The Wehrmacht, History, Myth, Reality [Archive]

Meneldil

09-01-2009, 14:08

Just a minute there!

Don't fall for the trap of the revisionist, or of the uneducated internet adolescent. Fierce criticism of Nazi-Germany does not equal criticism of Germany.

Yeah yeah, I know this. I just didn't want my comment to be understood as 'Zomg all germans are evil nazis!!', which seemed quite possible to me, since the Wehrmacht is often seen as an honorable force, not tainted or stained by nazism.

I also know many officers opposed Hitler, his methods and his ideology. What I wanted to point out is the simple fact that, unlike what I read many times on various internet fora, the Wehrmacht wasn't only an heroic army that fought to protect Germany against ze evil soviets and imperialist americans.

Krook, you should follow your own advices before trying to give other people a lesson. Pretty much all of Europe was racist in a way or another in the early 20th. The latin race was opposed to the germanic race and to the slav race. Black people were still regarded as inherently uncivilized and barely worthy of being educated. I highly doubt things were different in Poland (I'd go as far as saying that Poland has a pretty bad record when it comes to things such as minority rights, antisemitism and tolerance during the 30's).

Finally, unlike the huge majority German people, who openly admit that Nazi germany was wrong and overall a terrible experiment, you've proved yourself to be completely unable to accept any form of criticism toward your country. Anytime a topic about Germany is created, you jump in to bash the oh-so evil germans (or russians, or americans, or french, or british, or jews), yet you refuse to admit that Poland did some things wrong in the past. I hope you're a minority in your country, for complete lack of self-criticism and blind nationalism and bitterness would otherwise make Poland a really sad place.

HunGeneral

09-01-2009, 17:50

This is an interresting debate going on here. I myself have always been interrested in the history of WW2 yet for some reason I don't really know why some people wish to tell of any fighting force of any dicatatorian system that took part in the conflict to have benn "clean from any ideology" or other saying "the only reason they were so great is because the followed that x-ism to the last letter". (thank god I haven't seen any of that here so far, only on other places on the internet).

What really gets me mad is that many would try to make the whole confllict look like a fight between good and evil - a very wrong concept.
I think all armed forces that took part in the war have also taken part in war crimes to some degree more or less.

I myself have always read and gathered info about the wehrmacht because I am conwinced that they were the best fighting force of there time (till today I consider the german Blitzkrieg 1939 -1940 to be one of the best lead and fought campaings of the first half of the 20. century in Europe), for a while. However I have never seen or believed that only the "Nazi core" of the army where the only ones to commot warcrimes (although they were the most active in that matter, but not the sole perpretators).

This does however not mean that all germans (soldier or civilian) are the "bad guys" nor are the Allies the "good guys" and are neither free of commiting deeds that can be seen as "war crimes".

Just to name a few examples:

- The massacre of Katyn: well I don't think too much needs to be said.

- Sending there own men on suicide charges and executing thoose who refused - USSR

- Disquising some agents as German paratroopers, sending them to viligaes to see if they would help hide them and if the villagers did then deport/execute them all - NKVD activity in the Ukraine.

- Lead a whole arial bombing campaing tarteging the civilian population of the enemies country to increase suffering with the final goal of inciting a revolt against the goverment - United Kingdom (the USA forces atleast tried to concentrate on factories and military targets in Europe, but in the pacific they bombed/burned down entire cities in japan even such which had little if any military value. The Germans also had similer attempts over England but till then they mostly targeted military facilities, but started attacking London after the British bombed Berlin. - no wonder the term "Western Air terrorists" has been used so long in middle- and east Europe)

- Drezda, Hirosima, Nagasaki (correct exampels of the above)

Therefore I would conclude that neither side can be seen as completely innocent nor can all members of any people be seen as completely guilty.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-01-2009, 18:27

Maniac - start learning something different than german history books.

I do - but perhaps you should try them, it'll help get you out of the Polish nationalist history books.

By 2nd Reich i mean germany after unification - Bismarck's Germany.
Hohenzollern empire (I understand that you mean Prussian Princedoom and later Kingdom of Prussia) is not 2nd Reich. Do not mix these things.

Tell me, who were the Emperors in the German Empire? Hohenzollerns all.

And Bismarck's Germany was very similar to Hitler's Germany.
Country with official ideology which declare that German are best nation and should rule the world by destruction of other races and nations.

Far from it. Any, any basic biography of Bismarck will show otherwise.

And Poland has never been country ruled by racist ideology.

No, but racist ideology has been in the ruling class.

We have autoritarism (very good doctrine) but never racism.

:inquisitive:

Do not mix us with Germans.

So Polish nationalists just have a xenophobic hatred of Germans, they aren't racist? Got you.

We don't build deathcamps - we liberate them.

Historically I don't think Poland has ever minded being brutal when the opportunities arose. That being said, what the Nazis did was naturally worse than anything seen before or since (with the exception of Stalin's Russia and possibly Mao's China).

Tribesman

09-01-2009, 19:01

And Poland has never been country ruled by racist ideology.
We have autoritarism (very good doctrine) but never racism.

Yeah right:dizzy2:

Do not mix us with Germans. We don't build deathcamps - we liberate them.
Really? with the exception of the german prisons in warsaw during the rising all the concentration camps in Poland were liberated by the Russians.
So your claim about liberation is that the Polish got some people out of prison for a while before they surrendered them back to the Nazis.

CBR

09-01-2009, 20:55

Sure looks like this thread has many familiarities with a train wreck...

Stay on topic and no more of the nationalistic drivel please.

CBR

KrooK

09-01-2009, 21:20

So your claim about liberation is that the Polish got some people out of prison for a while before they surrendered them back to the Nazis.
Calm Tribesman, calm. Do not mix us with Germans. Poles liberated some deathcamps and few gestapo prisons.

Someone mentioned that carpet bombing of german cities was bad. But ... how many 88 guns
were used to defend german cities instead of fighting on eastern front.
Americans started carpet bombing of cities into Japan when japananese high command ordered to move facilities from industry to normal districts.

Evil - maybe you check when 2nd Reich was oficially announced? I always thought that after french-prussian war (check name FRENCH = PRUSSIAN NOT FRENCH GERMAN). And maybe you tell me when we were so brutal to minorities? I really want to know because I don't remember any situation when official ideology of polish nation was destruction of national minority (action Vistula can't be count due to some reasons). Maybe I'm wrong but Mahomet said "to knowledge go even to China".
Before you wrote I have to tell you something about nowadays Germany.
Into todays Germany some laws from III Reich (yes - from Hitler times) are still in force. Mostly law about minorities. According to them Poles (about 1.500.000 people) are not national minority.

keravnos

09-01-2009, 22:35

What really gets me mad is that many would try to make the whole confllict look like a fight between good and evil - a very wrong concept.
I think all armed forces that took part in the war have also taken part in war crimes to some degree more or less.

That's like saying that the 12 year old girl who was raped asked for it.

Nazi Germany was directly responsible for starting WW2 which led to the death of more than 50 million people in Europe alone. It was responsible for destroying the European Jewry, killing off 66% of its people, destroying utterly anything that was standing in its way.

A small excrept from a previous post I made over at TWC...
How about some other specialties of the regime?
-Here's what happened in Greece. I will take one of all the villages torched and destroyed their people slain. In Arta prefecture, August 17 1943, Wermacht's Edelweiss division executed 317 villagers, 172 of them being women, two priests and 13 babies, all less than 1 year old.
-Italian prisoners slaughtered in Kephalonia after Italy surrendered to the Allies and Hitler declared them traitors. 3000 "drowned", 1.135 executed and 25 Slovenes with them along with 5.189 more Italians who were summarily shot.

The list goes on and on, but the truth, documented and explained in detail by Herman Frank Meyer, a German who, looking for his father grave (he had been executed by resistance fighters) stumbled upon the Nazi's reing of terror, which he documented.
http://www.hfmeyer.com/english/publications/index.html

Husar

09-01-2009, 23:22

Maniac - start learning something different than german history books.

By 2nd Reich i mean germany after unification - Bismarck's Germany.
Hohenzollern empire (I understand that you mean Prussian Princedoom and later Kingdom of Prussia) is not 2nd Reich. Do not mix these things. And Bismarck's Germany was very similar to Hitler's Germany.
Country with official ideology which declare that German are best nation and should rule the world by destruction of other races and nations.

Read some orders given german troops who were sent to africa to fight with tribal risings.
Its really hard to find similar orders - maybe Tamerlane was giving something like this.

And Poland has never been country ruled by racist ideology.
We have autoritarism (very good doctrine) but never racism.
Do not mix us with Germans. We don't build deathcamps - we liberate them.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Dude, learn some history yourself, one of the reasons Bismarck got booted was that he insisted that Germany would not need any colonies in Africa...

The guy you are looking for was called Wilhelm II.

On the topic, I agree with everyone.

Tribesman

09-01-2009, 23:56

Calm Tribesman, calm. Do not mix us with Germans. Poles liberated some deathcamps and few gestapo prisons.

Really , so which of the concentration camps in Poland or territory that became Poland were liberated by Poles?
Come on, there were lots of camps so you must be able to make a pretty impressive list when the range to choose from is so large.
So which were they Krook?
Is the reality that the "evil" Russians did the liberating from the "evil" Germans.:yes:

Though to be fair quite a number of Poles who were not inmates of the getto did fight the Germans when the mass prison revolted , almost as many Poles as Jurgen Stroop had under his command with the Germans.:oops:

But I have to laugh at your
Do not mix us with Germans. especially after your ridiculous claim that
And Poland has never been country ruled by racist ideology.

so could you in brief terms explain the policy in regard to Ruthenians Germans Silesians Galacians Ukranians Lithuanians russian Orthadox protestant Greek catholic and a host of other un-polish as far as the Polonization measures count?

Its quite funny that you have throughout this topic questioned other histrical knowledge , but then come up with a gem like ....
Americans started carpet bombing of cities into Japan when japananese high command ordered to move facilities from industry to normal districts.

Anyone with a half decent knowledge of history want to explain in very simple term why Krooks version of the switch in bombing over Japan is bollox?

KrooK

09-02-2009, 00:20

Tribesman

1. To start from KL Warschau (or Gęsiówka) - liberated during Warsaw Rising
there were some deathcamps into western Germany liberated by Polish Army - its 1 AM, I will check names when I wake up.

2. Do not mix Warsaw ghetto rising with Warsaw Rising - sorry but this practically disqualify you as discussion opponent. It was absolutely normal that Poles helped Jews into 1943 and later Jews helped Poles (especially Jews from liberated deathcamp) into 1944.

3. I never heard minorities being forced to be Poles - especially from nations mentioned by you.
After world war 2 German and Ukrainian minorities were being controlled but it was rather mercy than punishment- traitors are normally being killed. Later all the Germans could stay or leave Poland.

However I agree that influence of polish culture was very strong into our part of Europe. As a example I can tell that polish muslims (mostly polish Tatars) are celebrating Christmas and eating pork.

Polonisation only seems like Germanisation but is not equal - you are using brutal strenght, we are not doing it. Thats why so many minorities became Poles and feel Poles - like hundred thousands of .....
Germans who were coming here for all the medieval. Yep - they leave Germany and leave to peaceful tolerant country without religion war and domestic violence. Or teens thousands of ... Scots.
In Poland you can be everyone who you want, as long as you:
1. Don't insist others to be like you.
2. Don't try to betray state.

4. Husar - so was it 2nd Reich or not? Come one - you as a German have much better sources (most of archives was not translated on english and of course polish). Quote us orders given German troop sent to Africa.

Tribesman

09-02-2009, 00:50

1. To start from KL Warschau (or Gęsiówka) - liberated during Warsaw Rising

Wow the incident I already mentioned , you really are on top form:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Do not mix Warsaw ghetto rising with Warsaw Rising - sorry but this practically disqualify you as discussion opponent.

Ah, I see you have reading problems as well as problems with your historical knowledge, that explains a lot.

I never heard minorities being forced to be Poles
Really ? so banning the languages, closing the schools and destroying the churches to force people to be "Poles" isn't forcing people to be Poles.

Husar

09-02-2009, 06:53

4. Husar - so was it 2nd Reich or not? Come one - you as a German have much better sources (most of archives was not translated on english and of course polish). Quote us orders given German troop sent to Africa.

Dude, you don't seem to understand, it's completely irrelevant whether it was the second Reich, you simply cannot blame Bismarck for something that happened after he was thrown out for opposing it. And I don't read historical archives so I can't quote any orders, maybe you can give some quotes where Bismarck talked about killing Africans as a goal for Germany to add a bit to the nonexisting credibility of your previous argument.

It was Wilhelm II. who said Germany needs a place under the sun, it was the same second Reich Bismarck created but it was a radical change of foreign policies that had hardly anything to do with those of Bismarck anymore.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-02-2009, 07:18

Evil - maybe you check when 2nd Reich was oficially announced? I always thought that after french-prussian war (check name FRENCH = PRUSSIAN NOT FRENCH GERMAN).

:dizzy2:

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Empire)

Click the link. Scroll down in the box on the right until you see where it says Emperor. Click Wilhelm I. Check which dynasty he belonged to.

The German Empire was an Empire ruled by the Hohenzollern dynasty. I don't know why you denied that. :inquisitive:

And maybe you tell me when we were so brutal to minorities? I really want to know because I don't remember any situation when official ideology of polish nation was destruction of national minority (action Vistula can't be count due to some reasons).

So according to you one ethnic cleansing doesn't count, the one on the eastern border. Why don't you try the ones on your western border? Or certain other things that Poland liked to do which are conveniently missed by modern Polish nationalists?

Into todays Germany some laws from III Reich (yes - from Hitler times) are still in force. Mostly law about minorities. According to them Poles (about 1.500.000 people) are not national minority.

:dizzy2:

Where do you get your information? There aren't even close to one and a half million Poles in Germany. We have more Italians than Poles.

Papewaio

09-02-2009, 07:24

- Lead a whole arial bombing campaing tarteging the civilian population of the enemies country to increase suffering with the final goal of inciting a revolt against the goverment - United Kingdom (the USA forces atleast tried to concentrate on factories and military targets in Europe, but in the pacific they bombed/burned down entire cities in japan even such which had little if any military value. The Germans also had similer attempts over England but till then they mostly targeted military facilities, but started attacking London after the British bombed Berlin. - no wonder the term "Western Air terrorists" has been used so long in middle- and east Europe)

- Drezda, Hirosima, Nagasaki (correct exampels of the above)

Therefore I would conclude that neither side can be seen as completely innocent nor can all members of any people be seen as completely guilty.

Total War. Once Germany had decided that it was waging a total war (bombing London first) then the gloves were off. That idea is even support in the likes of the Geneva Convention. So the bombing of civilian populations to bring about an early end to the war was deemed to be 'fair'. Problem with this thinking and what High Command should have seen is that bombing a civilian population only gets their backup and is hence counterproductive. Mind you that probably is one Dresden happened... total destruction was supposed to break morale, much like mustard gas and other nerve toxins were supposed to end WWI in weeks. Again HQ doesn't factor in counter measures and that atrocities beget atrocities and only gets morale up of those who survive (well anger if nothing else).

The bombing of Japan is different on both the conventional front and nuclear. Japan dispersed its manufactoring ability throughout its cities. Meaning that to attack the manufactoring base you had to attack the civilian sites as they were often the same building. The nuclear attack was a much better option then mass starvation and invasion see Okinawa for results of a land invasion.

There is also a massive difference between bombing a country and taking prisoners and making lampshades of their skin or gutting pregnant women to see who won a bet on the sex of the unborn. The primary difference can be seen after occupation to compare who was good and who was evil if you want to bandy those terms around. Germany and Japan slaughtered those they took over that they had no use for, those who looked different, had different genders to those they agreed with, those who had different religion or beliefs or politics they also killed the mentally ill and the handicapped. On the other hand Germany and Japan once taken over by the Allies got the likes of the Marshall plan.

Quite a telling difference.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-02-2009, 07:43

Total War. Once Germany had decided that it was waging a total war (bombing London first) then the gloves were off.

I may be completely wrong, but wasn't German bombing of London originally confined to generally industrial targets and the docklands? Regardless, in terms of tonnage the response was vastly disproportionate. I wouldn't have minded so much if it was focused on industry, but the goal was to kill as many humans as possible. That is despicable regardless of which side did it (and both did).

Germany and Japan slaughtered those they took over that they had no use for, those who looked different, had different genders to those they agreed with, those who had different religion or beliefs or politics they also killed the mentally ill and the handicapped.

Honestly though, what use did the Allies have for the burned victims of the bombings? To use them prove to the Soviets that they could do it? To try a little experiment to see if they could make the Hun give in a little quicker? Make no mistake, I'm glad the Allies won and am well aware that they committed crimes at a much, much lesser scale, and you'll catch me throwing rocks at the likes of the NPD sooner than marching anywhere near alongside them. But something that is morally wrong is morally wrong, whoever does it.

On the other hand Germany and Japan once taken over by the Allies got the likes of the Marshall plan.

Oh, West Germany is grateful for the Marshall Plan, but would we have received anything or as much if there hadn't been an immediate threat to us in the West? Regardless, the aid was very much appreciated. The Allies did more for us in those few years than the Nazi scum did in twelve or the Soviets did for the East in forty...

Papewaio

09-02-2009, 08:29

I think Dresden was terrible (as a crime, as a tactic and as a waste of resources). It was a crime to aim to kill as many people as possible. As a tactic even if I was a Mongol warlord I wouldn't want to do an attack that made my enemy more angry and less likely to surrender. As a waste of resources, war is logistics, don't do anything in a total war that isn't helping you win.

There is a lot of crimes that Allied soldiers also did. I think the biggest difference is the institutionalization of them and promotion of those who did them in Nazi Germany. Imperial Japan had a pretty bad time with the crimes they did, although they did a very good job of whitewashing most of them to their civilian population.

War is a waster and not much good comes of it. We do have a few things and one of those is the desire not to repeat such a mistake.

HunGeneral

09-02-2009, 10:41

Nazi Germany was directly responsible for starting WW2 which led to the death of more than 50 million people in Europe alone. It was responsible for destroying the European Jewry, killing off 66% of its people, destroying utterly anything that was standing in its way.

Wether "who" can be blaimed for WWII is still heavely disputed. It could have been the Japanese who started the war when attacking China in 1936 since that conflict didn't end until 1945. It could have benn the french and the british if we think that the "peace -dictate" of Versailes was what lead to a utterly deprived, insulted, driven by nationalistic ideologyes Germany filled with hatred against anything the great powers France and england stood for and blinded enough to believe the myth of the "stab in the back", thereby (with the economical crisis of the 30s) giving necessary political atmosphere for Hitler to take power and drag teh world to war.

At any point in my post where did I question the Deathtoll of the war? Or deny that the Germans had commited atrocities aswell?

Also "destroying utterly anything that was standing in its way" - that aplies for the Soviet Union aswell if you ask me.

I may be completely wrong, but wasn't German bombing of London originally confined to generally industrial targets and the docklands? Regardless, in terms of tonnage the response was vastly disproportionate. I wouldn't have minded so much if it was focused on industry, but the goal was to kill as many humans as possible. That is despicable regardless of which side did it (and both did).

I feel the same about the matter and as much as I know the germans preferrred to use there bomber force as ground support, and attacked primearly military targets if possible, this is reinforced by the fact that they developed only light to medium bombers, but never had a really effective heavy bomber like the B-17s, B-24s and Lancasters of the US an UK. (I'm not sure but as much as I know the Luftwaffe even forbade any bombers to bomb anything near London without Hitlers personal orders. - The first Luftwaffe bombers over London were a small detachment that lost orientation at night and dropped there bombs not knowing where they were. As a reaction churchill ordered Bomber command to attack Berlin and after just a small raid Hitler got so mad he ordered the Luftwaffe to bomb London to the ground instead of concentrating on military targets....

Also the alies response is somewhat to vast - more civilians were killed just during the 3 day bombing of Hamburg then all civilian casualities of the whole Battle or Britain, the Blitz and the V1- V2 attacks in England together.

Also as you said the Allies were not exactly aiming for the industry in Europe. If I may quote from Sir Arthur Harris - Air Officer Commanding in Chief of the RAF Bomber command:

"the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany"...

"It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories"

Honestly though, what use did the Allies have for the burned victims of the bombings? To use them prove to the Soviets that they could do it? To try a little experiment to see if they could make the Hun give in a little quicker? Make no mistake, I'm glad the Allies won and am well aware that they committed crimes at a much, much lesser scale, and you'll catch me throwing rocks at the likes of the NPD sooner than marching anywhere near alongside them. But something that is morally wrong is morally wrong, whoever does it.

I fully agree:yes:

The Allies did more for us in those few years than the Nazi scum did in twelve or the Soviets did for the East in forty...

I agree that the Wetsern allies were much more humane then the Nazis or the Soviets in all aspects.
I'm glad it wasn't the Nazis who won the war, though sometimes I wish the Soviets had been driven out of East Europe earlier.

War is a waster and not much good comes of it. We do have a few things and one of those is the desire not to repeat such a mistake.

I fulhearthedly agree.

Tribesman

09-02-2009, 11:42

I feel the same about the matter and as much as I know the germans preferrred to use there bomber force as ground support, and attacked primearly military targets if possible this is reinforced by the fact that they developed only light to medium bombers, but never had a really effective heavy bomber like the B-17s, B-24s and Lancasters of the US an UK.
No , that shows that the Germans were planning mainly short range missions over neighbouring territory. The B-17 was simply designed to be able to reach Hawaii and Alaska and the B-24 was designed to to the same . Likewise the British bombers were designed to cope with the vast distances of the empire.

I'm not sure but as much as I know the Luftwaffe even forbade any bombers to bomb anything near London without Hitlers personal orders.
Yes but that was after they had bombed Polish cities , then said they wouldn't bomb cities , then bombed cities again .
The Nazis had made diplomatic moves saying really honestly trust us and lets all agree not to bomb cities....but demonstrated that they wouldn't keep those agreements, so after Rotterdam their diplomatic moves for another agreement were rejected.

KrooK

09-02-2009, 22:05

Ahh Maniac belongs to poor party of Erika Steinbach.

Imagine that forcing Germans to leave Poland (but only those Germans who did not ran before Red Army) was not ethnic clearing. Into international law there is rule that has never been changed and no one even tried to do it. Defeated agressor is not a part of international law - everything can be done with its territory.

On east of Poland (east of Poland is not todays east of Poland but Wilno, Grodno and Lwow line) there have never been ethnic clearings. Maybe you explain me what do you mean by ethnic clearing? We might have different definitions. For me its massive killing all of population who at the beginning of clearing is not agressive to killing party.

Or maybe you wrote something about ethic clearings into Poland in 1939 - 1940. Come one - Germans love yelling about poor Germans who had to leave their fatherland into 1945-47 (despite 80% ran into 1944) but most of them forgot that into 1939-1940 half million of Poles had to leave their homes in the middle of hard winter and run.

Nice example could be that hypocrite woman called Erika Steinbach. She cry about her home, when she was born. Doing it she does not remember that her home was not ... here. It belonged to polish family forced to leave it.

Come one Maniac don't be such idiot like them. They have problem because they still don't understand that leaving these part of Poland was just a punishment for nazism. And for their behavior towards Poles. Rather light punishment in my opinion - Russians treated them much harder.

And one more for Dresden topic (I think we already talked about it). Into 1939 no German city has been bombed - Englishmen and Frenchmen only drop a leaflets. Then Germans bombed Coventry.....

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-02-2009, 22:22

Imagine that forcing Germans to leave Poland (but only those Germans who did not ran before Red Army) was not ethnic clearing. Into international law there is rule that has never been changed and no one even tried to do it. Defeated agressor is not a part of international law - everything can be done with its territory.

So you think that if someone starts a war, their people are all fair game? So whenever Poland started a war, the Polish people should have been driven away and slaughtered? Not to mention that there were a fair number of Germans in Poland before the war.

On east of Poland (east of Poland is not todays east of Poland but Wilno, Grodno and Lwow line) there have never been ethnic clearings. Maybe you explain me what do you mean by ethnic clearing? We might have different definitions.

Driving people out of a location on the basis of their ethnicity. Poland did this.

Or maybe you wrote something about ethic clearings into Poland in 1939 - 1940. Come one - Germans love yelling about poor Germans who had to leave their fatherland into 1945-47 (despite 80% ran into 1944) but most of them forgot that into 1939-1940 half million of Poles had to leave their homes in the middle of hard winter and run.

The difference there is that we Germans have acknowledged it. Poland, if you are anything to go by, steadfastly denies it or plays it down.

Come one Maniac don't be such idiot like them. They have problem because they still don't understand that leaving these part of Poland was just a punishment for nazism. And for their behavior towards Poles. Rather light punishment in my opinion - Russians treated them much harder.

The German people, even those living in Poland before the war, deserved punishment for Nazism? Death, destruction? Even the women and the children, children born long after the Nazis came to power?

You're a xenophobe, Krook, and nothing more. I'm quickly losing patience here.

And one more for Dresden topic (I think we already talked about it). Into 1939 no German city has been bombed - Englishmen and Frenchmen only drop a leaflets. Then Germans bombed Coventry.....

If we're talking only about German-British raids, you will find that firstly, this isn't true, and secondly, you may want to check out what Frederick Taylor had to say on the subject.

Papewaio

09-03-2009, 00:26

Tribesman

09-03-2009, 01:08

Defeated agressor is not a part of international law - everything can be done with its territory.

Its amazing, our resident Xenophobe Pole demostrates that not only does he not know history he demonstrastes that he doesn't know law either.

So I take it the attempt to rewrite the law you are making must be a reaction to the realisation that your version of history was shown to be bollox.

KrooK

09-03-2009, 11:17

slaughtered
When a (&(*Y)_ that German ())_I*_)*( were slaughetered? Tell me please. They really deserve it but they weren't. Germans started ethnic clearings. Into 1918-1939 Germans were minority but did everything they can against Poland. After war (and killing 1/6 of population in Poland) it could not be tolerated and Germans were sent to todays Germany. Due to German agression Poland lost whole east and Poles from that areas were forced to leave their homes and move west (or were sent to Syberia then 1/3 died). Most Germans support Hitler and support that agression or had benefits from it. So that they had to be punished. As I wrote - punishment was generally light.
All in all - Germany lost its territory because of Hitler. Blame him - rest was just a consequence.

Husar

09-03-2009, 14:50

Ah, I see, so basically you're saying you slaughtered noone even though it would have been perfectly fine to slaughter everybody and it could have been blamed on Hitler anyway.

Just like all Poles can be blamed for stealing cars. :rolleyes:

Tribesman

09-03-2009, 15:33

Due to German agression Poland lost whole east and Poles from that areas were forced to leave their homes and move west (or were sent to Syberia then 1/3 died).
But according to you the removal of those Poles from the east is entirely justified. or is it that it is only justified in your eyes if it is the poles removing other people.

Louis VI the Fat

09-03-2009, 16:10

Adrian II

09-03-2009, 16:42

So, um - what was teh topic? Ah yes:

I'm just sometimes baffled by the whole WW2-Wehmarcht-is-so-awesome crazyness going on on the internet. The Shoah, and the numerous other slaughters committed by Germany between 1939 and 1945 wouldn't have been possible without the Wehrmacht's approval and help.I think the Wehrmacht was both an excellent fighting machine and a representative of extreme evil. Both aspects appeal to a mostly youthful audience, i.e. boys i their teens who want to be awesome, do awesome things and admire awesome precedents in history.

However, the former most often predominates at the cost of the latter.

If you look at the magazines and websites in question, you will see that they enumerate, discuss and analyse the military feats of the Wehrmacht without ever touching on the crimes you mentioned. It is the military prowess of that army that fascinates people, therefore they don't want to know about the downside. As if one were possible without the other; as if Germany's military efficiency didn't come at a horrible price.

Only a fringe of lunatics admires or condones the excesses of the Wehrmacht.

Mouzafphaerre

09-03-2009, 16:55

.

On the topic, I agree with everyone.
How so? ~:confused:
.

Tristuskhan

09-03-2009, 17:51

So, I'll try to get back on topic and forget Poland (the country where horse dung smells so nice every neighbour is jealous to death:clown:) and advice everyone to read Omer Bartov's "Hitler's Army", very good for myth busting.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-03-2009, 18:04

When a (&(*Y)_ that German ())_I*_)*( were slaughetered? Tell me please. They really deserve it but they weren't. Germans started ethnic clearings. Into 1918-1939 Germans were minority but did everything they can against Poland. After war (and killing 1/6 of population in Poland) it could not be tolerated and Germans were sent to todays Germany. Due to German agression Poland lost whole east and Poles from that areas were forced to leave their homes and move west (or were sent to Syberia then 1/3 died). Most Germans support Hitler and support that agression or had benefits from it. So that they had to be punished. As I wrote - punishment was generally light.
All in all - Germany lost its territory because of Hitler. Blame him - rest was just a consequence.

Everything aside from your second last sentence is just completely :dizzy2:.

KrooK

09-03-2009, 21:22

The Polish - Hitler Pact of 1934. The grandstanding of the ferociously nationalistic Polish dictatorship, and their preference of Hitler over Stalin, twarted Western diplomatic efforts to maintain security in Europe:

http://books.google.com/books?id=nOA...mament&f=false

And did I mention yet how Poland, together with Hitler, feasted on the flesh of Czechoslovakia in 1938?

Sorry Louis - did not check that link because I see you wrote complete bullshit. Poland has similar pacts with III Reich and USSR. These countries were neighbour of Poland so its normal that neighbours sign non agressive treaties. Today Poland has this kind of pacts with Germany and practically all its neighbours.
And this pact did not break security into Europe. Other pact did it - pact into Locarno from 16.10.1925. France (oficially still ally of Poland) agreed that polish-german border can be changed (but french - german border can not) and France will not be preventing it. This completely broke Versal pact. For me pact when you say something like "do whatever you can with my ally but don't take me" is worse than pact something like "you are free men and we are - let's don't fight each other".

And Poland was same dictatorship like ... France into time of De Gaulle. Or maybe even not - Pilsudski was great lider and he was not a dictator/president/prime minister. De Gaulle was president.
Leaving a bit from our topic I would like to say that I like more Poland into years 1918-1939 than France 1918-1939 (France is proof that democracy full of populists became surrealism).

Talking about "feasting on the flesh of Czechoslovakia in 1938" is another proof of your lack of sources.
Its absolutely truth that polish army took territories called "Zaolzie" at polish - czech border. Question is .... why? Because into 1919 Czech army attacked Poland and took these areas. It was typical treason - Poland and Czechoslovakia had an agreements that area will be divided by ethnical border (there were about 140.000 Poles, 30.000 Czechs and 22.000 Germans). Czechs broke that agreements.
Into 1938 Poland wanted its area (historically it was polish area too). So all in all - Poles took what has been stolen earlier. Ahh one more - due to Poland people there were living into free country for a year longer. Otherwise they would be part of IIIrd Reich.

Tristuskhan

09-03-2009, 22:01

And this pact did not break security into Europe. Other pact did it - pact into Locarno from 16.10.1925. France (oficially still ally of Poland) agreed that polish-german border can be changed (but french - german border can not) and France will not be preventing it.

:idea2:Exactly the reason why France did not declare war on Germany in september 1939! Or did it? Wait, I have to check my sources:smash:

And Poland was same dictatorship like ... France into time of De Gaulle. Or maybe even not - Pilsudski was great lider and he was not a dictator/president/prime minister. De Gaulle was president.
Leaving a bit from our topic I would like to say that I like more Poland into years 1918-1939 than France 1918-1939 (France is proof that democracy full of populists became surrealism).

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: "sources" please!

edit: damn, you stubborn nationalism got me off-topic. What about "The Wehrmacht, History, Myth, Reality", KrooK?

Brenus

09-03-2009, 22:19

“And did I mention yet how Poland, together with Hitler, feasted on the flesh of Czechoslovakia in 1938” Or the support of Poland for Hitler intervention in Spain? Reason why during a period of time the French feared that the German attack on Poland was just a trap to attract the French Army out of the Maginot line…:beam:

The general admiration for the Wehrmacht and the “forgiveness” of its role in the repression and in the extermination is due to the need of Germany in the European Defence against the Red.
First was the fact that even the former enemies of the III Reich Germany accepted as a truth the superiority of the German soldier in combat. I did.
Then, the problem was to exonerate the German soldiers to crimes and to use these qualities at the new Alliance benefit…
The price to paid was amnesia. Well, it did work for Austria declared the 1st victim of Hitler, forgetting the real history (and Kurt Waldheim (sp?) becoming First Secretary of the UN).
But because now the RED are not as such a danger, we are allowed to have access to others witnesses, archives, and where the Red Army was deny of any heroism the Russian Army now heiress of the Tsarist Army which defeated Napoleon is recognised for what it was…

When I was doing some research about the Colonial Troops for another subject I discovered that between 1,500 – 3,000 black Africans Prisoners Of War had been killed by the Heer.
And French NCO and Officers who protested just joined the dead.
The casualties for the Troupes Coloniales during the Battle of France are 17,000 KIA or MIA.
The total casualties of the entire French Army during the battle of France is between 90,000 – 120,000.

Ironically, the first German defeats (in front of the French Army: Hannut and Gembloux) were forgotten thanks to the speed of the French and British armies defeat.
So the myth of the invincible Werhmacht was created.
Clean and nice. Rommel shoot a French General refusing to surrender but under the protection of a white flag during negociations? He is still seen as a perfect German General.

Tribesman

09-03-2009, 22:21

Talking about "feasting on the flesh of Czechoslovakia in 1938" is another proof of your lack of sources.
Its absolutely truth that polish army took territories called "Zaolzie" at polish - czech border. Question is .... why? Because into 1919 Czech army attacked Poland and took these areas. It was typical treason - Poland and Czechoslovakia had an agreements that area will be divided by ethnical border (there were about 140.000 Poles, 30.000 Czechs and 22.000 Germans). Czechs broke that agreements.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Well bugger me sideways, I was going to bring up a couple of different wars of Polish efforts to sieze territory and Poland reneging on negotiated deals asan attempt to create a greater Polish empire to further demonstrate Krooks very biased ignorance of history.
But Krook goes and delivers one on a plate.

So come on Krook give us your alternate reality version of the border disputes between the new nations of Poland and Czechoslovakia between WWI and WWII.
It should be good for a laugh at your expense.

Husar

09-04-2009, 02:35

.

How so? ~:confused:
.

Maybe to find out who actually reads my posts. ~;)

Adrian II

09-04-2009, 12:36

The general admiration for the Wehrmacht and the “forgiveness” of its role in the repression and in the extermination is due to the need of Germany in the European Defence against the Red.That's half he truth, I think.

Wehrmacht complicity and crimes were not forgotten. They were not prosecuted because denazification had to stop somewhere and because the speedy reconstruction of West Germany took precedence, which was in the interest of all the western allies including the FRG itself. If it hadn't been for the iron curtain and the Soviet threat, this issue would have been sooner and better adressed. It is in this atmosphere that the myth grew that the Wehrmacht was merely patriotic and had tried to protect the nation from the Bolcheviks. A backward projection, if you want, of what the West German army was expected to do from 1951 onward.

The admiration for the Wehrmacht however has totally different roots. It is of the same nature as the admiration for Spartan warriors or the Soviet ice hockey team. Admiration for symbols of physical prowess, cool-bloodedness and accomplishment. The human and political cost they entailed are easily glossed over.

Maybe to find out who actually reads my posts. ~;)

What posts? :dozey:

KrooK

09-04-2009, 17:25

Or the support of Poland for Hitler intervention in Spain?
Hehehe and here you shot. And you would be right if ... Poland did not support any side.
Poland did not support any side and was selling equiptment to both of them. However most Poles fight
on republican side - like XIII Polish International Brigade.

And one more - Spanish civil was was not so clear like you see on west of europe. What would happen if republic won? Another USSR - this time on west?

Ahh and one more. France really declared war against Germans. But I'm sure that one polish company killed more germans into 1939 than whole french army.

Azathoth

09-04-2009, 19:38

Ahh and one more. France really declared war against Germans. But I'm sure that one polish company killed more germans into 1939 than whole french army.

Never mind, you were talking about 1939 specifically.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-04-2009, 19:48

It is in this atmosphere that the myth grew that the Wehrmacht was merely patriotic and had tried to protect the nation from the Bolcheviks.

In fairness, that was why some people joined the Wehrmacht. How many is up in the air, as I haven't seen statistics for it.

Tribesman

09-04-2009, 21:15

And one more - Spanish civil was was not so clear like you see on west of europe.
Thats rich coming from a crazy nationalist who has no clarity of vision at all .

Tristuskhan

09-04-2009, 21:34

In fairness, that was why some people joined the Wehrmacht.

Did not know they had the choice to join or not....

Louis VI the Fat

09-04-2009, 22:06

The admiration for the Wehrmacht however has totally different roots. It is of the same nature as the admiration for Spartan warriors or the Soviet ice hockey team. Admiration for symbols of physical prowess, cool-bloodedness and accomplishment. The human and political cost they entailed are easily glossed over.Lingering propaganda, I say. As every screenplay writer in Hollywood knows, a hero is only as good as his antagonist. Germany was made to look strong, during and after the war.

I don't think the Wehrmacht was all that great. What did they really accomplish anyway?

Just two succesful Blitzkrieg campaigns. A bit of a one-trick pony then. Not even capable of keeping the ground they conquered. I am not all that impressed by the world's second largest power losing to starving, ill-equipped Slavic peasants. Outside of their armoured vehicles, the Wehrmacht didn't amount to much. In gritty one-on-one combat, they lost to pretty much everybody, from the snow and mud of Stalingrad, to the Yugoslavian hills, to the desert of North Africa.

Germany losing to the Soviet Union, that's like high-tech Japan losing to Brazil. A complete laugh. Even a mere handful of Finns managed to halt these Russians.

With the exception of Italy, I can't think of another military force being as incompetent in WWII as Germany's. Yes, that includes France. Miserably incompetent as she was, at least France lost to a country nearly twice the inhabitants, twice the GDP, and fully prepared for war. Germany, for its part, had a headstart and the element of surprise, then lost to a country twice as large too, but only a quarter of their GDP, and fully unprepared.

Rubbish, the Wehrmacht. You shelter in an armoured vehicle, drive it into enemy territory, shoot some unarmed locals while proclaiming yourself an Ubermensch, and then you run all the way back crying for mama when you meet someone your own size.

My local street punks are tougher than that.

Louis VI the Fat

09-04-2009, 22:21

In fairness, that was why some people joined the Wehrmacht. Well that's the tragedy of it all, isn't it? Hitler's deceit and treason against Germany.

A democratic Germany would easily have confined Bolhevism. And had wiped it off the face of the earth in the event of war. Then Germany would've remained unoccupied, unmolested, undivided, and not stripped of its Eastern parts.

And then the Wehrmacht would've been disciplined, cool-blooded, and accomplished.

As it was, under Hitler, German troops stood no chance under this insane leadership, these morale problems, and those endless diversions into inflicting misery against unarmed civilians.

What a waste of non-German and of German blood. Both so needlessly and wantonly spilled.

Edit: It's the common logical error of revisionists and Hitler lovers*. In reality, the one, and only one, thing that stood between Germany and the defeat of Bolshevism, was nazism.

*(to be clear: by which I don't mean you, EMFM)

Adrian II

09-04-2009, 22:22

I don't think the Wehrmacht was all that great. What did they really accomplish anyway?Fight a war on six fronts.
My local street punks are tougher than that.Look Louis, much as I appreciate your combative style and humour, I must point out that a discussion in the Monastery should be different from that in the Backroom. It should be friendly and scholarly and spamless.

Already some members are hesitant to post here because they fear they will be flamed by nationalists, by political extremists or by all-round bullies such as you and me.

I am as guilty as you are, and I propose that we call it a day.

Louis VI the Fat

09-04-2009, 22:32

I must point out that a discussion in the Monastery should be different from that in the Backroom. It should be friendly and scholarly and spamless.The Monastery has rules to which I must oblige.

There is a clear reason for the combative points I raised, stated by me in my first post in this thread:

Quote: When nazism looks powerful or controversial or totally awesome, it will always have fans. When it looks plain vulgar, not so much.

Busting the myth of nazi invincibility is a means of combatting it. And 'Nie Wieder', I am afraid, is not far from my mind whenever the topic is raised.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-04-2009, 23:27

Well that's the tragedy of it all, isn't it? Hitler's deceit and treason against Germany.

A democratic Germany would easily have confined Bolhevism. And had wiped it off the face of the earth in the event of war. Then Germany would've remained unoccupied, unmolested, undivided, and not stripped of its Eastern parts.

And the communists never would have controlled the East. The positive is that it was a final kick in the teeth to Hitler. The negative (which far outweighs the positive) is that half of our country and the rest of Eastern Europe languished under Soviet oppression for so long.

And those were the top two choices in Germany in 1933. :thumbsdown:

As it was, under Hitler, German troops stood no chance under this insane leadership, these morale problems, and those endless diversions into inflicting misery against unarmed civilians.

Exactly. And we paid the price of that error, both our soldiers at the time (some of whom may well have killed with relish, but the majority of whom were utterly disgusted), and our population afterward (as well as the rest of Eastern Europe).

That being said, in response to your earlier comment, the Wehrmacht was really very good in terms of military prowess, which is why it has students from all across the political and military spectrum. Or it was very lucky.

Edit: It's the common logical error of revisionists and Hitler lovers*. In reality, the one, and only one, thing that stood between Germany and the defeat of Bolshevism, was nazism.

*(to be clear: by which I don't mean you, EMFM)

This is true, but if I may say something here, I'd like to say this:

I know what you mean by revisionism, but I think we have to distinguish between legitimate revisionism, or the reexamination of facts done in a professional and historically minded light, and revisionism done for a purpose, namely by the Nazi and Soviet lovers you mentioned. One is good, necessary, and probably makes up for a majority of the history we study, and one is a pure evil to anyone who takes their history seriously.

Did not know they had the choice to join or not....

Some people did, some didn't.

Tristuskhan

09-04-2009, 23:33

Some people did, some didn't.

I'm curious to know who, among german men, had the choice of not joining the Wehrmacht.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-04-2009, 23:34

I'm curious to know who, among german men, had the choice of not joining the Wehrmacht.

Those who worked in other crucial industries.

Adrian II

09-04-2009, 23:38

Busting the myth of nazi invincibility is a means of combatting it.Underestimating evil is not.

I am reminded of an anecdote I believe I have told here before, an anecdote about Jean-Paul Sartre's visit to the Sovjet Union in 1954. When a Russian guide showed him through the remaining war rubble of Stalingrad, Sartre was heard to mutter 'Incredible. Incredible.' The guide wanted to capitalise on his incredulity: 'Incredible, the amount of destruction the nazis have wrought here, isn't it?' Sartre: 'No, no! Its incredible that they had come this far!'

The Wehrmacht was an excellent war machine. Its specialised units such as armoured troops, airborne (Skorzeny), desert troops (Rommel) and Waffen SS were among the best of their time, if not the best.

Like I said earlier on, those who admire the Wehrmacht tend to gloss over its crimes and complicity. The reverse may be true as well. Maybe those who concentrate on its crimes and complicity all too often turn a blind eye to its murderous efficiency. If we want something like this to 'nie wieder' happen, we had better take into account the sheer, brutal force that evil is able to muster in this world. Its a sobering thought, I admit.

KrooK

09-04-2009, 23:53

And here Maniac you finish into serious post while you started from funny.

I think (of ocurse its only mine point of view) if Germans did not start ww2 we would not have Soviet Union into half of europe. This country into 1939 was simply too weak to conquer eastern europe (winter war was good example).

Adrian II - I can't agree with you. All the time when Wermacht was winning, they had powerful air support (Poland) of bad enemy (France, first part of war vs USSR). In the moment when enemy started using same tactics and had same equipment (or sacrificing its population - USSR), Wermacht stopped winning. Notice that at Crete elite Wermacht units had terrible loses. In polish campaign Wermacht fought bad - Luftwaffe saved them many times. Some divisions were better than polish, hovewer most of army was simply worse (good example is Mokra battle when elite tank division lost to cavarly brigade). Into France Wermacht had experience from Poland and bad opponent (we all known jokes about french morale). However since Germany lost control of air, Wermacht started losing.

And if you are talking about best German units.
Paratropers were worse than commando or Popski' army.
Polish infantry divisions took Monte Cassino.
Russians liked taking SS soldiers (or better would be say - not taking :D)

Adrian II

09-05-2009, 00:46

Notice that at Crete elite Wermacht units had terrible loses.Let me address a few points, starting with this one.

The German airborne invasion of Crete was a historic first. The fact that it took heavy losses does not disqualify either the daring novelty of the thing or its success. Losses were part of the game; after all the Germans landed in extremely hostile territory with roughly 25.000 airborne troops against 40.000 entrenched Allied troops.

The important thing here is that they won.

In fact the Allies were so impressed by Unternehmen Merkur that it made them decide to build large airborne divisions of their own.

The rest of your examples seems to suffer from the same lack of balance.

I don't understand why you ascribe the Allied victory at Monte Cassino to the Polish troops. Polish exile troops played a valiant role on various fronts in Europe, even in my own country (Sosabowski's paratroopers). But without downplaying their contribution in any way I think we should recognize that they played a minor part in operations. At Monte Cassino they launched the final attack together with French troops and prevailed, but only after other Allied troops had softened the Germans up. Even so, that battle saw a mere 20.000 German dead against 54.000 dead Allies. Hardly proof of Polish or Allied superiority, except in numbers.

And by the way, this final Polish/French victory at Monte Cassino was made possible only by Allied control of the air. Did Allied air support make up for the weakness of Polish troops at Monte Cassino, just as, in your view, the Luftwaffe made up for the Wehrmacht's weaknesses elsewere? I dont think so.

ll in all I don't think your examples come anywhere near to a fair judgment.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-05-2009, 00:50

The Luftwaffe was part of the Wehrmacht, it wasn't an external organization that came in to battles to save it. That is how the Wehrmacht was designed.

Tristuskhan

09-05-2009, 01:00

Those who worked in other crucial industries.

True enough. Thanks. But we must remind that by the end of the war even crucial industries (like V2 or jet engines) used an enormous proportion of slave labourers.

Omer Bartov's theory (one of his theories) about the impressive cohesion Wehrmacht kept until the end is that in order to maintain combat discipline under overwhelming odds the german command had to let their men loose when out of the combat zone. Beeing able to express their own brutality to compensate the brutality they got from their officers when on frontline duty. Sorry if my words are a bit confusing, I just want to give food for thoughts.

Krook, I wonder how, if german units were so.... average, how did they keep fighting efficiently until the last days?
And more (but just to bother you), I must remind you that at the time Poles took Cassino, Germans were already evacuating the place since their whole front had been flanked by french colonial troops. No prejudice to the courage of Polish infantery, of course.

Brenus

09-05-2009, 22:54

Polish dictator agreed with Hitler intervention in Spain in the name of anti-communism. A reason you can fully agree with if I follow well your interventions in this forum.:beam:

“I don't think the Wehrmacht was all that great. What did they really accomplish anyway?” And if you compare with the Japanese the Wehrmacht was in fact slow. Merely the same speed than Napoleon who, him succeeded to take Moscow…:laugh4::laugh4:

The myth of the German Invincibility was invented by the vanquished to excuse the failure of the Generals (especially true for the French) and by the German for propaganda reasons.

The quality of the Allies foot soldiers was perhaps less in term of training but the fighting spirit was as good as the Germans one when conditions for fighting were a minimum balanced.
And Krook example is a good one.
Same for the battle of France e.g :
“the battle of Hannut is the first big tank battle of WW2 with 411 French tanks (3e DLM and 2e DLM) facing 674 German tanks (4.PzD and 3.PzD). On 12th May only the 4.PzD is really involved, the 3.PzD having completely crossed the Meuse River only for the 13th May. The 3e DLM (general Langlois) will have to face directly 2 Panzerdivisionen : 3.PzD (general Stumpff) and 4.PzD (general Stever). The 2e DLM (general Bougrain) will be only partially implicated. Therefore the 674 German tanks including 132 Panzer III and Panzer IV will mainly be opposed to 239 French tanks including 88 Somua S35 tanks.
Unlike the French troops, the Germans have a strong air support.
During 2 days the 3e DLM (and the 2e DLM) managed to stop 2 Panzerdivisionen and to inflict them heavy losses

Gembloux: The terrain is nevertheless favourable to a tank attack and in the skies the Luftwaffe has the air superiority. Hoepner was supported by the VIII.Fliegerkorps (general von Richtofen) with 300 Ju87 "Stuka" dive bombers and 42 Hs123 "assault" biplanes and about 130 Me109.
According to many testimonies and battle reports of the Germans themselves (Gembloux, Abbeville and others), the French artillery was very efficient in 1940 and it seems to have been often superior to the German artillery : fast responding, high rate of fire and very accurate. The French gunners and forward observers new their job and defeated many German attacks.

The assault of 2 Panzerdivisionen supported by 2 infantry divisions have been stopped on an improvised line by 2 French infantry divisions. Hoepner had actually the order to pierce the French line in Gembloux, in which he failed. The battle of Gembloux can eventually be seen as a French Pyrrhic tactical/operational victory but it is only short-lived (the German achieved a breakthrough around Sedan during the same time) and the human cost is very high. On 15th May evening, the French 1st army, although undefeated, is ordered to move back due to the collapse of the 9th army on the Meuse River.”
Extract from Axis History Forum by David Lehman

“I'm curious to know who, among German men, had the choice of not joining the Wehrmacht”: The one who were joining the SS…:beam:

“The Wehrmacht was an excellent war machine. Its specialised units such as armoured troops, airborne (Skorzeny), desert troops (Rommel) and Waffen SS were among the best of their time, if not the best.” Agree and disagree. What made the extraordinary war machine was the ability of the German to recover from blows that should have knock down any others armies… From retreating units, decimated and running away, with the adjunction of 3rd line units and auxiliaries, they succeeded to reorganised and maintained the lines e.g. after Falaise, and all along the Eastern retreat. Or even Rommel…

KrooK

09-06-2009, 22:22

Polish dictator agreed with Hitler intervention in Spain in the name of anti-communism. A reason you can fully agree with if I follow well your interventions in this forum.

Sorry but here I completely don't understand you. Really.
I don't know who could be that dictator (I assume you mean spanish civil war 1936-1939).
Please - give me lux perpetua and let me understand. I don't think you mean Pilsudski. You mean?

To reply battle mentioned by you... interesting.
Battle of Wizna - 7-10 september 1939.
720 polish soldiers, 6 cannons, 42 machineguns, 2 anti tank guns vs 42000 Germans, 350 tanks, 637 cannons, luftwaffe support lead by Guderian. His corps was stopped for 3 days.
This is unbalanced condition. And this is fighting spirit.

Louis VI the Fat

09-06-2009, 22:57

Sorry but here I completely don't understand you. Really.
I don't know who could be that dictator (I assume you mean spanish civil war 1936-1939).
Please - give me lux perpetua and let me understand. I don't think you mean Pilsudski. You mean?I think Brenus indeed means Pilsudski, the raving antisemitic Dictator who had eighty parliamentarians tortured and killed because they opposed his semi-fascist Lebensraum policy.

Strike For The South

09-06-2009, 23:13

I think that with a birds eye view, a litany of scoures, and 70 years of hindsight it is quite easy to say that the German Wehrmacht was an evil thing and the men whom populated knew what was happening and were happy to take part in it.

While I'm sure the testrone pumping jingonism that it offered was appealing to many young men (esp. considering they had grown up in an embarassed Germany) and some did belive in the superman myth. I don't think it's that far a stretch to assume many men joined becuase they felt a duty and an honor to the fatherland. Well that and there friends were doing it.

When you acknowledge that the atrocities were comitted and seen by a very small number of men. Many of the regular soliders simply put it out of mind or thought it was necesarry.

While this may seem like flimsy reasoning. I am always reminded of the American interment of Americans (I don't like using the term Japaneese, It sterlizes a horrid chapter in our history). The USA defender of freedom, country that was in no danger of being attacked from the ground took and held some of its citzens for four years. On the basis that they might be spying. Nevermind that German and Italian Americans were spared from this sort of interment.

If the Americans had lost no doubt that would've been a Japaneese headline.

I'm not making an excuse for the attrocities just saying that the whole suituation may be a bit more idosynchratic than this disscussion is making it out to be.

Adrian II

09-07-2009, 02:07

The myth of the German Invincibility was invented by the vanquished to excuse the failure of the Generals (especially true for the French) and by the German for propaganda reasons.No, it arose during the war and for good reason. It was only the battle of Stalingrad that destroyed the Werhmacht's reputation of invincibility. Even so, until the end of the war the opposition would usually only attack German positions when they had a clear numerical majority plus control of the air.

The fact that some French troops managed to hold them off for a day or two, as in your examples, doesn't diminish the fact that they beat the British and the French on the continent, very quickly and decisively. And any protestations that they 'only' had better materiel, better morale, better training or better officers merely reinforces my point that, on the whole, they were better. It is particularly striking that the Luftwaffe support is regarded by some as somehow 'unfair', as an extraneous circumstance like the weather or a flu epidemic. But like the gentlemen said above, the Luftwaffe support was fully integrated - as were the largely self-sufficient armoured columns that managed so many break-thoughs.
I think that with a birds eye view, a litany of scoures, and 70 years of hindsight it is quite easy to say that the German Wehrmacht was an evil thing and the men whom populated knew what was happening and were happy to take part in it.That's three different things. The first part certainly holds up: it was an evil organisation, even if not all members were aware of their role or happy about it.

The internment of Japanese in the US during WWII was peanuts compared to the inhumane feats of the Wehrmacht and the Einsatzgruppen that operated in its wake.

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-07-2009, 05:00

Polish exile troops played a valiant role on various fronts in Europe, even in my own country (Sosabowski's paratroopers).
In my opinion one of the most heartbreaking facets of Market Garden. Anyway, on to topic...

The Wehrmacht (first time I spelled it without setting off the check! ^_^ ) was indeed a formidable organization, and even at the end of the war it was getting about a 1.2 to 1 kill ratio against the Allies. They obviously weren't invincible but they also shouldn't be casually dismissed. It is also seems obvious given the records we have that the Wehrmacht was just as complicit as the Waffen SS in the various atrocities committed by German armed forces.

The more interesting question to me would be a "what if" - what if the Wehrmacht didn't commit actual atrocities throughout the war? Wouldn't they still have a moral responsibility for military serving the Nazi regime? And wouldn't that responsibility apply to individuals who joined (without compulsion) the Wehrmacht during the Nazi era?

Tribesman

09-07-2009, 08:43

Battle of Wizna - 7-10 september 1939.
720 polish soldiers, 6 cannons, 42 machineguns, 2 anti tank guns vs 42000 Germans, 350 tanks, 637 cannons, luftwaffe support lead by Guderian. His corps was stopped for 3 days.
This is unbalanced condition. And this is fighting spirit.

No that is a case of stupidity involving vehicles attempting to cross a river and a swamp against fortifications

Furunculus

09-07-2009, 12:24

Busting the myth of nazi invincibility is a means of combatting it. And 'Nie Wieder', I am afraid, is not far from my mind whenever the topic is raised.

i'm going to stick with Max Hastings and Anthony Evans on this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht

Some historians, such as British author and ex-newspaper editor Max Hastings, consider that "...there's no doubt that man for man, the German army was the greatest fighting force of the second world war". Similar views were also explained in his book "Overlord: D-Day and the battle for Normandy", while in the book World War II : An Illustrated Miscellany, Anthony Evans writes: 'The German soldier was very professional and well trained, aggressive in attack and stubborn in defence. He was always adaptable, particularly in the later years when shortages of equipment were being felt'. However, their integrity was compromised by war crimes, especially those committed on the eastern front. They were over-extended and out-maneuvered before Moscow in 1941, and in North Africa and Stalingrad in 1942, and from 1942/3 onwards, were in constant retreat. Other Axis powers fought with them, especially Hungary and Romania, as well as many volunteers from other nations.

KrooK

09-07-2009, 15:11

I think Brenus indeed means Pilsudski, the raving antisemitic Dictator who had eighty parliamentarians tortured and killed because they opposed his semi-fascist Lebensraum policy.

And I think you are are both western concentrated. I will not say anything about your intelligence but famous House quotation would be best. Spanish civil war was since 1936 to 1939 - it started when Pilsudski was dead. I know that his spirit was strong into Poles but not as strong.

And I don't know who told you such a idiotic lies about Pilsudski. Maybe hippies from french universities (they were always on left side) or USSR propaganda (in France you listen to them since 1917). If you mean sending some MPs to Brzesc Citadel - yes he DID. Some former MPs accused of stealing public property of great size became arrested and sentenced. Good job. None of them became killed!!!! Highest sencence was 3 years of prison - for massive stealing its rather not much.

And one more to reply on your "fascist" accusation - you are (what House like to tell). Pilsudski was actually absolutely anti-fascist. He was rather socialist but he had to take leadership because country was in danged or fascist dictature and was ruled by criminals. Then he save country. Thats why his times are being called sanacja - which can be translated as healing.
Maybe you ought to read his biography - but not the one written at Lomonosov university and then translated by french commies.

And come on - tell us more about French efforts to make Europe safe country. Tell us about Locarno and Munich.

Adrian II

09-07-2009, 18:48

And I don't know who told you such a idiotic lies about Pilsudski.Any new thoughts about the Wehrmacht?
:coffeenews:

Tribesman

09-07-2009, 21:03

Any new thoughts about the Wehrmacht?

They were not Polish:idea2:

Meneldil

09-07-2009, 22:11

Yet another topic plagued by Krook and his nationalistic laughable mumbo-jumbo.

Know what dude, you're doing precisely what I said in my last post. Pointing the finger at everyone (the lame and incompetent frenchmen, the baby-eating germans who should have been whiped off the face of earth, the cannibalistic russians, and so on), without accepting any criticism made toward your country. No nothing.
In your opinion, the history of the last 10 centuries is nothing but an international plot to hamper the Great Nation of Poland (tm). I've yet to see a topic in which you'd say 'oh yeah, what poland did that day wasn't really nice'.
Obviously, it will never happen as you're too stubborn, too brainwashed, too racist and overall too much of a 19th-century loney.

Even your last topic about the beginning of WW2 is another 'Poor Poland fought and won the war almost by itself' sillyness. Would you care about the millions of people who died during the war? No, of course, writing a rant about how Poland has been abandonned is so much funnier.

In short, you've won. I now see that Poland is the greatest country on earth. Have fun and enjoy your own rants.

Adrian II

09-07-2009, 22:24

Guys, this is the Monastery, not the Backroom. This place is for scholarly discussion, using sources and arguments.

We can discuss the topic perfectly well, have fun, be polite and keep Krook on board all at the same time.

It happens far too often that a Backroom topic is taken to the Monastery and continued in the same Backroom vein.

Just keep it in the Backroom then. :idea2:

Louis VI the Fat

09-07-2009, 22:47

I've been had! The first four sources that I google, turn up 10, 20, 30 and 60 imprisoned parliamentarians, with punishments ranging from three years in prison to death. The lower numbers seem the more reliable source. Too lazy to get to the bottom of it and read scientific sources. Pilsudski 1930, Brest case for those interested.

I shall not pursue the other aspects (why do I not listen to that little voice of reason in the back of my head* and leave it be in the first place? :wall:) and now return to the regular monestary schedule, and debate only the Wehrmacht.

Have our supersoldiers been defeated yet, or are they still valiantly defending the Eastern Front? :tongue:

*Or is that AII shouting?

KrooK

09-07-2009, 22:48

They were not Polish
Not at all :) Grandfather of our prime minister was a member.

Meneldil - you are sarcastic, but you are ... right:)
I think that
Poland is the greatest country on earth You can think that your country is greatest too. This is called patriotism.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-07-2009, 22:54

I think that You can think that your country is greatest too. This is called patriotism.

Patriotism and rabid nationalism are not the same thing. I am proud of my country, and there is very little I would like to see more than a strong, free, and peaceful Germany. But I do not deny crimes committed by my country, and I recognize that it has faults. I feel shame for some things my country has done, and pride for others.

In your entire career on this forum, on the other hand, I have never seen you criticize anything Polish. Ever. Your country, to you, appears to be infallible. This is nationalism, and not civic nationalism, but misplaced and rabid nationalism that is often intermingled with xenophobia.

Brenus

09-07-2009, 23:01

Krook, the Polish effort for Europe safety was the German-Polish non-aggression pact which made Poland the first country having very good relationship with the Nazi Regime, the seize by Poland of Tesin from Czechoslovakia and the Lithuanian Polish incident.:beam:

“It arose during the war and for good reason. It was only the battle of Stalingrad that destroyed the Werhmacht's reputation of invincibility.” Agree. But it was a myth.
The French with Petain had no interest in exposing their failures and were keener to blame the Front Populaire for a state of un-preparation and the absolute disaster of their chosen strategy. So to blame the troops they sent to the battle without the proper training and to give to the Werhmacht this aura took from them the blame.
The German as well for other reasons forgot their hiccups during the battle of France overwhelmed by their victory over the French and the British.
However, the seeds of their defeat in the East were there.

“Even so, until the end of the war the opposition would usually only attack German positions when they had a clear numerical majority plus control of the air.” This is exactly what the Werhmacht did in 1939-40, creating a numerical superiority at the important point (the Iron Fist), concentrating the forces achieving a local superiority…
In fact the “pro” German sides always complain how unfair the fight in Russia was, completely forgetting how unfair the fight against Poland, Holland, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Greece, Denmark and Norway was.
They are ready to acclame the German superiority when it was them who had it all, but feel as a deep injustice when the German had the change back...
Air superiority was fine with the Stuka but not with the Il-2…

“The fact that some French troops managed to hold them off for a day or two, as in your examples, doesn't diminish the fact that they beat the British and the French on the continent, very quickly and decisively.” No contest. The flanking of the Magino line and the Ardennes crossing was a daring plan that could have ended in a disaster for the German (if the French HQ had had faith in its Intelligence and in the pictures taken by its Air recon).
But as Guderian stated, his panzers were not there to fight the others tanks but to stop them to fight in cutting them from their supplies. That was the genius plan. It worked in France because the country is small… It failed in Russia, as Von Runstedt predicted, because the Russian had space, no roads, and no petrol stations and could recovered.

Tribesman

09-07-2009, 23:01

This place is for scholarly discussion, using sources and arguments.

PolandPolandPoland
is neither scholarly or an arguement , its just nationalist nonsense

Adrian II

09-07-2009, 23:57

This is exactly what the Werhmacht did in 1939-40, creating a numerical superiority at the important point (the Iron Fist), concentrating the forces achieving a local superiority…Thus demonstrating superior organisation, transport and logistics. In these areas the German army had been superior to the French army (and other European armies) since 1870. It flies in the face. Why deny the obvious? And the inevitable, maybe, since Germany after 1870 was also the most advanced, most modern country of the world. And even when the Wehrmacht attacked with inferior numbers and in difficult terrain, they often did remarkably well. I already mentioned Krete.
In fact the “pro” German sides always complain how unfair the fight in Russia was, completely forgetting how unfair the fight against Poland, Holland, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Greece, Denmark and Norway was.And the United States, and Britain... Germany took on half the modern world, fighting an alliance with vastly superior population numbers, resources (oil, anyone?) and strategic depth, and survived for over five years. That in itself proves my point.

Papewaio

09-08-2009, 00:08

The German airborne invasion of Crete was a historic first. The fact that it took heavy losses does not disqualify either the daring novelty of the thing or its success. Losses were part of the game; after all the Germans landed in extremely hostile territory with roughly 25.000 airborne troops against 40.000 entrenched Allied troops.

Looking at that battle it does show up the importance of communications (like when you retake an airfield send in reinforcements) and logistics. Strange that fate would have these two fight again and again on several occasions.

The 40,000 went on to form the 40,000 thieves, boot strapping themselves up to mechanised infantry... :laugh4:

Crete like the U-boat wolfpack taught those under pressure what worked and what didn't. The allies also learnt about close air support and apparently better ways to kamikaze then the Japanese were using (naturally they didn't let on about that one).

Surprise, combined arms, mobility and communications all improved on both sides during WWII.

Wehrmacht started with some of the best mixes in place, they did not however have the same industrial might as others to keep up. They failed on the industrial capacity and logistics side in comparison to the Allies. Not as sexy but the Merchant Fleets of the Allies are probably a key advantage they had in WWII.

Snite

09-08-2009, 03:58

The Wermacht was no invincible, that is true, but I don't see the point in trying to argure that they weren't superior. Throughout the war the Wermacht inflicted more casualties than they received, and IIRC Patton was the only commander who consistently inflicted more casualties than he suffered, and don't ask for a cite I just remember what I read not where. That's my failing I suppose.

Let's take Stalingrad which some people use to show that the Germans could be beaten: 300,000 Wermacht encircled inside Stalingrad with no way out. 1,100,000 Russian casualties later 60,000 Germans surrender and Stalingrad is officially no longer a contested city.(interesting side-note: the Germans were so tenacious that the Russians found many of them had carved their frost-bitten fingers and hands into shapes sufficient enough to keep them pullling the trigger by jerking their arms back)

The Russians inflicted 80% of Germany's total casualty figures for the war and lost 11,000,000 men in the process. That one is from MHQ or one of the other popular history magazines. Maybe Armchair General. So in effect, the British, French, Polish, Czech(resistance), USA, Norway, and everyone else other than the Soviet Union who fought against the Wermacht only inflicted 20% of Germany's total casualties. And the Germans consistently inflicted heavier losses than they took.

Everyone involved in WWII likes to brag about how "we kicked ass", but if it wasn't so politcally incorrect for them to do so, Germans have priorities on bragging rights.

Noncommunist

09-08-2009, 05:48

No, it arose during the war and for good reason. It was only the battle of Stalingrad that destroyed the Werhmacht's reputation of invincibility. Even so, until the end of the war the opposition would usually only attack German positions when they had a clear numerical majority plus control of the air.

What about the battle of Moscow? Wouldn't that have done some damage to the aura given that they failed to take the capital of Russia?

Louis VI the Fat

09-08-2009, 15:40

Germany took on half the modern world, fighting an alliance with vastly superior population numbers, resources (oil, anyone?) and strategic depth, and survived for over five years. That in itself proves my point.Ah, but therein lies the fault. Germany didn't take on half the world and nearly won. Germany twice fought its equals, one by one. And won one, lost one.

The geopolitical map of Europe was radically different in 1939 from today.

Germany was relatively far, far bigger than today. Germany was as large as France and the UK combined, in population and GDP.
Germany could draw on the support of half of Europe. Many as outright allies, sveral as ideological friends.
A small remaining part of Europe was democratic. Thinly spread in Europe, less than a dozen countries. Only three of which were willing and capable to put up a fight - France, Belgium and the UK.
The last bit was the Soviet Union. Large, but underdeveloped, recovering from famine, civil war, terror, and kept together only by brutal oppression. Not, at first glance, a formidable opponent.

So half of Europe was (semi)fascist and friendly to Germany, a state second only the US in sheer size. Here's the Wehrmacht's 'stunning' achievements:

- Several isolated easy pickings against negligable resistance in 1939-1940.
- Fighting the three democracies that were willing and capable to put up a fight: France, Belgium and the UK. The first two were crushed within weeks, the UK was driven out of Europe within days. This is the one genius campaign of any relevance that the Wehrmacht fought.
- Fighting the Soviet Union. A nation in ruins, semi-developed. Germany somehow managed to lose, in a time better measured in months instead of years.

Germany underachieved in WWII. The miracle is that Germany managed to lose. The world's second largest power, that had been preparing for Total War for years, that faced an opposition in disarray in both major campaigns it fought, that was befriended by half a continent, and that had the luxury of not having to fight its two major campaigns simultaneously.

I think Germany did much better in WWI. Geopolitical circumstances were far less beneficial. A two-front war had to be fought. Yet still Germany managed to win one front, and pretty much reach a stalemate on the other. Only the inevitable loss through attrition caused defeat.

Whereas in WWII, the Wehrmacht under much more favourable circumstances managed a crushing defeat fairly soon after the war had started. Germany was rubbish in WWII.

Strike For The South

09-08-2009, 16:41

That's three different things. The first part certainly holds up: it was an evil organisation, even if not all members were aware of their role or happy about it.

The internment of Japanese in the US during WWII was peanuts compared to the inhumane feats of the Wehrmacht and the Einsatzgruppen that operated in its wake.

But the USA's back was never agianst the wall esp. in Europe.

I never knew we had so many bright historical minds here! I wish WWII was my specialty.

Sarmatian

09-08-2009, 16:51

There's definitely some truth in what you say Louis, but you're making one big mistake concerning Soviet Union. At least in military technology, Soviet Union was on par with Germany, even ahead in some areas.

In terms of doctrines, they were again on par. Arguably, Red Army up to mid-1930's was world's leader in mobile warfare. The reason for such pathetic show at the onset of Barbarossa was in fact that new equipment was still insignificant in numbers and lacked practical testing, they were defending a border that wasn't fortified properly and most importantly, their leadership was extremely poor, here I mean political leadership, not military leadership.

USSR could afford to lose territory several times bigger than France before they got their act together.

Even with all that, Wehrmacht managed to penetrate deep in Russia. That is a feat. In hindsight, it is easy to notice that conquering USSR was simply out of Wehrmacht's capabilities so the fact that they managed to reach Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad and that it managed to fight the Red Army for four years is very much worthy of admiration.

On the other hand, this doesn't mean that Wehrmacht "fanboyism" is justified. Germany had huge GDP, production of most of strategic resources besides oil was on par with Soviet Union, even in oil the difference wasn't so great while oil fields in Romania were working at 100% efficiency. The total lack of oil for Germany happened after 1944 when SU knocked Romania out of the war. Germany, together with minor Axis allies wasn't that much outnumbered by Soviet Union, they even had numerical advantage until December 1941.

So, the image of super-soldiers, heavily outnumbered, without practically any resources and equipment fighting against entire world for 6 years certainly isn't true, but I'd say that man for man, Wehrmacht was the best fighting force of the WW2. Not by much but I think they deserve that recognition.

Husar

09-08-2009, 17:30

Ah, but therein lies the fault. Germany didn't take on half the world and nearly won. Germany twice fought its equals, one by one. And won one, lost one.

I think you are oversimplifying things a bit.

For such a big and powerful empire as you describe Germany in WW2 the Battle over Britain was a really poor show and the huge Empire was lacking planes, then gave up because they needed them in Russia and could hardly replace their losses over Britain while Britain could produce fighters by the dozens, that sounds a bit weird compared to your point that Germany had far more industry compared to everyone else in Europe.

And then you count only the democracies as fighting enemies? What the about the Netherlands for example, whose marine infantry caused quite some trouble for the invaders in Rotterdam?! If you're going to dismiss them as easy to overrun, maybe you should include Belgium and France as well because they didn't last much longer, and France had a much bigger army(than the Netherlands) as well.

And then the Austrian Empire who...oh, nevermind. :clown:

Brenus

09-08-2009, 22:31

“And the United States, and Britain” Oh yeah, but after finishing the others. And the Germans were not alone. It is easy to dismiss Italy but the Italians did their bits in Africa (Folgore and Ariete Divisions) and held their positions when the Germans and Hungarians were retreating or routing in the counter-offensive during Stalingrad. And you can add the Hungarians, the Rumanians, Bulgarians then Croats, Bosnians, Albanians, few Cossacks, Baltic States, Vlassov Army and Finland (and foreign volunteers as the LVF and SS from Holland, France, Belgium, etc). So we are far from Germany alone standing in front of the mighty Allies.

“(oil, anyone?)” See Rumania, Ploesti. It was the reason why Hitler couldn’t allow the English to rescue Greece after the Italian attack. The Rumanian oil fields were in range of the Strategic Bomber Command if the English had built airfields…

“Let's take Stalingrad which some people use to show that the Germans could be beaten” The Germans have been bitten before: Moscow in 1941 and Leningrad where the Russian Defence obliged to start a siege and not a frontal assault… Stalingrad was the first compleate victory with the total annihilation of a German Army...
“interesting side-note: the Germans were so tenacious that the Russians found many of them had carved their frost-bitten fingers and hands into shapes sufficient enough to keep them pulling the trigger by jerking their arms back” ????

“Belgium”: Ah, yeah, the country so keen to keep its neutrality that its army deployed against the French and the British with the orders to shoot at them if they crossed the borders. It took few days for the Belgium to understand and to authorise the passage for the French Mechanised Army and the BEF.

Husar

09-09-2009, 10:28

“Belgium”: Ah, yeah, the country so keen to keep its neutrality that its army deployed against the French and the British with the orders to shoot at them if they crossed the borders. It took few days for the Belgium to understand and to authorise the passage for the French Mechanised Army and the BEF.

:laugh4:

That's nothing, the Swiss even shot down some allied bombers over their territory...

Brenus

09-09-2009, 13:26

Yeap. You have even a Swiss "as".:laugh4:

Papewaio

09-10-2009, 04:52

I think you are oversimplifying things a bit.

For such a big and powerful empire as you describe Germany in WW2 the Battle over Britain was a really poor show and the huge Empire was lacking planes, then gave up because they needed them in Russia and could hardly replace their losses over Britain while Britain could produce fighters by the dozens, that sounds a bit weird compared to your point that Germany had far more industry compared to everyone else in Europe.

Well the Battle of Britain had to be fought, rather then a naval invasion, as the German Navy was at that point in tatters and without air superiority they could not do much.

Radar/ Communications and Logistics (more fuel in planes at the place of confrontation means greater ability in dogfighting) were all in favour of Britain. Hurricanes might not be as sexy or deadly as the Spitfires, but they were easier to manufacture and maintain, so again a logistical win.

So Britain and a technological advantage made clearer by the Channel. Even with these Germany was doing fine while they attacked the military in particular the airfields. Losing focus and going for non-military targets was their own undoing.

The Battle of Britain started with Germany having twice as many planes.

Adrian II

09-10-2009, 17:32

At least in military technology, Soviet Union was on par with Germany, even ahead in some areas. Not only that, but Monsieur is conveniently omitting the United States from his equation.
[..] the fact that they managed to reach Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad and that it managed to fight the Red Army for four years is very much worthy of admiration.Well said.

Besides, German soldiers fought practically all those years on enemy territory - a logistical nightmare in its own right - and acquitted themselves very well.

Excuse me, but I find it slightly amusing when people object to my thesis by saying 'Oh but the Germans had more and better planes, they had better tanks, they were better educated and organised and that's why they won for so long'.

Well, yes - that's what I have been saying all along. They weren't better humans. They were the better army.

Adrian II

09-11-2009, 10:48

But the USA's back was never agianst the wall esp. in Europe.That's a damn good point, but for a different reason. The German army and paramilitaries radicalized, as did the whole nazi regime, as a consequence of the war and in particular of lost battles (Stalingrad). For lack of success on the battlefield they turned on the 'enemies' they could beat, such as Jews, Slavs, etcetera.

But they didn't have their back to the wall until they had provoked so many nations, including first and foremost the United States, that they couldn't possibly win the day anymore.

Maybe if the Japanese had achieved more in the Pacific war, the American treatment of the Japanese minority would have been worse than it already was. But I can not envisage an American government of the time calling for the 'eradication' of the Japanese race - and proceeding accordingly. The sickest puppies - by far - were in Germany.

Tristuskhan

09-11-2009, 16:08

The German army and paramilitaries radicalized, as did the whole nazi regime, as a consequence of the war and in particular of lost battles (Stalingrad).

The worst misteatment of Soviet POW was during the first winter on the eastern front (about 2 millions died, more than 75% of the total russians captured), and the first year on this front was also the golden ages of Einsatzkommandos and the destruction of Shtetls. The crushing of Warsaw's ghetto occured long before the defeat in Stalingrad.
Maybe the collective conscience of having assisted such crimes was a boost to the fighting spirit of the german soldier, though; "if they catch us, they'll do us what we did to theirs" sounds a good leitmotiv to make men hold.

Strike For The South

09-11-2009, 17:08

That's a damn good point, but for a different reason. The German army and paramilitaries radicalized, as did the whole nazi regime, as a consequence of the war and in particular of lost battles (Stalingrad). For lack of success on the battlefield they turned on the 'enemies' they could beat, such as Jews, Slavs, etcetera.

But they didn't have their back to the wall until they had provoked so many nations, including first and foremost the United States, that they couldn't possibly win the day anymore.

Maybe if the Japanese had achieved more in the Pacific war, the American treatment of the Japanese minority would have been worse than it already was. But I can not envisage an American government of the time calling for the 'eradication' of the Japanese race - and proceeding accordingly. The sickest puppies - by far - were in Germany.

I see what you're saying now and it makes sense.

econ21

09-11-2009, 19:55

Maybe the collective conscience of having assisted such crimes was a boost to the fighting spirit of the german soldier, though; "if they catch us, they'll do us what we did to theirs" sounds a good leitmotiv to make men hold.

That maybe true, but it cuts both ways and arguably the double edge was the stronger. The Wehrmacht's early victories were marked by a collapse of their opponent's will to fight. While the victories were remarkable, equally impressive to me is how the Russians in particular managed to fight back after losing so much (more than half?) of their men in 1941. How much of the stiffening of the Russian soldier's morale was due to learning the brutality of their opponents and the fate of those who had earlier surrendered?

I think there is a certain enlightened self-interest in observing conventional rules of war surrounding the treatment of prisoners etc. Treat prisoners well and enemies will be more likely to surrender. Subject them to something close to a death sentence and it will be no surprise if they fight on bitterly.

Mouzafphaerre

09-11-2009, 23:51

.

But I can not envisage an American government of the time calling for the 'eradication' of the Japanese race - and proceeding accordingly.

Absolutely! They never did that to anyone before. :cowboy:
.

Adrian II

09-12-2009, 00:33

.

Absolutely! They never did that to anyone before. :cowboy:
.Indeed. Neither Franklin D. Roosevelt, nor Harry Truman, George Marshall or any other member of their administration ever called for the eradication of races or peoples.

You are probably hinting at the fate of the American Indians. Maybe even implying that, well, you know, war is a bitch and all the countries and governments involved were equally bad so what's the big deal about the Jews and such? Is that what you are getting at?

American history has some very black pages, but it is unfair and useless to project these into later stages, all the more if it serves to belittle the American role in the defeat of Germany and all it stood for since 1933. And it would be outrageous to suggest that the internment of Japanese equalled the German death camp system of the time. It was bad, but it wudn't that bad by a very long stretch.

Mouzafphaerre

09-12-2009, 14:59

.
More or less, yes, but nobody will ever know if the tide of the war favoured the Japanese and not the Americans. Europe (incl. US & Canada) evolved after the WWII and thanks to its traumatic experience very much, yet steadily, in terms of equality, human rights etc. (Before the civil rights movement's achievements the lighter greens were more equal than the darker ones, you know. ~;))

Historical facts support it: When you're cornered, you act even more vilely. The "final solution" came to be pursued harder after Stalingrad, Kursk and the assault on Sicily; Armenian genocide happened while the Ittihad-Terakki armies were ruined on all fronts. (One counter-example, a strong one, would be Stalin's frenzy following his victory.)

Anyway, a third and more atomic bombs would certainly be dropped unless Japan surrendered, which is known. So, I don't feel right about one or the other parties being more docile in nature than the evil other. We're just too comfortable as armchair strategists with the gift of hindsight. Still, I don't deny that, if not magnitude, methods could be different.
.

Brenus

09-13-2009, 19:36

Well we are far the creation of the Wehrmacht Myth of Invincibility and the realty of its deep involvement in the extermination process…

To counter the parallel between the US Japanese camps:
Can you find Jewish SS division? That is because you can find Japanese origin US battalion.

“When you're cornered, you act even more vilely. The "final solution" came to be pursued harder after Stalingrad, Kursk and the assault on Sicily”
Nope. The use of brutality was in the heart of the Nazi political system and they input it in the Werhmacht’s doctrine. Shock and terror as we say today but with more brutality and more plnned horror than it can be imagine.
The killing of English and French prisoners happened when the Germans Army was victorious… The early killings in Russia and the extermination of entire Jewish populations started immediately after the crossing of the borders.
The 20th of January 1942, during the Wannsee Conference the Nazi organised the technical aspect of massive deportation and extermination of all sub-humans but the decision was long time ago decided. And at that time the Germans were entitled to think they would win the war. The lost of Stalingrad (the Army of) was of course a disaster but the Germans were confident they would recovered, and de facto, they did, as you have to wait Kursk to see the first German summer offensive failure.

“One counter-example, a strong one, would be Stalin's frenzy following his victory.” Stalin? Did he built extermination camp or deport Germans to death camps. He did it for political opponents and “traitors” but not for the Germans. He treated the Polish worst than the Germans, IMO.

Snite

09-13-2009, 19:41

As I understand it the Russians were the last people any German soldier wanted to surrender to primarily because to survive it would mean to be a slave, and that's if you surivive it.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-13-2009, 19:45

To counter the parallel between the US Japanese camps:
Can you find Jewish SS division? That is because you can find Japanese origin US battalion.

No, but you could find French, British, Belgian, Danish, Russians, and Dutch in there, among others. You could also find Jews working for the Nazis in certain policing roles. I have no idea why some of them did it - whether they didn't know what was going on or if it was a way to save their own lives* (though I think most of them were murdered in the end). It's a really sad story, actually.

*I'm talking about the Jews here, there's no doubt that the other groups did it out of their own free will.

Sarmatian

09-13-2009, 20:10

As I understand it the Russians were the last people any German soldier wanted to surrender to primarily because to survive it would mean to be a slave, and that's if you surivive it.

You don't understand it.

Russians didn't have any "racial" issues against the Germans. No one was supposed to be a slave, or even subservient just because he/she was German. Stalin didn't treat Germans any worse than he did Russians or Poles.

Any German soldier would have liked far more to surrender to the Western Allies, of course, but that is because he was aware how different the war in the West to the war in the East was. That and Nazi propaganda even before the war portrayed Russians as barbaric sub-humans...

Brenus

09-13-2009, 20:21

“Russians were the last people any German soldier wanted to surrender to primarily because to survive it would mean to be a slave, and that's if you survived it”.
No. The Germans were fully aware how THEY treated the Russians POW and were not expecting any mercy. They were proved to be right even if, again, it was no systematic extermination of German Soldiers as the Germans did to the Russian (Political Commissars). Not that the Russians cared of their prisoners very well, but nothing compared to how the Germans treated the Russians POW.

“No, but you could find French, British, Belgian, Danish, Russians, and Dutch in there, among others” These people were not on the “to be eradicated from the surface of the planet” list.
“You could also find Jews working for the Nazis in certain policing roles.” Yes, but it could be under the rules “they didn’t know what was planned for them”. And again, they were not in the fighting units, defending the Nazi Germany against the Red.

Husar

09-13-2009, 22:42

Concerning the concentration camps etc., the Nazis were quite clever, they didn't go and just said we're gonna kill jews from tomorrow, they started by boycotting jewish shops, banning jews from public places etc. In a way they established an apartheid state first and even the jews thought it couldn't get much worse, but in reality the concentration camps were built and planned very early in the 1930s. The younger germans already learned at school what a jew looks like and what was bad about jews, that they were greedy, ugly, whatever. That some of them actually believed this after about 10 years of indoctrination and in an age where jews weren't liked anyway and where all the nationalists needed someone to blame for all the "shame" is no big surprise to me. So yeah, obviously some in the Wehrmacht probably did think of jews as subhumans and the others maybe didn't want to fall into the back of their comrades etc, especially since that could mean being sent to a suicide mine-clearing squad or similar.
How many people show courage nowadays when an old man gets beaten up in a subway?

I'm not excusing anything here, just want to shed some light on the why and how. I don't think I'd help an old man against 3 knife-wielding thugs myself, would just get two dead people instead of one. Except in this case one could try to get the police for help, back then the police was collaborating with the thugs. :shame:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-13-2009, 23:00

Yes, but it could be under the rules “they didn’t know what was planned for them”. And again, they were not in the fighting units, defending the Nazi Germany against the Red.

There were half-Jews and those with Jewish spouses fighting on the German side.

Adrian II

09-16-2009, 21:29

Historical facts support it: When you're cornered, you act even more vilely.Recent German research seems to give this some support, too. Newspaper Die Welt ran an article today about a series of monographies on the Wehrmacht during the nazi period. They encompass five books, produced by a very respectable oufit in Munich called the Münchner Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Munich Institute for Contemporary History, short: IfZ). The studies document and discuss what the reporter calls the Prozess der Verrohung (process of brutalization) that occurred among both elite and ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers. The last volume deals in great detail with three panzer divisions and two infantry divisions on the Russian front. For the former, it seems that the more losses they incurrred on the battlefield, the more they turned against prioners and civilians. Remarkably, the latter suffered few losses but contributed to the excesses behind the lines anyway.

All in all, the authors of this series conclude that the Wehrmacht as an institution was deeply and consciously involved in nazi war crimes almost from the beginning.

link (http://www.welt.de/die-welt/kultur/article4545379/Prozess-der-Verrohung.html)

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-16-2009, 23:09

The library apparently got the titular book shipped from somewhere else so I'll read it soon.

NimitsTexan

09-17-2009, 01:09

I feel the same about the matter and as much as I know the germans preferrred to use there bomber force as ground support, and attacked primearly military targets if possible, this is reinforced by the fact that they developed only light to medium bombers, but never had a really effective heavy bomber like the B-17s, B-24s and Lancasters of the US an UK.

Germans terror-bombed Warsaw and Rotterdam to force their surrender. They even wiped out Guernica, mostly just for the heck of it. All of these long before the Allies had started serious bombing campaigns against the Germans.

(I'm not sure but as much as I know the Luftwaffe even forbade any bombers to bomb anything near London without Hitlers personal orders. - The first Luftwaffe bombers over London were a small detachment that lost orientation at night and dropped there bombs not knowing where they were.

That was a purely political decisions. Hitler still hoping for a negotiated peace with Britain, seemd to recognize that wiping out downtown London would not endear Germany to the British hearts. He also did not want to encourage British air attacks on Berlin (which it was feared would demoralize the German people).

As a reaction churchill ordered Bomber command to attack Berlin

British strategic bombing was initially intended to be precision bombing, but the British discovered they had trouble hitting the right city at night, much less an individual target set in the city. Bomber Command, initially at least, simply made a virtue of necessity with area bombing.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-17-2009, 01:37

Rotterdam to force their surrender.

The bombing of Rotterdamn was actually probably a miscommunication between German commanders. A hell of a miscommunication, but still...

They even wiped out Guernica, mostly just for the heck of it.

That was technically under Nationalist Spanish command.

British strategic bombing was initially intended to be precision bombing, but the British discovered they had trouble hitting the right city at night, much less an individual target set in the city. Bomber Command, initially at least, simply made a virtue of necessity with area bombing.

In other words, since they figured out they had a tough time hitting the factories they decided to demolish the whole city.

KrooK

09-19-2009, 23:14

Furunculus

09-20-2009, 21:18

from someone who appears to have a ethno/cultural chip nearly as large as krooks, that's pretty rich!

Samurai Waki

09-21-2009, 00:21

More to the point, the Soviets didn't really have an effective Strategic bomber force, but they were still fully capable of leveling Dresden. The He-111 may not have been a big bomber, but it's payload could be significant enough to do considerable damage if enough were deployed to an area that needed to be 'softened up'. The Lancasters and B-17 were only marginally better suited to the role of wide spread destruction, not because they carried that much bigger of a payload than the 111, but because they could travel much, much further into industrialized areas, that the German Bombers, quite frankly, couldn't get to.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-21-2009, 00:33

More to the point, the Soviets didn't really have an effective Strategic bomber force, but they were still fully capable of leveling Dresden.

The Allies destroyed Dresden, unless you are talking about some incident which I haven't heard of.

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-21-2009, 05:18

I just finished reading this book today. I thought it was pretty good overall, though it was a little dry and certainly oriented toward professional historians. The author conducted a study of the attitudes that the Germany military had from WW1 on and how it allowed the Nazis to bind the Wehrmacht to their purpose rather easily. I thought it relied maybe a little too much on other sources for actually establishing how prevalent the war crimes were. It had a good chapter on how the myth of a "clean" Wehrmacht was established after the war (though it's also a bit common sense).

Samurai Waki

09-21-2009, 06:55

The Allies destroyed Dresden, unless you are talking about some incident which I haven't heard of.

Hah, yeah Brain Meltdown. Soviets wanted Allies to destroy Dresden. Ahem, but the IL4 was quite well known for destroying large swathes of Berlin that the Allied Bombers hadn't already destroyed.

Graphic

09-22-2009, 00:18

From the little I've gathered, the main idea of said book is that the Wehrmarcht willingly took part in the various atrocities committed by Germany during WWII. The high command knew what was going on, and the rank-and-files soldier often directly helped the SS in their sick duty.

This is the reality to anyone who's actually done some reading of unbiased sources. You can't tell this to the quasi-Nazi sympathizers at TWC though, they will defend 'til death the myth that 99% of Wehrmacht soldiers were "innocent Germans just doing their duty." And of course many were, but the Wehrmacht as a whole is severely tainted.

Too many people get caught up in how cool the uniforms looked, how cool the StG44 was and how cool Panther tanks are and what not, so they try hard to make the German army squeaky clean so they don't feel bad for idolizing them.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-22-2009, 21:23

This is the reality to anyone who's actually done some reading of unbiased sources. You can't tell this to the quasi-Nazi sympathizers at TWC though, they will defend 'til death the myth that 99% of Wehrmacht soldiers were "innocent Germans just doing their duty." And of course many were, but the Wehrmacht as a whole is severely tainted.

Many were, many were not. To a greater or lesser extent, every army is the same. I don't see why people try to argue it.

Brenus

09-22-2009, 22:40

“To a greater or lesser extent, every army is the same. I don't see why people try to argue it.” Yes and no. We speak here of the involvement of the Werhmacht in a process which crossed the usual borders. No other organised armies did support logistically and proceeded to execution in such scale.
The High Command did nothing to prevent or even ignored orders to execute prisoners, civilians and minorities. It was left to the individual soldiers, NCO and low rank officers to obeys/disobey to orders, without the moral support of their officers in charge.
The mass execution by the Werhmacht in France can not be put on the heavy fight, as the Germans won quite easily the campaign, excepted few battles and pockets of resistance. The Plan worked and France had to surrender, the main armies cup from their logistical point and made useless. And the British had to evacuate…
So, the Wermacht as an entity was guilty in the choice of high level of violence and cruelty.
In France as in Poland, the SS were not so many…

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-22-2009, 22:50

Yes and no. We speak here of the involvement of the Werhmacht in a process which crossed the usual borders. No other organised armies did support logistically and proceeded to execution in such scale.

That is, quite frankly, untrue or half-true at best.

The High Command did nothing to prevent or even ignored orders to execute prisoners, civilians and minorities.

So members of High Command did ignore orders to execute prisoners? Glad we agree. Though, for the record, High Command was often a bastion of resistance against Hitler.

So, the Wermacht as an entity was guilty in the choice of high level of violence and cruelty.
In France as in Poland, the SS were not so many…

The Wehrmacht did participate, and indeed, was heavily involved in war crimes and illegal actions, but I disagree that the organization itself was inherently bad, just as I would disagree that the Red Army was inherently bad.

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-23-2009, 04:26

Is the Waffen SS inherently bad?

Graphic

09-23-2009, 04:32

Many were, many were not. To a greater or lesser extent, every army is the same. I don't see why people try to argue it.

Even in a very messy modern war like Vietnam there's no evidence that G.I.'s went on an organized campaign of slaughter of the civilian populous. War is a messy business period, but the Wehrmacht was exceptional in its brutality in modern times.

Brenus

09-23-2009, 06:46

“So members of High Command did ignore orders to execute prisoners? Glad we agree”. No. Read the sentence: Ignore did nothing to prevent or ignore.
They choose to at best remain silent when they received the orders to kill Political Commissars and Jews.

“the Red Army was inherently bad.” I was waiting for this. The comparison between the Red Army and the Werhmacht: Indeed the treatment by the Red Army of German population was far from civilised. However find one example of massive execution by machine gun of civilian population? Few organised convoys of elderly, children and women machine-gunned in some dark woods. A specific order issued from the STAVKA to kill and to show no mercy to a particular type of German soldiers or personnel.
And quite frankly, what the German would have expected after THEY started a war of extermination where the open goal was to either kill or enslave the Slavic population. When the open aim of Hitler Germany was to starve Leningrad to death.
They knew what Hitler intended to do, because he broadcasted it.
So what the Russian soldier had to do? Ok, guy, you raped my sisters, daughters, mothers, you hanged my grad dad, my uncles because they were who they were, you torched my houses and wanted to enslave me but yeah, I understand, war is bad…

“Is the Waffen SS inherently bad?” Yes. Don’t try to separate the Waffen SS from the SS in the camps. They were belonging to the same organisation, the same ideological basis.

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-23-2009, 16:21

Well, I was asking EMFM to see if I could get more insight into his viewpoint.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-23-2009, 17:32

Is the Waffen SS inherently bad?

Oh yes. I'm not saying that the Wehrmacht wasn't rather exceptionally worse than most or all other armies of the time period, mind you.

“So members of High Command did ignore orders to execute prisoners? Glad we agree”. No. Read the sentence: Ignore did nothing to prevent or ignore.

Your original sentence was unclear, I was just trying to point that out.

They choose to at best remain silent when they received the orders to kill Political Commissars and Jews.

This is true, High Command often did ignore orders or even carry them out willingly, especially after Hitler staffed it with his cronies.

However find one example of massive execution by machine gun of civilian population? Few organised convoys of elderly, children and women machine-gunned in some dark woods. A specific order issued from the STAVKA to kill and to show no mercy to a particular type of German soldiers or personnel.

:inquisitive:

Are you willfully ignoring things that happened? Not just to the German population either, but to the Poles? Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians? Even Finns? The Cossacks? That last one is kind of a big one, isn't it?

No, the Red Army and her associated acts were certainly criminal. Germany wasn't even the main recipient of their wrath.

And quite frankly, what the German would have expected after THEY started a war of extermination where the open goal was to either kill or enslave the Slavic population. When the open aim of Hitler Germany was to starve Leningrad to death.

What Germany did in the Soviet Union was cruel and needless. That being said, the French didn't commit crimes nearly on the scale that the Soviets did (or even on a proportionate basis to losses), and certainly didn't kill people en masse in countries formerly occupied by their enemies, so you cannot say that the retaliation was "normal."

We agree that Germany did terrible things in the East, but what you're implying is that German civilians back home somehow deserved it, or "got what was coming to them."

Brenus

09-23-2009, 22:00

“Are you wilfully ignoring things that happened? Not just to the German population either, but to the Poles? Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians? Even Finns? The Cossacks? That last one is kind of a big one, isn't it?”
Ok, you got a point.
But it as far as I know, it was not base on ethnicities but as traitors, or seen as this. I don’t think that Stalin treated Russian differently when his power was challenged. This is what made Nazism specific. You could try to be a good German as much you wanted, as a Jew you had no luck.
The Cossacks from the Red Army were not executed. I do agree that the slaughter of the Cossack given back by the British is a war/peace crime, but it was not done under racial or ethnic base but as retaliation for rebellion. Except for the Finns (allied of the Germans) all the others groups provided SS divisions, zealous auxiliaries and participated enthusiastically to the chase of the Jews…
The Crimean Tatars were deported, what left of the Cossack (from the Don if my memory serves me) as well, but no special camps with annihilation as goals were built. The Cossacks from the Volga were not touched. No special troops were formed (even if the NKVD were probably up the level).
What made the Werhmacht (the Command) guilty is their obedience to orders they knew were not according what the school of Officers taught them. What makes them guilty is they waited until the defeat to rebel and Rommel being one of the examples.

“but what you're implying is that German civilians back home somehow deserved it, or "got what was coming to them”
Nope. What I am saying is they saw it coming because they knew what theirs fathers, sons and brothers did to the Russians. You don’t have the same exodus in front of the Western Allies because we had Tulles, Oradour sur Glane and others excesses (killing of hostages, rapes, torching houses etc) but it was nothing compared what happened in the East or Balkans.

“countries formerly occupied by their enemies” and collaborated with the occupiers:
For the examples you chose:
20 SS Estonian Division
19 SS Latvian Division
Lithuania: It is estimated that at least 125,000 Lithuanians rose up to fight the retreating Soviets during the time between the initial German crossings of the eastern frontier.
The vast majority of the Cossacks stayed loyal to USSR even if they were anti-communist.
Concerning Poland I found Kathyn and Warsaw. The second one was not directly done by the Red Army but by some said stopping the offensive. True or not, it was not the Russian who did it but the SS and the Werhmacht.
It is true that in 1944 the NKVD executed potential political enemies, even if they were resistant. However, once again, it was based on political agenda, not on racial.

The French had their own retaliation against the Milicians and Collaborators, and it was ugly. Some even say it is the latest French Civil War.
A French SS couldn't really expect mercy or a fair trial. Later on yes, but on the spot...
Then came the "les Malgrés nous" problems, teh Alsatians enroled in the Werhmact and the SS. A fomer colleague of mine uncle was forced in the SS and this was aproblem especially for the ones who were involevd in war criems as Tulles.

KrooK

09-27-2009, 00:14

Gah and you guys talking about Red Army still forget that before 1941 Germany and Russia cooperated closely. Both sides killed or settled into Workuta (for me workuta gold mine and death camp is exactly the same thing) hundreds thousands of Poles.

USSR in addition did it with many Ukrainians and Balts. Long time before ww2 they started great hunger on Ukraine - real holocaust. Objective was "kill all the people, no matter what they think about communism".

Brenus is right that people of many countries occupied by Russians started fight on German side.
However it was not due to "better race" idea. They just hate Russians. People started killing Jews because most of Jews helped russians into 1939 - 1941. Many Jews simply betrayed their countries (Poland, Latvia, Lithuania) - they joined NKWD and helped into sending their neighbours to Russia.
Thats why at far east people started killing them.
A bit different situation was in Poland because (as I wrote at the beginning) here both sides participated into killing Poles. Thats why people did not join Germans. Sometimes they killed some Jews (actually confirmed is only Jedwabne) but it was not massively attack. Not like jewish behavior into 1939.

Brenus - Warsaw was not done directly by Red Army. Red Army only called Poles to rise against Germans and promised help. Then just waited patiently (and later killed many of survivors). And of course we can't forget Russians from RONA who were commiting extreme cruel crimes on civilians. Maybe I'm a bit vindictive but I don't regret Russians from RONA and Cossacks sent to Russia. And add here at least 200.000 polish patriots murdered by NKWD and polish-jewish traitors after ww2.

To reply your question - by whole existence of USSR situation of Russians and national minorities was different. I'm not talking that situation of Russians were good - but was much better than others.

Nope. What I am saying is they saw it coming because they knew what theirs fathers, sons and brothers did to the Russians. You don’t have the same exodus in front of the Western Allies because we had Tulles, Oradour sur Glane and others excesses (killing of hostages, rapes, torching houses etc) but it was nothing compared what happened in the East or Balkans.
And here I completely agree with you.

Sarmatian

09-27-2009, 01:23

Objective was "kill all the people, no matter what they think about communism".

And squirrels! Don't forget the squirrels...

Brenus

09-27-2009, 07:52

“still forget that before 1941 Germany and Russia cooperated closely”. I don’t but for this instance it has no link with the present debate.

“for me”: That is the point.

“Long time before ww2 they started great hunger on Ukraine - real holocaust” Debatable and again not relevant with this debate.

“However it was not due to "better race" idea”. Agree, However, in the Russian point of view, if you are able to see it, it was pure betraying. The fact that these countries joined the Germans in hope to be free is even worst in Stalin eyes, I would think.

“Many Jews simply betrayed their countries (Poland, Latvia, Lithuania)” Ahh, you pure anti-Semitic guys, are always funny.
You stripped the Jews of their rights, you said (and say) they are not Poles, not Ukrainians, not French, ban them for jobs, obliged them to live in determined area, then complain, oopps, they are not loyal to a country which rejects them, ooops, they never join the Arm forces the cowards, they don’t mixed with the others and they marry only between themselves. As the good slaves owners who portraitures his slaves as ignorant and not knowing to read and write when he outlaws them to go to school…
“In August 1936, the Polish government ordered that all shops include the name of the owner on their business sign. This order was tantamount to specifically marking Jewish-owned businesses. Attacks on Jewish businesses surged after the marking order went into effect.
In May 1937, the membership of the Polish Medical Association adopted a paragraph into their professional charter excluding Jews from the medical profession.
Also in May 1937, the Polish Bar Association adopted a similar measure. This was followed by official state action in May 1938 restricting the ability of Jewish lawyers to attain licenses to practice law.
In January 1938, the General Assembly of Journalists in the city of Wilno added a provision to its by-laws stating that anyone Jewish could not belong to their organization.
In April 1938, the Bank Polski, the Polish state's largest financial institution, adopted a provision excluding Jews.
Most importantly, in March 1938 the Polish government announced a new "Citizenship Law." This law stated that as of October 30, 1938, the passports of Polish citizens who had lived abroad for more than five years would be revoked if those citizens had not "maintained contact with the [home] country”

Most of the times, it was their country that betrayed the Jews.
In France Pétain took from the Jewish Officers the medals he gave them at Verdun. Shame on the countries; shame on these official who signed these documents; shame on the mobs that took advantage. Shame on those who enforced these laws.
Honour on the ones who saved the Jews, the humbles and the illiterates who knew what is right and what is wrong and knew that all bloods are red...

At least you can’t blame the Red Army to be Anti-Semitic….:beam:

“Sometimes they killed some Jews”: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The Polish Government put in place Racial Laws in a process starting in 1935!!!!! .
“In August 1936, the Polish government ordered that all shops include the name of the owner on their business sign. This order was tantamount to specifically marking Jewish-owned businesses. Attacks on Jewish businesses surged after the marking order went into effect.
“Starting in early 1935, boycotts of Jews spread all through the Polish countryside. These were followed by pogroms: window-smashing, the overturning of Jewish market stalls, beatings, arson, and finally murder. The details of these brutalities are repetitive and terrible.
In 1935 pogroms took place at Radomsko in April, at Radosc (near Warsaw) and Grochow in May, at Grodno in May. In December [1935] these isolated occurrences began to harden into a campaign: disturbances in Klwow, Lodz, Katowice, Kielce, and Hrubieszow were followed in January 1936 by attacks on Jews in Cracow and Warsaw, among other places.
On March 9, 1936, a terrible pogrom occurred at Przytyk, where two Jews were killed and many houses burned: Bombs were thrown in those same months in 13 more towns, including Minsk Mazowiecki; there a second pogrom occurred in early June and, after four Jews had been killed, most of the Jewish population left for Warsaw.
During 1936 and early 1937 the pogroms became a daily occurrence in Poland, and clearly indicated increasingly better organisation”
“Several times the Jews reacted by demonstrations and general strikes (March 1936, May and June 1937). In Warsaw and Lodz the Bund tried to create Jewish self-defence units. These were supported by PPS as well, but police intervention in favour of the pogromists”

So populace killed. The police protected killers. Who is responsible? Polish Government.

“I'm not talking that situation of Russians were good - but was much better than others” They were awake by the KGB one hour later and they had comfy cells at the Lubianka? Or a 1st class gulag?

“Warsaw was not done directly by Red Army. Red Army only called Poles to rise against Germans and promised help. Then just waited patiently (and later killed many of survivors)” True, partially true. The raise to arms by the Polish Secret Army was indeed called by the Russians, but it was obvious that the Poles in London, pro Western Allies wanted to do so for political reason that Stain fully understood. A Poland liberated by itself it would be independent, and Stalin didn’t want this to happened.
What we always forget about Communism is all was subordinated to politic and long-term effect. Stalin knew the Germans were defeated, so why to rush and to get a future problem at your borders. For some reasons, the Westerns Generals and Politicians never saw things like this.
Stalin was politically aware…
Look what happened with Tito. So, in Stalin eyes, it would be politically suicidal to help a Pro-Western Rebellion and to get a potential if not enemy but hostile force on your borders, even worst if you know that YOU attack this potential hostile force yourselves few years ago, and killed many of it intelligentsia…
About killing look what happened to the Russian German’s POW in 1941 when they were liberated by the Allies… No better…

Brenus

09-27-2009, 07:53

"And squirrels! Don't forget the squirrels" The Red ones or the Grey ones? Probably the Reds!!!!:laugh4:

HunGeneral

09-27-2009, 14:24

“However it was not due to "better race" idea”. Agree, However, in the Russian point of view, if you are able to see it, it was pure betraying. The fact that these countries joined the Germans in hope to be free is even worst in Stalin eyes, I would think.

In my opinion Stalin saw anyone and anything that didn't support him as an enemy or traitor. (a political slogan of the east-block countries commie leadership in the 50-s: "who isn't wiht us is against us") Would this also explain why Stalin ordered several thousand Polish POV to be executed in secret in the area of Katyn and have their families who were living in the Soviet occupied zone of Poland sent right away to Siberia (and also making anybody "disapear" if he even guestioned that the Germans were behind it)?

Honour on the ones who saved the Jews, the humbles and the illiterates who knew what is right and what is wrong

I agree. Honour all who tried to stop or resist the dictatorical madness of the 20th century. No matter his nationality, origin or social standing.:yes:

At least you can’t blame the Red Army to be Anti-Semitic….:beam:

Yes, but you can't claim they weren't cruel either and I don't just mean the atrocities in Germany or against Germans in the east, but there general cruelty in the countries they occupied - it may not have been as large scale and brutal as against the Germans but it was there and had it effects.

"I'm not talking that situation of Russians were good - but was much better than others” They were awake by the KGB one hour later and they had comfy cells at the Lubianka? Or a 1st class gulag?

The Soviet communist regime declared its enemies not by Nationality but on who was willing to submit to them and who wasnt. The later could be anyone, even leading party members could easely fall out of Stalins favor or become suspicious and that didn't mean anything good. The same often aplied to whole peoples - for example the Ukrainians were for the most part seen as "suspicious" by the Soviets so they considered them all "potential traitors" no matter what his background was.

“Warsaw was not done directly by Red Army. Red Army only called Poles to rise against Germans and promised help. Then just waited patiently (and later killed many of survivors)” True, partially true. The raise to arms by the Polish Secret Army was indeed called by the Russians, but it was obvious that the Poles in London, pro Western Allies wanted to do so for political reason that Stain fully understood. A Poland liberated by itself it would be independent, and Stalin didn’t want this to happened.
What we always forget about Communism is all was subordinated to politic and long-term effect. Stalin knew the Germans were defeated, so why to rush and to get a future problem at your borders. For some reasons, the Westerns Generals and Politicians never saw things like this.
Stalin was politically aware…
Look what happened with Tito. So, in Stalin eyes, it would be politically suicidal to help a Pro-Western Rebellion and to get a potential if not enemy but hostile force on your borders, even worst if you know that YOU attack this potential hostile force yourselves few years ago, and killed many of it intelligentsia…
About killing look what happened to the Russian German’s POW in 1941 when they were liberated by the Allies… No better…

Political interrests of great powers - thats all. The same thing as in 1956: the USA uses all propaganda to convince the Peoles of Eastern Europe to rise against the Communist Puppet Regimes promising full support, but when they did rise up, the Americans stayed quiet and simply watched the Massacre....

All along the way Stalin was working on making sure that all countries his armies "liberated" would be lead by communist he assigned and made sure noone could oppose his plans - After Jalta when the Allies agreed to land in France and let the Ruskies keep East Europe he coud do what he wanted. Churchill did'nt want things to go that way because he knew that were the russians set there foot in there they wouldn't come out by themselfs...

(He was right in atleast that - here they needed 50 years just to find the way out...)

KrooK

09-28-2009, 11:25

“In August 1936, the Polish government ordered that all shops include the name of the owner on their business sign. This order was tantamount to specifically marking Jewish-owned businesses. Attacks on Jewish businesses surged after the marking order went into effect.
In May 1937, the membership of the Polish Medical Association adopted a paragraph into their professional charter excluding Jews from the medical profession.
Also in May 1937, the Polish Bar Association adopted a similar measure. This was followed by official state action in May 1938 restricting the ability of Jewish lawyers to attain licenses to practice law.
In January 1938, the General Assembly of Journalists in the city of Wilno added a provision to its by-laws stating that anyone Jewish could not belong to their organization.
In April 1938, the Bank Polski, the Polish state's largest financial institution, adopted a provision excluding Jews.
Most importantly, in March 1938 the Polish government announced a new "Citizenship Law." This law stated that as of October 30, 1938, the passports of Polish citizens who had lived abroad for more than five years would be revoked if those citizens had not "maintained contact with the [home] country”

Sorry maybe some sources? I think I can reply to first part because because its connected with my job.
First part is stupid. It was simply theory of "trader" into polish law. Into 1934 new Code of Obligations and Commercial Code were enacted. These monuments of law were one of the best in the world. They adopted germany understanding of trader and due to them name of personal company had to include name of at least one man personally responsible for its obligations (to protect consuments). You are looking for racism into place where is no racism. I'm not sure but similar regulations are into german law. Man who connected it with racism had to be politically corrected idiot (especially as you wrote regulation obeyed everyone). Nowadays we have very similar regulations no one claim they are bad.

Some of best lawyers in Poland were Jews. Same like doctors. Tell me any source you found it (wikipedia does not count as source) - best would be english language.

I don't understand how revoking passports could be against Jews living in Poland.

Brenus

09-29-2009, 07:50

“name of personal company had to include name of at least one man personally responsible for its obligations (to protect consuments)” How? Didn’t notice that Orange or NatWest are M and Ms.:laugh4:

“Man who connected it with racism had to be politically corrected idiot” or a man who se the reality and the consequence of a racist legislation on the daily life of the intended targets.
About link, just google Poland anti Semitic law 1934, (for Poland 1934 you’ve got German Pact with Poland). It is very interesting.

“Nowadays we have very similar regulations no one claim they are bad. “ M & MM Barcley, Sainsbury, Carrefour etc… Right….
:laugh4::shame:

KrooK

09-29-2009, 12:31

Brenus - I expected that you don't know law (especially polish) but... don't behave like idiot and don't teach me poslih law if you really don't know it.

In Polish law there are two kind of persons - psyhical person (man) and law person (some of companies). There is something like semi law person (ulomna osoba prawna).
Companies are divided on personal companies and capital companies. Into every name of personal company there must be name of at least one of men personally responsible for its obligations (as I wrote). Same with one-person-companies (someone is trading but on his own - without any partners).

Name of capital company is free (because its different person than its partners) but must have "sp. z o.o." or "s.a." included - to show everyone what kind of person it is.

And to reply you stupid examples - ORANGE is not a company. Its trade mark - company is called (I think) PTK Centertel Sp. z o.o. - capital company. Carrefours is trade mark - company is called Carrefour Poland sp. z o.o.
And M & MM Barcley, Sainsbury - whats that:) Never heard about it.

To explain more (looks like you can understand only German examples) we call something Siemens but its not full name of that company. Similar regulations are into Germans - I think you got something like AG or similar (German words are unable to speak by normal people :) ).

And talkin about link - do you believe everything into internet. If I put here link to www.brenusis(*&)()(*@#$.com - would you believe you are "(*&)()(*@#$".
Child of neostrada!!!!!

Louis VI the Fat

09-29-2009, 12:44

My dear Brenus! How I always admire your unwavering battle for the truth! :2thumbsup:

Might as well throw in:

Destruction of the Jewish existence in Poland 1929-1939]

[5.2. Discrimination and murderous pogroms in anti-Semitic Poland 1935-1939]

[Discrimination of Jews in Poland is harsher than in the Third Reich]

The economic problems, which will be discussed below, were accompanied by a growing crescendo of physical attacks by anti-Semitic elements on the Jewish population. At times these attacks tended to overshadow the dismal poverty into which the Jewish masses were sinking. The physical attacks were accompanied by acts of deliberate discrimination that equaled, and often exceeded, the steps taken by Germany's Nazis at that time.Whole list of anti-Semitic measures in semi-fascist pre-war Poland:
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/judentum-aktenlage/hol/joint/Bauer_joint05-02-Poland-discrimination-murderous-pogroms-1935-1939-ENGL.html

KrooK

09-29-2009, 13:34

For this "masterpiece" suggesting that Poland was worse for Jews than Germany I can reply only:

21.03.1933 - Himmler ordered to build KL Dachau.

Right - deathcamps must have been perfect place for Jews. Much better than Poland. Nothing strange that so many French jews were catched and sent to KL Auschwitz by french police. Yep - now I understand.

[Early 1939: Poland: Deportations of Jews from the frontier towns]

In early 1939 Jews were forced to leave certain frontier towns because they were considered to be unreliable elements - as though Jews were less interested in resistance to the Germans than were the Poles. In this connection "almost one-quarter of the Jewish population of Gdynia was deported". At Katowice it was "feared that half the local Jewish population may be forced to emigrate elsewhere."

Many Jews were unreliable elements. They helped USSR.

(End note 13: See note 11 [R61, February 1939])

[1939: Anti-Semitism also in Western and Northwestern Poland]
Riots, pogroms, and boycotts now spread to areas in western and northwestern Poland, where the number of Jews was very small; up till then these areas had been spared from excesses.

Hmm - interesting that into Western and North-Western Poland lived most of German minority.
With political views very similar to the ones at Germany.

Internet source is bad source. Unreriable. And even if - its from 1974. Poland had very bad PR that time. And Jewish sources before 80ties were very far from "honest".

Conradus

09-29-2009, 14:34

Many Jews were unreliable elements. They helped USSR.

Considering they were deported by their anti-semitic government, they might have had some reason to do that, no?

Do mind though, the whole of Europe was anti-semitic pre-WWII. Germany "just" pushed it further than all the others.

KrooK

09-29-2009, 15:41

Conradus
they were deported because were unreliable (of course if they were deported - basement is quotation from unreliable source) not they were unreliable because were deported.
Into 1938 USSR dispanded Communist Party of Poland (group of terrorist claiming themselves polish revolutionists). Practically all of members were Jews or Belarussians. Generally unreliable element.

Most of jewish community remain loyal to country. But big, visible part betrayed Poland which is out of discussion too.

Brenus

09-29-2009, 18:52

“Nothing strange that so many French jews were catched and sent to KL Auschwitz by french police. Yep - now I understand.”
No you don’t. I don’t deny it. I don’t deny that a big part of the French Aristocracy and bourgeoisie (Maurras) was anti-Semitic. The laws taken by Pétain were worst than the Germans. He even took these laws without any request from the Germans.

As I said, France betrayed the Jews. France, her government at the time, betrayed the Jewish officers, NCO and soldiers who fought against the Germans in WW1. Pétain betrayed the Jewish who believed in France as the country which was the first one to gave them freedom and equality.
This is the honour of France:
Message from General de Gaulle to Rabbi Dr. Stephen Wise, President of the World Jewish Congress, New York (4th of October 1941):
On the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the emancipation of the Jews of France, I hereby confirm to you the policy of liberated France towards all Frenchmen.
The famous decree concerning the emancipation of the Jews of France, as well as the Proclamation of the Rights of Man and Citizens, is still in effect and cannot be repealed by the men of Vichy.
In fact, we consider the changes made to the Constitution and to French Law by the so-called Vichy Government, whose origins and actions are unconstitutional and illegal, to be null and void.
LIBERATED FRANCE, which, respects the Constitution and the Laws of the Republic wherever it exerts power, is determined to restore, once victory is achieved, the equality - in dignity and in deed - of all of the citizens on French soil.

“21.03.1933 - Himmler ordered to build KL Dachau”: For political opponents, mainly Communists and Socialists. Who were Jews according to you? And in 1934, Poland signed a Friendship Treaty with Germany…

“They helped USSR” Wonder why if the Polish treated them like this? Any way, they were not Polish according to the 1934 Poland…
You know of course it is pure….

By the way, Carrefour is a French Supermarcket. I was shopping there when Poland was still communist.

"Never heard about it": English shops.

KrooK

09-29-2009, 21:59

By the way, Carrefour is a French Supermarcket. I was shopping there when Poland was still communist.
To start from end (sorry but better is explaining small misunderstandings first) Carrefour is great worldwide corporation. It has its companies all over the world. In Poland it is Carrefour Polska sp. z o.o., which of course is part of Carrefour corporation.

Jews started being sent to Dachau very fast. Remember that this KL was boot camp for crews of other death camps - they need Jews (I think is sound terrible but its truth) to practise.

Any way, they were not Polish according to the 1934 Poland…
Sorry but really don't understand what you mean. Really. Could you explain what you mean?

Locarno was much more helpful for Germany than non-agression pact from 1934.
I won't even tell about Munich 1938.

And you should not use English shops as examples - Anglo-American law system is completely different than European. Good comparison would be with France, Germany or Italy.

And yes - Jews helped USSR. First time into polish-russian war 1919-1921. Then during agression 1939 and occupation 1939-1941. And later into years 1944-1956. Not all of them, rather minority - but visible minority. You can't blame all Frenchmen for sending Jews to deathcamps. Minority did it - but visible minority. Same was with Jews - visible minority betrayed their motherland.

Ahh I would forgot. Before ww2 Jews in Poland had special prerogative that made their situation much better than any other minorities. Better than Poles. They could organise associations and foundation without permission of Minister of Inner Affairs. These law persons could do any activity not prohibited by law. And thats why most of fathers of Israel became trained in Poland.

Brenus

10-01-2009, 06:35

“Could you explain what you mean?” It is what you are saying: The Poles and the Jews. You make a difference between them as in the Poles and the Russians, the Poles and the Germans. So, if the Jews are not Poles, why should they be loyal to a country that didn’t considered them as citizens?
Locarno (1925) was indeed helpful to Germany but was signed with the Weimar Republic, not with Adolph Hitler. Locarno Treaty was to welcome back Germany as a friendly nation by her former enemies… It didn’t help Hitler’s Germany to rearm…

KrooK

10-01-2009, 14:36

Locarno Treaty was to welcome back Germany as a friendly nation by her former enemies
Yes- shortly speaking France told Germany something like that:
Ok guys we understand that you want change borders on east. Do what you want but don't think about changing western border.

Ahh and one more- maybe we could got back to Wermacht instead of course of polish legal system.

Tribesman

10-01-2009, 18:02

For political opponents, mainly Communists and Socialists. Who were Jews according to you?
Of course, don't you reallise that for rabid nationalist anti-semites its all the Jews , Jews created communism, they betrayed Poland , they created capitalism as well and run the media and business too which is why it is important to know which jews run which business, after all you can't just go into a shop unless you know who owns it or you might be putting money into the hands of traitors.
Now I know you might find it hard to believe , but even though the germans russians lithuanians czechs french ukranians byelorussians estonians americans and everyone else are not as good as the Poles , they are still not quite as bad as the jews.

Meneldil

10-03-2009, 15:32

Sorry maybe some sources?

No way out: the politics of Polish Jewry, 1935-1939, by Emanuel Melzer.

And before you even type it, here's your answer :

Jewish-Israeli anti-Poland propaganda

Now, while we're at it, the only reason Jews have traditionnally supported communism in Europe is only because they were treated as second-class citizens in their own countries (Poland, Germany, Italy, Hungary). Communism in theory could have offered them a true equality (though in reality, it's wasn't quite the case).

Tristuskhan

10-24-2009, 22:30

[I]Now, while we're at it, the only reason Jews have traditionnally supported communism in Europe is only because they were treated as second-class citizens in their own countries (Poland, Germany, Italy, Hungary).

Uh-oh, beware about Italy, Italian Jews were a good part of the communist party but did so mostly for pure social motivations. As Primo Levi stated, true racial discriminations came very late in Italy, in 1939 mostly, before there was a significant number of jewish members of the fascist party.

Kralizec

10-25-2009, 23:25

And quite frankly, what the German would have expected after THEY started a war of extermination where the open goal was to either kill or enslave the Slavic population. When the open aim of Hitler Germany was to starve Leningrad to death.
They knew what Hitler intended to do, because he broadcasted it.
So what the Russian soldier had to do? Ok, guy, you raped my sisters, daughters, mothers, you hanged my grad dad, my uncles because they were who they were, you torched my houses and wanted to enslave me but yeah, I understand, war is bad…

Er, I agree with what you're trying to say but this is a flawed argument. Soviet troops raped and pillaged every country they came across on the way to Germany- including Poland, wich as far as I know never supplied any troops to fight on the eastern front.

Sarmatian

10-25-2009, 23:44

Er, I agree with what you're trying to say but this is a flawed argument. Soviet troops raped and pillaged every country they came across on the way to Germany- including Poland, wich as far as I know never supplied any troops to fight on the eastern front.

There were more Poles fighting within the Red Army than with the western Allies...

Kralizec

10-26-2009, 00:56

I believe you, but I meant fighting on the eastern front for the Germans. Wich pretty much negates the argument that all the rape and vandalism by red army troops was inspired by vengeance. They just were an unruly bunch.

Louis VI the Fat

10-26-2009, 03:42

But the Poles had fought the Russians two decades earlier / Russian lies.

(Poor Poles (no sarcasm), stuck between a rock and a hard place. First they fought the SU when the Soviets were allied with the nazis. Then they fought alongside the SU. Then they were stripped of their land and liberty for their effort.)

Anyway, from the Soviet perspective, half of Europe started a war of annihilation against Russia. The Germans, Slovaks, Fins, Rumanians, Croats, Bulgarians, Italians, and numerous Baltics, Ukranians and West Europeans, while Sweden provided Germany with the industry and iron needed.

Even so, the outnumbered Red Army, taken by surprise too, won. Within a mere eighteen months no less, giving the lie to nazi fan boys and their claim to bragging rights. :smash:

Nazi Germany never managed to defeat a country that was more than half its size. With the possible exception of the Italian army, the Wehrmacht was the most rubbish army of WWII. So very laughable when contrasted with their boasts of being an Ubermensch army. And so very painful that their main claim to fame is their relentless murderous brutality to civilian population.

DisruptorX

10-26-2009, 09:57

Nazi Germany never managed to defeat a country that was more than half its size.

They defeated the French. Sure, France wasn't really in the mood for a fight, but on paper, it had a huge, modern army.

Samurai Waki

10-26-2009, 10:55

They defeated the French. Sure, France wasn't really in the mood for a fight, but on paper, it had a huge, modern army.

Thats debatable. Not much of it was mobilized by the time the Nazis came rolling in, was it France's fault? sure. But, they were convinced it was going to be a WWI redux, calling upon reserves as needed.

el_slapper

10-26-2009, 10:58

They defeated the French. Sure, France wasn't really in the mood for a fight, but on paper, it had a huge, modern army.

I'm not sure I'm buying Louis's theory, but the only french who didn't have the mood to fight were in the bureaus. Given the opportunity to fight, most french soldiers did their duty rather well. though most of them were not given this opportunity(lack of supplies, order, organization). I'm fed up to hear once again the old nazi propaganda, still running 70 years later.

DisruptorX

10-26-2009, 11:26

I'm not sure I'm buying Louis's theory, but the only french who didn't have the mood to fight were in the bureaus. Given the opportunity to fight, most french soldiers did their duty rather well. though most of them were not given this opportunity(lack of supplies, order, organization). I'm fed up to hear once again the old nazi propaganda, still running 70 years later.

I wouldn't take that as a slight against French soldiers, that is not what I meant. I don't buy the myth that the French army is cowardly or particularly bad at fighting. They were the backbone of the Entente army in WW1, afterall. I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that the French government was not in a mood to fight, however.

My point was merely that Nazi Germany did in fact defeat a major power in battle. The other premier European power, no less.

Its not like the Russians were any more prepared for the German assault, either.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-26-2009, 19:03

Nazi fanboys are wrong that the Wehrmacht was the epitome of military superiority, but the assertion of Louis that the Wehrmacht was the worst or second-worst fighting force of the Second World War is just as wrong.

Husar

10-27-2009, 12:04

Nazi Germany never managed to defeat a country that was more than half its size.

I didn't know France was that small. :inquisitive:

CBR

10-27-2009, 13:08

I didn't know France was that small. :inquisitive:
Pre-war French population of about 41 million versus Germany of 71 million. So Louis is not entirely correct but close enough to make a point I guess.

CBR

Louis VI the Fat

10-27-2009, 13:27

Pre-war French population of about 41 million versus Germany of 71 million. So Louis is not entirely correct but close enough to make a point I guess.

CBRAnd seven million Austrian Germans, and three million Sudeten Germans.

People tend to overlook the different demographic and economical landscape of Europe in 1940. In 1940, France had 40 million inhabitants. Germany 81 million. The 'structuralist' explanation of the French defeat, so often overlooked.

The myth, repeated earlier in the thread by Adrian, now sadly left or I could taunt him with it, is that Germany took on half the world an nearly won. This perpetuates the myth of the invincible Nazi soldier. Making the nazis forever the subject of the fantasies of adolescent boys.

Reality is that Germany was a huge power. Second in size only to the USA. Supported by half of Europe too. It had a few easy pickings against much smaller opponents. But the very first time Germany was up against an opponent of equal size, but of far less economical development, Germany suffered a devastating loss within months.

The Wehrmacht was rubbish. The incompetence of the nazis was breathtaking.

CBR

10-27-2009, 13:52

Ah yes Austria and Sudetenland are missing from the numbers I found, so combined it would be twice the population of France.

The incompetence of the nazis was breathtaking
Their take on how to handle the industry was as incompetent as it could be, and while that improved somewhat during the later part of the war the nazi leadership only grew dumber on the Eastern front.

CBR

Sarmatian

10-27-2009, 15:24

And seven million Austrian Germans, and three million Sudeten Germans.

People tend to overlook the different demographic and economical landscape of Europe in 1940. In 1940, France had 40 million inhabitants. Germany 81 million. The 'structuralist' explanation of the French defeat, so often overlooked.

The myth, repeated earlier in the thread by Adrian, now sadly left or I could taunt him with it, is that Germany took on half the world an nearly won. This perpetuates the myth of the invincible Nazi soldier. Making the nazis forever the subject of the fantasies of adolescent boys.

Reality is that Germany was a huge power. Second in size only to the USA. Supported by half of Europe too. It had a few easy pickings against much smaller opponents. But the very first time Germany was up against an opponent of equal size, but of far less economical development, Germany suffered a devastating loss within months.

The Wehrmacht was rubbish. The incompetence of the nazis was breathtaking.

That doesn't really cut it, Louis. France wasn't defeated through war of attrition, where you could play on the card of "Germany had twice the population, twice the GDP and twice the industrial base". French army was defeated decisively on the battlefield, even when aided with some of the best troops Britain had to offer.

Sure, we can discuss how much of it is due to Wehrmacht's superior skills and how much due to the mistakes of French leadership who tried to fight WW1 in 1940.

In comparison, it took Austria-Hungary, Germany and Bulgaria more time to conquer Serbia in the first war than it took just Germany to conquer Poland, Denmark, Norway, Low Countries and France in WW2.

Louis VI the Fat

10-27-2009, 18:05

Sure. For breathtaking incompetence, one need not look further than the French military command in 1940. But then, there is no myth of invincible Ubersoldiers of mystical quality surrounding the French army in 1940.

There is a myth about nazi Germany. Several myths. One is: Hitler took a devastated, ravaged country and turned it into a major economic and military power.

Reality is that Hitler inherited the world's second largest power, cruised along on the global economic recovery, and ran a thriving Global Power into a moral, economical and military bankruptcy. Within a decade.

Germany deserved better. What a disgrace. What a complete disaster.

Yet the many myths surrounding it keep nazi Germany the object of much fascination. Unwarranted. Nazi Germany was not only a disgrace. It all was banal, incompetent, misplaced, unecessary.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-27-2009, 18:31

Reality is that Hitler inherited the world's second largest power, cruised along on the global economic recovery, and ran a thriving Global Power into a moral, economical and military bankruptcy. Within a decade.

Without any kind of a doubt, this is true. However, the Wehrmacht itself, while it certainly did not consist of the soldiers who make up the fantasies of neo-Nazi fanboys everywhere, was not in and of itself an exceptionally weak army. There were terrible leadership decisions, to be sure, but the forces themselves weren't bad. They were not superhuman in any way, as appears to be the myth, but they were certainly one of the better armies, navies, and air forces of that war.

Alexander the Pretty Good

10-27-2009, 19:13

Mostly through a military tradition that had existed since the 1700's, and unrelated to the Nazis.

Louis, I can see why the Texan is so enamored with you.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-27-2009, 19:20

Mostly through a military tradition that had existed since the 1700's, and unrelated to the Nazis.

Very much agreed. In fact, due to their callous disregard for the continuity of Germany and German traditions (ironic, in a way), they were one of the largest factors in destroying that tradition.

Alexander the Pretty Good

10-27-2009, 19:31

I just want to apologize for my tone in that post, it was more confrontational than it should've been.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-27-2009, 19:47

I just want to apologize for my tone in that post, it was more confrontational than it should've been.

Not a problem, I didn't even notice. ~:)

Strike For The South

10-27-2009, 21:07

Louis, I can see why the Texan is so enamored with you.

He does me well :yes:

Husar

10-27-2009, 23:24

Sure. For breathtaking incompetence, one need not look further than the French military command in 1940. But then, there is no myth of invincible Ubersoldiers of mystical quality surrounding the French army in 1940.
Well, the explanation is, if we were dumb, you were even dumber, otherwise you hadn't lost so fast.
Or maybe if you were average, we just had the better strategy, sounds better to me than declaring everybody back then an idiot.

There is a myth about nazi Germany. Several myths. One is: Hitler took a devastated, ravaged country and turned it into a major economic and military power.

Reality is that Hitler inherited the world's second largest power, cruised along on the global economic recovery,
Well, he claimed back the Rhineland which was under french control, solved the unemployment problem(well, by riding that wave you mention and making them build tanks) and found ways to make the army bigger than the officially allowed 100,000 men, of course you could say it's equally the fault of the appeasement movement on the allies' side but then the leaders before him did not seem to have the guts to do just that. I also remember from school that we had some problems paying the sums required by the Versailles treaty so it's not exactly like we were rich, how economically powerful we really were showed during the war against Britain where Britain heavily outproduced us in terms of airplanes, that sounds quite silly for the "second largest power after the USA".

I find it quite disturbing that in other threats the german defeat was attributed to a severe lack in industrial production capability, yet here you say Germany was the second largest industrial power after the USA. :inquisitive:

You also said:

Reality is that Germany was a huge power. Second in size only to the USA. Supported by half of Europe too. It had a few easy pickings against much smaller opponents. But the very first time Germany was up against an opponent of equal size, but of far less economical development, Germany suffered a devastating loss within months.
You seem to use size for manpower and for industrial power interchangeably, whatever suits you best to prove a certain point, at first I thought we were talking geometrical size which is why I wondered about the size of France, it certainly was a factor concerning the size of Russia.
When talking about manpower, Russia was quite superior, not equal to Germany, or that's what I've been told by numerous people in another thread here.
Economically you may have a point but the Russians still heavily outproduced us in terms of tanks and airplanes because due to their huge size(geometrical) they could build a whole lot of industry quite far away from us. And then we weren't just fighting the Russians with everything we had as that would have meant leaving Africa and not garrisoning troops anywhere else in Europe.

That leaves the point that the leadership was bloody stupid but I'd completely agree with that, I just think you're going a bit too far trying to prove a point, saying "size" but meaning 2-3 different things is also rather bad form IMO.

and ran a thriving Global Power into a moral, economical and military bankruptcy. Within a decade.
You could say he was unable to do it so the allies helped him, but yeah. ~;)

Germany deserved better. What a disgrace. What a complete disaster.
I think exactly the same about WW1 actually, I'd even say the part about deserving better applies more to WW1 than WW2 because the second time the people voted for the idiot. ~;)

Yet the many myths surrounding it keep nazi Germany the object of much fascination. Unwarranted. Nazi Germany was not only a disgrace. It all was banal, incompetent, misplaced, unecessary.
It's roughly the same with Napoleon's conquests, and he lost in Russia, too. ~;)

Louis VI the Fat

10-28-2009, 00:52

Husar

10-28-2009, 01:46

Husar, I mean size as either population, or as GDP. Of the belligerents, Germany was third in population, second in GDP.
Industrial output, or the manufacture of war machines, I don't know. I do know that only amateur war historians and communists think that only steel and coal are real economic output.
That's very true, you cannot win a war with clothes alone though, I don't know how exactly the production was split up but somehow the USSR ended up having a lot more tanks and planes than we did and IIRC it wasn't like that(maybe with tanks it was) when we invaded.

When trying to understand 1933-1940, it is sobering to remember that France had 40, Britain 45, and (greater) Germany 81 million inhabitants. Even the USA was barely fifty percent larger than Germany, in population and GDP.
As has been said that was not what won the war for us though, we could hardly replace our planes that we lost in the battle over Britain while the Royal Air Force was steadily growing once they started churning out loads of planes. You can't win a war by producing more ladders or apples although I admit I have no idea where those differences in production output came from.
I do nonetheless get your point though that Germany was, in general, quite big.

Hitler didn't solve the economical crisis either. The crisis of 1929 was solved everywhere after 1933. The crisis and hyperinflation of the early twenties was solved after 1923. 1923-1929 were years of sturdy economical growth in Germany.
Nonetheless his promises on the subject helped get him elected.

The French economy by 1929 had nearly recovered from the ravages inflicted by the Germans too. Unlike Germany, which did not see any fighting on its soil in WWI, the rest of Europe was paying dearly for WWI. Paying far more than Germany ever paid in reparations. In fact, I am still paying for WWI this very year, as we speak.
Well, I'd say they all got what they wanted, they didn't expect it to be that bad though, in the end it was convenient that the idiot who made the first step was also the loser...

I agree that the Treaty of Versailles was shortsighted. It was far too lenient on Germany. We should've imposed a much harsher treaty. As the allies did after 1945, to prevent another war.
?
It was quite harsh for a scapegoat and economically the treaty after WW2 could hardly have been harsher as we even got money from the Marshall plan, the treaty after WW2 was winning hearts and minds, the one after WW1 was just revenge, the results are obvious.

Sarmatian

10-28-2009, 06:31

It was quite harsh for a scapegoat and economically the treaty after WW2 could hardly have been harsher as we even got money from the Marshall plan, the treaty after WW2 was winning hearts and minds, the one after WW1 was just revenge, the results are obvious.

Stop right there. That is one German national myth that needs debunking. Versailles treaty wasn't that harsh. Germany lost a few provinces, some colonies, forced to accept the guilt for starting the war and to pay reparations.

Compared to WW2, where Germany lost more territory, faced much more destruction, had country dismembered and put under direct military occupation for decades, in addition to having to accept war guilt and paying reparations.

Treaty of Versailles was much more lenient than WW2 treaty, much more lenient than treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Germany imposed on Russia and much more lenient than treaty Germany planned on imposing on the Entente.

Husar

10-28-2009, 11:27

Stop right there. That is one German national myth that needs debunking. Versailles treaty wasn't that harsh. Germany lost a few provinces, some colonies, forced to accept the guilt for starting the war and to pay reparations.

Compared to WW2, where Germany lost more territory, faced much more destruction, had country dismembered and put under direct military occupation for decades, in addition to having to accept war guilt and paying reparations.

Treaty of Versailles was much more lenient than WW2 treaty, much more lenient than treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Germany imposed on Russia and much more lenient than treaty Germany planned on imposing on the Entente.

They were however received very different here and the destruction caused in WW2 was not part of the treaty at the end. Combined with de-nazification, making people walk through concentration camps etc. I'd see the end of WW2 more as a healing process rather than some harsh punishment, although harsh punishment was rightly delivered to some of the responsible people. I also don't think we're still paying a lot in reparations for WW2, IIRC we'd still be paying for the Versailles treaty today had it not been changed/abandoned.
I think I may be seeing it differently though because what we did during WW2 and how we started it was a lot worse than WW1 and the outcome seemed a lot more lenient in comparison, partly because the US propped us up to keep the Soviets in check. Remember that we did not just start WW1 against a bunch of peace-loving french and british hippies.

Louis VI the Fat

10-28-2009, 16:50

I'd see the end of WW2 more as a healing process rather than some harsh punishment, although harsh punishment was rightly delivered to some of the responsible people. I also don't think we're still paying a lot in reparations for WW2, IIRC we'd still be paying for the Versailles treaty today had it not been changed/abandoned.This is largely incorrect, I'm afraid.

WWI was fought on French and Belgian soil. Germany saw no fighting. After the war was won, France demanded that Germany pick up a very small percentage of the bill for reparing the destruction it caused. In other words, France paid most of the costs for WWI, Germany very little. Despite Germany being the most directly responsible for the outbreak of war. This was one aspect of the leniency of the Treaty of Versailles.

This small sum that was demanded, 50 billion mark in total - some 60 billion Euros - was not responsible for the financial chaos in Germany. Even so, because of the crisis of 1929, it was decided Germany could postpone payment. In 1932, it became clear that the reparations would be annuled by the allies forever. Negotiations were in an advanced stage. Germany could've stopped paying even without Hitler.

Instead, Germany started another war. So after WWII, it was decided that Germany should pay the reparations of Versailles after all. Germany will finish paying in 2020. The peace of WWII also divided Germany, annexed a large part of Germany, and put Germany under military occupation for decades, and one fourth under a dictatorship.

By contrast, the Treaty of Versailles installed a democracy on Germany, asked for reparations that were even lower than Germany itself proposed, and demanded that Germany did not re-militarize.

Husar

10-28-2009, 19:42

This is largely incorrect, I'm afraid.

WWI was fought on French and Belgian soil. Germany saw no fighting. After the war was won, France demanded that Germany pick up a very small percentage of the bill for reparing the destruction it caused. In other words, France paid most of the costs for WWI, Germany very little. Despite Germany being the most directly responsible for the outbreak of war. This was one aspect of the leniency of the Treaty of Versailles.

This small sum that was demanded, 50 billion mark in total - some 60 billion Euros - was not responsible for the financial chaos in Germany. Even so, because of the crisis of 1929, it was decided Germany could postpone payment.

In January 1921, the total sum due was decided by an Inter-Allied Reparations Commission and was set at 269 billion gold marks (2,790 gold marks equalled 1 kilogram of pure gold), about £23.6 Billion, about $32 billion (roughly equivalent to $393.6 Billion US Dollars as of 2005[1]). This was a sum that many economists deemed to be excessive because it would have taken Germany until 1988 to pay.
[...]
Most famously, the principal representative of the British Treasury at the Paris Peace Conference, John Maynard Keynes, resigned from the Treasury in June 1919 in protest at the scale of the reparations demands, and subsequently protested publicly in the best-selling The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919).
Your numbers seem to be slightly wrong, your conclusion that it hardly impacted Germany as well, we also had to give away most of our merchant fleet which hurt our economy further.

And then there is this:

In many ways, the Versailles reparations were a reply to the reparations placed upon France by Germany through the 1871 Treaty of Frankfurt, signed after the Franco-Prussian War. Note however that the amount of the reparations demanded in the treaty of Versailles were comparatively larger (5B Francs vs. 132B Reichsmark). Indemnities of the Treaty of Frankfurt were in turn calculated, on the basis of population, as the precise equivalent of the indemnities demanded by Napoleon after the defeat of Prussia.
It's called revenge. And it's different from what the USA and Britain proposed, they were the ones who were lenient and after WW2 they also go the better results.

Instead, Germany started another war. So after WWII, it was decided that Germany should pay the reparations of Versailles after all. Germany will finish paying in 2020.
I can't find a lot about that and what I could find also pointed out that there never was a peace treaty after WW2 and that demanding reparations before a peace treaty is signed is against international law, so a link explaining this might not hurt. That I am supposed to pay for that is of course reason enough to vote NPD from now on...

The peace of WWII also divided Germany, annexed a large part of Germany, and put Germany under military occupation for decades, and one fourth under a dictatorship.

By contrast, the Treaty of Versailles installed a democracy on Germany, [...]
Uhm, no, the republic was established within Germany and had nothing to do with the winners of the war, the new government even signed the treaty of Versailles, hard to do if the government only came to existence due to the treaty.

Following World War I, the republic emerged from the German Revolution in November 1918. In 1919, a national assembly convened in the city of Weimar, where a new constitution for the German Reich was written, to be adopted on 11 August.
The constitution and democracy we have now were established under heavy american influence in 1948, not a direct result of the Potsdam conference but a result of the oh so bad american occupation. In fact, I've never seen the american occupation as a bad thing, I'm not entirely sure how other Germans see or have seen it but I'm not aware of any "freedom fighters" trying to make them leave either.

Sarmatian

10-28-2009, 21:54

Your numbers seem to be slightly wrong, your conclusion that it hardly impacted Germany as well, we also had to give away most of our merchant fleet which hurt our economy further.

Entire amount was not supposed to be in cash. That was the total worth of reparations, actual amount of money was less. Then there's inflation, growth of GDP in absolute numbers etc etc... Much less harsh than often portrayed.

It's called revenge.

Quite right, but revenge or not, the terms of WW1 were more lenient.

The constitution and democracy we have now were established under heavy american influence in 1948, not a direct result of the Potsdam conference but a result of the oh so bad american occupation. In fact, I've never seen the american occupation as a bad thing, I'm not entirely sure how other Germans see or have seen it but I'm not aware of any "freedom fighters" trying to make them leave either.

Foreign army in control of your country = occupation. Instances where American soldiers on a night got into a fight with Germans were not that uncommon, but the real reasons the American soldiers weren't seen as occupiers per se is because of the Soviet Union.

In the end, no matter if US soldiers were liked or not, it was de facto and de jure military occupation, something that didn't happen after ww1.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-28-2009, 22:17

Stop right there. That is one German national myth that needs debunking. Versailles treaty wasn't that harsh. Germany lost a few provinces, some colonies, forced to accept the guilt for starting the war and to pay reparations.

Compared to WW2, where Germany lost more territory, faced much more destruction, had country dismembered and put under direct military occupation for decades, in addition to having to accept war guilt and paying reparations.

Treaty of Versailles was much more lenient than WW2 treaty, much more lenient than treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Germany imposed on Russia and much more lenient than treaty Germany planned on imposing on the Entente.

Call it disproportionate then, based on how the wars were begun. Either way, the Treaty of Versailles contained far more than you mentioned. The Two Plus Four Agreement allowed us a much larger military, allowed us certain other things, and more or less all we had to do was to accept our Eastern border. We even got money out of the Marshall Plan.

Versailles, on the other hand, limited our military to an unreasonably small size, killed our weapons industry, there is the small question of Article 227 and Article 231, which in and of themselves are unjust and heavy-handed punishments, Germany lost a lot of territory, it made us pay money that A) we had no responsibility for paying and B) we didn't have, lost our coal production areas/were forced to provide tons and tons of coal to the victors for years, and Germany essentially lost all of her colonies.

Versailles was ridiculous. A harsher treaty may have worked, but it would not have been just. Sorry, but the Treaty of Versailles was much worse than your revisionist myths would have it.

Husar

10-28-2009, 22:18

Entire amount was not supposed to be in cash. That was the total worth of reparations, actual amount of money was less. Then there's inflation, growth of GDP in absolute numbers etc etc... Much less harsh than often portrayed.
Well, I quoted a British guy who found it quite harsh. And the monetary amount is not that relevant, the total amount is. Giving away machines/wares might be easy but also means you can produce less in the future and lose a lot of income.

Quite right, but revenge or not, the terms of WW1 were more lenient.
That might be true, they were however not perceived as more lenient due to the circumstances, and that perception caused a lot of things that may have been preventable. Perception plays a big role of course because people vote based on it.

Foreign army in control of your country = occupation. Instances where American soldiers on a night got into a fight with Germans were not that uncommon, but the real reasons the American soldiers weren't seen as occupiers per se is because of the Soviet Union.
Well, the real reason they established a new state in Western Germany and gave us money via the Marshall plan was also the Soviet Union, just like the real reason for the Versailles treaty was that the French wanted revenge for 1871, it does not change the two outcomes though. One resulted in a big failure and an even worse war, the other established a long-term ally. It's about doing the right thing according to the circumstances and taking into account how the population perceives it, if I'm not mistaken it's the same argument we liberal lefties always use about Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the end, no matter if US soldiers were liked or not, it was de facto and de jure military occupation, something that didn't happen after ww1.
Of course, I'm not debating that, although the French did occupy the Rhineland a while after WW1 to secure their reparation payments.

Brenus

10-28-2009, 22:18

“Indemnities of the Treaty of Frankfurt were in turn calculated, on the basis of population, as the precise equivalent of the indemnities demanded by Napoleon after the defeat of Prussia.” Yeah, and the seizure of Alsace Lorraine, and the occupation of France (indemnities of the Occupation Forces paid by France) were the equivalent of what, exactly?

“And it's different from what the USA and Britain proposed”: Yeap, but the war wasn’t fought on the UK or US soil…:laugh4:

“It's roughly the same with Napoleon's conquests, and he lost in Russia, too” Yeap, but no. Napoleon is far to be my favourite hero but the legacy is quite different: The Code Napoleon is not My Kampf.
Napoleon crossed the borders in 24 June 1912. In December He left Moscow burning. So the French Imperial Army did better by foot than the WW2 German with cars and tanks. And Napoleon didn’t attack by surprise…:beam:

“Or maybe if you were average, we just had the better strategy”: and better tactic. In term of strategy Hitler and consorts lacked of one.
Von Rundsedt from the start had doubt that the Blitzkrieg would work in Russia and was right, like he was about Normandy. To have the Panzer Divisions near the beaches as Rommel wanted would have put them under the fire of the Navy and it would have been end of them.
Hitler had no bomber command, no long-range fighters and never had. Even the tanks as famous than the Panther or Tiger (and even PZ IV) were answers to the Russian menaces (T 34, KV 85 and various SU).

“The Wehrmacht was rubbish” I wouldn’t say that, especially in the long retreat from Russia. The ability to the Germans to regroup and to form Kampfgroup is a real coup de force. From routed units and telephonists they were able to create fighting forces able to hold the lines against a better-prepared Soviet Army.

But in term of Myth, as Louis underlined, Germany is always presented as a lonely wild boar fighting pack of wolves when de facto, Germany had more Allies than France at the start of the war, France which had to fight on two fronts from the start…

Because all the countries which will be the Allies, at the start would had stay neutral if possible: Belgium, Holland, Greece, Denmark, Norway, and others, all refused the entrance of French-British troops. Then it was too late.
What if the French Mechanised Army would have been at the Belgium-Germany Borders when the German offensive started? Would Hitler risk it? Arr, we will never know… If the Rumanian oil fields would have been from the start at range for the RAF in Greece?

“I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that the French government was not in a mood to fight, however.”
No, it was not.
The French didn’t want their children to go to the slaughterhouse, again…
But when the mobilisation arrived on the walls, no mass desertions, and no protest. The French went by trains, by foot and took weapons and uniforms from the depots to fight for Poland. They were not happy, they were not over-joy by the idea to go to war, but they did.
And I prefer these men to the conquerors. I prefer the civilised people going to war because it had to be done but without joy.
And in a situation they couldn’t imagine the fought.
Under the Stuka, against the panzers, with their ridicule old fashion uniforms and their out-dated guns, against an army that prepared this during years, they fought.
Lead by incompetent officers, betrayed by their elites, which welcome the defeat, they lost 90,000 of their comrades. Then they obey their General in Chief who sold them to the Germans…

Husar

10-29-2009, 00:18

Yeah, and the seizure of Alsace Lorraine, and the occupation of France (indemnities of the Occupation Forces paid by France) were the equivalent of what, exactly?
That's a good point actually, the question is whether Germany could have been formed without defeating France first?

Yeap, but the war wasn’t fought on the UK or US soil…:laugh4:
Maybe that just means they were able to make a more objective judgement/decision. ~;)
I'm not trying to say we shouldn't have paid anything, Wilhelm II. was a fool in my mind and we shouldn't have backed Austria and not done a whole lot of other idiocies but I'm pretty sure that a lot of european countries were expecting/wanting the war but the blame was put only on one side, it would probably have been that way if we had won but then it would have been equally fair/unfair.

Yeap, but no. Napoleon is far to be my favourite hero but the legacy is quite different: The Code Napoleon is not My Kampf.
Napoleon crossed the borders in 24 June 1912. In December He left Moscow burning. So the French Imperial Army did better by foot than the WW2 German with cars and tanks. And Napoleon didn’t attack by surprise…:beam:
Heh, I was joking, I might add though that his retreat went a lot worse than ours as you say yourself.

But in term of Myth, as Louis underlined, Germany is always presented as a lonely wild boar fighting pack of wolves when de facto, Germany had more Allies than France at the start of the war, France which had to fight on two fronts from the start…
Germany WAS the lone wild boar once it fought the Russians on one front and the UK and the USA on the other, the early conquests were mostly notable because armies that could have held out much longer with the right tactics were captured or wiped out relatively fast. A matter of tactics, not Übersoldiers. IIRC the french tanks were also better than ours, njot sure about the numbers but then the french and Belgians also had defenses we circumvented in ways they did not expect, that's what made the strength of Germany, great minds, some of them in tactics, others in mechanics etc. Had we waged a "conventional" war against France, Poland etc. we might have ended up with a repetition of WW1. The Russians also had some great strengths, while we built tanks like clockworks, they built tanks that just worked, and more of them, it obviously worked out for them although technically our tanks were probably more sophisticated.

Because all the countries which will be the Allies, at the start would had stay neutral if possible: Belgium, Holland, Greece, Denmark, Norway, and others, all refused the entrance of French-British troops. Then it was too late.
What if the French Mechanised Army would have been at the Belgium-Germany Borders when the German offensive started? Would Hitler risk it? Arr, we will never know… If the Rumanian oil fields would have been from the start at range for the RAF in Greece?
That's what happens when you put too much effort into keeping other countries' troops out of your country. ~;)
What if the USA had not occupied Western Germany during the Cold War? Would we be a soviet satellite now?

Brenus

10-29-2009, 21:37

“That's a good point actually, the question is whether Germany could have been formed without defeating France first?”
Probably not. Bismarck needed a war to unit all German States under Prussia, and a good war raises National Feelings. Another hand, Napoleon III needed a war for the same reason (national feeling) as his highly corrupted regime was facing more and more demands for reforms and Republicanism was growing…

“Maybe that just means they were able to make a more objective judgement/decision”. Maybe. Or maybe they didn’t take all in account…:beam:

“Heh, I was joking”. Yeah, I know. But still French Imperial Army in 1812 did better than mechanised German Army in 1940. I underline it because one of the myths is the speed of the German Army during the WW2. Now, compare with napoleon Campaigns…:beam:

“Germany WAS the lone wild boar once it fought the Russians on one front and the UK and the USA on the other” Yeap, but this happened in 1943 (for Italy) and 1944 with Anvil and Overlord.
Before, between 1941 and 1943, it was USSR against Germany, Austria (being “anschlussed”) Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary, Finland, Italy (which included Albania) and all Foreign SS Divisions, auxiliaries and local collaborators. We can include in the list the Collaborationist State Petainist France and Holland and Norway…

The building of the lonely Germany myth was done in look down these soldiers, forgetting than the last soldiers trying to take Red October in Stalingrad were the Croats of the 369th Regiment, and the last defenders in Berlin were French and Dutch or forgetting to mention them in victories as in Crimean campaign (Rumanians and Italians) or blaming them for German failure (Stalingrad: The Wermacht failed to take the town and blamed the Rumanians, Hungarians and Italians for the collapse of their lines in front of the Soviet 21st, 40th, 63rd Armies, 3rd and 5th Tank Army and 1st Soviet Guard Army.

“the French tanks were also better than ours” In term of mechanic, gun and protection yes. However, the French Tanks used the same fuel than airplane which means they couldn’t refuel in a petrol station as the German did, had no radio, and worst, the commander on the tank was as well in charge to reload the gun. So in defensive it was almost ok but in an offensive it was a disaster…

Husar

10-30-2009, 01:54

Yeah, I know. But still French Imperial Army in 1812 did better than mechanised German Army in 1940. I underline it because one of the myths is the speed of the German Army during the WW2. Now, compare with napoleon Campaigns…:beam:
He was pretty fast indeed but if I'm not mistaken most wars at the time consisted of a few major battles and then you could just march on as the opponent was defeated, in WW2 you faced pockets of resistance every few kilometers and actually had a front line with units spread everywhere etc.
Quite different from fighting a few battles that lasted a day or two or am I wrong here?

Yeap, but this happened in 1943 (for Italy) and 1944 with Anvil and Overlord.
Before, between 1941 and 1943, it was USSR against Germany, Austria (being “anschlussed”) Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary, Finland, Italy (which included Albania) and all Foreign SS Divisions, auxiliaries and local collaborators. We can include in the list the Collaborationist State Petainist France and Holland and Norway…

The building of the lonely Germany myth was done in look down these soldiers, forgetting than the last soldiers trying to take Red October in Stalingrad were the Croats of the 369th Regiment, and the last defenders in Berlin were French and Dutch or forgetting to mention them in victories as in Crimean campaign (Rumanians and Italians) or blaming them for German failure (Stalingrad: The Wermacht failed to take the town and blamed the Rumanians, Hungarians and Italians for the collapse of their lines in front of the Soviet 21st, 40th, 63rd Armies, 3rd and 5th Tank Army and 1st Soviet Guard Army.
So did the USSR have a vast numerical superiority now or not? Because that is what I always read here, I've challenged the thought myself in another thread and was told that they could draw many men from many parts of Asia under their control, apparently a lot more than the few collaborators you mention. :inquisitive:
And for all the collaborators there also had to be garrisons because the vast majority of people in conquered territories were hardly pro-german, then you had resistance fighters etc.
I'm not saying you don't raise a good point but did the numbers of collaborators really matter that much?

“the French tanks were also better than ours” In term of mechanic, gun and protection yes. However, the French Tanks used the same fuel than airplane which means they couldn’t refuel in a petrol station as the German did, had no radio, and worst, the commander on the tank was as well in charge to reload the gun. So in defensive it was almost ok but in an offensive it was a disaster…
Good thing that you weren't on the offensive then. ~;)

Louis VI the Fat

10-30-2009, 19:48

I shall not clutter this thread with debunking the many myhts surrounding the Treaty of Versailles. I'll open a new thread about it, explaining just why it was very lenient, and why it was a magnanimous peace that France offered to defeated Germany.

I'm not saying you don't raise a good point but did the numbers of collaborators really matter that much?Germany had a million soldiers from the Soviet Union alone.

It could've been much more. The Ukrainians, Byelorussians and Baltics were not especially endeared to the Soviet Union. Not at all in fact. They were simply begging to be relieved of Soviet rule.

The Germans however, went on a murderous rampage in all these territories. Wantonly killing millions. (The Wehrmacht always was much better at killing unarmed civilians than soldiers).

It is a clear example of how the bitter lack of morality of nazi Germany was tied to its defeat. You don't exactly get many Ukrainians to join the fight against Bolshevism if you call them untermenschen, barely more than apes, fit only to perform slave labour for Germany. Then the Ukrainians, despite Stalin's genocidal policy towards them, decide that even Stalin is a better master than Germany.

(And a better horse to bet on. The Soviet Union, unlike Germany, has the habit of winning wars. Bolshevism is simply superior to nazism, morally and militarily. :smash:)

Louis VI the Fat

10-30-2009, 19:52

“It's roughly the same with Napoleon's conquests, and he lost in Russia, too”
Yeap, but no. Napoleon is far to be my favourite hero but the legacy is quite different: The Code Napoleon is not My Kampf.
Napoleon crossed the borders in 24 June 1912. In December He left Moscow burning. So the French Imperial Army did better by foot than the WW2 German with cars and tanks. And Napoleon didn’t attack by surprise…:beam:Napoleon did not need to betray the Russians and take them by surprise. He simply announced he was coming for them, and then dined in Moscow a few months later.

When Napoleon advanced into Russia, the Russians were so afraid they burned down Moscow themselves.

By contrast, the Russians simply let the Germans advance. Then drew a line in the sand around Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad. The Germans thus widely spread, yet confined to tiny spaces, the advantage of panzer and mobility of the Wehrmacht was neutralised. So the Red Army could simply butcher the Wehrmacht soldiers in man-to-man battle.

“I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that the French government was not in a mood to fight, however.”
No, it was not.
The French didn’t want their children to go to the slaughterhouse, again…
But when the mobilisation arrived on the walls, no mass desertions, and no protest. The French went by trains, by foot and took weapons and uniforms from the depots to fight for Poland. They were not happy, they were not over-joy by the idea to go to war, but they did.
And I prefer these men to the conquerors. I prefer the civilised people going to war because it had to be done but without joy.Well said. I prefer them too.

Whatever else is said about WWII, all the lies and the myths and the misinformation, all the nazi sympathy on the internet, this stands. The nazis were not the civilized people. The honour is for the free, civilized peoples who went to war with the nazis, regardless of who would join them, regardless of who would make fun of them sixty years laters. This alone is worth everything.

Oleander Ardens

10-30-2009, 22:44

When Napoleon advanced into Russia, the Russians were so afraid they burned down Moscow themselves.

By contrast, the Russians simply let the Germans advance. Then drew a line in the sand around Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad. The Germans thus widely spread, yet confined to tiny spaces, the advantage of panzer and mobility of the Wehrmacht was neutralised. So the Red Army could simply butcher the Wehrmacht soldiers in man-to-man battle.

@Luis: You raised initially some valid points, but now you start to embarrass yourself. Please read yourself what you have written. "By contrast, the Russians simply let the Germans advance?" :dizzy2:

I do think that this is rather offensive to the millions of Soviet military casualities suffered during the German advance. :furious3:

OA

Louis VI the Fat

10-31-2009, 00:48

Meh, I'm here to debunk some myths. If an alien species were to have no other knowledge of humanity but the internets, they'd think the nazis were the greatest and most righteous thing ever. There is an entire counter-history of WWII that now passes for mainstream. I'm here to set the record straight again. For this, I need some poetic license and a few little teases thrown in for good measure. :beam:

But: them Russkies did learn real soon how to trade space for time though... :yes:

Hitler had been shouting so loudly and without pause that Bolshevism was a rotten system run by Jews and Slavic Untermenschen, that the Germans came to believe it too. 'One kick and the whole structure will come crashing down!' is what they believed about Russia. When this didn't happen, and Russia was in fact still alive when winter set in, it was the beginning of the end for Germany. Germany hadn't even bothered to prepare for winter war, for logistical problems, for counter-offensives. Instead, the nazis had spend their time squabbling over the precise colour of the invitation cards to celebrate the fall of Leningrad in the Hermitage - which they had already printed.

Again, one sees how morality is tied to Germany's defeat. Any Germany would've defeated Russia. Except for nazi Germany. The immorality and the incompetence of Germany were tied.

By the next winter, the death blow was dealt already. 18 months is all it took for the most backward state of Europe to bring down the most powerful state in Europe. Very frustrating, to be brought down by starving, illiterate Slavic peasants, so the nazis took it out on whatever Jews they could get their hands on in the East.

Husar

10-31-2009, 01:30

Meh, I'm here to debunk some myths. If an alien species were to have no other knowledge of humanity but the internets, they'd think the nazis were the greatest and most righteous thing ever.
:inquisitive: I think not even Panzer Jager would call them the most righteous thing.

There is an entire counter-history of WWII that now passes for mainstream. I'm here to set the record straight again. For this, I need some poetic license and a few little teases thrown in for good measure. :beam:
Well, that's my point, that you're not just setting the record straight but going a bit far.

Hitler had been shouting so loudly and without pause that Bolshevism was a rotten system run by Jews and Slavic Untermenschen, that the Germans came to believe it too. 'One kick and the whole structure will come crashing down!' is what they believed about Russia. When this didn't happen, and Russia was in fact still alive when winter set in, it was the beginning of the end for Germany. Germany hadn't even bothered to prepare for winter war, for logistical problems, for counter-offensives. Instead, the nazis had spend their time squabbling over the precise colour of the invitation cards to celebrate the fall of Leningrad in the Hermitage - which they had already printed.

Again, one sees how morality is tied to Germany's defeat. Any Germany would've defeated Russia. Except for nazi Germany. The immorality and the incompetence of Germany were tied.
I'd sign almost all of this but the point that any Germany except Nazi Germany could have beaten Russia seems to run counter to your argument that the Wehrmacht was complete rubbish and to the argument that Russia had a whole lot more manpower. Your earlier point that Germany got less support because they killed everybody is rather irrelevant concerning the strength of the Wehrmacht, it's the result of a political decision.

By the next winter, the death blow was dealt already. 18 months is all it took for the most backward state of Europe to bring down the most powerful state in Europe. Very frustrating, to be brought down by starving, illiterate Slavic peasants, so the nazis took it out on whatever Jews they could get their hands on in the East.
:inquisitive: Poetic license, isn't it? Brenus and I already agreed that the Russian tanks were quite good, and they had more of them. The distinct lack of preparation for a winter war always baffled me but in retrospect it was obviously better this way. If the Nazis had been perfect we might live under some nazi regime now, that they were neither perfect nor righteous should be obvious, that the Wehrmacht was a competent fighting force nonetheless is completely seperate from that, instead of making things up, why not teach people to differentiate between the two? Even evil people can be effective, that does not mean though, that we should all follow their example.

Kralizec

10-31-2009, 01:49

To be "fair", none of the allied victors would have been able to defeat Germany by themselves.
The British most obviously, although Germany wouldn't have been able to conquer them either.
The USA because they needed the UK as a staging ground. In fact, the western allies all put together probably wouldn't have been able to pull off Overlord if the Germans hadn't been preoccupied in the east.
The Soviets because in reality they made do with tons of money, trucks and raw materials from the lend-lease program and with their western allies bombing Germany's cities and industries.

Yes, Germany had allies too but they were either sub-par compared to the bigger players or to small to make a difference. Romania was actually more important to Germany than Italy because of it's oil deposits.

And a better horse to bet on. The Soviet Union, unlike Germany, has the habit of winning wars. Bolshevism is simply superior to nazism, morally and militarily.

I'm pretty sure that Germany has lost fewer wars than France ~;)

Louis VI the Fat

10-31-2009, 02:32

I'd sign almost all of this but the point that any Germany except Nazi Germany could have beaten Russia seems to run counter to your argument that the Wehrmacht was complete rubbish

Even evil people can be effective'Evil' people can be competent and effective. However, one of the main points I tried to make in the past few posts, is how nazi immorality was inextricably tied to nazi defeat, tied to their underwhelming military performance.

Two clear examples:

1) The Ukraine was subject to a genocidal campaign form Stalin. The Ukraine was very ready to welcome Germany as its liberator. Being the second most populous Soviet Republic, with by far the best farm land and the most industry, this would've sufficed to tip the scale into Germany's favour.

Instead, the nazis started on a murderous campaign immediately after their invasion of the Ukraine, making it perfectly clear they considered the Ukrainians beasts. Untermenschen. Best simply killed, save for those useful for slave labour.
German arrogance and racial obsession cost Germany the victory.

2) Germany waged a relentless war against its own population. If you want to win a war, it is not a good idea to start genociding yourself.

And a third, more disputable one:
3) State-terror, censorship, slavery, extortion, humiliation - when these policies are used by a state against its own subjects, the strength of a society suffers. Democracy proved to be the most powerful government in the 20th century. Nazism, and later communism too, collapsed under their own immorality.

So there is no such thing as separating the competence of the Wehrmacht (or nazi Germany) from the immorality of it.

Some trivial points:
Russian tanks were inferior to German tanks. Russia had far less industrial resources and manpower. To make up for this deficit, Russia made more tanks, of a very basic and simple design.
I am of the opinion that the exact technical specifications of war machines are not the main driving force behind history, or even of the outcome of war.
I am not making things up. Some of the things I've said run simply run counter to oft-repeated wisdom. Me, I read with as much indignation and bewilderment a lot of that. Of course, it is I who is correct.
I spare no-one because of what I said in one of my first posts in this thread: if nazism is seen as powerful, or controversial, it will have admirers. If it is exposed as banal and incompetent, nobody cares about it and it is relegated to the dustbin of history. I don't get indignant about nazis, I laugh at them. This is far more productive - the emperor isn't wearing clothes, and this can be pointed out.

Louis VI the Fat

10-31-2009, 02:35

I'm pretty sure that Germany has lost fewer wars than France ~;):beam:

Me, I'm pretty sure that France has won more wars than Germany. :idea2:

(Never underestimate the support for Germany in WWII. Finland, the Baltics, Slovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Croatia, Italy. The neutral but fascist Spain and Portugal. Sweden, which suplied Germany with two thirds of its iron. Switzerland, which supplied Germany with all sorts of financial services. The French traitors. The Dutch collaborators. The Norwegian Quislings. And probably some more that I can't think of.
Ireland was neutral. Albania, Serbia and Greece were troublesome and never fully subjugated. The UK resisted. I think that's all.)

Brenus

10-31-2009, 09:16

“I'm pretty sure that Germany has lost fewer wars than France” Same for Italy, Andorra and Liechtenstein. The 2 first being because Germany is created in 1870, Italy reunited in 1861 (thanks to…?… France), and the 2 others are too small to go to war…
If you put the birth of France in 843 with the Treaty of Verdun (sharing Charlemagne Empire between his 3 sons, even if Charlemagne if considered as French by French History), that gave a lot of time for wars, battles and of course defeats…

“Two clear examples” “If you want to win a war, it is not a good idea to start genociding yourself.”
But, but, I was told by some in this same site, that there is a think named “holodomore” and it was no Ukrainians left.
Then other people are saying that they (the Ukrainians) were ready to welcome the Germans as liberators and got the Nazis instead, then they fought valiantly (the question is who? Zombies? Un-dead lurching towards the Germans MG 42?) side by side of the same who starved them to death… No…. History is too complex….

“Russian tanks were inferior to German tanks.” Yes and no. The Russian tanks were effective for the population who used them. The technology used to make them was advanced, and the plans were advanced. Until 1945 the Germans carried on building tanks with 90-degree turret plate (yes, even the Panther, Tiger) whereas the T 34/73 A has a profiled turret this in 1940…
The German tanks after the PZ III were and answer to the Russian models. The Panther came after the T 34. Waiting of it, the Germans had to adapt the PZ IV with long 75 mm barrel and other protection to match the Russian.
However, the Panther (including it notable weak gear box) and the Tiger were better in term of quality. But they couldn’t be mass-produce, reason was nobody build them after the WW2, contrary to Sherman, T 34 and others…
The French briefly used the Panther…

“'Evil' people can be competent and effective”. Yeap, see Stalin.:beam:

“To be "fair", none of the allied victors would have been able to defeat Germany by themselves.” To be fair, all of them would have been at one point. France with a better strategy/generals could have done it, when the aerial reconnaissance showed the Panzer concentration in the Ardennes. Few bombers would have resolved the problems, or artillery shelling…
The Russians were winning the war… With or without the Western Allies, with the blood, the guts, the hate and the courage of the Russian soldiers they were on the offensive all along the front. Just look at the map 1944, where are the Red Armies?

“Yes, Germany had allies too but they were either sub-par compared to the bigger players or to small to make a difference.” That is the result of the Germans propaganda during the war, reinforced after the war by the countries allied with Germany in order to minimised their own involvement (knowing that most of them were under Communist Control) in the war/genocide.
Foreign Volunteers are estimated around 2,000,000 and the French were unfortunately the most numerous from Western Europe, thanks to Petain (LVF -Franzosischer Infantry-Regiment 638- 33 Waffen-Grenadier der SS Charlemagne Todt organisation etc).
To prolong Louis argument, here again we can see the stupidity of the Nazi. Without their obsession to humiliate and to exterminate, they could have turn all France in at least a neutral supplier, denying to the Allies a platform to land, providing raw material, volunteers and a side not to worry about.
And I don’t think that Japan can be seen as a second hand player, by the way.

“But: them Russkies did learn real soon how to trade space for time though”: The Russians had to learn to defend…But: them Russkies did learn real soon how to trade space for time though

Husar

10-31-2009, 10:47

The Ukraine was subject to a genocidal campaign form Stalin. The Ukraine was very ready to welcome Germany as its liberator. Being the second most populous Soviet Republic, with by far the best farm land and the most industry, this would've sufficed to tip the scale into Germany's favour.

Instead, the nazis started on a murderous campaign immediately after their invasion of the Ukraine, making it perfectly clear they considered the Ukrainians beasts. Untermenschen. Best simply killed, save for those useful for slave labour.
German arrogance and racial obsession cost Germany the victory.
I'm not arguing against that, I'm saying it says nothing about the actual tactics and weapons of the Wehrmacht, it just highlights a political stupidity concerning recruitment.

Germany waged a relentless war against its own population. If you want to win a war, it is not a good idea to start genociding yourself.
Again, I doubt this was a tactical decision of the Wehrmacht rather than a political decision from the top.

State-terror, censorship, slavery, extortion, humiliation - when these policies are used by a state against its own subjects, the strength of a society suffers. Democracy proved to be the most powerful government in the 20th century. Nazism, and later communism too, collapsed under their own immorality.
Well, just because my own knowledge on this is not all that great, I think comparing democracy to nazism and communism is comparing apples to oranges, democracy is a political system, nazism is just a name for the third reich form of fascism and communism is an economic system in contrast to capitalism(actually the economic goal is politicised but this is as much a question as it is an answer to your post). So I'd replace nazism with fascism and communism with despotism to get closer to a valid comparison.(?)

So there is no such thing as separating the competence of the Wehrmacht (or nazi Germany) from the immorality of it.
You forget that you can be competent in war/battle and still lose, or would you say the Spartans at Thermopylae were incompetent? There's a difference between strategy and tactics as well, if the Wehrmacht was as incompetent as you say, why did they have less losses than the Russian army?

Russian tanks were inferior to German tanks. Russia had far less industrial resources and manpower. To make up for this deficit, Russia made more tanks, of a very basic and simple design.
Russian tanks were not inferior to German tanks in general, the T-34 was very effective which is why the Panther was introduced to counter it, later on the German designs became stronger and stronger but the Soviets also built bigger tanks of their own, the IS-2 for example.
Of course I said earlier the success of the Wehrmacht was due to generally superior gear and good tactics to go with it, the good tactics generally speak of competence.

I am of the opinion that the exact technical specifications of war machines are not the main driving force behind history, or even of the outcome of war.
Being able to use them helps, but one goes hand in hand with the other, clever people invent clever gear and cleverly teach their comrades how to use it, so with the gear, the tactics often improve as well, that indirectly affects the outcome of war or did the USA win the two Gulf wars with numerical superiority alone?

I am not making things up. Some of the things I've said run simply run counter to oft-repeated wisdom. Me, I read with as much indignation and bewilderment a lot of that. Of course, it is I who is correct.
So you think you're correct despite arguing against what you call wisdom? ~;)
I wouldn't call my arguments wisdom though, it's my impression of the world and everyone has a different one. And I think calling a whole organization incompetent because of the incompetence of it's highest leader(s) alone is painting with a very broad brush.

I spare no-one because of what I said in one of my first posts in this thread: if nazism is seen as powerful, or controversial, it will have admirers. If it is exposed as banal and incompetent, nobody cares about it and it is relegated to the dustbin of history. I don't get indignant about nazis, I laugh at them. This is far more productive - the emperor isn't wearing clothes, and this can be pointed out.
Except that the emperor is the only one not wearing clothes, yet you call his whole army incompetent, how exactly is that related?
Would my boss at the fuel station be an incompetent fool just because the company has mercenaries who do dirty business for them in South America?
Another difference would be that an emperor is usually not elected, if Hitler was that dumb in general, how exactly do you think he managed to get elected, get the people to wage total war etc?
To me it looks like you have an agenda, perhaps a noble one, and then you would say just about anything to press it, including things I'd call made up, it's a distortion of the truth anyway.
A bit like telling kids they were brought by a stork because you're afraid to tell them about sex.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-31-2009, 16:48

communism is an economic system

Yes and no. Communism is a socioeconomic system.

Sarmatian

10-31-2009, 18:16

Very frustrating, to be brought down by starving, illiterate Slavic peasants

You should be compassionate. French, of all people should know how it feels like.

Seriously, though, keep in mind this is the monastery, not the backroom. You're using too much poetic license and are borderline insulting.

Louis VI the Fat

10-31-2009, 20:11

Pft. Why should historical debate be limited to 'neutral' exploration of the precise technical specifications of war machines? Why should one thread carefully so as to avoid disrespecting or insulting the nazis?

On the internet especially, an entire counter-history has sprung up in recent years. In which the nazis are seen as semi-victims, all-conquering, ill-understood, operating in an a-moral world (not immoral), people who deserve respect.

I beg to differ. And it is against the excesses of the above that my posts are aimed. It's not my fault that there is such a discrepancy between reality and myth. I am here to dispell some myths.

I call to attention Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'. The work gained its status as a singular monument of historiography not only for the breadth of knowledge displayed, but also for its entertaining moral commentary, its sharpness of style. It is still one of the greatest works on the Roman Empire, debunking many myths and prevailing wisdoms. Nobody is going to talk to Gibbon about using less poetry of language, about being careful not to insult. (Well...the Catholics did, by placing it on the 'Index')

I am, of course, correct about everything I've written so far. At least, in good academic company. Here you go, as considers the statement you call borderline insultung:

- Many Soviet soldiers were illiterate, many more of lower education that the German soldiers. This was reason for concern to the Soviet leadership. Stalin believed that he needed more time to prepare for war. That his soldiers needed more time for training than the Germans, because of the higher literacy and education of the German conscripts. This had major repercussions for the Soviet Strategy. See Condoleezza Rice, 'The Making of Soviet Strategy'.

- Germany did intensify the persecution of Jews in close relationship to losing the war. Call me a 'functionalist'. That is, I believe that not a clear and premiditated plan was behind the Holocaust, but a gradual, cumulative escalation. Of which the lost war in the East was a major component. See, for example, Christopher Browning's 'La décision concernant la solution finale'.

- I have no source for the allegation that there was a lack of provisions, of basic necessities, and even starvation, in the Soviet Union. I do not think I need to, unless somebody would seriously dispute this.

While these two examples above are works of academic scholarship, my contribution to this thread of course isn't. But I do draw on it and combine it into a fine attack on some prevailing myths about the Wehrmacht and WWII. In this case, into the razorsharp statement: 'Very frustrating, to be brought down by starving, illiterate Slavic peasants, so the nazis took it out on whatever Jews they could get their hands on in the East.'
Which is simply in accordance with recent academic research.

Brenus

10-31-2009, 22:32

“On the internet especially, an entire counter-history has sprung up in recent years. In which the nazis are seen as semi-victims, all-conquering, ill-understood, operating in an a-moral world (not immoral), people who deserve respect.”
Agree. See
- The idea of Hitler attacked before he was attacked…
- The desire to make Nazi and Communist at the same rank.
- The denial of the specificity of the Final Solution.
- The finding of new “genocides” as if Treblinka, Sobibor and the more than 1,000 Death Camps were not specific to Nazism…

For various reason the Myth of the Wehrmacht as lonely soldier fighting the Invaders, ignoring that:
Germany had Allies
Germany started the war knowingly the problem
Germany started the without rules war and exactions, and executions, and the deportations and the torture and the non-respect of international Conventions and etc…

This myth consists in:
Difference between the Werhmacht and the SS: We know now, er, we finaly are telling the truth, no.
The Germans soldiers did as much bad things and executions as the SS. Most of the Generals, Officers and NCO did obey to Hitler without questionning too much, or did so in "obeying the orders".

The Germans defeated powerful enemies without any problem:
The only one at the early stage that can qualify is France. England deployed as much divisions in 1940 than Holland. This last country wasn’t seen as a major military power.
As Louis mentioned, in front of an almost equivalent USSR and after the initial shock the Germans saw their first defeat 6 months after having crossed the borders. USSR that has been defeated by the Finns few months before…

As I said before, the denial or the underestimation of the Allies as Italians in Africa (is someone really thing that Deutch Afrika Korps could have sustained a war without the Italians by their side?), the Rumanians at Sebastopol, or blaming them for their own failure as for Stalingrad (when the Russian did counter-offensive, Stalingrad was still holding, fact that we know now was part of the Zukhov’s plan as a point of fixation to give the German the impression they could win, with a final push, then forgetting their flanks. It did work).

The amnesia of the German defeats: Falaise Pocket was a disaster, the German retreat for Southern France, Bastogne where a division of Paratroopers held a all mechanised army, Kursk systematically degrade because a German General claimed it could have wined against all evidences. The Eastern Campaign was a succession of disaster for the Germans but much was put on the heroism of the Germans soldiers against the Red Hordes than on the result: The defeat of the Germans in front of the Red Army.

The over-estimation of the early German Victories is part of the myth building. As I mentioned before, only the battle of France can qualify for a great victory. The out flank manoeuvre by the Ardennes was a gamble that could have turn very badly with competent or even with just average French High Command.
Certainly, the first 6 months in Russian were great successes but some few German General saw than the plan didn’t work. The Russian Armies were not defeated, not totally, not entirely. The plan was not to invade Russia, but to destroy the USSR power.
The plan failed. Barbarossa failed in its objectives… The Red Army survived. The plan was its destruction, a total annihilation and that is why the German had no winter clothes…

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-31-2009, 22:39

“On the internet especially, an entire counter-history has sprung up in recent years. In which the nazis are seen as semi-victims, all-conquering, ill-understood, operating in an a-moral world (not immoral), people who deserve respect.”

I agree with this, but I don't think that a few individuals on the internet really matter in the real world. The vast majority of us who live here in the real world, specifically the West, know that the Holocaust happened on the historically accepted scale of roughly six million, know that the Nazis were a terrible organization, and know that the West was morally superior. Frankly, I don't think there is anyone but neo-Nazis who seriously say these things (rather than just trolling). However, Brenus, when you quote some things, there is one which I disagree with.

- The desire to make Nazi and Communist at the same rank.

Sorry, the communists might not have been worse, but they were certainly no better. There is nothing wrong about holding them both in contempt, as many here in the West fortunately do. Thinking that they were both terrible evils doesn't make you a Nazi.

- The finding of new “genocides” as if Treblinka, Sobibor and the more than 1,000 Death Camps were not specific to Nazism…

I don't know what you mean by this, can you rephrase it please?

I am here to dispell some myths.

With all due respect Louis, it appears to me that some things have crossed from simply dispelling revisionist myths to engaging in revisionism of your own.*

*Negative revisionism, not proper scholarly revisionism.

Husar

11-01-2009, 00:04

I call to attention Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'. The work gained its status as a singular monument of historiography not only for the breadth of knowledge displayed, but also for its entertaining moral commentary, its sharpness of style. It is still one of the greatest works on the Roman Empire, debunking many myths and prevailing wisdoms. Nobody is going to talk to Gibbon about using less poetry of language, about being careful not to insult. (Well...the Catholics did, by placing it on the 'Index')

Maybe Gibbons just raised better points than you did. ~;)

I would agree with you that the Third Reich as a whole was ineffective, acted stupid etc. but I'm still not convinced that the Wehrmacht as an army was rubbish as you said earlier.

The myths you mention are only scarcely known to me, there's only one person I can think of who might hang onto them but apart from that I don't know anyone who thinks the Nazis were a bunch of poor, misunderstood, nice guys. :inquisitive:

Alexander the Pretty Good

11-01-2009, 00:15

While these two examples above are works of academic scholarship, my contribution to this thread of course isn't. But I do draw on it and combine it into a fine attack on some prevailing myths about the Wehrmacht and WWII. In this case, into the razorsharp statement: 'Very frustrating, to be brought down by starving, illiterate Slavic peasants, so the nazis took it out on whatever Jews they could get their hands on in the East.'
Which is simply in accordance with recent academic research.
At least according to the book that sparked this thread, the Germans were killing Jews (and even non-Jewish Slavs) even at the beginning of Barbarossa. Killings were present nearly from the get go of that operation. They might have intensified after the setbacks began, but it wasn't a linear progression.

Brenus

11-01-2009, 09:50

“Sorry, the communists might not have been worse, but they were certainly no better. There is nothing wrong about holding them both in contempt, as many here in the West fortunately do. Thinking that they were both terrible evils doesn't make you a Nazi.”

I will comment on this. It is a touchy subject.

First of all, Communism didn’t fall because they engage in a brutal war of aggression…

To become a Communist you have to believe in Men are one race, equality for all, social justice and one day the light will come and every body will have a decent life. The fact that Communism didn’t deliver is another subject.
To become a Nazi, you have to believe that there are within the Human Race shape sub-division in Superior Races and Inferior Races, that the Inferior Races has to be either enslaved or exterminated. You have to believe that only War will determine what race is to rule the World.

I think you can see the difference.

The “no better” is more difficult. I do know the result of the Civil War, the Purges and the slaughters, and the Gulags and all what Communism did.
However, in term of Russia, Communism did better than the Tsars. If you remember how and why the Revolution started, you will have to admit that the methods used by Lenin then Stalin (and even Trotsky in the building of the Red Army) were not different from the Tsarist method, and the GEPEOU was the equivalent of the TCHEKA. Camps in Siberia existed before Lenin, so the forced enrolment. Justice wasn’t shining the Russian Autocracy. By the way an Autocracy means all belongs to the Autocrat…
All taken in consideration, what left from nazism is a waste land, occupied by Foreign forces, and a shame which will last for still a long time.
What left from Communism is a “modern” Country that is still fighting for democracy but without a new Civil War.
Nazism couldn’t produce a Gorbachev, in short.

There is nothing wrong about holding both in contempt. Nothing is wrong about holding Communism in contempt. Communism did produce brutality, murders and deportation. And I will add nothing is wrong about holding Capitalism in Contempt. Capitalism did produce (and still as the last survivor) brutality, murders and deportation.

But to make Nazism and Communism equal in evil is wrong and proceed to a political agenda. And this political agenda is to rehabilitate Nazism.

“I don't know what you mean by this, can you rephrase it please?”
Yes. Nowadays, all massacres are “genocides”. There is a will to find genocide BH (Before Hitler). Like to prove that in fact, Nazism was just a legacy of European behaviour…
So we are making parallels with the British Camps during the Boers war, we are finding “proofs” in Africa of genocidal intends and more recently we are twisting words to indict Bosnian Serbs War Criminals in order to convict them as Genocidors.
The last one was not intended to alter the notion of genocide however it opened the door for less precise definition of the word, so the negationist/nazi rushed in it.
In doing this, we will forget that Treblinka was built to kill: The length of the rails way, of the Station, the number of wagons was calculated to be able to unload, killed the passengers in the same amount of time needed to clean, reload water and coal and turn the locomotive, around 2 hours. This “industrialisation”, this carefully planned logistic is specific to Nazism.

Samurai Waki

11-01-2009, 13:47

At least according to the book that sparked this thread, the Germans were killing Jews (and even non-Jewish Slavs) even at the beginning of Barbarossa. Killings were present nearly from the get go of that operation. They might have intensified after the setbacks began, but it wasn't a linear progression.

I can actually attest to this, as the Monseigneur of my Church was a Non-Jewish Catholic Slav (with the last name Mauser of all names) was visited by regular Werhmacht at his family's home out in the countryside, where they promptly shot his parents, and younger sister, and then carried him off to a Work Camp where they forced him to drink battery acid. He didn't die, so they kept him on labor.

Husar

11-01-2009, 14:34

I can actually attest to this, as the Monseigneur of my Church was a Non-Jewish Catholic Slav (with the last name Mauser of all names) was visited by regular Werhmacht at his family's home out in the countryside, where they promptly shot his parents, and younger sister, and then carried him off to a Work Camp where they forced him to drink battery acid. He didn't die, so they kept him on labor.

Well, that's not so bad because it was random and not industrialized. :sweatdrop: :no:

Actually I find it quite horrible, I was just going to comment that IMO the industrialization doesn't necessarily make killings worse, such "random" killings often sound a lot more brutal to me than walking into a shower and getting gassed, of course it's both brutal but when you make someone drink battery acid, you're probably looking into their eyes as well etc. :thumbsdown:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-01-2009, 18:20

First of all, Communism didn’t fall because they engage in a brutal war of aggression…

No, but that didn't stop them from waging multiple ones.

To become a Communist you have to believe in Men are one race, equality for all, social justice and one day the light will come and every body will have a decent life.

In theory, perhaps.

To become a Nazi, you have to believe that there are within the Human Race shape sub-division in Superior Races and Inferior Races, that the Inferior Races has to be either enslaved or exterminated. You have to believe that only War will determine what race is to rule the World.

Beliefs don't matter, actions do.

The “no better” is more difficult. I do know the result of the Civil War, the Purges and the slaughters, and the Gulags and all what Communism did.
However, in term of Russia, Communism did better than the Tsars. If you remember how and why the Revolution started, you will have to admit that the methods used by Lenin then Stalin (and even Trotsky in the building of the Red Army) were not different from the Tsarist method, and the GEPEOU was the equivalent of the TCHEKA. Camps in Siberia existed before Lenin, so the forced enrolment. Justice wasn’t shining the Russian Autocracy. By the way an Autocracy means all belongs to the Autocrat…

Whatever you can say about the Tsars, they didn't kill tens of millions of people in decades (or less).

