English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

although France was occupying many african countries at the same time? dont you "reap what you sow" ?was it ok for colonial powers(France,Britain etc....)to occupy other countries but not to be occupied themselves?please give me your opinions about this

2007-12-07 01:30:47 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

9 answers

It is not the occupation of part of France that people condemn; it was the actions taken against the population in particular the Jews, gays and Gypsy's by shipping them to concentration camps. That could be listed as hypocrisy also as the concentration camp for civilians was actually started in the Boer War by the British as a means to punish the Boers fighting them, they thought that by imprisonong the Boer families the Boers would quit but f not ti would take away the moral and other support they enjoyed. The British did not systematically kill the civilians there but many did die of mistreatment, disease and neglect. The Vichy government that controlled the rest of France were a puppet government but many French did assist the Vichy in rounding up French Jews and other "undesirables" and turned them over to the Germans. The problem wasn't the occupation as much as the treatment of "non-combatants"; though the Russian treatment of any area they took over was in terms of deaths and destruction as bad. In short when you win a war you get to write the most common history which is what happens every war and the other side is always the bad people; not just World War Two but true in almost every case.

2007-12-07 02:20:54 · answer #1 · answered by GunnyC 6 · 0 0

It's survival of the fittest. The strongest country can do things weaker countries can't. As much as some hate the USA, I wonder how they'd feel having Russia as the superpower.

A lot of countries that have been 'occupied' have benefitted greatly from it, as opposed to still living in the 7th century. There are no absolutes. But occupying a country and then killing all their Jews and other 'undesirables" doesn't seem like a good deal for anyone to me.

2007-12-07 01:37:33 · answer #2 · answered by pgb 4 · 2 0

The Nazis had advised the German those that the persons of jap Europe have been untermensch, or racially inferior, and that they have been saving Germany (and Europe) from the Bolsheviks and the Jews. Germany invaded Russia in 1941, and in part because of the stupidity and paranoia of the Russian dictator Joseph Stalin, the Germans got here quite on the brink of taking Moscow and Russia out of what had improve right into a international conflict. Germany, below Hitler's stupid and paranoid management, repeated the very comparable mistake it had made interior the super conflict (or the 1st international conflict) - scuffling with a conflict on 2 fronts. as quickly as the Germans might desire to no longer beat the Russians, and the tide had became, the purple military took returned maximum of jap Europe by ability of the fall of 1944. tens of millions had to die as a fashion to achieve this, and as quickly as the purple military smashed down the defenses of Berlin the conflict improve into over for the Nazis in April, 1945. classes to be discovered: a million. the hundreds ought to by no ability have confidence stupid and paranoid dictatators, notwithstanding if or no longer they be nationwide Socialists or Communists. 2. while a rustic fights a conflict on 2 fronts - defeat is inevitable. 3. a ways from saving jap Europe from Communism, by ability of previous due 1945 Russia improve into interior the situation to dominate this section for a better 50 years. The Nazis had failed by ability of enslaving those they conquered quite than putting them loose and rallying them against Stalin's communist dictatorship.

2016-10-01 01:54:40 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

It's hypocrisy on the part of the world powers at the time.

I'm sure the Americans had no qualms with taking the Philippines off Spain and occupying it, but when the Japanese kicked them out... oh no, WE WILL RETURN! They murdered more innocents than we did! That's stealing!

2007-12-07 01:55:56 · answer #4 · answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7 · 0 1

Because I am tired of typing, let's go with the old "two wrongs dont make a right"

2007-12-07 01:40:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

the French weren't rounding up the Jews in Africa and sending them off to death camps...for one. Occupation by foreign powers should always be condemned....just my opinion.

2007-12-07 02:01:41 · answer #6 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 3 1

everybody talk only about the jews,and german
what Britain did
what france did
what america did
and so on???????????????
why nobody talk about this
what Israel did???
Hitler at least he procure work for the people,and he could speak.not like merkel or.busch,
my respeckt to putin.great guy.
what the new Leaders can not make.

2007-12-07 01:45:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

The French stood around and did nothing while someone else took over their country. They didn't even try to fight!

2007-12-07 01:38:39 · answer #8 · answered by mryoung33 3 · 2 3

This kind of thinking is why people who think "globally" are sadly misguided.

2007-12-07 01:37:48 · answer #9 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers