"So you basically agree with the murderous crimes committed against ethnic Germans."
No, I most certainly do not.
However, I can grasp why it happened. I hope you can understand that there is a palatable difference between understanding the motives behind something, and condoning it. Please take some time to think over that concept, because your bias has clearly clouded your perspective.
On the other hand, I don't understand why Germany started that kind of a war. I just don't. Do you? If you do, then can you please explain that to me.
It only backfired against them in the end. They could have defeated the Soviet Union, with the help of Poles and many other Slavs, but no...their arrogance, hatred and crass ideology put a cork on all of that.
And let me just add, that the Nazi leadership shares as much responsibilty for the deaths and hardship of eastern Germans, as the Soviets, Poles, Czechs and others who perpetrated those crimes.
My position (for those who care)
Nordwall asks us to care about the German casualties of WW2...and, yes, he's quite correct that most people have forgotten or ignore the civilian casualties of the end of the war period. And, incidentally, no, I for one do not really care.
But, his post represents a curious trend of many contributors. A feeling that somehow the Allies did not quite play fair in winning WW2. That man for man (tank for tank/plane for plane) the German soldier was "better" than his British/US/Soviet opponent and that Germany somehow "deserved" to win.
Without question the German soldier often fought far better than his opponents. On occasion they performed superb operations. We all know the list of these brave/motivated/without peer soldiers. But, dwelling on the military and operational history of WW2 Germany misses, I think, the point.
The major opponents of Germany (Britain/USA/USSR) right from the start fought a Total War. While Germany planned on a few panzer divisions and a few Waffen SS units, their opponents were planning to defeat and hopefully destroy Germany right from the start. A classic example is Britain, where as soon as war was declared most women became liable for conscription. So, by 1940, these women were producing the bombers that were to devastate germany in the years ahead. Germany in 1940 was assuming that the war would be over by Christmas, Britain was planning heavy bomber operations.
And with Total War, in the British/US/USSR way, comes an acceptance of all necessary means to secure victory. The Allies had politicians and soldiers who quite accepted that the only way to defeat germany was to do it totally...after all look what compromise did in 1918.
Civilians get killed in wars, often very large numbers, it is what happens. The "ethnic cleansing" of areas is a quite established phenomena and always appalling. But, if you start a fight, you should be able to finish it.
Any and all German military successes on any front during 1944 and 1945 were a complete waste. None made any real difference. While some may find it important that some WSS unit destroyed umpteen British tanks at some battle in 1944; the lesson of, say, the defeat of Operation Goodwood, was that it didn't matter, that the WSS were better soldiers was of no consequence. The Allies were fighting an industrialised war and could replace losses quite easily.
If a country starts a war it should be prepared to finish it without complaining about the opposition that they provoked. Seemingly we are to accept that the British, the Americans, and the Russians fought too hard. A look at the military history of all three countries would have shown the Germans that they generally won their wars and that their armed forces fought very hard indeed. You do not win as many wars as the British have by not fighting to the best of your ability, and that means hard and uncompromisingly. If the Germans couldn't stand the pace, then tough!. But, all of the civilians who died during WW2 in Europe have Hitler and his regime to blame. At the very least you shouldn't start a war when you cannot defend even your own population.
But, his post represents a curious trend of many contributors. A feeling that somehow the Allies did not quite play fair in winning WW2. That man for man (tank for tank/plane for plane) the German soldier was "better" than his British/US/Soviet opponent and that Germany somehow "deserved" to win.
Without question the German soldier often fought far better than his opponents. On occasion they performed superb operations. We all know the list of these brave/motivated/without peer soldiers. But, dwelling on the military and operational history of WW2 Germany misses, I think, the point.
The major opponents of Germany (Britain/USA/USSR) right from the start fought a Total War. While Germany planned on a few panzer divisions and a few Waffen SS units, their opponents were planning to defeat and hopefully destroy Germany right from the start. A classic example is Britain, where as soon as war was declared most women became liable for conscription. So, by 1940, these women were producing the bombers that were to devastate germany in the years ahead. Germany in 1940 was assuming that the war would be over by Christmas, Britain was planning heavy bomber operations.
And with Total War, in the British/US/USSR way, comes an acceptance of all necessary means to secure victory. The Allies had politicians and soldiers who quite accepted that the only way to defeat germany was to do it totally...after all look what compromise did in 1918.