All taken in consideration, what left from nazism is a waste land, occupied by Foreign forces, and a shame which will last for still a long time.
What left from Communism is a “modern” Country that is still fighting for democracy but without a new Civil War.

What? Nazism may well have left a wasteland, but the only reason communism didn't is that it was too powerful and there weren't enough resources to turn it into one. The fact that there was one communist leader who decided to abolish the communist state hardly absolves it from any wrong or makes it better than anyone else.

There is nothing wrong about holding both in contempt. Nothing is wrong about holding Communism in contempt. Communism did produce brutality, murders and deportation. And I will add nothing is wrong about holding Capitalism in Contempt. Capitalism did produce (and still as the last survivor) brutality, murders and deportation.

Capitalism and communism are on two entirely different scales.

But to make Nazism and Communism equal in evil is wrong and proceed to a political agenda. And this political agenda is to rehabilitate Nazism.

No, it isn't to rehabilitate Nazism. To think that way you would have to think that communism was morally superior to Nazism, which it isn't. Since I believe they are both as evil as one another, I'm not bringing Nazism up, I'm just keeping them both at the same level, which, frankly, they are.

Brenus

11-01-2009, 18:57

“Since I believe they are both as evil as one another, I'm not bringing Nazism up, I'm just keeping them both at the same level.” As you wrote you believe. I analyse.
But as you deny the ideological level you are entitle to do so…

“which, frankly, they are” but no, they aren’t. Not in the aim, not in the result, not in the ideology. And to believe it is a major historical mistake… So what do they have in common? Repression and dictatorship… So Capitalist dictatorships do. So capitalism is Communism. Equal.

“Capitalism and communism are on two entirely different scales” Yep. Capitalism killed more during longer time…:laugh4:

“To think that way you would have to think that communism was morally superior to Nazism, which it isn't.” As ideology, so certainty I do. And nobody with a real objective mind can contest it.

“No, but that didn't stop them from waging multiple ones.” As much as capitalism? Where? Sorry, different subject…:beam:

“Beliefs don't matter, actions do” Beliefs do matter. Do you judge Christianity only with the Holly Inquisition?

“Whatever you can say about the Tsars, they didn't kill tens of millions of people in decades” No. They just maintain people in slavery (50 millions on a total population of 60) during centuries until it wasn’t possible to do so in 1861.

“What? Nazism may well have left a wasteland, but the only reason communism didn't is that it was too powerful and there weren't enough resources to turn it into one” Well, it is exactly what I said so you do agree.
:beam:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-01-2009, 19:07

As you wrote you believe. I analyse.

Oh, how sharp and witty. Do you really think that I just believe without any backup or evidence?

“which, frankly, they are” but no, they aren’t. Not in the aim, not in the result, not in the ideology. And to believe it is a major historical mistake… So what do they have in common? Repression and dictatorship… So Capitalist dictatorships do. So capitalism is Communism. Equal.

No, it does not. Mass murder on a scale which has never been seen before or been since equaled is what communism has given the world.

“Capitalism and communism are on two entirely different scales” Yep. Capitalism killed more during longer time…:laugh4:

Far from it.

“To think that way you would have to think that communism was morally superior to Nazism, which it isn't.” As ideology, so certainty I do. And nobody with a real objective mind can contest it.

As an ideology, a silly theory, perhaps, though even in theory it has serious flaws. The ideology doesn't matter though, what the ideology brought does.

“Beliefs don't matter, actions do” Beliefs do matter. Do you judge Christianity only with the Holly Inquisition?

No, but rather by being one of the largest charitable organizations in the world. You're in denial, giving bad examples to try to back up a theory that doesn't work. Christianity and capitalism are two largely good systems of thought with a few bad sections, whereas communism and Nazism are two largely terrible systems of thought with one or two very well hidden blips of good.

“Whatever you can say about the Tsars, they didn't kill tens of millions of people in decades” No. They just maintain people in slavery (50 millions on a total population of 60) during centuries until it wasn’t possible to do so in 1861.

Yes, and the communists kept the slavery and then went on to kill tens of millions, and committed mass murder in every country they came to power in.

“What? Nazism may well have left a wasteland, but the only reason communism didn't is that it was too powerful and there weren't enough resources to turn it into one” Well, it is exactly what I said so you do agree.

Which makes communism somehow better? :inquisitive:

You're equating communism and capitalism where they cannot be equated in terms of results - freedom versus servitude. You've deviated from a somewhat legitimate idea of thought, that Nazism was worse than communism, to a nonsensical one, that capitalism is somehow equivalent or worse. Interestingly, you're becoming exactly what you're arguing against (and with less reason to do so).

Sarmatian

11-01-2009, 19:41

Let's stay on course, people, we're discussing Wehrmacht here. Not that this isn't an interesting debate but it deserves it's own thread...

Louis VI the Fat

11-01-2009, 20:07

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-01-2009, 20:14

- Germany was given an outrageous, inhumane peace treaty after WWI
- Germany suffered tremendously because of it

True and true.

- Germany was a poor, impoverished, suffering country when Hitler took over

Semi-true, but mostly false.

- Hitler turned this impoverished Germany into a great power

False.

- The nazis simply wanted to defend Europe from the menace of communism

False.

- The notion that everybody was wrong in WWII, there is no right or wrong

Everybody committed crimes, but the Axis committed more and much worse crimes than the Allies could ever have.

- The nazis were fabulous military over achievers

Hardly. German military successes were in spite of the Nazis, not because of them.

So essentially, I mostly disagree with you on Versailles.

Brenus

11-01-2009, 21:40

:yes:“Let's stay on course, people, we're discussing Wehrmacht here. Not that this isn't an interesting debate but it deserves it's own thread...” You are absolutely right.:beam:

So I won’t reply to Evil Maniac From Mars on the mutual “benefit” of Capitalism and Communism in term of victims. :beam:

As you mentioned it deserves a thread by itself, could be about colonialism, XIX century conditions of work in the Factories, the massive theft of lands hence the deportation of entire populations, or perhaps the building of railways in various continents, or the famines due to the exportation of food, or perhaps the Mining laws in various continents under the big companies and the forced labours, etc.

Husar

11-01-2009, 21:58

True and true.
Semi-true, but mostly false.
False.
False.
Everybody committed crimes, but the Axis committed more and much worse crimes than the Allies could ever have.

Hardly. German military successes were in spite of the Nazis, not because of them.

I agree.

And Louis, I've already explained my point of view and said you're generalizing too much, yet you keep repeating the same points and generalizing the Nazis, the Wehrmacht, Germans, apparently all one big grey and incompetent mass according to you. :inquisitive:
I've done nothing else but blame the Nazis here, yet you keep repeating things like:

Yes, cry about that all you want. Call it borderline insulting to blame the nazis for Germany's plight. I know it has become fashionable to blame all the misery of maltreated and misunderstood Germany on the perfidious allies. But the cause is Hitler, his predecessors, and the lust for bloodshed that had Germany in its grip.

:inquisitive:

Kralizec

11-01-2009, 23:43

Me, I'm pretty sure that France has won more wars than Germany. :idea2:

Yeah, but what I said is still true and so is my point - small pieces of truth can be deceiving if taken out of context.
And about Bolshewism being superior to nazism militarily, I know that you're never more than half-serious but we are talking about a country here wich somehow failed to defeat Poland in 1919 and Finland 1939.

(Never underestimate the support for Germany in WWII. Finland, the Baltics, Slovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Croatia, Italy. The neutral but fascist Spain and Portugal. Sweden, which suplied Germany with two thirds of its iron. Switzerland, which supplied Germany with all sorts of financial services. The French traitors. The Dutch collaborators. The Norwegian Quislings. And probably some more that I can't think of.
Ireland was neutral. Albania, Serbia and Greece were troublesome and never fully subjugated. The UK resisted. I think that's all.)

I'm well aware of that. Besides Germany and occupied France, none of those countries were what we'd call industrial powerhouses. And the numbers of soldiers raised there to fight for the Germans don't compare to conscription in either Germany or the SU.
Germany and its allies were outnumbered easily by the Soviet Union from day 1 of Operation Barbarossa, both in number of men and armored verhicles.

That the SU produced inferior tanks, as you said in another post, is simply untrue- their "workhorse" tank, the T-34, was inferior only to the rare Panthers and Tigers. Plus it was produced in larger numbers during the war than all German panzer types combined.

“To be "fair", none of the allied victors would have been able to defeat Germany by themselves.” To be fair, all of them would have been at one point. France with a better strategy/generals could have done it, when the aerial reconnaissance showed the Panzer concentration in the Ardennes. Few bombers would have resolved the problems, or artillery shelling…
The Russians were winning the war… With or without the Western Allies, with the blood, the guts, the hate and the courage of the Russian soldiers they were on the offensive all along the front. Just look at the map 1944, where are the Red Armies?

“Yes, Germany had allies too but they were either sub-par compared to the bigger players or to small to make a difference.” That is the result of the Germans propaganda during the war, reinforced after the war by the countries allied with Germany in order to minimised their own involvement (knowing that most of them were under Communist Control) in the war/genocide.
Foreign Volunteers are estimated around 2,000,000 and the French were unfortunately the most numerous from Western Europe, thanks to Petain (LVF -Franzosischer Infantry-Regiment 638- 33 Waffen-Grenadier der SS Charlemagne Todt organisation etc).
To prolong Louis argument, here again we can see the stupidity of the Nazi. Without their obsession to humiliate and to exterminate, they could have turn all France in at least a neutral supplier, denying to the Allies a platform to land, providing raw material, volunteers and a side not to worry about.
And I don’t think that Japan can be seen as a second hand player, by the way.

I don't know much about the situation during the invasion of France, so I accept that France might have resisted the Germans with better leadership, but it seems rather unprobable that they could ever have invaded and conquered Germany in return.

The Russians did the majority of fighting on the ground level, but AFAIK they didn't have strategic bombers (or at least in large numbers)
The UK and the USA did, and used it to great effect in destroying infrastructure required for war. Even with bombs raining down on their factories on a daily basis, German industrial output still kept increasing until 1945 - try imagining how many more tanks and planes they could have build if the RAF and USAF hadn't been keeping them back.

So I think it's at best debatable wether the Soviet Union could have resisted, let alone defeated Nazi Germany without help.

Samurai Waki

11-02-2009, 00:37

Well, that's not so bad because it was random and not industrialized. :sweatdrop: :no:

Actually I find it quite horrible, I was just going to comment that IMO the industrialization doesn't necessarily make killings worse, such "random" killings often sound a lot more brutal to me than walking into a shower and getting gassed, of course it's both brutal but when you make someone drink battery acid, you're probably looking into their eyes as well etc. :thumbsdown:

I have to hand it to the guy, that despite what happened in his youth, he did regularly talk about it during mass; and was forceful in his conviction of forgiveness. It always really made the "Our Father" Prayer especially meaningful.
It's easy to be angry, and shout disparaging remarks about the Nazis, who they are and what they represented. And they deserve every bit of it, they should always be lamented and despised. However, they (the soldiers, and masses behind Hitler that is) should be forgiven, it's a shame that it's been largely forgotten, that it wasn't just Jews who were killed, it was anybody that was believed to be against the system and history has been rewritten outside of Germany to make it seem as though the Jews were the only ones, and the regime was all by itself in it's murderous bloodlust. What was largely going on in Germany before, during, and after the rise of Hitler has been largely relegated as a footnote when compared to Hitler himself. It still very much weighs on the collective conscience of Germany, while very few outside of Germany care anymore, and it's really to our own detriment.

Sarmatian

11-02-2009, 01:11

Sarmatian - it dawned on me that maybe you thought I was insulting the Russians or Slavs. Au contraire! I am belittling the nazis here, not the Russians. When I say something like 'The Slavic Untermenschen defeated Germany within months', I do not intent to call the Slavs Untermenschen, I use it to rub in the discrepancy between the boasting and the actual performance of the nazis. Surely you noticed how I relished in the notion that the fascists could defeat neither the 'inferior' Serbians nor Russians?

Well, yes. In the process of belittling nazi military, you kind of insulted the Russians and Slavs in general, but I get what were you actually saying now.

I agree with all of your points here, even if I do think you're using too much poetic license.

:yes:“Let's stay on course, people, we're discussing Wehrmacht here. Not that this isn't an interesting debate but it deserves it's own thread...” You are absolutely right.:beam:

So I won’t reply to Evil Maniac From Mars on the mutual “benefit” of Capitalism and Communism in term of victims. :beam:

As you mentioned it deserves a thread by itself, could be about colonialism, XIX century conditions of work in the Factories, the massive theft of lands hence the deportation of entire populations, or perhaps the building of railways in various continents, or the famines due to the exportation of food, or perhaps the Mining laws in various continents under the big companies and the forced labours, etc.

Do the honours, I've got your back. :book:

Yeah, but what I said is still true and so is my point - small pieces of truth can be deceiving if taken out of context.
And about Bolshewism being superior to nazism militarily, I know that you're never more than half-serious but we are talking about a country here wich somehow failed to defeat Poland in 1919 and Finland 1939.

When talking about stuff like that, put them in proper context. Between 1919 and 1923, Russia was in the middle of a terrible civil war after just being a part of a world war. In addition to the revolution and the war with Poland, Red Army had to fight expeditionary forces from at least 4 additional armies. After they were all beaten back, Red Army was halted itself on the outskirts of Warsaw, partly due to fierce Polish resistance and partly because of political reasons. Tukhachevsky and Stalin didn't get on really well even in front of Warsaw.

I'm well aware of that. Besides Germany and occupied France, none of those countries were what we'd call industrial powerhouses. And the numbers of soldiers raised there to fight for the Germans don't compare to conscription in either Germany or the SU.
Germany and its allies were outnumbered easily by the Soviet Union from day 1 of Operation Barbarossa, both in number of men and armored verhicles.

Nope. Until December, Germany and allies outnumbered the Soviets. After that Soviets outnumbered the Germans and allies by a margin of app. 1.5 to 1. Later it got to almost 2 to 1 and only after Soviets knocked axis allies out of the war and had them join the war on their side did the ration change to 3 or 4 to 1. That happened well into 1944.

Advanced Soviet tanks weren't present in meaningful numbers and they lacked trained crews and spare parts, so Wehrmacht had the qualitative advantage in armour in the first year, year and a half.

I don't know much about the situation during the invasion of France, so I accept that France might have resisted the Germans with better leadership, but it seems rather unprobable that they could ever have invaded and conquered Germany in return.

On their own probably no, but I think one of the biggest what ifs of the war is what if the French didn't wait behind Maginot line but have instead attacked the weak garrison troops right away.

The Russians did the majority of fighting on the ground level, but AFAIK they didn't have strategic bombers (or at least in large numbers)
The UK and the USA did, and used it to great effect in destroying infrastructure required for war. Even with bombs raining down on their factories on a daily basis, German industrial output still kept increasing until 1945 - try imagining how many more tanks and planes they could have build if the RAF and USAF hadn't been keeping them back.

Not much more. The reason why German production declined is lack of raw materials, energy and workers. The strategic bombing had a bigger morale than actual impact.

So I think it's at best debatable wether the Soviet Union could have resisted, let alone defeated Nazi Germany without help.

Well, let's see what the facts say.

1. Lend-lease made up 4% of Soviet war time production.
2. Most of it came in the last two years (when wehrmacht was already broken)
3. Strategic bombing didn't have that great effect on German production capabilities.
4. Strategic bombing intensified in the last two years of the war, when wehrmacht was already broken
5. More than 80% of total German casualties were inflicted by the red army. All other theaters and armies barely accounted for 20% - France, Britain, Italy, north Africa, Balkans, Low Countries, Scandinavia etc...

I think that proves that Soviet Union could have defeated Nazi Germany without any help. It would have taken longer and would have been more bloody, but it would happen. As Brenus pointed out, Germany lost the war when it didn't manage to win within the first 6 months. The fact that they managed to hold on for 4 years is a tribute to Wehrmacht in my book.

Louis VI the Fat

11-02-2009, 01:29

Germany and its allies were outnumbered easily by the Soviet Union from day 1 of Operation Barbarossa, both in number of men and armored verhicles.This is incorrect. German and axis troops outnumberd Soviet troops at the start of Barbarossa.

The UK and the USA did, and used it to great effect in destroying infrastructure required for war. Even with bombs raining down on their factories on a daily basis, German industrial output still kept increasing until 1945 - try imagining how many more tanks and planes they could have build if the RAF and USAF hadn't been keeping them back.

So I think it's at best debatable wether the Soviet Union could have resisted, let alone defeated Nazi Germany without help.The allied bombing campaigns didn't really get underway until 1943. By this time, the SU had already decisively defeated Germany. Indeed, according to John Keegan, one of the world's foremost war historians, Germany had lost the war already by december 5th, 1941. Within five months of attacking an opponent of equal size for the very first time.

Also, until 1944, allied bombings barely had a noticable effect on German industrial capacity. Raids against infrastructure were more succesful. But by this time, it was only a matter shortening the war, not of winning it.
At any rate, of course the allied bombings do not compare to the SU outright losing twenty percent of its population and fifty percent of its industrial base in the occupied territories.

I shall get into the habit of quoting sources, because I am getting the feeling that people think I am not even being serious. I must insist I am.

The effects of strategic bombing were very poorly understood at the time and grossly overrated. Particularly in the first two years of the campaign, few understood just how little damage was caused and how rapidly the Germans were able to replace lost production—despite the obvious lessons to be learned from the United Kingdom's own survival of the blitz.

Mid-way through the air war, it slowly began to be realized the campaign was having very little effect. Despite an ever-increasing tonnage of bombs dispatched, the inaccuracy of delivery was such any bomb falling within five miles of the target was deemed a "hit" for statistical purposes, and even by this standard, as the Butt Report made clear many bombs missed.[97] Indeed sometimes in post raid assessment the Germans could not decide which town (not the installation in the town) had been the intended target because the scattering of bomb craters was so wide.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II

German industrial resources and manpower far exceeded that of the Soviet Union. About four to one.
This excellent wikipedia article is sobering for those who think that the Soviet Union overwhelmed Germany with manpower or industrial might.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

Lend-Lease did add one percent to the Soviet output during the first years of the war. And some ten percent in total during later years, after Germany had been decisively defeated.

The difference is, that the Soviets better managed their resources. This is probably were the war was won. The SU mobilised their entire economy for the war effort, and into mass mass producing weaponry. Soviet military production outproduced the Germans, despite having to draw#from a much smaller manpower and industrial base. It is a case of the mouse beating the cat by being smarter.

Never underestimate the amount of allies of Germany. For political reasons, this has always been downplayed (Who wants to be on Germany's side?)

As I said before, the denial or the underestimation of the Allies as Italians in Africa (is someone really thing that Deutch Afrika Korps could have sustained a war without the Italians by their side?Indeed. The Germans used less men in the whole of North Africa than they used for Denmark. North Africa is the stuff of romantic legend, but it was an insignificant footnote for the German war effort.

Louis VI the Fat

11-02-2009, 01:34

I was ninja'd by Sarmatian. :laugh4:

I think the West still underestimates the extent to which WWII was played out in Eastern Europe. The East Front is where it all happened.
Of course, one is bound to concentrate on what happened in one's own country. The Danes know most about what happened in Denmark. But the reality is that the western war was a side-show.

Louis VI the Fat

11-02-2009, 01:43

And Louis, I've already explained my point of view and said you're generalizing too much, yet you keep repeating the same points and generalizing the Nazis, the Wehrmacht, Germans, apparently all one big grey and incompetent mass according to you. :inquisitive:Germany is a culture nation that was tragically drawn into a war (or wars) that it shouldn't have. A tragedy for which I have shed many a tear. (Yes I did, in Cologne, looking at the cathedral amidst the postwar buildings. :cry:)

Nazis and Wehrmacht can not simply be seperated. This was one of the points of this thread. And one of my main contentions too.

I do not mind some poor German guy going to the East Front. Maybe he went reluctantly, maybe enthusiatically. I don't mind either way. I pity him. He didn't deserve it, and I wish he could've stayed at home. In other circumstances, he would be just like you or me, just living out his life in peace and quiet. There was nothing inherently wrong with these people.

LittleGrizzly

11-02-2009, 02:07

I think the one point I must contest is Versailles (the treaty of...)

Well it may have not been very very harsh I think it was certainly harsh and probably a contributing factor to the treaty being ripped up...

1) The treaty was too harsh because it forced Germany to accept costs, conditions and take blame for the war... the loss of alsace lorriane (didn't france outright take ownership of some important industry at first which were later taken back) I think taking the blame for the war was a blow to national pride and unfair (they can certainly take a decent portion of the blame but so can the other powers)

2) If the treaty had been fairer (at least in the minds of other powers) like Britian and America there may have been more chance of it being backed up and less of a chance of people thinking Germany are just doing what they rightfully should (admittedly this is perfect world thinking as Britian and America probably wouldn't have backed it up anyway but if were going to talk about fairness)

Again, perfect world, those at fault for the war should have all taken blame and a share of reconstruction costs...

Also other treatys of the time do not inform my view of what is fair. You could say that the treaty of Versailles was fair or not harsh by the standards of treatys imposed by the victors at the time, but looking back with our modern standards it seems harsh, also it was a small contirbuting factor to the next war.

Edit: Your other points were good and they have made me reconsider one or two things...

Kralizec

11-02-2009, 02:51

When talking about stuff like that, put them in proper context. Between 1919 and 1923, Russia was in the middle of a terrible civil war after just being a part of a world war. In addition to the revolution and the war with Poland, Red Army had to fight expeditionary forces from at least 4 additional armies. After they were all beaten back, Red Army was halted itself on the outskirts of Warsaw, partly due to fierce Polish resistance and partly because of political reasons. Tukhachevsky and Stalin didn't get on really well even in front of Warsaw.

Sure, but Poland is a small nation compared to Russia (at that point, the Union itself did not exist) and had just reestablished its independence. Nobody seriously expected the Polish to hold their ground and considering the situation rightly so. Their unexpected "victory" might have been a fluke, but an embarassing one for the Russians.

Nope. Until December, Germany and allies outnumbered the Soviets. After that Soviets outnumbered the Germans and allies by a margin of app. 1.5 to 1. Later it got to almost 2 to 1 and only after Soviets knocked axis allies out of the war and had them join the war on their side did the ration change to 3 or 4 to 1. That happened well into 1944.

Advanced Soviet tanks weren't present in meaningful numbers and they lacked trained crews and spare parts, so Wehrmacht had the qualitative advantage in armour in the first year, year and a half.

A quick look on wiki suggests you're right, but only as far as personel goes. The Soviets still had overwhelmingly more tanks and planes than the Germans. They didn't have many T-34's or KV tanks yet, but Germany didn't have their Tigers yet either.
In WW2 warfare the quality of the tanks mattered, but not as much as the way they were used.

Also, an old wisdom of warfare that's still applied today: the attacker should have superiority of numbers. The French military leadership, and in the beginning Soviets as well, were not as well adjusted to all of the recent technological advancements as the Germans were. The French didn't have time to get their act together, the Soviets did. The Soviets couldn't flip the ballance without creating a massive numerical superiority first. When the western allies landed in France and started pushing the Germans eastward, they outnumbered the defenders by more than 3 to 1.

On their own probably no, but I think one of the biggest what ifs of the war is what if the French didn't wait behind Maginot line but have instead attacked the weak garrison troops right away.

That suggests that the French just stationed all their troops behind the Maginot line and waited for the Germans trying to cross it, wich is untrue. The Maginot line was constructed under the assumption that that's the obvious place to invade, because the north with the Ardennes would be to difficult to cross for a rapid advance. That was true when the idea was conceived but outdated by 1939, and the French were aware of this as well.

Not much more. The reason why German production declined is lack of raw materials, energy and workers. The strategic bombing had a bigger morale than actual impact.

Output didn't really decline until very late in the war, it just increased slower than it otherwise would have. The idea that this is because of workers' morale defies common sense. All the raw materials, energy and workers can't produce a single tank if the factory required for it lies in ruins and takes months to rebuild.
The wiki article Louis cited says this:

Strategic bombing has been criticized on practical grounds because it does not always work predictably. The radical changes it forces on a targeted population can backfire, including the counterproductive result of freeing inessential labourers to fill worker shortages in war industries.[107]
German soldier plots coordinates on a map in the Duisburg-Wolfsburg anti-aircraft division

Much of the doubt about the effectiveness of the bomber war comes from the oft-stated fact that German industrial production increased throughout the war. While this is true, it fails to note production also increased in the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, Canada and Australia. And, in all of those countries, the rate of production increased much more rapidly than in Germany. Until late in the war, industry had not been geared for war and German factory workers only worked a single shift. Simply by going to three shifts, production could have been tripled with no change to the infrastructure. However, attacks on the infrastructure were taking place. The attacks on Germany's canals and railroads made transportation of materiel difficult.

The attack on oil production, oil refineries and tank farms was, however, extremely successful and made a very large contribution to the general collapse of Germany in 1945. In the event, the bombing of oil facilities became Albert Speer's main concern; however, this occurred sufficiently late in the war that Germany would soon be defeated in any case. Nevertheless, it is fair to say the oil bombing campaign materially shortened the war, thereby saving many lives.

Well, let's see what the facts say.

1. Lend-lease made up 4% of Soviet war time production.
2. Most of it came in the last two years (when wehrmacht was already broken)
3. Strategic bombing didn't have that great effect on German production capabilities.
4. Strategic bombing intensified in the last two years of the war, when wehrmacht was already broken
5. More than 80% of total German casualties were inflicted by the red army. All other theaters and armies barely accounted for 20% - France, Britain, Italy, north Africa, Balkans, Low Countries, Scandinavia etc...

I think that proves that Soviet Union could have defeated Nazi Germany without any help. It would have taken longer and would have been more bloody, but it would happen. As Brenus pointed out, Germany lost the war when it didn't manage to win within the first 6 months. The fact that they managed to hold on for 4 years is a tribute to Wehrmacht in my book.

1. It's true that the vast majority of actual weapons were made by the Soviets themselves, wich were as good (if not better) than American products. The significance of the lend-lease lay mostly in supplying raw materials and logistical support (trucks, trains etc)
2. The Wehrmacht wasn't really "broken" until the second half of 1944, allthough it was becoming more obvious that they were going to lose.
3. See above.
4. Idem ditto.
5. The Germans needed pretty much everything they got to take on the behemoth Soviet Union since mid-1941, the troops in western Europe were skeleton garrisons by comparison. It wasn't exactly "easy" for the western allies to take the fight to north Africa, Italy and then France but that was due to logistical difficulties. With the bulk of Germans tied up in the east over a 4 year period, it's should be no surprise where most of the casualties can be found.

Sarmatian

11-02-2009, 10:36

snip

I could address all of your points but not so long ago there was a discussion in the Monastery about similar issue where I already explained it so I'll refer you to it. Link (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=111163&page=2)

Husar

11-02-2009, 10:55

The allied bombing campaigns didn't really get underway until 1943. By this time, the SU had already decisively defeated Germany. Indeed, according to John Keegan, one of the world's foremost war historians, Germany had lost the war already by december 5th, 1941. Within five months of attacking an opponent of equal size for the very first time.
It still took them longer to throw Germany out than the incompetent Napoleonic army. ~;)
Oh look, I just called an entire army incompetent because of the hubris of it's leader but I'm sure you'll all agree. :dizzy2:

At any rate, of course the allied bombings do not compare to the SU outright losing twenty percent of its population and fifty percent of its industrial base in the occupied territories.
For that to make any sense at all you will have to give a few more details, are you saying that 50% of the industry were destroyed in occupied territories or that 50% of their entire industry were in the occupied territories? In the first case, why does it matter? And in the second case, why does it matter, they still had and produced more tanks or are you saying they would have outproduced us even more had they not lost that much in which case your point about production capabilities starts to get holes. :inquisitive:

German industrial resources and manpower far exceeded that of the Soviet Union. About four to one.
This excellent wikipedia article is sobering for those who think that the Soviet Union overwhelmed Germany with manpower or industrial might.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)
How clever of you, to pretend that you did not see that i linked to that same article earlier because if you have a look at the tables you will see that the Soviets had a lot more KIAs, about three times as many, and you called the Wehrmacht incompetent because it killed three times as many soldiers as the other side did? That also makes me wonder, if we had more men, lost less but ended up losing and with only very few men left, had to recruit young boys etc., how exactly could that work if we had so many more men to begin with? Did 3/4th of our men just vanish into thin air or something?
The soviets lost roughly 2.5 times as many men, yet outnumbered the Wehrmacht gratly towards the end of the war, that makes absolutely no sense to me if we heavily outnumbered them in manpower. :inquisitive:

Lend-Lease did add one percent to the Soviet output during the first years of the war. And some ten percent in total during later years, after Germany had been decisively defeated.
To the total output or the war-related output?

The difference is, that the Soviets better managed their resources. This is probably were the war was won. The SU mobilised their entire economy for the war effort, and into mass mass producing weaponry. Soviet military production outproduced the Germans, despite having to draw#from a much smaller manpower and industrial base. It is a case of the mouse beating the cat by being smarter.
According to the industrial manpower numbers on wiki that seems to be true, that has nothing to do with the Wehrmacht being incompetent however as I doubt the Wehrmacht had a great say in how the recourses were managed. And in a way completely detached from the war, the german tanks were harder to produce as they were more like pieces of art while the russian tanks were just mass-produced "rubbish" that served it's purpose very well though. The Russian tanks made them win the war, the German tanks made them get the admiration of tank freaks who admire the fidelity and technics behind them. That does not mean, however, that everyone who admires german tank designs thinks the Nazis were not that bad.
Maybe the myth that the british cared the most about aesthetics should be revised and changed to saying the Nazis lost the war because of aesthetic tanks, or something like that. :sweatdrop:

Nazis and Wehrmacht can not simply be seperated. This was one of the points of this thread. And one of my main contentions too.

I do not mind some poor German guy going to the East Front. Maybe he went reluctantly, maybe enthusiatically. I don't mind either way. I pity him. He didn't deserve it, and I wish he could've stayed at home. In other circumstances, he would be just like you or me, just living out his life in peace and quiet. There was nothing inherently wrong with these people.
But you said earlier that the whole Wehrmacht was completely incompetent, since the poor guy who was sent to the East was part of the Wehrmacht, you basically called him an incompetent Nazi, even though he killed 2.5 russian soldiers before he died himself. It's not entirely related(yet human vs. human warfare of sorts) but go and play an online shooter for four years and get an overall kill/death ratio of 2.5, then call the Wehrmacht incompetent again...

Another way to go about this may be to ask, if the Soviet Union was geographically about as big as Germany, but otherwise exactly the same as it was, would they still have won the war?

