Another wonderful obit

Ofnuts wrote:

> With the population of the Channel Islands during WWII as exhibit A



I think the CI are something of a special case - in a tiny closed
community there was not the same opportunity for anonymity or hiding
in the crowds and the presence of the Germans was far more high
profile than it would have been in, say London, or some remore
Yorkshire village. That doesn't excuse anything, but it might make it
more understandable.
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

On Feb 14, 7:31 pm, steve auvache <dont_s....RemoveThis@thecow.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <6df6c6e9-5bc6-4edd-9981-80139f106....RemoveThis@i12g2000prf.googlegroup
> s.com>, AW <andrew_w....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> > Champ  wrote:
>
> >> > It's very easy to feel superior from the safety of this side of the
> >> > channel, but given the average little-englishman's deference to
> >> > authority, I don't think this nation would have covered itself in
> >> > glory if it had suffered Nazi occupation, and a fair percentage of the
> >> > population would have taken to it like ducks to water.
>
> >There certainly was greater deference to authority then, but at the
> >same time there was a great deal of entrenched resistance to the
> >German aggression - remember virtually every family had been affected
> >by the Great War, then only 20 years distant - however whether that
> >would have translated into widespread armed resistance, it's
> >impossible to say.  There is certainly a good deal of myth about it
> >all - Calder's "Myth of the Blitz" is very good on this but I think
> >there was a good deal of "Captain Mainwaring syndrome" about, at least
> >in 1940.
>
> A lot depended upon where you lived in those times.  My Mother, who
> spent the first half of the war in London and the second in the west
> country recalls that her working class attitudes differed quite
> considerably from those of her differently oppressed country comrades.
> Undoubtedly the townies would have fought back but then they were
> familiar with the horror stories from the mainland as children and knew
> well what would happen to the Trade Unionists as well so were highly
> motivated.


I'm sure that's right, though countrymen were certainly ready to
fight. My grandfather was a Lincolnshire farmer and thus reserved
occupation (and a bit too old at 31) but he was in the Home Guard, on
top of the busy life of a farmer. One Million men joined the LDV
between May and August 1940 so there was certainly a widepread will to
fight. There was also a local unit of the then top secret Home Guard
Auxiliary "resistance" locally.
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember AW <andrew_wegg RemoveThis @hotmail.com> saying
something like:

>Guess which western European country wasn't thought to be united with
>the others in fighting for freedom?
>
>http://www.lumbermensunderwriting.com/chap5.pdf

Well, there's the somewhat worrying omission of Denmark, of the occupied
countries. The Vichy Govt of France had made it quite clear on which
side their bread was buttered at that time, so would hardly have been on
an Allied poster. [1]

This was, of course, an American publication, so it's to be expected the
author's grasp of European affairs was a bit sketchy.

[1]I'm heartily sick of this endless jibing about the French - thousands
of Frenchies died defending their country and died supporting the Allies
with information before during and after the invasion. Millions more
bitterly resented the presence of an occupying force and commmitted acts
of passive resistance and sabotage every day of the occupation. It's
hardly their fault they had incompetent leaders and one or two who
seemed to be actively assisting the enemy forces.

--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"A scone and tea at half past three
Makes the day a little brighter
Keep your cakes and fancy tarts
And stick them up your shiter."
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:43:05 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
<grimly4REMOVE DeleteThis @REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:

>[1]I'm heartily sick of this endless jibing about the French - thousands
>of Frenchies died defending their country and died supporting the Allies
>with information before during and after the invasion. Millions more
>bitterly resented the presence of an occupying force and commmitted acts
>of passive resistance and sabotage every day of the occupation. It's
>hardly their fault they had incompetent leaders and one or two who
>seemed to be actively assisting the enemy forces.

<round of applause>

It's very easy to feel superior from the safety of this side of the
channel, but given the average little-englishman's deference to
authority, I don't think this nation would have covered itself in
glory if it had suffered Nazi occupation, and a fair percentage of the
population would have taken to it like ducks to water.
--
Champ
I don't know, but I been told, you never slow down, you never get old
ZX10R | GPz750turbo | GSX-R600 (race)
neal at champ dot org dot uk
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

In the referenced article, Champ <news RemoveThis @champ.org.uk> writes:

>It's very easy to feel superior from the safety of this side of the
>channel, but given the average little-englishman's deference to
>authority, I don't think this nation would have covered itself in
>glory if it had suffered Nazi occupation, and a fair percentage of
>the population would have taken to it like ducks to water.

