, anti-American *SPIN* on history. Let's all bow a knee to the mighty TimV - who has no degree in history and has never seen combat!

The Soviets killed 15 times more Germans than we did, and even the Romanians lost more soldiers in Europe than we did. Our main contribution was material aid.

Yeah, and Stalin killed 5 times more Soviets than the Germans did! You talk like a Stalin apologist! Your admiration for all things Soviet is quite apparent. That explains alot. Your view of WWII sounds alot like a Soviet propganda film.

The Battle of the Bulge was certainly not a big, vicious battle compare to war in the East. The Soviets lost 300,000 men dead just taking Berlin. That's 15 times as many casualties suffered by an Allied force in a battle that most people have never heard of.

Bulge not a big vicious battle? One million men, 200,000 casualties? What alternate reality are you living in? Coulda fooled the fighting men who were there! Easy for someone to say who has never had a bullet whiz past his ear or artillery rounds dropping like hail!

It's one thing to state that the Soviets had the most casualties -which they did. It's quite another to say that America's role in WWII was insignificant.

The Soviets threw their men in like cannon fodder. They placed no value on human life - the truth is that the Soviets were marxist/atheist totalitarians on a par with Hitler or worse.

A very chauvinistic statement. There weren't any guiltless parties during that war. Americans committed atrocities as well as every other group of participants. There is no white or black, just various shades of grey. How does anyone deserve any praise for taking part in a war that should have been avoided?

Ahh, the old moral equivalence tactic. Now, you are speaking like a moral relativist. Tell me, what did Americans do that was on a moral par to the outright slaughter of tens of millions of slavs/jews/poles/Ukrainians/ Chinese at the Rape of Nanking? Please enlighten us all.

You are wrong. The war could not have been avoided. Hitler would have brought the war to America whether we wanted it or not - only he would have been stronger had we waited; and so would have the Japanese, oil embargo or not - as both were TOTALITARIAN despotic empires. That's what totalitarians do without provocation - they INVADE and ATTACK other countries, and that is precisely what both Japan and Germany did. STOP BLAMING AMERICA! It is unrealistic and utopian to think we could have avoided war with these countries with an isolationist policy. Besides, HITLER DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA FIRST in December 1941. I know - we provoked them right? America is just a provoker! Right?

This thread has become offensive to me. I AM AN AMERICAN, and I AM A USMC VETERAN. I do not take kindlly to people who disparage our military and the men who fought and died on foreign soil. It makes me angry. I can see that I made a mistake to try to respond to any of your posts. I have better things to do with my time than allow myself to be angered by the likes of a Stalin admirer.

TimV

19th October 2005, 08:34

Here we go - the "brilliant" Soviets! What are you - a Soviet apologist? Do you really think Zhukov softened them up for us in one battle?

Zhukov was brilliant. I think most WW2 historians would either place him first or right after Guderian as the best tank commander on either side.

Oh yeah, the Japanese were wimpy foes - anyone could beat them with better technology - that's why 6,000 Marines died on Iwo Jima in a 30 day battle where virtually all of the Japanese defenders fought to the death.

Iwo Jima was a minor incident given the history of WW2. The Soviets lost a half million men fighting at Stalingrad. That is almost one hundred times as many dead as we lost at Iwo Jima.

While you are on all-things-in-American-history-must-be-ridiculed kick, care to disparage the U.S. Marines? Please do - I want it on record for all to see.

I'm not. I am merely trying to open your eyes from your parochial, nationalistic Christian Zionistic world view. We Americans have done much good in the world, but we're not anywhere near so central to modern history as many people think.

You know, what you are saying on this thread borders on America-bashing.

Only to someone who holds to the heresy of nationalism.

It reminids me of my time spent in the university with America-hating revisionist liberal professors.

And you remind me of Rush Limbaugh, but what does that have to do with this subject?

Yeah, and Stalin killed 5 times more Soviets than the Germans did!

Current estimates of Soviet soldiers killed are just over 10 million. Most estimates of the number of Soviet civilian deaths run in the 11 million range. Saying the Soviet lost over 20 million dead to the Nazis puts one within a general consensus range among those who study this. Using your figure we get:

Soviet dead due to the nazis 20 million
Soviet dead due to Stalin 100 million
Total Soviet dead 120 million

Where did you say your degree in history was from?

