No better than them

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I certainly do not maintain that the German people in any way "had it coming"; on the contrary, they were victims of a terrible atrocity through, for the most part, no fault of their own. But they have Hitler to blame for bringing down destruction upon them, not the Western Allies.

In criminal law, you are held accountable for your own actions, regardless of who began the series of events. This is like a robber breaking into your home and vandalizing it, causing horrific damage - but you still manage to subdue and restrain him. Instead of waiting for the police to arrive, you then shoot him. Understandable? Maybe, maybe not. Responsible and just? Certainly not.

Was Hitler to blame? Indirectly, yes, I agree. But ultimately and directly, the Allies were accountable for their own actions.

[Sarmatian]

In criminal law, you are held accountable for your own actions, regardless of who began the series of events. This is like a robber breaking into your home and vandalizing it, causing horrific damage - but you still manage to subdue and restrain him. Instead of waiting for the police to arrive, you then shoot him. Understandable? Maybe, maybe not. Responsible and just? Certainly not.

Was Hitler to blame? Indirectly, yes, I agree. But ultimately and directly, the Allies were accountable for their own actions.

Unfortunately, criminal law get's thrown out the window in war time, especially in case of a war like WW2. For many of the nations in eastern Europe it was literally life or death fight. It wasn't merely an occupation of your country by the enemy. Using every method you can against the aggressor, distasteful as it may be, it's certainly preferential to being totally exterminated or living as a slave race.

Yes, there have been atrocities committed by the allies. Unfortunately, that's common in war. Find me a "clean" war, where one side is totally innocent of war crimes. Go as far back as Alexander. Why do you think no one mentions German and Austrian crimes in the WW1? At least in Europe, similar countries were involved. Central Powers lost. If it was about let's place the blame on the loser, the same could have been done in WW1. And believe me, there were many atrocities committed by German and Austrian armies. For example, Austrian army setting fire under the bed of a wounded Serbian soldier and roasting him alive. Actually, you don't have to believe me, here is the official report made by Archibald Reiss, famous criminologist and Professor at the University of Lausanne. Very popular rhyme among Austrian and German soldiers during invasion of Serbia was "Serben muss sterben". And yet in Serbia, no one really holds a grudge against Germans or Austrians for WW1 (actually no one holds a grudge against Germans for WW2, only a grudge against Nazis). Why? Well, because these things happen in war, and considering the scale of the war, all those crimes, horrific as they have been, can all be considered sporadic or isolated incidents, compared to methodical, planned, systematic exterminations performed by Nazi Germany in the WW2. Yes there have been Allied crimes, as there have war crimes committed by each side in each war in the history of humanity, all the way back to the time when we first figured out how profitable it is to kill each other.

And no, treaty of Versailles is no excuse. It was much milder in terms then treaty of Brest-Litovsk or the treaty that Germany intended to force on the Entente had it won the war, according to German documents.

In the end, when you consider ideology behind it, scale of the crimes, who was the aggressor etc... it's clearly seen that Nazi Germany can not be absolved from blame. But keep in mind, Nazi Germany and Nazis, not Germany and Germans.

[Koga No Goshi]

In criminal law, you are held accountable for your own actions, regardless of who began the series of events. This is like a robber breaking into your home and vandalizing it, causing horrific damage - but you still manage to subdue and restrain him. Instead of waiting for the police to arrive, you then shoot him. Understandable? Maybe, maybe not. Responsible and just? Certainly not.

Was Hitler to blame? Indirectly, yes, I agree. But ultimately and directly, the Allies were accountable for their own actions.

How was Hitler "indirectly" to blame for anything? Are you implying he wasn't a dictator, wasn't in authoritarian command, that a lot was being carried out without his knowledge or input?

It's not the call for fairness that irritates anyone. It's the constant subtle defense of Nazi Germany and Hitler that offends people, which yourself and others have wormed around in various pretzel shapes to do while still making the pretense of a rational discussion.

If someone wants to say Hitler was nothing specially bad, come out and just say it.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

How was Hitler "indirectly" to blame for anything? Are you implying he wasn't a dictator, wasn't in authoritarian command, that a lot was being carried out without his knowledge or input?

Saying that Hitler was directly to blame for the expulsion of the Germans from the East is a bit much, regardless of how much you despise him - which I do. Did he provoke the Allies to do it? Yes, you could say that. That still doesn't mean that he committed the crime of expelling Germans from the East - unless you misunderstood my post.

Remember, I'm referring to the expulsion of Germans from the East, which Hitler was not guilty of. I am not referring to the Holocaust, which Hitler was certainly guilty of.

It's not the call for fairness that irritates anyone.

Then we have reached an accord.

It's the constant subtle defense of Nazi Germany and Hitler that offends people, which yourself and others have wormed around in various pretzel shapes to do while still making the pretense of a rational discussion.

Hardly. Why would I defend scum like Hitler? He is the reason why many of my family members did not live to die of old age. The Nazis are a large part of the reason why German was in ruin after the war. I would never defend Hitler or the Nazi Party. I've stated repeatedly in this thread and others that I'm glad the Allies won the war.

However, blame should go where blame is due, and you cannot directly blame Hitler for the expulsion of Germans from the East. He was a leading factor in provoking the expulsions, in the same way that you could say Versailles was a leading cause of the Second World War, but he was not, himself, guilty of that crime.

