Did the Commonwealth declare War?
LY...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Prior to Dec. 7, 1941, were Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
and the rest of the British Commonwealth officially at war with
Germany? It seems the Canadians contributed troops to the failed
commando attack on Normandy. If these nations were at war with
Germany, did the Germans conduct any direct assault against them?
Marc James Small
In article <58kmjn$i...@nina.pagesz.net>, LY...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
says...
What are you asking here? The UK declared war in its own right,
for the colonies, and for India (to the dismay of Indian
nationalists, who felt they ought to have been consulted).
Unlike 1914, the rest of the Commonwealth declared war on their
own. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa were at
war because THEY declared it, and only tangentially because the
UK did so.
Marc
--
msm...@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315
Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!
Paul Christopher Hunt
In article <58kmjn$i...@nina.pagesz.net>, <LY...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> wrote:
> Prior to Dec. 7, 1941, were Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
> and the rest of the British Commonwealth officially at war with
> Germany? It seems the Canadians contributed troops to the failed
> commando attack on Normandy. If these nations were at war with
> Germany, did the Germans conduct any direct assault against them?
Yes the Commonwealth countries, Canada, Austrailia, `New Zealand and South
Africa all declared war in September 1939. Canadian troops provided the
main assault unit at Dieppe in 1941, and Anzac forces were fighting in
Noth africa by 1940. There were limitations placed by some governments,
South African forces werre only allowed to fight in Africa for example,
and Austrailia took its army home from the middle east after the fall of
Singapore, much to Churchills displeasure. In fact most British colonies
made some contribution to the war effort. As for German assaults, no,
apart from U-boats etc.
Les Mills
> Prior to Dec. 7, 1941, were Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
>and the rest of the British Commonwealth officially at war with
>Germany?
Yes. Since I'm Canadian, I'll focus on Canada for the rest
of the post, and leave the rest of the Commenwealth members
to speak for itself.
> It seems the Canadians contributed troops to the failed
>commando attack on Normandy.
Canadians made up the bulk of the forces at the Dieppe
disaster. They also made up approx 1/6 of the forces
at the considerably more successful Normandy invasion.
>If these nations were at war with
>Germany, did the Germans conduct any direct assault against them?
Canada was the target of occasional U-boat raids
Since it did provide ~48% of the convoy protection,
it was a considerable presence in the Battle of
the Atlantic.
At the end of the war, Canada had
the world'd 3rd largest navy. Keep in mind Germany,
France, Italy, and Japan were somewhat forcibly
reduced in this regard. Still, that was quite
an accomplishment for a nation that entered the
war with only a few obsolete destroyers and cruisers.
--
Leslie Mills
"Eat properly. Exercise regularly. Die anyway."
Nelson Haldane
At 9:30 pm, on 3 Sept.39, New Zealand declared war on Germany, with
the time of the declaration coinciding to the minute of the United
Kingdom's declaration. In 1914, New Zealand, under then current law,
was automatically at war with the Central Powers upon the declaration
of war by Britain, but by 1939 the law had changed and the 1939
declaration was entirely voluntary. Another difference between the
situation in 1914 and 1939, was that in 1939, the New Zealand
government was insistant that New Zealand troops would serve as an
independent force and could be withdrawn at any time.
The 2nd New Zealand served throughout the war in North Africa and
Italy with distinction under the leadership of Gen Benard Freiberg.
On 10 Dec 1996 17:01:27 -0500, <LY...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> wrote:
> Prior to Dec. 7, 1941, were Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
>and the rest of the British Commonwealth officially at war with
>Germany? It seems the Canadians contributed troops to the failed
>commando attack on Normandy. If these nations were at war with
Nate Gordon
> > Prior to Dec. 7, 1941, were Canada, Australia, New
> >Zealand, and the rest of the British Commonwealth officially at
> >war with Germany?
>
> for the colonies, and for India (to the dismay of Indian
> nationalists, who felt they ought to have been consulted).
Didn't the Viceroy of India declare war on Germany on his own initiative,
much to the embarrassment of the British government as well? Die-hard "keep
the colonies under control" people such as Churchill were furious, I seem
to recall, because this gave India a status closer to that of the Dominions
(Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa) than to the other colonies,
and the arch-conservatives were adamant that India not get Dominion status.
