Page 5 of 22

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:33 am
by CaptainBeowulf
No, I know there was a Croatian "state" on the side of Nazi Germany. It's commonly viewed as a puppet state of Germany. The Communist partisans would have viewed the fascist Croatian state's war crimes as partly attributable to Germany (which, given the fact that the fascist Croats were being equipped by Germany, would have a logic to it), partly attributable to the Croatians. I said "Yugoslavs" as a way of summarizing the south slavs killed by the fascist forces in Yugoslavia in WWII.

Of course, the Communist partisans would have killed a lot of people whom they saw as pro-fascist Croatians, but there would also have been Croatians amongst the Communist partisans. I think it can be summarized by saying that atrocities were committed by all of the combatant groups in eastern Europe and the Balkans during WWII.

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:51 am
by CaptainBeowulf
Skipjack, sorry you got emotional over the EU... I would have been interested to hear your perspective on the bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg, the current problems with the Mediterranean countries, and whether the eastern countries are trying to bootstrap themselves up along with the western aid.

My comment on the eastern countries is to keep in mind that they were victimized by the Soviets too. Except in the former Yugoslavia, the expulsion/killing of Germans was orchestrated by the Soviets in 1945. The Soviets also expelled other ethnic groups from where they were living, and committed atrocities on them as well (In the capital of Estonia, Tallinn, the statue of the Soviet soldier erected in the centre of the city was colloquially known as "the great rapist." In another example, Tito's envoy to Stalin in WWII, Milovan Djilas, complained that Soviet troops started raping female partisans when they met up with them in late 1944 - Stalin said that his troops were "just having a bit of fun" and refused to do anything about it, or even apologize). 2. The Soviets screwed up badly in the entire eastern bloc, and it has all needed a lot of reconstruction... West Germany even had to spend a huge amount on East Germany, which was supposed to be a Communist showcase. The eastern half of Europe was subjected to several years of Nazi atrocities, then a few years of Soviet atrocities, then four more decades of oppressive Soviet rule interspersed with atrocities when they tried to revolt (like Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968).

Anyway, we can leave the EU discussion for another time then.

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:51 am
by rjaypeters
Skipjack,
I say, post the rant on this thread or another. Your readers will certainly learning something from your perspective.

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:12 am
by Skipjack
It's commonly viewed as a puppet state of Germany.
Yeah like South Korea is commonly viewed as a puppet state of the US. It always depends on who you ask ;)
I can tell you that the croatians did not see it that way.

The partisans were using people as human shields and they did not discriminate between whether these people were on their side, the other side, or anybodies side at all (some farmers in some villages had no idea what all this was about anyway).
Some act that are now attributed to the Germans were most likely commited by the partisans. They were violating the Haager Landkriegsordnung in so many ways and they were the ones harming the civilians most by being combatants that dont wear uniforms, hide among the civilians, threatened civilians into complying and giving them shelter, etc.
Of course today they are made into heroes, simply because they were against the Germans. A strange world...

The damage done to the former Austrian territorries was not just in former eastern block countries. Trieste is now Italian and that did not do it any good either...
Still, the eastern block countries did their worst. My father was recently visiting parts of Slovenia and the slovenian tour guide even talked about how beautiful certain castles and churches that they toured used to be until the communists plundered and destroyed everything. He also said that they are now rebuilding "with money from the EU". Now money from the EU means money from the netto payers like Germany, Austria, the norhern countries, etc.
So basically it is me paying for repairing the stuff that they stole and then broke. I feel like I am getting raped over and over again.

