Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
German History
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Friday, 5th August 2005
Does anyone else feel that we in this country focus on the 12 years of the Third Reich too much? I myself am as guilty of this as any. I have always been interested in the rise of the Nazis, studied Nazism in my Degree and regularly read books on the topic of the nazis and WW2. However, in recent years i have started to feel that this interest (valid as it is) is to the detriment of the rest of German history and have started to read more widely on other topics of German history. Germany probably has one of the richest and most amazing histories of any european nation in the 20th century, yet comparitively little is written or televised about the Kaiserreich, the Wirtschaftswunder, the GDR, the Stasi as compared with nazism and Germany in WW2. If i were German i would be a bit miffed with this constant obsession about the darkest chapter in their history at the expense of the rest of Germany's past.
p.s. In saying that i'm just about to start reading Fest's Speer biog (spot the hypocrite) -
Message 2
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 5th August 2005
German,
if you understand a bit German and have a parabolic antenna. ZDF is very good with his historic programmes. It can be that there is not that much translated from German historians. But however doing research for these boards on German history I met many English translations too. It all depends perhaps on the interest of British or English language readers and the readers ratings?
Kind regards. -
Message 3
Posted by Landwehr (U1664897) on Saturday, 6th August 2005
I guess WW2 was such a huge earth-shattering event that it's hardly surprising it should cast a long shadow over German history. And as long as there are still people around who lived through it, I think this situation is unlikely to change much.
But I agree that current coverage is excessive. If you go into Waterstones bookshop in London, literally 80% of the books in the German history section are about Hitler/Nazis. (in Foyles it's more like 50% which seems a more sensible proportion.)I believe the fall of the Berlin wall has made things worse by bringing a lot of new material to light, and so giving historians plenty of reasons to write new books on the period.
By the way, if you could only have one book about the Nazis, which would it be? -
Message 4
Posted by Giselle-Leah (U1725276) on Saturday, 6th August 2005
Gorman1 - What concerns me more about your question is when Germans say to British people that in their opinion we focus too much on WW2 and "should move on."
Actually, this angers me very much indeed. Had it not been for the Germans, there would not have been two shattering world wars in the last century, both of which altered the face of Europe and Western policy for ever.
There is not a European family in existence that was not adversely affected by the dogma and arrogance of German policies and their catastrophic outcome.
It is to our eternal pride that this country refused to bow to German aggression and its defiance is now part of our national psyche. I strongly believe that apart from Agincourt and the 100 years war, French hostility to Britain is based on the fact that France capitulated in 3 weeks and Britain did the exact opposite.
If I met a "miffed German" I would let them know in no uncertain terms what I thought of them being "miffed." They have no right whatsoever to "dictate" (Ha!) to the rest of Europe that "it is time to move on." These words were said by the then German ambassador to the UK about 4 years ago. The nerve of the man.
We HAVE moved on, we ARE the 4th largest economy in the world, we are a successful country and one that is envied. Part of who we are is based on who we were, and that goes for everyone, including the Germans.
We must have historians knowledgeable about our past, because without it we cannot define who we are for the future.
Kind regards -
Message 5
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Saturday, 6th August 2005
Can you please give me the figures which make "we" the fourth largest economy in the world?
Thanks, hes. -
Message 6
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Saturday, 6th August 2005
Gorman1 -
Actually, this angers me very much indeed. Had it not been for the Germans, there would not have been two shattering world wars in the last century, both of which altered the face of Europe and Western policy for ever.
Ìý
Its a matter of opinion as to the German War Guilt for the 1st World War. Personally I don't feel that Germany is at fault for 1914. -
Message 7
Posted by Landwehr (U1664897) on Saturday, 6th August 2005
If we are the 4th largest economy in the world this has nothing to do with fighting the Nazis and a lot to do with the profits we made from slavery and the exploitation of "inferior races" under the British Empire.
When it comes to the shameful little secrets of our own history, we British have been only too willing to "move on"... -
Message 8
Posted by Giselle-Leah (U1725276) on Saturday, 6th August 2005
Hes - it is what is quoted on the news and in economic terms all the time. Assuming that these sources are not lying, I take them to be true.
Thanks. -
Message 9
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Saturday, 6th August 2005
Leah, moral dilema, Germany are playing Saudi Arabia in football, who do want to lose more?
I'm not sure that is what they meant. To be honest I think that when the German ambassador commented on was the perception of Germany in the British media, espeially incredibly lazy sports hacks. How many times do they think they can get away with mocked up pictures of English footballers as tommies and as for the Sheffield Wednesday band and the Great Escape...
The criticism was that the British only seemed to view Germany exclusivly through the lens of the third reich. Mind you it took us almost a century to move on from Napoleon and the French. Still I get the feeling that you would only raise the point of Germany's actions in the second World War if the German suggested they were tired of hearing about it. Somehow I get the feeling many British people are not so polite and go into the strains of Hitler has only got one ball at the drop of a hat. What do you expect of a nation that thinks Mac the Knife is a pleasent little easy listening number?
If you're gonna get all genealogical just who were the Angles, Saxons, Friesans and Jutes? -
Message 10
Posted by appygirl001 (U516272) on Saturday, 6th August 2005
Hi I am from Belgium - and I think I should add something to this debate.
First this interest in the Second World War and Hilter and C° is not only a matter of 'not moving on' as those ideas who drove those people to the crimes they commited are still alive and haven't moved on! All over the world you still can find 'hate' acts against 'others' - just check the internet and you will find many should webpages who advocate should hateful ideas. That is why we keep interested in the matter as 'it could happen today - tomorrow or next week' in any country - and because of that we hope to learn form the past 'how it could have happened' hoping that it will teach us to prevent 'it' from happening again! Regretefully most of our attention is focused on Germany but most other countries who were invaded by Hilter had should fanatics joining his SS-Waffe! The SS-Waffe had international devisions fighting along German onces in Russia and other battles. If my information is correct even the IRA was enlisted to support the German/Nazi war effort? And was one of the last fighting SS-Waffe devisions in Berlin in 1945 not parly French? Beside was Hitler not from Austria? You see - it is / was more than a German affair!
