Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Oldman731 on February 28, 2002, 01:47:47 PM
-
Continued from "Aircraft and Vehicles" thread entitled "The orgin of the blue swastikas in the AH's Bf-109G-2."
(Oldman pushes in through the doors, kicking a small dog on his way in.)
From what you write, you seem to have an awful lot of knowledge about how and why Luftwaffe personnel fought and died in wwii. Let me start out by asking you if you have any kind of source for your statements, or if you are writing on a gut feeling here. Or perhaps you are using some abstract way of thinking here...lets start in this direction: What where the ideals of the nazi party that these men fought and died for? And how do you know the personal motivation behind the "Luftwaffe personnel"? No offence, but to me your statement sounds like an enormous generalization that undoubtedly is true in some cases, but false in many many more.
Heh heh. I look up the thread a bit, and I see:
“Few British night bomber crews pictured themselves firebombing women and children. They were either dropping on a target, or bombing nazis. The fact that the target was a city or town full of civilians, or the fact that women and children are just that, regardless of political orientation was ignored....In a war, people fight for alot of reasons. Some out of ideology, some out of love or hate, but most people fight simply because they have to. When your country is at war, for whatever reason, you will find yourself fighting in that war, regardless of what you think is right or wrong.”
So, yes, both of us are engaging in speculation and generalization. There is really nothing very unusual about this: it forms much of what we know as “history.” The trick, of course, is in whether your generalizations appear to be accurate and based on fact.
Support for Hitler was massive back in 38-40. But you have to realize and understand that the true horrors of nazism hadnt shown its face yet...that started later, in 1941, and it wasnt something that was shown on the newsreels in Germany either. But what is your point with that "fact"? Suppose I show you some newsreels from 1941 where US troops put japanese americans in barbed wire camps, and people cheering that. Would that prove anything whatsoever?
If the “true” horrors of Naziism are confined to the death camps, I imaging this is accurate. Embarking upon continental conquest strikes me as pretty horrific in itself. And the German (or was it the Nazi?) treatment of the Jews before 1941 has not generally been recognized as a model approach to ethnic minority issues. The fact is that support for Hitler was “massive” so long as the Nazis were winning.
I would be grateful if you could show me newsreels of Americans cheering the internment of Japanese-Americans. I’ve never seen them. The episode is uniformly treated as one of the most shameful in our history - and, you know what, we don’t try to blame it on the Democratic Party, either.
Are you building some kind of argument here along the lines "The Germans cheered for Hitler in 34-41, therefore they were all nazis and, aware of it or not, in on his plot to murder millions of people". Please clarify what you are trying to say.
Well....yes, I suppose that’s what I’m arguing. Although I think I’d change the dates from 34-41 to 34-44.
In 39-43 they were pretty much winning all the time, no one gets disillusioned by that. 44-45 it was a struggle for the very survival of themselves, their families, indeed their entire nation. This is especially true on the eastern front. You dont go sulk in a corner then, that option is closed.
My point exactly. So long as things are going well, everyone’s a Nazi. When the tidal wave is poised over your head, Naziism seems a perfect tragedy, which all good Germans abhor, but just couldn’t manage to stop. Spare me. Even the Italians managed to overthrow their dictator.
You tell me what the difference was between an average German soldier and an average US soldier in feb 1945. Besides the flag they fought under.
Well, OK, although you’re stacking the deck with your February, 1945 date. The average US soldier in February, 1945 was prepared to die, if necessary, in order to rid the world of Naziism, in its broadest sense, and to free the people in the countries which had been conquered and enslaved by the Nazis. The average Nazi soldier in February, 1945 was prepared to die to stop that from happening. Note that this was even more so in February, 1943, and I’ll bet we could even agree that in February, 1940 the German soldier didn’t feel so bad about the prospect of invading France and/or Russia.
Do you actually think that German soldiers in wwii fought for the sake of nazism?
Sure do. Do you actually think they were fighting to impress their friends, or to meet girls? Naziism WAS Germany.
Do you actually think that a majority of Germans in 33-45 were pro-nazi?
Sure do. I’ll start with the notion that Hitler was popularly-elected, and end with Heinz Guderian’s statement that the vast majority of Germans were pro-Hitler and very much against the 20 July assassination plot.
(key question to follow) How many Germans do you think would have supported the nazis had they known about what Hitlers real plans were?
You assume that “Hitler’s real plans” were a big secret. Goldhagen and others have proved, to my satisfaction at least, that they couldn’t possibly have been kept secret. Common sense tells one that it is fantasy to assume that a state-sponsored extermination plan of the size and scope actually implemented by the Nazis could be concealed from so many people. The state-sponsored euthanasia program, for example, was discontinued because popular opposition to it was so pronounced.
But: Do I think that the Germans would have supported the Nazis if they knew what the “real plans” were? Of course I do. He wrote Germany’s best-selling book that announced most of the things he was going to do. His actions throughout the 1930s were perfectly consistent with his book - and there was NO MEANINGFUL OPPOSITION from the German people. How am I to assume otherwise than that they fully agreed with everything he did?
And before you answer that, read your sentence about dehumanizing groups of people up there again.
Oops. Sorry. There I go, dehumanizing the Nazis again.
- Oldman
-
Actually you got this from "Aces High Gen DIscussion".. but since you are an Oldman I'll let it slide. ;)
Although I don't believe all Germans were Nazis, I believe that most were during WWII. And I don't believe all LuftWaffe pilots were nazis, hell some of 'em weren't even German.
Maybe some of 'em joined with no inclination of actually fighting for Hitler, but just to be a fighter pilot for their country. Then war broke out, and they had two choices: keep fighting or the Gestapo will have a field day torturing you, imprisoning you and whatever else they did.
I'm not supporting their actions, I just don't believe everyone who fought for Germany WAS a Nazi... but most certainly were.
-SW
-
I agree with Swulfe. Not all, but most subscribed to the Nazi viewpoint.
As a kind of aside, many Germans upon hearing about atrocities simply said 'If only Hitler knew', as if the great man himself was somehow ignorant of the events and would have been equally appalled.
The belief in Hitler as leader, in the general populace, was very strong throughout the majority of the war. I'm sure this was mirrored in the military.
-
I believe Dowding is correct in stating that most believed Hitler was a good leader- simply because at the time, Germany was in ruins. They had to ration food using food stamps and their country was still rebuilding itself after WWI. Hitler came along and did some things to bring their country out of their depression and therefore the populace praised him.. many didn't know his true colors, then again a good deal did. So it's kind of a double sworded blade. He was an awful man, but to them he was a great leader because he did so much for their country...
and then history repeated itself, Germany was once again in a depression after WWII and even during the war, the German people didn't have to ration their food (well atleast not until towards the end) and the people were living a better life than they were before he was leader.
Again, I do not support anything he did or the Nazis did... these are just some things I picked up from the History channel.
:)
-SW
-
The main difference between most of the amreican soldiers and german soldiers was that the former were lucky to be born in USA while the latter were unlucky to be born in Germany.
Neither had full knowlege of what their government was doing but was raised in the belief that their government was doing the right thing.
I talked to some ukrainian people who survived german occupation and most of them agreed that german soldiers and officers they met were decent, civilized and disciplined people.
Most of the german army were not SS or hadrcore nazi - no more then the soviet army soldiers were communists.
miko
-
I though about replying earlier to this topic, then thought twice about it til I saw a sig from another AH player in a post on the General Forumn.
""As long as I can shoot down the enemy, adding to the honor of the Richthofen Geschwader and the success of the Fatherland, I will be a happy man. I want to fight and die fighting, taking with me as many of the enemy as possible." -Helmut Wick Staffelkapitän of 3./JG 2 "Richthofen"
IMO this guy may not have been an actual Nazi but he is just as guilty for EAGERLY supporting them. He could have flown to a neutral country if what he was doing he felt was wrong. He did not and neither did many others.
Because the Germans, lead by the Nazi party, started the war millions lost thier lives and for that I don't care to make any distinction between eager Nazi and someone reportely just "doing thier duty" while feigning ignorance of the cruelties and murders being commited.
Guys like this, as well as millions of other Germans, Italians and Japanese (just to name the three leadin Axis powers), freely took up arms and supported repressive, murderous and evil causes.
Period.
Westy
-
When you are poor, hungry and bored, a war sounds like a good idea.
Boy oh boy, us Americans sure do love to throw stones.
F.
-
I have to agree with Oldman, and there's not much sense in reposting his well-developed arguments. I do get a kick out of the "defending the homeland" crowd. Yeah, they were bravely defending the homeland in Poland, the Low Countries, France, BOB, Greece, N. Africa and Russia...
The overwhelming support for Hitler and his general policies among the German people, party members and otherwise, is well documented. The documentation consists not only of secondary sources but by primary sources including town records, Gestapo records, film, audio and many Germans from the era who are alive today. This popular support may have waned somewhat by 1945, but it never collapsed. You can clearly look at countries where it did (Italy springs to mind) and draw a direct comparion.
Some, of many, interesting books to read on the rise of Nazism are: "The Nazi Seizure of Power - The Experience of a Single German Town 1930-1935" by William Sheridan Allen and "Himmler" by Peter Padfield. Now, these are not as interesting and filled with daring-do like "The First and the Last," for example, being filled with dry research and such, but they do tell what the Nazi's and the Greman people were all about. Try them sometime (and again, any number of others dealing with the rise of Nazi power). A former co-worker's father could also be a resource, I suppose, since he felt Hitler had the right idea until the day he died. I don't think he was a party member.
With the German military, well, they made a deal with Hitler that guaranteed his support of them by their support. The LW cannot be excluded, and while there may have been some differences between the level of Rudel's Hitler worship and Galland's Hitler worship, they supported a war of domination based on mythological racial theory and the greed for territority.
The senior officers hid/hide behind that "Oath of Honor" to explain why they couldn't do anything to stop Hitler. Canaris was a real hero, however, and showed that at least someone in high military/intelligence circles had a true sense of honor. The assassination conspirators eventually somewhat regained German military honor, though on train of though strongly suggests that it wouldn't have happened had Germany been doing better in the war under Hitler's leadership.
Were the German people too afraid of the evil Gestapo to stand up? The much maligned "Intellectual Elite" minority soon learned not to speak too loudly, though the members of The White Rose stood up for their principals and paid for it. The White Rose. However, the vast, well-documented historical record suggests they were the minority and had more to fear from their neighbors than some boogey man in a leather jacket.
Gestapo records show that they functioned primarily as collectors, who acted mainly on leads sent in by the local citizens. Here's a link that covers it in greater detail:Gestapo Records
I saw a History Channel documentary (I believe produced by Germans) on this as well. They took one record, of an "odd" woman who looked a bit too masculine and had "unusual" friends that visited her regularly -- the implication being that she was a lesbian. After enough of these complaints came in (there were more than a few) they acted and she went to one of the camps, where she was exterminated. The German crew interviewed one of the people who filed a complaint. The sweet looking, elderly grandmother just couldn't understand why she was being persecuted by the film crew. She said something like, "Why are you bothering me? I didn't kill her!"
That kinda sums this revisionist attitude up for me. "Oh no, It wasn't me! What choice did I have! I just went along with the program!" Bull toejam.
To get back on topic, Finland was allied with Germany, but it had tough choices to make and faced a clear threat from the Soviet Union. The historical record suggests that Finland, while cooperating with the Nazis to fight the USSR, clearly worked to deflect the "Aryan" supremacy and Jewish deportation efforts that were encouraged by Germany (unlike some of the occupied counties, who participated willingly in some cases). They further managed to avoid becoming a full satellite communist nation after the war, which shows a real talent for threading a needle.
Charon
I'll restate my views here as well. I'll also add, in response to a "clarification" presented in the other thread about the Gestapo used to "discredit" an argument. Although the Gestapo and SD were somewhat different from a mission statement standpoint, in practice the distinction was blurred both in Germany and the occupied territorities and far less distinct then, say, the difference between the SD and SA. Gestapo is used somewhat generically, but then there is a certain amount of justification for that beyond convenience.Nuremberg Tribunal (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judorg.htm#gestapo)
Some missing links from the quote above:
White Rose (http://www.jlrweb.com/whiterose/) Gestapo Record (http://www.hevanet.com/kort/CONTROL1.HTM)
-
I'll tell you what, I don't know what MY government is doing half the time- until they make a press release (if they do) or it somehow gets leaked out and they are forced to face the music.
I don't see how every German supported Hitler and his National Socialist party, which is what my point is. Sure, most were Nazis or in someway supported them... but I'm certain that there were quite a few, even serving in the military, that had different ideals.
Did they know what was going on? I don't know. We may never know because this war occured over 50 years ago and therefore there are very few vets from either side to clarify the stories.
Do you disagree with what I said Charon?
-SW
-
So, yes, both of us are engaging in speculation and generalization. There is really nothing very unusual about this: it forms much of what we know as “history.” The trick, of course, is in whether your generalizations appear to be accurate and based on fact.
Granted...we are both guilty of using the blunt weapons speculation and generalization hehe:)
However, I’d still like an answer to the two questions up there. What where the ideals of the nazi party that these men fought and died for? The glory of the Reich? Racial domination? What in your opinion was “the ideals of the nazi party”? The reason I’m asking this is to see if you can come up with something there that would be worth fighting a war for to the average German.
If the “true” horrors of Naziism are confined to the death camps, I imaging this is accurate. Embarking upon continental conquest strikes me as pretty horrific in itself. And the German (or was it the Nazi?) treatment of the Jews before 1941 has not generally been recognized as a model approach to ethnic minority issues. The fact is that support for Hitler was “massive” so long as the Nazis were winning.
Aggressive war is “bad” yeah, so is state sponsored racism. HOWEVER the difference between wars of aggression, racism, and the holocaust are so enormous it feels wrong to talk about them in the same sentence. So yeah, I am saying that nazism didnt show its true face until 1941. And you must remember that racism was viewed differently then than it is now. Back then being racist was the normal state. Heck, all European countries were more or less racist back then, so was the US.
I would be grateful if you could show me newsreels of Americans cheering the internment of Japanese-Americans. I’ve never seen them. The episode is uniformly treated as one of the most shameful in our history - and, you know what, we don’t try to blame it on the Democratic Party, either.
Nor am I trying to pin the blame for the internment on the entire US population living in the years between 1941-45 either.
Are you building some kind of argument here along the lines "The Germans cheered for Hitler in 34-41, therefore they were all nazis and, aware of it or not, in on his plot to murder millions of people". Please clarify what you are trying to say.
Well....yes, I suppose that’s what I’m arguing. Although I think I’d change the dates from 34-41 to 34-44.
I checked your profile (I admit, I got curious), now since we seem to be colleagues here, let me ask you this: Why are you so hell bent on painting the world in black or white, when you know that it is more complex than that? You wont find that black or white anywhere, only various shades of gray. What happened to that tiny detail we call intent?
Let me try to abstract things:
Suppose person A is ordered by organization C to murder person B. The order from C to A is completely unlawful and it is considered as a crime against humanity to give the order, or to carry out the order. A shoots B. Meanwhile person D is in another country and is fighting in a war. D has no knowledge of the order from C to A, neither has D any knowledge of what A is planning to do with B. Person D is a part of organization C, but person D has different orders than A. The order from C to D is completely within the rules of war.
Can person D be held responsible for what A does to B?
If D does not know about the murder of B, neither does D know about the order to kill B. How could person D be responsible for something that he has no knowledge of? I dont think there is any legal system in the world that would make D responsible for A’s action in this case.
