Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Euphemising WW2
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by becksiders (U14619314) on Sunday, 19th September 2010
I am now moved to comment on recent Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ coverage of WW2 and the Battle of Britain. I am incensed at the obvious intent of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ to euphemise WW2 by referring to Germans as "Nazis". Britain fought the war against Germans, of which some were Nazis. Whilst the Germans are now our friends, we must not forget that they were once our greatest enemies and should not wrongly, always be referred to as Nazi.
-
Message 2
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 20th September 2010
It isn't a euphemism, it is a generalisation.
Britain was involved in a war against a nation whose guiding force was Nazism. So, Nazis they were.
You remind us, correctly, that Germany was once our most bitter foe. However, I would remind you that Spain, France, and even the Dutch, were once out most bitter foes. Don't forget them. -
Message 3
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 20th September 2010
To quote Chamberlain on 3rd September 1939
"I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany."
So he was in no doubt that we were at war with Germany and I don't think members of the armed forces asked whether an enemy serviceman was a member of the Nazi party. -
Message 4
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Monday, 20th September 2010
We are 'euphemizing' not just the war, but the whole of our existance. The PC generation, whose cosseted lifestyle is totally owed to the people who fought in that war, seem to think that if you stop saying a bad word, it will go away, and if you pretend that everything in the garden is lovely, it will be.
Believe me, it the garden is lovely, it is because someone put in a lot of sweat, tears, backbreaking work, and good old-fashioned manure to make it that way!
I am very surprised that Stephen Hawkinge is still allowed to say 'Black Hole' in public! -
Message 5
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Monday, 20th September 2010
I am incensed at the obvious intent of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ to euphemise WW2 by referring to Germans as "Nazis". Β
Are you sure about that? Here is what the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ says about the next episode in the series:
James Holland presents a fresh analysis into the Battle of Britain, exploring the lesser-told GERMAN point of view, and highlighting the role of those who supported the Few during the summer of 1940.
Focusing on the tactics, technologies and intelligence available to both sides, Holland examines the ways in which both GERMANY and Britain used their resources: from aircraft to air defence, and from intelligence to organisation. And, by gaining rare first-hand testimony from GERMAN veterans, and access to the untapped diaries and documents we reveal that this was a battle of two sides and many layers. Part of the Battle of Britain season to mark the 70th anniversary.
-
Message 6
Posted by becksiders (U14619314) on Monday, 20th September 2010
Yes, I am sure. In your example a point of view could hardly be referred to as Nazi, Germany is a country and could not be referred to as Nazi, and veterans could not be referred to as Nazi either. I listen a lot to the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ and watch mostly Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TV. My point is that it seems to me that whenever it is possible to substitute Nazi for German, they do. My belief is that our wars with the Germans must never be forgotten nor trivialised. By saying "Nazi" instead of "German" we are making the memory inaccurate. The fact is that we were at war with Germany and the Germans, some of whom were Nazi. My father and father-in-law fought in WW2 and if I had asked them who they were fighting against they would definitely not have said "the Nazis".
The biggest problem to me is how children perceive the World Wars. If we tell them we were at war with the Nazis, their peception is distorted immediately. It is much better for them to know that we were once (no twice) at war with Germany, both times in recent history, and the reasons we were at war, and that we were both times in defence. -
Message 7
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Monday, 20th September 2010
Was the Falklands Conflict the 'Galterians' versus the 'Thatcherites'?
I do not hate the Germans, but I can't deny the fact that we had two wars against them, any more than forget the x number of wars we had against our recent pals, the French. We have fought the Americans as often as we have fought the Germans, and now we have a 'Special Relationship' with them!
Let's not 'clean up' history, out of Political Correctness. -
Message 8
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 21st September 2010
In your example a point of view could hardly be referred to as Nazi, Germany is a country and could not be referred to as Nazi, and veterans could not be referred to as Nazi either.Β
Fair point. However I don't think there's any danger of people forgetting that the Nazis were (mostly) Germans, whatever the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ may say.
If anything I'd say we have the opposite problem - a complete ignorance of the 2000 years of German history when the Nazis weren't in charge, as opposed to the 12 years when they were. -
Message 9
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Tuesday, 21st September 2010
<>
The truth of this is shown by the fact that many Germans who were not Nazi, fought us nevertheless. When one's country is in a struggle with another, one usually goes unquestioningly to serve it.
Such a choice was no doubt made easier in Germany because (I think I'm right in saying) by and large the Hitler regime didn't tolerate conscientious objectors. -
Message 10
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Friday, 24th September 2010
The PC generation, whose cosseted lifestyle is totally owed to the people who fought in that war
That will be the PC generation that are fighting in Afghanistan and other parts of the world at this very minute so you can sit there and denigrate them? -
Message 11
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Friday, 24th September 2010
TrailApe, I would hardly class the Army as the PC generation, or denigrate them either.
By the 'PC Generation' I was of course referring to those members of the 'refined and educated' classes who regard themselves as the Guardians of our Moral Standards, our speech, and our attitudes in this enlightened day and age. The people who tell us that it is 'unproductive' to recall the darker side of History, in case it causes offence to the descendants of those who made it dark. The people who tell us that war is 'always wrong', and 'solves nothing' - the people who will never need to fight one, thanks to the people who did fight one 70 years ago.
The people who most strident in condemning the Armed Forces as 'warmongering thugs' when they advocate a strong defence policy.
THAT PC generation! -
Message 12
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Sunday, 10th October 2010
Sorry to rake over old-coals, but I found this thread quite interesting having just watched the Channel 4 programme, 'The Nazi Titanic,' or the 'Wilhelm Gustloff,' which was torpedoed in the icy waters of the Baltic Sea in January 1945.
This sinking is said to be the biggest maritime disaster in history, as over 9,000 perished. The programme started with images of the horrors perpitrated against the Russian population by the invading German Armies between 1941-44. This was followed by the memories of former 'Red Star' soldiers who declared that back in 1945 they only wanted revenge, and then came the German women who had been raped and sent to siberia as punishment for being on the wrong side. (The fact which most coloured my opinion of these people wasn't that they were Nazis or Berliners, but East Prussians, and I still feel a bon eof contention over certain matters that went down during the Great War.) Then there were the two girls who managed to secure passage on board the liner because their were members of the German navy, and could secure passes. They didn't go into the bathing pool with the other women because it was too crowded, and for that they survived. The thing was, that as the programme progressed, I began to forget whose side I was on, and also began to feel a certain sympathy towards the plight of these Germans.
In the end, a man who had been a very young child, the only survivor from a life boat, had been adopted by the skipper of the rescue ship, had no idea who he/his really family had been, though he always regarded the skipper as his own tru father, made the statement that the sinking of the ship didn't start on January 30th 1945, but 12 years before, with the election of one, Herr Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer and Nazi. That sure made me confused???????????????????????
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.