CPCWiki forum

Well, it's neither a time of peace nor of European spirit. Therefore...

Quote from: Gryzor on 10:43, 26 August 11
Well, it's neither a time of peace nor of European spirit. Therefore...

Well, currently I'm living a third world country, so I only have idealistic memories about Europe. Let's take the times of change as a chance to make things better and to get there where we want to be.

Just to stay offtopic:
Here my favorite questions from the Americans...

- Oh Germany, isn't that the country in the south of Mexico?

- Do you have television and microwaves in Germany?
  (If I tell them that both was invented by Germans, they die!)

- Well, why do you Nazis wear long hairs?
  (Since we've been freezing the butt off in Russa...)

- What is Adolf Hitler doing today?
  (Sitting in hell, getting an pineapple in the a*** every day)

- Which language do you speak there?
  (Usually Polski, but some do speak Korean too)

And so on and on.... BTW: The USA is currently in war with a lot of other countries.

So don't tell me that Europe is NOT peacefull  :)  and don't tell me that there is no European spirit  :)  ;-) Let's focus on that what we have and let's make the best out of it :-)

Happy weekend!!! :)

Well, the TV, microwaves, the radar and thousands of other devices were developed in tandem by different people/teams in different countries, but anyhow :) The use of TV-controlled missiles with joysticks by Luftwaffe in WWII, however, was really sci-fi stuff.

The US has bombed more countries than anyone could count since WWII, but Europe, out of its own interests or for purposes of sucking up to the US has followed suit. As for the "European" spirit, this has been a product of propaganda and we're currently experiencing its falling away...

.

Oh yes; it was impressive any way you see it, especially from the perspective of resources wasted :D

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...

Quote from: Gryzor on 17:10, 27 August 11
As for the "European" spirit, this has been a product of propaganda and we're currently experiencing its falling away...

You're being cynical here. The EU is hardly what I call an effort to form a European spirit. And be honest, we've known that for 10, 15 years, perhaps even much longer. They thought that by reducing the idea to economical interests the spirit will form itself out of thin air. That's about as neo-con as it can get, and the result of this is served to us right now.
What is falling away is the belief in a bunch of numbers on sheets to correctly represent the real world - the indoctrination of hollow men.
What can you expect from people who want to define the correct length of gherkins and the curvature of bananas that are fit to be sold? The tasteful tomatoes are not to be found in the supermarket, and a spirit will not be found on a sheet of paper with numbers on it.

Oh great, with that retort you make me look like a hippie now. :P

Quote from: Gryzor on 18:04, 27 August 11
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...

Don't forget that the German population from '33 on has been learning that's it is better not to voice your opinion unless you want to shorten your life expectation to a few months at most.
A revolt could only have happened if you'd trust the people around you to have the same ideas.
Especially once the war was coming to Germany itself, the SS put a lot of effort into making sure the typical German will stay obedient.

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.

Well, I do know some stories from my family. For me it's hard to imagine who these days have been. So just two things about that.

- For example the army was coming to my mothers uncle. They told him he has to join the army. He refused by "No, I was a peaceful man throughout my life". The shot him immediately, the other from that small village decided not to get shot.

- A friend of my gradfather told a joke about Adolf Hitler (a pretty funny one though). They put him to Dachau (KZ), he was never seen again.

In these days people in Germany has no choice.

Coming back to EU spirit. My guess is, it's up to all of us. We are the people and we can decide how we treat other people. We don't have to buy all the stories from TV, it's up to us.

As an example (for more universal spirit) look at this nice forum, we are fooling around, we are serious, we create, we struggle, but we are still there and talking to each other  ;)  Let's take this as a basis for a well future. We decide now about our lives!

Quote from: Gryzor on 18:44, 27 August 11
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.

Well, TFM already gave you some examples. Let me add:

Be careful with historians. Most of them have their own private agenda, and you need to know that and put it in context to understand their works.

No, threats alone are not the motivator. Take brainwashing (especially the youth), brutal extermination of the opposing parties in 1933 (communists, socialist, you name them) shortly after the Nazis came to power, and the indoctrination that the German people stand out above all others, and you'll probably come a little closer to the truth.
The occasional shooting, or deportation of those not in sync with the party's manifest have surely helped tremendously. And don't forget that the Nazis' organization was quite thoroughly implemented; every block in the city had their own Nazi-ward (that's down to the level of about 50 families). Anything not conforming to the rules was noticed, and usually punished by jail or concentration camp.

About brainwashing: It was not unheard of that even teenagers who spent their time in the Hitler youth were consciously ratting their parents out. In one such case, a father was listening to foreign radio, punishable by death. Yes, he was never seen again.

And don't forget that up to the time the bombing of German cities started, the German population otherwise lived quite a comfortable live at home (the soldiers on the frontline are another thing).

Interesting as well: After the bombardments started, the V2 was very useful for the Nazi propaganda to rally the people to their support. The were stating at that time that the new "Wunderwaffe" would turn the tide of the war. And if it wasn't the V2, then the next Wunderwaffe is to come soon.

We should just hope that we'll never get into such a situation, because I honestly can't tell you how I personally would have behaved in light of those facts. Would I have resisted, obeyed, or even actively supported the sick cause?

QuoteWhat'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.

A unit of order police is hardly what I would call ordinary men. We're leaving the normal German population here and entering state institutions. These were the ones pulling the trigger if you did not obey. A whole different position in the Nazi state. They were able to make the ethical decision to kill someone or let them live.
I'd like to see the numbers of units which behaved similar to this battalion in relation to those which did the atrocities.

In light of what we know today, these are very special men in both my explanation here, and in the sense that they decided to disobey the orders they were given.

But still, after all of the above, you need to have a lot of faith in your comrades not to give you away, if you state some uncomfortable truths. They may have had a common history in the police before '33.

Quote
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.

Yep, it's up to us.

Well, I totally agree.

As you mentioned before in a more diplomatic way: The winner writes the history books.

I  agree too.


In fact, the only country that used nuclear weapons against another country is the United States, but nobody cares about it. And as soon as another country has an enrichment plant, they all go mad about it.


My grandfather was in Africa, and it was a matter of "you're going to Africa or we shoot you right here".


And things are not always black and white. Rommel was a brilliant general and respected its prisioners, on the other side, when the allies won, they also set up concentration camps for germans that were the same or worst as the nazi camps (my grandfather was also 2 years in one of these camps).


So, in the end, there's no good and bad people on a war; only winners and losers, which are quite different concepts.

Quote from: robcfg on 09:19, 29 August 11
... that were the same or worst as the nazi camps

I'd be *very* careful with such a statement.

I agree with the other points.

Quote from: TFM/FS
The winner writes the history books.

That may be true to a certain extent, except that:

   
• This sentence has been abused by Neo-Nazis to further their cause.
• There are historians on the winner's side which do give a balanced view of recent history. I'm usually not good with names, so I can't give an example of World War II, however I remember that John Keegan a British military historian wrote an excellent book on World War I.

@Gryzor: Let me clarify something. The story of Battalion 101 is about the deportation of Jews, while I wanted to explain the reasons why the German population did not revolt in light of the bombings of German cities. I'd like to keep that apart.

Thanks for moving the posting, btw! demoniak must have felt occupied. ;)

Well, I split the topic because this is turning into a proper discussion and taking over the other thread. Let's keep it on here - assuming we keep it civilised :)

@TMF: oh, there are countless such stories, I have no difficulty accepting this specific one as I've read about so many of them. On the other hand, there are countless other documented stories of dissent - and how those who expressed their dissent got away with it. And, actually, even though many people *did* disappear behind barbed wire for their jokes, an examination of the Gestapo archives shows that the state was quite lenient against the "perpetrators". They considered humor to be a safety valve of sorts.

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.

About the European spirit, it's one thing tolerating and accepting other peoples; it's another thing declaring oneself as "European" before "German" or "Greek" or whatever, which is the spirit they have been trying to impose.

@Mav: of course you're right about historians. But I've been reading about WWII Germany for almost twenty years now and I've read pretty much anything worthy that's out there (actually when we moved my girlfriend made me move all the WWII books to the upper shelves because she was fed up with the swastikas adorning our living room :D ). And they all tend to agree. I have not read a single book belonging to the modern WWII bibliography (post-80s) that attributes the collective tolerance and violence to fear of reprisals.

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.

And you're right in questioning our own personal possible standing; who knows if you or I would have acted differently; but that's another issue.

As for the specific book: you haven't read it I take it? :) The author chose specifically that unit because it was comprised of a cross-section of the German society. Those were not careerist policement but mere reservists, coming from all the strata of the German world - a shepperd here, a butcher there, a teacher, a postman... And it's exactly the fact that those ordinary people turned into cold-blood murderers overnight that has been puzzling historians ever since. What's more, it has been proven (in this book, among others) that those that could not accept those assignments (like concentration camp guards or executioners) met no punishment and were actually merely transferred to other units. And, to answer your question, the problem precisely is that all the units that were assigned similar duties did just that - their "duty".


...of course the winner writes history. There's a lovely sci-fi book (forget the name... darn) that argues that Satan was the good guy, but lost. But this doesn't mean that what is written about the German people pre- and during-WWII is wrong.

As a matter of fact, some of the conditions prevalent in Nazi Germany were not specific to that country; a Jewish historian had once written, "if, before WWII, you came and told me that there would be a nation that would torture and slaughter millions of Jews within a few short years I'd have no trouble believing that indeed the French would be capable of that". But it was the Germans who did that, and it takes a whole lot more than fear to do it.

On the other hand, it's the same thing with the US, the nukes and the moral burden they have to bear even though they don't accept it: others had it too and could have used it but they're the only ones who fucking did it. But, to come back to the historians issue, there are strong and articulate voices exposing the barbarity of the winners, 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.

Sure, we could argue many things: the Americans had started the war against Japan long before Pearl Harbor with their oil blockade, the British (especially, since they didn't dare do day raids) razed cities to the ground, the Russians - well, let's not even touch this, etc etc, 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.

@Robcfg: Nor can I put the allied PoW camps at the same level as the Nazi ones; for one, you're talking about PoW camps; however, when we're talking about German camps we generally talk about slavery or extermination camps. Also, a Russian would have to be unbefuckinlievable lucky to survive two years in a Nazi PoW camp.

I don't believe there's "no good and bad people". For sure, there are good people and bad people in all sides. Naturally. But that's entirely different from the generalisation. 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?

