France Will Simply Have to Swallow Anglobalization of Common Language

[Beorn]

A French group entitled Avenir de la Langue Française (Future of the French Language) has claimed that the invasion of English words poses a greater "threat" to France's national identity than the imposition of German under the Nazis. Writing recently in Le Monde and l'Humanite, the group, supported by eight other patriotic organizations, has called on the Sarkozy government to turn back the English flood. "There are more English words on the walls of Paris," they state, "than German words under the Occupation."

Quite apart from the staggering tastelessness of equating the tongue of their British and French Nato allies with that of their fascist conquerors, how reasonable is their fear? Although President Nicolas Sarkozy speaks almost no English—as I discovered in a torturous conversation with him about the battle of Waterloo—he is accused by these groupings of wanting to make France bilingual.
He has spotted something that must make his Gaullist gut retch —that English has long replaced French as the world's lingua franca—but he had the foresight to try to embrace the fact for France's long-term benefit.
This year, English-speakers celebrate, as French-speakers must bemoan, the bicentenary of the moment when French started to lose its supremacy as the global language. When in October 1810 Marshal Andre Massena's invading Army of Portugal was repulsed from the Lines of Torres Vedras outside Lisbon by the Duke of Wellington, Napoleon's all-conquering juggernaut at last shuddered to a halt. The fightback had begun, and it was to end five years later at Waterloo and the Congress of Vienna, with Britain gaining all the strategic points she needed to build a world empire, and export the English tongue to a fifth of the Earth's surface.

English has became the dominant language of the Internet, air traffic control, computers, international business and by 2030 more Chinese people will be able to speak it than there are Americans. Already by 2001, English was being spoken by more than one in three of the 350 million citizens of the European Union, whereas fewer than one in 10 spoke French outside France itself. Even in those areas where French influence has been strong —Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Vietnam, Cambodia, Chad, and elsewhere—English has encroached very successfully.

English is the official language used by the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, and the only working language of the European Free Trade Association, the Baltic Marine Biologists Association, the Asian Amateur Athletics Association, the African Hockey Federation, while it is the second language of bodies as diverse as the Andean Commission of Jurists and the Arab Air Carriers Organization.
When in 1942 the Japanese premier Tojo called all the puppet governments of the "Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" together for an anti-Imperialism conference in Tokyo, he found the only language all the delegates could speak was English.

France's traditional response to this linguistic "Anglobalization" has been to attempt a form of legal protectionism against the steamroller tongue of "les rosbifs" and "les Anglo-Saxons". In 1994 the French Assemblée Nationale passed the Loi Toubon, which was signed into law by President François Mitterand. Named after Jacques Toubon, the culture minister, it stipulated that "French shall be the language of instruction, work, trade and exchanges and of the public services.
"The use of French shall be mandatory for the designation, offer, presentation, instructions for use, and description of the scope and conditions of a warranty of goods, products and services as well as bills and receipts. The same provisions apply to any written, spoken, radio and television advertisement" and so on for another 21 highly prescriptive clauses. The law has been used against American and British companies, such as Disney and the Body Shop on the Champs Elysées that had labels in English.

The principle was extended io cyber space, when the French Government asked the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to take up the issue of regulating language content on the Internet. A lawsuit was even brought against Georgia Institute of Technology by Avenir de la Langue Française on the grounds that the campus Web site in Lorraine was in English, even though the teachers came from Atlanta and all the students had to be fluent in English to enrol for the courses, which were all taught in English.
In 2005, France's Higher Audiovisual Council ordered television channels to translate the titles of popular programs and cartoons into French.
"Popstars" was instructed to become "Vedettes de Variétés", "Star Academy" became "L'Ēcoles des Vedettes", "Funky Cops" was transformed into "Des Flics dans la Vent" and, most unwieldy of all, "Totally Spies" became "Des Espions à Part Entière".

Today, 40% of all pop songs on French radio are supposed to be sung in French, although of course the law is widely flouted.
In two centuries, French may have to be protected as a linguistic curio, like Britain does with Cornish or Manx. Until then, the French must learn to be bilingual, or risk being left behind in the global market-place, gasping outraged complaints in a tongue fewer and fewer people understand.


Source (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013033899213088.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)

[SuuT]

A French group entitled Avenir de la Langue Française (Future of the French Language) has claimed that the invasion of English words poses a greater "threat" to France's national identity than the imposition of German under the Nazis.

LOL can anyone imagine anyone other than the French saying this?:D

[Thraex]

I am pretty fluent in French, very fluent in English and Bulgarian. It is true that English is the international language while French is not except in former French colonial areas. Thanks to the dominance of major Anglo powers such as the UK, USA and Australia.


Il est probablement un cas des Français disant je renonce. lol. ;)

[Wulfhere]

We shouldn't forget though that half of English vocabulary (though definitely not the everyday vocabulary of normal folk) is French. So we're just giving them a taste of their own medicine. One of English's greatest strengths, unlike French, is its willingness to absorb new words.

[Óttar]

Language change is natural, it's an attempt to "purify" language which is artificial. There has been contempt for L'Academie Francaise and those who compiled its first dictionary from other grammarians and linguists. The only ones who consider its dictionary authoritative are its members, it is certainly not the best quality. See: The Story of French by Jean Benoit Nadeau and Julie Barlow.

[Jarl]

One of English's greatest strengths, unlike French, is its willingness to absorb new words.

...and new worlds! :D

[Wulfhere]

...and new worlds! :D

Absolutely. What other people, other than the English, have created whole new countries - great countries - such as the USA, Australia etc.?

Spain and Portugal only went on to create places like Argentina and Brazil.

[Jarl]

Absolutely. What other people, other than the English, have created whole new countries - great countries - such as the USA, Australia etc.?

Spain and Portugal only went on to create places like Argentina and Brazil.

Absolutely. Only the English created new worlds.

[Thraex]

Absolutely. What other people, other than the English, have created whole new countries - great countries - such as the USA, Australia etc.?

Spain and Portugal only went on to create places like Argentina and Brazil.

The USA is more German than it is English.

[Wulfhere]

The USA is more German than it is English.

So that's why they speak German there, rather than English, yes?

[Liffrea]

Personally I’m one with Tolkien that English global status is something to lament not celebrate:

Col. Knox says 1/8 of the world’s population speaks English and that it is the biggest language group. If true, damn shame-say I. May the curse of Babel strike all their tongues till they can only say baa baa. It would mean much the same, I think I shall have to refuse to speak anything but Old Mercian.

England’s global “success” is also a cause of our continued fall as a nation, I can walk along any street in my home town and hear English people who sound as if they have just stepped off the set of a bad American sit-com or have just been evicted from Queen’s. The French think their identity is under threat? Good Gods they should stop navel gazing, their old enemy is further along the road toward extinction than they are.

The French may well laugh last and hardest, but perhaps not for very long.

[Cail]

We shouldn't forget though that half of English vocabulary (though definitely not the everyday vocabulary of normal folk) is French. So we're just giving them a taste of their own medicine. One of English's greatest strengths, unlike French, is its willingness to absorb new words.
__________________
Sovereign Mercia
Campaigning for a sovereign Mercian state in the English Midlands

Daughters of Frya
Recreating the order of priestesses described in the Oera Linda Book

Three Rings for the Elven Kings
Promoting the work of J.R.R. Tolkien as a spiritual path


Normal folk, eh?

[Thraex]

So that's why they speak German there, rather than English, yes?

No, the Germans are the dominant ethnic group in the USA, not the English. I remember in the other post you made, you called USA a race traitor state who turned back on the Crown in 1776. Why the change of heart? :rolleyes2:

[Wulfhere]

Personally I’m one with Tolkien that English global status is something to lament not celebrate:

Col. Knox says 1/8 of the world’s population speaks English and that it is the biggest language group. If true, damn shame-say I. May the curse of Babel strike all their tongues till they can only say baa baa. It would mean much the same, I think I shall have to refuse to speak anything but Old Mercian.

England’s global “success” is also a cause of our continued fall as a nation, I can walk along any street in my home town and hear English people who sound as if they have just stepped off the set of a bad American sit-com or have just been evicted from Queen’s. The French think their identity is under threat? Good Gods they should stop navel gazing, their old enemy is further along the road toward extinction than they are.

The French may well laugh last and hardest, but perhaps not for very long.

Tolkien was wrong, I think. Only the English speak English properly, but at least we don't have to bother learning a load of foreign languages if we want to go abroad. I am proud of the fact that I don't speak any other language, though this doesn't stop me being interested in linguistics.

[Wulfhere]

Normal folk, eh?

Yes, 90% of everyday language is from Anglo-Saxon.

[Wulfhere]

No, the Germans are the dominant ethnic group in the USA, not the English. I remember in the other post you made, you called USA a race traitor state who turned back on the Crown in 1776. Why the change of heart? :rolleyes2:

I didn't put it quite as strongly, though I do think they were seriously misguided, and led by corrupt, self-interested politicians.

If you look at the Wikipedia article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people - it makes the point that English ethnicity in the USA is very seriously under-represented by official statistics because most people there with English ethnicity tend to write "American" rather than "English" on forms. This is because they're the dominant group.

[Cail]

Yes, 90% of everyday language is from Anglo-Saxon.

I've just highlighted French/Latin words in your post. Or lets take another one for example:


It may be different in Sweden, but here, whenever our imperial history is mentioned, it is always British, and never English. The term "English imperialism" is used exclusively by people such as the Irish, Scots etc. and is always pejorative (and usally quite ill-informed, too).

[Wulfhere]

I've just highlighted French/Latin words in your post. Or lets take another one for example:

I made no claim to be using everyday language in my posts. Indeed, writing often contains words and constructions not normally used in speech - otherwise it looks illiterate. The technical term is register.

[Cail]

I made no claim to be using everyday language in my posts. Indeed, writing often contains words and constructions not normally used in speech - otherwise it looks illiterate. The technical term is register.

Actually, the situation is same on all levels. Unless you're a dock worker or smth.

[Wulfhere]

Actually, the situation is same on all levels. Unless you're a dock worker or smth.

An interesting exercise is to compare the vocabulary of the early Beatles songs with their later ones.

[SuuT]

No, the Germans are the dominant ethnic group in the USA, not the English.

Yes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.jpg

[Wulfhere]

Yes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.jpg

Read my post where I pointed out why English ethnicity is seriously underestimated by official US statistics, on which that map is based.

[Thraex]

I didn't put it quite as strongly, though I do think they were seriously misguided, and led by corrupt, self-interested politicians.

If you look at the Wikipedia article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people - it makes the point that English ethnicity in the USA is very seriously under-represented by official statistics because most people there with English ethnicity tend to write "American" rather than "English" on forms. This is because they're the dominant group.

No, you're not correct. Only 20 million American citizens identify as American rather than English or whatever. Assuming all of the 20 million are English, that would only put them at 47 million.




"American ethnicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ethnicity)" - ((2000 Census), 20,188,305 (7.2%) of the total U.S. population) - Mostly of English, Irish, Welsh, or Scottish ancestry that they cannot trace. Two-thirds of white Americans have two or more different European nationalities, often four or more, none of which the person thinks are large enough to identify with (one typical example might be a person who is 1/4 Irish, 1/4 German, 1/4 Scottish, 1/8 Swedish, and 1/8 French).

[Wulfhere]

No, you're not correct. Only 20 million American citizens identify as American rather than English or whatever. Assuming all of the 20 million are English, that would only put them at 47 million.

The thing is though, ethnicity is not just about ancestry. Language and culture play a crucial role too. The USA speaks English and its culture - its domininant culture, should I say - is Anglo-Saxon.

[Thraex]

The thing is though, ethnicity is not just about ancestry. Language and culture play a crucial role too. The USA speaks English and its culture - its domininant culture, should I say - is Anglo-Saxon.

You're changing your platform, first you said the English made up a majority now you're saying that the English culture and language are dominant in America. ;)

A lot of Germans had German names such as Braun for Brown that remained that way until WW2 Germans started to anglicize their names. That's the only thing the English have over the USA is language. I wouldn't say culture, American and English cultures are very different.

[Grumpy Cat]

This debate happened in French Canada years ago with not so good results.

There was established the Office québécois de la langue française (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois_de_la_langue_fran%C3%A7 aise) in Quebec which can be quite annoying.

I've actually had a complaint with them filed against a piece of software that I helped develop because it had an abbreviation in English in the output file.

[Wulfhere]

You're changing your platform, first you said the English made up a majority now you're saying that the English culture and language are dominant in America. ;)

A lot of Germans had German names such as Braun for Brown that remained that way until WW2 Germans started to anglicize their names. That's the only thing the English have over the USA is language. I wouldn't say culture, American and English cultures are very different.

No, it's you who is changing the platform. I said ethnicity right from the start. As for American culture being very different to the English, it depends on what you mean. Look beyond the superficial tackiness of pop culture and hype, and you'll find that the American love of freedom and local democracy are very Anglo-Saxon concepts. The Germans lost these centuries ago, if they ever had them.

[Beorn]

We shouldn't forget though that half of English vocabulary (though definitely not the everyday vocabulary of normal folk) is French.

Nearly correct. It is more like 80-85%. The common folk of England tend not to consume themselves in silly Latin/French words when a good old English word suffices.

A good programme to listen to is the Melvynn Bragg show on BBC Radio 4 - Do you know what I mean? (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/ram/routes_doyouknowwhat.ram)

(To those who have only Windows player, I suggest opening the page and then right click the link and saving it to your PC. Then get yourself Real Player. It is free)
(http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/ram/routes_doyouknowwhat.ram)

[Thraex]

No, it's you who is changing the platform. I said ethnicity right from the start. As for American culture being very different to the English, it depends on what you mean. Look beyond the superficial tackiness of pop culture and hype, and you'll find that the American love of freedom and local democracy are very Anglo-Saxon concepts. The Germans lost these centuries ago, if they ever had them.

You first claimed that English made up the majority of the USA population, I proved you wrong, now you're moving to culture, language, and philosophical concepts. The philosophical concepts you pointed out are hardly unique AS concepts, the concepts were shared by many.

[Wulfhere]

You first claimed that English made up the majority of the USA population, I proved you wrong, now you're moving to culture, language, and philosophical concepts. The philosophical concepts you pointed out are hardly unique AS concepts, the concepts were shared by many.

Here's another example, in the form of an anecdote. I once knew an American who claimed she was Scottish. On further discussion it transpired that she had a Scottish grandmother, and her other three grandparents were English. And yet she would have put Scottish on official forms. Why? Because it's trendy to be something "unusual", whereas to be English is simply the norm.

[Thraex]

Here's another example, in the form of an anecdote. I once knew an American who claimed she was Scottish. On further discussion it transpired that she had a Scottish grandmother, and her other three grandparents were English. And yet she would have put Scottish on official forms. Why? Because it's trendy to be something "unusual", whereas to be English is simply the norm.

That doesn't make the person entirely English but Scot-English or British. You're really desperate to try and claim that there are 100 million English people in the USA (or whatever number you're assuming). The Germans who are the most dominant group in the USA only amount to 15% of the total population. The English only make up 9%; if the English were 100 million, that would put them around 40% of total European American population. It is really simple, what is recorded is there, what is not recorded is not there. A recorded total of 27 million English American is there. There is also a recorded total of 20 million "Americans" who could have English ancestry is also there. That puts them at 47 million if we're assuming all of the 20 million "Americans" have a large amount of English ancestry. So, please do tell where else are you getting that would make the English the absolute majority in the USA?

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Wulfhere
Only the English speak English properly, but at least we don't have to bother learning a load of foreign languages if we want to go abroad. I am proud of the fact that I don't speak any other language

I’m not I’m disgraced by my incompetence at learning languages, nearly as bad as my attempts to learn to play the violin. I’ve travelled about Europe and always made some effort to speak German, French and Italian, it was usually appreciated, strangely I was surprised by how many French do speak English and how many Germans do not, I expected the opposite.

I would like to improve my German, I like the language and I would like to read some of their philosophers and Goethe in the original. As it is I’m plodding along with Old English, which is difficult enough for me.

[Klärchen]

Je suis en train de traduire cet article en français. Ça n'est pas tout à fait loyal de la part des Anglais d'envahir ainsi la section anglaise, n'est-ce pas? ;)

[Beorn]

There isn't an English section. All the French that are members worth keeping can speak English.

[Klärchen]

Source (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013033899213088.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)


La France devra simplement avaler l'anglobalisation du langage commun

Un groupe français, intitulé Avenir de la Langue Française (l'avenir de la langue française) a fait valoir que l'invasion de mots anglais pose une plus grande "menace" pour l'identité nationale de la France que l'imposition de la langue allemande sous les nazis. Ce groupe a récemment écrit dans Le Monde et dans L'Humanité, appuyé par huit autres organisations patriotiques, et fait appel au gouvernement Sarkozy de faire reculer l'inondation anglais. "Il ya plus de mots anglais sur les murs de Paris", selon leurs dires, "que des mots allemands sous l'Occupation."

Au-delà de l'absence de goût stupéfiante d'assimilation de la langue de leurs alliés de l'Otan britannique et français à celui de leurs vainqueurs fascistes, leur crainte est-elle vraiment raisonnable? Bien que le président Nicolas Sarkozy ne parle presque pas l'anglais, comme j'ai découvert lors d'une conversation tortueux avec lui sur la bataille de Waterloo, il est accusé par ces groupements de vouloir faire la France un état bilingue.

Il a repéré quelque chose qui doit donner du mal à ses entrailles gaullistes – c'est que l'anglais a depuis longtemps remplacé le français comme lingua franca mondiale, mais il a eu la clairvoyance d'essayer d'intégrer le fait pour le bénéfice de la France à long terme.

Cette année, les anglophones célèbrent – ce que les francophones déploreront - le bicentenaire du moment où le français a commencé à perdre sa suprématie en tant que langue mondiale. Quand en Octobre 1810 l'armée envahissante du maréchal André Masséna du Portugal a été repoussée des lignes de Torres Vedras hors de Lisbonne par le duc de Wellington, l'armée enorme de Napoléon qui était en train de tout conquérir fut forçée à s'arrêter. La contre-attaque avait commencé, et elle finit cinq ans plus tard, à Waterloo et par le Congrès de Vienne, où la Grande Bretagne gagna tous les points stratégiques dont elle avait besoin pour construire un empire mondial, et pour exporter la langue anglaise à un cinquième de la surface de la Terre.
-------------------------------------------------
L'anglais est devenu la langue dominante de l'internet, du contrôle du trafic aérien, des ordinateurs, les affaires internationales, et en 2030, plus de Chinois seront capables de la parler qu'il y a d'Américains. Déjà en 2001, l'anglais était parlé par plus d'un sur trois des 350 millions de citoyens de l'Union européenne, alors que moins de un sur 10 parlait le français hors de France elle-même. Même dans les zones où l'influence française était forte autrfois – au Maroc, en Algérie, en Syrie, au Vietnam, au Cambodge, au Tchad, et ailleurs, l'anglais a envahi avec beaucoup de succès.

L'anglais est la langue officielle utilisée par l'Organisation des pays exportateurs de pétrole, et la seule langue de travail de l'Association européenne de libre-échange, l'Association des biologistes marins de la Baltique, l'Association asiatique des amateurs athletics, la Fédération de hockey de l'Afrique, alors qu'elle est la deuxième langue des organismes aussi divers que la Commission andine des juristes et l'Organisation arabe des transporteurs aériens.

Quand en 1942, le Premier ministre japonais Tojo a appelé tous les gouvernements fantoches de la "Grande Asie Co-Prosperity Sphere" Ensemble pour une conférence anti-impérialisme à Tokyo, il a trouvé que le seul langage que tous les délégués pouvaient parler était l'anglais.

La réponse traditionnelle de la France à cette "Anglobalisation" linguistique fut de tenter une forme de protectionisme juridique contre le rouleau compresseur de la langue des "Rosbifs" et des "Anglo-Saxons". En 1994, l'Assemblée nationale française adopta la Loi Toubon, qui fut promulguée par le président François Mitterrand. Nommé d'après Jacques Toubon, le ministre de la Culture, elle stipulait que "le français est la langue d'enseignement, du travail, du commerce et des échanges et des services publics.

L'usage du français est obligatoire pour la désignation, l'offre, la présentation, le mode d'emploi, et la description de l'étendue et les conditions d'une garantie des biens, des produits et des services de même que des factures et des reçus. Les mêmes dispositions s'appliquent à toute publicité écrite, parlée ou diffusée par la radio et la télévision" et ainsi de suite pour 21 autres clauses très normatives. La loi fut employée contre des compagnies américaines et britanniques, comme Disney et Body Shop sur les Champs Elysées qui avaient des étiquettes en anglais.

Ce principe fut étendu au cyberspace lorsque le gouvernement français demanda à l'Organisation pour la Coopération économique et du développement à aborder la question de réglementer le contenu des langues sur l'internet. Un procès fut même intentée contre le Georgia Institute of Technology par Avenir de la Langue Française, au motif que le site Web de Campus en Lorraine était en anglais, bien que les enseignants viennent d'Atlanta et que tous les étudiants doivent être fluent en anglais pour s'inscrire aux cours, qui étaient tous en anglais.

En 2005, le Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel en France ordonna aux chaînes de télévision de traduire les titres des programmes populaires et les dessins animés en français.

"Popstars" fut chargé de devenir "Vedettes de Variétés", "Star Academy" devint "L'Écoles des Vedettes", "Funky Cops" fut transformé en "Des Flics dans la Vent" et, le plus lourd de tous, "Totally Spies" devint "Des Espions à Part Entière".

Aujourd'hui, 40% de toutes les chansons pop à la radio française sont censés être interprétés en français, même si bien sûr le droit est largement bafoué.

Dans deux siècles, il faudra peut-être protéger le français comme une curiosité linguistique, comme la Grande Bretagne fait avec le cornouaille ou le mannois. Jusque-là, les Français doivent apprendre à être bilingues, ou bien ils risquent d'être laissés derrière dans le marché mondial, haletant des plaintes outragées dans une langue que de moins en moins de gens comprennent.

Fini! http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Girls/smilie_girl_249.gif

[Svanhild]

Absolutely. What other people, other than the English, have created whole new countries - great countries - such as the USA, Australia etc.?
And who created England? Where did the Angles and Saxons come from?

English was Anglo-Saxon at the beginning. The Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes located in Central Europe, today it's Germany. On the paper, you're speaking a mutated German dialect by the name of "English" with loads of borrowed words from Romance languages. :wink Old English and Old High German share a lot of similarities.

[Jarl]

Ive thought Old English was more related to Low Saxon not High German of the Allemani and Bujavers???

[Svanhild]

Ive thought Old English was more related to Low Saxon not High German of the Allemani and Bujavers???
You can compare texts in Old English with texts in Old High German and you can find some blatant similarities. Low Saxon and Frisian are even closer.

[Jarl]

You can compare texts in Old English with texts in Old High German and you can find some blatant similarities. Low Saxon and Frisian are even closer.

Yup. Frisian is closest apparently. Modern English changed in grammar and pronounciation considerably though. Not to mention the vocabulary.

[Klärchen]

There isn't an English section. All the French that are members worth keeping can speak English.

Sorry, but when there was an English conversation in the German section, there were some complaints. :wink

[Klärchen]

Moi, j'aime l'anglais aussi, mais il y a une chose que je n'aime pas du tout:

Chaque langue transporte une certaine culture. Par exemple, le latin est le langage des doctes et de la science, le français est le langage des cultivés et des aristocrats. Mais l'anglais est aujourd'hui associé avec une "culture" commerciale, mega-capitaliste et superficielle. On pourrait remplacer le mot "heureux" par le mot "happy" – mais cela n'est pourtant pas le même. Car quand un étranger utilise le mot "happy", cela signifie un bonheur très superficiel. Comprenez-vous ce que je veux dire?

Cela n'a même rien à faire avec la culture anglaise. En Allemagne, nous employons même des termes anglais qui n'existent pas dans la langue anglaise. Nous appelons un portable "Handy". Mais en anglais on ne dit pas "handy", on dit "mobile phone". On utilise des mots anglais seulement pour exprimer: "Tenez, comme je suis hyper cool...!"

Voilà ce qui m'emmerde...

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Svanhild
And who created England? Where did the Angles and Saxons come from?

Whilst the roots of the English nation very much lie within the Germanic tribes who began to colonise England in substantial numbers in the 5th century, England’s formation doesn’t stop there. All nations are formed from different circumstances. The English absorbed substantial numbers of British Celts (whose genetic and cultural influence is still debated). Arguably the Old English state was the most advanced in northern Europe by it’s demise in 1066 at the hands of the Normans. After nearly three centuries the English began to re-emerge by which time the old links with the people’s across the North Sea had largely been forgotten.

England isn’t an easy country to pigeon hole, probably no country is, it certainly isn’t “Celtic” it shares little in common with the French but it’s not really “Germanic” either. Personally, I hope without to much chauvinism, I tend to see it somewhat separate, an oddity in probably all definitions of the word.


Originally Posted by Jarl
Ive thought Old English was more related to Low Saxon not High German of the Allemani and Bujavers???

Old English and High German are, indeed, distinguishable due to the second consonant shift. Old English, a West Germanic dialect, shared far more common with Frisian and Low Saxon, languages that didn’t undergo the consonant shift.

There has been some speculation over the exact relationship of Old English to Old Norse, some see it as closer to those Scandinavian dialects. I’m not a linguist so I don’t know the viability of that argument.

Also, as has been indicated, the Norman Conquest altered the English language considerably but it should also be born in mind that the Danish settlements were already altering the English language in many ways. Can Modern English still be considered a “Germanic” language? Perhaps it should have it’s own branch…..interesting to speculate.

