Wars and Conflicts permalink
Collaboration with the Enemy
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by curiousdigger (U13776378) on Monday, 6th April 2009
Hi all,
I was watching the excellent series Band of Brothers recently, and in Part 4 (Replacements I think) there is a scene in which the company is making its way through the Dutch town of Eindhoven. The soldiers see women being dragged from the cheering crowds, their heads unceremoniously shaved, their clothes torn etc, for collaborating and sleeping with the occupying Germans.
This got me wondering about the instances (and treatment of) collaborators not only in WWII, but also other periods in history too. I haven't really come across any resources that mention this other than instances of collaboration with the Nazis, although there must have been plenty of other times when it was necessary to survival?
Does anyone know where I might find out more? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this too.
Thanks. -
Message 2
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 6th April 2009
Collaboration in war is so common it would be difficult to imagine a conflict where collaboration was absent. Sometimes the 'collaborators' become the victors and get to write the histories.
More usually collaborators have a hard time if the they backed the wrong side (Dutch and Belgians who joined the SS, for example).
British police collaborated in the occupied Channel Islands and gave the Germans the addresses of Jewish islanders within 24 hours of the German request being made.
Sometimes non-collaborators were treated as if they had been collaborators. Stalin treated all Russian POWs of the Germans as 'tainted' by the opportunity to collaborate, thus forever 'untrustworthy' thereafter. Those not shot were imprisioned.
The Germans treated some military collaboration as honourable and ideologically sound (Dutch SS were highly regarded for their stoicism and bravery) while Muslim SS volunteers and Rumanian 'Hiwis' were rather patronised.
Collaborators who spied for the enemy were usually killed after defeat.
The collaboration of women in war is more subtle as it covers a vast range of actions, from befriending enemy POW's to deliberately seducing high-ranking enemy to ensure an easy war without the need for rationing and hardship. This transition from 'victim' of the enemy to 'friend' is dealt with at length and with great subtely, in the diary "A Woman in Berlin" (Anon) 1954, Virago. ISBN 9 781844 081127. -
Message 3
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Monday, 6th April 2009
U3280211,
When you say 'Rumanian Hiwis' do you mean Russian 'Hiwis' as the term is almost universally applied to those Russian POW's who volunteered to serve the Germans. The only Romanians to see service in the German army were those classed as 'Volksdeutsche'(ethnic Germans), apart from Waffen SS regiment that did not see action until March 1945 and was largely destroyed on the Oder Front.
If you mean the Russian 'Hiwis' then you will find that they were not patronised at all, in fact just the opposite. Every German division was authorised a unit(numbers varied from 300-1500) of Hiwi's, they were given German uniforms and had the same rations etc as the german troops, they were listed on all the various official 'starke' such as:
Verpflegungstarke - Ration strength
Iststarke - Actual strength
Tagesstarke - Daily strength
And as the war went on they were issued weapons and were even used as combat troops and to man Flak guns etc. -
Message 4
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
That scene of Dutch women that collaborated and/or slept with Germans was repeated in many other countries to varying degrees… for example in France where a very large part of the population was rather positively positioned against Germans, it did not happen that much (only to extreme cases where the woman was held directly responsible for the deaths of local people thus we talk about vendettas). In my native Greece, sleeping with the enemy was considered as the worst treason (since the ages of the Ottomans) and was anyway punishable by death. Those that became girlfriends of Germans or Italians (not really so many for a country that passed the worst famine in WWII that killed the 1/8 of its population) were being targets even during occupation – and many of them killed by relatives wanting to clear their names in society. Captain Corelli’s mandolin never played any music – and the real story is that the girl was not any doctors’ daughter but a professional prostitute (by the way said to be much more beautiful than Penelope Cruz!) employed by the resistance for information retrieval regarding arrested people etc – so much was the wave of punishment that she was hunged (if I am not mistaken) after the war by people not knowing she worked for the resistance.
What is more interesting about collaborators in Greece is that you lacked the kind of collaborationists you had in other countries like France, Holland or Norway. On the one hand, you had the typical traitor worm, the arrivist, the black marketer who gained importance with the Germans and did business. Funnily these were the people that had asked allied help from the British!
Among famous collaborationists you find were military commander Georgios Tsolakoglou (not accidentally of the ones that had called in British aid and then capitulated to Germans), highly-acclaimed doctor Konstantinos Logothetopoulos (studied in Germany, married to a German), son of polititians’ family Ioannis Rallis (his own son became prime minister with right wing part in late 70s early 80s), minor shipowner Latsios that became blackmarketer (his son is the well known billionaire Latsis – they changed slightly the name!), Merkouris (the uncle of famous actor, Melina Merkouri that later became active with socialists), the Greek-american Kallas (the mother of Maria Kallas, though not a direct collaborationist, had “not bad” relations with Germans), that meant Maria Kallas was kicked out of the Greek Lyric scene as a “German prostitute” (she was only 16 at the time and not responsible for her mothers’ acts) which of course was the best thing for her future career as she fled to USA etc. etc. Out of all the above, some were judged, ,some convicted to death (but often their sentence turned to life-imprisonment), some received no official penalty and some went to on to do business as usual like nothing happened in a Greece immersed in a horrible civil war. -
Message 5
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
On the other you had the late ones, common people that finally collaborated with Germans in the fight of communists. Communists of ELAS, the strongest part of resistance group EAM were well armed (with ample British aid – for obvious reasons) had already divided the patriotic resistance against the invaders. Their struggle was strictly political and not at all patriotic. That unfortunately disillusioned many people even those wanting to fight against the Germans. In 1944 when people already knew that Germans would be out soon, the main pre-occupation was “what next”. Hence, some entered the call of the German collaborationist government to form a band of a bit less than 20,000 militia armed by Germans to fight against communists. Since the government wanted legitimisation they had even used the traditional “euzone” (tsolias, that funny but matter of pride skirt dress) – these were a matter of joke for the Greek population and were described as Germanotsoliades (sounding highly ridiculous). They were indeed German collaborationists and they were armed and overseen by Germans, albeit most of these men were neither Nazis, nor so friendly to Germans but entered service motivated by personal vendettas (some relative killed by communists) in a civil war that had already started. One here has also to note that contrary to common expectances, pre-WWII Greek right-wing groups described as fascist like Metaxas’ EON (National Youth Organisation) formed actually the first active resistance organisations against the fascist Italians and Nazi Germans, albeit they did not enjoy the support communists enjoyed throughout the years of occupation – contrary to common belief (among the left-wing) that these “being fascists naturally collaborated”. EON and similar right-wing groups did not present any link with the “Germanotsoliades”-type collaborationist organisation which they few people they managed to attract, seemed to be people driven strictly by personal profit and local vendettas rather than any real ideology or politics (cos even the communists/anti-commlunists was on the level of local vendettas rather than politics). Note also that initially some of the right-wing patriotic resistance movements also anti-British which meant of course that received no British aid and remained on a localised scale (albeit that being the only true patriotic resistance).