On the EU beaurocrats:
Well they are a funny bunch all together. They sit in their senate and distribute the wealth. The citizens of their countries have very little to say. Especially us Austrians have to "shut the frack up" and if we dare to elect a party that is not agreeing 100% with the course (which means we keep paying) of the EU, then they send us "observers" and impose all sorts of "sanctions" on us. The jews start whining and the US "is concerned". LOL
The really funny thing is when you watch these guys "work". One of the members of the senate recently exposed this quite nicely (and he was promptly expelled from the Austrian socialist party for that).
So, if the weather is nice, you wont find many of the senators present at the senate, not even for important votes. No, they are out playing golf, or tennis with each other. They just go there to sign off for their presence and then they leave to have fun.
You want to know my dreamjob (other than being a EU senator)? Being the secretary of a EU senator. EU senators have 200,000 Euros a year allowance for a secretary. That must be a hell of a secretary, I can tell you!
Now guess what? Most of the senators dont even need a secretary! They dont have enough to do for one! So some hire their children (one hired his son, a full time student at a university in another COUNTRY!) or their nephews and so on. And all that with my tax money.
Anyway, then we have these really, really awesome new regulations that the EU is giving us.
E.g. recently they released a draft for a new law that would ban "sexually discriminating" streetnames. So, e.g. in Austria there are a lot of roads called "Frauengasse", "Herrengasse", etc.
These names that were given to these streets hundreds of years ago, would not be allowed anymore and would have to be changed. You know what that costs?! I somewhere heard that we are in an economic crisis and that we dont have any money?!!
We also recently had to rename our company from ... -OEG (it specifies the type of the company) to .... -OG (also specifies the type of the company, which is now equal all over the EU). Why? Because the EU said so! Of course this too costs money, time and more money. Why? Why was this necessary? Why now when people really have better things to do?
It is insanity!
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. I am mostly upset about the fact that the Germans, the French and nordic countries have to pay for pretty much everyone else. And if we dont emmediately hush and happily throw OUR money after some lazy bastards in a rotten country somewhere, we are emmediately bashed by the whole world (including the US). They call us "uneuropean" and news media are "concerned about Germany". And some even evoke the Nazis again, just to remind us that we have to rubb our bloody faces in the dust for all eternity for that.
So yeah, I am not too keen of the EU.

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:11 pm
by rjaypeters
Skipjack,
thanks, but that wasn't two pages (at least on the forum) :lol:

I didn't realize the "federation" of the EU was so expensive, if the comparison is apt, I think you're about as mad (probably more now that I think about it) about taxes as some people in the US. We have states that are in bad shape, but not like Greece (yet?).

The abuse of the allowances for secretaries, etc. just makes everything feel that much worse. The "senators" must do something, e.g. force the changes of traditional names to justify their princely salaries and benefits.

Would you abolish or change the EU? How?

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:28 pm
by Skipjack
I think that if things keep going like that, the French, Germans and the nordic states will exit the EU. If Russia ever manages to strip of the last remains of soviet crap, they would be an ideal partner. We have the skills, know how and diligence, they have about any resource that one can wish fore. Perfect partnership, of course provided that they can get rid of corruption, also in the government...

Either that will happen, or things will just get worse for all of us until all the money is up. Then the countries that we have been supporting will leave anyway (because there is nothing left to get) and the whole circle starts all over again.

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:17 pm
by CaptainBeowulf
Still, the eastern block countries did their worst. My father was recently visiting parts of Slovenia and the slovenian tour guide even talked about how beautiful certain castles and churches that they toured used to be until the communists plundered and destroyed everything. He also said that they are now rebuilding "with money from the EU". Now money from the EU means money from the netto payers like Germany, Austria, the norhern countries, etc.
Again, though this was the Communists - the Soviets encouraged this sort of thing. They destroyed churches etc. in Russia too. Much of the population in eastern Europe hated the Communists, but they couldn't do anything about them... secret police would come for people in the night if they voiced too much dissent.

I think that eastern Europe hasn't had enough of an opportunity to prove whether it can overcome the legacy of Communist rule yet. I'm more struck by the Med. countries, especially Greece, where people have repeatedly rioted because they feel entitled to handouts. To my understanding, Greek civil servants were paid for a work-year plus holidays that added up to about 14 months per year - 2 months more than there is in a year. And now many of them still refuse to face the economic situation their country is in, and riot even though a lot of countries are paying to bail them out - mostly Europe, but through IMF the U.S., Canada, Australia and others are paying too.

Your EU senators sound the same as politicians all over the place. There have been problems with Congressmen/women in the U.S. - one of them was just censured for various transgressions a week or two ago. And from what I remember reading Canadian media, a lot of Canadian senators are as lazy as what you describe for E.U. ones - getting paid a lot but not showing up to work etc.

