Who was responsible for more civilian

[Oaty]

The question is who is responsible for the most civilian deaths during world war 2

The answer will be given in 24 hours and facts come from the history channel and if you know the answer Dont spoil it till people have got the chance to answer

The reason I did this is everyone is gonna check off Hitler right away or is at least there first thought and the answer did catch me offguard too. Ok now the answer is'nt Hitler now lets see how many people check hitler then read the post lol.

Now for a few hints but not too many so i don't give the answer away

Hitler: he did have the concentration camps but if you read above that is all the hint you need cant count executed POW's as this is civilian deaths only

Churchill: authorized many bombing campaigns mainly on german cities

Roosevelt: Atomic bomb

Stalin: had the Gulags

Mussolini: "He made the trains run on time" (by shooting someone if they didn't). I could'nt find anything real nasty on this guy with a quick search. I'll slap you if you pick him

Hirohito: authorized a facility to test on human "guinea pigs"

Now theres the hints now lets see who gets it right and who quickly checks off Hitler

[Shahed]

It's either Ros or Churchill.

[Sjakihata]

I believe it is Stalin, and a great number of the civilians was his own.

[Stefan the Berserker]

This is acctually a stupid Question. All are as Guilty as the other.

Focus their behaviour all as wrong and compare it to People acting today, that is what we can learn from History.

[Pablo Sanchez]

It depends on how you determine responsibility. If we use a less rigid definition then it is most definitely Hitler (he caused WWII in Europe, after all&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif followed by the Japanese.

If we talk about direct action, if we're talking only about the WWII period, then it is still Hitler. Stalin's massacres predated WWII.

[Sainika]

Hitler with no doubt at all. None of you know that Hitler and reich Germany was responsible for 27 mln of dead russians: killed, burnt etc. This number doen't include killed jews.
Stalin was a tyran but his Gulags killed much much less people. And during WW2 a lot of Gulags prisoners were fighting on all fronts instead of being in prison.

Stupid poll as it shows the narrow-mindness of it's starter. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

[Degtyarev14.5]

I don't know the answer, but may I venture to suggest Churchill?

A.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Sainika @ July 20 2003,12:50)]Stalin was a tyran but his Gulags killed much much less people. And during WW2 a lot of Gulags prisoners were fighting on all fronts instead of being in prison.

Stupid poll as it shows the narrow-mindness of it's starter. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif
Stalin actually killed close to 21 million of his own people in the Gulags... and thats not counting the Purges of the Red Army itself and his human wave style attacks (which weakened it to such an extent that the Initial German invasion was successful)

I think he was worse than Hitler, but not by much

[TosaInu]

Quote[/b] (Sainika @ July 20 2003,06:50)]Stupid poll as it shows the narrow-mindness of it's starter. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif
Konnichiwa,

It seems that this poll is read as: not killed most thus not bad or who's the most guilty?

I do not see such a statement.

Please be nice to each other.

[Sainika]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ July 20 2003,17:03)]Stalin actually killed close to 21 million of his own people in the Gulags... and thats not counting the Purges of the Red Army itself and his human wave style attacks (which weakened it to such an extent that the Initial German invasion was successful)

I think he was worse than Hitler, but not by much
Let's be close to the topic: during the WW2. I hate Stalin's actions but if it's a Monastery forum let's try to be historically accurate.
It is very popular now to rewrite history books in order to present Hitler just a mad man forgeting completely of what has been done during his reign. And I hope you understand that without the support inside and outside the Germany Hitler couldn't have even a tenth part of his actual power.
About his "human wave attacks" - please keep in mind that only Russia (I exclude Britain because it's in island) in Europe could face the fashist threat. May be France, Belgium etc. didn't use such attacks but they could resist only several weeks and months. If you do not know the history of WW2 very well, try to be not so sure in your sentences as they don't reflect the situation, reasons and consequences either.
Human's memory is very short; it's strange but explainable. Let us not forget the past.

[Sjakihata]

Also to take in consideration is the Japanese Empire, they waged some heavy wars against China, I believe the total of chinese civilian casualties is close to 10 mio. I am unaware if this was cause by one commander/regent or various.

Of course Hitler killed a great deal of civilians, slaughters in the Soviet Union and elsewhere took place. But he did not slaughter the most civilians, he did not have time for that he needed all the bullets for allies soldiers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Tachikaze]

Oaty is not making a value judgement about Hitler or anyone else. He/she asked a simple question with a quantifiable answer. Whenever Hitler is mentioned, there are always people talking about revisionism and someone apologizing for Hitler's actions. Yes, there a white supremisists who claim that the "Final Solution" didn't happen, etc., but oaty's post is not doing that.