Civilians get killed in wars, often very large numbers, it is what happens. The "ethnic cleansing" of areas is a quite established phenomena and always appalling. But, if you start a fight, you should be able to finish it.
Any and all German military successes on any front during 1944 and 1945 were a complete waste. None made any real difference. While some may find it important that some WSS unit destroyed umpteen British tanks at some battle in 1944; the lesson of, say, the defeat of Operation Goodwood, was that it didn't matter, that the WSS were better soldiers was of no consequence. The Allies were fighting an industrialised war and could replace losses quite easily.
If a country starts a war it should be prepared to finish it without complaining about the opposition that they provoked. Seemingly we are to accept that the British, the Americans, and the Russians fought too hard. A look at the military history of all three countries would have shown the Germans that they generally won their wars and that their armed forces fought very hard indeed. You do not win as many wars as the British have by not fighting to the best of your ability, and that means hard and uncompromisingly. If the Germans couldn't stand the pace, then tough!. But, all of the civilians who died during WW2 in Europe have Hitler and his regime to blame. At the very least you shouldn't start a war when you cannot defend even your own population.
@ General Anders
But you put a full stop on end of the sentence you quoted of me, that makes it look like what I said was meant as a statement.
It was not, the sentence ended with a question mark, something you ignored to have a solid basis for calling me biased.
You ignore all arguements, all the hard facts, all what I said, just to bring up an adulterated quote of me and to call me "biased".
Thanks, this proved my stance about your capabilities of judgement regarding this topic.
I'm not trying to justify any war crimes, to charge up death numbers with death numbers, or to white-wash my country's past.
Something I can't really say about you, from what I've read so far.
Talking about "understanding the motives" of the people back then - there of course is a huge difference between endorsing war crimes, and understanding the logical principle behind their motivations.
You say you go with the latter, I say that does not justify anything, and you even agreed to this in your last post.
Strange, we both seem to agree, but you still call me biased.
My intention in writing this is not making a revision of historical facts, but to make clear that Germans also suffered a LOT in WW2, and especially after WW2 (something that was no "misfortune", but a stone-cold calculated plan of the new East European directives).
And since there is not even a single, small sign of remorse or any expression of being sorry for the massacres of that time by today's East European countries, I wonder if they have forgotten their own history that fast, while the Germans even today, still behave like they're responsible for everything bad that happened in the first half of the 20th century.
Remember that you started the thread (calling German soldiers people who lack any morale and many of them sick animals), you asked for a reply - here you have it.
But maybe you can tell me why Stalin invaded Poland at the same time Germany did? Why not ask a few Russians here? Maybe they know.. or not.
- John
Fortunately, I don't have any motivation for clustering the forums with "biased" posts."So you basically agree with the murderous crimes committed against ethnic Germans."
Please take some time to think over that concept, because your bias has clearly clouded your perspective.
But you put a full stop on end of the sentence you quoted of me, that makes it look like what I said was meant as a statement.
It was not, the sentence ended with a question mark, something you ignored to have a solid basis for calling me biased.
You ignore all arguements, all the hard facts, all what I said, just to bring up an adulterated quote of me and to call me "biased".
Thanks, this proved my stance about your capabilities of judgement regarding this topic.
I'm not trying to justify any war crimes, to charge up death numbers with death numbers, or to white-wash my country's past.
Something I can't really say about you, from what I've read so far.
Talking about "understanding the motives" of the people back then - there of course is a huge difference between endorsing war crimes, and understanding the logical principle behind their motivations.
You say you go with the latter, I say that does not justify anything, and you even agreed to this in your last post.
Strange, we both seem to agree, but you still call me biased.
My intention in writing this is not making a revision of historical facts, but to make clear that Germans also suffered a LOT in WW2, and especially after WW2 (something that was no "misfortune", but a stone-cold calculated plan of the new East European directives).
And since there is not even a single, small sign of remorse or any expression of being sorry for the massacres of that time by today's East European countries, I wonder if they have forgotten their own history that fast, while the Germans even today, still behave like they're responsible for everything bad that happened in the first half of the 20th century.
Remember that you started the thread (calling German soldiers people who lack any morale and many of them sick animals), you asked for a reply - here you have it.
No, how should I? I'm born in 1981, that's 42 years late, my grandparents didn't vote for the NSDAP in 1933, so no - I have no friggin clue.On the other hand, I don't understand why Germany started that kind of a war.I just don't. Do you?