The street name stuff is typical politically correct rewriting of the language. During the 1980s and 1990s, it was generally decided by leftists that "fireman" should be changed to "firefighter," "policeman" to "police officer," "chairman" to either chairperson or the more ridiculous "chair." Also IIRC "actress" is supposed to be politically incorrect now, and you're supposed to call them all "actors," whether they're male or female. Etc. Also, in Canada I believe that the federal government is now calling "fishermen" "fishers." I generally ignore most of this.

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:25 pm
by CaptainBeowulf
Some act that are now attributed to the Germans were most likely commited by the partisans. They were violating the Haager Landkriegsordnung in so many ways and they were the ones harming the civilians most by being combatants that dont wear uniforms, hide among the civilians, threatened civilians into complying and giving them shelter, etc.
However, this is typical guerrilla warfare. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we do our best to work around it. The German Army in WWII often reacted to guerrilla attacks by carrying out "reprisals" which consisted of going into towns and shooting large numbers of civilians. They even did this a few times in France, as well as in Czechoslovakia after the assassination of Heydrich. Much more in Yugoslavia, Poland and Russia. It was a situation of escalation of atrocities by both sides.

Yes, U.S. soldiers have committed occasional atrocities, like the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison. The difference is that the U.S. doesn't set out with such intentions, and when these problems come into the open, the U.S. prosecutes the perpetrators and apologizes. Occasional lapses of discipline and moral transgressions are inevitable with a large army - much different than deliberate policy.

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:33 pm
by Skipjack
They destroyed churches etc. in Russia too. Much of the population in eastern Europe hated the Communists, but they couldn't do anything about them... secret police would come for people in the night if they voiced too much dissent.
Yes, the soviets actively destroyed a lot, but the people there also passively destroyed a lot by not caring and just lettings things decay.
The thefts and plundering did not help either.
The German Army in WWII often reacted to guerrilla attacks by carrying out "reprisals" which consisted of going into towns and shooting large numbers of civilians.
A lot of this has been attributed to the Germans was actually commited by the partisans if a village did not want to support their cause. Nobody cared to check who it actually was. "The Germans" always sounded good.
They even did this a few times in France
They attributed the destruction of a church in France to the Germans. Turns out it was an ammunition depot of the resistance that exploded. The Germans never even new about it. That was revealed when they opened some of the archives.
The difference is that the U.S. doesn't set out with such intentions
Look the German Wehrmacht sure did its share of wrong things in WW2, but they never set out with the intention to commit atrocities of some sort.
But when your best friend and comrade gets shot by a partisan sniper, a combatant that is not wearing a uniform, you get upset. If the civilians then keep hiding him, how do you know who the enemy is and who not?
It is understandable that people then get upset. They are in a high stress situation too and then they do foolish and cruel things.

Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 1:22 am
by CaptainBeowulf
Regarding France, yeah, one or two churches or other buildings may have burned down with or without the "help" of the Wehrmacht or the SS.

Primary in my mind was when some SS divisions were moving towards Normandy in early summer 1944. Supposedly they were attacked by Maquis or something. They then committed some massacres. This is referenced or described in many books, but here, I found a website on it in 30 seconds:

http://www.oradour.info/

That town had a burned Church, but other buildings were burned too, and there are accounts of people being shot by the SS, not just put in a Church and burned.

It is also in little doubt that German forces committed extensive massacres in Poland. Then there were the Einsatzkommando deployed behind the Wehrmacht who started to exterminate Jews and terrorize the rest of the population as Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

It was very stupid of the Nazis. For instance, across much of the western half of Ukraine many people came out and greeted the Wehrmacht, throwing flowers on the German troops and stuff. They thought that the Germans were liberators from Stalin. Germany could have probably recruited millions of soldiers there. Instead the Einsatzkommando and SS were let loose and turned the population against the Germans. But that's what you get when you have a bunch of lunatics in charge who believe their own racist ideology.
But when your best friend and comrade gets shot by a partisan sniper, a combatant that is not wearing a uniform, you get upset. If the civilians then keep hiding him, how do you know who the enemy is and who not?
It is understandable that people then get upset. They are in a high stress situation too and then they do foolish and cruel things.
Yes, this is a core problem for "conventional" forces fighting guerrillas. It's why even armies with the best of intentions sometimes end up having sub-units which commit massacres. As I said, the difference is that the German command, from Hitler through the German general staff through the German officer corps, encouraged soldiers to use reprisals as a standard response.

