A stupid discussion by stupid people

[frostytheplebe]

Ok firstly let me apologize if ANYONE finds this offensive. Believe me that is not my intent. I was involved in a debate about World War 2 not too long ago and this student from Holland had thier own... rather radical view that seems to be shared by many Europeans. Well given that we've had such great discussions about WW2 here in the past, I'd like to get everyone's reaction to the following statement:

"So funny Americans always start with 'if my grandfather blah blah blah' Well let me tell you, watch A bridge too far' and then think again. YOUR grandfathers probably took that wrong bridge also. In the mean time Poland and the British and Canadians freed us. NOT the Americans. "

[Triple-B]

well the truth is, that the americans joined WWII pretty late, meanwhile france was partly occupied by the nazis, the british were pretty banged up (airforce) and russia suffered of a lot of casualties.

the americans took a big part in ending the war, but the real work was done by russia.

[Mace]

Most of what the US did for the liberation of the Netherlands/Holland, was actually reinforcing the UK with material and men, and ofcourse, there was the "accidental bombing" of my(and others) hometown; http://www.stevenroyedwards.com/bombingofnijmegen.html
that -might- be one of the frustrations he/she got when hearing about the glorious america, but I would not think that way, since:
- In any war people make mistakes
- Innocent people also die in wars
- Without the aid of the US challenging the western front, the war could have lasted a lot longer.
- Everybody's grandpa was a either a highly decorated soldier or resistance hero in the war.
- It was a long time ago, and nobody in that room with you was directly involved

And also, since the US make about 90% of all WW2 movies, they always place themselves as the heroes. But that's just normal, would you make a movie where your people where the bad guys in?

[FekLeyrTarg]

It is not my intention to offend anyone or defend the Nazis. They were and are still very bad. But in my opinion, there are/were no good guys in wars, especially in WW2. Only bad guys. I mean, the Nazis killed millions of innocent civillians. But so did the Soviets (deportation of German-Russians, GULACS), the Japanese (as far as I know) and even the British and Americans (Hiroshima and Nagasaki (USA only) and the destruction of many german cities like Berlin and Osnabrueck (the austrian ones weren't that damaged)).

And there's something which many people aren't aware of: Not all Nazis were germans. There were many austrian Nazis, too and I heard that they were worse than the german ones. And at least half of Hitler's staff were austrian, including Hitler himself.

And do you know what disturbs me? On Youtube and some other sites, some users start insulting all germans as Nazis and start discussions about them, only because an upload (like a video) is a german one. So please let me get this straight: Most Germans and Austrians aren't Nazis. They even despise Nazis. In Germany and Austria, there is the so-called "Wiederbetaetigungsgesetz" ("Revival law" or sth like that). In other words, (Neo-)Nazis can get punished. Same for the ones who quote/scream Nazi-Paroles, even if was just supposed to be funny. (And I don't think it is funny)

There are even Street Demonstrations against Nazis sometimes.
Here's some footage from the Demo "Keine Stimme den Nazis" ("No Votes for the Nazis") in Wismar from the 12th August 2006: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PG3JOJYSg8

I'm glad that most of us didn't have to witness this horrible war. Let's hope that this won't be repeated and that we won't have another war. Because if a WWIII breaks out: God help us all.
And may all dead victims of that horrible war rest in peace and may they never be forgotten.

[Mace]

Originally Posted by FekLeyrTarg

Same for the ones who quote/scream Nazi-Paroles, even if was just supposed to be funny. (And I don't think it is funny)

There are even Street Demonstrations against Nazis sometimes.
Here's some footage from the Demo "Keine Stimme den Nazis" ("No Votes for the Nazis") in Wismar from the 12th August 2006: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PG3JOJYSg8

From heritage I'm half German, quarter Danish, Quarter Dutch. In most european countries we ridicule Nazi's as stupid, as in the persons. Nazism is no joke because the horrid things it caused. British comedies mock nazi's in just about every way over the years. And here when you have a loudmouthing, bad boss or manager , it's pretty common when he walks off to look you co-workers in the eye, click your heels together, raise your right hand, and "march" back to your working space. AFAIK swastika's, hitler-salutes, or the "sieg-heil" pronouncation is forbidden in germany, as until recently the reprints of Hitler's book.

Nazism was a cult, just like the Taliban is, not a race or habitants of a specific country. There are Nazi worshippers all over the world, still, most of those people are retarded and just hate foreigners. Antifacistic groups are also stupid, and at least as dangerous.

Also banning people access to the history of the history of Nazism and WW2 is wrong, people then would then forget the how, why, and it's consequences, and the phrase "Nie wieder" might also be forgotten.

In my country we still hold 2 minutes silence for the war victims on the 4th of may, and celebrate our liberation on the 5th. And that brings me to a joke we usually tend to make when a german hangs around a concert and asks why we hold silence throughout the entire hall:
German: Why is everybody so silent?
We: To remember those who faught and died in the war, our people, the British, the Americans, the French...
German: What about the Germans?
We: We celebrate that tomorrow!

[Dyret]

Originally Posted by FekLeyrTarg

And do you know what disturbs me? On Youtube and some other sites, some users start insulting all germans as Nazis and start discussions about them, only because an upload (like a video) is a german one.

They're either idiots or less than clever trolls... don't worry about it.

[Gimpy]

Originally Posted by FekLeyrTarg

It is not my intention to offend anyone or defend the Nazis. They were and are still very bad. But in my opinion, there are/were no good guys in wars, especially in WW2.