Bulge not a big vicious battle?

Twisting words shows a lack of integrity. I said in comparison, and I am right.

It's quite another to say that America's role in WWII was insignificant.

Twisting words shows a lack of integrity. I said our chief contribution was material aid, and it was.

The Soviets threw their men in like cannon fodder. They placed no value on human life - the truth is that the Soviets were marxist/atheist totalitarians on a par with Hitler or worse.

Who said they didn't, or weren't?

Tell me, what did Americans do that was on a moral par to the outright slaughter of tens of millions of slavs/jews/poles/Ukrainians/ Chinese at the Rape of Nanking? Please enlighten us all.

Poles and Ukrainians are Slavs. Let's learn about the subject matter before getting too hot!

Hitler would have brought the war to America whether we wanted it or not

Only people who watch the FOX News channel believe that. No historian familiar with the subject matter does. Hitler saw his dreams in the East. He did what he could to keep England from declaring war (at least as much as a crazy man can think sensibly).

That's what totalitarians do without provocation - they INVADE and ATTACK other countries,

And this is what concerns me about our current foreign policies, and yours.

__________________

exmarine

20th October 2005, 11:00

Only to someone who holds to the heresy of nationalism.

The Constitution is somewhat nationalistic in a certain sense. Perhaps we should abolish it hmm?

Current estimates of Soviet soldiers killed are just over 10 million. Most estimates of the number of Soviet civilian deaths run in the 11 million range. Saying the Soviet lost over 20 million dead to the Nazis puts one within a general consensus range among those who study this. Using your figure we get:

Soviet dead due to the nazis 20 million
Soviet dead due to Stalin 100 million
Total Soviet dead 120 million

Where did you say your degree in history was from?

You haven't done much research. Some estimates have Stalin murdering as many as 50 million people. You can do a google and find estimates all over the board because certainty is elusive on secretive genocides. Here is one that puts the total at 43 million:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.STALIN.KILL.HTM

And some estimates of Soviet military deaths are in the 8.5 million range - I can provide a link for that too if you want. In any case, these two stats would make my statement roughly true since 8.5 x 5 = 42.5 million. :cool:

I have a B.A. in History from an accredited university. Summa c. laude What's yours in again?

Only people who watch the FOX News channel believe that. No historian familiar with the subject matter does. Hitler saw his dreams in the East. He did what he could to keep England from declaring war (at least as much as a crazy man can think sensibly).

No, many historians believe that. Again, Hitler declared war on America first. You conveniently ignored that little fact (I suspect you did not know it).

TimV

20th October 2005, 12:21

You haven't done much research. Some estimates have Stalin murdering as many as 50 million people. You can do a google and find estimates all over the board because certainty is elusive on secretive genocides.

You can find anything on google. Only someone totally unfamiliar with the subject matter could use such a bizarre number. The total population of the USSR was only 190 million at the time.

"And some estimates of Soviet military deaths are in the 8.5 million range - I can provide a link for that too if you want. In any case, these two stats would make my statement roughly true since 8.5 x 5 = 42.5 million."

You are either being tricky or stupid, since you didn't add civilian deaths, which add at the very least another 10 million, which using your own figures would mean 5 X 18.5, which is one half of every single Soviet citizen.

I have a B.A. in History from an accredited university. Summa c. laude What's yours in again?

From reading. Would you like to move this over to a WW2 board of your choice? I have a couple that I use if you don't have any. Let's make a deal. We'll settle this on another board and the one who is show to be wrong will have to come back here and apologize.

exmarine

20th October 2005, 03:39

You can find anything on google. Only someone totally unfamiliar with the subject matter could use such a bizarre number. The total population of the USSR was only 190 million at the time.

Well, it's a university (Hawaii) connected website. As I said, no one knows for sure how many people Stalin murdered...that includes you and any of the WWII boards you mentioned. Ergo, I suppose my point is that you do not have the solid facts to support your number of 11 million, since I can produce much higher numbers from other sources.

