Comments for GENERAL HISTORY

Comment on History of Greece by Dean Swift

Dean Swift — Sun, 13 May 2012 11:22:56 +0000

Thank you Ferdinand P. I knew about the Eastern Roman Empire and its capital and the sacking of Constantinople by the Ottomans etc., and I have referencde to seventeen different works of history which refer to Philips’s Macedonian Empire, including one from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Alexander INHERITED this empire and magnified it. Please do not speak negatively with such authority on subjects already defined by other, many other, historians. Thank you for your interest. Dean

Comment on History of Greece by Ferdinand P.

Ferdinand P. — Sun, 13 May 2012 08:13:24 +0000

Just 2 points, Philip’s Macedonia was not an empire and something alien or outside of Greece-then self proclaimed Hellas-sharing religion,mythology, language,customs etc.After the fall of the Western Roman Empire the “incorporated” Eastern Roman Empire with its capital Constantinople flourished for almost 1000 years until the Ottomans sacked it.

Comment on Spain: the King’s apology by Christian

Christian — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:48:15 +0000

Cunning article again ! As a Spaniard I must say I am a bit sad with the performance of the Royalty. I relly don’t give a damn about Froilán shooting himself, that has nothing to do with the discussion…

I don’t belive in Monarchy any more, although some people are saying that converting Spain into a Republic can be much more expensive than we think.

I don’t think there will be a problem in finding someone to occupy the presidency of the Republic, Spain is a great country with great professionals. The bad thing is that these kind of people stay away from politics.

So my discussion is about what system is cheaper? Monarchy or Republic? Should we maintain the Monarchy just because it is cheaper?

Comment on Two very different Retz (or) Rais (or) Rays; Gilles & Paul by Lili Lapham

Lili Lapham — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:00:00 +0000

Taxes can be very scary if you often find yourself disorganized. Bottom line is to get things together by hiring the right people to help you.

Comment on Holocaust: Facts and figures by Yehuda

Yehuda — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:33:11 +0000

Dean Swift,

You erase any criticism. So far as freedom of speech is concerned.
I will try again:

You talk about “error”? So why don’t you correct it?
In this era, where a lot of the terror against Jews is based on the denial of the Shoah, the gaz chambers, the number of the victims and any other facts related to the Shoah, your article just add to this Anti-Semite wave.

Are you Anti-Semite? If not, why don’t you correct this? You have all the info about the number of victims in responsible sites, to which, I’m afraid, this site does not belong, as for the moment.

Here is one reliable resource, with an honest answer:

http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/faq.asp

How many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust? How do we know? Do we have their names?
There is no precise figure for the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The figure commonly used is the six million quoted by Adolf Eichmann, a senior SS official. Most research confirms that the number of victims was between five and six million. Early calculations range from 5.1 million (Professor Raul Hilberg) to 5.95 million (Jacob Leschinsky). More recent research, by Professor Yisrael Gutman and Dr. Robert Rozett in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, estimates the Jewish losses at 5.59–5.86 million, and a study headed by Dr. Wolfgang Benz presents a range from 5.29 million to six million.

The main sources for these statistics are comparisons of prewar censuses with postwar censuses and population estimates. Nazi documentation containing partial data on various deportations and murders is also used. We estimate that Yad Vashem currently has somewhat more than four million names of victims that are accessible. This figure is based primarily on some two million Pages of Testimony, which often contain information about more than one Jew who perished in the Holocaust. As of early June 1999, more than 1.6 million Pages of Testimony have been computerized. In addition, we have thousands of documents containing names from the Holocaust era, many of which are those of victims. This body of documentation has yet to be fully researched and added to our computerized database. Eventually we hope, through our computerization project, to provide as much information as possible about each victim.

Regards,
Yehuda Lavi

Comment on Holocaust: Facts and figures by Yehuda

Yehuda — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:32:41 +0000

Dean Swift,

Here is one reliable resource, with an honest answer:

http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/faq.asp

Regards,
Yehuda Lavi

Comment on De Gaulle, a great Frenchman by Dean Swift

Dean Swift — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:11:49 +0000

NakedTruth: Apparently you think I should be more careful about what I write. But you should also. When I wrote ‘Most allies thought’ etc. that is exactly what I meant. Do you dispute that most allies thought the French had given up without firing a shot? No, you tell me what I know already, viz. ’100,000 French and British soldiers’ etc. The Luftwaffe, my pompous friend, was the German airforce, and the killing was handled by the army. Don’t lecture me. Set up your own site and lecture someone else. And please do not patronise me either. Best wishes, Dean.

Comment on De Gaulle, a great Frenchman by nakedtruth

nakedtruth — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:39:14 +0000

and communism was more present and more feared in 1936 during the ‘front populaire’ than during the short week riot from the students and workers; today when people think red-scare they think mccarthysm, or more naive, Mitterrand’s election in 1981 (first socialist president of the fifth rep’ and de gaulle’s opponent since the 1961 election-on could go back to vichy where the socialist earned the famous ‘francisque’…), so no communist threat in 68, de gaulle bluffed in order to appear like the man in the situation, with a tight grip on the events.

Comment on De Gaulle, a great Frenchman by nakedtruth

nakedtruth — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:08:53 +0000

-the two next paragraphs are quite incorrect as well on the reasons why de gaulle left power;
-’the contrast between the high expenditure on defense compared with the social services and education, neither of which could be said to have much interested the General.’ may 68 is more the equivalent of the hippy years than anything else, nothing to do with defense or the economy but rather the youth tired of an old power in such an extravagant time. For the story, during the events, de gaulle disappeared and flew over to Baden at the French military camp in Germany and as he came back, 2 million Parisians started a protest for his support. You should finally read about the social and educational reforms de gaulle introduced in 45-46 before writing such an inaccurate statement.

Comment on De Gaulle, a great Frenchman by nakedtruth

nakedtruth — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:01:00 +0000

-britain supported financially, but de gaulle made it a point of honor that france would pay all the money back, which they did, less than six years later.

-’most Allies believed France had given up without firing a shot’, you should really pay attention to what you write: more than 100,000 french and british soldiers died under the luftwaffe fire in dunkirk in 39, hopefully this battle isnt unknown to anyone checking their facts.

-’the second wave of the Allied invading armies ‘, second wave? check your facts, the french had tens of thousands on the beach of normandy and two hundred thousand landed in the mediterranean battle that closely followed with marshal lattre de tassigny; dont forget the french permitted the allied forces’ advance in monte-cassino, way before the normandy landing…