Abu Ghraib 'Ringleader?

[Crumpp]

Gscholtz says:
 Why are you bringing torture and the terrorists into the discussion? I only commented that if Maverick only was aware of two instances of US prisoner deaths then he is not very aware. The rest of your argument is irrelevant since I am in no way comparing you to the terrorists.

Because several in this thread want to compare the treatment of some of the Abu Ghraib prisoners to the treatment of hostages taken by the terrorist.  That comment was not directed at you.

As Holden pointed out I was only talking about the countries Germany actually conquered. Obviously the countries they didn't manage to conquer held out longer.

I am only putting your statement in perspective of the war and other resistance movements.

During the invasion of Norway we did not fight by "a small resistance movement". We fought with several infantry divisions.

Yes for the two weeks Norway held out.  Hardly comparable with the other allied nations who took a stand against Nazi Germany from the beginning and were not "neutral until invaded".

During the occupation Norway fought on from Britain. The greatest contribution was probably the efforts of our merchant fleet, which carried one quarter of all goods transported to Britain during WWII. However Norwegians fought in other roles as well in the RAF, RN, and SOE.

Yes there was a small percentage of your population that fought elsewhere as well.

 

Norway had the largest resistance movement of all nations in WWII. At the end of the war the resistance had grown to more than 40.000 men and women under arms.

I am sure Norwegian History books tell you that.

No it did not have the largest or even the most active resistance.  Greece had the most active and Russia had the largest IIRC.  

This is not a very popular part of history and thus it has been largely forgotten, but during the late 1930s Hitler called for all ethnic Germans to return to the fatherland. Many German-Americans answered the call. If you have read Band of Brothers (or seen the TV series) you'll remember one of their German POWs was from New York (IIRC).

Sure I think there was a Battalion of former US citizens of German American descent.  Just as you state, these people were immigrants from Germany to the United States and had the freedom of choice to return to their native country.  They certainly lost their US citizenship.

Big difference though between a handful of immigrants and the standing Norwegian Army under the Quisling Government.

Crumpp

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Staga, you just hate the United States no matter what the facts are and will spread lies that suit your view.

I doubt he hates it the way you're saying.

It is really time for some americans to get realistic about it.

There IS NO RIGHT to imprison people without any reason or lawyer for as long as you like - thats what happens in dictatorship.

There IS NO RIGHT to torture people - thats what happens in dictatorship.

There IS NO RIGHT to kill unarmed people, let alone captives, in cold blood - thats what happens in dictatorship.


Unfortunate part is that the current american goverment has done this and seems to still continue doing it in secret, which will sooner or later (again) become public in a way or another.
Meanwhile they're undergoing operations like 'Iraqi freedom' and highly critisizing the brutality by insurgents/terrorists.

Terrorists have killed people in cold blood, kept them in captivity, killed captives..
Unfortunately the US goverment seems to have been doing the same thing.

Maybe US goverment doesn't employ it in such a large scale, but the numbers do not give any right to be a lesser evil. Whether it was two or ten people, it doesn't make it any more right.

The americans, when conducting such operations, should show an example of how things are done, not just do what they're claiming to be stopping from happening.
Yes it might cost few more lives when you do it the proper way, but thats the price of freedom.
Have some of you americans forgot what the freedom is? Or what it is like without freedom?

Often in these forums I feel that alot of europeans are more american than many of the loudest americans here.

[rabbidrabbit]

Originally posted by Fishu
I doubt he hates it the way you're saying.

It is really time for some americans to get realistic about it.

There IS NO RIGHT to imprison people without any reason or lawyer for as long as you like - thats what happens in dictatorship.

There IS NO RIGHT to torture people - thats what happens in dictatorship.

There IS NO RIGHT to kill unarmed people, let alone captives, in cold blood - thats what happens in dictatorship.


Unfortunate part is that the current american goverment has done this and seems to still continue doing it in secret, which will sooner or later (again) become public in a way or another.
Meanwhile they're undergoing operations like 'Iraqi freedom' and highly critisizing the brutality by insurgents/terrorists.

Terrorists have killed people in cold blood, kept them in captivity, killed captives..
Unfortunately the US goverment seems to have been doing the same thing.

Maybe US goverment doesn't employ it in such a large scale, but the numbers do not give any right to be a lesser evil. Whether it was two or ten people, it doesn't make it any more right.

The americans, when conducting such operations, should show an example of how things are done, not just do what they're claiming to be stopping from happening.
Yes it might cost few more lives when you do it the proper way, but thats the price of freedom.
Have some of you americans forgot what the freedom is? Or what it is like without freedom?

Often in these forums I feel that alot of europeans are more american than many of the loudest americans here.

I get the impression that you don't know the difference between random events and deliberate systemic acts.  Nor do you seem to understand that that collective judgement of the innocent based on the actions of the few is no better than the acts you judge so severely above.  In short, you and a few others in this threads come across as hypocrits at best.

[patrone]

Originally posted by Crumpp

Yes for the two weeks Norway held out.  Hardly comparable with the other allied nations who took a stand against Nazi Germany from the beginning and were not "neutral until invaded".

You mean just like USA? What did it take to get the USA into war against Nazi Germany?

And if you count 1 of sept. 1939 as the begining of the war, how long did it actully take USA to join in?

I would use the expession of staga: "Get of your high horses"

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by patrone
You mean just like USA? What did it take to get the USA into war against Nazi Germany?

And if you count 1 of sept. 1939 as the begining of the war, how long did it actully take USA to join in?

I would use the expession of staga: "Get of your high horses"

learn to spell before lecturing doofus.

[patrone]

Originally posted by Bodhi
learn to spell before lecturing doofus.

yeah, nice answer:lol

Du kanske hellre will ha alla kommentarer på Svenska?
i hellenika?

[Crumpp]

You mean just like USA? What did it take to get the USA into war against Nazi Germany?

Quite a bit actually.

If you bother to read any of the thread instead of just attacking because I am an American you will see:

I would use the expession of staga: "Get of your high horses"

Is exactly why I replied to Gscholtz's arrogant and somewhat misinformed opinion of his own countries "high horse".

Especially since that is exactly what this whole thread comes down too.  Europeans on their high horse making judgements about situations they have     very little facts about.

Crumpp

[patrone]

So the fact that Norway choose to be neutral in the conflict until they where attacked is wrong or not wrong?

And I make this question, because, USA was keeping themselfs out, until war was decleared. And the one saying this, is, if I recall correct, From USA:

Yes for the two weeks Norway held out. Hardly comparable with the other allied nations who took a stand against Nazi Germany from the beginning and were not "neutral until invaded".

What other nations? You mean the other "Allied nations" that where just a little behind on their own invasionplans of Norway?

In a choice between pleg and colera, I choose neither, if I could.

[Crumpp]

What other nations?

England and France.

And I make this question, because, USA was keeping themselfs out, until war was decleared.

Exactly.  And it was a Norwegian and a Fin in this thread that are tooting their countries own horn.  

How can you expect to make a correct conclusion when using two false assertions ?.

He is correct Straffo.  

Finland was an AXIS nation in WWII fully supporting the Nazi's and their ideals.

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html

The third war is called the "Lapland War" and was fought against Germany after the armistice with the Soviet Union. Finland didn't really want to fight the germans but the pressure from Allies (mainly Soviet Union) was so great that the "war" escalated into a real fighting between the former allies in the northern Finland (Lapland). Last german troops were out of Finnish borders on  April 27, 1945.

http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/finland/summary.html

So it is very much revisionist history to claim they were allied.

Norway was neutral until invaded and then a portion of the population resisted.

However a great many did not.

During World War II a great number of volunteers from Norway served within the ranks of the German Wehrmacht. Prior to 1940, there were few such volunteers, but after the invasion, their numbers increased dramatically totaling around 50,000 by wars end. Nowhere did Norwegians serve in greater numbers than in the ranks of the Waffen-SS, but equal mention should also be made of those who served in the Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, Heer and in the various auxiliary forces such as Organization Todt and even the Reichsarbeitdients.

http://www.feldgrau.com/norway.html

Note: Only took 1 second on Google to find it.


 

By the standards of World War Two, the campaign in Norway was small.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/occupation_of_norway.htm

This was the final significant action for the control of Narvik and Norway. Hitler eventually stationed 3,000 men in Norway to guard against another Allied invasion that never came.

The vaunted Norwegian resistance managed to tie up a whole 3,000 troops in the entire country!

The British fought harder for Norway than the Norwegians did!

http://historynet.com/wwii/blconquest/index.html

Crumpp

[patrone]

Originally posted by Crumpp

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/occupation_of_norway.htm

The vaunted Norwegian resistance managed to tie up a whole 3,000 troops in the entire country!

The British fought harder for Norway than the Norwegians did!

http://historynet.com/wwii/blconquest/index.html

Crumpp

Sorry, Crumpp. but its really late here and I dont have the time or power to "google around" for selective urlīs that would prove my saying.

There is history "facts" and there is history "facts".

3000 troops?? Look at a map, count naval bases, airfields, border to sweden, costline, roads, major citys.

Border to Soviet: I bet you didnt knew they had that, did you?
Ever been in norway, ever transported yourself on thoose mountainroads to the nothern parts? It is not very smooth, not even today.



