Well, it's neither a time of peace nor of European spirit. Therefore...
The use of TV-controlled missiles with joysticks by Luftwaffe in WWII, however, was really sci-fi stuff.
As for the "European" spirit, this has been a product of propaganda and we're currently experiencing its falling away...
It's interesting that the Germans were not alone in this fallacy: the allies also bombed the hell out of the German populace to induce a revolt, but all they did was to pull them together. Talk about refusing the evidence...
I'm not sure I agree with the assertion about the threat to your life etc. Historians have come to the conclusion that threats were not nearly enough a motivator for the behavior of the German people.
What's more, it has been shown that various acts of collective resistance against specific policies/events were successful and were not met by any retaliation. My favorite book on the matter is Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (http://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1314466762&sr=8-6), though ultimately it fails (as do most - I have not read a convincing answer) to explain why it was that ordinary people (another excellent book) behaved in such a way.
I don't think we disagree at all about the "European" spirit. Indeed, driven by economic interests they tried to create this spirit and shoehorn all the different nations into a new mentality. It's absurd, of course, that this could work within 10, 20, 50 or 100 years - the first crisis would (will) wash all this bullshit away like the Irene typhoon.
... that were the same or worst as the nazi camps
The winner writes the history books.
Also, I'm sorry, but people always have a choice. And the choice fo the majority, for some reason, was to go along with a regime that slaughtered and plundered countrless millions of innocent people, sometimes actively, sometimes passively. A prime example of concerted reaction to the doings of the regime, for instance, was the public outrage against the program of euthanasia performed on "spezial" segments of the population. Noone got punished.
What's more you're quite wrong (sorry!) on the Nazi-ward apparatus; as a matter of fact, after a while authorities realised that most of the denunciations were based on personal motivation and started ignoring most of them. Not that there wasn't fear. Of course there was. But what I was saying was that those that chose to not act according to orders were not summarily shot as is widely assumed.
As for the specific book: you haven't read it I take it? :)
..., whereas the revisionist voices who try to apologise for the Nazis are just plain ridiculous, so it's not really an issue of the winners writing history.
... but this doesn't change an iota in the story of how Germany begun the most brutal and efficient terror of all times. This is *their* moral burden.
Or you mean to say that if Hitler had won the Nazis would be automagically the "good guys"? Come on... Here you have one people who terrorized half the world hell-bent on its enslavement; on the other hand, you have - let's say average nations, with good or bad people and sometimes with *very* bad people at their top (Stalin, Churchill) who did nothing but fight back and exact some measure of revenge. How can you put these two together?
It was too bad that most of the German technology was destroyed in WWII cause they were somewhat advanced for that period.
sometimes with *very* bad people at their top (Stalin, Churchill) who did nothing but fight back and exact some measure of revenge.
I'm not sure what technologies you're referring to.
Because V2s, for example, are indeed the technological basis of today's ballistic missiles and spacecrafts. And the atomic bomb itself was built with help of german scientists!
Many brillant german engineers and researchers fled away from Germany before the war. Many others were recruited by the US after the war.
@CP/M: you're raising an interesting and important issue by referring to the Romans (or the Greeks, or...), though not necessarily relevant. The problem is, the Romans etc lived in a world with different moral frameworks. Is it really ok to judge a foreign civilization by today's standards? I don't really think so... as if we could judge a pre-Neardenthal guy for clubbing the hottie from the next cave :D
However, Germany existed in the modern world whose values actually were partly shaped by German philosophers. So there's no excuse for that.
The main problem is it happened 2000 years ago and archaeology can only suggest what kind of world it was then, even if it was documented on, it would have to be written on Stone, I'm not sure how well Paper holds up when it's 2000 years old. So when it comes to understand what happened from that era, I'm guessing that it has to be interpreted which could have some problems.We have a lot of materials, most of them were copied by monks during the middle ages, some of it just as exercise, others because it was not seen as disagreeing with Christian beliefs, and other works still very unsurpassed in their brilliance that these were copied nevertheless.
The way I'm imagining the Roman Invasion is pretty much in same manner Australia was set upon. Indigenous Australians were invaded personally from European counterparts and in many instances there were mass killings.Yes and no. Historians estimate that about a million humans were killed during Cesar's conquest in what is now France. Sounds not that big a number in relation to what happened in recent times, but populations in Ancient times were much smaller.
And one thing (I almost don't want to say) is that no matter from what source or point of view I've read, the French were largely cowards. I really mean no insult to the French today, but it does appear this is true of the time.