But maybe you can tell me why Stalin invaded Poland at the same time Germany did? Why not ask a few Russians here? Maybe they know.. or not.
- John
My position(anyway, nobody seems to care)
kelty90 has written:
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =1&stop=20
~Ovidius
Here are my answers(and some comments from others):But, his post represents a curious trend of many contributors. A feeling that somehow the Allies did not quite play fair in winning WW2. That man for man (tank for tank/plane for plane) the German soldier was "better" than his British/US/Soviet opponent and that Germany somehow "deserved" to win.
Without question the German soldier often fought far better than his opponents. On occasion they performed superb operations. We all know the list of these brave/motivated/without peer soldiers. But, dwelling on the military and operational history of WW2 Germany misses, I think, the point.
The major opponents of Germany (Britain/USA/USSR) right from the start fought a Total War. While Germany planned on a few panzer divisions and a few Waffen SS units, their opponents were planning to defeat and hopefully destroy Germany right from the start. A classic example is Britain, where as soon as war was declared most women became liable for conscription. So, by 1940, these women were producing the bombers that were to devastate germany in the years ahead. Germany in 1940 was assuming that the war would be over by Christmas, Britain was planning heavy bomber operations.
And with Total War, in the British/US/USSR way, comes an acceptance of all necessary means to secure victory. The Allies had politicians and soldiers who quite accepted that the only way to defeat germany was to do it totally...after all look what compromise did in 1918.
Civilians get killed in wars, often very large numbers, it is what happens. The "ethnic cleansing" of areas is a quite established phenomena and always appalling. But, if you start a fight, you should be able to finish it.
Any and all German military successes on any front during 1944 and 1945 were a complete waste. None made any real difference. While some may find it important that some WSS unit destroyed umpteen British tanks at some battle in 1944; the lesson of, say, the defeat of Operation Goodwood, was that it didn't matter, that the WSS were better soldiers was of no consequence. The Allies were fighting an industrialised war and could replace losses quite easily.
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =1&stop=20
~Ovidius
Nordwall,
"You ignore all arguements, all the hard facts, all what I said, just to bring up an adulterated quote of me and to call me "biased".
Thanks, this proved my stance about your capabilities of judgement regarding this topic."
What arguments did I ignore? What facts? I agree with you that many Germans died, and that this wasn't fair. And enough about the "adulterated" quote already; the full quote appears on the same friggin page.
Like many Germans on this forum, you've got this funny habit (not funny as in "ha, ha" but funny as in strange) of saying I should shut up about German war crimes because the allies were just as bad. What the hell kind of an argument is that? And how is that going to benefit anyone?
If you're upset about hearing what the Germans got up to during the war, well, then that's probably a good thing. You should be. I'm upset every time someone gives an account of Polish war crimes, and there have been many instances of that in the Polish press of late.
This is the Third Reich forum is it not? Therefore, every time I post a thread about German war crimes during WWII, it's right on topic. Should I also post instances of Polish war crimes against Germans? I have done, on this forum and the old one, plenty of times.
"No, how should I? I'm born in 1981, that's 42 years late, my grandparents didn't vote for the NSDAP in 1933, so no - I have no friggin clue.
But maybe you can tell me why Stalin invaded Poland at the same time Germany did? Why not ask a few Russians here? Maybe they know.. or not."
This, my befuddled Teutonic chum, is the essence of my argument. Of course you can't make sense of the Nazi motives for starting that kind of a war, no civilized person (which is what I take you for) can.
And no, the Soviet aggression on Poland can not be compared to that of Germany. And that's despite such barbaric incidents as the Katyn massacre. First of all, the Nazis were coming to Poland to either kill, forcibly Germanize or deport the ENTIRE Polish population. In other words, to wipe our nation from the face of the planet. The Soviets, on the other hand, came in order to "free" the oppressed Polish workers from the grubby hands of the capitalists and burgeois (please note the sarcasm).
Now, I'm not insane or anything, and I know the Russians ended up doing almost as much harm to Poland as the Germans...but still. The Soviets occupied us for 45 years, and yeh, the econony sucked, but Poland was still Poland. My family lived in relative peace and I'm here, alive and well. Imagine if Germany won the war, where would I be now? Would I even exist? And if so, would I know anything about my heritage, family, history? I seriously doubt it.