One might argue against this though, and say that A and D are a part of the same organization C. And the leader of organization C has repeatedly claimed that B does not deserve to live and should be shot. When D has the knowledge, that C wants to kill B, and D is a part of C doesnt this make D responsible in some way for A’s killing of B? After all, D has reason to suspect that C indeed would want to give an order to A or someone else to kill B, and since D still stays in organization C rather than leave this organization, doesnt this mean that D has some responsibility for A’s action? No, the first argument still stands, collective guilt is something that no legal system upholds it is impossible to hold someone responsible for something that he has not taken any part of, nor has had any knowledge of.
Well, OK, although you’re stacking the deck with your February, 1945 date. The average US soldier in February, 1945 was prepared to die, if necessary, in order to rid the world of Naziism, in its broadest sense, and to free the people in the countries which had been conquered and enslaved by the Nazis. The average Nazi soldier in February, 1945 was prepared to die to stop that from happening. Note that this was even more so in February, 1943, and I’ll bet we could even agree that in February, 1940 the German soldier didn’t feel so bad about the prospect of invading France and/or Russia.
I think you are oversimplifying. If you take a look at German soldiers behavior on the eastern and western fronts you will notice quite large differences. In 44-45 the war had become a war of survival for Germany. Knowing full well what they had done inside the USSR, they knew that the revenge should the commies reach German soil would be horrible (and indeed it was). The average soldier has no choice, he HAS to fight. The war is not a war about good or bad, right or wrong. It is a war about survival. His own survival, and the survival of his family. In the west, the Germans surrendered readily, and deserted in numbers. In the east this was practically unheard of. In the east they kept fighting against hopeless odds, more often to the death than not. All the way back into Berlin, heck some units even kept fighting after the official cease fire in may 45 in order to break through to the west and capitulate to the western allies. Now I ask you: Why? If all German soldiers were motivated by the notion of the higher good of nazism, shouldnt they fight equally hard on both fronts?
You assume that “Hitler’s real plans” were a big secret. Goldhagen and others have proved, to my satisfaction at least, that they couldn’t possibly have been kept secret. Common sense tells one that it is fantasy to assume that a state-sponsored extermination plan of the size and scope actually implemented by the Nazis could be concealed from so many people. The state-sponsored euthanasia program, for example, was discontinued because popular opposition to it was so pronounced.
You tell me, how could the average German citizen, or average German soldier possibly know or even suspect what was going on in the east?
But: Do I think that the Germans would have supported the Nazis if they knew what the “real plans” were? Of course I do. He wrote Germany’s best-selling book that announced most of the things he was going to do. His actions throughout the 1930s were perfectly consistent with his book - and there was NO MEANINGFUL OPPOSITION from the German people. How am I to assume otherwise than that they fully agreed with everything he did?
On what page in Mein Kampf does Hitler write: “And then I shall construct large extermination camps and murder over 8 million innocent civilians?” Or is this something that can be read between the lines?
But again you oversimplify things. Take a look at the situation in Germany in 1933, a snapshot in history if you will. Then take another snapshot at 1938. The difference between those two images are enormous, and THAT is what nazism meant to the average German in 1938. What would the opposition focus on?
Oops. Sorry. There I go, dehumanizing the Nazis again.
No, you are dehumanizing the Germans when you keep insisting that they all were nazis.
I wonder if you even realize this.
Steve
-
Originally posted by K West
""As long as I can shoot down the enemy, adding to the honor of the Richthofen Geschwader and the success of the Fatherland, I will be a happy man. I want to fight and die fighting, taking with me as many of the enemy as possible." -Helmut Wick Staffelkapitän of 3./JG 2 "Richthofen"
IMO this guy may not have been an actual Nazi but he is just as guilty for EAGERLY supporting them. He could have flown to a neutral country if what he was doing he felt was wrong. He did not and neither did many others.
I sincerely wish you never served in the armed forces of your nation. Because if you did you'd be not just a scumbag but also a potential desserter.
and we all know the kind of punishment the desserters receive.
Many people devoted to the armed forces of their countries love their country, love their machines and love their job. If a war starts ,I'm sure as hell that they will also love fighting a war to defend the interests of their nations.
So now being a patriot makes you a scumbag because your nation has had the disgrace of having Hitler as leader, and Goebbels as Propaganda minister, and you have had the disgrace to think and believe that they are doing the best for your nation.
Now being a patriot makes you a nazi. Now fighting the ones who you are told are a threat for your nation is to be as low as scum. Now, summing it up, ANYONE who didn't dessert from the German armed forces during WWII was a nazi scumbag.
Damn right. What a fediddlein idiot you are. You're full of toejam up to your last hair, Mr. Westy. Your'e an idiot who has no clue.
And I'd love to see you repeating that kind of statements before a living Luftwaffe ace...say, Franz Stigler, for instance. I think I recall recall reading that he punched someone who called him nazi once. That says it enough.
-
Not at all SWulfe. I think you sum it up pretty well. Nor do I transfer my opinions to modern Germany and its citizens. Nazi Germany provides a valuable lesson for any society, ours included, but only as long as the full lesson is remembered.
My issue is with the sentimentality that some have, because they've read more war stories than history, and somehow fail to connect the Nazi war machine with the rest of Nazism. There seems to be the "gallant knight defending the homeland" concept that is accepted more than the "I'm an Aryan god fulfilling my greater destiny." Both perspectives are valid, to a greater or lesser extent, depending upon whether it was 1939 or 1944. For the record, I have similar issues closer to home with sentimental remembrances of the Indian Wars in the Old West, and the antebellum South of the Civil War.
Most Nazis, though ardent supporters of Hitler, were actually shocked by Hitler's invasion of Poland. Most were shocked by the death camps. But why should they have been? Hitler was very clear about Germany's greater destiny in the East. He was also clear (out of his own mouth) about the value of the "untermensch" and what would happen to the Jews if they "... drove Germany into another world war." The local German people may not have known that their neighbors were going to a factory-style extermination camp, but a great many sure seemed to cheer and jeer an awful lot while their neighbors were being hauled away at gunpoint for parts and fates unknown. Ignorance is dangerous, particularly when a society decides to act from a position of ignorance.
Charon
-
Originally posted by K West
Guys like this, as well as millions of other Germans, Italians and Japanese (just to name the three leadin Axis powers), freely took up arms and supported repressive, murderous and evil causes.
Period.
Westy
Can you define the phrase "freely took up arms" please?
Also, do you think they felt they were supporting "repressive, murderous and evil causes"?
The world is not black or white, and hindsight is 20/20...please realize this.
-
Originally posted by Charon
Ignorance is dangerous, particularly when a society decides to act from a position of ignorance.
Charon
You are an American right? *bites tounge*
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Can you define the phrase "freely took up arms" please?
Also, do you think they felt they were supporting "repressive, murderous and evil causes"?
The world is not black or white, and hindsight is 20/20...please realize this.
Hortlund, don't waste your time with him. Is clearly losing it for nothing.
Also please note he has talked about Germans, Italians (many of them never held any kind of real faith in Mussolini as leader) ,or about Japan (where Bushido was the leading rule of everyone's life...I love how this guy understand's the culture of other nations at that stage of history)...
BUT HE HAS SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE SOVIETS?!
tell me westy, should Kozhedub have deflected to Germany?. And Pokhriskin?. Maybe Rechkalov? (or however they were named?)
Should the WHOLE Red Army have deflected to the Germans because stalin was a mass murder? (in a scale MUCH HIGHER than Hitler?)
no, of course. Ironically thanks to the russians fighting the germans WWII ended with an allied victory...so you easily forget about them
As I said, Westy, you're full of toejam.
-
I can't believe I'm replying but I am. Because RAM deflecting the guiltiness of those who perpetrated murder beyond nightmarious proportions with a pathetic, lame twist of the discussion by saying "what about Stalin...." is beyond contempt.
Ram, Stalin, the Soviet gov't and the Soviet people did not forcibly remove millions from thier homes in repressed and conquered countries, based on ethnic and religious identities. Then ship them back packed worse than cattle in train cars to many of the murder camps as Hitler, the Nazi party and the German military did.
Don't misunderstand me in your warped mind that I support what Stalin did to his own miltary and people. But this topic was about the Nazi party, Germans and the German military.
But since you mentioned the Soviet Union I'll just add that I find it more than ironic that 8 of 10 German military personal died to the Soviet armed forces. Seeing how the Germans and the Soviets had that non agression pact as they carved Poland up between themselves while they both plotted to attack each other. It worked out rather well for the world it turned out the way it did in that Germany and the Soviet Union went to war which in the long run saved England and much of the rest of the world.
Westy
-
Hortlund, I've veiwed the countless German news reels over the years showing the proud marches. The chearing, filled stadiums. The streets line with German civilians waving and smiling at happy German soldiers who are going or coming back from the front - which was in whatever country the Germans invading.
I've read many of the books written by ex-German military people and seen many of them say the same thing about fighting for the honor of the Fatherland, glory for the Fuhrer and "Deutchlande Uber Alles." I can't recall reading in thier biographies and stories of them at any time wishing they were not doing what they were, having regret or having to perform thier duties due to threats of death to themselves or thier families.
FWIW, I left my enlistment in the US military when my time was up just after the debacle in Lebanon and the "bully picking on the little kid" stint in Granada. I was damn glad to have been out before the Panam invasion fiasco (all early-mid 80's stuff). I left because I did not support those actions in the least. Heck I didn't support at all what we more recently did in Yugoslavia and even earlier in Kuwait.
I've voted and been active as a citizen in the US to help avoid what I feel is wrong with the policies of the US government. But for it's faults it's still the best place to live (Australia won't have me :) )
Westy
-
Well RAM has started the personal comments and this will quickly go down hill.
BUT
I just wanted to clarify my earlier comments for Hortlund. The people I mentioned earlier, I'm not accusing them of war crimes. I'm not sure I would have acted any differently than many of them did. When I say "lumped in" I am talking only about terminology. E.g. Wehrmacht 1939-45 might be referred to as Nazi troops regardless of whether a few soldiers weren't actually party members or had a Hitler dartboard in their shelter. I really don't care if it offends anybody or not. Those people lost the right to be offended when they took money and arms and orders from the head Nazi (Hitler) and his chain of command.
Otherwise I forgive the overwhelming majority of them. They tried to kill my grandfathers and one of my great-uncles, but those guys survived, so I don't have any personal grudge. Many of them suffered during the war, and they had a lot of their cities and industry completely destroyed. They paid plenty.
-
The differnence between a good soldier of Totalitanarism, and a good soldier of Freedom is directly proportionate to the degree in which they support the follwing statement:
"My country right or wrong"
That, Gentlemen, is the crux of the matter.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
However, I’d still like an answer to the two questions up there. What where the ideals of the nazi party that these men fought and died for? The glory of the Reich? Racial domination? What in your opinion was “the ideals of the nazi party”? The reason I’m asking this is to see if you can come up with something there that would be worth fighting a war for to the average German.
There were undoubtedly many "ideals" of the Nazi party. As pertinent to this discussion, it seems to me that the overwhelmingly most important of those was, simply, that the Germans were better than everyone else, and deserved to have whatever they wanted - by force, if need be.
Aggressive war is “bad” yeah, so is state sponsored racism. HOWEVER the difference between wars of aggression, racism, and the holocaust are so enormous it feels wrong to talk about them in the same sentence. So yeah, I am saying that nazism didnt show its true face until 1941.
The face it showed before then was bad enough, I trust?
And you must remember that racism was viewed differently then than it is now. Back then being racist was the normal state. Heck, all European countries were more or less racist back then, so was the US.
Only Germany made Jews wear yellow stars. Only Germany resettled people in ghettos.
Nor am I trying to pin the blame for the internment on the entire US population living in the years between 1941-45 either.
Well, we have another fundamental difference here. I do blame the entire US population for the internment of the Japanese, just as I do for McCarthyism a few years later. It's all well and good to explain how fearful and excitable everyone was, but the fact is that this is America and we are generally proud of making sure that things like that don't happen. People should have squeaked.
I checked your profile (I admit, I got curious), now since we seem to be colleagues here, let me ask you this: Why are you so hell bent on painting the world in black or white, when you know that it is more complex than that? You wont find that black or white anywhere, only various shades of gray.
I find that there are some (admittedly very few) things that truly ARE black and white. The Germans in the 1930s and 40s are among them. Those events are so wholly outside the realm of human experience that I really don't have a lot of trouble dealing in absolutes.
What happened to that tiny detail we call intent?
Let me try to abstract things:.......I dont think there is any legal system in the world that would make D responsible for A’s action in this case....it is impossible to hold someone responsible for something that he has not taken any part of, nor has had any knowledge of.
Because you've stacked the deck again, by assuming that D doesn't know what's going on. My point (and, as you must surely know, it ain't original with me) is that the Germans weren't unwitting accessories. They may not have known the details of the crematoria, but, as Charon and Westy and many others have pointed out, they had to know - had to know - that bad things were happening to their erstwhile neighbors. And, of course, the invasion of the rest of the world was a well-publicized fact.
I think you are oversimplifying. If you take a look at German soldiers behavior on the eastern and western fronts you will notice quite large differences. In 44-45 the war had become a war of survival for Germany. Knowing full well what they had done inside the USSR, they knew that the revenge should the commies reach German soil would be horrible (and indeed it was). The average soldier has no choice, he HAS to fight. The war is not a war about good or bad, right or wrong. It is a war about survival. His own survival, and the survival of his family. In the west, the Germans surrendered readily, and deserted in numbers. In the east this was practically unheard of. In the east they kept fighting against hopeless odds, more often to the death than not. All the way back into Berlin, heck some units even kept fighting after the official cease fire in may 45 in order to break through to the west and capitulate to the western allies. Now I ask you: Why? If all German soldiers were motivated by the notion of the higher good of nazism, shouldnt they fight equally hard on both fronts?
I begin to feel like Ronald Reagan...."There you go again." Of course the Germans at war's end wished they'd never heard of Hitler or the Nazis. Most mass-murderers express regret somewhere down the line. What's important is what's going on in their clever little minds when they set out on their journey to oblivion.
You tell me, how could the average German citizen, or average German soldier possibly know or even suspect what was going on in the east?
Well, the average German soldier in the east knew because he was SEEING it, and reporting it back home to his buds. But you don't have to know about Babi Yar to know that Germany has invaded the world and that the Jews have all disappeared and their houses have new owners.
On what page in Mein Kampf does Hitler write: “And then I shall construct large extermination camps and murder over 8 million innocent civilians?” Or is this something that can be read between the lines?
Sorry, left my copy at home. David Irving, of course, says there's no proof Hitler even knew about the extermination of the Jews. Without going off into that discussion, I think anyone who's read "Mein Kampf" has a pretty clear idea that there was not a good future for Jews if Hitler took over.
But again you oversimplify things. Take a look at the situation in Germany in 1933, a snapshot in history if you will. Then take another snapshot at 1938. The difference between those two images are enormous, and THAT is what nazism meant to the average German in 1938.
So we are supposed to forgive them their little tantrums that resulted in overrunning Europe? The average German then knew that his country was preparing to do just that. So did most of the rest of the world.
What would the opposition focus on?
How about things like, "Hey, it sure is a big world out there! Maybe it isn't such a good idea to start a war!" How about things like "Hey, where did all the Jews go?"
No, you are dehumanizing the Germans when you keep insisting that they all were nazis.
I wonder if you even realize this.
I admit to having some serious problems viewing that generation of Germans the way I view other people. Some real problems....
- Oldman
-
Originally posted by R4M
Damn right. What a fediddlein idiot you are. You're full of toejam up to your last hair, Mr. Westy. Your'e an idiot who has no clue.
Westy, he's found you out. You can stop pretending to be Mr. Nice Guy now.
Did someone forget to feed R4M his lunch?
- Oldman
-
Originally posted by R4M
And I'd love to see you repeating that kind of statements before a living Luftwaffe ace...say, Franz Stigler, for instance. I think I recall recall reading that he punched someone who called him nazi once. That says it enough.
