today 65 years ago

[Pandemonium]

In 1944 the city of Antwerp was known as "The City of Sudden Death"
The V-campaign agaist the city is often forgotten, but the city was hitted by more rockets then London (Antwerp has only 500,000 inhabitants at that time), on the 2nd of january the highest daily number was reached, 20 v1's struck that day, aproximatly 30.000 people were killed or injured, and the structural damage was enormous.
Often a funural procession from a previous attack was hit by a next one.
But still under these circumstances the port was kept open, and stayed fully operational while it was raining bombs.
By the beginning of 1945 allied forces gained upperhand in the battle against the V1, American, British and Polish units of about 22,000 men. New plans had been drawn up for the three brigades of artillery to be stationed in a ring outside of the city to form a protective barrier against the flying bombs, but there was nothing that could stop the V2.

On the 16th of december 1944 a V2 struck a cinema complex, the death toll was 567 casualties,2 96 of the dead & 194 of the injured were U.S., British, & Canadian soldiers. This was the single highest death total from one rocket attack during the war in Europe



On the first day of the German Ardennes offensive, December 16, 1944, the worst disaster occurred. The "Rex" Cinema on avenue De Keyserlei was packed full of people in middle of the afternoon, nearly 1200 seats were occupied, all watching the featured movie. At 15.20 hrs the audience suddenly glimpsed a split-second flash of light cutting through the dark theater, followed by the balcony and ceiling crashing down during a deafening boom. A V-2 rocket had impacted directly on top of the cinema.

Charles Ostyn happened to be near the cinema that day and would later learn of a personal tragedy in his life caused by this particular rocket attack.

"December 16, 1944, is a day I can never forget. It all really sank in on us after the massacre at the Rex Cinema..." said Ostyn. He told about his feelings at that time: "I still remember that Saturday as if it were yesterday. I had walked past the theater about 20 minutes before the impact - to think, at that very moment a V-2 was being tanked-up by members of the SS Werfer Battery 500 in Holland, it being destined to kill all those people in one blinding instant."

The destruction was total. Afterwards, many people were found still sitting in their seats, stone dead. For more than a week the Allied authorities worked to clear the rubble. Later, many of the bodies were laid out at the city zoo for identification. The death toll was 567 casualties to soldiers and civilians, 291 injured and 11 buildings were destroyed. 296 of the dead & 194 of the injured were U.S., British, & Canadian soldiers. This was the single highest death total from one rocket attack during the war in Europe.

"I heard the explosion while I was traveling home on the tram. The cinema was packed with more than 1100 people and I remember the movie playing was 'The Plainsman' * with Gary Cooper and Jean Arthur (about "Wild Bill" Hickock - I was a real movie nut in my younger years). Later, I found out that my employer and his girlfriend were in the audience. Apparently, my boss took his girlfriend out to see the film on a spur of the moment decision."

James Mathieson remembers the rocket struck the cinema just at the point in the movie where “Gary Cooper had captured an Indian who informed him that General Custer and his troops had been wiped out.” Mathieson was a member of an RAF intelligence unit, one of the first permanent RAF units in Belgium, which was stationed at German Admiral Erich Raeder’s former headquarters in Antwerp.

“That day my CO decided he would allow a few men off to have a little break. We decided to go to the Rex because the picture showing was The Plainsman, starring Gary Cooper and Jean Arthur, who were two of my favorite actors,” said Mathieson.

Upon entering the cinema, Mathieson and his buddy decided to sit in the back row of the smallest portion of the balcony. When the roof fell in, Mathieson felt bricks and mortar falling from above. He put his left hand up to shield his head, which was quickly sliced open from the falling debris. Another brick landed on the opposite side of his head leaving a large gash. In a state of semi-consciousness, covered in dust and blood, Mathieson remembers being rescued from the debris.

“I was in a row where only three seats remained attached and I was lying over into space from the balcony. If I had gone down into the pit I would have had no chance. I consider to this day that I have a guardian angel looking after me because I think it was an absolute miracle that I escaped with so little injury.”

Mathieson was moved to a British Army hospital in the Belgian town of Duffel. When he awoke a few days later, he discovered his wounds had been stitched up and his head and arms were wrapped in bandages. Amazingly, he was told the building housing his unit was hit by another V-2 the very next day and practically everybody was wiped out. Even though the V-2 explosion at the Rex almost killed the young Mathieson, the injuries he sustained may well have saved him from perishing with his unit.