So the picture was quite complicated and any simplifications simply do not tell the truth. On the overall the German collaborationists in Greece were a relatively very small part of the population in comparison to what happened in all other countries. Hence after the war chasing them and putting them on a trial would be as easy as catching fish with a net. However, the fact that the civil war was already on, communists were roaming the mountains armed with British weapons occupying up to 30% of areas and population (90% of communists anyway had no idea about ideology – it was all about vendetta-politics) meant that when British came in to inflame full scale the civil war they convinced the right-wing non-collaborationists to pardon and accept in their ranks the collaborationists in the common fight against. What is though even more blatant is that British protected the lifes of the Germans leaving Greece (Greek militia groups were willing to simply leave no-one of them leave alive as a minor punishment for the 1 million Greek dead), but also went to great lengths to protect the lifes of certain individual collaborationists and black marketers. The case of Latsios, hunted by both right and left wing groups to be condemned to death for his crimes remains to my mind, he and his family not only surviving thanks to British but going on to built an Empire.
…which proves the common sense: that 2 enemies fighting in a third country, will certainly collaborate with the very same people! So much for anti-Nazism and such stories… -
Message 6
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
Steelers (M3)(Re: 'Hiwis')
German attitudes to Romanian 'Hiwis' seem to have varied in time and place.
Those considered "most reliable" (a minority)were intended to lead a breakout from the Stalingrad 'Kessel' on 17th Jan (1943), wearing captured Russian uniforms and driving American Jeeps (Beevor)
But earlier in the same battle, Germans, perhaps unjustifiably, blamed the 'Hiwis' for breaking first under Russian pressure because of a weaker attachment to the German cause.
There is mention of "frequent brawls" (p184, Beevor, S-Grad) between German troops and their Romanian 'friends'. Many German soldiers clearly felt unsettled about this token comradeship.
Beevor claims the Hiwis were either massacred or worked to death after capture (he claims even Red Army intelligence sources are unreliable on this point; p 385, S-grad 1998). -
Message 7
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
Nikolaos (4&5)
Interesting material there.
I've tried to understand the Greek civil war but its sheer complexity is baffling and the endless multitude of protagonists (KKE, DSE, ELAS, EAM) all with clusters of support in specific areas, works against a simple overview.
You start to shed some light on this in your posts above.
Given that this would be slightly off-topic for a 'collaboration thread' would you be interested in tackling the (1945-49) civil war in Greece as a separate topic? -
Message 8
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
The Greek civil war is an interesting case and it is connected to the Yugoslav civil war despite the particular differences (in Greece civil was intra-ethnic, in Yugoslavia it had an intense inter-ethnic colour).
Both these civil while being a detail and an aftermath of WWII, they reveal really a lot of more grey details about the war. I will not open yet a seperate issue because I would have to concentrate on a particular detail - startinng the whole story will end up in huge threads - and the story is too complicated to the point that will make such an in-depth study of history quite stressfull, hehe!!!
Back to our topic, collaborationism was quite differentiated in countries occupied by Nazis. You had countries where people joined mainly by sharing ideology, you had countries were mstly people had no choice but to join, you had countries were people mainly enterred for fighting local vendettas, you had countries were people mainly enterred for the profit.
I live in France and I am quite stressed (kind of saying) by the arrogance of 50,000,000 of French daring to say that they had resistance when so many of the few anyway Makis where practically non-French and while on the other hand people where gathering in places giving Nazi salutes at the first occasion even if not asked to do so by Germans... have you read 鶹Լ's article about how many French (I mean metropolitan) were in De Gaul's army? According to it, they were the minority. -
Message 9
Posted by curiousdigger (U13776378) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
I know very little about recent Greek history, so thank you E_Nikolas_E for your interesting post!
Back on collaboration, I was wondering if anyone knows of any sources of info in this outside of WWII? I have read Beevor's Stalingrad and a few other books which mention the various Hiwis and their treatment, but there doesn't seem to be any written evidence of circumstances during, for example, Napoleonic occupation of Spain?
Were the repercussions of any collaboration not recorded, or has no-one simply written a book about it?! -
Message 10
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
U3280211,
I'm still not sure whether your confusing the Romanians in Stalingrad with the Russian POW volunteers(Hiwi's).
The Romanians in Stalingrad were members of the 20th Infantry and 1st Cavalry Divisions which had retreated towards Stalingrad when the Soviets broke through their lines and ended up trapped in the pocket.
Attitudes between Allies can vary greatly depending on the situation, you only have to look at Anglo-american attitudes to each other at varying times during WWII.
Where in Beevors book does it mention the Romanian breakout using captured jeeps, I've never come across that one before. I have Beevors book but haven't read it yet, I have 6 or 7 books on Stalingrad and I'm currently reading Jason D. Marks Island of Fire: The Battle for the Barrikady Gun Factory in Stalingrad, November 1942 - February 1943. -
Message 11
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
Steelers -
Antony Beevor doesn't describe the Rumanian soldiers at Stalingrad as 'Hiwis' - and neither has anyone else I've heard of. A succint definition of the word 'Hiwi' is given here:
It has certainly nothing to do with Rumanian soldiers.
The 'American jeeps' story Beevor says was told to him by Captain Baron Bernd von Freytag-Loringhoven in 1995. The idea was to involve the officers of the German 16th Panzer Division and some Russian Hiwis in the escape bid. You can read about it in Chapter 21, (page 365) of 'Stalingrad'. -
Message 12
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
Hi Vizzer,
My understanding of the term 'Hiwi' from every book/article I've got or ever seen is like yours, that is, it refers to those Russians, usually POW's who volunteered to help the Germans. That's why I'm sure that U3280211 is getting confused when in Messages 2 & 6 he refers to Rumanian 'Hiwis'.
Thanks for the reference regards Beevors Stalingrad book, I'll look it up. As I said I've got it but haven't read it yet, unfortunately it's quite a way down my list of which book to read next. -
Message 13
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
Steelers.
My source is Beevor, A. "Stalingrad" (Penguin edition) ISBN 9 780140249859. Page 365, bottom thereof. -
Message 14
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Friday, 10th April 2009
This got me wondering about the instances (and treatment of) collaborators not only in WWII, but also other periods in history too. I haven't really come across any resources that mention this other than instances of collaboration with the Nazis, although there must have been plenty of other times when it was necessary to survival?
There were some instances in WW1 and its aftermath.
In the 鶹Լ series "The Great War" a British officer (Robert Graves?) is quoted about seeing a Frenchwoman with a little boy pushing a pram (which presumably contains her offspring by a German soldier) as they follow the retreating German army. They dare not stay in the recently liberated town. He expresses profound gratitude that his own country never experienced invasion.
