The Wehrmacht, History, Myth, Reality

[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.....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

So you think that if someone starts a war, their people are all fair game? So whenever Poland started a war, the Polish people should have been driven away and slaughtered? Not to mention that there were a fair number of Germans in Poland before the war.

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.

Driving people out of a location on the basis of their ethnicity. Poland did this.

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.

The difference there is that we Germans have acknowledged it. Poland, if you are anything to go by, steadfastly denies it or plays it down.

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.

The German people, even those living in Poland before the war, deserved punishment for Nazism? Death, destruction? Even the women and the children, children born long after the Nazis came to power?

You're a xenophobe, Krook, and nothing more. I'm quickly losing patience here.

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.....

If we're talking only about German-British raids, you will find that firstly, this isn't true, and secondly, you may want to check out what Frederick Taylor had to say on the subject.

[Strike For The South]

I think that with a birds eye view, a litany of scoures, and 70 years of hindsight it is quite easy to say that the German Wehrmacht was an evil thing and the men whom populated knew what was happening and were happy to take part in it.

While I'm sure the testrone pumping jingonism that it offered was appealing to many young men (esp. considering they had grown up in an embarassed Germany) and some did belive in the superman myth. I don't think it's that far a stretch to assume many men joined becuase they felt a duty and an honor to the fatherland. Well that and there friends were doing it.

When you acknowledge that the atrocities were comitted and seen by a very small number of men. Many of the regular soliders simply put it out of mind or thought it was necesarry.

While this may seem like flimsy reasoning. I am always reminded of the American interment of Americans (I don't like using the term Japaneese, It sterlizes a horrid chapter in our history). The USA defender of freedom, country that was in no danger of being attacked from the ground took and held some of its citzens for four years. On the basis that they might be spying. Nevermind that German and Italian Americans were spared from this sort of interment.

If the Americans had lost no doubt that would've been a Japaneese headline.

I'm not making an excuse for the attrocities just saying that the whole suituation may be a bit more idosynchratic than this disscussion is making it out to be.

[Papewaio]

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.
\.

No decent laws international or otherwise make it fine to commit ethnic cleansing. Just because a nation with an ethnic majority of A attacks a country with ethnic majority B, does not mean that latter on B can wipe out any members of A who are in that country. Ethnic cleansing is not justified as a reciprocal arrangement.

Also mass murder of a ethnic group is not considered fine if members of the ethnic group had been aggressive to the killing party. By that definition all it would have taken is a single Pole to have been aggressive to a German somewhere prior to WWII and then all the killings of Poles in Poland was justified. I don't think that argument holds much water at all.

[Tribesman]

Defeated agressor is not a part of international law - everything can be done with its territory.

Its amazing, our resident Xenophobe Pole demostrates that not only does he not know history he demonstrastes that he doesn't know law either.

So I take it the attempt to rewrite the law you are making must be a reaction to the realisation that your version of history was shown to be bollox.

[KrooK]

slaughtered

When a (&(*Y)_ that German ())_I*_)*( were slaughetered? Tell me please. They really deserve it but they weren't. Germans started ethnic clearings. Into 1918-1939 Germans were minority but did everything they can against Poland. After war (and killing 1/6 of population in Poland) it could not be tolerated and Germans were sent to todays Germany. Due to German agression Poland lost whole east and Poles from that areas were forced to leave their homes and move west (or were sent to Syberia then 1/3 died). Most Germans support Hitler and support that agression or had benefits from it. So that they had to be punished. As I wrote - punishment was generally light.
All in all - Germany lost its territory because of Hitler. Blame him - rest was just a consequence.

[Husar]

Ah, I see, so basically you're saying you slaughtered noone even though it would have been perfectly fine to slaughter everybody and it could have been blamed on Hitler anyway.

Just like all Poles can be blamed for stealing cars.

[Tribesman]

Due to German agression Poland lost whole east and Poles from that areas were forced to leave their homes and move west (or were sent to Syberia then 1/3 died).

But according to you the removal of those Poles from the east is entirely justified. or is it that it is only justified in your eyes if it is the poles removing other people.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

When a (&(*Y)_ that German ())_I*_)*( were slaughetered? Tell me please. They really deserve it but they weren't. Germans started ethnic clearings. Into 1918-1939 Germans were minority but did everything they can against Poland. After war (and killing 1/6 of population in Poland) it could not be tolerated and Germans were sent to todays Germany. Due to German agression Poland lost whole east and Poles from that areas were forced to leave their homes and move west (or were sent to Syberia then 1/3 died). Most Germans support Hitler and support that agression or had benefits from it. So that they had to be punished. As I wrote - punishment was generally light.
All in all - Germany lost its territory because of Hitler. Blame him - rest was just a consequence.

Everything aside from your second last sentence is just completely .

[KrooK]

The Polish - Hitler Pact of 1934. The grandstanding of the ferociously nationalistic Polish dictatorship, and their preference of Hitler over Stalin, twarted Western diplomatic efforts to maintain security in Europe:

http://books.google.com/books?id=nOA...mament&f=false


And did I mention yet how Poland, together with Hitler, feasted on the flesh of Czechoslovakia in 1938?

