No better than them

[Fragony]

Exactly. A lot of the issues could have been resolved if the victors of WWI had handled the peace process more effectively. And if the issues had actually been met in their infancy rather on the edge of the precipice in 1939.

That as well but what I mean is that it's unfair to lay blame on just Germany for the holocuast. National socialism was an european movement at the time. Something crazy happened, in Germany.

[Brenus]

“That would be the entire Nazi regime, so from 1933-1945.” So that would be a manipulation of statistic. That is why we have statistic mind you.
The extermination was started in 1941, with the Final Solution in one hand, and the 1941 directed against USSR on the other.

“Do you think this is a justifiable? If it was right to transport them to prison camps just in case they revolted against the Soviets, does that not also justify German pre-emptive action against possible "enemies" (viz the Reichenau Order)?”
Justifiable? Yes. For good reasons: No. But would Stalin have done it without Hitler war of aggression?
Deportation is not mass killing. Ethnic cleansing is not genocide.
The nowadays Croatian Serbs expelled by Gal Gotovina and Tudjman are better off in Voivodina than their ancestors in Glina or the one sent to Jasenovac.

The difference between the Allies and the Nazi is the Allies REACTED and didn’t INITIATED. Yes, some of them were too happy to take the opportunity to deal with political internal situation.
I think of Tito, using Serbs against Croats, sending the Serbian from the Bourgeoisie) Youth against very well trained SS and the remaining Ustasa and Cetniks, and by the way mixing-up the two like they were similar…

[King Henry V]

“Do you think this is a justifiable? If it was right to transport them to prison camps just in case they revolted against the Soviets, does that not also justify German pre-emptive action against possible "enemies" (viz the Reichenau Order)?”
Justifiable? Yes. For good reasons: No. But would Stalin have done it without Hitler war of aggression?
Deportation is not mass killing. Ethnic cleansing is not genocide.
The nowadays Croatian Serbs expelled by Gal Gotovina and Tudjman are better off in Voivodina than their ancestors in Glina or the one sent to Jasenovac.

The difference between the Allies and the Nazi is the Allies REACTED and didn’t INITIATED. Yes, some of them were too happy to take the opportunity to deal with political internal situation.
I think of Tito, using Serbs against Croats, sending the Serbian from the Bourgeoisie) Youth against very well trained SS and the remaining Ustasa and Cetniks, and by the way mixing-up the two like they were similar…

Deportation approaches mass killing when a third of those deported die, don't you think? Besides, seeing the other numerous ethnic groups that Stalin had deported, I'm sure he would have done it sooner or later. It was not a necessary move, seeing as the Volga Germans had been hitherto loyal Soviet citizens and probably felt little sympathy for their ethnic cousins seeing as they had been seperated by thousands of miles, but merely opportunism.
As to the Soviets not initiating it, I am of the opinion that both sides knew that the non-aggression pact couldn't last for very long and that war was inevitable and that the only reason why Russia didn't invade first was because Stalin was a megalomaniacal nutter too busy killing his own officers.

[PanzerJaeger]

Panzer:

Your assessment of the Nazi regime is incorrect. While I agree that many Germans were merely fighting for their country (often with great skill and honorably), the Nazi regime was every bit as evil as that of Dhaugazvili. The programmatic murder of millions is as morally repugnant as any effort, any act in human history -- and its scale was mind-boggling.

Do you toss out such statements like a fisherman tossing chum in the water? Just to see the frenzy?

I hope so, since then I would only have to be disappointed in your choice of entertainment, rather than saddened and worried for you.

What is worse: rounding up a group of people that you truly believe to be destructive to your nation and killing them, or incinerating hundreds of thousands of women and children of a defeated enemy with a nuclear weapon to show off? Please don't tell me that it was to protect American soldiers, because documents have disproven that argument a long time ago.

I am so tired of hearing that the Nazis were somehow worse. In reality, they were comparatively better than the allies and the Japanese.

Anti-Semitism had been instilled in most Europeans long before Hitler came to power. This is why so many Jews were reported to the Nazis in occupied territories. Many, many people truly believed that the Jews were somehow organized to take advantage of other Europeans. Today children are taught that Hitler simply blamed society's problems on the Jews to gain power in order to teach them about the dangers of racism, but reality is lost in trying to make that point. Why would Hitler reroute so many precious resources to the concentration camps - why would he make his final goal the destruction of European Jewry if he didn't actually believe what he was saying? All primary sources I've read about the man indicate that he did. The "Jewish Problem", was in fact, a real problem in these guy's minds. While such a complex is laughable today, it was very real at the time. Does this excuse the Nazis, in any way? Of course not, but it does put their actions in a historical context that most people choose to ignore.

Now then, in what context did the British drop fire bombs on the innocent children of a defeated enemy? Purely for death, destruction, and terror - according to the man who ordered it. And where did the term "concentration camp" come from?

In what context did the Americans drop those same bombs on innocent German children, and then turn around and drop nuclear bombs on the women and children of a completely and utterly defeated enemy? How many American's stood up and said 'no' to the rounding up all those Japanese Americans? How many really knew what the government was doing with them, or cared?

(I don't think I need to get in to the wanton raping and killing that went on, sanctioned and unsanctioned, by the Russians and Japanese just for fun. )

So on one side, we have the Nazis killing a group of people they truly believed to be subversive and dangerous, while most Germans were shown propaganda films of happy Jews enjoying themselves in the camps, and were unaware of exactly what was taking place. On the other side, you have the Americans and British incinerating the population centers of defeated nations known to be refuges of huge numbers of women and children to terrorize them and show off their awesome new weapons, all to the delight of the American and British people watching at home on newsreals.

The allies truly were no better. The people showed themselves to be just as easily manipulated into murder by their leadership, and their leadership showed themselves to be just as willing to commit it as the Nazis.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I may not deserve it but Im not going to sit here and ask people to feel sorry for me after my country blatant invaded and genocide another group of people.

If you were murdered for being from that country, no matter how evil its regime, then of course I would still feel sorry for you. Why wouldn't I, you're still a human being, you were just born into a bad state.

[Strike For The South]

If you were murdered for being from that country, no matter how evil its regime, then of course I would still feel sorry for you. Why wouldn't I, you're still a human being, you were just born into a bad state.

Was the Expulsion a bad thing? Yes of course it was but to say the Germans should've excepted to be treated any different is simply revisionism.

PJ you can defend them all you want but the fact is you got what you deserved, 1 American life would've been to much in an invasion of Japan. We had the weapons and we used them. Good I say. I really am sick of how some people feel the need to bring the Allies down. The Japaneese and Germans exterminated people they thought were "less" and now you want me to feel bad for you? You started the most destructive war in history and you want me to say "its cool man we did some bad things to" No we should've run the NAZIs into the ground and then taken the fight to the Reds just like Patton wanted.

[KarlXII]

Why does it matter? The War has been over for 60 years.

And besides, the expulsion of Germans from conquered territories pales in comparison to the numerous ethnic and political persecution under the Nazi regime. The Germans lost, losers tend to recieve the bad end of events. As Strike said, the expulsion was a bad thing, but the Germans had it coming. I can understand the Soviets taking revenge for the atrocities commited against Russians during the War.

"LOL WELL THEY DID IT TOO" is no excuse.

[LittleGrizzly]

Why does it matter? The War has been over for 60 years.

Percieved injustices can be held for hundreds of years... ask the balkans

[KarlXII]

Why does it matter? The War has been over for 60 years.

Percieved injustices can be held for hundreds of years... ask the balkans

Of course, though they are often exploited by nationalism to stir a sense of vengeance. The Balkans is a good example of hanging historical events over each other's heads for hundreds of years. It isn't helping them any, only causing hate towards each other. Why try to create guilt from events in the past than try to create friendship between former enemies for a better future?

[Koga No Goshi]

That as well but what I mean is that it's unfair to lay blame on just Germany for the holocuast. National socialism was an european movement at the time. Something crazy happened, in Germany.