Philip Gibbs in "Since Then" recalls an incident from 1918 in liberated Belgium where a young man is beaten up (to death?) for being a "Flamagant" ie a Fleming who went along with German attempts to divide Flemish from Walloons during the WW1 occupation.
The shoe was sometines on the other foot in the 1920s, when the French tried to erect a puppet state in the Rhineland. One or two separatist leaders were assassinated by indignant countrymen, few if any of whom were ever punished. -
Message 15
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Friday, 10th April 2009
Sorry, that should have been "Flamagand".
The Gibbs story is online at
under the alternative title "Back to Life", and also in the New York Times archive. -
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 10th April 2009
I enterred and read about these WWI stories and was particularly amazed at those descriptions of British enterring Cologne and British soldiers and German civilians being cool, having even end-of-war parties and such. And it is very contrasting with the kind of attitude that British troops showed even against their allies (e.g. the bad fame of British-French troops in Macedonia where they treated local - note that this was allies! - population with contempt and looting-like tendencies). Quite revealing on British-German feelings - I doubt that would be the case if British were enterring a Russian, an Indian or a Nigerian city (it would simply be carnage). And quite also revealing about British-Germanic attitudes towards Russians "...it was Russians that started attrocities" were saying German civilians to the British soldiers, having found a smart way of getting away with explanations on attrocities.
-
Message 17
Posted by Scriptofacto99 (U3268593) on Friday, 10th April 2009
Collaboration was rife during WWII, especially in France. Yet victims of war often have no voice and the following is a perfect example:
There are estimated to be as many as 200,000 children born in France during WWII to French mothers and German fathers. These children were the product of consensual relationships and NOT resulting from rape. French author Jean-Paul Picaper managed to track down many of these children using Wehrmacht archives in Berlin. His interviews with these war children were eventually compiled into his book "Enfants Maudits" (Accursed Children) published in French and German.
There are no museums or special interest groups to promote the plight of these children. Yet these innocent victims of war suffered decades of abuse and have only now began to tell their story.
-
Message 18
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 10th April 2009
You also have to keep in mind that while some of these Germanofrench babies came out of conscious or a-bit-forced-but-still-not-rape one night-stands - the bulk of them came out of longer-term relationships. As we know babies sometimes come fast, even on "first-contac" but most times just need time and sometimes just do not come. And I cannot imagine that all of these French women really wanted to have kids unmarried even by French men, let alone by Germans given the situation not clear and the war still raging on. Hence, if researchers were indeed correct in their calculations (and such a research is always difficult) and if the 200,000 babies figure is right, that means that we should rather think of about 1 million women having occasional or standard relationships with German men.
1 million women! Now in a nation of 40,000,000, thus say some 22,000,000 women (as many men had died in WWI, talking about the elders) this enormous! Germans had half the country (maybe the most populated). So there were about 15.000.000 women out of which the 1/3, i.e. 5,000,000 women were in the age of 15 to 30 that most German soldiers and officers in their 20s,30s&40s would prefer. So 1 in 5 women having conscious relationships is enormous.
And it cannot be explained by the Alsatian German-speaking population that naturally could feel very close to Germans - it is not that the bulk of such stories happened there (while indeed naturally more than elsewhere) but it is mostly the fact that it is more easy for Alsatians to be frank on that story than other French. Actually that 1 in 5 is not even representing the percentage of French collaborators since not all women positevely positioned towards Germans would maintain relationships with Germans as some would be prudent, some too ashamed to do so, some religious and some plain ugly so unable even if they wanted. Thus using this 1 in 5 (and the safety which those women felt to do so - i.e. no problems with their families etc.) we can deduct that in the occupied territory the majority of French (at least 60%) were not positioned offensively against the Germans and really a lot among them were rather positevely positioned.
1 in 5 women! Just compare that with Russians where Germans had to enter 500 armed men in a village of 1000, kill all the men and rape the women 4 men on 1 style for safety reasons (sorry for the descriptions). And what can we say about the handful of examples in Greece a country in which hunger (the no1 reason for a woman to commit such an act) had decimated the 1/7th of the population?
I think that was the biggest shame of France and not the defeat in the battlefield and the capitulation. It was the amount of collaboration - even at passive level. I cannot accept a nation of 40,000,000 telling me they had also resistance (yes, many of them actually foreigners living in France), when Germans achieved without violence such interbreeding and when they were able to produce things and wage war against Britain while in little powerless countries they hardly dared go out of the 2-3 main cities they controlled in fear of being shot. And I think, that is why I admire De Gaul because he achieved the unachievable - to take French by the hand (using largely colonial troops to man the French army) and put them again among "powerful nations", among the "victorius" against the well-expected reactions of the style "Ah! Surprise! See there! It is also the French here! - said by a British officer entering the room where Germany's unconditional surrender was signed (I think... ot if not during the conference of allies sharing Germany's lands). -
Message 19
Posted by Scriptofacto99 (U3268593) on Friday, 10th April 2009
Hi Nik,
The numbers of French women - both young and mature - who had relationships with German soldiers during WWII is very illuminating. I have a French friend who was in her late teens during the occupation. She was living in a small rural community in Normandy. A German garrision was situated close by. A number of her friends had German boyfriends though she herself did not. Some of her friends had children as a result of these relationships. The Germans who were garrisoned near my friends village were described by her thus:
"They were always polite and very well behaved. They were young, fit and handsome and much better looking than our local boys. They were also very healthy looking and very athletic and many were talented musicians. Many Frenchmen on the otherhand were lazy, boring and without talent."
In the aftermath of Operation Overlord in June 1944, these hitherto static German units were deployed at the Front as and where needed, and thus these German fathers were separated from their French girlfriends and children. Some, of course, already had wives or girlfriends back in Germany though many did not. It was not permitted for German troops to take their new families with them for obvious reasons, though some of these women did obtain arms and attack Allied units - I recall my father who served with the Royal Tank Regiment forming part of 7th Armoured Div - the famous 'Desert Rats' telling me of one such incident in Normandy in 1944.
When I asked my French friend about the Maquis/French Resistance she shrugged her shoulders and said, "During the occupation you never saw them - but after the liberation everyone in France claimed to have taken part in the movement!" -
Message 20
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Friday, 10th April 2009
I often wonder how things went in the Rhineland post-Armistice.
Our troops were there right through the 1920s, and I sometimes speculate on how many WW2 soldiers from that region actually had English fathers - whether they were aware of the fact or not. -
Message 21
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Friday, 10th April 2009
As we know babies sometimes come fast, even on "first-contac" but most times just need time and sometimes just do not come. And I cannot imagine that all of these French women really wanted to have kids unmarried even by French men, let alone by Germans given the situation not clear and the war still raging on. Hence, if researchers were indeed correct in their calculations (and such a research is always difficult) and if the 200,000 babies figure is right, that means that we should rather think of about 1 million women having occasional or standard relationships with German men.
