Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Who Were The Worse
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by youngjerry (U7266788) on Wednesday, 15th April 2009
Amongst the 'occupied' countries which one managed to obtain for itself the worse reputation for collaberation with the Nazis during WW2?
youngjerry -
Message 2
Posted by ambi (U13776277) on Thursday, 16th April 2009
Very subjective thing. French collaboration was probably the most developed. I think Austria describes itself as the first victim of Nazi expansionism, so their subsequent enthusiastic embrace of Hitlerism could be described as collaboration I guess.
-
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 16th April 2009
Austrians are of Germanic affiliation thus I cannot speak of "collaborationism". I would also take out Holland, Danemark, Sweden and Norway as too Germanic to have been clear on that; naturally a lot of their citizens were allured by the idea of pan-Germanism and their potentially elevated status.
Where collaborationism was evident was in non-Germanic countries. Yes, France is the best example. We have just talked how the 1/4th of French women were running behind the "Allemands" while at the same time French men instead of being ashamed were giving Nazi salutes and were even fighting on the Nazi side.
However, the worst case is the Croatians. They were famed to had been more Nazis than the Nazis and that despite in knowledge of Nazis treating Slavs as lesser nations. They had built the largest Nazi complex of concentration camps in WWII and carried out the biggest localised genocide of WWII (600,000 Serbians in these camps and on the overall more than 1 million). Even Germans were suprised with them.
Staunch Nazi supporoters had also been Bosnians and Albanians. In other countries like Romania, Ukraine, Baltic countries collaborationism was more a means to "find protection against a USSR giant next to them" - however it seems that in Baltic countries that saw themselves even ethnically more close to Germans than Slavs, Nazism rang more bells than Romania where Germans were seen mainly as clients for their oilfields. -
Message 4
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 16th April 2009
And it would be nice to state also "who among the conquered countries' nations" really resisted Germans? Well that is easy: Greeks and Serbiabs and no-one else. Resistance in other countries was a random small scale hit, usually easy here or there usually used today as an excuse, in Greece and Serbia it was the 60% of the territory with Germans remaining in the 2-3 cities in concentrated numbers daring to come out only as a raiding band to punish those towns and villages suspected of resistance acts. And resistance in these countries was as easy as 1 million dead for each of the two small nations (7 t 8 millions for both). Funnily Britain did its best to divide the resistance in both countries by giving rise to communists that infiltrated and caused the deviation of the resistance to political civil war - still, ugly as they where these civil wars saw the amount of negation of any German authority. Such a resistance movement was not to be seen in any other country.
-
Message 5
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 16th April 2009
Sorry for the error... I just wanted to say that despite their catastrophic results, these civil wars among resistance groups show the amount of control they had over the territory and the total lack of control of Germans who simply failed misereably in finding any local support apart the occasional arrivist traitor...
-
Message 6
Posted by hambi22 (U2309395) on Thursday, 16th April 2009
What about the Warsau uprising, was it only small case?
-
Message 7
Posted by youngjerry (U7266788) on Thursday, 16th April 2009
Thank you Nickolaos E.
As an English historian my conclusions are that England always lived more in fear of Communism than Nazi-ism. Certainly prior to September 1939.
Further to which I belive that in the event of a German invasion, English collaborators would have numbered not in a couple of hundred, but in millions.(As was the case in occupied countries)
young jerry -
Message 8
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Thursday, 16th April 2009
Nik, in the USA I had a neighbor American soldier who told me that when in Europe during WW2 they were camped out but getting fired on by a sniper. He had just came off patrol when he learned of it and being a Southerner most great shots, asked to see to it, he asked them to wait until he had cleaned up and eaten. In due course he shot the sniper, a short time later some of company came back and told him the sniper had been a French women dressed in German uniform, he said he lost his food and didn't feel all that good about it being it a woman. I've heard of quite a number of French women killing Allied soldiers.
In 1949 as a seaman docked in Rouen, ashore when finding out you were British would not serve you in the bars, the French women said the Germans were real Gentlemen, and not as uncouth as the British and American and hated both equally. Granted that may have been in a particular part of the city, so unknown if that feeling was universal. Seeing the damage sailing up the Seine (sp), some wanton by the look of things to was not hard to see their end of it. A thought, why was the British so intent on capturing Caen? They destroyed it, with that opposition perhaps they should by-passed it. British troops have always been lead by Donkeys . -
Message 9
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Thursday, 16th April 2009
youngjerry, during the early part of the war I saw German planes in night time over coal by-product plants when the coke oven were discharged and being opened every 1/2 hour 24 hours a day 6 days of the week, also over steelworks, you can't blackout those places. Also on a munitions plant being built 17 mile of fencing around it in broad day light. I'm sure if Hitler promised Churchill he could keep the colonies if Britain stayed out of the war Britain never would have gone to war but Hitler lost all that with his other broken promises, No one in Britain wanted another war, Communism was the greatest fear during the war as many places in Britain were called 'Little Moscow' and quite proud of it. Where I lived during the 'Pathe' newsreels in the cinema Churchill was booed with the same energy as Hitler and Stalin cheered as if it could raise the roof. German bombers could have crippled Britain during the early stages of the war but needed British industry to guarantee their success in the war. During the war Britain at times did want to sue for a separate peace owing to the food situation.
-
Message 10
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 17th April 2009
Petaluma, thank you for the interesting first-hand story. I read it and was wondering how on earth would British/ANZAC and US forces would see and/or treat local French of North France during that invasion. Ok, in WWI we know that they had retalively good relationships since figtinng side by side the common enemy. But in WWII? Were British troops aware of the amount of collaborationism? Or did they believe De Gaul that France fights on? Or did they settle for the more neutral "French passivity"? Did the French people's mention that British/US troops were more rude and unkind to them than Germans show that allied troops were increasingly aware that a large part of French society would rather be with the Germans resulting in that "rude attititude"?
If anyone can give an answer, I would be very interested in that. -
Message 11
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 17th April 2009
Youngjerry I think Nazism and fascism prior to WWI were mostly seen just another political organisation. Violence or nationalism and displacement of populations existed elsewhere too. The world had seen maximum some Jewish trying to ask for visas in Britain and US but just that, anyway since the British and US Jewish did not seem to care about them (same religion means nothing afterall), the states would not care too and the visas were rejected.
Under that light, the fact that on the financial plan Nazis and Fascists were 'centrists' made them much more preferable if the choice was them or Communism! Also, panGermanism fitted inside Anglosaxons too, thus British too would have an elevated status inside something that would end up as a military-enforced E.U. made and led by Germans of course. It would also permit them to continue ruling over their Empire abroad and even continue for much longer than what happened really after the WWII since German culture and attitudes meant that Germans would not exactly sit down and admire Gandi, they would kill him and his followers fastly and unceremoniously. By all means while in a defeat British people would suffer some repercussions, these would be mostly in the pride domain rather than any physical domain - Germans would be darlings to them just like in France and contrary to those filthy southern and eastern rubbish countries habitated by half-gipsies and mongols (hehehe... Serbia, Greece, Russia etc.).
Details like the above, mean that yes, in the event of a German successful invasion of Britain, I would also expect a quite important movement of British people towards being firendlier to Germans as time elapsed. But I also imagine, the fact that Britain had been till then the most powerful nation (but not most rich, USA was already richer and more powerful in real terms) would also mean that a large part of the British would also highly resent German conquest out of hurt pride but from there on my views become vague: for example I cannot imagine what the working class and the higher classes would opt (in France it was both working classes and aristocrats that supported Germans and the opposite at comparable percentages). Also Britain like North France is not a mountainous counttry like Greece or Serbia. What resistance could they do? Probably like Poland, resist in concentrated bursts like the Warsow uprising*.
As for Britain's willingness to enter the world, yes nobody wanted to enter yet another war. But things were much more complicated than what is presented and in the end, it was not only not the people that decided (obviously!) but it was often not even the leading politicians that decided: somehow "events imposed" final decisions to do this or that. There are numerous details of that war that just show how grey things were (since you mentioned Britains' fear of communists - it is still striking how willing they were to initially aid communist resistance groups on the top of patriotic groups, things were really really very complicated).