Sorry Louis - did not check that link because I see you wrote complete bullshit. Poland has similar pacts with III Reich and USSR. These countries were neighbour of Poland so its normal that neighbours sign non agressive treaties. Today Poland has this kind of pacts with Germany and practically all its neighbours.
And this pact did not break security into Europe. Other pact did it - pact into Locarno from 16.10.1925. France (oficially still ally of Poland) agreed that polish-german border can be changed (but french - german border can not) and France will not be preventing it. This completely broke Versal pact. For me pact when you say something like "do whatever you can with my ally but don't take me" is worse than pact something like "you are free men and we are - let's don't fight each other".

And Poland was same dictatorship like ... France into time of De Gaulle. Or maybe even not - Pilsudski was great lider and he was not a dictator/president/prime minister. De Gaulle was president.
Leaving a bit from our topic I would like to say that I like more Poland into years 1918-1939 than France 1918-1939 (France is proof that democracy full of populists became surrealism).

Talking about "feasting on the flesh of Czechoslovakia in 1938" is another proof of your lack of sources.
Its absolutely truth that polish army took territories called "Zaolzie" at polish - czech border. Question is .... why? Because into 1919 Czech army attacked Poland and took these areas. It was typical treason - Poland and Czechoslovakia had an agreements that area will be divided by ethnical border (there were about 140.000 Poles, 30.000 Czechs and 22.000 Germans). Czechs broke that agreements.
Into 1938 Poland wanted its area (historically it was polish area too). So all in all - Poles took what has been stolen earlier. Ahh one more - due to Poland people there were living into free country for a year longer. Otherwise they would be part of IIIrd Reich.

[Brenus]

“And did I mention yet how Poland, together with Hitler, feasted on the flesh of Czechoslovakia in 1938” Or the support of Poland for Hitler intervention in Spain? Reason why during a period of time the French feared that the German attack on Poland was just a trap to attract the French Army out of the Maginot line…

The general admiration for the Wehrmacht and the “forgiveness” of its role in the repression and in the extermination is due to the need of Germany in the European Defence against the Red.
First was the fact that even the former enemies of the III Reich Germany accepted as a truth the superiority of the German soldier in combat. I did.
Then, the problem was to exonerate the German soldiers to crimes and to use these qualities at the new Alliance benefit…
The price to paid was amnesia. Well, it did work for Austria declared the 1st victim of Hitler, forgetting the real history (and Kurt Waldheim (sp?) becoming First Secretary of the UN).
But because now the RED are not as such a danger, we are allowed to have access to others witnesses, archives, and where the Red Army was deny of any heroism the Russian Army now heiress of the Tsarist Army which defeated Napoleon is recognised for what it was…

When I was doing some research about the Colonial Troops for another subject I discovered that between 1,500 – 3,000 black Africans Prisoners Of War had been killed by the Heer.
And French NCO and Officers who protested just joined the dead.
The casualties for the Troupes Coloniales during the Battle of France are 17,000 KIA or MIA.
The total casualties of the entire French Army during the battle of France is between 90,000 – 120,000.

Ironically, the first German defeats (in front of the French Army: Hannut and Gembloux) were forgotten thanks to the speed of the French and British armies defeat.
So the myth of the invincible Werhmacht was created.
Clean and nice. Rommel shoot a French General refusing to surrender but under the protection of a white flag during negociations? He is still seen as a perfect German General.

[NimitsTexan]

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.

Germans terror-bombed Warsaw and Rotterdam to force their surrender. They even wiped out Guernica, mostly just for the heck of it. All of these long before the Allies had started serious bombing campaigns against the Germans.

(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.

That was a purely political decisions. Hitler still hoping for a negotiated peace with Britain, seemd to recognize that wiping out downtown London would not endear Germany to the British hearts. He also did not want to encourage British air attacks on Berlin (which it was feared would demoralize the German people).

As a reaction churchill ordered Bomber command to attack Berlin

British strategic bombing was initially intended to be precision bombing, but the British discovered they had trouble hitting the right city at night, much less an individual target set in the city. Bomber Command, initially at least, simply made a virtue of necessity with area bombing.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Rotterdam to force their surrender.

The bombing of Rotterdamn was actually probably a miscommunication between German commanders. A hell of a miscommunication, but still...

They even wiped out Guernica, mostly just for the heck of it.

That was technically under Nationalist Spanish command.

British strategic bombing was initially intended to be precision bombing, but the British discovered they had trouble hitting the right city at night, much less an individual target set in the city. Bomber Command, initially at least, simply made a virtue of necessity with area bombing.

In other words, since they figured out they had a tough time hitting the factories they decided to demolish the whole city.

[KrooK]

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.

Into 1939 at the beginning of defence of Warsaw hospitals had big red crosses on its roof. Germans used them as a target. Yep - and of course it has not been planned.

[Furunculus]

from someone who appears to have a ethno/cultural chip nearly as large as krooks, that's pretty rich!

[Samurai Waki]

More to the point, the Soviets didn't really have an effective Strategic bomber force, but they were still fully capable of leveling Dresden. The He-111 may not have been a big bomber, but it's payload could be significant enough to do considerable damage if enough were deployed to an area that needed to be 'softened up'. The Lancasters and B-17 were only marginally better suited to the role of wide spread destruction, not because they carried that much bigger of a payload than the 111, but because they could travel much, much further into industrialized areas, that the German Bombers, quite frankly, couldn't get to.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

More to the point, the Soviets didn't really have an effective Strategic bomber force, but they were still fully capable of leveling Dresden.

The Allies destroyed Dresden, unless you are talking about some incident which I haven't heard of.