There are a number of confounding factors which complicate things when looking at this research:-
1) Paternity fraud. A woman who has consented to have intercourse with the "enemy", who then becomes pregnant by this foreign combatant, might have good reason to claim that the father of her child is a local man. There might be a local man who agrees to this charade or who genuinely believes himself to be the father. Estimates imply that about 4% of children registered in the UK not related to the man on their birth certificates. But this varies dramatically by region and ethnicity, see Wikipedia, 'Paternity Fraud' article which claims:
A self-reporting national poll of 5,000 women in Scotland conducted in 2004 concluded that half of the women said that if they became pregnant by another man but wanted to stay with their partner, they would lie about the baby’s real father.
2) Nutrition and fertility. During wars, both combatants and civilians are likely to be under-nourished if the conflict is enduring.
Experimental studies show that most mammals are much less fertile when under-nourished (See work of Diamond and others) This animal
work fits well with anecodotal accounts of German women who were raped by (or who formed liaisons with) Russian troops in 1945 -46.
Many who reported to (German women) doctors that they believed themselves to be pregnant, because of cessation of periods, were told that "they were too thin to become pregnant" (The doctors were often right, their periods had stopped because of near starvation).
I have no idea if this was a factor in the Rhineland post WW1, but since malnutrition was known to be rife in the UK at that time, it is highly probable that the losing side was less well nourished, and thus less fertile, than the victor.
3) Multiple rape and fertility. This is a grim topic indeed, but there is evidence (From Germany in 1945, and from Darfur and West Africa, more recently) that the brutal multiple rape of (esp. young) women can be associated with longterm infertility. In his memoir of WW2, German fighter ace Erich Hartman describes having to watch German girls as young as 10-11 being raped by Russians after capture. Beevor (Berlin: The Downfall) cites records of German women being raped by upto 14 men in succession.
Women who are raped when the enemy first arrive often form consensual attachments to 'enemy' personnel in the longer term. (See ref. in post 2, this thread).
In some species, such as lions (see work of Bartram), the arrival of new males who have defeated local males in combat, actually brings the resident females into a new phase of fertility, especially if the need for lactation is reduced by the new male arrivals killing any local cubs.
These three factors obviously don't work in syncope and I'm certainly not claiming that humans are the "same as" lions, but there are analogies with the animal kingdom.. -
Message 22
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 11th April 2009
Scriptofacto thank you for the addition of the experience of your Fench acquaintance. I think her account is very accurate.
There are various details that I will add here, personal additions maybe but I think quite related to reality, cos there are details that we usually do not think of.
I have served in the Greek army and saw very well how the country's social classes were divided in the different corps and positions with the higher classes getting on, average always, the "easier" posts (of course there were quite many lower classes with some strings to pull that did the same thus we always speak on average). Add into that the fact that Germans in the Russian front or in Serbia and Greece (but not in Romania from which they imported oil!) needed fighters not administrators but in France they needed less fighters and more administrators for all these jobs related to the transfer of French material to the German army etc. In France also they had positioned much of their airforce - usually (I say usualy) there serving people from middle-upper classes (for obvious training reasons).
Thus I can imagine that German soldiers being in France on average to had been more educated and more well-mannered than those fighting in Russia. Add to that the fact that since French had accepted their fate, Germans had not much of a reason to be hard on them (like in Greece or Serbia). All that meant that Germans would be often the kind, charming young men that French woman described.
Now, for village girls of those times (when television did not exist, when still contact with cities was not that direct), those German boys, largely from cities and with an education clearly superior to that of French farmer boys, meant that Germans as "playboys" would prevail over the "loser" French.
On the top of that, one has to take into account that Germans had abducted some 2 million French young men - the best of French men - to work for them in German factories and other positions and thus France had been emptied of its most energetic element. Thus, a lot of these women were just bored lonely women.
Still I find it very humilitating for French: Germans had invaded their country. These women had probably relatives (even husbands and brothers) or friends or neighbours lost in that war. They very probably had someone of their abducted by Germans to become part of the slaveforce working for them. Some of them women were also called to work for the menial jobs in German barracks (cooking, cleaning etc.). Hence it goes without saying that all that French women approach was highly shameful, the outmost treason.
And it is even more shameful for those remaining men - how on earth did they accept all that? I mean I would not expect 1940s French women (quite of the most liberated in Europe) to be had been like Greek women who would even jump off cliffs with their kids in order not to be raped by the Turkish but then I would not expect them to behave to that extend that was not justifiable even if all French were collaborators! I would also expect the remaining men to had done something to redress their women before they get too close to Germans, I do not know, beat them, call them prostitutes, kick them out of their lifes etc, I mean ok, I am for man-woman equality but in such cases it just does not work that way and no the woman is not supposed to be free to capitulate in such way with the enemy because that "provision of services" (because it is prostition, this not about love - most women were not that stupid and were well aware that Germans would leave without them), it is one of the worst ways of collaborationism.
Ok, I also do not expect French men to had shared 100% my country's traditionalist values where it was first of all the father and the brother that would beat all night-long the girl that would even dare turn to look at Germans, most often that accidentaly...hehe... father and brother simply wanted a "clear name" in society! Thus those girls that went with Germans were most often forced to do and raped by a group of soldiers or were simply professional prostitutes that could only have German clients (who else had to pay?) or were orphans without any living relative without any hope of surviving (they would have to do the same to Greek men to survive, thus they preferred Germans in the hope of remaining anonymous). Still, even in case of a rape that ended in a pregnancy, the woman had ways of getting rid of the baby (even by hitting her belly on the wall), it would be unthinkable to keep such a baby... take my word, blond looks most often prevail over Mediterranean looks (contrary to common belief) and German-blond does not look at all like Mediterranean-blond thus no woman would wish to raise the only blond-blond baby in the village, it would be the end of her social life. In case the kid was born, it would end up either in a forest/river or at best in an orphanage or outside some rich man's house. It is impossible to do such a research as in France but taking for granted what had happened in Greece (with some 60% of areas controlled by resistance groups and Germans and Italians being quite afraid to come out of their barracks) still there is no reason to imagine that these cases were widespread but of course existed.
And call me traditionalist but I find it disgusting all these women to have done such when their men died in the front or were prisoners or were abducted by Germans to become slaves. Utterly disgusting.
Also your friends' saying that after the WWII, in France everyone was a Macquis and everyone anti-German... well yes... after the music has stopped you can say whatever... but it is when the music plays that you have to dance. And in France most of those who danced were the French women at the parties of German soldiers. -
Message 23
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 11th April 2009
And I described it as disgusting treason in the case of French because France did not undergo hardships compared to what other countries underwent, thus it there was no justification. I would not consider a treason a lone woman in Athens going during the famine of winter 1941-1942 when 1 in 7 Greeks died horribly (you have to see images of kids dying of hunger to get the picture) or Russian women imprisoned by Germans and made to work in their barracks (who were indeed treated as treacherous and as prostitutes when liberated by the Red Army...). And I would not even consider such all these 100,000s of German women that went with the British, French and US (considered as the most cool) for food in a failed state of Germany, in complete ruins, with generalised famine, and where a huge percentage of men had died or imprisoned - simply for them, there was no way out.