Although a fair number of people have complete hatred for all German soldiers of WWII to this day, others accept that many of the general Wehrmacht divisions weren't made up of intrinsically bad people. Those were primarily concentrated in the SS, Gestapo, and Einsatzkommando. There were also a few Wehrmacht divisions that were quite nasty. But not all German units were war criminals; many tried to fight in a manner that they considered "honorable."

That said, don't be an apologist for the German armed forces of WWII - it's fine to point out the atrocities that others, especially the Soviets, committed - but there's no point in denying that a lot of evil crap was ordered to be done by German officers.

Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:56 am
by Skipjack
There were also a few Wehrmacht divisions that were quite nasty.
Bullshit.
The Germans Wehrmacht was the most honorable army in the world. Plundering and raping of occupied people resulted in emmediate execution.
You should not believe everything that Hollywood tells you!
There was the black SS that was nasty yes, but the WaffenSS was simply a special unit of the Wehrmacht.
So many atrocities are attributed to the Germans these days and much of that simply is not true. I will get you a reference about that church. I am pretty sure my dad has one somewhere.
So many archives that could tell the truth still have not been opened yet, but some have and e.g. the thing with the church got disproved because of that.

Many Ukrainians till today talk very respectfully of the Germans. So it can not have been that bad. I know quite a few that came here after the fall of the Sovient union. They are all saying that most of what is said today about the Germans commiting atrocities int he Ukraine is a lie.

Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:59 am
by MSimon
Partisans are typically recruited from the criminal classes. As are a significant number of spies. They are used to doing clandestine work and violence every day.

That accounts for most of the violence and indiscipline.

Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:05 am
by MSimon
happyjack27 wrote:a projectile traveling so fast it sets AIR on fire.

i understand their main problem is cooling the darn thing after it fires (thus you've got to wait a long time between each firing) and making it durable enough to withstand firing multiple times. considering this, it seems odd that they're just going for more megajoules when they should be working on these things. though i'm supposed i'm not against the military making decisions wich delay adding weaponry to our already ridiculously out of proportion arsenal. i suppose in the meantime we'll just have to focus more on diplomacy. darn.
All that weaponry is a waste until you have to fight a world war. Of course if your weaponry is vastly superior it discourages world war. And other types of big wars.

Which is why asymmetrical warfare is so popular these days. Such warfare is in fact a sign of success. i.e. no one wants to take on the big dog head on.

Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:15 am
by MSimon
Chinese have lots of time.


No they don't. Their population is aging about .9 year per year. In about 15 or 20 years they will be out of the competition. i.e. not enough youngsters to man their military and other stuff.

Engineers are most productive from ages 40 to 55 (engineers need experience).

Scientists in their 20s (they need fresh ideas).

As to education: the countries that have the best www with the most English speakers will do the best since English is now the defacto lingua franca.

Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:23 am
by MSimon
Of course you can always try to maintain your economic strenght by winning wars and thus resources and industry from occupied nations. A country that does that cant be called morally superior though, can it?
The US gave up that style of imperialism once it gained the continent. Pretty much that type of imperialism doesn't work. People resent it.

What the US likes to do is trade with former enemies. i.e. make them prosperous.

There was a Peter Sellers movie about that back in the 60s. "The Mouse That Roared" it was a cliche by then. (OK they wanted aid. But the idea of being defeated by the US as being a good thing is a fairly old one.)

What does that do? Well it lessens the fear of being conquered by the US. Iraq is a case in point. We took Iraq from Saddam and gave it to the Iraqi people.

Such action will make it easier to topple the next despotism in the area when the time comes. There are in fact a number of folks in Iran who crave defeat of their country by the US.