Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:World War II

2007-12-12T15:31:20Z

Scrumpy: /* Britain staying in the war */

==Discussion==

This needs a huge amount of work. It is rather euro-centris at present, I would many American contributors would be able to add discussion on the war in Asia [[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]] 11:33, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Didn't World War II begin when Germany invaded Poland on 9/1/39? [[User:Testing|Testing]] 15:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Well, not quite, it actually pretty much started when Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Austria. Still, huge mistake. I'll fix it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::Wrong war. WWI was started with the death of Ferdinand. It was September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Polan that started WWII.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]15:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Oops. yeah, your right. Haha, silly me. Still, we do need to fix the main article.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I did a small fix that should work for now, but anything that you or anyone can add to it, please do.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]15:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::If you want to get hyper-technical, you could make the case it started with the Japanese invasion of China. But I don't think we need to get that in-depth, at least for now.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

It says: "relatively weak United Kingdom." This would be incorrect, considering it still owned the world's largest empire, ever, at or around its peak at the start of the war.
:Britain had a large Empire, but like a modern Monarch it had little power. Canada's alligence ot Britain is to their credit as they could have stayed out. India and Australia had little choice as they were involved by the war in Asia. Most of the remaining British possessions were in southern and eastern Africa will less direct involvement.
[[Image:India5.jpg|right]]
Two mistakes in the above paragraph. (1) The so-called Empire: the dominions, ie Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand were completely free to make their own decisions by 1939. (Statute of Westminster 1931, says something like: ".....no law hereafter passed by the Parliament of Great Britain shall extend to any of the said dominions otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that dominion.") (2)The Australians were not involved in any "war in Asia" until after Pearl Harbor. Australian forces were in action against the Axis by 1940, and heavily engaged against Rommel, and in Greece and Crete. Aust. forces were recalled to fight Japan, much against Churchill's wishes. I also know that East African troops were involved in 1940-42) (Can't cite that one...my mother nursed them, though, and had anecdotes). Japan did not attack south east Asia, Dutch East Indies etc. until AFTER Pearl Harbor.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:45, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting; maybe we can fit this image in the text somewhere to clarify India volunteers fighting to liberate themselves from the British Empire. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:35, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Where are the sources? ==

Where are the sources? This article needs sources and is part of our article improvement drive listed on the main page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Overhaul needed==
This article needs an overhaul, and my suggestion would be to separate it into sections according to year, similar to my [[American Civil War]] series of articles. In short, I would gut this one, rename it "World War II: Prelude in Europe", then go into detail about the conditions which led to that war, and follow it by "World War II: Europe, 1940"; "1941", etc, with a separate series of articles concerning the Pacific Theater. It would be more than a dozen separate articles, which would take a lot of time, but it would be worth it in the end. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Idea?==
I think the article could be improved if World War II had a symbol of some sort like the [[American Civil War]] has. Just an idea. [[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 15:50, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Britain staying in the war ==
I added a fact tag on the following line:
<blockquote>
Indeed it would appear that the, seemingly foolish, decision of the relatively weak United Kingdom to continue the war took the Axis powers off guard
</blockquote>

I don't believe that there was ever any expectation that Britain would not remain in the war. Hitler and his generals understood that Fortress Europa would not be tenable without the conquering of Britain. If you have information to the contrary, I would like to see a cite about it.
*I will have to come back to you on this. However, there were incidents such as soldiers discarding their guns once evacuated from Dunkirk , they thought the war was over and they had lost. Equally, one of Churchills famous speeches at this time was telling people that the war was still on, as it was far from clear. [[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 00:49, August 2007 (EDT)

*Please sign all posts, and I reverted your last change due to misleading edit notes. If you state you add a citation, do so, but do not make other key changes in the article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:54, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, forgot to sign the talk page. I thought that I did comment on each of the changes to show what each was. I also added a citation to the change of Alliance to Non-Aggression pact, which it certainly was. Germany and the Soviet Union never had any sort of alliance. I will unwatch the article and leave it alone, as apparently making good edits and adding citations are less important than signing a talk page post (which I was correcting as you undid my edits, btw.) [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 12:59, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
:*''Germany and the Soviet Union never had any sort of alliance.''
::*Huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:49, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

*Goodbye. You "thought" nothing of the sort, as your last edit clearly shows many changes, not just the addition of citation. Your argumentative tone here, clearly reveals your intentions. Troll somewhere else. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:01, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

The Battle of Britain and The Blitz were sort of contemporanious although the Blitz lasted longer.Put simply; the B of B was the attempt by Germany to wipe out the RAF, so opening the way for invasion. The Blitz was the saturation bombing of London and other major cities. They overlapped. Sept 7 1940 is the day Goering assumed command and ordered the switch from airfields to cities. Yet the B of B went through October. The Blitz never refers to Allied raids into Germany. (I'm scanning Churchill's memoirs here.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:55, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
*''opening the way for invasion''
::yes and no; Germany simply never had enough ships to put the size of a force needed across the Channel, neither was it in the budget to do so. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:22, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:The English would know that. They were aware of "Sea Lion" and the build up across the channel; and Whilst Churchill stated his increasing confidence that an invasion would not take place, or would not then succeed; if the RAF had been wiped out there was real danger of it being on the cards. The opening sentence of Chapter XVI "The Battle of Britain" in Volume II is: "Our fate now depended upon victory in the air." [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, this is all the "coulda woulda shoulda" school of historiography. In the final analysis, it was obvious when Hitler allowed the Brits to escape at Dunkirk he had no intention of ever invading England with land forces; what sense did it make to allow them to escape, when they had their back to the wall on the shores of Dunkirk, only to go fight them again on their home turf? If the Germans had destroyed the British forces on the beaches of Dunkirk, or captured them all, yes, then an invasion of Britain with limited manpower was possible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:31, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Utter rubbish, Hitler knew he had to conquer the British. I agree that Dunkirk was more down to the Luftwaffe wanting to destroy the BEF on the ground than anything else, but the main victory at Dunkirk was the initing of the British people in a common belief that despite the lack of ANY help from anywhere, we must carry on the fight against Hitler and win the war. With the USA still seeking to appease Hitler in anyway they could, the British people assumed we would fight alone. [[User:Scrumpy|Scrumpy]] 15:31, 12 Dec 2007 (GMT)

Good morning. Yep...Hitler hesitated. That's been chewed over many times by people infinitely more knowledgable and better recourced than I am. And smarter. Hitler did beeall for six weeks after Dunkirk. He didn't want to invade. He hoped the Brits would yield. He gave them every chance to. Yet, on July 16 he issued "War Directive No. 16", ordering preparations for an invasion - in effect initiating 'Sealion". He still hoped that Britain would sorta, um, disappear. The effectiveness of the RAF over Dunkirk had given everyone pause for thought. Was Sealion and all the memos and diary entries and directives some gigantic feint, or hoax? Within weeks the Germans were grabbing barges from as far away as the eastern Baltic and anything else that could carry troops across the Channel. I think he had to have a go. As much as he could hope that America would stay away, he realised that the "Bases for Destroyers" deal would strengthen Britain and sooner or later America would become an active belligerant. And at the same time he was desperately working towards a "Tripartite Agreement" (Germany, Italy, Japan) to keep the US looking over its shoulder, and working just as hard at persuading Spain to join up. (But let's not mention Portugal -:)) Yeah. Hitler was ambivalent about an invasion, but all the preparations were put in train, and also....why would he have unleashed such a storm at the RAF and the Channel installations if no invasion was planned. I can see a bit of both sides min this. Maybe i'm a shoulda woulda shoulda sorta bloke. I like the "on the other hand" view of history.(Oh and one more thing. My mother was in a medical unit in the BEF and was strafed more than once on the way to the coast. She was taken off with the last of the wounded a few days (I think) before the final evacuation. Two or three weeks later she was at the set up of one of those great manors as a hospital for the sick relatives of VIPs. A month after it was operational it was suddenly abandoned, and everyone ended up in the Midlands somewhere. News of an impending invasion? Or just of an impending air war? Probably neither, but who knows. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:22, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:Continuing the "coulda woulda shoulda" school, Sea Lion was all bluff, and diversionary. Hitler overruled the Generals who recommended finishing off the British forces at Dunkirk, cause otherwise it might turn around bite you in the butt, which it eventually did. But Hitler was fighting a propaganda campaign; he knew Britain did not want War, the people did not, Chamberlain didn't, nor the Duke of Windsor. To Hitler at this point, the skirmish was a "frisch, froelich krieg" with Britain, and the two would eventually see eye-to-eye on Soviet Bolshevism. He already had the continental French manpower which made up the SS Charlemagne Division, among others, working for him. Hitler did not anticipate the stubbornness of a Churchill, who would risk [[total war]] to the finish. Until the day Hitler went down in the basement and blew his brains out, he never understood why Britain opposed him. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:39, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:RobS|RobS]], where did you get the expression "frisch, froelich krieg" from? You used more than once, but I have never encountered this phrase anywhere else before. It reminds me of the mood at the beginning of WWI, but not exactly of WWII. If you have a source for this expression, I'd be more than grateful. [[User:Order]] June 7.

:::I think I first heard it regarding the regarding the [[Battle of Sadowa]], probably in Gordon Craig's, ''Politics of the Prussian Army'', a book I'd recommend to any serious student. And even if I recall correctly, Craig says the term or idea was fluent in Prussian military thinking prior to Sadowa. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:03, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Correct spelling should be "frisch, froehliche krieg", also "frisch-froehliche krieg" is found in some search engines. [http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=%22frisch%2C+froehliche+krieg%22][http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cluster=5163652657573392149] This may be a good subject for an entry. Also [[sabre rattling]] is another I'd like to do; the newspeak use of it doesn't have a clue what its original meaning is, and is distorted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Order, you are absolutely correct. Look at this babelfish translation, for example, from a German language article entitled "First World War",
:::*''On 28 June 1914 Franz Ferdinand and its wife were shot in Sarajewo by conspirator hand. That became the trip the First World War. I do not want to describe its process here, but to mention nevertheless three things: 1. It did not become the dreamed of '''short, freshmerry war''''' [http://www.maffersdorf.de/chronik/band_05/maffersdorf_anhang_12.htm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:28, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

You may well be right. I would have to do a lot of research to catch up with your knowledge. The thing is though...what should a Consevapedia article give as the causes of or the reson for The Battle of Britain? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:52, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:Causes? Whew...I'm still just shooting from the hip off the top of my head decades old knowledge I haven't studied in awhile...I'd say Germany's attempt to bring England under submisssion after England decided to continue the war under Churchill, but I'd need good sources to explain that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:04, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I am almost tending towards the scenario wherein Hitler says to the Luftwaffe: "OK then, have a go. If you're successful we may invade. I'll get things going in case". One thing I saw was something about him giving them 8 days to wipe out the RAF. (Almost a "famous last words thing", eh?)I think later the Luftwaffe was thinking two weeks to a month. And certainly he would have considered that id he was successful and the RAF was destroyed, he would not have to invade....England may have yielded then. Cheers[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:05, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:I think the whole matter of Hitler wanting to invade England (or for that matter the United States) is exaggerated. It never was in the cards. And the events at Dunkirk prove it. Had Hitler taken prisoners at Dunkirk rather than allow them to escape, he could have launched an invasion using basically a naval flotilla similiar to the one the Brits used to escape Dunkirk, to occupy Britain, probaly with less less 80,000 men. But the truth is, they simply did not have enough ships to mount a Normandy style invasion, under fire, against Britain. Hitler viewed it as a propaganda war, and always fully expected Britain to join the alliance against the Soviet Union, which in fact it did, after Hitler's death. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:32, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't know. Sure, there was no way the Staes were under threat from him. But Britain? I don't know. I don't know enough, and it would take me too long to read up sufficiently. Some where between the two of us is the answer. Gotta go.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:39, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:Hitler viewed it basically as a propoaganda campaign. He wrote a whole chapter on propaganda in ''Mien Kampf'', marvelling and admiring how effective British propaganda, without bullets, was in WWI. This was given high priority in Nazi Germany, Goebbels Ministry was built on, and modeled after British propaganda (state run BBC). Hitler could never understand why Britain didn't make common-cause with Germany against the USSR, always couldn't understand what they expected to gain. Many Brits as well, never thought the War was worth the effort expended, during it and after. And Britain had absolutely nothing to gain, and everything to loose. In fact, while being a victor, they lost everything, i.e. the British Empire.

