Myths of the Golden Era -- Exploded!

[Heater]

Other fifteen year olds?

Here's one I think might be a myth: Chamberlain was an appeaser. Seems to me that he might have been unfairly treated, and that rather than appeasing Hitler, he actually bought Britain some very necessary time as they weren't ready for war in 1938... Does this stack up (I don't hold myself out as an expert on the war itself or the military of the period specifically.

I thik there is a lot of truth in that statement. I was aquainted with a former member of Parliment, he told me that there was a feeling in British ploitical circles that war in 1938 or 1939 would bankrupt Britian and cause the loss of the Empire. Of course this is what happened.

 

[Angus Forbes]

Chamberlain may well have bought Britain some time. The real irony, however, is that the BEF or even the Paris Metropolitan Police could have disarmed Germany at the time it became clear that they (Germany) were willfully in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.

From that point re-armament for both the Germans and the British followed what might be called an "S-curve" or logistic -- starting at at low level, building rapidly, and then leveling off at full production, but with Germany's S-curve having a multi-year head start on Britain's (think of two logistics, one shifted several years to the right of the other on the time axis). France of that era was another matter altogether, I suppose -- well prepared but completely inept in the face of a new weapon (coordinated Panzers).

 

[Widebrim]

Kind of like the people that think Roosevelt let the Japanese destroy much of the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, just to get us into the war. Nope, those near-sighted, rice eating, paper airplane flying foreigners couldn't just waltz in and blow our unprepared butts out of the water. It had to be an inside job. It couldn't have anything to do with us screwing up.

And someone was recently on Pacifica Radio supporting that very view...

 

[Two Types]

One myth thatI recall from school history lessons (back in the 1980s) and know that it is still taught in schools today, since my daughter recently studied the period, relates to the behaviour of the British and Americans in Germany in 1945.

It is commonly said that the Soviets plundered eastern Germany, taking away whole factories, railway lines etc (basically anything that could be moved) whilst the British and Americans rebuilt Germany. ABSOLUTE MYTH!

Whilst the later policy was reinvestment in Germany, the initial policy was to take whatever was needed. The British established an organisation called 'T Force' which helped remove vast amounts of machinery to the UK. This included the fixtures and fittings of entire factories. They took one set of railway signalling equipment for each of the British railway companies. They took vast amounts of engineering equipment - some of which remained in use by UK businesses until the 1990s. German patents for industrial processes were taken under British control. Scientists were 'evacuated' to the UK to work for the British. the list is almost endless. And it was not all official reparations - this was officially sanctioned plunder.
And it was not just the British. There was direct rivalry between the British and Americans in getting their hands on some industrial equipment.
Such was the scale of the plunder that when the British handed over the 'Schwerin pocket' and the Magdeburg Bulge' to Soviet control in summer 1945, the Soviets issued a complaint about how much German property had been illegally removed from the region - including a vast quantity of gold.

This book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/T-Force-Signed-Sean-Longden/dp/1849013160 tells the story.

 

[Edward]

I thik there is a lot of truth in that statement. I was aquainted with a former member of Parliment, he told me that there was a feeling in British ploitical circles that war in 1938 or 1939 would bankrupt Britian and cause the loss of the Empire. Of course this is what happened.

Seems plausible to me. Not that the end of the age of Empires was a bad thing, at all, but that's seen at this distance.

Chamberlain may well have bought Britain some time. The real irony, however, is that the BEF or even the Paris Metropolitan Police could have disarmed Germany at the time it became clear that they (Germany) were willfully in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.

Of course, if the Versailles Diktat had been truly about reparation rather than Clemenceau's bitter revenge, Hitler would in all likelihood have had a much harder time of it. While Stresemann had negotiated a much more favourable deal for Germany throughout the Twenties, In have no doubt much bitterness lingered on in the minds of a people made to suffer for the Kaiser's war.

One myth thatI recall from school history lessons (back in the 1980s) and know that it is still taught in schools today, since my daughter recently studied the period, relates to the behaviour of the British and Americans in Germany in 1945.

It is commonly said that the Soviets plundered eastern Germany, taking away whole factories, railway lines etc (basically anything that could be moved) whilst the British and Americans rebuilt Germany. ABSOLUTE MYTH!

Whilst the later policy was reinvestment in Germany, the initial policy was to take whatever was needed. The British established an organisation called 'T Force' which helped remove vast amounts of machinery to the UK. This included the fixtures and fittings of entire factories. They took one set of railway signalling equipment for each of the British railway companies. They took vast amounts of engineering equipment - some of which remained in use by UK businesses until the 1990s. German patents for industrial processes were taken under British control. Scientists were 'evacuated' to the UK to work for the British. the list is almost endless. And it was not all official reparations - this was officially sanctioned plunder.
And it was not just the British. There was direct rivalry between the British and Americans in getting their hands on some industrial equipment.
Such was the scale of the plunder that when the British handed over the 'Schwerin pocket' and the Magdeburg Bulge' to Soviet control in summer 1945, the Soviets issued a complaint about how much German property had been illegally removed from the region - including a vast quantity of gold.