And the Eugenics movement originated in the United States with things like cranial capacity studies and comparing Europeans to Native Americans and blacks and such.

It's interesting historical backstory, and yes, someone would be wrong to pretend that the U.S. or Europe in general weren't part of the "system" (anti-semitism, biological racism, etc.) which helped make the Holocaust happen. But I am not sure how any of that stands in as a justification of Germany in WWII, at all. That strikes me a lot like saying well mistreatment of Native Americans actually started with the Spanish, so what the English and colonials/later Americans did wasn't really their fault.

[PanzerJaeger]

PJ you can defend them all you want but the fact is you got what you deserved,

I completely agree. Any nation that starts a war that it cannot win deserves what it gets. The Germans had the ability to win, and let political mismanagement hold them back - much like the US in Vietnam.

I'm just tired of hearing about Allied moral superiority, which was thoroughly pissed away in the ruins of Dresden and Nagasaki.

1 American life would've been to much in an invasion of Japan.We had the weapons and we used them. Good I say.

You wouldn't be defending murder, would you? And can we please get over the notion that the atom bombs were used for any other reason than to influence the soviets?

I really am sick of how some people feel the need to bring the Allies down.

I'm just bringing them down to reality.

The Japaneese and Germans exterminated people they thought were "less" and now you want me to feel bad for you?

Nope. I want you to realize that the Allies exterminated people for show, after they had already been defeated. How is that any better?

And since we're coming to terms with reality, can we please dispense with the notion that the Holocaust was anything other than a sad footnote of WW2? The vast majority of Germans and Allies did not know of the extent of the Holocaust, and were certainly not fighting for reasons having anything to do with it. Only after the war did knowledge of it reach the general populaces of these nations, yet somehow many believe that WW2 was a grand effort to save the Jews from extermination.

You started the most destructive war in history and you want me to say "its cool man we did some bad things to" No we should've run the NAZIs into the ground and then taken the fight to the Reds just like Patton wanted.

Aside from Papa Joe himself, no one killed more communists than the German Army.

[Koga No Goshi]

I completely agree. Any nation that starts a war that it cannot win deserves what it gets. I'm just tired of hearing about Allied moral superiority, which was thoroughly pissed away in the ruins of Dresden and Nagasaki.

To be honest I don't recall very many people arguing that the Allies had overwhelming moral superiority. You're flipping the argument around a bit, you and Fragony and a few others have been tiptoing around making the assertion that what the Germans did in WWII wasn't really so bad and even if it was, it wasn't their fault, but everyone else's because of the poor diplomacy that ended (oops edit: WWI) and social movements in Europe.

You wouldn't be defending murder, would you? And can we please get over the notion that the atom bombs were used for any other reason than to influence the soviets?

You'll get no argument from me that the use of the nukes was one of the single most horrific acts in human history. And the emotional obtuseness you get from Americans when you challenge the "it was necessary, IT WAS NECESSARY!" argument (which isn't true) makes it rather pointless to try to argue with them about it most of the time. The use of the nukes had more to do with showcasing our new weapon to Russia than moving an already defeated Japan to surrender (Japan had already sent out peace feelers and offered conditional surrenders through intermediaries), though it did accomplish both goals.

Nope. I want you to realize that the Allies exterminated people for show, after they had already been defeated. How is that any better?

The difference that you keep eluding, Panzer, is that after the nukes were dropped, the U.S. didn't set up factories for the mass extermination of the Japanese people. That is not equal to saying the Allies were unquestionably moral in everything that they did. But it is an important difference and very much evidence against a claim that Nazi Germany "was no worse than the Allies, but lost the war, so history villified their actions more."

And since we're coming to terms with reality, can we please dispense with the notion that the Holocaust was anything other than a sad footnote of WW2? The vast majority of Germans and Allies did not know of the extent of the Holocaust, and were certainly not fighting for reasons having anything to do with it. Only after the war did knowledge of it reach the general populaces of these nations, yet somehow many believe that WW2 was a grand effort to save the Jews from extermination.

What you say is true, but I think what people take exception to is your constant efforts to minimize the holocaust, such as calling it "no more than a footnote." It is true that anti-Semitism was rather rife even amongst the Allies, many of whom refused Jewish refugees throughout the war. But I think you are not doing the cause of "German pride", which you seem to espouse, any favors by going around and trying to yammer at people to stop thinking the holocaust was such a big deal.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Panzer, here's a hypothetical case for you:

Leroy Williams rapes and murders white women for several years. Then the Tennesee police catches him. They fry his arse on the chair.
Does this make the US goverment his moral equal? Are the people of Tennessee now no better than this black serial killer?
I mean, they are murderers too by putting him on the chair. And they have a history of racism too, just like our black serial killer.

Or is there a difference?

[KarlXII]

Aside from Papa Joe himself, no one killed more communists than the German Army.

Glad you take pride in Russian deaths. Communists aren't human to you, are they? Sad to see people like you have the ability to vote in our society.

[Husar]

That begs the question, if the germans weren't all nazis, why would you assume that all those russians were communists?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What is worse: rounding up a group of people that you truly believe to be destructive to your nation and killing them, or incinerating hundreds of thousands of women and children of a defeated enemy with a nuclear weapon to show off? Please don't tell me that it was to protect American soldiers, because documents have disproven that argument a long time ago.

There are arguments about Koln, Hamburg, Tokyo and Hiroshima. Evidence suggests that there was opposition to the destruction of Dresden and Nagasaki on the grounds that these were overkill and unnecessary. However, if you are going to argue that Allied actions were "the same" as those perpetrated by the Nazis, history disagrees with you. You see, the Allies didn't start playing the game by those rules. It was Der Luftwaffe, under the direction of Nazi leaders who set the tone for the war in the West with their specific targeting of civilian portions of Warsaw and Rotterdam without even the veneer of a nearby military target. Groups of civilians throughout Belgium were summarily shot, not to punish the locals for the act of some franc-tireur, but to cow them into submission to prevent same. As the war progressed, it was the Nazis who chose to begin prolonged bombardments of civilian targets with little effort to hit "legitimate" sites. As their position worsened, they specifically deployed weapons with a 10+mile radius of impact without even a hope of aiming at a specific point. In short, the Nazis established that this war would be fought according to total war rules -- there are no civilians, any target is legitimate. The reaped what they sowed. Had the Germans not adopted this approach,it is rather unlikely that the Allies would have done so.

I am so tired of hearing that the Nazis were somehow worse. In reality, they were comparatively better than the allies and the Japanese.

Anti-Semitism had been instilled in most Europeans long before Hitler came to power. This is why so many Jews were reported to the Nazis in occupied territories. Many, many people truly believed that the Jews were somehow organized to take advantage of other Europeans. Today children are taught that Hitler simply blamed society's problems on the Jews to gain power in order to teach them about the dangers of racism, but reality is lost in trying to make that point. Why would Hitler reroute so many precious resources to the concentration camps - why would he make his final goal the destruction of European Jewry if he didn't actually believe what he was saying? All primary sources I've read about the man indicate that he did. The "Jewish Problem", was in fact, a real problem in these guy's minds. While such a complex is laughable today, it was very real at the time. Does this excuse the Nazis, in any way? Of course not, but it does put their actions in a historical context that most people choose to ignore.

And I think that Obama's likely policies are a real threat to the long term best interests of the USA. Does that somehow give me the right to kill him? OF COURSE NOT. To want people dead because of the circumstances of their birth is idiotic. To act upon it is evil.

Now then, in what context did the British drop fire bombs on the innocent children of a defeated enemy? Purely for death, destruction, and terror - according to the man who ordered it. And where did the term "concentration camp" come from?

In what context did the Americans drop those same bombs on innocent German children, and then turn around and drop nuclear bombs on the women and children of a completely and utterly defeated enemy? How many American's stood up and said 'no' to the rounding up all those Japanese Americans? How many really knew what the government was doing with them, or cared?