See what I'm getting at? We're here to study history, make some sense of it, and to hopefully learn from past mistakes. But what you seem to be saying is: lets forget all the reasons why all this shit went down, just agree that the allies were also bad, and leave it at that.
"You ignore all arguements, all the hard facts, all what I said, just to bring up an adulterated quote of me and to call me "biased".
Thanks, this proved my stance about your capabilities of judgement regarding this topic."
What arguments did I ignore? What facts? I agree with you that many Germans died, and that this wasn't fair. And enough about the "adulterated" quote already; the full quote appears on the same friggin page.
Like many Germans on this forum, you've got this funny habit (not funny as in "ha, ha" but funny as in strange) of saying I should shut up about German war crimes because the allies were just as bad. What the hell kind of an argument is that? And how is that going to benefit anyone?
If you're upset about hearing what the Germans got up to during the war, well, then that's probably a good thing. You should be. I'm upset every time someone gives an account of Polish war crimes, and there have been many instances of that in the Polish press of late.
This is the Third Reich forum is it not? Therefore, every time I post a thread about German war crimes during WWII, it's right on topic. Should I also post instances of Polish war crimes against Germans? I have done, on this forum and the old one, plenty of times.
"No, how should I? I'm born in 1981, that's 42 years late, my grandparents didn't vote for the NSDAP in 1933, so no - I have no friggin clue.
But maybe you can tell me why Stalin invaded Poland at the same time Germany did? Why not ask a few Russians here? Maybe they know.. or not."
This, my befuddled Teutonic chum, is the essence of my argument. Of course you can't make sense of the Nazi motives for starting that kind of a war, no civilized person (which is what I take you for) can.
And no, the Soviet aggression on Poland can not be compared to that of Germany. And that's despite such barbaric incidents as the Katyn massacre. First of all, the Nazis were coming to Poland to either kill, forcibly Germanize or deport the ENTIRE Polish population. In other words, to wipe our nation from the face of the planet. The Soviets, on the other hand, came in order to "free" the oppressed Polish workers from the grubby hands of the capitalists and burgeois (please note the sarcasm).
Now, I'm not insane or anything, and I know the Russians ended up doing almost as much harm to Poland as the Germans...but still. The Soviets occupied us for 45 years, and yeh, the econony sucked, but Poland was still Poland. My family lived in relative peace and I'm here, alive and well. Imagine if Germany won the war, where would I be now? Would I even exist? And if so, would I know anything about my heritage, family, history? I seriously doubt it.
See what I'm getting at? We're here to study history, make some sense of it, and to hopefully learn from past mistakes. But what you seem to be saying is: lets forget all the reasons why all this shit went down, just agree that the allies were also bad, and leave it at that.
@ General Anders
You don't need any? Well, then it's easy - just read it up above. I posted numbers on casualties of both sides, I brought examples of how not only Slavic people, but also ethnic Germans were treated under unhuman conditions, how war crimes have been commited on both sides.
The only thing that came to your mind regarding this was : "I agree with you that many Germans died, and that this wasn't fair."
That sounds so completely different than when you talk about Polish victims of the Nazi era.
YES I know - they are your ancestors, so of course, they play a bigger role in your personal understanding of history.
But what about being a little less one-sided when talking of war crimes? There are always two sides of the medal, but you almost completely blaim the Germans for everything bad that happened to your countrymen, while leaving everything out of the picture. Russian war crimes commited on Polish civilians? Polish war crimes commited on German civilians? You do a good job at keeping that out of debate everytime when it comes to the "war crimes"-topic.
That's what I call one-sided, and maybe (but only maybe), even biased.
Something that shouldn't happen when trying to do a serious discussion.
I do NOT ask anyone to "shut up" about German war crimes because the allies "were just as bad". I never did, and I never will.
But I do wonder where I said the things you implied above - please quote me regarding this, otherwise, you're accusing me of something I never even intended to say.
I do, however, find it distressing, that especially countries in the former Soviet block, seem to have a fundamental problem with rehashing their history of the past six decades.
That is one of my main concerns and the main reason why I'm irritated and disturbed by your one-sided point of view, as I see it.
You have gotten me absolutely wrong so far if you think that I want to white-wash the German past by enumerateing the crimes commited by the "other side".
I stated this a couple of times before, but you obviously never really understood it (or it doesn't fit in your picture that I don't have any personal, "biased" intention in badmouthing the Polish).