[SuuT]

Read my post where I pointed out why English ethnicity is seriously underestimated by official US statistics, on which that map is based.

The map is based on self-reports. Ethnicity is an issue of self-identification.

Check out the "American Ethnicity?" thread for a treatment of why so much of the American South identifies as 'American'.


Incidentally I've lived here, in America, for nearly 18 years (off and on). I assure you, even though language is one of the keystones of culture, the Anglo-Saxon/English cultural deposit is right where one would expect it to be - New England.

[Wulfhere]

That doesn't make the person entirely English but Scot-English or British. You're really desperate to try and claim that there are 100 million English people in the USA (or whatever number you're assuming). The Germans who are the most dominant group in the USA only amount to 15% of the total population. The English only make up 9%; if the English were 100 million, that would put them around 40% of total European American population. It is really simple, what is recorded is there, what is not recorded is not there. A recorded total of 27 million English American is there. There is also a recorded total of 20 million "Americans" who could have English ancestry is also there. That puts them at 47 million if we're assuming all of the 20 million "Americans" have a large amount of English ancestry. So, please do tell where else are you getting that would make the English the absolute majority in the USA?

There is no such thing as a British ethnicity. A person brought up in England (for example) with one Scottish grandparent and three English ones is English.

The Germans are not the dominant group in America - whatever their numbers. They have been assimilated into the prevailing Anglo-Saxon culture. I don't know why you're trying to drive a wedge between Britain and America but it will never work. Who did they support in two world wars - the Germans or the English?

[Wulfhere]

I’m not I’m disgraced by my incompetence at learning languages, nearly as bad as my attempts to learn to play the violin. I’ve travelled about Europe and always made some effort to speak German, French and Italian, it was usually appreciated, strangely I was surprised by how many French do speak English and how many Germans do not, I expected the opposite.

I would like to improve my German, I like the language and I would like to read some of their philosophers and Goethe in the original. As it is I’m plodding along with Old English, which is difficult enough for me.

Every place has the right to speak its own language. I just choose not to go to places whose people don't make an effort to speak English.

[Óttar]

So that's why they speak German there, rather than English, yes?
Benjamin Franklin planned to move the Germans in the US around in order that they become anglicised. German almost became an official language of the US. There are more people of German extraction than English. The largest contingent of people in the US are of German extraction. The traitorous betrayal of their German roots disgusts me i.e. an American soldier with the last name of Hassenzahl (!) referring to the Germans as "krauts." It pisses me off when the Dutch do the same.

[Wulfhere]

And who created England? Where did the Angles and Saxons come from?

English was Anglo-Saxon at the beginning. The Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes located in Central Europe, today it's Germany. On the paper, you're speaking a mutated German dialect by the name of "English" with loads of borrowed words from Romance languages. :wink Old English and Old High German share a lot of similarities.

Southern Jutland, for the majority of the Anglo-Saxons that made up the English. English's closest relatives are Frisian and similar dialects. These are most certainly not from "Central Europe", but cultures and languages of the North Sea coasts. We have little in common with the Central Europeans who created modern Germany.

[Brännvin]

The Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes located in Central Europe, today it's Germany.

False, where it sees the origin of them do not come from that place. None Germanic tribe had roots in Central Europe.

Typical German imperialism vomiting historical nonsense...

[Wulfhere]

Ive thought Old English was more related to Low Saxon not High German of the Allemani and Bujavers???

Old English is a branch of North Sea Germanic, or Ingaevone.

[Wulfhere]

You can compare texts in Old English with texts in Old High German and you can find some blatant similarities. Low Saxon and Frisian are even closer.

Absolutely. Though why such similarities should be described as "blatant" I'm not sure. English is very close to Frisian, close to Dutch, and less so to German. And this is reflected in those countries we regard as kin, which does not include the Germans.

Northern dialects of English - especially, for example, Geordie, have close similarities with Scandinavian, hence our feeling of kinship with Denmark, Norway etc.

[Wulfhere]

Incidentally I've lived here, in America, for nearly 18 years (off and on). I assure you, even though language is one of the keystones of culture, the Anglo-Saxon/English cultural deposit is right where one would expect it to be - New England.

And that is no surprise of course.

[Svanhild]

Southern Jutland, for the majority of the Anglo-Saxons that made up the English. English's closest relatives are Frisian and similar dialects. These are most certainly not from "Central Europe", but cultures and languages of the North Sea coasts. We have little in common with the Central Europeans who created modern Germany.
English is very close to Frisian, close to Dutch, and less so to German. And this is reflected in those countries we regard as kin, which does not include the Germans.

50% of all contemporary Frisians are located in Germany, the other half dwell in the western parts of the Netherlands. The Dutch are Germans who constructed an own national identity over the centuries for a multiplicity of reasons. Dutch language was initially a low German dialect. With the rise of an autonomous national identity, the Dutch started to consider their language as an own language different to the German main language. Dialect or language? All a matter of definition. The Dutch anthem contains the line "van Duitsen bloed". If you feel near to the Dutch you have to feel near to the Germans.

I presume your volitional distance to the Germans has emotional reasons who rest in the fickle history of the 20- and 19th century between our countries, and are not based on historical scientifical facts. You regard Frisians and Dutch as kin but not Deutsche. Dutsch - Deutsch. Ring any bells? :wink


False, where it sees the origin of them do not come from that place. None Germanic tribe had roots in Central Europe.
Typical German imperialism vomiting historical nonsense...
We are all Swedes from Scania deep in our heart, rest assured. And I'm not a street light, you needn't to piss on me.

[Wulfhere]

50% of all contemporary Frisians are located in Germany, the other half dwell in the western parts of the Netherlands. The Dutch are Germans who constructed an own national identity over the centuries for a multiplicity of reasons. Dutch language was initially a low German dialect. With the rise of an autonomous national identity, the Dutch started to consider their language as an own language different to the German main language. Dialect or language? All a matter of definition. The Dutch anthem contains the line "van Duitsen bloed". If you feel near to the Dutch you have to feel near to the Germans.

I presume your volitional distance to the Germans has emotional reasons who rest in the fickle history of the 20- and 19th century between our countries, and are not based on historical scientifical facts. You regard Frisians and Dutch as kin but not Deutsche. Dutsch - Deutsch. Ring any bells? :wink


We are all Swedes from Scania deep in our heart, rest assured. And I'm not a street light, you needn't to piss on me.

What is now called Germany, and German nationality, is based on High German, which is central European. And Frisians do indeed live in Northern Germany, as a ridiculed minority. I'm also fully aware of the Dutch-Deutsch etymology.

I assure you that I feel great kinship and friendship with the Dutch and Scandinavians, but not with the Germans. You may speculate on the reasons, but I think trying to invade and destroy one's country is a pretty good reason for antipathy.

[Zyklop]

I assure you that I feel great kinship and friendship with the Dutch and Scandinavians, but not with the Germans. You make it sound as if Germans desire friendship with the English or with you in specific. Island Apes is no term of endearment as far as I know. :wink

[Wulfhere]

You make it sound as if Germans desire friendship with the English or with you in specific. Island Apes is no term of endearment as far as I know. :wink

Lol. I don't give a flying fuck if the Germans want friendship with us. It's a little too late for that.

[Cail]

And this is reflected in those countries we regard as kin, which does not include the Germans.
That was different before the World Wars.

[Wulfhere]

That was different before the World Wars.

That's true - but that came about because of the Hanoverian dynasty, when all things German became trendy among the ruling classes, reaching its absurd apogee under Victoria and Albert.

[Zyklop]

Lol. I don't give a flying fuck if the Germans want friendship with us. It's a little too late for that.The current Polak infestation of GB one day might make you wish for it... ;)

[Wulfhere]

The current Polak infestation of GB one day might make you wish for it... ;)

Why on earth would Poles in the UK make us want to wish for friendship with the Germans? Ask most English and they'll tell you they prefer Poles to Germans.

[Cail]

The current Polak infestation of GB one day might make you wish for it... ;)

Lmao. By that day, Germany would be a second Turkestan.

[Jarl]

Why on earth would Poles in the UK make us want to wish for friendship with the Germans? Ask most English and they'll tell you they prefer Poles to Germans.

LOL! I can't believe a Slav-hater like you said this! But there is some truth to it ;)

[Wulfhere]

LOL! I can't believe a Slav-hater like you said this! But there is some truth to it ;)

I'm NOT a Slav-hater! I just choose not to use politically correct language when talking about anybody!

[Liffrea]

If I’m correct the Second World War ended 65 years ago. Germany was turned into a largely self loathing nation whilst England scored a pyrrhic victory and has been declining ever since. Interesting that at last years Battle of Britain event German pilots who, surprise surprise, fought just as heroically for their nation were invited by their former enemies to take part in the event……yet their English grand children (and it is just the English who have a chip on their shoulder about it) most of whom have never seen an angry man, never fought in a war, let alone one against Germany still seem hell bent on fighting it……what’s the matter? The nagging fact that we fought a war we didn’t have to fight and lost everything doing so coming back to haunt us?

Our grandparents did, indeed, fight like lions to keep the Germans out of Britain and the RAF deserves all the respect out inadequate, infantile, degenerate generation can lavish on those old man, but look at what they fought for, have you been outside in England lately? I’m appalled, scared, obscenely amazed at how a once great nation has, largely self inflicted, such an abject decline on itself, are we worth the sacrifice of one of those old men? I wouldn’t be surprised if the German veterans feel the same way about their country, when I was last in Berlin I had to check the map I thought I had took a wrong turn and ended up in Istanbul. There were more Turks than Germans from what I could see; Germany lost the war….and so did we. Yet there are people who still want to fight it rather than realise that our continent is being colonised by aliens. If the English don’t want to like the Germans and vice versa, so be it, seems pathetic to me but there we are, but for everyone’s sake at least have the brains to realise that we have far more in common racially and culturally than we do with the Afro-Asian hordes swarming into Europe at this very moment. Personally I would take a resurgent German war machine right now than face the likely prospect of becoming a colony of Arabia.

[Jarl]

I totally agree that Europe needs solidarity and coherence more than ever. Suut wrote about the nonsensical nature of these old animosities in one of the threads. I only cannot agree with this:


how a once great nation has, largely self inflicted, such an abject decline on itself

I do not really think the British can be blamed for the two world wars, and the decline which ensued after.

[Zyklop]

Lmao. By that day, Germany would be a second Turkestan.
Maybe, but Germany always will be in a better shape than GB. Ever been there? Our worst ghettos look more neat than their regular streets. And I've been told they won the war?

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Jarl
I do not really think the British can be blamed for the two world wars,

I didn’t mention the First World War….a war, on balance, we probably did have to fight, the German Empire controlling the Rhine estuary and the Channel ports of north east France would have been a nightmare for British security, especially a Germany headed by the psychopathic fool Kaiser Wilhelm whose love/hate attitude towards the English didn’t bode well for future relations.

We didn’t start the second war either….but we didn’t have to get involved, Hitler would have been busily trading blows with Stalin and had no ambition to fight Britain….but he did want to settle scores with France after the German colonising venture in the east was well under way….would we have had to fight Germany then, who knows….


and the decline which ensued after.

If not us….who? Fair enough we have had sixty years of slow drip poison into the system and the links of the chain have been added one at a time….but we have been warned often enough and only a fool doesn’t acknowledge the state this country is in now….

[Jarl]

….but we didn’t have to get involved,

I do not think this is a tenable statement.


Hitler would have been busily trading blows with Stalin and had no ambition to fight Britain….but he did want to settle scores with France after the German colonising venture in the east was well under way….would we have had to fight Germany then, who knows….

This is the tip of the iceberg of the threats which faced the British interests in war period. You said "we didn’t have to get involved". You had to. In one way or another. Inaction diplmatically also means action in a way, and has its consequences. No European nation could have the luxury of complete inaction during world war II.

I do not think that the capitalists who built the British Empire could afford to stand by and watch as Europe was being swallowed up by national socialism.


If not us….who?

The slump down of the British Empire started after WW I and is invariably conncected to war expenditures and weakening power of its capital. WW II sped up the process which was already going on. What happened after that is most likely a natural consequence of the slow down... I am not certain if it was inevitable, and what an alternative would be, but Im quite certain that it was aimed to save the British capital and influence.

[Wulfhere]

Maybe, but Germany always will be in a better shape than GB. Ever been there? Our worst ghettos look more neat than their regular streets. And I've been told they won the war?

The thing about Germany is that it's full of Germans.

[Svanhild]

You may speculate on the reasons, but I think trying to invade and destroy one's country is a pretty good reason for antipathy.
Did Germany declare on England or did England declare war on Germany? And what was the issue with the flight of Heß? Explain.

The thing about Germany is that it's full of Germans.
You dislike us so much that you fill your country with foreigners to distinguish from Germany? :wink You're frustrated and live in the past.