This book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/T-Force-Signed-Sean-Longden/dp/1849013160 tells the story.

I've also heard from sources that I would have expected to have an enormously pro-British bias that more women in formerly occupied Europe were raped by Allies than Nazis. If true, that's very far from in line with the cut and dried good guys / bad guys of mainstream, orthodox historical record.

 

[Two Types]

The topic of sex crimes by Allied troops is an interesting one. I have certainly heard from witnesses about it: one was a German woman (later resident in the UK) who said she was raped three times by British soldiers. Another was a German woman who used to work with me who recalled seeing the hanging bodies of a number of African-American soldiers who had been lynched by their own side for raping german women.
That said, most British soldiers that i have spoken to have always thought the notion of rape was unbelievable: in Germany in 1945 many women could be 'bought' for a packet of cigarettes.

 

[Angus Forbes]

Of course, if the Versailles Diktat had been truly about reparation rather than Clemenceau's bitter revenge, Hitler would in all likelihood have had a much harder time of it.

Of course, that's not the point at all. Rather, the point is that given the realpolitik, how easy it would have been to have avoided the European theatre of WWII altogether and the countless millions of needless deaths.

 

[Edward]

The topic of sex crimes by Allied troops is an interesting one. I have certainly heard from witnesses about it: one was a German woman (later resident in the UK) who said she was raped three times by British soldiers. Another was a German woman who used to work with me who recalled seeing the hanging bodies of a number of African-American soldiers who had been lynched by their own side for raping german women.
That said, most British soldiers that i have spoken to have always thought the notion of rape was unbelievable: in Germany in 1945 many women could be 'bought' for a packet of cigarettes.

It does seem t be something that there is much anecdotal discussion of, but no official call one way or the other. Of course, nowadays I suspect an allegation if impropriety would be investigated much more thoroughly, a small advance. We'd all like to think it didn't happen, but in a situation like that, who knows.

Of course, that's not the point at all. Rather, the point is that given the realpolitik, how easy it would have been to have avoided the European theatre of WWII altogether and the countless millions of needless deaths.

Well, precisely.

 

[Flicka]

All numbers are of course approximations but all attempts I've seen at statistics make out the Red Army as the worst by far. Like in a league of its own. If I remember correctly, the Italians and Americans actually both usually come off worse in that respect than the Germans in the charts I've seen.

.
That said, most British soldiers that i have spoken to have always thought the notion of rape was unbelievable: in Germany in 1945 many women could be 'bought' for a packet of cigarettes.

With all due respect, that shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the mechanics behind wartime rape. It's not a matter of 'getting some'; it's an act of aggression. There are a gazillion studies showing just that.

 

[Angus Forbes]

Well, precisely.

Well, I seem to fail to see the basic moral parity between the positions of the Allies and the Axis. Perhaps Germany could have withheld the reparation payments without leveling Guernica for practice or rounding-up Jews for the gas chambers. Perhaps it really wasn't Clemenceau's fault that Germany invaded Poland, Norway, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union (inter alia). Perhaps, despite your carefully worded but persistent insinuations to the contrary, we really did have a contest between good and evil.

 

[Two Types]

Firstly, I was reporting on the attitudes and opinions of people who were there, not on my own understanding of the situation.

However, the "mechanics of wartime rape" as you put it, cannot be simplified purely into it being acts of aggression. While rape is obviously an aggresive act, the crimes were motivated by numerous factors. An acquaintance of mine prevented a rape by holding a gun to the man's head and threatening to kill him (in Germany in March 1945). His description of the man is less as a conscious agressor and more as a man psychologically affected by his situation. There is a difference between rape as a policy 'tool of war' (such as in Bosnia) and the acts of individuals (such as the WW2 incidents I was referring to). In my opinion, trying to categorise all the crimes under one convenient heading (i.e. an act of aggression) without looking at background factors, undermines the ability to understand the true situation.

The issue of studies of wartime rape, showing rape to be an act of aggression, would not accurately reflect rape by, for example, British soldiers during the latter stages of World War 2, on the grounds that there are insufficient records detailing such crimes. Anecdotal evidence (post war memoirs etc) suggests reported rapes were often ignored by officers. This takes us back to the mythology of war i.e. reports of rape by Allied servicemen may be limited but the official statistics and failure to report fully on the subject do not mean it didn't happen.

 

[Angus Forbes]

reports of rape by Allied servicemen may be limited but the official statistics and failure to report fully on the subject do not mean it didn't happen.

Or that it did.

 

[Flicka]

Firstly, I was reporting on the attitudes and opinions of people who were there, not on my own understanding of the situation.