@Mav (you posted as I was typing... :) ). No, Battalion 101 is not about the deportation but about the extermination of said Jews. As for the rest on this book I gave my points above...

Grim subject but nice discussion here, thanks for moving it to a new topic!


What I mean by good and bad is that people tend to believe that that Allies are good and the Nazis bad. I'm not going to tell you that the Nazis were nice guys at all, but the Allies weren't that good either. The US drop nuclear bombs, the Russian killed millions of Cossacks, and they had also PoW camps where lots of people died in extreme conditions.


On a war, both sides are equally evil and destructive, but the winner is automatically seen as "good", that's what the sentence "The winner writes history" refers to on my opinion.


A little more on the allied camps: http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/for/us-germany-pow.html (http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/for/us-germany-pow.html)

From our perspective it would seem Invading is a bad thing to do. Though would an European see the Invasion of Roman Empire 2000 years ago as a good thing or bad thing? Not that I'm sticking up for anyone - Romans were dominant in their ways, though shows like Time Team tend to suggest that other cultures welcomed the changes - hard to say since it all happened around 2000 years ago. Romans tend to eliminate people who sacrificed their own to their so called Gods! In some cases Romans were wiped out from some cultures who had the energy to harness and were prepared for Invasion. It would be somewhat intimidating if you knew some army was going to come and kill you and take your assets - even Germans had to put up with that. It was too bad that most of the German technology was destroyed in WWII cause they were somewhat advanced for that period.

Quote from: Gryzor on 10:22, 29 August 11
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 would be interesting to know here, is the particular time these examples happened, as I suspect that from the beginning of the war on, these were less and less tolerated by the regime.

Quote
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.

I don't deny the denunciations. In fact, I was thinking of adding it in a previous post, primarily as evidence that denunciations probably also spread mistrust among the people. Once they know that some are purposefully decrying others to serve their own ends, common people are more likely to behave such, so as not to rub up to others the wrong way.

"summarily shot" is a bit exaggerated. I don't think the Nazis needed to go that far at all. The question is debatable, my point of view is that you don't need to make a lot of example of dissenters to successfully "herd the cattle". Alright this is my cynical point of view of humanity ... you got me. ;)

Yeah, I realize I could be wrong with that.

Quote
As for the specific book: you haven't read it I take it? :)

No, I admit, I didn't. And cross-reading about them led to a completely wrong picture of their workings. I've got to be more careful in the future.

Quote..., 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.

There is no apology for what the Nazis have done. Revisionist views are particularly bad to a healthy discussion about these topics, as they poison the dialogue.

Quote... 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.

No dispute here. We'll I'm speaking as an Austrian, but our population - even though the public consent is that we were the first victim - did their share to "help" the Nazi cause during WWII.

QuoteOr 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?

You don't. This is not accounting. And the dead are not just numbers which you can compare.

.

.

@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.

@Mav: actually I find revisionism quite refreshing in that it forces you to recheck your facts and to a reality check; I was first confronted with revisionism when I was studying in the UK. A friend of mine, an American Jewish girl of Dutch descent got into some discussions with a few revisionists and, knowing I had a thing for the subject, turned to me for help. Having to counter their arguments made me revisit lots of details and facts, debate them and re-learn them -and also, it was a nice challenge trying to tip-toe round their logical acrobatics. But of course this kind of revisionism is dangerous when it gets a foothold...

@Phil2x: Churchill prevented Red Cross ships from reaching Athens during the '41-'42 winter (the most severe one in memory, during which some 200.000 Greeks died of hunger) to force Greeks to take to the mountains. He organised the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich in Prague because he was too 'lenient' and thus the populace was not forced into guerrilla war. He bombed Athens, killing several thousands of civilians in order to enforce the UK-backed government in 1944. And lots of other niceties. He was not 'ok', he was as tough as the rest of the dictators, he just happened to be on the good side and did not have a totally free reign.

The sinking of the French fleet, btw, is justified IMO.

Btw, an interesting trivia: in late 1944 Churchill visited Athens to arrange what became the Greek civil war that ripped apart Greek society (you understand my feelings...). He stayed at the hotel Grand Bretagne (ironically!). For a long time the communist guerrillas were depositing a huge amount of explosives under the hotel, but these explosives were discovered at the last minute... hence Churchil and the hotel survived.

Quote from: phi2x on 12:04, 29 August 11
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.

Well I only know some second-hand knowledge from those who talk about the German's WWII being somewhat advanced in Artillery, Weaponary and say the Brit's (along with Aussies and eventually Americans) beating the Germans by the numbers. Of course the Brit's and one of the ladies who came from Australia who recently passed away (which were high on the Germans Assignation list) would strategically attack the Germans (Nazi's) where it would hurt and things like the Dambusters. Though the Germans had also built Computers (specifically during WWII), which were quite complicated for their day and more powerful than a handful of electronic computers like the Harvard Mark I. Of course they were also destroyed during that war though! 

Quote from: Gryzor on 13:51, 29 August 11
@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

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.

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. Of course some people argue if Indigenous Australians were really Indigenous cause there's some suggestions that there was a different culture of people around the time the people we know as Indigenous Australians today (some people still call them Aborigines which they don't care for apparently). The idea of Colonising Australia was originally to house Convicts from mother country cause their Gaols were filling up, though since vast amounts of land existed - Colonising and pushing the Indigenous Australians out of the way was mother countries way of growing outwards - in the same manner the Romans would have pushed their forces outwards to colonise 2000 years ago. People who accepted their their ways I think were accepted, otherwise were executed.

QuoteHowever, Germany existed in the modern world whose values actually were partly shaped by German philosophers. So there's no excuse for that.

I think the Nazi's in their mind simply wanted the get rid of the Jewish people and pretty much executed a large number of them through Death Camps, why Japan were on Germany's side I don't know, why Japan attacked Pearl Harbour is even a bigger mystery cause America wasn't even involved in the war up til that point and their plans on attacking Australia were somewhat pointless since our main cities are in the Sth, though some primitive Japanese subs were sunk in Sydney Harbour!

I see your point in regard to what some of these countries are doing these days which is all about Money, Power & Resources. Given there are those who oppose it which has lead to these conflicts pure and simple.  :)

A very interesting thread here, was good to see lots of different views.


I agree that the 'enforced' flavour or European togetherness we have today isn't great, but maybe it's one of the ways of stopping Europe descend into war again. 


One thing about the Brits in WW2, don't forget they were the ones who stood up and said "we're not going to stand for this".  And then eventually everyone else piled in  :)


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.

Quote from: CP/M User on 10:55, 30 August 11
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.
There's also a lot of inscriptions on stone, and don't forget that modern archaeology has improved a lot. We can basically scan old Roman dump piles for information about eating habits and such.

Historians know very well how they lived, it's another thing to convey the information to the public.

Quote
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.
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.

Quote from: redbox on 11:09, 30 August 11
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 blood toll on all sides after the First World War was enormous. The French simply did not want anything like that to happen again.
And don't forget that the German Blitzkrieg took France by surprise. France felt safe because of the Maginot line - a complex system of bunkers along the eastern borders. The German troops avoided them and a couple of days later stood before Paris. Any further actions would only have postponed the inevitable and then aroused the ire of well-equipped German troops.

Quote from: MaV on 12:09, 30 August 11
"In shock" is probably more true.

Agreed, a better way of putting it!

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"...

Bryce.

Quote from: Bryce on 12:24, 30 August 11
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"...

You mean the part that realised, after all, they didn't like their new German overlords and thought maybe they should do something about it.  :P


Trolling, of course...  ;)

Quote from: Bryce on 12:24, 30 August 11
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, that came later. But the first reaction must have been shock. That's why there hardly was any resistance during the invasion to begin with.

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. 

Not only the BBC viewers, my friend, in Spain we suffered too :laugh: ... lucky for us, we can enjoy the "Young Ones" and "Doctor Who", too  ;D

What's about Torchwood? They still owe me 27 licenses for FutureOS. And BBC don't want to pay!  :laugh:

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Quote from: MaV on 11:53, 30 August 11
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.

I have a slight problem when it comes to population numbers in ancient times mainly because the world had people scattered all over the place. It's feasible there would have been less people from today's standards, though we could be badly underestimating how many people were around 2000 years ago. It's one of those thoughts I'm just having trouble with because things like the Pyramids were built from people - not aliens as people would say, and I think in many ways some of our modern habits don't even consider how ancient structures were constructed - there used to be an excellent show with a team of problem solvers trying to work out how something was built and some of them were baffled how it was done. The Pyramids for instance has been suggested the Nile played an important role, so in that regard understanding what the Landscape was doing in the past has a role too as ancient cultures used the Land to their benefit.

QuoteThe 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.

Seems feasible approach and would strategically be to their advantage. The Romans dominated the landscape and I presume that across Europe there are signs of where they made their mark with a building, I don't quite understand their motive for expanding their invasion forces across Europe and into Britain, I presume it's merely due to their lifestyle and adopting that approach across Europe. In that regard it would seen incredible that they took luxury lifestyles across Europe.  ;D

Quote from: Bryce on 14:59, 30 August 11
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.

10 Years of pain from to much laughing!  :laugh:  And did they ever establish if the Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies was really Helga?  8)

You LIKED 'Allo Allo! ??  :o - Speechless.

Bryce.

Hey! I liked it too!


I almost die laughing when Herr Flick from the gestapo runs hidden in a medieval armor  :P


It's me... LeClerck!!!

Quote from: Bryce on 10:57, 31 August 11
You LIKED 'Allo Allo! ??  :o - Speechless.

Bryce.

Yeah well, from memory it was well received in Australia even if it's poorly portrayed, to us that makes it even funnier!

@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.
   
@robcfg: I think the label 'cowards' is a but over the top. I really don't have any evidence for it except for stereotypical references... As a matter of fact, if it weren't for Dunkirk I guess we'd be talking about the cowardice of the Brits as well :D

Eeehhhhh.... I think you are mistaken, I didn't call anyone coward.


I think I didn't say anything, even though there are extremely funny jokes about it, because I would like to enjoy the company of the french members much longer...  ;D


Seriously, I think you just misread the one who posted about it. Wasn't it redbox?

Erm - yes, apologies.

Some comments here seem to come out of the book and some opinions seem to put too much in the same box.
In general it's very important to separate the people of a country, the high command of the army and the government. So it's not the most smartest to talk about the British, Irish, Italian, Spanisch, French, Austrian, Norwegians, Swedish, Finnish, Russian, Polish, Guatemalisch, Germans or whoever. The governments will is quite often different from the peoples will. That should be considered.