* I have never played down the Warsow uprising and the courage that these people found to react (and yes Polish people fought on, no question on that). But there is a difference in Warsow uprising and Greece and Serbia. Polish & Jewish there had been annihilated by Germans and reached the point of no return to end up in that uprising. I am sorry to say so but had Germans not planned to colonise Poland, thus not ethnically cleansing the area and massacring people, Polish would be just fine with them. When Germans enterred Greece they had planned to play down their initial theory of gipsy-modern-Greeks and treat them - especially after Greeks being the first army that stopped them on battlefield which they never beat - they had planned to play the magnanimus conqueror (we had nowhere seen German soldiers ordered to march and salute the Greek imprisoned soldiers "as a lesson to Germans of how to fight", Greek soldiers who were next day freed as "friendly" free men. And that is why I say Greek resistance was quite special; these men fought on while they were not at all obliged to do so and could as well accept Germans and Italians inside and do like the French (the Germans had little to do against Greeks). In that sense not even Serbians had done so (a lot had to do with the vicious Croatians attacking). Greeks did not just remember to rebel when Germans had already killed the first 100,000 or when hunger stroke - resistance started right the 2nd day from troops that never accepted the treacherous signing of capitulation by a collaborationist group largely the same that had called in the British, that is another great story etc.) - and I am referring well to the troops that did resistance in Greece and not those few that went on to follow the retreating British/ANZAC and fight in Egypt and in Italy (they had better and stay in Greece and continue resistance there than becominng a minor detail (no matter their contribution) of a multinational force with more global objectives). -
Message 12
Posted by youngjerry (U7266788) on Friday, 17th April 2009
petaluma message 9
I don't remember much about Pathe newsreels but I wouldn't mind betting that during the mid thirties they praised and lauded the 'achievements' of Hitler in Germany.
youngjerry -
Message 13
Posted by youngjerry (U7266788) on Friday, 17th April 2009
Nikolaos E
Thank you for your interesting and informative posts 10 & 11.
I didn't know that it was the Greeks who first stopped the Nazis on the battlefield.
Where would that have actually been? Although I know that Hitler had to send re-inforcement troops there which delayed Operation Barbarossa.
youngjerry -
Message 14
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Friday, 17th April 2009
nic, the British navy had to destroy a part of the French navy as the French would not come over to the Allies side the French very stubborn sadly so many French lives were lost, the French would not let the navel crew leave the ships as the British had orders to destroy, even pleading from a high British navel officer, that was according to a documentary of the incident. Of the N. Africa, on TV saw what was supposed to be a true incident where the British got the services of an American officer. Seems the French in N .Africa would ally to the Americans but not the British. The outcome was where a British submarine crew dressed in US navel clothes, the stars and stripes flown. Only the American officer was allowed to open his mouth otherwise the French my have twigged it. Forgot the actual plot but the meeting would be by submarine so the best they could do at the time was to use a British submarine and crew and an American officer doing the talking. Not sure if any truth in the presentation but quite believable. Watching a newsreel on TV of de Gaulle speaking to a group, speaking in French of course but captioned in English he stated that, "French forces freed France", French forces couldn't free a cat from a cat house. Churchill who I despise said of de Gaulle during the war that the greatest cross he had to bear was the cross of Lorain. Quite believable. Incidentally of all the newsreels I ever saw of Hitler giving speeches it was always in I suppose German certainly not British. Some years ago I saw a clip the was captioned in English, what he spoke of I totally agreed with. Destroy the German class system equality for all, to me true Democracy, granted he went off the rails. No wonder they didn't caption it in English during the war. Hopefully in today's world with borders quite gray, entertainers travel and perform all over much of the world teenagers not blinded by propaganda. Just got the religious nutters to deal with.