:This brings us to a discusssion of the [[Arsenal of Democracy]], and Churchill's "give us the tools, and we'll finish the job" speech. In 1940, the US was adament about remaining neutral. The Arsenal of Democracy, for US domestic consumption, meant the US would get invovled in building weapons, but not supply manpower, i.e. bloodshed. This was extremely controversial at the time. Churchill's speech was intended as a reassurance, if the US would amend the Neutrality Act, and allow Lend Lease shipments, Britain had the manpower (which survived Dunkirk), but only needed the tools (weapons) from American factories (the Arsenal of Democracy). This was the propaganda sold to the American public, that the US could take sides, arm Britain, yet not expend any manpower or bloodshed of its own. Hitler evidently believed it as well, never thinking American troops would assemble in Great Britain to invade someday. Or if it did happen, it would take years and years to build the ships, ship the material and manpower, and finally mount an invasion.

:That is why, in 1940, Hitler let the British Expediationary Force slip away at Dunkirk. To him, it was only a "brisk, jolly little war", like a game of touch football where nobody gets hurt. And Total War against Britain was not in his mind. Total War against the USSR was, but he would have liked to have Britain as an ally in such a venture. And whether or not Britain was an ally, didn't disrupt his plans. And truth be told, Hitler always admired and respected Great Britain, but could not figure out why they would destroy themselves and their Empire to gain nothing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:09, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Portugal was neutral but benevolent TOWARDS Britain. Indeed, the oldest extant defence treaty is that between Portugal and England, made in 1373. At about the same time that America declared a demarcation line between the Eastern and Western Hemispheres with US patrolling the Western and keeping GB aware of all Axis sightings, (April 1941) Britain was organising, in response to requests from Portugal, a takeover of the Azores, with further plans for Cape Verde Islands and Grande Canary; all Portuguese territories that neither Portugal nor Britain wanted to fall into German hands. (Refer SBS World Book (Portugal) and Churchill’s War Memoirs: Vols. II & III.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:46, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
*Sure. Everybody was on the winning side once the War was over, even the neutrals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:53, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Um...in 1943 Churchill himself visited Lisbon...not a place to be if it is pro-German. That is well over a year before the war finished and before an Allied Victory was assured. Before the Americans came in, Portugal had given the Allies "use" of their Atlantic islands. I am not sure what you are getting at. These pro-English gestures, and others were not "once the war was over".

:::Portugal was neutral and the seat of much espionage and disinformation activity. When the Goebbels wished to transmit a line of disinformation, Lisbon newspapers were always targerted knowing the Allies would pick it up in hopes it had some degree of credibility. Portugal figured prominently into the "Double Cross" cross system. The famous case how British intelligence handcuffed a briefcase with supposed invasion plans to a corpse and let it wash up on shore in Portugal, knowing the disinformation would get back to Berlin after Portugeese investigators examined the corpse is well known. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:37, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. And the Actor Leslie Howard died when a plane was targeted by the Germans between Lisbon and London as Churchill may have been on board. Lisborn was walking a fine line between London, Berlin, and Madrid. And many in authority were pro-Nazi. But the Portuguese Gov't did offer Britain the use of the Azores - of immense strategic value like Iceland. If you wish to revert my removal, do so, but surely a "pro-Axis leadership would preferred Germany to have their Atlantic territories, instead of Britain. Now, its not yet 5 am and the coffee has stopped gurgling. Cheers[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Yes that's all true. I don't recall all the details how the Allies got to use the Azores, but after Stalingrad, virtually everybody in the know knew which way the wind was blowing and who was going to win anyway. Besides, the Germans never had sufficient naval forces to hold the Azores, the only interesting question would be was it before Stalingrad or after? and if before, what impact did it have in facilitating transport of troops & material for the North African campaign, and to what extend was Allied occupation of the Azores visiable (by visable, I mean that the Germans ''knew'' it was done with the consent of Protugal, OTOH, was it forcible in that Portugal was powerless to prevent it) so the Germans basically knew Portugal was abetting the Allies.

:In ''Goebbels Diaries'', speaking from memory, I recall one entry where Goebbels was all aflutter becuase some Lisbon newspaper picked up some disinformation they were trying to get Britain to act upon, but I don't recall the specifics. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:29, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

You are no doubt right again. I am looking at books I have hardly opened in 40 years! In a memo from "Prime Minister to Foreign Office" dated 11 Aug. '41, discussing talks with Roosevelt on the Atlantic Charter he writes (inter alia): ".....he (Roosevelt) would be willing to ''come to the aid of Portugal'' in the Atlantic islands...." (My italics) This implies Portugal desiring that aid. This is after the invasion of Russia but well before the rot set in.

Can we agree to differ on this. You seem to be anti Portugal. I suppose I am trying to balance that. Certainly, many Portuguese, including Government, were pro-German. Many weren't. We can go back and forth for ever. As I said; if you want to revert.....[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:08, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:I'm just carrying this all off the top of my head, and have never really delved into the intricacies of Portugese neutrality. Certainly it was a popular vacation spot for continental Europeans during the Nazi occupations elsewhere to get away from the War, and more easily accessible than it was for Allies. Portugal I would assume was incapable of militarily defending the Azores if the Allies really needed it for the North African campaign, so they may have allowed the Allies to pretend to take it forcibly, while at the same time claiming neutrality. I rather doubt there was a back room agreement to allow it before the disaster for the Germans at Stalingrad, but it is plausible, I suppose. OTOH, the Germans certainly would have wanted Portugal for U-boat operations, but they saw certain advantages to respect neutrality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, yes, yes and , um, yes. I am trying to finish an article on King John before the day gets going and family takes over. (We all know ''he'' was a villain.) All I know is Churchill considered Portugal onside. As early as 1940 he was discussing Portugal as, if not exactly a friend but at least not an enemy. Portugal were also incapable of defending their Atlantic islands if Germany decided to invade - which they planned to do, but I don't know when. AhHA! Same letter as above (Aug. '41)says: "The President has received a letter from Dr. Salazar, in which it is made clear that he is looking to the Azores as a place of retreat for himself and his Government in the event of German aggression against Portugal, and that his country's age-long alliance with England leads him to count on British protection during his enforced stay on these islands". That can be considered in various ways, I suppose.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:01, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::When I was looking for some information about the German opinions about Britain staying in the war, I found an interesting discussion about a book by Lidell Hart. He interviewed some of the German generals at Nurenburg. Several of them said that Hitler held the Germans back at Dunkirk, when the generals wanted to move in and finish off the Expeditionary Force. According to them, Hitler thought that, with France defeated, Britain might be willing to join with Germany against Russia. While these were comments made well after the fact, BLH points out that when awaiting trial, it would make more sense for the generals to put themselves in the position of saving the British troops, instead of giving that role to Hitler. I know that before the war broke out, there was a small group of Britons that supported the idea of fascism being preferable to communism. I wonder if Hitler, who clearly had agents in pre-war Britain, made a complete misread of this position.
:::As a side note, there were Nazi sympatheizers in high circles in Britain. Hitler himself had strong connections in Britain. This would certainly make sense. Also, in Hitler's way of thinking, way would Britain oppose Italy, Germany, USSR etc.... it would be and it would be easier to control the country quietly (as France or Denmark) rather than undertake an very awkward and possibly difficult (that was never test, of course) to control nation.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 10 August 2007

::::I hate to cite WP, but read their entry on Edward VIII of the United Kingdom (later the Duke of Windsor). This is why Rudolf Hess flew to England. Many Nazi's bosses thought they had enough influence in Britian to keep them out from continuing the war. As you cited above about Dunkirk, you're not really addressing the major historical question around that event: Why did Hitler allow them to escape? Why did Hitler counter the advise of his General's ''an not'' take them '''all''' POW's? Hitler never could understand in his mind why Britain took sides with the Soviet against the united powers of Western Europe. Contrary to what is taught in the history books, under the Third Riech, every single nation of Western Europe contributed ''both'' its manpower, and its defense budgets to fighting Soviet Communism ''in the Soviet Union''. When the War ended of course, we know what happened; they all blamed the Germans and claimed they were all part of the Resistance. The facts are, France contributed more to the Nazi war effort from 1940-1944 than it did to defend itself from 1939-1940. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::I do not have the BLH book mentioned, and I don't want to add something to an article based on a second hand quote, but I thought it was an interesting discussion. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 07:35, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Liddell Hart is ''the'' primary source we should be using for this article. And yes, Hitler never reconciled in his mind why the English, racial cousins, would not join in the fight against Soviet Bolshevism. (In fact, there was an SS legion made up of Englishmen, the Legion of St. George, had about 50 English speaking Brits who fought in Russsia).

:::One of the interesting things in Liddell Hart's book regards the occupation of Norway; Hart points out how the charge of "waging aggressive war" against Norway at Nuremberg was hypocritical, given that Britain at the exact moment itself was moving to occupy an indenpendent, neutral country, only the Germans got there first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
::::...and given the choice the Brits would have been welcomed with open arms, I would suggest. Britain did take over the Faroes and, whilst they took their guns with them, they were not unwelcome (as opposed to places where the British stayed longer...)[[user:stevendavy|Stevendavy]]

== Immediate Causes ==

"The immediate causes of World War II are generally held to be the Japanese attacks on China, the United States..."

What? How is the Japanese attack on the United States an immediate cause of WWII? Is this some kind of joke?

According to the insular American view, WW2 only happened because Pearl Harbor was bombed.
Although remember they hid for 2 years, 3 months & 4 days from the original start of war, and were more than happy to appease Nazi Germany even after 7th December.

Despite the sinking of the Reuben Jones the US never wanted war with Hitler. It was Hitler who declared war on the USA.

==Outline==
Perhpas we need to develop a larger outline for the war. What appears here, is larely what can be referred to as the [[untied front]], i.e. it only discusses the united front against axis powers, and moreless ignores the Soviet invasions of Poland, Finland, the Baltic States, etc. No discussion of the Soviet-Japanese front, Moaist and Comintern activities in the Far East, etc.

The [[united front]], as far as the Anglo-American schools go, date the war from the beginning of Great Britian's involvement, Sept. 3, 1939, although the United States was not an active belligerent power in either Europe or the Far East. So, what I would propose is an opening section which briefly lists all the various major belligerencies that occurred since the war to end all wars, i.e. WWI & the failed Treaty of Versailles. This would be various Japanese wars, what we have finally come to call the Second Sino-Japanese War, Ethiopia, Spanish Civil War, Anschluss, Treaty of Munich, Communazi pact, Finnish War, etc. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:24, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== What about australia? ==

It seems you have no information on Australia during WW2, this is quite dissapointing seeing as Australia comitted around 300 thousand troops to the war and at one stage held 1/3 of the line in europe against nazi germany, they also fought in africa against italy, as well as in the pacific against japan. Where was the information about the battle for PNG where 800 australian soldiers defeated 10 000 japanese?

Yours truly Ben.