There is no denying that every side committed unnecessary acts against one another, though what made this war different was also what was done in the aftermath. Typically, when an opposing nation is beaten and/or conquered, the winning nation plunders or demands significant monetary assets and leaves their opponent with nothing. While normally it leads to a significant period of rebuilding and economic hardship, it can also open the doorway for unintended consequences such as the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. Not to say that every German was "evil", as most were just serving their country as any one else would, the few gave the whole a terrible image. Not to praise what we did, the Marshall Plan was a significant change in foreign policy. No longer was a country just beaten or liberated, they were offered a way of speedy recovery. Hell, we even offered it to the Soviets and they turned it down. I've traveled to numerous European countries, its no surprise we (Americans) get derided so much as I've seen the stupid things we say to others in their country. A better scene I witnessed was while I was in France and an American uttered the sentence, "Seeings though we freed you and blah blah blah....". I laughed my ass off when the waiter "dropped" the drink order in the dudes lap .

[t.c.cgi]

Originally Posted by frostytheplebe

"So funny Americans always start with 'if my grandfather blah blah blah' Well let me tell you, watch A bridge too far' and then think again. YOUR grandfathers probably took that wrong bridge also. In the mean time Poland and the British and Canadians freed us. NOT the Americans. "

[Emphasis added]

Poland?! Seriously? What a laugh. I know they had a resistance movement and all, but last I checked they were gobbled up by the Soviets straight away. Out of the pot and into the fire isn't the situation I'd call liberation. I'll make a graceful assumption here and guess she meant France.

It's just proof that idiots that don't know what they're talking about come from every nation. Smile, nod, and move along.

Originally Posted by FekLeyrTarg

I mean, the Nazis killed millions of innocent civillians. But so did the Soviets (deportation of German-Russians, GULACS), the Japanese (as far as I know) and even the British and Americans (Hiroshima and Nagasaki (USA only) and the destruction of many german cities like Berlin and Osnabrueck (the austrian ones weren't that damaged)).

There's a subtle, yet authentically large difference between systematic extermination and trying to cripple a fanatical enemy. You really fouled up in trying to make a link.

If you wanted to make a stellar argument you'd have cited the Japanese-American Internment Camps, which were a couple gas chambers and a Siberian railway project away from making us bad guys. Boy... we barely dodged that bullet, didn't we?

I do need to point out that America was exceptionally isolationist in the 1930's. We did not give a rip about what was going on in the rest of the world, and rightly so... the great depression made domestic survival foremost. Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor and had Britain not demanded help in Africa and Europe in exchange for help in the Pacific, do you really think the USA would have done more than sold a few rusted out WW1 relics? I don't.

What a difference a day makes.

[Gimpy]

Originally Posted by t.c.cgi

[Emphasis added]

Poland?! Seriously? What a laugh. I know they had a resistance movement and all, but last I checked they were gobbled up by the Soviets straight away. Out of the pot and into the fire isn't the situation I'd call liberation. I'll make a graceful assumption here and guess she meant France.

It's just proof that idiots that don't know what they're talking about come from every nation. Smile, nod, and move along.

If you actually knew anything about Poland, you'd know that they provided the British with an Enigma machine and the codes, preventing the loss of the Battle of the Atlantic. Also, nearly a quarter million Polish troops served just with the British after the fall of Poland. How funny you're the poster boy of your own sentence.

[t.c.cgi]

Originally Posted by Gimpy

Also, nearly a quarter million Polish troops served just with the British after the fall of Poland.

A Polish man in a British uniform is a British soldier. So is an American in a British uniform. Meanwhile an American in a German uniform is a German soldier, and a Frenchman in a Free French Forces uniform...

And the whole argument becomes particularly odd doesn't it? Event at a commitment of a quarter million (most completely under British command), does that contribution somehow eclipse American involvement to non-existence? And where's the Soviets, Australians, New Zealanders, French, and everyone else I'm forgetting?

[Gimpy]

Point and case being, we're not the only ones who fought and others deserve more credit than the media and you would give them for that matter.

And my mistake, they were under British command but were still the Polish Army.

[t.c.cgi]

Which is precisely where the student mentioned in the original post is being damn silly. American tourists who learn everything about the world from Fox News go over and crap all over Europeans like they personally stormed Berlin and killed Hitler. Okay. So the rational response is to... be just as asinine and act like the American contribution was inconsequential?

Why not just say the Soviets did all the work and the rest of the Allies were just freeloading? Just think of the wonderful casualty pie-charts and industrial mass-production figures one could whip out for that one.

[Gimpy]

We didnt start the fight, but we sure did HELP finish it. Unlike Hollywood and our own ignorance would suggest, it took a team effort of multiple nations to end Fascism and Imperial expansion.

[Death]

While true that the US contribution to the war effort in Europe was somewhat limited as far as personnel participation until late in the war, they did supply a lot of the materials needed to carry out the war, and I don't mean those WW1 destroyers given to the UK. It was US hulls mounting British sonar that pretty much crippled the U-boat fleet's ability to seriously impair shipping from the US, after some serious fumbles earlier in the war (Adm. King not ordering convoying, PQ17, and assorted others).

Oh, and t.c.cgi? The Soviets did claim that they won the war, and the other allies were just figuratively holding their coats. No mention was ever made of the war materiel shipped to them from the US via the "Murmansk run", including 15,000 aircraft, 7,000 tanks, 350,000 tons of explosives, and 15,000,000 pairs of boots, as that would undermine Soviet propaganda.

[Mace]

Without US support, the UK might have fallen, I would have the "Panzerlied" on my alarmclock, and wing commander 1 would have been patched for europe so that Blair would have blond hair.

