h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As bad as the German occupiers were, they were not breaking new ground.
From the ancient world on, if an army conquered a place, the men were killed or enslaved, and the women became wives of the soldiers (if of childbearing age). At least the Germans didn't kill Frenchmen just for being Frenchmen.

And if the shoe were on the other foot? There would likely have been a German resistance movement. As indeed there was against Napoleon
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/napoleonic/section7/
(Nt a perfect parallel, as Germany was not yet united)

But France became free of Germany, so we hear about La Resistance.

England and the U.S. are havens of continuous independence. If we want to feel the thrill of noble resistance against a tyrranical foe, what could be better than revisiting the French freedom-fighters.

But France was the tyrant during the Napoleonic wars. And England was thought of as a tyrant for Irish freedom-fighters.

And I remember the late sixties/early seventies, when I thought of the U.S. as a tyrant in its war in Vietnam.

All countries are capable of tyranny. Even Buddhist ones where pacifism is a core tenet
http://classroom.synonym.com/the-bu...t-beliefs-in-pacifism-12084914.html

I'm not here to take anything away from the grim record of German occupation of Europe in the 1940s. I admire the French resistance, in hindsight. There was nowhere else the French could go anyway. I love the story that was written about it, and wish it could find a wider readership.

But I look at myself in the mirror and know that both tyrant and victim could be looking back at me.

Yeah Dmitri ... you know what, humanity in general sucks. When we look at how we've treated each other AND how we treat everything else.

By the way that final link doesn't work ... at least on my end and I'd quite like to know what it's about ...

I'm flattered that you would think it was Dmitri who wrote that, but it's just me, paulh.


The link was working yesterday, but not today. Sorry. Take it on faith that Cambodia is a Buddhist country, and that Buddhism is basically pacifist. But the killing fields were a horror.

I stepped on another researcher's toes by providing the link (he doesn't want outside links), but if the link doesn't work....

Or try the link this way:

http://classroom.synonym.com/the-bu...t-beliefs-in-pacifism-12084914.html

Nope. It's a puzzlement!

I think karma is running against me.

"England and the U.S. are havens of continuous independence"

I beg you pardon, but England has been invaded by both Vikings, Normans and Romans.

England was last successfully invaded when? 1066? The U.S. is continuous since their war for independence, unless you are a Southerner and consider the Confederacy to be a sovereign country.

Civil wars? Cromwell in England, the 1860s in the U.S.

The world's oldest surviving parliament is in Iceland. It started in 930.

The world's longest surviving dynasty is the Yamato dynasty in Japan. That's nice, but the Allies occupied Japan, 1945 until 1952.

Some long-running empires:

Pandyan (India) 1850 years
Byzantine 1123 years
Ethiopia 837
Rome 499

But my point was about currently independent governments that have enjoyed relative stability and freedom from being conquered.

But relative is an arguable concept.

Of course I guessed what you meant, my friend

Did you know Denmark has only been occupied once? From 1940 to 1945. During which years we had a resistance movement much like the French

And iceland was part of the Kingdoms of Norway and Denmark until 1944.

If you'll forgive my giving a link to another site, I will show Denkark as the invader, not the invaded
http://althistory.fandom.com/wiki/Danish_Invasion_of_England_(The_Once_and_Never_Kings)#:~:text=The%20Danish%20Invasion%20of%20England%2C%20also%20referred%20to,of%20the%20rival%20kingdoms%20of%20Wessex%20and%20J%C3%B3rv%C3%ADk.

(Please trust that I checked to see if this was mentioned in a guide entry in h2G2. it wasn't)

But things that happened 1,000 years ago hardly seem relevant now, do they?

Here's the full link http://classroom.synonym.com/the-buddhist-beliefs-in-pacifism-12084914.html - I see it got truncated when you copied it from the other thread, paulh.

External links have their place, as they help to connect h2g2 to the wider internet, so it's fine to use them in your own journal and Entry pages. They are good in Entries for the Guide, too, but only when necessary so as not to send readers too far away.

Thank you, Sasha.

I am so insecure about being doubted. That's why I search for support. I know I annoy people.

In another thread, I was trying to illustrate to another researcher that even Denmark has invaded other countries (such as England). I dutifully looked for this in H2G2 guide entries. Dmitri is right, we could use more guide entries. Do we have enough researchers to do entries for everything we need?

Nobody does.

If any site had everything sewed up, would we need an entire Internet?

When we were part of the BBC, we could at least link to them without going "outside." Sometimes I miss them.

But we wanted to be independent (and they wanted us out...)

re post 9:

It is a historical fact that Denmark* has invaded many countries. Such as the later United States, Greenland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, England, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia and, in general, the coastal areas of the European continent. (King Regnar Lodbrog for instance once held the whole of Paris hostage until he was amply paid to leave the city again.)
In return, we have been invaded by other countries. Especially Sweden, Prussia (later Germany) and Austria.

* When I write Denmark, it should be added that the concept is a bit fluid: Norway has been part of the Danish and Swedish kingdoms alternately. And Sweden has also been subject to the Danish throne. Like Iceland until 1944. Greenland and the Faroe Islands are still part of the Danish Commonwealth under Queen Margrethe II.
Queen Margrethe I. founded the so-called Kalmar Union, which consisted of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. She ruled the union from 1389 to 1412.

Dear paulh, I know much too well how it is to feel insecure about being doubted and being afraid of annoying people. It has been a constant for me throughout five decades in journalism.
On the upside it has kept me on my toes. Check, double check and check again is the name of the game.

In turn I'm not easily annoyed myself so .

It's strange an contradictive: But I seem to have kept an ability to be as sensitive as a seismograf yet over the years I have also grown some thick skin. I can't explain it better. Things just seem to get better with time, I find

re post 9 (again):

"But things that happened 1,000 years ago hardly seem relevant now, do they?" (paulh)

No, they dont'

They say that people who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. But there has to be a limit

Another place that gets overlooked was the German occupation of the Channel Islands which included The Bailiwick of Jersey and Bailiwick of Guernsey are two British Crown dependencies in the English Channel, near the coast of Normandy. The Bailiwick of Guernsey is a separate jurisdiction in itself, and is in turn also three separate sub-jurisdictions. It does not form part of, and is separate from (but is not independent of, or from) the United Kingdom. The two Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey together make up the Channel Islands. Another place which has a similar status is the Isle of Man(x).

Forget politics! Forget power struggles! Forget differences between countries! and all other aspects of wars/fighting etc.
Mankind is and always be! It's own worst enemy

There's wars going on in just cities alonetake Belfast - religion!
even neighbours "had" to turn against each other (or suffer the consequences of retribution of the "you know the words I want to write - lets say: the gang culture)

I'm glad that's sorted out, then.

I'll drink to that since I don't smoke neither peace pipes nor anything else anymore

Hi Paulh! Sorry for confusing you with Dmitri ... I guess I had the idea this is more his style of thing, I don't so often see you speaking about this somewhat political sort of topic ... and somehow I didn't look at and see your name! I've been ridiculously busy lately.

Thanks for telling me about the link that doesn't work. So it's about Cambodia? But as I see it, the killing fields had nothing to do with Cambodian Buddhism ... the philosophy driving the killings was quite atheistic as I have it, it was motivated by an extreme interpretation of communist doctrine. Now I am not entirely opposed to communism, I think there are some good points in it, but Cambodia was indeed a horror.

I believe it's more about Myanmar. Try googling these three words: murderous buddhists myanmar