-
Message 24
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 12th April 2009
I would like also to comment on mes.21 of U3280211 who took the issue to another interesting level, touching even biology related issues!
Well I am well aware of the studies showing that all primates have contrasting sex-habits. Chimpanzee's have an orgy-like sex life, gorillas' are more sober and have charems around a leader and ourangotangs are the most sober with life-long relationships. Well human beings are all these three things togather or none of these. In fact our sex lifes is almost identical to sea-birds like the seaguls. We have a tedency for long-term relationships but too many of us in the first nice chance we will see who is sitting in the next nest.
Referring to the percentages of adulterous relationships if speaking about women and their kids I find more interesting another research in comparison to the 4% found in the research of UK. It was done in US in the 1940s right after the war (when most men were back). And most interestingly it was not done on the issue of infidelity but on issues of inheritence. The doctor (I really have sometime to find my sources back! sorry!) was studying inheritence from fathers to their babies and was conducting his survey. Well, during his survey he was amazed to find out that 20% of the babies had a different father than the one declared!!! And now it is known that back then due to his basic techniques back then he might have missed a 5%-10% more cases. Thus we can safely say that around 25% of US kids back then had a different father than the one declared.
It sounds amazing, 1 in 4. But it has to bee highlighted: back then the sexual revolution was not yet begun and the US society while not any regressive in these terms was not any liberated either in the modern sense - eg. unmarried mothers would be highly frowned upon. Hence, it is a very highlighting example. The 4% declared today in UK comes from a highly liberated society were a significant percentage of single women giving birth anyway does not even declare a father while another significant number does not anymore feel the need to be protected by a partner and thus divorces or quits and thus does not tell any lie about the baby. In that sense, it is much more preferrable than the 25% in 1940s US (and not only there and then of course!). And people should not guess that depending on the traditionalism of societies that would vary significantly, well it would vary but only a bit 5%-8%, but certainly less than 10% - even in the most Talibanic village women can always have the chance to cheat and often there they cheat by half-rape cases, usually commited by relatives who have easier access in the house (at least the kids will resemble the alledged father enough to pass undetected!!!).
The actual percentages of infidelity also - that does not lead of course always to having a baby - are not too much varying in regards to the types of society contrary to common beliefs. People who have cheating tendencies will do it anyway - the percentage would not thus vary more than 10% from a liberated society to a non-liberated (the main difference between these societies mainly being on the percentage of people who had sex for the first time under marriage, and that mainly for women cos men visit prostitutes anyway!!!). And it seems for women, that for obvious biological reasons (it is them that give birth to babies) prefer quality than quantity while men prefer to find quality randomly in quantity and thus men have naturally higher cheating percentages. I would not go that far as saying 80%, but a reasonable 50-60%. For women that should be 40-50%. Of course others might want to place it higher but then I would not innclude the cases of couplies being all-but-officially divorced, living for long seperate lifes and finding other partners, something that happens not rarely nowadays - that can not be considered as cheating. A cheating case is when the one believes while the other plays around.
Now, in the case of French women we do not so much speak about cheating. We speak mainly about young unmarried women - and there were a lot of them with all those men mobilised around, died, imprisoned and enslaved by Germans. And speaking of babies, I really cannot think of French women consciously thinking of having them by German fathers - I can only think of them arriving by repeated occasional or long-term conscious relationships and that is why I talk about treason.
I am aware of the lions (and other animals) behaviour where the females will eventually agree to accept the males that have kicked out the previous males and killed the cubs. And yes a distantly related behaviour can be seen in humans where women are intrinsically attracted by killers and rogue men (from primitive to progressed societies). But in humans things are more complicated and certainly few women would accept willingly the men that killed their babies or their father,mother,brother. Yet if we talk generally about invaders that generally caused harm, then things become more blurred and yet there we might see local women being willing to develop relationships with the invader for personal profit. But that is exactly what I describe as treason and for which local people have everyright to condamn and punish since it is one of the worst forms of capitulation. -
Message 25
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Sunday, 12th April 2009
I am aware of the lions (and other animals) behaviour where the females will eventually agree to accept the males that have kicked out the previous males and killed the cubs. And yes a distantly related behaviour can be seen in humans where women are intrinsically attracted by killers and rogue men (from primitive to progressed societies). But in humans things are more complicated and certainly few women would accept willingly the men that killed their babies
Are we all that diffeent?
It is very noteworthy how often a report of some small child getting killed is followed by "The mother's boy-friend is helping Police with their enquiries" or similar. -
Message 26
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 12th April 2009
You raise a number of interesting issues. Let’s take the evolutionary biology first.
Well I am well aware of the studies showing that all primates have contrasting sex-habits. Chimpanzee's have an orgy-like sex life, gorillas' are more sober and have harems around a leader and orangutans are the most sober with life-long relationships. Well human beings are all these three things together or none of these.
Evolutionary biologists tend to view humans as having evolved from polygynous stock (one man will try to mate with several women). You are right to note that not all primates have this tendency. The best indication of a polygynous evolutionary background is that there is evidence of 'sexual dimorphism' and 'sperm competition'.
Although our formal social traditions have usually advocated monogamy and enduring fidelity, humans actually have many signs that we came from highly competitive mating systems. For example, human males have large testicles for producing lots of sperm, smaller than Chimps and Bonobos, true, but bigger than orangutans which have small testicles and are far more likely to be ‘pair-bonded’ or monogamous.
Frans de Waal has shown, however, that small low-status male primates will still try to sneak a quick mating with one of the apha male’s harem, if the ‘boss’ is distracted by another task.
Human males tend to be larger and stronger than human females. This dimorphism is also associated with polygyny in other species of primate (males attempt to mate with several females).
Dimorphisn has been explained either as a requirement for the male to win fights with rivals for access to females, or as a ‘sexually selected’ characteristic, whereby females will only mate with males with particular features. (E.g. most female elephants will prefer large tusked mates, with tusks perhaps five or six times the weight of her own). Some females will be attracted to ultra-large males who will be so heavy that mating actually injures the female (this is clearly going to be a limiting factor over evolutionary time).
So, humans are dimorphic (but not as much as elephants) and have large testicles vis a vis orangutans, but less so than highly polygynous Bonobos or mountain sheep.
Having big balls does not mean that human males are ‘bound to be unfaithful within marriage’ but it does indicate the route we took to get here via the selection pressures of evolution.
