http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Prussians

The Old Prussians or Baltic Prussians (German: Pruzzen or Prußen; Latin: Pruteni; Latvian: Prūši; Lithuanian: Prūsai; Polish: Prusowie) were an ethnic group, autochthonous Baltic tribes that inhabited Prussia, the lands of the southeastern Baltic Sea in the area around the Vistula and Curonian Lagoons. They spoke a language now known as Old Prussian and followed a religion believed by modern scholars to be closely related to Lithuanian paganism with such gods as Perkūns.

And then this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teutonic_Knights

In 1230, following the Golden Bull of Rimini, Grand Master Hermann von Salza and Duke Konrad I of Masovia launched the Prussian Crusade, a joint invasion of Prussia to Christianise the Baltic Old Prussians. The Order then created the independent Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights in the conquered territory, and subsequently conquered Courland, Livonia, and Estonia. The Kings of Poland accused the Order of holding lands rightfully theirs.

I don't know how much you've read about the Teutonic Knights but they were infamous bastards and some of the most ruthless ethnic cleansers in the history of man.

And that's how Prussia became "ethnically" German. But we really aren't arguing about whether nations should be created on the basis of ethnicity, are we? Because, that was Hitler's argument. And we don't like Hitler. Right?

Ridiculous. Have you looked at a map at all? East Prussia was not even ethnically German (at all) until it was conquered by the Teutonic Knights. Germanic peoples are not indigenous to the region of old Prussia. Germanic peoples were indigenous to the south shore of the Baltic, but MUCH further west. As for you saying that it was "perfectly German" I assume you mean ethnically since there wasn't even a nation called Germany in Europe between ~1600 and ~1900.

You seem to be making an argument for ethnic cleansing. So on what grounds do you object to the way Israelis treat Palestinians? It's OK for Germans to invade, steal land and drive out the indigenous people, and in fact you support that vigorously and object when the "international community" such as it was in the late 1940s attempts to rectify it. But when it comes to Israel - which has a much better legal case - your position is the exact opposite.

Can you explain?

...Silesia in particular had been German for 500 years.

Except when it was part of Poland. Or Prussia. Or Bohemia. Or etc. Oh, but you mean ETHNICALLY German, right? Well, guess what? Germanic peoples are not indigenous to Silesia, either.

Another one of your motherfucking lies, anand. You have done nothing here but advocate for them. It is typical of your slimy dishonesty that you say "I don't support Hamas" at the same time you enthusiastically excuse their malevolence and antisemitism.

They have not and you know it. They have never, ever, not once abandoned their goal of annihilating the Jews. It bears repeating - you clearly share this goal because you are so eager to defend this group which is the most explicitly antisemitic group since the Nazis.

Is the annihilation of the Jews and you know it damned well, anand, because it is stated explicitly in their charter. I have linked to it many times despite which you keep on denying it because you think you can con stupid people into believeing your malevolent lies. You clearly share their genocidal goals, else you would not be constantly defending them.

And, though it is off topic, Craig is wrong on Germany. East Prussia was perfectly German by 1945, Silesia in particular had been German for 500 years. I maintain the distinction between Austrians and Germans only makes sense after Bismarck founded the German Empire (called in fact "Kleindeutsche Lösung," Small German Solution). Obviously, there were differences between Bavarians, Prussians, Austrians, Rhinelanders, etc., but they were all considered Germans until 1871 (and even then the Austrians were looked upon sympathetically, and it was expected they would join if Austria-Hungary collapsed).

As an aside, an old humorous Citroen commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMQnPWjK5pE

It is true that Hamas has a very colored history, including with respect to terrorism against civilians 2000-2003, Hamas' war with Fatah (that lead to the deaths of many Palestinians), Hamas' conflict with the Arab League, and the incredibly stupid brain dead remarks made when Zarkawi was killed in 2006.

However, Hamas seems to have changed in recent years; mostly abiding by a Hudna (cease fire) with Israel. The Palestinians people seem to have thought that Hamas had changed when they elected Hamas. Hamas was elected on a platform to reduce corruption, improve the quality of governance (security forces, education, basic services) and to encourage business development.

I think there are factions with Hamas who genuinely want peace. If Hamas does well in the next Palestinian election; why not explore what Hamas' real positions are with actual direct negotiations? If Hamas does poorly in the next Palestinian elections, then America, Europe and the international community should negotiate directly with the new Palestinian government.

I don't support Hamas; but was impressed by the way Hamas fought with AQ linked militants on many occasions.

Hezbollah is another question. I know we don't agree regarding Hezbollah Craig. Iran's government is likely to change significantly over the medium term. I think Iraq will use its oil money, the soft power of the Najaf Marjeya, and the soft power of an increasingly free successful prosperous Iraq to win over the Lebanese Shia. Hezbollah will either adjust to this new geopolitical reality, or be dumped by the Lebanese Shia in favor of Amal or other Shiite parties.

Remember, that if the international oil companies don't boost Iraq's oil exports to over 10 million barrels/day within 5 years, they need to pay the GoI (Gov of Iraq) large fines. Iraq use to export 2 million barrels oil/day in 2002 and almost no NG.

Imagine what the GoI will do with all this oil and NG revenue. The geopolitical reality of the middle east will transform in ways that are hard to imagine now. Mostly for the better I think.

The Austria Hungarian Empire were independent from Prussia for over half a millenia. Both had many German speaking people. There were many great German nations; Austria Hungaria and Prussia being the largest.

The Holy Roman Empire might be similar to the British Commonwealth (which share the British Queen as a type of symbolic ceremonial semi head of state) or the NATO alliance of today (if it had some kind of symbolic powerless head of state.) It was never as tight knit as the EU currently is; for example.

The only part of Germany that was truly lost after WWII was lost to Poland (Stalin did that so that he could steal half of Poland.) German sovereignty was returned to it after a short occupation.

I wouldn't agree that the German people or German people were "punished" for Hitler. The short occupation of West Germany was quite progressive and moderate. Germany got foreign grants to reconstruct economically after the war. In fact, the German people were surprised by how well they were treated by the Western powers after WWII.

This is a major reason for the good will in Germany towards Europe and the US today; and a major reason by Germany recently increased the number of their troops in Afghanistan from 4500 to 5400. Note that almost from the beginning, after 9/11, Germany has maintained a troop strength of about 4 K in Afghanistan. If you account for the number of rotations involved, more than 30 K German soldiers will serve in Afghanistan. Maybe a lot more, depending on how the war in Afghanistan goes.