But what is so hard about realizing that there is a major shortcomming in historical enlightenment regarding this topic, especially in East European countries?
German war crimes are the major topic in German schools (history lessons). From what I heard from Polish friends, Polish war crimes don't even once get mentioned in Polish school instruction.
That is symbolic for a lack of judgement from the East European side. Countries that want to join the EU should not leave out a dark chapter of their own history, just because it doesn't fit their picture of the "glorious victory over Germany in WW2".
This, my befuddled Slavic chum, is the essence of my argument. (to use your own words
)
I'm not here to blame anyone, I'm here to ask for some evenhandedness when talking about the horrors of WW2 (and the pre-war time, that was no less cruel for millions of people).
I'm not going further into arguements about the Soviets with you, since it was part of a rather snappish reply to your question whether I know why WW2 was started, or not.
I know the difference between Soviet crimes and Nazi crimes commited in Poland, including all numbers, locations and dates. Please don't start schooling me regarding this topic.
You blame me of being biased, of trying to shut you up "because the allies were just as bad", of playing down my own country's past.
NOTHING OF THIS IS TRUE - and if you would have read my previous posts carefully, you would even have found out about that on your own!
My message here only is that both sides have to remember what their own people did in, and after WW2, and that both sides bear responsibility of unhuman, murderous war crimes.
The Nazis were bad, but that is no alibi for the winners.
- dahool
I'll hand you some glasses the next chance I get.What arguments did I ignore? What facts?
You don't need any? Well, then it's easy - just read it up above. I posted numbers on casualties of both sides, I brought examples of how not only Slavic people, but also ethnic Germans were treated under unhuman conditions, how war crimes have been commited on both sides.
The only thing that came to your mind regarding this was : "I agree with you that many Germans died, and that this wasn't fair."
That sounds so completely different than when you talk about Polish victims of the Nazi era.
YES I know - they are your ancestors, so of course, they play a bigger role in your personal understanding of history.
But what about being a little less one-sided when talking of war crimes? There are always two sides of the medal, but you almost completely blaim the Germans for everything bad that happened to your countrymen, while leaving everything out of the picture. Russian war crimes commited on Polish civilians? Polish war crimes commited on German civilians? You do a good job at keeping that out of debate everytime when it comes to the "war crimes"-topic.
That's what I call one-sided, and maybe (but only maybe), even biased.
No doubt, that's true (as anyone else can see by scrolling up). You modified the quote, anyway.the full quote appears on the same friggin page
Something that shouldn't happen when trying to do a serious discussion.
I said it before, and I herewith say it again:Like many Germans on this forum, you've got this funny habit (not funny as in "ha, ha" but funny as in strange) of saying I should shut up about German war crimes because the allies were just as bad.
I do NOT ask anyone to "shut up" about German war crimes because the allies "were just as bad". I never did, and I never will.
But I do wonder where I said the things you implied above - please quote me regarding this, otherwise, you're accusing me of something I never even intended to say.
I do, however, find it distressing, that especially countries in the former Soviet block, seem to have a fundamental problem with rehashing their history of the past six decades.
That is one of my main concerns and the main reason why I'm irritated and disturbed by your one-sided point of view, as I see it.
You have gotten me absolutely wrong so far if you think that I want to white-wash the German past by enumerateing the crimes commited by the "other side".
I stated this a couple of times before, but you obviously never really understood it (or it doesn't fit in your picture that I don't have any personal, "biased" intention in badmouthing the Polish).
See, that's exactly the same way I feel about German war crimes. It upsets me, just as well as Polish, Czech, Russian or Japanese war crimes upset me.I'm upset every time someone gives an account of Polish war crimes, and there have been many instances of that in the Polish press of late.
But what is so hard about realizing that there is a major shortcomming in historical enlightenment regarding this topic, especially in East European countries?
German war crimes are the major topic in German schools (history lessons). From what I heard from Polish friends, Polish war crimes don't even once get mentioned in Polish school instruction.
That is symbolic for a lack of judgement from the East European side. Countries that want to join the EU should not leave out a dark chapter of their own history, just because it doesn't fit their picture of the "glorious victory over Germany in WW2".
This, my befuddled Slavic chum, is the essence of my argument. (to use your own words
)I'm not here to blame anyone, I'm here to ask for some evenhandedness when talking about the horrors of WW2 (and the pre-war time, that was no less cruel for millions of people).