If oaty comes back and says, "See ___ was worse than Hitler because he was responsible for more civilian deaths," then you can complain. If you don't like the poll, read some other threads.

Why can't people discuss Hitler rationally? It's like some kind of taboo subject.

By the way, I don't think Hirohito made military decisions. Hideki Tojo was supreme commander.

[Rosacrux]

"Human wave attacks" don't kill civilians, they just (?) massacre servicemen... since we talk about civilian casualties, it is Hitler, by extremely very far. In the occupied countries more than 21 mi. people died as a consequence of direct or indirect actions of the occupying forces (Ze Germans, if you have missed it) and if we hold leaders responsible for those, Hitler is definitely the grand civilian-butcher of the war.

Churchill and FDR come by a far cry in the next places, followed by the Japanese chief of staff (he was in charge of the country, military-wise, not the emperor). Bombing Germany and Japan killed more than those the Japs butchered in China (mainly) and some southeastern Asia nations.

Stalin's actions during the war didn't "cause" the death of any but few (compared to the victims of the previously mentioned) civilians, and a great deal of those were actually executed for cooperation with the occupying forces (seen very widely in eastern Europe after the Soviets liberated them from the Nazis and also in some Soviet Republics). Even though some would go out and say that lots of the 1.5 mi. dead in Leningrad should be attributed to Jo, who didn't really fancied the idea of leaving behind "fortress Leningrad" to the Nazis and ordered his people to remain there, under seige. But the Germans laid the seige, not the Soviets, and the German shelling killed dozens of thousands, not Soviet.

And... what is Musolini doing in that list? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Shahed]

The civilians that died during the war, were not killed exculsively by German action.

Anyway:


Quote[/b] ] Posted: July 19 2003,06:06....
The answer will be given in 24 hours

It is now July 21st. Can we have the answer please ?

[Oaty]

First of all so everyone knows the answer is Stalin. This came directly from the history channel and I watch plenty of it.

Sorry about not giving the answer earlier as I got called into work this weekend.

Now for some of the facts. Stalins policy was when conquering Germany was if they were German , Russian soldiers were'nt guilty. As Russia was very seclusive about what happened in their country very few people know what happened behind the iron curtain as it was developing. (Due to this much of the data from eastern Europe to Russia is'nt very accurate) Many German towns had woman raped to death literally all men were killed on site and over 90 percent many towns population was decimated. Most towns every single girl or woman above the age 8 of was brutally raped. ( I'm not saying who is worse or better and my opinion is they are both evil. I just found this odd when watching the history channel and thought I'd post it as it is something that I thought would catch many people offguard) As German territory was being conquered there were some POW camps with French, English, American and Canadian soldiers in them and guess what they were executed as spies. ( This is military death but it helps show even more of stalins ruthlessness) This was probably done as the allies were looking at going after Russia once Germany was defeated now I don't know how in depth their plan was to invade Russia but I'm sure many of you that are good on history know this was an option.

I'm sorry to the people found this poll and topic offensive but I hoped I shined some light to a few what was really going on behind the developing of the iron curtain.

This part of the forum is for history and all I was doing was making a post about history

There is so much more info on this and what was really happening Eastern Euorope at this period I only posted some keypoints and if you want more info there is plenty of info on the web. Just so much info on it would be near impossible to post it here.

This part of the forum is for history and all I was doing was making a post about history

[Oaty]

Again I would like to emphisize my apoligies for not posting the answer 24 hours afterwards as I got delayed

[Urban Legend]

Hey, if you were a soldier will you rape and slaughter?

Did the German army rape occupied French as a whole?

[Sainika]

Quote[/b] (oaty @ July 22 2003,06:16)]First of all so everyone knows the answer is Stalin. This came directly from the history channel and I watch plenty of it.

Sorry about not giving the answer earlier as I got called into work this weekend.

