Most of Europe supported Hitler... right? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Inter-war period (1919-1938), Russian civil war (1917–1921) and other non World War topics (1914-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By peter_co
#1912217
:eh:

Oh, lol yes, obviously I meant Norway.
User avatar
By Spike Spiegel
#1916298
Laz wrote:The partizans were overwhelmingly a serbian army - FACT.



Not a fact a all.

According to Tito's statement in spring 1944 there were 44% Serbs, 30% Croats, 10% Slovenians.....
I don't have a source for this cause it's from a book, but if you like you can try to google it
and you'll find plenty of sources on the net on Serbo-Croatian about this statement.

I do however have a good source of partisans by republics and ethnic composition of partisans from Croatia.

Croatia - Late 1944

Nationality
Operational units (brigades, divisions, corps) 100740
60703 Croats
24528 Serbs
5113 Slovenians
3593 Muslims


http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/y ... partisans/

Serbs were a majority in partisan army but in no way were they overwhelming majority. I can admit that
Serbs were overwhelming majority in 1941 at a beginning of war but as war progressed there percentage in the
NOB was falling.

If you are interested in this matter you can read a few articles from well respected historian Ivo Goldstein that can be found on the net.

According to him Croats from Croatia gave around 22% of troops although they made up only 16% of population.
Croats from Croatia gave 40% more partisans then Yugoslavian average. Reason for this was that Serbs from Serbia were mostly
members of Chetnik units and not Partisans. However Serbs from Croatia were overwhelmingly in Partisans. I would also like to remind you
that the leader of Partisans was a Croat, and the movement itself was founded in Croatia by Croats and as
Stipe said before majority of Croats voted for HSS, a party that was banned during NDH.

Now it would definitely be wrong to say that NDH had no support in Croatian population. At a beginning good portion of population supported declaration of NDH.
Mainly cause people wanted independence from Belgrade that treated them like second class citizens, oppressed them and murder their political representatives.
As time went by people started to see that their government was not what they hoped and they switched sides. In the end I would like to add the there were
more Croatian volunteers in Partisans then there were in NDH units.
By secator553
#13089652
Soviet Union (supported until attacked)

They had just peace treaty, it can't be called support.
Given the opposition of Hitler and the Bolsheviks it can't be called 'support' at all. Soviet Union had heavy combat with Hitler in 1936 (Spain), with his ally Japan in 1939, with his ally Finland in 1939, was ready to begin the war with Hitler in 1937(German annexation of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland but Czechoslovakia refused SU help) - the time when even Britain had the policy of appeasement. You call this "supported"?

The only thing that can be said is that SU had peace treaty with Germany after the begining of WWII till 1941. But the peace is not mean "support", given that Soviet Union (Russia) counts the begining of WWII from 1941 (not 1939 as in UK)
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13089672
Most posters are using the "Europe supported Hitler" meme to say that most Europeans are evil, just like our wartime history says the Nazis were.

But shouldn't this bit of information put our fabricated war-stories into question?
By Smilin' Dave
#13090377
Most posters are using the "Europe supported Hitler" meme to say that most Europeans are evil, just like our wartime history says the Nazis were.

Most? How many do you think there are? Looking at this thread I see mostly people who reject the meme, and the OP appeared to be trying to reduce Nazi 'evil empire' status by creating a false image of cooperation and mutual support.

But shouldn't this bit of information put our fabricated war-stories into question?

I think this thread actually casts your forced meme into doubt. Witness a debate where there is no clear good/bad, rather a multi-participant event with many perspectives. The central narrative, both that created by the OP and the 'orthodox narrative', is deconstructed.

Will you force a return to the old leftist narrative of elites vs. the people under the banner of post-modernism?
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13090657
Smilin' Dave wrote:Will you force a return to the old leftist narrative of elites vs. the people under the banner of post-modernism?

Exxon versus climate.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13091386
Meaning: I didn't "force a return" to a socially responsible narrative. Nature did.
By Smilin' Dave
#13092379
Congratulations, you have just entered a new phase of the nature vs. nurture narrative. You prosetylising hardly seems to be a product of nature (especially in light of your using the internet, a product of science rather than nature), but is more in line with Bolsheviks trying to arrange that 'inevitable' revolution that they grew tired of waiting for.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13092868
Dave, using the Internet doesn't mean I hate nature.

Exxon hates nature - it has to if it wants to grow.

This opposition is NOT inherent in Internet use. Especially if you are using a 10-year-old computer and running it on hydro-electricity.