I'm not going further into arguements about the Soviets with you, since it was part of a rather snappish reply to your question whether I know why WW2 was started, or not.
I know the difference between Soviet crimes and Nazi crimes commited in Poland, including all numbers, locations and dates. Please don't start schooling me regarding this topic.
Yes, I see what you're getting at.See what I'm getting at? We're here to study history, make some sense of it, and to hopefully learn from past mistakes. But what you seem to be saying is: lets forget all the reasons why all this shit went down, just agree that the allies were also bad, and leave it at that.
You blame me of being biased, of trying to shut you up "because the allies were just as bad", of playing down my own country's past.
NOTHING OF THIS IS TRUE - and if you would have read my previous posts carefully, you would even have found out about that on your own!
My message here only is that both sides have to remember what their own people did in, and after WW2, and that both sides bear responsibility of unhuman, murderous war crimes.
The Nazis were bad, but that is no alibi for the winners.
- dahool
I think it's safe to say pretty much all of us respect the German soldier who fought honorably for his country despite what his leaders were plotting/commiting. I think people are forgetting that war in itself is tragety, and only the bravest of people stand up to fight for their country.
I am one of the few Americans I know who thinks we should have invaded Japan instead of nuking it. Nukes are a terror weapon that make no distinction between Civilian and Military targets. There is no honor in killing Civilians with no interest in defense. An invasion would be costly, and more people might have been killed; but at least the Japanese soldier could fight for his country, instead of hiding from invisible radiation.
My grandfather installed the radar into the Anola Gay before it's mission of destruction. To this day he finds it hard to forget, as he desperately wished it hadn't of happened. Luckily his poor memory serves him in his old age. The topic hasn't come about in a while and hopefully in won't in his last days. When he speaks of his experiences, he talks about his previous service in India getting bombed by the Japanese, but he never speaks of them disrespectully. He always says "The Japs didn't enjoy getting bombed as much as we didn't enjoy bombing them."
Anyway, just thought I'd share that random thought...
I am one of the few Americans I know who thinks we should have invaded Japan instead of nuking it. Nukes are a terror weapon that make no distinction between Civilian and Military targets. There is no honor in killing Civilians with no interest in defense. An invasion would be costly, and more people might have been killed; but at least the Japanese soldier could fight for his country, instead of hiding from invisible radiation.
My grandfather installed the radar into the Anola Gay before it's mission of destruction. To this day he finds it hard to forget, as he desperately wished it hadn't of happened. Luckily his poor memory serves him in his old age. The topic hasn't come about in a while and hopefully in won't in his last days. When he speaks of his experiences, he talks about his previous service in India getting bombed by the Japanese, but he never speaks of them disrespectully. He always says "The Japs didn't enjoy getting bombed as much as we didn't enjoy bombing them."
Anyway, just thought I'd share that random thought...
kelty90 wrote:And with Total War, in the British/US/USSR way, comes an acceptance of all necessary means to secure victory.
kelty90 wrote:...if you start a fight, you should be able to finish it.
kelty90 wrote:If a country starts a war it should be prepared to finish it without complaining about the opposition that they provoked.
You English make the Americans look humble. It is mostly not due to a difference of rhetoric, but it is due to a difference of credit due. Let me interrupt your cockiness with a reminder of Dunkûrk. You think that the country that "starts a war" should be able to finish it, but your nation was incapable of this. Remember that England declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Your nation lost at Dunkûrk, and your pathetic military only survived due to the fact that Hitler did not want to wage this "Total War" that you are so fond of. He was not ruthless enough, and he let a few hundred thousand enemy troops keep their lives. If it was not for the USA, your nation would have not won, as you had already lost. It is the same with Russia. Some cocky Russians also talk about how the Russians could have won without Lend Lease, but we all know how untrue that is. England and Russia did not win the war, but rather they were on the winning side, and without American participation, an overall German victory would have been much more probable. The best part was when you talked about all of the wars that the "British" won. I had a nice laugh at that one. If you know anything, you know that there is no shortage of lost wars by the so called "British"; The American Revolution, The War of 1812, ect. I am reminded, when you speak of the English fighting "hard and uncompromisingly", of the great honor showed by your nation during the Highland Clearances. I can not forget Cromwell, and how he "hard and uncompromisingly" fostered the Irish slave trade. You concentration camps in South Africa were so "hard and uncompromising" that you must be proud. Your present day treatment of Wales, Scotland, and the six counties is also very nice; a model for any Reich to follow. Why don't you get real. The next time that you want to talk about how great your nation is as you disparage Germany, I suggest you look in the mirror. Your country has been more "evil" than the Third Reich could have ever been, and during WWII, your nation was a pathetic warmonger that could not finish the war that they started. Now go and bow down to the Amis like your country always does. Thank the Third Reich for not waging a "Total War" against your nation, and then thank the USA for saving you from the Third Reich.kelty90 wrote:You do not win as many wars as the British have by not fighting to the best of your ability, and that means hard and uncompromisingly.
