No better than them

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Ironic little find: In November of 1940 when Molotov went to Germany for a sitting and talks with German government officials he and his staff instructed the German silverware (upon eating dinner with Hitler and Ribbontrop) to be boiled first to remove the inferior German germs!

And this is when they were 'friends'...

[KarlXII]

Ironic little find: In November of 1940 when Molotov went to Germany for a sitting and talks with German government officials he and his staff instructed the German silverware (upon eating dinner with Hitler and Ribbontrop) to be boiled first to remove the inferior German germs!

And this is when they were 'friends'...

And? This is about the consequential actions against Germans in the late-war era. If you wish to discuss Soviet racism, genocide and political persecution, feel free to open a new thread.

I've said it before, I will be happy to continually say it:

"Yeah, but they did it too!" does not excuse war crimes.

Not for the Nazis, Allies, or Soviets. When it comes to the Western Allied and Nazi war crimes, they cannot be compared. To me, the severity of war crimes is measured on the amount of people killed and the reasons. It's eays to see German war crimes far outweigh Western Allied.

[HoreTore]

Not for the Nazis, Allies, or Soviets. When it comes to the Western Allied and Nazi war crimes, they cannot be compared. To me, the severity of war crimes is measured on the amount of people killed and the reasons. It's eays to see German war crimes far outweigh Western Allied.

The timing is also pretty damn important. The allies killed when they battled the germans, then they stopped. The germans continued for 5 years after their invasions.

[Husar]

Not for the Nazis, Allies, or Soviets. When it comes to the Western Allied and Nazi war crimes, they cannot be compared. To me, the severity of war crimes is measured on the amount of people killed and the reasons. It's eays to see German war crimes far outweigh Western Allied.

If you measure it like that, I can show you some simple math:

Nazis: truly believed jews to be evil (supported by the fact they put a lot of ressources into it) + killed several millions

Allies: killed more people overall (we mentioned stalin, like it or not but he was an ally) + simply selfish reasons to gain political advantage

I would conclude that the Allies were actually far worse. and just taking the western allies is hardly fair, if you ally with the devil, you're with the devil, now be a teamplayer and take that beating.

It's interesting how nowadays when you murder someone and you can be proven to be mentally ill and that you really believed that person had to die for the better of humanity, some will say you are a poor guy and need help in a mental hospital. However, when Hitler seems to have done the same (hard to prove I know), he's the most evil man on earth and everybody would like to rip him into pieces and every comparison with any other person is absolutely outrageus. Well, yeah, so he had gas and trains and could industrially murder people, that just means he was able to use his available ressources to best effect, a good trait in modern industries btw. I'm not saying it wasn't a horrible thing to do and he must have been truly sick in his head (or evil, but I thoughtwe all agreed that he really believed in what he did so prolly didn't see himself as evil) but to say it was worse than killing even more people with guns just because it was industrial is simply emotional appeal IMO.
And I thought that is a bad thing in a rational argument...

[LittleGrizzly]

Nazis: truly believed jews to be evil (supported by the fact they put a lot of ressources into it) + killed several millions

Allies: killed more people overall (we mentioned stalin, like it or not but he was an ally) + simply selfish reasons to gain political advantage

In regard to Hitlers vs Stalin kills it is very important to take into account the amount of killing time they had, hitler had less than a decade (1936 ? or is it 35 ?) Stalin had 25 years i think... also if were going to think about it in terms of evilness you have to look at the size of the population they had available to kill, Stalin had a far larger domestic population to kill off.... im not sure how the populations at the hieght of the nazi and soviet empires compare but i would imagine they would be close...

If you want my opinion on why the nazis were more evil....

The effeciency and speed they managed all thier killing in, whilst effeciency itself is not evil if you can get people in quick kill them and get the next lot in ready to kill fairly quickly then you are trying to kill off whatever groups as quickly as you can.... which is more evil.....

The fact they targetted several distinct groups and tried to wipe them out, i realise the russians were nasty to certain groups (chechnya comes to mind) but they never made such a concentrated effort to wipe out several large distinct groups...

Besides if were going to start discounting kills because the perpatrator thought it was the right thing to do, im sure stalin saw his industrialisation which killed many in the countryside as the right thing to do, hell he probably saw the purges keeping in power as the right thing to do....

Basically we can't write off kills just because they may have been thought off as the best thing to do, exactly why we don't write off allied kills even though often it was for the 'greater good'

Besides i would put alot of the deaths in ww2 down to nazi germany as they were the ones that started the war

Admittedly i don't apply all blame to Germany but if were going to put it down to figures lets give them 70%, so 70% of war casulties (outside of japans actions though they are linked..) are given to nazi germany.... even if we give the 30% to the allied side im fairly sure that leaves the nazis ahead....

Btw if we are going to include stalin to the western allys we also giving hitler imperial japans kills ?

[Alexanderofmacedon]

And? This is about the consequential actions against Germans in the late-war era. If you wish to discuss Soviet racism, genocide and political persecution, feel free to open a new thread.

I've said it before, I will be happy to continually say it:

"Yeah, but they did it too!" does not excuse war crimes.

Not for the Nazis, Allies, or Soviets. When it comes to the Western Allied and Nazi war crimes, they cannot be compared. To me, the severity of war crimes is measured on the amount of people killed and the reasons. It's eays to see German war crimes far outweigh Western Allied.

Talking about the thought that Germans thought themselves superior than "untermensch", whereas this shows some of the same thinking reversed. I just found it while reading a book, was not meant to be an arguement, simply a "fun" fact.

[PBI]

If you measure it like that, I can show you some simple math:

Nazis: truly believed jews to be evil (supported by the fact they put a lot of ressources into it) + killed several millions

Allies: killed more people overall (we mentioned stalin, like it or not but he was an ally) + simply selfish reasons to gain political advantage

Why on earth is the motivation the Nazis had for the Holocaust any type of defense whatsoever?

If you drop a bomb on an orphanage, the result is the same, regardless of whether it was to kill the lone enemy soldier hiding in the basement or if you simply like killing children.

I daresay the Western Allies thought the strategic bombing of Germany entirely necessary; in their eyes, the First World War had demonstrated that simply defeating Germany's armies but largely sparing the civilian population would not be enough to prevent another war twenty years down the line. In fact I cannot think of an atrocity that was carried out where the perpetrators did not truly believe they were doing the right thing.

Hence why I would argue the government responsible for starting a war should almost always carry the responsibility
for any atrocities commited during that war. Starting a war invariably leads to situations where people will come to the conclusion that carrying out mass murder or other atrocities is both right and necessary.

I would conclude that the Allies were actually far worse. and just taking the western allies is hardly fair, if you ally with the devil, you're with the devil, now be a teamplayer and take that beating.

Guilt by association, huh?

So then we can conclude that the ordinary German soldiers were as guilty of the Holocaust as the units that actually carried it out, since they were on the same side?

It is rubbish of course. The alliance between the Western Allies and the USSR was a pure marriage of convenience, made necessary by the threat of Nazi Germany. Once again, the Nazi's waging of aggressive war led to a situation in which the Western Allies felt they had no choice but to ally with a brutal dictatorship in order to deal with another brutal dictatorship. If the alliance had survived in peacetime instead of collapsing within a matter of months after the end of the war, you might have a point.

It's interesting how nowadays when you murder someone and you can be proven to be mentally ill and that you really believed that person had to die for the better of humanity, some will say you are a poor guy and need help in a mental hospital. However, when Hitler seems to have done the same (hard to prove I know), he's the most evil man on earth and everybody would like to rip him into pieces and every comparison with any other person is absolutely outrageus. Well, yeah, so he had gas and trains and could industrially murder people, that just means he was able to use his available ressources to best effect, a good trait in modern industries btw. I'm not saying it wasn't a horrible thing to do and he must have been truly sick in his head (or evil, but I thoughtwe all agreed that he really believed in what he did so prolly didn't see himself as evil) but to say it was worse than killing even more people with guns just because it was industrial is simply emotional appeal IMO.
And I thought that is a bad thing in a rational argument...

I actually agree that the modern tendency to paint Hitler and the Nazis as some sort of Hollywood bad guys who cackle maniacally and like torturing kittens is both inaccurate and a little dangerous. The real picture of the Nazi regime and it's rise to power is much more complicated, and is filled with people who were not inherently evil doing things which they thought were necessary at the time. It does not in any way, however, vindicate Hitler or the Nazis, as I would argue that both their underlying philosophy and the methods they chose to bring it about are utterly loathsome.

[LittleGrizzly]

If were going to look at atrocitys from the point of view of the one(s) who commited them then thier all full of good reasons, even if america solely dropped the bomb to show off/warn the soviet union then a good argument can be made about the need to show america was ahead of the soviet union to stop the su trying to make thier way across europe or attack any american allys or america itself...

The dresden bombing even if just done to slow german industry an argument can easily be made saying thier slightly quickened germanys defeat ending in less casulty's all round, the excuse of thinking you are doing the right thing can really apply equally all round, so in the end whether they thought they were doing the right thing or not doesn't make a damn bit of difference...

[Koga No Goshi]

but to say it was worse than killing even more people with guns just because it was industrial is simply emotional appeal IMO.
And I thought that is a bad thing in a rational argument...

You don't see the difference between war or even inhumane treatment of POW's, with the industrial level attempt to mass eradicate an entire ethnic group and every civilian political dissenter?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Hence why I would argue the government responsible for starting a war should almost always carry the responsibility
for any atrocities commited during that war. Starting a war invariably leads to situations where people will come to the conclusion that carrying out mass murder or other atrocities is both right and necessary.

When somebody murders somebody else, you do not punish the people who raised the murderer. It is the same situation here - the Allies still had a choice on whether they wanted to commit atrocities or not, and they chose to do it anyways. You can't shield them from blame.

[JR-]

i have sympathy with innocent ethnic germans that happened to exist inside the borders of neighbouring countries, and were later expelled.

i have a greater sympathy with those neighbouring countries who saw these uitlanders as a fifth column to a nation that had twice ravaged their countries in world wars within living memory.

[Husar]

If you drop a bomb on an orphanage, the result is the same, regardless of whether it was to kill the lone enemy soldier hiding in the basement or if you simply like killing children.

I may answer more tomorrow as it's a bit late here right now, but why does it matter then how much time they had to kill people? If you kill 35 million people in 20 years and someone else killed only 25 million in 2 years then you still killed 10 million more people, so the result is the same. It may just mean that you are an idiot if it takes you that much longer to kill all those people as clearly there are more effctive means.

I'm not saying their motivation is an excuse either but you guys claimed that you take motivation into account, so I take it into account and then suddenly I shouldn't take it into account because it doesn't matter.
Now I'm throwing you all into the same pot but i cannot discuss seperately with everyone on a completely different basis as you would then take my arguments and say I'm contradicting myself just because I'm trying to argue on your relative given bases...or whatever.

[Husar]

You don't see the difference between war or even inhumane treatment of POW's, with the industrial level attempt to mass eradicate an entire ethnic group and every civilian political dissenter?

I see the difference, but I thought stalin killed mostly political dissenters? And the end result is still the same, a lot of people are dead. I am not arguing that the war against Germany was a bad thing or a crime, I'm saying the allies had their black sheep and the germans also had their white sheep.
And that some argumentations here are a bit wrong even though they may result at a correct conclusion.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I may answer more tomorrow as it's a bit late here right now, but why does it matter then how much time they had to kill people? If you kill 35 million people in 20 years and someone else killed only 25 million in 2 years then you still killed 10 million more people, so the result is the same. It may just mean that you are an idiot if it takes you that much longer to kill all those people as clearly there are more effctive means.

I agree.

Another bit I find interesting about Hitler's point of view on the "untermenschen":

Dr. Todt (German engineer and senior "Nazi" figure) says, "They can endure everything, including the harshness of climate. We are too sensitive and are bound to be defeated. In the end the victory will go to the Russians..."

Speer says, "Hitler too, obviously influenced by Spengler, had expressed similar ideas in peacetime when he spoke of the biological superiority of the 'Siberians and Russians'. But when the campaign in the east began, he thrust aside his own thesis, for it ran counter to his plans".

So on the contrary, while it may seem Hitler's views were that they were racially inferior, another theory is that this was only part of his plan to unify a rather (history shows) divided Germany against them.

...and yes I'm still refuting an idea in which people have already agreed with me.

[Incongruous]

I see the difference, but I thought stalin killed mostly political dissenters? And the end result is still the same, a lot of people are dead. I am not arguing that the war against Germany was a bad thing or a crime, I'm saying the allies had their black sheep and the germans also had their white sheep.
And that some argumentations here are a bit wrong even though they may result at a correct conclusion.

