Re: [OT] aargh.. the big swirl of offtopicness sucks me in, too. help!
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:05:17 +0100
Michael Dominok <du.lists@dominok.net> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 18:47 +0000 schrieb Liam O'Toole:
> > On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:49:15 +0100
> > Michael Dominok <du.lists@dominok.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 13:44 +0000 schrieb Liam O'Toole:
> > > > The Nazis had no long-term interest in Amsterdam, Paris, etc.
> > >
> > > Huh? Interesting. What makes you think that?
> > > Of course were they interested in (exploiting) these countries.
> > > Not as farmland, as in the east. Do you really think that the
> > > Nazis would have "released" those countries somewhen "after the
> > > war"? Why should they let go of some of the richest
> > > economies/countries which they succesfully exploited with the
> > > help of well established administrations of collaborators? The
> > > "best" western, northern and southern Europe + parts of Africa
> > > could expect was some kind of vichyazation.
> >
> > We weren't discussing political and economic designs, but linguistic
> > and cultural ones.
>
> Yes. Just to remind you how we got here:
> You claimed that:
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 09:43 +0000 schrieb Liam O'Toole:
> > Not at all. Both the Nazis and the Soviets went to great lengths to
> > Germanise or Russify the areas they acquired or inherited,
> > brutally suppressing other languages and cultures in the process.
>
> I tried to point out that - in Nazi-Germanys case - this was true for
> the east (for parts of it) but completely untrue for the west, north
> and south.
>
> Michael Dominok <du.lists@dominok.net> wrote:
> > So, concerning nazi-germany 3/4 of your statement is wrong.
>
> To which you didn't object but tried to play down the importance of
> the "areas they acquired" in the north, west and south.
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 13:44 +0000 schrieb Liam O'Toole:
> > The Nazis had no long-term interest in Amsterdam, Paris, etc.
>
> A rather, aehm, daring theory. I dropped some clues to why Amsterdam,
> Paris, etc. _were_ of interest to the Nazis and now you're accusing me
> of avoiding/losing the topic _you_ tossed the focus off?
> I hope your OT-skill can improve...
There is nothing OT about my contributions. This started as a
question of whether totalitarian regimes can tolerate diversity.
I have consistently been arguing that they can not.
> > > If you have to rank the "mad assholes" of human history i doubt
> > > that Franko would make it anywhere near Hitler and Stalin. Not
> > > that this makes him any less disgusting but looking a the means
> > > the Nazis and Soviets used to achieve their goals Franko just
> > > didn't "play in the same league".
> >
> > Yes, in terms of raw numbers of people murdered or terrorised,
> > Franco wasn't in the same league as the gruesome twosome. But he
> > was just as determined in his efforts to establish linguistic and
> > cultural supremacy.
>
> Well, i'm determined in winning the lotteries. For years. Guess how
> many hits my determination got me?
> Determination without "means" is worth nothing. So is your comparison.
Franco was remarkably successfully at establishing a Castilian
hegemony. Are you saying he should have tried harder?
>
> > > That's not my point. I mentioned Auschwitz-Birkenau because it's
> > > the "official" name of the camp. If the Nazis had decided to use
> > > an other naming scheme the camp would maybe be known as
> > > KZ-IG-Farben or KZAmF.
> > >
> > > The camp itself was certainly aimed at exterminating some
> > > languages and cultures - its name not.
> >
> > On the contrary, it's name and purpose were inextricably linked.
>
> I'm sorry, but this is utter and stupid nonsense. The Camps were named
> after the cities/villages they were next to. This was not to
> "propagate" the germanized names of the citiesat (When or how should
> this have happened, anyway? The Nazis didn't go around "bragging"
> with their Conzentration Camps) to have some 8th or 123th grade
> effect on the local culture.
> And what about the Camps in Germany, named after their neighboring
> german Towns? Were their "name[s] and purpose[s]" also "inextricably
> linked" ?
It is entirely consistent with my case that the worst excesses of the
period will be denoted by a German name for a Polish location.
>
> Unless you manage to annoy me with some new twists this is EOT for me.
You seem to be easily annoyed. Bye bye.
--
Liam
Reply to: