Why the Losers Are not Listened To?

[Jopa79]

The Winner takes it all. But how about the losing party, should it be listened or not?

I recognize, for myself, at least the reasons leading to the WWI, the Great Powers were all involved to it. However, while Germany, or Prussia lost this war, I think, her purpose was not so different versus the winning party of that war. Were the Germans listened after being defeated? In my opinion, not. I dare to say, while not being listened, the rules ending the WWI set Germany to a such a position, that gave a birth for a Renaissance, to build-up and take the revenge. The defeat, while not being accepted and considered as a wrong-kind-of, it erupted the German far-right, leading to extreme nationalism. I see it very clearly, the seed of the WWII was already sowed while the other nations set the terms which Germany should fulfill at the peace-conference.

'Urhot kaatuu vapauden laulu huulillaan' - 'The Brave ones will fall while having a song of the Liberty on their lips' Those were some words in the March of the Finnish Red Guard. The Finnish working class march melody was taken from the Swedish birthday song, 'Ja må hon leva'. In the picture, the brave ones lie fallen in the battlefield in 1918. The driving cause of the Finnish Reds was completely put aside after the war. It was "downtrodden as deep as the swamp can go." The bodies of the fallen were usually leaved for display, for recognition and to humiliate people.

A very bitter, a poignant war. The Finnish Civil War of 1918. An extreme example what not to do while being a state. A power vacuum in the country after the Russian unstable condition erupted the Finnish Civil War. The right-wing supported a German-like government to be established in the country, while the working-class favored more equality in the ruling manners. It was and still is such a humiliating period in the Finnish history, while the winning party ignored completely the losing party. This further erupted a deep scar between the Finnish nationhood. The Red's cause was partly recognized while the Winter War broke out in 1939, while all hands were needed, but in basics, all the Reds and their families, their civil rights were taken away for the future decades.

Margaret Thatcher became known as the Iron Lady. During her rule, the United Kingdoms went to a war against Argentina, due to the Falkland Islands.

While the Great-Britain had already lost her status as an imperial, or a colonial power, the Iron Lady went for a war against Argentina because of the Falkland Islands in the 1980's. The Argentinians had a hope about the UK returning the Islands back for the country and while this matter sharpened, Argentina occupied the Islands. Contrary to the general assumption, the UK responded militarily. The Falkland Islands are still occupied by the UK.

 

[Jopa79]

'Narvan marssi' - 'March of Narva'.

It's a war march song. Highly influenced by the unexpected Swedish victory during the Battle of Narva in 1700. While Sweden won this battle, she was driving for the further success, to conquer Moscow and to defeat Russia for good. But facing too many enemies from elsewhere in Europe, Sweden made some bad choices resulting the Swedish disaster in the Battle of Pultava/Poltava.

While Finland still being a part of Sweden in that time, March of Narva was accepted also to the Finnish Army playlist. And the Jäger Movement took place in Finland roughly from 1915-1918, it made the best Generals ever present in Finland. Väinö Valve, a no-one in 1915, he accepted this daring challenge and participated for the Jäger Movement. During the first steps of his voyage, at the frozen Gulf of Botnia, between Finland and Sweden, Valve experienced such a desperate moments, he tried a suicide twice, he tried to shoot himself with a revolver, but the gun was jammed because of harsh weather. The second time, he tried to plunge to the freezing waters. He even made a runway to the ice, clearing it for the best run. Valve made his second attempt to kill himself, but his rucksack got jammed between the ice layers, stopping his attempt. Valve braced himself after these two failed attempts. He decided to carry on the voyage walking through the snow and ice, to Sweden. While almost losing the hope for the third time, Valve met some Swedish sealers at the Swedish coast. They gave some aid to Valve, to further carry on his voyage to mainland Sweden, to Denmark and to Germany.

