Leon Degrelle

[Lrfss]

ORIGINAL: molchomor

Regarding the Rudel book, if you are into the airwar, I really recommend the excellent books by Pierre Clostermann and Heinz Knoke.

And nope, none of them were nazis

Rudels own book I thought was cool and the best version, course I'm somewhat biased as I met him in the early '70's and though I didn't get his book signed at the time I got his autograph when he visted DC on a stamped cover...

[Lrfss]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Problem is, there's not a single history book that isn't biased. Every book is written from one perspective or another and, irrespective of any outright invention, gives weight to some information at the expense of other information. History books are replete with "received wisdom" which goes unchallenged by authors because they find no reason to question it. Misinformation and lies are repeated until often they become the bedrock of society's understanding of history. "But everybody knows that's what happened," we are told. Our society differs from others by degree, and the degree changes with time.

Personally I'm heartened that people find Degrelle repugnant and agree it's a shame he wasn't executed. But that doesn't invalidate his book. Even if its primarily fiction- I don't know- it is an historical record of a way of thinking which was produced by historical interests and circumstances. Like Mein Kampf, Churchill's memoirs and every other book for that matter, it needs to be read critically.

True enough...

[ComradeP]

I would agree that Churchill in many ways was not the great man pre-war as people would've wanted you to believe after the war, but he certainly can't be compared to Hitler. They were both products of a time and age, but Hitler was also a deranged madman on top of that. At his worst, Churchill just took credit for things he didn't really do or influenced and tried to brush away his not necessarily anti-German pre-war views by writing somewhat revisionist memoirs, but that was par for the course. After the war, everybody tried to prove that he was right, from the worst men of the Nazi and Soviet regimes to the heroes of democratic countries.

[Lrfss]

ORIGINAL: Bamilus

I don't need to read Hitler's terrible prose in Mein Kampf to know what he believed. The same goes for Degrelle. I think their actions were sufficient.

@ LRFSS

I don't have problems with the book because it might contain "offensive" content (whatever that means). I question the actual truthfulness of the writing because it is apparent that Degrelle was a fanatical fascist and spent the rest of his post war life trying to deny the Holocaust and legitimize the Third Reich. Anyone who tries to deny the Holocaust loses instant credibility in my book and therefore I put his memoirs in the category of fiction, the fanciful stuff of legend.

Many officers and soldiers who fought for the Axis have written legitimate memoirs of their experiences. Leon Degrelle is not one of them.

No worries, read and believe as you see fit[X(]

I have read many books and articles by so called fanatical Fascists as well as by the opposites who are not really so differant in many ways strangely and have enjoyed/enlightened both sides accounts actually[;)]

I have'nt looked into the so called issue of "Degrelle's" claims made in his book and only have read about 50% of it BTW, so can't really say much beyond that the first half is not so surprising.

[Lrfss]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

I would agree that Churchill in many ways was not the great man pre-war as people would've wanted you to believe after the war, but he certainly can't be compared to Hitler. They were both products of a time and age, but Hitler was also a deranged madman on top of that. At his worst, Churchill just took credit for things he didn't really do or influenced and tried to brush away his not necessarily anti-German pre-war views by writing somewhat revisionist memoirs, but that was par for the course. After the war, everybody tried to prove that he was right, from the worst men of the Nazi and Soviet regimes to the heroes of democratic countries.

+1 Agreed[:)]

[Steelers708]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Mehring

There's not so much between them, really.

Warspite1

How mind numbingly stupid, and spectacularly ungrateful too. Just to be clear you are saying there is not much difference between Adolf Hitler and Winston S Churchill?

Thanks to Churchill you are free to spout such nonsense, but I am also free to ignore. Green button for you.

Whilst I wouldn't want to go anywhere near saying that there wasn't much between Hitler and Churchill, I would say that Churchill is not the whiter than white glorious hero he is often made out to be. He had a darker side to him, look up the 1943 Bengal Famine and his recommendations regarding what would become the 1913 Mental Deficiency Act.

Here is a short example of his thinking, the whole article can be found here:


http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support ... d-eugenics

He wrote to the Prime Minister, H.H. Asquith, in December 1910, about the "multiplication of the unfit" that constituted "a very terrible danger to the race." Until the public accepted the need for sterilisation, Churchill argued, the "feeble-minded" would have to be kept in custodial care, segregated both from the world and the opposite sex.

In his letter, Churchill told Asquith: "The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the Feeble-Minded and Insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate. I am convinced that the multiplication of the Feeble-Minded, which is proceeding now at an artificial rate, unchecked by any of the old restraints of nature, and actually fostered by civilised conditions, is a terrible danger to the race." Concerned by the high cost of forced segregation, Churchill preferred compulsory sterilisation to confinement, describing sterilisation as a "simple surgical operation so the inferior could be permitted freely in the world without causing much inconvenience to others."