Well on the question of 1914 - we should not forget no event in history is 'a sudden happening' its always is a reaction on an event what went before! We keep forgetting that there was a Prussian/French War in 1870-71! This war was the result of French politics to regain control over Europe after it had lost it in Waterloo in 1815. This devoloped into a crisis - and an open conflict between the Prussians (supported by other German states) under Bismark and Napoleon (cousin of the one of Waterloo) of France. This war was one of the most bloodiest of it time - and for once the Prussian armies won over La Grande Armee of France. Without the aid of allies as in previous conflicts. This gave Bismark two things - he had beaten an old foe and it helped his effort to unite Germany. When the peace deal was made after the Prussian/French war Bismark demanded a large amount of money as compensation payments. This sum was really high and it was one the reason the French never felt this war had been settled - when French soldiers marched to the battlefield in 1914 they and the public 'shouted revenge for 1871'. The French saw this war as a sort of 'correction' of what had happened to hem in 1870-71.
Also on the matter of these payments - I know many people blame them including Hitler for this war - and many say it was not right to have asked for them. But what every one seems to forget is the fact that Belgium was attacked in 1914 - a country what was totally nutral in this conflict and who cities were destroyed by German troops because they got fustrated by the enduring defence of the Belgian army of his own country. ALthough the Belgian army wasn't near big enough to stop them - it did hold the German advances and gave France and Britian time to 'dig themselves to victory'! Each hour lost by German soldiers, was a hour gained for the others. Cities like Leuvain, Antwerp and Ipres were one of the most famous target of the German army's fustration. During the war many Belgians were forced to work for Germany - coal mines and woodlands were 'used' to help the German war industry. For all those things 'we' wanted to be paid - everyone says 'well the Americans have invaded Iraq now they have to pay for the rebuilding of that nation' - so why is this not so for Belgium? It is that 'fact' we should add to this historical event and which could add a far more honest view - and bring a better understanding to it.
Hope my english wasn't too bad - and that I brought some possitive arguments to this debate!
Gorman1 -
Actually, this angers me very much indeed. Had it not been for the Germans, there would not have been two shattering world wars in the last century, both of which altered the face of Europe and Western policy for ever.
Ìý
Its a matter of opinion as to the German War Guilt for the 1st World War. Personally I don't feel that Germany is at fault for 1914.Ìý -
Message 11
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Saturday, 6th August 2005
I didn't mean to slight any country esp Belgium for what happened to them during either war. My point was more that the 1st WW was more and accident of events driven by Austria-Hungary and Russia than it was by Germany and the Entente. The invasion of Belgium (Although not the autrocities) was a pre-requiste of invading France because of simple military logic.
The post war conditions imposed on Germany the War Guilt Clause had the greatest psycological effect on the German nation as until the economic crash of the late 20's the reparations were being managed (albeit with an American loan) -
Message 12
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Saturday, 6th August 2005
Hi,
Hes - it is what is quoted on the news and in economic terms all the time. Assuming that these sources are not lying, I take them to be true.
Thanks. Ìý
When making comments on a history board it is always good to quote a specific source.
Cheers, hes -
Message 13
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Saturday, 6th August 2005
Hi,
Hes - it is what is quoted on the news and in economic terms all the time. Assuming that these sources are not lying, I take them to be true.
Thanks. Ìý
When making comments on a history board it is always good to quote a specific source.
Cheers, hesÌý
Hi Again,
On re-reading my reply, I feel that it may appear to be condescencing - that was not the intention. So sorry if it appeared that way.
In fact you should note that an economic review dated February, 2005 by "World Economic Digest", the largest economies (in descending order) are The US, China, Japan, India and Germany. The next (by some distance) are France and the UK who are about equal.
Cheers, hes. -
Message 14
Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Saturday, 6th August 2005
My simple answer is that the events brought on by Germany in the 30's were so recent. There are people alive today who remember the sufferings and the great tumult of that time.
Perhaps too, the war that Germany brought about was on such a massive scale. And the German atrocities were on a massive scale. The English subjugation of India and the American subjugation of the American west (Native Americans) was also brutal. It was not on the same scale--thus the more limited interest. -
Message 15
Posted by appygirl001 (U516272) on Saturday, 6th August 2005
Hi - and I didn't feel that you did 'slight' my country at all! Beside - I pressume you are British - there are too many war graves of British soldiers on our soil that I don't want to be that ungrateful and rude to think that some one else (from Britian) opion is a slight on my country as if there is one country which did give so much to ours for our freedom it's the UK. And I am one of those Belgians who never will forget their sacrifice!
Yes those events/countries did play a role BUT the my point is we keep forgetting that there had been a war between German states and France in 1871 - and it did play an important role in the events who happened later - the fact is that France was a dominate player in Europe till 1815 and this 'loss' the French have tried to regain. The supported republic ideas all over Europe - like the revolts in 1848 in many German Kingdoms. And even the Belgian revolt against Holland can be seen in those politics - that why we got a king and not a republic. When the Belgian revolt started to be successful others accepted Belgium need or would be an independant state. Knowing that this could very well end in a pro-french republic the others suggested 'us' to accept a 'king' - we did! But the pro-French 'elite' is still trying to push this country in that 'french corner' - most people address Belgian out of habbit in French because they don't know that 60 % of us 'speak no French but Flemish!' Just to say how those French politics did play an major role in Europe and the crisis/conflicts it had!
Yes - they did invade us because it was simple military logic - but with that they did 'ignore' our rights as an independent and nutral country. They did plunder our country to help pay for their war --- and that is the fact I would like to see put more forward! You know how many Belgians suffered for the rest of thier lives from those Poisoned Gass attacks? They couldn't work - they had to be 'kept' by others. You know first bomb raid by an airforce was carried out over Belgium? You say Germany had a heavy burden and great psycological effect to carry from that war - you don't think Belgians hadn't should problems? You feel that we as Belgians should have 'paid' ourselves for this war damages? As when you say that Germany shouldn't have been put up with that War Guilt Clause - how you think those Belgians would have had felt about that? Either way - war does cause hurt, pain and horror. For both sides of any conflict also of this war - so my point is. Everyone is ready to accept the psycological effect on Germany but non seems to be prepaired to accept should a thing also happened to Belgians. (I hope you don't mis understand this - it's not an attack on you or your opinion - as that is in many ways correct I just would like to see more people to accept my countries horrors and enclude them in the argments - to be honest - how many times did you read this Belgian point of view in any debate, history book or article? It's always about that 'psycological effect on the Germans' and how it is used as an excuse for Hilter's war. Frankly in all honesty I think Hilter would have started a war anyway - even when the First World War hadn't happened; he was a dictator like Stalin etc. He wanted power - he wanted a 1000 year empire. The only trouble was that he abuse this feeling of the Germans about the War Guilt Clause to get into power - and this is were my point come in. What if the German had learned to accept that there had been a Prussian/French War in 1870 where also should a psycological effect was left on the French - perhaps they wouldn't have voted for Hitler! And HItler would only be a footnote in German history - a man who once acted up like an idiot during an election he lost! It would have saved over 50 million lives!