Regards

your beastly German kraut woman

[Wulfhere]

Did Germany declare on England or did England declare war on Germany? And what was the issue with the flight of Heß? Explain.

You dislike us so much that you fill your country with foreigners to distinguish from Germany? :wink You're frustrated and live in the past.

Regards

your beastly German kraut woman

I'm sorry I can't explain the issue with Hess because I wasn't there - it is, however, well known that he was a complete loony.

We declared war on Germany because it invaded Poland, our ally. And Hitler had been given fair warning of this.

I think you have more Turks per head than we have Paks. You must like kebabs a lot.

[Zyklop]

I think you have more Turks per head than we have Paks. You must like kebabs a lot.
Not sure about Pakis in general but according to official statistics, England is even 10% non-white, whereas the only larger non-white immigrant group in Germany, the Turks, constitutes only 2,4%. Additionally these Turks don't hold German citizenship unlike the Pakis in England.

England
Ethnic groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group) (2006)
[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England#cite_note-ethnicityengl-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England#cite_note-3)) 90% White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people), 5.3% South Asian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Asian), 2.7% Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_British), 1.6% Mixed race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mixed), 0.7% Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Chinese), 0.6% Other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_ethnic_group_%28United_Kingdom_Census%29)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England#cite_note-ethnicityengl-2


Germany
German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4%, other 6.1% (made up largely of Greek, Italian, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Jarl
I do not think this is a tenable statement.

Why? The UK had kept it’s self out of European wars, minus the Crimea, for nearly a hundred years after 1815, it was a stated aim of British foreign policy, which saw it miss out on the Franco-Prussian, Prussian-Danish and Austro-Prussian Wars, not to mention several Balkan conflicts before 1914. Both the UK and France were happy to watch Hitler disregard the Versailles Treaty, and swallow Austria and Czechoslovakia. Would he have been prepared to settle for the Polish “corridor”? Who knows……..what we do know from Mein Kampf and his table talks is that he didn’t harbour any ambitions against the UK, but he did have issues with France, we didn’t have to fight in 1939 what was, in effect, a Polish-German border squabble. We may have had to move in the late 40’s (roughly the time when Hitler planned to deal with France).


This is the tip of the iceberg of the threats which faced the British interests in war period. You said "we didn’t have to get involved". You had to. In one way or another. Inaction diplmatically also means action in a way, and has its consequences. No European nation could have the luxury of complete inaction during world war II.

You’re making the, I believe erroneous assumption, that Hitler had ambitions west….in point of fact evidence suggests Hitler was amazed that the British and French declared war on Germany over Poland, he didn’t expect it, what with the campaigns in Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, France and the Balkan campaign to help out his ally/hindrance Italy the Russian War (what Hitler actually wanted to fight) was, fatally, halted by several months.


I do not think that the capitalists who built the British Empire could afford to stand by and watch as Europe was being swallowed up by national socialism.

If we take Hilter at his word, admittedly not a sound policy, the best thing Britain could have done would have been to find some common ground with Hitler that didn’t involve handing him France and the Low Countries. He “guaranteed” the British Empire, even offered German soldiers to defend it if attacked, compare that to Roosevelt who stated he wouldn’t sacrifice the life of one American soldier to defend the British Empire, indeed Washington was salivating over the prospect of dismantling all European empires, their “special friends” most of all. For Hitler only the UK and Italy stood out as natural allies, Italy was concerned with the Mediterranean (which Hitler didn’t care for) whilst the British had no continental ambitions, suited him fine to emulate the British by carving out his own empire in Russia.

Let’s also not forget that after 1945 the Soviet Union ended up in control of most of Eastern Europe, including the Poland we supposedly went to war over…..


The slump down of the British Empire started after WW I and is invariably conncected to war expenditures and weakening power of its capital. WW II sped up the process which was already going on. What happened after that is most likely a natural consequence of the slow down... I am not certain if it was inevitable, and what an alternative would be, but Im quite certain that it was aimed to save the British capital and influence.

The British Empire was already tottering before 1914, the wars hastened the process but the empires collapse was inevitable, probably from the very acquisition of India as a crown colony in 1858. Far from being a “jewel” India was a burden. Economically Britain would have been better off without the cost of an empire. We would have also missed out on the damaging psychological effects of imperial withdrawl.

[Wulfhere]

Why? The UK had kept it’s self out of European wars, minus the Crimea, for nearly a hundred years after 1815, it was a stated aim of British foreign policy, which saw it miss out on the Franco-Prussian, Prussian-Danish and Austro-Prussian Wars, not to mention several Balkan conflicts before 1914. Both the UK and France were happy to watch Hitler disregard the Versailles Treaty, and swallow Austria and Czechoslovakia. Would he have been prepared to settle for the Polish “corridor”? Who knows……..what we do know from Mein Kampf and his table talks is that he didn’t harbour any ambitions against the UK, but he did have issues with France, we didn’t have to fight in 1939 what was, in effect, a Polish-German border squabble. We may have had to move in the late 40’s (roughly the time when Hitler planned to deal with France).



You’re making the, I believe erroneous assumption, that Hitler had ambitions west….in point of fact evidence suggests Hitler was amazed that the British and French declared war on Germany over Poland, he didn’t expect it, what with the campaigns in Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, France and the Balkan campaign to help out his ally/hindrance Italy the Russian War (what Hitler actually wanted to fight) was, fatally, halted by several months.



If we take Hilter at his word, admittedly not a sound policy, the best thing Britain could have done would have been to find some common ground with Hitler that didn’t involve handing him France and the Low Countries. He “guaranteed” the British Empire, even offered German soldiers to defend it if attacked, compare that to Roosevelt who stated he wouldn’t sacrifice the life of one American soldier to defend the British Empire, indeed Washington was salivating over the prospect of dismantling all European empires, their “special friends” most of all. For Hitler only the UK and Italy stood out as natural allies, Italy was concerned with the Mediterranean (which Hitler didn’t care for) whilst the British had no continental ambitions, suited him fine to emulate the British by carving out his own empire in Russia.

Let’s also not forget that after 1945 the Soviet Union ended up in control of most of Eastern Europe, including the Poland we supposedly went to war over…..



The British Empire was already tottering before 1914, the wars hastened the process but the empires collapse was inevitable, probably from the very acquisition of India as a crown colony in 1858. Far from being a “jewel” India was a burden. Economically Britain would have been better off without the cost of an empire. We would have also missed out on the damaging psychological effects of imperial withdrawl.

Coming to terms with Hitler, though attractive to many at the time and since, would have been very foolish in the long run. British policy for centuries was to prevent any one European power mastering the Continent, because that would put them in a position to destroy or control Britain, as they wished. As it was WW2 was a very close-run thing, and we might have lost in 1940, giving Hitler a free hand in the east.

I know Hitler was famously an Anglophile, as were other top Nazis such as Goring and (the insane) Hess - though not Goebbels, who was actually more sympathetic towards the Soviets - but being an Anglophile is no guarantee that one will not attempt to destroy England if it doesn't toe the party line. I think most English people, if offered a simple choice between German domination or American domination, would always choose the former colony with the same language.

WW2 was a just war, and a self-interested one too. The empire was already dead on its feet, and if fighting and winning the war hastened the end of empire, then it hastened the end of a massive burden.

[Jarl]

The thing about Germany is that it's full of Germans.

Wasn't that a quote from Edward Longshanks in "Braveheart", about the Scots? :D


We declared war on Germany because it invaded Poland, our ally. And Hitler had been given fair warning of this.

Alliance - a matter of trust and honour. I think this gets beyond the comprehension of certain individuals ;)


Not sure about Pakis in general but according to official statistics, England is even 10% non-white, whereas the only larger non-white immigrant group in Germany, the Turks, constitutes only 2,4%. Additionally these Turks don't hold German citizenship unlike the Pakis in England.

England
Ethnic groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group) (2006)
[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England#cite_note-ethnicityengl-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England#cite_note-3)) 90% White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people), 5.3% South Asian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Asian), 2.7% Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_British), 1.6% Mixed race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mixed), 0.7% Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Chinese), 0.6% Other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_ethnic_group_%28United_Kingdom_Census%29)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England#cite_note-ethnicityengl-2


Germany
German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4%, other 6.1% (made up largely of Greek, Italian, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html

But England does not have the lowest birth rate in Europe, like Germany. It also does not face the depopulation problem like East Germany.

Germany's:

1. 20% non-native or partly non-native population including over 4 000 000 ppl of Turkish descent, that is 5%.

2. 9% of foreign born population.

3. Fertility rate 1.39

Britain has:

1. 85.7% White British + 5.3% Other White (91 total).

2. 8%-10% foreign born population.

3. Fertility rate of 1.96


As for net migration rate, Germany is stlightly ahead of the UK:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=gm&v=27



Plus Brits migrating from England to Commonwealth countries or USA dont lose their culutre as quickly as Germans leaving Germany. UK can so rely on its colonies, where indeed many Brits migrate for better prospects.

[Wulfhere]

Wasn't that a quote from Edward Longshanks in "Braveheart", about the Scots? :D

Might have been, but that was a film notoriously divorced from reality.

[Wulfhere]

Alliance - a matter of trust and honour. I think this gets beyond the comprehension of certain individuals ;)

Absolutely - if you enter an alliance it is dishonourable to break it, whatever the cost.

[Stefan]

*Reads thread title, reads posts, reads thread title again,* How did this happen?

[Jarl]

Why? The UK had kept it’s self out of European wars, minus the Crimea, for nearly a hundred years after 1815, it was a stated aim of British foreign policy, which saw it miss out on the Franco-Prussian, Prussian-Danish and Austro-Prussian Wars, not to mention several Balkan conflicts before 1914. Both the UK and France were happy to watch Hitler disregard the Versailles Treaty, and swallow Austria and Czechoslovakia.

Well it did not keep itself out. Crimea was one exception. But there were other, French-English and Dutch-English colonial conflicts. The only difference was that Europe was not the main theatre.


Would he have been prepared to settle for the Polish “corridor”? Who knows…

Of course not! And so Britain did not do much immediately. Neither did France. But once Denmark, Norway and France were occupied it was time to act.

Britain had to act or she would cease to exist as an Empire with most of Europe in German hands.


…..what we do know from Mein Kampf and his table talks is that he didn’t harbour any ambitions against the UK, but he did have issues with France, we didn’t have to fight in 1939 what was, in effect, a Polish-German border squabble. We may have had to move in the late 40’s (roughly the time when Hitler planned to deal with France).

You’re making the, I believe erroneous assumption, that Hitler had ambitions west….in point of fact evidence suggests Hitler was amazed that the British and French declared war on Germany over Poland, he didn’t expect it, what with the campaigns in Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, France and the Balkan campaign to help out his ally/hindrance Italy the Russian War (what Hitler actually wanted to fight) was, fatally, halted by several months.

Erroneous assumption? He did not expect it??? Of course how could he have expected this! After all Poland Britain and France formed a military alliance! Hitler was so mis-informed and naive... what a complete nonsense! :rolleyes:


He was so "amazed" and un-expecting that immediately after 1939, using Anglo-French inertion and phoney war, he conquered France and the whole Benelux in one swift, masterfully planned and conducted campaign. Whatever he wrote in Mein Kampf, he certainly well prepared the German army for war with France and took it into account.


If we take Hilter at his word, admittedly not a sound policy, the best thing Britain could have done would have been to find some common ground with Hitler that didn’t involve handing him France and the Low Countries.

If... if....If there was such a possibility at all...


The fact is that the British elites saw no room for a "settlement". They had some reasons for it. It was not just mere sacrifice for Poland.



He “guaranteed” the British Empire,

When? When did Hitler try to make a settlement with Briatin???


He “guaranteed” peace to Poland and Russia before he invaded them ;)


even offered German soldiers to defend it if attacked,

Hitler offered to defend UK??? When, against whom???


compare that to Roosevelt who stated he wouldn’t sacrifice the life of one American soldier to defend the British Empire, indeed Washington was salivating over the prospect of dismantling all European empires, their “special friends” most of all. For Hitler only the UK and Italy stood out as natural allies, Italy was concerned with the Mediterranean (which Hitler didn’t care for) whilst the British had no continental ambitions, suited him fine to emulate the British by carving out his own empire in Russia.

Compare Hitler to Roosevelt? No, thanks.

IF ENGLAND AND GERMANY were "natural allies", like you say, then there would have never been WW II. A settlement would have been reached sooner or later. Like in 1939 during the phoney war... But Hitler was not interested in a settlement by that time. Germany was strong. World wars do not break out and last 5 years by mere coincidences.



Let’s also not forget that after 1945 the Soviet Union ended up in control of most of Eastern Europe, including the Poland we supposedly went to war over…..

"Supposedly"... Indeed. Now you say it yourself! Contrary to what some say:



1. War against Germany did not start in September 1939. Phoney war is not war.


2. War with Germany did not start in 1940, with invasion of France and Benelux, and evacuation of Dunkirk.


3. War with Germany started after bombings of Britain and was not just dictated by German invasion of Poland.



The British Empire was already tottering before 1914, the wars hastened the process but the empires collapse was inevitable, probably from the very acquisition of India as a crown colony in 1858. Far from being a “jewel” India was a burden. Economically Britain would have been better off without the cost of an empire. We would have also missed out on the damaging psychological effects of imperial withdrawl.

Perhaps it was tottering before 1914. But it were the two world wars that destroyed it and pauperised England.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Wulfhere
Coming to terms with Hitler, though attractive to many at the time and since, would have been very foolish in the long run. British policy for centuries was to prevent any one European power mastering the Continent, because that would put them in a position to destroy or control Britain, as they wished. As it was WW2 was a very close-run thing, and we might have lost in 1940, giving Hitler a free hand in the east.

After 1815 British foreign policy, as regards Europe, was the containment of France, and the security of the Rhine Estuary and Channel ports, hence the creation of a Belgian state. Britain failed to come to terms with the rise of German economic-military might in the late 19th century….Bismarck’s forced resignation by the mentally unstable Kaiser Wilhelm effectively ended any Anglo-German entente. In 1914 Germany had a deliberate war aim of destroying Belgium and incorporating north-east France into a German protectorate…Britain, naturally, could not countenance such an agenda and, much too German surprise, defended Belgian neutrality in 1914.

The situation in 1939 was far different. For a start Britain had no effective means of power projection on the European land mass, this was seen all too clearly in the farcical 1940 French campaign. Second the UK had no means of guaranteeing anything in Eastern Europe to anyone. Third the Soviet Union was a potential enemy and certainly a state that had, by 1939, come to see little in an alliance with the Anglo-French. Fourth (crucially) Germany had no plan of campaign for Western Europe in 1939 beyond vague hints of a “settlement” with France towards the late 1940’s. In point of fact up until 1937 the War Office were still treating France as the UK’s likely opponent in any future war.


I know Hitler was famously an Anglophile, as were other top Nazis such as Goring and (the insane) Hess - though not Goebbels, who was actually more sympathetic towards the Soviets - but being an Anglophile is no guarantee that one will not attempt to destroy England if it doesn't toe the party line.

We know this, read Hitler’s table talk to see how quickly his attitude to the English changed after war broke out. Indeed Hitler did have positive attitudes towards England largely because we were seen as an example of his nonsensical “master race” propaganda, if the English could do what they did in India, why not Germany in Russia…….Hitler was going east, not west.


I think most English people, if offered a simple choice between German domination or American domination, would always choose the former colony with the same language.

You’re undoubtedly correct.;)

[Murphy]

So we have a German who is denying he is a German, and a German or two who are mocking a German for that German's self-denial of his Germaness?

Here was me thinking this was a thread about the Anglicization of the French language (?).

Regards,
The Papist.

[Wulfhere]

So we have a German who is denying he is a German, and a German or two who are mocking a German for that German's self-denial of his Germaness?

Here was me thinking this was a thread about the Anglicization of the French language (?).

Regards,
The Papist.

Which German was denying being German?

[Murphy]

Which German was denying being German?

You.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Wulfhere]

You.

Regards,
The Papist.

I find that very offensive.

[Murphy]

I find that very offensive.

I didn't make you a German, take that up with God when you see Him.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Jarl
Well it did not keep itself out. Crimea was one exception. But there were other, French-English and Dutch-English colonial conflicts. The only difference was that Europe was not the main theatre.

You’re dates are confused. England fought no conflict with either the French or Dutch after 1815, you’re thinking of the 17th and 18th not 19th and 20th centuries.


Of course not! And so Britain did not do much immediately.

Britain couldn’t do anything, hence the stupidity of guaranteeing the sovereignty of a state that Britain was in no position to protect.


Neither did France. But once Denmark, Norway and France were occupied it was time to act.

As I posted previously, the campaigns in Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries and France were fought after the Anglo-French declaration of war. Hitler had no intention of going west until then.


Britain had to act or she would cease to exist as an Empire with most of Europe in German hands.

As I have suggested that may have been so……but not in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947….by which time Hitler would (probably) have been defeated by Stalin anyway and the Red Army would have been on the Rhine or in Calais…..interesting to speculate that if England hadn’t declared war on Germany would Anglo-French forces have gone to Germany’s aid when the Soviets were invading Germany and threatening to camp on the Rhine in the late 1940’s.


Erroneous assumption? He did not expect it??? Of course how could he have expected this! After all Poland Britain and France formed a military alliance! Hitler was so mis-informed and naive... what a complete nonsense!

Britain and France guaranteed Czechoslovakia’s security in 1938 and then reneged on the agreement and sold the Czechs out at Munich. They didn’t bat an eye lid when Hitler took over Austria in the same year in a farcical plebiscite and ignored his deliberate mocking of the Versailles Treaty in 1936 when German forces occupied the Rhineland, after, also ignoring, German conscription in 1935. Faced with an alliance that had backed off several times, had sold out two countries and had no real interest in Polish security, especially when the Nazis and Soviets were now allies….yes I can imagine that, and documentation shows, that Hitler was indeed somewhat surprised….


He was so "amazed" and un-expecting that immediately after 1939, using Anglo-French inertion and phoney war, he conquered France and the whole Benelux in one swift, masterfully planned and conducted campaign. Whatever he wrote in Mein Kampf, he certainly well prepared the German army for war with France and took it into account.

You would be referring to Fall Gelb or “Case Yellow” drawn up, I believe, in November 1939 and detailing a plan for the German offensive through the Ardennes. The “Phoney War” was the preceding time period in which neither the Anglo-French nor Germans moved. First because the Anglo-French weren’t intending to do much other than wait for the Germans to move and second because the German High Command with little forward planning, beyond the normal contingency plans that any competent military has, were arguing over exactly where to attack. The Netherlands and Belgium were never seriously going to hold out against a concentrated German strike, that France fell in six weeks is still astonishing today and the reasons much debated. The French army in 1936 was actually the largest and most advanced military in Europe. In 1940 it’s armoured units were using more effective tanks than the Germans. The problem was two fold. First the psychological scars of 1914-1918 never quite healed for France and defeatism was rife in their military, second Britain and France hadn’t been keeping up with the times and were largely expecting to fight the 1914 war again.


The fact is that the British elites saw no room for a "settlement". They had some reasons for it. It was not just mere sacrifice for Poland.

I agree they did decide to draw a line in the sand, Hitler broke his promises as easily as any statesman....their decision isn't being debated, the wisdom of it is. Chamberlain knew Hitler could not be trusted after Munich and acknowledged that the agreement amounted to a "total defeat" of British policy.


When? When did Hitler try to make a settlement with Briatin???

I’m assuming you actually have some knowledge of the period of history? I have to ask because I don’t really want to give a full blown account of Anglo-German diplomatic relations post 1933. That Hitler did attempt an alliance with the UK is obvious to any who have made some attempt to study the period.


Hitler offered to defend UK??? When, against whom???

August 31st 1939 in exchange for Danzig and former German colonies, Hitler offered to defend the British Empire.

This book explains Hitler’s view of Britain as both Nordic ally and role model. Gerwin Strobl shows that there was a surprising level of affection for Britain and British culture among ordinary Germans, from the discourses of the 1920s to the vigorous anti-British propaganda of the war years. Despite Hitler’s tactical duplicity at Munich, there is overwhelming evidence that one of the Nazis’ fundamental objectives was to forge an alliance with Britain and to emulate the ‘ruthlessness’ of the British Empire in dealing with eastern Europe. For the German public, admiration of Britain and enjoyment of its culture were enduring factors, even during Goebbels’ frequent attacks; but both the Reich leadership and ordinary Germans otherwise lacked first-hand knowledge of Britain, while independent sources were suppressed. The book includes a number of unusual and striking illustrations, most of which will be unfamiliar to modern readers.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Germanic-Isle-Nazi-Perceptions-Britain/dp/0521046513/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264368517&sr=8-1

An interesting read I might add.


He “guaranteed” peace to Poland and Russia before he invaded them

Indeed he did!


"Supposedly"...

I’m sorry….I must be mistaken…….I thought that Neville Chamberlain’s government declared war on Germany at 11.15am, September 3rd 1939 because (and I quote Neville Chamberlain’s radio broadcast):

This morning, the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German government a final note, stating that unless the British government had heard from them by 11 o’ clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us….

[Wulfhere]

I didn't make you a German, take that up with God when you see Him.

Regards,
The Papist.

Just because the term "Germanic" has been applied to the group of cultures in question, it doesn't mean that they all German. Personally, I prefer older terms such as "Teutonic", precisely to avoid the mistakes of the ignorant.

[Murphy]

Just because the term "Germanic" has been applied to the group of cultures in question, it doesn't mean that they all German. Personally, I prefer older terms such as "Teutonic", precisely to avoid the mistakes of the ignorant.

Oh I know that not Germanic doesn't equate with German. Norwegians for example are Germanic but not Germans. Saxons on the other hand are Germans, and since you take so much pride in being Saxon rather than English, then you're also German.

Or are you Mercian? Just what exactly are you? You seem a little unsure yourself.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Wulfhere]

Oh I know that not Germanic doesn't equate with German. Norwegians for example are Germanic but not Germans. Saxons on the other hand are Germans, and since you take so much pride in being Saxon rather than English, then you're also German.

Or are you Mercian? Just what exactly are you? You seem a little unsure yourself.

Regards,
The Papist.

Well that's where you're just plain wrong, I'm afraid. In fact, I'm an Angle. Did you know that the Mercian royal family was descended from that of the Angles? In any case, the Mercians were Angles, and the Angles came from an area that now straddles the border of Denmark and Germany. They were Ingaevones, or North Sea Germanic. Modern German is from a different branch of Germanic. North Sea Germanic survives today in English and Frisian.

[Murphy]

Well that's where you're just plain wrong, I'm afraid. In fact, I'm an Angle. Did you know that the Mercian royal family was descended from that of the Angles? In any case, the Mercians were Angles, and the Angles came from an area that now straddles the border of Denmark and Germany. They were Ingaevones, or North Sea Germanic. Modern German is from a different branch of Germanic. North Sea Germanic survives today in English and Frisian.

I bet you're actually a Norman.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Loki]

Off-topic discussion moved here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12596).

[Svanhild]

Well that's where you're just plain wrong, I'm afraid. In fact, I'm an Angle. Did you know that the Mercian royal family was descended from that of the Angles? In any case, the Mercians were Angles, and the Angles came from an area that now straddles the border of Denmark and Germany. They were Ingaevones, or North Sea Germanic. Modern German is from a different branch of Germanic. North Sea Germanic survives today in English and Frisian.
And large parts of Frisians subsist in Germany. Ingaevones were tribes residing in Holstein, Jutland and Frisia. They are the direct forebears of the population in Schleswig-Holstein and parts of Niedersachsen which are, by the last time I checked, German federal states. :wink

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Germanic_Groups_ca._0CE.jpg

Your North Sea Germanics lived on present day German and Non-German territories to the same proportions: Denmark and Netherlands to roughly 50% and Germany to 50%. Your emotional distance to the Germans is entirely artificial, bigoted and a result of the world wars. You admit it yourself. To put it simply, you're showing us a pathetical performance.

[Cail]

And large parts of Frisians subsist in Germany. Ingaevones were tribes residing in Holstein, Jutland and Frisia. They are the direct forebears of the population in Schleswig-Holstein and parts of Niedersachsen which are, by the last time I checked, German federal states. :wink
So what? So called "Low German", Plattdüütsch, is Ingvaeonic, it belongs to the same branch as Frisian and English. The situation with local languages in Germany is disastrous btw. The only country in Europe which has it worse is France probably.

[Jarl]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Germanic_Groups_ca._0CE.jpg

This map, following the lines of pre-WWII (and post-WWII) German archeology, assumes the whole Przeworsk/Oksywie culture between Elbe and Vistula was Germanic. As Germanic as the Elbe basin. In fact there is no proof for that.

What's worse. The map even crosses the Bug river into Wester Ukraine and Zarubintsy-Zubra culture, and crosses the Vistula into Prussia, Samland and parts of Lithuania (Olsztyn, Samland archeological groups) which were almost definitely non-Germanic. I wonder what's the source of this map...

[Svanhild]

The situation with local languages in Germany is disastrous btw. The only country in Europe which has it worse is France probably.
Then you're badly informed, Germany is one of the countries with the most regional and local languages in Europe. There're Plattdütsch courses in school and Frisian clubs. Many people use the language and local color in their leisure time or at school or work and pass it to their children. There's a growth in matters of self-conception as Frisians and Plattdeutsche. Germany's identity is made up of varying German tribes working together. Frisians consider themselves as Frisians and Germans and Schleswing-Holsteiner consider themselves as Schleswig-Holsteiner and Germans. Our Frisians feel German and don't care about individuals from England, Belarus or Poland who want to tell them that they don't have to feel Germans from the outside. :wink Last but not least, my own family is of particular Plattdeutsch origin therefore my concept is based on real experiences and not on biased foreign second-hand and second-class literature and sources.

