Read e-book The International Courier: The lost treasures of world war 2

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The International Courier: The lost treasures of world war 2 file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The International Courier: The lost treasures of world war 2 book. Happy reading The International Courier: The lost treasures of world war 2 Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The International Courier: The lost treasures of world war 2 at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The International Courier: The lost treasures of world war 2 Pocket Guide.
Yamashita's gold, also referred to as the Yamashita treasure, is the name given to the alleged war loot stolen in Southeast Asia by Imperial Japanese forces during World War II and hidden in caves, tunnels Many individuals and consortia, both Philippine and foreign, continue to search for treasure sites. A number of.
Table of contents

• World War II Database
• Site Information Navigation
• How the Allied multinationals supplied Nazi Germany throughout World War II
• January - December 2001

The aristocratic-bourgeois code of honour and the feelings that it produced and nourished was a double-edged sword. Every minute detail seemed to matter: every look, gesture and word. This could have a disciplining effect in that everyone was cautious and sought to avoid the kind of behaviour that might be considered to be insulting.

Yet at the same time it might lead to personal conflicts and provocations being taken to a disproportionate and life-threatening level of seriousness. On the other hand, the honour code can be viewed as offering precisely those means of mediation and control that conflicts needed in order to be dealt with in a respectful way. Even though some kinds of insults could not be mediated such as adultery, or a slap in the face , there were many other kinds open to mediation.

The duel itself was fought according to strict rules that guaranteed the equality of chances and risks, and set limits to the violence employed during the fight. Most duels actually ended without a drop of blood being spilt. They even ended in perfect harmony, if we believe those duelists who reported on their feelings during and after the event. Each one had preserved his dignity, showing courage and determination and acting in accordance with his principles.

Furthermore, the duelists had accepted each other as equals, despite and beyond the initial conflict. The duel itself was regarded as an act of mutual respect: it was based on the notion of equality, both in terms of means and social status, and it sought to reaffirm due respect that had been withheld. Personal honour set the precedent for national honour. As they were fought between enemies that still considered themselves members of the same European tribe, basic rules of respect and recognition were supposed to prevail.

Cambridge students entered the war with similar ideas, eagerly abandoning the cricket ground for the field of honour. Meanwhile, the wider public indulged in the sight of modern knights who fought the war up in the skies — with eye contact and as perfectly mannered gentlemen. From time to time, they negotiated periods of truce in order to recover dead and wounded comrades, and they even used ceasefires over Christmas or Easter to fraternise with enemy soldiers. These views were not shared by the official war propaganda that painted the enemy in the darkest colours.

Enemy soldiers on all sides were abhorred as mean, brutal, treacherous and cowardly. Les Boches were shown to be despicable animals emitting a disgusting stench. Allied soldiers, on the reverse, were caricatured as unable and drunk, indulgent and laughable.

While such a strategy aimed at dishonouring the enemy by depriving him of masculine traits and virtues, French and British propaganda not only pilloried the German-Prussian soldier as a brutish rapist, but at the same time called on their own male citizens and citizen-soldiers to abide by the honour code. Instead of helplessly enduring the German atrocities and watching their wives, sisters and daughters being violated, they should defend both their own honour as husbands, brothers and fathers, as well as national honour.

Quite outspokenly, personal honour and national honour were thought to be synonymous. But it was not just propaganda that sought to disseminate a strong commitment to honour. All armies upheld rigid codes of honourable conduct and used numerous shaming practices to punish those who did not comply.

Similar forms of shameful exposure were applied in the German armies. Deserters were treated with utter contempt; they figured as dishonourable traitors and cowards who deserved severe punishment and public shaming. The worst of all was a soldier who defected to the enemy. Time and again, officers made clear that such defectors would be treated like scum by the enemy. No army could or would appreciate traitors who turned against their own comrades and country.

The public displayed nothing but contempt for those who shunned their patriotic duty. Propaganda posters showed women and children reminding men of their obligation and questioning their sense of bravery.

In Britain , women handed out white feathers to those who did not enlist voluntarily before By shaming them in public, women forced men to recognise and live up to traditional gender roles and characteristics. In , the Austrian-Hungarian officer Andreas Latzko anonymously published an account of war at the Isonzo front where he had served in the Imperial and Royal Army until Because every one of them would have been ashamed to stand there without a hero.

This view, however, proved blind to what was really at stake: the gendered division of honour and shame.

1. Site Information Navigation.
2. The Amber Room.
3. 30 of the World's Most Valuable Treasures That Are Still Missing;
4. The Price of Sex: Prostitution, Policy and Society?
5. Stop Smoking Now: How To Stop Smoking For Good.
6. Sorry, we can't find the page you're looking for!.

Honour posed quite different demands on men and women. Being an honourable man was associated with multiple meanings, depending on class, profession and situation, but it was always accompanied by the obligation to display courage and determination in order to avoid shame and humiliation. For women, shamefulness was considered a genuine virtue and character trait. Girls were taught from a young age to lower their gaze, avoiding everything that might taint their immaculate status.

Site Information Navigation

A shamed woman was a fallen woman who had compromised her honour by behaving indecently or allowing other people to treat her indecently. Such cowardly behaviour could not but be perceived as utterly dishonourable, shameful, and unchivalrous. The notion of chivalry, although increasingly criticised by late 19 th -century feminists, lent powerful support to the honour code, both at individual and at national level. This was evident in the language of international relations as it was spoken during the summer of Allied propaganda used even blunter sexual allusions to describe what happened to Belgium and Northern France in August According to Witkop, the song served as an excellent example combining current and traditional war lyrics and should be sung in every classroom.

As early as August , social-democratic newspapers warned against brutalisation and abandoning civilised standards. Germany had indeed taken thousands of prisoners in the early days of the war, who were interned in camps and labour battalions on German territory. Other countries followed suit, and, by the end of , around 6. The way POWs were treated offers a particularly enlightening perspective on questions of honour and shame as they were negotiated during the Great War. The and Hague Conventions had explicitly removed POWs from the theatre of war and enmity, placing them under the power of the enemy government instead of their captors.

During the First World War, this obligation was dealt with very differently.

All governments ostentatiously praised themselves for displaying kindness, dignity and benevolence towards POWs. At the same time, they attacked the enemy for denying their own soldiers the same generous and honourable treatment. A German family journal reveals:. The initial staring had actually been widely reported. Every time that POWs were shown to the public, large crowds gathered in order to catch a glimpse, sneer, or spit at enemy soldiers. Many small and miserable men. It reminds me somewhat of Hagenbeck.

Samoans, Inuit or Nubians.

• The 111 Quotes of Highly Effective Adventurers: Powerful Quotes for Leading Change?
• Bright Lights on Broadway (FPQ Book 3).
• Art in Time of War: Pillage, Plunder, Repression, Reparations & Restitution!
• Top 5 lost treasures of World War II | Guide.

While the latter usually attracted large crowds of curious spectators, some contemporaries felt appalled and reacted with indignation to what they considered to be an act of derogatory exposure. This was deemed as dishonouring both the women and the prisoners. As much as it violated norms of female decency and shamefulness, it also served to humiliate those who had become a spectacle.

Generally, staring was considered to be impolite and tactless behaviour, and children learnt from early on not to stare at others persistently as is often their habit. Staring at POWs acquired the character of an open insult.

January - December 2001

Those who stared were in a position of power, and they did not even try to conceal it. The captured were powerless and thus had to endure being stared at — if they did not try to hide their faces. The staring actually reminded them of their impotence that could be felt quite literally. It shamed them in open daylight and publicly demonstrated that they had lost their honour or, at least, that they were no longer in a position to defend it. In some sense, these men relived the experience of those who had been put on public display for committing a petty crime.

Medieval societies had invented the institution of the pillory for people who had offended public morality. Being put in the stocks or a pillory, set up in the marketplace or at a crossroads, were both means of public humiliation. As a legal device, the pillory was abolished in the s. They were in the hands and at the mercy of the enemy now, since they had lost the war or, at least, a battle. Although international law protected them and obliged the enemy government to treat them honourably, they could not help but notice that they had failed in their duty to defend home, hearth, and fatherland.

Their efforts had been insufficient, and, as a consequence, they felt the blame and shame. Questions of honour and dignity were present every time the issue of POWs was raised. Right at the beginning of the war, people debated whether prisoners could and should be discharged or given more personal freedom after pledging their word of honour. According to the Hague Conventions, soldiers, rank and file as well as officers, could ask or accept the offer of parole after solemnly declaring that they would stick to the obligations that accompanied paroling. Such custom had been well established in early modern military conflicts conceived as cabinet wars.

The new type of national wars that emerged during the 19 th century, however, posed different demands.