[BeaverFever]

And by the way, there are proud, German WW2 veterans who are not Nazis and denounce Nazism but who still honour their fallen comrades and display the uniforms and symbols they wore at the time as result.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

Let's say that the German Army, for the same reasons as you claim (i.e. "finest hour", sacrifice, tradition, etc.)wanted to reinstate Nazi insignia purely for those nostalgic reasons, would the German public have a right to intervene in your opinion?

You have no idea what you're jabbering about. Perhaps you should read a history book or ten about the Waffen SS, and their symbols (that you are erroneously referring to) and how they were incorporated into, or forced upon, the Wehrmacht(German Army). The German government also has long established laws about the public display of Nazi symbols. The fact that you would use this as a comparison is pathetic.

[Mustang1]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

Let's say that the German Army, for the same reasons as you claim (i.e. "finest hour", sacrifice, tradition, etc.)wanted to reinstate Nazi insignia purely for those nostalgic reasons, would the German public have a right to intervene in your opinion?

You have no idea what you're jabbering about. Perhaps you should read a history book or ten about the Waffen SS, and their symbols (that you are erroneously referring to) and how they were incorporated into, or forced upon, the Wehrmacht(German Army). The German government also has long established laws about the public display of Nazi symbols. The fact that you would use this as a comparison is pathetic.

Right on.

And i guess we should also mention that it's against the law (outside of educational purposes) to display Nazi regalia in Germany. Evidently, Germans have already spoken, and many times, on this issue.

[PENATRATOR]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Holy shit dude, are you for real? THAT'S your comparison? I'm no monarchist but I'd say you've slipped a gear or two. You want to compare a symbol that's almost universally accepted as a symbol of evil to something as innocuous as putting the Royal back in the Canadian navy and Airforce? Wow..just wow.

No, I said its the opposite.

What I asked is: when do non-military citizens have a right to voice an opinion in that situation?

Gunny said civilians have no right to tell military how to conduct their internal affairs or what traditions to follow. I suggested the swastika example as an instance I felt civilians should. Either civilains can tell the military what traditions to follow or the can't,right? Im not saying that the royal lineage is comparable to the swastika, im just asking under what circumstances do civilians get to overrule miliary personnel. Get it?

The swastika was the symbol of a political party/movement, not a military

[Gunnair]

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Holy shit dude, are you for real? THAT'S your comparison? I'm no monarchist but I'd say you've slipped a gear or two. You want to compare a symbol that's almost universally accepted as a symbol of evil to something as innocuous as putting the Royal back in the Canadian navy and Airforce? Wow..just wow.

No, I said its the opposite.

What I asked is: when do non-military citizens have a right to voice an opinion in that situation?

Gunny said civilians have no right to tell military how to conduct their internal affairs or what traditions to follow. I suggested the swastika example as an instance I felt civilians should. Either civilains can tell the military what traditions to follow or the can't,right? Im not saying that the royal lineage is comparable to the swastika, im just asking under what circumstances do civilians get to overrule miliary personnel. Get it?

The swastika was the symbol of a political party/movement, not a military

Psst - lost on him.

[BeaverFever]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

Let's say that the German Army, for the same reasons as you claim (i.e. "finest hour", sacrifice, tradition, etc.)wanted to reinstate Nazi insignia purely for those nostalgic reasons, would the German public have a right to intervene in your opinion?

You have no idea what you're jabbering about. Perhaps you should read a history book or ten about the Waffen SS, and their symbols (that you are erroneously referring to) and how they were incorporated into, or forced upon, the Wehrmacht(German Army). The German government also has long established laws about the public display of Nazi symbols. The fact that you would use this as a comparison is pathetic.

HOLY FUCK GUYS! I know all of this, which is whay I used it as an example. I only you to elabourate IF and WHEN you think it is right for civlians to ever tell the military and veterans what symbols and names they can use. Clearly you agree that in the case of Germany, it is appropriate. Im just asking you to elabourate where the line is.


For a specific example, Jorg Haider, a prominent 1990's-era Austrian right-wing politican, who always denied being a Nazi sympathizer, defended the right of SS veterans to fly their old colours and participate in official ceremonies. Of one group of SS veterans who attended a public veterans gathereing, he said: "they are not the old Nazis. They are not neo-Nazis,they are not criminals." At another speech, he said "The Waffen-SS was part of the Wehrmacht and because of that it deserves every honor and recognition." Yet he was highly criticised by the local and international media and his argument fell on deaf ears as the public associates the SS and its insignia with Nazism, regadless of the fact that those symbols may mean something enitrely different to SS veterans today, who simply want to honour their sacrifices and fallen comrades. So the German public tells SS veterans: 'we understand that you may not be Nazi sympathizers but you're still not allowed to honour your battlefield heroism or your fallen comrades like other units because of the way others would interpret it.'

So to recap: I agree that there is a difference between Canadian and German examples, I am not trying to say that restoring the "Royal" is the excact equivalent to the German Army or veterans flying the Swastika or nazi-era insignia. I am trying to delve deeper into the subject to get people to explain whey THEY think they are different. In both cases, there has been a difference of opinion between some veterans and some civilians because those symbols have different meaning to different people.