I think we all agree on that, and that is what keep this thread nice to read.


I'd even say that it should be renamed as "A discussion on the WWI World", in the end it was a World War...  :)

Yes, and according to Rumsfeld it's not over, just the weapons have changed...

Well, IIRC the Nazi party had less than 10 million members at its height (2 millions when it rose to power). But the war was fought, aided, perpetrated and tolerated by a whole people.

I do understand the need to avoid racist generalisations, but not acknowledging this is not only a gross historical mistake but also extremely dangerous. Germany could never have done what it did with only the aid of a small percentage of its populace. Haven't you seen newsreels of villagers jeering as a village's Jews were being dragged to their doom?

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.

Quote from: Gryzor on 18:45, 31 August 11
@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.

Sorry I wasn't denying any documentation Mav might of had through the ages. I only had an issue with the number of lives which were taken during the Roman Conquest. Did Romans keep a Tally on the number of people they killed?
The only troubling aspect are people were kill in a selective mannerism. Romans could be perceived as somewhat intimidating to people who didn't want to change their lifestyle or accept change and any conflict resulted in death. Nazi Germany took that to a whole new level and treated people as cattle before executing them which is so disturbing! 

QuoteAs 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.

I though the Nazi's were Communists, though they did raid the Soviets which wasn't smart. Though I agree, Romans didn't enslave or I don't think torture their rivals, only kill them, though selecting who lives and who dies is disturbing, as though the ages (time) humans continue this activity which demonstrates how Humans are ruthless creatures and must dominate in some sort of power struggle with other people. Will people ever change those ways? It may take another 2000 years before people realise what on Earth were we fighting about since at the current period of time it's all about Wealth, Greed and Power.
   

QuoteAs 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.

Yes they were Midget Subs. I'm unsure how they ever got to Sydney Harbour though cause I believe they had a limited range.

@Gryzor: yes, the difference is instead of forming a puppet government in collaboration with the Germans, the Brits came back for another fight.  And won.  ;)


@robocfg: did you mean this joke - "The French government have recently received intelligence reports of an imminent attack on France.  They have therefore raised their security level from 'hide' to 'run away'".  :D

Yep  ;D , or something in the line of:

QuoteFrench authorities discover an error in their flag's design. "We don't know where the blue and red strips come from".

Quote from: CP/M User on 10:03, 01 September 11

Romans didn't enslave or I don't think torture their rivals, only kill them,

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.

Quote from: Gryzor on 06:41, 01 September 11
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. Before anyone thinks I'm trying to excuse what happened: No, I don't. The experiment gives us insight to what happened, and to the way humans interact. It also tells us that this can happen again.

It's quite common here when having to do with bureaucrats which follow the law to the letter no matter what the cost, to say "Die hätte sich gut gemacht unterm Schicklgruber." - "S/he would have done well under Mr. H." (Schicklgruber being his surname of his father before becoming Mr. Hitler)


@CP/M: No, they did not keep a tally. It is an estimation by historians. And the Romans wrote quite a lot, so you can tell what happened when (Caesars De Bello Gallico for example). It is known how much inhabitants a typical celtic village (oppidum) with its sorrounding farmland can sustain. It is also quite well known, how many villages must have existed in pre-Roman times in Gaul.
Romans very heavy into slavery, the Greek had slaves as well. Roman slaves from Greek were primarily used to educate noble families' children, and they mostly had a good life. Others were banned to work in mines or do other menial tasks (think Spartacus, though such uprisings have been very rare). And all of them could have been killed in the blink of an eye by their masters, as they were seen as objects not indivuals in Roman times. But since they were also seen as an asset, a master thought twice about killing your slave. Slave in Roman times also thought themselves above farmers, so their life was comparably not the worst. As further evidence Roman plays have slaves with Gaulish names. And to top it off, most of the actors themselves were slaves as well. But then the Celts used slaves as well.

Quote from: MaV on 12:51, 01 September 11
Funny you should mention that, because the Milgram experiment proves that humans in general are easily susceptible to authority.

Bit of a tangent, but I saw an article the other day where a journalist simply put on a high-vis jacket and stood on a street corner barking random instructions at everyone - and everybody complied with what he said.


So, it would appear that Milgram was right  :)

@CP/M: the fact that they had "socialist" in the party title didn't make them any more socialist or communist than Stalin. As a matter of fact I've always been puzzled by the "Socialist" in the title. Of course it worked as a ruse (hey, we're for the people!), but I'll be damned if I can find a shred of socialist thinking in their philosophy.
   
@Steve: yes, the Romans did take slaves, since slavery was an accepted practice, but they didn't do it systematically against whole peoples; those slaves were 'incidentals' - maybe beaten warriors and the like.

@Mav: funny thing, I was reading on the Milgram experiment a few days ago (in the quite famous "The psychology of Influence" textbook). Yes, you're right in everything you say. But bear in mind two things: the Nazis did get a third of the total votes *before* becoming the authority. Also, just like with the nukes example, the fact that others could have done it/may do it in the future does not excuse the Germans - they are the only ones they have done it (I'm not replying to your argument, with which I agree, I'm only expanding a bit).

@redbox: actually, the experiment you saw with the journalist does not refer to the Milgram experiment in verbatim, but is explained by other influence mechanisms as well (hell, I read about it in the book I mentioned before :D )

PS Just to correct myself: in recent history the Germans are not alone; Hitler mentioned the Turks and the Armenians as a great example to follow ("who remembers the Armenians?"), and the Turks also did the same (albeit to a smaller degree) against the Greeks. Also, the Japanese really outdid themselves in China, but this was more of a haphazard slaughter than a systematic wiping out.

Quote from: steve on 12:07, 01 September 11
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.
And a word to the last post... Hitler killed 5 millions (half of them juds), Stalin killed 20 millions of his own people. Finally Mao killed 60 million of his people. Now, who is the all time here #1?
btw. The only winner of WWII was Russia, and nobody else. They got all the land, and land is what counts at the end.

Well, they didn't burn them as slaves but as Christians. And, given what actually happened next, I'm tempted to justify them...

Quote from: Gryzor on 19:51, 01 September 11
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.

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

Quote from: Gryzor on 20:00, 01 September 11
The discussion was about *slavery*, that's why I mentioned the fault in your argument. Whether good or bad, it's another issue.

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

Well, the Christians have been slaves!
The criteria to judge violence is eternal. If not, you will have excuses for everything. But there must be a clear border: The right to raist my fist will end at the point where your nose begins (or something like that).

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.

Quote from: Gryzor on 20:07, 01 September 11
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.

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.
Truths is unique for sure, anything else is brianwashing. 1 and 1 makes 2, for eternity. Brainwashing is asking Picard how much lamps does he see, and he shall say 5, but there are only four.
If moralic criterias are not eternal, then they have no value any longer. If you cross that border than you will never stop.
Yes, you are right. It is philosophical. And that's the only solid base in a rotten world like ours, on which we have over 100 wars currently going on.

QuoteAnd 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...

first is that France was notorious for its uncompetent bastardish Top officers through the WW I...

Joffre had some good move in the way he hasted France preparing just before the Conflict...

but he was simply a moron, didn't went to real Warschool, as he was more a logistic man...

He was just put there because no other guy wanted the place...


And...errr.....


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...

And also because some field generals/officer managed to actually be brilliant...



But As we "won", the Man (Joffre) got all the glory and the Generals/officers after him sticked on this outdated tacticae and strategic assets.

To be fair we were always one war late ...


WW1 french army was perfect for the 1870 conflict, WW2 French army was perfect for the WW1...




But it got better after this... well ...after Dien Bien Puh I guess (another classical French army leder retardness...)

The 3rd republic and even the 4th were notorious for being quite suckers on the Military matters...
To much Chamber politics and no real military leader...
5th republic on the other hand is quite more fit for going to war...

As experienced by Mitterand (Gulfwar) or even Chirac (Serbian bombings... not going to 2nd Gulf war wasn't really sign of weakness...) and Sarkozy who managed to kick Gbagbo and Ghaddafi's asses...
(Well, Muammar is just awaiting a bit more...)


So no, French army wasn't coward...

It's just the commandment/état major was just a bunch of useless retards and no army can win something under such leaders...

And the basic soldier simply knew it : politics and leaders just gave them no chance and we were about to go trhough another WW1 with millions death...
and we simply didn't wanted that to save their sorry political asses....


Also DeGaulle was really a great man, despite some darker aspects and... he was prone to let lots of peoples die as he refused to evacuate the Harkis in the Algerian War... which is such a shame...


Concerning the WW2 German technology.

Many of the stuff were ctually based in france to be launched to England...
So we managed to get our hands on some of them...Submarines, Jet engines...

This explains why France actually managed a space program and Nuclear Submarines...
Yep, we got our share of samples that we managed to hide from American to keep for ourselves...


Many evolution of post war industry in europe were direct consequences of WW2 programs...


Don't you wonder how England managed to be actually a successful country on the 8 bit market ?

Turing anyone ? the first European computer to Hack Enigma (with help from Poland scientist who did half the job...)

This explains a bit how even Alan Sugar managed a success in Computers... and why a lot of 8bit British machines were so popular...

QuoteHitler killed 5 millions (half of them juds)

There is still a large controversy on the matter in France theses days...
If you tell a number not large enough, you pass for antisemitic person, if you pull out too large numbers, you are simply wrong anyway but it's ok...

:-[

But from what i know, My grand father went to the camps, and he wasn't jew, he was just a young french...
Resistant but he was taken anyway... and as he was taken not as a resistant (while being at a cinema), he was simply put into slavery instead of being put back to the wall...


That's why i hate wehen peoples tell the DeathKamps were not true... they were...

But I also don't like when some religion argue that they were the only to suffer and be killed, and that millions of millions of them were put to death...

Too many of them : Yes... millions ? yes...

but please... not as many as some often imply...

QuoteWell, 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...
Some historian argue that Nero was not as bad as described by Christian historian.
But hey, it's Roma, so i guess he was a bloody bastard anyway.


What i like is that european history shows that we were the most complete bastard in the world and managed to actually conquer it...

Seriously as a man, I can only be proud of that... my ancestors ruled the world...

but on the ther hand, it was in a barbarious past and now I don't want to rule over the world with an Iron fist...

