No better than them

[Koga No Goshi]

If it was sufficient to mass murder millions of people industrial style in camps, Alexander, it was way too much. I could honestly care less if Hitler wasn't as severe about it as someone else.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Nevermind, post was made far too rashly.

[Strike For The South]

Not so full of the "understandable but regrettable revenge" tangent now I see...

I dont follow

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I dont follow

Nevermind.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It was not the major driving force for war. After World War I, Germany was treated as one of the sole perpetrators, when it was not even the aggressor. A series of alliances dragged them into the war, and with enemies on both sides the aggressive attacks you say by the Germans were only part of their strategy to deal with enemies on both borders.

Yet A-H consulted Imperial Germany regarding the situation, issuing their ultimatum to Serbia AFTER receiving a "go ahead" from Germany (and trying to reprise their annexation of Bosnia a few years previously). To be fair, France gave a similar greenlight to Russia. Moreover, the idea of an attack on France had become a mantra. German contingency plans included a mobilization shift toward the East that would have made Prussia virtually invulnerable and would have put France in the difficult role of intervention by aggression against a nation who had not attacked her. Moreover, this would have prevented England from intervening on behalf of France. Germany is no less culpable for WW1 than A-H.

After the war the Versailles treaty not only crippled Germany economically, but humiliated them. They had land carved away from them for a number of other countries. Hitler came to power and immediately changed everything. Not only did he help to eliminate corruption in Germany, he was one who would stand up to the French and British. He started a vast form of reform for public roads etc (autobahn) which created numerous jobs and began to stimulate the economy as well as war production.

The Treaty of Versailles was a poor document, and did indeed set the stage for World War II. It was vindictive and designed to be crippling -- much like the treaty of Versailles of 1871 had been. Of course, that one gets less press these days.

Germany slowly made her military strong again to restore the honor of the German people. They brought Austria back to them in the Anschluss and annexed several areas with high German ethnic concentrations. As evident by the end of the war, they were at a series lack for natural resources, which they needed to get elsewhere (scandanavia for iron ores and precious metal, Romania for oil etc).

Austria was NEVER a part of imperial Germany, Austria was an allied power. Nevertheless, had Hitler's regime stopped its aggressive efforts after the absorption of the Sudetenland in 1938, it is likely that Germany would have rapidly regained status and prestige as a World Power and that this would have been accomplished without much bloodshed at all.

T

he German people were tired of humiliation and wanted to rebuild an empire based on expansionalism and militarism, I will not disagree. But to say it was based on Hitler's idea of lebensraum and an inferior race is absurd. In fact, much of the belief of the inferior race came from the far more outspoken Himmler than Hitler ever said (and in fact Hitler often made fun of him for this).

Not justifying an aggressive attitude, but it wasn't based on a notion of a superior race...

Hitler did not originate the idea of Lebensraum in der Ost (thank Bernhardi) but it was a clear theme of Mein Kampf. Later actions indicate that this was not merely a "metaphor" but a plan of action. The invasions of Poland (despite the risk of war with Britain), Yugoslavia (despite its neutrality in the Greco-Italian conflict), and the Soviet Union (despite the ongoing trade even as the invasion began) were not simply an effort to re-establish the boundaries resulting from the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, but were an active expression of the Nazi agenda.

Hitler in Mein Kampf and Himmler and Goebbels in a number of other presentations/documents specifically address/attempt to inculcate a loathing for the untermenschen, who are described as Jews, Slavs etc. While it is hard to make a specific link between this racist theory and the political and military efforts undertaken by the Nazis (the only specific links occur after the military event, such as Himmler's 1942 publication), it isn't much of a stretch to see this attitude guiding Nazi policy.

Was Versailles one large factor? Absolutely. Was the Nazi ideology of superiority a component as well? As Palin would say, "you betcha."

[PanzerJaeger]

Panzerjäger and the others who argue against the assertion: Our thoughts on the subject are too rational and are therefore thrown out. Give up, unless debates are more with facts and less with emotions. My opinion anyway....

No, I think progress has been made. If we continue to speak the truth whenever these subjects arise and not let ourselves be cowed by the "OMG N@ZI DENIER!!1" crowd, history will eventually be rectified.

I am fully aware bad things happened to the Germans. Im not debating with emotions at all. The Germans should be happy for any mercy anyone showed them. The relativism in this thread is mind boggling. The Allies could've have done much worse and cooler heads prevailed even after the Germans had there last machismo filled hurrah. Did Americans Brits and Russians always act humanely? No The shoe went on the other foot ,its war thats why it sucks because people die and sometimes they are tortured raped and killed thats why you shouldnt start a war simply because you think you are better than everyone else.

I'm sorry, but being attacked does not give one carte blanche to carry out crimes against humanity on a massive scale. Being attacked does not impart the moral justification to drop fire bombs and nuclear weapons on the attacker once they are beaten. No, there's no justification for incinerating women and children, not in Auschwitz and not in Dresden. How amazingly cruel is it to annihilate two cities - housing hundreds of thousands of refugees from other cities burned to the ground - just to show off?

Yes, the relativism in this thread is mind boggling.

In '91, would the allies have been justified in dropping a nuclear weapon on Baghdad? In '03, would Hussein have been justified in gassing American troops?

How your enemy behaves does not legitimize immoral actions. The allies weren't even up against the wall when they carried out their largest war crimes, they'd practically won.

[Koga No Goshi]

As Palin would say, "you betcha."

Aw geez, say ya aren't blamin us Seamus!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Aw geez, say ya aren't blamin us Seamus!

Nope, my favorite little LWBL, I don't blame you U.S. lefties for starting WW2. Though I wouldn't put the current RNC ad campaign giving it the old college try.

[Strike For The South]

I'm sorry, but being attacked does not give one carte blanch to carry out crimes against humanity on a massive scale. Being attacked does not impart the moral justification to drop fire bomb and nuclear weapons on the attacker once you've got them beaten. No, there's no justification for incinerating women and children, not in Auschwitz and not in Dresden. How amazingly cruel is it to annihilate two cities - housing thousands of refugees from other cities burned to the ground - just to show off?

Yes, the relativism in this thread is mind boggling.

In '91, would the allies have been justified in dropping a nuclear weapon on Baghdad? In '03, would Hussein have been justified in gassing American troops?

How your enemy behaves does not legitimize immoral actions. The allies weren't even up against the wall when they carried out their largest war crimes, they'd practically won.

The objective in war is to totally break your enemies spirit and will to fight. War is not something filled with honor, it is a dirty business fought by men with a glimmer of hope in there eye. Bullies have no right to bitch and moan when they get some of there on medicine. If my family had been living under the jackboot for years I would've taken a measure of revenge as well. I dont understand why you think we should've taken the gloves off. Frankly The American troops should've done whatever it took to subdue that scourge. Geez give me the Japanese any day now there was an enemy at least they died with a straight back.

[PanzerJaeger]

The objective in war is to totally break your enemies spirit and will to fight. War is not something filled with honor, it is a dirty business fought by men with a glimmer of hope in there eye.

The Nazis felt the same way. You can't have it both ways. Either there is a morality in war, and both sides are guilty of breaching it; or anything goes, and no one can complain.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Wilson was a lefty, he got us into WWI, which possibly allowed the armistace and treaty of versaille to go down as it did. WWI & the bad peace was at least partially responsible for WW2. Therefore, US lefties started WW2.

QED



To add my devalued 2 cents...

German warcrimes don't justify allied ones. It was essentially providence that "good" aligned itself on the side of the Allies in WW2 - Allied involvement at least at the higher levels was solely self-interest. We certainly weren't fighting for democracy - otherwise we wouldn't have played up Uncle Joe so much. No German should have fought for a Germany ruled by the Nazis. The Allied pilots should've questioned the order to firebomb Dresden.

[Strike For The South]

The Nazis felt the same way. You can't have it both ways. Either there is a morality in war, and both sides are guilty of breaching it; or anything goes, and no one can complain.

America did what it had to do to eliminate a great evil. Are some of the actions regrettable now in 20/20 hindsight? Yes but Im not going to sit hear and shed a tear for coming to the aid of oppressed peoples trapped in some demagogues sick game nor what kind of revenge those people exacted from the rulers when the tables were turned.

[Incongruous]

Wilson was a lefty, he got us into WWI, which possibly allowed the armistace and treaty of versaille to go down as it did. WWI & the bad peace was at least partially responsible for WW2. Therefore, US lefties started WW2.

QED



To add my devalued 2 cents...

German warcrimes don't justify allied ones. It was essentially providence that "good" aligned itself on the side of the Allies in WW2 - Allied involvement at least at the higher levels was solely self-interest. We certainly weren't fighting for democracy - otherwise we wouldn't have played up Uncle Joe so much. No German should have fought for a Germany ruled by the Nazis. The Allied pilots should've questioned the order to firebomb Dresden.

I wish to verify this part, I am not pointing the finger at anyone's Grandfather who fought in the infantry , air force or navy. I am pointing at people in charge. The Big Three & Co.

[Incongruous]

America did what it had to do to eliminate a great evil. Are some of the actions regrettable now in 20/20 hindsight? Yes but Im not going to sit hear and shed a tear for coming to the aid of oppressed peoples trapped in some demagogues sick game nor what kind of revenge those people exacted from the rulers when the tables were turned.

Off topic.

So by that reasoning, If the Palestinians manage to defeat the Israelis, all the crimes against humanity which would be commited would be ok by you?

[PanzerJaeger]

America did what it had to do to eliminate a great evil.

Pure History Channel revisionism, bud. Churchill fought to preserve the British Empire and FDR fought to dismantle it and and build an American one. WW2 was a power play, pure and simple. Had Hitler not started it in '39, Stalin would have steamrolled Europe soon after. The three competing ideologies and the rivalries within them did not fight for good or evil, but for dominance.

[Strike For The South]

Apples to Oranges Bopa. The Palestinians need good PR America in 41 didnt

Pure History Channel revisionism, bud. Churchill fought to preserve the British Empire and FDR fought to dismantle it and and build an American one. WW2 was a power play, pure and simple. Had Hitler not started it in '39, Stalin would have steamrolled Europe soon after.

Pat Buhcannon is that you? While power politics are always at play do not downplay Germanys role in this simply because its your side. The NAZIs spouted bull and seeked to create an empire and America put them back in there place, Were we entirely altruistic no but we were damn better than the alternative. Germany could have never won the war they proved no match for American production or Soviet pig headiness. Quit living in your dream world.

[Koga No Goshi]

Pure History Channel revisionism, bud. Churchill fought to preserve the British Empire and FDR fought to dismantle it and and build an American one. WW2 was a power play, pure and simple. Had Hitler not started it in '39, Stalin would have steamrolled Europe soon after. The three competing ideologies and the rivalries within them did not fight for good or evil, but for dominance.

None of this changes the fact that the Nazi ideology was evil and that the graveyards of the world would be much larger if they had won, and the genepool much less diverse.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I wish to verify this part, I am not pointing the finger at anyone's Grandfather who fought in the infantry , air force or navy. I am pointing at people in charge. The Big Three & Co.

I am.

[PanzerJaeger]

Pat Buhcannon is that you?

I don't follow Pat Buchannan except on the occasion that he makes the news, so you'll have to explain why you keep referencing him.

Germany could have never won the war they proved no match for American production or Soviet pig headiness.

So by aligning herself with the single most deadly ideology of the 20th century, America was actually eliminating great evil?

Seems to me FDR was far more concerned with ensuring America had a dominant place in the new world order rather than fighting evil. Why else would he allow the attack on Pearl Harbor to take place... oops, did I say that?

Quit living in your dream world.

Lets not get personal with this.

I know you love America, as do I (as my record in the Backroom will attest);and I think the nation has been a very positive force in the world. Also, I believe a great many average American soldiers did indeed have the altruistic intentions you mentioned before. However, I feel the need to speak up for the honorable Germans who fought, and if it takes acknowledging the realities surrounding the American participation in the war to force people to realize the conflict was far from black and white, then so be it. America has always benefitted from self reflection.

[PanzerJaeger]

None of this changes the fact that the Nazi ideology was evil and that the graveyards of the world would be much larger if they had won, and the genepool much less diverse.