[Quarto]

Originally Posted by frostytheplebe

Ok firstly let me apologize if ANYONE finds this offensive. Believe me that is not my intent. I was involved in a debate about World War 2 not too long ago and this student from Holland had thier own... rather radical view that seems to be shared by many Europeans. Well given that we've had such great discussions about WW2 here in the past, I'd like to get everyone's reaction to the following statement:

"So funny Americans always start with 'if my grandfather blah blah blah' Well let me tell you, watch A bridge too far' and then think again. YOUR grandfathers probably took that wrong bridge also. In the mean time Poland and the British and Canadians freed us. NOT the Americans. "

I think you have to take this statement in context. Modern Europe is very, very strongly anti-American. I don't want to get into the discussion of why this is the case - it's a weird and unfortunate state where Europeans blame everyone but themselves for their own mistakes. But, regardless of the causes, you have to take this onboard any time you discuss WWII with Europeans - even those who have a good knowledge of WWII history may try to disparage America's involvement, while those whose knowledge is weaker will not even realise that they're disparaging America's involvement - they'll think they're simply stating the truth.

In this particular case, you also have to add the fact that this person you were talking to seemed totally unaware of the existence of a world outside of the Netherlands. Presumably, for him/her, German troops were something that one day appeared out of nowhere - and then, five years later, just as suddenly, the liberating armies appeared out of nowhere and killed all the Germans. The fact that it took five years of war to reach the point where German troops could be kicked out of the Netherlands - that's obviously beyond them. The fact that, even if it was British, Canadian and Polish troops that directly liberated them, it was American troops and equipment that let them reach this point - that's obviously beyond them too.

(of course, I seem to recall that American troops did indeed play a significant role in liberating the Netherlands, so this person was totally wrong in any case - but all things considered, that's a small detail )

Originally Posted by t.c.cgi

Poland?! Seriously? What a laugh. I know they had a resistance movement and all, but last I checked they were gobbled up by the Soviets straight away. Out of the pot and into the fire isn't the situation I'd call liberation. I'll make a graceful assumption here and guess she meant France.

It's just proof that idiots that don't know what they're talking about come from every nation. Smile, nod, and move along.

Well, you do seem to confirm the validity of that second paragraph . So, I'll smile, nod - but I won't move along without explaining a few things.

What this person meant, evidently, was who actually liberated the Netherlands - not who won the war, but who marched into the Netherlands. Poland did indeed contribute significantly to this operation - not only were there Polish paratroopers involved in Operation Marketgarden, but also, the next year, Polish ground troops were involved in the subsequent operations.

Now, I'll certainly agree with you that the Polish contribution to the Allied war effort wasn't quite in the top league. It was the British, Americans, Russians, Canadians and Australians (more or less in that order) most of all - but I think a very strong case could be made that Poland's contribution to victory was greater than, say, France. We had a resistance movement that, at its peak, had around a million active troops, who played a significant role in disrupting supplies on the eastern front, delivering intel information to the Allies, and so on. At all times throughout the war, the Germans had to keep about half a million troops in Poland - these were troops that could have made quite a difference elsewhere. Heck, in August 1944, during the Warsaw Uprising, for a few weeks the German casualties in Warsaw alone were higher than the total casualties from the entire western front. Apart from that, we had our army in the west (as has been mentioned, about a quarter of a million troops), with its own tank divisions, its own small fleet (destroyers, submarines, even a light cruiser), and its own air force (the top-scoring squadron during the Battle of Britain, No. 303, was Polish - this one squadron accounted for about 5% of all kills during the battle, and it certainly wasn't the only Polish fighter squadron). Polish ground troops fought in France, Africa, Italy, then France again, and finally in Germany. Then there was the Polish army under communist control, on the eastern front - I believe there was at least half a million Polish troops there, possibly up to a million. And yes, they also were not Russian soldiers - they too, fought under their own flag, even if (obviously) under tight Soviet control. The Polish army in the east, it goes without saying, also had its own tanks and air force - no navy, though. All in all, I think this photo of the Polish flag on the ruins of Berlin says all there is to say about Poland's supposed lack of contribution to victory in WWII .

[Mace]

Originally Posted by Quarto

Presumably, for him/her, German troops were something that one day appeared out of nowhere - and then, five years later, just as suddenly, the liberating armies appeared out of nowhere and killed all the Germans..

On the first part you are completely correct, the germans literally walked across the border unannounced into the streets of the cities near the border at 4 in the morning, and had taken about half the country before mobilisation started, and only a few strongholds held the germans back until our royal family escaped to england and officially surrendered.

During the liberation of the netherlands a lot more damage was done, and in the aftermath of the war everyone here was poor, their homes in ruins, their goods confiscated by the germans to support the war.... The local girls who had fallen in love with german soldiers got their heads shaved and were chased out of their villages... liberation did cost the dutch a lot more then the german occupation in the end.

Of yes, Germans: Ich will mein Fahrrad zurück!

[Zelvik]

Ok firstly let me apologize if ANYONE finds this offensive. Believe me that is not my intent. I was involved in a debate about World War 2 not too long ago and this student from Holland had thier own... rather radical view that seems to be shared by many Europeans. Well given that we've had such great discussions about WW2 here in the past, I'd like to get everyone's reaction to the following statement:

"So funny Americans always start with 'if my grandfather blah blah blah' Well let me tell you, watch A bridge too far' and then think again. YOUR grandfathers probably took that wrong bridge also. In the mean time Poland and the British and Canadians freed us. NOT the Americans. "

As somebody whose grandfathers fought for the other side and actually were shot at by American soldiers I still have to say some thing to those guys that boarded ships to fight a war on the other side of the big pond. Thank you, thank you very much. Not only did you get rid of a regime that had moraly corrupted many of the people back then and supressed or killed the rest, but you also were ready to stay after that deed was accomplished and sat it out in my homecountry until a solution with the Sovjets could be reached that reestablished it as a undivided sovereign state. And on top of that you poured billions worth of todays money into our economic recovery. So thanks to all those US politicians who made the decissions in the Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower governments and thanks to those brave men who commited their health and their lives to free a continent that had fucked up itself.

