>Hitler was democratically elected in 1933. Would you have opposed a
>of German ski resorts at that time, in spite of that fact? Or would
Assuming that I had known about the contents of Hitlers "Mein Kampf" at
there is no doubt I would have agreed a boycott. The question remains
would have made any difference to what has happened.
>deploring his ideas been sufficient. Or would the other poster have said
We all know that just deploring his ideas would definitely not have been
But I am sure that immediate and strong *political* reaction on Hitlers
to realize his ideas would have made a difference!
>that since so many Germans voted Nazi, that Nazi ideas must have merit. Or
Now this is a fine case of reverting causality... ;-)
Wouldnt it be more reasonable to say "Since Nazi promises were tempting to
a people in difficult economical and political situation, so many Germans
And in fact thats the reason why Haiders FPOE is no threat at all. Today
is enjoying one of the highest living standards and one of the lowest rates
unemployment in the world. It is close to impossible for a new government to
make noticable achievements here (with current political reactions even more
It has once been said that Austria is the only country where people do not
*for* but *against* someone. In my opinion this especially applies to a
of the FPOE-"supporters" (and I know more than one).
Let the Austrians recognize what the government really does for them and
might turn like the tide... After all, Austria is still a stable democracy.
>would people have complained that boycotting ski resorts should not have
>been discussed on a ski news group. Skiing is great---but not that great!
Hmmm. I cannot see any complaints about the *discussion* of a boycott in
group. I just would have preferred not to turn this into a *political*