french vs german popularity

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-04-22 01:12pm

Somehow I don't understand the people saying they like the germans better than france for the fight they put up in WWII. So they love us for being racists 60 years ago, great.

(Normally you'd think it's due to the fact that the US had permission to use it's bases in Germany etc.)

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2003-04-22 01:25pm

Simply because the Germans get a better rep on, most EVERYTHING involving the world compared to the French.

Who are also pussies by the way.

Reminds me of a conversation I was having with a friend of mine.

"So you know why the French are against this war right?"
"They're pussies?"
"Well...yes...among some other stuff."

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2003-04-22 06:24pm

Cpt_Frank wrote:Somehow I don't understand the people saying they like the germans better than france for the fight they put up in WWII. So they love us for being racists 60 years ago, great.

(Normally you'd think it's due to the fact that the US had permission to use it's bases in Germany etc.)

It's not that they were racists that people like. That was the Nazis in specific. The German people as a whole were honorable enemys in the opinion of most Americans. And Americans respect honorable enemys. The French on the other hand are not perceved as being honorable in any way. They never have have been. Deep down Americans believe in Honor, Valor, Glory, etc.........

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2003-04-22 07:19pm

It's a silly macho line of thinking, but yeah, we like the enemy who puts up a bitter fight better than the friend who rolls over.

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2003-04-22 07:30pm

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:It's a silly macho line of thinking, but yeah, we like the enemy who puts up a bitter fight better than the friend who rolls over.

Or from another perspective "It's a noble and virtuous line of thinking"
Such opinions are completely relative, based on ones point of view.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-04-22 10:56pm

Darth Wong wrote:In any case, millions of Germans voted for the Nazi Party. This is much greater than the number of men in France's armed forces, hence greater than the number of men who surrendered. To argue that a policy of clinging to WW2 history should favour the Germans over the French is bizarre.

Wasn't this also because he removed all other parties from the ballot?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-04-23 12:58am

19 million voted for nazis when they could go with the commies or republicans. . .

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-04-23 05:31am

Gandalf wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:In any case, millions of Germans voted for the Nazi Party. This is much greater than the number of men in France's armed forces, hence greater than the number of men who surrendered. To argue that a policy of clinging to WW2 history should favour the Germans over the French is bizarre.
Wasn't this also because he removed all other parties from the ballot?

No, before he came to power, there were a zintillion parties running around.
And there were elections almost every month or so.
But Germany was in a very deep depression back then, the people still felt betrayed a victory by their own government (The Dolchstoss-legend), and Hitler used their emotions pretty well.
In the end, it was a decision between communism and the NSDAP.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-04-23 08:59am

Dahak wrote:
Gandalf wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:In any case, millions of Germans voted for the Nazi Party. This is much greater than the number of men in France's armed forces, hence greater than the number of men who surrendered. To argue that a policy of clinging to WW2 history should favour the Germans over the French is bizarre.
Wasn't this also because he removed all other parties from the ballot?
No, before he came to power, there were a zintillion parties running around.
And there were elections almost every month or so.
But Germany was in a very deep depression back then, the people still felt betrayed a victory by their own government (The Dolchstoss-legend), and Hitler used their emotions pretty well.
In the end, it was a decision between communism and the NSDAP.

OK, I remember being told a story in modern history of a man complaining that Hitler's name was the only one on the ballot.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-04-23 09:51am

That may have been ntended figurativly. In the eyes of the german people, he was the only one that made sence.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-23 10:04am

Aeolus wrote:
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:It's a silly macho line of thinking, but yeah, we like the enemy who puts up a bitter fight better than the friend who rolls over.
Or from another perspective "It's a noble and virtuous line of thinking"
Such opinions are completely relative, based on ones point of view.

Not all points of view are of equal value. Those who believe it's more important to show good "fighting spirit" than show any shred of ethics are, by definition, morally bankrupt. It is a gross historical whitewash that Hitler "tricked" the German people; HE WAS POPULAR, and he made NO attempt to hide his anti-Semitism or his intent to purge the Jewish "vermin" (to use his propaganda films' rhetoric) from the German midst.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-04-23 10:15am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:That may have been ntended figurativly. In the eyes of the german people, he was the only one that made sence.

Not so sound stubborn but the story told was quite literal, a man complains loudly about Hitlers name being the only one there, he then gets dragged out and is never seen again.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-23 10:17am

Gandalf wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:That may have been ntended figurativly. In the eyes of the german people, he was the only one that made sence.
Not so sound stubborn but the story told was quite literal, a man complains loudly about Hitlers name being the only one there, he then gets dragged out and is never seen again.

Rather strange, then, that he did not have 100% of the vote.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-23 10:22am

Darth Wong wrote: Not all points of view are of equal value. Those who believe it's more important to show good "fighting spirit" than show any shred of ethics are, by definition, morally bankrupt. It is a gross historical whitewash that Hitler "tricked" the German people; HE WAS POPULAR, and he made NO attempt to hide his anti-Semitism or his intent to purge the Jewish "vermin" (to use his propaganda films' rhetoric) from the German midst.