However, since you are so desperate to score a point with me that you will continue to quibble over this minor side issue, I will concede that including civilian deaths, Russian dead in WWII probably were around 25 million; in which case, my estimate would have to be revised to 2 to 1 instead of 5 to 1. But, then again, since I was speaking of "mass murder" which would not include combat deaths, it may be more appropriate to include ONLY the Russian civilian dead and not the military dead (since military combat deaths are not considered to be "murder"). So, if the civilian deaths were 15 million, then I suppose the ratio would be 3 to 1.

In any case, I think there is enough evidence to support my original point: Stalin murdered more Soviets than Hitler did.

From reading. Would you like to move this over to a WW2 board of your choice? I have a couple that I use if you don't have any. Let's make a deal. We'll settle this on another board and the one who is show to be wrong will have to come back here and apologize.

Apologize for what? If anyone owes anyone an apology, you owe an apology to the families of all the WWII veterans whose sacrifices you have disparaged.

You still ignore the point: How could we have avoided war since Hitler declared war on America first? Did America provoke that declaration? If so, how?

exmarine

20th October 2005, 04:09

Oh, and by the way, Iwo Jima was no minor incident. The island had a strategic airfield located 650 miles from Japan which also provided a key safe landing point for damaged American bombers. Taking it also stopped the attacks on our bombers by Japanese fighters based at Iwo. It was a strategic island.

And 6,000 Marines gave their last full measure there. However, I realize that strategic issues do not concern a military expert like you (cough), since we all know by now that the Soviets are your measuring stick. You have demonstrated quite clearly that you do not consider any battle smaller than (or with fewer casualties than) Kursk or Berlin as having any considerable significance (Battle of the Bulge was a minor scrape in your myopic world), so I do not expect to sway you with any strategic arguments either, or arguments about American sacrifices.

bluebird

20th October 2005, 04:34

To add to Mr. Peroutka's JAS list:

1. Abortion is a "woman's" issue. (Fraid not, it takes two to produce a life and the father has just as much right to be concerned about the new life)

2. Bringing a Bible to school is the establishment of a religion.

3. Discussing the person of Jesus in a public school is the establishment of
a religion.

4. Evolution means the species gets "better." This has got to be the Best
proof that evolution is false.

5. Pornography is "free speech."

6. Large Corporate monetarial donations to one particular candidate is free
speech; so are we to assume that the rich have a weightier voice than
the poor?

I agree with the writer before me that the Truth is a far less exhaustive list but I also agree that it's important to Identify a Lie. Many people in this culture think these common lies are truth.

TimV

20th October 2005, 09:35

You still ignore the point: How could we have avoided war since Hitler declared war on America first? Did America provoke that declaration? If so, how?

Sanctions have been an act of war for centuries, and the Anglo-Dutch-American sanctions had only one possible repercussion.

Soviets my yardstick? I'm the Calvinist, you're the Christian Zionist. I'm Orthodox, in that I hold to the Ecumenical Councils, and from what I've read you probably believe in Free Will and all that modernistic stuff. I'm so totally talking above your head. If you want to talk about military effectiveness during WW1 and WW2 the the Germans were so far above everyone else that there isn't anyone else in the room. Second would probably be the French, and then after the French the Brits, Soviets and the US.

Jaime

20th October 2005, 10:21

TimV and exmarine. Do not lose focus that the comparisons are in magnitude. The numbers boggle the mind. The deaths caused by Stalin, not including WW-2 related deaths, are estimates. Ditto with Mao's. Those deaths are given in ranges.

exmarine: I like (not that I necessarily agree) your postings and that you have a degree in History is laudable and I applaud you. Remember, though, that appealing to authority is not proof. A lot of contributions to history, arts and sciences has also been done by amateurs. I respect your educational background and will keep it in mind if/when we debate or need assistance with info. For instance: The whole issue of what really was necessary to finish the war in the Pacific is arguable. Not by me but by military people themselves. The Nemitz's Island Hoping campaign was questioned at the time. The need to take Iwo Jima was tied to the Enola Gay' mission. All those islands were, I think, unable to be resupplied at the time. Right or wrong?

I humbly suggest a separate thread on this topic.