On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:18:58 +0100 Michael Dominok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 09:43 +0000 schrieb Liam O'Toole: > > On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:14:38 +0100 > > Michael Dominok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 09:02 +0000 schrieb Liam O'Toole: > > > > [...] > > > > > > I see plenty of linguistic diversity in Europe. Or are you > > > > referring to this newsgroup? > > > > > > Well, if you're talking about languages literally you're above > > > statement is nonsens. There was "plenty of linguistic diversity" > > > in the USSR or the Third Reich. > > > > Not at all. Both the Nazis and the Soviets went to great lengths to > > Germanise or Russify the areas they acquired or inherited, > > brutally suppressing other languages and cultures in the process. > > Puh. Two different approaches. The Nazis wanted "colonies in the east" > for their masterrace to proliferate so they set up a german > administration using german terms and names for cities, rivers ... > They didn't care what their "slavonic slaves" spoke. As long as they > understood when they had to pull the plow and when to stop. > I totally agree with you about suppression of culture. But since the > suppression of the slavonic languages wasn't the prime target i would > speak of a "walk-by-suppression" (of language). > Anyway, nothing like this happened in the west, the south or the > north. Neither Amsterdam, Paris, Tripolis, Copenhagen nor Oslo got > germanized names. > So, concerning nazi-germany 3/4 of your statement is wrong. The Nazis had no long-term interest in Amsterdam, Paris, etc. My point about the regions they intended to control permanently (well, for a thousand years, anyway) still stands. > My knowledge of soviet-history isn't that good but IMHO there was > "only" a small period of time, during Stalins earlier years, when the > relocations of many ethnic groups (That's what i think you're probably > refering too) took place. > And looking at how easily the remnants of the USSR regained their > national identities i doubt that it was official soviet policy to > suppress their languages and cultures - simply because they would > probably have succeeded. If you take into account the amount of time > (about 3 generations) and the means they had it seems a rather easy > job. Especially if you look at what the Nazis did to Germany in such > a few years. The effort was more determined than you think. The fact that national identities survived shouldn't surprise you --- they do so all over the world, and in the most difficult of circumstances. Look at the re-emergence of the Catalan, Basque and Galician identities after the long Franco dictatorship, for example. > > > Why do you think the world remembers the horrors of Auschwitz, > > rather than Oswiecim? > > Because they remember the horrors of a german concentration-camp named > Auschwitz-Birkenau and not the small polish village Oswiecim nearby > (Named Auschwitz during Nazi occupation) where (i guess) no horrors > took place? Now that's just hair-splitting. They didn't call the camp Oswiecim-Brzezinka either, now did they? -- Liam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