[Zyklop]

This map, following the lines of pre-WWII (and post-WWII) German archeology, Oh please spare us this Pan-Slavic bullshit.

Ptolemy´s geographical works (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/_Texts/Ptolemy/home.html)

Tacitus - Germania (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/tacitus-germanygord.html)

JORDANES - THE ORIGIN AND DEEDS OF THE GOTHS (http://www.ucalgary.ca/%7Evandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html)

Paulus Diaconus - Historia Langobardorum (http://www.oeaw.ac.at/gema/lango%20paulus.htm)

Pliny the Elder, The Natural History (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Pliny_the_Elder/home.html) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fperseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de%2Fcgi-bin%2Fptext%3Fdoc%3DPerseus%253Atext%253A1999.02.0 137%26query%3Dhead%253D%25231)

[Jarl]

Oh please spare us this Pan-Slavic bullshit.

Ptolemy´s geographical works (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/_Texts/Ptolemy/home.html)

Tacitus - Germania (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/tacitus-germanygord.html)

JORDANES - THE ORIGIN AND DEEDS OF THE GOTHS (http://www.ucalgary.ca/%7Evandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html)

Paulus Diaconus - Historia Langobardorum (http://www.oeaw.ac.at/gema/lango%20paulus.htm)

Pliny the Elder, The Natural History (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Pliny_the_Elder/home.html) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fperseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de%2Fcgi-bin%2Fptext%3Fdoc%3DPerseus%253Atext%253A1999.02.0 137%26query%3Dhead%253D%25231)


No. You spare us your German propaganda bullshit and prove that the Lugii and Venedi described by Pliny and Ptolemy in the Vistula basin were Germanic. Or the Baltic Aesti described by Tacitus. I have already proven you were wrong with the Silingi, which were blatantly described along the Elbe with Semnones and Calucones - you quoted bullshit wikipedia although you have not read Ptolemy's "Geography".

Only in the German literature Przeworsk-Oksywie cultures are undisputedly Germanic. But that map suggests even Zarubintsy and West Baltic cultures were Germanic. Utter nonsesne.

Goths might have indded been present. But archeological cultures between Oder and Vistula were several and presented a mosaic of different influences, sometimes very different. So quit simplifying the history/archeological evidence, coz it suits your German nationalist POV.




You’re dates are confused. England fought no conflict with either the French or Dutch after 1815, you’re thinking of the 17th and 18th not 19th and 20th centuries.


Yes. They did not engage in open warfare, yet there were tensions, like the Fashoda Incident. Or in the Far East where Franco-Russian bloc was opposed by Anglo-Japanese alliance.


Britain couldn’t do anything, hence the stupidity of guaranteeing the sovereignty of a state that Britain was in no position to protect.

It could not, but why call it "stupidity"? Perhaps protection was not really the main aim. Probably British diplomacy did not expect Hitler to breach the non-agression pact with Poland and run the risk of war against Franco-Anglo-Polish alliance. Why are you assuming they were idiots who promised something that was impossible coz they believed it was possible??? Which indeed would be stupid... but politics is not always about the possible. They most definitely had their reasons to oppose Hitler and forge an alliance. Accusation it was mere "stupidity" of a bunch of British cabinet loonies is somewhat vague and unfounded, don't you think so?



As I posted previously, the campaigns in Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries and France were fought after the Anglo-French declaration of war. Hitler had no intention of going west until then.

No! That is only your assumption! Why are you assuming this??? My answer to that is - nonsense:


1. Nazi Germany was well informed on the international relations. They knew about the Franco-Polish and Anglo-Polish guarantees. They knew about the Anglo-Soviet negotiations. They had a staff of competent generals and diplomats who took every possibility into account. War with France and England was an obvious possibility. Saying they were "surprised" and "unprepared" seems totally bizzare. They were not 10 year old children playing "Risk", but proffessional diplomats and generals, some of whom remembered WW I and Versailles.


2. Hitler not only took into account the was, but was well-prepared for it. The campaign in France. It took him about a month to bring the whole country to its knees. It does not matter what Hitler "wanted". It matters what he did. Perhaps he wanted to go East. Perhaps he initially did not want war with France. Yet so it happened that he did invace the West. He did bomb Britain and he did declare war on US - the most bizzare mystery of whole WW II. These are the facts. What are you trying to pardon here? Excuse Adolf Hitler with purpoted "surprise" and his supposed good intentions??? Why the facts are blatantly different. There was a non-agression pact, a Polish-French and Polish-British treaty in force. Yet Hitler chose to disregard them. He was not a fool nor a naive baby-boy. He knew there was a possibility of war versus France and England. Yet he did not withdraw his troops, he did not just settle down for the corridor and he started mass-exterminations and re-settlements straight away. He did not seek an agreement. Nor in September 1939, nor in any other month of the 8-month long phoney war. Instead, he chose to make friends with Soviet Russia and take action, even if it meant a total European war.







As I have suggested that may have been so……but not in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947….by which time Hitler would (probably) have been defeated by Stalin anyway and the Red Army would have been on the Rhine or in Calais…..interesting to speculate that if England hadn’t declared war on Germany would Anglo-French forces have gone to Germany’s aid when the Soviets were invading Germany and threatening to camp on the Rhine in the late 1940’s.

Let's however focus on facts. The facts are that Hitler did invade Benelux, Denmark, Norway and France. He did go West. He did bomb Britain. Even if, like you assume, he was an opportunist and this was not his original plan that does not provide any excuse for the crimes he commited. Coz when the opportunity arose he did go for it. He did not want to obey British demands, nor he wanted to seek peaceful resolution. A second Munich. He chose the rough way. And at the very next opportunity waged war on the West.


Britain and France guaranteed Czechoslovakia’s security in 1938 and then reneged on the agreement and sold the Czechs out at Munich. They didn’t bat an eye lid when Hitler took over Austria in the same year in a farcical plebiscite and ignored his deliberate mocking of the Versailles Treaty in 1936 when German forces occupied the Rhineland, after, also ignoring, German conscription in 1935. Faced with an alliance that had backed off several times, had sold out two countries and had no real interest in Polish security, especially when the Nazis and Soviets were now allies….yes I can imagine that, and documentation shows, that Hitler was indeed somewhat surprised….

Sorry, but this is not what the documentation shows. Hitler said explicitly before Fall Weiss "our enemies are worms, Ive seen them in Munich". He knew his potential enemies. He knew that another total European war was a possibility. But he was certain of Germany's potential and not afraid.


You would be referring to Fall Gelb or “Case Yellow” drawn up, I believe, in November 1939 and detailing a plan for the German offensive through the Ardennes. The “Phoney War” was the preceding time period in which neither the Anglo-French nor Germans moved. First because the Anglo-French weren’t intending to do much other than wait for the Germans to move and second because the German High Command with little forward planning, beyond the normal contingency plans that any competent military has, were arguing over exactly where to attack. The Netherlands and Belgium were never seriously going to hold out against a concentrated German strike, that France fell in six weeks is still astonishing today and the reasons much debated. The French army in 1936 was actually the largest and most advanced military in Europe. In 1940 it’s armoured units were using more effective tanks than the Germans. The problem was two fold. First the psychological scars of 1914-1918 never quite healed for France and defeatism was rife in their military, second Britain and France hadn’t been keeping up with the times and were largely expecting to fight the 1914 war again.

Indeed. They underestimated the enemy. Particularly the tanks and Luftwaffe.


I’m sorry….I must be mistaken…….I thought that Neville Chamberlain’s government declared war on Germany at 11.15am, September 3rd 1939 because (and I quote Neville Chamberlain’s radio broadcast):

This morning, the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German government a final note, stating that unless the British government had heard from them by 11 o’ clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us….

I agree they did decide to draw a line in the sand, Hitler broke his promises as easily as any statesman....their decision isn't being debated, the wisdom of it is. Chamberlain knew Hitler could not be trusted after Munich and acknowledged that the agreement amounted to a "total defeat" of British policy.

August 31st 1939 in exchange for Danzig and former German colonies, Hitler offered to defend the British Empire.


And why would you debate its wisdom and call it "stupid"?

[Wulfhere]

And large parts of Frisians subsist in Germany. Ingaevones were tribes residing in Holstein, Jutland and Frisia. They are the direct forebears of the population in Schleswig-Holstein and parts of Niedersachsen which are, by the last time I checked, German federal states. :wink

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Germanic_Groups_ca._0CE.jpg

Your North Sea Germanics lived on present day German and Non-German territories to the same proportions: Denmark and Netherlands to roughly 50% and Germany to 50%. Your emotional distance to the Germans is entirely artificial, bigoted and a result of the world wars. You admit it yourself. To put it simply, you're showing us a pathetical performance.

Whilst the populations of those areas are no doubt descended from the Ingaevones, linguistically and culturally they have been assimilated by the Germans - with the exception of the small pockets of Frisian speakers in Saterland, North Friesland and Heligoland. These minorities are, I believe, the continual butt of what passes for humour amongst Germans.

Culturally and linguistically, modern Germans descend from the Central Europeans known as High Germans. These cultures evolved hundreds of miles away from the sea, hence their major differences both emotionally and linguistically.

And for a German to call someone else - anyone else - "bigoted" is just about as risible as it comes.

[Wulfhere]

Then you're badly informed, Germany is one of the countries with the most regional and local languages in Europe. There're Plattdütsch courses in school and Frisian clubs. Many people use the language and local color in their leisure time or at school or work and pass it to their children. There's a growth in matters of self-conception as Frisians and Plattdeutsche. Germany's identity is made up of varying German tribes working together. Frisians consider themselves as Frisians and Germans and Schleswing-Holsteiner consider themselves as Schleswig-Holsteiner and Germans. Our Frisians feel German and don't care about individuals from England, Belarus or Poland who want to tell them that they don't have to feel Germans from the outside. :wink Last but not least, my own family is of particular Plattdeutsch origin therefore my concept is based on real experiences and not on biased foreign second-hand and second-class literature and sources.

So the Frisians feel German do they? So what about Frisian independence movements, such as the following?

http://www.groepfanauwerk.com/

You appear to be merely repeating what the German state would like people to believe.

[Svanhild]

Culturally and linguistically, modern Germans descend from the Central Europeans known as High Germans.
The concept of High Germans and Low Germans is a linguistical concept, not an ethnical concept. Consult a book, the keyword "Benrath line" will be a good start. :wink


So the Frisians feel German do they? So what about Frisian independence movements, such as the following?

http://www.groepfanauwerk.com/

You appear to be merely repeating what the German state would like people to believe.
Groep fan Auwerk is an initiative of mainly Dutch Frisians and you can count the serious supporters one a few hands. Most of the sympathisizers want to express local color and they're right with their attitude. A sovereign Frisian state with a seperation from the Netherlands and Germany is regarded as a joke by most Frisians. Exceptions prove the rule.

[Wulfhere]

The concept of High Germans and Low Germans is a linguistical concept, not an ethnical concept. Consult a book, the keyword "Benrath line" will be a good start. :wink

Language, culture and ethnicity go hand-in-hand - otherwise 90% of the stuff people say on this forum would be complete tosh. But it's obviously true anyway - language shapes how we think, and both creates and is created by our culture. This in turn produces an ethnicity, a common feeling of belonging.

[Cail]

Then you're badly informed, Germany is one of the countries with the most regional and local languages in Europe. There're Plattdütsch courses in school and Frisian clubs.

The fact is, that number of Plattdütsch speakers is in decline. Today, only 3 millions people are true native-speakers, and majority of them live in rural areas and/or are old. The criteria of language "success" or, better, survivability is how well it is passed to the younger generations, how many young people are true native speakers (preferably monolingual). Same with Frisian, though it is in much better situation in Netherlands.

Lower Sorbian language is soon going to be extinct, because of the same reasons (less and less young people are true native speakers), Upper Sorbian is in better position though.

Actually, even most German dialects themselves gradually become extinct, displaced by literary standard language.

[Wulfhere]

Groep fan Auwerk is an initiative of Dutch Frisians and you can count the serious supporters one a few hands.

No, it is specifically a creation of Frisians from the East Friesland region of Germany - hence their use of the name Auwerk (Aurich).

[Loki]

So the Frisians feel German do they? So what about Frisian independence movements, such as the following?

http://www.groepfanauwerk.com/



I guess your Mercian independence movement doesn't feel English then? Just sayin' ... :wink

[Wulfhere]

I guess your Mercian independence movement doesn't feel English then? Just sayin' ... :wink

We feel English to be a term that applies to Mercians, Northumbrians, West Saxons etc. alike. And it goes without saying we all speak dialects of the same language.

This is not what the Frisians in Germany feel - they speak a totally different language and don't feel German at all. Read their website.

[hereward]

And who created England? Where did the Angles and Saxons come from?