I do hope he got punched back.
- Oldman
-
Originally posted by K West
I though about replying earlier to this topic, then thought twice about it til I saw a sig from another AH player in a post on the General Forumn.
""As long as I can shoot down the enemy, adding to the honor of the Richthofen Geschwader and the success of the Fatherland, I will be a happy man. I want to fight and die fighting, taking with me as many of the enemy as possible." -Helmut Wick Staffelkapitän of 3./JG 2 "Richthofen"
IMO this guy may not have been an actual Nazi but he is just as guilty for EAGERLY supporting them. He could have flown to a neutral country if what he was doing he felt was wrong. He did not and neither did many others.
Because the Germans, lead by the Nazi party, started the war millions lost thier lives and for that I don't care to make any distinction between eager Nazi and someone reportely just "doing thier duty" while feigning ignorance of the cruelties and murders being commited.
Guys like this, as well as millions of other Germans, Italians and Japanese (just to name the three leadin Axis powers), freely took up arms and supported repressive, murderous and evil causes.
Period.
Westy
Sheeesh, Westy, by your definition of what you think a soldier's duties should be to their Country then I assume you feel like all Viet Nam veterans are criminals too then. After all, we were invaders, oppressing the will of a foreign populace just like the German soldiers in WW2 did. They just did it on a much grander scale is all.
-
Oldman
Alas, my "real" reply will have to wait until tomorrow (getting late over here) I will leave you with two small things to ponder over though.
Only Germany made Jews wear yellow stars. Only Germany resettled people in ghettos.
Sweden demanded that Germany put a large "J" in any jewish passport to make identification easier. That was in 1938 if I remember correctly.
And I believe you called them "reservations" in the US.
-
I've met Herr Stigler. I didn't call him a Nazi and he didn't punch me. He was not your average Jagdflieger. He risked the most severe punishment by escorting a crippled B-17 to safety one day. He now lives in Canada, and is good friends with the pilot of that B-17. My squaddy Ratenp asked him at dinner, "What could you have done if you had more jet fighters?" Stigler replied that the best thing would have been to have "gone East". Not to attack the USSR. To attack certain buildings in Berlin.
-
Very interesting thread, heavy to read, btw one statement is maybe the real answer:
Originally posted by miko2d
.
Neither had full knowlege of what their government was doing but was raised in the belief that their government was doing the right thing.
"Right or wrong, it's my country."
Anyone want to tell me what was "the bund"?
-
None of us knows how we would have reacted to the propaganda barrage in NAZI Germany. We all like to think we would be brave enough to fight the system and try to protect the Jews. I hope we never need to find out.
I had an old girlfriend who's family was at Manzanar. They lost everything, house, land, ancient antiques. Few Americans said a word about it. The difference here was that those who spoke against the deportations of Japanese Americans were fairly certain the Government wasn't going to execute them for their words. Germans who disagreed with Hitler's actions didn't have the same frame of reference.
-
wtf fek westy Helmut Wick died in the bob Nov. 28, 1940
openly supporting what?
the liberation of lands that until the end of ww1 were german. Also it was broadcast over germany that poland had attacked germany. This turned out to be set up by hitler to justify a campaign in poland but at the time it was real.
Also britain declared war on germany so the average citizens who has trust in his government and believes his country is just hardly views himself as a co-conspirator.
He fought and died for the country he believed and trusted in.
Just like them lancaster pilots did when they were fire bombing dresden.............
this discussion is always the same evil horrid nazis every damn one of umm.
Heres a link
Helmut Wick (http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/Wick.html)
And ya could have asked or followed the link in that sig
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Charon
Ignorance is dangerous, particularly when a society decides to act from a position of ignorance.
Charon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are an American right? *bites tounge*
Hortland
Yes, and I think I know where you're going with this. It is popular to bash the great satan, America today. Frankly, I agree, Americans can be just as ignorant, and just as arrogant as those in ANY other country in the world.
I make no excuses for my country's sins. It is mortifying to me to this day that our great democracy was founded with a formal acceptance of slavery. I will not make excuses for the treatment of the Native American population either, though the evil is perhaps less clear in some ways. In both cases, at the time there were those who thought these were monstrous events and as a country we should have known better and done better. In the end, greed for land or cheap labor won out. Again, I offer no excuses, though there are some who do and who look on these as romantic periods in our history (the Civil War and the Wild West). And yes, the Civil War was about state's rights, but given that a main "right" was the determination of slavery in the newly settled Western territories, well, not much of a distinction to me.
If you go to the National History Museum in Washington, DC, you will see that we make no excuses there either. Hell, from my direct observations we devote about as much space showing our failures as a people (Japanese-American Internment, Slavery, Native American Issues, Vietnam) as we do showcasing our accomplishments. And yes, we have a few of those too, and I'm quite proud of them, and if that makes me an arrogant American then, well, why should I care, I'm an American :) I also think the German’s do a good job of remembering the past, as unpleasant as it may be.
In a similar vein... Elfenwold, I think the Vietnam War was a tragedy for many reasons, and a conflict that was, IMO, unwinnable and that caused tremendous suffering. Things would have been much easier if we had done the right thing in the region after WW2. But, you are WAY off base with that comparison.
You can criticize the tremendous collateral damage that took so many civilian lives. You can criticize our pushing a "democracy" that was nothing more than a corrupt puppet government (why would a S. Vietnamese peasant want to die for Diem?) You can criticize our direct but entirely DEFENSIVE involvement in another country's civil war. But Vietnam was not a worldwide war of aggression and domination by a power that set up production-line death camps for those it found inferior. The goals (stopping Communism) had at least some validity at the time, especially for those living West of the Fulda Gap, even though the execution was heavy-handed, brutal and poorly thought out. In my estimation My Lai's were the exception more than the rule, and occurred with some measure of provocation from local partisan elements. Wrong of course, I’m not going to argue that these events weren’t, but not official government or military policy.
Charon
-
Great post Charon,
. My point was that to expect a soldier to do anything other than what he has been TRAINED to do and to then call him to task for his actions later, such as stating that all German pilots are somehow Nazi war criminals, is wrong on so many levels. To actually expect them to defect rather than fight is laughable.
-
too Elfenwolf. I agree that "War criminal" is a bit extreme for those not actively committing an atrocity. But, at the same time Hitler didn't make a big secret of what Nazism was all about, and their broad, willing support of a greater Reich free of undesirables cannot be overlooked. I also feel it is a disservice to those who fought and died to free the world of Nazism to ignore the full reality of people like Galland, Hartmann, Kretschmer etc. How admirable and heroic would these admittedly great warriors be today, had they achieved the goals they were fighting for?
Most of the German people made a pact with the devil and paid the price. I'm happy for those that lived and moved on into a new world, wiser but at such a terrible price. For those that died, well, I'm sad for the children and for those that hated Nazism but had no recourse but to stay in Germany. The only ones I really "admire" though are The White Rose kids and a few officers like Admiral Wilhelm Canaris
BIO (http://www.angelfire.com/dc/1spy/Canaris.html), who put humanity and the future of his country above his military oath to Hitler. I can more easily excuse the young and dumb (we were all that way once), then I can the great senior heroes of the Reich. Some could and did defect in their own ways (Canaris, Rommel, etc.), but most don't seem to have had much of a moral problem with the goals of the war. As I think Westy posted, they talk about Hitler's failure as a leader and not his failures as a human being in their books.
Charon
-
"or about Japan (where Bushido was the leading rule of everyone's life"
No, Bushido wasnt leading everyones life. They used a twisted version of Bushido, similar to the way OBL and his croonies are using a twisted version of Islam.
Of course, the gross mis-representation of bushido in the west, through tacky samurai and ninja films hasnt helped that impression either :(.
Daff
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
There were undoubtedly many "ideals" of the Nazi party. As pertinent to this discussion, it seems to me that the overwhelmingly most important of those was, simply, that the Germans were better than everyone else, and deserved to have whatever they wanted - by force, if need be.
Would you go to war if someone came up to you with that line? "Americans are better than everyone else, and deserve whatever they want -by force if need be ..now invade Poland (or whatever)"? Oh, but I forgot, all Germans living in Germany in 34-45 were evil.
The face it showed before then was bad enough, I trust?
Bad enough for what? Bad enough to make German soldiers desert rather than fight a war? Even given all the consequences of such an action? Bad enough to brand all German citizens in 34-45 as war criminals or butchers guilty of crimes against humanity?
Only Germany made Jews wear yellow stars. Only Germany resettled people in ghettos.
Wrong, see what I wrote in the previous post.
I would like to expand on this a bit.
Naziism obviously was not perceived as some kind of cult of Devil-worship by the Germans of 1933-45. They thought it was a fine, forward-looking system, and subscribed to it with varying levels of enthusiasm -- sort of like the cult of fitness that has emerged in the West over the last thirty years or so. Anyone who wants to understand Germany and World War Two has to get away from the a priori notion of Naziism as some kind of concious cult of evil and understand that it was a movement that swept up Germany's best and brightest, that being 'a Nazi' would have been a compliment in most circles in the Germany of the period, and that if they were aware of precisely what the doctrine meant for Jews (Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, etc, etc), they were able to overlook this as easily as some people can overlook exactly what will happen when welfare is abolished.
The problem with your perspective here is that you seem to assume the Nazis appeared, as an historical phenomenon, ex nihilo. The Versailles Treaty condemned the German people to massive and unfair war-guilt and crippling reparations for decades. There were French massacres of German worker-protestors in the Ruhr which they occupied and, in general, the French under Reynaud I believe it was, seemed to delight in endlessly twisting the knife and humiliating Germany as much as possible. Germany was put into a state of economic chaos, with anarchy on the streets as a result of a strong communist para-military presence manifesting itself in these conditions of extreme social instability. Versailles is not just a piece of paper, it is a decades-long vendetta against the Germans displaying ignorance as to historical effects. The Germans were swept into WWI along with everyone else and were made the fall-guy afterwards. If you treat a nation in this manner, drag them through the dirt like this, you can expect a backlash down the road, and we certainly got it.
The phenomenon of an extreme right-wing nationalism arising in Germany after this, I would argue, was inevitable. There might just as easily have been a Fuhrer without the vicious racial agenda launching a war of conquest. The world ended up with pretty much the worst case scenario with Hitler, but those were the risks we chose to run in allowing Germany to plunge into that abyss. The Americans showed true wisdom after WWII with the Marshall Plan and, I would point out, the French of course were ready to do Versailles all over again. Your perspective is too black and white, and does not deal adequately with the larger historical context.
The black and white issue I am getting from you is this inclination to tar all Germans with the Nazi brush while turning rather a blind eye to the excesses of our side in that conflict. If you want to put the Germans up there in the Guiness Book of Records for war crimes, go ahead: I don't see that this addresses the larger issue of war crimes in general, or crimes against humanity. It smacks of an hysterical witch-hunt and deflection of guilt many nations share in. My point is that the majority of Germans were no different than you or I, and we should be grateful we were not born into that time and space or we would have been swept up into it as well. It's too easy to judge in hindsight, to condemn in broad strokes and blame the Germans for everything. This good guy-bad guy stuff is passe in this post-John Wayne world we live in now.
I am out for a fair appraisal of historical truth, not a witch-hunt, not blind propaganda, and certainly not the sort of naive view of good and evil that you seem to have, one which would like to see the Germans, as exemplified by the worst excesses of the SS, as inherently evil.
Because you've stacked the deck again, by assuming that D doesn't know what's going on. My point (and, as you must surely know, it ain't original with me) is that the Germans weren't unwitting accessories. They may not have known the details of the crematoria, but, as Charon and Westy and many others have pointed out, they had to know - had to know - that bad things were happening to their erstwhile neighbors. And, of course, the invasion of the rest of the world was a well-publicized fact.
...
Well, the average German soldier in the east knew because he was SEEING it, and reporting it back home to his buds. But you don't have to know about Babi Yar to know that Germany has invaded the world and that the Jews have all disappeared and their houses have new owners.
Im not trying to stack any deck. I think my example is a pretty good abstraction of the situation for any German soldier during wwii. The situation becomes even more absurd if you add person E (a civilian) who is neither a part of C, he doesnt know about C's order to A, nor did he see A shoot B etc etc.
As for your notion that the German civilian population had to know. What kind of rubbish is that? "Well, I cant prove that they did know, nor can I prove that they had any reason to suspect the true nature about what was going on, in fact, I have no evidence whatsoever to support anything I'm saying ..but they are guilty anyway, because I am of the opinion that they had to know, my gut tells me that."
I begin to feel like Ronald Reagan...."There you go again." Of course the Germans at war's end wished they'd never heard of Hitler or the Nazis. Most mass-murderers express regret somewhere down the line. What's important is what's going on in their clever little minds when they set out on their journey to oblivion.
Well, then by your own admission, the German people is innocent. In 1939 the nazis fabricated a polish attack on a German radio station. This is the official reason why Germany declared war on Poland. In his speech Hitler said something along the lines of "The Poles dared to attack us, well we'll teach them, since 0700 this morning German troops are answering the poles with bullet for bullet, bomb for bomb." 2 days later England and France declares war on Germany. Now thats the official German version of events. And you'd have to try real real hard to get a hold of any other version if you are in Germany in September 39. First, Germany is attacked, then when she tries to defend herself, England and France declares war on her.
Then what? The invasions of Norway and Denmark was motivated by the fact that England was about to invade Norway (and Sweden) to disrupt the supplies of iron ore from northern Sweden to Germany. The English and French invasion fleets had already left port heading for Norway when the Germans invaded. <-this is 100% true, but not many people know about it.
France? Well she was the one who declared war on Germany remember. Benelux countries were just a side effect of that, they had to be taken in order to defeat France.
Yugoslavia/Greece? Well those were motivated by the Italian follies in the Balkans. Cant blame Germany for bailing out her allies right?
So now we are at June 1941 and where do you have the German wars of aggression? Everything so far has been either self defence or wars against countries who declared war on Germany first.
Sorry, left my copy at home. David Irving, of course, says there's no proof Hitler even knew about the extermination of the Jews. Without going off into that discussion, I think anyone who's read "Mein Kampf" has a pretty clear idea that there was not a good future for Jews if Hitler took over.
Personally I have never read that book. I dont think I ever will either. I do know that there is no such reference in that book though. It was always pretty clear that Hitler and the nazis didnt particularly like jews, and that they would prefer if all the jews were deported from Germany. Did you know that in 1938 the SS worked together with several jewish organizations to achieve just that? The nazis wanted a Germany void of jews, the jewish organizations wanted a country of their own in Palestine. Arrangements were made to ship all German jews to Palestine. The British got hold of these plans though, and put an end to those attempts. (this lead to a somewhat guilty British conscience after the war).
I admit to having some serious problems viewing that generation of Germans the way I view other people. Some real problems....
I can see that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this? Cant be good to carry around that much hate inside.
-
Oh boy. I'm feeling a bit sorry for WMaker now.
Im sure he really feels sorry about even trying to explain certain things...
There seems to be certain topics which should be avoided by any means necessary to prevent the S*IT from hitting the fan...
I have an opinion which hopefully guides me through this life relatively sane:
Do not get fanatic about anything. Not religion, not politics, not money, anything...
I've been in the army, been religious, been political but not anymore. I'm fine now, thank you.
After all we are ALL just humans.
I'd really like to be born again as a rat or somethin'...
Even if we are playing games which are based on past aggressions: Lets learn of those mistakes.
Im sure old people would be quite shocked to see how and to what direction this conversation has developed.
Peace people.
-Charge+
Oh, i'm fanatic about something:PU55Y AND B33R!!!
LOL
-
"There seems to be certain topics which should be avoided by any means necessary to prevent the S*IT from hitting the fan..."