[Quarto]

Originally Posted by Zelvik

So thanks to all those US politicians who made the decissions in the Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower governments and thanks to those brave men who commited their health and their lives to free a continent that had fucked up itself.

As a German, you go too far with that "continent that fucked up itself" bit. Be responsible - by saying that the continent as a whole was responsible for its plight, you suggest that we forced you to attack .

Originally Posted by Mace

On the first part you are completely correct, the germans literally walked across the border unannounced into the streets of the cities near the border at 4 in the morning, and had taken about half the country before mobilisation started, and only a few strongholds held the germans back until our royal family escaped to england and officially surrendered.

That's rather selling yourself short - the Netherlands, all things considered, put up an amazingly hard fight, even inflicting some local defeats on the Germans. It took five days of fighting before you surrendered - and even then, Germany had to break the rules of civilised warfare by bombing Rotterdam (24,000 houses destroyed!) and threatening to destroy other cities. I don't know what they teach you at school, but this defensive effort certainly wasn't supposed to merely hold the Germans back until the Queen could escape - the fact is, she didn't leave until day four of the battle, and even then, she had been meant to only evacuate to Zeeland. The decision to head for the UK was only made when it turned out a voyage to Zeeland would be too risky because the area had been mined. And, most importantly, at the end of the battle, your government still refused to surrender - the only surrender the Germans got in the Netherlands was from the troops actually in the country (and even then, Zealand was exempted - it only fell a few days later). If only the French had half the courage the Dutch showed, Germany could have been defeated much, much sooner. WWII is a time the Dutch can be hugely proud of - and should draw lessons from it for the present.

[Zelvik]

As a German, you go too far with that "continent that fucked up itself" bit. Be responsible - by saying that the continent as a whole was responsible for its plight, you suggest that we forced you to attack .

Firstly I am not German. Secondly Id root the reasons for why the continent went down the drain far earlier than the 1930ties. Germany has its very own road in this direction, and clearly holds its very big share of responsibility for what happened and for what part of its population did during WW2. But the development in Germany is not disconnected from the development of ideas, thoughts and political developments in the rest of the continent. There definitly are differences in the development in Germany and other nations that lead to different outcomes, in the German case allowed the rise of Nazism, but there are common roots to them. So when I say the continent fucked itself up, I am not singling out WW2 and its effects but the way European nationalism and the mix of parts of modern thought and long kept prejudice set the stage for the atrocities of WW2 to happen.

And at least for Western Europe (which included most of Germany past 1949) the US involvement was a necessary precondidtion to root out some of these underlying problems. Without US pressure there probably wouldnt have been a reconciliation in the form of the European project we partake even today.

If only the French had half the courage the Dutch showed, Germany could have been defeated much, much sooner.

I realy doubt it was a lack of courage that caused the French defeat and the protraction of the war, but a fatal combination of wrong perception of the capabilities of the German Wehrmacht at the onset of the war in 1939 and outdated doctrines on the French part. Partly they probably were baffled by the success in the Polish campaign partly they were probably underestimating the Wehrmacht in their capabilities to perform a mechanized assault the way they did. And from what they knew in late 1939 and early 1940 a waiting stance to reinforce their positions and gear up their industries for a full scale war was probably the "right" decission to take. I doubt the average French soldier was that much less courageous than the average German or Dutch soldier, but he was thrust in a situation where fighting on seized to be a possibility after a certain point.

[Gimpy]

Originally Posted by Quarto

That's rather selling yourself short - the Netherlands, all things considered, put up an amazingly hard fight, even inflicting some local defeats on the Germans.

I'd say you're even selling yourself short Quarto, even though Poland fell rather quickly, with outdated equipment many more Germans were casaulties than expected, not to mention destroying 30% of their mechanized forces. Not only did it delay the invasion of France but also forced them to attack with significantly fewer medium tanks than planned, as the main attacks were forced to use lightly armed Panzer I and II's alongside III's not intended for that role.

Originally Posted by Zelvik

I realy doubt it was a lack of courage that caused the French defeat and the protraction of the war, but a fatal combination of wrong perception of the capabilities of the German Wehrmacht at the onset of the war in 1939 and outdated doctrines on the French part. Partly they probably were baffled by the success in the Polish campaign partly they were probably underestimating the Wehrmacht in their capabilities to perform a mechanized assault the way they did. And from what they knew in late 1939 and early 1940 a waiting stance to reinforce their positions and gear up their industries for a full scale war was probably the "right" decission to take. I doubt the average French soldier was that much less courageous than the average German or Dutch soldier, but he was thrust in a situation where fighting on seized to be a possibility after a certain point.

Much like the other armies in the world, the French still were using the armored tactics of WW1 where the tanks supported the infantry, unlike the Germans use of tanks as the spearhead and infantry for location control. Another factor was the organization of the army. In France at that point, divisions were assigned rigid areas to control which interferred with communication and supporting other units around them. In essence, very good men and equipment couldnt be used to their potential because of bad strategy.

[Quarto]

Originally Posted by Zelvik

Firstly I am not German.

Sorry - I made the assumption based on your statement that your grandfathers fought for the other side.