<cough> Channel Islands </cough>
--
Differenza fra il rivoluzionaro e il cialtrone. Il rivoluzionario
rompe l'orologio e invece di presentarsi alle nove si presenta alle
nove meno cinque. Il cialtrone rompe l'orologio e si alza alle undici.
Home page: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

"Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimly4REMOVE.TakeThisOut@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:vng8r3dludjlktv2biajn9jhjg1mpvomqi@4ax.com...
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember AW <andrew_wegg.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> saying
> something like:
>
>>Guess which western European country wasn't thought to be united with
>>the others in fighting for freedom?
>>
>>http://www.lumbermensunderwriting.com/chap5.pdf
>
> Well, there's the somewhat worrying omission of Denmark, of the occupied
> countries. The Vichy Govt of France had made it quite clear on which
> side their bread was buttered at that time, so would hardly have been on
> an Allied poster. [1]
>
> This was, of course, an American publication, so it's to be expected the
> author's grasp of European affairs was a bit sketchy.
>
> [1]I'm heartily sick of this endless jibing about the French - thousands
> of Frenchies died defending their country and died supporting the Allies
> with information before during and after the invasion. Millions more
> bitterly resented the presence of an occupying force and commmitted acts
> of passive resistance and sabotage every day of the occupation. It's
> hardly their fault they had incompetent leaders and one or two who
> seemed to be actively assisting the enemy forces.

Plus, they had also 1.7m killed and >4m military wounded in WW1, when France
was used as a playground by everyone who had an army to play with.
Proportionate to the population, it was [I think] the highest ratio of all
the participants. No wonder there was a reluctance to commit national
suicide a second time.
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:35:16 GMT, ensmjc.TakeThisOut@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley)
wrote:

>In the referenced article, Champ <news.TakeThisOut@champ.org.uk> writes:
>
>>It's very easy to feel superior from the safety of this side of the
>>channel, but given the average little-englishman's deference to
>>authority, I don't think this nation would have covered itself in
>>glory if it had suffered Nazi occupation, and a fair percentage of
>>the population would have taken to it like ducks to water.
>
><cough> Channel Islands </cough>

I know little about the Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands. Were
you agreeing or disagreeing with my point?
--
Champ
I don't know, but I been told, you never slow down, you never get old
ZX10R | GPz750turbo | GSX-R600 (race)
neal at champ dot org dot uk
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

In the referenced article, Champ <news.RemoveThis@champ.org.uk> writes:
>On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:35:16 GMT, ensmjc.RemoveThis@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley)
>wrote:
>
>>In the referenced article, Champ <news.RemoveThis@champ.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>>It's very easy to feel superior from the safety of this side of the
>>>channel, but given the average little-englishman's deference to
>>>authority, I don't think this nation would have covered itself in
>>>glory if it had suffered Nazi occupation, and a fair percentage of
>>>the population would have taken to it like ducks to water.
>>
>><cough> Channel Islands </cough>
>
>I know little about the Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands. Were
>you agreeing or disagreeing with my point?

Agreeing. The Channel Islanders collaborated with great enthusiasm.
--
Differenza fra il rivoluzionaro e il cialtrone. Il rivoluzionario
rompe l'orologio e invece di presentarsi alle nove si presenta alle
nove meno cinque. Il cialtrone rompe l'orologio e si alza alle undici.
Home page: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

"TOG@Toil" <totallydeadmailbox.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:96ced281-f5af-4525-bdad-7b456adc562a@e30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 14 Feb, 13:47, Champ <n....TakeThisOut@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> It's very easy to feel superior from the safety of this side of the
>> channel, but given the average little-englishman's deference to
>> authority, I don't think this nation would have covered itself in
>> glory if it had suffered Nazi occupation, and a fair percentage of the
>> population would have taken to it like ducks to water.
>
>
> I feel certain that all the little tinpot gods we find today in H&S,
> Traffic Enforcement, Race Relations, Community Policing and the rest
> would indeed have lapped it up. Back then: dunno. I'm glad we never
> had the chance to find out.

Yes. I think that we'd have been a very loyal province of the Reich.
People [certainly in a small community like my village] can be readily
divided into those who'd resist and those who'd collaborate. There are
plenty of those sort who'd be only too happy to say, "Yes, Mr. Bloggs. I
would probably agree with you that a summary death penalty for over-staying
a parking meter is a trifle harsh, but rules is rules and I've got my job to
do. You don't want to get me into trouble, do you? How would it be if we
all started questioning rules, eh? Total anarchy, in my opinion. Say what
you like about the Leader - well don't, obviously - but he's certainly made
us a more disciplined country, hasn't he." <Bang>
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:43:05 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
<grimly4REMOVE RemoveThis @REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:

snip>

>[1]I'm heartily sick of this endless jibing about the French - thousands
>of Frenchies died defending their country and died supporting the Allies
>with information before during and after the invasion. Millions more
>bitterly resented the presence of an occupying force and commmitted acts
>of passive resistance and sabotage every day of the occupation. It's
>hardly their fault they had incompetent leaders and one or two who
>seemed to be actively assisting the enemy forces.

