1) I agree with Armor that blaiming Roosevelt for Stalin's takeover of Eastern Europe is fanciful 'monday morning quarterbacking'.  After losing half a million soldiers in ww2, the notion that Roosevelt could take his nation right away in war again, this time against the Soviet Union (in its own backyard), is 'unrealistic'.  Granted that the 'greatest generation' was greater than the current one, if one looks at current political difficulties of western leaders in the 'long war' with islamo-fascism, the notion that Roosevelt had any other choice is wishful thinking.

2)  The idea of individual conscience and individual responsibility is a core idea of the judea-christian tradition in Western civilisation.  But, perhaps Nigel B. carries this is a bit too far.  While one is PRIMARILY responsible for one's own actions, one cannot totally divorce oneself from one's own society and from how that society develops further.  There are obviously many different possible DEGREES of collective GUILT, depending on the impact of one's own action and INaction on how one's society is evolving.   Since contemporary persons can have no impact on the past, any possible collective guilt - to the extent that it could be applicable to any individual - must relate to the present and perhaps to the future.   

"French President Nicolas Sarkozy has requested from his Education Minister that "every year starting from the upcoming 2008 school year, children in the last year of primary school should be asked to learn about one of the 11,000 French children who died in the Holocaust.

Sarkozy made the announcement Wednesday in his speech to 1,000 guests at the annual dinner of CRIF, the umbrella representative body of Jewish organizations in France. "

source

I think Sarko is mad !

Ovalteen and onecent make a point that is worth discussing; where did the idea for collective guilt come from? I for one do not know. In law you are responsible for your own actions, and even if you are part of a group you must have a common principle or co-determined action to be found guilty. Eg. In an armed robbery the get-away driver is as guilty as the man with the gun. The concept of collective guilt that passes through generations was biblical, it is found in Genesis; but Ezekiel chapter 18 stresses the point of personal responsibility, in that you are only guilty of your own sin. Whether you beleive or not, the idea of collective guilt is against one of our civilisations founding principles. It is an idea that I don't beleive in, I feel no guilt for the actions of others only for my own actions.

"Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain? Brave Hungarian peasant girl who forced King John to sign the pledge at Runnymede and close the boozers at half past ten! Is all this to be forgotten?
Tony Hancock (British Comedian).
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmFW8Taog6M
 
Yes,I know,that was then and this is now...
 
However,the fact remains that today,many kids in Britain would BELIEVE Tony.
 

During history lessons, I think it may be interesting to give schoolchildren a list of which dictators managed to kill the most people in the shortest time. They will probably be interested. But trips to Auschwitz are a bad idea.

About Auschwitz: There is no reason why THE Holocaust should have a special importance for the non-Jews. If we have to meditate on the subject of mass murder, we should take in consideration a whole series of holocausts and mass-murders, especially those committed against or by our own ancestors. If the Brits have never committed a massacre on the scale of what Hitler did, it's a shame, but it doesn't mean they have to adopt Hitler's holocaust of the Jews as their own.
It seems that every genocide in the world amounts to peanuts, if compared to THE Genocide. In fact, it works the same way as hate crimes. We are told that crimes committed against dark-skinned people are particularly ugly, as they are caused by hate. On the other hand, crimes committed against white people, which are much more prevalent, are probably love crimes, and not worth our attention. In the case of genocide, it seems that the massacre of the kulaks in Ukraine, and the self-genocide of the Cambodians, belong to an inferior kind of genocide, as the victims were not Jewish. The truth is that we are submitted to very heavy propaganda.

@ onecent :

Are you saying that the USA should have gone to war against Russia, after Germany was defeated?

" It was a tragic blunder costing eastern Europeans more lives and decades of Communist servitude. "

I wish Western Europe had had a few decades of communist servitude. It would have been less destructive than the immigration policy of our leaders.

"But why DID the Brits align with Commie slime at that point?"

Blame Roosevelt. He was very sick and compromised when he went to Yalta as well as just plain naive. Churchill was adamantly against giving in to Stalin.

It was a tragic blunder costing eastern Europeans more lives and decades of Communist servitude.

I agree with the speculative.
But why DID the Brits align with Commie slime at that point? Of course it is not certain that the Nazi's would have followed Hess' plans anyway, but it would not have been unsmart to let the Nazi's and the Commies fight their fight without helping either one of them.

Provocation to evoke reactions like yours was my setup and I do realise that at the time I myself, having no sfere of glass either, would not have been able to think of anything less stupid than our world leaders have decided to.

But history does show the inaptness of most leaders and politicians.

Oh, come on, Cogito, it's ridiculous to suggest that the Brits should have aligned themselves with Nazi slime at any point.  There was no alliance to be had between openly anti-semitic fascists and decent democratic people. The outcome in your scenerio is silly, speculative and flawed at best.
 
The opportunity lost were forged at Yalta when Eastern Europe was given away to Stalin. Containing the Communists to Russia would have been smart. Oh, and, don't overlook after the war the millions of Western European Communists in Italy, France, Greece, etc.  Defeating Marxism in Europe and on every college campus in the west is still ongoing battle.

Britain could have prevented the holocaust by taking Rudolf Hess' propositions seriously. An alliance between the allied forces and Nazi-Germany against the Soviets would have annihilated the true enemy of the West, communism. Moreover, this alliance would have enabled the Germans not to take such a hard stance against other European countries AND would have made it impossible for the Nazi's to organise the holocaust machine.
History, after the war against communism, would have dealt with nazism as well after the war.
The title of this post is meant provocatively only.
 

I'm sure the trip to Auschwitz is an exercise in collective white guilt, never mind that the Brits/Americans liberated Auschwitz and destroyed the Third Reich.
 
ovalteen, you've nailed it. The never ending guilt and atonement is necessary to lefties to transfer our wealth to whatever victim group they need votes from.

"Why Not Send Them to Runnymede?"

I'm sure liberals would be delighted to send children to Runnymede:

About Runnymede

Our mandate is to promote a successful multi-ethnic Britain - a Britain where citizens and communities feel valued, enjoy equal opportunities to develop their talents, lead fulfilling lives and accept collective responsibility, all in the spirit of civic friendship, shared identity and a common sense of belonging... Founded in 1968, Runnymede has established and maintained a positive profile on the social and interpersonal benefits of living affirmatively within a society that is both multi-ethnic and culturally diverse; and continues to speak with a thoughtful and independent public voice on these issues today.

http://www.runnymedetrust.org/about.html

The Holocaust is proof of the innate racism and xenophobia of all whites. Auschwitz is the supreme symbol of white evil. We must do penance for our evil by allowing mass immigration to destroy us. Here endeth the lesson.

Runnymede? If that latest survey is to be believed,some of those idiot kids will probably think the word 'Runnymede' refers to some sort of weak medieval alcoholic beverage...

No,instead of sending them to Runnymede,they might learn more about themselves if they were sent on a field trip to the site of that mythical palace known as Blenheim,or to the longterm residence of England's greatest ever private detective,Sherlock Holmes.(Well,of course he was real).

http://www.blenheimpalace.com/

http://www.sherlock-holmes.co.uk/