Survivors said that the rocket came through the roof and exploded on the mezzanine. The rubble and debris was up to 5 meters high and it took the rescue teams six days to dig out all the dead. American and British teams had to join in with Army cranes and trucks. The hospitals were swamped and health services couldn't cope anymore.

"The news that something really terrible had happened in the city filtered to the suburbs later that evening," said Ostyn. "During the following week, it was finally confirmed that our boss and his fiancee were found dead under a thick layer of dust, both remarkably intact except for terrible head wounds."

"Thinking back, my closest call of being blown to eternity was one week after the 'Rex', we were at the funeral for my boss at Silsburg Cemetery at Deurne and just before the coffin went down into the ground, at about 14.30 hrs, a V-2 exploded at the other end of the cemetery, ploughing into a row of houses... as if to underline the tragedy of it all. It was a very weird episode, which I cannot ever forget."

After this shock, all theaters and cinemas were shut down and no more than 50 people were allowed to gather in any one place. People who could afford it left the city for safer parts and Antwerp became a somber and semi-deserted city. The residents remaining really felt that they were under siege.

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6716/rex002.jpg
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3107/68343279.jpg
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4206/rex001.jpg

The remains of a combustion chambre smashed into the street, they often killed dozens of people when they came down again
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7305/remainsofv2combustionch.jpg

[Connaught Ranger]

To the victims,

May they + Rest In Peace +

Not Forgotten.

[dredger14]

In 1944 the city of Antwerp was known as "The City of Sudden Death"
The V-campaign agaist the city is often forgotten, but the city was hitted by more rockets then London (Antwerp has only 500,000 inhabitants at that time), on the 2nd of january the highest daily number was reached, 20 v1's struck that day, aproximatly 30.000 people were killed or injured, and the structural damage was enormous.
Often a funural procession from a previous attack was hit by a next one.
But still under these circumstances the port was kept open, and stayed fully operational while it was raining bombs.
By the beginning of 1945 allied forces gained upperhand in the battle against the V1, American, British and Polish units of about 22,000 men. New plans had been drawn up for the three brigades of artillery to be stationed in a ring outside of the city to form a protective barrier against the flying bombs, but there was nothing that could stop the V2.

That would mean that the V-1 was extremely deadly at these ranges.. as compared to the London causalities.

[Pandemonium]

That would mean that the V-1 was extremely deadly at these ranges.. as compared to the London causalities.
don't get me wrong, those 20 v1's didn't kill 30 000 people, in total, most of the inhabitants had already left the city. my writing is confusing

[Kitsune]

Perhpas its just me, but it seems a bit like the usual accusing fingerpointing. Please keep in mind that the Western Allies were mercilessly annihilating one German city after the other at the time with the suffering of the civilian population being worse. That also happened 65 years ago.

[Gammelpreusse]

Perhpas its just me, but it seems a bit like the usual accusing fingerpointing. Please keep in mind that the Western Allies were mercilessly annihilating one German city after the other at the time with the suffering of the civilian population being worse. That also happened 65 years ago.


Not the fault of the belgians or dutch, however. Now the hypocrisis of some americans and many british is telling, expirienced again and again, won't argue bout that, but these smaller countries as well as all the eastern eurpopean countries have all the right in the world for accusations. We must be thankful these nations do not bring it up more often IMHO.

[Pandemonium]

Perhpas its just me, but it seems a bit like the usual accusing fingerpointing. Please keep in mind that the Western Allies were mercilessly annihilating one German city after the other at the time with the suffering of the civilian population being worse. That also happened 65 years ago.

Not at all, I was just referring to some historical facts that are often overlooked, you must know, I'm belgian myself, if I wasn't interrested in the second worldwar myself, I wouldn't have even known it, It's something they don't teach at school anymore in Belgium. It is history about to be forgottenI

I know German citys suffered even worse, but you must admit, they had a choice that small countries like Belgium and the Netherlands didn't have. They were just tossed around, and took a lot of hits from both sides.

But that wasn't the topic here, I was talking about 567 people who died in just one lucky hit, those numbers are surreal to us these days, it's hardly to imagine, but in those days it was just a fact people learned to live with, and just carried on with their lifes, trying to make the best of it

[Maj C]

Perhpas its just me, but it seems a bit like the usual accusing fingerpointing. Please keep in mind that the Western Allies were mercilessly annihilating one German city after the other at the time with the suffering of the civilian population being worse. That also happened 65 years ago.

i think his avatar speaks to that...but such is total war. They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind. truly a war without mercy on either side.

