Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Leon Degrelle

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Leon Degrelle Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 4:10:14 PM   
Bamilus


Posts: 973
Joined: 4/30/2010
From: The Old Northwest
Status: offline

quote:

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Interesting I read the book for it's historical content not political content I don't recall him praising hitler in it?Can someone legitemetly show evidence of falsities in his recollections?If so I need facts not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

_____________________________

Paradox Interactive Forum Refugee

(in reply to barkman44)
Post #: 31
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 4:18:53 PM   
barkman44

 

Posts: 344
Joined: 1/17/2010
Status: offline
What does "the green button"mean?

(in reply to Bamilus)
Post #: 32
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 4:43:45 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
The green button means that someone has blocked your posts so he can no longer read them.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to barkman44)
Post #: 33
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 4:56:44 PM   
barkman44

 

Posts: 344
Joined: 1/17/2010
Status: offline
did i say somthing that was so offensive?interesting and close minded

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 34
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 5:07:09 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)
Post #: 35
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 5:12:02 PM   
Steelers708

 

Posts: 138
Joined: 12/7/2010
From: England
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to barkman44)
Post #: 36
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 5:33:43 PM   
barkman44

 

Posts: 344
Joined: 1/17/2010
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Steelers708)
Post #: 37
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 5:58:30 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

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.



(in reply to barkman44)
Post #: 38
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 6:06:39 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to Steelers708)
Post #: 39
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 6:10:45 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)
Post #: 40
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 6:21:27 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring
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.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring
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.


A critical reading of history starts with
1. being able to distinguish between files and memoirs, and grasping their different function.
2. avoiding to operate with verbiage like "stages of development", "contradictions", "interests of their respective national industry and capital".

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 41
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 6:33:18 PM   
barkman44

 

Posts: 344
Joined: 1/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung


quote:

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.




I take it you have;nt read the book,interesting.-The man lead the waloon brigade in the war in the east like it or nought real time

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 42
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 6:42:01 PM   
Neal_MLC

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 2/2/2010
Status: offline
You should read all of the history you can stand regardless of who wrote it, or maybe because of who wrote it. "Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it."

_____________________________

no matter where you go, there you are

(in reply to barkman44)
Post #: 43
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 6:59:37 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

A critical reading of history starts with
1. being able to distinguish between files and memoirs, and grasping their different function.
2. avoiding to operate with verbiage like "stages of development", "contradictions", "interests of their respective national industry and capital".


Really? Do some files not have the same function as memoirs and vice versa? How do you tell between them? With a priori judgements like, this is a file so it has a different function?

And to avoid contradictions, interests, and, dare I say it, contradictions between different stages of development, or even of, uneven development (I can hardly contain myself) you are unable to reach to the meaning of anything. Not very good starting points, but thanks for your advice.

_____________________________

“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 44
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 7:04:30 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45


quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung


quote:

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.




I take it you have;nt read the book,interesting.-The man lead the waloon brigade in the war in the east like it or nought real time


If I'd wanna know about Degrelle's post war apologetic tactics or about euro nazi anticommunism in cold war, then I'd take a look ar Degrelle. But certainly not if I'd want info about Wallonie or Degrelle's war time actions.

Interesting, you can't see the difference between file and memoir.

< Message edited by wosung -- 4/3/2011 8:44:17 PM >

(in reply to barkman44)
Post #: 45
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 7:29:48 PM   
Lrfss


Posts: 349
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Spring, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steelers708

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


Crazy...lol!

So was it a bunch of kids prank like thing, skinheads or was it an underground collector or such? Where did they recover it anyway?

(in reply to Steelers708)
Post #: 46
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 7:32:09 PM   
Steelers708

 

Posts: 138
Joined: 12/7/2010
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung


quote:

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.


I assume by "Wallies" you mean Western Allies, as 'wallies' in Britain is another term for an idiot.

Assuming that you mean Western Allies then no I'm not suggesting they were anywhere near as bad as the Germans, or the Japanese for that matter, but neither am I ignorant of, or blind to the fact that Western Allied nations committed war crimes. My argument is that a war crime is a war crime regardless of who committs it, I do realise though that that goes against the grain of the Western Allies fighting the purest whiter than white war that so many people believe in.

My point was that if I pick up a book on the history of a combat division then I want to read about that units combat career, if I want to learn about war crimes/atrocities then there are plenty of books available on that subject.

Getting back to Leon Degrelle, If I want to read about his combat career I'll read his book, If I want to know about his involvement with politics and the Rexist party I'll read my copy of 'For Rex and for Belgium: Leon Degrelle and Walloon Political & Military Collaboration 1940-45' , so my point is, if you want to read about combat etc you can, if you want to read about the politics surrounding WWII you can, but the 2 are not mutually inclusive to each other.

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 47
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 7:39:12 PM   
Lrfss


Posts: 349
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Spring, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring


quote:

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.


Well stated!

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 48
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 7:40:04 PM   
Lrfss


Posts: 349
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Spring, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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.


Another well stated post!

(in reply to Steelers708)
Post #: 49
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 8:18:31 PM   
runyan99

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 7/21/2008
Status: offline
If the Devil himself wrote a book, I would read it.

(in reply to Lrfss)
Post #: 50
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 8:20:19 PM   
Bamilus


Posts: 973
Joined: 4/30/2010
From: The Old Northwest
Status: offline
I think the equivocation between a fanatical SS officer who denied a well proven historical fact (the Holocaust) to a British Prime Minister who may have taken a few liberties with nuances in his books is intellectually laughable.


