Stop the America-bashing!

[siredgar]

Most Dutch people despise Germans. They want to be distinguished from them as much as possible.

I think the Dutch are more related to Scandinavians. They are very tall and blond and favor social welfare programs like them. The Germans are more central European in nature.

Anyhow, the Dutch hated German occupation more than anyone in Europe.

[Rosacrux]

Siredgar, you *think* wrong. The Dutch are the closest relatives of the Germans in Europe. Actually, the second closest, if you count Austrians as non-Germans. The *family* goes like this: Germans are actually bros with Austrian. First cousin with Dutch and Belgian (not the French part). Second grade cousins with the skandinavian people (especially Danes and Norwegians - also the Swedes are not far from there). If we go to the third grade... hhmm... ok, let's not

And... sorry, but the Dutch resistance (what resistance???) was the most pathetic in the whole occupied Europe. Even in Lithuania and Letonia was more resistance - not to mention Yugoslavia (Serbia, mostly) or Greece, where the local population had to pay a huge death toll due to the Nazi occupation. Whole villages burned to the ground and ALL the inhabitants shot at spot.

So, no, the Dutch actually had a very active NAZI party and they manned two (or three, I am not sure) Waffen SS divisions. And 100.000 more of them joined the German army.

As far as I know, no French men joined the German army... or Greeks... or Serbs...

[jasev]

Originally posted by Rosacrux
And... sorry, but the Dutch resistance (what resistance???) was the most pathetic in the whole occupied Europe.

Well, it's not easy to create a resistance movement in a country like the Netherlands; the terrain is not the most appropiate. But the allies had a full spy net in the Netherlands, and many dutch were executed for espionage.

As far as I know, no French men joined the German army... or Greeks... or Serbs...

I'll surprise you. The last 30 waffen-SS men who defended Hitler's bunker in Berlin (hitler was already dead) had joined Legion Charlemagne: they were french SS volunteers.
After the war, the french government of De Gaulle considered a traitor every french citizen who had joined the german army, and many were executed.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Rosacrux


And... sorry, but the Dutch resistance (what resistance???) was the most pathetic in the whole occupied Europe. Even in Lithuania and Letonia was more resistance - not to mention Yugoslavia (Serbia, mostly) or Greece, where the local population had to pay a huge death toll due to the Nazi occupation. Whole villages burned to the ground and ALL the inhabitants shot at spot.

I think you need to pay a visit to the Museum of the Dutch Resistance in Amsterdam. It's housed in a deconsecrated synagogue, although it does have a poignant monument to the murdered Jewish communities of Amsterdam. The reason many people don't know so much about the Dutch Resistance, is because unlike some French collaborators, for instance, they weren't all keen to show themselves to have been fighting the Nazis after the war. How did Maurice Chevalier end up being such a patriot you might ask, after having entertained Wehrmacht troops on German soil? Or Francois Mitterand after having been a Vichy official?
So there was the Oest Compagnie in the Netherlands, and they had S.S. volunteers. So did Norway, who had Vidkun Quisling, so did the Flemish in Belgium, the French, the Croatian Ustasha, Muslim Legion volunteers, and as for the Lithuanian resistance- well the footage I watched last week of Lithuanian civilians, beating to death their Jewish neighbours, as they sang the Lithuanian national anthem, didn't show much resistance to me.
Rotterdam was made an example of by the Germans; Dutch workers went on strike in protest at anti-Jewish laws; the only such anti-pogrom strike - you can see the commemorative statue in Amsterdam near the Jewish Museum. I consider myself honoured to have spoken with a Dutch Resistance member who talked of walking around occupied Amsterdam with a loaded pistol and one extra bullet in his shirt pocket, which was to be reserved for killing himself, in case of capture. After the war, he wanted to put his experiences behind him. A colleague recognised his photograph in a Time-Life book on WWII, and convinced him to volunteer at the Museum of Dutch Resistance, and tell of his part in the anti-fascist struggle. You do a grave disservice to people such as him.

http://verzetsmuseum.org/english/indexE.html

http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/netherlands.html

http://www.riod.nl/bibliograpeng_3.html

http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/Holocaust/GALL31R/81875.htm

[siredgar]

Just because the Dutch were not actively fighting in the hills does not mean they weren't resisting German occupation and especially the annihilation of the Jews.

Anyhow, I don't agree with you on Dutch-German relations. Most of today's Germany is quite heterogenous in nature. While Germans in the northwest part of the country may indeed be close relatives to the Dutch and possibly Scandinavians, the rest are most likely not. Just travel through Germany and compare to the Netherlands and Scandinavia and you will see this. You're saying this is not so, but I hope you say this by at least having been to that part of the world rather than just reading it from a book.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Arrian
Serb - Sorry, but I think your claim that the Red Army played a "major" role in Japan's defeat in WWII is an exaggeration. There were really two countries who played major roles: the U.S. and China. Honorary mention to the Brits, for the battles in Burma.

I’ve never said that. All I said is the Red Army took big part in defeat of Japan. Red Army hit Japanese a couple of times in 1939 so hard that Japan don’t dare to attack SU latter, even when our major forces fought against Germany. And an August of 1945 was not an easy walk for Red Army. I don’t care was it big role in defeat of Japan or not. I don’t care how you call it. The most important thing is that we took (jasev Thank you very much )back territories we’ve lost to Japan in times of Russian civil war; this is the most important thing for me.

Further, why is it hard to believe that Stalin attacked Finland to create a buffer zone?

Then why it was not occupied? After the penetration of Mannergeim’s Line it was a really easy task to occupy Finland.

The alliance between Stalin and Hitler, which resulted in the conquest and division of Poland, had its roots in Stalin's desire to acquire land to his west as a buffer.

There was no buffer between Germany and USSR after division of Poland, and the roots were slightly different.

After WWII, Eastern Europe (those countries behind the "iron curtain" as Churchill put it) were buffer states vs. Nato. The one country that attempted to remove itself from that role (Hungary) found out what Red Army Tanks look like up close. I'd say Stalin had a thing for buffer zones.

May be he was right? After collapse of Warsaw pact world become more dangerous place for living.

Peace, y'all

I hope there was no war at all.

[Arrian]

Serb,

Regarding the destruction and division of Poland by Germany and the USSR in 1939 - yes, I know it resulted in a common border between the USSR and Germany. However, that border was actually in what was formerly Poland. Poland was the buffer (or rather the eastern part of Poland). I didn't say it worked... just that was the idea.

Stalin right about needing Eastern Europe as a buffer zone? Clearly you can believe what you want, but I happen to disagree heartily. Just like I think the people in the USA who came up with the "domino theory" were paranoid fools.

You say that the world became more dangerous after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. Perhaps that's true. But I don't think that "stability" justifies oppression (hence, I have major issues with some of the things my government is doing right now). Following WWII, Eastern Europe was occupied by the USSR, and contolled indirectly from Moscow.

I believe strongly in individual freedom. Therefore, though I acknowledge that the end of the Cold War and the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union and its satellite states resulted in a less stable, more dangerous world, I still think it was a good thing.

Throughout history, governments have used safety and stability as reasons to do some pretty awful things.

-Arrian

p.s. Was the world really all that stable before the collapse of the Warsaw Pact? I mean, how about all those nuclear weapons pointed at each other (which, unfortunately, are still pointed at each other, for the most part).

[godinex]

Re: Stop the America-bashing!

America is a powerful national grouping with its own distinct brand of culture and identity. Yes, it is a relatively new "civilization", but so is France or England to the people of Egypt or China:

America-- 300 years
England-- 1,500 years
France-- 2,000 years
China-- 5,000 years
Egypt-- 6,000 years

[/QUOTE]

Costa Rica-- 200 years

Justice is justice...

[siredgar]

Yes and the populations of the U.S. and Costa Rica are comparable, too:

U.S.: 300 million

Costa Rica: 3 million

[Willem]

Originally posted by jasev


Well, I don't know why should I be grateful, my country was not at war. The war in Spain stopped on 1939.

I've always been curious. Why and how did Franco manage to avoid getting embroiled in WWII? Was he completely neutral, or did he quietly support the Axis powers? I've read so very little about Spain's involvement during that time, but surely they must have been affected in some way.

[Drake Tungsten]

To the best of my knowledge, Franco tried his hardest to remain completely neutral during the war. Why he did this, I don't know, although some have said that Franco believed that the British (later the Allies) would win the war. Franco's neutrality actually hurt Germany, as Hitler wanted permission to send German troops through Spain to attack the British at Gibraltar. Franco refused. This made Hitler understandably upset, as he had helped put Franco in power. I think Hitler and Co. tossed around the idea of invading Spain in response, but decided there were more important things to do with Barbarossa fast approaching. It's a good thing they didn't attack; capturing Gibraltar most likely would have made the British position in North Africa untenable and Rommel probably would have taken Egypt. That would've made Britain's continuation of the war unlikely. Luckily Hitler was a much better orator than a military strategist.

edit: Change "the Britain" to "the British". Damn late nights...

[jasev]

Well, it's not so simple as Drake tells. Franco didn't want to stay neutral; when France was defeated by germans, everybody in Europe thought that Germany was going to win the war, including Franco. But spain wasn't prepared for a war, the spanish industries had been destroyed by a 3-years civil war and the people was tired and hungy as a result of the war.

Franco decided that the reward for helping the germans should have been higher: he demanded to hitler great extensions of north Africa, including Vichy France parts, in exchange for joining the war. But hitler couldn't accept it because he wished to consolidate the Vichy government, and giving the french colonies to spain wouldn't have been the best policy.

But Franco helped Germany all he could without joining the war. Germany used spain as a base for espionage operations. Spain and Portugal sended cheap bauxite and other raw materials neccessary to bouild tanks to Germany. And finally, he recruited volunteers to fight against russia (they were on Leningrad front).

[jasev]

Re: Re: Stop the America-bashing!

Originally posted by godinex
Costa Rica-- 200 years
Justice is justice...

Completely agreed, Godinex.
Why don't you take a look at Spanish Civilization II forum? We talk in english and spanish.

http://apolyton.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=123

[Dauphin]

I think Hitler and Co. tossed around the idea of invading Spain in response, but decided there were more important things to do with Barbarossa fast approaching

Luckily Hitler was a much better orator than a military strategist

Invading Spain would have been a big mistake. German troops were thinly spread as it was. Besides, making yet another enemy was not what the doctor (or strategist) ordered.

[jasev]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Invading Spain would have been a big mistake. German troops were thinly spread as it was. Besides, making yet another enemy was not what the doctor (or strategist) ordered.

Not to mention the troubles that the germans would have had controlling a country with such mountains and about 300,000 war veterans. Napoleon discovered it for himself 150 years before