Now for some of the facts. Stalins policy was when conquering Germany was if they were German , Russian soldiers were'nt guilty. As Russia was very seclusive about what happened in their country very few people know what happened behind the iron curtain as it was developing. (Due to this much of the data from eastern Europe to Russia is'nt very accurate) Many German towns had woman raped to death literally all men were killed on site and over 90 percent many towns population was decimated. Most towns every single girl or woman above the age 8 of was brutally raped. ( I'm not saying who is worse or better and my opinion is they are both evil. I just found this odd when watching the history channel and thought I'd post it as it is something that I thought would catch many people offguard) As German territory was being conquered there were some POW camps with French, English, American and Canadian soldiers in them and guess what they were executed as spies. ( This is military death but it helps show even more of stalins ruthlessness) This was probably done as the allies were looking at going after Russia once Germany was defeated now I don't know how in depth their plan was to invade Russia but I'm sure many of you that are good on history know this was an option.

I'm sorry to the people found this poll and topic offensive but I hoped I shined some light to a few what was really going on behind the developing of the iron curtain.

This part of the forum is for history and all I was doing was making a post about history

There is so much more info on this and what was really happening Eastern Euorope at this period I only posted some keypoints and if you want more info there is plenty of info on the web. Just so much info on it would be near impossible to post it here.

This part of the forum is for history and all I was doing was making a post about history
I don't want to comment this bosh.
But OATY tell me what a history channel you were watching?
And by the way do you know that bears are still walking in russian cities and frighten people, especially young foreign tourists of female gender? Wild country you know. I wonder how they defeated such a noble german army which soldiers killed and raped only a population of a small country. Strange world you know.

[Stefan the Berserker]

Quote[/b] ]Hey, if you were a soldier will you rape and slaughter?

Did the German army rape occupied French as a whole?

The Problem that makes Warcrimes so easy is the Organisation of the Militery.

40 Men form a Platoon which is comanded by a Sergant. That means the Group of a Platoon cosists of "normal" People, which also includes Pigs.

The first qualified Officer is the Luitanant, leading a Company (which cosists of four Platoons).

So it's impossible to controll what all Soldiers do. For example the Sergant send a Squad of Soldiers to check a Farm. The Guys find Women and rape them, the Sergant will never got to know it. And the Luitanant, and their Captain? Not really...

Warcrimes not a typical German Problem, all Nationalitys do them expecially if a War takes a lot of Time and Soldiers have a lack of Discipline and Morale.

See => Vietnam, Russians in Afghanistan, Korea...

[Rosacrux]

This whole issue goes far and beyond any "nationality" boundaries and borders. It's not based on "nationality" that Germans commited more war crimes than any other (or all combined together), it's based on undeniable facts.

Of course the demonization of Stalin and the Soviets post WW2 (to emphasise on the "red danger" aspect http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif ) led to some really absurd claims, as that of our very young friend oaty, who gets his history from the History Channel and believes he discovered the Holy Grail...

Young mate, this comes from someone with maybe triple your years: Read some history yourself, even the "biased" (towards one or another direction) sources, compare them and draw your own conclusions. If you wish to start that kind of topics here, where a whole bunch of history buffs reside.

If you really want to know what the truth is, read my post. If you want numbers, here are numbers: 15.000.000 civilians died in the USSR due to actions of the Nazis. 2.5 in Yugoslavia. 1.5 mi. in Greece. The total (including the other occupied countries) is above 21 million. Do you really believe Stalin "killed" more than this during the war? How? When? Where? Sources please, not some nebulous reference to the History Channel http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Mithrandir]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ July 22 2003,05:03)]If you really want to know what the truth is, read my post. If you want numbers, here are numbers: 15.000.000 civilians died in the USSR due to actions of the Nazis. 2.5 in Yugoslavia. 1.5 mi. in Greece. The total (including the other occupied countries) is above 21 million. Do you really believe Stalin "killed" more than this during the war? How? When? Where? Sources please, not some nebulous reference to the History Channel http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
What's your source ?

[Rosacrux]

USSR Civilian dead:

Urlanis goes for 10,000,000
Steven Shabad rises to 16.9M
Davies estimates between 16,000,000 and 19,000,000

There ae also estimates of Russian historians (Shokolov, for instance, talks about 17 mi. dead civilians) and other sources indicate the number is closer to 15 mi. I used a rather modest number.

Yugoslavia

In both Encarta and Encyclopedia Brittanica the number of the civilian losses is 1.3 mi. but the massive losses of the partizans and those of the famine are not counted.

I am estimating 2.5 mi. dead because of the war.


Greece

The official count is around 420.000 but that does not count the 1 mi. people that died in the 1943 winter due to the famine (caused, of course, by the occupation). So, that brings us to a total of 1.5 mi.