Thus our biology probably suits males for some degree of polygyny and it is likely that human females retain a ‘soft spot” for particular features of males. But the features a female might find attractive in a mate might not be useful in a faithful long-term partner (If all her friends want to mate with him too, he might not be ‘there for her’ during her pregnancy and lactation). So females face a horrible dilemma:- to sleep with a handsome cheat or marry a stable, kindly, unattractive dependable nerd?
Referring to the percentages of adulterous relationships if speaking about women and their kids I find more interesting another research in comparison to the 4% found in the research of UK. It was done in US in the 1940s right after the war (when most men were back). And most interestingly it was not done on the issue of infidelity but on issues of inheritence. The doctor (I really have sometime to find my sources back! sorry!) was studying inheritence from fathers to their babies and was conducting his survey. Well, during his survey he was amazed to find out that 20% of the babies had a different father than the one declared!!! And now it is known that back then due to his basic techniques back then he might have missed a 5%-10% more cases. Thus we can safely say that around 25% of US kids back then had a different father than the one declared.
In an earlier post I said that UK figures for paternity fraud vary from place to place. Your figure of 25% paternity error fits well with some data from London but this would not apply to stable rural areas for the same reason it would not apply in much of Greece. Large urban areas provide greater anonymity and easier access to safe termination, if needed.
On the topic of infidelity you say:-
… it seems for women, that for obvious biological reasons (it is them that give birth to babies) prefer quality than quantity while men prefer to find quality randomly in quantity and thus men have naturally higher cheating percentages. I would not go that far as saying 80%, but a reasonable 50-60%. For women that should be 40-50%.
The UK figures are close to that, I believe, with about 75% of males admitting at least one instance of infidelity in the course of a marriage and about 60% of married women saying the same. We should note that females are more likely to ‘under-report’ for obvious reasons. But marriage in the UK is declining fast and we know that un-married co-habiting couples here are 4 times more likely to split-up than their married peers. This is not yet a problem in Greece, as marriage is still the expectation, I believe..
You go on to mention (in M22 to ‘Scriptofacto’) the various controls which limit female sexual choice in yours and other cultures:-
Ok, I also do not expect French men to had shared 100% my country's traditionalist values where it was first of all the father and the brother that would beat all night-long the girl that would even dare turn to look at Germans, most often that accidentaly...hehe... father and brother simply wanted a "clear name" in society!
It is open to debate if that attitude still exists in the UK , but that behaviour does not, in the wider society.
I know a very little of Greek and Italian ways but I find the values of the Mediterranean towards daughters quite similar to the Muslim view that the “daughter is the repository of the family’s honour and if she loses her honour, so does the family”.
Muslims call this ‘Izzat’, I understand. Does the Greek term ‘philotimo’ act as an equivalent, perhaps?
Whether this attitude still applies in the eastern Med. I don’t know? It is long-since gone in the UK mainstream (but is still found in Kurdish and Pakistani ethnic minorities here).
So back to war and how some of this fits into that context.
Women face all the usual mate-selection dilemmas plus a few urgent new ones.
Suppose a young woman falls for a young fighter pilot, early in the war. He will most probably be dead in a year or two. Does she ‘save herself’ for an honourable spinsterhood or sleep with him with all the consequences?
With a boyfriend away at the front does she stay faithful or date that nice young, generous, GI who has come to her village. He says he is single, how can she be sure?
The French girl who sleeps with the German after 1940, might be sleeping with her nation’s enemy, but for the reasons you have given in M22, he might be the best biological specimen her ova will ever get the chance to mate with and if her son is attractive her genes will probably carry on to another generation.
Charles De Gaulle, I believe, knew all about this complexity and dealt with it by announcing that collaboration by Frenchmen and women was minimal and should be forgotten. I think much of the actual (published) detail of French collaboration was revealed after his death? -
Message 27
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 14th April 2009
Hmmm, U3280211 your views tell me that you probably have read Diamonds' "Third Chimpanzee", an excellent book dealing with the issue on the human evolution (and how all of our very "unique human characteristics" were already present in animals, including abstract thinking/language and art). I have to say that I share most if not of all the views you presented above.
As for the comparison between Greek and French WWII (and modern) societies I still think we have the case of total French passivity, as the whole nation no matter if betrayed by its leadership, went dormant, subservient, docile, fatalistic, (and then... they call middle eastern muslims such! he!).
Yes, you may claim that Greek culture (like other Mediterranean cultures, speaking always of the European side) was (and still remains) macho but it is true that the Greek society was always an exception in that in a very macho society women had a very strong voice (just count the women leaders of the revolution like Maurogenous, Bouboulina etc. then women fighting in the various epic struggles etc. Greek women had always a very special personality despite being in a macho society). And in many ways they could be quite liberal for a traditionalist non-industrialised agricultural society. And that included even sex: one of the first recorded official divorce was filed by Markos Botzaris, great revolution chieftain that would not tolerate the violent reaction of his wife to his infidelity (those chieftains were macho superstars... with lost of conquests travelling from town to town!), so you see what we are talking about. Commenting briefly on modern society - things have of course largely changed, generally speaking with an obvious widespread liberation on all matters and few can claim that it still remains a traditionalist society but still it is a very unique paradigm. One the one hand, the peoples' tedency for "easy living" in conjuction with the, not so new, financial difficulties for young people mean that they marry on average at a very late age, having children at extremely late age (so often after 30), then having very few children (ethnic Greeks have one of the lowest birth rates in the world and the country is currently slightly resembling to have higher only thanks to other non-orthodox communities which have quite strong one). And that is because still despite all liberation marriage is indeed the expectation among young people and by young people and having a child outside marriage is not wanted while it is eventually accepted (and even positively accepted) by quite traditionalist parents (so anxious to see at last a grand child). So the womens' anchorage to marriage here is not out of traditionalism or the family's honour (like in the old ways) but young peoples' choice on their life - very few of them think that should remain and have kids outside a marriage - a view shared equally by men too. Also now but then even in the more macho-traditionalist past, the honour of the family was carried equally by men and women. And treason of the son of the family was equally "heavy on the honour of the family" than that of the woman. If the daughter was "under the protection of the father" so much was the son in so many ways, but obviously not the sexual one - men were mostly unhindered in that (ok we still talk about macho societies). See, it would be a different thing if a Greek man managed to sleep with a German officers' wife visiting him there from his sister sleeping with this German officer. I mean, no matter what we say on equality some things sipply do not change we just have to admit. And that did not apply in Greece but everywhere, absolutely everywhere from traditionalist to completely liberated societies (no matter if seemingly repercussions are less in the latter, still "it is a different thing" isn't it?).
On the other hand, going back to our issue, WWII French society despite being seemingly a child of the French revolution and felt to the bone the general moral disillusionment of WWI, and despite the huge industrialisation that occured in a large part of the country was still to its other half a largely rural society (and still is), thus still retaining largely traditional agricultural societal forms. Hence in many places, things were not that much different from many parts of Greece (excluding... the high mountains... and small rocky islands!!!...). And we cannot repeat the myth of liberated French women as it was not the case for all of them - that was the case only in the cities, but the truth was that - as mentioned here previously by personal accounts of French rural women - German man had equal if not more success in the countryside in comparison to the cities.
Therefore the amount of liberation or traditionalism cannot explain a lot. Slavic women were equally famed to be sexually liberated even before communism but did not show that willingness to collaborate even on those occasions when Germans were allied to their nation. And down to the basics, French were not any small random nation, they were supposed to be a nation of equal weight than Germans hence they should assume it and have a certain pride, both French women and men. And we have seen none of that. French men remembered to punish a few of those women after the war but one wonders how they had tolerated all that situation for 4 years - actually punishing them after the war was equally shameful when they had tolerated it for 4 years. And I cannot think that Germans were more brutal in France than in Greece. And while I would not expect French men to go to the extend of threatening to kill their daughter/sister if she dared to look a German, I would expect them to beat her blue in case she was seen to have fun in a German party. In case she actively used her "newly found friends" to counter-attack a relative, the local society, relatives and parents were then entitled and even had the moral right to kill her on sight - well the least I would expect to isolate her socially (ending a prostitute etc.). What we had seen is that many if not most of these women went on to continue life almost as normal apart some cases where they were punished, ridiculed or isolated (and these were mostly local vendettas).
Do not get me wrong. I am not any traditionalist and I am in for equality. And I even understand the "biological question" posed above (that is very serious and not funny at all). And equality must be in war and in ways that people usually do not think off consciously. And at the end, those men that had gone to the front, felt the horrors of war, fought, saw their comrades lying dead and them their hands and legs cut-off... well, the least they would expect would be not to see that many French women dancing at German parties. -
Message 28
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 14th April 2009
Note that 1 in 20 is the exception even 1 in 10 could be seen as the exception but... 1 in 4 is the rule - especially if taking for granted that there is another 1/4 that could not participate even if it wanted for reasons of reduced attractiveness.
-
Message 29
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 15th April 2009
Nik - what would be your take on all the Irish women (both potestants and catholics) who had sexual relationships with Scottish, English and Welsh soldiers deployed in Northern Ireland during the Troubles 1969-1998?
-
Message 30
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 15th April 2009
Hehehe... I became here a critic of WWII French (both men and women) and their reaction both during and after German occupation. But by no means I will become a critic of every such situation and usually these are really complicated. Here in the case of Northern island we talk about communities co-existing and knowing each other for centuries hence things are more complicated. In the case of France the reality is more direct, "in your face": men went to war and lost and women next day were willingly dancing in the parties of those that killed, wounded and enslaved their men. In Northern Ireland things were not exactly like that and moved in more personalised ways. There were even previously catholic families that associated themselves to the protestand control while French women were raised in families that had lost men during a not so distant WWI where Germans had once again attacked, let alone the WWII attack - it is just not the same, it is just a shame!
In anyway, do not get me wrong. I am not ruling out true love during such horrible events, but that happens 1 in a 1000 not 1 in 4 (and... 1/4 unable even if it wanted...) you understand what I mean. But at the end, just ignore what I say, I like to talk "macho" and "grandiose" and "fantaisie" - the main point is that French enterred an unbelievable period of incredible passivity where they ate all crap that Germans fed them and said thank you on the top and it took a larger than life figure of De Gaul to take them out of that spiral, perhaps the best ever French leader and one of the best internationally. -
Message 31
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Wednesday, 15th April 2009
I'm bust re-reading Berlin by Antony Beevor and I'm at the point where French, Dutch, Nordic and Latvian Waffen-SS men are defending the Reichstag etc. from the Soviet onslaught - that despite the fact they were manic SS men must have taken some guts - especially as apart from the Sweedish soldiers (and maybe the Finns?) none of them had any homes left to go to unless like some of the French guys they managed to convince the Soviets they were press-ganged etc.
Apparently one of the last Iron Crosses of the war went to a French Waffen-SS man.
I can understand why a Latvian might join up but maybe not so much a Dutchman or a Sweede - no way would I exchange nice, safe, cosy Sweeden for a cellar in Berlin - though Beevor does hint that the Sweedish volunteers did make overtures to enable them to return home - not sure how that would work as I'm sure the Soviets wouldn't respect a foreign embassy in the Berlin aftermath. Any ideas? -
Message 32
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 15th April 2009
All these were collaborators for a long list of reasons. Why did they stayed till the end? One simple idea is that they were mostly trapped by... events there and knowing that the end is coming they had two choices: fight till the point of dying by the bullet or wait passively and die at best by a bullet, at worst by torture - therefore the first option was not even any heroic of their part.
-
Message 33
Posted by Scriptofacto99 (U3268593) on Wednesday, 15th April 2009
Regarding relationships between opposing sides during or after a conflict:
As one French lady testified in 'Enfants Maudits'
"At first you see the uniform. Then you begin to see the man behind the uniform."
It's human nature. -
Message 34
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Wednesday, 15th April 2009
what would be your take on all the Irish women (both potestants and catholics) who had sexual relationships with Scottish, English and Welsh soldiers deployed in Northern Ireland during the Troubles 1969-1998?
Slightly more complicated. After all, quite a few Irishmen, Catholic as well as Protestant (and in some cases southern as well as northern) were and are themselves British soldiers. The British army has always drawn a significant proportion of its recruits from across the Irish Sea, not all of them British subjects. -
Message 35
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Wednesday, 15th April 2009
Hi Grand Falcon Railroad
"Apparently one of the last Iron Crosses of the war went to a French Waffen-SS man."
I've not read Beevors Berlin book so I'm not sure whether it's you/him that is mixed up, the medal awarded was actually the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (the one seen worn around the neck in pictures).
Three awards were made to Frenchmen on the 29th April 1945 for their part in the defense of Berlin by Brigadefuhrer Wilhelm Mohnke, the three recipients were:
Hauptsturmführer Henri Fenet, commanding the Sturm-Bataillon of the 33. Waffen-Gren.Div der SS "Charlemagne"
Unterscharführer Eugéne Vaulot, Gruppenführer i. d. 33. Waffen-Gren.Div der SS "Charlemagne"
Obersturmführer Wilhelm Weber, Führer Divisions-Kampfschule of the 33. Waffen-Gren.Div der SS "Charlemagne"
As to why so many foreign volunteers served in the German armed forces(not just the Waffen SS), you have to go back to the 20's & 30's and look at the number of Right Wing/Fascist parties that were spread across Western Europe such as the Belgian (Walloon) Legion Nationale and Rex Movement, the Belgian(Flemish) Vlaamsch Nationaal Verbond, the French Jeuneses Patriotes & Parti Populaire Francais.
