Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, I know quite a bit about WW II -- and about most of the wars that the US has fought in. That's beside the point, however.
You cannot absolve the German people, military or civilians, from complicity in the Nazi atrocities by citing Allied atrocities. The Nazis always drew at least tacit support from the German populace. How can a handful of people control millions? They can't unless those millions allow them to do so.
The German people willingly participated in the growing anti-Semitism that culminated in Kristallnacht. Don't even try to claim that "the typical German soldier" was ignorant of what the SS did to POWs or to civilians in Poland and Russia or that the German civilians living with the neighborhoods of the death camps didn't know people were being butchered there. If they were willfully blind to the fact that thousands of people were brought into those camps but nobody ever came out, they couldn't stop breathing the stench from them.
Furthermore, the German officer corps aided and abetted the Nazis. Most were nominal party members, primarily because it was advantageous. Widespread resignations in response to Nazi anti-Semitism prior to the war never happened. If German officers didn't participate in atrocities, they certainly knew about them. The Wehrmacht officers only tried to get rid of Hitler when it became clear that Germany was going to lose the war -- and they didn't want to be sent to die in Russia.
The Nazis never made any bones about their nationalistic, militaristic, and racist aims, and the German people, civilian and military, accepted those aims. They liked the business opportunities made available from confiscated Jewish businesses. They liked the prosperity that was propped up by slave labor. They liked the luxuries made available by looting countries like Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway. They liked the opportunities afforded Nazi Party members and Wehrmacht officers.
There is nothing glorious or honorable about the Third Reich or its soldiers or the civilians who gave tacit approval by doing nothing to even try to stop the horror. The only Germans who resisted Hitler at all were the Communists, and like the Jews, they were either butchered outright or they disappeared into the gas ovens.
The majority of the German people did not support (reflected through their votes) Hitler's NSDAP. Even at the height of the party's political popularity (prior to Hitlers appointment as chancellor in 1933), 63 percent of the German people DID NOT vote their support of Hitler in the 1932 Reichstag elections. And this is before evil truth of the Nazis was exposed in any fashion to the German public. The Nazi Party was also extremely effective in keeping any potential backlash to their actions at bay by instilling fear through extreme punishment to anyone (German citizens included) that threatened the regime.
I was almost afraid to post this comment as I am sure I will be called a Nazi supporter for making it, rather than just presenting a piece of factual data. It is sad because is prevents us from understanding (and hopefully preventing) tragic atrocities in the future.
[quote]As for the historical significance, such ought to be self-evident, as the aforementioned document was issued to some soldiers who participated, in at the least, WWII, and outlined a code of conduct which was incongruous with the typical "Hollywood German" as portrayed in the typical modern era mainstream propaganda film which is often chock-full of anti-German vitriol.
Last night, I was watching the film, 'The Guns of Navarone'. One of the great commando films of all time. As I was watching I was impressed by how the SS and Wehrmacht Panzer (I think) officers were portrayed. I'd suggest a view. Nothing outlandishly ridiculous in terms of stereotype. Itw as an intelligent film in my estimation.I think it was a very even-handed portrayal of the German command. And one can see how the SS fellow operated by a different set of rules from his counterpart. Archival, anecdotal history and the Guns of Navarone are ideal sources for the conduct of the German Army in World War II.
Yes, dubious at best regarding Stalin's or anyone in the Red Army high command supporting much less sanctioning the actions of Soviet forces in Germany. Did Stalin care that is another matter, because it is clear that he didn't. Now if you have some evidence to support your claim I am more than willing to accept whatever the historical record demonstrates.
One the one hand we have comments saying that German populace have Hitler tacit approval yet here we have you saying Stalin didn't sanction the acts of Russian soldiers when they entered Germany.
As for the historical significance, such ought to be self-evident, as the aforementioned document was issued to some soldiers who participated, in at the least, WWII, and outlined a code of conduct which was incongruous with the typical "Hollywood German" as portrayed in the typical modern era mainstream propaganda film which is often chock-full of anti-German vitriol.