I'm well aware that the Brits coined the term concentration camp during the Boer war. I am aware that the USA participated in the firebombings of Hamburg and Dresden and solo'd in the Firestorm that enveloped most of Tokyo (which killed far more civilians than either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs by the way). It is sad, perhaps, that the USA and the Allies chose to sink to the level of our opponents in that war, but we did not begin our efforts in that vein.

So on one side, we have the Nazis killing a group of people they truly believed to be subversive and dangerous, while most Germans were shown propaganda films of happy Jews enjoying themselves in the camps, and were unaware of exactly what was taking place. On the other side, you have the Americans and British incinerating the population centers of defeated nations known to be refuges of huge numbers of women and children to terrorize them and show off their awesome new weapons, all to the delight of the American and British people watching at home on newsreals.

The allies truly were no better. The people showed themselves to be just as easily manipulated into murder by their leadership, and their leadership showed themselves to be just as willing to commit it as the Nazis.

We did cruel things during that conflict. We did not continue them after the fighting as a matter of policy. Once we'd subjugated Germany, we contented ourselves with putting a few hundred of the enemy leaders on trial. German POWs were not shipped en massed to slave labor projects and worked to death. Family members of Nazi leaders were not penned into concentration camps, nor carted away to be sorted and killed. Occupied German towns were not eradicated if some incident of violence befell a U.S. soldier nearby.

If you care to research it, you can find dozens of incidents over the course of the war where the US or the British or one of our Allies behaved cruelly or with malice aforethought engaged in some action that was immoral even by the flimsy morality of war. Then set yourself a harder challenge and find me a week -- any week -- where the Nazis weren't.

[KarlXII]

That begs the question, if the germans weren't all nazis, why would you assume that all those russians were communists?

Russians aren't human, don't you get it by now?

[PanzerJaeger]

What you say is true, but I think what people take exception to is your constant efforts to minimize the holocaust, such as calling it "no more than a footnote." It is true that anti-Semitism was rather rife even amongst the Allies, many of whom refused Jewish refugees throughout the war. But I think you are not doing the cause of "German pride", which you seem to espouse, any favors by going around and trying to yammer at people to stop thinking the holocaust was such a big deal.

That is not my intention at all. I only seek historical reality.

Panzer, here's a hypothetical case for you:

Leroy Williams rapes and murders white women for several years. Then the Tennesee police catches him. They fry his arse on the chair.
Does this make the US goverment his moral equal? Are the people of Tennessee now no better than this black serial killer?
I mean, they are murderers too by putting him on the chair. And they have a history of racism too, just like our black serial killer.

Or is there a difference?

That would depend on your stance on the death penalty. I think that any comparison between your hypothetical case and WW2 is more than just a stretch.

Here's a hypothetical for you:

Lets say Hans kills a man because he believes said man is truly evil, and is part of a conspiracy to take advantage of his people. Now lets say John kills a man to show off his cool new gun to his peers.

Which act is worse?

Glad you take pride in Russian deaths. Communists aren't human to you, are they?

I don't enjoy communists, no.

If you care to research it, you can find dozens of incidents over the course of the war where the US or the British or one of our Allies behaved cruelly or with malice aforethought engaged in some action that was immoral even by the flimsy morality of war. Then set yourself a harder challenge and find me a week -- any week -- where the Nazis weren't.

I am not the one insistent on the moral superiority of one side or the other.

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but your entire argument seems to rest on the notion: "We did terrible things, but they did it first... "

That just isn't a strong argument, imho. It would certainly not hold up in court.

That begs the question, if the germans weren't all nazis, why would you assume that all those russians were communists?

I did not assume that all Russians were communists. I simply stated that the German military had killed lots of communists, which is fact.

[Strike For The South]

Lets say Hans kills a man because he believes said man is truly evil, and is part of a conspiracy to take advantage of his people. Now lets say John kills a man to show off his cool new gun to his peers.

Who is worse?

t.

