It took a Socialist to do this

[Saint in Paradise]

Francois Hollande has become the first French President in history to visit the graves of thousands of

British soldiers who died liberating his country on D-Day.

 

As rain poured down at the end of his visit, Mr Hollande said: "The rain doesn't matter, being here does."

 

He shook hands with Parachute Regiment veterans, as well as serving British and French Army soldiers.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/9314451/Francois-Hollande-becomes-first-French-president-to-visit-D-Day-war-graves.html

 

I am amazed that it has taken a French president so long to do this but remembering De Gaulle.....

[Jonnyboy]

You know what, I think it's gonna be alright Paradise.

[solentstars]

Francois Hollande has become the first French President in history to visit the graves of thousands of

British soldiers who died liberating his country on D-Day.

 

As rain poured down at the end of his visit, Mr Hollande said: "The rain doesn't matter, being here does."

 

He shook hands with Parachute Regiment veterans, as well as serving British and French Army soldiers.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/9314451/Francois-Hollande-becomes-first-French-president-to-visit-D-Day-war-graves.html

 

I am amazed that it has taken a French president so long to do this but remembering De Gaulle.....

well done its great sign of a human being to show respect to the war dead and the freedoms we enjoy today.

[Dimond Geezer]

I can't believe it's taken a French leader 68 years to do this. To me that show a great deal of dis-respect to the fallen, but possibly sums up the arrogance of the nation as a whole. What ever your politics, you've got to give him credit for doing this.

[Danbert]

What's being a socialist got to do with it?

[pap]

What's being a socialist got to do with it?

 

Massive generalisation, obviously - but I'd have thought that the "giving a f**k" component of being a socialist might have played into this

[emerson massey]

What's being a socialist got to do with it?

 

Agreed - i'm pretty sure there has been another socialist government in France within the last 68 years, and they never did it. Cheap point scoring.

[badgerx16]

Cheap point scoring.

 

Maybe he's learned it from Dune ?

[Kingsland Codger]

Bravo Monsieur Hollande. It may be hopelessly late but at least he did the correct thing as soon as he could.

[doddisalegend]

Actually If you look at ww2 from a French point of view you can see why it's taken 68 years....

 

how about Oran anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir

 

Just look at the relationship between the French Army B (eight and half divisions of French troops) and the US 7th army after operation Dragoon not exactly cordail at times. The French needed allied help to get their country back but had/have way to much pride to admit it. They even ended up as the fourth power in the aftermath of WW2 including an occupation zone in Berrlin post war. I think the French rightly or wrongly felt they did their bit and hardly need to thank Britian who they had a very stormy relationship with throughout the war.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I've not the slighest doubt that numerious British & French Heads of state have paid their due respects at each others respective national memorials over the years since 1918.

 

Well done to M Hollande for this very welcome mark of respect to our fallen, but I wonder if any British head of state has ever visited Verdun for instance ?

[dune]

Maybe he's learned it from Dune ?

 

Do you mean 'learnt'?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I've not the slighest doubt that numerious British & French Heads of state have paid their due respects at each others respective national memorials over the years since 1918.

 

Well done to M Hollande for this very welcome mark of respect to our fallen, but I wonder if any British head of state has ever visited Verdun for instance ?

 

That's not comparable.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Do you mean 'learnt'?

 

Either is correct.

[dune]

Either is correct.

 

 

Learnt and learned are not the same thing at all.

 

Learnt is the past tense of the verb to learn and is used in the simple past (preterite). I learnt French at school.

 

Learned is the past participle and used in the perfect tense. I have learned to speak French.

 

A verb which behaves in a similar way is dream.

 

Last night dreamt I was in an aeroplane.

 

I have often dreamed of winning the lottery.

 

As bridge too far would say "HTH".

[Verbal]

Learnt and learned are not the same thing at all.

 

Learnt is the past tense of the verb to learn and is used in the simple past (preterite). I learnt French at school.

 

Learned is the past participle and used in the perfect tense. I have learned to speak French.

 

A verb which behaves in a similar way is dream.

 

Last night dreamt I was in an aeroplane.

 

I have often dreamed of winning the lottery.

 

As bridge too far would say "HTH".

 

Anothersaint is right, dumbass. Either is fine. The only difference now is that learnt is more archaic. So your use and defence of it is fitting, don't you think?

[Minty]

You can thank the influence of American English for the -ed endings... but both are indeed perfectly acceptable in modern day Britain.

[Minty]

Learnt and learned are not the same thing at all.