"In shock" is probably more true.
The country effectively split into two very different groups. One part formed a very sofisticated (but a little late) resistance against the Germans, whereas the other part took the classic Kent Brockman approach: "I, for one welcome our new German overlords"...
I don't think you can put the whole of France into one catagory regarding their reaction to the Germans. The country effectively split into two very different groups. One part formed a very sofisticated (but a little late) resistance against the Germans, whereas the other part took the classic Kent Brockman approach: "I, for one welcome our new German overlords"...
Yes and no. Historians estimate that about a million humans were killed during Cesar's conquest in what is now France. Sounds not that big a number in relation to what happened in recent times, but populations in Ancient times were much smaller.
The Romans themselves could not have done that alone, instead they incited the rivalries between celtic tribes, waited for them to weaken each other and then seized the opportunity and conquered both with less military force. Still, the celts were hardly unarmed, and could have done serious damage to the Roman troops, but Roman strategy and tactics made the difference.
Actually, I think one of the most cruel consequences of this, was that BBC viewers had to endure 10 years of 'Allo Allo!, Gorden Kayes painfully bad French accent and some of the worst sitcom scenes ever inflicted on mankind. Nobody should have to endure that kind of torture, it's inhumane. :D
Bryce.
You LIKED 'Allo Allo! ?? :o - Speechless.
Bryce.
@CP/M: well, Mav covered me with his note on copies surviving until this very day, thus giving us a very precise knowledge of not only what our ancestors were thinking but also on how they lived.
As for the Nazis: actually, they wanted to exterminate the Jews, the Communists, the gays, the crippled, the feeble-minded... the list goes on. Oh, and they also wanted to enslave the other peoples, something which the Romans did not do.
As for the Japanese: that was a coalition born out of necessity, not of a shared ideology. My enemy's enemy is my own friend and so on. But the Americans were very well into a war with the Japanese, they just didn't call it that. For a long time before the Pearl Harbor attack the US had imposed an oil (and other goods) embargo on the Japan, which in itself is a casus belli and a clear act of war. They enforced it with their naval forces and were choking Japan slowly but steadily. Thus it came as no surprise when the Japanese lashed forward, really.
Oh, also, about the subs you mentioned - I think you're referring to the japanese midget subs, which although crude were a really novel weapon.
French authorities discover an error in their flag's design. "We don't know where the blue and red strips come from".
Romans didn't enslave or I don't think torture their rivals, only kill them,
As for separating the high command from its people - well, it leads to the classic retort in all the de-nazification trials: "I was just following orders". No, sir.
Funny you should mention that, because the Milgram experiment proves that humans in general are easily susceptible to authority.
From my limited knowledge, the Romans did keep slaves and some of them were unfortunate enough to be sent to the arena, but for some (the collaborators), in the conquered land, there was the opportunity to do quite well, even maybe gaining Roman citizenship.Well, the Romans burnt their slaves alive usually and regulary - especially if they have been christians. They did invent the word torture.
Well, they didn't burn them as slaves but as Christians. And, given what actually happened next, I'm tempted to justify them...It's not an excuse to say they are Christians, but no slaves, so we can legally burn them alive as human toches. What they did. I really can't imagine something more brutal.
The discussion was about *slavery*, that's why I mentioned the fault in your argument. Whether good or bad, it's another issue.Well, the Christians have been slaves!
Also, it's really wrong to judge violence some 2.000 years ago by today's criteria. Reading the history of how the threat of Christianity pushed back the ancient world and all it believed in, and also what exactly each punishment meant is a fascinating thing. Just saying "its wrong to burn people" reminds me of Sunday school :D
I don't know where you got both; Christianism was prohibited on pain of death*, a Christian was not made a slave automatically. Perhaps you're confused because there were many slaves who *converted* to christianism.
Also, of course criteria are not "eternal". This is very philosophical, of course, but I would think that nowadays it's a common belief that truth is not unique.
T
*and, actually, there was a pretty good reason for that; the ancient world was for the most of it a largely tolerant place where many religions co-existed happily. But Christianity taught intolerance against the other religions, hence its banishment.
And one thing (I almost don't want to say) is that no matter from what source or point of view I've read, the French were largely cowards. I really mean no insult to the French today, but it does appear this is true of the time.I beg to differ...
Hitler killed 5 millions (half of them juds)There is still a large controversy on the matter in France theses days...
Well, the Romans burnt their slaves alive usually and regulary - especially if they have been christians.Please also remember that Christianity simply rewritten the history too...