I still think your comment was wrong, though. Yes, the road to war was a long one, and there were many contributing factors. I have much sympathy for all that the Germans suffered through after WWI. Heck - I even have a lot of sympathy for German soldiers during the war, who for the most part were decent men stuck executing criminal decisions. But in the end, of all the different possibilities that Germany faced at that point in history, they chose war. This was their choice, and nobody forced them into it - Germany doesn't hold a very big share of responsibility, it holds exclusive responsibility. That doesn't mean that present-day Germans are in any way guilty, or that they need to apologise for anything - but I see no reason to tolerate this kind of revisionism.

I realy doubt it was a lack of courage that caused the French defeat and the protraction of the war, but a fatal combination of wrong perception of the capabilities of the German Wehrmacht at the onset of the war in 1939 and outdated doctrines on the French part.

I don't claim that the French were all cowards in 1940. However, at a time when the Dutch refused to surrender even after their country had been overrun, the French just plain folded. The option to continue the fight from the colonies was mentioned, but rejected out of hand. Why? It's hard to call this decision anything less than cowardice.

[Mace]

Originally Posted by Quarto

That's rather selling yourself short - the Netherlands, all things considered, put up an amazingly hard fight, even inflicting some local defeats on the Germans. It took five days of fighting before you surrendered - and even then, Germany had to break the rules of civilised warfare by bombing Rotterdam (24,000 houses destroyed!) and threatening to destroy other cities. I don't know what they teach you at school, but this defensive effort certainly wasn't supposed to merely hold the Germans back until the Queen could escape - the fact is, she didn't leave until day four of the battle, and even then, she had been meant to only evacuate to Zeeland. The decision to head for the UK was only made when it turned out a voyage to Zeeland would be too risky because the area had been mined. And, most importantly, at the end of the battle, your government still refused to surrender - the only surrender the Germans got in the Netherlands was from the troops actually in the country (and even then, Zealand was exempted - it only fell a few days later). If only the French had half the courage the Dutch showed, Germany could have been defeated much, much sooner. WWII is a time the Dutch can be hugely proud of - and should draw lessons from it for the present.

While all that is true(and Belgium did similar), there was no way the Dutch could stand up to the German war machine, and there were a few strongholds still fighting through after the surrender, but those had been built to do just that, and they only kept on fighting because the germans had cut the telephone wires and they did not know of the surrender. For me history classes are at least 15 years behind me, and when WW2 comes along these days(there are some problems with immigrants over here), they tend to avoid the subject and move on to the next ASAP.

[Quarto]

Certainly, the Dutch could never have stood up alone to the Germans... or rather they could have, if only they had spent more than a dime on their defences before the war . As it is, their defense was impressive precisely because their army was outdated but still put up a stronger fight than the Germans could ever have anticipated. It's a shame this is a subject you avoid at school - I strongly suspect that a lack of national pride is the main reason why you have problems with the immigrants. But that's a subject for another thread.

[Zelvik]

Sorry - I made the assumption based on your statement that your grandfathers fought for the other side.

I still think your comment was wrong, though. Yes, the road to war was a long one, and there were many contributing factors. I have much sympathy for all that the Germans suffered through after WWI. Heck - I even have a lot of sympathy for German soldiers during the war, who for the most part were decent men stuck executing criminal decisions. But in the end, of all the different possibilities that Germany faced at that point in history, they chose war. This was their choice, and nobody forced them into it - Germany doesn't hold a very big share of responsibility, it holds exclusive responsibility. That doesn't mean that present-day Germans are in any way guilty, or that they need to apologise for anything - but I see no reason to tolerate this kind of revisionism.

I guess we are talking about two different things here. My reference was not to WW1 either, my reference was to the development of nationalism and national chauvinism as well to concepts of race, social darwinism etc.. that are at the core of Nazi ideology but are neither exclusive to it nor is it the source of these schools of thought. When it comes to WW2 I am with you that its the sole responsibility of the German population to have supported a party that clearly wanted war and whose ideology already pointed to the atrocities to come - there is no quarreling about that. My reference to a continent that had fucked itself up was as I said not only in reference to WW2 but to the larger scheme to which the US commited itself after WW2 - my reference was therefore not only to their comitment in the war but also to their comitment to establish an order within Europe (at the time only Western Europe) that lowered the possibility of future wars. There would have been alternatives (certainly ones where the US would have endangered its position if they had left the field to the Sovjets) for them, but they stayed.

[Mace]

Originally Posted by Quarto

Certainly, the Dutch could never have stood up alone to the Germans... or rather they could have, if only they had spent more than a dime on their defences before the war . As it is, their defense was impressive precisely because their army was outdated but still put up a stronger fight than the Germans could ever have anticipated. It's a shame this is a subject you avoid at school - I strongly suspect that a lack of national pride is the main reason why you have problems with the immigrants. But that's a subject for another thread.

Well the problems are more a result these days of those who are in politics and how they act and listen to the people, we voted "NO" on many things, and afterwards the government did it anyway through an internal referendum excluding the people, taxes are incredibly high, and the harder you work the less you get for it, but that's our local politics now. When I find an emigration opportunity I'm not the only one who will jump at it.

As far as education goes, just imagine yourself talking about WW2 and a third of the kids(Immigrants have a far higher birth rate of children then native dutch) stand up and say"Hitler was a good man because he killed many jews", and having to work from there, and being unable to correct them without getting your carwindows smashed in. (I used the spoiler to mask something some would rather not read). Our own laws allow them to speak and insult others because of their background, and as a teacher you would need to deal with that, and are powerless.

[Frosty]

Everything I know about World War 2 I learned from Sabaton.

[Exterminator17]

You are all talking about a very interesting subject. One which will consume generations for centuries, just as it has consumed the last 3 generations about what started, caused, and supported the Nazi movement.