Also i'm proud of being european...


And i hate this when peoples simply don't like the idea of a great europe almost united...

The fact is, our European institutions clearly suck as they are today... half started job, half unfinished job...

And our local politician whant to keep their own realms...

but a united Europe won't necessary mean I will not continue to speack French, eat delicious Cassoulet Toulousain and drink awesome Côtes du Rhône...

And I don't care if some "foreigner" european brother get to be conceptor of some obscure law for me, if the law is good an if my Republic is still somewhat democratic, if I have free speech and can enjoy life.

@TF/M:Where did you find that? :D Christians were not enslaved as a practice! As a matter of fact, actually, the Old Testament *accepted* slavery. Proto-christians also accepted it, and they did have some valid (for the time) arguments. This goes to say how different christianism was back then, and how moral values can, as a matter of fact, change.
   
But, wait, you say that yourself (apologies, didn't read it correctly), Christians were *not* enslaved, but rather some slaves were christians. Boolean and all.

And, naturally, moral values are not eternal and their value does not depend on their timelesness; unless you can claim that morals and morality will not change through the ages, as it has up to now.

Two examples: one, a prehistoric tribe 'stealing' the water source of another, thus condemning the latter to death. Immoral? Pah... Also, take imprisonment for instance. For millenia it has been accepted as a very moral form of punishment, and still is, yet there are increasing numbers of people claiming otherwise. If, at some point in the future, societies decide it's actually immoral, will it make our society so (because of it)? Again, pah.
   
Apologies, absolutism and dogmatism are so very narrow-minded...

@Macdeath: you dare bring the Indonesian war as an example of bravery/cowardice? :D

As for the number of Jews killed, it's been brandished about for decades now ("over six millions") and I really hate it. Not only it's unfounded (the number only appeared as a calculation in a trial and nothing more), but while it could be proved (Jewish communities held very analytic and strict records; it'd be relatively easy to find out what happened) the Jewish refuse to do so. In my mind, they only hurt their cause - as if it'd be ok if only 3 or 4 million Jews were eliminated... :6

Quote from: TFM/FS on 20:16, 01 September 11
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.

Christians were not necessarily slaves. In Roman times slaves almost always were captives of war. While germanics and gauls were most prized because of their strength and size, they came from all parts of the ancient world.
Rome's population consisted of about 30% slaves even before Jesus was nailed to the cross. That's an estimated 300.000 in Rome alone (!) before Christianity was "born".
Some early popes were originally slaves, but the Christians themselves were divided in their opinion of slavery. Most agreed to treat them good, which most Romans did anyway. One tends to forget that slavery changed its face during reign the Roman empire, later on even slaves could protest if their masters did not treat them correctly.

And it was quite common for early Christians and Christian priests to have slaves. Yes, you read that right.

Slaves found the new religion perhaps a bit more attractive than Romans. And the number of Christian slaves might have grown steadily because of that. Nevertheless, some Christians might have been slaves, but there's no indication that their numbers were significantly higher than in the non-Christian part of the population.

Christians were prosecuted at first for not acknowledging the Roman emperor as a divine being. That alienated them from the Roman public.

Quote from: MacDeath on 21:40, 01 September 11
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...

Joffre was not alone. All sides of the conflict had morons at the top. That's the prime reason the war resolved itself the way it did.
The art of warfare being tought at the academies before WWI was completely outdated.
There were conflicts even before WWI were the new machine guns and other weapons were "tested", but at that time these idiots just saw the advantage of the weapons in killing the other side much faster. And in the first days of WWI everybody saw the conflict resolved in a few months.

When the reality of the first fights should have shown everybody that the strategy employed cannot yield any easy results, they dismissed the reports and simply bullied their respective troops to go on as if nothing had happened.

The efforts to find a way to end the war in the trenches came rather late (tanks, new tactics, etc).


Eventually the French and Britain won the war, but only after American troops arrived to settle the bloodbath and the British Naval blockade finally showed results. Because of the Russian Revolution and thus losing an enemy on a different front (very bloody conflict, btw), Germany in the last year of the war was actually gaining ground because it could reemploy troops from the Russian border, and would have had a superior position for negotiations, if it hadn't been for many more American troops for the allied forces.
Let's face it: France, Germany and to a somewhat lesser extent Britain had bled too long, and the war was in its last breaths, so to speak.
The new allied troops guaranteed victory when Germany (and France) was on the brink of collapse. Otherwise the negotiations afterwards might have looked a bit differently. Anyway, whatever the outcome was, it would have been caused a lot of bad blood. And it did.

What the two World Wars had shown us, is that in the end all that does matter in a conventional war is how many resources you have more than your enemy.

Yeah, ok, I haven't been talking about 100% or 0%, well and honestly that time is so long back in the past, I'm barely able to remember these day, but I still have the smell of buring flesh in the nose - pretty disgusting.
Well, no doubt the Russians were the big winners, they did gain the most land - and I'm not talking in particular about Germany, think about Poland or the Winter War in Finnland. Actually the USA didn't win any land, and the French did not get that much.
Patteon said "Put the Germans back in the tank and get the job finished", even Churchill said "We slaughterd the wrong pig". IMHO I'm just glad that I was never forced to become a soldier / to go to war.

QuoteIndonesian war

Indochine ? (futur Vietnam)
I don't know nothing about any indonesian war...

Quote from: MacDeath on 11:25, 02 September 11
Indochine ? (futur Vietnam)
I don't know nothing about any indonesian war...

Hahaha! Yes, of course; I must learn to re-read my posts before hitting the button :D

Anyway at Dien Bien Pu you can't tell the french army was not courageous...

completely screwed in a giant turmoil and again badly lead by uncompetents high officer... but courageous.

Okay so the Romans took slaves, which treated people as objects rather than people and would kill without hesitation. Sounds right. Some of those slaves were unlucky enough to work in mines or do horrid tasks or worse be butchered.

It's very difficult to place if Religion had any involvement, in places it might have had a bearing, killing people who sacrificed people to their gods for example. They might have selected strong people for battles in their colosseums for example.

The argument about the Nazi's and how they got into power is interesting. There's evidence of people having concerns prior to WWII and people like the German Director Fritz Lang fled Germany to America cause the Nazi's wanted him to make a film about them.

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.

Quote from: Gryzor on 16:10, 03 September 11
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.

I guess that goes back to the movie "Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb", them American cowboys had failed in what they were targeting for, so they decided to Nuke another Target instead.

So, I started reading The End. As a note, when a historian of the caliber of Kershaw decides to deal with a matter, you know it's not as simple as A or B...

Before opening the book I had a good long thought about it. In the end, I think that the behavior of the Germans towards the end of the war was motivated by fear, anger, desperation, hate and a need for revenge. But, of course, the difficult thing is to explain the extend to which each of these motivators worked.

Another point (don't know if it's in the book or not) is a psychological need for self-assurance. Studies have shown that actions influence beliefs and vice versa (the latter is self-evident, the former not so). What may have happened, to some degree, is that Germans, after all those years of tolerating the regime and participating in its horrors, actually felt the need to go on so as to not betray their previous actions. By going on and even reinforcing their actions they were hoping to assert the righteousness of their previous misdeeds, as a justification to themselves.

Here's a very nice extract from the Preface:

QuoteAlthough 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.

QuoteActually, 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

There were a lot of different status une slavedom...

Some were just some sort of modern low wage employees.

Other were living real hell in mines or agricultural exploitations...

Others were valuable person in the live of the house/society, like administrator... and ended being freed by their master, even some sort of friendly figure in the Familia.


just like middle Age "serf" (servile serveant, peasants...) who were not that slaves as we may think.
They simply got a contract with a locale land owner ty exploit some terrain in exchange for "protection".



We got to remember the "citizenship" at the time was far from what it is nowaday, and nobelity was quite an unstable situation either...

to be a noble (= ruler) at the time meant you had to fight for your situation... and would always put your life and balls on the balance.

on the other hand, "Serfs" were considered tools and objects bounded to a land, so you didn't killed them... you keept them to manage/work at the properties (aggriculture and stuff) they were bounded to.



Needless to say, some nobles were prone to raid their neighbouhood to troll them, pillage and rape and so on, but other times were more peacefull too.
during 1 millenia the kings of france seized absolute power and managed to pacify his land... was long but worked in the hand.


What we forot these recent times...
We often loose the blind faith of the past.

You know, religion and no culture.

In the past, poeples couldn't read, scientific knowledge wasn't as it is... also comfort wasn't available easily for the commoner.

Death was present everyday, you lived short and harsh.

But As you also believed in Life after Death... you cared less for your own life and collective aspect was omnipresent.
Everybody knew his place in the society.


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.

Slaves/"inferior races" for them were jsut to be put into slavery as a mean to get exterminated.

Their racial conception too extreme to be viable.
Even Roman slavery system was more "usefull status" and could even let chances to talented peoples.

Slaves were a usefull ressource, not something to waste.

Quote from: MacDeath on 13:02, 04 September 11
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:
- 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.

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.

And in this point I just disagree. The history books written by the winners make the Nazis (and with them the German populations) worse than all others. But that's actually very biasd information. For example the British invented the concentration camp, not the Germans. In USA they did the same thing to Asians in concentraition camps during WW2.
And IMHO it's still less painfull to die by gas, guitar strings or bullets (german concentration camps) than to be burned alive (Roman arenas). I do know that non-Germans like to disagree, because it's a good thing to have someone else, at whom one can point with the finger. That keeps people away from the truth and to think about their own history - and even worse: their own present. So for example nearly nobody is interrested what's going on in Palestina. And this happens today(!).

Sorry, this is all revisionism and apologetics in defense of the Nazi system.

-Yes, the books are written by the winners, but a.this doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong and b.by now all aspects of the war have been studied quite extensively. Allied crimes have been well documented, but this doesn't mean there's anything justifiable or even comparable to the German crimes.
-As said before, one thing is a concentration camp, another is an extermination camp. Get this right...
-You do realize how it sounds when you say it's less painful, the way people died in the hands of the Germans, right??
    -first you compare it to... Romans. Really? You're comparing mass murder to the extreme degree, today, with a very few (comparatively) incidents... two thousand years ago?
    -second, you fail to realize that before the gas came those victims had gone through hell and back, many thousands of them even dying on the way to the camps
    -third, gas was not used because it was less painful, but because it was more efficient in killing large numbers of people. Oh, to some degree it *was* used because it was less painful - to the killers (this, after Himmler attended a mass shooting in the East and fainted; apparently killing people with a bullet in the neck just in front of you and being covered in brains and blood was too stressful for the killers, so they started experimenting with other means)
-Yes, the Israelis exhibit a remarkable gusto in mimicking their own torturers.... so what? Last time I checked we were talking about WWII Germany here? If you want to discuss Palestine, please feel free to open a new thread instead of derailing focus in an effort to put the blame away, ok?