-
Message 15
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Friday, 17th April 2009
youngjerry, in Britain they said of the Germans, 'Guns before Butter', the British had neither. Seeing of newsreels of pre-war Germany I thought they did very well, I regard Britain the bottom of the pole. Britain Declared war on Germany, the British got kicked in the mouth in a hurry and then screamed why the Americans were not there to help them, they still feel that way today. When you see all the German children in uniform, uniform or not they were well dressed and had something to encourage them. In Britain at that time even if you had a job the British clothes were pure crap, I was born and grew up there, entered the army during the war, total time from taking the oath to discharge just over four years, last two of those denying freedom to a country India and they were promised freedom after the war if they assisted Britain during the war. (Hitler breaking promises?)
-
Message 16
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 18th April 2009
france seems to be the only country that gave half its territory away so collaboration could be institutionalised - bless em
st -
Message 17
Posted by hambi22 (U2309395) on Saturday, 18th April 2009
Hello Nikolaos,
I dont think that the Poles fought only because they reached the point of no return. The Poles are not Jew.
Moreover the Poles was actualy the only ocuped country, whid did not create a collaboration goverment and the Poles did not officialy surrend.
The other factor for evetual resistence is the geografy, to catch the partizans in the montains area is surely eqasier the in open contry side.
best regards
Hambi -
Message 18
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 19
Posted by sevenskies (U13875542) on Monday, 27th April 2009
The hidden message didn't break any house rule. It simply illustrates that not everything that was composed upon the events during WW2 was true.
When the board is for a certain "qualified" thoughts while banned for what's in contradiction to those thoughts. That's a clear prejudice. After 63 years from the end of WW2, no need to hide any useful information no matter how bold or in contradiction with the common knowledge. How about looking through the records of Rothchild's money circulation during WW2 , that would disclose many forbidden areas. -
Message 20
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Monday, 27th April 2009
Hi Sevenskies,
You would have been sent a message when your post was failed explaining why it was in breach of the House Rules. If you wish to dispute the decision you can reply to that message.
Andrew -
Message 21
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
Petaluma,
You are quite right about the appearance of Germany in the thirties. That is why so many intellectuals, including British ones were sympathetic to Hitler. The same can be said of Soviet Union propaganda. You are right too about the unfair distribution of wealth and you might have added the appalling infant mortality rate among the poor. However, as always, the propaganda was far wide of the truth and the history of the economics of Nazi Germany are well worth looking into. On the question of Britain's smack in the mouth, well, of course we got it. Every schoolboy in Britain knows that it is the likely outcome of picking a fight with someone bigger than you are. As for pleading with America for help, well that's true too. And of course the Americans to a man jumped up and shouted,'Let's go to the aid of the Brits'. And they did, without a vestige of self-interest they came over and won the war for us. How beautifully unambiguous is history!
As an anti-colonialist I absolutely agree with your sentiments concerning India, however you might have mentioned the philanthropic control of French Indochina, the Dutch in the East Indies, the Belgians in the Congo, or the Germans in East Africa or even the Americans in the Philippines, not to mention certain island states?
Lastly I wonder what would have happened in Europe had we claimed neutrality under a puppet monarch and government. Where would all the Jews be now however tenuous their lineage? Where the cripples? Where the dissidents and the Gypsies? Where the Bible Students? What would have happened to the population of the Soviet Union? I respectfully ask;would America have stood by and allowed that to happen? Perhaps Hitler would have modified his campaign of eugenics had he have conquered the whole of Europe. Perhaps it was Britain and her Commonwealths' actions that caused all that mayhem which began with the invasion of Poland. -
Message 22
Posted by sevenskies (U13875542) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
Avraham Stern was a Jewish terrorist who migrated to Palestine from Poland and formed an armed militia to terrorise the Palestinians for the cause of a Jewish state on Palestine.
On 1940 Stern made dialogues with an emissary from Il Duce in Jerusalim , and in 1941 he dispatched an agent to Vichy controlled Beirut with instructions to convey a letter to representatives of the Reich. In it, Stern held that; "establishment of a Jewish state on Palestine on totalitarian basis, and bound by a treaty with the German Reich would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the NearEast". Proceeding from those considerations the Jewish armed militia on Palestine ( actually Israel was polarized by the terror made by three terror militias, the Haganah , the Irgun and Stern) offers to actively take part in the war on Germany's side .