Err, no, usually they've been slaves. Later on it was discoverd that they are Christians, so they were take away for brute rites.
Bye they way, in these day christians have been really nice and friendly people. Later - when the roman emperors pickt up that religion - it turned less tolerant.
His strategy was : "just be braver than the enemy and you will succeed"...
He simply couldn't understand that getting 300 men marching right in front of 15 Machinegun can just never be a success...
Also he simply believed Haevy artillery was for quiche eaters and useless... :o
The sad part : As France miraculously managed to win the WW1 thx to its empire's ressources, and help from UK dominion...
Indonesian warIndochine ? (futur Vietnam)
Indochine ? (futur Vietnam)
I don't know nothing about any indonesian war...
Actually, a mentioned above, as far as slaves go Roman slaves got it pretty good; they had quite a few rights and did not necessarily live bad lives. I *know* I'd like to be a slave in lanista Batiatus's ludus (for those who watch Gods of the Arena ;) ).
To get back to the original topic, I'm now starting reading Ian Kershaw's latest (and last on Germany, as he said) book on Germany, "The End", attempting to detail how on earth the Germans fought on to the, erm, end.
Although after the end of the Cold War the 'totalitarianism' theorem underwent something of a renaissance, its emphasis upon terror and repression in controlling the 'total society' has never regained the ground it held in the early post-war era as an interpretation of the behaviour of ordinary Germans during the Third Reich. On the contrary: recent research has increasingly tended to place the emphasis upon the enthusiastic support of the German people for the Nazi regime, and their willing collaboration and complicity in policies that led to war and genocide. 'One question remains', a German writer remarked. 'What was it actually that drove us to follow [Hitler] into the abyss like the children in the story of the Pied Piper? The puzzle is not Adolf Hitler. We are the puzzle'. Such a comment, leaving aside the suggestion of bamboozlement, presumes an essential unity, down to the end, between leader and led.
Actually, a mentioned above, as far as slaves go Roman slaves got it pretty good; they had quite a few rights and did not necessarily live bad lives. I *know* I'd like to be a slave in lanista Batiatus's ludusThere were a lot of different status une slavedom...
What was terrible with Nazi regime (well a lot of things were...)... is that their conception of slavedom was even more extreme as it was in the far past.Actually they learnt from:
Not quite. Not only did they take everything several steps further, but this resulted in them being the first to use slavery on such a mass scale for extermination purposes. Sorry, you can't compare them with th past colonists, no matter how harsh and brutal they were.
I think you're doing the most dangerous thing that can be done - whitewashing the Nazis by trying to compare them to others. A very, very slippery road.
Sorry, this is all revisionism
Actually they learnt from:can't be compared...
- US government, how to erase races
- Brittish empire, how to make a concentration camp
- French Grande Nation (in Africa), how to deal with prisoners for work
Finally they invented nothing new in salvery, instead they took over the ideas of others. This may surprise you? I this case read French, Brittish, Russian, US literature from before 1945.
Is also weird how our history curriculums must differ at schoolYeah...
Sorry, this is all revisionism and apologetics in defense of the Nazi system.No, not at all. And I guess I have no reason to apologize. But as you see, the POVs are very different here.
And I guess I have no reason to apologize.
So Germany owes money to Greece? How did this happen? Well, I thought that Greece owes a lot of money to others (bankers) and therefore they have troubles now.
sure you have no reason to apologize about Nazis methods
but in the meantime
it would be a nice gesture from germany to
PAY the 1,2+ trillions EUROS that owes to Hellas
So Germany owes money to Greece? How did this happen?
All so called "news" are biased, and I don't expect to get good news in the news. However I can only guess what you're talking about. Maybe you're talking about some banks? If you start the story, go for it and tell it. Or at least tell me for what I shall search the web.
Im not gonna answer that
Search it and you will find out how true this is!
I guess Angela is not saying the full story to the german people
And please don't tell me to open a new thread for todays topics, since you discuss times back till the Roman empier - which was not ww2.
All so called "news" are biased,
And the most important question:
What has our generation to do with this crap?
Why it's still our fault that there was a Hitler?
Obviously it's not our fault, it was the Austrians'! :P
Can you imagine how would it be the world today if Hitler were admitted to the Vienna Arts Academy?
The first thing that comes to mind is that most probably the CPC wouldn't exist... aaaaand we wouldn't have meet because there would be no CPC Wiki...
See? Things are not black and white! (I'm just looking on the bright side of life today XDDDDDDDDDD)
Wasn't the banking system a jew invention? :P
In spain we had a dictator, called Francisco Franco, which was bad for some things and executed a lot of people, but mos of the infrastructures we have today in Spain were built by him
That's what I was trying to say that there is no good or evil side on a war
there are winners and losers, and that winners are not necessarily good
Well, I don't think the topic of discussion is whether those things happened or not... there are a great many atrocities committed the world does not know much about ("Hier sind Kandanos" for instance?) but I don't know if it adds much to the discussion to start cataloguing them; I'd like to think we do agree that a tremendous amount, beyond any calculation and belief, was caused and leave it at that.
In spain we had a dictator, called Francisco Franco, which was bad for some things and executed a lot of people, but mos of the infrastructures we have today in Spain were built by him
Francisco FrancoMust be some French screwing...
Incidentall, Libya and Iraq were the most progressive Arab countries. Figures about literacy, health and infrastructures speak for themselves.
Interesting and highly subjective definition of progressive there ;)
...progressive Arab countries...
I don't quite see the issue :)
But indeed, and I insist on my initial point, having a dictator doing good things doesn't mean you're well-off. Ask the Kurds, for instance.
and of course now they're making big steps backwards.
By over-throwing their dictators...?
By over-throwing their dictators...?
You have to understand that libya among others is a theocratic entity/state
[/size]Their POV on authority/leadership is totally different in comparison to europe[/color]
Surely the Reich's leaders must realize that every thinking person, seeing these gory victims, will immediately contemplate the atrocities that we have perpetrated on enemy soil, and even in Germany. Have we not slaughtered Jews in their thousands? Don't soldiers tell over and again that Jews in Poland had to dig their own graves? And what did we do with th Jews who were in the concentration camp [Natzweiler] in Alsace? The Jews are also human beings. By acting in this way, we have shown the enemy what they mught do to us in the event of their victory.... We can't accuse the Russians of behaving just as gruesomely towards other peoples as our own people have done against their own Germans(note: in the event, the reports were greatly exaggerated)
So much for "we didn't know". But of course it's absurd to claim that, when you see your neighbours being persecuted and vanishing for twelve years on, let alone the stories propagated by soldiers coming back from the East.
@robcfg:
(...)
Concerning Franco, I think you're making some mistakes here; in Greece, too, there are people saying "ooh, the junta build the university campus and did this and that, and (fascist dictator) Metaxas (who also said the famous "No!" to the Italians) built the social insurance program", but there are two problems with this line of argument.
-First, the fact that Franco did some things doesn't mean someone else wouldn't have done them
-Second, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, those who value <whatever> more than freedom deserve nor freedom or <whatever>. Your argument is an argument for a Benevolent Ruler (and Franco was anything but). And this is several steps backwards. Sometimes yes, it *is* black and white, as in Franco was a fascist dictator, period.
(...)
@Maceath: I don't think the thread is a flame, far from it; actually I'm really happy we're having a quite civilised discussion on *very* sensitive matters...
You're mixing things up. "We didn't know" pertains to the concentration camps, not the front. I guess most have seen or heard enough up to 1944 to realize that once the war backlashes into German territory, the Russians would have their revenge.
We should discuss the matter in person while drinking a nice german beer ;DThe idea of discussing in person is always the best :) :) :) In a forum it happens very easy that things can really jump out of bounds. The topic is to be seen emotional and therefore logic will be missing in the discussion.
For example if somebody tells me, that I (born 1970) shall feel shame for thing other did in another time, and this person is not willing to take responsibilities for the present time and the own life, then I see:
Why can't that just be accepted?
@TF/M - some of your points are interesting... but you say them all as if you're desperately trying to find some good it a whole load of bad.That's the problem with a non-personal discussion. By using letters you can't transfer emotions (and smileys are no help). But I really don't want to talk things nice. Hitler was a demon, and things have happend, that a "regular" human being can't understand.
Germany was one hell of a messed up place and did some terrible, terrible things during WWII. Why can't that just be accepted?
Well, IMHO it depends if an epoche was part of your life or not. Let's say it that way "part of your life, in which you had influence". I guess nobody would blame a child of 10 years for something.
the problem is that history is like a circle and repeats itself when we tend to forget :-\
WWII happened only 65 years ago
This time period is propably for you History but in Hellas 65 years is yesterday's news
Maybe its because our history/alphabet
goes all the way back to 6000 B.C
@Mav: actually this (whether they knew or not) has been the subject of much historical debate and research. But I'm afraid I'll disagree.
I remember some ten years ago reading a big review of the German press, and it was quite clear that, not only was knowledge about the concentration camps widely spread, but they were also openly reported -nay, boasted about in the papers.
On the other hand, let's assume, for one moment, that all that evidence did not register, which is indeed true to a large extend; it's not like the Germans didn't know, they just "didn't know" - that is, they chose to not know. For me, this is not an excuse - and in some respects, it's even worse.
But, sure enough, (referring to your next post now), the rulers exerted a huge influence and vast control over the people, that cannot be denied (nor is). As for finding answers... well, the journey is as enlightening as the destination! As a final note, though: the control of a ruler cannot explain the extend to which a whole people went. What's more, don't forget that Hitler got a solid 30-something percent in 1932, and subsequently his popularity roared, *before* he was able to exert total control. But, important enough, *after* openly stating what he would do.
Also, my current spleen is WWI which is where the catastrophes of the 20th (and 21st) centuries took it's start. So when I have time, I prefer to read about this period.Right, with the first WW it all has been set up (WWI, II and III). And many years before it was already planned and written down, but today the WW I+II winners deny. But it was published, and we can still get it.
"We didn't know" pertains to the concentration camps, not the front.
@TFM: I'm sorry, Stefan, but this is utter nonsense. What's more, claiming "it wasn't us, it was the Nazis" is a colossal insult against the victims of the war -and history itself.You should take "Inglorious Bastards" for real, "Operation Walkyre" in contrast is nearly a documentation. Fact it that most of the Germans have been against the Nazis.
You should take "Inglorious Bastards" for real, "Operation Walkyre" in contrast is nearly a documentation.
Fact it that most of the Germans have been against the Nazis.
Why do you insist in "All Germans are evil"?
If there's any WWIII it will start here most probably :P (just kidding...)Yes, i agree :P But seriously it has already startet: Jugoslavia, Afgahnistan, Iraq, Palestina... and it will not get better... you don't have to wait long for Iran and Venezuela.
There is a small country, their citicens like to talk the whole day about holocaust, but they do it to cover up their own sins, sins of the present day.
Well, suit yourself; but before quitting, you should actually prove what you're accusing me of, like where I contradict myself or what history books tell otherwise (I can tell you, I've read dozens upon dozens on the issue, literally. My wife is sick of looking at swastikas in our library). It would be the decent thing to do...I'm not accusing you of anything. I just say it makes no sense for me to discuss that any longer. I don't know which kind of books your read, but all the worlds literature knows that never more than 42% of the Germans voted the NSDAP (and they voted them mainly because they promised jobs). I see no reason to discuss facts.
It's very easy to lie strictly by saying true things.Yes, right, and I must admit that you are way superior to me in these things :D
the issue is that a people caused a bloodbath over a whole continent by its collective actions.
So the conclusion of this discussion is that Germany is evil?
Ok, maybe during WWII it was so (though not all the germans agreed on this, and many had to go to war or be shot in place). But, all the other nations that fought the war did equally evil things (sometimes worse), and again the difference is we only think that Germany was the bad one because it lost the war.
The thing is that the bloodbath over the whole continent was caused by the collective actions of all the nations involved. If the other nations just surrendered to Germany, there would be no bloodbath. So, the bloodbath was caused by the desire of Germany (now that we are talking at nation level) to conquer Europe, and by the desire of the rest to oppose this.
Thing is you cannot shift all guilt to Germany when everybody participated on this.Exactly, that's what I try to explain since ages :-)
Well, Germany was actually rebuilt by the others - American aid money and foreign workers. Oh, and did anyone mention defaulting on their debts a few times, after destroying the rest of Europe?Deutchland had some underground/bunkerised factories, so not all their production capability was totally destroyed.
Now, Greeks on the other hand, though considered an Aryan people (pfffft) were left with a devastated country, an imposed civil war (did you know the napalm was first tested on the Greek mountains in the fight against the guerrillas?) and an oppressive regime that ended in '74. Not that I'm discounting our own faults, just comparing initial conditions."Aryan" was a magnified Nazi concept... but Tzigans or Persian are perhaps actually more Aryan.
Japan was also made into what it is today by the Americans - but I wouldn't consider them a better society. Sure, they got lots of money but I wouldn't want to be a Japanese (and who said they are Aryans anyway?).While being fully into "race" fetish, Nazi Regime was also quite pragmatic and had to find ally wherever they could.
Scandinavians I like. But I fail to see how it connects with the rest.That's the point with europe... We don't connect but we should.