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.

Quote from: Gryzor on 19:35, 08 September 11
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.

While what I'm about to say doesn't fall into the category of slavery, and am not trying to declare war with Brits, I thought it was terrible that many Aussies were killed unnecessarily at Gallipoli, something to do with orders to charge the enemy (with a Gatling Gun). I think more Aussies have been killed there than in any of the other wars we've been involved in. But then that's Wars for you.

Quote from: Gryzor on 06:37, 09 September 11
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.

Well I only felt that All Wars are horrible and are triggered when a significant event occurs or someone wants more power. Probably just some Corporate Psychopath which has made Presidency or is some kind of power force which drives the right people!  :o  People who say you can win Wars are crazy!

Quote from: Gryzor on 06:37, 09 September 11
Sorry, this is all revisionism

It has surprised me in the past just how much revisionism you do hear from normal, ordinary Germans today.  Guess they're a proud people with an embarassing past.


Is also weird how our history curriculums must differ at school - I took a German friend of mine to the Imperial War Museum (his request) and he hadn't seen a lot of the stuff there before, especially the photographs and descriptions of some of the horrors that were going on during war-time Germany - and it was all stuff I had previously seen at school.

QuoteActually they learnt from:
- 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.

can't be compared...

=Most of the conquest in the colonisation occured in past era (1600-1900)
=While some massacres occured the aim was not to completely erradicate said populations on overall.
=in case of USA ok perhaps, but you have to know that diseases did most of the work even before europeans explored the area.
=said acts occured by "technological superior" Europeans against "low tech" civilizations.

Nazi Germany did this to other industrialised Europeans.
and also killed many of their own population either.



But ok, most colonial countries have their share of unfair treatments against those civilizations, but they also bring technological advancements to those somewhat reluctant peoples.
While revolts and killings existed, the colonial countries also tried to get some Elite from said populations to rule them for them.

In some areas, Colonizations wasn't that bad as it could be an opportunity for some of the colonized peoples to get some decent educations and job.
But yes, it is quite controversial to enlight the few benevoliant aspects of colonial era... (to say the least) as large majority of those civilisation were dominated.


Hey, I didn't said French or Britons from the 17-19th century weren't some sort of barbarians  in modern standards of today...

Quote
Is also weird how our history curriculums must differ at school

Yeah...
while France And Germany did some effort on this concerning the WW2 era (we have quite the same common version in history books), we can see the recent feud between Japan and China on the matter.


But hey, this is stone age to us...

they even had no proper computers to run lawnmower simulator...
really stone age of computer Era...
We are far ahead of this as we knew the 80's.


the wonderfull era of :
= bighairs
= homecomputers
= wonderfull Arcade golden era
= electro-pop and hair-metal
= stupid toy-lines based cartoons
= Red (USSR) was evil and Blue (USA) was good (See, V, GI joe, and many many more...)

an era were future was called "Cyberpunk" .
Today, we call "cyberpunk" "now" and it is not as flashy chrome man-machine plugged cyber as it used to be yet we are even more screwed by Financial mega corpos)


By the way I still have my 70's longhair...

Quote from: Gryzor on 06:37, 09 September 11
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.
EDIT: When I read the last posts, then I see that it is appreciated to keep the Nazis as Archdevils and to ignore anything else. But honestly arguments like "you can't compare this, because (other date, country, political system etc.)" are IMHO all excuses. You can compare very well, and I don't see why you still insist to make the Nazis the meanest of all times. You are pretty much ignoring what Stalin or Mao did. Or maybe you just don't know? Stalin killed more Jews than the Nazis, and for sure as brute. Mao killed more than all the others, and this in a very brute way. Even today in China they take your organs if you don't agree with the system. I but you haven't heart that before in the official mainstream propaganda of the winners.
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.

Quote from: TFM/FS on 17:29, 09 September 11
And I guess I have no reason to apologize.

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

Quote from: spybro on 17:54, 09 September 11

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? Well, I thought that Greece owes a lot of money to others (bankers) and therefore they have troubles now.

Quote from: TFM/FS on 17:59, 09 September 11
So Germany owes money to Greece? How did this happen?

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

Quote from: spybro on 18:13, 09 September 11

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

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.

Quote from: TFM/FS on 17:29, 09 September 11
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.

That was my fault for starting that Roman Empire conquest thing happening, which I raised since the discussion was on Invaders which evolved into Killings, Slavery or simply people adapting to Roman traits. Is it wrong to discuss other wars and compare them in relation to WW2?

Quote from: TFM/FS on 19:05, 09 September 11
All so called "news" are biased,

plus they all talk like a bunch of Zombies!

Wasn't the banking system a jew invention?  :P


I have nothing personal against jews, and I'm pretty sure 99% of them are normal people like us; but, traditionally they have always played with everybody's money (to their benefit of course) and that's why they have been prosecuted throughout history.


I pretty much agree with TFM, the Nazi leaders were evil, but the leaders of the countries that won the war weren't angels. 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.


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. Again, things are not black and white.

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?

Wellwellwell...

this thread seems to go full war... :(

Quote from: Devilmarkus on 09:22, 10 September 11
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)

Quote from: robcfg on 11:57, 10 September 11

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)

Really?!? Don't you believe in the Six Degrees of Separation?  ;D

Quote from: robcfg on 03:08, 10 September 11
Wasn't the banking system a jew invention?  :P

Actually the Templars invented the banking system!

Quote from: robcfg on 03:08, 10 September 11In 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

same thing applies in Hellas too only the name changes which in our case is Papadopoulos

Quote from: robcfg on 03:08, 10 September 11That's what I was trying to say that there is no good or evil side on a war

Yes but in the case of Germany it wasnt just a war it was an obsession about aryan race and Genocide

Quote from: robcfg on 03:08, 10 September 11there are winners and losers, and that winners are not necessarily good

I guess you are right about this one since there is a lot of soviet dna in berlin even today
the atrocities the soviets did when they invaded Berlin are equally evil as Hitler's

@redbox: from my personal experience, there appears to be much denial and shame in really decent persons. I remember a time when I scared off a very nice (and pretty... stupid me) German girl when I took the discussion to the money and gold the Germans stole from the Greek Central Bank (a big topic nowadays, since Germany never paid it off). You should see her running, all red in the face... And I didn't even mention any attrocities etc!

@TFM: sorry mate, but all you do is deflecting. As I said before, we're discussing Germany in WWII. A standard tactic of someone wanting to excuse/hide something is to deflect and start comparing to other, relevant or irrelevant issues. Also, the discussion is not about Hitler, so as to compare with Mao or Stalin. Sooooo, well, let's get it out of the way: Mao and Stalin were perhaps worse than Hitler. Ok? Now let's focus back on Germany.
   
The parenthesis about Rome was not to compare it to Germany (only you did that), but some interesting points came out of it. It was still off-topic and had no bearing on the current discussion.

@Spybro/TFM: oh, someone actually brought it up! :D. Ok, a small parenthesis; when the Germans invaded Greece they did two things (well, among others): they stole a big (BIG) amount of gold, and they imposed a huge loan from Greece to Germany. Especially concerning the latter, Hitler even approved its paying back towards the end of the war (but the relevant money never arrived). This has nothing to do with war reparations, those two stories were pure monetary issues. Typically Germany still owed hundreds of billions of euros (compound interest included), and of course they never paid any reparations either.

And this is how it happened...

@robcfg: banking actually dates from ancient mesopotamia, though through centuries it acquired many more functions.

Also, that's exactly what I was saying - and about Churchill, too, who's considered a saint of sorts - that the leaders of the winners were not necessarily better. But this means nothing. You focus your argument on the leaders and forget all about the peoples...

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.
   
@Devilmarkus: you're attempting to discount historic continuity. Every people, just as they might be proud of their past (say, about Goethe or Socrates) so they must bear the shame about their darker moments (like Hitler or Papandreou). And Hitler is pretty much in the present, not in the past. 60 years is *nothing* in historical terms. What's more, the problem is not that you, or a 20- or 30-year-old German is responsible per se for the Jews that their grandfather executed in cold blood, but mainly because there has be no atonement for it. Rather, if you step outside the German media, you'll see direct parallels running between the efforts of Hitler and the efforts of Angela - just the means differ. No, the war is not your responsibility, but it *is* (or should be) your collective shame for which you should try to make things better.

@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...

@Robcfg: I had actually read a short alternative history story in which Hitler actually wnt on painting... ah, the paths of life.

@spybro: actually, revenge is totally different from unprovoked agression. It is true that the Soviets behaved like animals in Germany, but after all they had suffered it's not hard to understand the why.

Ok, I gave it some more thought - to the thing about carrying both the good and bad.

In the end, I think, it's the question of what a nation is. "Nation" is nothing without its collective memory and shared history. If you (in general) don't think that what happened in the past affects you, then, I think, it's clear that you either do not believe in the notion of a nation or you don't consider yourself part of that nation. You can't have your pie and eat it.

But I think that what you (Markus) say, is a denial that signals some sort of guilt. Please, don't take this wrong, I'm not meaning this as an insult, and it's a conjecture on my part. And it's the last thing I want to do, to incite nationalist and insulting passions. Yet, nobody accused you personally or anyone else of being responsible for your grandfathers. The fact that you *say* it has nothing to do with you shows, I believe, that deep down it does affect you, but you want to shake it off.

Here's an interesting video I came to from an irrelevant blog a few minutes ago; nothing new, but it's interesting because so few films exist from occupied Greece. The guy who shot those scenes hid his camera in a tin cup, one of those everyone used to get their lunch from communal kitchens - when lucky enough. If you can tell me this has nothing to do with you does not concern you then I think there's something very wrong...

Σπάνιο οπτικό υλικό από την Γερμανική Κατοχή (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAsDzAUa2Hc#)

sorry  i do not have the time to translate
but use an online translator to learn some hard facts that you will never see on the news!


http://distomo.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-post_8942.html (http://distomo.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-post_8942.html)


http://www.agelioforos.gr/default.asp?pid=7&ct=10&artid=110817 (http://www.agelioforos.gr/default.asp?pid=7&ct=10&artid=110817)

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.