[Connaught Ranger]

If a certain little ex-Austrian corporal had kept his troops inside his adoptive countries borders, then the German population who initially cheered his actions, would not have had to "suffer" would they. Put the blame where it fairly lies.

[theholeinthedonut]

If a certain little ex-Austrian corporal had kept his troops inside his adoptive countries borders, then the German population who initially cheered his actions, would not have had to "suffer" would they. Put the blame where it fairly lies.

If a certain country had not elected the austrian corporal as chancellor........

[StukaJr]

Perhpas its just me, but it seems a bit like the usual accusing fingerpointing. Please keep in mind that the Western Allies were mercilessly annihilating one German city after the other at the time with the suffering of the civilian population being worse. That also happened 65 years ago.

Look, you can't complain when the very doctrine pioneered and used by your generals is implemented against your very own people and cities (but with greater effect) - the Campaign of great German expansion, living space and autobahns was very popular with the civilian population (until the very same war came home that is). Accusing or finger pointing, there is a living example that's fresh enough to prevent another World conflict.

[Gammelpreusse]

Look, you can't complain when the very doctrine pioneered and used by your generals is implemented against your very own people and cities (but with greater effect) - the Campaign of great German expansion, living space and autobahns was very popular with the civilian population (until the very same war came home that is). Accusing or finger pointing, there is a living example that's fresh enough to prevent another World conflict.

Maybe you should check your history books. The war when it started was met with huge nervousness and Angst in Germany by the general population. The threat scenario put up by Hitler of "polish agression, Poland attacking Germany, Poland mistreating german minorities in Poland" and so on was not aimed at foreign nations only. The expiriences of WWI were still stuck in their bones. Hitlers popularity build up up until 39 was precisely because he manged to get all those gains for Germany without war.
Or do you actually believe in the "Aryan" theories, giving the germans some überhuman psychological advantages not shared by other nations?

As Göring put it:

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."

For recent references how this works, look at Bush and the Iraq war.

You may also want to check what country used chemical weapons delivered by airplanes to bomb certain iraqi tribes into submission in 1920, thus setting a historic precedent in deliberatly bombing civilians.

[Connaught Ranger]

Maybe you should check your history books. The war when it started was met with huge nervousness and Angst in Germany by the general population. The threat scenario put up by Hitler of "polish agression, Poland attacking Germany, Poland mistreating german minorities in Poland" and so on was not aimed at foreign nations only. The expiriences of WWI were still stuck in their bones. Hitlers popularity build up up until 39 was precisely because he manged to get all those gains for Germany without war.
Or do you actually believe in the "Aryan" theories, giving the germans some überhuman psychological advantages not shared by other nations?

As Göring put it:

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."

For recent references how this works, look at Bush and the Iraq war.

You may also want to check what country used chemical weapons delivered by airplanes to bomb certain iraqi tribes into submission in 1920, thus setting a historic precedent in bombing civilians.

Nice Revisionist smokescreen but a Fail anyway.

You forgot to add in the threat to humanity the Jewish population

posed the "Free World"!

AND

Are you really trying to compare Bush to the Nazi's.:roll:

[Steak-Sauce]

The remains of a combustion chambre smashed into the street, they often killed dozens of people when they came down again
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7305/remainsofv2combustionch.jpg
Wow. Didn't know these combustion engines weren't blown to pieces when the V-2 hit its target.
Thanks for the article Pandemonium, very interesting.

[Gammelpreusse]

Nice Revisionist smokescreen but a Fail anyway.

yeah i know, when living in a 50ies war movie some simple facts may come in unhandy, you have my symphathy.



You forgot to add in the threat to humanity the Jewish population posed the "Free World"!
No, I didn't. But if you are of this opinion, maybe I am wrong and you actually live in a 40ies german anti semite propaganda movie.




AND

Are you really trying to compare Bush to the Nazi's.:roll:No, I am comparing Bush to certain mechanics observable in many instances throughout history, which includes the Nazis. But I think I forgot Blair in this.
Not that I expect you to look at the past to actually learn something, you've already shown to rather abuse it for offenses.