 

Learnt is the past tense of the verb to learn and is used in the simple past (preterite). I learnt French at school.

 

Learned is the past participle and used in the perfect tense. I have learned to speak French.

 

A verb which behaves in a similar way is dream.

 

Last night dreamt I was in an aeroplane.

 

I have often dreamed of winning the lottery.

 

As bridge too far would say "HTH".

 

Nice to see your cut-and-paste skills are alive and well dune: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070317112122AATO9XB

 

lol

[badgerx16]

Maybe he's learned it from Dune ?

 

Do you mean 'learnt'?

 

No, "he has 'learned' to post cheap attempts at point scoring like Dune".

Comme ci :-

 

.....I have learned to speak French.

[dune]

You can thank the influence of American English for the -ed endings... but both are indeed perfectly acceptable in modern day Britain.

 

I suppose one has to make accommodation for thickos like Badgerx16.

[dune]

Anothersaint is right, dumbass. Either is fine. The only difference now is that learnt is more archaic. So your use and defence of it is fitting, don't you think?

 

Are you saying 'we leant Verbal was a mental case' and 'we learned Verbal was a mental case' are both correct?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Are you saying 'we leant Verbal was a mental case' and 'we learned Verbal was a mental case' are both correct?

 

It's safe to say that you have learned something today. Hope that is now burnt into your memory.

[dune]

It's safe to say that you have learned something today. Hope that is now burnt into your memory.

 

Not at all, Verbal and his therapist is old news on the SWF.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

That's not comparable.

 

Why ?

[badgerx16]

I suppose one has to make accommodation for thickos like Badgerx16.

 

If you cannot hold up your side of a debate, you have run out of 'copy and paste' opportunities, and there are no YouTube videos to hand, you can always hide behind your keyboard and throw in an insult.

 

( Before anybody points it out, I realise that sometimes I allow myself to be drawn down to Dune's level. It makes me feel used, but sometimes you cannot avoid spontaneous reactions ).

Edited 7 June, 2012 by badgerx16

[ART]

This is a load of b o ll ocks. Sarkozy's first act was to commemorate the D Day landings together with Prince Charles. He visited the graves and laid wreaths. A good Google or Youtube search will find plenty of film coverage of the events surrounding D Day commemoration by Sarkozy. I watched the whole event on French TV and it remains embedded in my memory, especially the hommage Sarkozy paid to all those who were involved.

 

A little reminder for those who've chosen to make Hollande a hero for attending this year. The only difference is he drove to Normandy, supposedly to economise on transport, and was caught speeding at 160 kph.

 

Edited 7 June, 2012 by ART

[Saint in Paradise]

That looks like the US graveyard and I only saw French and US flags in video.

Hollande went to the British graveyard.

 

One point to remember though that if it wasn't for men like those who died a lot

of us wouldn't be here.

[ART]

That looks like the US graveyard and I only saw French and US flags in video.

Hollande went to the British graveyard.

 

One point to remember though that if it wasn't for men like those who died a lot

of us wouldn't be here.

 

All the graveyards were visited. Didn't you see Gordon Brown, and Prince Charles head bowed. Th Canadian PM Steven Harper? I spent the entire day watching it all live on TV here in France. Sarkozy definitely went with Prince Charles to lay a wreath in the UK graveyards. It was a huge event but originally the UK wasn't represented as Brown came to an arrangement with the Queen that she would not attend. In the end Charles and Camilla represented the UK.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Why ?

 

Verdun was French defending France on dying on French soil. Normandy was Allied troops liberating France and dying on French soil. Why should a British figurehead have to visit Verdun?

[TopGun]

Verdun was French defending France on dying on French soil. Normandy was Allied troops liberating France and dying on French soil. Why should a British figurehead have to visit Verdun?

 

As allies why wouldn't they visit one another's graves?

 

It may not have happened in total entirety but to attempt to bring politics into the issue seems bizarre.

[Thedelldays]

If Cameron did this. The title of the thread would be about some PR stunt

[Thedelldays]

This is a load of b o ll ocks. Sarkozy's first act was to commemorate the D Day landings together with Prince Charles. He visited the graves and laid wreaths. A good Google or Youtube search will find plenty of film coverage of the events surrounding D Day commemoration by Sarkozy. I watched the whole event on French TV and it remains embedded in my memory, especially the hommage Sarkozy paid to all those who were involved.

 

A little reminder for those who've chosen to make Hollande a hero for attending this year. The only difference is he drove to Normandy, supposedly to economise on transport, and was caught speeding at 160 kph.

 

 

Well, there we go

 

Close this thread?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Verdun was French defending France on dying on French soil. Normandy was Allied troops liberating France and dying on French soil. Why should a British figurehead have to visit Verdun?

 

I never said that our Head of State has to visit the Verdun battlefield, but if you really understood the national traumas bloodbaths like Verdun or the Somme still represent to the people of both nations then you might not question the wisdom of doing so quite so readily.

 

Many veterans have attested over the years that the French people have constantly displayed the utmost level of care & devotion to the memory's (& the war graves) of all the allied servicemen who fought on her soil. Furthermore, it is clearly not the case that French Heads of State have never attended allied war graves before M Hollande's recent visit, although perhaps they could have done so more frequently.

 

The forces of the British Empire & France fought together during the Great War to preserve our joint security and prevent any German dominance of the continent. All those countless French & British soldiers who suffered so horribly on the western front during WWI fought in the same cause rather than in separate ones. As for Normandy and WWII, the record shows that 'Free French' air, land, & sea forces were certainly involved in the invasion, partisans were active behind the lines and French civilian casualties were very substantial indeed I'm sorry to say.

 

This is the grim truth of war - everyone suffers.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I never said that our Head of State has to visit the Verdun battlefield, but if you really understood the national traumas bloodbaths like Verdun or the Somme still represent to the people of both nations then you might not question the wisdom of doing so quite so readily.

 

Many veterans have attested over the years that the French people have constantly displayed the utmost level of care & devotion to the memory's (& the war graves) of all the allied servicemen who fought on her soil. Furthermore, it is clearly not the case that French Heads of State have never attended allied war graves before M Hollande's recent visit, although perhaps they could have done so more frequently.

 

The forces of the British Empire & France fought together during the Great War to preserve our joint security and prevent any German dominance of the continent. All those countless French & British soldiers who suffered so horribly on the western front during WWI fought in the same cause rather than in separate ones. As for Normandy and WWII, the record shows that 'Free French' air, land, & sea forces were certainly involved in the invasion, partisans were active behind the lines and French civilian casualties were very substantial indeed I'm sorry to say.

 

This is the grim truth of war - everyone suffers.

 

Sorry, I know a fair deal about Verdun but still don't think it was directly relevant comparison to whether or not French leaders showed sufficient respect to British troops who died in France. A better comparison would have been whether or not British leaders paid their respects to Commonwealth pilots who died in the Battle of Britain. In any case I'd be very surprised if British leaders hadn't had visited Verdun before.

 

Not sure I quite agree with your analysis of the Great War. I'm sure that opposing German aggression was the morally correct thing to do but you could easily argue that British interests would have been better served by leaving France and Germany to it just like we did in the Franco-Prussian war a few decades earlier.

 

Your view of the WWII is also a bit dodgy. The French contribution to the war was massively overblown for propaganda purposes - certainly not "very substantial".

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The origins of WWI are properly the subject of several very substantial books rather than a brief post on a internet forum - suffice it to say that this great nation found the prospect of a German dominated Europe utterly unacceptable in 1914 and given the remorseless rise of German economic and military power during this period British Strategic reasoning was probably sound. Looking back at yesterdays Cameron-Merkel summit in Berlin nothing much ever changes.

 

I don't think anyone would seriously claim that the Free French contribution to the allied cause in WWII was in any way comparable in scale to the efforts put in by the British Empire or Russia for instance. However many brave Frenchmen most certainly did continue to fight on the allied side after the fall of France in 1940. From the Free French Brigade's heroic defence of Bir Hakeim in the western desert, to French crewed corvettes escorting Atlantic convoys, and the numerous French Squadrons that operated under RAF control, the Free French contribution to the allied victory in 1945 was real and noteworthy.

 

If you really doubt the scale of French civilian casualties during the last year of WWII then I can only suggest you research the terrible suffering of the people of Caen, the grim slaughter of 642 men women and children by the SS Das Reich Panzer Division at Oradour-sur-Glane, or even the French blood needlessly shed during the RAF bombing of Le Harve shortly after D Day for instance.

[ART]

I'd like to point out that there are many graveyards in France where former British, American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand war dead are buried. Hollande's visit was arranged by the previous government and had Sarkozy won the election it would have been him who was the first to visit the Ranville cemetery. I am going to look for a list of British War dead cemetery's which will show some have been visited frequently, whilst others have been sadly overlooked.

 

And don't believe the majority of French were fighting on our side. I think the percentage of collaboration and just letting the Germans take over is extremely high. People forget Pétain and Vichy France. Few would admit they collaborated, supported the Germans, but it is a fact they like to conveniently forget and hide their participation.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I'd like to point out that there are many graveyards in France where former British, American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand war dead are buried. Hollande's visit was arranged by the previous government and had Sarkozy won the election it would have been him who was the first to visit the Ranville cemetery. I am going to look for a list of British War dead cemetery's which will show some have been visited frequently, whilst others have been sadly overlooked.

 

And don't believe the majority of French were fighting on our side. I think the percentage of collaboration and just letting the Germans take over is extremely high. People forget Pétain and Vichy France. Few would admit they collaborated, supported the Germans, but it is a fact they like to conveniently forget and hide their participation.

 

Some actively opposed the occupation, others shamefully collaborated with it, while many (the majority perhaps) didn't do much of either and just continued with their everyday lives as best they could in the circumstances. Far from being some perversely French character flaw, it seems that much the same could be said about the very British population of the Channel Islands.

 

It far too easy to sit here in the comfort of our secure peacetime armchairs and opine that we of course would have done better - you should walk a mile in another mans shoes before judging him they say.

[ART]

Some actively opposed the occupation, others shamefully collaborated with it, while many (the majority perhaps) didn't do much of either and just continued with their everyday lives as best they could in the circumstances. Far from being some perversely French character flaw, it seems that much the same could be said about the very British population of the Channel Islands.

 

It far too easy to sit here in the comfort of our secure peacetime armchairs and opine that we of course would have done better - you should walk a mile in another mans shoes before judging him they say.

I have tried to live my entire life walking in the shoes of others, trying to understand, to reason and to love. I have lived here in the south of France for almost 40 years, At 23 years I left the UK and went to live for 4 years in the heart of Germany, working for the US Air Force. I have worked 4 years in Africa, in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia, in Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, and 20 years in China. Anyone who knows me will tell you few expats merged themselves more into the lives of these peoples than I myself. This is not saying I am an expert on what went on during the occupation of France. Yet I have heard for myself from many who did and am aware that the majority did nothing to oppose the occupation, denounced their fellow Frenchmen and women, sent thousands to the concentration camps, to their deaths. I live in their midst yet there are few that I would trust, believe in.

[alpine_saint]

All the graveyards were visited. Didn't you see Gordon Brown, and Prince Charles head bowed. Th Canadian PM Steven Harper? I spent the entire day watching it all live on TV here in France. Sarkozy definitely went with Prince Charles to lay a wreath in the UK graveyards. It was a huge event but originally the UK wasn't represented as Brown came to an arrangement with the Queen that she would not attend. In the end Charles and Camilla represented the UK.

 

Yes, my recollection is similar to this. There was a lot in the media about Sarko trying to exclude the British from the commemoration, but actually it was another example of Brown being an utter tw*t and giving the French the impression that Britain couldnt be bothered with it. Once the hoo-ha kicked off, Sarko made sure the British contribution to D-Day way correctly observed.

 

But yes, the French have in general always had a problem with us being involved in their liberation. Very proud people, and centuries of fierce rivally with us. Imo, the French and the British are more alike than either side cares to admit.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I have tried to live my entire life walking in the shoes of others, trying to understand, to reason and to love. I have lived here in the south of France for almost 40 years, At 23 years I left the UK and went to live for 4 years in the heart of Germany, working for the US Air Force. I have worked 4 years in Africa, in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia, in Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, and 20 years in China. Anyone who knows me will tell you few expats merged themselves more into the lives of these peoples than I myself. This is not saying I am an expert on what went on during the occupation of France. Yet I have heard for myself from many who did and am aware that the majority did nothing to oppose the occupation, denounced their fellow Frenchmen and women, sent thousands to the concentration camps, to their deaths. I live in their midst yet there are few that I would trust, believe in.

 

You're a man of the world Art in ways I could never hope to match. However I'm pretty sure the majority of wartime French citizens did not denounce their fellow citizens or actively engage in deporting Jews to the concentration camps. But some certainly did commit these horrendous crimes of course, but to my way of thinking what this teaches us is not that the French (or even the Germans for that matter) are a uniquely culpable people where war crimes are concerned, but rather that it is an intrinsic part of Human nature that some of us will behave in a deeply cruel, self serving, and inhumane manner when the normal boundaries of 'civilized' behavior are removed for any reason. This is the 'nature of the beast' is it not ?

