Re: Score one for Armstrong

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That dog won't hunt. The use of the term by riders in no way
addresses the context or time frame of it use. All groups use some
means to control their members. But what happens in cycling is vastly
different from the black hand of the Mafia.

Do pass your thoughts along to the pro riders who use the term so they can
laugh with--I mean at- you.

Quoted message said:

Of course this logic would be lost on some who equates the Gitmo
happening with Nazzi genocide of six million Jews and Soviet gulags
where ten million perished.

It isn't about numbers. It's about violations of iternational law,
statutory and customary. Consider though, the Defense dept and the CIA will
not reveal how many are held in prisons known and unknown at present.

Lafferty said:

"Do pass your thoughts along to the pro riders who use the term so they can
laugh with--I mean at- you."

And you would know what an in-group like the pro peloton thinks. Now
there's the laff.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course this logic would be lost on some who equates the Gitmo
happening with Nazi genocide of six million Jews and Soviet gulags
where ten million perished.

Quoted message said:

It isn't about numbers. It's about violations of international law,
statutory and customary. Consider though, the Defense dept and the CIA will
not reveal how many are held in prisons known and unknown at present.

No it is about the numbers. The Holocaust and gulags have impact
precisely because of the numbers. The big post modern leftist lie is
that refusing to provide an exact number of prisoners at Gitmo, makes
Gitmo comparable to a concentration camp a gulag. The big lie is
that a misdemeanor infraction is tantamount to killing millions. That
is one whopper that will need be repeated incessantly before the public
can be brain washed into believing it. But then the main stream media
has had a go at it.

Quoted message said:

The big lie is
that a misdemeanor infraction is tantamount to killing millions. That
is one whopper that will need be repeated incessantly before the public
can be brain washed into believing it. But then the main stream media
has had a go at it.

This is another issue that the Democrats better let slide. One poll
showed that only 27% of Americans felt that the detainees were being
mistreated, while 37% felt that they were being treated too well. So
the media and Democrat efforts to embarrass the Bush Administration
have fallen on deaf ears. It's just another example of how the
Democrats have allowed themselves to become marginalized with the
American public.

At least Hillary Clinton has been smart enough not to become
identified with the anti-war part of the Democratic Party. She will
have a difficult time getting elected, but she's doing what she has to
do to give herself the best chance.

Jack Hollis said:

Quoted message said:

The big lie is
that a misdemeanor infraction is tantamount to killing millions. That
is one whopper that will need be repeated incessantly before the public
can be brain washed into believing it. But then the main stream media
has had a go at it.

This is another issue that the Democrats better let slide. One poll
showed that only 27% of Americans felt that the detainees were being
mistreated, while 37% felt that they were being treated too well. So
the media and Democrat efforts to embarrass the Bush Administration
have fallen on deaf ears. It's just another example of how the
Democrats have allowed themselves to become marginalized with the
American public.

At least Hillary Clinton has been smart enough not to become
identified with the anti-war part of the Democratic Party. She will
have a difficult time getting elected, but she's doing what she has to
do to give herself the best chance.

Hillary Clinton is one of my least favorite people much less politicians, but I
don't think she's positioning herself so much as that she simply doesn't hate
America and Americans the way so many of her colleagues do.

Yeah, she's an arrogant ass who thinks we'd all be better off if she were in
charge, but it is a sincere and well intended arrogance.

Ron

Does she ride a bike ?? No ?? .... then why bother us [censored] ??

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:58:13 GMT, RonSonic <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Hillary Clinton is one of my least favorite people much less politicians, but I
don't think she's positioning herself so much as that she simply doesn't hate
America and Americans the way so many of her colleagues do.

Yeah, she's an arrogant ass who thinks we'd all be better off if she were in
charge, but it is a sincere and well intended arrogance.

Ron

Hillary is a realist and she knows that anything she does, or says,
now will be used against her. I think she is to the left of where she
has positioned herself since winning the Senate seat from NY, but
realizes that if she can get a draw with her Republican opponent on
national security, she has a chance to win on domestic issues.