The Japanese seem to have killed about 3 mi. people in China - the rest of the appr. 15 mi. civilian casualties during the war is attributed to the "cleansing operations" of either the nationalists (5.5 mi.) or the communists (0.5 mi.) and the famine (2.5 mi.). Sources: Rummel.


Oh, and my 21 mi. number is only about Europe.

[Urban Legend]

Friend, no offense but please keep off those "I'm older, wiser than you" stance. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif

[Nowake]

During the WWII Hitler

[Knight Keimo]

I say that this is quite simple poll after all.

"Who killed most civilians during WW2"

Germans actions and brutal occupation did cause over 20 million civilian deaths during war. They are winners

Stalin executed far more than twenty million, but he started at early 30´ and take a break on that during war. Guess he was too busy... Then, if we want to ask who was guilty for most lost of lives during war, answer is again germans. They started it.. Try to denied Germans started war, which killed over 50 million people. Nice..

Hitler was only diktator who was elected..

Was it wrong to bomb german cities? But didn´t germans gave a permission to that when they gave theyr vote to the party and idealistic who were talking about war, sub-humans and things like that.. What went wrong? They get just what they wanted, isnt that right? There are so many other nations in this world who can be seen as victims, but not germans..

[DemonArchangel]

The japanese killed MILLIONS of chinese, US bombing runs killed 900,000 at the MOST.

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Stefan the Berserker @ July 19 2003,12:03)]This is acctually a stupid Question. All are as Guilty as the other.
ROFLMAO

No, you are stupid. Well, you will basically be calling me stupid for disagreeing....vehemently....with you, you apologist for fascist and stalinist atrocities.

...yeah, let's dilute the crimes by making everyone culpable. Bullshit.

[Oaty]

I looked up some sources and none are accurate as not much of history is 100 percent is accurate

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,790476,00.html

http://www.geocities.com/lord_visionary/guncontrol.htm

This does not show the overall statitics but states that stalin had also killed 6 million jews during world war2

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr198/thinking.htm

doesnt give to much detail on statistics but does mention the main factors of stalins killing machine

http://www.geocities.com/decriminalizefreedom/warethics.html

This site give some good info too but gives the total deaths of his reign and not the war

Now this is not a FLAMEBOARD as I put myself above insulting others and in all reality there is no right answer for this topic as there are too many factors that can be put into the statistics or taken out. I was basing this topic on a statement by the history channel, there are many websites, books and refernces out there that can prove me right or wrong.

The fact that history is written to someones likings and overcrowding other important factors that they did not want to consider or completely ignore that fact does to a small extent make history unreliable. To base your answer totally on opinions is oblivious to the fact. The fact that allied forces had occupied Germany and had seen all the attrocities that were committed by the nazis makes the statistics of Hitlers atrrocities more likely more reliable than that of Stalins who had ruled his nation under suppression. How many people in the Soviet Union would openly state that Stalin was a murderous bastard. I don't think too many did if any. Only when Stalin died, Kruschev has there been an open statement to government officials of how Stalin had destroyed his own country. (Does anyone know where I can get ahold of Kruschev's first speech forget what it is called but heard about it on the history channel and been wanting to read it since I heard about it. They only briefly talked about it and was curious to what it contained) Anyways much of WWII statistics were corrupted by Stalin and kept hidden from the public eye and only the fall of the Soviet Union did much of this come public. Considering that fact the statistics had approximately 50 years to be corrupted and changed time and again. The Soviets were greatly embarrased of there losses in WWII and tried to hide there losses to everyone. Many statistics show that Russia had lost aproximately 10 million to the total 20 million soldiers lost by all the countries in WWII. Considering how much they tried to hide that fact and who nows how accurate the statistics are for people killed politically or for any other reason. What I gave is an approximate of all the sites that have info some have the Rusians from 8 million to 13 million and the total military deaths as most of them around 20 million going all the way up to 27 million

As far as the history channel that I watch wich is a major TV station in the US if you have cable or satelite and I think it is not broadcasted outside the US, Canada might get this channel too. This channel is owned by A&E and A&E is a channel all in itself and they also own the Biography channel and the International History channel(I get this one because I subscribed to it) If you want more info on this channel go to www.historychannel.com

For those of you offended by this topic theres always the option of hitting the back button or asking the moderator to delete this topic but I don't think I have done anything against the board rules, whereas flaming is against board rules.

