I'm serously trying to avoid provocation here, what if a person doesn't like reading something because it's NOT true.

We certainly all appear a bit bored while waiting to settle the argument on the virtual battlefield, hehe

The article had a couple good points though. So why do you think it's not true?

do a couple of good points equate to the truth?

the main point of that article was about how Germans are used as the bad guys in video games.......I don't think the British can be held responsible for the video games industry, also I find it very offensive that people use our 'football hooligans' as the definitive ambassadors for what Britain is all about.

Uff.....

Can I assume this means Uff da?.....as in so what....poor you? or whatever it means

What else should I react like? If that is what you get out of the article...well, there's not much left to say.

Well it was the only point with any validity with regards to an unfair image of the germans, did you not notice most of the other stuff mentioned was about Hitler and Nazism?.....or do you think that Hitler also is getting a rough deal here?

Personal opinion on the matter:

Germany couldn't win, some people high up knew it and some were delusional and thought they would. (go back a few pages and read the account of that military exercise).

Overall, they made a half-hearted attempt to force the UK to sue for peace and "close" down one front before starting the second one in the East. It didn't work, they moved on.

The UK couldn't take the fight back to the Germans either for quite some time and when it tried to, it got appalling results (cross-channel raids all the way until the Dieppe fiasco).

Long story short, given the benefit of hindsight and looking at the big picture, things were on a stalemate ever since Dunkirk and until 1942 at least and even then, the turning of the tides occurred mostly in the East (Stalingrad, N.Africa and the Pacific front).

The UK can call this a German defeat because it didn't meet the stated aims (conquering Britain), the other side can call it an effort doomed from the start and they would both be correct.

My personal belief is that most of the sane people in the German high command were looking to force Britain out of the war to secure their flanks before Barbarrossa, the conquering talk was mostly intimidating bravado and propaganda. The British didn't know it at the time so they acted like it was true (better safe than sorry after all) and that's why this registers as a victory to them. The Germans were divided between those who believed their own tale and thus considered it a defeat, and those who viewed it as a side-show from the start and didn't. I think all three opinions are valid for people who were engaged in the battle in whatever capacity.

Moderating notes: I haven't read the entire thread because i was out of town for a couple of days, came back to a multi-pager and i half-knew where it was bound to end up seeing the one-liner opening post.

I've been tempted to lock it every time i take a peek throughout the last few days, but it would be a shame to lose whatever valid comments exist. I will if the slagging matches persist though. The ones so engaged, get off your high horses and agree to disagree sometime instead of getting all personal, otherwise the thread will be locked and you'll spoil it for everyone else. At the very least i see it getting moved to the pilot's lounge as a first step if this persists, then locking if things don't improve.

This article was not about the germans. It was about the british. I played enough Call of Duty like games and had too much fun flying a Tempests or Mustangs in IL2 to care too much if germans are getting killed in video games, I had too much fun doing that. It's just games, after all, and good entertainment on top.

Out of pure curiosuity..please could you explain to me your line of thought that made you attach certain criticism of british attitudes with a support for Hitler?

'It is surely time to consign the Nazis not to oblivion but at least to history'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...curity-history

I'm surprised at this comment from any journalist of any nationality or political persuasion, given the ongoing battle against the neo-nazi fraternity, in many nations including the UK.

(although I knew about the 'Spoons of the Third Reich' book some months ago. Kept me laughing for days!)

With all due respect. You fight Nazis by removing the conditions that make their rise possible or more likely, not by showing people again and again that a man with a mustach and a swastika on his arm is bad news and using them to win an argument on a constant basis.

And now I have to go to the garage and get my car fixed. Laters no doubt =)

When people suggest our Victory celebrations should be regarded as offensive to Germans it's easy to assume that said Germans forget what was really being fought against, so if the Germans feel so hard done by do they feel their war was just? the 'British' attitudes in regards to celebrating achievements in WWII seem no different to the celebrations of the USA's equivalents.....they just don't seem to be faced with the same criticism.

so with that in mind, could you explain to me why every time a Brit celebrates surviving a conflict and coming out on top (with help....nobody denies it), fighting against a widely aknowleged force for evil, we just get labeled as Nationalist idiots with an 'empire mentality'

Not that I disagree with the idea that air superiority , but the Dunkirk record of bombers vs ships is a bit misleading, the bombers concentrated most of the time on the beaches (with dense concentration of troops) and the twon, and not ton the ships themselves. AFAIK the ships only received their attention in the last couple of days, and there were far more than just '4 destroyers' sunk.

It was the number of RN destroyers sunk by air attack, but two more were sunk by a Schnellboot and a U-boot, three on the the 29 May and another three on the 1 June. The French also lost a destoyer to air attack on the 1st, and two others to mine/S-boot in the previous days. However, 19 other destroyers were damaged and more or less rendered inservicable in a matter of days and about 200 smaller seacraft was also sunk.

With all due respect how is that achieveable without resorting to techniques that they were infamous for, we fought a war for democracy and freedom of speech, even if that means you choose to be a Nazi. can you explain to me what constitutes the condition for cultivating a Nazi (appart from letting the French humiliate them)

Blackdog, thanks for your input (I agree on both sides), on my part I'll do my best to keep it sober and polite.

Bongo, try and imagine for a second playing a videogame where you're a Nazi officer infiltrating in England and killing Tommies, would you play it?

I'll give you another example: I have no trouble playing with a sim and shooting down another aeroplane (even if, somewhere remotely in the back of my mind, there's always a "concern" in checking that parachutes pop out, and yes, I know it's a game, but after years of reading accounts of the dreadful missions of bomber planes I just can't help it... then sometimes I find myself strafing the parachutes.. go figure..), but I remember playing Hidden and Dangerous 2, a mission in Sicily, and having to shoot at Italian soldiers there.