Just about. I just cannot stand people who are excusionists and even worse who are revisionists when it comes to Germany and the Nazi government.
The discussion always ends up like WWI trench warfare and neither side budges. Which is fine. As long as I don't have to live next to some of these people, like RAM, in real life.
Thankfully more people remember the truth than those who intentionally or gullibly distorte it.
Westy
-
Originally posted by K West
I just cannot stand people who are excusionists and even worse who are revisionists when it comes to Germany and the Nazi government.
Thankfully more people remember the truth than those who intentionally or gullibly distorte it.
Can you define the word "excusionist" please. (I get the feeling this post is directed at me somehow)
So, please tell me where I rank in your little scheme of things. Am I an excusionist (whatever that is), a revisionist or just some gullible schmuck?
Oh, and please ignore what I posted above about Germans being human beings too. It is so obviously wrong. But gullible me hasnt realized that yet I suppose.
-
Actually Hortlund you are someone I think I could debate and discuss this with over a beer in real life or even further here except the discussion draws in too many voices at once. Some beligerent and inflammatory.
The excusionist would be Wotan with his post. In particular his making it look like the people and military of Germany were complete idiots by having us believe they all fell for the contrived "incident" with the big, bad, monster military machine being weilded by the land and power hungry Poland. Hell not many people believed that for a minute much in the same way the US population and the rest of the world did not fall for the "Gulf Of Tonkin" incident. And his line "the liberation of lands that until the end of ww1 were german." Hmmm...so the old lands consisted of Austria, Czechoslavakia, Memelland, Poland (Danzig being the excuse and "issue"), Denmark, Norway as well as Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and then France before the USSR?
And a despicable example of a revisionist woud RAM.
Westy
-
Excuses for what?
Tell me what I'm excusing.......
Plain and simple you dont know what your talking...............
The guy shot down hurris and spits in 1940 and died doing so.
What needs excusing.
I dont need to make up motivations to justify my view point. Go read a book
Helmut Wick - Das Leban Eines Fliegerhelden by Josef Grabler
Read for yourself his motivation then argue with a dead man about excuses.........
Or just make stuff to suit your view point........
My reply to your 1st rediculous post was to offer the facts about Helmut Wick not about the political situation in Germany. I could careless about the rest of this post or your opinions on anything.
:rolleyes:
-
" I could careless about the rest of this post or your opinions on anything. "
Trust me, that the feeling is mutual at this point. Which brings me back to my analogy that this debate always ends up with opposing opinions being like WWI trench warfare.
Westy
-
Originally posted by K West
[Bdebate always ends up with opposing opinions being like WWI trench warfare.
Westy [/B]
Neither side wins? Or both sides lose? :)
Regardless of the debate at hand, I like all WWII airplanes despite whatever country they may have fought for. They are all interesting, and so are the stories of pilots of all the countries that fought in WWI and WWII.
Me like history, me no like politics.
-SW
-
I though it was a good discussion, fairly civil and informative. You know, it's really hard to discuss such things with the wife or the guys at work, but not here with so many informed people with an interest in the history of the period
The topic is uncomfortable, but it has to be brought up from time to time (particularly in communities that focus a good part of their existance on the era) because these were issue and broadly remain isues today. No society is all that far removed from the tensions and drives that allowed Nazi Germany to rise up in the first place.
I also want to state, that for my part I was not projecting this discussion on the AH community. There is a difference between casual role playing and being a Nazi. It is clear that throughout the gaming community there are some real neo-Nazis here and there living out their weak-ass dreams. Hell, that sick white supremist FPS that was posted a few weeks ago was an eye opener. I believe (certainly hope) they are the minority in the online gaming community at large. Seeing all the SS Panzer divisions over at WW2OL was an eye opener too, especially since the argument behind that choice seemed to be mostly "They had the coolest uniforms!" And yeah, I know the difference between the Waffen SS and the camp troops, but come on, Germany did field more than a few non SS panzer divisions during the war. But that's not here.
For what its worth, lately I've been sneaking a Type VII into the Scapa Flow looking for some British battleships to sink (and having much too easy a time I believe :) ). And now that my connection has improved to where I can fly a bit more, I find myself flying Axis in the CT when I go there to even out the numbers and get a little more variety. again, time to do some work this week :)
Charon
-
Did I miss some stop sign here or what? I thought we were in the middle of the discussion, not past it :)
-
Would you go to war if someone came up to you with that line? "Americans are better than everyone else, and deserve whatever they want -by force if need be ..now invade Poland (or whatever)"?
Is this a trick question? If not, the answer is fairly obvious, as evidenced by the fact that the US does not presently occupy Sweden (whose population of statuesque blonde maidens is a far more valuable resource than whatever Hitler was looking for in Poland).
Oh, but I forgot, all Germans living in Germany in 34-45 were evil.
Certainly not “all”. Even I am not that dogmatic.
The face it showed before then was bad enough, I trust?
Bad enough for what? Bad enough to make German soldiers desert rather than fight a war? Even given all the consequences of such an action? Bad enough to brand all German citizens in 34-45 as war criminals or butchers guilty of crimes against humanity?
Once again, the Italians come to mind. My point, however, was simply that by 1941 there was no excuse for Germans not to know that Germany had started a war of conquest (more below). I don’t think I’ve ever said that all German citizens were “war criminals or butchers guilty of crimes against humanity.” Certainly many Germans were. Certainly the active support for Hitler exhibited by the great mass of them fostered the climate that allowed those crimes to be perpetrated.
Naziism obviously was not perceived as some kind of cult of Devil-worship by the Germans of 1933-45. They thought it was a fine, forward-looking system, and subscribed to it with varying levels of enthusiasm -- sort of like the cult of fitness that has emerged in the West over the last thirty years or so. Anyone who wants to understand Germany and World War Two has to get away from the a priori notion of Naziism as some kind of concious cult of evil and understand that it was a movement that swept up Germany's best and brightest, that being 'a Nazi' would have been a compliment in most circles in the Germany of the period, and that if they were aware of precisely what the doctrine meant for Jews (Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, etc, etc), they were able to overlook this as easily as some people can overlook exactly what will happen when welfare is abolished.
My point exactly. If they wanted to overlook some of the central points of Naziism, they did it easily. I’m sure your analogy of abolishment of welfare v. starting WWII and eradicating populations based upon folklore racial theories was not serious.
Versailles is not just a piece of paper, it is a decades-long vendetta against the Germans displaying ignorance as to historical effects. The Germans were swept into WWI along with everyone else and were made the fall-guy afterwards. If you treat a nation in this manner, drag them through the dirt like this, you can expect a backlash down the road, and we certainly got it.
We’ll start a new thread someday about whether the Versailles treaty was as grossly unfair to the poor Germans as they would have everyone think. For purposes of our present discussion it is enough that many countries have been subject to one-sided peace treaties and loss of territory, but none of them responded the way Nazi Germany did.
The world ended up with pretty much the worst case scenario with Hitler, but those were the risks we chose to run in allowing Germany to plunge into that abyss.
You must be an A.J.P. Taylor afficionado. Again, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you do not mean that it was up to the rest of the world to take care of German domestic tranquility after WWI - and that it’s our fault that they went over the edge.
The black and white issue I am getting from you is this inclination to tar all Germans with the Nazi brush while turning rather a blind eye to the excesses of our side in that conflict.
They weren’t even remotely comparable. Not even close.
If you want to put the Germans up there in the Guiness Book of Records for war crimes, go ahead:
Hey, it wasn’t me that put them there. They earned it all by themselves.
I don't see that this addresses the larger issue of war crimes in general, or crimes against humanity.
Well, of course it doesn’t. I didn’t think this discussion was about war crimes in general. I thought it was whether WWII Germans were Nazis.
It smacks of an hysterical witch-hunt and deflection of guilt many nations share in. My point is that the majority of Germans were no different than you or I, and we should be grateful we were not born into that time and space or we would have been swept up into it as well. It's too easy to judge in hindsight, to condemn in broad strokes and blame the Germans for everything. This good guy-bad guy stuff is passe in this post-John Wayne world we live in now.
First I’m stupid and wrong, now I’m hysterical. What I want to know is, do I get a new body to go along with my new personality? If so, please order thicker hair.
The war against the Nazis was the very essence of good guy v. bad guy John Waynism. I truly hope our notion that Naziism must be destroyed is not passe in the modern world.
As for your notion that the German civilian population had to know. What kind of rubbish is that? "Well, I cant prove that they did know, nor can I prove that they had any reason to suspect the true nature about what was going on, in fact, I have no evidence whatsoever to support anything I'm saying ..but they are guilty anyway, because I am of the opinion that they had to know, my gut tells me that."
Hortlund, my man, buy a copy of Daniel Goldhagen’s “Hitler’s Willing Executioners.” He covers this in some detail. Or you could start with Shirer’s books. There are lots of others. (Looks down, brushes some rubbish off his stomach.) Would you also order a new gut for me, on that new body? I’d like a little one, for a change.
So now we are at June 1941 and where do you have the German wars of aggression? Everything so far has been either self defence or wars against countries who declared war on Germany first.
In another world, I suppose, it would be possible to have an educated population of tens of millions of otherwise-civilized people who were so monstrously ignorant that they truly believed this chain of events. Imagine how miraculous they must have found it when the Wehrmacht, having just been attacked by the Polish hordes, was able to reverse things so promptly and overrun Poland in six weeks. Please. You are, by the way, the first person who has ever suggested this scenario to me, and so you get extra points for originality.
- Oldman
-
Hey keep going! I'm just here checking out this dammed board instead of meeting my rapidly closing deadlines Arrgh! Got to get back to work.
Charon
-
Oldman, maybe you can answer me, what was "the bund" ?
-
"In June 1942, a report from the Jewish Workers' Bund in Poland reached London. The Bund report described the massacres in the East and estimated that 700,000 Jews had been killed; but when a Polish courier mentioned this number to a British journalist he was advised to 'drop a zero or two' if he wanted to be believed. "
We can bring up all kinds of speculative notions as to whether the German people knew or didn't know. The most important point IMHO is this: What would these "knights in German armor" have done if the Fatherland had won?
And how many soldiers were waiting on the Polish border prior to the "unprovoked attack" by the Poles? The propoganda machine of the Nazi's was very good, but they were not miracle workers. If they were, there would not have been the concern by the world community prior to the 1936 Olympics.
I have no admiration for german pilots. I understand that some had wonderful skills, but so did Ted Bundy.
German airplanes are admirable machines, German pilots were fighting for the wrong things. That is not admirable at all.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
[BGerman airplanes are admirable machines, German pilots were fighting for the wrong things. That is not admirable at all. [/B]
True, but the pilot's war time stories are nevertheless interesting to read. IMO of course, but this is because there is no mention of the Wehrmacht or Hitler's cleansing.
-SW
-
Hortlund - not sure if its intentional, but it's an interesting image you're trying to paint all the same; how the Nazis were in fact friendly with the Jews, and they had some sort of plan to create Israel; Britain didn't like this, prevented it, and thus is at blame for the holocaust not the poor misunderstood SS.
Bollocks.
It's exactly the kind of thing David Irving would spout. Until he was declared a liar and a fraud in a libel action he himself instigated.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Hortlund - not sure if its intentional, but it's an interesting image you're trying to paint all the same; how the Nazis were in fact friendly with the Jews, and they had some sort of plan to create Israel; Britain didn't like this, prevented it, and thus is at blame for the holocaust not the poor misunderstood SS.
Bollocks.
It's exactly the kind of thing David Irving would spout. Until he was declared a liar and a fraud in a libel action he himself instigated.
I have never said anyting like that. Nazis and jews didnt like eachother particulary much. HOWEVER there was a "joint venture" or whatever you want to call it between the SS (or SD to be exact) and two jewish organizations (cant remember which ones right now, but they were of the militant type).
It is pretty logical if you consider it actually.
The SD wanted a jew-free Germany (this was before the final solution had started) and the jewish group wanted as many jews in Palestine as possible. This in order to put preassure on teh British to allow a jewish state there. Ships were chartered, and jews were selected for deportation from Germany. The Brits made it clear though, that they would intercept and stop any such ships from Germany and promptly turn them back. The idea was stalled, and then it died out when the war came.
Whether you choose to believe this or not, is totally up to you. I could not care less what you choose. It is the truth.
Now, from what I have written here, where do you get the "the British are to blame for the holocaust" notion?
Instead of throwing a hysterical fit and start shooting your mouth off like a baboon on acid comparing me with David Irving, you should really read a book or something.
-
Anyone remember seeing films of those old psychology tests in the 60s where ordinary people were chosen by their answering a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for one hour's work and told to give a "student" an electric shock if he gets a question wrong. They They are then told by the scientist to increase the voltage each time the "student" (actually an actor who isn't wired up to anything) gets the questions wrong. The generator has 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each is labeled with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts. Each switch also has a rating, ranging from "slight shock" to "danger: severe shock". The final two switches are labeled "XXX". The majority of the people tested took the "student" to the final switch, 450 Volts. They continued "administering" the shock and increasing the voltage while the "student" screamed & begged for mercy. Were they concerned? - yes. Did they stop? No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts. Nazis? Evil SOBs? No, just average Americans doing what they're told and earning $4.50.
http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm (http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm)
IMO the vast majority of Germans during the Nazi era are guilty of the same thing: doing what they're told by people in authority.
You can also accuse them of being patriots - i.e. they assumed that their country was right and the best country in the world purely because they were born there, the same as all other patriots from all other countries in the world.
The most frightening thing about the Nazi attrocities is that there was nothing special about the people involved - the same results could be easily reproduced in any country on earth, using ordinary people like you or me.
Check out Wilhelm Reich's study on it too - "The Mass Psychology of Fascism".
In an ironic, and sadly relevant, turn of events, having escaped Nazi Germany and moved to the US, Reich was later jailed (for contempt of court) and the US government seized all copies of Reich's books & scientific papers and burnt them in New York City in 1957. Reich died in jail the same year.
-
Is this the same Wilhelm Reich who started the "Orgone Institute"?
He was the biggest quack charlatan ever to hit the USA. He marketed these "Orgone Machines" and became quite the celebrity in his day. These machines were supposed to focus the Orgone energy into your body or something. IIRC the guy was just trying to get laid.:D
-
Once again, the Italians come to mind. My point, however, was simply that by 1941 there was no excuse for Germans not to know that Germany had started a war of conquest (more below). I don’t think I’ve ever said that all German citizens were “war criminals or butchers guilty of crimes against humanity.” Certainly many Germans were. Certainly the active support for Hitler exhibited by the great mass of them fostered the climate that allowed those crimes to be perpetrated.
…..
In another world, I suppose, it would be possible to have an educated population of tens of millions of otherwise-civilized people who were so monstrously ignorant that they truly believed this chain of events. Imagine how miraculous they must have found it when the Wehrmacht, having just been attacked by the Polish hordes, was able to reverse things so promptly and overrun Poland in six weeks. Please. You are, by the way, the first person who has ever suggested this scenario to me, and so you get extra points for originality.
Make up your mind. Would it matter to you or not if the Germans honestly thought that they were fighting a just war, or a defensive war?
Let me ask you exactly what you are questioning in what I said.
1) That the official German version was that Polish troops had attacked a German radio station. And in the weeks prior to that “attack” numerous reports on how the German minority in Poland was mistreated had been broadcasted. Heck, the Germans even presented 10 or so dead “poles” wearing full Polish uniforms. (The “Poles” were concentration camp inmates)
2) That France and England declared war on Germany, not the other way around.
3) That the German invasions of Norway and Denmark were counteractions to the British and French plans to invade Norway and Sweden.
What do you oppose in 1-3 above? What is not true? And you really surprise me when you say that I’m the first person who ever “suggested this scenario” to you. I thought that points 1-3 above was common knowledge.