Sarmatian

11-02-2009, 12:38

How clever of you, to pretend that you did not see that i linked to that same article earlier because if you have a look at the tables you will see that the Soviets had a lot more KIAs, about three times as many, and you called the Wehrmacht incompetent because it killed three times as many soldiers as the other side did? That also makes me wonder, if we had more men, lost less but ended up losing and with only very few men left, had to recruit young boys etc., how exactly could that work if we had so many more men to begin with? Did 3/4th of our men just vanish into thin air or something?
The soviets lost roughly 2.5 times as many men, yet outnumbered the Wehrmacht gratly towards the end of the war, that makes absolutely no sense to me if we heavily outnumbered them in manpower. :inquisitive:

Depends. Again the article takes into account only Wehrmacht, conveniently forgetting 1,000,000 axis allies soldiers in the soviet union and again conveniently forgets them when talking about axis casualties.

And in a way completely detached from the war, the german tanks were harder to produce as they were more like pieces of art while the russian tanks were just mass-produced "rubbish" that served it's purpose very well though. The Russian tanks made them win the war, the German tanks made them get the admiration of tank freaks who admire the fidelity and technics behind them. That does not mean, however, that everyone who admires german tank designs thinks the Nazis were not that bad.
Maybe the myth that the british cared the most about aesthetics should be revised and changed to saying the Nazis lost the war because of aesthetic tanks, or something like that. :sweatdrop:

And yet those rubbish tanks used revolutionary design that was copied and is incorporated into all modern tanks. Those rubbish tanks cost less, broke down less, required less maintenance, weighed less, used less material, required less time to produce and could still take on "advanced" German tanks.

Many of the myths involving eastern front have their roots in the fact that until recently entire conflict in the east was viewed through German eyes. Here's what Glantz has to say about it. Pay attention to the bolded part, it pretty much seems up german (and later western) view of the war in the east.

If American wartime impressions of combat on the Eastern Front were vague and imprecise, there was
some improvement in that picture during the first decade and a half after war ended. However, during
that period a new tendency emerged that colored almost all future works describing events on the
Eastern Front. That tendency was to view operations in the East through German eyes and virtually
only German eyes. From 1945 to 1958 essentially all works written in English or translated into
English about events on the Eastern Front were written by German authors, many of whom were
veterans of combat in the East, works moreover, based solely on German sources.
This German period of war historiography embraced two genre of works. The first included memoirs
written during those years when it was both necessary and sensible to dissociate oneself from Hitler or
Hitler's policies. Justifiable or not, the writers of these memoirs did just that and essentially laid blame
on Hitler for most strategic, operational, and often tactical failures. Thus, an apologetic tone
permeated these works. Officers who shared in the success of Hitler's armies refused to shoulder
responsibility for the failures of the same armies. Only further research will judge the correctness of
their views.
The first of the postwar memoirs to appear in English was the by now classic work, Panzer Leader, by Heinz Guderian.4 Guderian's work, which casts considerable light on strategic and operational
decisions while Guderian was a panzer group commander in 1941 and later when he became Chief of
Staff in 1944, set the tone for future treatment by German generals of Hitler's leadership. Guderian
laid at Hitler's feet principal responsibility for all failures of the German Army and for the dismantling
of the German General Staff. The German General Staff was portrayed as both used and abused by
Hitler throughout the war. Guderian's message was best conveyed by the chapter heading he chose for
the section of the Polish War of 1939 which read, "The Beginning of the Disaster." As in most
subsequent works, Guderian included little Soviet operational data.
One of the most influential postwar German war critiques was General von Mellenthin's Panzer
Battles published ln English in 1956.5 Mellenthin's work, an operational/tactical account of
considerable merit, echoed the criticism of Hitler voiced by Guderian and showed how Hitler's
adverse influence affected tactical operations. Beyond this, Mellenthin's work adopted a didactic
approach in order to analyze operations and hence educate officers. Throughout the book are
judgments concerning military principles and assessments of the nature of the Soviet fighting men and
officers, most of which have been incorporated into the current "body of truth" about Soviet military
capabilities. Hence, Mellenthin made such judgments as these: the Russian soldier is tenacious on
defense, inflexible on offense, subject to panic when facing unforeseen eventualities, an excellent
night fighter, a master of infiltra- tion, a resolute and implacable defender of bridgeheads, and
neglectful of the value of human life.6 As was in the case of Guderian, Mellenthin's experiences
against the Red Army encompassed the period before spring 1944 and reflected impressions acquired
principally during years of German success.
Mellenthln's work, written without benefit of archival materials, tended to treat tactical cases without
fully describing their operational context. Opposing Soviet units, as in Guderian's work, were faceless.
Mellenthin's classic account of XXXXVIII Panzer Corps' operations along the Chir River after the
encirclement of German 6th Army at Stalingrad stands as an example of the weaknesses of his book.7
In it he describes the brilliant operations of that panzer corps in fending off assaults by Soviet 5th
Tank Army's units which included first the 1st Tank Corps and later 5th Mechanized Corps. On 7-8
December 1942, 11ch Panzer Division parried a thrust of 1st Tank Corps at State Farm 79 while on 19
December, 11th Panzer checked the advance of 5th Mechanized Corps. Despite the vivid accounts of
these tactical successes, Mellenthin only in passing describes the operational disaster that provided a
context for these fleeting tactical successes. For, in fact, while Soviet 5th Tank Army occupied
XXXXVIII Panzer Corps' attention, to the northwest Soviet forces overwhelmed and destroyed the
Italian 8th Army and severely damaged Army Detachment Hollidt. Moreover, Mellenthin did not
mention (probably because he did not know) that Soviet 1st Tank Corps had been in nearly continuous operation since 19 November and was under strength and worn down when it began its march across the Chir.8
Similar flaws appear elsewhere in Mellenthin's work, many of which result from a lack of knowledge
of opposing Soviet forces or their strengths.9
Of equal importance to Mellenthin's work, but written from a higher level perspective, was the
memoir of Eric von Manstein entitled Lost Victories.10 An important work by an acknowledged
master at the operational level of war, Manstein's book viewed operations from 1941 to early 1944 at
the strategic and operational level. Manstein's criticism of Hitler reflected active disputes which
ultimately led to Manstein's dismissal as Army Group South commander. Manstein's account of
operations is accurate although again Soviet forces are faceless, and opposing force ratios are in
conflict with those shown by archival materials of Fremde Heeres 0st (Foreign Armies East), Gehlen's
organizations, and of the OKH (the Army High Command).11 Again Soviet superiorities are overstated. These three basic memoirs dominated historiography of World War II in the 1950's and continue to be treated as authoritative works today even as unexploited archival materials challenge an increasing number of facts cited in the three works. Other works appeared in English during this period but were generally concerned with individual battles or operations.12 Whether coinci- dental or not, most of these unfavorable accounts of Soviet combat performance appealed to an American audience conditioned by the Cold War years. Notably, few German commanders of the later war years, a period so unpleasant for German fortunes, wrote memoirs; and the works of those who did (for example, General Heinrici) still remain as untranslated manuscripts in the archives.

Husar

11-02-2009, 13:53

Depends. Again the article takes into account only Wehrmacht, conveniently forgetting 1,000,000 axis allies soldiers in the soviet union and again conveniently forgets them when talking about axis casualties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties

There's a table, it mentions more countries but I just took the german and russian KIAs for what I wrote. Overall, according to that table, the losses were more like 2:1 instead of 2:5 to one but that might just mean that the german soldiers had somewhat better training or got lucky, it still remains that the soviet side lost a lot more men, yet won the war.
Feel free to link me to a different statistic if the one on wikipedia is wrong though, in that case Louis shouldn't use it as evidence for the industrial comparisons either though.

And yet those rubbish tanks used revolutionary design that was copied and is incorporated into all modern tanks. Those rubbish tanks cost less, broke down less, required less maintenance, weighed less, used less material, required less time to produce and could still take on "advanced" German tanks.
The T-55 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/55) was the first "modern" main battle tank, maybe based on the T-34 in a way but then the T-34 was based on the first WW1 tanks in a way.
I also said "rubbish" instead of rubbish and I didn't do that without reason. I basically meant they were less sophisticated or how you call it and said myself that they were quite well suited for the war, just like a wooden club and a masterfully crafted sword can both kill a man, yet not many would see the club as the more advanced or more aesthetic weapon.

Many of the myths involving eastern front have their roots in the fact that until recently entire conflict in the east was viewed through German eyes. Here's what Glantz has to say about it. Pay attention to the bolded part, it pretty much seems up german (and later western) view of the war in the east.
There can be a huge difference between making mistakes and being outright incompetent.
I do note though that one shall not believe the Americans because they never check their sources. ~;)

Sarmatian

11-02-2009, 20:25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties

There's a table, it mentions more countries but I just took the german and russian KIAs for what I wrote. Overall, according to that table, the losses were more like 2:1 instead of 2:5 to one but that might just mean that the german soldiers had somewhat better training or got lucky, it still remains that the soviet side lost a lot more men, yet won the war.
Feel free to link me to a different statistic if the one on wikipedia is wrong though, in that case Louis shouldn't use it as evidence for the industrial comparisons either though.

No, the table isn't wrong, at least not seriously wrong, I can't bother to check exact data at the moment, it's just that you're not reading it right. If you want to compare it properly, you need to check total casualties for Germany and allies on one side (total dead + mia/captured) and the same for Soviets and allies. The difference becomes much smaller then. Soviet Union still lost more men, I don't think anyone disputed that.

The T-55 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/55) was the first "modern" main battle tank, maybe based on the T-34 in a way but then the T-34 was based on the first WW1 tanks in a way.
I also said "rubbish" instead of rubbish and I didn't do that without reason. I basically meant they were less sophisticated or how you call it and said myself that they were quite well suited for the war, just like a wooden club and a masterfully crafted sword can both kill a man, yet not many would see the club as the more advanced or more aesthetic weapon.

Epic fail. They weren't less sophisticated, at least not where it mattered. They were less sophisticated in areas like comfort for the crew for example, it was harder to get in/get out, that sort of thing but in the areas that truly mattered like speed, armour, firepower, ease of use etc... they were more advanced. Panther didn't bring anything revolutionary to the table, it was basically a T-34 on steroids, with more armour and a bigger gun.

There can be a huge difference between making mistakes and being outright incompetent.
I do note though that one shall not believe the Americans because they never check their sources. ~;)

I cite world renowned expert on eastern front, probably the biggest authority on Red Army outside Soviet Union, author of 20+ books on the conflict between wehrmacht and red army and you don't believe him because he's an American? They never check their sources??? And you use wikipedia? :dizzy2:

Husar

11-03-2009, 01:55

No, the table isn't wrong, at least not seriously wrong, I can't bother to check exact data at the moment, it's just that you're not reading it right. If you want to compare it properly, you need to check total casualties for Germany and allies on one side (total dead + mia/captured) and the same for Soviets and allies. The difference becomes much smaller then. Soviet Union still lost more men, I don't think anyone disputed that.
It turns from 2.54 times as many to 2.20 times as many dead people for the soviet side as I already said in the part you quoted. If the soviets even had the better tanks and were on the defense, such a kill ratio doesn't speak of incompetence. The other point I was making is how could we start out with more people, lose only half as many and still lose the war being greatly outnumbered? If we had more and lost less, I'd expect us to greatly outnumber them in the end. :inquisitive:

Epic fail. They weren't less sophisticated, at least not where it mattered. They were less sophisticated in areas like comfort for the crew for example, it was harder to get in/get out, that sort of thing but in the areas that truly mattered like speed, armour, firepower, ease of use etc... they were more advanced. Panther didn't bring anything revolutionary to the table, it was basically a T-34 on steroids, with more armour and a bigger gun.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophisticated

highly complicated or developed
I didn't say they were better in the areas that mattered, in fact I said they weren't necessarily...

I cite world renowned expert on eastern front, probably the biggest authority on Red Army outside Soviet Union, author of 20+ books on the conflict between wehrmacht and red army and you don't believe him because he's an American? They never check their sources??? And you use wikipedia? :dizzy2:
Epic fail right back, I was talking about his point that American research used only german sources and no russian sources, basically I was saying that this kind of research is quite bad and you'd expect better. I use Wikipedia because I'm not writing a book that I sell to people claiming to know it all. :dizzy2:
and no, that's not referring to the guy you quoted but to people who write/wrote books solely based on biased sources.

Sarmatian

11-03-2009, 08:11

It turns from 2.54 times as many to 2.20 times as many dead people for the soviet side as I already said in the part you quoted. If the soviets even had the better tanks and were on the defense, such a kill ratio doesn't speak of incompetence. The other point I was making is how could we start out with more people, lose only half as many and still lose the war being greatly outnumbered? If we had more and lost less, I'd expect us to greatly outnumber them in the end. :inquisitive:

According to that table. Germany & Allies had total dead of 4,9 millions + 5.5 millions captured which makes 10.4 millions. SU & allies had 10,7 millions killed + 5.3 millions captured.

SU & allies lost all together 16 millions, Germany & allies 10,4 millions which makes the ration slightly less than 1.6 to 1.

Soviet Union had more manpower but not by much, contrary to the myth that says Germany was greatly outnumbered. In fact, near the end of the war, SU quite literally hit the bottom of the barrel for manpower.

I
Epic fail right back, I was talking about his point that American research used only german sources and no russian sources, basically I was saying that this kind of research is quite bad and you'd expect better. I use Wikipedia because I'm not writing a book that I sell to people claiming to know it all. :dizzy2:
and no, that's not referring to the guy you quoted but to people who write/wrote books solely based on biased sources.

Well, I'm sorry but it's true. Until the 60's, Russian material wasn't used almost at all and by that time most common myths were already in place. More serious research based on both German and Russian material had to wait until 80's and 90's. Even though that research dispelled earlier myths among professional historians, many of those myths still exists in popular culture, which often present Wehrmacht as almost super human force fighting a giant red blob.

Husar

11-03-2009, 08:59

According to that table. Germany & Allies had total dead of 4,9 millions + 5.5 millions captured which makes 10.4 millions. SU & allies had 10,7 millions killed + 5.3 millions captured.
I think the overall dead include the dead POWs and the number of captured soldiers should also include the dead POWs so you may well be counting those twice.

SU & allies lost all together 16 millions, Germany & allies 10,4 millions which makes the ration slightly less than 1.6 to 1.
For the total amount of men lost in some way (death or captivity), yes.
So do you think the Wehrmacht was completely incompetent based on this or not? :inquisitive:
My point was not to prove that they were an "almost super human force fighting a giant red blob." as you say, but that they were not incompetent as Louis called them.

Soviet Union had more manpower but not by much, contrary to the myth that says Germany was greatly outnumbered. In fact, near the end of the war, SU quite literally hit the bottom of the barrel for manpower.
Thanks for that, I was seriously wondering about this as I had never seen a "list of possible recruits left in country X after WW2", I just knew that in Germany there were hardly any left besides old men and young boys.

Well, I'm sorry but it's true. Until the 60's, Russian material wasn't used almost at all and by that time most common myths were already in place. More serious research based on both German and Russian material had to wait until 80's and 90's.
There's no need to be sorry for the truth. I would guess though, that the iron curtain had something to do with it?

Even though that research dispelled earlier myths among professional historians, many of those myths still exists in popular culture, which often present Wehrmacht as almost super human force fighting a giant red blob.
Well, being german myself I never thought that the Germans of the 1940ies were as superhuman as I am myself. *takes his mop and flies to the moon* :sweatdrop:

Kralizec

11-06-2009, 15:56

I could address all of your points but not so long ago there was a discussion in the Monastery about similar issue where I already explained it so I'll refer you to it. Link (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=111163&page=2)

I'll concede the lend-lease aspect, but I don't think the effects of bombing are discussed in deep (let alone down-played) in that thread.

Since our little side discussion is about wether Germany could have beaten the Soviet Union if no other allies were involved, not only would Germany have had more industrial capacity without the bombing but they'd have been able to divert a larger percentage to AFV's because there'd be no need to maintain a large submarine fleet (= hideously expensive)

Of course, that's all hypothetical. In another hypothetical scenario where Stalin didn't butcher his own officers out of sheer paranoia, Germany probably wouldn't have stood a chance.

With that said, I'm going to take a :bow: and leave this thread for what it is, since this discussion is starting to get above my head.

Oleander Ardens

11-08-2009, 14:17

Since our little side discussion is about wether Germany could have beaten the Soviet Union if no other allies were involved, not only would Germany have had more industrial capacity without the bombing but they'd have been able to divert a larger percentage to AFV's because there'd be no need to maintain a large submarine fleet (= hideously expensive)

This is of course a huge, huge factor. Ressources are the key enabler for any military organization. The successes of the Red army tied greatly to the vast amount of firepower and war material at their disposal. On the other hand the airwar on the homefront, over the skies of Germany and the battle of the Atlantic consumed a huge amount of ressources and cost a huge amount in industrial production and labour efficiency. Vast amount of guns and ammuntion defended the German infrastructure. A massive share of the airforce fought in German skies. Many greatly needed components, among fuel became critical bottlenecks for the German production due to the airwar. The direct and indirect effects of bombing cut very, very deeply into the ability of the German army and airforce to battle the Soviets.

OA

Horatius

11-09-2009, 20:27

Wermacht was 100% guilty, I agree 100% with the original poster and with the book he/she/it is refering to.

Not only was the Wermacht guilty as charged, the idea of a pure Aryan Master Race began long before the nazis.

Germany created an appaling thesis of the greatness of German Blood, and after decades of brainwashing it's people with lies such as the only reason any other culture was great is owed to a Germanic Elite that moved there. Not to mention lies such as the reason past great cultures died was because said Germanic Elites eventually integrated into their societies.

After decades of brainwashing with those lies Germany acted on that belief and tried to "purify" the worlds blood.

They distorted all sorts of descriptions to make people German, they edited The Twelve Caesars to make all of them seem German, they declared without any pretense that Marius and Sulla were Germans, they claimed the top of the Indian Caste System was German.

Infact I meant this as a short post so I will shorten it.

Germany itself acted on appaling beliefs that predated the Nazis, and NEVER ended untill a decade of occupation and re-education by the allied powers.

Some individuals heroicly went against their country and people because it was the right thing, Ludwig Beck, Wilhelm Cannaris to name a few, but trying to show German Innocence from them would be like trying to prove Britain was really wishing it was an Axis Power based on Sir Oswald Mosley.

Oleander Ardens

11-26-2009, 20:21

Louis VI the Fat

11-27-2009, 19:55

Oleander Ardens

11-27-2009, 22:09

I think Horatius' post was well written, well thought out and on the mark.

Not Germanophobic at all. No more than it is to say that ideas of white supremacy were near universal in Europe and America during the colonial age.
The roots of nazism run deep, it did not come about in a cultural vacuum, and Horatius excellently describes one aspect of it.

I completely disagree. A rant like that above may include a correct argument but presents it in a completely distorting fashion. As I wrote the post above lacks any measure and seems unable to distinct between entities like an individual, a group and a nation and between specific timeframes. Thus the post as a whole becomes worthless or even harmful.

OA

Louis VI the Fat

11-27-2009, 22:24

I completely disagree. A rant like that above may include a correct argument but presents it in a completely distorting fashion. As I wrote the post above lacks any measure and seems unable to distinct between entities like an individual, a group and a nation and between specific timeframes. Thus the post as a whole becomes worthless or even harmful.

OABut Horatius does include a timeframe ('decades prior to the nazis'), a group (who brainwashed) and a nation ('its' people', who were brainwashed). And even concludes to mention individuals who went against the tide.

I read it as a very worthwhile, informed post.

It is worthwhile, because it does not think of or describe as the Germans as collectivily 'suddenly' going insane in 1933, nor considers the Germans as inherently evil. The post rather describes the long road to the events of 1933-1945, puts it in a specific time and place. Which serves to show that the Germans are not irredeemable, collective Nazis.

Edit: Linky, Louis, links in this thread! :smash:
Hannah Arendt wrote similar thoughts in her 'The Origins of Totalitarianism'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-27-2009, 22:33

The problem with that post is that it can be easily refuted by looking at such things as vote counts. To assume that all of Germany was full of frothing at the mouth racists is about as inaccurate as saying Germany started World War One. Easy to say, but still wrong.

Brenus

11-28-2009, 00:36

“To assume that all of Germany was full of frothing at the mouth racists is about as inaccurate as saying Germany started World War One. Easy to say, but still wrong.”
Well, I would say both statments are as accurate.

Germany was full of racists. If not, Hitler wouldn’t have around 37.2 % of the vote in July 1932. That is not so bad for an openly racist agenda where all is explained in a book and in action (SA).

And Germany didn’t start the war as such, it was Austria-Hungary against Serbia, but it was Germany which declared war on France, invaded neutral Belgium, provoking UK entrance in the war…
So Germany was part of the mechanism that started the WW1, and in the case of Belgium, the only one to blame…

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-28-2009, 00:50

Germany was full of racists. If not, Hitler wouldn’t have around 37.2 % of the vote in July 1932. That is not so bad for an openly racist agenda where all is explained in a book and in action (SA).

Germany had racists. Germany was not full of racists. The 37.2% figure actually confirms what I was trying to say.

And Germany didn’t start the war as such, it was Austria-Hungary against Serbia, but it was Germany which declared war on France, invaded neutral Belgium, provoking UK entrance in the war…

Germany declared war on France after the French had mobilized, and Germany mobilized partially in response to the Russian mobilization. The attack of Belgium was unfortunate but necessary in the context of the plan. In order, I would argue that all nations were guilty for starting the war - even Britain - but the blame goes, in order, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France/Germany, and the UK. Serbia can fit anywhere on that list, but I'm inclined to go easy on them given the fact that no nation would or should have accepted all of the demands laid out by the Austrians. The UK could also theoretically be moved higher based on a variety of reasons.

So Germany was part of the mechanism that started the WW1, and in the case of Belgium, the only one to blame…

Yes, but I have no doubt that Britain would have come into the war on the side of France eventually, and also that the involvement of Belgium still doesn't mean that Germany started the war. The truth is that the war guilt clause is, in technical terms, a pile of horse manure.

A Very Super Market

11-28-2009, 01:03

Deal with the times. It's judgemental to only judge the losers. One only needs to take a look at 1940s France, England, and the US to see that the whole world was bigoted.

Louis VI the Fat

11-28-2009, 02:18

Deal with the times. It's judgemental to only judge the losers. One only needs to take a look at 1940s France, England, and the US to see that the whole world was bigoted.I agree. That's why a cultural history of the origins of nazism is important. The nazis did not *poof* suddenly come about in a cultural vacuum. They thrived on using pre-existing notions and radicalising them.

I do not think of nazism as a singular, unique phenomenon, completely apart from its cultural and historical context.

~~-~~-~~-<<oOo>>-~~-~~-~~

Why can't we judge the nazis simply because they lost? I wouldn't use their legacy to wrap in the **** my poodle leaves in the park, and simply because nazis are losers too does not make me feel I must forfeit the right to judge them.

A Very Super Market

11-28-2009, 02:50

Alexander the Pretty Good

11-28-2009, 02:59

The point of this thread, as well as Louis & Horatius posts, is not to lie about the Nazis. They weren't hellspawn - they were individuals who were dedicated to an evil ideology, and they convinced many non-Nazi individuals to go along with it. One of the lies is that only the Nazis or SS participated in the crimes of the Nazi regime; another lie is that the Nazi party came to power overnight in a vacuum.

It's lying to comfortably say the Nazis were evil, there's nothing more to discuss, let's move on.

Louis VI the Fat

11-28-2009, 03:54

How redundant my post must seem. Ah.. hindsight.

How exactly do we see WWII? Do we really need to be consistantly reminded that the nazis were bad? A person that willingly believes that genocide be a viable response to any problem is already beyond hope of education. I take offense to anything that demonises Hitler, or nazis, because they are ignoring the real point. The point isn't to point and say "This is a monster, monsters are horrible", it is to remember that us as humans are capable of such atrocities.

Remembering the nazis as human beings puts ourselves into regard. How useless it must be to dismiss the holocaust as the result of hellspawn, and how vain it must be to hold yourself so high above them. We are separated from our vile ancestors by our history, our clear view of history, that allows us to learn from the mistakes of the past. As soon as we begin to alter details to make ourselves feel better, we are slowly backtracking onto the same path we were on before. Hate them, that is good. But we cannot lie about them.I think this a great post. Which means your more concise post before this one wasn't redundant, for without we wouldn't have got you talking.

Demonising Hitler as some sort of alien misses the point indeed. Labelling the nazis immoral is never unmerited, but not always necessary. We get it, we all agree.

Where I lash out, it is not to demonise the nazis, but to belittle them. I do have that as a hidden agenda. Well not hidden, because I've said it before in this thread. I try to draw attention to the fact the nazis were unbelievable losers.

Because, to call the nazis evil only increases the pull they have on a segment of the public mind. If not outright sympathy, a certain...'fascination'. This fascination leads to identification with the nazis. Which then leads to trying to reason their faults away.
This pull, this fascination is reinforced by continuing myths of nazi superhuman capability and performance. (Like what, I always wonder? Running the strongest state of Europe to the ground within a decade? Managing to morally, economically and militarily bankrupt a superpower?)

Drawing attention to their track record of miserable failure makes the nazis lose their appeal, their fascination. It was all rather banal and loserish.

Brenus

11-28-2009, 18:41

The 37.2% figure” represents the ones who dared to openly support the Nazi and the racist view. It is what you need nowadays to be elected in the Presidential elections…

“The attack of Belgium was unfortunate but necessary in the context of the plan”. Yeah, right… :beam:
You designed a plan of attack on a country which implicated to invade a neutral country without any valid reason except it is needed by the plan, then all is all right…:yes:

“Germany declared war on France after the French had mobilized, and Germany mobilized partially in response to the Russian mobilization”
Non, non non, mon ami.
Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, the Russian mobilised (didn’t declare war, you notice), Germany mobilised and declared war on Russia (1st of August 1914), France mobilised the 2nd of August, Germany attacked Luxemburg and the 3rd declared war on France and Belgium (after having issued an ultimatum to Belgium the 2nd).
Note: There is nothing like a partial mobilisation.
The 4th, Germany invaded Belgium and UK declared war on Germany.

Nice try and use of vocabulary but Germany is part the ones that started it. Because at that moment, Austria-Hungary was even not at war with Russia it was done the 6th)…:2thumbsup:

“Yes, but I have no doubt that Britain would have come into the war on the side of France eventually”. Probably but that is not the point… Eventually we will emigrate from Earth as well… When is the question…

“Deal with the times. It's judgemental to only judge the losers. One only needs to take a look at 1940s France, England, and the US to see that the whole world was bigoted.”
Not good enough as nor France, England or US elected a openely racist Regime that was openely planing killings and deportation.

1940 France racist regime of Vichy came up with a coup and in the “enemy’s coach” or the enemy’s luggage (translated from the French “dans le wagon de l’ennemi”. Ou les bagages de l’ennemi).
In 1934, an attempt of the extreme-right to storm the Parliament failed, and the Ligues were declared illegal…
The Racists failled in France so they had to come with the ennemy.

Meneldil

11-29-2009, 14:46

1940 France racist regime of Vichy came up with a coup and in the “enemy’s coach” or the enemy’s luggage (translated from the French “dans le wagon de l’ennemi”. Ou les bagages de l’ennemi).
In 1934, an attempt of the extreme-right to storm the Parliament failed, and the Ligues were declared illegal…
The Racists failled in France so they had to come with the ennemy.

Is it a coup really though? Petain was chosen by the vast majority of the Parliament. He had at the time much more legitimacy than any other frenchman.

Brenus

11-29-2009, 17:43

It was Coup. Petain was "elected" with soldiers inside the "Parliement". The Parliementaries known as hostile were not informed of the vote or stop to enter the building.
It was a Coup.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-30-2009, 04:34

The 37.2% figure” represents the ones who dared to openly support the Nazi and the racist view. It is what you need nowadays to be elected in the Presidential elections…

You can't say that all of them supported racist views, as quite a few probably voted that way for other reasons, though it is safe to assume that a good portion probably did. I thought you needed a runoff in the Presidential elections in France? 37.2% wouldn't be good enough. It wasn't good enough in Germany either. Hitler used what amounted to back door machinations to acquire power.

You designed a plan of attack on a country which implicated to invade a neutral country without any valid reason except it is needed by the plan, then all is all right…:yes:

What, so France should be attacked right on their defenses, right where they expected it? The plan would have worked, and indeed came very close to working in spite of the idiotic changes made by some of the General Staff.

Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, the Russian mobilised (didn’t declare war, you notice), Germany mobilised and declared war on Russia (1st of August 1914), France mobilised the 2nd of August, Germany attacked Luxemburg and the 3rd declared war on France and Belgium (after having issued an ultimatum to Belgium the 2nd).

So what I said was entirely accurate then, good. :2thumbsup:

Nice try and use of vocabulary but Germany is part the ones that started it.

Sure, Germany was part of what started it, I don't deny that. I hold every European country at least somewhat responsible. Still, to blame Germany for starting the war is, given the situation at the time, frighteningly simplified and somewhat ignorant. I hope that nobody was doing that.

Probably but that is not the point… Eventually we will emigrate from Earth as well… When is the question…

The conflict was already there. Besides, it isn't as if Britain had to join the war after Germany went through Belgium (etc). Nonetheless, giving the underlying political situation of the time, I think the invasion of Belgium was only an excuse by the British to declare a war which they wanted to already.

Alexander the Pretty Good

11-30-2009, 05:20

Indeed, the French and British militaries had planned on the UK joining the war on France's side in the event of the latter becoming engaged in a war with Germany.

Brenus

11-30-2009, 08:24

"So what I said was entirely accurate then, good". Nope because what you said was "Germany declared war on France after the French had mobilized" which reverse causes and effects...:laugh4:

Meneldil

11-30-2009, 13:17

It was Coup. Petain was "elected" with soldiers inside the "Parliement". The Parliementaries known as hostile were not informed of the vote or stop to enter the building.
It was a Coup.

Never heard about soldiers in the Parliament during the vote. Any source for that?

As for the Parliamentaries themselves, out of the 907 elected in 1939, 670 took part in the vote, and 569 voted yes to the constitutionnal changes. That means that 62.7% of the parliamentaries accepted the reform. Which means that Pétan had about as much legitimacy as he could have wished to have. Only a popular vote would have had more weight than this (and he would likely have won in case such a vote was organized).

The law proposal had been presented to the deputies 3 days earlier, and all of those present at the moment had the opportunity to vote. Those who didn't were either MIA (many fought on the frontlines), communists (the PCF being illegal at the time, and not because of Pétain) or attempted to flee to the colonies to pursue the fight against Germany. That's not what I'd call a coup. Nowadays, there's hardly more than 200 parliamentaries at the National Assembly or at the Senate when a law is passed.

And once again, your claim that soldiers were in the Parliament, (which would mean that the Parliamentaries had to vote with a gun pointed on their head) seems dubious, to say the least. No offense, but your claim sounds like typical gaullist propaganda :-P

As for putting all the blame of WWI on Germany, I also disagree. Even though France only reacted to the events (namely, Austria and Germany being all "ZOMG, let's attack"), you cannot deny that the warmongers weighted quite heavily in French politics, and that the idea that a war had to happen in order to liberate Alsace and Lorraine was one of the main, if not the main, issue of the french foreign policy of the time.