Valve experienced the WWI in the trenches of the Eastern Front. He later became an Admiral, the Chief of the Finnish Navy and being the last Finnish Jäger alive, he was carried to his grave while playing 'Narvan Marssi' - 'March of Narva'.

 

[Pero Coveilha]

Sorry, I don't really understand what your second post has to do with the first.

Anyway, Vae victis is the motto of belligerants even before the war is concluded. There's no doubt that if Germany or the Red Finns had won their war (I don't follow the part about the Malvinas/ Falklands, sorry again) they would have been very harsh against their opponents and wouldn't have listened to them either.

There are not that many hard fought wars where the victor showed magnanimity. Louis XV of France comes to mind, but even then it's mainly his allies who benefitted from it, not really his opponents.

 

[Jopa79]

'Äyräpään kirkko 1941' - 'Äyräpää Church 1941'. This photo is from the Continuation War while the Finns regained their land. Äyräpää surroundings, especially at the church were heavily fought during the Winter War. Finland gained the land back in 1941, but had to fight again here in 1944 desperately, still gaining a major defensive victory again at the church grounds known as the Battle of Vuosalmi.

Finland waged wars heavily during her first steps. Let's just say, in 1918/the Finnish Civil War, 1918-1922/Kindred Nation War, 1939-1940/the Winter War, 1941-1944/the Continuation War, 1944-1945/the Lapland War. While it became the 1950's, having a certain sense of humor, some war veterans just said, -'We have been fighting in many wars, but the only one we won, it was against our owns (1918 Civil War).'

The significance of the Battle of Äyräpää during the Winter War is highly forgotten. It's perhaps one of the most crucial Finnish victories during the WWII. This battle is barely noted even in Finnish history books., however, very well shown in the movie, 'Talvisota' - 'the Winter War'. Yea, losers we were in that war, but in Äyräpää Finland gained such a victory in 1940 which should be known better.

The boys were transferred quickly from the other sectors of the front to Äyräpää in February-March 1940, while the Soviet Union had made a breakthrough at Summa. It was a beautiful parish, the Äyräpää region, near to a large river and a rural village there. However, Äyräpää got into the center of fighting. Lapualaisrykmentti - a infantry regiment from Lapua was quickly moved from Taipale-River to Äyräpää. The Finnish Infantry Regiment 27th, it stood at Äyräpää, very, very outnumbered against the enemy, but still repelling every enemy attack until the peace. This regiment had over 1 000 men while it went for the war, but while the peace came at Äyräpää, only under 100 men survived.

We lost, despite of our plea for the foreigners, they gave us nothing. And while trying to take back what is ours, we were and will ever be remembered as a part of Nazi-Regime. It is very wrongly thought and should be corrected.

 

[Jopa79]

Sorry, I don't really understand what your second post has to do with the first.

Hi. The thread was about, why the losers are not listened. My second post/example was about the Finnish Civil War.

While the Red Finland was losing the war, evacuating to safer lands, let's just say to Sweden, or to the Soviet Union, it was a panic, a such one which the country hadn't ever experienced. They (the Reds) were losers. Never they were listened to, until the WWII while Finland mobilized all her forces.

It was the time (1939) when also the losers were listened and accepted to a greater cause.

 

[Jopa79]

Maybe here is a good time also to tell you, for years now, I've lost my interest towards the politics. It's only stupid fighting in there. I haven't voted for many years, well actually, a couple of years ago, I bothered myself, I went (while being sick) to the voting place to vote X which I wrote on the voting paper.

I was very interested about the politics formerly, especially, while Finland had President Candidates whom told to us, the people, if elected they would bring onto the table the Karelia-Question and negotiate with the Russians. I was too young to vote in 1994, only being 15-years old then, Elisabeth Rehn from the Swedish-Party was running for the President. She was very self-confident, but simultaneously also aware of the things. My mother probably voted for her, my mom also bought a small wine bottle, we would drink that, if Rehn would be elected. Well, Rehn didn't win, however, I tasted the wine.