[Sainika]

But in the distorted prism of the new history, they are somehow lost from the equation. At the same time, the number of victims of Stalin's terror has been progressively inflated over recent years to the point where, in the wildest guesstimates, a third of the entire Soviet population is assumed to have been killed in the years leading up to the country's victory over Nazi Germany. The numbers remain a focus of huge academic controversy, partly because most of them are famine deaths which can only be extrapolated from unreliable demographic data. But the fact is that the opening of formerly secret Soviet archives has led many historians - such as the Americans J Arch Getty and Robert Thurston - to scale down sharply earlier cold war estimates of executions and gulag populations under Stalin. The figures are still horrific. For example, 799,455 people were recorded as having been executed between 1921 and 1953, and the labour camp population reached 2.5 million (most convicted for non-political offences) at its peak after the war. But these are a very long way from the kind of numbers relied on by Amis and his mentors.
It's extracted from the article you've cited (first one). So where are those millions of dead during the WW2 lost?
Read this article more carefully.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Knight Keimo @ July 22 2003,12:50)]Was it wrong to bomb german cities? But didn´t germans gave a permission to that when they gave theyr vote to the party and idealistic who were talking about war, sub-humans and things like that.. What went wrong? They get just what they wanted, isnt that right? There are so many other nations in this world who can be seen as victims, but not germans..
Putting myself at risk of getting flamed for this as a German who tries to play down the role of the German people during the war ... but I have to strongly disagree with you.

IMO actions that have the primary objective to kill as many cililians as possible can never be justified no matter who does it and who is the target and civilians who are killed by carpet bombings and firestorms are always victims.

Condemning a people (and implying their death is deserved)as a whole for what a part of this people (even a amjor part) does or is responsible for is an ignorant position that is the cause for many of our world's conflicts (Balkan, Africa)

[Sjakihata]

Quote[/b] ]Hitler was only diktator who was elected..

Was it wrong to bomb german cities? But didn´t germans gave a permission to that when they gave theyr vote to the party and idealistic who were talking about war, sub-humans and things like that.. What went wrong? They get just what they wanted, isnt that right? There are so many other nations in this world who can be seen as victims, but not germans..
-by knight keimo

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

First of all, is it ever right to bomb something in the first place? no. And it is certainly not right to bomb cities.

Try to follow this thought experiment:
You are a worker, you have 2 kids and a wife, the german economy is dropping (recession) and heavy inflation. but you do not know this, you just know you and your family are starving. people talk about bad days and grim romours are about.
then one man promises that he can give work to all men and women, make them full up (satisfied) and make Germany a proud empire again.
You vote on him, as the others are reactionaries or communists you do not like those.

I believe that was many germans reasoning.

The Nazis did not talk too heavily about that untill AFTER 1933, that was what went wrong.

Do you honestly think that this family described above want to wage all out war and to BE BOMBED ? if so you are ignorant.

Can you hold a nation as a victim? not sure, but at least you can hold civilians as victims, they always are esp. during war.

Note: this is not a defence of hitlers actions, moreover I think they were cruel and of course do not approve of them.

[Rosacrux]

Oaty

I didn't mean to offend you young lad, and if I sounded pedantic, I should apologize.

BUT...

...since this is a history board (at least the Monastery part of it) and history, even if you fail to aknowledge that, is a rather accurate science (accurate at least comparable with other "human sciences") we have to be accurate and scientific as well.

Stating bluntly that Stalin "killed more civilians during WW2" without stating any source at all, besides some nebulous reference to some History channel documentary, is not accurate, nor scientific.

And when attributing millions of deaths, one has to be both accurate and scientific.

I asked you for sources and you presented some websites that do not justify your claims. Even though I wouldn't take any of those as a reliable source, anyway they don't state something as absurd as you did, that Stalin killed more civilians than Hitler during WW2. Stalin is responsible for a rather large democide inside the bounds of the USSR, but that was before WW2 and all was over in 1938 (when he finished with the Red Army purges).

As for the death toll of those actions of Jo Stalin before WW2, some think it's 4.5 mi, some rise it to 11 mi. some even dare to say it's above 30 mi. I am afraid the latter count in the dead of the second WW so they are fundamentally wrong. But it's safe to hold Jo responsible for the death of no less than 10 mi. of his own subjects.

But that was before WW2 and your poll was "who killed more civilians during WW2".