True. I am Australian and hearing this, I'm not happy, I'm sure there should have been something about that a long time ago! --[[User:Mssb57|Mssb57]] 00:11, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:Then add it. Easy.

Talk:World War II

2007-12-11T16:30:40Z

Scrumpy: /* Immediate Causes */

==Discussion==

This needs a huge amount of work. It is rather euro-centris at present, I would many American contributors would be able to add discussion on the war in Asia [[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]] 11:33, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Didn't World War II begin when Germany invaded Poland on 9/1/39? [[User:Testing|Testing]] 15:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Well, not quite, it actually pretty much started when Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Austria. Still, huge mistake. I'll fix it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::Wrong war. WWI was started with the death of Ferdinand. It was September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Polan that started WWII.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]15:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Oops. yeah, your right. Haha, silly me. Still, we do need to fix the main article.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I did a small fix that should work for now, but anything that you or anyone can add to it, please do.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]15:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::If you want to get hyper-technical, you could make the case it started with the Japanese invasion of China. But I don't think we need to get that in-depth, at least for now.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

It says: "relatively weak United Kingdom." This would be incorrect, considering it still owned the world's largest empire, ever, at or around its peak at the start of the war.
:Britain had a large Empire, but like a modern Monarch it had little power. Canada's alligence ot Britain is to their credit as they could have stayed out. India and Australia had little choice as they were involved by the war in Asia. Most of the remaining British possessions were in southern and eastern Africa will less direct involvement.
[[Image:India5.jpg|right]]
Two mistakes in the above paragraph. (1) The so-called Empire: the dominions, ie Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand were completely free to make their own decisions by 1939. (Statute of Westminster 1931, says something like: ".....no law hereafter passed by the Parliament of Great Britain shall extend to any of the said dominions otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that dominion.") (2)The Australians were not involved in any "war in Asia" until after Pearl Harbor. Australian forces were in action against the Axis by 1940, and heavily engaged against Rommel, and in Greece and Crete. Aust. forces were recalled to fight Japan, much against Churchill's wishes. I also know that East African troops were involved in 1940-42) (Can't cite that one...my mother nursed them, though, and had anecdotes). Japan did not attack south east Asia, Dutch East Indies etc. until AFTER Pearl Harbor.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:45, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting; maybe we can fit this image in the text somewhere to clarify India volunteers fighting to liberate themselves from the British Empire. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:35, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Where are the sources? ==

Where are the sources? This article needs sources and is part of our article improvement drive listed on the main page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Overhaul needed==
This article needs an overhaul, and my suggestion would be to separate it into sections according to year, similar to my [[American Civil War]] series of articles. In short, I would gut this one, rename it "World War II: Prelude in Europe", then go into detail about the conditions which led to that war, and follow it by "World War II: Europe, 1940"; "1941", etc, with a separate series of articles concerning the Pacific Theater. It would be more than a dozen separate articles, which would take a lot of time, but it would be worth it in the end. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Idea?==
I think the article could be improved if World War II had a symbol of some sort like the [[American Civil War]] has. Just an idea. [[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 15:50, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Britain staying in the war ==
I added a fact tag on the following line:
<blockquote>
Indeed it would appear that the, seemingly foolish, decision of the relatively weak United Kingdom to continue the war took the Axis powers off guard
</blockquote>

I don't believe that there was ever any expectation that Britain would not remain in the war. Hitler and his generals understood that Fortress Europa would not be tenable without the conquering of Britain. If you have information to the contrary, I would like to see a cite about it.
*I will have to come back to you on this. However, there were incidents such as soldiers discarding their guns once evacuated from Dunkirk , they thought the war was over and they had lost. Equally, one of Churchills famous speeches at this time was telling people that the war was still on, as it was far from clear. [[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 00:49, August 2007 (EDT)

*Please sign all posts, and I reverted your last change due to misleading edit notes. If you state you add a citation, do so, but do not make other key changes in the article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:54, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, forgot to sign the talk page. I thought that I did comment on each of the changes to show what each was. I also added a citation to the change of Alliance to Non-Aggression pact, which it certainly was. Germany and the Soviet Union never had any sort of alliance. I will unwatch the article and leave it alone, as apparently making good edits and adding citations are less important than signing a talk page post (which I was correcting as you undid my edits, btw.) [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 12:59, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
:*''Germany and the Soviet Union never had any sort of alliance.''
::*Huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:49, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

*Goodbye. You "thought" nothing of the sort, as your last edit clearly shows many changes, not just the addition of citation. Your argumentative tone here, clearly reveals your intentions. Troll somewhere else. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:01, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

The Battle of Britain and The Blitz were sort of contemporanious although the Blitz lasted longer.Put simply; the B of B was the attempt by Germany to wipe out the RAF, so opening the way for invasion. The Blitz was the saturation bombing of London and other major cities. They overlapped. Sept 7 1940 is the day Goering assumed command and ordered the switch from airfields to cities. Yet the B of B went through October. The Blitz never refers to Allied raids into Germany. (I'm scanning Churchill's memoirs here.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:55, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
*''opening the way for invasion''
::yes and no; Germany simply never had enough ships to put the size of a force needed across the Channel, neither was it in the budget to do so. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:22, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:The English would know that. They were aware of "Sea Lion" and the build up across the channel; and Whilst Churchill stated his increasing confidence that an invasion would not take place, or would not then succeed; if the RAF had been wiped out there was real danger of it being on the cards. The opening sentence of Chapter XVI "The Battle of Britain" in Volume II is: "Our fate now depended upon victory in the air." [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, this is all the "coulda woulda shoulda" school of historiography. In the final analysis, it was obvious when Hitler allowed the Brits to escape at Dunkirk he had no intention of ever invading England with land forces; what sense did it make to allow them to escape, when they had their back to the wall on the shores of Dunkirk, only to go fight them again on their home turf? If the Germans had destroyed the British forces on the beaches of Dunkirk, or captured them all, yes, then an invasion of Britain with limited manpower was possible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:31, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Good morning. Yep...Hitler hesitated. That's been chewed over many times by people infinitely more knowledgable and better recourced than I am. And smarter. Hitler did beeall for six weeks after Dunkirk. He didn't want to invade. He hoped the Brits would yield. He gave them every chance to. Yet, on July 16 he issued "War Directive No. 16", ordering preparations for an invasion - in effect initiating 'Sealion". He still hoped that Britain would sorta, um, disappear. The effectiveness of the RAF over Dunkirk had given everyone pause for thought. Was Sealion and all the memos and diary entries and directives some gigantic feint, or hoax? Within weeks the Germans were grabbing barges from as far away as the eastern Baltic and anything else that could carry troops across the Channel. I think he had to have a go. As much as he could hope that America would stay away, he realised that the "Bases for Destroyers" deal would strengthen Britain and sooner or later America would become an active belligerant. And at the same time he was desperately working towards a "Tripartite Agreement" (Germany, Italy, Japan) to keep the US looking over its shoulder, and working just as hard at persuading Spain to join up. (But let's not mention Portugal -:)) Yeah. Hitler was ambivalent about an invasion, but all the preparations were put in train, and also....why would he have unleashed such a storm at the RAF and the Channel installations if no invasion was planned. I can see a bit of both sides min this. Maybe i'm a shoulda woulda shoulda sorta bloke. I like the "on the other hand" view of history.(Oh and one more thing. My mother was in a medical unit in the BEF and was strafed more than once on the way to the coast. She was taken off with the last of the wounded a few days (I think) before the final evacuation. Two or three weeks later she was at the set up of one of those great manors as a hospital for the sick relatives of VIPs. A month after it was operational it was suddenly abandoned, and everyone ended up in the Midlands somewhere. News of an impending invasion? Or just of an impending air war? Probably neither, but who knows. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:22, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:Continuing the "coulda woulda shoulda" school, Sea Lion was all bluff, and diversionary. Hitler overruled the Generals who recommended finishing off the British forces at Dunkirk, cause otherwise it might turn around bite you in the butt, which it eventually did. But Hitler was fighting a propaganda campaign; he knew Britain did not want War, the people did not, Chamberlain didn't, nor the Duke of Windsor. To Hitler at this point, the skirmish was a "frisch, froelich krieg" with Britain, and the two would eventually see eye-to-eye on Soviet Bolshevism. He already had the continental French manpower which made up the SS Charlemagne Division, among others, working for him. Hitler did not anticipate the stubbornness of a Churchill, who would risk [[total war]] to the finish. Until the day Hitler went down in the basement and blew his brains out, he never understood why Britain opposed him. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:39, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:RobS|RobS]], where did you get the expression "frisch, froelich krieg" from? You used more than once, but I have never encountered this phrase anywhere else before. It reminds me of the mood at the beginning of WWI, but not exactly of WWII. If you have a source for this expression, I'd be more than grateful. [[User:Order]] June 7.

:::I think I first heard it regarding the regarding the [[Battle of Sadowa]], probably in Gordon Craig's, ''Politics of the Prussian Army'', a book I'd recommend to any serious student. And even if I recall correctly, Craig says the term or idea was fluent in Prussian military thinking prior to Sadowa. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:03, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Correct spelling should be "frisch, froehliche krieg", also "frisch-froehliche krieg" is found in some search engines. [http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=%22frisch%2C+froehliche+krieg%22][http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cluster=5163652657573392149] This may be a good subject for an entry. Also [[sabre rattling]] is another I'd like to do; the newspeak use of it doesn't have a clue what its original meaning is, and is distorted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Order, you are absolutely correct. Look at this babelfish translation, for example, from a German language article entitled "First World War",
:::*''On 28 June 1914 Franz Ferdinand and its wife were shot in Sarajewo by conspirator hand. That became the trip the First World War. I do not want to describe its process here, but to mention nevertheless three things: 1. It did not become the dreamed of '''short, freshmerry war''''' [http://www.maffersdorf.de/chronik/band_05/maffersdorf_anhang_12.htm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:28, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

You may well be right. I would have to do a lot of research to catch up with your knowledge. The thing is though...what should a Consevapedia article give as the causes of or the reson for The Battle of Britain? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:52, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:Causes? Whew...I'm still just shooting from the hip off the top of my head decades old knowledge I haven't studied in awhile...I'd say Germany's attempt to bring England under submisssion after England decided to continue the war under Churchill, but I'd need good sources to explain that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:04, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I am almost tending towards the scenario wherein Hitler says to the Luftwaffe: "OK then, have a go. If you're successful we may invade. I'll get things going in case". One thing I saw was something about him giving them 8 days to wipe out the RAF. (Almost a "famous last words thing", eh?)I think later the Luftwaffe was thinking two weeks to a month. And certainly he would have considered that id he was successful and the RAF was destroyed, he would not have to invade....England may have yielded then. Cheers[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:05, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:I think the whole matter of Hitler wanting to invade England (or for that matter the United States) is exaggerated. It never was in the cards. And the events at Dunkirk prove it. Had Hitler taken prisoners at Dunkirk rather than allow them to escape, he could have launched an invasion using basically a naval flotilla similiar to the one the Brits used to escape Dunkirk, to occupy Britain, probaly with less less 80,000 men. But the truth is, they simply did not have enough ships to mount a Normandy style invasion, under fire, against Britain. Hitler viewed it as a propaganda war, and always fully expected Britain to join the alliance against the Soviet Union, which in fact it did, after Hitler's death. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:32, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't know. Sure, there was no way the Staes were under threat from him. But Britain? I don't know. I don't know enough, and it would take me too long to read up sufficiently. Some where between the two of us is the answer. Gotta go.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:39, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:Hitler viewed it basically as a propoaganda campaign. He wrote a whole chapter on propaganda in ''Mien Kampf'', marvelling and admiring how effective British propaganda, without bullets, was in WWI. This was given high priority in Nazi Germany, Goebbels Ministry was built on, and modeled after British propaganda (state run BBC). Hitler could never understand why Britain didn't make common-cause with Germany against the USSR, always couldn't understand what they expected to gain. Many Brits as well, never thought the War was worth the effort expended, during it and after. And Britain had absolutely nothing to gain, and everything to loose. In fact, while being a victor, they lost everything, i.e. the British Empire.