The British assumed that the rest of the Commonwealth would automatically
declare war on Germany, as a matter of fact, but Canada actually waited a
week to declare war (I'm not sure why), and Ireland, part of the
Commonwealth at that time, refused to do so, which Churchill (and others in
Britain) never forgave them for. Can't really blame the Irish, though.
nate
Glen Hallick
LY...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU wrote:
>
> Prior to Dec. 7, 1941, were Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
> and the rest of the British Commonwealth officially at war with
> Germany? It seems the Canadians contributed troops to the failed
> commando attack on Normandy. If these nations were at war with
> Germany, did the Germans conduct any direct assault against them?
Australia declared war on September 3, 1939 as did New Zealand and India.
South Africa declared war three days later.
Canada declared war on September 10, 1939 following a debate in
Parliament. There was only one MP that voted against the war, Rev. James
Shaver (JS) Woodsworth who was a very strong pacifist.
He was also Leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. The CCF
was a left-wing political movement.
I know I'm getting off topic, but I would like to point out that in his
speech Woodsworth brought tears to the eyes of most of the MP's in the
House of Commons, including Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King.
In the following election King's party, the Liberals, expected to win the
constituency represented by Woodsworth: Winnipeg North Center. However
the reverend hung on in part people saw his stand as being highly
principled.
Now back to your post.
Why in the world would these members of the Commonwealth wait for the
Americans to declare war before doing it on their own? WW2 was well under
way when the Americans FINALLY entered.
The commando raid wasn't at Normandy, but Dieppe. The vast majority of
the troops used in the raid were Canadians. If I remember correctly they
were part of the Canadian 2nd Infantry Division.
As for direct assaults on these countries, well you should realize just
how far away they are from Germany. They had enough trouble in trying to
find enough ships for the planned invasion of Great Britain. In terms of
a surface fleet the Kreigsmarine, the Germany Navy, was far smaller than
those of the Allies.
If you are interested in learning more about WW2 then feel free to post
more questions. I for one would be very happy to provide answers. Also
surf the net. However the best thing to do is trot down to library for
some books on WW2.
Glen Hallick
Stephen Lautens
In article <58t964$m...@nina.pagesz.net>, Bill MacArthur
<bil...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
">"Canada had a major problem due to the difference in support for the war
">"within the country. Quebec (largely French) was mostly against it and
">"there was a fair amount of sympathy for the fascist/nazi cause. In fact,
">"the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec just resigned because it surfaced that
">"he had worn a swastika on his coat in 1942. He was 18 or so at the time.
">"Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau is also reputed to have worn a nazi
">"hat around the same time.
Trudeau in fact wore a German helmet riding his motorcyle in the late
1950s, not WWII. There was nothing political about it except thumbing his
nose at convention. Quebec had more than its fair share of anti-semitism
before, during and after the war, but its opposition (and the former Lt.
Gov.'s reason for drawing a swastika on a university lab coat) had more to
do with isolationism in Quebec than nazi sympathy. Quebec saw it as an
English war (just as the US shortsightedly saw it as a European war).
--
Stephen
http://www.beachnet.org/sjl
("It is better not to know how your laws or sausages are made." - Bismarck)
Connal Townsend
In article <58pour$v...@portal.gmu.edu>, Glen Hallick
<ghal...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> LY...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU wrote:
> >
> > Prior to Dec. 7, 1941, were Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
> > and the rest of the British Commonwealth officially at war with
> > Germany? It seems the Canadians contributed troops to the failed
> > commando attack on Normandy. If these nations were at war with
> > Germany, did the Germans conduct any direct assault against them?
>
> Australia declared war on September 3, 1939 as did New Zealand and India.
> South Africa declared war three days later.
>
> Canada declared war on September 10, 1939 following a debate in
> Parliament.
As noted New Zealand also declared war on 3 September at 9:30 pm NZST.
Germany certainly did conduct direct assault against New Zealand between
1939 and December 1941. Mines were laid off the Hen and Chicken Islands at
sea off the Hauraki Gulf by the Nazi Raider Orion on the nights of 13 and
14 June 1940. On the night of 19 June the liner Niagara struck one of the
mines and sunk with two and a half million pounds sterling in gold. On 25
November 1940 the freighter Holmwood was attacked and sunk off the New
Zealand coast by the Nazi raider Komet, and the freighter Rangitane was
sunk off the coast of Auckland two days later.