Obviously those who came from Soviet occupied territory, Latvians, Estonians etc had reason to volunteer, as for the others the common thread amonsgt most is their Anti Communist/Bolshevik sentiments, that goes for the French, Belgians, Danish, Dutch etc, as well as the Swedes and Swiss who also volunteered.
Regarding the Swedes returning home, if you mean towards the end of the war, then I assume it would be either on an individual basis or through Swedish Goverment diplomacy. Unlike all the other foriegn volunteers the Swedes did not have their own unit, they were spread about through several differant units, sometimes singularly, like the one Swede who served in the 5th SS Panzer Division "Wiking"
The largest concentration of Swedes in one unit would have been those in the 11th SS-Freiwilligen-Panzergrenadier-Division Nordland, where the Panzergrenadier-Kompanie No.3 of Panzer-Aufkläkrung-Abteilung 11 was given the nickname of Swedenzug(Swedish Platoon) as the Swedes served in the Companies 4th Zug. -
Message 36
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 16th April 2009
Steelers I am largely alright with what you mention above. However, there is a certain logic concerning the "extra right wing", the "fascist" across Europe that I really never understood. There is a thin line here. Fascism is supposed to be a type of governance to be applied strictly on a national level and it really ignores what is done even in neighbouring countries. The enemy of the fascist is the enemy of the nation regardless its political ideology. A fascist can collaborate with the communists or capitalists as easily if it serves the interests of the country - himself in these aspects is rather centrist (and not right-wing as people mention: a capitalist and a fascist are like day and night). It goes without saying that given the general offensive stance of most fascist states (not always the case of course), a fascist's worst enemy should be the neighbouring's country fascists. In fact it is in the interests of the fascist that other countries are ruled by more internationalist ideologies.
What I want to say is that simple, there can be a communist 3rd International, there can be capitalist internationalism but... fascist internationalism? I mean say you are a French or an English fascist claiming in your ideology that you for your country and people and the nation... so how exactly you would do that by fighting on the side of Germans who enslaved your men and raped your women? Doing so, means you were not at all any fascist by ideology. You were a fascist by accident (arrivist) and then simply a traitor. By all means, many people over-admired German Nazis to the extend that they passed on the other side, but that does not make them fascists in their own country, simply traitots. Saying that from the French patriotic parties that were fascist-like came out Nazi-affiliates while it can be true for many people is also highly misleading on the initial nature of these parties that apparently were not at all so patriotic as they claimed (otherwise they would organise resistance).
One good example is the Metaxas regime in Greece. The "president" Metaxas regime/dictatorship had quite many elements and characteristics that could be considered as "fascist". He took power in the 30s following the crisis. He had the parliament abolished. He declared the 3rd Greek civilisation (ouoaou! more pompous than that you could not have). He hunted the few anyway communists as common traitors of the nation (and they were indeed traitors of the nation having supported the Turkish in their slaughters of Minor Asia - anyway at that time the Greek communist party had only a minority of really Greek leaders, most were foreign agents). He clamped down harshly on strikes. He forbid the few slavic minorities to have their dialect recognised as official. He had the likes of EON (national youth organisation), typically fascist organisation and organised 3rd hellenic cultural events at Delphes - apparently a success (with participation of universally well-respected artists) though very expensive so not repeated more than 2ice. On the other hand, he was the first to establish the new-demotic language (all right wing till then supported the archaic kathareuousa) and of the first to stop talking only about the past and concentrate in the "today". He was the first to make laws for workers' protection. He protected the interests of the farmers. He made IKA (social security). Most notably he punished harshly those that participated in the events against the Jewish community of Thessaloniki (nothing close to anti-semitism here, Jewish and Greeks had an old localised vendetta in the city of Thessaloniki). For many of his policies, the people were more than happy though they never bought really the "3rd Hellenic civilisation" story and they rarely expressed their sympathy to the "president".
In a few words, he was a typical fascist (well not really my type if you wanted to know that is what he was). When the war came, the British were initially afraid that him, as a fascist will ally with the Axis. However, he declared neutrality for the simple reason that Greece had nothing to do with all that farce. When a fascist Italy came in to demand simply entrance and control of strategic points, something he could sell simply as "1-2 Italian bases" in Greece, avoiding any trouble, he said "No" and sent the army on war against the "Italian fascists". When Germans came in he had died but it is known that he had already said "No" to them too. His fascist youth organisations were of the first to create resistance groups against the Nazi Germans while communists celebrated the conquest of "capitalist Greece" by "centrist fascists and Nazis" (see, still USSR had a pact with Hitler and for communists in Greece that was the law! They had preached the Greek soldiers not to go to fight against Italians anyway).
So, that was the normal fascist reaction to an invading fascist/Nazi army. What we had seen in France or Belgium or Holland is not fascist people "naturally" collaborating with Nazis but fascist people "unaturally" collaborating with the enemy which poses a serious question on their initial ideology and motives: obviously these were as much fascist as communists were communists. In the example of Greek communists when talking about the most individualistic of nations, a greek communist by ideology is really a joke - the vast majority of them had no idea that communism meant that your house would not belong to you, otherwise it goes without saying that all of the would return quickly to their houses in panic!!! Most of these people were in there for personal profit and social ascension thinking that if "The Party" takes on the power, they could get for them and their families some nice positions - that was all, not any ideology. The same should apply to French, Belgian Dutch and Norwegian fascists: most of these were not any misled patriots but simply a bunch of traitors. Especially in the case of French... who fought for Germans to sleep with the 1/4 of their women, that becomes ... ghhmm... well... hehe.... -
Message 37
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 16th April 2009
The above is just to show the complexity of WWII and how in various countries it was not necessarily the fascists that preached collaboration with fascist invaders and it was not necessarily the communists that preached resistance to them.
-
Message 38
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 3rd May 2009
Re: Message 36.
Nikolaos,
in answer to your last paragraph. I think the situation was more complex than you described it.
The Fascist/Nazi invasion was seen by many in the occupied countries as a "liberation" from the "plutocratic" Jewish and endless party discussions and tribulations of centre-right and left. No to all this decadence just right and order in "Fortress Europe". Yes "Fortress Europe" was the trick with which the Nazis lurred the stupids into their camp. Not this or that nation, but the European Fascist Nation first against Anglo-Saxon decadence and later against Bolshevism.
No the stupids didn't see that that fortress Europe would be at the end a Nazi fortress and Germanic "volk" tainted or to stay in the nowadays terminology White Power tainted. Yes, a Pétain and a Laval were lurred and thought that they could have a role in the Nazi dominated "Reich". As from his thinking found in his thoughts to Count Capelle a Léopold III too. To call but some. Yes and it was not always the man in the street who was lurred, but many "intellectuals" too. On the contrary many times the man in the street had a better and an earlier "wake up " than many intellectuals.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 39
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Monday, 4th May 2009
I have always understood that the opposition to German Troops in France, after the capitulation, came from Anarchist and other Spanish refugees from Franco.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.