Fighting for the wrong side.

[BlauK]

Well, some Russian POWs became friends with locals at the farms they were working at and would not have wanted to go back to Russia after the war ended. There are even kids of those POWs and local Finnish women still alive... something that has been considered quite shameful since only the very recent years. So, this "hard labour" was for many POWs much better than their normal life back at Russia. Go figure 

Maybe you can elaborate on "Jewish refugees from Europe" who have come to Finland and have been turned over to nazies? When, who, how many?  I confess, I am lacking of that knowledge.

[cpxxx]

On the original point. They weren't fighting for the 'wrong' side. They were fighting for their country, rightly or wrongly. I remember a comedy sketch on the BBC. Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO5WoLnOOlU One wonders whether they are the baddies because of their skulls on their uniform. The sketch is funny but does highlight the point. The Germans didn't see themselves as the 'baddies'. In fact in a book about Auschwitz, the author came to an interesting conclusion. While many Germans claimed to be 'only obeying orders'. In fact for the most part they believed in what they were doing. Unlike for example the Russians, who often committed atrocities but mostly to prove their loyalty to the cause and the fear they were next to receive a bullet in the head. The Germans on the other hand, may have felt uncomfortable with what they were doing but they did it anyway because they believed it was the right thing. In fact part of the reason a more efficient and cleaner method of killing was devised was simply because many of the executioners couldn't cope with what they were doing. Many simply refused or committed suicide, others were sickened by their job despite believing in it. They saw it as a dirty job but one that had to be done. 

The other point is that you cannot understand how things were by looking at it with modern eyes. For one thing, militarism was more respectable than it is now. War was the natural course of things. Conquest of other countries and a sense of superiority over other people was more acceptable. Plus people are misled quite easily. That hasn't changed, there are several recent situations from very recent history where people were misled into war. On top of that, fascism or communism were more widely supported, particularly in Europe. We are more free today than people were back then, even in the supposedly free countries. Many saw these ideologies as better than what they were experiencing at the time. They didn't have the hindsight we have.  Many now look back and wonder what they were all thinking. But you get caught up in the moment and times you live in. We all do. Quite simply, if I was German back then. I would have joined in enthusiastically fought for my country and never apologised for it. It's the way of things.

So be careful of how you judge people in history. You must know the context.

[Motherland]

Unlike for example the Russians, who often committed atrocities but mostly to prove their loyalty to the cause and the fear they were next to receive a bullet in the head.

Sorry, but the Soviets didn't rape and pillage Eastern Europe to prove their loyalty.

[stodd]

A very interesting thread.

[alskahawk]

 The only German ace/pilot(other than Goering) I know of that was a member of the Nazi party was Assi Hann, and I'm not even sure of him. Most like Galland were very critical of the command structure.
 As far as swastika's in our game I would rather not see them associated with any German plane. Finns? Spanish civil war? I think we can live without that bit of realism.

[Motherland]

The only German ace/pilot(other than Goering) I know of that was a member of the Nazi party was Assi Hann, and I'm not even sure of him. Most like Galland were very critical of the command structure.
 As far as swastika's in our game I would rather not see them associated with any German plane. Finns? Spanish civil war? I think we can live without that bit of realism.

Hans-Ulrich Rudel was also an ardent Nazi and continued to be active in those beliefs after the war. There were undoubtedly smany Nazis in the Luftwaffe, but I have to agree with the the notion Luftwaffe, at least among the actual fighting men, seems to have been largely independent from the political ideologies of the NSDAP.

[Die Hard]

It was illegal for a German military officer to be a member of any political party. That does not mean there were no Nazis in the German officer corps. Most probably were... At least in the beginning when the fortunes of war favored Germany.

[BlauK]

Sorry, but the Soviets didn't rape and pillage Eastern Europe to prove their loyalty.

Maybe they partly did. But mostly because of revenge they thought justified. The Soviet leaders used the fact of German atrocities in Russia and even enhanced the stories of them to build up a rage among the troops. So, the loyalty to their paople nad to their leaders comes to play as well.

Likely there were also lots of farm boys who were in larger cities for the first time in their lives and could not believe their eyes when they saw how some Germans lived and what they had in their homes. Maybe it was quite natural to feel entitled to the spoils of war. It is e.g. "sadly amusing" to see photos of some soldiers wearing  several watches on both arms...

Anyways, things obviously got quite out of hand in some places and the Soviet troops had to be disciplined back into line to continue fighting.

Of cource, if you ask the Russians, nothing like this ever happened.....

