Michael Dorosh Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Let's not forget the German army had political commisars (though not in the imagined Soviet style, shooting shirkers in the front line). Bartov talks about them in his books on the German Army. Overall, his books aren't great and he tries too hard to make a point, but the basic fact that German soldiers as a whole were politically indoctrinated surely can't honestly be in dispute. They may not have been card-carrying Party members (though a great many of them probably were), but they all grew up from 1933 onwards into an officially anti-semetic state. In July 1944 "Heil Hitler" and the outstretched arm officially replaced the military salute. That form of address was optional before July 1944 and there is no reason to believe that many didn't adopt it out of genuine conviction long before the bomb plot. I suspect the literature by German army survivors would have been radically different had the Germans won the war; as it stands, every soldier to serve in the Heer was, if you believe those memoirs selected for translation into English, rabidly anti-Nazi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Patrick Brazil: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bone_Vulture: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Patrick Brazil: Me: German U-Boat crew, late in the war! :cool: [start Michael Dorosh mode] So you'd like to demolish passenger ships and machinegun the survivors? I bet you'd also like to sodomize baby seals! Admit it. ANSWER ME BITCH :mad: [End Michael Dorosh mode] </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I want to be the little guy driving the Hungarian truck! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I want to be the guy that says: "Sarge, I'm scared." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I'd want to be RCAF Fl Lt Julian Sale who was shot down over Holland near the German border in 1943 and travelled solo for two months through Holland, Belgium, France and Andorra to Spain, by walking, cycling and travelling by train to freedom. But sadly died from wounds in captivity in March 1944 after he was shot down again. [ January 31, 2005, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Wicky ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I'd have inserted a comma after ME and before BITCH, but otherwise, not bad. 4.5 out of 10. Using flawed punctuation was a contemplated choice for me. I tried to mimic your fervor in a most compact sentence possible; upper case letters, angry smiley.. Maximum impact! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmavis Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: ...They may not have been card-carrying Party members (though a great many of them probably were), but they all grew up from 1933 onwards into an officially anti-semetic state...Ohhhhh, you misspelled "semitic", Mr. Dorosh. I shall have to inform the Simon Wiesenthal Center at once! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Bone_Vulture: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I'd have inserted a comma after ME and before BITCH, but otherwise, not bad. 4.5 out of 10. Using flawed punctuation was a contemplated choice for me. I tried to mimic your fervor in a most compact sentence possible; upper case letters, angry smiley.. Maximum impact! </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I obviously owe you an apology. An excellent bit of observation on your part. 5.5 - with bonus marks for your concise explanation. I aim to please. :cool: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbs Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 From DaveH: You are aware that your term "Japs" carries some negative connotations, right? Only among those who prostrate themselves before the PC crowd. It doesn't have negative connotations among the rest of us. In our case it's merely verbal shorthand. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by wbs: It doesn't have negative connotations among the rest of us. Speak for yourself, Yankee... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbs Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 From Sergei: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by wbs: It doesn't have negative connotations among the rest of us. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Speak for yourself, Yankee... Sorry, Sergei, wrong side of the Mason-Dixon Line However, to use your reply as an example, if someone refers to Americans as "Yanks", I don't think you'll find anyone who minds. As with almost all slang terminology, it's merely a lazy shorthand form of verbal usage. Why use a 2,3, or 4 syllable word when one syllable will do? Hence, instead of Am-er-i-can, many use yan-kee. Instead of yan-kee, many use "yank". Instead of Con-fed-er-ate, many use Reb-els. Instead of Reb-els, many use "Rebs". Instead of Jap-an-ese, many use "Japs". That's all it is--no more, no less. If someone arbitrarily and deliberately chooses to be offended where none is meant, that is their problem--but not anyone else's. They may choose to use the more formal usage if they want to, but that doesn't mean that the rest of use are also required to do so. I would refer you to the previous loooong discussion we had on this over a year or two ago (perhaps you participated?), but it was wiped out in the Purge , So we get to waste time reinventing the same old threads all over again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Ah, the bliss of ignorance. It doesn't matter what you think you are saying, the only thing that matters is how others interpret you. If you want yourself to be interpreted correctly, then you use such lingo that you avoid labelling yourself as a racist redneck (unless the latter is desirable, which I think is the case of those who persist on talking of Japs, Niggers, Polaks, Gooks etc.). Otherwise you could of course be saying "Fshlgeg brrrtz, viu viu going" - since it doesn't matter to you if we get your message or not. This is a very basic lesson about communication. As MP said it: "Never be rude to an Arab, an Israeli or Saudi or Jude." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbs Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Well, as I don't run my life by committee, don't have to take a public opinion poll before I speak, and will not submit to the attempted dictates of the PC crowd, I will continue to use "Japs". It's a perfectly good piece of verbal shorthand. In my opinion, those who deliberately attempt to cause trouble (I'm not referring to you, Sergei ) generically speaking, over such a matter should either be ignored or aggressively challenged, as political correctness is offensive in itself. Me, I prefer to challenge them. Sergei, those who don't want to use "Japs" are entitled to use whatever word they want to. If "Japanese" works for them, great. However, those people do not have any right to impose their preferences on anyone else. Whether it's Yanks, Brits, Aussies, Krauts, Canucks, Japs, etc., what's good for the goose is good for the gander. They are all merely shorthand forms of expression. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Sergei: Ah, the bliss of ignorance. It doesn't matter what you think you are saying, the only thing that matters is how others interpret you. So the whole meaning of any utterance depends entirely on the listener, and is quite independent of the speaker's intent? Balderdash and poppycock, man. Originally posted by Sergei: This is a very basic lesson about communication. "Basic", possibly, but completely and hopelessly wrong for all that, unless you are some kind of drivelling postmodern semiologist. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by wbs: Sorry, Sergei, wrong side of the Mason-Dixon Line Very well, INFIDEL! :mad: (Wraps on a turban) Originally posted by John D Salt: So the whole meaning of any utterance depends entirely on the listener, and is quite independent of the speaker's intent? Balderdash and poppycock, man.Isn't that exactly what happened here? Wbs used the term "Japs" without a care, and Sergei was offended by it. Perhaps Sergei's argument could be rephrased: a term that the speaker considers neutral or meaningless might offend the listener against all expectations. Here we're discussing political correctness, though. I don't think we can ever form a consensus on that issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Bone_Vulture: Here we're discussing political correctness, though. I don't think we can ever form a consensus on that issue. Don't be ridiculous, of course we can! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Hmmm... I don't usually have pottymouth outbursts, but just this once I can't help myself: Fshlgeg brrrtz, viu viu going. As for ethnic slurs, they tend to reflect more on the user than on the group described. Most of the ones I've noticed in the wbs list were pretty lame and merely in varying degrees of bad taste. The truly offensive ones were, fortunately, omitted. The words from Sergei's list, however, were, with one exception, a bit stronger. I must say, though, that however I might feel about the vocabulary described, it's kind of sad to see the death of language progress to the point that people can't tell the difference between, rude, crude, and mortally offensive. I think that native English speakers probably have an unfair advantage in this discussion, because what we're talking about is which words can almost be used in polite society. [ January 31, 2005, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Philippe ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 And wasn't there at least one incident where an American submarine commander machine-gunned survivors of a Japanese ship he had just sunk? He never got hauled in as a war criminal because he was a "hero" and lionized by the press -- and went on to testify on behalf of the defense at a U-boot commander's Nuremburg trial. Of course, this doesn't compare to hauling survivors on deck, using them for sword practise, and then tossing the survivors back over the side when an enemy ship showed up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by flamingknives: Don't be ridiculous, of course we can! Could the consensus be that from now on, the Finns decide what's cool and what's not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by John D Salt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei: Ah, the bliss of ignorance. It doesn't matter what you think you are saying, the only thing that matters is how others interpret you. So the whole meaning of any utterance depends entirely on the listener, and is quite independent of the speaker's intent? Balderdash and poppycock, man. Originally posted by Sergei: This is a very basic lesson about communication. "Basic", possibly, but completely and hopelessly wrong for all that, unless you are some kind of drivelling postmodern semiologist.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by wbs: Sergei, those who don't want to use "Japs" are entitled to use whatever word they want to. If "Japanese" works for them, great. However, those people do not have any right to impose their preferences on anyone else.Have you ever asked from the Japanese? Don't they have any right to determine what is a civil way of talking about them? Or can't a Jew tell you not to call him as a Jude? Or don't the Poles have any right to say that 'Polak' is a degrading term? etc. To put it the other way, if I called you as Jap, would it be okay as long as I thought so? Yes?! Great, from now on you'll be Jap. Get used to it, Jap... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 There's something very funny about debating the language of 'otherness' and xenophobia in an international forum. Perhaps we can all agree that ethnic insults are ok as long as both parties understand that an insult is intended. They're ok, that is, because they're supposed to be the preamble to a good, clean fight. [Yes, I really did live above a bar once, and at 3 AM the conversation on the street generally involved a discussion of people's mothers]. If, on the other hand, someone insults someone else unknowingly because of poor manners, insensitivity, or lack of empathy, that is unacceptable. Willful ignorance is an unforgivable sin. Unless you can make everyone laugh about it when you do it. It's hard to take that kind of thing seriously when you're laughing at it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 To me the use of the shorthand 'jap' is different from the use of the shorthand 'Kraut', because the former is very closely connected to racist propaganda during WW II. I still think that both are showing a clear lack of respect for the group they describe, but 'Jap', to me at least, has far more aggressive undertones because of the propaganda. That makes it different as a shorthand from 'Brit', 'Aussie', or 'Canuck'. Although again, in polite conversation I would not use either of these. The term 'Rebs' seems to be very different from 'Japs' to me, because it has almost honorific connotations. It is also more convenient to say 'nigger', instead of African American, BTW, and you only have to type six letters instead of fifteen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvidae Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 hi, yes this murderin redskin heathen savage injun, would if required to pick one,, chose to serve in the german navy, on their only aircraft carrier, the one that spent the whole war in port and was never fired upon because everyone knew it was full of looted art treasures, dusting the paintings and statues, and periodicly washing the deck, my weapon, a broom, The kreigsmarine was (as far as i know),, the least evil group of palefaces on earth at that time, still evil, but not as evil as say;;;;the newly greened, blue devils, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.