Quote from: Gryzor on 16:03, 11 September 11
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.

Anyone who has read about WWII will have of quite a few instances like that. While I didn't know about this one in particular, I also don't think any detailed information like this adds much to the discussion.

@TFM, DevilMarkus: I'm sorry, but Gryzor is right.
Yeah, call me an asshole for that, but that's not the way to reflect on one's past. Again, I don't exclude myself here for being Austrian. While it's been called "occupation", there was a not so small part of our population which openly welcomed the Nazis, and some of them sucked so hard up the Nazi's asses to prove that they belonged to the aryan race that they turned out to be even worse than their Geman role models.

QuoteIn 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

QuoteFrancisco Franco

Must be some French screwing...


Yeah, Portugal got Salazar, Spain Franco (which means freedom, ironically), Greece got some colonels military regime too if i recall well...?

Got to remember it was cold war either.

Even General DeGaulle was not that good on democratic matters while president...

As a matter of fact, even non-democratic regimes can build a country, look at ghaddaf's Lybia.. Or even Hitler's Autobahn and so on...

it was quite modern in an industrial way...

But hey, you get harrassed just because you may criptical on the regime or even if you have no well placed friend or just by being on the wrong spot on the wrong time...
Corruption is a problem too because strong leader means each little king in every administration is a little dictator not because he got his place thx to studies or merit but because he is polotically in tune with the power.

uncompetent poeples get the places because they are a lot into the enforcement of the regime.

And you're forgetting Sadam Hussein, too. Incidentall, Libya and Iraq were the most progressive Arab countries. Figures about literacy, health and infrastructures speak for themselves. Yet Gadhaffi turned into a lunatic and Sadam was always a butcher. So?

Quote from: Gryzor on 10:07, 12 September 11
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  ;)

Quote from: redbox on 10:46, 12 September 11

Interesting and highly subjective definition of progressive there  ;)

I don't quite see the issue :)

The fact that they seem to be decades back doesn't mean they're not more progressive, relative to the rest of the Arab world. I didn't say they're progressive - I said:

Quote...progressive Arab countries...

Quote from: Gryzor on 11:45, 12 September 11
I don't quite see the issue :)

Fair enough, you did say Arab countries.

Your scope of literacy, health and infrastructure is still quite narrow to define progression in these cirumstances though.

You kind of answered your own question - any dictator can ensure their populous learns to read, gets medical treatment and build motorways.  Still doesn't mean the country has progressed at all, and in many cases whilst this has been going on they have actually turned their societies back 50 years.

Well, those were the parameters that are easy to quantify. But they're very important, too. You can't argue that access to education or healthcare are not important? Also, women's rights were much more advanced in Libya and Iraq, another major indicator.

And, Saddam and Gaddafi (how the frak is that spelled anyway...) did push their countries forwards. Libya, before G, was a Bedouin country, centuries back. Iraw, much of the same. I think (without claiming the least of expertise on the matter) that the major breakthrough was their break from religion.

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.

(However, there is the thing of historical necessity. In these two specific points you had  *even worse* regimes before. You can't expect from a society to jump from 500AD to 2000AD in a single step, like you didn't go from local warlords to "Democracy" in a single step in Western Europe. This doesn't mean that the intervening regimes were not better than before, even though they always included dictators, usurpers, kings and feud lords. But that's another discussion altogether).

Quote from: Gryzor on 12:09, 12 September 11
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.

Yes, I see your point.


But I think what's sticking in my mind is that you were saying the countries progressed.  But in reality, probably a small proportion of the country actually did, and many others were left in the cold.


Maybe something like a facade (or Potemkin village) - you think it's progressed (due to the indications you've mentioned) but in reality it's gone very much backwards.

Not really; those indicators are nation-wide.

My uncle was a navy officer; he was telling me how he had visited Libya first in the sixties (ended up as military attache in Egypt), and how he toured the country again in the early 90s - he said it was like visiting a different country. In the end, sure, some parts of the population (Bedouins, Kurds, rival religious groups...) suffered big inevitably (though not justifiably of course), but the countries as a whole made giant leaps forward.

You would be surprised at the progress those nations did. It's not the image we have in mind, and certainly not what's being portrayed in the media and movies, and of course now they're making big steps backwards.

Quote from: Gryzor on 12:22, 12 September 11
and of course now they're making big steps backwards.

By over-throwing their dictators...?

Quote from: redbox on 12:25, 12 September 11

By over-throwing their dictators...?

By overthrowing their own dictators and succumbing to foreign ones. Care to check the status in Iraq, or the credentials of the Libyan "revolutionaries"?

Heck, even Egypt overthrew the dictator to fall in the arms of the military...

Quote from: redbox on 12:25, 12 September 11

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

Quote from: spybro on 16:23, 12 September 11

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

Actually Libya was not a theocratic state but a secular one.

*However*, just the other day the "leader" of the "revolution" announced that the new state will be based on the Sharia - the Islamic law. Now *that's* progress for you!!!

Right, here's a snippet that I read last night. It's an SD (Sicherheitsdienst - Security Service) report on the reactions of the populace on the printing, in the press, of photos of atrocities committed by the Russians in East Prussia. From early November, 1944:

Quote from: SD
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.

Quote from: Gryzor on 18:19, 18 September 11
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.

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.

But I wager most of all, only those actually at the front did know what happened exactly. I can't imagine soldiers having a few weeks off from the front talking to their families much about what has happened, and even if they did, they most probably just hinted at it or gave a generic insight to it. And letters and reports from the front were heavily censored, at least until it served the Nazis' purpose to instill fear of the Russians which was late in the war.

So, that such a report was in the papers in 1944 was mostly due to the Reich's leaders rallying the population through fear to protect Germany's own soil. In order to delay the inevitable I might add.
And that had exactly the effect the Nazis wished for; they knew how to handle the German people; propaganda is what enabled them to power, after all. It's been their "core business" in today's market speak.

Quote from: Gryzor on 18:49, 10 September 11
@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...

It's a pity I can't behave so civilized -and that's why I can't take part in this discussion, eventhough I would love to :-D


...Robcfg, you shouldn't make such an statement in front of me or any member of my family -unless you want to die, no matter how big is the power of Robzilla. Macdeath may tell you how dangerous is my mother when chatting on political issues :-D

We should discuss the matter in person while drinking a nice german beer  ;D

Quote from: MaV on 19:10, 18 September 11
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.

I read you :-)))
You talk about an interresting point here. Let me add some points in addition.

Revenge? Well, when Hitler attacked Stalin, he was just two weeks more quick than Stalin.
Stalin had already 1.6 Million soldiers prepared to invade Germany. That was his plan from the beginning. First Poland, then Germany. So if Hitler would have been attacking three weeks later, than nobody could talk about Revenge at all.

Further, Stalin took Poland and he took a Part of Germany, Where is the Revenge of the Polish and Prussian people? Revenge is such a childish word! And I hate it, because its usage tells me how primitive the so called human race is! Just a shame!

Due to WWI Germany was forced to enter WWII. Even the Americans know that, but in Europe there is still a lack in knowledge. And especially we face denial here (You disagree? Well, then I must talk to YOU about denial!).

Since so much people write about revenge here, let me ask a question please. Where is the revenge of the two millions civil Germans that have died, while beeing spaced (14 million all together have been spaced) from western purssia and that region? I learnt that first from some French historicans. French proffessors who are bold enought to talk about the truth!

And btw. I'm not answering to few other people here, who are 1. always right 2. don't listen to others and 3.  repeate their arguments like a praying-mill. Why? I we don't need a WWIII in the forum. But that I don't alswer to any post, doesn't mean that I would agree.

Quote from: robcfg on 22:13, 18 September 11
We should discuss the matter in person while drinking a nice german beer  ;D

The 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: That's the end of logic and the end of any sense in a discussion. So finally as you said, one day - at a CPC meeting we can discuss all that in person, if people are still interrested.
This thread has by nature a very explosive potential. And people have also by nature very different POV's, mostly created by the different propaganda of their own counties. And especailly people who say that their historical sources are not biased, especially these people are pray of the propaganda.
The best is IMHO to have a broad variety of sources and - even better - to talk to pleople who have been whitnesses of time. And the latter one is getting harder and will be soon impossible.

@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.


Germany was one hell of a messed up place and did some terrible, terrible things during WWII.  Why can't that just be accepted?

On my side it's absolutely accepted, I only like to remind that all the countries that fought in that war did terrible things, it's that simple.

Quote from: TFM/FS on 23:28, 18 September 11

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:

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

Quote from: redbox on 09:32, 19 September 11
Why can't that just be accepted?

I accept it as well.

Gryzor is trying to find an answer to what has happened. Sort of a clear picture of what was going on, and how one thing led to another, and likes to come to a conclusion that these points are the main reason that WWII Germany behaved the way it did.

In the last of Gryzor's posts, I reinstated my belief that the Nazi leaders' influence on the people must not be underestimated, and the cruelties happening can be mostly explained by these circumstances itself (keep in mind: we're talking about the war atrocities, not the concentration camps).

As usual things are more complicated. I dare say, if the conclusions have not been reached by now, I doubt the circumstances will every be satisfactorily explained. But one can try.

@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 one hand, it's impossible NOT to have known about them: they were there, you could see them, ashes and burnt flesh smell covered entire areas -and, heck, Dachau was a big example inaugurated in a big press event by Himmler himself. Priests were openly talking about it in their sermons up until a certain point. Thousands upon thousands of people worked in those camps - and in the factories where slaves were used. Hell, the allies knew, and the Germans did not? Come on... Heck, the "up the chimney" threat was only too widespread!

What you say about soldiers and letters is partially true. Indeed, only too many would be too ashamed or afraid to write or tell about them, but there were some who did. Many accounts and letters survive to attest to that.

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, after all, they knew pretty well. That's what that SD report (not the news report) says and proves.

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.
   
@TFM: I'm sorry, but I'm unsure what you're talking about.