I feel if you want to understand those events leading to both World Wars you should take the time to read up on the Prussian/French War of 1870 and the politics of Bismark. I sure you will find many interesting facts who will give you a far more complete image of the ideas, events and actions of that period.
Hope I didn't upset you too much - as I really don't want to dent you point of view or points. I just would like to add my points - as an addition to yours. It's some times difficult to get involved in a health argument with 'strangers' without giving the wrong impression and hurt someones feelings! I didn't mean to slight any country esp Belgium for what happened to them during either war. My point was more that the 1st WW was more and accident of events driven by Austria-Hungary and Russia than it was by Germany and the Entente. The invasion of Belgium (Although not the autrocities) was a pre-requiste of invading France because of simple military logic.
The post war conditions imposed on Germany the War Guilt Clause had the greatest psycological effect on the German nation as until the economic crash of the late 20's the reparations were being managed (albeit with an American loan)Ìý -
Message 16
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Saturday, 6th August 2005
Gorman,
I don’t live in Britain anymore, but I know enough about current British attitudes to think that you’re basically right, though I’d like to qualify my stance. It’s not so much a matter of quantity as of quality. The problem is that apart from the stuff for schoolboy fantasists about guns and tanks and planes, there seems to be a lot of rubbish circulating about plucky and pure hearted Britain facing up to the German Nazi menace ALONE, until the Americans came along (late as usual) to help out. This isn’t history, this is unadulterated cr@p.
The two world wars, especially the second one are the darkest chapters in European history. Of course they should be studied, analysed, reflected upon and discussed. The problem is that for many British people the answer is simple: it’s all the fault of the Germans. This is a myth based on ignorance. For many British people, 99% of all the war crimes in Europe were committed by Germans, save for the ones in Burma, which were of course committed by the Japanese. Yet even greater war crimes committed in China and in soviet gulags are either ignored or treated as a completely separate issue. (In the case of the Soviet Union with good reason.)
It is interesting to note that today, over 60 yrs on, there is a far stronger anti-German sentiment in Britain than in countries like Poland. Unlike the British, the Poles were treated by the Nazis as sub-humans. The scale of atrocities committed by the Germans in Poland on the Poles (not only the Jews) is incomparable with anything the British had to suffer. If British civilians were killed in German air raids, many more German civilians were killed in American and British raids. So where does all this hatred stem from?
In Poland there was a lot of natural hatred towards Germans, further fuelled by communist propaganda in order to blend it with hatred of the West in general and divert attention from soviet war crimes. Yet the war’s impact was so great that serious historical research was carried out regardless. A larger percentage of Poles of the older generation do understand all the nuances, many were there, for instance in Auschwitz. You cannot blame a single nation for such crimes, every nation has its criminals, and that includes England as well.
Since the collapse of communism many books about war crimes have been publish in Poland and translated into English. But who’s buying these English translations? Most definitely not the British; they’re mainly being bought up by American and Israeli Jews and… by the Germans.
It needs to be stressed that after the war, no other nation has apologised more than the Germans. And I feel serious historical study of WWII is being carried out there too. I think many Polish and German historians understand that if such terrible things can happen in a country as civilized as Germany, then it could happen anywhere if we’re not careful. That’s one of the more important lessons younger generations should learn. The other is that the shameful policy of Western appeasement was not limited to 1938.
But in Britain the myth continues, and you can’t even blame the communists for that. Most British people seem to be interested only in a WWII history that casts them in a favourable, even heroic light.
Of course, there are more positive and equally important historical subjects other than war that should be studied, such as Germany’s peacetime achievements. But on the other hand, let’s be realistic: most people’s ‘understanding of history’ is derived from movies – usually action packed war movies.
Cheers, Jozef -
Message 17
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 7th August 2005
Hi Appygirl
Yes I'm British and don't worry I have a very thick skin (to go with my thick head, lol
)
It is very true that here in the UK we don't tend to go much into the other countries fate at the hands of either the Kaiser Germans or the Nazis, except for the most generallising of facts and even then they tend to concentrate on the French Resisitence and Dutch Resistence (occasionaly the Polish).
I must admit that until you mentioned the 1871 Franco-Prussian I hadn't quite thought of it in those terms. Yes I had always known that it is thought of as the founding war for the German nation, that it humiliated France (that is why the railway carriage and Versailles were used as they were at the end of the Great War) and that France felt humiliated by the loss of both prestiege and Alsace-Lorraine, however I had never truly followed that thought through to its logical conclusion.
On the Hitler coming to power anyway point however I dissagree. I'm of the school of thought of the two wars being connected. There was no 1st or 2nd WW but just two halves of one European Civil War with a 20 odd year hiatus. Without the fall of the KaiserReich the rise of Hitlers Germany would have been impossible. The Prussian Junker control of the state apparatus would be too complete to allow such a chancellor to gain power or control, but also the socio-economic convulsions of the late 1919 early 1920's period were the crucible that formed both Hitler and the Nazis . Without this, the crash of 1929 would not have been the ignition for his rapid rise to and consolidation of power, the greivances just wouldn't have been there for him to exploit.
Just to say that you can't really offend me, and I hope we can go on having disscussions like this as this is the best way for everyone to learn more about the subject we quite obviously all love.
Rich
PS: I've been to Belgium once as well. Only to Brussells I am afraid, and the French-Belgiums didn't endear themselves to me, but hopefully I will one day be able to return and vist the north of the country
-
Message 18
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Sunday, 7th August 2005
Hi Richie,
If you read "Mein Kampf" or any other Nazi book/pamphlet from the period in their rise to power, it is perfectly clear that the punitive parts of the Treaty of Versailles were a perfect propaganda tool.