[cpxxx]

Sorry, but the Soviets didn't rape and pillage Eastern Europe to prove their loyalty.

The comparsion I used was to illustrate the difference in motivation and the fact that by and large the Germans believed in their cause even if they weren't particularly inclined to be Nazis. Others simply took the familiar attitude of 'My country right or wrong'. Many simply went with the flow which for most people is all they can do.

Stalin's USSR was different. For many in the Soviet army you were in as much danger of being shot by your own side as you were from the Nazis. Officers were shot if too many of their men deserted. Decimation, that is shooting every tenth man, was practised to ensure they were properly motivated and of course there were the well known NKVD troops specifically tasked to shoot anyone who retreated in the face of the enemy.

My question is this. Was there a wrong side on the eastern front? Neither were the type you'd invite round for tea. No good guy/bad guy just two terrible regimes locking horns in a fight to the death.

[bozon]

I think that the concept of "wrong side" is highly subjective. We were indoctrinated on the "Germany was the evil, Britain was the good". In the case of Nazi Germany, it is hard to go much more evil, but was Britain "good"? In this case, it is easy to find the lesser of two evils.

Britain was not the small and somewhat insignificant country it is today. Until the beginning of the 20th century, and until a short delusional period after WWII, Britain was perhaps the largest empire in History, ruling territories around the globe including a few "minor" nations like India and China. It did so ruthlessly and was in a constant state of putting down rebellions except for occasions when it was fighting other colonial powers. If you go by truly-global popular vote, Britain was the most hated nation on earth for a couple hundred years. The are many examples of British people turning against their country and join the "just cause" of the natives. Americans will normally tend to associate the British as the "good guys" - except when their independence war comes to mind. Then the British turn to be the evil oppressors that the rest of the world saw.

So, does the fact that Britain was just ruthless and not the greatest evil imaginable places its soldiers on the right or wrong side in colonial conflicts? Were redcoats heroes or henchmen of the villain? As long as Britain was winning, this definitely was the right side.

[cpxxx]

As someone from a country with a long history with Britain and it's dark side. I  have to say that if you had to choose a country to conquer you, it would have to be Britain or England more specifically as in fact it was the English who conquered the rest of us. They were ruthless in their conquests but in comparsion to the likes of the Nazis and Communists, mere puddytats. In the context of WW2, they were one of the good guys. In their overall history they were like all the others, sometimes good, sometimes bad.

It is the fate of the invader to be puzzled by the ingratitude of the invaded. After all, we came to your country defeated you, proving our superiority. We gave you our culture, our language. We included you in our empire and made you one of us. Why on earth would you want to be free of us? The English always suffered from that syndrome. Still do, to some extent. Almost as if they were doing us a favour by conquering us. The Romans were like that too, as were the Russians, the French and frankly Americans.

I say that as someone who has traceable English ancestors, though I be 100% Irish So my own ancestors were part of the problem. That makes me one of the bad guys!

But the Brits are far from being the worst even though sometimes they were on the wrong side. But as often as not the greatest critics of the British were the British themselves. Which is a healthy thing for any nation.

[jdbecks]

Britain was not the small and somewhat insignificant country it is today.

I think you need to study the history of Britain more in depth, and I honestly am going to be laughing at you for the next 100 years if you really feel the UK is so insignificant today.

[Angus]

The only German ace/pilot(other than Goering) I know of that was a member of the Nazi party was Assi Hann, and I'm not even sure of him. Most like Galland were very critical of the command structure.
 As far as swastika's in our game I would rather not see them associated with any German plane. Finns? Spanish civil war? I think we can live without that bit of realism.

You can add many more to this, but many were also against the party.
Nowotny comes in mind, as well as Krupinsky, - and Rudel stayed Nazi AFAIK. (Gunther Rall referred to him as "Nuts")
Mölders however was the other side of the coin.

[bozon]

I think you need to study the history of Britain more in depth, and I honestly am going to be laughing at you for the next 100 years if you really feel the UK is so insignificant today.

No offense, but the impact of Britain on world economy, politics or military power is negligible - definitely not super-power and I would not even place it in the second rank. France and Germany are much more influential in the EU. Do you want to go into football? Today it is no more than a large European state with good cultural exposure and maker of good documentaries.

All this is besides the point. I love Britain and British history more than any other nation, but still, the classic portrayal of Britain as the historical "good guys" is highly biased. In context of this thread, it seems that British soldiers were often fighting for the "wrong side" - however nobody will ask "why did they do that?" about the British soldiers.

[mechanic]

I agree with you Bozon.