:This brings us to a discusssion of the [[Arsenal of Democracy]], and Churchill's "give us the tools, and we'll finish the job" speech. In 1940, the US was adament about remaining neutral. The Arsenal of Democracy, for US domestic consumption, meant the US would get invovled in building weapons, but not supply manpower, i.e. bloodshed. This was extremely controversial at the time. Churchill's speech was intended as a reassurance, if the US would amend the Neutrality Act, and allow Lend Lease shipments, Britain had the manpower (which survived Dunkirk), but only needed the tools (weapons) from American factories (the Arsenal of Democracy). This was the propaganda sold to the American public, that the US could take sides, arm Britain, yet not expend any manpower or bloodshed of its own. Hitler evidently believed it as well, never thinking American troops would assemble in Great Britain to invade someday. Or if it did happen, it would take years and years to build the ships, ship the material and manpower, and finally mount an invasion.

:That is why, in 1940, Hitler let the British Expediationary Force slip away at Dunkirk. To him, it was only a "brisk, jolly little war", like a game of touch football where nobody gets hurt. And Total War against Britain was not in his mind. Total War against the USSR was, but he would have liked to have Britain as an ally in such a venture. And whether or not Britain was an ally, didn't disrupt his plans. And truth be told, Hitler always admired and respected Great Britain, but could not figure out why they would destroy themselves and their Empire to gain nothing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:09, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Portugal was neutral but benevolent TOWARDS Britain. Indeed, the oldest extant defence treaty is that between Portugal and England, made in 1373. At about the same time that America declared a demarcation line between the Eastern and Western Hemispheres with US patrolling the Western and keeping GB aware of all Axis sightings, (April 1941) Britain was organising, in response to requests from Portugal, a takeover of the Azores, with further plans for Cape Verde Islands and Grande Canary; all Portuguese territories that neither Portugal nor Britain wanted to fall into German hands. (Refer SBS World Book (Portugal) and Churchill’s War Memoirs: Vols. II & III.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:46, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
*Sure. Everybody was on the winning side once the War was over, even the neutrals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:53, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Um...in 1943 Churchill himself visited Lisbon...not a place to be if it is pro-German. That is well over a year before the war finished and before an Allied Victory was assured. Before the Americans came in, Portugal had given the Allies "use" of their Atlantic islands. I am not sure what you are getting at. These pro-English gestures, and others were not "once the war was over".

:::Portugal was neutral and the seat of much espionage and disinformation activity. When the Goebbels wished to transmit a line of disinformation, Lisbon newspapers were always targerted knowing the Allies would pick it up in hopes it had some degree of credibility. Portugal figured prominently into the "Double Cross" cross system. The famous case how British intelligence handcuffed a briefcase with supposed invasion plans to a corpse and let it wash up on shore in Portugal, knowing the disinformation would get back to Berlin after Portugeese investigators examined the corpse is well known. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:37, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. And the Actor Leslie Howard died when a plane was targeted by the Germans between Lisbon and London as Churchill may have been on board. Lisborn was walking a fine line between London, Berlin, and Madrid. And many in authority were pro-Nazi. But the Portuguese Gov't did offer Britain the use of the Azores - of immense strategic value like Iceland. If you wish to revert my removal, do so, but surely a "pro-Axis leadership would preferred Germany to have their Atlantic territories, instead of Britain. Now, its not yet 5 am and the coffee has stopped gurgling. Cheers[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Yes that's all true. I don't recall all the details how the Allies got to use the Azores, but after Stalingrad, virtually everybody in the know knew which way the wind was blowing and who was going to win anyway. Besides, the Germans never had sufficient naval forces to hold the Azores, the only interesting question would be was it before Stalingrad or after? and if before, what impact did it have in facilitating transport of troops & material for the North African campaign, and to what extend was Allied occupation of the Azores visiable (by visable, I mean that the Germans ''knew'' it was done with the consent of Protugal, OTOH, was it forcible in that Portugal was powerless to prevent it) so the Germans basically knew Portugal was abetting the Allies.

:In ''Goebbels Diaries'', speaking from memory, I recall one entry where Goebbels was all aflutter becuase some Lisbon newspaper picked up some disinformation they were trying to get Britain to act upon, but I don't recall the specifics. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:29, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

You are no doubt right again. I am looking at books I have hardly opened in 40 years! In a memo from "Prime Minister to Foreign Office" dated 11 Aug. '41, discussing talks with Roosevelt on the Atlantic Charter he writes (inter alia): ".....he (Roosevelt) would be willing to ''come to the aid of Portugal'' in the Atlantic islands...." (My italics) This implies Portugal desiring that aid. This is after the invasion of Russia but well before the rot set in.

Can we agree to differ on this. You seem to be anti Portugal. I suppose I am trying to balance that. Certainly, many Portuguese, including Government, were pro-German. Many weren't. We can go back and forth for ever. As I said; if you want to revert.....[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:08, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:I'm just carrying this all off the top of my head, and have never really delved into the intricacies of Portugese neutrality. Certainly it was a popular vacation spot for continental Europeans during the Nazi occupations elsewhere to get away from the War, and more easily accessible than it was for Allies. Portugal I would assume was incapable of militarily defending the Azores if the Allies really needed it for the North African campaign, so they may have allowed the Allies to pretend to take it forcibly, while at the same time claiming neutrality. I rather doubt there was a back room agreement to allow it before the disaster for the Germans at Stalingrad, but it is plausible, I suppose. OTOH, the Germans certainly would have wanted Portugal for U-boat operations, but they saw certain advantages to respect neutrality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, yes, yes and , um, yes. I am trying to finish an article on King John before the day gets going and family takes over. (We all know ''he'' was a villain.) All I know is Churchill considered Portugal onside. As early as 1940 he was discussing Portugal as, if not exactly a friend but at least not an enemy. Portugal were also incapable of defending their Atlantic islands if Germany decided to invade - which they planned to do, but I don't know when. AhHA! Same letter as above (Aug. '41)says: "The President has received a letter from Dr. Salazar, in which it is made clear that he is looking to the Azores as a place of retreat for himself and his Government in the event of German aggression against Portugal, and that his country's age-long alliance with England leads him to count on British protection during his enforced stay on these islands". That can be considered in various ways, I suppose.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:01, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::When I was looking for some information about the German opinions about Britain staying in the war, I found an interesting discussion about a book by Lidell Hart. He interviewed some of the German generals at Nurenburg. Several of them said that Hitler held the Germans back at Dunkirk, when the generals wanted to move in and finish off the Expeditionary Force. According to them, Hitler thought that, with France defeated, Britain might be willing to join with Germany against Russia. While these were comments made well after the fact, BLH points out that when awaiting trial, it would make more sense for the generals to put themselves in the position of saving the British troops, instead of giving that role to Hitler. I know that before the war broke out, there was a small group of Britons that supported the idea of fascism being preferable to communism. I wonder if Hitler, who clearly had agents in pre-war Britain, made a complete misread of this position.
:::As a side note, there were Nazi sympatheizers in high circles in Britain. Hitler himself had strong connections in Britain. This would certainly make sense. Also, in Hitler's way of thinking, way would Britain oppose Italy, Germany, USSR etc.... it would be and it would be easier to control the country quietly (as France or Denmark) rather than undertake an very awkward and possibly difficult (that was never test, of course) to control nation.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 10 August 2007

::::I hate to cite WP, but read their entry on Edward VIII of the United Kingdom (later the Duke of Windsor). This is why Rudolf Hess flew to England. Many Nazi's bosses thought they had enough influence in Britian to keep them out from continuing the war. As you cited above about Dunkirk, you're not really addressing the major historical question around that event: Why did Hitler allow them to escape? Why did Hitler counter the advise of his General's ''an not'' take them '''all''' POW's? Hitler never could understand in his mind why Britain took sides with the Soviet against the united powers of Western Europe. Contrary to what is taught in the history books, under the Third Riech, every single nation of Western Europe contributed ''both'' its manpower, and its defense budgets to fighting Soviet Communism ''in the Soviet Union''. When the War ended of course, we know what happened; they all blamed the Germans and claimed they were all part of the Resistance. The facts are, France contributed more to the Nazi war effort from 1940-1944 than it did to defend itself from 1939-1940. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::I do not have the BLH book mentioned, and I don't want to add something to an article based on a second hand quote, but I thought it was an interesting discussion. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 07:35, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Liddell Hart is ''the'' primary source we should be using for this article. And yes, Hitler never reconciled in his mind why the English, racial cousins, would not join in the fight against Soviet Bolshevism. (In fact, there was an SS legion made up of Englishmen, the Legion of St. George, had about 50 English speaking Brits who fought in Russsia).

:::One of the interesting things in Liddell Hart's book regards the occupation of Norway; Hart points out how the charge of "waging aggressive war" against Norway at Nuremberg was hypocritical, given that Britain at the exact moment itself was moving to occupy an indenpendent, neutral country, only the Germans got there first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
::::...and given the choice the Brits would have been welcomed with open arms, I would suggest. Britain did take over the Faroes and, whilst they took their guns with them, they were not unwelcome (as opposed to places where the British stayed longer...)[[user:stevendavy|Stevendavy]]

== Immediate Causes ==

"The immediate causes of World War II are generally held to be the Japanese attacks on China, the United States..."

What? How is the Japanese attack on the United States an immediate cause of WWII? Is this some kind of joke?

According to the insular American view, WW2 only happened because Pearl Harbor was bombed.
Although remember they hid for 2 years, 3 months & 4 days from the original start of war, and were more than happy to appease Nazi Germany even after 7th December.

Despite the sinking of the Reuben Jones the US never wanted war with Hitler. It was Hitler who declared war on the USA.

==Outline==
Perhpas we need to develop a larger outline for the war. What appears here, is larely what can be referred to as the [[untied front]], i.e. it only discusses the united front against axis powers, and moreless ignores the Soviet invasions of Poland, Finland, the Baltic States, etc. No discussion of the Soviet-Japanese front, Moaist and Comintern activities in the Far East, etc.

The [[united front]], as far as the Anglo-American schools go, date the war from the beginning of Great Britian's involvement, Sept. 3, 1939, although the United States was not an active belligerent power in either Europe or the Far East. So, what I would propose is an opening section which briefly lists all the various major belligerencies that occurred since the war to end all wars, i.e. WWI & the failed Treaty of Versailles. This would be various Japanese wars, what we have finally come to call the Second Sino-Japanese War, Ethiopia, Spanish Civil War, Anschluss, Treaty of Munich, Communazi pact, Finnish War, etc. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:24, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== What about australia? ==

It seems you have no information on Australia during WW2, this is quite dissapointing seeing as Australia comitted around 300 thousand troops to the war and at one stage held 1/3 of the line in europe against nazi germany, they also fought in africa against italy, as well as in the pacific against japan. Where was the information about the battle for PNG where 800 australian soldiers defeated 10 000 japanese?

Yours truly Ben.

True. I am Australian and hearing this, I'm not happy, I'm sure there should have been something about that a long time ago! --[[User:Mssb57|Mssb57]] 00:11, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:Then add it. Easy.

Indiana

2007-11-05T16:40:21Z

Scrumpy:

[[Image:Indiana_State_Flag.gif|thumb|right|The state flag of Indiana.]]

'''Indiana''' is the nineteenth state to enter the union. Its capital and largest city is [[Indianapolis]]. Indiana is bordered by [[Ohio]], [[Kentucky]], [[Illinois]], and [[Michigan]].