I would be interested in hearing how people think Hitler himself committed the crime of the expulsions. I can understand how he could have provoked them, but I think that it's fairly obvious that...

It was the largest of a number of expulsions in various Central and Eastern European countries affecting a number of nationalities. The Allies had agreed on a policy of expulsions, and the Soviet Union implemented the policy with American and British acquiescence. The policy had been agreed on by the Allies as part of the reconfiguration of postwar Europe.

You seem to think that I'm somehow excusing Hitler of some crime, and I'd be very interested as to how you came to that conclusion, because I, frankly, don't have a clue.

[Incongruous]

How was Hitler "indirectly" to blame for anything? Are you implying he wasn't a dictator, wasn't in authoritarian command, that a lot was being carried out without his knowledge or input?

It's not the call for fairness that irritates anyone. It's the constant subtle defense of Nazi Germany and Hitler that offends people, which yourself and others have wormed around in various pretzel shapes to do while still making the pretense of a rational discussion.

If someone wants to say Hitler was nothing specially bad, come out and just say it.

Yeah Koga, I love the Nazis!
Just like I love those evil Jihad Palestinians!


Churchill could have said, no, simple and straight to the Czechs, thus absolving himself of the crime, he could have said, no, to the Russian deportations and mass murders, but he did not he thought all this was great.

Now, I am eternally greatful to the man and his men for saving my country from the Nazis, but great men all do great evil, and for the sake of those killed, their hands tied and children crying, during the war
I think it is healthy to discuss the issue. I think we can agree that killing children is killing children, no matter what?

Now, we can blame Hitler, just like the prison guards blamed Hitler, its just as pathetic. Those to blame are held much closer to the chest.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yeah Koga, I love the Nazis!
Just like I love those evil Jihad Palestinians!


Churchill could have said, no, simple and straight to the Czechs, thus absolving himself of the crime, he could have said, no, to the Russian deportations and mass murders, but he did not he thought all this was great.

Now, I am eternally greatful to the man and his men for saving my country from the Nazis, but great men all do great evil, and for the sake of those killed, their hands tied and children crying, during the war
I think it is healthy to discuss the issue. I think we can agree that killing children is killing children, no matter what?

Now, we can blame Hitler, just like the prison guards blamed Hitler, its just as pathetic. Those to blame are held much closer to the chest.

Crimes of wartime hysteria and ethnically-based intolerance. Conceded. How this makes the Allies and the Axis moral equivalents has been the constant bone of contention throughout this thread. One of the ways to do that is to keep making argument after argument that Hitler was not really so bad as he's made out, another way would be to argue that the Germans in general were so little in the know about Nazi ideology and tactical/strategic actions that they can't be held responsible in general.

Bopa, when you have stories of several million ethnic Germans being rounded up just because they were ethnic Germans, and put into industrial ovens or gas chambers in a concerted effort by the Allied leadership, you will have my complete agreement that there was moral equivalence or that the sides were both so much into the dark gray that it's pointless to chastise the Nazi side of the conflict. What I don't understand is your rather obtuse stubbornness in not accepting the multiple concessions from several of us that "yes, what happened to evicted/harassed/persecuted ethnic Germans wasn't right" as not good enough, and keep railing and railing on this one point in a war where people were being incinerated in ovens and nuclear blasts and metropolis firebombing air raids. What are you looking for, exactly? If you think this one point completely tosses the "moral balance of the war" you won't get that out of me or most of the people here most likely. *Shrug*

[Incongruous]

Crimes of wartime hysteria and ethnically-based intolerance. Conceded. How this makes the Allies and the Axis moral equivalents has been the constant bone of contention throughout this thread. One of the ways to do that is to keep making argument after argument that Hitler was not really so bad as he's made out, another way would be to argue that the Germans in general were so little in the know about Nazi ideology and tactical/strategic actions that they can't be held responsible in general.

Bopa, when you have stories of several million ethnic Germans being rounded up just because they were ethnic Germans, and put into industrial ovens or gas chambers in a concerted effort by the Allied leadership, you will have my complete agreement that there was moral equivalence or that the sides were both so much into the dark gray that it's pointless to chastise the Nazi side of the conflict. What I don't understand is your rather obtuse stubbornness in not accepting the multiple concessions from several of us that "yes, what happened to evicted/harassed/persecuted ethnic Germans wasn't right" as not good enough, and keep railing and railing on this one point in a war where people were being incinerated in ovens and nuclear blasts and metropolis firebombing air raids. What are you looking for, exactly? If you think this one point completely tosses the "moral balance of the war" you won't get that out of me or most of the people here most likely. *Shrug*

What I want is for you to accept that the Allies commited acts of mas murder after the war and agreed to them months in advance, that these acts were not required and that the blood was on teh Allies' hands.

Now, as you know, I think the U.S is an agressive and Imperialistic state, who's actions have proven that it holds no qualms in switching sides and tossing out morality whenever it suits, be that government Democrat or Republican, in fact I think the Dems are little worse on that count. Now I know the Allies were not fighting because they hated fascism, because they eneded up supporting it not long after, indeed, America got nice a close with not only Pinochet but also Franco. So no, I do not see one ounce of moral superiority on the side of the leaders of the West. Sure Hitler was way more crazy, but subsequent history has shown, no more evil