For the first time in my life I felt a certain discomfort, it didn't last long and I was quickly sucked back in the game again, but it was there, and it was weird indeed..

+1

One of the best summaries I have read about it in while..

if they ever made one....absolutely, but it's not that different to playing clod as a LW pilot, or day of defeat as a German......all of which I have done....your point?

no, it's more a case of how selective celebrations are. Can you think of any recurrent celebrations linked to the successes in the Pacific? The Falklands or the victory against the IRA? Or any other conflicts for the matter? Not even WW1 gets as much covering and celebration than the Battle of Britain (even if poppies are ideally inspired to WW1).

Truth is that nobody (apart for the neonazi nutters) can dispute the Evil of Nazism, so it became "THE Evil" that brave Britain fought against, but it's again more done for the sake of national insecurity than anything else.

It got me thinking some time ago: out of all the European countries, Great Britain is the only one with SO much celebration about WW2, and for a buff like me and you it surely is paradise, but have you ever wondered why it doesn't happen as much in the rest of Europe?

Hmm... I'm sure you don't mean by daft methods like banning the swastika from plastic models and computer games, but I'm interested in how this would be achieved socially and politically without compromising democracy.

When your car's fixed that is. I'm still waiting for my new graphics card. Yesterday the driver of a reputable courier service couldn't find the address. That'll teach me to pay the extra £6.00 for next day delivery. I'm such a stingebag.

No war was ever fought for noble intentions. That label was slapped on it but given the british behavior in their own colonies (i.e. India) I would very much doubt that the british political establishment of the 1930s and 1940 even had an idea what real democracy was about. British politics of that time could be summarized as "Old Boys Club" containing the same old elites which had been the rulers ever since William the Conqueror had set foot on the island. And, although this is a very personal opinion and contains a lot of irony on my part, Empires do not deal in democratic terms, do they? ;)

my point is that as much as you are feeling comfortable, others may not. And yes, it's a matter of not playing that, but knowing that it's there and what it represents.. I dunno man..

Well here is where you prove how resistant you are to understand, the battle of britain is celebrated by the British because we were the ones fighting for our survival, we dont force anybody else to celebrate it, it's significance to us is simply that if we hadn't survived then the war for us would have been over at that instant and we would have been under the control of the Nazis....is that not enough of a 'phew!! christ we made it and were still alive, lets rejoice the efforts our brave lads made getting us therough that one' for you?

Being concerned about maintaining colonial empires AND freedom and democracy at the same time is tended to be raise doubt, especially if in practice it means mean that a small group of privileged being have all the rights and 99% of the others don't. Being concerned about the freedm German-occupied Poles but not Soviet-occupied Poles, and state of democracy in Europe but not in India, Egypt, South Africa (... its a long list) tends to make people believe you're just another imperialist, who happened to realize he just met the bigger dog in the neighbourhood..

Probably has to do a lot with Churchill - he seems pretty concerned about maintaining the largest colonial empire at that time.

"What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.

But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour."

at the time the empires were being forged no, you are right, nothing democratic anout it and I have said before I am not comfortable with the means used....it is however now history, at the time of WWII, what was left of the 'empire' was largely democratic.

Colonial empire?....do people really believe we were holding them all to ransom, WWII was a perfect opportunity for the empire to say 'sod you mate youre on your own'....what the hell could we have done about it?

of course it is, and I understand this perfectly.

One thing though is mourning the fallen and celebrating their efforts for the defense of your country (a sentiment that should be common to ALL countries), another is celebrating the thing as if it was a victory over a football match.

It's really true that you're obsessed with this: last year for the first time I heard the (in)famous chant "Two world wars and one world cup, doo-dah doo-dah!", which might be silly to you, but it resumes pretty well the blur of it. Have you ever heard any other nation doing banter chants about any war? Probably not, cos it's out of place and context. And I'm sorry, but to me there's no excuse for it, if you really have respect for your opponents.

So yes, I accept an attitude of "well done all of us, let's remember the efforts our ancestors made 71 years ago and learn from it", but "yeeeeeah there you go you boche ba$tards, we won the battle of britain, so you can stick your nazi boots up your ar$es" is something that I could have accepted only in the 40s.

The example made in the article about Fawlty Towers "don't mention the war" (or Blackadder for the matter) skit is another example of how you have used "the war" for everything: celebration, drama, comedy, sport etc..

RN
* Grafton, sunk by U-62 on 29 May;
* Grenade, sunk by air attack off the east pier at Dunkirk on 29 May;
* Wakeful, sunk by a torpedo from the Schnellboot (E-boat) S-30 on 29 May;
* Basilisk, Havant and Keith, sunk by air attack off the beaches on 1 June.

French Navy
* Bourrasque, mined off Nieuport on 30 May;
* Sirocco, sunk by the Schnellboote S-23 and S-26 on 31 May;
* Le Foudroyant, sunk by air attack off the beaches on 1 June.

sunk out of 39 Destroyers participating.

It would appear that none were lost on the open sea to air attack.

Thats generalizing mate, have I chanted that? has anyone on this thread chanted that? have I suggested that chant is something to be proud of? have you any evidence that it is the wider view of the British public?........no

Proof of ignorance, that is exactly what it was, a victory for our fight to survive....so we honour the people that made the ultimate saccrifce for it, where the hell does a football match come in to it?

Not being funny or anything and with no disrespect to the rest of europe....it's probably to do with the fact we remained the only european country that had anything to celebrate.......is that not obvious?