[StukaJr]

Maybe you should check your history books. The war when it started was met with huge nervousness and Angst in Germany by the general population. The threat scenario put up by Hitler of "polish agression, Poland attacking Germany, Poland mistreating german minorities in Poland" and so on was not aimed at foreign nations only. The expiriences of WWI were still stuck in their bones. Hitlers popularity build up up until 39 was precisely because he manged to get all those gains for Germany without war.
Or do you actually believe in the "Aryan" theories, giving the germans some überhuman psychological advantages not shared by other nations?


My history books do not have anecdotal and selective timelines that portray individuals acting as a singular hive - nor does my history of WWII starts and ends with Poland p-)

Do your history books discount the rise of German economy and effect of rousing Nazi rallies? Were residents of demilitarized zones better off under French and British interference? Were the Versailles's Treaty clause deemed fair and just by the WWI vets? Was there overwhelming angst over annexation of Chechoslovakia, 2 week to Paris or Moscow by Christmas?

Finally, you seem to have completely missed my point - WWI is a perfect example of how poor performance on the front can be completely misrepresented by nation's propaganda departments as long as civilian population can still go to cafes, movies and cabarets like the war is some distant adventure. The attempt to lob long range artillery into Paris during WWI was not caused by some misguided blood lust or hatred of Parisian architecture, but because millions of dead soldiers would be replaced by another million of youths unless the old ladies rubber stamping the drafts were blown up in their warm beds.



You may also want to check what country used chemical weapons delivered by airplanes to bomb certain iraqi tribes into submission in 1920, thus setting a historic precedent in deliberatly bombing civilians.

Keep your historical precedent to WWII - or it can go well into the first diseased carcass catapulted over a city wall or small pox blankets handed out to indigenous population. The use of Stuka's in Spanish Civil War is commonly believed to be the first true success in bringing destruction and demoralization (on the level) to the Civilian population - as far as sheer widespread panic of the victims and worldwide newspaper readers alike. As for who started it all (in WWII) - British bombs did not fall onto German cities until the London Blitz went into residential quarters and German U-Boats sunk commercial and military shipping alike, some even in US coastal waters.

[Gammelpreusse]

My history books do not have anecdotal and selective timelines that portray individuals acting as a singular hive - nor does my history of WWII starts and ends with Poland p-)

Actually, good to hear.



Do your history books discount the rise of German economy and effect of rousing Nazi rallies? Were residents of demilitarized zones better off under French and British interference? Were the Versailles's Treaty clause deemed fair and just by the WWI vets? Was there overwhelming angst over annexation of Chechoslovakia, 2 week to Paris or Moscow by Christmas?

Nope, they don't. Though I am not exactly sure what you are aiming at



Finally, you seem to have completely missed my point - WWI is a perfect example of how poor performance on the front can be completely misrepresented by nation's propaganda departments as long as civilian population can still go to cafes, movies and cabarets like the war is some distant adventure. The attempt to lob long range artillery into Paris during WWI was not caused by some misguided blood lust or hatred of Parisian architecture, but because millions of dead soldiers would be replaced by another million of youths unless the old ladies rubber stamping the drafts were blown up in their warm beds.

No




Keep your historical precedent to WWII - or it can go well into the first diseased carcass catapulted over a city wall or small pox blankets handed out to indigenous population. The use of Stuka's in Spanish Civil War is commonly believed to be the first true success in bringing destruction and demoralization (on the level) to the Civilian population - as far as sheer widespread panic of the victims and worldwide newspaper readers alike. As for who started it all (in WWII) - British bombs did not fall onto German cities until the London Blitz went into residential quarters and German U-Boats sunk commercial and military shipping alike, some even in US coastal waters.


Actually, that is exactly my point. You can go on and on and on in history, always more backwards, finding examples of things beeing a first timer.THat is why I consider this "you started this, you started that, pretty much nonsense. Nevertheless it's brought up again and again, so why not stop calling the kettle black?

Besides, there was only one accidental bombing by german bombers of London who got some navigation wrong. It was the british who then intentionally kicked of the bombeing wars against civilians between those countries as an answer to that. Pretty much the same story about the U-Boat war, which the germans sticking to the rules in the beginning. You may want to check q-ships and the Laconia incident for some reasons why that changed.

By gripes is not about blaming Germany for it's war crimes or even starting the war, which is the case undoubtly, in plain site. My gripes it he bending of history in any, even the smallest instant, to but every single blame for every single action to one side only, which is nothing more then history whitewashing for convinience and good feelings.

If you do this, you are not interested in finding out the truths and in parts subtle mechanics under all that big tamtam to avoid stuff like this later on, you actually are on your best way to repeat it, esepcially with a reltiavist morale system that justifies the same crimes commited by one side but blaiming the other side for doing it. This is not justice, this simply is the build up of resentments.

[Connaught Ranger]

Actually, good to hear.



Nope, they don't. Though I am not exactly sure what you are aiming at



No




Actually, that is exactly my point. You can go on and on and on in history, always more backwards, finding examples of things beeing a first timer.THat is why I consider this "you started this, you started that, pretty much nonsense. Nevertheless it's brought up again and again, so why not stop calling the kettle black?

Besides, there was only one accidental bombing by german bombers of London who got some navigation wrong. It was the british who then intentionally kicked of the bombeing wars against civilians between those countries as an answer to that. Pretty much the same story about the U-Boat war, which the germans sticking to the rules in the beginning. You may want to check q-ships and the Laconia incident for some reasons why that changed.

Nice attempt at revisionism :roll: but, in reality its down too whose troops crossed recognised international borders as a response to a staged attack on a German radio station.
By gripes is not about blaming Germany for it's war crimes or even starting the war, which is the case undoubtly, in plain site. My gripes it he bending of history in any, even the smallest instant, to but every single blame for every single action to one side only, which is nothing more then history whitewashing for convinience and good feelings.

If you do this, you are not interested in finding out the truths and in parts subtle mechanics under all that big tamtam to avoid stuff like this later on, you actually are on your best way to repeat it, esepcially with a reltiavist morale system that justifies the same crimes commited by one side but blaiming the other side for doing it. This is not justice, this simply is the build up of resentments.

With regards WW2 we know the truth, it was started by Hitler, but, finished by the Allies, End of Story

Connaught Ranger.

[Gammelpreusse]

Connaught Ranger.


Oh yeah, I forgot where the UK bordered Germany in the east. Sorry, my mistake, I always confuse it with Poland.

[Atlantic Friend]

If a certain country had not elected the austrian corporal as chancellor........

They didn't quite elected him as Chancellor, if memory serves me right. They elected Nazis in the Parliament, and then Reichspräsident von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor.

[Connaught Ranger]

Oh yeah, I forgot where the UK bordered Germany in the east. Sorry, my mistake, I always confuse it with Poland.

Lets see:- Polish borders, Danish borders, Norwegian borders, Dutch borders, French borders, Russian borders. . . . . see a pattern forming here.:roll:

So German Nazi bombing missions over the U.K. were the fault of the British right? :roll:

[Gammelpreusse]

Lets see:- Polish borders, Danish borders, Norwegian borders, Dutch borders, French borders, Russian borders. . . . . see a pattern forming here.:roll:

So German Nazi bombing missions over the U.K. were the fault of the British right? :roll:

That depends on you and if you consider the british to be such a stupid people that when you declare on someone, he may actually take up that offer, or that Germany, as the morally naturally evil nation simply can't be allowed to bomb british cities, but the british, knights in shining armor, certainly have every right in the world to kill civilians?

Or are you going to tell stories about the UK saving western Europe from the Nazis and thus beeing in a different position to judge? Like it did with the communists when they marched into Poland when the war stated and finished? Or the planned invasion of Norway, which the germans topped only by a couple hours? Maybe you want to tell me that the british empire had a legacy of treating minorities or people in her colonies exactly like their own citizens which gives this country the moral superiority to present itself as the keeper of human rights as it loves to do nowadays, despite countless examples to the contrary before and after WW2? Or thesaviours of the jews, whom the british neither helped before, during or after the war?

You see Connor, on a personal level, I very much appreciate the allied sacrifice. I have the deepest respect before the american, british, french, russian, whatever grunt who fought in this war in the firm believe of beeing on the good side. I consider the Nazis scum and the greatest traitors to the german people and Europe as a whole and very much enjoy having the ability to talk and debate with people all over the world. I even go so far to say that the germans ultimately deserved their fate for not stepping up wo what happend. If you don't condemn that, it's a free ticket for the next people to sit back and do nothing.