Those parts were inserted partly at the insistence of Georges Clemenceau (the French PM and Minister of War), who had vivid memories of the Franco/Prussian conflict in 1870/1. He clashed with Woodrow Wilson regarding the treaty as it didn't fully humiliate Germany.
In 1920, Clemenceau lost the general election, funnily enough, because he had failed to completely humiliate Germany at the Peace talks.
Cheers, hes. -
Message 19
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Sunday, 7th August 2005
Hi appygirloo1,
"Yes - they did invade us because it was simple military logic - but with that they did 'ignore' our rights as an independent and neutral country".
Do you consider that Belgium was a neutral country at the time? The actions regarding the Free Congo State and the formation of a standing army have been cited by international lawyers as not being the actions of a neutral country.
Cheers, hes. -
Message 20
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 7th August 2005
Hi Hes,
Yes I agree with you totally on your point there regarding Clemenceau. That is the problem with the politics of retribution. He wasn't really punishing Germany for 1914-18 but for 1870-71. As both yourself and Appy point out that war was the fulcrum of Frances actions. I didn't realise the reasons for him losing the 1920 election although I do think that is kinda funny -
Message 21
Posted by Adam Girdwood (U1688149) on Sunday, 7th August 2005
Gorman1 -
Actually, this angers me very much indeed. Had it not been for the Germans, there would not have been two shattering world wars in the last century, both of which altered the face of Europe and Western policy for ever.
Ìý
Its a matter of opinion as to the German War Guilt for the 1st World War. Personally I don't feel that Germany is at fault for 1914.Ìý
Yes but the Kaiser could have made it clear to Austria Hungary that he was not going to support their warlike overtones against Serbia. In the space of seventy-five years a German Army marched across Europe three times - 1870, 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. So I can see why some people concentrate on this short period of Germany's history.
I think the concentration on this period of Germany's history also reflects a larger problem. At School I was taught about prehistoric people, jumped to the Romans, then jumped to 1200 - 1707, jumped to Nazi Germany & Czarist/Bolshevik Russia for GCSE and then back to 19th Century English History and Russian History 1881-1924 for A Level. I know a few people that did History at School and their GCSE and A Level courses concentrated on Nazi Germany and Czarist Russia exclusively. -
Message 22
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 7th August 2005
Hi Adam,
To be fair to the circumstances of the time, the Serbs had just sanctified the assination of the Austrian heir, and the Austrian high-command were still rueing the cost of not getting involved with the earlier Balkan wars. The Kaiser and his advisors at the time were manipulated by the Austrian hawks, and also no one could have predicted the manner in which the war would proceed. All previous experience indicated a short summer war, hence the "all over for christmas" slogans. Everyone beleived that, as that was everyones experience of european war at that time.
As for school history, my GCSE's were spent in early/mid 20th century history, with a levels spent working on tudor and reformation /counter reformation europe
it is a fault of the uk hisotry sylabus really, that so much time is devoted to only certain heavily thought over areas of recent or popular history -
Message 23
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 7th August 2005
Appygirl,
my Belgian compatriot, as I understand it you are replying to Richie. On these new boards it is not so easy to follow the arguments as in the former boards. Therefore, I at least, stupid one from West-Flanders (formerly from East-Flanders), am able to better follow the argumentation if everyone is mentioning the name to whom she/he is replying. Sorry to be so intrusive from our first encounter. Others do the same as you, but, as Belgian compatriots, I thought I could say more to you than for instance to a Yorkshireman residing now in the sweet Zoetermeer (Holland).
Appygirl, thank you very much for your replies on Belgium. Very competent. I wasn't able yesterday afternoon to reach the local library (while it is closed Saturday afternoon during the summer) for my books about the Belgian Congo. I hope we together will be able to scetch a true history and if we disagree on some points it can only add to a more complete picture of the story.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 24
Posted by Kilted Man (U1729936) on Monday, 8th August 2005
I agree gorman. I am in my last year of school, and on the Scottish curriculum, it is possible to study the Nazis in all 6 years of high school. Just a bit of overkill there me thinks!!
CK (formerly known as Kilted Man) -
Message 25
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Monday, 8th August 2005
Appygirl,
......Others do the same as you, but, as Belgian compatriots, I thought I could say more to you than for instance to a Yorkshireman residing now in the sweet Zoetermeer (Holland).
Warm regards,
Paul.Ìý
Hi Paul,
Anyone I might know? Are you Belgians trying to gang up on me?
Ever so slightly off topic, I did a little WWI research on my returm journey from vacation. I stayed at the Northern French town of Wimereaux and visited the graveyard there (you know that I'm the only vampire that does that sort of thing in broad daylight!).
The main purpose was to pay my respects to a distant relative, which I did. Whilst there I also found the grave of John McCrae, the Canadian doctor who wrote the poem "In Flanders Fields". It was generally decorated with poppies and small maple leaf flags. Very touching.
Warmest regards, John. -
Message 26
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 8th August 2005
John Hes,
"are you Belgians trying to gang up on me". No, I was just cautious to my Belgian compatriot. And who else could I better take as reference than my good friend from Zoetermeer. And if I said that a Belgian compatriot was even higher rated than a good friend...
As I read it afterwards, you are right. It suggest that I couldn't say that much to you and that you are not replying adressing with the cristian name as you indeed always do. I wanted to mention others without citing names.
To be honest I wanted to be nice to a new Belgian on these boards. And it seems to be even a Flemish one...
John, thanks for telling me that story about that WWI subject: "Flanders Fields" on which we, together, have already made that many threads on the old boards.
Warmest regards,
Paul. -
Message 27
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Monday, 8th August 2005
Gorman1 - What concerns me more about your question is when Germans say to British people that in their opinion we focus too much on WW2 and "should move on."
Actually, this angers me very much indeed. Had it not been for the Germans, there would not have been two shattering world wars in the last century, both of which altered the face of Europe and Western policy for ever.
There is not a European family in existence that was not adversely affected by the dogma and arrogance of German policies and their catastrophic outcome.
It is to our eternal pride that this country refused to bow to German aggression and its defiance is now part of our national psyche. I strongly believe that apart from Agincourt and the 100 years war, French hostility to Britain is based on the fact that France capitulated in 3 weeks and Britain did the exact opposite.