Stalin killed mostly everyone. He targeted ethnic groups in the same way Hitler did, perhaps he was just not as good at it?

To Stalin and his mates, anyone could be a political dissenter, I would propose that most Russians hated him and the Communist party and all it took was for a single word to slip for you and everyone you knew to be under suspicion or dead.

The man was a monster the same as Hitler, by the same token, his underlings and party supporters were no different from the Nazis.

[Koga No Goshi]

Trying to put the whole Allied war effort "on trial" by the standards of Russia is a double standard when in the very same argument you are separating out the "Good Germans" from the ones who were barbequeing Jews at Auschwitz. The difference between the Allies and Nazi Germany was that the Allies were not fighting for world dominance so that no one could rise and challenge them implementing an ideology of totalitarianism and ethnic cleansing. Nazi Germany was, whether the typical grunt was fully aware of that or not.

[Tribesman]

Another bit I find interesting about Hitler's point of view on the "untermenschen":

Dr. Todt (German engineer and senior "Nazi" figure) says, "They can endure everything, including the harshness of climate. We are too sensitive and are bound to be defeated. In the end the victory will go to the Russians..."

Speer says, "Hitler too, obviously influenced by Spengler, had expressed similar ideas in peacetime when he spoke of the biological superiority of the 'Siberians and Russians'. But when the campaign in the east began, he thrust aside his own thesis, for it ran counter to his plans".

That reminds me of Hitlers reaction to proposals to ship the Jews to siberia to die in the camps instead of being just murdered .
The harsh conditions would weed out the weak and they would be left facing a race of superjews in the future .

[PBI]

I may answer more tomorrow as it's a bit late here right now, but why does it matter then how much time they had to kill people? If you kill 35 million people in 20 years and someone else killed only 25 million in 2 years then you still killed 10 million more people, so the result is the same. It may just mean that you are an idiot if it takes you that much longer to kill all those people as clearly there are more effctive means.

I'm not saying their motivation is an excuse either but you guys claimed that you take motivation into account, so I take it into account and then suddenly I shouldn't take it into account because it doesn't matter.
Now I'm throwing you all into the same pot but i cannot discuss seperately with everyone on a completely different basis as you would then take my arguments and say I'm contradicting myself just because I'm trying to argue on your relative given bases...or whatever.

I realise it is difficult in this topic to keep track of who said what, so I will simply make clear that you will not hear any apologism for the Soviets from me.

Either way it wouldn't vindicate the Nazis however, so to be honest I don't really understand the whole "who was worse" debate.

[Husar]

Trying to put the whole Allied war effort "on trial" by the standards of Russia is a double standard when in the very same argument you are separating out the "Good Germans" from the ones who were barbequeing Jews at Auschwitz. The difference between the Allies and Nazi Germany was that the Allies were not fighting for world dominance so that no one could rise and challenge them implementing an ideology of totalitarianism and ethnic cleansing. Nazi Germany was, whether the typical grunt was fully aware of that or not.

I think you missed the point where I said the allies had some black sheep, that was meant to mean that they were mostly good.

I realise it is difficult in this topic to keep track of who said what, so I will simply make clear that you will not hear any apologism for the Soviets from me.

Either way it wouldn't vindicate the Nazis however, so to be honest I don't really understand the whole "who was worse" debate.

Actually, I don't either, I'm just partaking in it for the fun that is to be had.
I don't think I ever said the nazis were blameless, quite the contrary and I've said in other threads that I'm thankful to America and the other allies (that includes the soviet soldiers who didn't rape and pillage I guess) for bringing down that evil regime this country had and turning it into this nice country we have here today.
But that doesn't stop me from argumenting here, triggered by blanket statements that all the germans had it coming etc.

[LittleGrizzly]

If you kill 35 million people in 20 years and someone else killed only 25 million in 2 years then you still killed 10 million more people, so the result is the same. It may just mean that you are an idiot if it takes you that much longer to kill all those people as clearly there are more effctive means

Well personally i think making the effort to be so damn effective at killing people does make you more 'evil', im sure stalin if he really focused could have been a much more effective killer, but whereas stalin kills were more about crushing dissent and possible dissent hitlers was about removal of these groups from the earth altogther... which again imo is more evil

I'm saying the allies had their black sheep and the germans also had their white sheep

agreed...

I'm not saying their motivation is an excuse either but you guys claimed that you take motivation into account, so I take it into account and then suddenly I shouldn't take it into account because it doesn't matter.

Not sure if this comment was directed at me, what i was trying to say is whether you thought your actions were right or not doesn't matter to much (seen as almost everyone does) its the intent of the actions that you do have to take into account

Hitlers intent was to remove several groups from the face of the earth

Stalins intent was to crush dissent and hold onto power

Thier motivation behind these actions makes little difference the intended result makes a big difference..

[Alexanderofmacedon]

That reminds me of Hitlers reaction to proposals to ship the Jews to siberia to die in the camps instead of being just murdered .
The harsh conditions would weed out the weak and they would be left facing a race of superjews in the future .

Interesting, but sounds like something Hitler would be frightened about.

Koga, you're telling me Stalin was not out for world dominance? You telling me he wouldn't have began attacks into western Europe had Germany not struck first? I simply don't believe it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Interesting, but sounds like something Hitler would be frightened about.

Koga, you're telling me Stalin was not out for world dominance? You telling me he wouldn't have began attacks into western Europe had Germany not struck first? I simply don't believe it.

Part of the reason that Barbarossa was so effective at first was that the Soviets had a ridiculous percentage of their tactical aircraft at relatively forward bases as well as a larger than really needed proportion of their armor and ground forces stationed South of the Pripyet. Some theorize that Stalin was gearing up to absorb Rumania and Bulgaria the moment Hitler's guard dropped (committed elsewhere) if such an invasion could have been launched without directly confronting German troops.

Add that to the Winter War and Stalin's ready acceptance of Eastern Poland and the Baltics and it is NOT hard to believe that Stalin would have been willing to conquer more. However, it seems clear that Stalin was cherry-picking those spots where he would NOT face serious opposition.

Was Stalin seeking Soviet dominance? Of course. Would he have been willing to launch a full-scale conventional war in the style that Hitler and the Nazis did? This is more debatable.

[Husar]

Well personally i think making the effort to be so damn effective at killing people does make you more 'evil', im sure stalin if he really focused could have been a much more effective killer, but whereas stalin kills were more about crushing dissent and possible dissent hitlers was about removal of these groups from the earth altogther... which again imo is more evil
[...]
Not sure if this comment was directed at me, what i was trying to say is whether you thought your actions were right or not doesn't matter to much (seen as almost everyone does) its the intent of the actions that you do have to take into account

Hitlers intent was to remove several groups from the face of the earth

Stalins intent was to crush dissent and hold onto power

Thier motivation behind these actions makes little difference the intended result makes a big difference..

I disagree here and I will tell you why, it's the intended result. Hitler's intended result was to make life better for a whole lot of people, basically everybody who wasn't an Untermensch(who, he thought were trying to subjugate the good humans ) in his mind.
Stalin however was just looking out for himself, the only one who was supposed to benefit from his actions in the end was he himself, actually that seems to give Hitler a certain social component that Stalin didn't have. If I'm not mistaken Stalin also killed his own family while Hitler had a nice time with them. Of course when Hitler was about to lose the war he came closer to Stalin and started to become paranoid and angry etc.

[Tribesman]

Interesting, but sounds like something Hitler would be frightened about.

Apparently Ohlendorf and Frank suggested that removing telephone booths and banning capes might be sufficient to remove the threat of superjews .

[Fragony]

Say what you want but he did have a point, and no that is not revisionism, I got the proof right here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdjE...eature=related

[Sarmatian]

I disagree here and I will tell you why, it's the intended result. Hitler's intended result was to make life better for a whole lot of people, basically everybody who wasn't an Untermensch(who, he thought were trying to subjugate the good humans ) in his mind.
Stalin however was just looking out for himself, the only one who was supposed to benefit from his actions in the end was he himself, actually that seems to give Hitler a certain social component that Stalin didn't have. If I'm not mistaken Stalin also killed his own family while Hitler had a nice time with them. Of course when Hitler was about to lose the war he came closer to Stalin and started to become paranoid and angry etc.

Oh, that's ok then. If it was better living for everyone except several hundred millions of Untermensch, then it's perfectly all right.
And, from what I remember reading in Mein Kampf, Hitler didn't have a nice time with his family. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[LittleGrizzly]

Hitler's intended result was to make life better for a whole lot of people, basically everybody who wasn't an Untermensch(who, he thought were trying to subjugate the good humans ) in his mind.