More on the link between the Zionists and the Nazis , read ; The Transfer Agreement , the untold story of the secret pact between the Third Reich and the Zionist Movement on Palestine , by Edwin Black . -
Message 23
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
The suggestion that the hundred or so nutters of the Lehi were speaking to the Nazis on behalf of Ben Gurion or even Jabotinski is as offensive as it is transparently illiterate.
Now tell us about Hajj-Amin Al-Husseni, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and his Nazi links. -
Message 24
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
Who were the Worse?Β
Who were the Worst, surely...?
Sorry, couldn't resist!!
-
Message 25
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
....where it will get totally ignored. At least, that is my experience with the Radio5Live MB. Your post gets pulled and they send you a standardised-format email, simply saying it breached the house rules in some way. When you reply and ask them to kindly explain what rule was broken so that you can edit out the offending part, you never here from them again.
-
Message 26
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 27
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009
Still waiting for you to tell me about the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Nazis, but I shall convey your view that the British were in league with the Zionist militia to the families of all their British victims and those of the Irgun and Stern Gang who were hanged by the British.
-
Message 28
Posted by sevenskies (U13875542) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
JB , my reply to your question was on message #26 with enough illustration. The moderator can reveal its contents or keep hiding it.
As for the British victims by the Zionist terror militia during the British mandate , that was on purpose to hasten the withdrawal of the British army from Palestine . It wasn't by any means actions of disagreement but rather a camouflage. In terrorists dictionary , lives have no value when it comes to achievment of the ultimate goal.
If they waited a while longer , Britain will deliver Palestine to those terrorists peacefully. Else , why Britain decided to withdraw ? , -
Message 29
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 1st May 2009
Sevenskies, there is a lot of truth in what you say. And very sharp remarks.
I just laughed at your commends on how easily British tolerated the situation in Palestine and how they withdrew thinking how harsh they treated the Cypriots just next door, whom they had cheated into believing they would get complete independence helping them in WWII and remaining obeyant, and send even men and then denied them what they had promised them and then sent forces, even SAS to press hard on the rebels refusing to even hear about independence and annexation by referendum to Greece as the 95% of the population that participated in a church-organised referendum* had asked (said back then that even many muslims had voted for annexation by Greece!!!) and went to the extend in late 50s (note: this was post-WWII Europe in 1950s!!!) to publickly execute by hanging 17 years old schoolboys for .... stone throwing....
It goes without saying that the whole affair was pre-designed, anyone that doubts and claims to be on no propaganda is at least extremely naif passed the border of deteriorated thinking capacity.
*just note that after that referendum the British ahd learned the poem, thus they sent their agent Makarios to get the "throne" and diverge Cyprus into another direction, away from Greece (whoever cannot see that Makarios was a British agent, just like "journalist" and EOKA2 (EOKA2=British) Samson is at least naif - and that includes some 50% of Cypriots & other Greeks, the other half already know by now). -
Message 30
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Friday, 1st May 2009
Sevenskies
I saw your deleted posting and there was nothing in it whatsoever about the links between the Grand Mufti and the Nazis.
You will of course acknowledge this or I shall draw my conclusions. -
Message 31
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 1st May 2009
E_Nikolaos_E It goes without saying that the whole affair was pre-designed, anyone that doubts and claims to be on no propaganda is at least extremely naif passed the border of deteriorated thinking capacity If the British pre-designed their precipitous exit from the Middle East in the age of oil, what kind of design was it? There's little doubt that they were badly screwed by their own – like the old disgruntled rogue agent Jack Philby.
-
Message 32
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 3rd May 2009
Suvorovetz, that is exactly my idea: one nations country's diplomacy does not necessarily serves the interests of the country or of the nation. If you really get what I mean. Do not forget that already the bulk of British plutocracy had invested in USA. Why feel so obliged as to protect Palestine? However they felt they had to keep a strong hand on Cyprus and maintain it away from Greece while continuously empowering Turkey over setting aside Greece (something visible till today).
