I have on numerous occasions expressed support from Flemish "self-determination".  And, if this cannot be obtained within the Belgian state's structure - and that appears increasingly the case -  then it will have to be outside Belgium.  I am in favor of the Flemish regional parliament declaring Flemish independence immediately.   As I have stated repeatedly, the obstacle to Flemish independence is the political left in Flanders, particularly the trade unions, which prefer to continue to 'collaborate' with francophone Belgium in order to preserve their political power and privileges.

Diana West quote: "One litmus test I applied to the many politicians on the European Right I've recently interviewed concerned their views on Israel."

Diana West's litmus test is exclusively a Jewish litmus test, useful to Jews and their friends, to judge Europeans from a Jewish point of view. We need another litmus test so Europeans can judge Jews too.
We know that Jewish influence is largely responsible for third-world immigration to the West, but we also know that not all Jews support this policy. I think a good litmus test to determine whether Jews are friendly to us concerns their views on our right to live in a European not Jewish and not third-world environment.
If Jews think it is natural and moral for Jews to have a home nation called Israel where they can live among themselves, without European and third-world people, they should recognize the right of every European to have a home nation where he can live in an exclusively European and non-Jewish society. If a Jew says we do have that right, then I think he is all right: he is not a Jewish supremacist.

I don't suppose Diana West would pass the litmus test. But at least, she says opponents of immigration are not necessarily nazis. So, she is not completely unfriendly either.

1) Besides both being German, the Kapitein and Kappert seem to share a common affliction, i.e. changing the subject when their earlier position becomes untenable.  Changing their mind on the basis of arguments and/or empirical observation does not appear possible for them.

The issue at hand was my claim that American nonintervention in ww2 would have likely led to a division of Europe between nazis and bolsjeviks.  The Kapitein called that "ill-informed speculation", but could not explain why. His latest comments on "wild cards, exorbitant German ambitions, SOE and MAD, etc..." cannot erase the reality that Germany had already occupied most of Western Europe at the time of American entry into the war in Europe.  We can only speculate what the results of (further or longer) American 'passivity' would have been, but some speculations are more reasonable than others.

Indeed, a soviet "victory" would have been less likely than the nazi-soviet division I envisaged, and I clearly said so.  

2) Poland has known both independence and occupation over the past several centuries.  Over the past century it lost more than a third of its territory (to the soviet union/Russia), and would have been occupied much longer by the Soviet Union if not for American and German postwar determination during the Cold War. 

3) The Kapitein talks nonsense.  Israel is a democracy, and has been so since its founding.  In Israel there is freedom of political speech for everyone, and a very vibrant and critical media.  One can also manifestly observe that, in Israel, political power changes or alternates at regular intervals after elections in which all citizens can vote.  This has nothing to do with "conceding territories". And there is no way that Rodesia and 'White' South Africa could have instituted and sustained democracy through electoral participation of all citizens.   The Kapitein is willfully blind and refuses to see manifestly-observable differences.

4) Nobody is contesting that nations should - and do - pursue their interests through alliances and diplomacy.  But, to say that there is no "totalitarian beast" - and always will be in human history - is an abdication of responsibility.  It is foolishly taking one's wishes for granted, against both the lessons of history and against empirical observation around the world. 

I. The Second World War was not a Russo-German rivalry. On the contrary, it was the German bid for mastery over Europe. Despite the man-to-man superiority of the Wehrmacht over its adversaries, economics, demographics and history were dead set against German ambitions. The 'wild card' is the nuclear programme undertaken by Germany, although it is entirely possible that the SOE could have continually sabotaged its advancement, allowing England to produce its own nuclear weapon first. However, it is unknown whether or not Berlin could have adhered to the logic of MAD. A Soviet "victory" i.e. replacing Germany as Europe's master is even more inconceivable by any measure.

II. And Poland's survival over the past millennium has been entirely due to Polish determination. What of it?

III. If democracy was impossible in Rhodesia and White South Africa because political, socio-economic, cultural and legal participation was neither universal nor equal, than Israel fails the same "litmus test" unless it is willing to concede certain territories to comprise an independent and sovereign Palestinian state - as it is similarly multi-ethnic.

IV. There is no such "totalitarian beast" as such. What history teaches is that alliances and diplomacy are central to a nation pursuing its interests and defending itself. Note that Germany performed poorly on both counts in both wars.

@ KA

1) The potential results of American NONintervention in Europe during ww2 can indeed only be speculated upon. History cannot be 'undone'.   My speculation that it would have led to a division between nazis and bolsheviks is a reasonable one, given the realities on the ground before the US intervention.  Other possible outcomes would have been, either (i) a nazi victory, or (ii) a soviet victory.  Everything else is 'wishful thinking' or head-in-the-sand stuff.

2) Any honest observer knows that Israel's survival over the past half century is entirely due to (1) Israeli determination and (2) American support.  I have lost count of the numerous ocasions when European governments ganged up with islamic states in the UN, and only a US veto prevented 'international action' against Israel.  And it would be dishonest for you to imply that European public opinion is supportive of Israel.

3) You will get no argument from me concerning the hypocrisy of western governments concerning the abandonment of 'white people' in southern Africa in recent decades.  The same thing happended to sizable populations of Indians in eastern and southern Africa as well.  But you cannot possibly claim that these white people were running "democratic states".  Democracy was simply an impossibility given the particular multi-cultural composition of their populations.

I am as much in favor of national self-determination as you are.  Where we differ is my view that nations cannot preserve their freedom over time unless they are willing to support other free nations that are threathened.   You cannot keep the totalitarian beast at bay by feeding it other free nations.  History teaches that free people have to stand together or they will hang separately.

4) The failures of others in the past can NEVER justify own failures in the present.  It is remarkable to see Kapitein Andre parroting the perverse self-hatred of much of western "academic discourse".   Instead of learning from past 'western' mistakes, and instead of emphasizing past western examples of courage, such "discourse" aims to destroy western civilisation.  It is rooted in (ideologically-induced) hatred, not love of 'self'.  

marcfrans: If Americans had listened to similar 'arguments' coming from their 'isolationists' 70 years ago, Europe today would be divided between the bolsjeviks and the nazis.

Ill-informed speculation.

marcfrans: If Europeans today are not willing to speak and act on behalf of other 'free peoples'...then they will not be able to preserve democracy in Europe either.

Europeans have spoken and on behalf of Israel -if the Brussels Journal's reporting on European political, academic and popular attitudes can be relied upon - referring to the Jewish State to be a "kippah democracy". They have also acted to balance the focus of Arab-Israeli disputes to emphasize self-determination.

White South Africans and Rhodesians were also "free peoples" in democratic states. Given that the South African and Zimbabwean states have backslid following the end of White rule - and in small part due to the inadequacies of African political culture - should Africans have not been fully admitted into these formerly White states?

Liberals and socialists alike have a particular disdain for nations and are under the misguided impressions that the provision of liberty and equality, respectively, eliminate nationalisms. On the contrary, the fulfilment of national self-determination reduces nationalism, be it oriented towards irridentism or separatism. Only when a nation is free, can its people truly become free and democratic. Foreign liberty and equality are ineadequate.

marcfrans: The willingness to stand up for the freedom of others is the surest indication of the moral backbone required to maintain one's own freedom.

Where was America's willingness to stand up for Irish freedom? Where was the British backbone during the American occupation of the Philippines? On the contrary, the United States stood up for "unfreedom" (a new term being touted in academic discourse) in Latin America, and believed that this was required to maintain its freedom.

The kapitein is dismissing Israel as "inconsequential" to Europe's problems.   If Americans had listened to similar 'arguments' coming from their 'isolationists' 70 years ago, Europe today would be divided between the bolsjeviks and the nazis. 

If Europeans today are not willing to speak and act on behalf of other 'free peoples' (in the sense of peoples with a proven record of being able to organise themselves in a genuine democratic fashion) then they will not be able to preserve democracy in Europe either.   The willingness to stand up for the freedom of others is the surest indication of the moral backbone required to maintain one's own freedom. 

It is entirely conceivable that apart from those Fascist-inspired politicians seeking the annihilation of Jewry and Judaism, some of these politicians oppose the existence of Israel not on "human rights" (as found on the Left) grounds but on religious, nationalistic and historical ones.

A more viable litmus test might be the said politicians' perspectives on the use of force, specifically in securing right-wing aims.

Israel is a foreign and non-European country inconsequential to the problems Europe is facing, and if European politicians must go through some form of 'jury selection' process for Jews and pro-Israelis, than they are as much beholden to the latter groups as left-wing politicians are beholden to Muslims and other non-White minorities.