I am only asking: What should be considered a private matter of the military/veterans and what is fair game for the public to weigh in on?
Which of the below (if any)do you think correctly describes the difference between Canada and German examples?


a) Possiblity 1 - It's simply about majority opinion:
- If the vast majority of the general public is opposed to a policy (for whatever reason) then their opinion should determine the outcome. German/Austrian public is united and deeply opposed to the idea whereas Canadian public opinion is divided about the idea and even most Canadians who disfavour the idea don't feel particularly strongly about it. In other words: if 99% of Canadian public suddenly became 'extremely opposed' to the "Royal" for any reason, then the military should obey their wishes and not reinstate the title; Conversely, if public opinion polls showed that 99% Germans had changed their minds about allowing Nazi-era insignia for whatever reason, then there would be nothing wrong with them doing so.

b) Possibility 2 - It's simply about meaning
-Nazism is generally interpreted as something sinister and evil while Monarchism is at worst just an antiquated idea. In otherwords: even if 99% of Canadians were extremely opposed to the "Royal" it shouldn't matter because the term has no association with evil; Conversely, even if 99% of Germans suddenly supported the restoration and display of Nazi symbols, those sybmols should still be banned because some people will associate them with evil.

[Canadian_Mind]

If you see that everyone in the room is wrong, and you're in the right, start looking in a mirror.

BeaverFeaver, even tradition has it's limits. They Royal designations in our traditions are not symbols of evil, do not represent a history of illegally killing over 20 million people, do not represent the direct or indirect murder of 70 million others, and are not considered a stain on our history by both ourselves and the rest of the world.

Give your head a shake, or kindly fuck off.

[martin14]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Give your head a shake, or kindly fuck off.

BF,

Give your head a shake, or kindly fuck off.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

BeaverFeaver, even tradition has it's limits. They Royal designations in our traditions are not symbols of evil, do not represent a history of illegally killing over 20 million people, do not represent the direct or indirect murder of 70 million others, and are not considered a stain on our history by both ourselves and the rest of the world.

So it seems your answer could ultimately be option #1 in my post and all that I was asking for people to clarify. Would it be fair to say that you feel the policy outcome is therefore not really a private affair for veterans and service members, but really require the acceptance the general public, since they are the ones who define those 'limits' you mention?

Telling me to fuck off just because I ask you to elabourate is uncessary, I don't think there's anything offesive about that at all. Can't we explore ideas without exchanging insults?

[Canadian_Mind]

It wasn't the one post, it was your whole diatribe trying to defend your flawed comparison.

[BeaverFever]

The "comparison" wasn't meant to equivocate the two, it was meant to help crystalize what the differnces are between similar claims in two countries with very differnt histories.

[Canadian_Mind]

That's not how you're first two posts came across.

[BeaverFever]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

That's not how you're first two posts came across.

[DoyleG]

herbie herbie:

It was Royal when I was a cadet.
It wasn't a few years later.
And NOTHING changed about honouring anyone who served then, before then or now.
It's CANADA'S Air Force and Navy, not the Queens.
This is a foolish move that pisses off Quebecers, non-Anglo new Canadians and nationalists like me.
I resent both any effort to Americanize us and any effort to glorify or return to colonial status.

If it was a big deal to get rid of it to build a Canadian identity, the why allow the Regiments to keep their regal titles?

Or the Cadet movements to keep the Royal designation?

Or for ships to say "HER MAJESTY'S CANADIAN SHIP"?

The Liberals of the time hated the concept of identity, and certainly wanted to do away with it at any level or any facet of society. Even the idea of a "Canadian Army", "Canadian Air Force", or "Canadian Navy" was too much for them. With their separate uniforms, cultures, and histories. Why the need to adopt what was basically a form of identity that was only found in the most isolated of Communist regimes?

Quebecers? They are not generally happy about anything military at all. Why should you be concerned about how they feel? Which is rather odd given that they cling to a monarchist history themselves in many cases.

Non-Anglos? Such a move will shows them how different the country Canada is compared to where they came from. After all, they know they can't blame Britain for the problems that went on at home.

Nationalists? People who use that term have a hard time understanding its actual meaning.

herbie herbie:

Today's the anniversary of Dieppe. What do you want to do, remember the heroism and sacrifice of our guys or glorify the inbred aristocratic idiot who sent them there by right of birth rather than military qualification?
Stuff the Royal.

Of course, you would rather forget that the Royal designation was bestowed on use before World War II. That it was done by a monarchy that was not a fan of Lord Louis, and vice versa.

You may hate the royals, but get your facts sorted out first.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

The Liberals of the time hated the concept of identity, and certainly wanted to do away with it at any level or any facet of society

This is an unfair sentiment. Actually, they were not in favour of British identity and wanted to instead build a brand of Canadian identity. A new Canadian flag had been introduced in '65 and the rebranding of the military, agree with it or not, was a continuation of that endeavor.