Who Killed Janko?

[ham]

The point is that John passed away

Oh please...
it seems you're referring to your own brother...
It was just another phony trolling online with an impressive array of upstaging routines...
Or, if you prefer, 'John' was the abusive nimrod who wouldn't last ten seconds if he had acted like that in a country pub with a few fat, huge, bearded biker guys with tattoos...
His demeanor was all the more disgusting coming from a self-proclaimed handicapped person with an emotional baggage the size of Jupiter...
A faceless bastard playing big boss online...up his, whatever the right Croatian expression for it might be.

Was he of towering physical skills? Hardly, considering he was a self-proclaimed disabled person...
Was he of towering intellectual skills? Hardly, considering he took twelve years to squeeze a doctorate from a university from Zululand...
So which was his authorization to boss people around?!
Hanging around a bunch of gay teen pornographers, millists, deviants and midgets considering themselves behemoth and 'covering up for one another'...I won't throw the fact you film gay teen fairies cramming the entire basement's content up their a$$ for a living if you won't throw in my face the fact I've run several schools I now call mills and help give me credit as an authority...or if you won't rub my face in the fact I am a brothel addict now turned censor...

THOSE PEOPLE, dead or alive, I leave them to YOU with my compliments!

[Dennis Ruhl]

whatever the right Croatian expression for it might be.

A lot of his bad Latin was Romanian. He had some Transylvanian Sachsen ancestry. No self respecting Transylvanian Sachsen would consider the opportunistic invading Romanians who only arrived in 1918/1919 as their countrymen. The Germans were there 1,000 years earlier.

True to their Italian roots, the Romanians switched sides more times in each world war than did the Italians in WWII.

The only people I knew who claimed to be Romanians were Bessarabian German soldiers immigrating to Canada. They had been occupied by Romania at the same as the Transylvanians.

Many of the Bessarabian Germans were conscripted into the SS despite claims upheld in Canadian courts that all SS were volunteers during deportations of some geriatrics. It seems that no-one told them they had a choice.

[ham]

It seems that no-one told them they had a choice.

I recently watched archive footage of American soldiers painting ribald slogans on bombs destined to Japanese cities...did they have a choice?
The same kind of movies are probably shown at veterans' conventions, where people covered in medals drink champagne while publishers wait for their turn to publish the diaries of the "hero who fought the Huns", "Asian peril" etc.
If a 90yo Axis veteran would show similar footage, he'd probably be persecuted as "criminal against mankind" and "atrocity avenging commandos" would raid his home...
Explain this to me please.

True to their Italian roots, the Romanians switched sides more times in each world war than did the Italians in WWII.

That's "having the choice" you referred to earlier, isn't it? But none thinks much of turncoats even if they come handy at times, eh?

It is generally accepted that until 1943 (4 years into the war ) armed dissent was scant (even in occupied France)...it seems the moral compass of all those democracy-loving masses took a while to turn on, eh?
When it did (in Italy for example), it was heavily subsidized with English moolah...when gen. Alexander stopped the cash flow for a while, 'freedom fighters' dropped in number by 50% over a few weeks...
Mitterrand, D'Estaing and other future prominent French statesmen ALL took part in Vichy's government and/or (like Mitterrand) were awarded the FRANCISQUE (the double axe emblem of the Vichy government) medal.
Jewish scholar/activist Pierre Bloch 'covered up' for Mitterrand claiming Pierre Bloch had advised him to seek that recognition to better conceal his hatred of fascism as the ardent freedom fighter that he was.
Francisque could only be awarded by either the head of State (Pétain) or by a council of eminent patriots.

What if Germany had won?
Well, I watched a film in which surviving Italians from a village Americans bombed into oblivion actually welcomed and cheered the surviving crewmembers of the party that had obliterated their village...

It is also known that spin doctors (advising for example president Wilson ) suggested the whole 'fighting for freedom, not power' angle...oddly enough, the Japanese used the same approach in the lands they occupied in Asia and -hear hear!- the British were the ones behind Arab nationalism they funded and encouraged during WWI.
Can you explain this to me please?

[Fort Bragg]

When much of official historical interpretation is based on lies it is amazing that questioning some of these interpretations can even be criminal.

Why do you think Richard III is blamed for killing his legitimate heir nephews? It's because Henry VII, the guy who did kill them, blamed Richard and had the stroke to enforce the truth as he saw it.

There is no such thing as an historical fact, only historical opinions. Fearing and persecuting someone with a different opinion sound like something the other guys did.

[ham]

When much of official historical interpretation is based on lies it is amazing that questioning some of these interpretations can even be criminal.



There is no such thing as an historical fact, only historical opinions. Fearing and persecuting someone with a different opinion sound like something the other guys did.