She might even try to pull what JFK did against Nixon in 1960 and call
the Republicans weak on defense. There's even talk of her supporting
an increase of 100,000 US combat ready troops.

Hillary's main problem is that survey's show that about 40% of the
voters are unlikely to vote for her no matter what. On her side is
about 30% of voters that she will get no matter what. That leaves her
needing 2/3 of the rest and that's a pretty big hill to climb.

RonSonic said:

Hillary Clinton is one of my least favorite people much less politicians, but I
don't think she's positioning herself so much as that she simply doesn't hate
America and Americans the way so many of her colleagues do.

Please, we don't hate America and Americans. It's just
you we don't like.

Sincerely yours,
The Democratic Par-TAY

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:33:27 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

True, for some, it did not matter that many prisoners were innocent or
that humiliating people by posing them naked in a pile is not a persuasive
converting tool. Even in the far more horrific World War II, the United
States treated our German POWs humanely; many became loyal to our values,
and now their nation is a strong ally.

What rubbish.

After WW2 there was a German insurgency movement known as the
Werewolfs. They did pretty much what the Iraqi insurgents are doing
today in Iraq. The US military response to the Werewolfs was that
when they were caught, they were shot on the spot.

In one town, when the French encountered a Werewolf sniper, they
pulled out of the town and shelled it for 24 hours killing an
estimated 10,000 people. The Soviets were even more brutal than the
French and would often punish civilian populations in response to
Werewolf attacks.

So I don't know who this idiot who wrote this article is, but he
doesn't know his history.

"Jack Hollis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:33:27 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

True, for some, it did not matter that many prisoners were innocent or
that humiliating people by posing them naked in a pile is not a persuasive
converting tool. Even in the far more horrific World War II, the United
States treated our German POWs humanely; many became loyal to our values,
and now their nation is a strong ally.

What rubbish.

After WW2 there was a German insurgency movement known as the
Werewolfs. They did pretty much what the Iraqi insurgents are doing
today in Iraq. The US military response to the Werewolfs was that
when they were caught, they were shot on the spot.

In one town, when the French encountered a Werewolf sniper, they
pulled out of the town and shelled it for 24 hours killing an
estimated 10,000 people. The Soviets were even more brutal than the
French and would often punish civilian populations in response to
Werewolf attacks.

So I don't know who this idiot who wrote this article is, but he
doesn't know his history.

You're talking apples and oranges. POWs captured on the battlefield are, and
were by the US, treated under the rules of the Geneva Conventions on POWs.
Those you refer to (Werewolves) are soldiers who have refused to lay down
arms after national surrender.

The persons who wrote the article are noted at the end of the article. But
then you didn't really read much of it.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:17:18 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You're talking apples and oranges. POWs captured on the battlefield are, and
were by the US, treated under the rules of the Geneva Conventions on POWs.
Those you refer to (Werewolves) are soldiers who have refused to lay down
arms after national surrender.

Many of the Werewolves were recruited after the war was over and
included women. They continued to fight for almost four years after
the war was over. There was an increase in insurgent activity when
the US implemented its deNazification program which was very unpopular
with the German public.

In any case, none of the people held in Gitmo are POWs, nor are the
insurgents held in Iraq. POWs are members of the armed forces of a
nation who are captured in uniform.

In addition, there are numerous accounts of German atrocities against
US POWs during WW2 and vice versa. Needless to say, we don't have to
mention the Japanese.

It would be extremely difficult to find any major conflict where
prisoner abuse didn't happen. Whoever wrote this article is either
extremely naive or just purposely distorting the truth for political
purposes.

Personally, I have no difficulty with using coercive techniques
against prisoners who could provide useful information that could help
to save lives. Often this information is of a timely nature and
therefore you have to get it quickly.

I do have difficulties with prisoner abuse that has no purpose other
than to inflict pain and suffering.

Finally, the author of the article constantly refers to torture, I
hardly think that putting a pair of panties on a prisoners head
qualifies as torture. I'm sure that, in some cases, prisoners have
been tortured, but most of the incidents that have been documented
fall well short of torture.