Churchill's letter to Asquith showed how much he regarded British racial health as a serious and an urgent issue. As he wrote to the Prime Minister: ‘I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.'[8].

To reinforce his sense of urgency, Churchill circulated to his Cabinet colleagues the text of a lecture by Dr A.F. Treadgold, one of the expert advisers to the Royal Commission. It was entitled "The Feeble-Minded-A Social Danger." Written in 1909, the lecture gave, in the words of Churchill's covering note, "a concise, and, I am afraid not exaggerated statement of the serious problems to be faced." Churchill added: "The Government is pledged to legislation, and a Bill is being drafted to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission."[9]

In February 1911, Churchill spoke in the House of Commons about the need to introduce compulsory labour camps for "mental defectives." As for "tramps and wastrels," he said, "there ought to be proper Labour Colonies where they could be sent for considerable periods and made to realize their duty to the State."[10] Convicted criminals would be sent to these labour colonies if they were judged "feeble-minded" on medical grounds. It was estimated that some 20,000 convicted criminals would be included in this plan. To his Home Office advisers, with whom he was then drafting what would later become the Mental Deficiency Bill, Churchill proposed that anyone who was convicted of any second criminal offence could, on the direction of the Home Secretary, be officially declared criminally "feeble-minded," and made to undergo a medical enquiry. If the enquiry endorsed the declaration of "feeble-mindedness," the person could then be detained in a labour colony for as long as was considered a suitable period.


What's the English translation of Arbeit Macht Frei, oh yes, Work Makes one Free as Churchill may have thought.

[PeeDeeAitch]

One problem with the "all history is biased" take is that it often assumes some sort of equality in level of bias, intent, goals, and impact. While I do agree that one should read all history critically, to assume that since all history is biased one must treat them the same way is naive. In a way, to get way off topic here, this is the problem of recent themese in social sciences, taking a good idea "all history must be read critically" and then running with it to an illogical extreme "since it is all biased, we can pick and choose our own versions of what is right."

Memoirs from an unrepentant facsist, supporter of Hitler, etc. will be biased. A Western Allied wartime leader's memoirs will be biased. I do think that to equate a level of bias, or to say they can somehow be treated the same way is rather shallow.

[Lrfss]

ORIGINAL: Steelers708

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Mehring

There's not so much between them, really.

Warspite1

How mind numbingly stupid, and spectacularly ungrateful too. Just to be clear you are saying there is not much difference between Adolf Hitler and Winston S Churchill?

Thanks to Churchill you are free to spout such nonsense, but I am also free to ignore. Green button for you.

Whilst I wouldn't want to go anywhere near saying that there wasn't much between Hitler and Churchill, I would say that Churchill is not the whiter than white glorious hero he is often made out to be. He had a darker side to him, look up the 1943 Bengal Famine and his recommendations regarding what would become the 1913 Mental Deficiency Act.

Here is a short example of his thinking, the whole article can be found here:


http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support ... d-eugenics

He wrote to the Prime Minister, H.H. Asquith, in December 1910, about the "multiplication of the unfit" that constituted "a very terrible danger to the race." Until the public accepted the need for sterilisation, Churchill argued, the "feeble-minded" would have to be kept in custodial care, segregated both from the world and the opposite sex.

In his letter, Churchill told Asquith: "The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the Feeble-Minded and Insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate. I am convinced that the multiplication of the Feeble-Minded, which is proceeding now at an artificial rate, unchecked by any of the old restraints of nature, and actually fostered by civilised conditions, is a terrible danger to the race." Concerned by the high cost of forced segregation, Churchill preferred compulsory sterilisation to confinement, describing sterilisation as a "simple surgical operation so the inferior could be permitted freely in the world without causing much inconvenience to others."

Churchill's letter to Asquith showed how much he regarded British racial health as a serious and an urgent issue. As he wrote to the Prime Minister: ‘I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.'[8].

To reinforce his sense of urgency, Churchill circulated to his Cabinet colleagues the text of a lecture by Dr A.F. Treadgold, one of the expert advisers to the Royal Commission. It was entitled "The Feeble-Minded-A Social Danger." Written in 1909, the lecture gave, in the words of Churchill's covering note, "a concise, and, I am afraid not exaggerated statement of the serious problems to be faced." Churchill added: "The Government is pledged to legislation, and a Bill is being drafted to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission."[9]

In February 1911, Churchill spoke in the House of Commons about the need to introduce compulsory labour camps for "mental defectives." As for "tramps and wastrels," he said, "there ought to be proper Labour Colonies where they could be sent for considerable periods and made to realize their duty to the State."[10] Convicted criminals would be sent to these labour colonies if they were judged "feeble-minded" on medical grounds. It was estimated that some 20,000 convicted criminals would be included in this plan. To his Home Office advisers, with whom he was then drafting what would later become the Mental Deficiency Bill, Churchill proposed that anyone who was convicted of any second criminal offence could, on the direction of the Home Secretary, be officially declared criminally "feeble-minded," and made to undergo a medical enquiry. If the enquiry endorsed the declaration of "feeble-mindedness," the person could then be detained in a labour colony for as long as was considered a suitable period.


What's the English translation of Arbeit Macht Frei, oh yes, Work Makes one Free as Churchill may have thought.

Someone stole that sign like IIRC a year ago? Wonder if it ever was found???

[Steelers708]

They did find it, cut into 3 pieces. They also arrested 5 people, but I haven't heard anything about a trial etc.

[barkman44]

Interesting I read the book for it's historical content not political content I don't recall him praising hitler in it?Can someone legitemetly show evidence of falsities in his recollections?If so I need facts not accusasions with out empirical evidence to support it.
Someone once said"the victor writes the history"interesting.I've read julius Caesars commentarias at least a dozen times I guess i shoud'nt have since he brought about the eventual collapse of the roman empire which lead to the so-called dark ages and the rise of islam"excuse meeee"I read degrelle's book as a "war"book not a political testiment.I found it interesting to read of a non-german joining the"pan european crusade against bolshevism".
I guess i should'nt read about the 33 charlamange div. or 5th ss pz div. either or all the other histories that run counter to the current pc atmosphere that exists now

[Bamilus]

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

Interesting I read the book for it's historical content not political content I don't recall him praising hitler in it?Can someone legitemetly show evidence of falsities in his recollections?If so I need facts not accusasions with out empirical evidence to support it.
Someone once said"the victor writes the history"interesting.I've read julius Caesars commentarias at least a dozen times I guess i shoud'nt have since he brought about the eventual collapse of the roman empire which lead to the so-called dark ages and the rise of islam"excuse meeee"I read degrelle's book as a "war"book not a political testiment.I found it interesting to read of a non-german joining the"pan european crusade against bolshevism".
I guess i should'nt read about the 33 charlamange div. or 5th ss pz div. either or all the other histories that run counter to the current pc atmosphere that exists now

Green button and it never felt so good

[barkman44]

What does "the green button"mean?

[ComradeP]

The green button means that someone has blocked your posts so he can no longer read them.

[barkman44]

did i say somthing that was so offensive?interesting and close minded[&:]

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

One problem with the "all history is biased" take is that it often assumes some sort of equality in level of bias, intent, goals, and impact. While I do agree that one should read all history critically, to assume that since all history is biased one must treat them the same way is naive. In a way, to get way off topic here, this is the problem of recent themese in social sciences, taking a good idea "all history must be read critically" and then running with it to an illogical extreme "since it is all biased, we can pick and choose our own versions of what is right."

Memoirs from an unrepentant facsist, supporter of Hitler, etc. will be biased. A Western Allied wartime leader's memoirs will be biased. I do think that to equate a level of bias, or to say they can somehow be treated the same way is rather shallow.

Yes, an equality of bias implies essentially that history is beyond comprehension, unknowable, since all source material is inherently flawed. Such a view is the bedrock of scepticism which advances understanding no more than uncritical adoption or acceptance of others' writings or ideas. But is it a case of "either, or"?

In my view understanding of history, or anything for that matter, can never be more than an approximation of reality, never absolute. A critical reading of history and sources from multiple views and interests will only make possible a more accurate, perhaps very accurate, approximation. The views expressed by the protagonists of history are given meaning by contextualising them in the material conditions in which they lived and the interests, often conflicting, that they served.

Should we give up because absolute truth is unobtainable? I'd rather not, knowledge continues to deepen.

@ sillyflower
We don't have to agree on history to fight a battle.

What you're saying is exactly the sort of received wisdom I refered to in an earlier post. It flies around unchallenged until it becomes incontrovertible truth which many will find offensive to dispute. But on any level, closer inspection of the facts and their circumstances does not support it. It turns out to be self-serving patriotic myth.

It was the United States which established its hegemony over our part of the world at the end of the war, at the expense of the British and French empires. Driven by the same economic contradictions as Germany, though in somewhat different circumstances, the entry of the US into the war was, one way or another, inevitable. With its domestic markets saturated, the US and its state of the art production technology needed unhindered access to world markets, similar to Germany. The old empires stood in the way of this.

Ironically, given the British are apt to criticise Americans for their lack of subtelty, Roosevelt was able to conquer the British and French empires by siding with them. A master stroke, equalled only by the remarkably far sighted end of war settlement. In stead of plundering the conquered powers through reparations or some other means, they were rebuilt as trading partners at the same technological level as the victor and given, apart from restrictions on the movement of their national capital, the same access to world markets as the US. The idea was to establish an international economic equilibrium and it worked for 25 years odd, before beginning to collapse under the weight of trade imbalances.

