Good article! Thanks.
it was not capitulation by the Christians but rather ensuring that a victory could be retained
The author is also incorrect that Europe had technical superiority to retake constantinople in the 1500s. In the 1700s it did, not earlier
Marking to read later.
You might enjoy this.
There is vastly more detail in the Islamization of Europe, brought on by the Europeans after the Second WWII. During the War, 2 of Hitler’s 6 SS divisions were generaled by Muslims, operated in the Balkans, one of whom was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, implicated in the design of Auschwicz. An author, Bat Y’eor wrote a book on the post-war decisions to merge Europe with Islam, and in 2006, Fjordman, the noted Norwegian blogger, wrote a 3 part essay that appeared at the Gates of Vienna blogspot, still active today. Below is a link to the 3 part essay chock full of the origin of the post war, unbelievably foolish, integration of Islam into Europe itself. Generally, the Brits brought in the Pakistani Muslims, the French Muslims from N. Africa, and the Germans brought in Turks, with whom they were acquainted with as allies in the First WW:
I recommend all three parts to understand generally the existential threat Europe imposed on itself, and which the US is flirting with today as our free speech is being tested in court cases right now in the US involving the protection of Islam from any criticism or objective evaluation, criticism at all.
Reminds me of some of the conflicts fought around here between Republicans, Libertarians, and conservatives. No one is pure enough for the other and this fighting is going to give the victory to the worst.
Not true. The Moslem League was set up way before that, in fact it was really started after WWI when the Moslem Caliphate movement spread over India. This was a movement to restore the Caliphate (Ottoman Caliphate)
I don’t think I’ve ever read an article with greater historical projection.
That’s where an author takes today’s issues and attitudes and projects them into the past and criticizes historical figures for not making their decisions using them.
As if Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492 should have negotiated their treaty with Granada based primarily on the need to avoid the rise of Islamism in the late 20th century.
I especially liked the claim that all 17th century Europeans should have ignored their own very real differences and joined together to destroy Islam because they had technological superioirity.
Today the West has the greatest tech superiority in history, but we are not likely to join together to use it in this way. But historical figures should have ignored their own needs and concerns to address those of the author.
Ping for later.
Breathtaking. I could write better history with a bag of spiders on my head.