My comments are this, The Poles did a FANTASTIC job supplying intelligence to the Allies about Penemunde and the V2 program. They also caused enough havoc behind the lines like the French resistance and German resistance (et al) after the Hitler regime steamrolled through the low countries, Poland, and France. Yes, Any person wearing the uniform of a certain country is fighting for said country, but is still that national identity. BTW, My grandfather fought as in the Pacific as an Engineer in a Fueler for the US War Fleet, Aviation fuel. Never saw combat, was sea sick most of the time (*grin*). Because of his involvement, I have spent most of my life learning and studying the US's involvement from our isolationist policy forced on Roosevelt (Who I cant stand) and the great movement of Economics from the German Depression and Stock Market Crash of '29. The Nazi's would not have come to power if the Treaty of Versailles had not tried to cripple the German state as it did. Something that seems to be overlooked in every commentary I have read on the Start of WW2. France, England, US, Italy, Japan, all tried to get something from Germany, when what was the real culpret was a Serbian National who didnt like an Austro/Hungarian Archduke. The real country that should have taken the hit for damages was Austro/Hungaria, not Germany, but The Austrian/Hungarian empire was broken up instead. Granted, I have not read as much into what the Allies of WW1 did to punish Austria/Hungarian Empire. But I would have to put the cause square on the Big 5. Now, to my mind, Everyone who suffered through that terrible war, our grandparents and greate grandparents did amazing things on both sides. You have the Heros of Operation Valkyrie, who tried to end the war and Hitler the best way they could, and they deserve greate respect for that. The resistance fighters on all fronts also deserve a lot of credit and respect. Unlike some of my countrymen, I was taught by my Father to respect our Neighbors to the North, Canada, and not call my self an American, but a Citizen of the USA, since Both Canada and USA are all Americans. I was also taught a lesson from a friend from Canada about an amphibious landing of Canadians at Dieppe. Free French Pushed from Normandy using Shermans down to Paris. Brits with Churchill Croc. tanks stormed the beaches and pushed to Caan. Everything From the Torch landings to Normandy were team efforts.

[rapierdragon]

I think the war, and its aftermath, is all a series of cases of "we're better than you".

Don't know exactly where it started, but eventually WW1 happened and Germany lost and made the mistake of printing too much money (which devalued their currancy and caused super-inflation), which led to their needing to "we're better than you", and their target was unfortunately the jews.

The U.S. wouldn't have joined the war if they hadn't wanted to "we're better than you" to what they viewed as Brittish snobs, French pansies, hard-working honor-driven Japanese, and the USSR/Russia (who they were afraid would eventually win and take control via post-war expansion and market cornering techniques).

After the war the U.S. furthered this "we're better than the rest of you" attitude by using its wealth to start buying and importing cheaper stuff from overseas and selling/exporting high-end stuff. Eventually though this went too far and they started getting lazy...

The Asian countries started getting tired of it, upgraded their manufacturing and tech, and "we're better than you" the U.S. auto-industry and electronics markets... first through the obvious "cheap and plentiful" way, but very quickly moving up into the "expensive and detailed stuff"...

The Americans, needing to feel superior, started moving away from production and into consumption... in a sense a "we're better than you cause we do less work" type view. The U.S.A. started exporting debt (via the "we're better cause everyone can own their own home and their own car" type view.

The whole "politically correct" theme of the early 1990's was a "we're better than you in a socio-political way". Suddenly people were "African-American" or "Japanese-American" or "African-Canadian"... the worst of which possibly the "American-American" (American's who could trace their family back within the U.S.A. back to its founding days).

Course, this ideology failed and a split happened in many countries... each country tried to "we're better than you" on national pride... "African-American" for example simply became "American" and anyone who used the hyphenized nationality fell into the "foreigner" category and was viewed as "a foreigner-American who wants our money and our jobs but still puts their homeland first and will probably betray us to whatever country the first chance they get" (no offense to African-Americans... just easier to avoid certain anger issues with certain middle-eastern countries if I don't mention them by name).

Not sure what kind of "we're better than you" will be next. Maybe a genetic one, like in the movie Gattica (where G.E.'d people look down on natural-born people).

[Death]

[Kaunisto]

To explain Finnish point of view, I'd have to write quite a lecture on that history. Short version:
1939: SU attacks Finland
1940: they've had enough and agree to peace
1941: along with Germany, Finland attacks SU
1944: Finland makes peace with SU and backstabs Germany


While I see that Germany is mostly to blame for WWII in Europe - though Soviet Union almost as much - there's certain mistake by western powers (primarily UK) to be recognized:
They wanted and allowed Germany to arm itself and be extreme right, because they feared Soviets. West wanted a strong bumper against the Communist World Revolution. The cure was worse than the illness.

And that's a pattern we've seen again: in 80's Afghanistan USA supported extreme islam and Taleban to fight SU indirectly. They armed Saddam when he was fighting Iran.


Anyway, we do appreciate the Marshall aid, especially since we were most of the time on the other side. But then again...

war materiel shipped to them from the US via the "Murmansk run", including 15,000 aircraft, 7,000 tanks, 350,000 tons of explosives, and 15,000,000 pairs of boots

Straight to our borders.

[Quarto]

Let this be a lesson to you, Frosty(theplebe) - next time you want to ask a WWII-related question, you gotta be very, very specific, otherwise the thread will inevitably turn into a generic WWII discussion going off in every direction .

(of course, it will anyway - but if you're a little more specific, you might keep things on-subject for a few posts longer)

[Death]

Originally Posted by Kaunisto

While I see that Germany is mostly to blame for WWII in Europe - though Soviet Union almost as much - there's certain mistake by western powers (primarily UK) to be recognized:
They wanted and allowed Germany to arm itself and be extreme right, because they feared Soviets.