So, according to reason, logic and the extremely accurate data I have provided you with (try a Google on those names, all are highly esteemed historians) it is Hitler, and Stalin is faaaar behind and not even second.

P.S. Not whatever you hear in the soapbox is true. Actually, 99% of what you watch in the soapbox is wrong, fabricated or an outright lie. Try to get your info about history from books, not dubious TV shows.


Ser Clegane

Even though I come from a country that suffered enormously under the Nazi occupation and paid a huge death toll (that would be Greece, if you were wondering) I consider the bombing of non-military targets one of the worst possible warcrimes.

So, in my own book, the crimes of the Allies (Dresden, Nagashaki, Hiroshima and many others) rank with the worst crimes of the Nazis (holocaust, burning down villages and massacring houndreds of thousands in Russia, Yugoslavia and Greece) and the Japanese (Nanking etc.).

The "an eye for an eye" thing is highly uncivilized and barbaric and shows only lack of basic humanism. I am afraid war erases most signs of humanism, but we have to stand critical in front of this.

Demonarchangel

I am afraid your number is innacurate.
Dresden victims: 160-200.000
Hiroshima and Nagashaki victims: 220.000-240.000

So, three cities alone produced 380 to 440.000 victims, 50% of the number you state? Sorry, but that's not the case.

[Sjakihata]

Quote[/b] ]Actually, 99% of what you watch in the soapbox is wrong, fabricated or an outright lie.
- by rosacrux

ehh, so 99% of the info I get on discovery, national geographic and dr2 (danish radio2(tv channel)about domestic politics and the best channel in denmark) would be wrong, omg http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[Rosacrux]

Discovery et. al. are not even 1% of "TV", are they? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif And, yes, even those channels are not scientifically accurate, they are mass production-consumption channels, aiming at the broad audience, not historians. How can they be accurate?

[Shahed]

Well the discovery channle I don't think it is very accurate at all, some of the things I seen on that are hilarious. However it does make for good entertainment.

The National Georaphic is much better IMO. What is DR2 ? Do you have a link ?

I get the feeling some people don't know the rules on these boards, go and read them if you are here to flame or ridicule.

Anyway HOW IS THIS TOPIC RELATED TO THE PERIODS OF THE TW SERIES ????????????????????

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Knight Keimo]

Quote[/b] (Sjakihata Akechi @ July 23 2003,03:27)]First of all, is it ever right to bomb something in the first place? no. And it is certainly not right to bomb cities.

Try to follow this thought experiment:
You are a worker, you have 2 kids and a wife, the german economy is dropping (recession) and heavy inflation. but you do not know this, you just know you and your family are starving. people talk about bad days and grim romours are about.
then one man promises that he can give work to all men and women, make them full up (satisfied) and make Germany a proud empire again.
You vote on him, as the others are reactionaries or communists you do not like those.

I believe that was many germans reasoning.

The Nazis did not talk too heavily about that untill AFTER 1933, that was what went wrong.

Do you honestly think that this family described above want to wage all out war and to BE BOMBED ? if so you are ignorant.

Can you hold a nation as a victim? not sure, but at least you can hold civilians as victims, they always are esp. during war.

Note: this is not a defence of hitlers actions, moreover I think they were cruel and of course do not approve of them.
Well, seems that I have to calm down you a little.
I dont think that bombing raids against civilians are right. No, they´r not Ever. I´m not suppose to insult anyone, and i dont see nazis around. I dont like bombing.

But my point is still that one word; election
Perhaps I´m weird when I think that we should not forget history. Ok, it´s not correct to say, but Hitler wouldn´t have get all that power without support of the german people. And dare I say, that idealistic fit for germans. That fit for theyr national spirit. They got lot of marching, autocracy, very few civil rights and cool uniforms. It´s hard for me to believe that some Nepalian buddhist would give vote to Nazi parti.

Hitler got over 80% votes in elections. I don´t still see hole nation as a guilty, but not inocent either..

Do you? Once again; we should not forget history

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Knight Keimo @ July 23 2003,04:42)]Hitler got over 80% votes in elections.
In the March 5, 1933 elections, the National Socialist German Workers' Party won 43.9% and 288 of 647 seats in the Reichstag http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ July 23 2003,03:28)]Even though I come from a country that suffered enormously under the Nazi occupation and paid a huge death toll (that would be Greece, if you were wondering) I consider the bombing of non-military targets one of the worst possible warcrimes.
I remember, while being on vacation on Crete, visiting a museum in Chania that had an interesting exhibition on the invasion in 1941 and the following occupation by German troops.