Then you must understand that it is a typo or a very large missunderstanding from the writer of that text. 3000 troops in Narvik, yes, this I can belive, but never in the total of Norway.

I asume, the campaign must have considered over, when the King left the Country. Wich was sometime in the begining of June 1940.
The Attack started the 9th of April 1940. Thats about 8 weeks.

Or you might be counting from when the major cities where captured? I am sure, as long as the Army didīnt surrender, as long as it had a Superior Commander in the Country, the fighting wasīnt over.

And talking about the Finns, No one put up a greater fight 39-40 and then they joining the attack on the Soviet? Do you blame them?

( I am pretty sure if someone can "bang their drum" they can. They kicked serious ***!)

Was Soviet sacret? After all the split Poland with the Nazis. Did you wage war on them (soviet), did England or France?

[Maverick]

Crump,
I stopped considering anything vidkun schulz has to say on the board. his antaginism and obvious trolling are beneath notice and certainly not worth responding to. He and fishu are blatant in their anti US bias and love to make statements designed to get a response. They simply are not worth dealing with.  Both have shown themselves to be total tools.

[Crumpp]

Was Soviet sacret? After all the split Poland with the Nazis. Did you wage war on them (soviet), did England or France?

Sure we did, for decades after WWII, and finally won it in the mid-90's!

So your argument is the Finns have the right to get in bed in with Nazi's because they were attacked by the Soviets?

Does the United States have the right to defend itself when it was attacked?  To go to whatever country we believe is harbouring or aiding in anyway or enemies?  Sure we do.

Sure we have some bad apples, everybody does.  We do find and persecute them unlike our enemies.  As the Iraqi Justice minister says, "Their legal system has convicted two presidents.  Absolutely unheard of in the Arab world."

I stopped considering anything vidkun schulz has to say on the board. his antaginism and obvious trolling are beneath notice and certainly not worth responding to. He and fishu are blatant in their anti US bias and love to make statements designed to get a response. They simply are not worth dealing with. Both have shown themselves to be total tools.

Agreed.

Crumpp

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Finland was an AXIS nation in WWII fully supporting the Nazi's and their ideals.

Eh..  in full support of the nazi ideals? Yeah right... please go study bit more of the history before making such stupid claims.
I don't recall having any extermination camps in Finland or having exported all the jews to germany.
The political system wasn't too appealing either.

Finns were allied with the nazis as far as it took to defend own country and regain back the lost territories. No further than that. Otherwise the history would been whole lot different. Where nazi leaders were being executed and same thing done in many other countries which were on the loosers side, Finland didn't have to execute one single person who was in the lead. With the nazi ideals it wouldn't been that nice outcome.

So your argument is the Finns have the right to get in bed in with Nazi's because they were attacked by the Soviets?

Does the United States have the right to defend itself when it was attacked? To go to whatever country we believe is harbouring or aiding in anyway or enemies? Sure we do."

[/B]

Did Finland go to whatever country? Finland didn't even advance much more further than the pre-winter war borders.

Too bad Iraq didn't have much to do with the enemies you're talking about. Didn't even have much to do with the WMD's.... laff.
Finns didn't have to lie about the reasons, it was all too obvious when the russians were coming from the east en masse.

Kind of like Pearl Harbour for americans, there was no doubt where to go. The war crashed right up your faces and there was nothing you could do for a year.
Today you're doing bit too much based on bad lies, just because you can and you don't have to think twice. They're all bad people in the middle east right...?


Maverick,

Again that anti-US wahwah... is that your only excuse nowadays, to instantly call people anti this and that when they're being more objective than you are?

You should take a good look at the mirror when saying such crap like that.
Haven't heard any good stuff from you yet, why? Can't you come up with anything more intelligent than the pre-school stuff?

[Crumpp]

Eh.. in full support of the nazi ideals? Yeah right...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War#Improved_relations_with_Nazi_Germany

Race issues were sources of particular concern: the Finns were not viewed favorably by the Nazi race theorists. By active participation on Germany's side, Finnish leaders hoped for a more independent position in post-war Europe, through the removal of the Soviet threat and the incorporation of the akin Finnic peoples of neighbouring Soviet areas. This view gained increasing popularity in the Finnish leadership, and also in the press, during the spring 1941.

Finland most certainly did participate in the Holocaust and willingly.  They were a full and willing partner of the Nazi's.

Finland even had their own SS Battalion.

http://www.feldgrau.com/finland.html

I would say you need to study your own history.  

Crumpp

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Crumpp

Finland most certainly did participate in the Holocaust and willingly.

Crumpp

Not every foriegn volunteer in the Waffen-SS actively participated in the Holocaust or even joined for that purpose, and to suggest every member of the german armed forces was complicit (even the Waffen-SS) is rather naive.

 Tronsky