If I met a "miffed German" I would let them know in no uncertain terms what I thought of them being "miffed." They have no right whatsoever to "dictate" (Ha!) to the rest of Europe that "it is time to move on." These words were said by the then German ambassador to the UK about 4 years ago. The nerve of the man.
We HAVE moved on, we ARE the 4th largest economy in the world, we are a successful country and one that is envied. Part of who we are is based on who we were, and that goes for everyone, including the Germans.
We must have historians knowledgeable about our past, because without it we cannot define who we are for the future.
Kind regards Ìý
DaughterLeah: I think I could make a very good arguement that Germany wasn't responsible for WWI. IMO the treaty the ended WWI guaranteed WWII.
That in NO WAY justifies the horrors of the Death Camps.
Again, IMO, it isn't fair to judge all of German History by what happened from 1942 to 1945. There were thousands of non-Jewish Germans who hide/protected German Jews.
Finally, I don't think it is fair to judge the Jewish people by what is going on in Palestine today. -
Message 28
Posted by appygirl001 (U516272) on Monday, 8th August 2005
Hi Hes,
Neutral no one is - or was or will be! We all have interest to protect. Belgium in this respect was no exception and I hope you did't feel I was saying that my country was the 'nice' one - we made our serious mistakes as any country. But what my point was is this;
Belgium was formed only in 1831 - after a bloody fight against the Dutch - this 'revolt' was in fact sponsord by French and Pro-French Belgians who couldn't live in a country where a Dutch speaking King ruled, who accepted Flemish/Dutch as an official language at court and in the government. This elite used some recentment against the Dutch created during the religious troubles during the Spanish occupation when the Dutch had been forced to 'leave the south of the Low Country' to the Spanish Catholic Kings. The Spanish made sure the hard way that 'we' would stay Catholic and the Spanish Inquisition cause a lot of death and distruction - it ended the Golden Age of Antwerp etc.
Many Flemish (Belgians didn't yet excist!) did flee to Holland, England to excape the wrath of the Spanish. And the feeling of this 'betray & been sold for the greater good' was used by the Catholic Spanish to 'cause' a general anti-Dutch feeling. Hoping to create hate against non-Catholics. This feeling was partly used to recandle some old 'dislike' and revolt broke lose. In order to safe this tiny part of Europe to be enlisted in French interests the other states of Europe agreed to accept the Belgian state if 'we' accepted a monarchy instead of a republic. We did - our first king was Leopold related to Albert (married to Queen Victoria) from day one the Belgian state had to twist and crowl to avoid to lose it's indepentance to France. Leopold married a French Princess, the official language became French, till the 1970s our universities were all French, our national song still has a French title it was never translated into Flemish although about 60 % of us speak that language. Because this push and shove politic of France trying to 'enlist' Belgium again - we had attopted a neutral possition in order to avoid that France could use our so called no-nutrality as an excuse to 'enlist' us again (we had on and off about 800 years of French rule!) --- this politic of nutrality was used later in regard of Germany too. It was a sort of defence shield of a very tiny country dealing with big pushy neighbours. We can't muster a large army to fight back, we can't retread for miles and miles as we have very limit space! We can only hope on the goodwill of the big ones. And we needed 'friends' - friends who would respect our independance after they had won the war. And that was the major problem - who could we ask for help without giving the 'other one' a reason to attack us? If we asked Germany to respect our freedom - they would have asked for a free passage and that would give Franch a reason to bring their troops itno Belgium. If we asked France for help - the Germans would have moved into Belgium with as excuse that we were in fact a French buffer zone. That's why we turned to Britian - hoping this would give us two things. One we made clear that we didn't pick any site as we hadn't turned towards France nor Germany AND the British Empire was big could muster many soldiers and had won many battles on Belgian soils. We believed that this would make anyone thing twice - having should a big friend around the corner. As we all know it didn't work WHY? I think I know why! Germany had tried (like France) to encrease it intrests - and they knew that this would lead one day to a conflict with Britian. They were sure that could deal with France, that 1871 had shown them. That victory made them 'too self-asured' - over confident. But to win against the British they had one major problem; it ruled the seas and Germany could only defeat it on the sea. As it needed to cross that sea to invade Britian, or to control it. Germany had good ships, could muster a lot of sailors but had no great tradition of naval officers winning sea battles. So fighting the British was a problem - and they new it. Years before 1914 the German Kaizer had done everything to encourage his people to take to the sea, he even invented the fashion of little boys to wear sailor suites (remember all those old photographs of them?!) became a keen sailor himself. Getting involved in boat races. But still they were not sure they had a navy who could face up to the Royal one. That's why they had started to put so much money in building a submarine fleet. But when Belgium asked for protection of the British the Germans saw thier change. With invading Belgium they could achieve two major things - surprise the French and force the British to fight on land! If they had succeeded to defeat the French and British army they wouldn't need the to fight against the Royal Navy! They also beleived that British had no backbone to fight as bravely as their soldiers, many Pruissian officers always saw the British army as a second class army believing thiers would be far better. Remember the upheavals about that in the late 1800s --- they also believed that British Generals were not up to fighting superiour Prussian generals - remember the frase 'Lions leaded by donckeys. All those things were part of their scheme to 'drag the British in a war fought and won on land'. And it worked - the British were forced to join in in 1914, while they had been able to stay out of 1870-71! Only the winning part of this scheme didn't work out. As the German army was halted on Flanders Fields and near the Somme - and despite thier beleives that the British soldiers would not be able to endure they did! Of course at a very high price! But never the less they did endure. I once heard a former Belgian soldier of that war say 'well I guess those donkeys had nasty kicks and they kicked well above the Fritz thier boots where it hurts most'
I also believe this - in history we learn about the facts mostly form the 'winners' and the large countries. Which in it self is normal - but I think if you add the stories of smaller countries to this - you could get a far more complete (my I say honest) point of view of the effents. As you said we nor Poland was nutral - but we were countries squashed between huge giants and how would you living in one of our countries deal with that if one of more of them become agressive? We did what every one did or does - tying to make the best of it. And our race horse in this race was called 'Neutrality' - sadly it got lame after it had to over come a few high fences! But nevertheless it did try to run the race! Even when it was an old nag!