My point exactly. If they wanted to overlook some of the central points of Naziism, they did it easily. I’m sure your analogy of abolishment of welfare v. starting WWII and eradicating populations based upon folklore racial theories was not serious.
…
We’ll start a new thread someday about whether the Versailles treaty was as grossly unfair to the poor Germans as they would have everyone think. For purposes of our present discussion it is enough that many countries have been subject to one-sided peace treaties and loss of territory, but none of them responded the way Nazi Germany did.
…
You must be an A.J.P. Taylor afficionado. Again, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you do not mean that it was up to the rest of the world to take care of German domestic tranquility after WWI - and that it’s our fault that they went over the edge.
Well, I’m gonna stick my neck out here, and say that I cant think of any nation (in modern times) that got stuck with such a toejamty peace deal as Germany at Versailles. The only reason I brought Versailles up though, was to try and explain how it came to be that the Nazis took over Germany in the first place.
And allow me do demonstrate my ignorance here, who was/is A.J.P. Taylor, and what does he have to say with what I wrote?
The reason Germany went over the edge in the late 20:s/early 30:s WAS the fault of the Versailles treaty. If you remove all possible economic growth from a nation while you humiliate them at the same time you will get stuck with some counterreaction. I’m not saying that this is the US fault. I’m simply pointing out that in such a situation the two extreme absolutes (communism and extreme nationalism) will grow. Germany or (the Germans) in the early 30:s longed for 3 things. Stability, pride and decent living standards. Stability because the economic chaos lead to something that can only be described as a low intensity civil war between communists and nationalists. Pride because they did feel humiliated, filled with shame and deprived of their worth. Decent living standards, because the, like everyone else wanted a decent, rich life.
Along comes Hitler. He says that the Germans are the choosen ones. They have no reason to feel ashamed or humiliated. They cant do anything wrong... Heck, they are the master race nothing less. In fact, the only reason why Germany is in such a bad state is because of the jews. He gets into power, and within four years he has changed Germany from being a backwards piss poor shadow of a nation, to the most powerful, advanced, proud nation in Europe. The citizens has transformed from poor, hungry bleak shadows to proud strong healthy, rich citizens. No matter how you twist or turn the facts or statistics, you will find that the German progress between 1934 and 1939..or even 1941 was astounding.
All this is something classical. Take a person with a low self esteem. Tell him he is worth something, give him someone to blame his misfortunes on, show him trust. Or take a group of people and present them with a perceived threat. The person will be fiercely loyal to you, the group of people will tend to put their differences aside and work as a team.
They weren’t even remotely comparable. Not even close.
Did I say they were comparable?
First I’m stupid and wrong, now I’m hysterical. What I want to know is, do I get a new body to go along with my new personality? If so, please order thicker hair.
The war against the Nazis was the very essence of good guy v. bad guy John Waynism. I truly hope our notion that Naziism must be destroyed is not passe in the modern world.
Actually I wasnt aware that it was a new personality for you. My mistake. I’m simply trying to point out the fact that the world is not black and white. No matter how hard you try to paint it that way. I’m also trying to point out that hindsight is 20/20, and when you judge the German population, you judge them on facts and events that they at the time had no knowledge about. If you cant understand why that is wrong, then I really dont know what to say.
Hortlund, my man, buy a copy of Daniel Goldhagen’s “Hitler’s Willing Executioners.” He covers this in some detail. Or you could start with Shirer’s books. There are lots of others. (Looks down, brushes some rubbish off his stomach.) Would you also order a new gut for me, on that new body? I’d like a little one, for a change.
The way I see it we can go two ways here. Either I get a copy of those books at the library and read them, or you can tell me what conclusions they reach and how. That way we wont have to stop this discussion for two weeks while I read their books. What do you say?
-
Orgone Accumulator and Shooter :)
-
Nazis did horrible things, no arguing on that, but allied weren't much better. Remember who invented carpet bombing after figuring out they hit nothing with their high alt bombing. Firebombs, fragmentation bombs, bombs with delays etc etc, all those were used by allies aimed for civilian targets to destroy german main cities.
There sure is many different numbers of casualties, but here's some:
German civilian casualties: 2.400.000
UK civilian casualties: 100.000
-
-
Originally posted by straffo
Mr Hortlund is suppose that your GREAT knowledge of history start
in 1900 ?
I feel insulted by your comment concerning the traité de Versailles;
It just proove that you are regarding the fact as a BIASED idiot.
Just about the potential invasion of Sweden and Norvege ...
Why were some Norge fighting with the allied ?
The swedish were busy selling their steel ?
And what happened to swedish mentaly impaired in the 1940's ?
I'm pretty sure to know :
someone say "hocus pocus" and they all disappeared
Before rewrinting history try first to learn it as a whole, next look at your door and come back in ... 30 year for exemple ... to continue this discution.
Ahh great, now the more advanced namecalling cant be that far down the line.
I have read your post a couple of times now to try to understand what your point is. Its not easy, but Ill give it a shot.
Apparently I have managed to insult you with my comments on the Versaille treaty..and this makes me a biased idiot.
Well then, please tell me what I have understood wrong about the Vresaille treaty and its effects on post wwi Germany.
As for the Allied invasion of Norway, the Germans beat them to it. Thats why the Norwegians fought on the allied side. Had the Germans postponed their invasion plans for 2 days, the brittish navy had had time to mine the port of Narvik, as well as the sealanes down the Norwegian coast. Had they waited for another week or two, we would have seen an Allied invasion in the Narvik area, followed by commando raids into the Swedish iron ore mines around Kiruna.
Sweden wasnt busy selling steel, we were selling iron ore, there is a difference.
"What happened to Swedish mentally impared in 1940"?
Is this some trick question? My guess is they moved to France.
"try to learn history as a whole"
yeah, you know, thats not exactly a small task your giving me.
"then look at your door"
uh...?
Look pal. If you want to just sit here and insult me in various ways, do it by private email or message or something. It makes the board appear more civilized to the others. (and its easier for me to just throw it in the trashcan)
If you by any chance have anyting constructive or intelligent to say, then say it instead of talking in obscure semi-english riddles.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Hortlund, my man, buy a copy of Daniel Goldhagen’s “Hitler’s Willing Executioners.” He covers this in some detail. Or you could start with Shirer’s books. There are lots of others. (Looks down, brushes some rubbish off his stomach.) Would you also order a new gut for me, on that new body? I’d like a little one, for a change.
The way I see it we can go two ways here. Either I get a copy of those books at the library and read them, or you can tell me what conclusions they reach and how. That way we wont have to stop this discussion for two weeks while I read their books. What do you say? [/B]
I say: Time for the Oldman to hit the road and enjoy the weekend. We can resume next week. See if you can find Goldhagen -who's basis is essentially that the Germans knew and approved of the extermination of the Jews - in the meantime.
- oldman
-
-
Originally posted by straffo
I wil be more clearer YOU offensed me several time in this tread and on the other pretending that the WWII was caused by the traité de versailles nad nothing else wich is a biased and idiotic way of looking at history.
It's simply not true : the traité de Versaille NEVER caused anything the German governement started war PERIOD.
[/b]
This is rich. You dont seem to be in denial at all. "The Versailles treaty never caused anyting, the German government was responsible for everything". This doesnt seem biased at all actually...although that would be biased from "the other side".
If you want to find the root causes on how the nazis came to power in Germany you HAVE to look at the consequences the treaty of Versailles had for German society. If you dont understand that I really dont know what to say.
Ever heard of the reparation of the 1870 war ?
France payed more to the German than Germany payed to the whole WWI allied ...
[/b]
Well, have YOU heard of the Napoleonic wars? France INVADED and CONQUERED "Germany" then (how far back through history do you want to take this?)
Concening you mentaly impaired they are not in France as you Sterilisated ALL of them againts their will (*) ... and for the Jews Swedish attitude was strange no ?
(*) those strong enough for survive
[/b]
We sterilized those who were strong enough to survive? What did we do with the rest then?
Regarding the jews. I'd say that Sweden was probably the most racistic country in Europe in 1920-30. Heck we INVENTED some of the race concepts. And your point would be...?
Concerning my english it's somewhat better than my Swedish and when I'm UPSET/FURiOUS it's worst than usual.
Why are you UPSET/FURIOUS? <--Serious question.
-
-
Originally posted by straffo
concerning my point I will express it in french (up to you to find someone to translate)
Pas la peine de jouer les peres la morale quand on n'a pas les cuisses propres.
Well, according to bablefish your point is:
Not the sorrow to play the fathers morals when one does not have the clean thighs.
Uhh?
-
Hahem ...
The truth is that I mixed 2 thread ,3 or 4 poster opinions, translated like an bellybutton hole undertood like an bellybutton hole too...
And finally bursted lamely.
Hortlund accept my apologies I'm a true Arse.
-
Nah, no need to apologize. I know exactly how if can be when one gets caught up in the moment.
:)
-
Steady Hortlund. I don't see how anything I wrote was hysterical or remotely personal. I was merely pointing out how your comments could be construed.
I've read what David Irving had to say, BTW. In fact I've read many books. University was full of them.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Is this the same Wilhelm Reich who started the "Orgone Institute"?
He was the biggest quack charlatan ever to hit the USA. He marketed these "Orgone Machines" and became quite the celebrity in his day. These machines were supposed to focus the Orgone energy into your body or something. IIRC the guy was just trying to get laid.:D
Yup the same weirdo - although the "Mass Psychology of Fascism" was during his 'straight' period, before the AMA & the FDA started pushing for confiscation of his books & stuff. And according to some it is quite insightful - Amazon has quite a few sample pages on show - have a read & see what you think.
Dunno if orgone is quackery or not - sounds like it to me, but Reich's books & papers are very hard to get hold of (for some strange reason :D) and burning & banning the research is a peculiar method to reproduce experiments & prove or refute his theories scientifically. :rolleyes: Lest we forget the idea of rocks falling out of the sky was dismissed as fraud & quackery by almost 100% of scientists in the 18th century, but later on people decided that meteors did indeed fall out of the sky.... Or perhaps more appropriately for this BBS - most scientists in the 19th century "knew" travel in objects that were heavier than air was impossible - until 2 charlatan quacks proved otherwise...
I don't think he was particularly trying to get laid though (funny way of going about it - hanging around in bars chatting up girls would seem to me to be a better method), and however odd the ideas, IMO having an odd idea or two isn't a good enough reason to justify a government locking you up & burning all the copies of your books they can find. Although both Hitler & the US Govt of 1957 appear to disagree with me on that one - which was more my point: that this sort of lunacy is possible in any country, using perfectly ordinary people.
Just in case you dismiss all of my post as Reich "quackery": The electric shock experiment described before was by Stanley Milgram as part of his PhD, performed in that dreadful seat of quackdom, Harvard University. No books were burnt, and the research has been reproduced several times with the same sort of results.
-
I have to agree wholeheartedly with dead.
But no amount of political correctness, or punches in the face from elderly LW aces will stop me from using the term Nazi when referring to German equipment and soldiers from WWII.
Maybe it would be less offensive if I said "Germans who proudly wore swastikas while invading defenseless countries"? Much easier and just as accurate to say "Nazis". I find it equally funny when Eastern block people are offended when their called "Communists". You don't get named by the ideals you secretly believe inside your head. You get named for the actions you do or the ideals you support. Whether people like it or not, if they willingly and pridefully worked in a factory making Bf109s used to further the Nazi cause, they were Nazis.
For those people that say they had no other choice, I call BS!
There were plenty of Germans (not just Jews) who fled Germany prior to 1942 knowing full well what was about to happen.
There were also plenty who stayed and tried to resist what the Nazis were doing to Germany and paid with their lives.
Those who chose to be oblvious may not truly be criminals, but I feel no guilt referring to them as "Nazis".
The difference between Americans, Russians, and Germans is easy for me to see:
Americans never put up with too much crap from their government, they have put their beliefs ahead of their desire to live even for something as trivial as lower taxes (Revolutionary war) or something as important as slavery.
Russians and Germans have "patriotically" supported whoever managed to seize control no matter how looney they are, because they sure wouldn't want to risk dying trying to do the right thing. Though they were more than willing to risk dying to oppress other people as badly as their governments oppressed them.
I am sure someone will counter with some argument about me being a "red-white-and-blue" flag waver, but I believe history backs up my statement with two or three hundred years of examples of the American way of doing business compared to the thousands for Russia and Germany.
Both the American people and their government make some pretty bad mistakes, but we usually realize it, regret it, and do everything we can to make it right. The German people had quite a few alternatives to supporting Hitler to the end. How could someone support Hitler and not be a Nazi?
It was a crime that we backed Stalin to beat Hitler. Of course, it was a lot easier in terms of American money and lives to use Russian lives to beat Hitler and let economics kill off Communist power over a period of 40 years.
Now that the American government dominates the world both economically and militarily, are we any better than our defeated opponents?
All governments are flawed, but how many have rebuilt their defeated opponents into successful economic competitors and totally restored independence? However selfish our reasons for doing this may have been, compare it to what other countries (besides our role model, Britain) did to both their own people and their enemies wheny they had comparable power and wealth.
Our troops have frequently fought and died not only for our freedom, but for the freedom of other people. The Germans at the beginning of WW2 fought for Nazi power. At the end of WW2, they were fighting to survive the world's reprisals for their previous crimes.
If person A sees person B murder person C, then picks up a rifle and defends person B from person D who has come to punish person B, person A should expect to be treated as if he were an accomplice for person B.
German forces could have surrendered to the west rather than fight until Russia reached Berlin. But Germans still thought they could win, or at least reach a truce that wouldn't be as bad as surrendering. The majority of Germans backed Hitler to the end. Once again, I feel no guilt calling most of those Germans "Nazis".
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
But no amount of political correctness, or punches in the face from elderly LW aces will stop me from using the term Nazi when referring to German equipment and soldiers from WWII.
Maybe it would be less offensive if I said "Germans who proudly wore swastikas while invading defenseless countries"? Much easier and just as accurate to say "Nazis". I find it equally funny when Eastern block people are offended when their called "Communists". You don't get named by the ideals you secretly believe inside your head. You get named for the actions you do or the ideals you support. Whether people like it or not, if they willingly and pridefully worked in a factory making Bf109s used to further the Nazi cause, they were Nazis.
For those people that say they had no other choice, I call BS!
There were plenty of Germans (not just Jews) who fled Germany prior to 1942 knowing full well what was about to happen.
There were also plenty who stayed and tried to resist what the Nazis were doing to Germany and paid with their lives.
[/b]
I assume you live in a free country, you can say pretty much anything you want. I hope you realize that you are coming across like an a…ahh never mind.
How many Germans wore their swastikas "proudly"? I say less than 10% you say all, who can prove what? You say akll Germans were nazis, I say not all of them, who can prove what? Why is it so important for you to make groundless claims that you cannot back up at all? Don't you agree that its rather pointless to make remarks like that? Suppose I would say: All American males aged 15-45 have homoerotic fantasies at least once a day. I then proceed to refer to all Americans as "homos". Would you find this a wee bit annoying?
Defenseless countries? Yeah..that sure is a good description of the soviet union.
The choice the Germans had in wwii was
1) Fight
2) Desert or surrender
3) Face the German legal system on the charges of treason and/or cowardice in the face of the enemy
I suppose it is up to each and everyone to choose between 1-3 above. Note though, that going with options 2-3 will have consequences not only for you but also your family.
The difference between Americans, Russians, and Germans is easy for me to see:
-SNIP-
[/b]
I see no reason whatsoever to comment on your "We americans on the other hand are soo much better" chest-thumping.
Let me just point out that your own track record in the human rights department aint exactly spotless.
If person A sees person B murder person C, then picks up a rifle and defends person B from person D who has come to punish person B, person A should expect to be treated as if he were an accomplice for person B.
[/b]
True to an extent. I'm not sure you realize this or not, but you just agreed to what I said earlier. Only those Germans who knew about the holocaust, and still kept on fighting are culpable, the rest are innocent.
And there are some complications.
1) Good luck proving that any German soldiers or civilians aside for those directly involved in the holocaust saw anyone murder anyone. Thus A has no knowledge of the B-C situation.
2) Person D is not coming to punish person B, in fact person D doesn't know squat about what B did to C. No, person D is coming to invade the home of persons A & B, and (if we assume person D is Soviet) Person D is coming to kill A & B's family and take their home…in short, person D is generally not the type of guy you want to surrender to.
German forces could have surrendered to the west rather than fight until Russia reached Berlin. But Germans still thought they could win, or at least reach a truce that wouldn't be as bad as surrendering. The majority of Germans backed Hitler to the end. Once again, I feel no guilt calling most of those Germans "Nazis".
[/b]
Yeah...
Look, I dont know where you're coming from, but let me put it this way. If my country is at war, against Communist Russia no less. You wont find me deserting or surrendering at the first opportunity. The US and the commies were allies back then. The war on the eastern front was something never seen before. That clash between two totalitarian ideologies was one of the most ugly conflicts in human history. When the Soviets reached German soil their brutality knew no limits. I can give you hundreds, thousands of examples of civilians being tortured, butchered, raped, murdered…you name it. Any kind of German surrender was out of the question under those circumstances. Especially after German intel got their hands on the allied plan for Germany after the war (chop it in 4 pieces, and hand out a piece each to the victors). There was a saying in Germany during the last months of the war "enjoy the war, the peace will be terrible". Unfortunately that saying proved to be all to true for the east Germans.
-
I find it equally funny when Eastern block people are offended when their called "Communists".
Although I only choose to read these kinds of threads and not say anything in them, I have to give my opinion on this. When pursuing my master's in engineering at the University of Hawaii, I studied with some students who were from China. I'm Chinese also, but was born/grew up in Hawaii. My parents were born in China right when WWII ended, my maternal side escaped the communists and headed for Hong Kong, then came to America. My father left his family behind in China and headed for Hong Kong also, met my mother and now we're here. My maternal grandmother doesn't like the communists. She told me before how they had to leave a lot of their possessions behind to get to Hong Kong. Stuff that they never saw again, some of which she said was destroyed by the communists. We haven't gotten to speak to my paternal relatives in China until very recently... they didn't have the phone system to call us or something. However, I don't hate they guys I was studying with.. they had very little to do with what happened so long ago. Maybe their ancestors did, who knows? But I'm not going to hold it against them. When talking to them I get the impression that they like some of the freedoms we have here. They also told me that students over there often don't have a choice of what they want to study. They seem to be glad to study abroad... one of them went off to the Netherlands for his PhD, another followed my academic advisor back to the mainland.
By far, I would not call them communists despite being born in China under the red flag. I call the head of state a communist, and his cabinet communists. They are directly responsible for carrying out and forming policies and laws. I don't consider everyone in China a communist. We know there are those who want a democracy there as seen in the Tiananmen Square demonstrations several years ago. We know the consequences that were a result of them. Unfortunately, communism will not fall in Asian countries as easily as it did elsewhere. It will require a few more generations before enough people will be able to affect a change.
A sidenote about symbology... Being Chinese, I guess I should be offended by the Soviet star on the Soviet aircraft in AH. And I guess I should be offended by the red sun/rising sun on IJA/IJN aircraft (even more so with events that happened during WWII). I used to think that way... but reading about guys like Sakai and also realizing that human nature is more complex than black and white, I don't find them offensive. I don't know what goes through some people's minds when they shoot down axis aircraft in AH, or vice versa. All I know is I'm shooting down an opponent... I'm not thinking I'm killing another communist/fascist/imperialist/whatever. I hope no one online thinks that way...
mauser
-
OK one more time for Streakeagle :rolleyes: :
This sort of lunacy (Nazism) is possible in any country (including America) using perfectly ordinary people (including Americans).
-
Lest we forget the idea of rocks falling out of the sky was dismissed as fraud & quackery by almost 100% of scientists in the 18th century, but later on people decided that meteors did indeed fall out of the sky.... Or perhaps more appropriately for this BBS - most scientists in the 19th century "knew" travel in objects that were heavier than air was impossible - until 2 charlatan quacks proved otherwise...
To paraphrase the late Isaac Asimov, "to be a persecuted genius, you not only have to be persecuted, you also have to be right".
Wilhelm Reich was most certainly persecuted.......that is all.
:rolleyes:
-
Well, I mostly agree with you - it sounds like he was wrong to me. However, where I differ with your view is I'll wait for a scientific refutation of Reich's works before I say for sure that's it's all nonsense and he was wrong. Until then it's merely my opinion that Reich was talking nonsense, and not a fact. I believe that's how science is supposed to work... :rolleyes:
Indeed, asserting a theory is wrong without providing any scientific evidence to refute it sounds suspiciously like quackery to me. :D
-
Originally posted by -dead-
OK one more time for Streakeagle :rolleyes: :
This sort of lunacy (Nazism) is possible in any country (including America) using perfectly ordinary people (including Americans).
Well...um...how do you explain that it never happened anywhere else, and, in particular, that it never happened here?
- Oldman
-
Yo, Hortlund! Believe it or not, I didn't forget about you.
Originally posted by Hortlund
Make up your mind. Would it matter to you or not if the Germans honestly thought that they were fighting a just war, or a defensive war?
Heh heh. You lawyer, you. OF COURSE they thought they were fighting a just war. That doesn't mean it WAS a just war. If I think the people I'm shooting are witches, doesn't mean they ARE witches (was actually involved in such a case, long ago). Give you an example pertinent to the Germans, I will. All this Nazi business got me to dust off some old books, including a couple by Nazi pilots. And so we have Willi Heilmann (in his book, "I Fought You From the Skies," Award Books 1951, 1966, p. 122), ultimately a honcho in JG54 (altho' Caldwell thinks he's a liar about many things) declaiming at Christmas, 1944: "The times of real soldiering, of manliness, honour and duty have gone for ever. Look, we soldiers have wagered our lives and our blood to wrest a place in the sun once more for Germany, something the other world powers wanted to prevent. To help the Fatherland acquire fame and wealth; to make it large and strong so that it could become a flourishing well-run country guaranteeing our families a decent future." And we have Heinz Knoke, a pilot who circulated through a number of fighter formations, in his book "I Flew for the Fuehrer," Paperback Library, Inc., 1953, 1967, p. 12, saying: "The Hitler Youth was like every other Nazi organization. It eventually became intolerable, because of failure to apply correctly in practice the fundamental principles of National Socialism. It must be remembered, however, that the fundamental principles and ideals appealed very strongly to young epople. We supported those ideals with unqualified enthusiasm, and we were able to take a real pride in the powerful resurgence of our beloved country during the years when we were young."
Well, frankly, Hortlund, the youth of America, or England, or even Sweden, were not thinking quite that way at that time.
Let me ask you exactly what you are questioning in what I said.
1) That the official German version was that Polish troops had attacked a German radio station. And in the weeks prior to that “attack” numerous reports on how the German minority in Poland was mistreated had been broadcasted. Heck, the Germans even presented 10 or so dead “poles” wearing full Polish uniforms. (The “Poles” were concentration camp inmates)
2) That France and England declared war on Germany, not the other way around.
3) That the German invasions of Norway and Denmark were counteractions to the British and French plans to invade Norway and Sweden.
What do you oppose in 1-3 above? What is not true? And you really surprise me when you say that I’m the first person who ever “suggested this scenario” to you. I thought that points 1-3 above was common knowledge.
What I "oppose" is your notion that many/most of the Germans actually believed that they had been assaulted by the rest of the world and were merely acting defensively. This was the propaganda, true enough, but I've never seen anything to make me think that even the Germans believed it. Indeed, just the two isolated sources cited above are to the contrary.
Well, I’m gonna stick my neck out here, and say that I cant think of any nation (in modern times) that got stuck with such a toejamty peace deal as Germany at Versailles.
You just aren't trying. The Russians at Brest Litovsk certainly got a much worse deal from those sensitive Germans who were so concerned about whether the Russians would feel bad.
And allow me do demonstrate my ignorance here, who was/is A.J.P. Taylor, and what does he have to say with what I wrote?
Taylor was a well-known British historian who fell for the "fame through shock" siren, and published a book called "The Origins of the Second World War." It is engagingly written, and it posits that Germany was forced - forced, mind you - to start World War II. Newspaper editors loved it, but historians have uniformly trashed it, simply because Taylor prints his opinions and speculations as if they were fact. Read it some day (AFTER you read Goldhagen's book), and you'll see what I mean.
The reason Germany went over the edge in the late 20:s/early 30:s WAS the fault of the Versailles treaty. If you remove all possible economic growth from a nation while you humiliate them at the same time you will get stuck with some counterreaction.
An alternative view is: the reason Germany went over the edge was because it was filled with steaming radical nationalists who had no tradition of democracy, a thousand years of tradition of autocracy, and who were willing to kill just about anyone who was not like them in order to make themselves feel important again like they had been important before.
I’m not saying that this is the US fault.
Thank you.
I’m simply pointing out that in such a situation the two extreme absolutes (communism and extreme nationalism) will grow. Germany or (the Germans) in the early 30:s longed for 3 things. Stability, pride and decent living standards.....
We'll go into more depth on the rise of Hitler some other day. This thread is already sort of unmanageable.
All this is something classical. Take a person with a low self esteem. Tell him he is worth something, give him someone to blame his misfortunes on, show him trust. Or take a group of people and present them with a perceived threat. The person will be fiercely loyal to you, the group of people will tend to put their differences aside and work as a team.
And in Germany - alone, among all other Western countries - those grateful people became Nazis.
I’m also trying to point out that hindsight is 20/20, and when you judge the German population, you judge them on facts and events that they at the time had no knowledge about. If you cant understand why that is wrong, then I really dont know what to say.
Enough of the hindsight-is-perfect wail. Plenty of people at the time were pointing out that the Germans were following an evil path.
- Oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Well...um...how do you explain that it never happened anywhere else, and, in particular, that it never happened here?
- Oldman
Well it happened in Japan and Italy too as I recall - also Chile (thanks to the CIA), springs to mind - and you could probably get away with throwing in the USSR, Mongolia, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, the Philippines, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam.
Umm - which bit never happened in the US? The genocide & ghettoisation of an "inferior" race? (Native Americans) Racism & segregation? (African Americans) Persecution & imprisionment for political beliefs? (Mcarthy Red scare & HUAC) Book-burning? (HUAC & Reich) Medical experiments on prisoners? (MK-ULTRA & during WWII) Invading a country on the pretext of a made-up attack? (Vietnam, Cambodia) Do tell... :D
Fairly facetious answers, I know... but enough to prove the point: we are all capable of these unspeakably evil things, even you *ahem* squeaky-clean US guys. :D
-
I'm getting lost on what this thread is covering: Civilians, The Wermacht or the Nazi and nazi sympathizers...
People who look at the work in black and white cause the very conditions that lead to WWII. They see their side and fail to look at the "big picture".
Civilians: Support the Nazi's? Many did and many did not. But you ask, well why didn't they rise up? Just recently nixon tapes were released and he at least entertained the idea of using a nuke in Vietnam. Had he killed many civilains with that bomb would u or others opposed to that have rushed the White House and dragged him out? don't think so. Like many ppl around the world (even in the democratic ones) we've seen political leaders take heat for their decisions but nothing is ever done.
You can hear examples from political scientist here in the US: If ppl have money, their happy. They tend to look away from things that don't feel right to them. Especially at that time in the world. Later when many felt it was out of control, they couldn't even trust their neighbors. Their own kids might turn them in to the SS. When you're that far in the pit, survival (personal) is the only thing that matters.
The Wermacht? Many of the old hands were Prussian. And being military minded, I do have alot of respect for the old hands. Gunderian & Rommel to name 2 of the well known. They, like many Generals from most nations are dedicated to their job. Either defend or attack, their not politicians. Many times during the Cold war you could point to many US generals that shared the same Prussian mindset..hell Patton is a great example. But the Wermacht found it's hands tied in the beginning. It wasn't into politics therefore being of German mindset, duty and their oath was steadfast. When leaders spoke out against aggression they were replaced and removed via trump'd charges of wrongdoing.
Their society also had a mandatory service. And again, survival played a large part of fighting. You either fought and hope to live or you refused and were put to death or hard labor.
Every "society" has or will commit atrocities they feel were justified at the time. Human nature is too complex to think otherwise. And as average joes, we find ourselves caught between what we feel is right and what our gov. says is right all the time.
The Egyptians, enslaved the Jews.
The Romans enslaved or slaughtered many a Gaul.
The Catholic Church..well....anyone they could..(Cathers)
Spain.....the South American Indians
Britian....too many places in Africa to list...
American...Native Americans...
Russia...who didn't they kill or enslave
Just because a country takes a certain path doens't mean every person that lived their also took that path. But we seem hooked upon the Good vs. Evil mentality of the 1940's. Many in America in 1940 didn't want anything to do with Europe. The isolationalist. But you can't define America either by that at the time...it's just much too complex.
-
Streakeagle
You don't get named by the ideals you secretly believe inside your head. You get named for the actions you do or the ideals you support.
I might make this my sig file. :)
-
Umm - which bit never happened in the US? The genocide & ghettoisation of an "inferior" race? (Native Americans) Racism & segregation? (African Americans) Persecution & imprisionment for political beliefs? (Mcarthy Red scare & HUAC) Book-burning? (HUAC & Reich) Medical experiments on prisoners? (MK-ULTRA & during WWII) Invading a country on the pretext of a made-up attack? (Vietnam, Cambodia) Do tell...
Fairly facetious answers, I know... but enough to prove the point: we are all capable of these unspeakably evil things, even you *ahem* squeaky-clean US guys.
The big difference with us squeeky clean US guys is that we can read about all of these things in our history books and visit numerous museums dedicated to these "mistakes". We relish in the ability to freely point them out to ourselves. Even the ones you have exaggerated, like Reich.
-
How many of you guys would/will revere the kind, brave, generous man who said this?
"All the money I left must be divided according to the Muslim religion as almighty God has asked us to do. A third of my money should be spent on the poor and the needy. I want my books to go to any one of the Muslim mosques. "
A valiant fighter, a believer in "the cause", brave.
How many of you would honor him in your signature blocks?
BTW, that's from Mohammed Atta's Last Will & Testament...
People pick strange heroes sometimes.
-
"Bubbles? I'm the frickin' Prince of Darkness! Bubbles aren't Evil!"
-
theres a big difference in atta and a lw pilot who at a time of war fights for and believes in his country and takes pride in that. You would be hard pressed to find a lw pilot who purposely rammed his aircraft into a group of civilians.
Most engaged other military aircraft with the single purpose of killing as many of them as possible who in turm were trying to do the same.
Now to compare atta with the likes of bomber Harris or his circle there may be some justification even though it still a far cry from 9/11.
You like to reach for some of the most absurd conclusions.
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
You don't get named by the ideals you secretly believe inside your head. You get named for the actions you do or the ideals you support.
General, Rhetorical Question:
Who do you choose to "support" as a hero?
-
I am not into hero worship ........
but I disagree with the statements you made in your previous post.
Take Helmut Wick since hes in my sig. and I assume you were referring to me since no one else in this thread has a quote from a lw pilot in his sig. If not it doesnt matter.
How do you or streakeagle pressume to know his "ideals". Or how do you know that his actions are in support of any ideal. He may very well have been a young lad caught in the patriot ferver looking to prove himself on the field of battle.