--
Connal Townsend
Anthony Staunton
>Yes the Commonwealth countries, Canada, Austrailia, `New Zealand and South
>Africa all declared war in September 1939.
Australia and New Zealand both declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939.
>Canadian troops provided the main assault unit at Dieppe in 1941,
I think you will find it to be 19 August 1942.
>and Anzac forces were fighting in North Africa by 1940.
The Australians 6th Division was moving into position at Bardia in late
December 1940 but the attack went in on 3 January 1941.
>There were limitations placed by some governments,
>South African forces were only allowed to fight in Africa for example
Do you blame them after what happened to the SA Brigade in WW1!
>and Australia took its army home from the middle east after the fall of
Singapore, much to Churchills displeasure.
The Australian 6th and 7th Divisions started home after Pearl Harbour.
The 9th remained in the Middle East until after it major role at El Alamein
in July-November 1942. (It won 2 of the 3 VCs for the Battle of El Alamein)
>In fact most British colonies>
When you use the word colonies I hope you are referring to East and West
Africia rather than Australia, Canada etc. Australia had been de jure
independent since the Statute of Westminister in 1936 and de facto independemt
since 1901.
Anthony Staunton
Georg Schwarz
Connal Townsend <town...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
> sea off the Hauraki Gulf by the Nazi Raider Orion on the nights of 13 a=
nd
I think it is not correct to refer to German WW II ships by the term
"Nazi" ship, just as it would be incorrect to flatly use that term as a
synonym for other German armed forces in general. When seriously
discussing history one should be careful about one's language.
--=20
Georg Schwarz sch...@physik.tu-berlin.de, ku...@cs.tu-berlin.de
Institut f=FCr Theoretische Physik +49 30 314-24254, FAX -21130
Technische Universit=E4t Berlin http://home.pages.de/~schwarz/
Donald Phillipson
Bill MacArthur (bil...@uwindsor.ca) writes:
"Nate Gordon" <cd00...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>The British assumed that the rest of the Commonwealth would automatically
>>declare war on Germany, as a matter of fact, but Canada actually waited a
>>week to declare war (I'm not sure why), <snip>
Besides military staff planning, British "assumption" took the practical
form of a special briefing on radar secrets in April 1939, to get
Australia, Canada etc. launched into radar production and use.
Delay in Canada's declaration of war was the time needed to reconvene
Parliament from summer vacation. As MacArthur posted, the prime minister
of that day was equally concerned about demonstrating that Canada was not
ruled from Britain and about balancing pro-British and anti-war feeling
within parliament.
> Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau is also reputed to have worn a nazi
> hat around the same time.
Trudeau wrote in his memoirs that this was a Prussian helmet from the
Franco-Prussian war of 1871, presumably a pickelhaube, worn for fun as a
motorcycle helmet.
--
| Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, |
| Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 |
Winston Weidak Shu
LY...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU wrote:
: Prior to Dec. 7, 1941, were Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
: and the rest of the British Commonwealth officially at war with
: Germany? It seems the Canadians contributed troops to the failed
: commando attack on Normandy. If these nations were at war with
: Germany, did the Germans conduct any direct assault against them?
Yes. The Commonwealth itself didn't really declare war, but individual
member nations did. Ausralia, New Zealand, and Canada declared war on
Germany a few days after the British and French, while the South Africans
had a nasty legislative fight which knocked the prior government out
before declaring war. India also declared war on Germany, but the
Irish Free State remained neutral. A big part of England's infantry in
North Africa were from the Commonwealth (SAs, Indians, Aussies and NZs).
(Source: Rosenberg, A world at arms)
Winston
Anthony Staunton
In article <58kmjn$i...@nina.pagesz.net> <LY...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
> Prior to Dec. 7, 1941, were Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
>and the rest of the British Commonwealth officially at war with
>Germany? It seems the Canadians contributed troops to the failed
>commando attack on Normandy. If these nations were at war with
>Germany, did the Germans conduct any direct assault against them?
Australia and New Zealand both declared war on Germany on
3 September 1939. German surface raiders operated in the
Pacific and Indian Oceans and sad to relate the first American
merchant seaman killed in action in WW2 died in Bass Strait
between mainland Australia and Tasmania when his ship was
sunk by a german Mine in December 1940 - a year before
Pearl Harbour.