Uh, no.

Europe's reluctance to stomp out German rearmament, even though by treaty it was an option, had nothing to do with fear of the Soviet Union. Remember what happened the last time Germans went to war with the rest of Europe? You know, losing a rather sizeable chunk of that generation's population in a series of stupid engagements compounded by the generals of the time fighting the last war in spite of the march of technology (machine guns in particular)?

In hindsight, we can see that trying to appease Hitler was an exercise in futility (at best), but at the time it was thought that appeasing him would be less expensive than calling Germany on its violations of the Treaty of Versailles, especially in the face of a global depression that didn't have a lot of money to spare for rebuilding the armed forces of the rest of Europe (which, unlike Germany, hadn't hit rock-bottom, economically).

[Mace]

Originally Posted by Frosty

Everything I know about World War 2 I learned from Sabaton.

Sabaton plays around here a lot, but I usually go for their supportacts, Sabaton I find quite boring.

[frostytheplebe]

Originally Posted by Quarto

Let this be a lesson to you, Frosty(theplebe) - next time you want to ask a WWII-related question, you gotta be very, very specific, otherwise the thread will inevitably turn into a generic WWII discussion going off in every direction .

(of course, it will anyway - but if you're a little more specific, you might keep things on-subject for a few posts longer)

sigh... yeah yeah should've known that when the thread in the General forum degenerated into a discussion about the history of Porn.

But that's how it goes on the internet sometimes...

[Exterminator17]

I personally like the question...However, I just wish it could have linked to the WC universe somehow, like Tolwyn's mental decline into a Hitler like figure in WCIV.

[Quarto]

No, the point of the off-topic forum is to talk about off-topic stuff. Trying to come up with artificial links to WC would be pointless and counterproductive.

[Kaunisto]

Originally Posted by Death

Uh, no.

Yes. I admit there's number of obvious economic etc. reasons UK and others wanted to avoid a major war at all costs, but I still claim the fear of communism spreading was a notable factor, in long term at least.
In 1920's Germany had the biggest communist party in Europe and it remained so until Hitler's rise to power. West was quite happy to see him stomping them down, so that other leftist movements in Europe didn't gain credibility.

[t.c.cgi]

Originally Posted by Kaunisto

Yes. I admit there's number of obvious economic etc. reasons UK and others wanted to avoid a major war at all costs, but I still claim the fear of communism spreading was a notable factor, in long term at least.
In 1920's Germany had the biggest communist party in Europe and it remained so until Hitler's rise to power. West was quite happy to see him stomping them down, so that other leftist movements in Europe didn't gain credibility.

I think you're mistaking the press with the politics here. To my memory the press fell in love with Hitler and spouted a lot of this. The politics just plain don't back it up.

[frostytheplebe]

Originally Posted by Exterminator17

I personally like the question...However, I just wish it could have linked to the WC universe somehow, like Tolwyn's mental decline into a Hitler like figure in WCIV.

Thats more the general forum, and even then it's a stretch. Take a look around the Off-topic, you'll notice most posts have nothing to do with Wing Commander.

[Prometheus]

As far as education goes, just imagine yourself talking about WW2 and a third of the kids(Immigrants have a far higher birth rate of children then native dutch) stand up and say"Hitler was a good man because he killed many jews", and having to work from there, and being unable to correct them without getting your carwindows smashed in. (I used the spoiler to mask something some would rather not read). Our own laws allow them to speak and insult others because of their background, and as a teacher you would need to deal with that, and are powerless.

Mace, are you actually a teacher in the Netherlands?

Why am I asking this? Well the story you tell sounds made up or at least vastly exaggerated. For once, I thought the Dutch educational system was quite good. Secondly, I know there are many immigrants in the Netherlands, but one third of the children still sounds like a too high percentage, "high birth rate" or not. Third, you are suggesting all Immigrants are anti-semitic, and not only this, but their families are involved in organized crime, which also is directed against school-teachers who don't teach what they want (while I think they propably would have "better" things to care about). And lastly, the part about the laws allowing them to speak bullshit and insult others "because of their background" sounds made up or at least appears to be based on a misunderstanding of a real law.

So, if you really are a Dutch teacher and your story is real, I apologize and also am shocked about these conditions, which I never would have imagined. But for now I won't believe it, and would say it's propably hearsay, vastly exaggerated, maybe even riddled with right-wing propaganda.

[frostytheplebe]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

So, if you really are a Dutch teacher and your story is real, I apologize and also am shocked about these conditions, which I never would have imagined. But for now I won't believe it, and would say it's propably hearsay, vastly exaggerated, maybe even riddled with right-wing propaganda.

Well you have to understand that there is a lot of hearsay and exaggeration in this thread. In fact thats what it's based on. Not sure where the right-wing propaganda comes from... that seems a bit out of left field.

As for the person who made the accusation in the opening of the thread, I really let them have it saying that they were pathetic for using present hatreds to pervert the great deeds of those past... she didn't like that very much.

[Mace]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Mace, are you actually a teacher in the Netherlands?

Why am I asking this? Well the story you tell sounds made up or at least vastly exaggerated. For once, I thought the Dutch educational system was quite good. Secondly, I know there are many immigrants in the Netherlands, but one third of the children still sounds like a too high percentage, "high birth rate" or not. Third, you are suggesting all Immigrants are anti-semitic, and not only this, but their families are involved in organized crime, which also is directed against school-teachers who don't teach what they want (while I think they propably would have "better" things to care about). And lastly, the part about the laws allowing them to speak bullshit and insult others "because of their background" sounds made up or at least appears to be based on a misunderstanding of a real law.