Makes you really gratefully admire the kind hospitality that even older people there, who remember the crimes committed during the occupation, offer to visitors from Germany...

[Knight Keimo]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ July 23 2003,04:53)]
Quote[/b] (Knight Keimo @ July 23 2003,04:42)]Hitler got over 80% votes in elections.
In the March 5, 1933 elections, the National Socialist German Workers' Party won 43.9% and 288 of 647 seats in the Reichstag http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
No need for http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

I mean the "president" or whatever-it-was( kansler?) election. Cant remember which year. Perhaps middle 30´.

[Sjakihata]

Quote[/b] ]Discovery et. al. are not even 1% of "TV", are they?

this was not you first statement, you said first that whatever I watch in the "soapbox" has only 1% of truth

That I second. Why would cnn make only 1% truth and 99% lies. I know that not everything they say is correct, but only 1% nah.
Sorty I do not believe you, unless you have some VERY solid evidences.

[TosaInu]

There are 'elections', elections and elections.

What I recall from history in highschool (cough) was that the German people were in a quite miserable situation. Hitler was 'looked upon' as someone who could change that. Did he say: 'I have syf, I'm mad and will kill X million people, vote me'? He was either a cautious planner and/or became more affected by his disease over time.

And wasn't there the NSDAP and the boys in brown shirts. Was it a normal election, did the people knew what they voted for?

Wasn't there an election for the Iraqi president recently? One choice: Saddam and better go vote.

Mental and physical pressure: that's an 'election' not an election.

Edit: some 'punctuation'.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Knight Keimo @ July 23 2003,06:21)]
Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ July 23 2003,04:53)]
Quote[/b] (Knight Keimo @ July 23 2003,04:42)]Hitler got over 80% votes in elections.
In the March 5, 1933 elections, the National Socialist German Workers' Party won 43.9% and 288 of 647 seats in the Reichstag http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
No need for http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

I mean the "president" or whatever-it-was( kansler?) election. Cant remember which year. Perhaps middle 30´.
Knight Keimo,

I am not quite sure to what election you are referring...

If I recall my history lessons correctly:

- 1932 Hindenburg won the election to become Reichspresident, receiving more votes than Hitler

- In January 1933 Hitler, being the candidate of the strongest faction (but with less than 50% of seats) in the Reichstag was appointed Reichskanzler (the Reichskanzler was not elected directly) by Hindenburg.

- for the results of the last free election in Germany before the end of WWII, see the post Rosacrux made

After the release of the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" (a law that cemented his rule) in 1933 he was practically a dictator and not subject to any elections anymore - IIRC he or his party did not gain >50% of votes in any free election.

This of course does not change the fact that he gained a lot of popular support during his rule e.g., due to an (artificial) economic improvement in Germany, but implying that the vast majority of the population actively supported everything that happened during 1933-1945 and thus just deserved to die in the firestorms of Dresden and Hamburg is a rather simplified point of view.

Edited for (many) typos

[Sjakihata]

Very correct, I could not agree more

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Sjakihata Akechi @ July 23 2003,06:45)]
Quote[/b] ]Discovery et. al. are not even 1% of "TV", are they?

this was not you first statement, you said first that whatever I watch in the "soapbox" has only 1% of truth

That I second. Why would cnn make only 1% truth and 99% lies. I know that not everything they say is correct, but only 1% nah.
Sorty I do not believe you, unless you have some VERY solid evidences.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

I didn't ask you to believe me. If you wish to get your info from the soapbox it's fine with me. What are you talking about? I stated that 99% of what we see in TV is not the truth and I stand to my assertion. But I won't try to convince you, dear, it's either take it or leave it.

Sir Clegane

Indeed, that is the spirit.

[Sjakihata]

First of, please do not be patronizing and calling me dear etc.

second, can you at least prove your point?

and third, just because I disagree with you, your reason is that I get all my info from TV? that is again very patronizing since you make a fool of me. this is not true as you probably know.