As I said the mere fact that at the very same time British left so easily Palestine and kept so staunchily Cyprus (with all that conspiracy that we have seen taking place), there is no doubt that it was part of a pre-designed plan. Now what kind of plan was that it is up to you to find (I am not 100% knowledgeable on that), what I am sure is that it was not any random evolution of affairs in the region. -
Message 33
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Monday, 4th May 2009
I think Nazism and Fascism prior to WW11 were mostly seen as just another political organisation.Β
I don't think you are right in this comment! There was a great deal of political understanding before the war, at least in this country amongst the lower middle and working classes. The class struggle had a positive application from 1912, with the,' Syndicalist Uprising,' right down through the post war years till the TUC Labour Party betrayal of the National Strike, circa 1926! In 1936, the Government had been challenged by the Left at the Battle of Cable street.
There had been a war going on in Spain against the fascists and Nationalists that everyone was aware of and many had participated n, both by fighting and physical support and by active promotion, fund and food raising.
When I was a young man it was common thought that amongst the working classes that both wars had been entered in to by the Governments of the day as a means of controlling pressure from the working class against Fascism and Conservatism. I can well remember similar comments at the time of Thatcher's political adventures in the Falklands. -
Message 34
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Monday, 4th May 2009
I am amused by how quickly we seem to lose the thread of the discussion, however, if we must digress from the original ('Who were the worse ..' to why did the Brits leave Palestine?) then allow me to suggest a few avenues to explore. Sorry if you have heard this before but... At the end of WW2 Britain was bankrupt. Most of our principle cities had suffered heavy damage, our industries needed reorganizing, our children needed feeding and re-built schools and we needed to carry out long promised social reforms and all these required urgent and immediate remedial attention. The only way that we had a hope-in-hell's chance to do this was to borrow money (and it was only last year that we managed to repay the last installment). America supplied that money(so you see it wasn't just the investments that we had in that country that determined our foreign policy)and quite rightly those loans came at a price. Could it be that the Brits were leaned on to quit Palestine because our influence in that area was seen as counter-productive to other plans for the control of the area? Was a powerful State with sympathies to Uncle Sam just what was needed to create the balance required in the near East? Added to this of course was the main threat to world stability, which at this time was seen to be Communism and therefore the Brits were allowed to retain a 'sphere of influence' in countries that might be seen as a counter to this unwanted expansion.
I must confess that my knowledge of the history of Greece and Cyprus is lamentable but it is obvious that both these countries were seen as strategic and in the invidious position to act as buffers, as indeed was the United Kingdom, to the spread of the deadly 'Commies'. That is why we were allowed to continue our influence in Amman. Jordan, Saudi Arabia while certain other countries played 'The Great Game' with countries like Persia. In the Far East Malaya and Burma held a key both with rubber supplies and with a position to counter Chinese expansion, along with Japan. Of course the 'protection' of the Middle East allowed America to leave its own supply of oil to a dribble because it was worth more in the ground than on the world market so long as a good supply of cheap oil could be maintained. Thus American and British companies were allowed to exploit the oil rich 'developing' areas. I am sorry to say that all this 'diplomacy' led to lives being lost for those who sort autonomous government, as indeed they are still being lost today for exactly the same reasons - but when it is economically or politically expedient, morals and ethics have little sway with the powerful. -
Message 35
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
Youngjerry,
A historian ?
Yet you think that England fought the war without involving Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (along with the thousands from the Republic who joined up).
History at primary level would teach more than you seem to know. -
Message 36
Posted by youngjerry (U7266788) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
# message 35 by delrick53.
No of course I don't think that.
There are many levels of what constitutes
'historian' and my experience of reading and using this board has shown me that there are some very experienced and knowledgable 'historians' on it. And I feel honoured to be writing history on a messageboard with them.Then there are others,perhaps like me who are not so experienced and knowledgable but above primary school level.
The main point is this is a History Board. And we are all 'historians' (or we wouldn't be writing and learning on it}
May I enquire at what level do you consider yourself to be writing and learning history?
Or do you consider the actual learning of history unecessary?
youngjerry -
Message 37
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
YoungJerry,
Thanks for the clarification. I have a thing about the 'England is Britain' thing.
I suppose like you, reading and learning almost everyday for 50+ years. I've learned a lot from these boards, and am reading more than ever.