So we can laugh at ourselves.....now I'm confused, are you saying having a sense of humour and being able to laught at our own faults is offensive, Basil Faulty is portrayed as a bufoon, Blackadder is a subject of pure comedy, and the whole series was taking the mick out of all those bad things you are highlighting.

I've got a few niggles with 'half-hearted attempt', but overall a fair and balanced appraisal.

Sternjaeger if you are willing to agree with this bit now:

"The UK can call this a German defeat because it didn't meet the stated aims (conquering Britain)"

then why all the arguing and defensiveness in the last 40-odd pages?! (edit: 50-odd pages. Cant keep track of this thread :) )

Humor is always good, being able to laugh about oneself is even better.

From a German's perspective, however, it seems to be some kind of "popular culture" to constantly harp on about "the war". It's everywhere, in football, in the yellow press, in some of these mindless chants ... To me it does leave the impression that Great Britain is nowadays nothing more than a little poor island full of sad people who have nothing to be happy about and so they bring up times long gone whenever appropriate and especially when not.

And as for the British Empire I am absolutely convinced the only reason the colonies were given independence after WW2 is that GB no longer could afford the costs (political, military and especially financially) to keep them occupied and to suppress the local drive for independence. Otherwise GB might have found itself in the same position as France with the nasty wars in Indochina and Algeria.

I would say the Russians could be on a similar level to the UK, and for similar reasons - finishing as victors.

All the other European countries have painful memories of defeat and occupation. Best forgotten.

For the victors (in any conflict...?) there is more of a tendency to view it as a nation-defining achievement (though how long a country should keep clinging to its past glories is a valid question to raise)

All I ask is that people don't generalise and use these examples as what Britain is all about, I fail to see the difference in that and what the British are accused of.

Quite....but what about the ones who havent become independent? what is the massive gun we are holding to their heads?

Why?......not really going to make any difference other than history being forgotten........whats that saying again?

True. I'm all for remembering and marking the sacrifices and achievements of those years.

But maybe a nation (especially one with such a grand, imperial past as GB) can define itself too much by its past achievements. Reliving the past can maybe become an unhealthy attempt to avoid difficult choices in the present (?) (aircraft carriers with no aircraft, clinging onto the nuclear club, our continued addiction to 'punching above our weight' in various foreign conflicts under the last two governments.)

That last paragraph is more throwing a question in the air than saying i necessarily subscribe to that position.

I also don't think that most Brits (with the possible exception of Daily Telegraph readers ;)) have that strong identification with Empire and glory that some of the posters in this thread seem to believe.

Nobody is accusing the British of anything here, but a certain popular behaviour should be firmly condemned, not giggled upon or dismissed, not only because it's out of place, but because it embarrasses the British that don't think in that way. Same goes with humour: with SO many themes to joke upon, why the war one is SO recurrent!? :confused:

I'm not gonna go on this one, too off topic.

well maybe you haven't chanted it here, but you can say you NEVER chanted it, or giggled when you heard it? Come on..

that's exactly my question..

I don't think it's advisable to compare GB to Russia, the scales are VERY hard to match there..
yep, how long? Is it because ww2 was probably the first well documented conflict of history and is still so vivid in our memories, and many vets are still around?

I thought that by now we agreed that the attempt was half-hearted?

As for the agreeing, the fact that the UK can call something a victory doesn't mean that it actually was one. So as much as I do understand why in Britain it's perceived as a victory, doesn't change the facts of the conflict.

I think we are absolutely back at square one. No positions have changed. We should all stop going around in circles and let people read the thread and propose their own points and arguments from here on in....

Regards Mike

how about some tea and biscuits while we're at it? :mrgreen:

The facts of the conflict are that no further attempts were made to invade Britain.

Whether the initial attempt was half-hearted is irrelevant, the outcome ensured that Nazi Germany ran out of time and resources to accomplish its aims due to their preoccupation with more important campaigns.

Had the Luftwaffe swept aside the RAF as intended, and as they probably could have done, that would have been a defeat for Britain whether the invasion was a success or not. There's no middle ground, a costly victory is still a victory even though it might lead to disaster further down the track which, in this case, it didn't.

Would you say that the Channel Dash was a German victory? They got their ships through the channel at a high price but, after the Channel Dash, those ships contributed practically nothing to the war effort. They basically drained resources from other areas and were eventually destroyed.

But they got through the channel.

The RAF clearly contributed greatly to the war after BoB so that compounds the miracle of their survival and, to my mind, adds weight to the argument that BoB was a defeat for the Germans and a victory for the British.

That is your problem. Nobody ever said your victory celebrations are an offense to anybody. That was entirely your interpretation. What was said is that your victory celebrations are blinding you to an objective perspective. Once again you spin this into some kind of attack. With other words, you warp others arguments into an attack, for whatever reasons.

No, can't explain that, because nobody did that but yourself. So you may want to ask yourself why you feel offended all the time. Now if you can't take what people say the way it is you should not wonder if those people go nuts eventually. And don't come up with Kongo Otto again, I am not him, neither is Stern, nor anybody else.



The techniques used by the Nazis were neither new nor have not been employed later on by other nations. In fact, those means are still very much alive and kicking these days. Just look at the US and how Bush manipulated to the public into marching into Iraq. Or the picture Islam has taken in western society. Or more and more surveillance by governments to look after their citizens. Despite decades of Nazi docmentaries and debates the same things are happening right in front of our eyes with nobody caring a bit about it. So please do not tell me that using the Nazis had done naything so far to prevent developments the Nazis were famous for.

And finally, there we have this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ0mdxXw8Ac

which is just the absolute climax of anglo saxon nations dealing with the Nazis. Its nuts.

There is no doubt that the soldiers and aviators on both sides were fighting for their lives. When the fight is to the death it is never a half hearted anything. Both sides were giving up their lives every day, and you can be assured there was no half hearted effort in the cockpits of either Germany or Britain.

Goering may have been a putz, but the Luftwaffe was not.

Sadly, the German and British soldiers died because they were just in the way. Seems like it, when you realize ole Hitler just changed the war front, and effectively wasted all those people and resources in the Battle of Britain.

Thousands of people died, military and civilian and the jerk just diverted to the other side of Europe. Taking Britain was just a half effort to Hitler, and if that jerk had to fight his way out of a paper sack (personally) he couldn't have done zip. THe little coward proved it up well when he committed suicide, rather than face any kind of punishment for his debauchery.

I say Britain was the winner, because all the power of Luftwaffe was directed towards Britain and the losses were greater militarily for Germany than Britain. The Germans were getting the snot kicked out of them on a daily basis, and it didn't seem to matter how many planes they had in the air they lost huge lots of them on every raid.

Hitler thought defeating Britain would be easy. Figuratively speaking, Hitler got his hand in the mouth of a bear.

History has it's facts and distortions, which is what future generations will share.

Another 15 years and there will probably not be a single survivor left alive on either side that fought in WW2 to corroborate anything.

Actually, no, I do not mean by that. In my opinion you can only beat the NAzis if you can beat them in open discourse, and all what a ban achieves is making them go into hiding and creating a dormant mood that can grow in peace because nobody can challenge it for lack of recongition.

No, what you need to learn is how prejudices develop, why certain gropus of people get villified. That once you start talking about "them" and "us", you already laid the foundations the Nazis can build upon. That taking away peopls dignity can result in very violent backslashes. That all people need free access to information because if they do not, then that means individuals can manipulate public opinion. Rupert Murdoch anybody?

The list goes on. It is not about the great and open mechanics that made the Nazis famous, it is about the small subtle, hardly recongizable changes in a publics mood that can result in sudden outbursts if not adressed early and can be exploited by populists. If something like the Nazis happens again, it won't be under the Nazi corporate identity, that is a given.

Actually I think all the talk about the Anzis does not serve to prevent them from comign up again, but gives them so much credit and presence that ppl will be rather hot to repeat their feats. It's by now probably the most (in)famous movement on this planet and constantly upheld everywhere. In all honesty, those gangsters could not have wished for more free air time.

Thanks mate, always nice to get someone else's take on these things.

I was joking about the swastikas of course.;)

you sure were ; )

All political systems have potential for failure.

The people, the sheeple are for the most part in all societies just taking care of their own lives. They are dependent upon government to take care of it's own ends. It is a fact, most people have enough problems and issues in their own lives to keep them too busy to be very politically active.

Sad truth, Hitler was elected with 98% of popular vote 1933 as chancellor of Germany. The Wiemar republic was the catylst that elevated Hitler into such a position of power. The financial reparations burden after WWI on Germany was too heavy. There was not a way to deal with it and by trying Germany was in horrendous economic state.

The US learned many lessons, and one was the debaucle of the Wiemar Republic. Dealing with Germany and Japan with adequate reparations for the cost of war on all parties after their defeat in WW2 would have been a terrible burden for the future of those countries. Afterall, the people may vote, protest and even fight... but they are under the authority of the despots who cause and prosecute the wars. Sadly, in the aftermath of war there just aren't enough surviving despots to exact adequate revenge upon. Certainly there was not enough collateral in a destroyed Germany and Japan for assured payment of the cost to all parties from WW2.

The burden of the cost of WW2 was passed off as loss to all parties, except in the Eastern Bloc where Soviet Russia exacted tribute until 1987.

Seventy years after the war and those Eastern Bloc countries are just now beginning to see hope for the future. They have had their Hitlers too, because their people have been desparate to do something. Tito comes to mind.

never!! and if I ever giggled that was my business and nobody else ever got hurt of offended.

Like British Imperialism isn't off topic menough...

First of all, Hitler did not get elected chancellor. In the last free lection In November 1932 the national socialists got 33.1% of the votes. As per Wikipedia:

The results were a great disappointment for the Nazis, who once more emerged as the largest party by far but failed to form a government coalition, while again both anti-democratic parties, Nazis and Communists, together obtained the majority of seats in the Reichstag parliament. So far Chancellor Franz von Papen, a former member of the Catholic Centre Party (today CDU, Merkel is from that one), had governed without parliamentary support relying on legislative decrees promulgated by Reich President Paul von Hindenburg according to Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. However, on 12 September 1932 Papen had to ask Hindenburg to dissolve the parliament in order to preempt a motion of no confidence tabled by the Communist Party that met with approval by the Nazis. The DNVP MPs had backed Papen, which earned them a gain of 15 seats.

Chancellor Papen urged Hindenburg to further on govern by emergency decrees, nevertheless on December 3 he was superseded by his Defence Minister Kurt von Schleicher who in talks with the left wing of the Nazi Party led by Gregor Strasser tried to build up a Third Position (Querfront) strategy. These plans failed when in turn Hitler disempowered Strasser and approached Papen who reached Hindenburg's consent to form the Cabinet Hitler on 30 January 1933.

Mainly because my first post in this was responded to with an accusation of being a Nationalist, nothing to do with Kongo.

is it?.......one sketch in a Faulty towers episode and a series of Blackadder based on WWI and it's repetitive?.......oh ok and there was that awfull 'alo alo' series years ago.