 

Had the forces of Nazi Germany successfully invaded and occupied Great Britain in 1940 then I have not the slightest doubt that exactly the same sort of thing would inevitably had happen here as well. If anyone reading this finds that an uncomfortable idea then I can only beg their forgiveness and explain that this is the lesson I take from a lifetime spent contemplating the profound insight the war can give a man into the darkest recesses of our human nature.

 

If we were to be perfectly honest with ourselves there's a darkness lurking somewhere within all of us isn't there ?

[Jonnyboy]

You're a man of the world Art in ways I could never hope to match. However I'm pretty sure the majority of wartime French citizens did not denounce their fellow citizens or actively engage in deporting Jews to the concentration camps. But some certainly did commit these horrendous crimes of course, but to my way of thinking what this teaches us is not that the French (or even the Germans for that matter) are a uniquely culpable people where war crimes are concerned, but rather that it is an intrinsic part of Human nature that some of us will behave in a deeply cruel, self serving, and inhumane manner when the normal boundaries of 'civilized' behavior are removed for any reason. This is the 'nature of the beast' is it not ?

 

Had the forces of Nazi Germany successfully invaded and occupied Great Britain in 1940 then I have not the slightest doubt that exactly the same sort of thing would inevitably had happen here as well. If anyone reading this finds that an uncomfortable idea then I can only beg their forgiveness and explain that this is the lesson I take from a lifetime spent contemplating the profound insight the war can give a man into the darkest recesses of our human nature.

 

If we were to be perfectly honest with ourselves there's a darkness lurking somewhere within all of us isn't there ?

 

Good post.

 

ART shows even the most well travelled can take their racism with them where ever they go and despite what they experience.

[Saint in Paradise]

I must admit I didn't expect this thread to last so long or take on the direction it has gone.

 

I only posted it to have a gentle dig at dune and thought it would get about 2 or 3 replies before

dieing like all my others threads do.

 

My father was in the RN 1939 - 1945 and was in fact invalided out so I have the utmost respect

towards the men who fought and died and ended up buried away from their homelands.

 

.

[saintfully]

If Cameron did this. The title of the thread would be about some PR stunt

 

Rhyming slang?

[Verbal]

If Cameron did this. The title of the thread would be about some PR stunt

 

You poor, put-upon little tory, you. This is heart-bleeding stuff.

[Verbal]

You're a man of the world Art in ways I could never hope to match. However I'm pretty sure the majority of wartime French citizens did not denounce their fellow citizens or actively engage in deporting Jews to the concentration camps. But some certainly did commit these horrendous crimes of course, but to my way of thinking what this teaches us is not that the French (or even the Germans for that matter) are a uniquely culpable people where war crimes are concerned, but rather that it is an intrinsic part of Human nature that some of us will behave in a deeply cruel, self serving, and inhumane manner when the normal boundaries of 'civilized' behavior are removed for any reason. This is the 'nature of the beast' is it not ?

 

Had the forces of Nazi Germany successfully invaded and occupied Great Britain in 1940 then I have not the slightest doubt that exactly the same sort of thing would inevitably had happen here as well. If anyone reading this finds that an uncomfortable idea then I can only beg their forgiveness and explain that this is the lesson I take from a lifetime spent contemplating the profound insight the war can give a man into the darkest recesses of our human nature.

 

If we were to be perfectly honest with ourselves there's a darkness lurking somewhere within all of us isn't there ?

 

To put Nazism and collaboration down to human nature is a bit weird. So culture explains resistance but human nature explains collaboration? Collaboration with Nazis is in people's genes?

 

National and cultural characteristics did play a role and how people reacted to Nazi invasion and occupation, from Norway, through Holland, France, Poland and Czechoslovakia, and there's plenty of literature on this. I am aware of no studies that point to a genetic source for collaboration.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

To put Nazism and collaboration down to human nature is a bit weird. So culture explains resistance but human nature explains collaboration? Collaboration with Nazis is in people's genes?

 

National and cultural characteristics did play a role and how people reacted to Nazi invasion and occupation, from Norway, through Holland, France, Poland and Czechoslovakia, and there's plenty of literature on this. I am aware of no studies that point to a genetic source for collaboration.

 

Call it genes call it Human nature if you will, but if it is not something buried deep within our ourselves then how are we to understand the observed and timeless phenomenon of Human evil then ? - if we may resort to employing that religious term. If it is not an intrinsic part of our nature to be self serving and cruel whenever these behaviors become permissible or advantageous, then where do these regrettable Human characteristics emanate from ? Did the Devil force the French into collaboration with Fascism in his eternal conflict with God for the possession of men's souls ?

