The Wehrmacht, History, Myth, Reality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

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.
\.

---

No decent laws international or otherwise make it fine to commit ethnic cleansing. Just because a nation with an ethnic majority of A attacks a country with ethnic majority B, does not mean that latter on B can wipe out any members of A who are in that country. Ethnic cleansing is not justified as a reciprocal arrangement.

Also mass murder of a ethnic group is not considered fine if members of the ethnic group had been aggressive to the killing party. By that definition all it would have taken is a single Pole to have been aggressive to a German somewhere prior to WWII and then all the killings of Poles in Poland was justified. I don't think that argument holds much water at all.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

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.

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?

:book:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Housse

On the topic, I agree with everyone.

---

How so? ~:confused:
.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

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:.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

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?

“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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.

How so? ~:confused:
.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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

---

What posts? :dozey:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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

---

Fight a war on six fronts.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

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

---

Some people did, some didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Some people did, some didn't.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

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

---

Those who worked in other crucial industries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.