What all us know is that he served in the lw and believed in his country (he died in the bob Nov. 28, 1940). To what degree should he have been able to foresee the holocaust that wasn't to begin until 1942? To what degree of insight should he have had into the inner workings of the Nazi war and propoganda machines?
How do you pressume to know whether or not he truly believed what his government told him? To him Poland attacked in prussia and when his country responded then England and Germany's historical enemy France declared War on them.
He joined his countries armed forces to defend his Nation. He had a great amount of pride in that. He fought and died not by killing civilians but by attacking an enemy which in turn was trying to kill him and had declared war on his country.
You don't get named by the ideals you secretly believe inside your head. You get named for the actions you do or the ideals you support.
It makes good quote but other the that in has very little meaning with out all sorts of prejudicial assumptions. False judgements based on a false premise.
Its easier to just dismiss them all as Nazi nutbags equally guilty from the train engineer to post man............. They all were party members.
But even so who said he was a hero. He does have my respect for skill as pilot and as a leader who inspired the men under him.
As hard as it is for you to believe most folks (including myself) aren't goose steppin 'round the house with the idea that they are the true lw reborn. They view aces high as a game and in the game they enjoy certain role playing aspects. Try to keep it in context.
-
Many, if not most of the comments you make about Wick could/would apply to Atta as well, especially given the cultural differences, with the transposition of Atta's religious devotion for Wick's national devotion.
It's true that Atta knowingly attacked a civilian target; none the less, he viewed that as "fighting for his cause" in the only way open to his side.
As I said, feel free to admire whom you choose to admire.
However, obviously those choices have connotations to others, even this long after that conflict.
BTW, Chelmno, a "death camp" began operating in late 1941.
However, Dachau , one of the first Nazi concentration camps, opened in March 1933.
But Dauchau was "OK" then because it only contained known political opponents of the Nazis, Communists, Social Democrats, and others who had been condemned in a court of law.
Later, of course, others were imprisoned; Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Gypsies , dissenting clergy, homosexuals, as well as others who were denounced for making critical remarks about the Nazis. It wasn't until October 1941 that thousands of Soviet prisoners of war were brought to Dachau and shot. You are right though... by January of '42 they had the killing part in "high gear".
Admire whom wish to admire.
Cya.
-
of course there were camps and murders but the escalation, efficency and centralization of the german murder industry began get into full gear in 1942. It is at this point that I would imagine that signs of what was happening could have been visible to those in position to have dealings with the camp system.
Anytime after 1943 and Himmlers Posen speech there should have been no doudt to those who had anything to do with the camp system should have known and a good number of other folks should of had an idea about the reality of Final Solution.
But in 1940 a lw pilot in france during the battle of Britain would not be in a position know.
There were 6 camps specifically identified as death or extermination camps. They were all in poland. Auschwitz, Belzec, Kulmhof (chelmo), Lublin (Majdanek), Sobibor and Treblinka were the "death mills". Actually they were each a series of camps.
In the other camps like Belsen and Dachua executions took place but not on the scale of the 6 death mills. And it was around 1942 when these large factories of death neared full production.
But death was apart of the Nazi scene since before they took power. But to what extent do you believe the average Sailor, lw pilot, or foot soldier should have known about these things?
In hindsight it is easy to point out the clues here and there and put them together. But I would bet its a bit tougher at the time.
As for equating atta to military personel engaged in battle against other military personnel is a leap, and a big one.
"Hero", "admiration" these are your words not mine. The word I used was respect.
I am not in this thread to debate whos a nazi and who aint I really dont care what labels are used.
I only entered when folks appeared to, either directly or indirectly, point to me for what ever reason.
Unless your going to come out and say I am a nazi, nazi sympathisor, or Nazi apologist I believe I have adequately expressed in clear terms my thoughts.
And again Aces High is a game any assumptions one would make should be kept in context.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The big difference with us squeeky clean US guys is that we can read about all of these things in our history books and visit numerous museums dedicated to these "mistakes". We relish in the ability to freely point them out to ourselves. Even the ones you have exaggerated, like Reich.
Oh well, if you've got history books about and museums dedicated to these mistakes that makes them all perfectly acceptable then. Not guilty. :rolleyes:
BTW why the inverted commas around mistakes? I am intrigued.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The big difference with us squeeky clean US guys is that we can read about all of these things in our history books and visit numerous museums dedicated to these "mistakes". We relish in the ability to freely point them out to ourselves. Even the ones you have exaggerated, like Reich.
Germans, on the other hand, cant read about the holocaust in their history books. Neither do they have any museums dedicated to that "mistake" <-(I want to ask about those inverted commas too)
What exactly is your point with this post?
Do you think there is any country on earth as councious about its history as Germany? Mention wwii and most germans scatter around the walls in their attempts not to get caugt in any argument whatsoever.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Germans, on the other hand, cant read about the holocaust in their history books. Neither do they have any museums dedicated to that "mistake" <-(I want to ask about those inverted commas too)
What exactly is your point with this post?
Do you think there is any country on earth as councious about its history as Germany? Mention wwii and most germans scatter around the walls in their attempts not to get caugt in any argument whatsoever.
My point (and thank you for asking) is this: In a free and open society things like the Holocaust cannot perpetuate.
The inverted commas are called quotation marks and they are used as a way to emphasize a word when the author can't figure out how to underline, or to show sarcasm. For example, asking about the punctuation of a post is like "picking fly watermelon from pepper".
:cool:
-
Ah, the oldman is back, been waiting for you.
Originally posted by Oldman731
Yo, Hortlund! Believe it or not, I didn't forget about you.
Heh heh. You lawyer, you. OF COURSE they thought they were fighting a just war. That doesn't mean it WAS a just war. If I think the people I'm shooting are witches, doesn't mean they ARE witches (was actually involved in such a case, long ago). Give you an example pertinent to the Germans, I will. All this Nazi business got me to dust off some old books, including a couple by Nazi pilots. And so we have Willi Heilmann (in his book, "I Fought You From the Skies," Award Books 1951, 1966, p. 122), ultimately a honcho in JG54 (altho' Caldwell thinks he's a liar about many things) declaiming at Christmas, 1944: "The times of real soldiering, of manliness, honour and duty have gone for ever. Look, we soldiers have wagered our lives and our blood to wrest a place in the sun once more for Germany, something the other world powers wanted to prevent. To help the Fatherland acquire fame and wealth; to make it large and strong so that it could become a flourishing well-run country guaranteeing our families a decent future." And we have Heinz Knoke, a pilot who circulated through a number of fighter formations, in his book "I Flew for the Fuehrer," Paperback Library, Inc., 1953, 1967, p. 12, saying: "The Hitler Youth was like every other Nazi organization. It eventually became intolerable, because of failure to apply correctly in practice the fundamental principles of National Socialism. It must be remembered, however, that the fundamental principles and ideals appealed very strongly to young epople. We supported those ideals with unqualified enthusiasm, and we were able to take a real pride in the powerful resurgence of our beloved country during the years when we were young."
Well, frankly, Hortlund, the youth of America, or England, or even Sweden, were not thinking quite that way at that time.
Heh, I guess this job really screws you up when it comes to debating huh. (btw, I would love to hear about those ppl shooting witches.. we dont get cases like that over here. Weirdest one I've had so far was two drunks that decided to butcher drunk nr 1:s pets with a meat-cleaver (3 puppies and 7
kittens). The prosecutor had lots of crimescene pictures too...that pretty much ruined lunch that day.)
I cant fail to notice though, that you still didnt answer my question. I think I'm gonna be persistent too, and ask for an answer. The question is an important one, since you seem to base alot of your "all Germans were bad"-notion on why Germany went to war, and what the Germans felt about that war.
"What's important is what's going on in their clever little minds when they set out on their journey to oblivion." <- your own words.
So what do we have so far? The Germans thought they were fighting a just war, but history would prove them wrong. The quotes you posted seems to give support for that theory too. And I cant help to notice that none of your quotes are along the lines of "Hurrah hurrah now we go to war, so that while we fight, the SS can butcher jews in Poland".
If you are looking for quotes from German soldiers who truly believed in the nazi ideals, and soldiers who fought and died for those ideals, you should look elsewhere. Try to dig up some quotes from Rudel, or from Skorenzy, or look at all the various Waffen SS-veterans, and their memoirs, alot of them has some really scary quotes. My point is, it is not hard to find examples
of fanatical nazis. But that doesnt really prove anything now does it? Although you will be hard pressed indeed, if you are to come up with any quote indicating that anyone not directly involved in the holocaust had any knowledge of it. But as I said, loose quotes from a couple of people prove nothing.
What I "oppose" is your notion that many/most of the Germans actually believed that they had been assaulted by the rest of the world and were merely acting defensively. This was the propaganda, true enough, but I've never seen anything to make me think that even the Germans believed it. Indeed, just the two isolated sources cited above are to the contrary.
So in other words, you agree with what I wrote about the official German version. The German PR machine was hammering into the minds of the German people that they were the victims of an aggression, but managed to turn the tables on their aggressors and defeat them.
But you went even further than that in your previous quote. " OF COURSE they thought they were fighting a just war" you said.
Gulf of Tonkin
Pearl Harbor
WTC
Examples of attacks that threw America into war. When these attacks occurred, do you think any Americans thought "hmm...I wonder if we were really attacked or if this is a government conspiracy to force us into an unjust war." Why would any German citizen (who possibly even heard the attack on the radio) believe anything but the official version fed to him? Also,
remember the situation for the ethnical Germans in Poland, remember the Danzig corridor. Situation between Germany and Poland was very tense even before that attack.
You just aren't trying. The Russians at Brest Litovsk certainly got a much worse deal from those sensitive Germans who were so concerned about whether the Russians would feel bad.
Hehehe true true, the Russian wwi peace deal has got to be at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to toejamty peace deals.
We'll go into more depth on the rise of Hitler some other day. This thread is already sort of unmanageable.
I'm looking forward to that, should be an interesting one.
Enough of the hindsight-is-perfect wail. Plenty of people at the time were pointing out that the Germans were following an evil path.
So what? I mean, seriously...?
There are lots of people who claim that the US are following an evil path right now...does that mean anyting? OF COURCE NOT.
-
bump
Subject came up in Aircraft forum, no point in rediscussing these issues there.
Charon
-
World War Two / Germanys war of self -defense..........
oh brother....visions of tutonic knights riding off to defend der faderland
-
Hortlund, that statement comes from the reactions of the Italians, who did treat the allies as liberators in many (but not all areas). Now, I can see three reasons for this:
1. They realized that the promises of fascism turned out to be lies that caused massive destruction and loss (all the way back to the Spanish Civil War) and that they were happy to see fascism overthrown. Some were happy to become partisans and even established an organized military opposition. They gave Mussolini and his hoochee a pretty tough time when they caught him.
2. They were cowardly people who changed loyalties when the tide of the war changed (though, as I pointed out earlier, some did take up arms against the Germans and the loyalists).
3. They had no deep connection with Fascism from the beginning, making either 1 or 2 easier.
I believe it was a combination of points 1 and 3.
[/b]
Charon, please expand on how this applies to the Germans.
-
Let me say this a german who was born after the 2nd WW in a democratic West-Germany and raised in a liberal democratic system:
Under the special circumstances of the German Reich after WW1 (just to mention the "Schandvertrag" of Versailles) and the resulting economical chaos a radical leader like Hitler was a logical consequence.
He gave the german people a new (today we know a false) hope for a better future and the majority of the germans followed him.
Today we know that he has abused a whole nation.
But we have the luxury to know many (surely not all) facts and to be raised in a liberal system.
But what are we expecting from a youth living in the 20ties, feeling dishonored by the allies after WW1 and suffering by these facts and economical consequences?
German territory was occupied by foreigners - their once proud army (and it was an essential part of the german culture) was crippled to a small force which was not allowed to have an airforce or tanks.
Then a man arrives who aggressivly starts a counter policy. He raebuilt the army - and the allies dont react. He took back the occupied territories - and the allies dont react. He organize and mobilize the german people by demonizing an ethnic group like the jews - and the allies dont react.
So what does a youth from this time learns by this ? That this man made Germany strong again and gave the nation its proud back?
I think that I - under the circumstances of the old times - would also become someone who was called after WW2 a Nazi.
The circumstances formed the people - it didnt happened in few years but in decades after WW1.
And please dont think that the Nazi-ideas is only a german idea had no supporters throughout the world.
It was not that the germans was seen as brutal oppressors by many states in the region.
There were many supporting nations - and also many foreign SS-Units which fought with fanatism on the side of the Axis.
There were french, netherland and also muslim SS-units - so these were no Germans and nevertheless they also became Nazis.
Even after WW2 where the crimes of the Nazis became public there were still nations which helped highranking Nazis to survive on their territory - like Argentina or Spain and also the Vatican didnt played an honorable rule during this after-war-time.
But let me come back to a more important thing:
Its not a question for me how the people in the 20ties could become affiliated and fascinated with the Nazi ideology.
This I am able to understand.
But I absolutely dont understand why people of today, who have the knowledge of the history and who had been raised in more or less liberal systems, are still fascinated of the Nazi ideology and organize themselves.
There are neo-Nazis even in the countries where the old Nazis were killing the populations because they were defined as lesser beings - like in Poland or Russia.
So - again: This is something I absolutely cant understand.
-
Cas there are alot more unimaginative brutes in the world than original creative brutes.
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Well...um...how do you explain that it never happened anywhere else, and, in particular, that it never happened here?
- Oldman
I must assume by here you mean PA and not America???
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/3145/wave.html
terrifying to say the least ... it needs only the right atmosphere to happen anywhere.
-
I think the parallels between the two are fairly clear. Both had fascist governments, both faced similar political and economic disorder before the governments came to power, both had strong popular support for the government during the good times, both were allied in a war against the West and East (though Italian involvement in Russia was more for show) that was largely focused on territorial ambition, both faced death, hunger and foreign invasion.
The counter points (certainly worth considering) could well be that while Mussolini had growing support in the populace, he did seize power in 1922 in a more aggressive manner than Hitler needed to solidified his majority approval after he won the first elections -- leading to perhaps less real support at the street level. However, by 1939 Mussolini’s power and support were well established as I recall. Also, while both had strong propaganda arms the Germans took the Italian example and pushed it to new heights which could have helped keep the population more attuned to the party. Hitler also had more personality in the cult of personality department and early victories to cement his image.
In the end, I believe that while both countries faced similar military threats to their respective homelands, Italy had lost faith in fascism while the faith remained strong in Germany along with the hopes that the next V weapon would save the day. But, to be fair, this may not be the strongest point in that argument.
Charon
-
Hum, well I like kicking colored peoples tulips and basically being an all around punk and bully. Also I prefer a 10 vs 1 fight. I also like assault guns and I hate the gov etc... I'm gona start a new group and call it the "skull crushers"! Na who ever heard of them, how about Neo Nazi bla bla bla...
Instant world recognition even though they are loosers.
My 2 cents.
-
babek. Good post. At the time facism was also a popular idea in some U.S. and British circles facing depression-era pressures. I used to study the micro events, personalities and equipment of the war, now I find the political and social events behind the various conflicts to be more interesting (but a less exciting read to be sure).
The rise of Nazi Germany is perhaps the most though provoking since you cannot look on the German people as an "evil" people who were particularly different from those in most Western countries. They were more accustomed to a central authority governement so soon after the abrupt end of the monarchy, which helped, but if Hitler had really managed to screw something up before 1939 perhaps Nazism would haave been rejected.
I can't understand today's fascination either, except perhaps that like in the old Brown Shirt days, neo-nazism gives the outcasts in society a sense of importance they couldn't get elsewhere. The mass appeal becomes far more frightening though, particularly in countries that should know better (and I'm not talking about Germany here).
