PDA

View Full Version : Saxons in Germany: English?



Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, January 5th, 2012, 05:32 AM
For all me Angle-folk, do you consider the Saxons still in Germany as part of the English, and furthermore would Americans count Germany as being their folk as much as the English? I know this seems like the reverse question, because it would usually be phrased as if the English are part of the Saxons still, despite moving to Britain, and questions on whether the Americans remain English despite the 1783 Treaty of Paris. It may even be extended as to whether the Americans would be German enough as grandchildren of that nation through England, but Americans speak the same language of England and not Germany, neither does England speak German, unless, of course, English is a German language. Enough Americans are of direct German descent without the English passage in Britain, so there would indeed be a multitude in combination of German heritage there.

Too often, Continentalists hold grudges against the English and claim that the Anglophone world has betrayed them and other West Germanics apparently, whether by being de-Germanised through the Celts (but Germania was a Roman province under Gaulish administration, so that can't be it), claims of bastardisation by French influences (today's Germany was as much a subdivision of Napoleonic France as she was to begin with from Charlemagne, so that can't be it either), having been Roman (the state of post-Britannia England was Scandinavian and never Roman but Germany was an Augustan Roman province and the core of the Holy Roman Empire), having been Christian and sent missionaries like Boniface to Germany alongside Charlemagne, or having been used by the Jews (let's not get into this because the Yiddish people form a distinct part of the German and not the English world, and the English were responsible for expelling the Jews earlier than Germany [1290] with the Star of David identification invented in England).

England also has the pound, was until recently imperial and fahrenheit in measurements, and has common law, whereas the Germans went early with the euro, metric, celsius and civil code of Napoleon. The Germans early on formed the modern European community, whilst England remains eurosceptic. I do not see why the Germans think they should judge their offspring so harshly when it is like the pot calling the kettle black; the only reason why the child state of England raises her hand against her parent state of Germany is because of suffering a form of child abuse.

The German establishment has long looked down on the plattdeutsch (Charles V only spoke hochdeutsch to his horses, and plattdeutsch was lower in acceptance than that!), and when it came to the industrial competition of the Big Three between Berlin, London and Washington, and WWII plans made by Hitler for Anglo-German partnership, Berlin sought to sever Washington from London because Berlin hated her grandchild America as being wayward from her dictates (eugenics' retroactive abortion?). Germany, allied with the Hunnish and Turkish nations (apparently a premonition of the Japanese relationship), previously tried to encourage Hispanic Mexicans to war on Anglo-America, and sided with the Red Indians against their own grandchildren over American lebensraum (Manifest Destiny). Just because all three countries with an Ingaevonic component have been at each other's throats in the past few centuries, does not cancel out their blood--infighting is common with tribalism being suppressed by its development into nation-statism.

When Hengist and Horsa came to Kent, they considered those still in Germany to be their fellow countrymen, which is why the English bothered to bring Christ to them. When New Englander Benjamin Franklin complained of German influence in Pennsylvania, he did make an exception for the Saxons, as being English like himself and the rest of the American general population.

We can see that there has been a continuous stream of blood flowing from Germany to Britain to America, and recognition of this from those who look to their ancestors, with judgments by the parent and grandparent nations whether the offspring are still to be seen as something they are proud of.

The specific question I am most concerned with though, is whether the Saxons form a part of the English people despite having lived under Carolingian rule and the establishment which continued to prevail up until the rise of Austria and Prussia. I know there was a Saxon dynasty in the Holy Roman Empire but Saxons never formed the majority of the country (they were even scattered into Transylvania to dilute their hegemony over their own region--re: also how Otto of Brunswick was treated), and their language of Low German has always been under the heels of hochdeutsch.

The Ingaevones were obviously chiefly composed of the Angles, of which the English nation in Britain forms the majority, so it would appear to me that those who remained were the minority, detached and at the mercy of larger peoples in Germany. It is something like when the American colonists came sometimes as entire villages or towns, depopulating their homes in England so that none were left, which Bede basically said happened with the Angles in the south of Jutland. Of course, the Jutes and Frisians also largely remained in Germany, although they were part of the English confederation called Ingaevones.

The Danes partitioned the remaining English people with French/Holy Roman Germany by taking Jutland, whilst Friesland and Saxony went to their southern neighbor, which was in an Italian partnership for the longest time (hmm, a nascent Rome-Berlin Axis?). Denmark also followed the English to Britain and pre-empted a partition with the French likewise, both following England from the Continent to the Island.

I myself would count the Jutes, Saxons, and Frisians in Germany as the English that didn't cross the North Sea (German Ocean), just as Americans would consider the English to be their blood. Apparently, on the Island as compared with the Continent, the Danes and French in Britain did not have the complete advantage despite their occasional superiority. I would still see a parallel existence with Denmark and Scandinavia in general just as with the Rhineland countries. It would seem that the French and Danes basically pushed the English into Britain and tried to fight over not only the remains on the Continent (divided at the Dannevirke), but also those who had escaped to the Island (and possibly divided at Watling Street as well because of the French alliance held by Wessex which led to the Conquest, and Norman surnames in the West Country).

One thing I am proud of, is that Germany has a large subdivision named for the Saxons (Sachsen), with a small district named for the Angles (Angeln), whilst Britain reciprocates with the large region of England, along with smaller areas named Sussex, Middlesex and Essex--Wessex no longer exists on paper (save for letters patent resurrecting the Earldom of Wessex), like Mercia (what of the Earldom of March?) and the Danelaw (is the wapentake enough to distinguish from Angle settlement?), I'm afraid. It is too bad that no land was named for the Frisians and Jutes in Britain, nor was there land named for the Norwegians, Swedes, and Geats who accompanied the Danes. America also has the naming tradition with New England, New Hampshire (after West Saxon heartland), New York (if you count that as English instead of Danish), and New Jersey (if you count that as English rather than French). Both were part of the Dominion of New England along with New Hampshire, so why not? Interestingly enough, the Saxon Shores and settlements existed in both Britain (where the Romanised Belgae resided rather than amongst the native Britons) and Gaul (pre-Norman north of Neustria), whilst Saxons became the ruling dynasts of the Scandinavian countries alongside the power of Lubeck's Hanseatic League.

There are clear connections.

Unity Mitford
Thursday, January 5th, 2012, 10:19 AM
I do not think of German Saxons as 'English' but yes, we are of the same blood.

An interesting post ;)

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, January 5th, 2012, 10:30 AM
So they are not Ingaevones anymore because of being assimilated by the Franks, and cut off from the Angles?

Unity Mitford
Thursday, January 5th, 2012, 10:51 AM
They're not English, because they are Germans :shrug

Wræcca
Thursday, January 5th, 2012, 01:33 PM
Tolkien thought that England was the original homeland of the English, and that Hengest and Horsa were merely returning home.

It was the germanic Beaker tribes that built stonehedge; not the Britons.

The White horse: the ancient symbol of the saxon people (see flag of Kent ≈ flag of Lower Saxony)

Uffington White horse dates back some 3,000 years

On a lighter note; would i consider saxons in Germany to be my brothers? Probably not ... completely different sense of humour :P

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, January 5th, 2012, 08:51 PM
I was stating that the original homeland was in Germany, but that not the whole of the Ingaevones moved to Britain, only the majority. The rest which were left behind became absorbed into the Holy Roman Empire, but I was wondering if they could still be seen as English despite this lack of independence that they once had when all of the Ingaevones lived in Germany. It is obvious that the formation of England in Britain severely weakened the group that stayed behind, but I assumed some identity remained. After all, there was the Kingdom of Saxony. There is also a Friesland, and a Jutland in Denmark.

MidgardPatriot
Friday, January 20th, 2012, 09:55 PM
It is too bad that no land was named for the Frisians

When I drove through Lincolnshire to the North Sea coast during Christmas week I passed through many villages with Germanic names. Frieston (Fries-Town), Asgardby, Thorsby, Wisbech.

BroBro
Friday, January 20th, 2012, 10:03 PM
Saxons in Germany are German.

They have their own language, much like the Frisians, it is supposedly closer to English. I have my doubts because Frisian, while related to English is more related to old English. I also believe it is the same with Saxon its related to old English.

Old English, the tongue they are more closely related to would not even be understood by the average modern English speaker.

As a native English speaker, living in Friesland, I can not understand hardly a word of Frisian and have been here nearly two years.

Onbaernan
Monday, February 13th, 2012, 11:21 PM
Not anymore. I would imagine going back to a certain date we share many of the same ancestors and same history, so I feel there is some connection though it is distant.

I find Frisian language really interesting, I cant understand it but it sounds very familiar to me, kind of like someone making up words as they go along in english perhaps..

Tom Schnadelbach
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, 02:45 AM
You've got it turned around. It's not a question of the saxons being still english. They never were. Saxons were saxons and angles were angles. Some of both moved to the british isles and the major portion of their settlement became "Angle Land", "England". You should be asking if the English are still saxons. Some are, some aren't. Since traditionally germanic tribal membership went through the father, you would have to be able to trace a person's male line back to the continent to know for certain if they were. That is for most people impossible.

The saxons of Dresden do not feel a particular feeling of tribal brotherhood with the british people of saxon descent who firebombed their undefended city exactly 67 years ago as of the day of this writing. The english have forever forfeited any claim to the honour of being saxons of any sort through that shameful and barbarous act. Their continued membership in that tribe is merely a biological fact.

Sybren
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, 05:45 AM
As a native English speaker, living in Friesland, I can not understand hardly a word of Frisian and have been here nearly two years.
I thought you were Frisian :S

I have a Frisian learning thread here on Skadi you know ;)

Bittereinder
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, 07:31 AM
With Danish and Scandinavian addition to that of Saxon and Angel it is debatable how purly Saxon the Anglo-Saxons of today are. As far as I understand text book English people are genetically closers to the Dutch, however Saxony shares a border with the low countries. Differences are not because of genetics IMO, rather it is about cultural worldview, different forces has had in influence in the cultural development of what we today think of as Anglo-Saxon & Saxon.

BroBro
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, 08:01 AM
I thought you were Frisian :S

I have a Frisian learning thread here on Skadi you know ;)

Frisian farming family, born and schooled in the USA, married to Frisian in West Friesland.

The problem I have with Frisian is it is not all standardized. My father's family was from Sneek. My mother's family from Ost-Friesland where they speak more of a Platt-Deutsch.

Even the Frisian in Sneek is slightly different from the Frisian in Minnertsga.

My husband also has family in Ost-Friesland, and he even looks at farms there to buy, as it is cheaper in Ost-Friesland than west.

So, any sort of schooling in West-Frisian will be canceled out when I go to Ost-Friesland.

So, I just stick to English, Dutch, and German.

Ocko
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, 06:23 PM
The state Saxon in Germany is named after a noble men and was not part of the original home land of the Saxon.

In a millennia old between the Saxons and the southern tribes finally ended with the win of the Hohenstaufen against the Saxon Welfen.

saxony finally was broken down into smaller parts by King Barbarossa, a Hohenstaufer, basically into Westphalia, Lower saxony, Thuringia , Saxony itself ( which never was the main part of the Saxons)

Von List says that the Saxon were not an original tribe but the name derived from the word Sassen which had the meaning of Settlers. Early tribe names however are Westphalians, Eastphalians, Engern and transalbingians.

It was a very powerful tribe in the first Millenia AD. The power was lost mainly through the forced conversion to Christianity, which prepared the creation of a supra national organization as the holy roman empire of German nation.

Comparably to the cultural Marxism of our time which creates an even bigger supra national system like the EU, another stepping stone of the NWO.

Ocko
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, 06:31 PM
I think Frisian and Saxons were always in the fight against the southern tribes dominated by Franks.

I think the Anglosaxon still today have a strong Saxon admixture in the blood. American settlers most likely had a lot of Saxon blood in them.

The immigration from Germany to America was likewise predominantly from the northern parts meaning people of Saxon ancestry.

so Americans with English and German ancestry have most likely a strong Saxon bloodline.

Ocko
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, 06:33 PM
given that many Americans are Horse people and Saxon are intricately connected to the Horse I can relations between that.

gormsgast
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, 09:11 PM
You've got it turned around. It's not a question of the saxons being still english. They never were. Saxons were saxons and angles were angles. Some of both moved to the british isles and the major portion of their settlement became "Angle Land", "England". You should be asking if the English are still saxons. Some are, some aren't. Since traditionally germanic tribal membership went through the father, you would have to be able to trace a person's male line back to the continent to know for certain if they were. That is for most people impossible.

The saxons of Dresden do not feel a particular feeling of tribal brotherhood with the british people of saxon descent who firebombed their undefended city exactly 67 years ago as of the day of this writing. The english have forever forfeited any claim to the honour of being saxons of any sort through that shameful and barbarous act. Their continued membership in that tribe is merely a biological fact.

I must stress that I don't want to turn this into a slanging match, but I have to point out to you the use of the word "English" whenever a negative action is taken by this Country. Forget for the moment about English being Saxons and vice versa. What has been happening in this Country since 1707 [act of Union] between England and Scotland which gave rise to the term "British", Included in this mix also are the Welsh and Northern Irish, collectively known as British. This accusatiion, "The English", is commonly made by many whenever anything derogatory or negative is being made, neatly letting any of the other constituent Nations of the UK off the hook, and by God to they make use of the fact. Coming back to the main point again and as I said earlier, I don't want this to turn into a war of words but Germans instigated the bombing of Cities and Bombed the heart out of Coventry causing massive damage but not the death toll suffered by Dresden. So please don't make comments like that. The War has been over for nearly 70 years now and I hoped we had moved on in throwing insults at each other, for that we have to blame mainstream Media for always dragging up stories [mainly negative in my view] about the last two conflicts which give the mindless morons on both sides ammunition to insult each other. None of it should be forgotten and hopefully lessons can be learned from them, although I doubt it somehow. If there was any time in History that we should forget enmities between us all in Northern Europe it is now, with the threat of the Islamification of our Lands and possibly our ultimate demise hanging over us.

Tom Schnadelbach
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, 10:27 PM
Gormsgast, I used the term "english" because the english are supposedly a germanic people, and I was referring to a specific event against another germanic people. I know that the other "belonging to" inhabitants of what we call the UK are of celtic extraction, but they are not germanic so have an excuse not to be concerned about bombing their germanic brethren, since they have none outside of the UK.

You wrote:"I don't want this to turn into a war of words but Germans instigated the bombing of Cities..."
We bombed Polish cities first, yes. Not germanic nation's cities. And the Polish massacred ethnic germans beforehand. Let's leave the non germanics out of this thread.


Google "britain bombed germany first" and you will see a wealth of other opinions about who started the air war between the UK and the Reich.


The state Saxon in Germany is named after a noble men and was not part of the original home land of the Saxon.
.....{snip}
That is fascinating. Thank you for clearing up some questions that had been bothering me.

StormjaerKommando
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, 11:34 PM
It is true that the English have a large Saxon influence in their genealogy, but they also have Angle, Jute and Norman ancestry as part of their Germanic component. And then there are the Gaelic, Briton and Mediterranean/southern European influences to reckon with in what is today known as England (a name which denotes a strong Angle influence among other “monikers” the English adopted, like Anglo-Saxon, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles for more on this).

Most Afrikaners trace the majority of their ancestry to Old Saxony and areas bordering this territory in modern Flanders, the Netherlands, Denmark and ethnic Frisian areas. So from this it may be deduced that Afrikaners have a strong Saxon genetic component, maybe even more so than the English as a result of more recent migrations. But initial settlers came from all over the north-western European mainland (i.e. the modern Netherlands and Germany) and a significant Huguenot and more minor English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish influences resulted in a more diverse genetic mix as a result of later migrations. Similarly to the modern English setting; there are whites with southern European ancestry in South Africa who consider themselves to be Afrikaners, although they are a more recent phenomenon and very much a insignificant minority.

I am not so familiar with the North American Germanic and non-Germanic genealogy so I would be overstepping my bounds to comment on North American Germanics' “Saxonness”, although I would estimate it to be somewhat similar to that of the English and other Germanics from former British colonies.

I think if one is to understand the essence of all that is Saxon and that which is influenced by it one should go to the source; i.e. Old Saxony.


Old Saxony is the original homeland of the Saxons in the northwest corner of modern Germany and roughly corresponds today with the contemporary Lower Saxony, Westphalia and western Saxony-Anhalt.
Adam of Bremen, writing in the eleventh century, compared the shape of Old Saxony to a triangle, and estimated from angle to angle the distance was eight days journey. In area Old Saxony was the greatest of the German tribal duchies. It included the entire territory between the lower Elbe and Saale rivers almost to the Rhine. Between the mouths of the Elbe and the Weser it bordered the North Sea. The only parts of the territory which lay across the Elbe were the counties of Holstein and Ditmarsch. The tribal lands were roughly divided into four kindred groups: the Angrians, along the right bank of the Weser; the Westphalians, along the Ems and the Lippe; the Eastphalians, on the left bank of the Weser; and the Nordalbingians, in modern Schleswig-Holstein. But not even with these four tribal groups was the term of tribal division reached. For the Saxon “nation” was really a loose collection of clans of kindred stock. For example, the Nordalbingians alone were divided into lesser groups- Holsteiners, Sturmarii, Bardi, and the men of Ditmarsch.[2]

It has been claimed that the Old Saxons were composed of an aristocracy of nobles, a free warrior class of distinction and renown, leading freemen united and controlled by ancient custom of kindred and clan.

"Social differences were jealously guarded by social prescription. The death penalty was imposed on any man who married above his rank; the marriage of a man below his station was severely condemned; bastardy was not tolerated; intermarriage between Saxons and other Germans was frowned upon; and strangers were hated. So tenaciously did the Saxons cling to their ancient customary law that clear traces of these social survivals persisted in Saxony down through the Middle Ages."[3]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Saxony

Judging from this one should reach the conclusion that the modern inhabitants of what was Old Saxony during most of the dark and early middle ages and who can trace the greater part of their genealogy to this same area would and should in present times be the closest to being what we consider generally as “Saxons” given the customs of proper old Saxons.

gormsgast
Wednesday, February 15th, 2012, 10:16 AM
Gormsgast, I used the term "english" because the english are supposedly a germanic people, and I was referring to a specific event against another germanic people. I know that the other "belonging to" inhabitants of what we call the UK are of celtic extraction, but they are not germanic so have an excuse not to be concerned about bombing their germanic brethren, since they have none outside of the UK.

You wrote:"I don't want this to turn into a war of words but Germans instigated the bombing of Cities..."
We bombed Polish cities first, yes. Not germanic nation's cities. And the Polish massacred ethnic germans beforehand. Let's leave the non germanics out of this thread.


Google "britain bombed germany first" and you will see a wealth of other opinions about who started the air war between the UK and the Reich.


That is fascinating. Thank you for clearing up some questions that had been bothering me.
You have totally missed the point. This is "Britain" and therefore all the Countries have a collective input as to what happens, not only during warfare but also day to day life. Do you honestly believe that a decision like that is only made by the English. You seriously need to know more about how Britain works.
So you say you bombed Polish Cities first, but you didn't address my point that you bombed British Cities before we retaliated in kind. You make a big point of saying let's keep the Celts out of it, but a simple fact for you to digest, Britain is populated by by a mix of all Nationalities, English/Celt etc'.
Anyhow I didn't want to make this a big issue that would degenerate into a slanging match as I stated in my earlier post. It was posted to try and answer what I thought to be an unreasonable comment by yourself against the English. But you seem to want to make an even bigger issue of it.
You would maybe pleasantly surprised about how many English People who are now recognising their true roots ie, Germanic, something that has been denied to them over the last few decades by a creeping insidious Socialist/communist ideology that has dumbed down education in Britain but more specifically the English, they have been made to feel guilty for just about everything that has ever happened on this Planet.
This will be my last word on the subject, as I don't want to cause disharmony on here.

Tom Schnadelbach
Wednesday, February 15th, 2012, 03:21 PM
So you say you bombed Polish Cities first, but you didn't address my point that you bombed British Cities before we retaliated in kind.

Excuse me? I suggested that you google "Britain bombed Germany first" and read up on the subject. I wanted you to see that the following paragraph is not just my own self serving opinion, but that of others also. Since you appear not to have done so, might I suggest you read http://globalfire.tv/nj/04en/history/theblitz.htm

Britain started the air war. We germans waited three months to start retaliating because the Austrian Gentleman did not want war with Britain and thought that it would make peace more difficult if we started bombing Britain.


You have totally missed the point. This is "Britain" and therefore all the Countries have a collective input as to what happens, not only during warfare but also day to day life. Do you honestly believe that a decision like that is only made by the English. You seriously need to know more about how Britain works.

England has a fairly stable 84 percent of the population of the UK. The UK is supposed to be a democracy. I don't believe that for a minute but that is the official story. OK. Democracy means mob, excuse me, majority rule. The majority of the UK is resident in England.

In 1945, I have no data for the wartime coalition cabinet, but I dare say that the constituencies were not greatly different, there were 517 MPs from English constituencies, 36 from Welsh, 74 from Scottish, and 13 from Northern Irish. If 321 English constituency MPs voted in favor of something, it was done, even if the other 196 english and ALL of the other countries representative MPs vote against it.

Again, I am not pointing fingers at the celts because they are not the group of people that are the focus of this forum. I know that there was no shortage of celts who rushed to take the king's shilling at the outbreak of the unpleasantries. Nonetheless, if the majority of the then English constituency MPs had not voted for war, there would have been no war. And the english residents voted for their MPs.

To head you off, you will note that I have been careful to refer to "english residents" in my rant, not "english". I know that many people who are not english or even celtic vote in elections in England. If you are a commonwealth citizen, at that time called a "british subject", resident in the UK, you can vote in all elections. I have also referred to "english constituencies", not "english MPs, since a Jamaican passport holder named Chaterjee resident in John o'Groats could represent Lands End.

You see, I do have some idea how the british system works.


Das Recht und die Gerechtigkeit haben nur selten miteinander etwas zu tun. Höchstens machen sie "Winki Winki" wenn sie aneinander vorbei gehen

gormsgast
Wednesday, February 15th, 2012, 07:04 PM
In 1945, I have no data for the wartime coalition cabinet, but I dare say that the constituencies were not greatly different, there were 517 MPs from English constituencies, 36 from Welsh, 74 from Scottish, and 13 from Northern Irish. If 321 English constituency MPs voted in favor of something, it was done, even if the other 196 english and ALL of the other countries representative MPs vote against it.




You see, I do have some idea how the british system works.


Das Recht und die Gerechtigkeit haben nur selten miteinander etwas zu tun. Höchstens machen sie "Winki Winki" wenn sie aneinander vorbei gehen

So you know how it works? but did you know that a large proportion of English Constituencies have Scots/Welsh and Irish representing them. The Parties here select their candidate to represent the constituency not the electorate, if we wish to vote for eg, on of the mainstream Parties then we have no choice as to the person that party imposes on us. Therefore I say again don't blame the English for decisions that don't sit well with you and the resulting comments by you. You obviously have an ongoing hate for us, otherwise why would you make such a comments as you did! And they say the English can't let go of the War, it seems some of you are of the same mindset.

The first RAF raid on Berlin was on 25/26 Aug. 1940 and casualties were 2 civilians injured!
Yet, for example, German raids of the previous night on England (the ones said not to have happened) hit London, Birmingham, Devon,, Bristol, Gloucester, Liverpool, Hartlepool, Sheffield, Bradford, Hull, Middlesbrough, Reading, Oxford, and Newcastle. In all 600+ German aircraft bombed during the day and 350+ during the night. 630 Civilian casualties were caused.
Luftwaffe bombing of British towns was routine before the RAF Berlin raid.

Tom Schnadelbach
Wednesday, February 15th, 2012, 11:45 PM
Gormsgast, in my last post I made clear that "english MPs" do not have to be english. And it is certainly not the fault of the germans if the english population vote for non english MPs. The parties select the candidates, yes indeed, but no one has to vote for them. They do not have to vote for "mainstream parties". If no one did, those parties would cease to be mainstream.

You wrote that "
The first RAF raid on Berlin was on 25/26 Aug. 1940 and casualties were 2 civilians injured!
Yet, for example, German raids of the previous night on England (the ones said not to have happened) hit London, Birmingham, Devon,, Bristol, Gloucester, Liverpool, Hartlepool, Sheffield, Bradford, Hull, Middlesbrough, Reading, Oxford, and Newcastle. In all 600+ German aircraft bombed during the day and 350+ during the night. 630 Civilian casualties were caused.
Luftwaffe bombing of British towns was routine before the RAF Berlin raid. "

Yes, but that was not the first RAF raid on Germany.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0995d.asp

from the linked article



Killing Noncombatants
by Sheldon Richman, September 1995

In May 11, 1940, Great Britain made a fateful decision in its approach to fighting the second world war. On that night, eighteen Whitley bombers attacked railway installations in the placid west German province of Westphalia, far from the war front. That forgotten bombing raid, which in itself was inconsequential, has been called "the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces" (See Advance to Barbarism [1953] by F.J.P. Veale). J. M. Spaight, who had been principal secretary of Britain's Air Ministry, wrote later, in his book Bombing Vindicated (1944), that "it was we who started the strategic [i.e., civilian] bombing offensive" with the "splendid decision" of May 11, 1940. "It was," wrote Spaight with horrifying honesty, "as heroic, as self-sacrificing, as Russia's decision to adopt her policy of 'scorched earth."' Note that the German attack on Coventry, which is often cited as the first strategic bombing in the war between Germany and Britain, occurred six months later (on November 14, 1940). Note further that part of the British bombing strategy was apparently to provoke German attacks on England in order to stimulate support for total war against the Third Reich. As the official Air Ministry volume, The Royal Air Force, 1939-1945: The Fight at Odds (1953), stated: ...(cont]

The brits dropped the first bombs in the air war between Germany and Britain. The brits started it.

MCP3
Thursday, February 16th, 2012, 05:39 AM
but you didn't address my point that you bombed British Cities before we retaliated in kind.

False statement. It was the other way around.

Or to quote English miliatry historian Capt. (RN) R. Grenfell.

A special cause of British resentment is the memory of the German bombing of London and other cities, immense propaganda capital having been made during the war over the utter German villainy in thus 'starting' the aerial bombing of open towns. It is therefore somewhat startling to read in a book written by an ex-high official of the Air Ministry that not only was it Britain that originated the bombing of civilian targets but that the British should be proud of having done so.
To quote the author:
"Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11th, 1940, the publicity it deserves. That surely was a mistake, it was a splendid decision." *

It may or may not have been a splendid decision. What, however, was unquestionably of masterly skill was the accompanying decision that because we were nervous about enemy "distortion" of our initiative in the matter, we would therefore do the distorting ourselves and put the responsibility on to the Germans.
"There was no certainty," says Mr. Spaight, "but there was a reasonable probability that our capital and our industrial centers would not have been attacked if we had continued to refrain from attacking those of Germany."
Therefore, he adds, our British decision to take the lead in such attacks enabled us to "look Kiev, Kharkov, Stalingrad, and Sebastopol in the face." The further question arises, however, whether our strenuous campaign of false propaganda that the Germans had begun the whole dirty business leaves us in a good position to look our former enemy in the face.

"Unconditional Hatred", p.126

The list of German cities being bombed before the publicly announced (on Sept.2) Luftwaffe retaliation strike on London September 7, 1940 (in England phrased as "The Blitz") is pretty long.

One of the first directives
Mr. Churchill signed was the directive to resort from leaflets to bombs for Bomber Command night missions over Germany.

The result:

May 12/13, 1940: Munchen-Gladbach (by 40 2-engine Blenheims and Wellingtons)was the first target.

First bombing of Düsseldorf was conducted on June 10/11, 1940.
Cologne was bombed first June 17, 1940, and i MCP3 am going to continue to remind the Germans on that.


What amazes me the most is Hitler's patience on the matter. In the false hope of still being able to gain a negotiated armistice with Britain , he waited until September 7, 1940 for the first major retaliation raid against London.
I do understand that it makes no sense (and would have been tactical idiocy) to conduct major air raid against Britain during May and June.
All Luftwaffe units were needed to provide ground support during the Battle of France. Also i understand that he waited after the armistice with France up to his Reichstagspeech of July 20, where he made a second public armistice offer to the British government. But latest after Mr. Churchill's government "denied" him negotiations and continued its practice of night raids against German cities, London under normal circumstances (I am talking here about the first of August), would have been "due" for a major retaliation night-raid with all available Luftwaffe bomber groups, as it happened on September 7, although by then the bomber groups were already decimated by "Battle of Britain" daylight action from Eagle's Day on.

Primus
Thursday, February 16th, 2012, 05:45 AM
They're not English, because they are Germans :shrug

Old Saxony: In what is contemporary Germany, so when in Germany do as the Germans do.

Anthraxinsoup
Thursday, February 16th, 2012, 06:27 AM
Genetic drifts over time have caused the Germans in Saxony to be nothing like the Saxons in England. I'm not a Jute, Saxon, or angle even though all of my family comes from the same area those tribes came from at one point. I'd like to see where I am in genetic mapping though as I'm German, Danish, and Scot(lowland, Ulster and lowland Scottish in Scotland).

Horagalles
Thursday, February 16th, 2012, 07:00 AM
False statement. It was the other way around.
Or to quote English miliatry historian Capt. (RN) R. Grenfell.
"Unconditional Hatred", p.126

The list of German cities being bombed before the publicly announced (on Sept.2) Luftwaffe retaliation strike on London September 7, 1940 (in England phrased as "The Blitz") is pretty long.
....
As interesting it may be the thread isn't about "Who bombed whom first"; or to be more specific who directed the first civilian bombings. I am sure that there is somwhere a thread that focuses on that subject, since I recall the issue to have been resolved long ago. The arguments of the "Germany bombed civilians first" crowd's arguments have been pretty demolished, since before the strategic bombing campaign against German civilians the Luftwaffe intentionally only bombed military targets and this would include targets in Britain. The confusion arises from the fact that civilians may have suffered from that bombing as well, but I think a dissection of cases does support the initial point.


As for German (lower) Saxons being English, it's rather the other way round. They did contribute to the gene pool of the later English. The upper Saxon are only Saxons in name.

MCP3
Thursday, February 16th, 2012, 07:50 AM
As for German (lower) Saxons being English, it's rather the other way round. They did contribute to the gene pool of the later English. The upper Saxon are only Saxons in name.

As for the derailing the thread, that happened clearly in #17.

I refused to post in it because on other boards it would be clearly regarded as a "troll thread" and would have been closed long before. The basic assumption is outrageous, as some of his other thread-topics are. This one is clearly dedicated to fuel the English vs Germans feud.

Technique #2 - ‘CONSENSUS CRACKING’


COINTELPRO Techniques for Dilution, Misdirection and Control of a Internet Forum

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=967425#post967425

gormsgast
Thursday, February 16th, 2012, 08:37 AM
The brits dropped the first bombs in the air war between Germany and Britain. The brits started it.
So you are calling us "Brits" now. I thought your gripe was with the English!
Clearly we are not going to agree because there seems to be so many conflicting reports from both sides. Whoever was the first to bomb [civilian or Industrial targets] it is now water under the bridge, we have hopefully moved on, which brings me back to your original comment about the English not having the right to call themselves Saxons [in pure form]. In that argument you are totally correct, we are not!.....we are a mixture of the Germanic tribes who started to settle here in the 5th Century ie, Angles/Saxons/Jutes and Frisians etc'. who eventually came together and United and called themselves "Englisc". Therefore we are as distinct from each other as could be.
So now tell me where you are coming from in this argument apart from it being a "who did what to who" and when! Or is it just another Anti-English comment from another Foreigner? Well me old son, we are used to those comments, nothing changes on that score I'm afraid.
I stated on an earlier post that these sort of arguments should be put in the bin of History [in so many words] and concentrate on the real threat that hangs over the white race in Northern Europe, and indeed what looks to be taking a hold in some parts of America, I'm sure you don't need me to spell it out to you who I'm talking about.

Tom Schnadelbach
Thursday, February 16th, 2012, 03:36 PM
So you are calling us "Brits" now. I thought your gripe was with the English!
Clearly we are not going to agree because there seems to be so many conflicting reports from both sides. Whoever was the first to bomb [civilian or Industrial targets] it is now water under the bridge, we have hopefully moved on, which brings me back to your original comment about the English not having the right to call themselves Saxons [in pure form]. In that argument you are totally correct, we are not!.....we are a mixture of the Germanic tribes who started to settle here in the 5th Century ie, Angles/Saxons/Jutes and Frisians etc'. who eventually came together and United and called themselves "Englisc". Therefore we are as distinct from each other as could be.
So now tell me where you are coming from in this argument apart from it being a "who did what to who" and when! Or is it just another Anti-English comment from another Foreigner? Well me old son, we are used to those comments, nothing changes on that score I'm afraid.
I stated on an earlier post that these sort of arguments should be put in the bin of History [in so many words] and concentrate on the real threat that hangs over the white race in Northern Europe, and indeed what looks to be taking a hold in some parts of America, I'm sure you don't need me to spell it out to you who I'm talking about.

Gormsgast,

First, I am not your old son.

Second, there is no question that the british started the bombing war against the civilians targets. I am not the only person on this forum that has provided links to show our sources of information. You have given none that would show the opposite. We tend to get touchy when foreigners tell porkies about us and our conduct in the last war. We have the right to set the record straight.

Third, the British, and not least the english part of that group, destroyed the only country in Europe that tried with some success to cast off the chains of the "real threat" that I don't need you to spell out. If we had won the war, I dare say that there would not be negroid mohammedans raping blond women all over northern europe and afro-caribbeans burning down the capital of the former British Empire.

gormsgast
Thursday, February 16th, 2012, 07:13 PM
Gormsgast,

First, I am not your old son.


Third, the British, and not least the english part of that group, destroyed the only country in Europe that tried with some success to cast off the chains of the "real threat" that I don't need you to spell out. If we had won the war, I dare say that there would not be negroid mohammedans raping blond women all over northern europe and afro-caribbeans burning down the capital of the former British Empire.

Do I detect a hint of jealousy in your reference to the "former British empire"? If your of such a mind that you are concerned about.......in your words, "Negroid Mohammedans" or in Germany's case "Turkish" raping blond women all over Northern Europe. Why aren't you doing something about it then? What then was, and indeed is the policy of dealing with them now. Maybe you wouldn't like to answer that on here. We here in Britain would have found a non lethal solution to what you seem to be suggesting. If you are indicative of the present day German then I am going to have to seriously re-consider my opinion of you lot. I thought there was a moving together between us [slow but sure] and we could have forged stronger links, but if that's the general feeling in your Country then we are as far apart now as we were during the last 98 years.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on who did what first in the bombing saga because there is too many conflicting official reports. I suspect that maybe none of us will ever know the whole truth.
PS. The whole of London wasn't burning, it was a few areas with a small cluster of Buildings going up in flames plus of course the looting within the same area. It makes good news to see a few Buildings aflame and in the overall frame of things not as bad as it was made out to be. Serious enough for the unfortunate shop owners though. You really mustn't believe all you read and hear in the Media.

Horagalles
Thursday, February 16th, 2012, 09:10 PM
As for the derailing the thread, that happened clearly in #17.
...I am not pointing fingers.

But finding or starting a thread about this other subject would be useful I think.
Briefly stating how the different Saxons got their name could be next on the agenda here.

Ekonhammer
Thursday, February 16th, 2012, 10:51 PM
The "English" are a Germanic people because their genetic heritage is made up mostly of Skandinavian and Saxon roots. The original people of all Europe were ofcourse the Kelts and Proto-Kelts of prehistory. The arrival of Germanic blood on the Islae of Albion is well documanted, not just by historians, but also archiologists and anthropologists.

We know for instance, that after the arrival of Saxons and Danes from the Lower Rhein and Juetish peninsula, there was a sudden and drastic change in diet and lifestyle. The early Kelts lived near the shore and their dieted was largly made up of "fruits frm the sea". But the arrival of farming and cattle breeding Saxons changed things fast. In other words, the "English" were not "Beefeaters" util the Saxons settled in. The English language, although quite diverse in its heritage, (over 30% of its words come directly from either Old French, "OF", or Modern French from the time of the Normans), all of its basic words and phrases are clearly of Low German origin: Here are some words which are of pure German origin: Bread, Water, Field, House, Wife, Man, Hill. . . the list goes on and on. The prepositional noun and prepositional verb also come exclusively from German origins: Fend-off, grow-up, think-over, run-out, play-off, run-off, run-accross, lay-over, work-out, think-up, and hundreds more. Each of these prepositional forms has a Latin, (French), equvelent: Descend, ascend, expand, relay, invent, procure, expand, advance and hundreds more. Modern English is diverse but, as I said, still Germanic.

Up until the beginning of the 19th Century, it was common to see all nouns capitalized as is the currant rule with Modern German, (although there is a leftist movement to abolish even this last remnant of German liguistic identity in Germany).

For example: If you examine an original copy of the American Declaration of Independence or US Constitution, you will plainly realize that ALL nouns are capitalized.

All this is such a shame since, more than any peoples on this Earth, it was the Anglo-Americans who turned their backs on Western Civilization, (to think they would ally themselves with that half-human, Turk from the foothills of the Caucasius: "Yusif Dgugashvili Stalin just to kill us!), are responsible for Europe's downfall, Islamization of our Mother Europe and the almost total disregard for racial identity by way of multi-culturalism and cultural indifferance. We live today in the world the modern English and Americans have given us and, unfortunately, alot of good English and Americans have to suffer along with the rest of us.

Tom Schnadelbach
Thursday, February 16th, 2012, 11:35 PM
Gormsgast, I am not at all jealous of the british and their empire. You lost it destroying us.
I am not suggesting that we do anything unpleasant to the dusky masses that have been brought to the european continent by the unmentioned threat in an attempt to destroy the sound racial stock of the europeans, most especially the keltic and germanic elements. If we had won the war, we would not have to deal with racial non belongers in europe because they would not be in europe. As to why I am not doing anything about them now, what do you suggest? Surely nothing illegal? There is no purpose in expecting the occupation government to stand up for the interests of the german people, since it is a creature of the allies and exists at their pleasure. Even suggesting that we give them, the dusky masses, all a free one way ticket back to Ouagadougou or the horn of africa could bring one a lengthy stay in a re-educational center, what we used to call prison, and if one is a government employee would certainly cause loss of position and pension.

You STILL haven't given one citation supporting your claim that we started the terror bombings against the civilian population. Not even (shudder) Wikipaedia.

gormsgast
Friday, February 17th, 2012, 01:30 PM
Gormsgast, I am not at all jealous of the british and their empire. You lost it destroying us.
I am not suggesting that we do anything unpleasant to the dusky masses that have been brought to the european continent by the unmentioned threat in an attempt to destroy the sound racial stock of the europeans, most especially the keltic and germanic elements. If we had won the war, we would not have to deal with racial non belongers in europe because they would not be in europe. As to why I am not doing anything about them now, what do you suggest? Surely nothing illegal? There is no purpose in expecting the occupation government to stand up for the interests of the german people, since it is a creature of the allies and exists at their pleasure. Even suggesting that we give them, the dusky masses, all a free one way ticket back to Ouagadougou or the horn of africa could bring one a lengthy stay in a re-educational center, what we used to call prison, and if one is a government employee would certainly cause loss of position and pension.

You STILL haven't given one citation supporting your claim that we started the terror bombings against the civilian population. Not even (shudder) Wikipaedia.
I have already stated in my last post Re' who did what to whom and when and that it would seem that there never will be concrete evidence as to who started it. Maybe one day the truth will out and we can then put it behind us, and as for quoting things from Wiki' pleases give me some credit, I wouldn't go near the site for any knowledge on certain subjects.
I suspect that we are not too far apart on our feelings about what is happening in Europe and America and what could done to remedy it. We are probably coming at it from different directions.
Now do we end this spat here and now or carry on? your call.

Tom Schnadelbach
Friday, February 17th, 2012, 03:12 PM
On the other forums (fora) that I visit, I often post that "the hebrews are reading this and grinning maniacally". That is undoubtedly the case here. Our disagreement on this thread is going nowhere good so we should get back to the main topic. However, I haven't changed my mind about or retract anything I've posted.

Halldorr
Friday, February 17th, 2012, 05:05 PM
Genetic drifts over time have caused the Germans in Saxony to be nothing like the Saxons in England. I'm not a Jute, Saxon, or angle even though all of my family comes from the same area those tribes came from at one point. I'd like to see where I am in genetic mapping though as I'm German, Danish, and Scot(lowland, Ulster and lowland Scottish in Scotland).

How do you or anyone knows what a Saxon looks like? Can anyone living in Lower Saxony recognize a Saxon when they see one? I saw a copy of an ancient painting in a book that was painted by the Celtic Britons when the Saxons first arrived in the British Isles in the 500's. The Britons painted themselves much like we are today. Some tall, some short, some with brown hair, a few with blond hair. The Saxons were painted as they were wading ashore from their boats. They painted each Saxon identical. Each one was like a mirror image of the next one. They were tall, maybe 6'6". All had a very handsome look. All had blond hair and a short cropped reddish blond beard. The Celts obviously saw them as a homogeneous people.
Here is a pic of what I think a Saxon woman looks like. She was on a dating site I was on. I printed the pic out, so the quality is not great. She has dark blue eyes and was 47 in that pic.

Horagalles
Friday, February 17th, 2012, 09:06 PM
Ever noticed how we imagine strangers looking all alike;).

.... The Britons painted themselves much like we are today. Some tall, some short, some with brown hair, a few with blond hair. The Saxons were painted as they were wading ashore from their boats. They painted each Saxon identical. Each one was like a mirror image of the next one. They were tall, maybe 6'6". All had a very handsome look. All had blond hair and a short cropped reddish blond beard. The Celts obviously saw them as a homogeneous people.,,,.
6'6 foot would be 1.98. While that is within a realistic range, it is exceptional even by todays standards. I also think that such people did exist 1500 years ago, but given that people tended to be smaller in the olden days, I don't think the Saxons were all close to two meters.

Halldorr
Sunday, February 19th, 2012, 03:22 PM
I saw this book on the display table at Barnes and Noble bookstore about 12 to 15 years ago. The reason it caught my eye was on the cover was a silver Thor's Hammer that had about 60 tiny feathers engraved on it There was even detail on the feathers and other objects engraved on it. The engraving was very precise and must have taken a year to complete. This kind of medallion would never be worn. It is a priceless art object on display in a museum somewhere. The book was filled with artifacts and paintings. I should have bought it but was short of cash at the time. The 2 main things I remember were the cover and the painting of the Saxons. I was amazed at how similar the Saxons were painted. Maybe someone else has seen this book also. It would be a great subject for this site.
As to the height, every description I have ever read said the ancient tribes were large in height and stature. The biggest were the Goths. As far as I know, no one ever took a tape measure and measured them, but the Romans said they were a head and a half above them. Putting the Romans at 5'7", that would put the Goths around 6'10"(metric=208cm). The Rus were described by a middle east trader as "tall as a date palm". This description is in a book I am reading and also on Wikipedia at Sweden/history.

gormsgast
Sunday, February 19th, 2012, 03:26 PM
On the other forums (fora) that I visit, I often post that "the hebrews are reading this and grinning maniacally". That is undoubtedly the case here. Our disagreement on this thread is going nowhere good so we should get back to the main topic. However, I haven't changed my mind about or retract anything I've posted.
Ditto, also I don't retract anything I have said. I note that you are from America, so why have you not said anything about Saxons in America [English or otherwise] regarding their involvement in the bombing of Germany? Perhaps that doesn't sit well with you then! or is it a case of "let's bash the English at every opportunity".

Horagalles
Sunday, February 19th, 2012, 04:21 PM
...As to the height, every description I have ever read said the ancient tribes were large in height and stature. The biggest were the Goths. As far as I know, no one ever took a tape measure and measured them, but the Romans said they were a head and a half above them. Putting the Romans at 5'7", that would put the Goths around 6'10"(metric=208cm). The Rus were described by a middle east trader as "tall as a date palm". This description is in a book I am reading and also on Wikipedia at Sweden/history.I think you are fairly optimistic to putting the Romans at 5'7. It sounds like a modern average of Italians to me. Most sources I read put it far less then that. I think all one can say from Roman writings is that the average Germanic they met was notable taller then then the average Roman. The smaller size of ancients had economic reasons. The common person may have experienced hunger during it's use and a smaller body was more able to sustain food depravation. However I think the taller size of Germanic has of course genetic reasons as well.

Tom Schnadelbach
Sunday, February 19th, 2012, 07:08 PM
Ditto, also I don't retract anything I have said. I note that you are from America, so why have you not said anything about Saxons in America [English or otherwise] regarding their involvement in the bombing of Germany? Perhaps that doesn't sit well with you then! or is it a case of "let's bash the English at every opportunity".

I live in the us purely because of family reasons, though I am now on the Braune Liste in Germany and would be arrested if I went home. Someone who I considered a friend from sturmfurz denounced me to the german zog for sending "Nazi Propaganda" to Germany. Sometimes I think that Stadelheim (a prison in Munich) would be preferable to Missouri. At least I would be among germans. Then I remember that prisons in Germany are full of the diversities.

I was born a german citizen and I didn't do anything to become american. I wish Germany had won the war and I detest the jUnited States and all it's works. If I were a christian, I would believe that america is the beast who's number is six hundred threescore and six. Americans did much worse in WW2 than the british ever thought of doing, and I am not sure whether it was better for a soldier to have been captured by the americans rather than the russians. Better than the yugos, yes. But not by much.

I feel angry about the conduct of the english in WW2 because they are a germanic people akin to us germans, unlike the americans. The americans do not know any better. The english did. But they still treated us like hottentotts.

gormsgast
Tuesday, February 21st, 2012, 02:11 PM
I live in the us purely because of family reasons, though I am now on the Braune Liste in Germany and would be arrested if I went home. Someone who I considered a friend from sturmfurz denounced me to the german zog for sending "Nazi Propaganda" to Germany. Sometimes I think that Stadelheim (a prison in Munich) would be preferable to Missouri. At least I would be among germans. Then I remember that prisons in Germany are full of the diversities.

I was born a german citizen and I didn't do anything to become american. I wish Germany had won the war and I detest the jUnited States and all it's works. If I were a christian, I would believe that america is the beast who's number is six hundred threescore and six. Americans did much worse in WW2 than the british ever thought of doing, and I am not sure whether it was better for a soldier to have been captured by the americans rather than the russians. Better than the yugos, yes. But not by much.

I feel angry about the conduct of the english in WW2 because they are a germanic people akin to us germans, unlike the americans. The americans do not know any better. The english did. But they still treated us like hottentotts.
I take note of what you think of how you perceive the way Anglo-Saxons behaved, but are you not doing exactly what the English are accused of in carrying on a hate towards Germans in this day and age. Very few from that era are now alive and we, the current generations and also Germans have had no input into what happened back then, so cannot be held responsible for those deplorable events. Unless anyone here in England went onto higher education, all we, the ordinary folk, were fed a diluted version of History. Mostly we had a potted version of dates and events that centred mainly from 1066 onwards with no mention of our Germanic roots. Therefore the ordinary English person had no idea that we were of the same stock unless they had an in depth interest in History. Education for the general masses was very basic, just centring on reading, writing, basic Math and general everyday knowledge.
With the advent of the Internet and many forums, there is a gradual awakening of just who we really are. A long slow progress but it is happening.

Tom Schnadelbach
Tuesday, February 21st, 2012, 02:44 PM
GG, I want an apology to the german people from the british government. Until this is politically possible, then the majority of your landsmen are still mentally at war with us to some degree. Yes I know that there are many exceptions such as your good self and a brave young lad who posts youtubes of himself, face showing, talking about white nationalism by the name of Marmiteman4. And I want the UK to break with the US and the Synagogue of Satan, to quote a well known street preacher. As long as every time america cuts the cheese, the brits thank the americans for enriching the atmosphere, nothing has in substance changed. That goes for the white dominions also. I'd like to see our english germanic brethren, and I actually consider kelts to be of the same level of evolution, mental and biological as ourselves so them too, stand WITH us for once instead of emulating Vichy France vis a vis the US.

KarlStandish
Tuesday, February 21st, 2012, 03:24 PM
Tolkien thought that England was the original homeland of the English, and that Hengest and Horsa were merely returning home.

It was the germanic Beaker tribes that built stonehedge; not the Britons.

The White horse: the ancient symbol of the saxon people (see flag of Kent ≈ flag of Lower Saxony)

Uffington White horse dates back some 3,000 years

On a lighter note; would i consider saxons in Germany to be my brothers? Probably not ... completely different sense of humour :P


I thought Mr Bean was classified as a Bell Beaker.
He does'nt look Germanic, looks Brythonic or Celtic

Mallory
Tuesday, February 21st, 2012, 09:08 PM
I feel angry about the conduct of the english in WW2 because they are a germanic people akin to us germans, unlike the americans. The americans do not know any better. The english did. But they still treated us like hottentotts.

As a 21st century Englishman I have a great deal of shame regarding the war of 1939-1945, even more so considering the widely held view that still exists in the country is that of pride in our boys for winning a righteous war (people with their heads buried in the sand & are too scared to realize our grand parents were tricked & fooled into fighting our own blood).
England lost everything post ww2, the empire, our values, now our land. We aren't beyond redemption though, if we disassociate ourselves from our irritating Celtic neighbors & assist in dismantling Zionist control in the Germanic countries we could then hold our heads high as proud Englishmen again.

gormsgast
Tuesday, February 21st, 2012, 11:36 PM
As a 21st century Englishman I have a great deal of shame regarding the war of 1939-1945, even more so considering the widely held view that still exists in the country is that of pride in our boys for winning a righteous war (people with their heads buried in the sand & are too scared to realize our grand parents were tricked & fooled into fighting our own blood).
England lost everything post ww2, the empire, our values, now our land. We aren't beyond redemption though, if we disassociate ourselves from our irritating Celtic neighbors & assist in dismantling Zionist control in the Germanic countries we could then hold our heads high as proud Englishmen again.

I believe there is a lot more to be known about the why's and wherefores of the last two conflicts between us. As you said we have been led into war with our blood brothers by sinister forces working for their own ends. Unfortunately war being war, even amongst family, brings out the worst in us as humans and things were done that has left a lot of hate between us. I have said on another thread that the Media have a lot to do with this ongoing hate between us. The Daily Mail is one newspaper that constantly brings up stories about the last two wars, not always negative, but keeping it in the National mindset.......why?

Mallory
Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 12:34 AM
I believe there is a lot more to be known about the why's and wherefores of the last two conflicts between us. As you said we have been led into war with our blood brothers by sinister forces working for their own ends. Unfortunately war being war, even amongst family, brings out the worst in us as humans and things were done that has left a lot of hate between us. I have said on another thread that the Media have a lot to do with this ongoing hate between us. The Daily Mail is one newspaper that constantly brings up stories about the last two wars, not always negative, but keeping it in the National mindset.......why?

Indeed the Daily Mail & all the other news outlets in the UK play an important role in twisting the opinions of many English, obviously there's an agenda to maintain hatred & distrust between us & our German brothers. Not a week goes by without some Nazi story demonstrating how "evil" the Germans were, it's never ending really.
The logical explanation is the Zionist controlled elites are terrified of the Anglo-Saxons finally learning the truth about ww2 & realizing there's a reason behind the massive ethnic cleansing that's currently underway in England, a reason that goes far beyond the simple "blame the left" argument. The entire media, political & business classes are all playing a role in the destruction of our Germanic people.

The worst offenders IMO are actually the political parties & groups who claim to be "nationalist" such as the BNP (eternally in love with ww2 & that bastard Churchill) & the disgusting English Defense League (with it's grotesque Jewish division), these people subvert English nationalism & somehow twist it into a pro Israel ideology.

It's all very depressing.

Onbaernan
Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 01:38 AM
I don't consider us the same anymore.

I think it is true to say that at a certain period in time our histories converge and we share that history. So in a sense I do feel there is a real connection.

arewedancer
Friday, April 20th, 2012, 12:48 AM
Time doesn't change the ethnic link, but I would view continental saxons as having lost a lot of their culture to the southern Germans, i.e. language. We're both still Saxon groups, but the continentials never were English.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, January 11th, 2018, 04:03 AM
It is sensible to say that Danish Jutes, British Angles, German Saxons and Dutch Frisians are all core "Anglo" in American terms, for we are all Ingaevonic in origin. Ingaevones are the core Germanic, because this grouping unites all shores of the German Ocean, the only body of water or region at all combining both surviving North and West Germanic branches. These would be the best folklands to intermarry and people these United States I inhabit. My paternal grandfather's parents came from Danelaw families. My father's maternal grandparents came from West Saxon families. My maternal grandparents came from Danelaw families. Three law systems (Danelaw, Mercia, Wessex) formed the tribal divisions of Norman England and probably remained until the duchies were formed under Edward III, who imported the ducal peerage structure from his French domain and proceeded to carve up England like a roast goose, setting the stage for the Wars of the Roses, between Lancaster and York. The Tudors, who supposedly united the two ducal branches of the erstwhile Angevin Plantagenets, had the Richmond title that straddles the two duchies in the Pennines (where my kin spring from). Richmond's manorial estates largely followed the shiring of the Danelaw, but owed feudal obeisance to the Dukes of Brittany, rather than the Dukes of Normandy and Aquitaine who were Kings of England. When Richmond became held by the King of England, its rank was increased from Earl or Count, to Duke and its present holder is one of the senior Peers of the Realm.

How can it be proved that Saxons never moved as a body in Germany, with the ducal and royal titles of the Wettins/Windsors? Saxony is kind of like Armenia, shifting borders but still being considered legitimate representatives of prior incarnations. I think people should be glad that Saxony still remains on the map, regardless of border changes.

I find it ironic that polemicists against the British bombings of Dresden fail to take into account that Dresden is the home city of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha that became Windsor in Britain. It seems more like King George VI gave permission to literally "bury" his past in Germany, to seal the deal for them changing their name to Windsor. It's as if Saxony was deliberately singled out for assault, because fellow Royals committed treason to our Crown. It's also ironic that people think of the former King Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor as anything but a foil to Hitler, because both sons of King George V continued with their father's agenda to Anglicise the Royal Family and pursue American, instead of German interests, just as Churchill was American. Who can blame them, after what Bismarck did to ruin the conditions for British dynastic politics in Germany long before Weimar? Also, their great-grandfather Prince Albert, was a bit of a snob and looked down on us English. I wonder if that played any part into his Queen Victoria taking the title to the Indian Empire, put before her by that Converso Jew Disraeli. Was the British Crown not good enough in its own right? We focused too much on so-called imperial glory and neglected Ireland, so a real tragedy happened and whatever apologists for Hitler want to say about the Allies, I consider that to have been far worse a loss, although the potato famine was the fault of those in Ireland, who were an agricultural people, compared to industrial Britain. Don't blame me or my family. A Nazi U-boat sank a civilian supply ship named for my family. Also, we voted for pro-Irish Gladstone and could not be considered to have exacerbated conflict with Prussian Germany over imperial deference in an aristocratic pecking order. I don't care what happened to either Prussia or Germany after having invaded and overthrown, basically erased Hannover from existence on one hand and seized Schleswig-Holstein from Denmark before subsequently occupying them on the other. Anti-Germanic behavior and propaganda ministry is okay if it comes from Berlin and Vienna, but God forbid any other country cross them, because that would most certainly be a ZOG conspiracy when done by others than themselves. That makes revisionists whine online with Sturm and Drang, LOL. If the English are so bastardised by Celtic admixture, then what do you call Nazi racial policy deliberately causing Balto-Slavic admixture?

Ingvaeonic
Thursday, January 11th, 2018, 05:10 AM
I think you will find Ingvaeonic, as the term for North Sea Germanic, is so spelt. At least, it was the last time I looked.

Hammish
Thursday, January 11th, 2018, 05:36 AM
...

Interesting thesis, but you have totally left out economics from your grand history of the last 1000 years.

I think this is a real issue with racialists, once you start talking genes and blood, you end up at monarchies, like they matter.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, January 11th, 2018, 06:10 AM
I think you will find Ingvaeonic, as the term for North Sea Germanic, is so spelt. At least, it was the last time I looked.

Sorry. Does it matter?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingaevones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Germanic


Interesting thesis, but you have totally left out economics from your grand history of the last 1000 years.

I think this is a real issue with racialists, once you start talking genes and blood, you end up at monarchies, like they matter.Both matter, especially if economics has everything to do with real estate. But please, enlighten us with your Marxist material history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

Hammish
Thursday, January 11th, 2018, 01:54 PM
Both matter, especially if economics has everything to do with real estate. But please, enlighten us with your Marxist material history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

Ha ha, No offense intended, Baorn...

And I'm as far from a Marxist as one can get.

It's my opinion that the monarchies became obsolete once the King or Duke no longer led his troops in the field.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, January 11th, 2018, 02:03 PM
I agree, but King George II fought on the battlefield at Dettingen in the War of the Austrian Succession and it was during his reign that we conquered Canada, but America rebelled under his successor, who stood tall against both Robespierre and Bonaparte. That's no mean feat, to survive so much turmoil.

The last King of England who fought to the death was Richard III and my ancestors were caught in the thick of it on his behalf. Lord Lovell was our baron and his right-hand man. I'm of the opinion that he was the last king we fought to the bitter end for.