The second time, the Karelia-Question was taken into account was during the very early 2000's. I voted for a lady, she would also favor giving back Karelia to Finland. However, only thing which I got from that, was a friend tapping onto my shoulders and fucking me about my voting.

I'm certainly worried the modern European situation, because of Russian awakening and also the US joining into this conversation. Still, it would be a very fair plea to ask Russia, to give our land back.

 

[Rubidium]

It really depends on what you mean by the losers not being listened to? In post-WWI Germany, the men who lost WWI were heavily influential in post-war government and politics, (to some extent the same was true post-WWII, but we won't go there), and as distance from the war grew, there was significant international sympathy for German complaints about the Versailles treaty. And of course, even before WWI, the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian War led to revanchism as a significant force in French politics.

And of course, to take an example that I am very familiar with, ex-Confederates and their sympathizers had an enormous impact on how the American Civil War and its aftermath was remembered. There have been plenty of stories recently about former Confederate monuments being torn down and buildings/places named for Confederates being renamed, but where do you think those monuments/names came from?

Generally, the initial period after the war is over sees the victors almost entirely writing the narrative. They have won (often after a prolonged struggle), and the people who won don't want to have their sacrifices denigrated. What happens after that comes down to what is politically beneficial at any point in time.

To get back to the American Civil War example, the first few years after the Civil War saw most of the influential histories being written by Union veterans, who portrayed it as a glorious war for the Union.

As Reconstruction was abandoned, the combination of the need for "reconciliation" and the restored political power of white Southerners (who needed to both justify their continued control, often enforced with active disenfranchisement/violence as in the Wilmington Insurrection, and to justify their own losses) meant that the pro-Confederate narrative was increasingly prominent in national discourse. You had the whole "Lost Cause" movement romanticizing the Confederacy and the antebellum South, burying the real issues of the war with a general narrative of "Brother against Brother" as a national tragedy at best or as a cruel oppression of Southern rights by evil Yankees and African-Americans at worst.

As a reaction to that, you had some (initially mostly African American) historians focusing on slavery, abolition (and particularly the agency and experience of African Americans), which became increasingly mainstream as the Civil Rights movement took off (and conversely, many of those Confederate statues were explicitly raised during that same period to reinforce the pro-Confederate view against the rising challenge). And in the meantime you had broader changes in how history was researched: less focus on leaders and military/diplomatic history (especially of the "if General X had zigged instead of zagged") and more on the broader historical experience ("how did the war effect average people?" "why did ordinary soldiers choose to support/oppose one side or the other?"), which fed into that.

Which all feeds into current debates about how best to remember the Civil War, what should happen to the various Confederate names/memorials, etc. And there is a strong issue of modern-day politics involved as well. But this is getting dangerously close to current politics, so I will end it here, and return to the initial question: why don't people listen to the losers? Because there is no political need to. Once there is, it becomes important.

 

[Jopa79]

Sorry, I don't really understand what your second post has to do with the first.

Regarding, if you mean, the second post, about Väinö Valve's story.

Valve was a nobody in Finland. He joined the Jäger Movement, he was a rank-filer in the Prussian Army during the WWI. However, while the purpose probably included serving in the German Army in WWI, the ultimate objective was to give the Finnish independence.

Valve really bothered himself, like the 2 000 other Finns, joining this movement. Still, they never thought, the war that they were prepared for, was to be against their own countrymen, not against Russia.

Valve won the Finnish Civil War and becoming an Admiral and losing in the WWII.

 

[Jopa79]

It really depends on what you mean by the losers not being listened to? In post-WWI Germany, the men who lost WWI were heavily influential in post-war government and politics, (to some extent the same was true post-WWII, but we won't go there), and as distance from the war grew, there was significant international sympathy for German complaints about the Versailles treaty. And of course, even before WWI, the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian War led to revanchism as a significant force in French politics.