Indiana is recognized as the 'Limestone capital of the world' with more limestone quarried from the state than anywhere else in the world.

==Notable people from Indiana==

* Hoagy Carmichael, Songwriter
* Jim Davis, Creator of Garfield the Cat
* Eugene V Debs, Socialist Presidential Candidate
* Orville Redenbacher, Popcorn Magnate
* Steve McQueen, Actor
* James Dean, Actor
* Karl Malden, Actor
* Kurt Vonnegut, Novelist
* Lew Wallace, Civil War General, Author ( Ben Hur )
* Wendell Wilkie Presidential Candidate 1940.
* Alfred Kinsey, Sexual behaviour researcher
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]] an alleged Presidential Candidate and former governer.
*Notorious bank robber [[John Dillinger]] was born in Brightwood.
*Astronaut Gus Grissom was born in Mitchell.
*Former President [[Benjamin Harrison]] lived in Indianapolis and represented Indiana as a Senator.
*[[William Henry Harrison]], a former President and the grandfather of Benjamin Harrison, was the first governor of Indiana territory.
*Singer Michael Jackson is from Gary.
*Comedian David Letterman was born in Indianapolis.
*[[Mike Pence]] is a current Republican member of the US House of Representatives from Indiana and has been mentioned a possible candidate for the presidency.
*Former Vice President [[Dan Quayle]] was born in Indianapolis.
*Harland David Sanders (also known as Colonel Sanders), founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken, was born in Henryville.

{{USstates}}
[[Category:US state]]

Indiana

2007-11-05T16:39:27Z

Scrumpy:

[[Image:Indiana_State_Flag.gif|thumb|right|The state flag of Indiana.]]

'''Indiana''' is the nineteenth state to enter the union. Its capital and largest city is [[Indianapolis]]. Indiana is bordered by [[Ohio]], [[Kentucky]], [[Illinois]], and [[Michigan]].

Indiana is recognized as the 'Limestone capital of the world' with more limestone quarried from the state than anywhere else in the world.

==Notable people from Indiana==

* Hoagy Carmichael, Songwriter
* Jim Davis, Creator of Garfield the Cat
* Eugene V Debs, Socialist Presidential Candidate
* Orville Redenbacher, Popcorn Magnate
* Steve McQueen, Actor
* James Dean, Actor
* Karl Malden, Actor
* Kurt Vonnegut, Novelist
* Lew Wallace, Civil War General, Author ( Ben Hur )
* Wendell Wilkie Presidential Candidate 1940.
* Alfred Kinsey, Sex researcher
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]] an alleged Presidential Candidate and former governer.
*Notorious bank robber [[John Dillinger]] was born in Brightwood.
*Astronaut Gus Grissom was born in Mitchell.
*Former President [[Benjamin Harrison]] lived in Indianapolis and represented Indiana as a Senator.
*[[William Henry Harrison]], a former President and the grandfather of Benjamin Harrison, was the first governor of Indiana territory.
*Singer Michael Jackson is from Gary.
*Comedian David Letterman was born in Indianapolis.
*[[Mike Pence]] is a current Republican member of the US House of Representatives from Indiana and has been mentioned a possible candidate for the presidency.
*Former Vice President [[Dan Quayle]] was born in Indianapolis.
*Harland David Sanders (also known as Colonel Sanders), founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken, was born in Henryville.

{{USstates}}
[[Category:US state]]

Talk:Homosexuality/Archive3

2007-11-03T20:01:19Z

Scrumpy: /* Bible Passages */

== Summary ==

This article seems seems to have a lot of content on it, perhaps someone could write up a summary? {{unsigned|Zugamifk}} 11:28, 16 September 2007

*Are you a registered user/editor? That's what editors do. Proceed, let's see what you've got! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:37, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

This article is so hostile to homosexuality (and I'm NOT going to engage in fruitless arguments about the meaning of this or that word)as to come very close to justifying violence against homosexuals. Please adopt a more neutral tone.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 12:22, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Why do you think it's hostile? Are you heterophobic, per chance? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:Heterophobic? Afraid of straight people? Huh?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 15:05, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

== Bible Passages ==

As the Bible says 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female' does that mean it is ok if you are both stood up ?

Since this page is apparently protected against improvements, I'll have to leave my suggestion as a comment. Shouldn't the references to various Biblical passages link to the pages on the appropriate books of the Bible?
:I can do that right now. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:20, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Also, shouldn't this page reflect the alternative viewpoints of how the Bible should be interpreted regarding homosexuality? For instance, some detail based around this quote for instance:
“No credible case against homosexuality or homosexuals can be made from the Bible unless one chooses to read scripture in a way that simply sustains the existing prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals. The combination of ignorance and prejudice under the guise of morality makes the religious community and its abuse of scripture in this regard, itself morally culpable.”
- Rev. Peter Gomes, Harvard Divinity School, "The Good Book"

Also I feel it is important to at least refer to the relationship between David and Jonathan. Shouldn't these be included:

1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. 3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. 1 Samuel 18: 1-4

and:

25 How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. 26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. 2 Samuel 1:26

Irrespective of one's interpretation of the Bible's position on homosexuality (and Jesus seemed to have remained rather silent on the matter) the story of the love between David and Jonathan remains something that needs to be integrated into that position.

:The above passages are not a statement of homosexuality, no matter what the unsigned writer thinks they may be. There are such people as "best friends", where a physical relationship is just not included, and the unsigned writer simply ignored that concept. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:00, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

What makes you so sure it isn't? I believe the word love is translated from a word which meant love specifically in a romantic, and traditionally male-female sense. Also, are you suggesting that homesexuality is okay, so long as it doesn't involve sodomy?

[[User:Josephx|Josephx]] 10:55, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:No, I am not suggesting homosexuality is ok under any circumstances. But from your previous statement, you're suggesting that David and Jonathan had some sort of homosexual relationship. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:05, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Not to be a wiseguy...but say two people of the same gender live together (and, for all intents and purposes, "love" each other) but don't have sex. Without the sex, how is it homosexuality?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:24, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Equally not to be a wiseguy, would you say you did not have a sexuality until you had sex?

And Karajou, yes I am saying that. That is my interpretation of the passages that I have quoted. In fact I would go further to suggest that if you took the "knitted souls" passage, removed the names and genders from it and allowed a large number of people to read it and discuss the nature of the relationship that it describes, I doubt many would think this was describing two best friends.[[User:Josephx|Josephx]] 07:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, Joe, but all you're doing here is trying to pitch a case of Biblical support for homosexuality, and pitching such support here. You're trying to make a claim that two close friends mentioned in the Bible were gay. The burden of proof is on you, and as you said, it's your own interpretation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:44, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

::All we have is interpretation. David uses the same word (ahabah) to describe Jonathan's love as he used to describe the love of his wives. That might not be enough for you, Karajou, but it is enough for a lot of Christians, gay and otherwise. [[User:Josephx|Josephx]] 09:23, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:::No, all YOU have is your interpretation, and all I'm getting is the notion that you just might be heterophobic here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:26, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Heterophobic? Hetero meaning different and phobic meaning fearful of? Such joking aside, I am not interested in creating or fuelling anti-heterosexual sentement, just raising valid doubts that the bible's opinion on homosexuality is as black and white as you suggest. [[User:Josephx|Josephx]] 09:57, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::Then you need to stick with valid facts on the subject. Just because you want to make a claim as to Dave and Jon being in bed together does not make it true. The same Old Testament that has David and Jonathan in it also declares homosexuality to be an abomination. That is very black and white; no gray at all. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:15, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::Then that is where our opinions divide, because I feel the fact that both appear in the Old Testament ''demonstrates'' that greyness. You seem to be rejecting the possibility that David and Jonathan were lovers on the grounds of something written elsewhere in the Bible. In fact the story of David and Jonathan makes more sense if they were lovers under a law that forbade that love. [[User:Josephx|Josephx]] 11:17, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::My opinion on the matter is sound; it's you who's rejecting the fact that David and Jonathan were nothing more than best friends. You're giving classic liberalism here, picking and choosing which facts you like, which facts you reject, and trying to force that opinion on the rest of society. As your kind says to us many times, so I say to you: Do not push your religious beliefs here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Josephx, my own interpretation of the relevant passages also leads me to think David liked roasted Goat. What do you think? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 09:38, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:I welcome that interpretation and look forward to reading about it on the relevant page. [[User:Josephx|Josephx]]

:::: [[Heterophobic]] interpretations of the [[Bible]] have been attempted, without success, to smear [[Jesus]] and the [[Apostles]]. Not only is there no evidence for it, but all evidence is against these [[liberal]] interpretations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:41, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafy, I'm not sure of what you are suggesting here. Even if I were (as I suspect you are implying) trying to suggest that Jesus and the apostles were themselves homosexual, that wouldn't be a smear coming from me. As it is I am claiming that a valid interpretation of the story of David and Jonathan is that it speaks of a long, committed, deeply-felt same-sex relationship that was not condemned by God. [[User:Josephx|Josephx]]

*And Andy said your views smack of being a [[Heterophobic]]. Why do you hate Heterosexuals, Josephx, if you do? And what about my Goat interpretation? Is it any less or more valid?--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 10:12, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I have stated that I am not heterophobic; it will sadden me if you do not take that on good faith. I say again, that I look forward to reading about your goat interpretation should you wish to post it. [[User:Josephx|Josephx]]

== Leviticus ==
Doesn't Leviticus ban shellfish eating as well as endorse slave-buying? It sounds like a savage book. --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 17:40, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I find your liberal argumentation exceedingly weak. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:53, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: Except I'm neither a liberal, nor am I arguing (I'm a socialist). I'm just disgusted at the things I'm hearing about this book. I should read it sometime. I tell you, it's a good thing we don't tolerate this sort of nonsense in modern, decent, post-Enlightenment civilisation. --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 14:13, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Don't forget that you can purchase slaves from neighboring nations (Lev 25:44), though in America today, this seems to apply only to illegal immigrants from Mexico, not Canada. Oh, and we can't leave out wearing a multi-textiled garment (Lev. 19:19), or having the hair trimmed around your temples (Lev. 19:27). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 14:19, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Afi, I suggest that you haven'nt done your homework. I suggest reading the work of the Johns Hopkins medical researcher Dr. David Macht in regards to [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge kosher vs. non-kosher foods and levels of toxicity]. While non-kosher food may be good to eat from a nutritional point of view it might not be absolutely optimal. I would also suggest that the Torah was very medically advanced for its time. I suggest reading about [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge how truly advanced the Torah was for its time]. In regards to slavery issue I would suggest reading this material: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html 14:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Hoji, how much do you know about ANE culture in regards to the "garment issue"? Are you engaging in cultural imperialism in regards to the Bible? I would also suggest reading the material posted to Afi above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:30, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

(reset indent)I would suggest that most people merely quote-mine Leviticus anyway, without reading it in its entireity or even understanding why it says what it says. Multi-textiled garment? Actually, it says''' שׁעטנז'''
(sha‛aṭnêz), a word unfortunately lost to history. Clarke rightly points out: "this may as well refer to a garment made up of a sort of patchwork differently colored and arranged for pride and for show. A folly of this kind prevailed anciently in this very land, and I shall give a proof of it, taken from a sermon against luxury in dress, composed in the fourteenth century..." [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::Leviticus was a set of moral laws appropriate to its time, mixed in with ceremonial laws. The ceremonial laws can be ignored now, as Christ's sacrifice rendered them obsolete - no more animal sacrifices needed. Leviticus is no longer a required legal code, so its moral laws are now more moral guidelines - when leviticus says "All homosexuals must be executed," thats using the literal interpretation and ignoring the new testament. With the NT taken into account, the meaning becomes "You dont need to execute homosexuals anymore, but God disapproves of them very, very strongly." In the same way, all the "Slavery is required within these limits" becomes "God has no objection to slavery if there are some safeguards, but you dont have to allow it." - BornAgainBrit

== Why can't I edit this? ==

The point of a Wiki is that anyone can edit any page. If you lock a page, you destroy the purpose of a wiki.

