Upload
Login or register

freddyhollensen

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:4/11/2012
Last Login:9/11/2016
Location:Denmark
Stats
Content Thumbs: 23799 total,  25966 ,  2167
Comment Thumbs: 3489 total,  5120 ,  1631
Content Level Progress: 63.4% (634/1000)
Level 223 Content: Mind Blower → Level 224 Content: Mind Blower
Comment Level Progress: 82% (82/100)
Level 233 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 234 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:4
Content Views:726137
Times Content Favorited:1606 times
Total Comments Made:1089
FJ Points:27030
Favorite Tags: I knew you would (3)

latest user's comments

#18 - There was a danish resistance you know, and people cheered the…  [+] (12 replies) 05/10/2014 on Denmark's plan 0
User avatar
#20 - charagrin (05/10/2014) [-]
>France surrenders because it can't resist Germany's military
>Engages in one of the most successful sabotage campaigns in human history.
>Remembered as cowards and surrender monkey's.

>Denmark surrenders because it can not resist Germany's military
> Does everything it can to support Germany, genocide and all.
>Denmark commits some minor acts of sabotage.
>Convinces themselves they were the good guys.
#58 - anon (05/10/2014) [-]
I couldn't take you serious after the ">Remembered as cowards and surrender monkeys."

It's got nothing to do with anything.
User avatar
#29 - didactus (05/10/2014) [-]
Flamman och Citronen, check it for fucks sake, Danish resistance fighters.
User avatar
#45 - lordlolland (05/10/2014) [-]
Hvidstensgruppen is much better if one is looking for a Danish resistance movie, its much less of an action movie and keeps to the real story much better.
User avatar
#31 - charagrin (05/10/2014) [-]
Yes, that would b the token resistance I mentioned, that did not begin major resistance until 1944, after the Nazi's started pulling back. I will say, they were successful enough that Germany fully took over the Danish government in fall of '43, where the DFC started their own underground government that aided the resistance movement, however, it was again, token. Operation Carthage in conjunction with the DFC was quite effective though, I will admit.
#26 - dillerfranz (05/10/2014) [-]
World War 1 was pure business for Denmark. They were selling goods to Germany for profit only. In World War 2 they tried to do same. What could you expect from a country with an army 10 times smaller than any country surrounding it? Anyways Germany finally realized Denmark could be used as a strategic point rather than a gorcery store. Resistance was futile and Denmark would only punished further if making too much trouble.

France is a much bigger country with a much larger army with borders touching allies. Denmark had to ocean... in other words if you really have to open your noisehole in your ugly head please do some research beforehand
#32 - dillerfranz (05/10/2014) [-]
You have a valid point however I do though not think it is fair to judge the whole nation on behalf of the goverments choices. There has most certainly been strong political reasons to whatever was done at the time in order to minimize the conflict as much as possible. Besides you will alwways be able to find pro and anti-(insert conflict here) in countries. Some more than others. I think it was your choice of wording that made me misunderstand your intention, my bad
User avatar
#28 - charagrin (05/10/2014) [-]
Your right, if only I had taken courses on world history with electives in WWI and WWII....Oh wait! I did.

You completely missed the point. No mention was made of allies, borders, or militaries beyond both Frances and Denmark's inability to resist Germany. Th fact neither could have won is not the issue, the issue is one lead a guerilla and sabotage resistance while the other 100% gave up and fully supported nazism beyond a very minor token effort at resistance. Between fighting the Germans before surrender, and Danes lost after surrender, Denmark lost only 0.08% of it's(albeit minor) military and civilian populace.

The Danish resistance did not even fully take off until AFTER Nazi Germany had started to decline back to it's own borders. Even the Danish government admitted it was wrong, you might want to look up what the Danish Government itself said about it's actions. Anders Fogh Rasmussen in particular said it rather well..

And before you try and twist anything, I acknowledge Denmark could not fight the Nazi's, and I acknowledge they had a resistance. The issue is how minor their resistance was versus how much they aided the Nazi's, at least in comparison to France.
User avatar
#35 - deaminzaints (05/10/2014) [-]
but again, you are comparing a much larger country to a much smaller one... of course there is gonna be a bigger resistance when there are more people that live there.
think about this. there is a room with 100 people. they are locked in and are told that they will be shot if they dont co-operate. 1 person says: "we can get out if we work together!" how many will follow?

now assume that 10000 people are locked in with the same conditions. 100 people say the exact same thing. what will happen?

humans are very weak to group pressure, in a country with alot of people there will allways be a higher resistance becourse the amount of people who live there can counter the amount who invade. that is not the case for a smaller country.

but yeah, facts are facts. but just dont look at it without considering the human aspect.
User avatar
#24 - emotep (05/10/2014) [-]
Denmark became in April 2014 officially recognized as one of the 'allied' nations, due to losing 1/6 of the Danish sailors serving under allied forces in world war 2. A casualty rate only topped by the US marines.