Hope you had a nice weekend!
Appygirl Hi appygirloo1,
"Yes - they did invade us because it was simple military logic - but with that they did 'ignore' our rights as an independent and neutral country".
Do you consider that Belgium was a neutral country at the time? The actions regarding the Free Congo State and the formation of a standing army have been cited by international lawyers as not being the actions of a neutral country.
Cheers, hes.Ìý -
Message 29
Posted by appygirl001 (U516272) on Monday, 8th August 2005
Hi Richie
Thick skinn & head - we must related somehow than?
Could be with all those many battlefield in Belgium were British soldiers fought ---(I know won't say more this is after all a Â鶹ԼÅÄ message board! )
You quite right about the Prussian Junker were in and stayed in control - they saw Hilter as a sort of 'in between figure' till the Kaizer could come back. Only when Hitler was in power he 'forgot' about bringing the Kaizer back and out shine them in 'getting the people' fired up for his ideas instead of demanding the Kaizer to be returned!
The crisis of 1929 did cause some people to vote for them but don't forget this important factor; the Germans were really worried - scared of what was going on in Russia. They were worried about the communists taking over and this fear for the Ivan - made them vote and support any politics what could stop the communists from taking over Germany. You got to understand that there was a 1000 year old fear for the tribes men of the North (Russia) amoungst the Germans.
And they were not alone in this! Many out side Germany were glad Hilter had won the election as now they were sure no communist would take over. Only latter many of them started to realise that Hilter was no better than Stalin but by than he was already firmy establish in his power possition. I understand that even Jews gave money to Hitler to help him win the elections - hoping that he would stop the communists. And many men from other countries under Nazi rule joined the SS-Waffe to fight the communists. I know the Belgians who did join the SS-Waffe were convinced that joining the SS-Waffe was the only way to safe our way of life from a communist take over! In the upheavals between the two wars (our the pause as you say) there was more than Hilter. you had Italy, Spain, Japan and Russia. All those factors played a part in the events leading to the war of 1940. Or 1939 in your case! I know there is an ongoing debate about why didn't others stop Hiler in the 1930s. But those who believe the others failed to stop Hitler often forget to enclude all those other factors in thier debate. Stalin was serious problem - for me he is no inch better than Hitler! And for me he is also to blame for that war --- he allowed Hilter to invade Poland for his share of the cake and because of his treathy with Stalin - HItler invade Holland, Belgium and France in 1940. Being sure his back was protected!!! I honestly don't think Hitler would have got that far if Stalin hadn't allowed him to get there!!!!
I guess you picked the wrong city - they don't really like 'us' that much either - we Flemish have still problems going to Brussels and get treated well -) They keep pretending they don't understand us and if we do speak French they give us the impression we are making constantly horrible mistakes in French! Today there is a report out (was on the news) that Flemish children are not bothered to learn French as they say 'they don't want to learn Flemish - so we don't learn French' (probably also because they want to avoid a lot of home work after school! So they will be the first Flemish generation without much of knowledge of French --- well I guess that could give a huge number of celebration in 10 years time (2015 will be the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo!) -
Message 30
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Monday, 8th August 2005
Some posters have argues that one of the reasons why the 3rd reich remains so in focus is because people who were alive at the time are still around. In that case shouldnt we also be reading loads of books and seeing loads of tv prpgrammes about the stasi, fall of the wall, re-unification etc etc
As for only having one book on the subject of the nazis, thats very difficult. George Clare's Last Waltz in Vienna is the best memoir i have read but i'd probably go for Kershaws Hubris. Or maybe Michael Bloch's Ribbentrop biog...or maybe Callum Macdonalds book on the Heydrich assasination..... -
Message 31
Posted by appygirl001 (U516272) on Monday, 8th August 2005
<
Are you Belgians trying to gang up on me?
Hi Hess,
Don't worry about that - there are not enough of us to do some real harm!!!
Appygirl -
Message 32
Posted by appygirl001 (U516272) on Monday, 8th August 2005
Hi Paul,
I live closer to the Dutch border - prov. Antwerp.
NIce to know there are also some other Belgians on board!
Appygirl -
Message 33
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Monday, 8th August 2005
Hes
Could you clarify what you mean by this section please?
"Do you consider that Belgium was a neutral country at the time? The actions regarding the Free Congo State and the formation of a standing army have been cited by international lawyers as not being the actions of a neutral country."
I'm presuming Belgium did something in its Congo colony - which was no longer the free state by the time - which favoured the allies?
As appygirloo1 says, while there was military logic - given the German plans and the corner they have forced themselves into, the German attack on Belgium was also a definite breach of Belgium's neutrality. [It was also really stupid, both because it made certain British involvement, alienated world-wide opinion and widened the western front].
I think Britain does dwell too much on WWII and the nature of the Nazis. We need to remember what happens and why so that such events can be avoided in the future. However I think too much of Britain's interest to distract us from our decline in both international importance and even more so self-belief.
Steve -
Message 34
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Monday, 8th August 2005
Hes
Could you clarify what you mean by this section please?
"Do you consider that Belgium was a neutral country at the time? The actions regarding the Free Congo State and the formation of a standing army have been cited by international lawyers as not being the actions of a neutral country."
I'm presuming Belgium did something in its Congo colony - which was no longer the free state by the time - which favoured the allies?
As appygirloo1 says, while there was military logic - given the German plans and the corner they have forced themselves into, the German attack on Belgium was also a definite breach of Belgium's neutrality. [It was also really stupid, both because it made certain British involvement, alienated world-wide opinion and widened the western front].
I think Britain does dwell too much on WWII and the nature of the Nazis. We need to remember what happens and why so that such events can be avoided in the future. However I think too much of Britain's interest to distract us from our decline in both international importance and even more so self-belief.
Steve
Ìý
Hi Steve,
Following the annexation of the Congo Free State, a neutral entity in itself, the entry into alliances and the creation of a national army, with conscription, a number of international legal experts considered that Belgium had forgone her right to be a PERPETUAL neutral country, by mid 1914.
The French Professor de Lapradelle (a recognised expert) wrote:
"The perpetually neutral State renounces the right to make war, and, in consequence, the right to contract alliances, even purely defensive ones, because they would drag it into a war to succor an ally or would place it in a situation of political dependence toward such an ally if the neutral State's ally should promise it succor without exacting reciprocity."