All I wanted to do was put some perspective on the riotous and violent acts done by homosexuals documented on this page before someone viewing this through such a narrow slit developed a stereotype about homosexuals.

You see, according to http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html, there were 1107 incidents of anti-homosexual hate crime in the U.S. in 2004, while there were 33 incidents of anti-heterosexual hate crime. Despite this vast difference (nearly 34:1, by the way), the only incidents I see mentioned here are anti-heterosexual crimes. Clearly this bias is an oversight, so I thought I'd point it out before someone accused your fine website of leaning towards one side of an argument.

Thank you and have a good day.

:Rotsa ruck... [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:01, 19 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-and Scrappy, too...''

:: Only a tiny percentage of pages are locked on this site, and in each case the locking was due to unrelenting vandalism or biased edits. Even for the few that are locked, there is quick response to suggestions made on the corresponding talk page, and changes are often incorporated.

:: In this case, you provide an interesting claim and link. Thank you. However, statistics are only meaningful if they are fully explained. About 1107 incidents of anti-homosexual hate crime ... out of how many crimes overall? Nobody reports an incidence of a disease, for example, without placing it in its context. If I said 1100 died from something, then immediately someone would demand to know the overall context.

:: Also, what were the "crimes"? Are these violent or non-violent crimes? Are the crimes a by-product of a bigger crime, such as underage drunkenness or drug abuse? I trust you would agree that we shouldn't post meaningless or misleading statistics in an encyclopedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Right, well maybe once this site gets a little bigger the law of averages will work correctly like on other wikis.

:::The context I was going for was the contrast between the 34:1 anti-homosexual to anti-heterosexual hate crime incidence and the 0:5 ratio presented here. I'm not even saying you need to print that stat. All I'm looking for is a touch of documentation of anti-homosexual hate crimes.

:::As defined by the FBI, these crimes encompass murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and destruction/damage/vandalism. (same link. scroll down.)

:::Hope that helps.

:: I don't follow your first point. Wikipedia has far more political censorship on sensitive entries than we do. Try editing Wikipedia's evolution entry, for example, to reflect how most Americans feel about that topic. Such edits will be removed within seconds, and the editor blocked if he persists.

:: Anti-heterosexual crime is generally not considered to be a "hate crime", so the 34:1 statistic is meaningless. When homosexuals stormed St. Patrick's Cathedral to defile the Eucharist, you can bet that was not listed as a "hate crime".

:: I'm look for context on the 1107 figure. Out of a million crimes, perhaps? Without that context, that figure is meaningless. I'll see if the 1107 is broken down by category. Are you suggesting that burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, etc., are included in the hate crimes??? That seems absurd, frankly. I mean, who would steal a car as an expression of sexual hatred??? It calls into question the integrity of the statistics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:30, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Here is something interesting in regards to FBI reporting: Pastor finds FBI unresponsive to homosexual activists' threats: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17075 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:36, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

:I happen to agree with Wikipedia's take on evolution. How do "most Americans" feel? Nevertheless, your point is well illustrated. I digress.

:I would appreciate some documentation of homosexuals actually defiling the Eucharist, but the reliability of that fact isn't my main point. First off, that would be vandalism and therefore listed. Also, you're illustrating what I'm trying to fight on here. Of course there are crazy homosexuals who do horrible things. There are also crazy conservatives (34 for every one crazy homosexual, statistically ;) ) who abduct homosexuals, tie them to fences, and pistol-whip them to death. But when you base your judgement of an entire population on the crazies, then you have a problem. And don't try to tell me that that isn't happening on this page. I didn't notice one positive thing about our brothers and sisters in Christ anywhere. (unsigned TheGentleman)

:I don't understand what problem you have with the statement that, in 2004, there were 1107 hate crimes commited against homosexuals. It's a straight number.
::Who said that "crazy conservatives" committed those crimes? You should research Islam. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:33, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

::Besides the three individuals who tied Matthew Sheppard to a fence and beat him to death, name every single individual who tied a homosexual to a fence and killed him. You said there were ''"crazy conservatives (34 for every one crazy homosexual, statistically ;) ) who abduct homosexuals, tie them to fences, and pistol-whip them to death."'', now you're going to provide their names, dates of these incidents and newspaper references. I want all 34 names. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:36, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

: I've looked further on the linked provided above by TheGentleman and it appears that the following is true about the data:

* the classification of a hate crime can be based on little more than the fact that a victim of a crime was a homosexual, or that a pro-homosexual group requested designation of a crime as a hate crime
* no conviction or proof in court is required
* only a small percentage of these alleged hate crimes are violent
* some of the alleged hate crimes, such as auto theft, are patently absurd
* crimes motivated by homosexuality, such as the attack on St. Patrick's Cathedral, would not be listed

We can insert a section explaining the data and how misleading it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:41, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

:The problem I had with TheGentleman's statistics posting is that we, and a lot of other sites and news agencies, routinely get such data posted, and more often than not the data is flawed, inflated, or an outright lie. So if someone is going to say "more banks were robbed by conservatives than liberals" or "more Democrats support the killing of cats than Republicans" I'm probably going to want to see just where the individual making such claims is getting them from. The killing of Matt Sheppard was something that should never have happened, but to go on and state that more such killings took place, each involving a fence and a pistol-whipping as TheGentleman said, just begs the question as to where he's getting his info from. All he's doing in this case is not making murder look bad as it should, but making conservatives look bad. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:01, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

::We had the same discussion on the [[Talk:Homophobia]] page; while the FBI keeps stats on the sexual orientation of victims, it only classifies perpetrator by race. Hence, it is impossible to quantify gay-on-gay violence, or gay-on-gay domestic abuse. So a statistical flaw (built into the law , incidentally) leads to an invalid conclusion, that all anit-gay violence is perpetrated by heterosexuals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:06, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

: The hate crimes link is now included in the entry with full explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed it is probably safer to a member of a protected class like gays than a member of the random population. The murder rate typically has hovered at 1 per 10,000 per year, whereas there ''has not'' been a murder of a homosexual ''because he is gay'' in more than 4 years, per FBI stats. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Homophobia#Anti-homosexual_violence] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:20, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ok. I'm going to try to be clear about this. I don't care if the data isn't exact. My only point was that there are more violent actions by heterosexuals against homosexuals than vice versa. Are you going to contest that statement, too? The same goes for the pistol-whipping thing. It's an example. That's it.{{Unsigned|TheGentleman}}

::And I am going to be clear on this: I am contesting that statement as well, due to the fact that you ''"don't care if the data isn't exact"''. The only examples you have made are those of unsupported, uncited, and possibly bogus statements as if they were facts, but then again, as you said, you ''"don't care if the data isn't exact"''. That means you're just pushing an agenda here, and an unwelcome one at that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:58, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

::Gays are exactly in the situation Feminists were in during the mid to late 70s regarding the issue of domestic abuse. Women's rights activists charged the domestic abuse was rampant, the laws were written in such away that did not give women protection. Feminists charged that the whole system, from the police to the courts to the legislature were against them. Laws were rewritten such that police were required to make an arrest if there appeared evidence of an assualt, despite the fact that the police had not witnessed it nor could testify who assualted who.

::You draw a conclusion above, "My only point was that there are more violent actions by heterosexuals against homosexuals than vice versa," which is unsupported by the data. The data is flawed, because it does not identify whether homosexuals are victims of heterosexuals or homosexuals. And the Law in fact, mandates the FBI to compile stats on victims, but not the sexual orientation of offenders. This is simply matching odd socks or mixing apples and oranges to get a conclusion. And then that conclusion is misinterpreted and misapplied for political purposes.

::So, we actually have identified an area of the Law that discriminates against gays, a Law which purportedly was written to protect them.

::This really needs further investigation, because I do have a hunch some non-governmental agency somewhere has some stats on gay domestic abuse. And if this society is faced with the prospect legalizing gay marriage, and clogging the courts with gay marriages which probably will last on average less than two years, this society needs to understand the prevalence of violence in gay relationships, which the law as of now, is not required to keep statistics on. And this was exactly the complaint of many feminists about rape & domestic abuse from the mid 60s to the mid 70s--that rapes and domestic abuse were underreported to law enforcement because the police, courts, and legislature would do nothing about it. And the police, courts, and legislatures didn't see a problem because it didn't show in the statistics. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:26, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== Aschlafly could you footnote this statement ==

You wrote: "But most of those offenses occurred against property rather than individuals, often the result of drugs or alcohol. Only a tiny percentage even involved aggravated assault or worse, and those classifications are not based on any proof at trial." Could you please footnote this statment?

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:18, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

: That's the FBI site again. I'd add it again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

::Here are the FBI's [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm] Hate crime statistics by bias motivation. Aggravated assault and Simple assault account for about 500 of the 1100+ crimes, with zero homicides and one rape recorded. The rest are mostly property crimes, with Destruction/Vandalism (of which would include graffitti) being the most common at 275. And here are the Offender stats. [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/offenders.htm] Note, statisics of the offenders sexual orientation are not kept.

::Under the FBI's method, there is no way to measure how many Aggravated assault and Simple assault cases were gay dates gone bad. Every indication is that homosexual relationships, including lesbian, are much more prone to violence than heterosexual relationships. Yet the government it so appears, by law, is not mandated to keep statistics, and in fact, uses a flawed methodology intended to create flawed conclusions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:36, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, RobS has a good point. Note that the statistics claim there was a rape of a homosexual victim motivated by anti-homosexual animus. Was that gay-on-gay violence??? Seems absurd otherwise. In the racial context, it is recognized by the courts of racial prejudice by the same members of a minority.

:: In response to TheGentleman's unsigned comment above (please sign your comments using the signature button above the edit space), nothing in the statistics indicates that heterosexuals are more violent towards homosexuals than vice-versa. Crimes by homosexuals are rarely, if ever, classified as hate crimes, and as RobS points out gay-on-gay violence occurs often (didn't Andy Warhol die from this?) and yet would not be reported in this table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:26, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Let me show another flaw in the FBI statistics: the last reported gay hate crime murder in the US occurred in 2004. The FBI keeps stats on "Anti-Male homosexual" and "Anti-Female homosexual", yet this murder is not recorded as either. [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/hctable4.htm] Even the proponents of gay rights fumbled the ball here it seems, they must be Anti-Transgender bigots, the statisitcs reveal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:58, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== Gay-on-Gay Violence a Hate Crime? ==

"Andrew Cunanan July 1997: a serial killer who is gay ignites a firestorm of twisted media reports and assassinates out designer Gianni Versace before killing himself - Gods & Monsters," by Lisa Neff

"I will never forget that summer," says Cathy Renna, news media director for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. Renna is referring to 1997, when Andrew Cunanan murdered five men, including fashion designer Gianni Versace on July 15. ... Before killing Versace, Cunanan killed acquaintance Jeffrey Trail and ex-lover David Madson in Minnesota, then stabbed and tortured wealthy Chicago businessman Lee Miglin. ... "That he was on the loose and targeting gay men prompted a lot of concern," Renna says.[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2002_Nov_12/ai_94598297]

So the question is this: were those murders hate crimes? Is gay-on-gay violence a hate crime?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:42, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's a very interesting and thought-provoking question. My initial reaction is to say that it would be a hate crime *if* it can be demonstrated that he killed these people for no reason other than their sexual orientation.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 22:58, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, the definition of hate crime is if sexual orientation is *any* reason, not the *only* reason. What would be your answer in that case? No? But if Cunanan's murders weren't hate crimes, then virtually nothing is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

:::As we demonstrated on the [[Homophobia]] page, most homophobes are gays disgusted with themselves for being attracted to members of the same sex. The clinical term used today is "internalized homophobia." It would not be surprising at all that a clinical homophobe might react violently to other gays he might be attracted to, or who are attempting to persuade him to engage in something he personally is struggling with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:10, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Is that how they define it? Hm. I feel like if you're going to have a hate crime law at all (be it for race, sexuality, religion, whatever) the crime should be motivated entirely (or very nearly entirely) by the dislike for the characteristic in question. Like, for example, if "Bob" has a mild distaste for black people and decides to rob someone, and his victim happens to be black, that's not enough (in my mind at least) to qualify as a hate crime. But if Bob goes out *specifically* looking for black people to rob, with the intent of sending a message to other black people ("You are not welcome here"), THEN I think it qualifies as a hate crime.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 00:21, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::Let's suppose you have a gay person who is tired and disgusted with himself for living the gay lifetstyle (statistics support this hypothesis, gays have the highest rates of alchoholism and suicide of any group, and shortest life expectancy--46 years). This person seeks psychiatric help and is diagnosed as a classic homophobe. The therapy in fact does not help, because the state of the theraputic community today is to convince him to accept himself and live with it. But the patient resents (1) himself for having homosexual impulses, (2) the theraputic community for being of no help, and most importantly (3) ''other gays'', past and present, for whom he blames for his miserable life.