Its Tea & Crumpets old boy :-P

If I may remind you of the tasteless headlines and photos on british newspapers before the Euro 96 semi-finals, the equally tasteless "10 little Spitfires" chants propagated by british online communities before World Cup 2006 and actually sung by some (admittedly drunken) idiots in german city centers ... It's not just that the yellow press is so besotted with the topic but it's actually worse that it returns again and again and no voice is raised that tells 'em to STFU. Silent agreement or silent disagreement aren't distinguishable from the outside, you know. ;)

Idiots are idiots worldwide and I can only utterly apologise for anyone on the receiving end of such ignorance. I can't apologise on behalf of the whole British population but I can on behalf of my 1/60,000,000 of it.

Regards Mike

Of course the whole point of Blackadder the 4th was to take the merciless mickey out of ourselves. The only vaguely anti German thing in Blackadder Goes Forth was the Red Baron (and that was kinda funny, reminds me of Michael Schumacher)

:grin:

Regards Mike

I concur...that wasn't me, nor will I ever condone it, it is not the mentality of all British, the red top newspapers cater for a very 'niche' section of our society......please don't generalise.

it's not like we 'can' do much about these idiots, have them rounded up and shot?

who exactly is being paranoid now?

You should try being English, living in Liverpool and telling people you 'don't follow football'.

One bloke said to me 'what? You don't follow football? Are you gay? You're not from Liverpool either, are you?'.

Which demonstrates more than one brainless prejudice in one easy lesson.

Suffice to say I managed to give him a verbal barrage and didn't have to resort to evisceration for him to apologise. Sheesh.

Sorry, way off topic. ;)

well, I think you just won this thread. hehe

Hmm..interesting. I can't help noticing the parallels between 9/11 and the Reichstag
fire. Both used the destruction of prominent public buildings to push through legislation subverting their citizens basic constitutional rights.

I just think that if anything can bring out the worst in anyone, it's that bloody 'game'.

Göring is an eye opener. From an interview in 1946

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

The conduct 'on' the pitch ain't much better sometimes

Hitler Becomes Dictator

After the elections of March 5, 1933, the Nazis began a systematic takeover of the state governments throughout Germany, ending a centuries-old tradition of local political independence. Armed SA and SS thugs barged into local government offices using the state of emergency decree as a pretext to throw out legitimate office holders and replace them with Nazi Reich commissioners.
Political enemies were arrested by the thousands and put in hastily constructed holding pens. Old army barracks and abandoned factories were used as prisons. Once inside, prisoners were subjected to military style drills and harsh discipline. They were often beaten and sometimes even tortured to death. This was the very beginning of the Nazi concentration camp system.
At this time, these early concentration camps were loosely organized under the control of the SA and the rival SS. Many were little more than barbed-wire stockades know as 'wild' concentration camps, set up by local Gauleiters and SA leaders.
For Adolf Hitler, the goal of a legally established dictatorship was now within reach. On March 15, 1933, a cabinet meeting was held during which Hitler and Göring discussed how to obstruct what was left of the democratic process to get an Enabling Act passed by the Reichstag. This law would hand over the constitutional functions of the Reichstag to Hitler, including the power to make laws, control the budget and approve treaties with foreign governments.
The emergency decree signed by Hindenburg on February 28th, after the Reichstag fire, made it easy for them to interfere with non-Nazi elected representatives of the people by simply arresting them.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...am-opening.jpg

March 21, 1933 - With the eyes of Germany and the whole world on him - a respectful stroll by Hitler toward the Garrison Church in Potsdam for ceremonies opening the new Reichstag session. Below: Reassuring to all - Hitler greets President Hindenburg in the manner of the age-old German custom - hand outstretched and head bowed. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...ets-hinden.jpgBelow: Inside the Garrison Church - Hitler speaks as President Hindenburg (lower right) and Germany's old guard listen. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...e-garrison.jpgBelow: Outside the church, a bemused Chancellor Hitler chats with the Kaiser's son and heir, Crown Prince Wilhelm.http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...ler-prince.jpg

Below: Two days later - March 23rd - Hitler appears before the Reichstag in Berlin to reassure them that - if granted - his new powers under the Enabling Act will be used sparingly.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...s-enabling.jpg