_____________________________

Paradox Interactive Forum Refugee

(in reply to Lrfss)
Post #: 51
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 8:32:28 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bamilus

I think the equivocation between a fanatical SS officer who denied a well proven historical fact (the Holocaust) to a British Prime Minister who may have taken a few liberties with nuances in his books is intellectually laughable.

Warspite1

Bamilus agreed 100%, although it's Churchill and Hitler that were being compared in that way.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Bamilus)
Post #: 52
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 8:35:30 PM   
Lrfss


Posts: 349
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Spring, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: runyan99

If the Devil himself wrote a book, I would read it.


According to some he did write a book or two

(in reply to runyan99)
Post #: 53
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 8:44:22 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Getting back to Leon Degrelle, If I want to read about his combat career I'll read his book, If I want to know about his involvement with politics and the Rexist party I'll read my copy of 'For Rex and for Belgium: Leon Degrelle and Walloon Political & Military Collaboration 1940-45' , so my point is, if you want to read about combat etc you can, if you want to read about the politics surrounding WWII you can, but the 2 are not mutually inclusive to each other.


Sure, the Degrelle memoir, written after the war, is the best and faithful source for his combat career.

The War in the East was an ideological war. Thus politics and combat can't be seperated.

To repeat it:

If I'd wanna know about Degrelle's post war apologetic tactics or about euro nazi anticommunism in cold war, then I'd take a look ar Degrelle. But certainly not if I'd want info about Wallonie or Degrelle's war time actions.


(in reply to Steelers708)
Post #: 54
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 8:50:39 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

A critical reading of history starts with
1. being able to distinguish between files and memoirs, and grasping their different function.
2. avoiding to operate with verbiage like "stages of development", "contradictions", "interests of their respective national industry and capital".


Really? Do some files not have the same function as memoirs and vice versa? How do you tell between them? With a priori judgements like, this is a file so it has a different function?


You're talking philosophy not history. A WW2 file, even a memo, is different to a post war apology, camouflaged as "the history as it REALLY happened". Different context, different intention.




(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 55
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 8:59:16 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
I'm sure such an enthusiast for superstition, even a dead one is grateful that he can take his place in the pantheon for disingenuous euridites that is the internet. Our hero [sic] was hardly a complex man and the breed appear in every conflageration and their type appeal to one lunatic fringe or another. I put it down to poor cognitive process others put it as historical investigation. Oh well back to The Second World War by Winston S Churchill

< Message edited by Smirfy -- 4/3/2011 9:10:53 PM >

(in reply to Bamilus)
Post #: 56
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 9:26:31 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

You're talking philosophy not history. A WW2 file, even a memo, is different to a post war apology, camouflaged as "the history as it REALLY happened". Different context, different intention.

And is your approach to history not framed by your philosophy, whether you consciously adhere to one or not? Is what you regard as evidence not determined likewise? Of course it is, whatever your philosophy might be. If, for example, you do not understand that the truth of being is essence (contradiction) you will not look for the immanent contradiction of phenomena as their motive force. You will pass over it as if it didn't exist.

_____________________________

“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 57
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/3/2011 9:38:51 PM   
Steelers708

 

Posts: 138
Joined: 12/7/2010
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

quote:

Getting back to Leon Degrelle, If I want to read about his combat career I'll read his book, If I want to know about his involvement with politics and the Rexist party I'll read my copy of 'For Rex and for Belgium: Leon Degrelle and Walloon Political & Military Collaboration 1940-45' , so my point is, if you want to read about combat etc you can, if you want to read about the politics surrounding WWII you can, but the 2 are not mutually inclusive to each other.


Sure, the Degrelle memoir, written after the war, is the best and faithful source for his combat career.

The War in the East was an ideological war. Thus politics and combat can't be seperated.

To repeat it:

If I'd wanna know about Degrelle's post war apologetic tactics or about euro nazi anticommunism in cold war, then I'd take a look ar Degrelle. But certainly not if I'd want info about Wallonie or Degrelle's war time actions.


Nobody has said that it is the best and most faithful source for his combat career, but it is in his own words, for good or bad. As to it being written after the war I fail to see what that has to do with anything, I'm sure he wishes he could have taken time off from the Cherkassy Pocket battle to sit in quite contemplation and write the first few chapters of his autobiography.

The war in the East may have been idealogical, but the two can be seperated, If I want to read a book on the 4th Pz Divisions involvement in the battle for Kowel in 1944 I shouldn't have to read several chapters about the politics & ideological differances behind the war first. The same goes for any war, I don't need to understand the politics and events leading up to the American Civil War in order to sit down and read a book about the Battle of Gettysburg, these things might be helpful, but they're not essential.


The same could be said for playing this game, do I need to know why the Germans are about to invade Russia in order to understand it, I think not, I just know I have beat the Red Army.

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 58
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/4/2011 5:19:08 AM   
Ketza


Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
So should I read about this guy or not?


(in reply to Steelers708)
Post #: 59
RE: Leon Degrelle - 4/4/2011 12:14:08 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
About him: possibly, if you have an interest in prominent Belgian SS members.
A book from him: only if you're interested in his particular perspective, although you should keep the roots of that perspective in mind.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Leon Degrelle Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.938