'''Homophobe''' is not a diagnosis, Rob. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:22, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::Now one day our disconcerted friend, while drinking away his sorrows is approached by another gay for sex. Our classic gay-homophobe turns in utter hatred and contempt on the other gay seducer, and violently assualts him precisely because (a) the other gay seducer was gay, and(b) hatred of the seducer because he was gay and everything he represents.

::::::I would suspect this is a common occurrance in modern America. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::That was a very eloquent and well-laid out summary, Rob. I am curious where you got the 46 year life expectancy statistic, though. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 00:51, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::"...men aged 20 years could expect to live another 48 years of life. Under the 9% scenario, gay and bisexual men at age 20 can expect to live another 46 years and have a total life span of 66 years in this major urban centre. Approximately 42% of gay and bisexual men under this mortality regime would die before age 65 with the maximal mortality occurring between the ages of 30 and 44 years." Hogg, Strathdee, Craib, O'Shaughnessy, Montaner and Schechter, [http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,]International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1997, pgs. 659 - 660. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:40, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Porthos, I agree with the logic of what you say, that a hate crime should be defined as motivated exclusively by a specific intent to hurt a protected group. But realize that the political purpose of hate crime legislation has nothing to do with deterring crime. It has everything to do with taking a step towards creating a privileged class and establishing affirmative action for them in jobs and school. Gays are not an underprivileged class, but they want to censor criticism of their lifestyle and to receive benefits of affirmation action. That's why they push for hate crimes legislation. It's not to reduce crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::What's amazing about this chart [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/hctable4.htm] is the definitions given. "Homosexual murder" presumably would be murder of a person who has sex with members of the same sex. The FBI reports 1 such homicide in 2004. Then in classifying it as "anti-male" or an "anti-female" homicide, it goes unquantified. Therefore we must conclude it was a murder of either a hermaphodite by birth, or a so-called "transgender" in the midst of various sex-change operations. So the question is, how does the law define homosexuality? because it evidentally is different from a person who has sex with members of the same sex.

:::This same question would apply to so-called "same-sex marriage" issues. How would the law provide for "same sex marriage" if a "same sex marriage" could be performed between persons of differring sexes? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:40, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

==Footnote 2==
The link to footnote 2 may be broken, or it may have been moved from the ''Washington Times'' cite; there are references to the cite elsewhere on Google, or I might be able to get in from LexusNexus. Incidentally, one of the authors referred to, Mattison, who according to WP "performed influential research in both clinical and social aspects of sexology, as well as drug use" is dead at the age of 57. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Mattison&redirect=no] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:11, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== lymphocyte attacked by AIDS virus picture ==
That simply is not true. AIDS is the condition of lymphocyte deficiency caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. The caption should be changed to state this. {{unsigned|Gg81}}
::Got the pic and caption from a biology reference source. See: http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&q=Aids+virus&btnG=Search+Images [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:41, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I just changed it (before I saw Conservative's message). HIV is the "AIDS virus" in that it is the virus which causes AIDS, but referring to is as the Human Immunodeficiency Virus is more accurate. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Homosexuality and Animals ==

Why are bonobos and dolphins removed? [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
::Read the Anthony Pardo material. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:39, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::You'd have to clarify - I have no clue what you meant. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:45, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
::::Reread the section. It will be clear. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:55, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sorry, his quotation was right there - I was looking for Anthony (not Antonio). It seems to me that the bonobos and dolphin reference was a continuation of the paragraph regarding National Geographics, reinforcing the idea that a viewpoint opposite of that of Antonio Pardo exists. I don't see why National Geographics wasn't removed then - if its sole purpose is to show a contrasting view, then bonobos and dolphins should stay (why cut off half a point?). [[User:ATang|ATang]] 23:09, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Humans "have sex", animals "mate". Also, male animals trying to establish dominance positions will sometimes mount another male, but there is no evidence that this is (1) an attempt to mate, let alone (2) an indication of homosexuality.

In fact, the term ''homosexuality'' applies only to human beings. It is an aberration, a chosen behavior which is a sin. There is no evidence that homosexuals are "born that way"; no one is born a thief or a murderer.

If you feel the urge to do something wrong, it is '''your responsibility''' to resist that urge. The joke about "I can resist anything but temptation" is just a joke. Good and evil is a serious business. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:26, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hm... How did the argument about homosexuality in animals become good vs evil? I wasn't contesting why humans do it, or whether it's right or wrong.

:The references given for bonobos and dolphins does not say anything about dominance as a reason for "homosexual" behaviour (is that why it was removed?), so it should stand as an "anomaly" in the context of that section, showing that homosexual behaviour does indeed exist for reasons other than establishing dominance.

:I don't believe that an animal must "attempt to mate" in order to have sex. Perhaps that's a purely human concept - I don't know. But I don't believe you must have the intention to mate in order for the act to be called "homosexual". Sexual act alone should be enough. You gave a valid point about dominance - but bonobo males conduct homosexual acts as well (as bonobos are matriarchal in nature, your explanation of dominance could apply to females, but ranking is less important to males).

:(On a side note - I don't exactly agree with your point about thieves or murderers. Why can't people be born with an increased tendency for misdeeds / violence? This natural predisposition, combined with improper (or immoral) up-bringing, would result in the production of criminals. That's how I try to explain the fact that there are people living through hardships in a harsh, criminal environment with bad parenting, and still turn out to be enormously successful. Of course parenting is a large part, but I don't doubt that nature still has some say in the nature vs nurture battle.)[[User:ATang|ATang]] 17:50, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

The fact that same-sex mating does not exist among animals is somewhat contested. Is there any way we could mention that somewhere? It is estimated that 1500 animal species practice homosexuality (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718)

== Domestic violence ==
*A recent study by the Canadian government says
:"violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples"
:[http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/85-570-XIE2006001.pdf 2004 General Social Survey], Statisitcs Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005.

*The U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs Domestic Abuse Fact Sheet states,
:"11% of women in homosexual relationships and 23% of men in homosexual relationships report being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by an intimate partner"
:[http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/ncdocs/fact_shts/fs_domestic_violence.html#Anchor-Fischbach-17304 National Center for PTSD Fact Sheet]

*The Office of Prevention of Domestic Violence, State of New York cites a report which states
:"17% - 46% of lesbians & gay men report abuse by a current or former partner"
:Elliott, P., [http://www.opdv.state.ny.us/about_dv/dataweb2003.html Shattering illusions: Same-sex domestic violence. In Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Partnerships,] ed. C.M. Renzetti & C.H. Miley, pg 1-8, Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press: 1996.

*The American Bar Association reports
:"The prevalence of domestic violence among Gay and Lesbian couples is approximately 25 - 33%."
:Barnes, [http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/gay.shtml It's Just a Quarrel',] American Bar Association Journal, February 1998, p. 25.

*A Study published in The Journal of Family Violence reported,
:"Emotional abuse was reported by 83% "
:[http://www.springerlink.com/content/r130ql0471892435/ A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample], The Journal of Family Violence, Publisher Springer Netherlands, Volume 15, Number 3, September, 2000, Pages 281-293. ISSN 0885-7482

*The Journal of the Family Research Institute using data from the U.S. Justice Dept.'s Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Center for Disease Control concluded
:"married men who are not separated are at least 25 times less apt to be domestically attacked than a homosexual male in an 'on-going relationship.' Even if we include all married and separated husbands, the risk of domestic violence in a male-male homosexual relationship is still at least 18 times greater."
:[http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_12.html Gay Domestic Violence Finally Measured], Journal of the Family Research Institute, Vol. 16 No. 8, Dec 2001.
[[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:34, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==

To me, this article has a heavy bias against homosexuals-- almost all the sections of it seem to point to why homosexuality is "bad" or "dangerous". The article really needs cleanup...

:In what way is it biased against homosexuals? (There is no bias in saying, for example, that drunk driving is harmful to one's health!)

:Are laboring under the assumption that homosexuality is benign? If so, please make your case here first, or better yet in [[Debate:Is homosexuality okay?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:41, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

==Some bad aspects of homosexuality==

*"Men and women with a history of homosexual contact had a higher prevalence of nearly all psychiatric disorders measured in the study."
*Many homosexual activists blame so-called "homophobia" for these disorders, but actually they are "the result of a lifestyle marked by rampant promiscuity and an inability to make commitments, combined with unresolved sadness, profound insecurity, anger and mistrust from childhood and adolescence."

The above should be in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:Even though it's a steaming pile of falsehoods? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:44, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

==Pedophilia==

Shouldn't there be something in this article about the fact that homosexual males are more likely to be child abusers? [http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3 This] page documents the data showing that homosexuals are disproportionately represented as child abusers, and I think we should document this issue as another reason why homosexuals are dangerous. If you would like, I can work on an addition to the article for review. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:28, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::SSchultz, please research this issue further and get back to us. Someone else is looking into this issue. Here is another source in regards to your research: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431 Please keep in mind what the aformentioned link says about the FBI. That will have to be addressed. I hope this helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:40, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Do you mean gay men are more likely (than whom?) to abuse children, or do you mean they are more likely (than whom?) to be paedophiles? There is a significant difference. Also, when talking about child abuse, it's important to specify exactly what acts are involved. [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 15:16, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

== homosexuality Promiscuity - further research ==

Does anyone want to examine the studies on promiscuity given here: http://www.unitedfamilies.org/documents/UFIfamilyIGSOfullpage_000.pdf

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:50, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:It might be better to do an independent review of the research, don't you think? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:52, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::Murray, I am not opposed to looking at a variety of sources in order to cite the best studies. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:29, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

== Homosexuality and sexually transmitted diseases ==

If anyone wishes to start some research on Homosexuality and sexually transmitted diseases using this source it would be appreciated: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=6546356&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:36, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

== APA.... ==

''"In May of 2000, the [[American Psychiatric Association]] issued a fact sheet stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological [[etiology]] for homosexuality.[http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf]"''

Are we not ignoring, the later change in their position, and at risk of being called out on this as cherry picking citations to make a point? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:26, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Please give a citation regarding a later change in their position and is the change in position based on replication (scientific method). I am skeptical of a evidentially based change in their position based on the previous failures of replication in the scientific community.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

The APA is hardly a scientific organization. They "voted" to remove homosexuality from the list of diseases. This would be like a bunch of physics geeks voting gravity off the list of forces. Besides, the word "homosexual" should not exist. Scientifically, sex refers to reproduction. Two men or two woman can't reproduce, therefore they are non-sexual. They can practice sodomy, but it's not sex.