I get frustrated because there just isn't enough time !
History is vital, and I'm delighted that my daughters have a keen interest in history, which started when I was telling them what I knew about our family, or rather what I didn't know ! Both are often shocked by how little their friends know what should be the basics. -
Message 38
Posted by youngjerry (U7266788) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
delrick 53.
I understand exactly what you mean about the England is Britain thing. And is does annoy me too particularly so when I'm not 100 per cent English myself. BuT I do know what you mean.
But the more one reads of 'older' English History
I mean the writings of Kipling, Rupert Brooke and their era the more one sees this sort of thing. But lesser nowadays I think.
But you can even read this sort of thing in modern newspapers today, so yes again, I know exactly what you mean mate.
youngjerry -
Message 39
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 40
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Friday, 15th May 2009
I insist that the Nazis were not that bad.Β
Sevenskies!
You must be joking? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Eating funny mushrooms? Not by talking to veterans such as my mate Frank, who was one of the first to enter Belsen.
He was quite sure the Nazis were of the lowest order! All the massive amount of literature that has been published since WW11 and you still persist in believing this rubbish and what is more expecting others to accept it?
The Nazi effort before the conflict was just as bad, first of all they, [Germany] started the 1WW, they attacked Belgium and France, they took machinery and other equiptment back to France, they trashed railways and roads.They caused an enormous death toll.Thus Versailles! In Germany they ,[ Nazis,]indulged in anti- Jewish pogrammes, they carried on a war against, anarchists, socialists and liberals.
They encouraged the Nationalists in Spain against Anarchists , socialists and liberals. What more could they do? 50 Million people died because of their principles. What would you call them! They are not the type that one would ask home for tea! Neither they or their modern neo-followers! -
Message 41
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Friday, 15th May 2009
Laudian,
If you have a look at some of his posts over on the R&E boards you'll get an idea of what he is, and it's very unpleasant. -
Message 42
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 15th May 2009
Laudian,
Not the sort of people you would invite round for tea ... wouldn't that depend on what you were putting in their tea? -
Message 43
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 15th May 2009
Hmmm... one has to pay attention. There is the Nazi party which was essentially derived from the national-socialist party, normally a very respectable political line. But Nazis led by Hitler took it to a wholy new direction with all that mumbo jumbo about superior tribes and Germans' destiny to rule the world.
Pay attention. Normally, National Socialism is actually not something radically different to what De Gaul had dreamt of doing in France. It is basically a political system where the state recognises that in that within its boundaries live people that agreed to unite together (whether based on ethnic, religious or other uniting elements) and protect their interests: the state acts as a controller but not in the overruling communist way. Especially on the financial side of it, the state ownns and controls only the very basic sectors such as production of energy, communications and armaments for the benefit and protection of its citizens and not for private profit. All other sectors are left relatively free to be regulated by private companies but then the state may enter to influence regulations in order to re-establish order - pretty much as it is done even in the most capitalist regimes. However, most notably it is true that the state will probably impose import taxes at variable rates ranging from 0% to more than 100% with all trade coming from abroad. For example, if the state has a strategic agreement with another country it has an interest to see the other country in healthy economy and thus it might favour imports-exports towards that country, etc. Interestingly, on the social domain, a national-socialist type of governance has every interest to maintain a relatively moderate upper class and an enlarged middle-class. It also acts actively to protect the basic rights of workers down the social ladder by putting lowest wages high enough.
Usually national-socialist policies if applied strictly end up in a rather restricting regime where several liberties are seen negatively and are on the target. If applied loosely they certainly end up in a very corrupt country condamned to mediocrity. However, if applied with measure and with a clear target, they are the most certain path to development rather than capitalism (where you end up like Colombia) or communism (where you end up like Albania).