And of course, to take an example that I am very familiar with, ex-Confederates and their sympathizers had an enormous impact on how the American Civil War and its aftermath was remembered. There have been plenty of stories recently about former Confederate monuments being torn down and buildings/places named for Confederates being renamed, but where do you think those monuments/names came from?

Generally, the initial period after the war is over sees the victors almost entirely writing the narrative. They have won (often after a prolonged struggle), and the people who won don't want to have their sacrifices denigrated. What happens after that comes down to what is politically beneficial at any point in time.

To get back to the American Civil War example, the first few years after the Civil War saw most of the influential histories being written by Union veterans, who portrayed it as a glorious war for the Union.

As Reconstruction was abandoned, the combination of the need for "reconciliation" and the restored political power of white Southerners (who needed to both justify their continued control, often enforced with active disenfranchisement/violence as in the Wilmington Insurrection, and to justify their own losses) meant that the pro-Confederate narrative was increasingly prominent in national discourse. You had the whole "Lost Cause" movement romanticizing the Confederacy and the antebellum South, burying the real issues of the war with a general narrative of "Brother against Brother" as a national tragedy at best or as a cruel oppression of Southern rights by evil Yankees and African-Americans at worst.

As a reaction to that, you had some (initially mostly African American) historians focusing on slavery, abolition (and particularly the agency and experience of African Americans), which became increasingly mainstream as the Civil Rights movement took off (and conversely, many of those Confederate statues were explicitly raised during that same period to reinforce the pro-Confederate view against the rising challenge). And in the meantime you had broader changes in how history was researched: less focus on leaders and military/diplomatic history (especially of the "if General X had zigged instead of zagged") and more on the broader historical experience ("how did the war effect average people?" "why did ordinary soldiers choose to support/oppose one side or the other?"), which fed into that.

Which all feeds into current debates about how best to remember the Civil War, what should happen to the various Confederate names/memorials, etc. And there is a strong issue of modern-day politics involved as well. But this is getting dangerously close to current politics, so I will end it here, and return to the initial question: why don't people listen to the losers? Because there is no political need to. Once there is, it becomes important.

Thank You,

I'm deeply impressed by the people, whom actually believe to the matter. I just say, I've seen people from the working-class, I guess, while being only a foreman today, I would also be categorized as a working-man. However, before I got my current status, I was a 'työläinen', ' osa työväestöä', ' a working-man'', 'a part of the working-class. I saw and did many things which would not be so acceptable today. But it was only working, constructing, repairing, doing the job for the money, that came two times in a month.

While being barely 20-years-old, working under the houses, shoveling the ground and maybe smoking there, in the dark, I had a small hope, maybe someday, I could be the "boss", the one whom told the others what to do and just to sit in a office having legs on the table. I was really a no-one. I have always criticized myself strongly. After graduating from the best high-schools in my country, I became a worker.

Well, I steeled myself, while the years went on. I knew, I would not ever have success in sports, because of, I was already too old. But still, I did the sports, becoming a good-shape-distance-runner. My goal was to run 10 000 meters under 40 minutes, but I only achieved 42:00 minutes while running the distance. Luckily for me, I met my current wife then. However, because of my bad habits, I got very sick soon. I was so fortunate, my wife (girlfriend then) stayed by my side, visiting me in hospital always. I got better, believing for the future.

I was in a crossroad then, what to do, would I retire from working, because of my illness, I could not work as fast as its needed in construction. I thought, maybe I could retire to our summer cottage and become a writer.

Well, after a hard thinking, my employer offered me a new job. I could do the pre-work for the foremen. I did that for some years and I was inspired to become also a foreman by myself.

So, that's what I do today. I'm the "boss". Telling everyone what to do, paint the walls, beat the hammer, make timber available, do the bathroom tiling and don't you forget to establish the waterproofing.

If I do the self-assessment of myself, I'm a good boss, but never would have gained this position if not being supported or not believing in one matter.

 

[Kazanov]

The losers are listened when they have some meanings to control the narrative. Argentina still has a lot of political support in the region even after their defeat in the Falklands war. After their defeat at the hands of the British they "banned" music in english and that started a huge cultural revolution, in the 80s and 90s everyone listened to Argentinian rock bands in what i remember a a golden age (before the Caribbeans started to destroy everything good with their reggaeton.) . Argentina never took the Falklands, but they recovered democracy and won a lot from that defeat.

Palestinians has a lot of "moral" international support and they lost everything. Even their country.

After the 1973 coup our left was listened everywhere, Pinochet was the winner of the political conflict and had support from the United States... only to lose that support (and get sanctioned by the US ) when it became evident that he was the baddie. The losers were heard, gained international support, then we recovered democracy and then we were ruled for more than 20 years by these losers, the best political elite we ever had -educated and prepared in Europe during the hard years of exile- .

Losers are listened depending of the geopolitical context.

 

[newtlord]

One thing that shouldn't be overlooked is that, irrespective of who won or lost a war, the narrative of it will be primarily by those who are in a position to broadcast their views in general. The Peloponnesian war was won by the Spartans, but our knowledge of it comes almost entirely from Athenian sources (albeit often from aristocratic Athenian writers with a greater or lesser degree of bias in favor of Sparta and against democracy), simply because it was the Athenian culture rather than the Spartan that produced a lasting corpus of literature. Similarly, the English-speaking world's view of the Vietnam War is primarily an American rather than a Vietnamese perspective, for reasons that can more or less be summarized as "Hollywood".

 

[Director]

In my opinion, the harsh peace of Versailles was intended to make sure that Germany did not - could not - start another world war.
However, the treaty didn't allow for a worldwide economic collapse, and the victors didn't have the wherewithal (or the spine) to enforce it.
So it seems to me that a harsh peace, laxly enforced, is worse than a generous or a harsh peace, properly enforced.

As @Rubidium noted, there has been a long period where the Southern 'Glorious Lost Cause' narrative was predominant - and the majority of books written about Vietnam have, I suspect, been written in English.

So, no - the winners don't always control the narrative. It helps if the other side is indifferent about putting out their side, or if you control the media.

 

[bz249]

In my opinion, the harsh peace of Versailles was intended to make sure that Germany did not - could not - start another world war.
However, the treaty didn't allow for a worldwide economic collapse, and the victors didn't have the wherewithal (or the spine) to enforce it.
So it seems to me that a harsh peace, laxly enforced, is worse than a generous or a harsh peace, properly enforced

A peace treaty the winners could or would not enforce properly imho is the very definition of harsh peace (not representative on the military/economics situation).

 

[Director]

A peace treaty the winners could or would not enforce properly imho is the very definition of harsh peace (not representative on the military/economics situation).

That's an interesting take - would you care to expand? I'm not sure I take your point. I was characterizing Versailles as a harsh peace because the German army and navy were limited, the air force eliminated and the economy crippled by reparations and the semi-detachment of the Rhineland.

 

[bz249]

That's an interesting take - would you care to expand? I'm not sure I take your point. I was characterizing Versailles as a harsh peace because the German army and navy were limited, the air force eliminated and the economy crippled by reparations and the semi-detachment of the Rhineland.

If you are not able (or not willing... which just a shade difference, because the likely reason is that it cost you too much, either on men or money, which is just a synonim of not being able) to enforce a peace treaty, then the losing side is always going to feel, that they were not really defeated... thus the peace was not fair.

The pattern is the same, let it be the Lost Cause, Versailles, or that the US has won every battle in Nam.

Now particularly on Versailles, the Peace of Paris was much harsher in material term... Germany lost quite a bit of territory, occupied, divided, the victors forced a regime change (in 1918 it was a German revolution) and planned them to use as cannon fodders for a possible Third World War.

Yet it was somehow not felt so harsh since the victors were able to enforce that peace treaty.

 

[Director]

Thank you for the explanation. I agree.

 

[Lord Tim]

If you want to learn about the losers' perspective on the Crusades, go to a book written (in the West) more than thirty years ago and you probably won't find a single reference to an Arabic source, and probably only Anna Comnena from among Byzantine histories. There's one really great example of a particular battle (al Babein) where for centuries the only sources historians in the West had were the Christian ones which made the story one about the heroic King of Jerusalem and his knights almost defeating a massive Syrian army. Well, there's now two good translations of contemporary Arabic sources, one from a supporter of Amalric's Fatimid allies and one from the Zengid perspective, and it turns out that isn't quite how things happened - according to both Arabic sources, which largely agree with each other on the course of the battle. It didn't go quite the way the Franks claimed.

And that's one of the places where we've got sources from both sides. I would bet that there's a lot of cases where we don't even know that the sources we have are inaccurate. For another example, most of the English-speaking world knows about the Hundred Years War almost entirely from the English - we lost it - perspective and not very much about that apart from a few campaigns.

 

[diegosimeone]

And that's one of the places where we've got sources from both sides. I would bet that there's a lot of cases where we don't even know that the sources we have are inaccurate. For another example, most of the English-speaking world knows about the Hundred Years War almost entirely from the English - we lost it - perspective and not very much about that apart from a few campaigns.

Interesting activity, even if it's just basic stuff.

English version:

Hundred Years' War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

French version:

Guerre de Cent Ans — Wikipédia

fr.wikipedia.org

Not sure if that shows much since the French Wikipedia pages are typically much more thorough than the English version, but they have x2.5 more references and probably twice as many sources. Haven't checked how many of them are the same.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

View attachment 790738
Margaret Thatcher became known as the Iron Lady. During her rule, the United Kingdoms went to a war against Argentina, due to the Falkland Islands.

While Great-Britain had already lost her status as an imperial, or a colonial power, the Iron Lady went for to war against Argentina because of the Falkland Islands in the 1980's. The Argentinians had a hoped the UK would return the Islands back to the country and when this matter sharpened, Argentina occupied the Islands. Contrary to the general assumption, the UK responded militarily. The Falkland Islands are still occupied by the UK.

Sorry I'm going to have to correct you here, it's the British territory and has been since it was settled. Argentina never ruled it and never will, it has no claim to them and even if it did have some sort of legitimate claim it lost it when the junta launched an unprovoked, unjust and illegal war to take them and got it's ass kicked by the Royal Navy.

The Falklands are not occupied, they are a British crown colony and about a decade ago event voted to make it clear they are and want to remain British. If Argentina want to cry about the islands with a false narrative about imperialism and colonialism and the British expelling their people they honestly have no leg to stand on if it were true because they did the same damned thing in Patagonia to the native population with some genocide thrown into the mix.

 

[Jopa79]

Sorry I'm going to have to correct you here, it's the British territory and has been since it was settled. Argentina never ruled it and never will, it has no claim to them and even if it did have some sort of legitimate claim it lost it when the junta launched an unprovoked, unjust and illegal war to take them and got it's ass kicked by the Royal Navy.

The Falklands are not occupied, they are a British crown colony and about a decade ago event voted to make it clear they are and want to remain British. If Argentina want to cry about the islands with a false narrative about imperialism and colonialism and the British expelling their people they honestly have no leg to stand on if it were true because they did the same damned thing in Patagonia to the native population with some genocide thrown into the mix.

View attachment 817337

Thank you for your feedback.

I'm not so familiar with exactly on the Falkland Islands. Rather, this subject has caused me to think and for like 20 years, or more, I've found it very strange, the both countries were ready for military action and for war, about the islands.

I've been thinking also, what if Argentina theoretically laid a claim on some islands on the English Channel, or near to the British waters. How would Great-Britain react to?