In other words the "scrap of paper" was not a legally binding document on August 4, 1914. The moral obligation to come to the aid of a friendly neighbour is a seperate argument however.
Cheers, hes. -
Message 35
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Monday, 8th August 2005
<
Are you Belgians trying to gang up on me?
Hi Hess,
Don't worry about that - there are not enough of us to do some real harm!!!
AppygirlÌý
Hi appy,
Have you ever been to a Belgian soccer match? For my sins I used to support Beerscot before the merger with Germinal (and I've still got the scars to prove it)
Cheers, hes.
PS I will get back to you on the serious matter tomorrow, take care. -
Message 36
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 8th August 2005
Appygirl,
thanks for your elaborated messages about Belgium and Flanders.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 37
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Monday, 8th August 2005
On a wider point, there is a general ignorance of Europe both now and in terms of its history in the UK. It is now only the Nazis, who can be studied in all four of the last years at Englsih school - it is down to the laziness of teachers, who maintain they can teach research methods due to the wide range of material by pumping out easily accessible material. Research is about doing a bit of spadework and then analysisng what turns up to develop hypotheses for further testing.
I studied German post-WW2 history as part of German A-level and remain a big fan of Erhardt, architect of the Wirtschaftswunder. Beyond that I did the causes of WW1 up to O-level and otherwise, it was really involvement in Napoleonic wargames that prompted to read up on Imperial Austria. The problem with the two big Germanic nations is that one did not exist until 1870 and the other has a complex history, which is too diffiocult for schoolkids to absorb. However, there is mnuch in them that has shaped the modern world and it might be better to udnerstand why things happen, rather than take the black-and-white view in palces above.
If the Â鶹ԼÅÄ can run an Africa season, why not a German season? News coverage could be dramatically improved too. -
Message 38
Posted by shufflin' peasant (U1778121) on Tuesday, 9th August 2005
Gorman1
I agree with you. Endless programmes about Nazi Germany and flooding the school cirriculum with the Third Reich is at best lazy history and at worst xenophobic.
If you really have to look at Germany in relation to wars, in Trafalgar year, what about Blucher and the Prussians saving the day at Waterloo?
I’m far more interested in the Investiture Contest between the Holy Roman Emporers and the Papacy – probably one of the most significant factors in the separation of the church and state in Western Europe, which is in turn the most significant difference between traditions of theogratic influence on legislature in the Christian and Islamic worlds ... bet channel 5 arn’t going to make a cheap documentary about that though ... -
Message 39
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Tuesday, 9th August 2005
Hi Appygirl,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think that if you were to look into the whole range of historical documentation in the period of (say) 1900-1914 you may see a pattern emerging which can be summed up in 1914 as;
-Germany felt encircled and threatened, not only at home, but in her colonies as well.
-Germany wanted to keep England (and the USA) out of any conflict (on land OR sea).
-The threat of Russia on the Eastern border was a serious concern.
-The capture of Paris as quickly as possible became a priority. The manner chosen was a quick strike through Northern France, which entailed invading Belgium.
180% TURN HERE.
This thread was started about the extension of German history studies outside the WAR(s) (if I am not mistaken). It seems to have gone on to a level of German-bashing that occupies that place reserved for the USA and France. I think Gorman's point is a great one. How much do the Brits know about European history? And considering some of the comments; how many Brits have ACTUALLY been to Germany or have German friends/contact? The study of history is about looking back in order to build a future, not permanently look back and foster racial sterotyping.
I suggest that sixty years of peace counts for something. Now thats something to think about in todays world
Cheers, hes.
PS On a lighter note; you would think that having supported Beerschot that I (at least) could spell the name correctly -
Message 40
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Tuesday, 9th August 2005
just as a side issue to hes's last post
I've been to Belgium, Holland, northern France and Germany. I have a good friend from Germany, who has just moved over to the UK.
I don't know enough about european history, but am always learning something new about it
as a side side issue. the most pleasent and welcoming people I met while in northern europe were in order, Dutch, German, Brussels Belgan and then by some considerable margin the Somme French and lower down again the Normandy French.
Hopefully though next time I can meet some Flemish people as well -
Message 41
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Tuesday, 9th August 2005
Hello Jozef
Thank you very much for your statement and I couldn´t had write it better as you did.
By the way I like to tell you that last week there was an documentary on the German TV about the uprising of Warsaw in 1944. It was very interesting to me and there were shown extracted scenes from the film "Kanal" - you mentioned it a half year ago (or so far) - and also shown original film documents, made by the Polish soldiers who fought against the German Army.
There were also former members of the Polish resistance interviewed and while I saw the documentary I was thinking about you and the story you wrote about your Grandmother and her time during the war. With that in the background of my mind, the documentary was more impressive to me than it might had been without our conversations.
The reason for why Stalin had not that much interest to help the Polish Uprisers was also clear shown in that documentary. He wanted that the Germans kill the members of the Polish resistance, which were mostly anti-communistic and after the uprising ended, the Red Army was going forward against the German Army.
I really can understand why the Polish people are aware of the Russians. Not only from the point of view by historical matters. The kind of acting of Putin by the celebration of Königsberg (Kaliningrad) speaks for itself. After the event I noticed the reason for the invitation of Chirac, because Schröder and Chirac were representing the EU. Putin had better invited Poland to that event too as an real sign for understanding between the nations. But sadly in politics today you can find sometimes aspects of "old thinking" and animosities.
Kindest Regards
Thomas -
Message 42
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Tuesday, 9th August 2005
Hi Richie,
Having just spent a vacation in France (including one week in Falaise, Normandy) I fully realise how little I know of the historical deveopment of France (along with the rest of European history not involving the UK). I am slowly making up for it.
Regarding friendliness; I have always found the Normans I met extemely accomodating. Language does remain the main barrier.
Cheers, hes. -
Message 43
Posted by JimdalftheTorquoise (U1823373) on Tuesday, 9th August 2005
Returning to the point of this thread, although the information presented thus far has been superb, I personally think there should be no problem with our fascination with the third riech and, of course, it's demise...
The Germans have moved on because they were defeated... the Allies won and this is sheer pride in our past victories...
Will the Germans forget when they eventually win the world cup??? Of course not, and we certainly haven't forgotten 1966
But the biggest reason for our fascination with victory is the fact that if we lost... how in the sweet blue **** would we be able to forget??? We would be forced under a new political doctrine, a small percentage of our population would not even exist... the list of things that would have changed completely is endless
But WE, the capitolist nations won, and WE rebuilt germany after the war so as trade could recommence and Communism could be stopped from spreading... We rebuilt germany so well that they are a stronger economy than ourselves (Okay, so the yanks did most, but we did a little)
Just to top it all off, when my aunt was living in germany she managed to become drunk in the middle of Berlin and shouted "What the **** are you looking at you nazi pig!!! who won the war, huh???" to an innocent passer-by The so-called "Nazi Pig" said (in perfect english) "look around you and then tell me"... The city beats London into submission when it comes down to it... -
Message 44
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Tuesday, 9th August 2005
Hi Richie,
Having just spent a vacation in France (including one week in Falaise, Normandy) I fully realise how little I know of the historical deveopment of France (along with the rest of European history not involving the UK). I am slowly making up for it.
Regarding friendliness; I have always found the Normans I met extemely accomodating. Language does remain the main barrier.
Cheers, hes.Ìý
PS (Maybe one day I will be able to tell the difference between "preview" and "post").
I have several friends in Germany and have worked there, part time. This was in connection with starting US/British subsidiaries in Düsseldorf and Frankfurt. This very enjoyable experience brought me into contact with Germans on a professional and social level. Funny, the subject of the war(s) never really raised itself, not because of any taboe, but because it was not relevant to our day to day lives.
Cheers, hes -
Message 45
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Tuesday, 9th August 2005
Hi Jim,
"Just to top it all off, when my aunt was living in germany she managed to become drunk in the middle of Berlin and shouted "What the **** are you looking at you nazi pig!!! who won the war, huh???" to an innocent passer-by".
Now you know why Brits abroad are so well liked.
With regard to World Cup wins, no German has ever gone on and on about their wins of 1974 or 1990 to me.
Cheers, hes -
Message 46
Posted by ade7uk (U1824168) on Tuesday, 9th August 2005
Didn't i read somewhere that during the early 70's, the West German government took a pole concerning some of the leaders during WWII........something like 23% of school children thought Hitler was a pop star?
Something to do with not teaching the history of the third reich until this?
No can't remember where I read it, but it was something like that -
Message 47
Posted by JimdalftheTorquoise (U1823373) on Tuesday, 9th August 2005
I suspect that German people participating in that poll were not completely honest... Hitler was a major celebrity and verged on being a sex symbol... they all loved goeballs(Names escape me, sorry about spelling) was well liked... not so sure about Goerring
And my apologies, I remembered 1990 after the post, but not the other... I thought they had only won it once
But everyone has a right to take pride in victory... -
Message 48
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Tuesday, 9th August 2005
Hi Jim,
"But everyone has a right to take pride in victory...".
For the record they also won in 1954.
Cheers, hes. -
Message 49
Posted by littlelovelamb (U1823292) on Wednesday, 10th August 2005
Hi everyone, I've just registered on here and thought I might join the debate. I studied Nazi Germany during my BA at the LSE, and I came to the conclusion that while there is a great deal of literature about the period, a lot of it is no longer relevant to historical study (other than from a point of historiography). Writing about Nazi Germany can be placed into different categories, and the volume produced is testament to this. International politics has shaped our view of Nazism, which means that the changing portrayals of Germany at this time reflect changes in the global arena. As such, the study of Nazism can be seen as a microcosm of post-war world history.
Immediately after the war, Hitler was portrayed as the evil dictator who single handedly caused both the war and the holocaust. This quite unrealistic approach alleviated the collective guilt of the German people, as they had a figurehead to lay the blame onto. This was a deliberate tactic of the Allies, who wanted a unified and strong West Germany to form an effective buffer against the USSR. For many years, this was the accepted and unchallenged view of Nazism.
Of course, historical debate has now changed, resulting in a new wave of authors (and a counter-wave of historians reiterating the more traditional approach). The collective responsibility of the German people has been more fully explored, and Hitler is no longer seen as the overreaching leader. Instead, more emphasis is placed on the vast bureaucracy of the Nazi party and the role it played in radicalising policies.
But a far more dramatic shift in opinion is that which attributes a far higher level of blame to the German people. There have been some "historians" who have gone too far in this vein in order to sell books (I think it's obvious who that is!), but others have- without going to the ridiculous lengths of the aforementioned writer- tried to demonstrate that the German people were not brainwashed, and there was a high level of support among the populus (at least until the end of the war, when living standards began to fall dramatically). This is an important shift in historical thinking. The previous approach meant that German people did not confront their past, and a number of prominent Nazis were not brought to suitable justice (I am thinking of Austrian officials!).
The end of the Cold War has meant that the bipolar world created through the media has collapsed, and thus the reality of Nazi Germany can be explored at a far greater depth than previosuly. However, thanks to the earlier somewhat distorted views put forward by the West, there remains a great deal of debate that is still to be contested. This means that there appears to be an overemphasis on this period. In fact, only certain sections of Nazism have been sufficiently covered. For example, other than Omer Bartov and Anita Prazmovska, no historians have looked at Poland in depth. In my opinion, this is necessary in order to compare genocidal history and remove the focus from the holocaust (I say this as the plight of the Poles is severely underreported, and the Armenian and Rwandan genocides are not known about to the same extent as the Holocaust).
This perhaps leads onto my final point. Is it not the case that the Holocaust is held up as the pinnacle of evil because the people were WHITE and the Germans are "just like us" (in that they are Northern European, with a similar language, history and culture), whereas the Rwandan genocide is considered to be less important as it is BLACK people killing other BLACK people? Is it more acceptable for Black people to kill each other, or are their lives worth less? The importance of distance- both physical and emotional- on our interpretation of events should not be underestimated.
I apologise for such a long post. If anyone wants to raise any of the above points with me, please feel welcome.
Hattie -
Message 50
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Wednesday, 10th August 2005
Hi Hattie,
Welcome to the boards.
A very interesting posting. I would like to reply when I have got more time to formulate something as intelligent.
Cheers, John.
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 Ìýto 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
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ 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.