The grand mufti during WWII
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=199451
I link to this article not because it's news, but for the opposite reason - how "not new" it really is. There was nice historical analysis of the mufti going back over 35 years that I'm aware of, and I don't consider myself particularly scholarly on this aspect of the war. And that brings me to my point - how much "new" historical data isn't new at all, at least when it comes to WWII. For twenty years now, TV shows and books have been breathlessly advertising that they've pierced "secret Soviet archives" to present "never before seen" information. And yet it has been known. Oh, maybe not in all the gory details, but known nonetheless. Sometimes I wonder if it's just some historian or TV producer trying to score some quick and easy points in the popular press, and sometimes I wonder if it's just propaganda. (It's hardly to the disadvantage of the Jerusalem Post to remind people of the close ties that were attempting to be forged between the nazis and various Arabs and Moslems*.)
*One can argue as to how close these ties were or might have been. But, as I have mentioned in previous postings, the war is full of great complexity. Arabs in general, as well as Bosnian and Kosovan Moslems were colonized peoples, and a simple wish for independence certainly guided many of their actions, rather than some iron-clad ideological bond. It should also be pointed out the cynicism and outright hypocrisy of the Germans, who would undoubtedly have themselves colonized many of these lands, (for example - the Egyptian Army was all ready to revolt against the British, given an Axis victory at El Alamein; not knowing that Italy had already been promised Egypt as a colony. Nasser and his confederates would have been able to deliver Cairo, and then been shot themselves to secure Italy's position.
I link to this article not because it's news, but for the opposite reason - how "not new" it really is. There was nice historical analysis of the mufti going back over 35 years that I'm aware of, and I don't consider myself particularly scholarly on this aspect of the war. And that brings me to my point - how much "new" historical data isn't new at all, at least when it comes to WWII. For twenty years now, TV shows and books have been breathlessly advertising that they've pierced "secret Soviet archives" to present "never before seen" information. And yet it has been known. Oh, maybe not in all the gory details, but known nonetheless. Sometimes I wonder if it's just some historian or TV producer trying to score some quick and easy points in the popular press, and sometimes I wonder if it's just propaganda. (It's hardly to the disadvantage of the Jerusalem Post to remind people of the close ties that were attempting to be forged between the nazis and various Arabs and Moslems*.)
*One can argue as to how close these ties were or might have been. But, as I have mentioned in previous postings, the war is full of great complexity. Arabs in general, as well as Bosnian and Kosovan Moslems were colonized peoples, and a simple wish for independence certainly guided many of their actions, rather than some iron-clad ideological bond. It should also be pointed out the cynicism and outright hypocrisy of the Germans, who would undoubtedly have themselves colonized many of these lands, (for example - the Egyptian Army was all ready to revolt against the British, given an Axis victory at El Alamein; not knowing that Italy had already been promised Egypt as a colony. Nasser and his confederates would have been able to deliver Cairo, and then been shot themselves to secure Italy's position.
posted by mendip at
10:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home