If you see World at War (the kickass complete history of WW2 narrated by Lawrence Olivier), you'll see Germans telling it exactly like it was- they liked Nazism, they fell in love with Hitler (he had a hypnotic, charismatic quality), and didn't hate Nazism because of any 'terror regime', or anything like that, but by early 45 when the Allies were in Germany the only reason they began to hate Nazism was because they felt Hitler had failed them- he promised them the world and asked them to help him, and now they had nothing. Or at least, that's how one woman put it (she was a teen at the time, IIRC).

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-04-23 10:25am

Darth Wong wrote:
Gandalf wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:That may have been ntended figurativly. In the eyes of the german people, he was the only one that made sence.
Not so sound stubborn but the story told was quite literal, a man complains loudly about Hitlers name being the only one there, he then gets dragged out and is never seen again.
Rather strange, then, that he did not have 100% of the vote.

IIRC even after all other parties had been forbidden, there were fake elections from time to time where they asked questions like "do you want Adolf Hitler to remain Reichsführer? and where you could choose between yes and no.
But as I said that was after he had already become chancellor through legitimate elections.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-04-23 10:58am

Darth Wong wrote:
Gandalf wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:That may have been ntended figurativly. In the eyes of the german people, he was the only one that made sence.
Not so sound stubborn but the story told was quite literal, a man complains loudly about Hitlers name being the only one there, he then gets dragged out and is never seen again.
Rather strange, then, that he did not have 100% of the vote.

I didn't get that part either, I assumed there were non-voters.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-04-23 11:58am

Gandalf wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Gandalf wrote: Not so sound stubborn but the story told was quite literal, a man complains loudly about Hitlers name being the only one there, he then gets dragged out and is never seen again.
Rather strange, then, that he did not have 100% of the vote.
I didn't get that part either, I assumed there were non-voters.

But non-voters aren't counted anyway.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-04-23 01:35pm

I think that France is reviled more than Germany because American culture tends to associate French culture with the upper class (French food in the US, after all, is seen as primarily upper-class fare), while German culture and food is commonly associated in the US with the middle class. And Americans are aggressively a middle-class people - our heroes, traditionally, have been middle-class and working-class folks. Britain had Arthur, a great king, while America has Paul Bunyan (a lumberjack), John Henry (a steel-drivin' man) and the cowboy.

Paul Bunyan, you may remember, is a working-class galoot 50 feet tall, whose trusty steed is not a majestic white stallion but a blue ox.

It all has to do with cultural perceptions.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-04-23 01:42pm

Iceberg wrote:Paul Bunyan, you may remember, is a working-class galoot 50 feet tall, whose trusty steed is not a majestic white stallion but a blue ox.

I think Minnesota has corrupted you, Ice

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-04-23 01:46pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Gandalf wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:That may have been ntended figurativly. In the eyes of the german people, he was the only one that made sence.
Not so sound stubborn but the story told was quite literal, a man complains loudly about Hitlers name being the only one there, he then gets dragged out and is never seen again.
Rather strange, then, that he did not have 100% of the vote.

he was getting 99+ after he got into power.

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2003-04-23 05:41pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Aeolus wrote:
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:It's a silly macho line of thinking, but yeah, we like the enemy who puts up a bitter fight better than the friend who rolls over.
Or from another perspective "It's a noble and virtuous line of thinking"
Such opinions are completely relative, based on ones point of view.
Not all points of view are of equal value. Those who believe it's more important to show good "fighting spirit" than show any shred of ethics are, by definition, morally bankrupt. It is a gross historical whitewash that Hitler "tricked" the German people; HE WAS POPULAR, and he made NO attempt to hide his anti-Semitism or his intent to purge the Jewish "vermin" (to use his propaganda films' rhetoric) from the German midst.

But don't you see your opinion is just that your opinion. To those that believe in the "honorable enemy" see you as being , by definition, morally bankrupt. Besides they are not siding with the nazi belief system. They are saying the German soldiers fought well and honorably. From this view point the French are seen as cowardly and the Germans brave. Personaly I think the French are being singled out unfairly. No one at the time knew how to deal with the Germans use of combined arms. But my belief does not invalidate other peoples opinions on the subject. They are simply my belifs.

Ignorant twit · Post by **Ignorant twit** » 2003-04-23 07:55pm

Frankly I doubt the average American gives a damn about WWII for French and German perceptions.

More likely we are seeing the effects of Cold War perceptions, when France was a problematic ally at best and West Germany was behind us.

France has long stood apart from the US, being an ally of conveinence at best; Germany has a far better track record post WWII.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-04-23 11:17pm

http://www.livejournal.com/users/iceberg3k/

I feel no reason to duplicate text...

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-04-24 06:03am

Gandalf wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:That may have been ntended figurativly. In the eyes of the german people, he was the only one that made sence.
Not so sound stubborn but the story told was quite literal, a man complains loudly about Hitlers name being the only one there, he then gets dragged out and is never seen again.

Before he came to power, there were normal elections.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-04-24 06:09am

Dahak wrote:
Gandalf wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:That may have been ntended figurativly. In the eyes of the german people, he was the only one that made sence.

Not so sound stubborn but the story told was quite literal, a man complains loudly about Hitlers name being the only one there, he then gets dragged out and is never seen again.
Before he came to power, there were normal elections.

And he got 33.7 percent of the votes. Many Germans wanted him and his perverted ideologies.