So, if you really are a Dutch teacher and your story is real, I apologize and also am shocked about these conditions, which I never would have imagined. But for now I won't believe it, and would say it's propably hearsay, vastly exaggerated, maybe even riddled with right-wing propaganda.

I'm not a teacher(I have been a teacher's assistent and system administrator in a school), two of my brothers are teachers, one in a junior high, another in a highschool, and of course not all immigrants are antisementic, and there is a large difference with "organized crime". As for them being able to speak their mind and breaking the law, it is officially forbidden, but the charges are dropped or eased because of their cultural background, usually punishments are very mild here already, and attracts criminals also. I could give you hundreds of examples of cultural clashes(even inbetween different immigrant groups) from the past decade, and those are facts, not some form of rightwinged propoganda, but that is not something to be discussed here on this forum.

[frostytheplebe]

Originally Posted by Mace

I could give you hundreds of examples of cultural clashes(even inbetween different immigrant groups) from the past decade, and those are facts, not some form of rightwinged propoganda, but that is not something to be discussed here on this forum.

Yeah sadly those culture clashes happen everywhere. A good example here in the US would be working in Child services... bear with me on this for a sec. Unfortunately most of the kids that get brought in are minority and/or first gen american kids. It's sad, it's not PC but it is what it is.

Talk about a culture clash, a lot of the people who get involved in this type of thing are people who A. Want to try to give something back and/or come from a different background then these kids. So the cultures clash. I remember one meeting I had to attend to was to deal with "cultural sensativity." One of the things mentioned was the kids blaring music at high volume with a subwoofer attached. Totally inappropriate for a concert hall, let alone a small room. But we were told that we can't punish the kid for that.

So naturally, being the guy who speaks his mind I get up and said, "Ok, well I hope that explanation for letting the kids run amuck keeps you warm at night, because it wont stop me for suing you after I lose my hearing."

Personally, I don't think regions or countrys should adapt themselves to fit different cultures at all. There should be a set of rules in place, based on whomever is in power and/or who founded the country in the first place, and if you can't live by those rules, leave. Maybe that sounds a bit arrogant, but you start doing things like trying to adapt to please everyone, and stuff like this starts to happen.

So yeah, stupid culture clashes are just unavoidable, but I do agree with has nothing to do with right/left wing,

mini rant over.

[Mace]

Almost,

@prometheus, here look at an official statement from today:

http://www.spitsnieuws.nl/archives/t...il_dat_de.html (you can use an online translator to convert it)

Since translation sites does not fully translate every word correctly, or with the original intention, i did fill out the blanks and mistranslated words worldlingo and babelfish make:

"Ahmed Marcouch wants to make the Holocaust as soon as possible a required subject in highschool exams. he is concerned of the lack of knowledge with students about the what happened to the Jewish in WW2. Teachers are faced with careless, offensive and disrepectfull attitudes from students.

Those students, often loyal viewers of Arab media newschannels, associate it with current middle eastern conflicts, according to mr. Marcouch, they say the "The Jews are doing bad things in the middle east as well''. They also are raised by their parents with antisemistic thoughts and values, and learn to use the term Jew as an insult. They are also unaware of the impact the holocaust had on dutch society."

[frostytheplebe]

Originally Posted by Mace

http://www.spitsnieuws.nl/archives/t...il_dat_de.html (you can use an online translator to convert it)

[i]"Ahmed Marcouch wants to make the Holocaust as soon as possible a required subject in highschool exams. he is concerned of the lack of knowledge with students about the what happened to the Jewish in WW2. Teachers are faced with careless, offensive and disrepectfull attitudes from students.

It's about freaken time! The holocaust was being pulled from the books in countries like Britain, and even in FL in the United States... why? Not to offend muslim students was the best explanation I got. Now we see the problem with PC.

[Mace]

Frosty, there is no use of any things to use religion as an explenation of being a turd.
Enlightenment in western europe has learned us to think for ourselves, and see any holy book only as a guide, not as a book of laws. Those who live by " the book" are idiots in my opinion, because they do not fit in the world as it is today. But I have never seen an amish or an orthodox jew threatening people based on their religion.

This is however not the place of discussion, feel free to ad me to MSN or mypsace or something if you want to discover this further.

[Bandit LOAF]

Nothing says "I'm enlightened" like saying that people who think differently from me are idiots.

[Delance]

Well, cleary, before Voltaire came around, nobody every though for himself in the history of the world.

[Quarto]

Originally Posted by Mace

Enlightenment in western europe has learned us to think for ourselves, and see any holy book only as a guide, not as a book of laws. Those who live by " the book" are idiots in my opinion, because they do not fit in the world as it is today.

Clearly then, that makes me an idiot.

...No, wait, I'm worse - I'm not even an idiot. I'm someone who keeps trying, and failing, to be a true idiot.

However - just in case you want to back out of what you said with some silly "I didn't mean to offend anyone"... don't bother, because I take no offense when someone like you calls me an idiot . You come from a country that - as even you seem to have noticed - has shown us all exactly where "enlightenment" leads. To nowhere. You have made it legal and acceptable to kill the unborn, you have made it legal and acceptable to kill your grandparents... your country has turned its back on everything that once made you great. You, here in this thread, you talk about all those terrible things that immigrants do in your country, but have you ever asked yourself - why would anyone respect your traditions and heritage when you yourself disregard it as idiocy? There's some huge irony that in this thread, you first show some awareness of the terrible decline of your country... and then say that anyone who does not follow in your footsteps is an idiot. Maybe it's time to wake up, Mace - the path you're on ain't looking too great.