He had good intentions in this way but what evidence is there to prove he wasn't as power hungry as stalin, he may have thought all this stuff needed to be done but he also may have thought he should be the man at the top for purely selfish reasons...

Stalin however was just looking out for himself, the only one who was supposed to benefit from his actions in the end was he himself, actually that seems to give Hitler a certain social component that Stalin didn't have.

How can we truely know Stalin's intentions, as far as we now he could have seen capitalism as the control of people through money and he was trying to free the working class from the oppression of the rich in a glorious revolution, which he would lead for selfish reasons... like hitler...

We can't truely now how pure or unpure stalin and hitlers intentions were, so i don't think its fair to judge the two in comparison as you can make an argument for good or bad intentions for either...

Which is why i think it comes down to the things i listed in my last post..

Im not sure if we have come down to a different opinion which we can't really debate, i understand where you are coming from but i disagree, if you wish to continue debating the point i am happy to...

I think your argument basically boils down to purer intentions on hitlers part ?

the question i have as a rebuttal is how can you now this ? (see above argument about stalin's 'pure intentions')

[Fragony]

I think your argument basically boils down to purer intentions on hitlers part ?

I am a big fan of this man, it's a bit of a hard read but I think he is spot on.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm

[Ironside]

When somebody murders somebody else, you do not punish the people who raised the murderer. It is the same situation here - the Allies still had a choice on whether they wanted to commit atrocities or not, and they chose to do it anyways. You can't shield them from blame.

Didn't the expulsions and murders of civilian Germans happen on the eastern side? You know those areas that Stalin conquerered?

Did Stalin have a meeting with the other allies where he presented the expulsion idea, startin strong with having vengeful Soviet troops scaring (and killing) the German civillians to flee? And then finish that job? Or did it happen without knowledge of the Western Allies at a time where the alliance were soon to crumble?

If there's the second choise, then the antrocity of the Western Allies related to the original discussion was to not fight against the Soviets directly after the end of WWII. Would they've won that war?

[Husar]

Oh, that's ok then. If it was better living for everyone except several hundred millions of Untermensch, then it's perfectly all right.

Please try reading my posts before you put words into my mouth. Thank you.
Apart from that making life better only for yourself and nobody else clearly has to be better than improving it for yourself and other people, right? If you're trying to say that Stalin didn't kill millions of Menschen to improve his own life, you may want to check your facts again. Maybe he called them dissenters instead of untermenschen but if I am not mistaken they're just as dead.

And, from what I remember reading in Mein Kampf, Hitler didn't have a nice time with his family. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Maybe I should've said his wife and friends because that's what I meant.
I think you're right when it comes to his mom and dad etc.

He had good intentions in this way but what evidence is there to prove he wasn't as power hungry as stalin, he may have thought all this stuff needed to be done but he also may have thought he should be the man at the top for purely selfish reasons...

Good point.

How can we truely know Stalin's intentions, as far as we now he could have seen capitalism as the control of people through money and he was trying to free the working class from the oppression of the rich in a glorious revolution, which he would lead for selfish reasons... like hitler...

So actually neither was worse and they were both evil and cruel men? I would've never guessed...

We can't truely now how pure or unpure stalin and hitlers intentions were, so i don't think its fair to judge the two in comparison as you can make an argument for good or bad intentions for either...

And that's why the germans had it coming and deserved it and the russians didn't, I guess.

I think your argument basically boils down to purer intentions on hitlers part ?

Well, as you said, we cannot know their intentions so how can you say that hitler's intentions were worse? Stalin already killed millions to stay in power, who says that he had ever stopped being a paranoid murderer? Hitler would've stopped after killing all the jews, or maybe not, maybe he would've found someone else to declare the number one enemy and killed them as well, if we cannot say that Stalin was worse because we do not know enough about both, how can we say hitler was worse?
And that is also the point of my posts, to point out the relativity of things and just argue with a few people who thought they could make some populist blanket statements about WW2 like: "the germans had it coming".

I have absolutely no problem with demonizing the nazis, but when you extend it to germans in general, you hit me and people like him as well, and that's when I may just decide to argue a bit.