Just to give you an idea: in native Greece (perhaps a special country but still a good paradigm of a small not poor not rich not under not over-developed) until the 1950s both electricity production and telecommunications were purely private sectors. In 30 years of foreign and local private investments and despite all the efforts and facilitations of governments (I took out the 5 years of WWII), electricity and telephony had reached only 3-4 large cities but then remained a luxury for the rich. Even them they had to deal with everyday cuts (i.e. in the night there was no electricity and no telephony etc.!!! - who needed it? Private companies said "you go to sleep in the night, you do not need to talk or read newspapers!!! If you want electricity for your fridge get a generator!"). Well that is private investment in a market that has not the size of US, Japan or Germany.Imagine I still talk about Athens and Thessaloniki - so speaking about mountainous villages in Epirus or isolated small islands in south Dodecanesa gghhhhmmm if these companies remained private these places would never have received the fruits of civilisation.
By mid-1950s both electricity and communications were bought by the state. In 10 years most Greeks had telephone and electricity and by 1970s you could hardly find any home even in the most remote village without electricity. By early 1980s the Greek state telecommunication company was high-top and by the end of the decade was the first to have invested in optical cables far earlier than most well known international private groups. Talk about private sector effectivity? All that having been built with minimal loans while providing people with extra-low fares. Ha! Well at the end the E.U. imposed the private sector and that meant all that ready-made infrastructure was sold at ridiculous prices (under unclear procedures) to external investors who provide worse services and have risen the prices. On the top, national security and interests are being compromised with all telecommunications being controlled or interfered by external private companies who are of course subject to the interests of other countries like US for example?
So you understand that it goes without saying that a real national socialist model type is very much relative for a great range of countries that do not dream to become mega-powers and do not dream either to become fiscal paradises or slaveforce providers for other mega-powers.
So why take out the National-Socialism out of the political landscape? Why link it with Nazism that has nothing to do with it? Hmmm isn't it obvious? The fact that after WWII the whole National-Socialist political positions were bashed as Nazism was to take out the WORST enemy of capitalism which is not of course communism-socialism (created by capitalists as the left side of the clamp to trap people and nations). -
Message 44
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Friday, 15th May 2009
Amongst the 'occupied' countries which one managed to obtain for itself the worse reputation for collaberation with the Nazis during WW2?Β
The Dutch suffered terribly at the hands of the Germans after 1944 but a case could be made that from 1940 to 1945 the Dutch Nazis:-
"The National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands (Dutch: Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging in Nederland, NSB)" were very influential and it is worth remembering that the NSB had several elected members in the Dutch Senate and The House of Representatives, from the mid-thirties onwards. They became the only Dutch party recognised by the Germans during their occupation.
Although it rarely gained more than 10% of the national vote it was locally strong in Utrecht and other cities and could possibly claim to be the biggest Nazi party outside Germany.
Dutch NSB members helped the Germans round-up Dutch Jews for deportation to the camps. -
Message 45
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 23rd May 2009
Re: message 43.
Nikolaos,
I know it is a poor escape to reffer to my huge backlog, but nevertheless I did some quick research. And I have no time to discuss it to the dead end.
It is already for the third time I do some research for these boards about this item: the first time some five years ago. And I always find the same relationships as for instance the link with the Rerum Novarum encyclic, but now it is better explained in comparison to my first research. Or perhaps because the Internet became more "sofisticated"? Or perhaps because I used better word combinations? As on Google: "fascism rerum-novarum corporate-state". But nevertheless it comes always to the same explanations that I put forward in my first thread.
Fascism opposes "class conflict" with a "corporate state". A corporate state is arranged along "vertical" branches, while the Communist state is arranged along "horizontal" classes, which oppose each other.
And yes the "corporatism" of "Rerum Novarum" was a concept to counteract the new Socialist/Communist movements, which are in my humble opinion also as "confused, muddled" as the Fascist ones. And the Roman-Catholic "Corporatist" idea was probably not bad in its essence. Demonstration of it: it is still used as the "consult economy" (I don't know the term in English) It's also mentioned in my last URL. "consult" within the "branches" and between the "classes" or whatever term/concept you want to use for the different "bodies", which represent their members.
It was just that Mussolini and consorts turned that idea to something, which fitted "their" party ideology.
Nikolaos, I don't know if it is that, what you discribed in your message 43 and I let it to you to see the differences and the similarities. Although again in my humble opinion I see more differences.
Warm regards from your friend,
Paul.
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 Β 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
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 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.