Live data from Hacker News

Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing to Fight a War for Their Country

brilliantmaps.com

241–250 of 265 posts

Re: Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing to Fight a War for Their Country

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: during the occupation of France by the Nazis, a disproportionate amount of the French resistance were immigrants[1]. In fact the second (after Jean Moulin) most famous group that was caught was the "Manouchian network", whose members were almost all immigrants. Likewise the Free French Forces (i.e. French military who refused to surrender in 1940) operating under British command were at least two-third…

Controversially and OT but it was in a documentary I saw recently. It's been suggested that the colonial troops were responsible for the the vast majority of the large numbers of rapes of women in the French occupied part of Germany

Unless that documentary is backed up with hard data, I would dispute that "vast majority" claim based on the following:

* About two-third of the FFF were West African, so if that was true there would have been at least a very noticeable small 'epidemic' of black babies in West Germany. (EDIT: apparently that ratio fell to 2/5th in mid-1944, after Vichy fell and the 'new' French government was able to draft a lot more people.)

* The FFF were non-segregated, it would seem odd that only 2 out of 3 dudes in any random squad would take part in this, but not the third guy? In any case it would make it much more complicated to keep those events under wrap , which matters because...

* ...More importantly: ALL officers/cadres were white, and I do not think they would have allowed non-whites to have a go at white women, that would have crossed a line. The racial world-view was still very much a thing.

* The FFF were in much lower numbers than the US and Commonwealth armies (after all France had just come out of complete occupation), so I doubt they would have been able to do disproportionate damage on that front.

* Also, the "French occupied part of Germany" did not in fact exist until sometime in 1946, when the US & UK (sort of retroactively) created the "French Zone" to have 3 Western powers in Germany and counter the USSR influence. By that time I believe a large number of colonial troops had been sent back home (where, in fact, many of them took part in local independentist movements to end their occupation -- troubles in the French colonies started brewing as soon as mid-1945).

That being said, the scale of the rapes committed by the Allies has been a big taboo until a few years ago (except, famously, for the Russian army, since they were very quickly moved into a different category, "not-so-much-Allies-any-more", so it was OK to report that they raped their way to Berlin), and current evidences indicate that the allies also took part in war-rapes, a lot, and not just in Germany. So if the statement was "FFF did commit a large number of rapes", I would say: yes they probably did, all armies did it.

Re: Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing to Fight a War for Their Country

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice ad-hominem and credentialism you have there, do you have anything that refutes his points ?

How about common sense? Or you plan to detail the discussion by switching context to talking about far-right fiction?

Well, if it is a far-right fiction, it will be easy to refute it's point instead of ad-homineming the author, right?

Re: Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing to Fight a War for Their Country

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

East of Curzon line. You know, that agreement that was made after WW1 (and therefore after USSR was established) and broken by the 1920-war?

Curzon line was suggested _during_ the war. Besides, as I said - Poland had the same rights to these territories, so it was a fair game of whoever captured them first. And if we're talking about broken agreements - Bolsheviks broke that agreement first.

So basically you are saying that it was fair game for Poland to forcibly capture the territory, but when the USSR did the same, it's wrong and despicable?

Nice double standards.

Re: Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing to Fight a War for Their Country

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia has waged dozens of aggressive wars during that period, including 2 since 2008

Yes, sure. The first one was their UN peacekeeping units being attacked[1], and that second one was never proved, the only evidence is evidence by repetition, ala Goering. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_Russo-G...

oh really, "there were no Russian troops in Crimea, where's your proof", straight from Russian TV. Now tell us that Boeing wasn't shot by the paramilitaries backed, organized, armed and financed by Russia.

edit: also, your nickname seems very fitting. You a Stalin fan?

Re: Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing to Fight a War for Their Country

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curzon line was suggested _during_ the war. Besides, as I said - Poland had the same rights to these territories, so it was a fair game of whoever captured them first. And if we're talking about broken agreements - Bolsheviks broke that agreement first.

So basically you are saying that it was fair game for Poland to forcibly capture the territory, but when the USSR did the same, it's wrong and despicable? Nice double standards.

Where did I ever said anything about 'wrong and despicable'?

Re: Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing to Fight a War for Their Country

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about common sense? Or you plan to detail the discussion by switching context to talking about far-right fiction?

Well, if it is a far-right fiction, it will be easy to refute it's point instead of ad-homineming the author, right?

Wrong. That would be derailing.

Re: Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing to Fight a War for Their Country

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, sure. The first one was their UN peacekeeping units being attacked[1], and that second one was never proved, the only evidence is evidence by repetition, ala Goering. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_Russo-G...

oh really, "there were no Russian troops in Crimea, where's your proof", straight from Russian TV. Now tell us that Boeing wasn't shot by the paramilitaries backed, organized, armed and financed by Russia. edit: also, your nickname seems very fitting. You a Stalin fan?

Crimea is way more complicated case than "green muzhiks". You could start with Khrushchev and 1954. Or at least the 1992 referendum, which was ignored.

And that Boeing? Really? The evidence for this claim is even worse than for Saddam's WMDs. You didn't even ask yourself cui bono?

Re: Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing to Fight a War for Their Country

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically you are saying that it was fair game for Poland to forcibly capture the territory, but when the USSR did the same, it's wrong and despicable? Nice double standards.

Where did I ever said anything about 'wrong and despicable'?

Sorry, that wasn't you.

It is often used as an argument, that USSR invaded Poland (see above) and therefore they were literally Hitler.

What is forgetten is the B side of the coin, which is the content of this thread.

Re: Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing to Fight a War for Their Country

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if it is a far-right fiction, it will be easy to refute it's point instead of ad-homineming the author, right?

Wrong. That would be derailing.

OK, I take is that you don't have any counterargument, but you refuse it based on ideology.

Have a nice day.

Re: Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing to Fight a War for Their Country

#250
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be willing to be part of a pre-emptive attack against a much more prosperous neighbouring country with empire-building aspirations? How about a pre-emptive attack against a country where populist polls show overwhelming support for invading your country, even if its current administration is against the idea? How about joining in to defend one neighbour against another, aggressor neighbour—one which you hav…

Exactly. There is quite a bit of clarification needed for someone to fully answer the question and depending on how you define certain terms the responses, I would imagine, would quite different. "Fight a War" : Front line with arms? Controlling a drone from thousands of miles away? Being a military medic, engineer, or strategist? Propaganda writer? "country": Sovereign physical boarders? Extends to protecting assets…

Yep, that's a very good synopsis )
Post reply on HN