Whoa, slow down there. In my "dream world", Hitler would have died from whatever disease was ailing him far earlier in the war. Neither Himmler nor Goebbels would have had the ability to control the military like their boss did, and a comparitively more moderate military coup would have taken place. The holocaust would have never happened. Germany would have settled with the Western Allies, denounced Japan, and joined forces against the far more dangerous communists. After the war, Germany would continue to moderate and act as the dominant power in Europe and counter balance to America.

Of course none of that happened. So do I wish that the Germans had won the war under the leadership of Hitler and his henchman and continued the Holocaust? Absolutely not.

[Koga No Goshi]

It is interesting though (freaky, I'm conspiratorially speaking to Panzer), isn't it, how the concept came from the reservation system and how the U.S. dealt with its "undesirable internal ethnic group", and the Nazi admiration for systems begun right here in the U.S., ey? Thankfully, the whole ordeal had the effect of, once and for all, denouncing biological racism as an acceptable thing amongst civilized nations. Not that it was the end of biological racism, of course, but it was a crushing blow to its credibility among rational minds.

[PanzerJaeger]

It is interesting though (freaky, I'm conspiratorially speaking to Panzer), isn't it, how the concept came from the reservation system and how the U.S. dealt with its "undesirable internal ethnic group", and the Nazi admiration for systems begun right here in the U.S., ey? Thankfully, the whole ordeal had the effect of, once and for all, denouncing biological racism as an acceptable thing amongst civilized nations. Not that it was the end of biological racism, of course, but it was a crushing blow to its credibility among rational minds.

Indeed, and I don't think that the intense focus on Holocaust is necessarily a bad thing, as at least it teaches a valuable lesson about genocide. I just wish people would acknowledge the multiple ethnic cleansings that were taking place simultaneously around the world, and that most Germans did not know what was happening. As I said before, how many Americans knew what was really happening to the Japanese that were rounded up, or care? Americans were just as easily swayed by racist propaganda into allowing the government to haul away their fellow countrymen to internment camps. Thankfully things turned out differently for them.

[Tribesman]

Just wondering Bopa , you said your grandfather was a government clerk married to a Jew , surely under the laws enacted he must have lost his job and his marriage and been sent to prison .

[HoreTore]

and that most Germans did not know what was happening.

THAT is not true. Of course they knew about the massive oppression, they saw it every day and participated in it themselves! They might not have know about the industrial killings, but they sure as hell knew about the arrests, the torture, the concentration camps, etc. They knew and saw more than enough to know that their government were murdering, torturing and oppressing innocent people.

To put it another way; they knew about 100.000 of the 6 million jews killed. And that should be way more than any person requires to know that their government is a tyranny.

But they chose not to act. The vast majority, at least. You're vastly underestimating the extreme racism of those days, PJ. The question isn't whether they knew; the question is 'why should they care?'

I saw an interview with a former wehrmacht soldier who participated in some massacre of innocent civilians in Russia. The interviewer asked him why he did it, why he didn't question his superiors, his orders. His response? 'They were only jews...'

[Kralizec]

Yet A-H consulted Imperial Germany regarding the situation, issuing their ultimatum to Serbia AFTER receiving a "go ahead" from Germany (and trying to reprise their annexation of Bosnia a few years previously). To be fair, France gave a similar greenlight to Russia. Moreover, the idea of an attack on France had become a mantra. German contingency plans included a mobilization shift toward the East that would have made Prussia virtually invulnerable and would have put France in the difficult role of intervention by aggression against a nation who had not attacked her. Moreover, this would have prevented England from intervening on behalf of France. Germany is no less culpable for WW1 than A-H

To be fair...

I'm a little rusty on the details, but even with AH's disrespectful approach of dealing with Serbia, it's unlikely that Russia would have supported them to the hilt if Austro-Hungary had acted immediately after the asssasination when the whole world was still in shock about what had happened. But they were overly concerned and didn't dare to act without Germany's support.
Russia's decision to back the Serbians was based on a romantic notion of pan-slavism rather than national interest and even if AH wasn't fair in dealing with them, Serbia was still well within their sphere of influence.
As far as I know France didn't particulary care about the fate of the Serbians and the underlying reason for their pact with the Russians was that if Germany went to war with them, France might be able to snatch away Alsace-Lorraine and deliver their revenge for the 1871 humiliation.
Once Germany realised that war with Russia was inevitable despite the Kaiser's honest attempts to defuse the situation, they reached the completely rational conclusion that they either had to attack France first (the Schlieffen plan) or make sure that they stayed uninvolved. Thus they gave the French an ultimatum; wich the French couldn't accept for reasons of pride if not for the reason mentioned above.
I think that these three powers are all equally responsible for WW1. Germany's invasion of Belgium was completely unjust and the British were fully in the right when they declared war even if it was used as a pretext to hide more pressing geopolitical motivations.

[PBI]

I am.

And you are qualified to judge, are you?

You can honestly say that if you had been in their position you would have acted differently?

After 5 years of suffering and witnessing horrors which we in this age of peace and prosperity can scarcely imagine, if you were sent on a mission to take revenge against those you deemed responsible for causing all that death and destruction, you would be prepared to risk dishonour and imprisonment (and possibly death, though I'm not sure if the Allied military still executed deserters by this point) by refusing to carry out those orders? Excuse me if I'm a little sceptical.

This is what people do in wars, it is human nature. When they blame the enemy for their suffering and they have come to view the enemy as subhuman, good people will do unspeakably evil things. That is why war is so vile, and that is why the people who deliberately start wars (such as the Nazi leadership) are responsible for all the horror that unfolds as a result of their actions.

[King Henry V]

Not good enough.


I'll continue to put the ball in your court. You say: 'the allies were no better than the axis on moral terms'
This I take as an intolerable insult to the Americans who lay buried in our soil. Who's sacrifice I hold in the highest esteem.


America's fallen are the moral equivalent of nazis, or are they not. Which is it Panzer? A simple yes or no will suffice. Either they are, or they are not.

I would say that the average American, British or Canadian soldier was pretty much the same as the average German soldier. Both fought not because of some great belief in what the ideals they were supposedly fighting for, but because their country came calling and they couldn't refuse. True, the idealists in the Allied armies believed that they were fighting for the cause of freedom in liberating foreign countries from the yoke of an oppressive tyranny, a cause that turned out to be justified and no one is saying that they are sorry that they won. However, many in the Axis believed that they were fighting for a similar cause: for the freedom of Europe from the scourge of communism, a scourge which had threatened to destroy Europe for the past twenty years and without which fascism and national socialism would never have gained the support that it did. Had Germany won, there would not doubt have been many, albeit misguided, people in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia who would have eulogised the fallen German soldiers for having freed them from the Soviet Union, just as you do the same for the fallen allied soldiers.

THAT is not true. Of course they knew about the massive oppression, they saw it every day and participated in it themselves! They might not have know about the industrial killings, but they sure as hell knew about the arrests, the torture, the concentration camps, etc. They knew and saw more than enough to know that their government were murdering, torturing and oppressing innocent people.

To put it another way; they knew about 100.000 of the 6 million jews killed. And that should be way more than any person requires to know that their government is a tyranny.

But they chose not to act. The vast majority, at least. You're vastly underestimating the extreme racism of those days, PJ. The question isn't whether they knew; the question is 'why should they care?'

Hundreds of millions of people in Africa, Asia, Latin America have since the war faced almost exactly the same situation as you described: persecutions, summary executions, torture, imprisonment, labour camps. Of course they knew that their governments were tyrannies. So did the Germans. Few did anything about it. Why? Because they knew that the government response would be terrible, and this was even more the case in Nazi Germany where even any murmur of a resistance was punished not only with one's own torture and execution, but that of one's family as well. The sad fact is, is that for the majority of humanity, when push comes to shove, the safety of one's family and oneself will invariably come first.

[Sarmatian]

To be fair...