And I am not "like the Bolsheviks." You are just trying to find familiar patterns when faced with unfamiliar scenery.
By GandalfTheGrey
#13093099
I think much of the confusion in this thread could have been avoided by the author clarifying the subject better. It should have read:
"Most of Europe supported Hitler during the years before the outbreak of war"
User avatar
By Rojik of the Arctic
#13094138
"Most of Europe supported Hitler during the years before the outbreak of war"


Disagree. Most of Europe felt that if they let the Germans have their way on what were really (to them) minor matters then they wouldn't have to go though another Great War. After the war broke out most of Hitler "allies" were either using the war to settle old scores (ie Romania, Croatia, Finland etc) or were just plain opportunists like Italy or Hungary. There is probably a case for a third camp like Switzerland and Sweden who saw Germany as a chance to make money. It must be remembered that Nazi Germany didn't exactly have an expotable ideology - not too many foriegn countries thought that a German overlordship would be a good thing for them even if they had other enemies that were higher on their "to do" list.
By GandalfTheGrey
#13094255
Most of Europe felt that if they let the Germans have their way on what were really (to them) minor matters then they wouldn't have to go though another Great War.


Thats really all that the definition of "support" boils down to. Governments throughout history have always been overwhelmingly pragmatic and opportunistic - the ideologically driven nazi government was an exception. I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that any other European country explicitly supported the quirky nazi ideology - though this is not to say the sentiment was not strong amongst much of Europe's population. Any actions by Europeans that facilitated the fulfillment of the nazi program - both inside Germany and outside - can be interpreted as "support" for the nazis.
By Smilin' Dave
#13094690
Exxon hates nature - it has to if it wants to grow.

Actually all it has to do is ignore nature. The motivator is profit.

This opposition is NOT inherent in Internet use. Especially if you are using a 10-year-old computer and running it on hydro-electricity.

I bet that computer was manufactured in an eco-friendly way by free and fair labour too. And in order to view it (thus giving you validity), I have to use something other than hydro power.

And I am not "like the Bolsheviks." You are just trying to find familiar patterns when faced with unfamiliar scenery.

I see no explanation why you think the comparison invalid. You recoil from familiar patterns for fear of coming mediocre.

If you have nothing further to add to the thread I suggest we leave it at that.

@GtG
Thats really all that the definition of "support" boils down to.

Tolerance (or simply inactive against someone's action) is not support, to be supportive requires some positive effort.
By GandalfTheGrey
#13094796
Tolerance (or simply inactive against someone's action) is not support, to be supportive requires some positive effort.


Splitting hairs. The fact is, tolerance and inaction supported the nazis in a practical sense
By GandalfTheGrey
#13095941
I'm not saying Europe agreed with the nazis or explicitly backed them. I'm just saying the practical result of their inaction and tolerance was to support the nazi agenda
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13096682
For example how many smaller nations cooperated with the Nazis for fear of annexation?

How many small nations cooperated with the Allies for fear of getting Israelied?

ie. "We'll give your land to other people who were friends with us."
By Smilin' Dave
#13096701
@Qatz
How many small nations cooperated with the Allies for fear of getting Israelied?

ie. "We'll give your land to other people who were friends with us."

I don't know Qatz, how many? It would seem an odd threat to make since Israel hadn't been established during WWII.

@GtG
I'm not saying Europe agreed with the nazis or explicitly backed them. I'm just saying the practical result of their inaction and tolerance was to support the nazi agenda

But that isn't what your revised topic says at all:
"Most of Europe supported Hitler during the years before the outbreak of war"

Your only change was the time period. You haven't actually disputed the OPs take on 'support'. I've now disputed your definition of support.

If I fail to stop someone keying your car, for good reason (say I was too far away to intervene, or I'm too slow on my feet), am I really supporting their action?
By GandalfTheGrey
#13097603
:lol: Dave thats not my title - I'm saying thats what the author should have used for his title to avoid the confusion that came up in this thread.

I should add that the car stealing analogy is not a good one in the case of the nazis. Remembering that what the Nazis did in the 30s was a series of flagrant violations of the terms imposed on them after WWI. And its not as if those violations were harmless acts to help German economic development. They did help German economic development - but that was a mere by-product of the real purpose which was to re-establish German military domination. So Britain and France and others would have been correct to intervene against these violations from an international law point of view, and as well they would be confronting a none-to-subtle threat against peace and stability. Its far more than just a mere case of bystander apathy.

A better analogy would be a policeman watching someone breaking into my car and waving them on as they drive off.

No it doesn't. Nazis killed 30 Frenchmen fo[…]

The Donbas fortifications have been incredibly su[…]

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspir[…]

It is true that the Hindu's gave us nothing. But […]