1.072 out of approximately 6000 according to the Danish news agency TV2

Also Denmark resisted the German invasion(however shortly) killing a more than 200 soldiers and destroying several German armored vehicles.
User avatar
#23 - minorian (05/10/2014) [-]
You are talking about countries like they are persons.
Denmark had a complacent government of Nazi-lovers that led a cooperation policy with Germany, but we also had a substantial resistance force of dirty kike-lovers, like every other country that got invaded.
User avatar
#22 - reginleif (05/10/2014) [-]
Let's be fair though, there WAS mass evacuations of the Jews before the Germans came. Poland got way too much cred for what basically was a half assed attempt to do that. Even though as I said earlier the Poles and French put much more of a fight.

Not that Danes didn't support genocide, but pretty much every nation in Europe did, and if we go by historical accounts more resistance friendly nations like Poland probably cooperated more than the Danish on that aspect.
#85 - Well obviously money always have to come from somwhere, I didn…  [+] (1 reply) 05/09/2014 on Michele Bachman is a genius… 0
#86 - anon (05/09/2014) [-]
Once again, it is Universal and not free. It is a really expensive tax you and everyone who is working (has income) has to pay for.

But every tax (well not just the taxes...everything) is really expensive over there.
#82 - Well you should check again, I have pretty free health care. …  [+] (4 replies) 05/09/2014 on Michele Bachman is a genius… 0
#84 - anon (05/09/2014) [-]
What i meant is: free means the government funds it on it's own and not thru taxes taken from the public. It is free if you don't have to pay for it, not when you use it, not from your salary.
#83 - anon (05/09/2014) [-]
Free healthcare implies that it cost no money. It is only "free on point of use", but you pay for it in your whole life. It is Universal Healthcare, but it is publicly funded and not free. Free means government pays it and not the public.
User avatar
#85 - freddyhollensen (05/09/2014) [-]
Well obviously money always have to come from somwhere, I didn't know you were looking for a semantic debate, but if you really want, then the word ''free'' is meaningless.

In denmark, it's not like you have to pay taxes in order to receive education or healthcare, you could be a homeless bum, your child could be, your childrens children, and your entire family could be bums who paid no taxes.

If they go to a doctor, he will treat em without charge.

Is that not free? or do you disagree with the use of the word in general?
#86 - anon (05/09/2014) [-]
Once again, it is Universal and not free. It is a really expensive tax you and everyone who is working (has income) has to pay for.

But every tax (well not just the taxes...everything) is really expensive over there.
#76 - But be honest, would you not rather live like the scandinavian…  [+] (6 replies) 05/09/2014 on Michele Bachman is a genius… 0
#78 - anon (05/09/2014) [-]
Last time i checked the so called "scandinavian master race" didn't have free healthcare.

And I wouldn't be so proud of the most expensive country to live, while even US has higher avg wages (they have the highest...so yea... altho it might dropped with the new "tax" in)
User avatar
#82 - freddyhollensen (05/09/2014) [-]
Well you should check again, I have pretty free health care.

It doesn't cover dentists though.
#84 - anon (05/09/2014) [-]
What i meant is: free means the government funds it on it's own and not thru taxes taken from the public. It is free if you don't have to pay for it, not when you use it, not from your salary.
#83 - anon (05/09/2014) [-]
Free healthcare implies that it cost no money. It is only "free on point of use", but you pay for it in your whole life. It is Universal Healthcare, but it is publicly funded and not free. Free means government pays it and not the public.
User avatar
#85 - freddyhollensen (05/09/2014) [-]
Well obviously money always have to come from somwhere, I didn't know you were looking for a semantic debate, but if you really want, then the word ''free'' is meaningless.

In denmark, it's not like you have to pay taxes in order to receive education or healthcare, you could be a homeless bum, your child could be, your childrens children, and your entire family could be bums who paid no taxes.

If they go to a doctor, he will treat em without charge.

Is that not free? or do you disagree with the use of the word in general?
#86 - anon (05/09/2014) [-]
Once again, it is Universal and not free. It is a really expensive tax you and everyone who is working (has income) has to pay for.

But every tax (well not just the taxes...everything) is really expensive over there.
#14 - The Third last, I don't get it...  [+] (2 replies) 05/08/2014 on Third one really ****ed my... +1
User avatar
#30 - datlaugh (05/08/2014) [-]
There's two girls in the picture. One is under the guy's arm and one is in the background. Both of the girls' shirts are the same color so they blend.
User avatar
#16 - daffyduckyo (05/08/2014) [-]
The girls kinda look like siamese twins