However, the "mechanics of wartime rape" as you put it, cannot be simplified purely into it being acts of aggression. While rape is obviously an aggresive act, the crimes were motivated by numerous factors. An acquaintance of mine prevented a rape by holding a gun to the man's head and threatening to kill him (in Germany in March 1945). His description of the man is less as a conscious agressor and more as a man psychologically affected by his situation. There is a difference between rape as a policy 'tool of war' (such as in Bosnia) and the acts of individuals (such as the WW2 incidents I was referring to). In my opinion, trying to categorise all the crimes under one convenient heading (i.e. an act of aggression) without looking at background factors, undermines the ability to understand the true situation.

The issue of studies of wartime rape, showing rape to be an act of aggression, would not accurately reflect rape by, for example, British soldiers during the latter stages of World War 2, on the grounds that there are insufficient records detailing such crimes. Anecdotal evidence (post war memoirs etc) suggests reported rapes were often ignored by officers. This takes us back to the mythology of war i.e. reports of rape by Allied servicemen may be limited but the official statistics and failure to report fully on the subject do not mean it didn't happen.

I honestly do not understand what point you mean to make. Mine, anyway, was certainly not to deny that the Allies committed atrocities. On the contrary.

As for rape, there's a lot of research that suggests that rape in any context is primarily an act of aggression - of violence, domination and power. If you don't agree with that, well, that's your opinion and it differs from mine.

 

[Two Types]

No, as I stated "while rape is obviously an aggresive act" it "cannot be simplified purely into it being acts of aggression". That is to say, that rape committed by soldiers in wartime should be examined in its various forms. The circumstances surrounding the act need to be fully understood in order to prevent such crimes happening. For example, if you wish to prevent mass rape of the type that occured in Bosnia (by all factions) it would be pointless studying individual incidents of rape committed by Allied servicemen in Germany in 1945. Only by examining the various factors and various circumstances can you hope understand what has happened and build upon that knowledge to prevent the same thing happening in the future.

I am not attempting to deny the role of "violence, domination and power" and am not disagreeing with you on that, but believe that understanding the act can only be acheived by looking at the varying circumstances.

 

[dhermann1]

Not to change the subject or anything, but I'd just like to re-explode a myth that we all tend to love, even tho it's not true. It's the myth that ANY time was a simpler more innocent time. Humans have been humans for approximately 200,000 years, if we believe the archaeologists. There never really was a "simpler" time. Just different.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Historical eras are like different kinds of soup. Some people thrive on soup with lots of onions, while the mere thought of onions makes other people vomit. A person who rejects onion soup isn't claiming soup without onions is "better," "simpler," or "more innocent." They just don't like to throw up.

So that's perhaps, if not the Golden Era's greatest myth, than certainly the Lounge's greatest myth. Those of us who reject modern culture and modern attitudes aren't pie-eyed wistful nostalgics mooning over old Chesterfield ads. We're just tired of throwing up.

 

[jamespowers]

Historical eras are like different kinds of soup. Some people thrive on soup with lots of onions, while the mere thought of onions makes other people vomit. A person who rejects onion soup isn't claiming soup without onions is "better," "simpler," or "more innocent." They just don't like to throw up.

So that's perhaps, if not the Golden Era's greatest myth, than certainly the Lounge's greatest myth. Those of us who reject modern culture and modern attitudes aren't pie-eyed wistful nostalgics mooning over old Chesterfield ads. We're just tired of throwing up.

:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap

 

[William Stratford]

Not to change the subject or anything, but I'd just like to re-explode a myth that we all tend to love, even tho it's not true. It's the myth that ANY time was a simpler more innocent time. Humans have been humans for approximately 200,000 years, if we believe the archaeologists. There never really was a "simpler" time. Just different.

I'd beg to differ on that; working on a 40 year old engine is a matter of spanners and experience, whilst working on a 5 month old one needs college time on electronics and expensive kit that would make nasa envious....

The same is true of working with wood rather than working with plastic. The former needs hand tools and a supply of trees, whilst the latter needs complex factories and a means of dealing with the pollution. And speaking as a fletcher, I can make my own arrows very simply, but to make cartridges for a rifle would take far more complex equipment.

To suggest that older times were not simpler is a quite strange assertion.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I'd beg to differ on that; working on a 40 year old engine is a matter of spanners and experience, whilst working on a 5 month old one needs college time on electronics and expensive kit that would make nasa envious....

Personally, I think cars today are designed primarily to provide continuous employment for professional auto mechanics. $500 repair bill just to replace a chip? Well, we had to pull out the engine to get to it. :doh:

 

[William Stratford]

Personally, I think cars today are designed primarily to provide continuous employment for professional auto mechanics. $500 repair bill just to replace a chip? Well, we had to pull out the engine to get to it. :doh:

So so true.