You should read the famous Zimbardo Simulated Prison Study done at
Stanford in 1973. The social factors at work in any prison
environment are very strong. Accordingly, the fact that prisoner
abuse has been such a common occurrence throughout history is not a
surprise. If college students, assigned to the role of guard can
quickly become abusive to another group of students assigned the role
of prisoner, it's not surprising that abuse occurs between real guards
and real prisoners who have preexisting animosities between them.

"Jack Hollis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:17:18 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You're talking apples and oranges. POWs captured on the battlefield are,
and
were by the US, treated under the rules of the Geneva Conventions on POWs.
Those you refer to (Werewolves) are soldiers who have refused to lay down
arms after national surrender.

Many of the Werewolves were recruited after the war was over and
included women. They continued to fight for almost four years after
the war was over. There was an increase in insurgent activity when
the US implemented its deNazification program which was very unpopular
with the German public.

In any case, none of the people held in Gitmo are POWs, nor are the
insurgents held in Iraq. POWs are members of the armed forces of a
nation who are captured in uniform.

It's a bit more complex than that, Jack. And you're wrong as well.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/hr4812.doc.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9266.htm

Quoted message said:

In addition, there are numerous accounts of German atrocities against
US POWs during WW2 and vice versa. Needless to say, we don't have to
mention the Japanese.

And there were war crime tribunals that convicted and executed Germans and
Japanese for those crimes.

Quoted message said:

It would be extremely difficult to find any major conflict where
prisoner abuse didn't happen. Whoever wrote this article is either
extremely naive or just purposely distorting the truth for political
purposes.

That doesn't make it legally or morally correct.

Quoted message said:

Personally, I have no difficulty with using coercive techniques
against prisoners who could provide useful information that could help
to save lives. Often this information is of a timely nature and
therefore you have to get it quickly.

Then you have no problem with those techniques being used on US prisoners.
Senior US military officers do have a problem with that and have told that
to the US Supreme Court.
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/docs/RasulRetiredMilitaryOfficersAmicus.pdf>> I do have difficulties with prisoner abuse that has no purpose other> than to inflict pain and suffering.My but you are the great humanitarian.>> Finally, the author of the article constantly refers to torture, I> hardly think that putting a pair of panties on a prisoners head> qualifies as torture. I'm sure that, in some cases, prisoners have> been tortured, but most of the incidents that have been documented> fall well short of torture.See the Info Clearing House link above. The US has admitted committingtorture at Gitmo.>> You should read the famous Zimbardo Simulated Prison Study done at> Stanford in 1973. The social factors at work in any prison> environment are very strong. Accordingly, the fact that prisoner> abuse has been such a common occurrence throughout history is not a> surprise. If college students, assigned to the role of guard can> quickly become abusive to another group of students assigned the role> of prisoner, it's not surprising that abuse occurs between real guards> and real prisoners who have preexisting animosities between them.You fail to present a moral or legal justification for what you describe.There is none, particularly for the military with its command structure.

Part of my post was munged. I've cleaned it up somewhat for you.

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jack Hollis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:17:18 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You're talking apples and oranges. POWs captured on the battlefield are,
and
were by the US, treated under the rules of the Geneva Conventions on
POWs.
Those you refer to (Werewolves) are soldiers who have refused to lay down
arms after national surrender.

Many of the Werewolves were recruited after the war was over and
included women. They continued to fight for almost four years after
the war was over. There was an increase in insurgent activity when
the US implemented its deNazification program which was very unpopular
with the German public.

In any case, none of the people held in Gitmo are POWs, nor are the
insurgents held in Iraq. POWs are members of the armed forces of a
nation who are captured in uniform.

It's a bit more complex than that, Jack. And you're wrong as well.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/hr4812.doc.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9266.htm

Quoted message said:

In addition, there are numerous accounts of German atrocities against
US POWs during WW2 and vice versa. Needless to say, we don't have to
mention the Japanese.

And there were war crime tribunals that convicted and executed Germans and
Japanese for those crimes.

Quoted message said:

It would be extremely difficult to find any major conflict where
prisoner abuse didn't happen. Whoever wrote this article is either
extremely naive or just purposely distorting the truth for political
purposes.