Charon
-
I find it funny how those living in an open democracy with a free press and access to varied sources of information use the words
"know" and "the true horrors" in reference one of the most unfree opressive propagandist and closed societies of all time.
Its not the same guys, the goverment just said what it wanted people to hear and barred or suppresed or killed as many other voices as it could.
No defense of anything that happend in WW2 but plese look at with a realistic perspective.
Or think of this just how many Americans knew of the Japanese internment camps during WW2, or even many years after WW2? This is in the most free country on earth.
-
Originally posted by MrBill
I must assume by here you mean PA and not America???
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/3145/wave.html
terrifying to say the least ... it needs only the right atmosphere to happen anywhere.
Sort of reinforces my point, seems to me. Another poster said that there were, and are, various Nazi movements all over the world, and that, of course, is true. But no other country has had a Nazi government. There's only been one. Same thing with the guy who says you have to view things from the perspective of the Great Depression. News flash: The Great Depression hit most of the western world. But only one country went Nazi.
As for Versailles: Easy and convenient excuse. You lose a war and then moan that the peace treaty is one-sided? Please.
- oldman
-
NAZI = BAD
ZAPKIN = GOOD
So....
Support your local Zapkin!
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
As for Versailles: Easy and convenient excuse. You lose a war and then moan that the peace treaty is one-sided? Please.
In the late phase of WW1 Germany asked - especially the USA with its president Wilson - for an honorable surrender.
The treaty of Versailles was the worst thing what could happen to the Germans. It was not only one-sided. It was extremely harsh and destroyed the future of whole generations.
If I am right the germans had to pay until the 80ties horrendrous sums of money as a reparation of WW1.
Also territory was taken away and - the most important fact the army was de facto destroyed - no airforce or tank units were allowed, the navy was also extremely reduced and the allowed troop-strenght wouldnt be enough to defend the Reich.
This army had a great tradition - it was huge, its officers - raised in prussian style - made a whole part of the german society. Now - after disbanding the army most of these officers were without work and suffering. They had learned many things but not to live a normal civilian life. So many of them resisted and wished a radical change.
Germany was also ordered to change its political system - so it became - like ordered - a democracy. But they didnt become democrats - how could they? They were raised in the prussian-dominated Reich, learned and accepted the hierarchical system.
The whole treaty of Versailles was signed at Compiegne in a train waggon.
I will come later back to this fact .
Nearly all the germans - no matter if communists or ultra-rights or normal democrats called this treaty a "Schandvertrag" a treaty of shame.
Even in my history lessons in the 70/80ties my history-teacher used this term.
It was a disgrace for every German and the myth of the so called "Dolchstosslegende" was also born: It was the thesis that the german army had not lost on the battlefield. The great war heroes like Hindenburg who destroyed the russian army at Tannenberg were ready to start a new offensive. Then the hideous socialists and communists ordered the german military to surrender, because they had the assurance for an honorable surrender.
This all was not true, but the people believed it - mostly because they wanted to belive it. And at time of the surrender Germany had indeed forced Russia to capitulate and there were no foreign troops on german territory.
The treaty of Versailles mad Hitler possible - without such a harsh treaty it would have become much more difficult for him to raise to power.
But because of the treaty the german economy was destroyed. Huge amounts of money had to be paid. When Germany couldnt pay these sums, german territory was occupied - like the Rheinland. On other places german hardware was taken away.
This also fueled the hate and the demand for revenge.
Then Hitler came. He acted aggressivly before the outbreak of WW2 - taking back the occupied territories, rebuilding the army by using the old prussian-educated officer cadres which suffered extremely after WW1.
He also was supported by the old war hero Hindenburg who was at this time th president of the German Reich.
After the german victory against France Hitler ordered that exactly the same train waggon where the germans had to sign their surrender after WW1 has to be transported to exact the same place in Compiegne.
There the french representatives had to sign their surrender - and after this he ordered the destruction of the waggon.
This act was highly appreciated by the germans - no matter if Nazi or not.
The good thing in all of this is that France and Germany were lucky that they had great leaders like de Gaulle, Mitterand, Adenauer and Kohl. These men ended the long hate of this two nations and started a friendship which lasts until today and I hope forever.
They also proved what great politicians could do in order to build peace.
The treaty of Versailles was one of the biggest mistake in history. It filled a whole nation with the wish to destroy this treaty - and they indeed did it by finally become destroyed themself.
So even a "Peace-treaty" could force people to go into the next war if they are treated bad in this.
We have to learn from this historical fact.
-
I'm sorry to interfere Babek but the feeling the German got in 1918 was the same the French got in 1870 ...
! I'm not wanting to start a "who started 1st thread " ;)
This treaty was like the treaty of the previous war : loss of territory and huge ammount of money to give to the winner.
Before 1945 it was the way to go :(
Concening the Adenauer de Gaulle I fully agree it was a chance for all of us (btw you forgot Helmutt Schmidt and Valérie Giscard d'Estaing ;))
-
@straffo
Sorry that I forgot to mention 1870. You are absolutely right: The treaty of 1870 - dictated by Germany against France - was the same mistake like the Versailles-treaty of 1918.
It forced the wish of the french representatives to cripple Germany so it couldnt endanger France again.
The whole thing only shows how stupid it is to fuel the hate of people instead of looking for political solutions which treat each side with respect.
We both are very lucky that we were born in our time - where the hate between our people ended and we could learn from each other in friendship.
-
so true
the bad think is that if WE have learned the lesson not all have learned it (read palestinian/ isrealy and lot of others ...)
-
Originally posted by babek-
The treaty of Versailles mad Hitler possible - without such a harsh treaty it would have become much more difficult for him to raise to power.
Babek, you certainly aren't the first to say this. I just don't understand it, is all, because it seems to be such a non sequitur. It's even less understandable given what the Germans did to the Russians at Brest-Litovsk in 1917. Now THERE was a one-sided peace treaty. How could the Germans keep straight faces when they complained that Versailles was unfair?
If I accept the logic that a one-sided peace treaty is a good reason to adopt a brutal, totalitarian government, then I imagine that Germany and Japan should be going Nazi any day now, given what happened to them at the end of WWII. Or, as Straffo pointed out, the French should have become National Socialists after 1870. Lord knows what the Irish will do.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Babek, you certainly aren't the first to say this. I just don't understand it, is all, because it seems to be such a non sequitur. It's even less understandable given what the Germans did to the Russians at Brest-Litovsk in 1917. Now THERE was a one-sided peace treaty. How could the Germans keep straight faces when they complained that Versailles was unfair?
If I accept the logic that a one-sided peace treaty is a good reason to adopt a brutal, totalitarian government, then I imagine that Germany and Japan should be going Nazi any day now, given what happened to them at the end of WWII. Or, as Straffo pointed out, the French should have become National Socialists after 1870. Lord knows what the Irish will do.
- oldman
You have the answer right infront of your nose, but you cant see it?
Allow me to spell it out for you.
In 1917 the Russians were forced into a toejamty peace deal.
In 1919 the Germans were forced into a toejamty peace deal.
What happened to Russia after the toejamty peace deal?
What happened to Germany after the toejamty peace deal?
Could there possibly be a connection?
-
We're just misunderstood. So is just about everyone in this thread.
NO SOUP FOR ANY OF YOU, ONE YEAR!
-
Or, as Straffo pointed out, the French should have become National Socialists after 1870
in fact it was almost the case BEFORE 1870 ... thanks to Napoléon III (empereur .... what a toejamy guy)
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
It's even less understandable given what the Germans did to the Russians at Brest-Litovsk in 1917. Now THERE was a one-sided peace treaty. How could the Germans keep straight faces when they complained that Versailles was unfair?
- oldman
Because it was.
A harsh and brutal treaty like Versailles allows radical elements to rise in the society and get power.
Especially when the country is let alone and without help - like it was with Germany after WW1.
You mentioned Russia. I think you know that the country became the Soviet Union after WW1 and with Lenin/ Stalin a totalitary land.
Take the Osman Empire as another example. After the Empire was crippled after WW1 a military leader rose and kemal Pasha became the "Father of all Turks" or in turkish "Ataturk".
He (I hate it to compare this great man with a creature like Hitler) like Hitler ignored the treaty of Versailles - kicked out the allied troops from the occupied west of Turkey and reigned as a totalitary leader.
The terms of the treaty of Versailles made it impossible for Germany to develop a working democracy.
Whole social castes were dishonored and only wished revenge. They saw in the democrats the traitors and were so an easy target for a man like Hitler.
The financial terms were so cruel that Germany was bancrupt - heating up the social problems and putting them to radicals - communists and nazis.
Also german territories were occupied so this fact fueled the wish for revenge in even moderate germans.
After WW2 Germany was not let alone. They got enormeous help from the USA and only a short time after the WW2 West Germany was a prosperous country - even with a higher life-standard than in many allied countries.
The money and wealth killed effectivly the wish for any revenge.
Also we had great politicians who ended long hatreds - like the relation-ship with france which was once called the Erbfeind and who is now the friend of Germany (a fact for which I am very thankful for).
The same in Japan: They got an honorable peace. Their emperor Hirohito was not deposed - what was a very important decision, because the Tenno was a religious important person for the japanese.
Like Germany Japan was treated well and got help from the victorious nations - and also this land became an industrial superpower with great wealth.
Under such good circumstances people like Hitler had no chance to get a ruling position.
So I conclude that if Germany has been treated this way after WW1 it would be very likely that a Hitler would never been the leader of the land.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You have the answer right infront of your nose, but you cant see it?
Allow me to spell it out for you.
In 1917 the Russians were forced into a toejamty peace deal.
In 1919 the Germans were forced into a toejamty peace deal.
What happened to Russia after the toejamty peace deal?
What happened to Germany after the toejamty peace deal?
Could there possibly be a connection?
Um. No. You may actually be the first to ever suggest that the bolshevik takeover had anything to do with Brest-Litovsk. The chronology is just a bit off.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Um. No. You may actually be the first to ever suggest that the bolshevik takeover had anything to do with Brest-Litovsk. The chronology is just a bit off.
- oldman
Did I say it had anyting to do with the bolshevik takeover?
So you think that the Russian civil war might have ended differently? You dont think that there might have been more loyalists instead of communists?
Why the act?
-
Originally posted by babek-
The terms of the treaty of Versailles made it impossible for Germany to develop a working democracy.
Whole social castes were dishonored and only wished revenge. They saw in the democrats the traitors and were so an easy target for a man like Hitler.
The financial terms were so cruel that Germany was bancrupt - heating up the social problems and putting them to radicals - communists and nazis.
Also german territories were occupied so this fact fueled the wish for revenge in even moderate germans.
We don't disagree that the Germans wished for revenge. So did the French after 1870, and lots of other people who have been beaten. Wanting revenge is one thing. Going Nazi to get that revenge is quite another.
I agree with your general implication that democracy was doomed in Germany after WWI - in fact, it used to be a joke that "History of Democracy in Germany" was one of the world's shortest books. I don't see why the Versailles treaty had anything to do with the average German's view of the merits of democracy v. totalitarianism.
The financial terms were ugly on paper, but weren't enforced. The Weimar government really never made any effort to pay them. When the French went into the Saar (in 1924?) to try to enforce the treaty, and the English didn't back them up, the whole world knew that Germany was not going to end up paying those reparations. The Weimar people cut their own throats by simply printing money to pay off the French, thereby triggering their own galloping inflation nightmare.
Now. If what you're suggesting is that the Germans were shamed/embarrassed/angered by losing the war, that they had very little experience with anything other than authoritarian government, weren't really that eager to try it out, anyway, and were ready to go to any extreme to make themselves feel important and powerful again, while in the process getting back at the people who beat them....I would be prepared to believe that.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Did I say it had anyting to do with the bolshevik takeover?
So you think that the Russian civil war might have ended differently? You dont think that there might have been more loyalists instead of communists?
Why the act?
Heh heh. Three questions you ask. Three answers I will give.
1. Yes. "What happened to Russia after the toejamty peace deal?
What happened to Germany after the toejamty peace deal? Could there possibly be a connection?" Leaves little room for any other conclusion.
2. Actually, I do not think the civil war would have ended differently. The Whites were too disjointed, and too discredited by the past fifty years' experience, and offered too little to the average peasant/worker. Much as with WWII, so long as the Soviets maintained the will to resist, they were going to prevail.
3. I am not really sure what you mean by "why the act?" I really do not see a connection between the development of Soviet domestic oppression and Brest-Litovsk. Honest.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
I don't see why the Versailles treaty had anything to do with the average German's view of the merits of democracy v. totalitarianism.
Because versaille forced Germany to become a pariamentary democracy?
Kinda like if the US would be focred into a peace deal forcing the US to drop its constitution and become a monarchy...would it be popular?
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
The financial terms were ugly on paper, but weren't enforced. The Weimar government really never made any effort to pay them. When the French went into the Saar (in 1924?) to try to enforce the treaty, and the English didn't back them up, the whole world knew that Germany was not going to end up paying those reparations.
The Rheinland was occupied - one of the very important parts of Germany.
The Weimar Republic was not able to force the occupation forces out.
They didnt dared to send troops.
It was Hitler who did it. Although he knew that the german army at this time wouldnt have a chance against the french troops he sent them. My grandfather told me stories that in the night the troops sneaked back and marched the next day in aagain to show a greater number of the real forces.
Also the numbers of the vehicles were changed - so spies reported a higher number of german troops than really were in action.
The whole bluff of Hitler worked, because France and UK didnt wanted a war against Germany.
And Hitler presented himself as the savior of Germany.
If germany would have allowed to rebuilt itself after WW1 and with its potential become a wealthy country Hitler wouldnt have get a chance to get the position of a chancellor.
But sadly the allies softened up to Germany when he was already in this position and accepted all his demands.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Because versaille forced Germany to become a pariamentary democracy?
Kinda like if the US would be focred into a peace deal forcing the US to drop its constitution and become a monarchy...would it be popular?
Heh heh. So you're saying that the Germans became Nazis to spite the Allies? Well, now, that DOES sound sensible to me.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by babek-
The Weimar Republic was not able to force the occupation forces out.
They didnt dared to send troops.
It was Hitler who did it.
But by then - 1936 - Hitler had already been elected and, as detailed by Hortlund elsewhere, had legally installed himself as dictator. So I don't see how his reoccupation of the Rhineland had anything to do with his being picked to run the country in the first place.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Heh heh. So you're saying that the Germans became Nazis to spite the Allies? Well, now, that DOES sound sensible to me.
- oldman
Im not sure why you are acting dumb. Because I know that you understand that that is not why I meant.
Is this some new debate-tactic of yours?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Im not sure why you are acting dumb. Because I know that you understand that that is not why I meant.
Is this some new debate-tactic of yours?
No. I'm just not picking up on your argument. Somewhere back in this thread I said (I hope) that I can't find a logical connection between the Versailles Treaty and Germany's ultimately-suicidal installation of Hitler as dictator. You and Babek haven't done much more than say, "Well, hey, the Germans were really mad at the end of WWI and felt that they got treated unfairly, and times were tough, so of course they elected an obvious nut-case who'd written a book explaining what a nut-case he was, and who had already done jail time for trying to start a revolution to implement his nut-case philosophy. And it only stands to reason that they would make him dictator-for-life, so that they could declare their allegiance to him, and that they would support his declaration of the world's most dreadful war and the extermination of people they thought were unpleasant, because, after all, the Versailles Treaty was unfair."
I don't get it. I really don't. It hasn't ever happened anywhere else (at least, not in the past 200 years or so). It's like having David Dukes become President of the US. No, I take that back, its far worse than that, it's worse than having the Ku Klux Klan or the Weathermen becoming our government. It is something that I have never been able to comprehend, and blaming it on a peace treaty which, by the Germans' own standards, should not have surprised them, strikes me as a colossal cop-out.
- oldman