I find it slightly amusing that a certain French politician has
recently been given a suspended sentence for calling the nazi
occupation of France "not particularly inhuman". I wonder if he
considers himself to be representative of French voters?
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

In article <0e3913ad-afdf-4b0c-91b1-7754f3402851 RemoveThis @d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John Anderton wrote:
> On Feb 14, 3:43 pm, "TOG@Toil" <totallydeadmail... RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Britain has never had a large standing army.
>
> No, but it *did* have a large army (~100 divisions) during WWI and

Not at the start of WW1 it didn't. And if you knew anything about WW2
history you'd know that none of the participants in WW1 were supposed
to be building armies. And Britain at the time didn't have the
resources to maintain a large field army.

> it's therefore not unreasonable to expect that, when gearing up for
> WWI part 2, an army bigger than 12 divisions might be a good idea.

They didn't 'gear up for WW2' because it wasn't supposed to happen!

> Just because practically all went to France doesn't mean the BEF was
> big enough for the task at hand or as big as it should have been given

Blame the militray planning. The French had planned *all* their
strategy around WW1 tactics (make a strong defensive line and hold it
until help comes). The fact that the Germans had developed Blitzkreig
had passed them by - largely because Germany didn't use it until the
invasion of Poland and by then it was too late. Their mobile fast
forces simply went round the French defences or through them in spots
where no attack 'could have been sent through' (like Ardennes) - again
a view based on WW1 military planning and technology.

If you blame the British in this you also have to blame people like
Poland - they knew that they were going to be targets for attack from
the early 1930's yet still retained utter anachronistic elements in
their army like cavalry!

>>Or haven't you wondered why the country was effectively
>> defenceless after Dunkirk?
>
> It wasn't, precisely because the limited re-armament spending went
> mostly to the RAF and RN, which were quite capable of defending the
> country.

Had the Channel not been there the Germans would have been in London
shortly after they arrived in Paris. And the Navy was still large
because the British military establishment were addicted to the idea of
Britain as a sea-power.

>> famous speech (well, Fireside Chat, actually). The US had a very
>> embryonic arms industry before 1940
>
> Which would have grown dramatically had they been allowed to export
> arms.

They didn't need arms. And Britain (pre-war) wouldn't have wanted to
buy them either. And nor would the French.
So why would the US develop an arms industry when they had no
customers?

> Which was pretty dumb given the rise of nationalism in the 30s

Oh for goodness sake. Learn some history eh? Look at the various
treaties of non-aggression that existed at the time. For a lot of
countries to re-arm to a significant degree would have violated those
treaties.

Phil.

--
Phil Launchbury, IT PHB
'I'm training the bats that live in my cube
to juggle mushrooms'
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

Andy Bonwick wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:43:05 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
> <grimly4REMOVE.TakeThisOut@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>> [1]I'm heartily sick of this endless jibing about the French -
>> thousands of Frenchies died defending their country and died
>> supporting the Allies with information before during and after the
>> invasion. Millions more bitterly resented the presence of an
>> occupying force and commmitted acts of passive resistance and
>> sabotage every day of the occupation. It's hardly their fault they
>> had incompetent leaders and one or two who seemed to be actively
>> assisting the enemy forces.
>
> I find it slightly amusing that a certain French politician has
> recently been given a suspended sentence for calling the nazi
> occupation of France "not particularly inhuman". I wonder if he
> considers himself to be representative of French voters?

Those in the South, probably yes.

--
Hog
'03 ST4S '96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

Champ wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:43:05 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
> <grimly4REMOVE.TakeThisOut@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [1]I'm heartily sick of this endless jibing about the French - thousands
>> of Frenchies died defending their country and died supporting the Allies
>> with information before during and after the invasion. Millions more
>> bitterly resented the presence of an occupying force and commmitted acts
>> of passive resistance and sabotage every day of the occupation. It's
>> hardly their fault they had incompetent leaders and one or two who
>> seemed to be actively assisting the enemy forces.
>
> <round of applause>
>
> It's very easy to feel superior from the safety of this side of the
> channel, but given the average little-englishman's deference to
> authority, I don't think this nation would have covered itself in
> glory if it had suffered Nazi occupation, and a fair percentage of the
> population would have taken to it like ducks to water.

With the population of the Channel Islands during WWII as exhibit A

This said all isn't black and white. My grandfather was a die-hard
Petainist (he even looked like Petain) but this had little to do with
fear of the Germans (he was a WWI hero). He had a blocking on a bridge
removed... minutes before the "Das Reich" division showed up (and
demonstrated how mean it could get in Tulle and Oradour the same and
next day). One of his brothers was a truer "collabo" (and had his wife
murdered by the Resistance). My father did give a hand to the
resistance, but the way he talks about these actions does not show them
as particularly glorious. So, it's war, and I doubt any of us could bet
on how we would behave. And anyway it's the winner who decides who the
heroes were.

--
Bd.
o.f.n.u.t.s.TakeThisOut@la.poste.net (drop dots except last)
TDM850/UKRMMA#2
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit