How To Prevent The Narrative of Versailles Being Too Harsh From Spreading In Anglophone Countries?

As I said before, with the Germans actually trying to be the 'Horrible Hun' in Belgium, why make shit up?
Callous and cold blooded murder offends peoples sense of justice. But violently deranged murders are considered an obvious threat to all around them. The latter is a lot more motivating and less likely to arouse debate over justification.

Propagandists job is to present the overall message (often one that is true, or at least believed to be by those writing the propaganda) in a way that invokes peoples emotions and calls them to action. The larger long term effects that their magnification of rumour without context will have is not really in their job description. And in the early part of the war, propaganda efforts were not even all government controlled. A number were put out by private organizations or newspapers without being put through government hands at all, much less a central organization. The Ministry of Information only came into being in 1917.
 
Last edited:

Maxell

Banned
As I said before, with the Germans actually trying to be the 'Horrible Hun' in Belgium, why make shit up?
They didn't even bother denying it. And as a matter of fact the REAL nazis (Not the vaugely right wing trolls on 4chan that happen to be either eastern european or Southeast asian) never denied that the holocaust happened, infact it was open policy from the very day Hitler got into power. Even when it was too late and Germany lost the war, they didn't feel the need to actually deny the holocaust because they not only knew it infact happened, they didn't think it was wrong.
 

Maxell

Banned
Callous and cold blooded murder offends peoples sense of justice. But violently deranged murders are considered an obvious threat to all around them. The latter is a lot more motivating and less likely to arouse debate over justification.

Propagandists job is to present the overall message (often one that is true, or at least believed to be by those writing the propaganda) in a way that invokes peoples emotions and calls them to action. The larger long term effects that their magnification of rumour without context will have is not really in their job description. And in the early part of the war, propaganda efforts were not even all government controlled. A number were put out by private organizations or newspapers without being put through government hands at all, much less a central organization. The Ministry of Information only came into being in 1917.
Well then the propagandists have the easiest pay day ever when you have German leaders actively publicizing atrocities that they could cause with glee, and common civilians celebrating it. They massacred unarmed civilians, many of which were women, elderly, and children, in order to terrorize the people. The really sick thing is that these firing squads who committed to massacres consisted of volunteers.
 
Well then the propagandists have the easiest pay day ever when you have German leaders actively publicizing atrocities that they could cause with glee, and common civilians celebrating it. They massacred unarmed civilians, many of which were women, elderly, and children, in order to terrorize the people. The really sick thing is that these firing squads who committed to massacres consisted of volunteers.
My great grandfather was part of a unit that I am fairly certain slaughtered enemy soldiers trying to surrender. He wasn’t in the German army, he was in the Canadian Corps. I have no proof that either he or even his unit did this beyond the fact that units to the right and left of his in the same attack reported hundreds of prisoners while his unit reported 6. But that seems like the obvious conclusion.

You can find similar instances in every army in WW1. Some worse or more explicit than others. This does not, in the least excuse or justify action against civilians. But it does make it a little harder for those involved to take the offended morality stance. You tend to view things more cynically when you know that even “the good guys” have dirt (or blood) on their hands.

So, to the US and the UK, who had not had many of their citizens killed or oppressed, the focus was more on not getting drawn into conflict rather than the French view of ensuring that they are not threatened with destruction. It was a difference in viewpoint that was hard to reconcile.
 
Last edited:

marathag

Banned
They didn't even bother denying it. And as a matter of fact the REAL nazis (Not the vaugely right wing trolls on 4chan that happen to be either eastern european or Southeast asian) never denied that the holocaust happened, infact it was open policy from the very day Hitler got into power. Even when it was too late and Germany lost the war, they didn't feel the need to actually deny the holocaust because they not only knew it infact happened, they didn't think it was wrong.
Nah, they had Potemkin Camps, showing the Red Cross how Nice they were to the Jews
 
Why did it spreaded to Anglo countries ?
Because they are the ones at fault.
First the USA, ready to forgive German debt but extorting their allies so they paid theirs.
Then both the USA and Britain threatened France when they were the only ones with the balls to actually enforce the TOV.

With allies like that, you don't need enemies...
 

Maxell

Banned
Nah, they had Potemkin Camps, showing the Red Cross how Nice they were to the Jews
The allies caught the commandant of Auschwitz, the allies caught the commandant of Treblinka, the allies caught dozens of the highest-ranking SS commanders at these camps, not one member of those groups ever said it never happened, infact they didn't even say that the Jews lived under good conditions, infact they were rather proud of the fact that they made jews suffer the way they did and their "regret" was more about them having been caught red handed. Infact similar sentiment was known in ww1, the generals and junkers who commanded the army did NOT bother denying anything because the common soldier and their families back at home with some fringe exceptions saw the massacres and genocide as an encouraging thing. The idea that you can somehow hide a genocide of that scale and magnitude is to be honest, a really stupid conspiracy theory. Do you really think the Nazi party of whom 8 million Germans belonged to it wouldn't have let slip the information? And do you really think that no one would know with how many were being killed and the sheer amount of soldiers needed to man such an operation? Concentration camps were known and reported about publicly from their earliest inception. The first camp was Dachau, which opened in 1933, not even a year after the Nazis came to power. The New York Times first reported about Dachau on April 5 of 1933, announcing that 5000 political prisoners were being held for compulsory labor for an indefinite time, practically for life. Later that month they sent a reporter to visit Dachau. They would report that three prisoners had been killed in an escape attempt. They also reported that the camp was surrounded by electrified barbed wire, and that prisoners were shaved, two things which would continue to be prevalent in concentration camps. The story also reports medical experimentation and some evidence of starvation. The Nazis did not bother shutting that news down contrary to popular belief because they saw no need to do so, because the common people themselves were happy about it. It was part of the electoral appeal of the Nazis for crying out loud, if it wasn't then Hitler wouldn't be selling Mein Kampf to millions of ordinary Germans.
 
Last edited:

marathag

Banned
not one member of those groups ever said it never happened
During the War, they didn't advertise that they were death camps, and obfuscated what they were doing, as I noted with the BS they were feeding the Swiss.
After the war, you had doomed men talking.
But during the War, yeah, there were suspicion that bad things were going on, but they had no idea of the depth of what evil was going on.
 

Maxell

Banned
During the War, they didn't advertise that they were death camps, and obfuscated what they were doing, as I noted with the BS they were feeding the Swiss.
After the war, you had doomed men talking.
But during the War, yeah, there were suspicion that bad things were going on, but they had no idea of the depth of what evil was going on.
The Kristallnacht was never made a secret and neither were the massacres happening prior to the war or Hitler's speech of starting a pure aryan Germany free of Jews. Basic common sense dictates that something as large as the holocaust CANNOT be kept secret since so many people were involved. There is only so much even a one party tyrant can do before he needs the consent of the people, but luckily for Hitler, the average German consented and was happy to commit to the extermination of 6 million Jews in the holocaust and 35 million non Jews in combat or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
On this topic I think a decent pod could be the crisis in the Baltics escalates and get's more widely reported, their was a attempt by Rüdiger von der Goltz to annex Latvia and Estonia into east Prussia and fought British troops in the Baltics , let's say it goes to well he manages to defeat and capitulate any rival forces and manages to get them apart of Germany, that is until the British crush him and or the Soviets manage to use this opportunity to the lands.

Now Germany looks perfidious, aggressively expansionist and caused the USSR the new pariah and viewed as a threat to most nations in the world to grow stronger certainly makes the treaty look needed to subdue them.
 
Top