I would not compare Milosevik to any Prime Minister of Israel, but is Serbia's preoccupation with a battle that took place in Kosovo in 1389 much different than the Jewish preoccupation with the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Both are insane. I am still mad at the Normans for unjustly subjugating my Anglo-Saxon ancestors in 1066, though. The French must pay for their crimes! ;-)

But I only commented to say that referring to Israel-Palestine as "The Jewish Question" is probably a bad idea. "You've got a Jewish Question? We've got a Final Solution." A very bad idea.

of the completely unnecessary defeat at the Alamo.

I agree with the poster above that the phrase "the Jewish question" is about 100-150 years out of date and offensive to modern ears. It implied that Jews, for "racial" reasons, could not be full citizens of their countries of residence.

Fritz Gerlich:

of the completely unnecessary defeat at the Alamo.

I agree with the poster above that the phrase "the Jewish question" is about 100-150 years out of date and offensive to modern ears. It implied that Jews, for "racial" reasons, could not be full citizens of their countries of residence.

In all fairness:

1. Santa Anna was a flaming jackass who spit on the constitution of Mexico to make himself dictator.

The alamo flag wasn't the Texan flag, it was the flag of Mexico with "1824" writtin on it, the date the Constitution of Mexico was ratified.

Santa Anna not only lost all of Texas and what is now the western USA because of his jackassery, he ruined Mexican democracy for a century and a half as well.

2. Texas wasn't the only Mexican province to rebel against our Napoleon wannabe either. Off of wikipedia:

"It also prompted the secession of several other Mexican states, including Yucatán forming the short-lived Republic of Yucatán, and Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas banding together to form the short-lived Republic of the Rio Grande."

<link>

The Texan was is often incorrectly viewed as a racial struggle, and it may have, but there's a reason there were Mexicans defending the Alamo and siding with Sam Houston as well.

Santa Anna ruined Mexico with his lust for power.

and agree with you (although I don't pretend to be especially knowledgeable about Mexican history). It was very unfortunate for Mexico that Houston didn't do away with Santa Ana when he had the chance.

I meant "unnecessary defeat" not in a political but a tactical sense. Travis had no orders to defend the Alamo and no tactical judgment in exposing his force to such an unequal battle (and then requesting reinforcements, which of course never came). San Antonio had zero strategic importance to the Texans. Travis' decision to stand and fight was based on his Walter Scott-besotted notions of "honor." The Alamo, like the Little Bighorn, should be considered a disaster brought on by a commander's folly.

To be fair, I should admit that Alamolatry seems to have subsided over my lifetime. The Alamo was made into a Texas myth early in the twentieth century and had become a national one by the 1930's. I'm barely old enough to remember the Davy Crockett craze of the 1950's. But since then historical revisionism seems to have pulled the popular version(s) somewhat closer to the facts.