Anthony Staunton
Joseph Askew
Georg Schwarz (sch...@physik.tu-berlin.de) wrote:
: I think it is not correct to refer to German WW II ships by the term
: "Nazi" ship, just as it would be incorrect to flatly use that term as a
: synonym for other German armed forces in general. When seriously
: discussing history one should be careful about one's language.
Is it incorrect? I wonder. It seems to me that there is a trend to
use "Nazi" for bad things (such as "Nazi Death Camps") while only
reserving "German" for good things. So you can often see history
book describe Rommel only as German because he was a nice guy, even
if he was also a dedicated Nazi, while using "Nazi" to describe the
Generals the author doesn't like. Sort of like "Prussian" is also
often used. Given the ideological nature of the German state I think
that a certain degree of substituteability is acceptable for over all
institutions. The Luftwaffe being a good case of a political branch
of the Armed forces. While it shouldn't be used for people. Some of
the leading aces being opposed to Nazi ideology.
Joseph
--
"Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall inherit the Earth"
- President Bill Clinton
Joseph Askew
Winston Weidak Shu (Winst...@jhu.edu) wrote:
: Yes. The Commonwealth itself didn't really declare war, but individual
: member nations did. Ausralia, New Zealand, and Canada declared war on
: Germany a few days after the British and French,
New Zealand declared war *at*the*same*time*as* Britain. Australia
was a bit slower. We declared war 75 minutes after Britain had.
none of this "few days" stuff around here.
Georg Schwarz
jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>Is it incorrect? I wonder. It seems to me that there is a trend to
>use "Nazi" for bad things (such as "Nazi Death Camps") while only
>reserving "German" for good things. So you can often see history
you might be right about such a tendency being observable among many
people, which of course does not make it correct either.
>book describe Rommel only as German because he was a nice guy, even
>if he was also a dedicated Nazi, while using "Nazi" to describe the
>Generals the author doesn't like. Sort of like "Prussian" is also
I'm well aware that such a usage is not uncommon in many books or movies,
particularly in English language. This does not qualifiy such material as
serious historian works though.
"Nazi" is short for "National Socialist". Thus Nazi refers to polticial
and idiological aspects. A Nazi is a member or symathizer of a Nazi party
or idiology. A Nazi by no means needs to be German, nor is it correct to
use that expression synonymously for "German", a usage probably stemming
from Allied wartime propagand and not adequate for serious discussion
about history, which I hope this news group is about.
--
Georg Schwarz (sch...@physik.tu-berlin.de, ku...@cs.tu-berlin.de, PGP 2.6ui)
Institut für Theoretische Physik +49 30 314-24254 FAX -21130 IRC kuroi
Technische Universität Berlin http://home.pages.de/~schwarz/
Bill MacArthur
sch...@physik.tu-berlin.de (Georg Schwarz) wrote:
>I think it is not correct to refer to German WW II ships by the term
>"Nazi" ship, just as it would be incorrect to flatly use that term as a
>synonym for other German armed forces in general.
Generally, Nazi Germany is used. You may find the use of the term Nazis
distateful and as you point out it is inaccurate since most Germans of
the day were not members of the Nazi party. However, the use of the term
Nazi highlights that the war was not against the German people. It was
against the Nazis and all they stood for. The fact that the German
people supported the Nazi regime does lead to this unfortunate blurring.
OTOH I don't believe that you would have any objections to the term Red
Army.
Bill MacArthur
s...@interlog.com (Stephen Lautens) wrote:
>Trudeau in fact wore a German helmet riding his motorcyle in the late
>1950s, not WWII. There was nothing political about it except thumbing his
>nose at convention.
>
Several people have pointed out that Trudeau did not wear a Nazi helmet
but a much earlier German helmet. The helmet issue was raised in
criticism of his lack of participation in WWII. IIRC the term "Nazi cap"
was used by former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker who had served in WWI.
Interestingly, while Trudeau did not serve in WWII, the founder of the
Parti Quebecois and devoted separatist Rene Levesque did. AFAIR Levesque
was in Normandy and the rest of the European campaign.
Georg Schwarz
Bill MacArthur <bil...@uwindsor.ca> writes:
>OTOH I don't believe that you would have any objections to the term Red
>Army.
AFAIK that was the official name of the Soviet army. Please correct me if
I'm mistaken.
Bill MacArthur
Anthony....@pcug.org.au (Anthony Staunton) wrote:
>In article <58n44e$l...@portal.gmu.edu> ucr...@ucl.ac.uk (Paul Christopher Hunt) writes:
>
>>Canadian troops provided the main assault unit at Dieppe in 1941,
>
>I think you will find it to be 19 August 1942.
Correct.
>
This ignores the role that the Royal Canadian Air Force and Royal
Canadian Navy played from the opening of the war. RCAF squadrons
participated in the Battle of Britain. Remember Douglas Bader was the CO
for a Canadian squadron for a period of time. Many of the Commonwealth
pilots were trained in Canada as well. RCAF squadrons served with RAF
bomber command and became a major componment of the forces listed as RAF.
The RCN started with a fledgling navy which rapidly expanded in 1940 and
1941 as the U-boat wolfpacks grew. The RCN expanded so fast that quite
often the crews only stayed together for one trip. There are several
books written on the RCN's role in the war and _Far Distant Ships_ is one
that comes to mind. The RCAF also supported the western approaches
convoys. The Canadian Merchant Navy also suffered very high casualties
during the war.
Marc James Small
In article <59dgbr$r...@portal.gmu.edu>, bil...@uwindsor.ca
says...
>
>OTOH I don't believe that you would have any objections to
>the term Red Army.
But that WAS its name! Stalin used to roll out the phrase,
'nashaya bolsh'oya kraseevaya krasnaya armeeya' at the various
conferences: "our big beautiful Red Army'.
It was the Wehrmacht for the Germans, minus a party label. It
was the Red Army for the Soviets, WITH a party label.
To get back to the original thread, the ships are German, not
Nazi. You might as well refer to the 'Democrat' Enterprise or
the 'Tory' Ark Royal.
Thomas Hamilton
In article <58pour$v...@portal.gmu.edu> Glen Hallick <ghal...@mb.sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>LY...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU wrote:
>>
>> Prior to Dec. 7, 1941, were Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
>> and the rest of the British Commonwealth officially at war with
>> Germany?
>
Not exactly. Unlike Canada or South Africa, Australia did not pass
a declaration of war through parliament. PM Menzies just declared
that the British parliament spoke for Australia. This was quite
controversial at the time. (Going to war wasn't controversial,
but many people thought that parliament should have voted.)
The Curtin (Labour) government which came to power in Australia
shortly after the war started felt that it was wrong for Aus to
go to war without a formal declaration. Therefore, as a show of
independence from Britain, the Curtin government had a formal
parliamentary vote on declaring war on Finland, something Churchill
did as a sop to Stalin after the German invasion of Russia.
The point was that Australia declared war on Finland voluntarily
and not as an automatic consequence of Britain's decision.
So it remains an interesting piece of historical trivia that
the first nation upon which Australia ever declared war was
Finland.
Jim Garner
Bill MacArthur (bil...@uwindsor.ca) writes:
> sch...@physik.tu-berlin.de (Georg Schwarz) wrote:
>
> Generally, Nazi Germany is used. You may find the use of the term Nazis
> distateful and as you point out it is inaccurate since most Germans of
> the day were not members of the Nazi party. However, the use of the term
> Nazi highlights that the war was not against the German people. It was
> against the Nazis and all they stood for. The fact that the German
> people supported the Nazi regime does lead to this unfortunate blurring.
Actually, I don't think "Nazi" is used enough today. For sokme strange
reason (discussed here a few months ago), the word "fascist" has become the
abuse word for German Nazis, although "fascist" should properly refer to
followers of Mussolini. Italian fascists were somewhat less vicious than
German Nazis -- I've even read an assertion that some Italian Jews became
fascists.
However, on the basis that "words don't have meanings for people; people
have meanings for words" we are undoubtedly stuck with "fascist" in its
present meaning.
>
> OTOH I don't believe that you would have any objections to the term Red
> Army.
The difference here being that the former Soviet Union did actually call
its army the Red Army. Didn't Bronstein/Trotsky coin the name? Or did he?
