The Wehrmacht, History, Myth, Reality

[Meneldil]

Wolfram Wette, a supposedly preeminent german historian, released a book titled The Wehrmacht, History, Myth, Reality.

From the little I've gathered, the main idea of said book is that the Wehrmarcht willingly took part in the various atrocities committed by Germany during WWII. The high command knew what was going on, and the rank-and-files soldier often directly helped the SS in their sick duty.

I haven't read the book yet (it has just been translated from German to French), but to me, it's more or less what I've always been thinking. The whole 'German soldiers fought bravely and shouldn't be blamed for what Hitler did' argument we repeatedly hear - often on this forum - has always sounded like a pill of junk.
Whenever a country does something wrong during a conflict, we always blame the national army. But when it comes to Germany, we're told the most unbelievable slaughter ever committed by mankin is the deed of a small minority of nazi nutjobs? The Imperial army, on the other hand, is rightfully blamed for all the atrocities committed by Japan in China and eastern Asia (though Japan has some issues admitting it, but that's another topic).

Note that this topic isn't aimed at offending german people. I'm just sometimes baffled by the whole WW2-Wehmarcht-is-so-awesome crazyness going on on the internet. The Shoah, and the numerous other slaughters committed by Germany between 1939 and 1945 wouldn't have been possible without the Wehrmacht's approval and help.

[Tribesman]

The reality is that its all in writing already, by the Wehrmacht itself.

[I of the Storm]

About maybe 10 years ago there was an exhibition here in Germany about the atrocities your average Wehrmacht-soldier committed during WWII. While it had made some minor methodical mistakes, it proved the general point: that the Wehrmacht as an institution was involved in nearly all war crimes, in providing infrastructure and, more often than not, even personnel to the Einsatzgruppen etc. In other words: the Wehrmacht methodically commited war crimes according to the character of the war against the Soviet Union as a "Vernichtungskrieg".

Tbh, I thought this was common knowledge these days, but apparently that's the case for the inner-german debate only.
So: Yes, Crimes of the German Wehrmacht were a reality.

[KrooK]

Not only into Germany. I remember exhibition about similar issue - probably we mean the same - this with picture of old Jew being murdered someone and some smiling Wermatcht soldiers?

Theory that soldiers of wermacht did not know about war crimes and haven't done it was joke. However some people believe into every jokes. Luckily people into Germany slowly starts understanding that nazis were not a small group having lidership.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The Wehrmacht was a polarized force. Yes, elements of it did participate in war crimes, that is obvious (and nobody, on this forum at least, denies it). However, it also provided a huge part of the German resistance against Hitler. So what one has to bear in mind is that the Wehrmacht had more than one element, whereas the SS was extremely pro-Hitler and pro-atrocities through and through.

Saying it wouldn't be possible without the Wehrmacht is obvious enough. Without the Wehrmacht those countries never could have been taken in the first place.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Note that this topic isn't aimed at offending german people.

Just a minute there!

Don't fall for the trap of the revisionist, or of the uneducated internet adolescent. Fierce criticism of Nazi-Germany does not equal criticism of Germany.

I amyself consider the nazi regime the greatest crime ever comitted against Germany. It is the nazi-fanboyz who are anti-German.

I'm just sometimes baffled by the whole WW2-Wehmarcht-is-so-awesome crazyness going on on the internet. The Shoah, and the numerous other slaughters committed by Germany between 1939 and 1945 wouldn't have been possible without the Wehrmacht's approval and help.

Yes, an ongoing source of amazement and repulsion to me too.

The best way to deal with it, is to follow the general guidelines when dealing with revisionists or internet nazi imbeciles: do not let yourself get bogged down into revisionist traps, nor in the nonsense of the uneducated internet adolescents.

Best is, to simply point out the vulgarity of it and leave it at that. When nazism looks powerful or controversial or totally awesome, it will always have imbecile fanboyz. When it looks plain vulgar, not so much.



I haven't read the book. Nor will I. I am not all that interested in WWII. Hitler whipped Germany into a frenzy. He took what was the world's second largest power, and led it to complete ruination within a few years. Meanwhile, tens of millions had died.
So what's there to say about it anyway? The balance is entirely negative. It would be laughable if it wasn't all so tragic.

[KrooK]

Louis - I don't agree.
Nazism was not invented into 1933. It was all the time into Germans - since start of 2nd reich.
Just read german law into beginning of XX century - especially anti polish law.
If you change "poles" on "jews" you will be having something very similar to Nurnberg acts.

Its sad but ... majority of German population into 1939 were racists or nazists.
Majority of population believed that they are better nation and were ready to kill worse nations.
This did not begin with Hitler - it rises many years earlier.

Germans had to fall to rise again. Maybe it was their price to be normal people again.
Maybe thats why nowadays they don't have to fight on 2 fronts.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis - I don't agree.
Nazism was not invented into 1933. It was all the time into Germans - since start of 2nd reich.

Its sad but ... majority of German population into 1939 were racists or nazists.
Majority of population believed that they are better nation and were ready to kill worse nations.

Well I must beg to differ. Indeed, the roots of nazism run deep. Auschwitz was 'an outcome' of German history, but not 'an inevitable outcome' of German history.

Also, the French and British too believed they were the better nations, and had a God-given right to rule others. It still took another step to descend into full nazi madness.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Louis - I don't agree.
Nazism was not invented into 1933. It was all the time into Germans - since start of 2nd reich.

Sorry, the Hohenzollern Empire was not a National Socialist one, however much you dislike it for the fact it liked to fight with Poland.

Its sad but ... majority of German population into 1939 were racists or nazists.

Check how much of the vote the Nazis got in '33, will you?

Majority of population believed that they are better nation and were ready to kill worse nations.
This did not begin with Hitler - it rises many years earlier.

Yes, that's true. It also existed, to a [greater or] lesser extent, in every other European nation, including Poland.

In other words, this:

Well I must beg to differ. Indeed, the roots of nazism run deep. Auschwitz was 'an outcome' of German history, but not 'an inevitable outcome' of German history.

Also, the French and British too believed they were the better nations, and had a God-given right to rule others. It still took another step to descend into full nazi madness.

It took a very cunning propaganda system to tug just the right strings to drive some people - not all, and I believe less than half (though that is still absolutely nothing to be proud of) - past that point.

[Brenus]

“Also, the French and British too believed they were the better nations, and had a God-given right to rule others.” At least the British said it was God-given. The French were worst has it was a self inflicted prophecy… Le fardeau de l’Homme Blanc…

As the subject is concerned, without the logistic and the at least passive agreement of the High German Command, the Genocide would have been possible… The proof of it came when some officers did refuse to follow these orders.
Even some SS did refuse and couldn’t be prosecuted because the German Military Code was on their side.

[KrooK]

Maniac - start learning something different than german history books.

By 2nd Reich i mean germany after unification - Bismarck's Germany.
Hohenzollern empire (I understand that you mean Prussian Princedoom and later Kingdom of Prussia) is not 2nd Reich. Do not mix these things. And Bismarck's Germany was very similar to Hitler's Germany.
Country with official ideology which declare that German are best nation and should rule the world by destruction of other races and nations.

Read some orders given german troops who were sent to africa to fight with tribal risings.
Its really hard to find similar orders - maybe Tamerlane was giving something like this.

And Poland has never been country ruled by racist ideology.
We have autoritarism (very good doctrine) but never racism.
Do not mix us with Germans. We don't build deathcamps - we liberate them.

[Meneldil]

Just a minute there!

Don't fall for the trap of the revisionist, or of the uneducated internet adolescent. Fierce criticism of Nazi-Germany does not equal criticism of Germany.

Yeah yeah, I know this. I just didn't want my comment to be understood as 'Zomg all germans are evil nazis!!', which seemed quite possible to me, since the Wehrmacht is often seen as an honorable force, not tainted or stained by nazism.

I also know many officers opposed Hitler, his methods and his ideology. What I wanted to point out is the simple fact that, unlike what I read many times on various internet fora, the Wehrmacht wasn't only an heroic army that fought to protect Germany against ze evil soviets and imperialist americans.


Krook, you should follow your own advices before trying to give other people a lesson. Pretty much all of Europe was racist in a way or another in the early 20th. The latin race was opposed to the germanic race and to the slav race. Black people were still regarded as inherently uncivilized and barely worthy of being educated. I highly doubt things were different in Poland (I'd go as far as saying that Poland has a pretty bad record when it comes to things such as minority rights, antisemitism and tolerance during the 30's).

Finally, unlike the huge majority German people, who openly admit that Nazi germany was wrong and overall a terrible experiment, you've proved yourself to be completely unable to accept any form of criticism toward your country. Anytime a topic about Germany is created, you jump in to bash the oh-so evil germans (or russians, or americans, or french, or british, or jews), yet you refuse to admit that Poland did some things wrong in the past. I hope you're a minority in your country, for complete lack of self-criticism and blind nationalism and bitterness would otherwise make Poland a really sad place.

[HunGeneral]

This is an interresting debate going on here. I myself have always been interrested in the history of WW2 yet for some reason I don't really know why some people wish to tell of any fighting force of any dicatatorian system that took part in the conflict to have benn "clean from any ideology" or other saying "the only reason they were so great is because the followed that x-ism to the last letter". (thank god I haven't seen any of that here so far, only on other places on the internet).

What really gets me mad is that many would try to make the whole confllict look like a fight between good and evil - a very wrong concept.
I think all armed forces that took part in the war have also taken part in war crimes to some degree more or less.

I myself have always read and gathered info about the wehrmacht because I am conwinced that they were the best fighting force of there time (till today I consider the german Blitzkrieg 1939 -1940 to be one of the best lead and fought campaings of the first half of the 20. century in Europe), for a while. However I have never seen or believed that only the "Nazi core" of the army where the only ones to commot warcrimes (although they were the most active in that matter, but not the sole perpretators).

This does however not mean that all germans (soldier or civilian) are the "bad guys" nor are the Allies the "good guys" and are neither free of commiting deeds that can be seen as "war crimes".

Just to name a few examples:

- The massacre of Katyn: well I don't think too much needs to be said.

- Sending there own men on suicide charges and executing thoose who refused - USSR

- Disquising some agents as German paratroopers, sending them to viligaes to see if they would help hide them and if the villagers did then deport/execute them all - NKVD activity in the Ukraine.

- Lead a whole arial bombing campaing tarteging the civilian population of the enemies country to increase suffering with the final goal of inciting a revolt against the goverment - United Kingdom (the USA forces atleast tried to concentrate on factories and military targets in Europe, but in the pacific they bombed/burned down entire cities in japan even such which had little if any military value. The Germans also had similer attempts over England but till then they mostly targeted military facilities, but started attacking London after the British bombed Berlin. - no wonder the term "Western Air terrorists" has been used so long in middle- and east Europe)

- Drezda, Hirosima, Nagasaki (correct exampels of the above)

Therefore I would conclude that neither side can be seen as completely innocent nor can all members of any people be seen as completely guilty.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Maniac - start learning something different than german history books.

I do - but perhaps you should try them, it'll help get you out of the Polish nationalist history books.

By 2nd Reich i mean germany after unification - Bismarck's Germany.
Hohenzollern empire (I understand that you mean Prussian Princedoom and later Kingdom of Prussia) is not 2nd Reich. Do not mix these things.

Tell me, who were the Emperors in the German Empire? Hohenzollerns all.

And Bismarck's Germany was very similar to Hitler's Germany.
Country with official ideology which declare that German are best nation and should rule the world by destruction of other races and nations.

Far from it. Any, any basic biography of Bismarck will show otherwise.

And Poland has never been country ruled by racist ideology.

No, but racist ideology has been in the ruling class.

We have autoritarism (very good doctrine) but never racism.

Do not mix us with Germans.

So Polish nationalists just have a xenophobic hatred of Germans, they aren't racist? Got you.

We don't build deathcamps - we liberate them.

Historically I don't think Poland has ever minded being brutal when the opportunities arose. That being said, what the Nazis did was naturally worse than anything seen before or since (with the exception of Stalin's Russia and possibly Mao's China).

[Tribesman]

And Poland has never been country ruled by racist ideology.
We have autoritarism (very good doctrine) but never racism.

Yeah right

Do not mix us with Germans. We don't build deathcamps - we liberate them.

Really? with the exception of the german prisons in warsaw during the rising all the concentration camps in Poland were liberated by the Russians.
So your claim about liberation is that the Polish got some people out of prison for a while before they surrendered them back to the Nazis.

[CBR]

Sure looks like this thread has many familiarities with a train wreck...

Stay on topic and no more of the nationalistic drivel please.



CBR

[KrooK]

So your claim about liberation is that the Polish got some people out of prison for a while before they surrendered them back to the Nazis.

Calm Tribesman, calm. Do not mix us with Germans. Poles liberated some deathcamps and few gestapo prisons.

Someone mentioned that carpet bombing of german cities was bad. But ... how many 88 guns
were used to defend german cities instead of fighting on eastern front.
Americans started carpet bombing of cities into Japan when japananese high command ordered to move facilities from industry to normal districts.


Evil - maybe you check when 2nd Reich was oficially announced? I always thought that after french-prussian war (check name FRENCH = PRUSSIAN NOT FRENCH GERMAN). And maybe you tell me when we were so brutal to minorities? I really want to know because I don't remember any situation when official ideology of polish nation was destruction of national minority (action Vistula can't be count due to some reasons). Maybe I'm wrong but Mahomet said "to knowledge go even to China".
Before you wrote I have to tell you something about nowadays Germany.
Into todays Germany some laws from III Reich (yes - from Hitler times) are still in force. Mostly law about minorities. According to them Poles (about 1.500.000 people) are not national minority.

[keravnos]

What really gets me mad is that many would try to make the whole confllict look like a fight between good and evil - a very wrong concept.
I think all armed forces that took part in the war have also taken part in war crimes to some degree more or less.

That's like saying that the 12 year old girl who was raped asked for it.

Nazi Germany was directly responsible for starting WW2 which led to the death of more than 50 million people in Europe alone. It was responsible for destroying the European Jewry, killing off 66% of its people, destroying utterly anything that was standing in its way.

A small excrept from a previous post I made over at TWC...
How about some other specialties of the regime?
-Here's what happened in Greece. I will take one of all the villages torched and destroyed their people slain. In Arta prefecture, August 17 1943, Wermacht's Edelweiss division executed 317 villagers, 172 of them being women, two priests and 13 babies, all less than 1 year old.
-Italian prisoners slaughtered in Kephalonia after Italy surrendered to the Allies and Hitler declared them traitors. 3000 "drowned", 1.135 executed and 25 Slovenes with them along with 5.189 more Italians who were summarily shot.

The list goes on and on, but the truth, documented and explained in detail by Herman Frank Meyer, a German who, looking for his father grave (he had been executed by resistance fighters) stumbled upon the Nazi's reing of terror, which he documented.
http://www.hfmeyer.com/english/publications/index.html

[Husar]

Maniac - start learning something different than german history books.

By 2nd Reich i mean germany after unification - Bismarck's Germany.
Hohenzollern empire (I understand that you mean Prussian Princedoom and later Kingdom of Prussia) is not 2nd Reich. Do not mix these things. And Bismarck's Germany was very similar to Hitler's Germany.
Country with official ideology which declare that German are best nation and should rule the world by destruction of other races and nations.

Read some orders given german troops who were sent to africa to fight with tribal risings.
Its really hard to find similar orders - maybe Tamerlane was giving something like this.

And Poland has never been country ruled by racist ideology.
We have autoritarism (very good doctrine) but never racism.
Do not mix us with Germans. We don't build deathcamps - we liberate them.

Dude, learn some history yourself, one of the reasons Bismarck got booted was that he insisted that Germany would not need any colonies in Africa...

The guy you are looking for was called Wilhelm II.

On the topic, I agree with everyone.

[Tribesman]

Calm Tribesman, calm. Do not mix us with Germans. Poles liberated some deathcamps and few gestapo prisons.

Really , so which of the concentration camps in Poland or territory that became Poland were liberated by Poles?
Come on, there were lots of camps so you must be able to make a pretty impressive list when the range to choose from is so large.
So which were they Krook?
Is the reality that the "evil" Russians did the liberating from the "evil" Germans.

Though to be fair quite a number of Poles who were not inmates of the getto did fight the Germans when the mass prison revolted , almost as many Poles as Jurgen Stroop had under his command with the Germans.

But I have to laugh at your

Do not mix us with Germans.

especially after your ridiculous claim that

And Poland has never been country ruled by racist ideology.

so could you in brief terms explain the policy in regard to Ruthenians Germans Silesians Galacians Ukranians Lithuanians russian Orthadox protestant Greek catholic and a host of other un-polish as far as the Polonization measures count?

Its quite funny that you have throughout this topic questioned other histrical knowledge , but then come up with a gem like ....

Americans started carpet bombing of cities into Japan when japananese high command ordered to move facilities from industry to normal districts.

Anyone with a half decent knowledge of history want to explain in very simple term why Krooks version of the switch in bombing over Japan is bollox?

[KrooK]

Tribesman

1. To start from KL Warschau (or Gęsiówka) - liberated during Warsaw Rising
there were some deathcamps into western Germany liberated by Polish Army - its 1 AM, I will check names when I wake up.

2. Do not mix Warsaw ghetto rising with Warsaw Rising - sorry but this practically disqualify you as discussion opponent. It was absolutely normal that Poles helped Jews into 1943 and later Jews helped Poles (especially Jews from liberated deathcamp) into 1944.

3. I never heard minorities being forced to be Poles - especially from nations mentioned by you.
After world war 2 German and Ukrainian minorities were being controlled but it was rather mercy than punishment- traitors are normally being killed. Later all the Germans could stay or leave Poland.

However I agree that influence of polish culture was very strong into our part of Europe. As a example I can tell that polish muslims (mostly polish Tatars) are celebrating Christmas and eating pork.

Polonisation only seems like Germanisation but is not equal - you are using brutal strenght, we are not doing it. Thats why so many minorities became Poles and feel Poles - like hundred thousands of .....
Germans who were coming here for all the medieval. Yep - they leave Germany and leave to peaceful tolerant country without religion war and domestic violence. Or teens thousands of ... Scots.
In Poland you can be everyone who you want, as long as you:
1. Don't insist others to be like you.
2. Don't try to betray state.

4. Husar - so was it 2nd Reich or not? Come one - you as a German have much better sources (most of archives was not translated on english and of course polish). Quote us orders given German troop sent to Africa.

[Tribesman]

1. To start from KL Warschau (or Gęsiówka) - liberated during Warsaw Rising

Wow the incident I already mentioned , you really are on top form

Do not mix Warsaw ghetto rising with Warsaw Rising - sorry but this practically disqualify you as discussion opponent.

Ah, I see you have reading problems as well as problems with your historical knowledge, that explains a lot.

I never heard minorities being forced to be Poles

Really ? so banning the languages, closing the schools and destroying the churches to force people to be "Poles" isn't forcing people to be Poles.

[Husar]

4. Husar - so was it 2nd Reich or not? Come one - you as a German have much better sources (most of archives was not translated on english and of course polish). Quote us orders given German troop sent to Africa.

Dude, you don't seem to understand, it's completely irrelevant whether it was the second Reich, you simply cannot blame Bismarck for something that happened after he was thrown out for opposing it. And I don't read historical archives so I can't quote any orders, maybe you can give some quotes where Bismarck talked about killing Africans as a goal for Germany to add a bit to the nonexisting credibility of your previous argument.

It was Wilhelm II. who said Germany needs a place under the sun, it was the same second Reich Bismarck created but it was a radical change of foreign policies that had hardly anything to do with those of Bismarck anymore.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Evil - maybe you check when 2nd Reich was oficially announced? I always thought that after french-prussian war (check name FRENCH = PRUSSIAN NOT FRENCH GERMAN).

Link

Click the link. Scroll down in the box on the right until you see where it says Emperor. Click Wilhelm I. Check which dynasty he belonged to.

The German Empire was an Empire ruled by the Hohenzollern dynasty. I don't know why you denied that.

And maybe you tell me when we were so brutal to minorities? I really want to know because I don't remember any situation when official ideology of polish nation was destruction of national minority (action Vistula can't be count due to some reasons).

So according to you one ethnic cleansing doesn't count, the one on the eastern border. Why don't you try the ones on your western border? Or certain other things that Poland liked to do which are conveniently missed by modern Polish nationalists?

Into todays Germany some laws from III Reich (yes - from Hitler times) are still in force. Mostly law about minorities. According to them Poles (about 1.500.000 people) are not national minority.

Where do you get your information? There aren't even close to one and a half million Poles in Germany. We have more Italians than Poles.

[Papewaio]

- Lead a whole arial bombing campaing tarteging the civilian population of the enemies country to increase suffering with the final goal of inciting a revolt against the goverment - United Kingdom (the USA forces atleast tried to concentrate on factories and military targets in Europe, but in the pacific they bombed/burned down entire cities in japan even such which had little if any military value. The Germans also had similer attempts over England but till then they mostly targeted military facilities, but started attacking London after the British bombed Berlin. - no wonder the term "Western Air terrorists" has been used so long in middle- and east Europe)

- Drezda, Hirosima, Nagasaki (correct exampels of the above)

Therefore I would conclude that neither side can be seen as completely innocent nor can all members of any people be seen as completely guilty.

Total War. Once Germany had decided that it was waging a total war (bombing London first) then the gloves were off. That idea is even support in the likes of the Geneva Convention. So the bombing of civilian populations to bring about an early end to the war was deemed to be 'fair'. Problem with this thinking and what High Command should have seen is that bombing a civilian population only gets their backup and is hence counterproductive. Mind you that probably is one Dresden happened... total destruction was supposed to break morale, much like mustard gas and other nerve toxins were supposed to end WWI in weeks. Again HQ doesn't factor in counter measures and that atrocities beget atrocities and only gets morale up of those who survive (well anger if nothing else).

The bombing of Japan is different on both the conventional front and nuclear. Japan dispersed its manufactoring ability throughout its cities. Meaning that to attack the manufactoring base you had to attack the civilian sites as they were often the same building. The nuclear attack was a much better option then mass starvation and invasion see Okinawa for results of a land invasion.

There is also a massive difference between bombing a country and taking prisoners and making lampshades of their skin or gutting pregnant women to see who won a bet on the sex of the unborn. The primary difference can be seen after occupation to compare who was good and who was evil if you want to bandy those terms around. Germany and Japan slaughtered those they took over that they had no use for, those who looked different, had different genders to those they agreed with, those who had different religion or beliefs or politics they also killed the mentally ill and the handicapped. On the other hand Germany and Japan once taken over by the Allies got the likes of the Marshall plan.

Quite a telling difference.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Total War. Once Germany had decided that it was waging a total war (bombing London first) then the gloves were off.

I may be completely wrong, but wasn't German bombing of London originally confined to generally industrial targets and the docklands? Regardless, in terms of tonnage the response was vastly disproportionate. I wouldn't have minded so much if it was focused on industry, but the goal was to kill as many humans as possible. That is despicable regardless of which side did it (and both did).

Germany and Japan slaughtered those they took over that they had no use for, those who looked different, had different genders to those they agreed with, those who had different religion or beliefs or politics they also killed the mentally ill and the handicapped.

Honestly though, what use did the Allies have for the burned victims of the bombings? To use them prove to the Soviets that they could do it? To try a little experiment to see if they could make the Hun give in a little quicker? Make no mistake, I'm glad the Allies won and am well aware that they committed crimes at a much, much lesser scale, and you'll catch me throwing rocks at the likes of the NPD sooner than marching anywhere near alongside them. But something that is morally wrong is morally wrong, whoever does it.

On the other hand Germany and Japan once taken over by the Allies got the likes of the Marshall plan.

Oh, West Germany is grateful for the Marshall Plan, but would we have received anything or as much if there hadn't been an immediate threat to us in the West? Regardless, the aid was very much appreciated. The Allies did more for us in those few years than the Nazi scum did in twelve or the Soviets did for the East in forty...

[Papewaio]

I think Dresden was terrible (as a crime, as a tactic and as a waste of resources). It was a crime to aim to kill as many people as possible. As a tactic even if I was a Mongol warlord I wouldn't want to do an attack that made my enemy more angry and less likely to surrender. As a waste of resources, war is logistics, don't do anything in a total war that isn't helping you win.

There is a lot of crimes that Allied soldiers also did. I think the biggest difference is the institutionalization of them and promotion of those who did them in Nazi Germany. Imperial Japan had a pretty bad time with the crimes they did, although they did a very good job of whitewashing most of them to their civilian population.

War is a waster and not much good comes of it. We do have a few things and one of those is the desire not to repeat such a mistake.

[HunGeneral]

Nazi Germany was directly responsible for starting WW2 which led to the death of more than 50 million people in Europe alone. It was responsible for destroying the European Jewry, killing off 66% of its people, destroying utterly anything that was standing in its way.

Wether "who" can be blaimed for WWII is still heavely disputed. It could have been the Japanese who started the war when attacking China in 1936 since that conflict didn't end until 1945. It could have benn the french and the british if we think that the "peace -dictate" of Versailes was what lead to a utterly deprived, insulted, driven by nationalistic ideologyes Germany filled with hatred against anything the great powers France and england stood for and blinded enough to believe the myth of the "stab in the back", thereby (with the economical crisis of the 30s) giving necessary political atmosphere for Hitler to take power and drag teh world to war.

At any point in my post where did I question the Deathtoll of the war? Or deny that the Germans had commited atrocities aswell?

Also "destroying utterly anything that was standing in its way" - that aplies for the Soviet Union aswell if you ask me.

I may be completely wrong, but wasn't German bombing of London originally confined to generally industrial targets and the docklands? Regardless, in terms of tonnage the response was vastly disproportionate. I wouldn't have minded so much if it was focused on industry, but the goal was to kill as many humans as possible. That is despicable regardless of which side did it (and both did).

I feel the same about the matter and as much as I know the germans preferrred to use there bomber force as ground support, and attacked primearly military targets if possible, this is reinforced by the fact that they developed only light to medium bombers, but never had a really effective heavy bomber like the B-17s, B-24s and Lancasters of the US an UK. (I'm not sure but as much as I know the Luftwaffe even forbade any bombers to bomb anything near London without Hitlers personal orders. - The first Luftwaffe bombers over London were a small detachment that lost orientation at night and dropped there bombs not knowing where they were. As a reaction churchill ordered Bomber command to attack Berlin and after just a small raid Hitler got so mad he ordered the Luftwaffe to bomb London to the ground instead of concentrating on military targets....

Also the alies response is somewhat to vast - more civilians were killed just during the 3 day bombing of Hamburg then all civilian casualities of the whole Battle or Britain, the Blitz and the V1- V2 attacks in England together.

Also as you said the Allies were not exactly aiming for the industry in Europe. If I may quote from Sir Arthur Harris - Air Officer Commanding in Chief of the RAF Bomber command:

"the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany"...

"It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories"

Honestly though, what use did the Allies have for the burned victims of the bombings? To use them prove to the Soviets that they could do it? To try a little experiment to see if they could make the Hun give in a little quicker? Make no mistake, I'm glad the Allies won and am well aware that they committed crimes at a much, much lesser scale, and you'll catch me throwing rocks at the likes of the NPD sooner than marching anywhere near alongside them. But something that is morally wrong is morally wrong, whoever does it.

I fully agree

The Allies did more for us in those few years than the Nazi scum did in twelve or the Soviets did for the East in forty...

I agree that the Wetsern allies were much more humane then the Nazis or the Soviets in all aspects.
I'm glad it wasn't the Nazis who won the war, though sometimes I wish the Soviets had been driven out of East Europe earlier.

War is a waster and not much good comes of it. We do have a few things and one of those is the desire not to repeat such a mistake.

I fulhearthedly agree.

[Tribesman]

I feel the same about the matter and as much as I know the germans preferrred to use there bomber force as ground support, and attacked primearly military targets if possible this is reinforced by the fact that they developed only light to medium bombers, but never had a really effective heavy bomber like the B-17s, B-24s and Lancasters of the US an UK.

No , that shows that the Germans were planning mainly short range missions over neighbouring territory. The B-17 was simply designed to be able to reach Hawaii and Alaska and the B-24 was designed to to the same . Likewise the British bombers were designed to cope with the vast distances of the empire.

I'm not sure but as much as I know the Luftwaffe even forbade any bombers to bomb anything near London without Hitlers personal orders.

Yes but that was after they had bombed Polish cities , then said they wouldn't bomb cities , then bombed cities again .
The Nazis had made diplomatic moves saying really honestly trust us and lets all agree not to bomb cities....but demonstrated that they wouldn't keep those agreements, so after Rotterdam their diplomatic moves for another agreement were rejected.

[KrooK]

Ahh Maniac belongs to poor party of Erika Steinbach.

Imagine that forcing Germans to leave Poland (but only those Germans who did not ran before Red Army) was not ethnic clearing. Into international law there is rule that has never been changed and no one even tried to do it. Defeated agressor is not a part of international law - everything can be done with its territory.

On east of Poland (east of Poland is not todays east of Poland but Wilno, Grodno and Lwow line) there have never been ethnic clearings. Maybe you explain me what do you mean by ethnic clearing? We might have different definitions. For me its massive killing all of population who at the beginning of clearing is not agressive to killing party.

Or maybe you wrote something about ethic clearings into Poland in 1939 - 1940. Come one - Germans love yelling about poor Germans who had to leave their fatherland into 1945-47 (despite 80% ran into 1944) but most of them forgot that into 1939-1940 half million of Poles had to leave their homes in the middle of hard winter and run.

Nice example could be that hypocrite woman called Erika Steinbach. She cry about her home, when she was born. Doing it she does not remember that her home was not ... here. It belonged to polish family forced to leave it.

Come one Maniac don't be such idiot like them. They have problem because they still don't understand that leaving these part of Poland was just a punishment for nazism. And for their behavior towards Poles. Rather light punishment in my opinion - Russians treated them much harder.

And one more for Dresden topic (I think we already talked about it). Into 1939 no German city has been bombed - Englishmen and Frenchmen only drop a leaflets. Then Germans bombed Coventry.....