English was Anglo-Saxon at the beginning. The Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes located in Central Europe, today it's Germany. On the paper, you're speaking a mutated German dialect by the name of "English" with loads of borrowed words from Romance languages. :wink Old English and Old High German share a lot of similarities.

The tribes you are talking about are Germanic not ''German'':thumbs up, they came from the danish penninsula and what is now modern day northern Germany, Netherlands and Flanders.

[Wulfhere]

The tribes you are talking about are Germanic not ''German'':thumbs up, they came from the danish penninsula and what is now modern day northern Germany, Netherlands and Flanders.

Exactly. If it wasn't so well-entrenched I wouldn't use the term "Germanic" at all, since it's so liable to misinterpretation. North Sea Germanic, or Ingaevone - from which English and Frisian descend - is a distinct linguistic group (and therefore culture) in its own right. One that only survives in Germany, in Frisian enclaves, by the skin of its teeth.

[hereward]

Am quite happy to use Germanic. By the way, even more off topic, I loathe the term Anglo-Saxon, created by Normans. Its English or Germanic tribes, we dont go round calling others non historical or irrelevant names based on a couple of tribes.

[Wulfhere]

Am quite happy to use Germanic. By the way, even more off topic, I loathe the term Anglo-Saxon, created by Normans. Its English or Germanic tribes, we dont go round calling others non historical or irrelevant names based on a couple of tribes.

I don't really mind Anglo-Saxon - it's a fair description, after all. And it existed before the Normans too - Alfred, Edward, Athelstan and Edmund all styled themselves rex Angulsaxonum. http://www.archontology.org/nations/england/anglosaxon/01_kingstyle_0871.php

[Beorn]

Its English or Germanic tribes, we dont go round calling others non historical or irrelevant names based on a couple of tribes.

I would say Germanic is a very irrelevant name. We define ourselves by the region we come from and the nation that binds us.

[hereward]

Funny, in all my years of reading the subject(scholary, Frank Stenton etc) I have never heard the term. I also have various pedigree's compiled from original sources written from the 1880's onwards that do not involve the term. Still, these tribes became the English and that is who they are. I dont refer to the scots as Damnonii-Selgovae(excuse the analogy)

[hereward]

I would say Germanic is a very irrelevant name. We define ourselves by the region we come from and the nation that binds us.

Its as relevant as Slavic and Celtic, the latter is used extensively, right or wrong.

[Wulfhere]

Funny, in all my years of reading the subject(scholary, Frank Stenton etc) I have never heard the term. I also have various pedigree's compiled from original sources written from the 1880's onwards that do not involve the term. Still, these tribes became the English and that is who they are. I dont refer to the scots as Damnonii-Selgovae(excuse the analogy)

Anglo-Saxon was invented by the West Saxons when they became dominant in England to counter the fact that the Angles - the Mercians - had been dominant for centuries and gave their name to the English.

[Wulfhere]

Its as relevant as Slavic and Celtic, the latter is used extensively, right or wrong.

Celtic is an invented term of course, though Slavic derives from their own word for themselves.

[hereward]

Understand the dominance of the north angles then the middle angles, just am surprised by the term being used, even found it on wiki, am genuinely shocked. Still does not change my aversion to the term.

[Beorn]

Its as relevant as Slavic and Celtic, the latter is used extensively, right or wrong.

Not very relevant then. :wink

'Celtic' is only relevant today for those which seek to distance themselves away from the English, or the Sassenachs as they often refer to us as.

[hereward]

Yes, hence why I said right or wrong. The term slavic is older, but Germanic is a correct discription. We are of one blood and one bone, to quote St Boniface, though its truth has faded on all sides with the march of history

[Wulfhere]

Yes, hence why I said right or wrong. The term slavic is older, but Germanic is a correct discription. We are of one blood and one bone, to quote St Boniface, though its truth has faded on all sides with the march of history

Germanic comes from Latin, and bears no relation to anything the Germanic peoples have ever called themselves.

[hereward]

Dont know if a thread has been started, but maybe a thread on what those of us of English descent and birth consider ourselves to be should be started in the English section.

[Beorn]

Yes, hence why I said right or wrong.

Yes, just having an extra word towards the discussion. :)


Germanic .... We are of one blood and one bone, to quote St Boniface, though its truth has faded on all sides with the march of history

St. Boniface never had the benefit of modern genetic research then :D

[hereward]

Germanic comes from Latin, and bears no relation to anything the Germanic peoples have ever called themselves.

Yes, Germanicus. I am not aware of any word that describes germanic people in a collective sense that stems from there language group. But there is shared common descent in backgroung between these peoples, so I think Germanic is apt, otherwise it would not be used.

[Wulfhere]

Yes, Germanicus. I am not aware of any word that describes germanic people in a collective sense that stems from there language group. But there is shared common descent in backgroung between these peoples, so I think Germanic is apt, otherwise it would not be used.

I prefer older terms like Teutonic, simply because Germanic is so often used as a synonym for German. It's Latin origin doesn't really bother me.

[hereward]

Yes, just having an extra word towards the discussion. :)



St. Boniface never had the benefit of modern genetic research then :D

Have not seen any genetic research that takes into account the following historical demograhic changes in these countries, ecspecially England in the last 300 years. I will await the time when genealogists and genetic testing can work more in unison, just hope that time is not so distant:D

[hereward]

I prefer older terms like Teutonic, simply because Germanic is so often used as a synonym for German. It's Latin origin doesn't really bother me.

Funny, its vice-versa for me:cool:

[Hrolf Kraki]

We shouldn't forget though that half of English vocabulary (though definitely not the everyday vocabulary of normal folk) is French. So we're just giving them a taste of their own medicine. One of English's greatest strengths, unlike French, is its willingness to absorb new words.

Damn straight! haha.

Although it should be noted that 100/100 of the most used English words are of Germanic origin.

[Wulfhere]

Damn straight! haha.

Although it should be noted that 100/100 of the most used English words are of Germanic origin.

That's absolutely right. Written English does not reflect the spoken language very well, nor indeed its dialects within England. Interesting user name, by the way.

[Svanhild]

This is not what the Frisians in Germany feel - they speak a totally different language and don't feel German at all. Read their website.
Most Frisians in Germany feel Frisian and German contemporaneously, like Saxons feel Saxon and German and like Swabians feel Swabian and German. And like Mercians feel Mercian and English. They speak both languages, and Frisian is related to Low German and Dutch. The fact of the matter is that Dutch is a further developed form of Low German. :wink The website is not a website representative for all Frisians, that's wishful thinking of your side, but the project of a minority group of Frisians on both sides of the German-Dutch border. Again I reiterate that I have Low Germans in my family, therefore I'm more familiar with the situation of the people existing there than foreigners from Poland or the British Isles with potential second-hand views and biased sources or judgemental opinions.

[Wulfhere]

Most Frisians in Germany feel Frisian and German contemporaneously, like Saxons feel Saxon and German and like Swabians feel Swabian and German. And like Mercians feel Mercian and English. They speak both languages, and Frisian is related to Low German and Dutch. The fact of the matter is that Dutch is a further developed form of Low German. :wink The website is not a website representative for all Frisians, that's wishful thinking of your side, but the project of a minority group of Frisians on both sides of the German-Dutch border. Again I reiterate that I have Low Germans in my family, therefore I'm more familiar with the situation of the people existing there than foreigners from Poland or the British Isles with potential second-hand views and biased sources or judgemental opinions.

I wonder if you've actually met any Frisians, because I assure you that every single one I've ever spoken to feels Frisian, and not German or Dutch or whichever modern state they happen to reside in. Frisian is indeed related to Low German and Dutch, but not particularly closely - no more closely than English is, for example. The fact is that the Frisians in Germany have been treated appallingly by Germans for centuries, and their language and culture barely survive. To them, Germans are the aggressors.

[Jarl]

No doubts about the Dutch Frisians, but to be honest the "German Frisians" ie. the Saterland Frisians are so few they will probably go extinct over the next couple of generations. If they really had some strong sense of separate identity they would have survived. There's about 1000 native speakers of this language at the moment.

This is actually a good subject for my "European ethnicities on the verge of extinction" thread. Saterlandic is a seriously endangered language, though apparently the no of young speakers has risen recently... I wonder if they will stick to themselves and keep their heritage.



The fact is that the Frisians in Germany have been treated appallingly by Germans for centuries, and their language and culture barely survive. To them, Germans are the aggressors.

I am not sure about the treatment of Frisians, but it seems there has been little done to perserve the language...after wiki:

The German government has not committed significant resources to the preservation of Sater Frisian. Most of the work to secure the endurance of this language is therefore done by the Seelter Buund ("Saterlandic Alliance"). Along with North Frisian and five other languages, Sater Frisian was included in Part III of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by Germany in 1998.

But then I guess its been more voluntary recession then enforced. Low Saxon has receded too. It seems to me that the Frisian national awakening is a rather recent phenomenon. Mainly imbued by their West Frisian neighbours.

[Zyklop]

I wonder if you've actually met any Frisians, because I assure you that every single one I've ever spoken to feels Frisian,
As if every nerd with an internet independence "movement" would count. As long as you haven't spoken to this guy you have no idea about Frisian opinion anyway:
http://www.mark-wohlrab.de/portrait/images/Otto%20Walkes.jpg

[Wulfhere]

No doubts about the Dutch Frisians, but to be honest the "German Frisians" ie. the Saterland Frisians are so few they will probably go extinct over the next couple of generations. If they really had some strong sense of separate identity they would have survived. There's about 1000 native speakers of this language at the moment.

This is actually a good subject for my "European ethnicities on the verge of extinction" thread. Saterlandic is a seriously endangered language, though apparently the no of young speakers has risen recently... I wonder if they will stick to themselves and keep their heritage.




I am not sure about the treatment of Frisians, but it seems there has been little done to perserve the language...after wiki:

The German government has not committed significant resources to the preservation of Sater Frisian. Most of the work to secure the endurance of this language is therefore done by the Seelter Buund ("Saterlandic Alliance"). Along with North Frisian and five other languages, Sater Frisian was included in Part III of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by Germany in 1998.

But then I guess its been more voluntary recession then enforced. Low Saxon has receded too. It seems to me that the Frisian national awakening is a rather recent phenomenon. Mainly imbued by their West Frisian neighbours.

There's also North Frisian in Schleswig-Holstein, with about 10,000 speakers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Frisian

Saterland Frisian is indeed in very bad shape, and is the last surviving remnant of East Frisian. But, as you say, there are hopeful signs.

In Germany, according to an informant of mine, they tell Frisian jokes in the same way as (some) English people tell Irish jokes.

As Anglians and Mercian nationalists we have close links with our Frisian kin both in Germany and the Netherlands, and fully support their movement for self-determination.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Jarl
Perhaps protection was not really the main aim.

The Western alliance needed an eastern front against Germany, Poland was it.


Probably British diplomacy did not expect Hitler to breach the non-agression pact with Poland and run the risk of war against Franco-Anglo-Polish alliance.

Then they sent mixed signals to Hitler...


Why are you assuming they were idiots who promised something that was impossible coz they believed it was possible???

Chamberlain knew well that the British military was in no state to fight a war in Europe let alone one in Eastern Europe.


Which indeed would be stupid...

Quite.


but politics is not always about the possible.

Cliché.


They most definitely had their reasons to oppose Hitler and forge an alliance.

Obviously.


Accusation it was mere "stupidity" of a bunch of British cabinet loonies is somewhat vague and unfounded, don't you think so?

“Loonies”? Your words.

As for being “vague” and “unfounded” the very policy of appeasement has been questioned since the war, as has Chamberlain’s decision to begin a war over Polish sovereignty, was Chamberlain certain of war with Germany? One of the reasons he gave for the Munich Agreement was the inferiority of the British military in 1938, there was appreciable difference in 1939 but are we to suspect that the British had a long term plan of war against a resurgent Germany?


No! That is only your assumption! Why are you assuming this??? My answer to that is - nonsense:

My answer to that is Mein Kampf, Hitler’s table talk and several other sources I have read over the years……I’m going by the words the man wrote, or by people close to him, that’s why I’m “assuming” it. I would have thought Hitler would have been the very man to assess as regards his thinking at that time…..


Let's however focus on facts.

That’s what I’m doing.


The facts are that Hitler did invade Benelux, Denmark, Norway and France. He did go West.

After the Anglo-French alliance declared war, we’ve already been over this, I’m regarding Hitler’s pre war aims and planning, you’re looking at the situation forced on him by Anglo-French manoeuvres. Let’s also not forget that Hitler offered peace to the British after the fall of France…he didn’t want the war, he wasn’t fighting the war he wanted to fight (in Russia).


Sorry, but this is not what the documentation shows. Hitler said explicitly before Fall Weiss "our enemies are worms, Ive seen them in Munich".

And???


He knew his potential enemies. He knew that another total European war was a possibility. But he was certain of Germany's potential and not afraid.