Ignorantia juris non excusat. By your logic I should start killing brown people because they are starting to upset our demographic. You are getting very Buhcahenesque in your reasons why The USA dropped the bomb.

[PanzerJaeger]

Ignorantia juris non excusat. By your logic I should start killing brown people because they are starting to upset our demographic. You are getting very Buhcahenesque in your reasons why The USA dropped the bomb.

Nope, I am not justifying the idiocy of anti-Semitism. I am only pointing out that it existed, and was very real to these people. The "fact" that European Jewry was a subversive force within German society was taken for granted.

The allies, on the other hand, had no inaccurate predispositions about the Axis populace. They simply killed for fun, terror, body counts, gold teeth, revenge, and to show off.

[Strike For The South]

Nope, I am not justifying the idiocy of anti-Semitism. I am only pointing out that it existed, and was very real to these people. The "fact" that European Jewry was a subversive force within German society was taken for granted.

The allies, on the other hand, had no inaccurate predispositions about the Axis populace. They simply killed for fun, terror, body counts, gold teeth, revenge, and to show off.

You forgot lugers we killed for them to. Now you're just being obtuse. The Latin threat is very real to some people to. That doesnt give people a blank check on Mexicans.

[KarlXII]

Nope, I am not justifying the idiocy of anti-Semitism. I am only pointing out that it existed, and was very real to these people. The "fact" that European Jewry was a subversive force within German society was taken for granted.

And? Does it make it any more right?

The allies, on the other hand, had no inaccurate predispositions about the Axis populace. They simply killed for fun, terror, body counts, gold teeth, revenge, and to show off.

Are you aware of the numerous occasions the Germans intentionally bombed civilian cities? Or are you just being obtuse?

From Wikipedia, German War Crimes other than the Holocaust and the concentration camps.

Invasion of Poland, in the period of 1st September- 25th October 1939 German Wehrmacht during its military actions engaged in executions of Polish POWs, bombed hospitals, murdered civilians, shot refugees, executed wounded soldiers. The cautious estimates give a number of at least 16,000 murdered victims [1]
Pacification Operations in German occupied Poland, during the occupation of Poland by German Reich, Wehrmacht forces took part in several pacification actions in rural areas, that resulted in murder of at least 20,000 Polish villagers
Le Paradis massacre, May 1940, British soldiers of the Royal Norfolk Regiment, captured by the SS and subsequently murdered. Fritz Knoechlein tried, found guilty and hanged.
Wormhoudt massacre, May 1940, British and French soldiers captured by the SS and subsequently murdered. No one found guilty of the crime.
Vinkt Massacre
d'Ardenne Massacres, June 1944 Canadian soldiers captured by the SS and Murdered by 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend. SS General Kurt Meyer (Panzermeyer) sentenced to be shot 1946; sentence commuted; released 1954
Malmedy massacre, December 1944, United States POWs captured by Kampfgruppe Peiper were murdered outside of Malmedy, Belgium.
Gardelegen (war crime)
Marzabotto massacre
Sant'Anna di Stazzema
Cefalonia Massacre
Oradour-sur-Glane
The annihilation of the Czech city of Lidice
Massacre of Kalavryta
The treatment of Soviet POWs throughout the war, who were not given the protections and guarantees of the Geneva Convention
Unrestricted submarine warfare against merchant shipping.
The intentional destruction of major medieval churches of Novgorod, of monasteries in the Moscow region (e.g., of New Jerusalem Monastery) and of the imperial palaces around St. Petersburg (many of them were left by the post-war authorities in ruins or simply demolished).
The campaign of extermination of Slavic population in the occupied territories. Several thousand villages were burned with their entire population (e.g., Khatyn massacre in Belarus). Every fourth inhabitant of Belarus did not survive the German occupation.

[PanzerJaeger]

You forgot lugers we killed for them to. Now you're just being obtuse. The Latin threat is very real to some people to. That doesnt give people a blank check on Mexicans.

I did not say that it did. I am not justifying the Holocaust, I'm just giving context for compartive purposes against the Allies.

And? Does it make it any more right?

Thats debatable, and goes back to the hypothetical I asked Louis. Is it more "right" to kill based on beliefs that turn out to be wrong, or based on a desire to show off for your peers? People are dead in both instances, so you tell me.

Are you aware of the numerous occasions the Germans intentionally bombed civilian cities? Or are you just being obtuse?

Yes. I'm not arguing for the moral superiority of either side.

[KarlXII]

Yes. I'm not arguing for the moral superiority of either side.

Funny way of doing that. "LOL TEH ALLIES WERE MURDERERS". Again, the defeated normally have what is coming to them, and the Allied killings pale in comparison to the Nazi killings.

Is it more "right" to kill based on beliefs that turn out to be wrong, or based on a desire to show off for your peers?

None are right. However, I'm not going "WELL HEY THEY SHOWED OFF EVEN THOUGH THE KILLINGS BASED OFF BELIEFS WERE A LOT WORSE, THEYRE MONSTERS"

Aren't you American?

[Strike For The South]

Im just glad our side won. Wether we were "good" or "bad"

[PanzerJaeger]

Funny way of doing that. "LOL TEH ALLIES WERE MURDERERS". Again, the defeated normally have what is coming to them, and the Allied killings pale in comparison to the Nazi killings.

I don't know how you could possibly say that dropping nuclear weapons on population centers full of women and children in any way pales in comparison to the Nazi killings. It seems to me to be right on their level.

None are right. However, I'm not going "WELL HEY THEY SHOWED OFF EVEN THOUGH THE KILLINGS BASED OFF BELIEFS WERE A LOT WORSE, THEYRE MONSTERS"

Please don't be obnoxious. You are the only one writing in caps. I'm just stating my opinions like everyone else.

Aren't you American?

Yes, and?

[KarlXII]

Yes, and?

Eager to defend the Fatherland, huh?

[Sarmatian]

I don't enjoy communists, no.

Why? With a little salt and vinegar they're great, although I do prefer French and Italian cuisine myself.

I did not assume that all Russians were communists. I simply stated that the German military had killed lots of communists, which is fact.

And indirectly created much more then they have killed. And no need to be modest, German military during ww2 killed lots of everything. Communists, Jews, untermensch, civilians... Not overly picky. And I'm really sorry we fought back. In the next war, I'll do my best to understand than I may not kill a member of a proud, superior and blond Germanic race and instead devote my life to serve it, as a lowly member of good-for-nothing slave race. Anyway, you're doing good. Don't let anyone put a shadow of doubt on a proud Nazi army, fighting for defense of Germany in Paris, London, Prague, Warsaw, Moscow, Kiev, Belgrade, Sofia, Buchurest, Athens, Belgrade, Amsterdam, Brussels, Bratislava, Copenhagen and many other places in an effort to make the world a better and blonder place...

[KarlXII]

And I'm really sorry we fought back. In the next war, I'll do my best to understand than I may not kill a member of a proud, superior and blond Germanic race and instead devote my life to serve it, as a lowly member of good-for-nothing slave race.

As you should

[PanzerJaeger]

Eager to defend the Fatherland, huh?

You'll have to explain.

And indirectly created much more then they have killed. And no need to be modest, German military during ww2 killed lots of everything. Communists, Jews, untermensch, civilians... Not overly picky. And I'm really sorry we fought back. In the next war, I'll do my best to understand than I may not kill a member of a proud, superior and blond Germanic race and instead devote my life to serve it, as a lowly member of good-for-nothing slave race. Anyway, you're doing good. Don't let anyone put a shadow of doubt on a proud Nazi army, fighting for defense of Germany in Paris, London, Prague, Warsaw, Moscow, Kiev, Belgrade, Sofia, Buchurest, Athens, Belgrade, Amsterdam, Brussels, Bratislava, Copenhagen and many other places in an effort to make the world a better and blonder place...

Completely irrelevant nonsense, but I do appreciate the time you took to write that.