I'm a little rusty on the details, but even with AH's gung-ho approach to dealing with Serbia, it's unlikely that Russia would have supported them to the hilt if Austro-Hungary had acted immediately after the asssasination when the whole world was still in shock about what had happened. But they were overly concerned and didn't dare to act without Germany's support.
Russia's decision to back the Serbians was based on a romantic notion of pan-slavism rather than national interest and even if AH wasn't fair in dealing with them, Serbia was still well within their sphere of influence.
As far as I know France didn't particulary care about the fate of the Serbians and the underlying reason for their pact with the Russians was that if Germany went to war with them, France might be able to snatch away Alsace-Lorraine and deliver their revenge for the 1871 humiliation.
Once Germany realised that war with Russia was inevitable despite the Kaiser's honest attempts to defuse the situation, they reached the completely rational conclusion that they either had to attack France first (the Schlieffen plan) or make sure that they stayed uninvolved. Thus they gave the French an ultimatum; wich the French couldn't accept for reasons of pride if not for the reason mentioned above.
I think that these three powers are all equally responsible for WW1. Germany's invasion of Belgium was completely unjust and the British were fully in the right when they declared war even if it was used as a pretext to hide more pressing geopolitical motivations.

Well, that's not entirely right. Russia felt humiliated when Austria-Hungary was allowed to annex Bosnia and feared than not supporting Serbia would leave them isolated. After all, Serbia was their most important ally in the Balkans and if they didn't do something, Serbia would have either been overrun or would lose faith in alliance with Russia and switch alliances. Certainly, the romantic notion of panslavism didn't hurt, but the main reasons were very practical.
The world wasn't that much in shock because of the assassination but because what it may lead to. Political assassinations weren't that uncommon back then. After all, in 1898, Franz Joseph's wife Elizabeth (Sissi) was killed in Switzerland by Italians, and Austro-Hungary didn't seek war with either Italy or Switzerland. Franz Ferdinand, although an heir wasn't that important figure. His children were excluded from the line of succession because his wife wasn't of noble enough origin. Franz Ferdinand brother was next in line. Also, for the those involved in the murder it was a symbolic act of protest. They had plans to assassinate Oscar Potiorek and switched to royal couple in the last minute.
So assassination itself was trivial. It was its significance for Austro-Serbian relations that mattered.

[Kralizec]

Well, that's not entirely right. Russia felt humiliated when Austria-Hungary was allowed to annex Bosnia and feared than not supporting Serbia would leave them isolated. After all, Serbia was their most important ally in the Balkans and if they didn't do something, Serbia would have either been overrun or would lose faith in alliance with Russia and switch alliances. Certainly, the romantic notion of panslavism didn't hurt, but the main reasons were very practical.
The world wasn't that much in shock because of the assassination but because what it may lead to. Political assassinations weren't that uncommon back then. After all, in 1898, Franz Joseph's wife Elizabeth (Sissi) was killed in Switzerland by Italians, and Austro-Hungary didn't seek war with either Italy or Switzerland. Franz Ferdinand, although an heir wasn't that important figure. His children were excluded from the line of succession because his wife wasn't of noble enough origin. Franz Ferdinand brother was next in line. Also, for the those involved in the murder it was a symbolic act of protest. They had plans to assassinate Oscar Potiorek and switched to royal couple in the last minute.
So assassination itself was trivial. It was its significance for Austro-Serbian relations that mattered.

Did Russia have any other interest in the region except undermining Austro-Hungary, though? Conversely for the Austro-Hungarians it was clear enough; even if Franz Ferdinand wasn't particulary important it still needed a strong response to cow any nationalist sentiments among the minorities of the empire.

[Strike For The South]

I don't follow Pat Buchannan except on the occasion that he makes the news, so you'll have to explain why you keep referencing him.



So by aligning herself with the single most deadly ideology of the 20th century, America was actually eliminating great evil?

Seems to me FDR was far more concerned with ensuring America had a dominant place in the new world order rather than fighting evil. Why else would he allow the attack on Pearl Harbor to take place... oops, did I say that?




Lets not get personal with this.

I know you love America, as do I (as my record in the Backroom will attest);and I think the nation has been a very positive force in the world. Also, I believe a great many average American soldiers did indeed have the altruistic intentions you mentioned before. However, I feel the need to speak up for the honorable Germans who fought, and if it takes acknowledging the realities surrounding the American participation in the war to force people to realize the conflict was far from black and white, then so be it. America has always benefitted from self reflection.

Fair enough . Pat Buchannan recently wrote a book. The title escpaes me its to early and I have class