[Knight Keimo]

Quote[/b] (Ser Clegane @ July 23 2003,06:56)]
Quote[/b] (Knight Keimo @ July 23 2003,06:21)]
Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ July 23 2003,04:53)]
Quote[/b] (Knight Keimo @ July 23 2003,04:42)]Hitler got over 80% votes in elections.
In the March 5, 1933 elections, the National Socialist German Workers' Party won 43.9% and 288 of 647 seats in the Reichstag http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
No need for http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

I mean the "president" or whatever-it-was( kansler?) election. Cant remember which year. Perhaps middle 30´.
Knight Keimo,

I am not quite sure to what election you are referring...

If I recall my history lessons correctly:

- 1932 Hindenburg won the election to become Reichspresident, receiving more votes than Hitler

- In January 1933 Hitler, being the candidate of the strongest faction (but with less than 50% of seats) in the Reichstag was appointed Reichskanzler (the Reichskanzler was not elected directly) by Hindenburg.

- for the results of the last free election in Germany before the end of WWII, see the post Rosacrux made

After the release of the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" (a law that cemented his rule) in 1933 he was practically a dictator and not subject to any elections anymore - IIRC he or his party did not gain >50% of votes in any free election.

This of course does not change the fact that he gained a lot of popular support during his rule e.g., due to an (artificial) economic improvement in Germany, but implying that the vast majority of the population actively supported everything that happened during 1933-1945 and thus just deserved to die in the firestorms of Dresden and Hamburg is a rather simplified point of view.

Edited for (many) typos
Thank You.

It seems that I have to find my books somewhere and check what election I was talking about. Well, I dont disagree with you, guess you know better.

And I have to say once more; Dresden etc. were warcrimes and I´v never sayed anything else Bombing civilians is allways a crime.

My point was to try say that hole WW2 did not happen just cause one crazy man and his parti. It did need more.

Germans finally find an idealistic which fits them perfectly. Just like it did fit many finnish too.
And that´s why there´s allways a fear that they´ll pop up in both countries again. And people will vote them. Not becouse any financial things they offer, but cause they simply are what people likes. Black/White world, lesser civil rights, foreigners out.. Peoples want march in line, not to use theyr own brains. Too difficult.

Some nations are more guilty than others. And why would it change? Nations are different.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Knight Keimo @ July 23 2003,14:13)]My point was to try say that hole WW2 did not happen just cause one crazy man and his parti. It did need more.
In this point I definitely agree with you ... after all, even if it was not the entire population a lot of people supported Hitler.

I do not agree though that the rise of Hitler required a mindset that would be specific to one nation (e.g., the Germans). IMO opinion the rise of a dictator is more dependent on specific circumstances, e.g. bad economy or a people that is in a situation where it seems to have lot its "pride".

Perhaps you are right that Germans at that time were particularly susceptible for "cool" uniforms or marching in line, but these are not requisites for a dictatorship and genocide, they were a tool that this specific dictatorship used.

In most regions of the world we have seen or still see dictatorships and genocide with a large diversity of people involved (typical for the German version of genocide was the inhuman way this genocide had been industrialized)

I think in all European countries we have seen and will continue to see the rise of extremely right wing parties, that try to focus the population's fear and hate on minorities (e.g., foreigners, colored people) in times of economic slowdown.

This also still happens in Germany were from time to time right-wing parties manage to get enough votes in regional elections to have reperesentatives in the regional parliament, and I agree that especially Germany has the historic liability to react very sensitive when this happens (and during the last decades no right-wing extremist party was able to gain continuous public support)

[Rosacrux]

Akechi

You have been trying with a rather ironic manner to ask me for... proof http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif of why I believe 99% of what TV broadcasts is a lie... and I wasn't even talking to you in the first place.

Holy banana, what's wrong with you? I said something to otey. You jumped in and called me a liar and when I tell you you are free to believe whatever you wish, you accuse me of patronizing? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

May I ask you again, what's wrong with you?

To answer your more coherent question: YES, I can prove it, for I have worked for the TV industry for 7 years, as a reporter and as assistant chief editor. Consequently I do know what TV is all about. For me the fact that TV lies is just a fact of life, like death and taxes. But I am not asking you to believe whatever I say, this is a bloody free world and you can believe whatever suits you. I really don't care.

[Crash]

History is written by the victor, but no one has a monopoly on the truth, whatever the truth is. Popular myths become convenient truth, and real facts become revisionist propaganda. It's so discouraging.

Forgive my glassy eyed mumblings, but this thread is starting to give me a headache, but I'm still reading it...

[Ithaskar Fëarindel]

Ok I'm closing this for a number of reasons, bad words and itches being one of them.

I can't see much good coming out of this thread anymore though.