 

Not for me I'm afraid.

 

The only answer that makes any sense to this observer of Humanity is that we are indeed still animals at heart, with the innate animistic tendency for savagery and self survival (Richard Dawkin's 'Selfish Gene') still capable of triumphing at times over all our more noble aspirations. History shows us time and time again that our sense of civilisation can often prove to be skin deep at best. In the light of the 20th century's bloody history who can possibly doubt the truth of this ?

 

As for the existence of any readily identifiable and truly significant "national characteristic" differences among the peoples of neighboring nation states - well I gave up believing in that nonsense back in my early teens. But I'm more than happy to await your explanation for the darker aspects of Human nature - no doubt Marx & Engels had something to say on it.

[Verbal]

Ok Charlie, tell you what. I'll go and look at a microscope, and see if I can find any Nazi genes. What should I look for? Some sequences in the form of swastikas?

 

It's not just weird to believe in the idea that a resistance to political evil is cultural and and acquiescence to it genetic - a belief for which there is precisely no evidence - it's also dangerous. It effectively excuses those who fall into line with Nazism, et al. You're left with: "I was only following (genetic) orders, honest, guv!"

 

By the way, I wasn't suggesting anything remotely like there are 'national characteristics' in any other sense than that different national cultures have different effects. The Nazis actually understood this rather well, which one reason is why Vichy was created: the French have an overarching cultural identity in nationhood, built around language. Put French people, talking French, in puppet positions and you are more likely to get the cooperation an occupier requires - no matter, it seems, how awful that occupier actually is. (And after all, the Nazis had a war to fight; the last thing they wanted to do was spend inordinate amounts of military time trying to cling on to unruly occupied peoples). In Britain, the plan was different: entice a corrupt royal and stick him in as a collaborating figurehead. But we've been here before...

[ART]

Maybe these findings lend weight to some of the theories and observations on the French

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/london/quelle-horreur-the-french-are-worlds-top-scaredycats-according-to-research-done-by-the-london-dungeon-7830684.html

[Jonnyboy]

Pur-lease

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Ok Charlie, tell you what. I'll go and look at a microscope, and see if I can find any Nazi genes. What should I look for? Some sequences in the form of swastikas?

 

It's not just weird to believe in the idea that a resistance to political evil is cultural and and acquiescence to it genetic - a belief for which there is precisely no evidence - it's also dangerous. It effectively excuses those who fall into line with Nazism, et al. You're left with: "I was only following (genetic) orders, honest, guv!"

 

By the way, I wasn't suggesting anything remotely like there are 'national characteristics' in any other sense than that different national cultures have different effects. The Nazis actually understood this rather well, which one reason is why Vichy was created: the French have an overarching cultural identity in nationhood, built around language. Put French people, talking French, in puppet positions and you are more likely to get the cooperation an occupier requires - no matter, it seems, how awful that occupier actually is. (And after all, the Nazis had a war to fight; the last thing they wanted to do was spend inordinate amounts of military time trying to cling on to unruly occupied peoples). In Britain, the plan was different: entice a corrupt royal and stick him in as a collaborating figurehead. But we've been here before...

 

Again, you don't seem to like my understanding of Human behavior while having nothing much to offer of your own.

 

How do you explain why some people collaborated with "political evil" during WWII while many others didn't? Is it just a matter of national identity and culture, or is some more profound force at work here? If evil is a mere cultural effect then presumably you still believe that we need only eradicate dysfunctional nations/cultures from the face of Earth and Humanity will then become perfectible - how Marx would have loved that. It seems to me that the relationship between the more anti-social & destructive aspects of Human behavior and the ancient structure of the Human brain are immensely complicated questions that don't fit easily into your oh-so-trite "swastika gene" oversimplification of the argument.

 

Do try not to confuse the fundamental difference between explaining a thing and excusing it. For what it's worth I don't accept the "I was only obeying orders" or even the "my genes made me do it" excuses for criminality (on either an individual or societal level) on the grounds that while I most certainly believe that it is within our nature to sink into barbarity at times, it is also (I hope) within the nature of any mentally healthy adult Human Being to exhibit sufficient moral judgment to resist the impulse for evil as well.

 

Put simply, their is a ageless conflict between the impulses for good and evil that dominates the Human condition, and while I do believe it is in our base nature to act appallingly at times, that in no way justifies immoral behavior in my view.