That doesn't make it legally or morally correct.

Quoted message said:

Personally, I have no difficulty with using coercive techniques
against prisoners who could provide useful information that could help
to save lives. Often this information is of a timely nature and
therefore you have to get it quickly.

Then you have no problem with those techniques being used on US prisoners.
Senior US military officers do have a problem with that and have told that
to the US Supreme Court.
ccr-ny.orgRasulRetiredMilitaryOfficersAmicus.pdf>Open ↗

Quoted message said:

I do have difficulties with prisoner abuse that has no purpose other> than
to inflict pain and suffering.

My but you are the great humanitarian.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Finally, the author of the article constantly refers to torture, I>
hardly think that putting a pair of panties on a prisoners head>
qualifies as torture. I'm sure that, in some cases, prisoners have> been
tortured, but most of the incidents that have been documented> fall well
short of torture.

See the Info Clearing House link above. The US has admitted
committingtorture at Gitmo.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You should read the famous Zimbardo Simulated Prison Study done at>
Stanford in 1973. The social factors at work in any prison> environment
are very strong. Accordingly, the fact that prisoner> abuse has been
such a common occurrence throughout history is not a> surprise. If
college students, assigned to the role of guard can> quickly become
abusive to another group of students assigned the role> of prisoner, it's
not surprising that abuse occurs between real guards> and real prisoners
who have preexisting animosities between them.

You fail to present a moral or legal justification for what you
describe.There is none, particularly for the military with its command
structure.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:47:07 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In any case, none of the people held in Gitmo are POWs, nor are the
insurgents held in Iraq. POWs are members of the armed forces of a
nation who are captured in uniform.

It's a bit more complex than that, Jack. And you're wrong as well.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/hr4812.doc.htm

I read a lot about concerns the UN HR Commission had about the
treatment of prisoners held by the US. That's their job. However,
nowhere does it affirm that they are POWs under the terms of the
Geneva Convention.

Legal opinions by lower courts in the US have very little weight until
final rulings are made by the US Supreme Court. The USSC did rule
that the detainees have the right to some due process which has been
responded to by the military setting up the CSRTs.

And as to the second article, I do not deny that incidents of torture
occurred. As I said before, it would be very unusual if things like
that didn't happen.

If prisoners who have useful information that can save lives are
tortured for this information, I cannot honestly say I condemn it. If
prisoners are tortured for no other reason than to inflict pain for
revenge or sadistic pleasure it should be condemned and the
perpetuators punished.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:47:07 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It would be extremely difficult to find any major conflict where
prisoner abuse didn't happen. Whoever wrote this article is either
extremely naive or just purposely distorting the truth for political
purposes.

That doesn't make it legally or morally correct.

Let's put it this way, it's neither legal nor moral for people to
steal, but stealing always has happened and it always will.

You can't ask humans to be anything other than what they are.

Name one country that has never been guilty of torturing prisoners at
one time or another. You don't even need to think about war
situations. At times, torture occurs in virtually every domestic
prison and jail all over the world. It also occurs all over the world
in police stations, in the back of police cars and during arrests.
That is what happens when some people have power and authority over
others. When you add in the adversarial nature of warfare abuses will
inevitably happen.

It's a rather sickening evaluation of human nature, but that's
reality.

I'm sure that Zimbardo's student guards never thought that they would
become abusive of their fellow students, but they did. Don't be so
quick to judge them, you never know how you would react if you were in
the same situation. Group process and social situations can change
people very quickly.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:51:15 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You fail to present a moral or legal justification for what you
describe.There is none, particularly for the military with its command
structure.

There's no legal or moral justification for lots of things, but that
doesn't mean that they're not going to happen.

Was there any moral or legal justification when the British tortured
IRA prisoners? Was their any legal or moral justification when the
French tortured prisoners in Algeria?

I could go on and on.

BTW, the British went through the same thing with International HR
groups that the US is now going through when they refused to classify
IRA detainees as POWs.

Let he who is without guilt cast the first stone.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jack Hollis said:

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:33:27 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

True, for some, it did not matter that many prisoners were innocent or
that humiliating people by posing them naked in a pile is not a persuasive
converting tool. Even in the far more horrific World War II, the United
States treated our German POWs humanely; many became loyal to our values,
and now their nation is a strong ally.

What rubbish.

After WW2 there was a German insurgency movement known as the
Werewolfs. They did pretty much what the Iraqi insurgents are doing
today in Iraq. The US military response to the Werewolfs was that
when they were caught, they were shot on the spot.

In one town, when the French encountered a Werewolf sniper, they
pulled out of the town and shelled it for 24 hours killing an
estimated 10,000 people. The Soviets were even more brutal than the
French and would often punish civilian populations in response to
Werewolf attacks.

So I don't know who this idiot who wrote this article is, but he
doesn't know his history.

Hmmm, I'll just have to quote myself from a post last year:

"Maybe you ought to read the U.S. Army's official history, "The U.S.
Army in the Occupation of Germany 1944-1946". You *will* find that all was
not what the people trying to trivialize the [censored] that's going down in Iraq
by comparing it to post-war Germany want you to think.

"As German historian Golo Mann said in his work, "The History of Germany
Since 1789", "The [Germans'] readiness to work with the victors, to carry
out their orders, to accept their advice and their help was genuine; of the
resistance which the Allies had expected in the way of 'werewolf' units and
nocturnal guerrilla activities, there was no sign."

"The only assassination of note was that of the mayor of Aachen in
March, 1945, six weeks *before* the Nazi collapse. Sabotage in post-war
Germany died down just one month after the end of the war, and the number
of U.S. troops who died in the second half of 1945 was less than 100 among
a force of one million (some eight times the size of the force in Iraq)."

Another very good source of info on this is Antony Beever's book, "The
Fall of Berlin 1945". In it, he states that the majority of "werwolf" were
a bunch of teenagers who were too young and ill-trained for the front lines.

Sorry, Jack, but the whole "German Werewolf units" thing is basically a
myth.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck said:

Another very good source of info on this is Antony Beever's book, "The
Fall of Berlin 1945". In it, he states that the majority of "werwolf" were
a bunch of teenagers who were too young and ill-trained for the front lines.

Dumbass -

That book was informative, but didn't have the gripping feel of
Beevor's "Stalingrad".

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Howard Kveck said:

Sorry, Jack, but the whole "German Werewolf units" thing is basically a
myth.

The definitive book on the Werewolves was titled "The Story of the
Nazi Resistance Movement, 1944-1945" written by Charles Whiting and
published in 1973.

Here's an excerpt from the book:
============================================================
The Werewolves were originally organised by the SS and the [censored]
Youth movement as a diversionary operation on the fringes of the Third
Reich, which were occupied by the Western Allies and the Soviets in
the autumn of 1944. Some 5,000 -- 6,000 recruits were raised by the
winter of 1944-45, but numbers rose considerably in the following
spring when the Nazi Party and the Propaganda Ministry launched a
popular call to arms, beseeching everybody in the occupied areas --
even women and children -- to launch themselves upon the enemy. In
typical Nazi fashion, this expansion was not co-ordinated by the
relevant bodies, which were instead involved in a bureaucratic war
among themselves over control of the project. The result was that the
movement functioned on two largely unrelated levels: the first as a
real force of specially trained SS, [censored] Youth and Nazi Party
guerrillas; the second as an outlet for casual violence by fanatics.

The Werewolves specialised in ambushes and sniping, and took the lives
of many Allied and Soviet soldiers and officers -- perhaps even that
of the first Soviet commandant of Berlin, General N.E. Berzarin, who
was rumoured to have been waylaid in Charlottenburg during an incident
in June 1945. Buildings housing Allied and Soviet staffs were
favourite targets for Werewolf bombings; an explosion in the Bremen
police headquarters, also in June 1945, killed five Americans and
thirty-nine Germans. Techniques for harassing the occupiers were given
widespread publicity through Werewolf leaflets and radio propaganda,
and long after May 1945 the sabotage methods promoted by the
Werewolves were still being used against the occupying powers.