Homophobia does not exist. It was created by a homosexual APA member. {{unsigned|Godzilla1138}}
:Your reasoning seems to suggest that oral sex, outercourse, etc. are not sex, which you define strictly as heterosexual intercourse. Also, homosexuality can refer to the ''attraction to members of the same sex'' as much as it can refer to sodomy and related acts. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 12:00, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

== Metropolitan Community Church ==

I suppose there's no point in including a mention of the MCC, is there, probably in the "Christian teachings" section? Didn't think so, so I won't.

Might warrent a separate article, though.
[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 12:30, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

==Statistics for Homosexuality article==

Total number of revisions - 952

Revisions made by User:Conservative - 739 (78%)

[[User:Jallen|Jallen]] [[User talk:Jallen|talk]] 19:01, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

== Catholic and other Christian teachings ==

Ed Poor put this material in: [[Bill Bennett]] wrote: *According to the Church, homosexual acts are contrary to natural law (nature in this usage being identified with the created order) and "under no circumstances can ... be approved." But the Church recognizes that many men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies "do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial." ... Christian teaching on homosexuality derives from the biblical belief that human beings ought to live in accord with God's design. (''The Broken Hearth'', Page 192)

I guess the problem I have with this post is it only gives the Catholic view in 2001. I do not pretend to be a Catholic theologian but I think the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) have come out with some new pronouncements since 2001 on homosexuality which I am guess was a response to the pediphilia scandals. There are no Protestant views given. In my next post I will give the protestant views. Lastly, I don't think we should give the various views of churches in the beginning sections but give some of the more "hard hitting" information first so people can make a more informed choice in regards to various churches teachings on the subject. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:46, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Here is what Protestant ministers believe about homosexuality: "In fact, 82% of all ministers agreed with the statement “homosexuality is a choice people make,” while 18% disagreed with it. Homosexuality was viewed as a choice by 94% of political conservatives, 79% of moderates, and 28% of liberals. Eighty-eight percent of evangelical ministers saw it as a choice, compared to 54% of mainline ministers.[http://www.ellisonresearch.com/ERPS%20II/Release%206%20Homosexuality.htm] Most Americans believe homosexuality is a choice: http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/070317/oldpoll.shtml [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:49, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think we need to have better information regarding the above especially the RCC view before we create the section proposed by Ed Poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:51, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree with everything you just said.

In addition, we must expose the problem of "what the word means". Most opponents of homosexuality use ''homosexuality'' to mean sexual behavior between people of the same sex. Defenders are well aware of this usage, and they deliberately seek to create confusion by speaking of homosexuality '''chiefly''' in terms of "identity", "preference" or "orientation". Same as with [[pedophilia]] (described as a near-saintly "love of children" rather than as adult-child sex.

We need to clarify that '''our usage''', anyway, is always about the behavior - not the propensity, the inclination, the "inherent longing" or any such crap as that.

Why is this important? Because the relentless [[talking point]] of homosexual advocates is that "homosexuality is not a choice", by which they mean that (1) people are born "gay" (or become gay in early childhood) and (2) being "gay" is an "orientation" which cannot be changed, even by a motivated adult volunteer.

These matter needs much, much more clarification. Homosexuals are masters of [[deceit]] and propaganda. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:21, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Also, since the Orthodox are a big branch of Christianity I think we need to do research on their view of homosexuality. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:39, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

*This article needs a major re-write. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:33, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I also think that Catholic and other Christian teachings should not be the title of the new section. It seems to imply that the Catholic position is the most important view. Also, since the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is one organization and it is fairly hierarchal so it seems to me it would be better to cite them directly and not cite Bill Bennett. Also, the Bill Bennett quote is rather vague. If Bennett is right and the RCC says homosexuality is not a choice and is merely "a trial" what does that exactly mean? Homosexuality is purely developmental according to the RCC? Homosexuality is purely biological according to the RCC? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:12, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::::By the way, Google now ranks the article #10 after I removed the Bennett material. It moved up. Perhaps many conservatives didn't merely giving Bennett's apparent view that homosexuality is not a choice. I know I was not exactly fond of merely citing Bennett. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:15, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

*Andy has already rejected the POV that rankings indicate anything, and are more like television ratings. Please stop using minipulated search engine rankings, okay? They have noting to do with scholarly pursuit. Bennett's material was relevant, but I agree with you, Conservative, it should have been backed by something more RCC official. I will provide that when adding the Bennett quote back later. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:19, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:::TK, just to clarify I do not think we should cater to popularity. I merely believe that perhaps Bennett may not be adequately conveying the current RCC view and Bennet certainly was not reflecting what many conservative Protestants believe regarding the issue of homosexuality and it being choice. And while I don't believe in catering to popularity I do believe that there is no reason to exclude views that are very conservative and are backed by evidence and sound reasoning. I think we may have temporarily alienated some readers unecessarily since I believe the position that homosexuality is a choice that someone chooses to engage in is certainly defendable as long as we are not talking instances of rape or molestation.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:17, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Prose usage ==

Content aside, this article seems to more like an angry letter. It needs a rewrite, and I'm not right-wing enough, and too British, to do it. But I reckon you should, as the name of the site ends with "pedia". --[[User:Revilo314|Revilo314]] 11:30, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
:::You offered no challenges regarding the content. You then decide to claim that it "seems" like an angry letter yet you do not give a single example of vitriolic language. Could it be that you are merely a liberal who disliked the article? In short, I think you could have offered a more substantial post on the talk page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== Seperation of Relevance ==

One thing that stood out to me as a little out of place was the section on Sodom in relation to homosexuality. While there is a level of biblical relevance it would seem more appropriate to me to put that section in with the bible references with a sublink to an article regarding Sodom. Also, regardless, the statment "The Bible also states: ...the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. Genesis 19:24-25 " also seems a bit out of place in the text and should probably be placed later in direct comparison to the words of Dr. Wood. Basically I don't think they should be under different headers in any case. Upon my first read when I came across that quote it seemed completely irrelevant to the topic until further reading.

Upon further reading I also noticed that the last section, which was highly religious in its argument should probably be moved up near the biblical reference section though not under the same header.

== Other religions' take on homosexuality ==

Christianity and Judaism, I think, aren't the only religions with traditional teachings out there against homosexuality. Just pointing that out. [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] 23:56, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

== Glaad ==

"The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has been engaged in a campaign to increase the number of papers that print same-sex union or "marriage" announcements. It was launched in August 2002 when 70 American newspapers ran such announcements. Today, the figure is 219. They include the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times."[http://www.aim.org/aim_column/A144_0_3_0_C/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:46, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

==Religious Persecution==

congratulations on your incredible bias. whatever happened to live and let live and your allegedly "forgiving god".
::Someone who merely cries bias without any proceeding information does not have an argument. I suggest reading C.S. Lewis's essay on "bulverism".[http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html] Next, you forgot to cite this from the homosexuality article: "Matthew Henry wrote regarding homosexuals and other sinners repenting of their sins and becoming Christians the following: ‎"How glorious a change does grace make". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

==Blocked==

If you unblock this, I'll fix the many spelling and gramatical errors I found. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 12:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==

This article is very hostile. It needs less biblical passages and more facts. [[User:Elassint|Elassint]] 15:07, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

*Are you at all understanding that this is a Conservative and Christian friendly encyclopedia, Elassint? We know that the Bible is factual! You are invited to make substantial and ''positive'' edits here, at the fastest growing educational site on the Internet! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:00, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

== do you guys hate gay people? ==

Is it just me or you guys hate people according to this article. Ok, I admit, I'm a liberal, go ahead a ban me. I dare ya.--[[User:Dpaladinx|Dpaladinx]] 16:44, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:No. We just hate trolling behavior, not the troll. God bless and keep you, live long, and prosper. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:47, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== in that whole article there is no mention of the republican party ==
Wow talk about creative writing! {{unsigned|Worldatheist}}

::Untrue. We mention the Log Cabin Republicans [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Peter_LaBarbera_States_Log_Cabin_Republican.27s_Purge_Mark_Foley_Picture_from_Their_Website HERE] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:20, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

== Gay Rights’ Icon Frank Kameny Spoke at NAMBLA Meeting in 1981 ==

Gay Rights’ Icon Frank Kameny Spoke at NAMBLA Meeting in 1981. see: http://americansfortruth.com/2007/05/page/2/

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Principles Of Weighing Historical Evidence & This Issue... ==

*I believe a main weakness of the debating between the many sides of this, is that neither side has appealed to the discipline of historiography (principles of weighing historical evidence). Now there is a Pulitzer prize winning historican by the name of David Hackett Fischer and he is a very logical and astute historian and I think he is a conservative as well (he cited Scripture in one of his works and we all know that conservatives are generally more logical :-)
*Perhaps those principles could be applied to this article as well? Would Conservative apply the same reasoning here, and allow it to be unlocked so the very editors he is agreeing with over at Dawkins could edit, with the same sound reasoning and scholarship he praises there? --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:38, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:::TK, What historical issues are you disputing in the article and could you please explain why you are disputing them? I really think the bickering for the sake of bickering should end. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:41, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
*I am merely applying your own "reasonableness" here, Conservative. If you trust and agree with the judgment of several editors on the Dawkins page, who disagree with Andy, you should want them to use their same advanced logic capabilities everywhere, no? In short, could you please explain publicly why their judgment and editing abilities have value there, but not here. That seems simple enough, and hardly bickering, inasmuch as I am agreeing with your premise, as posted elsewhere. Sorry if I somehow hit a sore spot, I didn't mean to. I apologize. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:11, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Portsmouth

2007-11-03T17:14:52Z

Scrumpy:

Portsmouth is a port city in [[Hampshire]], on the South Coast of [[England]]. It is located on the small island of Portsea Island, divided from the mainland by a narrow creek, crossed by three road bridges and one railway bridge. The island and town overlook a large natural harbour (Portsmouth Harbour), the advantages of which have led to Portsmouth's a long history as a Naval base which continues to this day. Portsmouth was one of the most heavily fortified towns in Britain in the 19th century, with defensive lines created by [[Lord Palmerstone]] on the [[Gosport]] peninsula and the long ridge of Portsdown Hill to protect the base against a feared French attack. During the [[Second World War]] Portsmouth suffered heavy bombing by the [[Luftwaffe]].

Famous ships which can be visited in Portsmouth include [[HMS Victory]], HMS Warrior and Henry VIII's flagship [[Mary Rose]]. Portsmouth has a Ferry Terminal with regular services to the [[Isle of Wight]] in the UK, [[Cherbourg]] and [[Caen]] in [[France]], and to [[Bilbao]] in [[Spain]].

Portsmouth is a polycentric city. The original heart of the town was Old Portsmouth; this is separated by the naval base from the modern commercial heart at Portsea; while a third focal poibt is the resort area of Southsea. Other districts on Portsea Island include Fratton (where Portsmouth F.C. has its ground, Fratton Park), Kingston, Hilsea and North End. The city boundaries have been extended to incorporate the mainland district of Cosham.

==Famous natives==
*[[Isambard Kingdom Brunel]] b.1806
*[[James Callaghan]] b.1912
*[[Charles Dickens]] b.1812
*[[Christopher Hitchens]] b.1949
*[[Peter Sellers]] b.1925

[[Category:United Kingdom Towns and Cities]]