Last night, I was watching the film, 'The Guns of Navarone'. One of the great commando films of all time. As I was watching I was impressed by how the SS and Wehrmacht Panzer (I think) officers were portrayed. I'd suggest a view. Nothing outlandishly ridiculous in terms of stereotype. Itw as an intelligent film in my estimation.I think it was a very even-handed portrayal of the German command. And one can see how the SS fellow operated by a different set of rules from his counterpart. Archival, anecdotal history and the Guns of Navarone are ideal sources for the conduct of the German Army in World War II.
And here we have it. Movies. From what frame of mind and in what perception could anyone watch the movie "The Guns of Navarone" and believe it to be anything more than a movie designed to make money? There was no documentary notion to the movie, it was a movie created for entertainment.
Aside from that, this thread was started not to apply the actions of the deranged to en entire population of people.
That is exactly what this is. A feeble and lame attempt to "rehabilitate the legacy of the Third Reich". Another attempt to re-write history.
Sorry. But mention the words "honor" "German" and "Soldier" in the same sentence and a certain irony and anger will emerge from the minds of any thinking man and woman. It's going to be a long time before that changes.
Same for pathetic attempts to redeem the South and their role in the Civil War or Texas' laughable new name for the Slave Trade.
It's all a bunch of revisionist BS.
In what part of the OPs start of the thread was there an attempt to rehabilitate anything. The first thing that started after the initial post was a lot of bigotry.
As for the thinking men and women, just who are they? Can you define who those people are or is it something you made up?
I wonder what goes on in the mind of those who think anyone killing another human being is doing so in an honorable way. Being honorable is not picking and choosing what genocide you decide is worthy of action. Being honorable is not propping up south east Asian dictators (what they were) and then in the end losing so badly there is still no recovery.
Woe is the person who applies a different perspective of honor only because one side won and the other lost.
Given that standard, since WWI we've managed in the end, to lose every war we've gotten into. For what, politics? Name a way we've gotten into that was done so for humanitarian reasons and not politics. There hasn't been one.
After WWI we went into Korea and accomplished exactly what? A stalemate? Such success. What we didn't do for our own country we managed to do with the Koreans, two countries for all practical purposes and with absolutely nothing we can do about it. Nukes and all.
Cuba. Such a resounding success there too. Such honorable intention huh? We helped subjugate and entire population to misery that continues to this day. How many people were simply erased from the planet by Castro, about 90 miles from our shores and we did and continue to do what?
Then we went into Vietnam. Over what? It was politics and we sure showed the world then too.
Then came Grenada and wow, we accomplished nothing. I know, lets all watch the movie "Breakheart Ridge" since the common sense here seems to be what comes out of movies.
Then Croatia and lets not forget they all appeared to be white. To hell with the Rwandans though.
Iraq. We sure made things so much better there. If we are so honorable and liked, then take a trip to Baghdad and bring back a souvenir. Be sure to take a head bag with you, you'll need it.
Afghanistan. Not quite out but being kicked out for all practical purposes.
So here is the thing. Who in their right mind would ever apply a less than honorable mention on the soldiers who fought in those wars or campaigns and say they all agreed with or gave tacit approval to the idiots that dreamed up the ideas that cost millions of lives? Somehow in the mind of some, it is easy to push down onto soldiers the ideologies and values of a country's leadership? If so that has to work for everyone, not just the ones you like.
Here is the jewel of the thread:
How can a handful of people control millions? They can't unless those millions allow them to do so.
That would be every government that has ever existed on the planet. Duh. There are how many millions of Americans and yet if Obama decides to bomb Syria it will happen. Apply the logic of the challenged above, that means every American agrees. Last time I checked, most did not. So?
How did Stalin control millions? Hello? Are we all in grade school here? Of course Hitler could control millions and he didn't need millions to agree with him to do it either. Like all bad things leaders do, they promise one thing and eventually deliver something completely different.
Take the USA. Our leaders have done what for the past decades? Promised people more and more benefits. How is that working out for you today?
