WesWorld

That is most certainly true....

The world has changed drastically, unfortunately we in the west are slow to react. I'm confident however that we will overcome this issue, because dimocracy's have always been slow to recognize and react to a crisis such as this but ultimately prevail.

A question to the German and other European players.
As an American we don't always get a full view of what happens in Europe. What is told of the aftermath of Second World War Germany? The Allies occupied the country. My question is how long did it take before things got better? Before the vestiges of the previous government were removed and the hate died away? How long before West Germany was considered "safe" after the war? East Germany might also be included in this question, but I'm not sure it was every truely safe if you need a wall and border patrols to keep your own people in (this is seems to be the general Western view of the Soviet Bloc Nations).

Quoted

In a Wesworld sense, I wonder if this will have an impact in the sim? Such as the Silver Cresent Meetings, SALSA, Piracy, and Terrorist activities such as near French Guiana and in the United States.

Following the tsunami in SE Asia, I made a point of not bringing any natural disasters up for a while, out of respect for any readers who might have suffered as a result of it. Were it necessary, I'd adjust storylines to be respectful to those who've suffered as a result of today's bombings.

But I don't think it will be necessary; the Hindu/Muslim conflict in India, which flared up recently, will have more of an effect on my own work.

Quoted

But others say this goes way back to prehistoric days, about the meeting of Cro-magnon and Neanderthal, and the inner hate is a genetic memory....but again this goes back to "point of view".

Wha...?

The only explosions planned in the US for 1928 will be political.

Quoted

Wha...?

Remember, "point of view".

Quoted

Remember, "point of view".

Hmm...

Re Europe/Germany/1945 etc. have a look into the Morgenthau Plan for Germany...

The rise of Communism had more to do with the rapid reestablishment of Germany and Japan after the war than any natural desire to seem them rebuild themselves in their own right.

Quoted

The rise of Communism had more to do with the rapid reestablishment of Germany and Japan after the war than any natural desire to seem them rebuild themselves in their own right.

Absolutely. This is one of the reasons there was no similar effort for rehabilitating Russia after the Cold War, while aid to Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaidzhan, and the Baltic States has continued to have an aspect of insurance against the recovery of Russia.

Quoted

The fall of the Ottoman Empire and its aftermath, which we are exploring here in 1927, could be considered one of these causes.

Extremely true. Events in the Balkans 1992-present show that we haven't properly dealt with the consequences of the collapse of the Austrian and Ottoman Empires, and in 1991 we added the Russian Empire to that list.

We definitely live in interesting times.

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
A question to the German and other European players.
As an American we don't always get a full view of what happens in Europe. What is told of the aftermath of Second World War Germany? The Allies occupied the country. My question is how long did it take before things got better? Before the vestiges of the previous government were removed and the hate died away? How long before West Germany was considered "safe" after the war? East Germany might also be included in this question, but I'm not sure it was every truely safe if you need a wall and border patrols to keep your own people in (this is seems to be the general Western view of the Soviet Bloc Nations).

You´re asking some complex questions here. It would take pages and pages to answer....

It´s probably easier to go to a large library and try to get some good books - written by Germans or Europeans, that is. Once I´m back home I may browse our family library if I can come up with a better proposal.

Quoted

Once I´m back home I may browse our family library if I can come up with a better proposal.

That would be good. As a student of History it would be good to know what the better sources would be.

Books,

For Japan see thisThe Clash: A history of US-Japan Relations

Regarding Germany I don't know of a good overall reference but I've found 'Military Innovation in the Interwar Period' - edited by Murray & Millett interesting on the Germany military 1918-1939. Hoo can correct me if I'm wrong but in the victorious powers there was a revulsion to war after ww1 with much anti-war groundswell - lots of books - political agendas - poetry etc. In Germany there were two works (just two) that were 'anti-war'. One we know as 'All quiet on the Western Front' (I can't recall what the other was). It seemed that the German reaction to WW1 was that every generation has to go through war.

Cheers,

Quoted

Originally posted by alt_naval
In Germany there were two works (just two) that were 'anti-war'. One we know as 'All quiet on the Western Front' (I can't recall what the other was). It seemed that the German reaction to WW1 was that every generation has to go through war.

I can´t agree to your last statement but the book you mentioned is one of the most famous probably. It´s called "Im Westen nichts Neues" originally....

Interesting. However what I'm looking for is information of the occupation of Germany by the Allies after the Second World War, the length of it, how much resistance there was to it. What types of resistance and how long before the resistance ended. Along with causes of resistance and the cause for the end of resistance. I imagine the resistance to the Allies ended before the French, British, and Americans left their respective sectors of control and West Germany could begin to operate more independently.

There never was something like the French Resistancé in Germany. The Americans and British were quite welcome instead (except from those who commited crimes for the Nazis, that is). The vast majority of German population was just happy the war was over. Of course there also was a lot of fear what would happen next but in general the need for food and shelter was more severe than anything else. And here the western allies imediately began to help. With the Sovjets however, things were quite different....

So except for some single individuums who kept fighting for their ideology, there was no Restistancé.

I´m also surprised that you - as a student of history - don´t know that the occupation never ended. Allied forces are still in Germany. Of course our perspective changed over the year and foes became friends but it is interesting to note that even today there´s still no peace treaty signed. All there is is an armistice....

One of those interesting little details...

You know Korea has the same situation? Except they don't even have an armistice, just a cease-fire agreement!

Actually I did know that Allied forces have not yet left, but the situation had changed so as that is was a friendly situation rather then hostile occupation. I was just wondering how long that took to happen. The single individuals who kept fighting for their ideology were not reported by our media as far as I can tell. I only heard about it from primary sources (well children of soldiers who were at the receiving end of these individual's attacks.)

I wonder why people think Iraq should be different if history says that these things take a long time? Japan, Germany, South Korea....all still have American troops present. The situation changed but the bases remain. Maybe its because technology has made us impatient, or our media sources are so fast and relatively uncensored(?), but more sensationally/ratings motivated then those of the 1940s?

But then of course sometimes the media has pushed for war...see the Spanish-American War and the efforts made to get people to want to go to war with Spain, over first Cuba, then the Maine.

Again, war is a big "point of view" thing. I've heard arguments from many sides over various wars, at least from about 1500 to present. One person's fight for freedom is another person's invader or rebel. Each side usually demonizes the other, either the entire peoples or just the heads of state, depended on the reasons for the war. There is still hatred against the Japanese among some of the older generation in the United States (much more so then against the Germans, at least on the West Coast), there is hatred against the British in some Irish, there is hatred on both side in Israel, and around India. Plus you have historical cultural conflicts like England and France, and England and Scotland both of which from what I understand still can be seen to this day (at least it could be seen in Scotland) Hate takes time to mend, if it can be mended. The problems of the world today that stem from the aftermath of the Great War will be fixed once we get enough generations removed from the conflict....as long as we don't make it worse. After enough time has passed (back to the women run universities again), then maybe things like what happened in London will disappear.

As for information on the Second World War and its aftermath. In the United States most sources and points of view on the subject tend to be American, British, or Jewish. German and Japanese sources are relatively rare and/or untranslated. Italian sources....I don't think I've heard of any. French sources seem to be missing a lot of the time as well. Russian sources are getting more common, but are still fairly rare and generally still in Russian.

The lack of German sources is the reason for the point of view question on the Allied occupation...I've heard it from one point of view, I was wondering if the locals knew or felt differently about it.

Quoted

One person's fight for freedom is another person's invader or rebel. Each side usually demonizes the other, either the entire peoples or just the heads of state, depended on the reasons for the war.

Its not hard for me to realize which side in the war on terror is really the demon, no propoganda needed. Terrorists are not freedom fighters when they attack civilians exclusively. The fact of the matter is to we in the west, civilians are not legitimate targets.

No matter what course of action we take Fundokreeps will still look for targets, so doing nothing is in fact the worst course of action one can take, it ammounts to hiding in the corner and hoping the terrorists will find some other target. Don't forget who attacked first on 911, who they targeted and their pitifull motive for doing so. One only has to look at the political fallout in Libya, Israel/Palistine, Syria/Lebannon, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan following the invasion of Iraq.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
The fact of the matter is to we in the west, civilians are not legitimate targets.

So? Somebody forgot to tell "Bomber" Harris, methinks, and the people of Dresden.....or those citizens that suffered from earlier fire storms such as Hamburg.

Nothing´s absolute.

Theres a big difference between Hamburg and 911 and other similar attacks.

Both sides commited horrible acts durring world war two, the firebombings were more against the german infrastructure than the actual civilians, problem was the war was in its 3/4th year so civilian deaths were an afterthought to certain American bomber generals. The bombings were also durring a clear war between world powers, it was very easy to know who the enemy was because he wore a uniform.

Aerial bombing is a poor compairison because its very impersonal and very inacurate at least when talking about WW2 attacks, not to mention that the first bombings of London and other city's durring the Blitz was the start of a nasty tactic of war that only intensified till it became firebombings and now Nuclear warfare. One could agrue Count Zeppilin was the grandfather of this tactic.

We cannot let the distinction between "terrorist" and a ligitimate military force be blurred. Terrorists have no other goals outside of the one to snuff out human lives, they are simply murderers of the worst breed. Their attacks only serve to instill terror in the hearts of the groups the attack, there is no achievable military goal.

Military forces have completely different goals, they work to overthrough a govt. and impose their will upon the replacement govt., to achieve this goal they tangle with other military forces with the same goals.

Civilians are not targets on their list, they do however get caught in the middle quite often. In WW2 you would have to live in the countryside to avoid a bomb aimed at a factory, now you have to aviod terrorists using civilians as cover in your own neighbourhood.

When you use the civilian guise as your camouflage it has nasty effects, thats why half these guys are at Gitmo, they are unlawfull combatants, they don't wear uniforms and they don't adhere to the rules of war as recognized by the Geneva convention or the the rule of civilian law, therefore they don't enjoy the benifits of the protection of either law. In the past these people would have been executed outright.

I was not mixing terrorists with normal military forces. I was talking about the fact that there´s always the other side of a medal because your post sounded like "the sun always shines in the west". We should also note that Guantanamo Bay has little to do with the Geneva Convention.

I also propose reading more about the allied arial bombing in WWe. Harris send its bombers to the cities to kill the civilians. They were the target. Their moral should be broken. Destroying infrastructure was a welcome side effect. Btw, the first attack against a city - long before the Blitz against Britain - was by 5 british Wellingtons against Berlin in 1939. Some kind of "terror" attack to show the Germans "we can reach you". All 5 bombers were shot down on their way home, IIRC.

Don´t get me wrong. I´m not forgetting who the aggressor was in WW2. I´m just pointing out that war crimes were committed on both sides of the fence.

This is still true today. An unprovoken attack on Iraq - even if a criminal and evil system was destroyed - and Guantanamo Bay provide enough material to show that no side considers Geneva seriously.

Fine with me - terrorists have no rights - but one should not stand in front of the world and feel on moral high ground when doing so, telling the world one is following international law. Heck, the definitions for torture used by the Bush administration to allow what happens in their camps are so wide open that Saddams regime wasn´t using torture too.

But I´m drfiting away from the original topic...