To begin with, the theory about Stalin being two weeks away from an attack is laughable - the state of the border army during the invasion attested to that. The economy was not even on a war footing. Would it have happened eventually? Most probably, yes - it was a historical necessity. But:
a. Germany did it, not Russia, hence the moral burden lies with her
b. Germany did it NOT invade because the Russians would attack (this theory appeared afterwards) and who were sending goods trains across the border even as Germans were burning their first villages; Germany attacked because Hitler had been planning it for twenty years.
c. even if Russia had attacked first this still does not justify any of the attrocities.
   So the whole point is kinda moot.
The argument about Germany "being forced" to initiate WWII as a result of the Great War has no footing whatsoever. The Great War and its ending, with its harsh punishment for Germany, compounded to a great extend by the Great Recession lead to a problematic political system. It also kept animosity alive. This is a looooooong way from "forcing" Germany to try and take over the world. The only thing it could "force" it to do would be to merely repudiate the agreements and treaties (as indeed it did), but war? Come on, this is a joke. Claiming that the war was anything but an expansionist, fanatical dream is, again, revisionism.

As for the revenge issue, I frankly can't make out what you're trying to say. That Germans suffered in the hands of the allies? Sure, so? I really don't get you.

A clarification on the SD report: those were not the sayings of the SD officer; he was reporting what the actual *people* were saying... Hence the proof.

Quote from: redbox on 09:32, 19 September 11
@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.

Germany was one hell of a messed up place and did some terrible, terrible things during WWII.  Why can't that just be accepted?

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.
What I want to say is short is: It's to easy to devide everything in good and bad. And I want to say that things can be different in appearance depending on your POV.
And about Gemany. Well, it can't be accepted, because it was NOT Germany, it was the NAZIS - and that was never Germany, only a part of the country. But even before Hitler showed his true side, only 42% of the Germans voted for him. The majority was against him, therefore I just don't like to blame all Germans for the NAZIS cruel deeds. It's to easy to say: The French, The Greek, The British, The Germans. It always depends on the single person - this is my message. Or if you like: Dear world, open your eyes and judge the single person.

Quote from: spybro on 10:57, 19 September 11

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

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.
What I want to drive at is: We have hundreds of war's today on the planet. Wouldn't it make more sense to care about them? Because we have influence on the present, and even future, but not on the past.

People like to hide in the past, so they think that they are not responsible for things happening now.
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.
I don't want to paint the past in brighter colors that it has been, but living in the past can't be an excuse for not changing the present into something better.

Quote from: Gryzor on 19:05, 19 September 11
@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.

I wasn't talking about concentration camps at all. I thought I had made that clear. I'd like to separate the topic concentration camps from atrocities at the front (which I was talking about).

Quote
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.

What's the point of your argument here? This never was a secret. Concentration camps were known long before the war. They were set up with the excuse that people can be "re-educated" there to live up to the Nazis standards, when they're finished with them. And it turned out not to be so. At the beginning the population for sure did not conceive them as death camps.
Yes, shootings and burnings in the camps were known for sure at least in the sorrounding villages themselves, as time went on.
Please, Gryzor, put the facts in a very strict yearly context. The Nazis were masters at manipulation, what was sold as a good idea to the population at first (re-education - which by today's standards is appalling) was later put to another use.

I'm beginning to suspect that you're taking the high moral standpoint and judge history by today's standards. That's ok, but in the end it won't lead you anywhere.

It is extremely difficult even for Germans to get the gist of the situation that the population was in before, during and after the Nazis. It may be even more difficult for people who are not raised in this culture, albeit a good sixty years later.
As so many have told since then, it's not perceivable today how the infamous speeches of Hitler and the festivities of the Nazis exerted influence on the people. There's reports even of jews who were carried away by that pompous presentations and rhetoric. The recordings of these can't convey that feeling, and comtemporary witnesses have made that point clear as well.

The best thing you can do, beyond reading history books about the era, is learning German, living a few years in a German-speaking country, and trying to befriend people from every social class there.
Since today is a culmination of things past, you'll still find a lot of "references" (for lack of a word) which you'll be able to put into context, perhaps even easier than the Germans themselves, since you've been raised in a different context.

Quote
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.

I remember a present-day philosopher - was it Slavoj Zizek? - stating that 15% of any population tends towards the extreme right. So while the 30% is still way too high, I might add that they Nazis knew even then how to kindle certain sentiments in the population, some of them problems of their day and age, some of them pointing back to WWI.
There's a lot of evidence of manipulation during the elections. And even with this in mind it took the decision of one Alfred Hugenberg - IIRC - to let the Nazis to power (yes, a conservative business tycoon who would not want socialists in the lead, tipped the scales in favour of the Nazis!).
I  personally find that much more important to remind than deliberately recounting endless tales of the atrocities and daily life in concentration camps. There's only so much you can take of that in the end, and you're none the wiser because of it. You can't imagine the death of a few relatives, much less those of millions; or the nightmares of the survivors. Or do we really need to get into the details of what it looks like when a body of a human being is burned in a furnace? I've read and heard those countless times as well.

Let me quote Ian Kershaw from his book Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich. It's in German, but I guess you'll get it: "[Es ist] für den Außenstehenden, den Nichtdeutschen, der den Nationalsozialismus nicht erlebt hat, ... möglicherweise zu leicht, zu kritisieren und Verhaltensmaßstäbe anzulegen, deren Einhaltung unter den gegebenen Umständen nahezu unmöglich war."

Since we're beginning to go in circles with our arguments, I see no real point going into any more detail. Partly because that's about as much as I can remember from my readings, of which I've forgotten a lot, and partly because I do not have enough time to catch up to your reading list.
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.

Quote from: MaV on 22:45, 19 September 11
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.

@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.

-I opened up a map; I didn't find any Nazistan or Naziland or the like, I only found Germany
-Hitler attained his highest levels of popularity *after* he started on his war path (annexing, invading and the such). What's more, Hitler *never* hid what he had in mind. People voted for him or supported him in full knowledge of what he wanted to accomplish. Nothing came as a surprise so as to say "oh, I voted for him, but I didn't know he was gonna do this or that". You can accuse Hitler of anything you want, except of having a hidden agenda.
-What were the Nazis, if not Germans?
-Although the SS was an outright criminal organization the biggest part of the war (AND the atrocities) were performed by the regular army.
-Behing the lines (or the camps) where the crimes were perpetrated, there was the remainder of the German people, manufacturing arms, munitions, uniforms, running the railroads transferring 'cattle' to the concentration camps etc etc. This was a total effort.

So, please, stop arguing "it wasn't us, it was them". It wasn't a band of bandits, it was a whole nation who did that. True enough, there were MANY who opposed it, and a very few who even resisted, but that doesn't change how things went down -which is, tens of millions of dead (to say nothing about the rest of destruction and misery).

And, of course, if it's a "single person", then why on earth do we need nations and states?
   
@Mav: maybe I didn't understand your argument correctly, if so I apologise. You said

Quote from: Mav"We didn't know" pertains to the concentration camps, not the front.

So I said, well, they *did* know about the concentration camps.

As far as "re-education" went, this is totally wrong, of course; it was well-known that "re-ducation" meant eradication. So much so that executions in concentration camps (of Germans, no less) were openly advertised. If the people actually believed the reeducation fairy tale I don't think they'd be as scared as you claim they were, after all.

Regarding judging by today's standards: not quite. What I'm arguing was the argument even then. Those are the same arguments that dissidents in Germany were using from 1925 on.

I'm not familiar with Zizek, but even if it's true that 15% tends towards the extreme right (which doesn't seem real, incidentally; in Greece the extreme right commands an incidental 5% and even this is considered very high, for instance) this doesn't mean that these people, motivated by a crisis, by a charismatic leader or pure ideology will stand behind crimes of such magnitude.

Concerning Kershaw: I've read mostly everything he's written (articles, even) and I could quote hundreds of passages where he's really dumbfounded from the levels of barbarity that a highly civilised nation could have descended. The fact that it's difficult to understand from the outside doesn't lessen the outcome of the Germans' actions. Yes, manipulation, violence, motives etc etc etc, but each has an opposite side of the coin: complacence, naïveté, hatred, corruption, fear, dishonor, blind discipline, indifference.

Regarding WWI (replying to TFM now, I know you don't mean something of the sort), the fact that it led to WWII by setting up the stage doesn't justify in the least what happened. Every war has some roots and some beginnings, a reason and a story behind it. It's not unique to WWII. Justifying the most horrific war ever perpetrated because the French and the British demanded extraordinary amounts of cash as war reparations is exceedingly hypocritical and dangerous.

I don't get what is the point of the discussion now.


That among the germans that fought the war, there was quite a bunch of son of bi***es is obvious. Now, the other countries weren't angels either, even killing more people than the germans, with the only difference that Germany lost the war.


All countries did massacres, and had concentration camps, and killed prisoners and innocent civilians (that includes german civilians, not all were evil nazis), and the USA even dropped 2 atomic bombs...


Today, the USA is fighting a lot of wars only for money and the state of Israel invests lots of money so that the history of the holocaust is never forgotten, but written as they like to.


Why nobody remembers the cossacks? They were slaughtered by the millions, more than the jews, but nobody cares. Again, the germans are used as an excuse for all the evil in the world when today's germans have little to do with it.


On top of that, everybody copied the nazi propaganda machine and it's being used every day by the present day politicians, so if we were talking about good and evil, we missed the point.

Heya mate,

First of all, please calm down a bit :)

Let me take this opportunity to say I hope I haven't offended anyone. Well, I'm pretty sure I have, but this wasn't my intention and I'm really sorry. Let's keep this civilised.

Now, to reply to your post, Rob, take a look at the subject and you'll see what this is about. If you want to talk about Who Is The Baddest Of Them All or something, by all means do open another thread. But this discussion is off-topic here...

I apologize if I sounded angry, which isn't the case.


I also think that we are being quite civilized on this topic, and that is very good.


What I was trying to say is that I don't know what are we discussing anymore (and I've read the thread again and I still don't understand where the topic has evolved), and that not all the germans were bad and nazis and killers, and not all the allies were the saints they were supposed to be, only that.


If there's any WWIII it will start here most probably  :P  (just kidding...)

Well, serious historical debates are like that. You start at one thing, you pass through another, you end up in yet another :D

Quote from: Gryzor on 11:06, 20 September 11
@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.

Why do you insist in "All Germans are evil"?

Quote from: TFM/FS on 17:39, 20 September 11
You should take "Inglorious Bastards" for real, "Operation Walkyre" in contrast is nearly a documentation.

I found Inglourious Basterds really silly, and I hate Tom Cruise. I don't get my history from Hollywood.

Quote from: TFM/FS on 17:39, 20 September 11
Fact it that most of the Germans have been against the Nazis.

Yeah, sure :D When the Russians were knocking on Berlin's door you couldn't find anyone who ever supported the Nazis even if you handed out fresh meat... Also: even if they didn't (support the Nazis), what did they do about it? Because, in the end, those who were murdered or plundered in their millions did not really care whether Herr Georg or Frau Helga opposed their fellow Germans or not...

Quote from: TFM/FS on 17:39, 20 September 11Why do you insist in "All Germans are evil"?

I like how you even put that in quotes. I dare you find one instance where I claimed that.

PS Even if von Stauffenberg could be considered a hero, the plot was hatched and put in motion not because of the atrocities but in order to save what could be saved, when the war appeared to be lost. So there's that, too.

Quote from: robcfg on 15:44, 20 September 11
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.
Uups, I did a preedit ;-)

@Grzor: I really quit this discussion now, it makes no sense to me any longer. You contradict yourself. And honestly some points mentioned before sound to me (and history books) like fiction. I'm sorry, that's my impression. And it's getting too polemic for my taste. I'll focus on CPC in a CPC forum and on WW2 on a WW2 forum.

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...

Quote from: TFM/FS on 22:15, 19 September 11

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.

In the present day Israel's military power(the small country as you characterized it) is far greater(about 2 times stronger) than germany's(this is a hard fact)


So would it be more logical if they attacked you instead of talking about it?

Quote from: Gryzor on 18:50, 20 September 11
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.

Heheheh but you see reason to only discuss less than half of the facts... and you keep ignoring that the NSDAP's popularity soared even after (or because) of the regime's early successes. You conveniently stick to electoral results (44% to be precise), which only tell half of the story.

And, for some reason, you keep focusing on support to the NSDAP, whereas the issue is that a people caused a bloodbath over a whole continent by its collective actions. As I said, those who were dying in some Russian village or of hunger in the Greek cities couldn't care less about what percentages NSDAP got.

Wanna discuss facts? Discuss the entire range of them. It's very easy to lie strictly by saying true things.

Quote from: Gryzor on 22:56, 20 September 11
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

Pffft, this is hopeless... our difference is, I back everything I say up. You keep making nebulous claims and aphorisms...

Quotethe issue is that a people caused a bloodbath over a whole continent by its collective actions.

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.


For a war to happen there must be two sides, if one of the sides doesn't want to, then there's no war. Of course, it usually happens that you don't want to be under others domination, but you still can surrender.


Thing is you cannot shift all guilt to Germany when everybody participated on this.

Er... I want to assume that this was a joke, putting the blame on the peoples for resisting, but I'm really disturbed because you appear to be serious.

If indeed you are serious then I'm at a loss, because we'd really need to go back to the very basics of what freedom, morality and aggression means.

And, btw, the Germans also slaughtered peoples who *didn't* resist, or long after the war had ended and occupation had settled in. So even if you are of the opinion that I can come into your house and it'll be your fault if I kill you, there's still much blame to be put on the Germans.

Good luck finding any court on earth (even in Nazi Germany) that will excuse a perpetrator because his victim reacted. :6

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.


Note: I'm not mad at anyone participating in this discussion and I'll never be (as far as the discussion goes). Just so that everyone knows  ;D

Quote from: robcfg on 12:02, 21 September 11
So the conclusion of this discussion is that Germany is evil?

No, actually she was an Angel in disguise; I have it on good authority that people just misunderstood what was happening.

QuoteOk, 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.

These points have been discussed in the thread over and over again...

Quote from: robcfg on 08:56, 21 September 11
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.

Or just kill the damn leader of the pack. Which means kill Hitler. Well, the Germans tried about 30 times, and Hitler seemed to be protected by some diabolic forces. If you take a look at Stauffenbergs assault, how could Hitler survive without a scratch?? - that's beyond all chances.

So why to nations never kill the leader of the "enemy" nation. Well, because in reality there are no "peoples"  fighting each other. In reality the international banks are fighting all the people. But nobody want's to see that.

Quote from: robcfg on 08:56, 21 September 11
Thing is you cannot shift all guilt to Germany when everybody participated on this.

Exactly, that's what I try to explain since ages :-)

Amazing, just amazing. So now you claim it was not the Germans, it was not even Hitler, it was the Devil - or even the international banks (wtf, this is getting so surreal it's hard to argue. Idiotic, even).

Banks? I didn't see any banker shooting civilians en masse with the sardine method, or someone with a collar and cigar raising he Swastika on the Acropolis.

As for the argument about IT BEING THE FAULT OF THE PEOPLES THAT RESISTED (I do wonder how ridiculous it can get...) you do realize that by this you actually justify the Allies' atrocities you accused them of, right?

My god, remind me to claim, if I ever see you and you try to resist while I'm stealing your wallet*, it will be your fault I'll cut your neck, ok?

*to say something really light, instead of, oh, I don't know, burning your house down, killing your wife or raping your daughter.

Gryzor, are you not interrested in a discussion? Are you just inerrested in being right? Is it that?
And you are (take it as a compliment!) a master in turning around a word in the mouth of somebody else. So for the last time let me recapitulate one of my posts just for you (You see, you have all my attention):

No, I don't believe in demons, and no, I didn't watch too much Supernatural. But if you know history as well as you always claim, then you know for sure that there was no chance to survive for Hitler when Stauffenberg blasted that bomb. But he did survive without any injuries, and this IS against all chances!!! If you still disagree, then I better talk to a brick!

Ok guys, calm down.


I agree with Gryzor in that I've been taking the logic a bit too far, but I also think 10 pages of discussion is getting a bit too far too  ;D


We seem to agree in that in a war nobody's a saint and that winners tell the history of it in a way to make the other side appear evil to the world (which is true, nazis were evil, as anybody in a war, we have discussed that a couple of times).


So, just to focus on the important things, what's remaining to discuss is why the war started, and there I agree with TFM in that in the end, is always wealth (either money, land, resources...) what triggers the conflicts.


That, or talking politics on the CPCWiki, hehehehe  ;)

Most people believe the history written by the winners. And maybe todays Germans believe these lies the most. But some are honest and curageous enough to tell the truth as can be seen here:

Zweiter Weltkrieg - Was Deutsche nicht wissen sollen! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9642Hwj_6UA#)

Food for thought? Why have the "best" aryans like people of Scaninavia and the "second best aryans" (Germans)  achieved better than the rest of the world economically after the WW2? Even the japs have done very well.

And today both our countries are not souvereign and our governments do what the US wants.

But the Greeks now show how to do, don't pay the banksters. Argentina did that before and now their economy is rising up. Hopefully the Europeans will learn that lesson too  :)

I am not sure what you mean. Norway is not a part of EU, but we have close ties to EU and USA.

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?


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.


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?).


Scandinavians I like. But I fail to see how it connects with the rest.

QuoteWell, 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.
Also a huge great many of the poeples in the Army were then deported after the war to USSR (were all could enjoy good old Stalin well renowned hospitability that is so great that many of them didn't came back...)

Even in france we had a shitton of german ex-soldier that were used as slaves/reparation to clean the mess and remove the minefields... needless to say not all of them made it to home with full body integrity.
Not to mention all those german girls that got raped... was it deserved ? WWII was so messed up and Nazi attrocities really didn't help.
But Stalin regime was not angelic anyway, nor were the Colonialist France or UK after all.

American Aid... most non communist europe could get it and did get it, some more than others i guess.
Thats the advantages of being a colonial power like France perhaps, with a long diplomatic history with USA..

QuoteNow, 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.

And yes, Greek had to go through civil war, because you know, it was iron curtain and USSR.
Britons did some lot of casualties... but if it hadn't been, Greece would have been in USSR. not sure if want, I mean, you know, it was during Stalin.
Also, had your country falled into USSR, you greeks wouldn't have had Amstrad 8 bit computers... ;) (ok, badly placed joke)


Yes, many injustices were commited to the Hellenic historical resistance against Nazies because they were communist.
But think about the fact Germany was splited in two, Poland couldn't even become free again and suffered a lot from those damned Stalinists.

(WWI is always said to have ended in 1918.. it didn't, the war continued in Poland, who struggled to be a real country again, and even managed to defeat recently founded USSR/Red Russia.. and Germany remnants.)



As a result, Greece always had an oversized army... because of turkish and USSR neighbourhood... and the "military regime cultural" heritage.

West Germany on the other hand, was denied the possibility/need to actually had a huge army...hence many money saved.

considering Greece isa "small country" and Germany a big one, the mathematic is terrible, an army is the damnest expensive thing you can imagine.
Having to build an army, you can't produce stuff for the civil population. you have to choose between a helmet or a frying pan... or between Tanks column or schools.

QuoteJapan 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.
Japanese society is really alien to our Occidental European modern culture (post WW2) and to be fair, while I found it interesting, I largely prefer to be European... While Japaneses are really productives poeples, the individuality in their society is drawed into a mountain of social barriers and conventions.
Look at Fukushima... they failed to see problems because it is not good in Japan for some individual to break social harmony by telling that there are some problems that need solutions, the "inferiorly ranked" individual can't just tell the "soccially superior" individual what should be done... you have to stay at your place... So it is hard for them to have someone giving a proper solution spontaneously if he is not the leader... they must discuss longly with a shitton of social barrier of politness... which is no good when you have a crisis/disaster in progress...
And they lack in personnal initiative.


Also, while they almost have very Hi-Tech Sexual Gynoids and fancy hardware sprites on their MSX, they actually lacked really usefull Robots to put water on this damn Nuclear Plant...
They simply couldn't even just find any pipeline and pumps they could get around and get them into the sea to tap water.

but they are good at sacrificing themselves desperately... obviously.

QuoteScandinavians 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.
I mean, Germanics (to me Scandinavian are some sort of Celtic/Germanic culture... "in b4 shitstorm"...), Slavs, Latins, Hellenic, Celtics... add to this a few "even more ancestral "minorities" and even a few Asian tribes... Celts used to be "Eurasian" Barbarians perhaps 2500 years ago.

Scandinavians seem really different from southern latin/mediterranean/Hellenic europeans... but a country like France is perhaps the link betwen all those cultures...
I mean, you know this place called Normandie.

And just look at native Africans, native Americans or eastern Asians... and most native Europeans and you understand a bit more why Europe is somewhat an almost unified ethnic entity (well, used to be).
Culturally, Christianity was also some sort of unification factor too.