That is the same thing that the Poles, Russians, Czechs, ect., think today. They did not want Germans hanging around, so they killed a couple million, and ethnically cleansed the rest of the Germans that were living to the East of the Rivers. Those Slavs do not like many of us Germans whom are still waiting for our day to take back our lands and property.admfisher wrote:Maybe the reason for clearing the people from the occupied lands was part of the German Living Room.
When you need space you dont want the old owners hanging around waiting for there day to take it back.
Another imbecilic remark. The Third Reich did not want war in the West. It was England and France that declared war on Germany, not the other way around. I put the deaths on the head of the English Reich for refusing a peace numerous times. Was the Third Reich wrong for attacking Russia? I do not think so, as the nation was a threat to the Earth, as we saw during the Cold War.kelty90 wrote:But, all of the civilians who died during WW2 in Europe have Hitler and his regime to blame.
General Anders, I like reading your "anti-German propaganda". Different views are always nice. Especially biased Slavic views like yours.
Do you also say that the Polish leadership shares responsiblity for the war in Poland? Do you also say that the jewish leadership shares responsibility for what the Third Reich did to jews?General Anders wrote:And let me just add, that the Nazi leadership shares as much responsibilty for the deaths and hardship of eastern Germans, as the Soviets, Poles, Czechs and others who perpetrated those crimes.
I can make sense of the Third Reich's reasons for invading Poland. Maybe you do not think me to be civilized though. After all, I am just Germanic, and I guess that I do not have the high levels of civility that you Easterners have demonstrated since WWII. There were four primary reasons for the German overtake of Poland. The first reason was Polish Foreign Minister Beck's unwillingness to compromise with Reich Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop. Germany wanted a solution for Danzig, and the Corridor (extraterritorial road and rails, ect.), but Poland did not want to work with Germany. The second reason is that the Poles were treating Germans (like those on land that Poland got after WWI) very bad, and Germany wanted to stop the abuse of Germans. The third reason was the partial mobilization of the Polish army on a large scale. By "international law", this was an act of war directed at Germany. The fourth reason was the "Anglo-Polish Mutual Guarantee" of April, 1939. That was a violation of the "Polish-German Declaration" of 1934 (based on mutual relations on the principles laid down in the "Pact of Paris" of the 27th August, 1928). Poland got what they were asking for; trouble.General Anders wrote:This, my befuddled Teutonic chum, is the essence of my argument. Of course you can't make sense of the Nazi motives for starting that kind of a war, no civilized person (which is what I take you for) can.
-
Brian Von Stauffenberg
- Member
- Posts: 166
- Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 00:12
- Location: UK
The Horror
As the saying goes "War is hell and sane men are turned insane". in my opinion that is regardless of nationality. :!:
Nordwall,
"My message here only is that both sides have to remember what their own people did in, and after WW2, and that both sides bear responsibility of unhuman, murderous war crimes.
The Nazis were bad, but that is no alibi for the winners."
Indeed, but I will add that analyzing the motives and reasons behind what happened is also very important. And so, in my opinion, the allies' actions can, at least, be understood. The Germans had to be stopped as soon as possible, by any means...and then there was the revenge factor. What's Germany's excuse?
"My message here only is that both sides have to remember what their own people did in, and after WW2, and that both sides bear responsibility of unhuman, murderous war crimes.
The Nazis were bad, but that is no alibi for the winners."
Indeed, but I will add that analyzing the motives and reasons behind what happened is also very important. And so, in my opinion, the allies' actions can, at least, be understood. The Germans had to be stopped as soon as possible, by any means...and then there was the revenge factor. What's Germany's excuse?