Although the Werewolves originally limited themselves to guerrilla
warfare with the invading armies, they soon began to undertake
scorched-earth measures and vigilante actions against German
`collaborators' or `defeatists'. They damaged Germany's economic
infrastructure, already battered by Allied bombing and ground
fighting, and tried to prevent anything of value from falling into
enemy hands. Attempts to blow up factories, power plants or waterworks
occasionally provoked melees between Werewolves and desperate German
workers trying to save the physical basis of their employment,
particularly in the Ruhr and Upper Silesia.

Several sprees of vandalism through stocks of art and antiques, stored
by the Berlin Museum in a flak tower at Friedrichshain, caused
millions of dollars worth of damage and cultural losses of inestimable
value. In addition, vigilante attacks caused the deaths of a number of
small-town mayors and, in late March 1945, a Werewolf paratroop squad
assassinated the Lord Mayor of Aachen, Dr Franz Oppenhoff, probably
the most prominent German statesman to have emerged in the occupied
fringes over the winter of 1944-45. This spate of killings, part of a
larger Nazi terror campaign that consumed the Third Reich after the
failed anti-[censored] putsch of July 20th, 1944, can be interpreted as a
psychological retreat back into opposition, even while Nazi leaders
were still clinging to their last few months of power.

Although the Werewolves managed to make themselves a nuisance to small
Allied and Soviet units, they failed to stop or delay the invasion and
occupation of Germany, and did not succeed in rousing the population
into widespread opposition to the new order. The SS and [censored] Youth
organisations at the core of the Werewolf movement were poorly led,
short of supplies and weapons, and crippled by infighting. Their
mandate was a conservative one of tactical harassment, at least until
the final days of the war, and even when they did begin to envision
the possibility of an underground resistance that could survive the
Third Reich's collapse, they had to contend with widespread civilian
war-weariness and fear of enemy reprisals. In Western Germany, no one
wanted to do anything that would diminish the pace of Anglo-American
advance and possibly thereby allow the Red Army to push further
westward.

Despite its failure, however, the Werewolf project had a huge impact,
widening the psychological and spiritual gap between Germans and their
occupiers. Werewolf killings and intimidation of `collaborators'
scared almost everybody, giving German civilians a clear glimpse into
the nihilistic heart of Nazism. It was difficult for people working
under threat of such violence to devote themselves unreservedly to the
initial tasks of reconstruction. Worse still, the Allies and Soviets
reacted to the movement with extremely tough controls, curtailing the
right of assembly of German civilians. Challenges of any sort were met
by collective reprisals -- especially on the part of the Soviets and
the French. In a few cases the occupiers even shot hostages and
cleared out towns where instances of sabotage occurred. It was
standard practice for the Soviets to destroy whole communities if they
faced a single act of resistance. In the eastern fringes of the
`Greater Reich', now annexed by the Poles and the Czechoslovaks,
Werewolf harassment handed the new authorities an excuse to rush the
deportations of millions of ethnic Germans to occupied Germany.

Such policies were understandable, but they created an unbridgeable
gulf between the German people and the occupation forces who had
pledged to impose essential reforms. It was hard, in such conditions,
for the occupiers to encourage reform, and even harder to persuade the
Germans that it was necessary.

By the time that this rough opposition to the occupation had started
to soften, the Cold War was under way and reform became equally
difficult to implement. As a result, both German states created in
1949 were not so dissimilar to their predecessor as might have been
hoped, and changes in attitudes and institutions developed only
slowly. Thanks partly to the Werewolves there was no German revolution
in 1945, either imposed from above or generated from below.
====================================================

So much for your myth.

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:02:54 -0400, Jack Hollis <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sorry, Jack, but the whole "German Werewolf units" thing is basically a
myth.

As an additional note this is from the NY Times Archive:

"Germans Reveal Hate of Americans," October 31, 1945

The German attitude toward the American occupation forces has swung
from apathy and surface friendliness to active dislike. According to a
military government official, this is finding expression in the
organization of numerous local anti-American organizations throughout
the zone and in a rapid increase in the number of attacks on American
soldiers. There were more such attacks in the first week of October
than in the preceding five months of the occupation, this source
declared.