As Hitler plotted to bring democracy to an end in Germany, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels put together a brilliant public relations display at the official opening of the newly elected Reichstag.
On March 21st, in the Garrison Church at Potsdam, the burial place of Frederick the Great, an elaborate ceremony took place designed to ease public concern over Hitler and his gangster-like new regime.
It was attended by President Hindenburg, foreign diplomats, the General Staff and all the old guard going back to the days of the Kaiser. Dressed in their handsome uniforms sprinkled with medals, they watched a most reverent Adolf Hitler give a speech paying respect to Hindenburg and celebrating the union of old Prussian military traditions and the new Nazi Reich. As a symbol of this, the old Imperial flags would soon add swastikas.
Finishing his speech, Hitler walked over to Hindenburg and respectfully bowed before him while taking hold of the old man's hand. The scene was recorded on film and by press photographers from around the world. This was precisely the impression Hitler and Goebbels wanted to give to the world, all the while plotting to toss aside Hindenburg and the elected Reichstag.
Later that same day, Hindenburg signed two decrees put before him by Hitler. The first offered full pardons to all Nazis currently in prison. The prison doors sprang open and out came an assortment of Nazi thugs and murderers.
The second decree signed by the befuddled old man allowed for the arrest of anyone suspected of maliciously criticizing the government and the Nazi Party.
A third decree signed only by Hitler and Papen allowed for the establishment of special courts to try political offenders. These courts were conducted in the military style of a court-martial without a jury and usually with no counsel for the defense.
On March 23rd, the newly elected Reichstag met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's Enabling Act. It was officially called the "Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich." If passed, it would in effect vote democracy out of existence in Germany and establish the legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.
Brown-shirted Nazi storm troopers swarmed over the fancy old building in a show of force and as a visible threat. They stood outside, in the hallways and even lined the aisles inside, glaring ominously at anyone who might oppose Hitler's will.
Before the vote, Hitler made a speech in which he pledged to use restraint.
"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one,"Hitler told the Reichstag.
He also promised an end to unemployment and pledged to promote peace with France, Great Britain and Soviet Russia. But in order to do all this, Hitler said, he first needed the Enabling Act. A two-thirds majority was needed, since the law would actually alter the constitution. Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to pass it. He got those votes from the Catholic Center Party after making a false promise to restore some basic rights already taken away by decree.
Meanwhile, Nazi storm troopers chanted outside:"Full powers – or else! We want the bill – or fire and murder!!"
But one man arose amid the overwhelming might. Otto Wells, leader of the Social Democrats stood up and spoke quietly to Hitler.
"We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No enabling act can give you power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible."
Hitler was enraged and jumped up to respond.
"You are no longer needed! The star of Germany will rise and yours will sink! Your death knell has sounded!"
The vote was taken – 441 for, and only 84, the Social Democrats, against. The Nazis leapt to their feet clapping, stamping and shouting, then broke into the Nazi anthem, the Hörst Wessel song.
Democracy was ended. They had brought down the German Democratic Republic legally. From this day onward, the Reichstag would be just a sounding board, a cheering section for Hitler's pronouncements.
Interestingly, the Nazi Party was now flooded with applications for membership. These latecomers were cynically labeled by old time Nazis as 'March Violets.' In May, the Nazi Party froze membership. Many of those kept out applied to the SA and the SS which were still accepting. However, in early 1934, Heinrich Himmler would throw out 50,000 of those 'March Violets' from the SS.
The Nazi Gleichschaltung now began, a massive coordination of all aspects of life under the swastika and the absolute leadership of Adolf Hitler.
Under Hitler, the State, not the individual, was supreme.
From the moment of birth one existed to serve the State and obey the dictates of the Führer. Those who disagreed were disposed of.
Many agreed. Bureaucrats, industrialists, even intellectual and literary figures, including Gerhart Hauptmann, world renowned dramatist, were coming out in open support of Hitler.
Many disagreed and left the country. A flood of the finest minds, including over two thousand writers, scientists, and people in the arts poured out of Germany and enriched other lands, mostly the United States. Among them – writer Thomas Mann, director Fritz Lang, actress Marlene Dietrich, architect Walter Gropius, musicians Otto Klemperer, Kurt Weill, Richard Tauber, psychologist Sigmund Freud, and Albert Einstein, who was visiting California when Hitler came to power and never returned to Germany.
In Germany, there were now constant Nazi rallies, parades, marches and meetings amid the relentless propaganda of Goebbels and the omnipresent swastika. For those who remained there was an odd mixture of fear and optimism in the air.
Now, for the first time as dictator, Adolf Hitler turned his attention to the driving force which had propelled him into politics in the first place, his hatred of the Jews. It began with a simple boycott on April 1st, 1933, and would end years later in the greatest tragedy in all of human history.

----------------------

My point is... Hitler was not opposed as he should have been, and with his cronies, backroom diplomacy turned the tide for Nazis. Governments can be overthrown, regardless of what seems insurmountable odds against it.

In general, I agree to you as not agreeing would mean ppl get a free ticket to sit idle in a similiar position. However, there are enough examples, from other countries (western included) where the people should have acted and did not.

Specifically, I adisagree in sofar as the Nazis, as your own article suggest, killed or imprisioned all people capable of forming active resistance. The Nazis had one major advantage in Germany they did not have anywhere else. They simply knew everybody and knew where everybody stood in the political sptectrum. Identifying, arresting and imprisoning or killing political opposition was much much easier in Germany then anywhere else when you had to deal with those people in the Weimar Republic in the decades before.

It also did not help that the Allies refused any help to any german resistance group.

Btw, I am an active social democrat.

Thank you for editing British with Allies....

Did not know that one. Actually, Göring seems to be most likeable Nazi character. He wasn't anti-semitic or dogmatic, a fatalist like Hitler, fanatic like Himmler or a ruthless b@stard like Heidrich, or as naive nationalist like Hess.. he seemed to have a view on things what we call in these parts "sober farmer's intellect', meaning seeing things just as they are. Gilbert comment is extremely naive as well - it may be that only the Congress had the right to declare war, but this didn't quite stop the President from de facto waging a war on the seas on his own initiative from the spring of 1941, or to drive the US into war with any possible means.

Good Grief.

I remember seeing something similar about the Nuremberg trials that the captors, prosecutors etc had trouble trying not to get caught up by his (Goering's) charm.

Apparently he was quite a likable person and had a great character. This is also probably the reason he ended up getting cyanide to kill himself, wasn't it the US guard that gave it to him after he became a bit chummy with Hermann?

I, actually, think a statement Göring was heard to utter when he was arrested does characterize him much better: "At least 12 years of decent life." ("Wenigstens 12 Jahre anständig gelebt.")

He was greedy, he was pompous, he was boasting, a coward and absolutley ruthless in pursuing his own ambitions. As such he fit into the shark pool that was Hitler's inner circle.

As has been said, idiots are everywhere, in every corner of this sad world.

It's not war-related, by I still remember some of the offenses directed at the italian soccer team and at italians in general, in the 2006 FIFA world cup, made by some german newspapers.
IIRC they were written by some german tabloids, a-la "The Sun" ("Bild" and "Der Spiegel" I seem to recall), but still...
Some of them were reported even by our newspapers, and caused quite a little bit of a "national case".