--
Jim Garner, Freelance editor, writer and dogsbody
an...@freenet.carleton.ca http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an410
(613) 526-4786; 759B Springland, Ottawa, ON K1V 6L9
LET GOD DRY THE DISHES
Stephen Graham
In article <59no35$s...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>,
Jim Garner <an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>Actually, I don't think "Nazi" is used enough today. For sokme strange
>reason (discussed here a few months ago), the word "fascist" has become the
>abuse word for German Nazis, although "fascist" should properly refer to
>followers of Mussolini.
I wasn't around for the earlier discussion of fascism, but the NSDAP has
been refered to as "fascist" since the 1920's, if only in Communist
propaganda. Certainly all the academic studies of fascism on my shelves
include the NSDAP. While ideologically there are differences between
the Fascists and the NSDAP, they are not sufficiently broad to warrant
different general political classifications.
Glen Hallick
I think the now deceased leader of the Parti Quebecois and premier of
Quebec (1976-85) did not serve in WW2, but was a war correspondent for
Societe Radio Canada (CBC French) during the Korean War.
I'm no fan of Pierre Trudeau, but I would like to point out that
thousands of Canadian men also did not serve in the military during the
war. Many of them were told to remain on the farms such as my Dad, since
he was an only son and my grandfather could not manage the farm himself.
Also conscription after it was implemented saw those men initially serve
only in Canada. Only after D-Day did those conscripts get sent overseas.
This means that the bulk of the Canadian military comprised of
volunteers.
One more point, Quebeckers did not mind the idea of serving Canada
provided it meant protecting the country. What many of them opposed was
serving overseas. And that many through the Catholic Church sympathized
with the likes of Franco and Mussolini because they tolerated and sought
the support of the Catholic Church. Remember only recently has the Roman
Catholic Church been tolerant of democracy.
Glen Hallick
Anthony Staunton
>Generally, Nazi Germany is used.
I disagree. I refer to the German Army or the Nazi Party depending on the
context.
Like the Marine who yelled out to the Japanese 'Death to Tojo'. When he
awoke in hospital he was was asked why he did not shoot. He said that the
Japanese soldier had shouted 'Death to Roosevelt' and he felt he could
not shoot a fellow republican.
Anthony Staunton
E.F.Schelby
Bill MacArthur <bil...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>sch...@physik.tu-berlin.de (Georg Schwarz) wrote:
>
>>I think it is not correct to refer to German WW II ships by the term
>>"Nazi" ship, just as it would be incorrect to flatly use that term as a
>>synonym for other German armed forces in general.
I also think it is incorrect. However, it's common usage in the
United States. The word Nazi is routinely attached to the German
military, both in the print and TV media. It is nearly always Nazi
troops, and Nazi army, and Nazi soldier, and Nazi tank, and Nazi
this and that. Even network news are not immune more than half a
century after the war.
>You may find the use of the term Nazis distateful and as you point out it
>is inaccurate since most Germans of the day were not members of the Nazi party.
Well argued, but unfortunately this is not how it works in an
image-obsessed society. Every time this happens a negative
association is accomplished - and it happens constantly. In
addition, old films and film libraries never die. They are the cash
cows of commercial cable television and perpetual influencers of new
crops of the young. If they are propagandistic in their message, so
be it. And we haven't even mentioned booming worldwide exports....
ES
Bill MacArthur
Anthony....@pcug.org.au (Anthony Staunton) wrote:
>In article <59dgbr$r...@portal.gmu.edu> Bill MacArthur <bil...@uwindsor.ca> writes:
>
>>Generally, Nazi Germany is used.
>
>I disagree. I refer to the German Army or the Nazi Party depending on the
>context.
With all due respect, your personal preferences are just that personal
preferences. Most literature that I have read refers to Nazi Germany as
a whole. The Wehrmacht was serving Nazi Germany whether or not all, some
or none of its officers and men were actually Nazis. As I posted
separately, the flags and insignia used should also provide incite into
the nomenclature.
>
>Like the Marine who yelled out to the Japanese 'Death to Tojo'. When he
>awoke in hospital he was was asked why he did not shoot. He said that the
>Japanese soldier had shouted 'Death to Roosevelt' and he felt he could
>not shoot a fellow republican.
>
This is a terrific story. Any idea how accurate it is?