Britain and France may have been among the countries that won the fighting, but they did not achieve their war aims and they did not protect the freedoms that we now rather tenuously hold on to today. Those were made possible by US economic might and policy.

@ ComradeP
Anyone can be compared to anyone, the question is what identity and difference you find in your comparison. Both are to be found comparing Hitler and Churchill.

Hitler and Churchill's countries were at different stages of development and occupied different places in the world economy. In that reality, actually largely in the contradiction between the two countries, is to be found a plausible explanation for many personal charcteristics of the individuals thrown up to lead them in that time of crisis. Illness, whether national or personal, physical or mental, can be the consequence either of external action, internal weakness, environment, or some inability to meet the organism's needs. All apply to the German national organism in that period by the shed load, much less so to Britain at that time. Therein lies the source of any great difference between the mental health of the leaders. But in their determination and coldblooded ruthlessness to defend the interests of their respective national industry and capital, they were indeed identical.

One was militarily defeated, the other outmanoeuvred.

[Steelers708]

I have Degrelle's book, although it's several years since I read it, I do remember enjoying it though. Unfortunately anyone associated with the SS is automatically tainted with their reputation, whereas the Heer units do not have a reputation even though many of its' units could match the SS atrocity for atrocity, especially those that served mainly(but not exclusively) on the Eastern Front.

I have about 900 books on WWII, mainly on the German forces, many of which are auto/biographies and divisional histories, icluding the 4 Vol GD, 5 Vol Leibstandarte, 5 Vol Das Reich and many more, most written my veterans some by modern authors. I also, like Barkorn, collect and read them for their historical/combat content to learn more and get a better understanding of the part they played in operations and to aid in any research I do. We all know atrocities occured, committed by all sides, but If I pick up my history of the 24th Pz Division I don't want to read on every other page that 'today we burnt down village X', 'today we killed 3 partisans/civilians', 'today we killed one man and his dog'.

As I said unfortunately Degrelle has a bad reputation which goes against him, I recently read "An Artilleryman in Stalingrad" by Dr Wigand Wuster(translated by Jason D. Mark, Leaping Horseman Books) an excellent book I would recommend to everyone, at no point in it does it mention any atrocities commited by Dr Wuster or his men, so do I take it that he didn't commit any, know of any, or did he decide it was best just not to mention any. Maybe I should have forgone buying/reading this excellent book on the off chance that he did commit atrocities, after all we wouldn't want anybody to benefit financially from any criminal act he may or may not have committed, but then I'd never buy any books if that was the case.

We all know atrocities were committed by all sides, but we don't need to read about every single one of them to understand that. The same goes for talking to/befriending veterans, I used to work with a German veteran and we became great friends, did I ever ask him if he had committed any atrocities, no matter how small, no I didn't, but then again I never asked my Grandfather if he committed any either.

Just for the overzealous out there, I am in no way insunuating or accussing Dr Wuster of committing or having knowledge of any atrocity, but merely using him as an example of the unkown veteran compared to the in/famous ones.

[barkman44]

I have all the volumes you you site and if my may add the das reich study by weitinger is really readable.
The history of the 1st is a hard read because of the detail-you get details of parade ground formations in '38 wow but i am i being non pc? forgive me

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

Interesting I read the book for it's historical content not political content

Where's the difference? Degrelle startet as political leader of Brigade Wallonie not military commander. So he is about politics. Beside facts (to be found rather in archive files then in memoirs) history also is politics.

Referring to Degrelles is like believing Chemical Ali could give "true" & unbiased insight in Saddam's Iraq.

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: Steelers708
We all know atrocities were committed by all sides, but we don't need to read about every single one of them to understand that.

So, in WW2 Wallies weren't any better than Nazi Germany?

There's no difference between Polish and German or Soviet conduct of the war, between Chinese or Japanese conduct of the war?

We also don't need to read about tactical or technical details of warfare to understand that there was a WW2. By this logic a lot of reading is quite unnecessary.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

One problem with the "all history is biased" take is that it often assumes some sort of equality in level of bias, intent, goals, and impact. While I do agree that one should read all history critically, to assume that since all history is biased one must treat them the same way is naive. In a way, to get way off topic here, this is the problem of recent themese in social sciences, taking a good idea "all history must be read critically" and then running with it to an illogical extreme "since it is all biased, we can pick and choose our own versions of what is right."

Memoirs from an unrepentant facsist, supporter of Hitler, etc. will be biased. A Western Allied wartime leader's memoirs will be biased. I do think that to equate a level of bias, or to say they can somehow be treated the same way is rather shallow.

Then we have the heavily censored Russian ones that came out soon after the GPW.