Same as that lame "Nur Italien nicht!" song. I wonder really how many find that crap funny tbh.
Chanting "It doesn't matter who will win the world cup, as long as it is not Italy", or "pushes, spits and insults: that's the italian soccer" is astonishing.

No nation is immune to idiots, be that Italy, Germany, Uk or whatever.

As we say here:
"The mother of the imbeciles is always pregnant"

Cheers
Rick

And presumably the 'facts' = what is taken to constitute 'objective reality' is to be determined by you with the rest of our opinions relegated to those of propaganda-besotted dupes.

You haven't addressed my criticism of this stance of yours - the so-called 'facts' that you keep marshalling in your arguments appear to most here as opinion and interpretation, of equal value as the perspectives of other posters but not inherently different in evidence or weight.

Once again your refusal to acknowledge this or reply with massive overwhelming evidence (that is not open to either counter-interpretation or that can be contradicted by other quotes, opinions or 'facts' from the other side) strikes me as a little arrogant.

Until you can deliver incontrovertible 'facts' and evidence and not just resort to constantly saying you are right you won't change opinions.

On the subject of resistance to thuggery and evil, as a resident of Northern Ireland I will say that resisting organised and violent paramilitary-style organisations is not something that is either easy to do or in most cases advisable.

Such people may constitute only a small percentage of the population but their level of organisation and willingness to inflict extreme violence on any challenge to their authority is enough to ensure that the masses learn quickly to keep alternative opinions to themselves.

Bold part marked for truth.

As for BILD (or BLÖD = STUPID, as many people call it) ... it's Germany's foremost example of Yellow Press. Many people read it but denounce it as bad and claim not to read it. I don't read any newspaper (except when I visit my home village as my parents have subscribed to a local paper) and can proudly state I have never bought a BLÖD and never will. I am actually appalled by this type of media, regardles off its name, makeup and whether it's a print media, online or TV. They're all despicable IMO.

Hi Thor,
same as me: I don't read any newspapers. It's been like this for maybe 2 years by now.
I don't even like football tbh, so I'm an atypical italian in the end.

Unluckily, imho, we have a bit of a degeneration of all major newspaers into Bild style reporting. Stern, Spiegel, Focus, especially in regards to Greece went the opinionated emotional route. We can only hope this is not a long living trend.

I wasn't disputing the man's evident 'charm', more the statement that he 'wasn't anti-semitic or dogmatic'.

Although I saw one documentary about his brother who apparently assisted thousands of Jewish people to flee.

AFAIK Göring wasn't particularly anti semitic, he was pragmatic about not going the party line though.

IIRC there is a story about when Erhard Milch was being put under the magnifying glass for his - allaged - Jewish ancestry. Göring stepped in told Himmler along the lines that 'Dear Heinrich, it is I who decide who is jewish in the Luftwaffe and who is not'. As for dogmatic... I don't know, he strikes me as a rather pragmatic, and opportunistic character, rather than the fanatic nazis like Hess, Hitler or Himmler. Politics probably only interested him as long as it was practical. At least this is my take on him.

Personally, after the war I think many LW commanders simply pointed fingers to the 'fat man' and blamed their own failures on him, much like the infallible Wehrmacht generals did after the war when saying: '...it was all Hitler's fault'. I mean Galland especially. I like Galland a lot a man and a fighter pilot, but I am realistic about that he only tells his side of the story, and there were plenty of people who did not like his leadership, and whom Galland did not like either. But Galland got to wrote his memoir and others did not. IMHO he probably wasn't as good as a staff officer as he was a Gruppe or Geschwader commander. His failure in Italy and the naivity of his 'big blow' plan are striking examples imho, but he always had Fat Hermann as an excuse. IMHO Molders was classes better for that role.

In reality, Göring was interfering very little with the Luftwaffe during the war, he was more of a political connection to the nazi party, rather than a real actor; Milch was the actual man who was behind organisation and such, Göring did little more than preside over GL meetings.

Sternjaeger wants to have his cake and eat it too, if you give him facts he says that they're misinterpreted. If you give him logically sound and well thought out interperatations he wants facts.

There is an old saying, 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink the water, even if it is the sweetest water'.

Maybe that's because GB was the only European country on the "good" side who fought from the beginning to end, without changing sides, and actually landed up on the winning side. Also, maybe you should look up some of the celebrations in Poland sometime!

Who else would celebrate their performance/actions during WW2; Germany? Italy? France? Belgium? Netherlands? Romania? Finland? Russia? Hungary? Austria? etc.

As for the importance of the BOB, compare the losses in the BOF to BOB...you will really get enlightened:)

I reckon Russia, and they do don't they?

No there's no sarcasm in that at all, Germany must be forgiven WWII, but Britain can never be forgiven for once being the worlds largest empire.

They very much do......it's just apparently less offensive than The way Brits celebrate.

There is a difference. Germans themselves (at least most of them) are aware that ww2 was a terrible thing and German guilt is recognized. Go to Berlin and look at the HUGE memorial in plain town centre to the memory of the dead of the Holocaust. A picture for you (On the top left corner you see the Reichstag-building):

http://ais.badische-zeitung.de/piece...6293-w-600.jpg

Another perspective:
http://www.attraktionen.info/images/...st-mahnmal.jpg

Where are your memorials on the dark spots in British history?

Remember: one can only be forgiven when one recognizes one's guilt.

I am not denying the 'dark spots' in our history (no country doesn't have any), but why does everyone need to bring it up in a thread about WWII?, our colonial past has nothing to do with it.