Churchill was credited with writing: history will be kind to me because I intend to write it, or something.
By 1944 Britain was reduced to the rank of mere regional power (Israel and Pakistan are regional powers ), while still in 1939 it was THE world's superpower.
The masses were told they were at war to save the Empire (Hitler had no interest in anyways because he felt inferior to the English, go figure )...the Empire was gone; Britain remained a great power only in Bond movies...
The masses were told they were at war to save Poland (a State first dismembered by Russia, Prussia & Austria in 1772 and resurrected in 1918 )...Poland was gone along with half Germany and western Europe.
The masses were told borders couldn't be redesigned as one saw fit...compare a 1939 with a 1946 map to see...then compare a 1913 with a 1919 map to see again.
When liquor powered Churchill finally opened his eyes in 1944 and asked his former subjects turned masters for help to save Britain's power, Americans told him up his...he then went into pilgrimage to beg Stalin...Hungary was agreed to be 50-50...
I can really see good boys versus bad boys...
I also love how they show you before and after photos of German or Japanese cities...the after photos look like savannah AFTER wildfire...and tell you only 5000 people had actually died...in Dresden they had around 600.000 refugees only at the time of good boys' bombing...
Ah...Germany's were "atrocities"...England's were "demonstrations"...

[Dennis Ruhl]

Ascribing moralility or lack thereof to one side in a war is usually an error. Germany was the least imperialist of the major participants in WWI. It was determined to be the guiltiest even though the German public perceived their participation in the war the product of French and Russian aggression. To even consider that Russa, France, and the UK which together enslaved over half the world were fighting for democracy is a joke.

WWII was the completion of WWI brought about by Germany's uneven blame for the war and dismemberment of German border areas and populations given over to repressive regimes. Russia, France, and the UK were still putting the jackboots to half of the world. Other than the unfortunate sideline, the holocaust, there is little room for the major allies to speak as a higher moral authority. WWII was nothing about morals and all about power politics.

The Russian holocaust surpassed the German many fold. Many of the eastern European guest workers (German) or slave laborers(Allied) had to be sent back to the USSR at the point of a bayonet. Often the bayonet was British or American.

Wars are always sold as defending mom and apple pie. The true reasons could never be sold to the public who provide millions of their sons as fodder. War is always about power but is always sold for other reasons and the vast majority of the people end up believing the charade.

[ham]

It is also important to add how many hypotheses are no longer "conspiracy theories" or similar.
Many of the gurus and spin-doctors behind 'good boys'' propaganda have penned autobiographies or 'guides' detailing how they worked, EX http://www.seftondelmer.co.uk/
and the inner working of their 'moral compass', or lack thereof.

[Dennis Ruhl]

The official propoganda of WWI had the Germans pitchforking Belgian babies and raping nuns, a nice mix to generate outrage, all untrue. De-humanize your enemy and he gets easier to kill. Whereas racism was a valuable tool to motivate soldiers in previous wars, today a Canadian soldier will be disciplined if he gets caught by the wrong person denigrating his enemy. Foolish but true. I knew a 12 year reserve veteran with a couple overseas postings, including being shot at and shelled in Croatia, who quit because he was given more mind-molding courses than any military training.

[ham]

The official propoganda of WWI had the Germans pitchforking Belgian babies and raping nuns, a nice mix to generate outrage, all untrue. De-humanize your enemy and he gets easier to kill. Whereas racism was a valuable tool to motivate soldiers in previous wars, today a Canadian soldier will be disciplined if he gets caught by the wrong person denigrating his enemy. Foolish but true. I knew a 12 year reserve veteran with a couple overseas postings, including being shot at and shelled in Croatia, who quit because he was given more mind-molding courses than any military training.

One of the problems of WWI propaganda, debunked in a series of scholarly books such as ATROCITY PROPAGANDA, OFFICIAL BRITISH FILM PROPAGANDA and others, is that it tended to multiply too much with countless examples, angles and subplots thus becoming easier to debunk.
With WWII 'good guys' were much more careful and basically stuck to one narrative; that didn't prevent dissidents from emerging or differences from emerging in the accounts of some parties.
In the movie LE CHAGRIN ET LA PITIE' (1969), while French-Jewish statesman Mendes-France claims he had become a valiant fighter right after his escape from Vichy's prisons, another anti-fascist veteran claims to have threatened to bounce Mendes-France out of a night club in Morocco (?) because he was partying and drinking champagne in the company of a charming lady who happened not to be his wife. The other man (an army captain) walked up to Mendes-France (air force lieutenant) and presented him his card & message claiming it was a shame that such scene took places during the war.

[Dennis Ruhl]

People's recollections of their war experience can be quite creative.

I know one old guy who says he is an Australian Vietnam veteran. He doesn't show on the nominal roll for the war. He also claims to have been a POW while Australia recognizes no POWs in Vietnam. He said he was at "Dean Bean Foo" possibly Dien Bien Phu??? I assume the place, not the battle, which is impossible as it is close to the Chinese border. He even tells people this when he's sober. It's not my job to challenge him.

I was doing a political thing and some old guy asked me what I'd do for veterans. My kind of question as I pretty much know the war history of each battalion. It was quite quickly revealed that he was conscripted and barely made it out of his home province.

My father was in the infantry in WWII and would talk at length with other veterans but would otherwise never mention it.

The wannabe warriors want to talk, the real ones don't.