Thorfinn,
"I can make sense of the Third Reich's reasons for invading Poland. Maybe you do not think me to be civilized though. After all, I am just Germanic, and I guess that I do not have the high levels of civility that you Easterners have demonstrated since WWII. There were four primary reasons for the German overtake of Poland. The first reason was Polish Foreign Minister Beck's unwillingness to compromise with Reich Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop. Germany wanted a solution for Danzig, and the Corridor (extraterritorial road and rails, ect.), but Poland did not want to work with Germany. The second reason is that the Poles were treating Germans (like those on land that Poland got after WWI) very bad, and Germany wanted to stop the abuse of Germans. The third reason was the partial mobilization of the Polish army on a large scale. By "international law", this was an act of war directed at Germany. The fourth reason was the "Anglo-Polish Mutual Guarantee" of April, 1939. That was a violation of the "Polish-German Declaration" of 1934 (based on mutual relations on the principles laid down in the "Pact of Paris" of the 27th August, 1928). Poland got what they were asking for; trouble."
No, I see you've confused yourself. Please take a little more time to think about my posts before replying.
I'm not asking you why Germany invaded Poland. In my opnion, there's never a good reason for war. But then again, wars have been started for much less than what you outlined above. But anyway, my question was why Germany had to unleash the type of crusade war that it did. Why didn't they just invade Poland and occupy it? What was the point of all the expulsions, the executions, forced Germanization, the extermination of the intelligentsia, burning of whole villages, the blatant destruction of Polish culture? If the Germans had acted in Poland like they did in France or Belgium, for instance, there wouldn't be very much resistance at all. In fact, I'm sure they'd get a lot of help from Poles against the Bolsheviks. So tell me, why the Nazis choose to go along that path?
"I can make sense of the Third Reich's reasons for invading Poland. Maybe you do not think me to be civilized though. After all, I am just Germanic, and I guess that I do not have the high levels of civility that you Easterners have demonstrated since WWII. There were four primary reasons for the German overtake of Poland. The first reason was Polish Foreign Minister Beck's unwillingness to compromise with Reich Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop. Germany wanted a solution for Danzig, and the Corridor (extraterritorial road and rails, ect.), but Poland did not want to work with Germany. The second reason is that the Poles were treating Germans (like those on land that Poland got after WWI) very bad, and Germany wanted to stop the abuse of Germans. The third reason was the partial mobilization of the Polish army on a large scale. By "international law", this was an act of war directed at Germany. The fourth reason was the "Anglo-Polish Mutual Guarantee" of April, 1939. That was a violation of the "Polish-German Declaration" of 1934 (based on mutual relations on the principles laid down in the "Pact of Paris" of the 27th August, 1928). Poland got what they were asking for; trouble."
No, I see you've confused yourself. Please take a little more time to think about my posts before replying.
I'm not asking you why Germany invaded Poland. In my opnion, there's never a good reason for war. But then again, wars have been started for much less than what you outlined above. But anyway, my question was why Germany had to unleash the type of crusade war that it did. Why didn't they just invade Poland and occupy it? What was the point of all the expulsions, the executions, forced Germanization, the extermination of the intelligentsia, burning of whole villages, the blatant destruction of Polish culture? If the Germans had acted in Poland like they did in France or Belgium, for instance, there wouldn't be very much resistance at all. In fact, I'm sure they'd get a lot of help from Poles against the Bolsheviks. So tell me, why the Nazis choose to go along that path?
-
Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Why Crusade...
Because the Nazis, if not the German people as a whole, already had a siege mentality--having fought, and lost, a worldwide coalition of superior forces arrayed against Germany--a conspiracy which had reemerged as a border war was thus instantly transformed into a World War, with even greater stakes.David wrote:In fact, I'm sure they'd get a lot of help from Poles against the Bolsheviks. So tell me, why the Nazis choose to go along that path?
Remember that the original Nazis were mostly ex-soldiers and ex-Freikorps men, and they had fought the grabby Versailles Polish state before in border areas and districts with dispossessed German minorities, and with lingering resentments.
By 1939, Poland should have tread very lightly with Germany, emphasizing their similarities not their differences, and absolutely not making crass deals with foreign powers as Israel with Egypt in the sixth century B.C., which was then utterly wasted by Babylon when Egypt couldn't help.
Anyway, the German government didn't care if the Polish people rebelled or not; the only thing dangerous about the partisans was that they were armed by the worldwide enemy. And the Germans had little reason to respect the Poles as friends, who would have sold themselves handily to their Capitalist and Communist enemies had war not ensued.