He was certain Britain and France wouldn’t fight and for good reason. The Anglo-French had proved themselves weak and had backed down to Hitler on all points, was Hitler really to treat the reluctant “guarantee” of Polish security in March 1939 by the Chamberlain government seriously when they had made similar commitments to Czechoslovakia and backed down? The British Foreign Office even deemed German demands of Poland as “reasonable”.

He had neutralised any potential Soviet involvement, after the Anglo-French alliance with Poland he postponed his invasion but went ahead because he truly believed that one the British and French wouldn’t fight over Poland when they hadn’t over Austria or Czechoslovakia and two even if they did the war would be over in the east so quick that they would come to their senses and see the stupidity in fighting a war for a country that no longer existed and would go back to the negotiating table. Hitler had every indication that the West was impotent. Given his ambition in the East it would have been idiotic in the extreme to pre-empt a war with the Western powers. That he didn’t believe it probable is the rational behind his invasion of Poland in September 1939.


And why would you debate its wisdom and call it "stupid"?

Where is the wisdom in “guaranteeing” to defend the territorial integrity of a state that had no hope in defending itself against Germany and that you could not provide any realistic military assistance to?

Where is the wisdom in beginning a war you didn’t need to fight (Tony Blair may be asking himself this) against a state that had no intention of fighting a western conflict any time in the foreseeable future and who would, more than likely, be engaged in an ongoing struggle with the Soviets?

[Jarl]

My answer to that is Mein Kampf

"Mein Kampf" was written in 1923 and published in 1925. Hitler was not in charge. He was in prison. Germany was occupied and disarmed, economically weakened. These were totally different circumstances and can hardly be used as proof for anything that happened in the 30s. It cant be used as a proof that by 1939 Hitler was not considering war against France.


He was certain Britain and France wouldn’t fight and for good reason.

Was he? I am always disturbed by such bold statements.

He might have been expecting Britain would back down, but most certainly he took into account the prospect of war with France. By 1939 Britain and France were German enemies as he said it himself. He was not afraid of confronting France.


The Anglo-French had proved themselves weak and had backed down to Hitler on all points, was Hitler really to treat the reluctant “guarantee” of Polish security in March 1939 by the Chamberlain government seriously when they had made similar commitments to Czechoslovakia and backed down? The British Foreign Office even deemed German demands of Poland as “reasonable”.

But what does that add into our discussion?


He had neutralised any potential Soviet involvement, after the Anglo-French alliance with Poland he postponed his invasion but went ahead because he truly believed that one the British and French wouldn’t fight over Poland when they hadn’t over Austria or Czechoslovakia and two even if they did the war would be over in the east so quick that they would come to their senses and see the stupidity in fighting a war for a country that no longer existed and would go back to the negotiating table.

Again - "he truly believed" - I got no clue where you source these confident statements from. Whatever he believed, he knew it was a gamble and he was not afraid of risking the war against France and Britain. What are you trying to imply? That German general staff and Hitler never even considered such a possibility???


Hitler had every indication that the West was impotent. Given his ambition in the East it would have been idiotic in the extreme to pre-empt a war with the Western powers. That he didn’t believe it probable is the rational behind his invasion of Poland in September 1939.

Totally absurd. I do not believe he expected Germany's arch-enemy, France, to remain neutral while Germany would conquer half of Europe. He was certainly well prepared for war against France and must have taken it into consideration while declaring war on her ally - Poland.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Jarl
"Mein Kampf" was written in 1923 and published in 1925. Hitler was not in charge. He was in prison. Germany was occupied and disarmed, economically weakened. These were totally different circumstances and can hardly be used as proof for anything that happened in the 30s. It cant be used as a proof that by 1939 Hitler was not considering war against France.

Mein Kampf is used by any realistic and component historian studying Hitler’s aims and agendas. To use your, frankly asinine, proposal would mean consigning to the bin much, if not all, of the last sixty years of study on Hitler’s war aims.


He might have been expecting Britain would back down, but most certainly he took into account the prospect of war with France.

Hitler understood that war with France meant war with Britain, Anglo-French discussions on military matters and containment of Germany were frequent in the inter-war years. Britain also had detailed plans for the mobilisation of the BEF to aid France in the event of war with Germany. Hitler had tried to detach Britain from France, indeed he wished for an Anglo-German-Italian coalition in Europe. In 1936 he attempted to create an alliance with Britain, which the British soundly rejected. It would be absurd in the extreme to suggest that Britain would have allowed France to fight against Germany alone.


By 1939 Britain and France were German enemies as he said it himself. He was not afraid of confronting France.

He wasn’t “afraid” no.


But what does that add into our discussion?

The implication is obviously clear….


I got no clue where you source these confident statements from.

Have you in any depth studied the subject? Have you read Mein Kampf? Have you read Hitler’s table talk? Have you any knowledge of the documentation surrounding the political and diplomatic situation of the period? If not I suggest some research on your part may well illuminate some of your disquiet.


Totally absurd. I do not believe he expected Germany's arch-enemy, France, to remain neutral while Germany would conquer half of Europe.

What you believe isn’t relevant, what Hitler believed is. So far I have seen no evidence to support your assertions in any documentation I have personally studied. Perhaps you can highlight for me the relevant texts to suggest that Hitler was planning a war in the West for 1939? This is your argument is it not?


He was certainly well prepared for war against France and must have taken it into consideration while declaring war on her ally - Poland.

He did take it into consideration, discounted it as unlikely or irrelevant even if they did and invaded Poland…….

[The Lawspeaker]

You’re dates are confused. England fought no conflict with either the French or Dutch after 1815, you’re thinking of the 17th and 18th not 19th and 20th centuries.

That is if you ignore your countries' little genocide of the Afrikaners (the Boer Wars).. who happen to be our kin.

Fact of the matter is that in 1940 British troops also fought the (Vichy) French (and again in 1942). Just think about the operations in North Africa and the 1940 Mers-el-Kebir raid of Force H. That might not be an official war but the raid of Force H alone killed over a 1000 French.

The reason is pretty simple though: the British were terrified that the French fleet could end up in German hands so they offered the French to hand over (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir) their fleet. The French refused and the British blew it out of the water.


It is impossible for us, your comrades up to now, to allow your fine ships to fall into the power of the German enemy. We are determined to fight on until the end, and if we win, as we think we shall, we shall never forget that France was our Ally, that our interests are the same as hers, and that our common enemy is Germany. Should we conquer we solemnly declare that we shall restore the greatness and territory of France. For this purpose we must make sure that the best ships of the French Navy are not used against us by the common foe. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government have instructed me to demand that the French Fleet now at Mers el Kebir and Oran shall act in accordance with one of the following alternatives;

(a) Sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans.

(b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment.
If either of these courses is adopted by you we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation if they are damaged meanwhile.

(c) Alternatively if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans unless they break the Armistice, then sail them with us with reduced crews to some French port in the West Indies — Martinique for instance — where they can be demilitarised to our satisfaction, or perhaps be entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated.
If you refuse these fair offers, I must with profound regret, require you to sink your ships within 6 hours.

Finally, failing the above, I have the orders from His Majesty's Government to use whatever force may be necessary to prevent your ships from falling into German hands.

[Jarl]

Mein Kampf is used by any realistic and component historian studying Hitler’s aims and agendas. To use your, frankly asinine, proposal would mean consigning to the bin much, if not all, of the last sixty years of study on Hitler’s war aims.

The problem Liffrea is that you claim that Hitler did not want and did not even expect war with France and Britain in 1939 because..... thats what hewrote in Mein Kampf in 1923! To me this is a bizzare statement which has little sense. And frankly no, I do not believe that the "last 60 years of study on Hitler's war aims" are solely based on "Mein Kampf". I do not believe it is relevant at all to what he aimed to do in the 30s.


Have you in any depth studied the subject? Have you read Mein Kampf? Have you read Hitler’s table talk? Have you any knowledge of the documentation surrounding the political and diplomatic situation of the period? If not I suggest some research on your part may well illuminate some of your disquiet.

I'd suggest you took a calmer approach to this issue at first. Again, I cannot see how Mein Kampf written in 1923 can have any immediate connection to the events of 1938-1939.


What you believe isn’t relevant, what Hitler believed is. So far I have seen no evidence to support your assertions in any documentation I have personally studied. Perhaps you can highlight for me the relevant texts to suggest that Hitler was planning a war in the West for 1939? This is your argument is it not?

I can easily reverse you accusation and say that what you believe in is irrelevant. For the last several posts you claim you know perfectly what Hitler knew and wanted to do. To me this alone is the best proof of a somewhat biased attitude. How can you be certain of what he believed in???

And finally no. I am not implying he was planning an invasion of the West in 1939. What I am saying does not go beyong the obivious. That is, Hitler and his staff knew about the Franco-Polish and Anglo-Polish treaties. They knew that war against Poland could end in war against France and Britain. Yet they took the risk.


He did take it into consideration, discounted it as unlikely or irrelevant even if they did and invaded Poland…….

There you go. He knew it could enden in war against the West, yet he took the risk whatever the odds. And however unbelievable they might have seemed there was still a REAL risk of a world war involved. Nonetheless he took it, which is no excuse and still makes him a criminal responsible for WW II outbreak.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Jarl
I'd suggest you took a calmer approach to this issue at first

I’m asking you a question that bears on the ability of us to properly discuss the subject at hand. I can’t debate evidence with someone who hasn’t read the sources……


How can you be certain of what he believed in???

Have you in any depth studied the subject? Have you read Mein Kampf? Have you read Hitler’s table talk? Have you any knowledge of the documentation surrounding the political and diplomatic situation of the period? If not I suggest some research on your part may well illuminate some of your disquiet.

If you have you will also understand why this:


And frankly no, I do not believe that the "last 60 years of study on Hitler's war aims" are solely based on "Mein Kampf".

Is a nonsensical statement, both because one that’s not what I wrote and second Mein Kampf is indeed used by historians to understand Hitler’s aims, but not solely as you imply but which I have not.


I do not believe it is relevant at all to what he aimed to do in the 30s.

Really? Then I would very much like to see how you are going to justify this statement…..


I am not implying he was planning an invasion of the West in 1939.

I believe that was exactly what you were implying??


What I am saying does not go beyong the obivious. That is, Hitler and his staff knew about the Franco-Polish and Anglo-Polish treaties. They knew that war against Poland could end in war against France and Britain. Yet they took the risk.

…………believing that the Anglo-French alliance would not go to war and if they did that it would be too late for them to intervene and they would come to their senses and negotiate.


And however unbelievable they might have seemed there was still a REAL risk of a world war involved.

A European, not global, war. Germany had no overseas empire. Technically the war didn't become global until Hitler decalred war on America in 1941.


Nonetheless he took it, which is no excuse and still makes him a criminal responsible for WW II outbreak.

I’m not defending Adolph Hitler, but he didn’t make Britain and France declare war, he was banking on the opposite, he didn't want to fight in the West, but you are perhaps correct that eventually, but not in 1939, there would have been war with Germany. Hitler was mentally unstable to put it mildly.


And finally no. I am not implying he was planning an invasion of the West in 1939.

Then we seem to have concluded our discussion.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Asega
That might not be an official war

To be honest I’m not altogether sure, Vichy France was a state recognised by the Germans, but not by the British I believe, and, of course, all states need legal recognition…..interesting question.

[Hussar]

Oh please spare us this Pan-Slavic bullshit.


Sorry if i write a personal mention, ZYKLOP.........but i'd like to remember to all the peoples here you look like a typical eastern Slav (if this definition is possible).

From the photos of you i got recenly, it's clear you don't look german. Rather some sort of Russian.

[The Ripper]

Sorry if i write a personal mention, ZYKLOP.........but i'd like to remember to all the peoples here you look like a typical eastern Slav (if this definition is possible).

From the photos of you i got recenly, it's clear you don't look german. Rather some sort of Russian.

Why should Zyklop care if you think he doesn't look German? What matters is that he is German.

[Hussar]

Why should Zyklop care if you think he doesn't look German? What matters is that he is German.


I don't think he doesn't look german.


He DOESN'T look german. In Italy or France he would pass as some kind of Slavic immigrant ; anything wrong with that (i'm pro slavic), but i'm tired of his endless posts about how he is different and distinguishable from latins and slavs around him.

It's time the peoples knew the truth about a member who never showed his pics in public (and now i understand the reason).....but very brave to insult others.

[Beorn]

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/5859/harryhillfight.jpg

[Zyklop]

it's clear you don't look german. Rather some sort of Russian.
Lucky I don't look Polish then. ;)

I actually have posted a photo once in the member's picture thread.

edit:
Actually, I'm not even sure what kind of 'secret' you brag about having revealed. Mind the date of this post:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y161/Zyklop/30a85df0.jpg

[Hussar]

Lucky I don't look Polish then. ;)


you look more southern than a pole indeed.




I actually have posted a photo once in the member's picture thread.



i mean YOUR pic. Not the one of another guy . :tongue