You are promised food stamps if you are lazy and don't want to work. You get tax credits even if you pay no tax. You get eve extending unemployment checks long after whatever amount you paid in has been exhausted many times over. Are you wealthy and want to drive a Tesla electric car? By golly, you get a tax credit, never mind the person struggling to get to work has to pay a bridge toll or highway toll to get there to make enough to eat.
Yeah, controlling millions. You need money and promises to do that, not the acceptance of millions. What did Hitler promise that so many leaders since him did not? He promised food, better living conditions and all that. What are your leaders promising you these days?
Hitler was a tyrant and murderous thug. His deranged thoughts and ideas led to the near complete destruction of Germany (yeah, I bet those millions really wanted that) and the deaths of many millions.
The point was not that Hilter was what he was but that that did not mean all Germans or even most approved of the ends to which Hitler wanted to go. If you think that millions had to agree with the reality and not the promises, then look around and apply that same standard to every other leader since. How does it all look now?
So now you are promised jobs, better living conditions, better pay and for what in return other than your acceptance. Time to pull off the sheets and realize that if you judge a society by what it's leaders do, then start by turning around and looking at yours.
And here we have it. Movies. From what frame of mind and in what perception could anyone watch the movie "The Guns of Navarone" and believe it to be anything more than a movie designed to make money? There was no documentary notion to the movie, it was a movie created for entertainment.
You know there were other films made about WWII that were kind of dopey in its presentaion of combatants. GON looked to be done better. Of course not a doc of history but of enteertianment. Nevertheless it showed that all germans who fought in the war didn't have values like the SS.
And speaking of the latter hey I hope there isn't a movement to rehab'em!
Mack you'd agree that's a no-no or they shojuld be a subject for er that dreaded word 'revisionism', eh?
The majority of the German people did not support (reflected through their votes) Hitler's NSDAP. Even at the height of the party's political popularity (prior to Hitlers appointment as chancellor in 1933), 63 percent of the German people DID NOT vote their support of Hitler in the 1932 Reichstag elections.
So then the Germans' enthusiasm for Jew baiting, race war, genocide and merciless conduct was unrelated to Nazism; interesting. I suspected so.
From A. Beevor, well regarded WWII expert and author of many books on east war.
"Beria and Stalin, back in Moscow, knew perfectly well what was going on from a number of detailed reports. One stated that "many Germans declare that all German women in East Prussia who stayed behind were raped by Red Army soldiers". Numerous examples of gang rape were given - "girls under 18 and old women included".
"
Check Amazon for details. In war time Russia, what Stalin knew Stalin sanctioned. No one had freedom of action.
I had to check who A. Beevor was, and what he based such statements on, ( the particular one, claiming about 2 million raped German women.) In regard to it, he gives a reference to yet another book, "BeFreier und Befreite" by German authors, H. Sander and B.Iohr, where they only make their estimates, based on very questionable sources and calculations.
Then, the mentioned above author is using the Russian state archives documents to prove his point, without real knowledge of Russian language, and that's how his theories are baked.
That's number one, and number two - "what Stalin knew" - doesn't mean "Stalin sanctioned."
Of course he had an idea what was going on in the areas taken by the Soviet Army - why wouldn't he, since the reports were constantly coming from his subordinates, about numerous rapes including, not to mention that he could figure out the situation himself. That doesn't mean however that looting, killing and rapes were sanctioned by him, or any of the Soviet Authorities.
When you read the documents ( reports) of the Russian officers from the area one after another, you get the picture of general chaos, be that among German population or Soviet Army alike, particularly at the initial stage of occupation, and the consistent attempt of the officers to comply with the consistent demand from the Soviet authorities to control the abuse of Germans.
So this "sanctioning" of atrocities by Stalin is nothing but a myth.
One the one hand we have comments saying that German populace have Hitler tacit approval yet here we have you saying Stalin didn't sanction the acts of Russian soldiers when they entered Germany.
Again - Stalin ( unlike Hitler) didn't sanction the criminal acts of Russian soldiers.
This is the myth that some of you create and support, in order to make your theories ( whatever they are) sound reasonable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
