One of the reasons of why German society became so polarized after WW1 is that it went immediately from a monarchy to a democratic republic- its aristocracy of dukes and petty kings had been a pillar of society. They were gone almost overnight.
Additonally the politicians immediately after WW1 didn't shine out in competency (for starters, they should have bargained more during the peace negotiations). There had been a Reichstag with political parties before, but they played a role that consisted largely out of giving advice or criticism rather than weilding any sort of real power.
I didn't mean to compare them in terms of effect, obviously the germans causing ww2 (mostly) was far worse, i just meant in terms of blame, the allies helped make the ground for ww2 and the germans helped make the ground for dresden, in neither case does it absolve those that did wrong for thier actions, just helps us understand how it reached that point...
Another point is the harshness of the treaty of versailles meant that hitler could rip the treaty up and worldwide it was seen as a fair move, so each little step didn't seem quite so bad
I think you could also put some blame on the UK for not backing the treaty, at some point im sure the french wanted to hold germany to the versailles conditions but the uk wouldn't back them up, maybe my memory is fuzzy can anyone confirm or deny this for me ?
Additonally the politicians immediately after WW1 didn't shine out in competency (for starters, they should have bargained more during the peace negotiations).
I always assumed they where simply given the document and told where to sign, my understanding always was as losers they didn't really have any say... is this wrong ?
If i remember right they where present at the negoations but simply powerless...
Last edited by LittleGrizzly; 07-31-2008 at 05:24.
In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!
You're probably right, but in that case the republican government should never have signed the treaty. Germany was at rock bottom anyway, and the terms of the treaty would decide how much room they'd have to rebuild the economy. I don't think any of the victorious powers would be interested in an occupation of Germany if they rejected the first draft.I always assumed they where simply given the document and told where to sign, my understanding always was as losers they didn't really have any say... is this wrong ?
As for the 1871-->WW1 line of discussion, it's more complicated than that.
Napoleon III was as much of a military adventurist as Hitler (before anyone attacks me, I know that he wasn't interested in exterminating entire ethnic groups - but he was hardly peaceful) and I can't feel sorry for the humiliation France received after being at the wrong end of the stick for once.
Technically Germany was the agressor against France at the start of WW1, but you have to realize that if they went off fighting the Russians they'd expose their backs to the French. France and Russia were allies and France was still looking for a revanche. The Germans sent France an ultimatum demanding that they'd stay neutral while they were going to war with Russia; if France didn't respond they'd be considered hostile. After war with Russia was inevitable, they didn't have any other choice really.
On that point, as was mentioned before Wilhelm II did his honest best to defuse the situation and had pleaded the czar to leave Austria alone.
To a certain extent, I can see your point. However, I'm not sure exactly how Germany triggered Dresden - it's a historical fact that German towns were bombed first. The German government asked the British to halt the bombings of German towns repeatedly, before German bombs fell on Britain.
The German government asked the British to halt the bombings of German towns repeatedly, before German bombs fell on Britain.
the bombing off german towns actually saved the raf as german bombers where hitting raf airfields and doing a damn good job of it before hitler ordered bombs to fall on british towns as revenge.
Anyway that wasn't really my point, i was more making the comparison in terms of blame but i think the comparison works in terms of a trigger as well, it wasn't so much a direct trigger to bomb dreseden but ww2 up to dresden did build up some vengeful attitudes, i have always thought dresden was wrong but there was some strategic value in destroying it, it was full of industry not military but in its own indirect way it helped the nazi war machine.
Its too simplistic to say dresden couldn't have happened without ww2, but in terms of the blame game they partially brought it upon themselves and well by the time of dresden they where dropping bombs on our towns, even if we did start the bombing off towns they did start the war...
Maybe it doesn't work so much as a direct trigger, more of an indirect trigger... i was more making the point in terms of blame rather than direct triggers...
Edit
Technically Germany was the agressor against France at the start of WW1, but you have to realize that if they went off fighting the Russians they'd expose their backs to the French.
I think the fact that both france and russia mobilised thier forces first cancels out the fact that germany struck first, infact i think you could call mobilisation of both forces as much a declaration of war as an attack across the border...
Last edited by LittleGrizzly; 07-31-2008 at 06:21.
In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!
Yes.
By that point in the war, I'd disagree. The sheer extent of the bombing, and the specific design of the bombing, as well as statements by Arthur Harris himself, show that the bombing of Dresden was intended to terrorize and destroy people. Of course, you could argue that there was strategic value in destroying it to show the Soviets what the Allied bombing machine could do, which was part of the objective (as I recall).but there was some strategic value in destroying it
Indirect trigger I agree with.Maybe it doesn't work so much as a direct trigger, more of an indirect trigger... i was more making the point in terms of blame rather than direct triggers...
By that point in the war, I'd disagree. The sheer extent of the bombing, and the specific design of the bombing, as well as statements by Arthur Harris himself, show that the bombing of Dresden was intended to terrorize and destroy people.
I have to be honest i wasn't sure on the date for dresden, if were talking 44 there probably wasn't much strategic gain, though i would assume just through indirect means it would have slowed the nazi war machine, if dresden was purely to terrorize and to show off to the soviets then it is an even worse decision than i thought originally, its seems much nicer to imagine a hothead seething with rage causing atrocities than it being simple cold calculated political decision
Though i would still assume revenge played its part in helping get the plan through its various stages
Yes.
Did Britian pull off a brilliant move by bombing german towns and thus making hitler change targets ?
or was it because british pilots didn't have the means to get to better targets, i seem to remember hearing we had a problem flying too far into germany because we wouldn't have enough fuel to get back, or was it simply a way to strike back ?
Last edited by LittleGrizzly; 07-31-2008 at 06:42.
In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!
From what i understand, which ill admit isn't all that much, france and russia could simply not afford to keep thier forces mobilised for too long without using them, the simple cost of mobilising thier entire forces meant that it was an aggressive move, there is no way they would have mobilised thier forces without using them, or not logically...
this has been my understanding of the subject for sometime, im prepared to admit i may be wrong here...
In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!
The deal was very harsh though, cripling their economy by taking Alsace-Lorraine or however it's called (that thing still isn't solved eh?), and imposing on them huge payments. I'd call it about as unfair as Versailles. And again both parties were the agressors in this conflict (just as in WWI)
I didn't see the wording as insulting, and I'm sorry you did. We all know they weren't al germans, but I don't see Germany's right to go to war. They accepted Versailles, like it or not, you're bound by such a treaty then. Annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia and about ignoring every part of said treaty is no casus belli in my opinion.
That's why I rate the deliberate bombing of cities (by Allies and Axis) as war crimes. But tell me, who began the bombing on cities? Where it the Germans when bombing the Netherlands into surrender, or accidently targetting London, or were it the Allies? I'm not sure here.
I think Louis is referring to the fact that the Nazi's saw themselves as the pinnacle of German civilization. Ofcourse we all realise now that's utter .......
Last edited by Conradus; 07-31-2008 at 09:11.
No, PJ is quite correct on that one, the support also consisted of a considerble unwanted export of stalinism, something that was utterly detrimental to about all factions in the Spanish Republic.
That had of course something to do with that the Soviets were the only one supplying the Republic with about anything, while the "neutral" nations did in practice support the fascists, even long after the popular support was in favour of the Republic.
Isn't it ironic that the "red scare" forced all red factions into the really scary reds, making them stronger?
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
Oh dear oh dear Mars is off on the bombing again .I'm not sure exactly how Germany triggered Dresden - it's a historical fact that German towns were bombed first. The German government asked the British to halt the bombings of German towns repeatedly, before German bombs fell on Britain.
So then Germany repeatedly asked Britian .....isn't that nice , isn't that civilised , isn't it oh so pleasant , isn't it bollox .
After German bombing of Polish cities pressure was applied to get an agreement not to bomb civilian targets . The agreement was reached after much delay by Germany but was conditional , Germany quickly broke those conditions by bombing the hell out of Rotterdam .
So Mars Germany did trigger the bombing campaign that led to Dresden and no government was going to agree to another new deal when Germany had shown how quickly it was willing to throw deals out of the window .
Is this amature night or something? You're making plenty of conclusions based off of very little real knowledge.
Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet Union founded many communist movements abroad and took control of most organic ones, often through subversion and violence.
General Soviet Policy:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign...e_World_War_II
Spanish Communists:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_civil_war
(Pay careful attention to this next one.)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
http://www.osa.ceu.hu/files/holdings...140-8-69.shtml
German Communists:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany
The Comintern:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
http://webpages.dcu.ie/~sheehanh/comintern1.htm
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...International#
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUScomintern.htm
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi..._Popular_Front
General:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
http://science.jrank.org/pages/8762/...rnational.html
As can be seen, the communist movements of Europe and around the world came increasingly under control of the Soviet Union. Those who didn't fall in line were eventually purged or moved to far left parties operating under the socialist banner.
Last edited by PanzerJaeger; 07-31-2008 at 17:06.
First of all, I'm going to make it clear to Tribsey that I'm not responding to his posts, or even reading them. If anyone else wants to have a debate, go ahead.
It was February of 1944.
Well, they did bomb Berlin intentionally. I'd like to make it clear that I don't think there's anything wrong with bombing a city in times of war as long as (at that time) they had followed Hague 1907.Did Britian pull off a brilliant move by bombing german towns and thus making hitler change targets ?
It was harsh, but I don't recall Germany forcing the French army (or navy) to disband (though, to be fair, it was already in ruins). Indeed, Bismarck was against making the treaty that harsh, but he was essentially forced to.
Austria was annexed by popular opinion of the Austrian people (I don't agree with the annexation as I firmly believe in the Kleindeutschland concept), and the Sudentenland was German territory in the eyes of the people at the time. Germany never should have annexed the rest of the Bohemian part of Czechoslovakia, however, I agree with you.Annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia and about ignoring every part of said treaty is no casus belli in my opinion.
The British bombed German towns before Germany bombed British towns. I only rate the bombing as a war crime if it fits Hague 1907.That's why I rate the deliberate bombing of cities (by Allies and Axis) as war crimes. But tell me, who began the bombing on cities? Where it the Germans when bombing the Netherlands into surrender, or accidently targetting London, or were it the Allies? I'm not sure here.
Actually, and bear with me here, I think that the bombing of Rotterdam could have been justified in the same vein as Hiroshima and Nagasaki - it may have saved the lives of people who otherwise would have died by forcing a surrender. Just a thought.
I hope he is.I think Louis is referring to the fact that the Nazi's saw themselves as the pinnacle of German civilization.![]()
Last edited by Evil_Maniac From Mars; 07-31-2008 at 17:08.
Imposing harsh conditions in 1871 is alrighty, while doing so in 1918 is being shortsighted ?
1871 led to 1918, period. If it wasn't for the Archiduke and Serbia, France and Germany would have warred eachother for another reason.
The whole French ideology was back then was aimed at this war. Everyone was eagerly waiting for it, from the socialists patriots to the die-hard far right nationalists.
Germany knew it and prepared itself, as any nation would have done.
Unhappilly, the winners, mostly led by France, just did what Germany has done 50 years earlier. Call it being arrogant, short sighted or whatever, I think I would have done the same thing.
Germany, despite its glorious past and civilisation was widely seen as an agressive nation that deserved to be trampled. Invading Belgium, sunking civilian ships and making dubious diplomatic move probably justified these harsh conditions back then.
Thats fine , it isn't going to stop me rippng your nonsense about the strategic bombing campaign to pieces every time you post stuff that is clearly of the bollox variety .First of all, I'm going to make it clear to Tribsey that I'm not responding to his posts, or even reading them.
Which when it comes to that particular subject happens to be just about every time you write about it .
Like this rubbish...
The allies only bombed german towns after the Germans bombed allied towns , and they only bombed German towns after Germany agreed to not bomb allied towns and then bombed allied towns .The British bombed German towns before Germany bombed British towns.
Oh and only germany bombed towns by using a tourist guide to determine which ones were more culturally interesting to attack .
Last edited by Tribesman; 08-01-2008 at 00:31.
Is this amature night or something? You're making plenty of conclusions based off of very little real knowledge.
Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet Union founded many communist movements abroad and took control of most organic ones, often through subversion and violence.
I don't think anyone doubts that they helped fund these groups and had influence over them, but these people where not there to hand over power to the soviet union any more than franco would have handed over power to Hitler for his support or leaders in latin america hand over power to usa because of help getting into power. As clearly shown by the example of china...
In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!
*Ahem*
First of all, Meneldil, I see your point.
Second, I'll get to the whole "who bombed who first" tomorrow, because I'm exhausted now.
I'm sorry that just isn't correct. It was exactly the Chinese disaster that caused Stalin to tighten his control over foreign communists. Had they prevailed in Germany and especially Spain, they would have been direct proxies of the USSR, much like the Warsaw Pact nations.
http://www.osa.ceu.hu/files/holdings...140-8-69.shtmlBy the spring of 1937 the intervention of the USSR and of
the Comintern as such was having profound effects not only upon
the conduct of the war but on the Republican regime. On the
military level, the Comintern organized through national
communist parties the famous International Brigades, which
eventually numbered some 35,000 men, including future leaders of
East and West European communist parties; these "Spaniards" (for
example, Laszlo Rajk of Hungary) were later systematically
purged during the Stalinist show trials of the late 1940s in the
East European countries.
On the ideological level this intervention was represented
by the appointment of political commissars throughout the
Republican (or "Loyalist") forces, by the export to Spain of
Soviet secret police activities and personnel, and by attacks on
Trotskyites and other non-Stalinist revolutionary forces. This
last policy culminated in May 1937, when the Communists and the
Catalan government (clearly under Soviet pressure) first
provoked the CNT Anarchists and the anti-Stalinist militants of
the POUM to armed resistance and then used the excuse to outlaw
and crush them. The leader of the POUM, the former communist
Andres Nin, disappeared, and most historians accept that he was
killed by NKVD agents. Questioned about this case in 1983 by
the exiled Romanian scholar Lilly Marcou, Carrillo said that he
did not know who had assassinated Nin, though he had tried to
find out. One could, he said, advance the hypothesis, no more
than that, that "it was the Soviets present in Spain who decided
on and organized the death of Nin."
The "May Days" in Barcelona in 1937 brought a turning point
in other ways. The left-Socialist Prime Minister, Largo
Caballero, who opposed the action against the poumistas, had
to resign and was replaced by the right-socialist Juan Negrin,
who proved a more accommodating partner for the PCE (and the
Kremlin). This is linked with the fact that the Kremlin's
policies on the civil war were governed by Soviet state
interests and had little to do with support for the cause of
revolution. Similarly, the PCE's domestic policies during the
war were notably moderate compared with those of the
anarcho-syndicalists, the POUM, and the PSOE: the objective was
to win the war, not to bring about radical reforms, let alone
social revolution. At the same time, the PCE, through its
organizational strength and the zeal of its members, was a
leading force in the Republican war effort, even after Stalin
ordered the withdraw of the International Brigades and ended
Soviet arms shipments in November 1938. This dilemma was
expressed by Fernando Claudin, a member of the PCE Executive
Committee until he was expelled in the early 1960s for
expounding prematurely "Eurocommunist" ideas (he now heads a
research center for the PSOE). In his critique of the history
of the world communist movement he wrote:
All the sacrifice and heroism of three years went down with
a policy that, from the first day of the civil war, had
turned its back on the essential demands of Spanish
revolutionary reality in order to adapt itself to the
international strategy of Stalin. . . .
Stalin helped the Spanish Republic in order that it might
prolong its existence and arrive at a compromise solution
acceptable to the "Western democracies," within the
framework of a system of anti-Hitler alliances, and not
that it might win.[4]
Had they prevailed in Germany and especially Spain, they would have been direct proxies of the USSR, much like the Warsaw Pact nations.
I disagree entirely, people are mostly obsessed with power, what in gods name was going to make these foriegn communists work hard and then just hand it all over to the SU, they had thier own ideas thier own plans, they could have had good relations with su but they would have been under the su's control as much as france was under usa's control after ww2
I think the warsaw pact nations just proves the point even more, the only way for the su to rule over foriegn nations was through a huge army threatening any descent, and as this was one big land mass in eastern europe it was possible, but spain was half of europe away, through a load of countries or a damn long boat ride away, as shown by countless examples communists would not hand over power to the SU
In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!
So was the treatment of Germany harsher after the end of WWI or WWII?
And if it was harsher after WWII, which did not lead to another world war, does it not seem to say that one must destroy an enemy entirely and not just partly, as was the case after WWI?
Maybe the allies were to lenient on Germany after WWI, and should have partitioned it then. Those idiots in Germany that led to WWII knew of the horrific scale of world war, and they started it. They had seen hell and again brought it to the world. That leaves me precious little sympathy for them. They just thought they could win this time, so it became necessary to more forcefully persuade them against ever thinking about it again. Bring back some of the hell they unleashed to their own doorstep.
And on air bombing, it seems Germany started that on Poland, then agreed not to bomb civilian targets with Britain and France, then proceeded to break that agreement by bombing Rotterdam.
Well, except for Poland and Rotterdam...To a certain extent, I can see your point. However, I'm not sure exactly how Germany triggered Dresden - it's a historical fact that German towns were bombed first. The German government asked the British to halt the bombings of German towns repeatedly, before German bombs fell on Britain.
Again, I've little sympathy for when you dance with the devil and lose.If you want to appeal to emotion, how many of your ancestors were tortured in Lubyanka? How many of your ancestors were shipped to Gulags? How many of your ancestors perished because of famine or fire? How many of your ancestors were conscripted into the Wehrmacht and sent to the hell that was the Russian steppes? Don't talk to me about death.
CR
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
I'd go so far as to say WWI. Why? Because after WWII we had a functioning economy, and an enemy was presented to us in the Soviets. Not only that, our former enemies encouraged and backed our choice of enemy. Whereas after WWI, we had a destroyed economy, no hope, no way out. We were offered a way out, and we took it, as anyone would have done.
Germany was partitioned after WWI.Maybe the allies were to lenient on Germany after WWI, and should have partitioned it then.
*Sigh...*That leaves me precious little sympathy for them. They just thought they could win this time, so it became necessary to more forcefully persuade them against ever thinking about it again.
I'll remind you of that statement next time America goes to war anywhere...
Still illegal and disgusting, regardless of your moralizing.Bring back some of the hell they unleashed to their own doorstep.
I've explained Rotterdam, and I have to leave home soon, so I'll address the rest later.Well, except for Poland and Rotterdam...
And if the devil hits you over the head and drags you off to fight his wars? Or if you never entered his lair in the first place, and worked an ordinary respectable job in an ordinary neighbourhood? What then? Or is it the fault of the ordinary German?Again, I've little sympathy for when you dance with the devil and lose.
By that logic, if I were going to punish my puppy for pissing on the carpet even though it actually did no such thing, I should really beat the hell out of it so it doesn't grow up and attack me for it.
No, a far more reasonable approach would have been to make a just treaty that accurately represented history, and not to cripple a nation that was not responsible for the war and whose leader was the only to make an attempt to stop it.
More rubbish
Illegal under what law ?Still illegal and disgusting, regardless of your moralizing.
Oh yeah there was no law covering it
I've explained Rotterdam
Yet facts about the event do not support your explanation in the slightest .
@Dresden.
I cannot understand how anyone would even try to excuse the firebombing of Dresden. It doesn't matter how many civilians the Germans bombed. By doing exactly the same thing the Germans were doing, the Allies were just as much in the wrong. The proper response to something as morally reprehensible as massacring civilians is not to do it back to them; the proper response is to keep the moral high ground by not doing what the enemy does.
I hate to pull out an old cliche, but two wrongs really don't make a right.
Again with this?
-Hague Convention...Article 25: The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
Article 26: The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.
Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.
The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.
The first one is debatable, although a reading of Shimoda is in order for anyone interested. The second two define Dresden and other allied bombings as war crimes.
Last edited by PanzerJaeger; 08-01-2008 at 20:21.
And how exactly does that apply to Dresden ?Again with this?
Oh yeah it doesn't does it , and even if it did apply in general it doesn't apply on specifics , Dresden was a garrison town , it was defended , it contained arms industries and materials of war , it was used for military operations and the aiming point for the bombardment was chosen due to the location of the infrastructure that was a vital component of the war effort that was being used to facilitate offensive and defensive operations .
Who is trying to excuse it , everyone will say it wasn't nice , it wasn't a really pleasant thing, however people cannot say it was illegal as there was no law which made it illegal .I cannot understand how anyone would even try to excuse the firebombing of Dresden.
They cannot say it was a war crime when it fits within the laws of war
When people repeatedly maintain that it was illegal and a war crime in the complete absence of any laws making it illegal and a war crime then they are showing ignorance of the legislation .
When they persist in their claims after already being shown that they are ignorant of the laws then it implies that they are more than just ignorant of the legislation , it shows that they are unable to learn and adjust their preconceptions .
Bookmarks