Well, I guess that is because lots of british always are bringing up other's dark spots. Most folks I know do not like to be lectured by people that have their own issues.

I mean, look at it this way. From a continental perspecitve, in general the british ran the largest conquest in history all over the world, they invented the concentration camps, they have a history of putting down resistance to their empirial ambitions in sometimes brutal ways and specifically in regards to WW2, they allied with the Russians, who were at least as agressive as the germans, they've had no problems with reducing all german cities above 100.000 citiziens to rubble and a lot of even smaller towns and villages (sometimes for the single reason that and old rugged road ran through them which made them "strategic important".) and put their inhabitants to the cruelest of deaths. And after the war there is the Rheinwiesen issues and the lack of support for german resistance goups.

If you were living on the continent and constantly, I mean constantly had to listen to rather one sided blames, you'd be quite miffed as well, eventually. Germany, after all, is not the only country that falls victim to british self rightousness. It's not about having a go at the british, a people I personally and many many others have a lot of respect for, it's just about being fed up by the enduring and in your face hypocrisis, really.

If the UK was celebrating the victory like the Russians, for example, as matter of national survival and eventual victory, nobody would complain. But it's always in connection with a certain morale highground and contempt for others that simply is out of place, especially in a Europe that is marked by ever greater cooperation instead of national quarrels.

This is all a fair point....but the waters got very muddied in this thread, it stated as a question on how the Luftwaffe took defat in the battle, then some very one sided oppinions came in saying there was no victory, this was argued with no proof of any such case, but anybody British who contributed was attacked for being 'Nationalist', and the rest of the thread became a slanging match and anti-british witch hunt.....the original topic fell by the wayside.
In the interest of fairness why doesn't someone start a thread on everything the British need to be ashamed of.

You know what I think about "feeling ashamed of" some deeds of ancestors.

I for my part I am very happy that we have this huge memorial. It is like a huge salt grain in a wound. And yes, it may hurt sometimes. But I think by this pain staking needle constantly remembering us what is wrong one can improve and do the right thing and thus better oneself. Looking straight into the truth just can help you to make the right decisions. Ignoring truth only may lead to repeat the same mistakes.

PS: And I agree: there had been some awful posts here directed at the British. I ignored them on purpose as they really spoke for themselves. Some ppl just are so *** that it is useless to argue with them as there is no hope that they can learn. You on the contrary appear like somebody that is able to learn and not as somebody dumb. So take it as a compliment that people argue with you :)

Exactly a point I made before, I can't help it if the British have no such equivalent, perhaps it is because our colonialist campaigns all happened so far back in history in a time when those kind of actions were 'less' frowned upon and the people who need apologising to are long gone, the events of WWII are still in the memories of living people and happened at a time when it was very much frowned upon, the British don't claim to be on a moral high ground.....we just did the right thing at that time.

This is ITALIAN fascist propaganda to Churchill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvwxigxeMv0

Well, that is not quite false as well. It all really developed when Stern jumped in and did not call it a victory. In the course of that debate a lot of the old clichés came out, and that is what got this debate now kick started.

On the other hand, aside some very personal insults thrown by some in this thread by both sides of the argument, I think this thread was highly interesting and quite beneficial in understanding where ppl come from. Not a bad result at all, imho.

I don't really care if it was a battle, a campaign, an offensive or how ever you want to name it, Britain can be very justly proud of it's achievements during the Battle of Britain.

Imagine how different our would would be today if there hadn't been 20 miles of water seperating Britain from the continent and the bravery of all those who stood up against Nazi Gemany and it's attempt to dominate Europe in those dark days.

they have a history of putting down resistance to their empirial ambitions in sometimes brutal ways

Just like Germany, then. ;) I sometimes wonder how much Germans (and many other peoples) are actually aware of their own countries Imperial and Colonial activities. Germany had many colonial interests around the world (including African and the Pacific colonies, and the only reason they were not more extensive is that they had effectively been left behind in the race to plunder other countries natural resources. Something which Kaiser Wilhelm II himself actually lamented, stating that "Germany has begun her colonial enterprise very late, and was, therefore, at the disadvantage of finding all the desirable places already occupied." Hmmmm.

What is now modern day Namibia was a former German Colony (with a greater landmass than Germany itself), and also the setting for the first (German perpetrated) Genocide of the 20th Century. Rebellions by the Namaqua and Herero tribes were ruthlessly and violently quashed, resulting in some 120,000 deaths. There are also allegations that desert wells were systematically poisoned by the German colonial army.

So, the fact that Germany was a little 'late to the party' is the reason we are not now talking more about its colonialism, they 'missed the boat' as it were.

There are many shameful and abhorrent episodes of British colonialism, slavery in particular (and which I personally was educated about as a child at school) but the point being is that Britain was hardly 'alone' in this vile enterprise, they were just ahead of the game.

I do not blame modern day young Germans for perhaps feeling that they are being unfairly vilified ('the son cannot be held guilty for the sins of the father'), but this 'other countries did it too' moral relativism is a little off the mark.

The British Empire never had a systematic, centralised, organised bureaucracy and infrastructure dedicated to and formed with the sole and express purpose of murdering each and every race on Earth different to them, or all other groups who did not conform to some perverse 'ideal'. All of them. Each and every one. Man, woman and child. That is the key difference.

More on 'concentration camps' later maybe, I'm off to the pub lol. Have fun peeps. :)

Err, maybe not. Was this thread ever on topic? LOL. Waaaaaay OT.

Cheers.

Remember that 52 of those ex-collonies have opted to remain within the Commonwealth. Maybe one of the reason was that Britian was into 'Building an Empire', not just martial conquest like other European powers.