This respect, however, does not extend to these countries leaderships or these nations present folks who have nothing better to do then to whitewash their history in the name of fighting the atrocities of world war 2, which no source or no comment of the people back alive back when it happend even remotely mentioned. What you try is to generalise prejudices and traits to a whole people as a singular mass which is equally responsible for everything blameworthy, without taking into account that WW2 was very much a death circle of ever bloodier battles, related to the actions of "all" participants of this war. Even the "final solution" was part of this ever increasing escalation, to which the allies contributed their fair share.

The ulitmate fault is for Germany to carry simply for starting this awar and all the atrocious injustices commited to all those people. But when I listen to garbage like yours, crass simplifications, generalisition and a view of the world that perfectly resembles Hollywood, then you may want to ask yourself what it is that you learned from all this. Because, so far, you show a mindset and a civilisationary maturity that would have fitted right back into these times.

[Connaught Ranger]

That depends on you and if you consider the british to be such a stupid people that when you declare on someone, he may actually take up that offer, or that Germany, as the morally naturally evil nation simply can't be allowed to bomb british cities, but the british, knights in shining armor, certainly have every right in the world to kill civilians?

You stated in a previous post
Besides, there was only one accidental bombing by german bombers of London who got some navigation wrong. It was the british who then intentionally kicked of the bombeing wars against civilians between those countries as an answer to that. Pretty much the same story about the U-Boat war, which the germans sticking to the rules in the beginning. You may want to check q-ships and the Laconia incident for some reasons why that changed. Conveniently forgetting German attacks on other locations in the U.K. prior to the London bombing or were the Luftwaffe flying over British airspace just in case.:roll: The reality was there was a verbal agreement to stay away from the capitals of both countries

Or are you going to tell stories about the UK saving western Europe from the Nazis and thus beeing in a different position to judge? Like it did with the communists when they marched into Poland when the war stated and finished? Or the planned invasion of Norway, which the germans topped only by a couple hours? Maybe you want to tell me that the british empire had a legacy of treating minorities or people in her colonies exactly like their own citizens which gives this country the moral superiority to present itself as the keeper of human rights as it loves to do nowadays, despite countless examples to the contrary before and after WW2? Or thesaviours of the jews, whom the british neither helped before, during or after the war?

More revisionist twaddle,:roll: the British and French Expeditionary Force to Norway certainly was not an invasion force(lacking both the men, weapons materials, ships, air-force etc..etc..) unlike the Nazi force which had men hidden in transport ships inside Norwegian watersdays before kick off and utilized air-forces out of bases in Denmark, which they invaded
And where do you see me trumpeting anything about the British being the saviors of the Jewish race, (despite the fact that they did take an allotment of Jewish refugees from Czechoslovakia immediate to the start of WW2) but then again many other nations took an allotment and left it at that so ultimately you cant lay it all on the door of the British.

You see Connor, on a personal level, I very much appreciate the allied sacrifice. I have the deepest respect before the american, british, french, russian, whatever grunt who fought in this war in the firm believe of beeing on the good side. I consider the Nazis scum and the greatest traitors to the german people and Europe as a whole and very much enjoy having the ability to talk and debate with people all over the world. I even go so far to say that the germans ultimately deserved their fate for not stepping up wo what happend. If you don't condemn that, it's a free ticket for the next people to sit back and do nothing.

Who is Connor?:roll:

This respect, however, does not extend to these countries leaderships or these nations present folks who have nothing better to do then to whitewash their history in the name of fighting the atrocities of world war 2, which no source or no comment of the people back alive back when it happend even remotely mentioned. What you try is to generalise prejudices and traits to a whole people as a singular mass which is equally responsible for everything blameworthy, without taking into account that WW2 was very much a death circle of ever bloodier battles, related to the actions of "all" participants of this war. Even the "final solution" was part of this ever increasing escalation, to which the allies contributed their fair share.

I am generalizing nothing the facts show that WW2 was the fault of the Nazis & their supporters, plain and simple, they brought death and destruction on their own people.

The ulitmate fault is for Germany to carry simply for starting this awar and all the atrocious injustices commited to all those people. But when I listen to garbage like yours, crass simplifications, generalisition and a view of the world that perfectly resembles Hollywood, then you may want to ask yourself what it is that you learned from all this. Because, so far, you show a mindset and a civilisationary maturity that would have fitted right back into these times.

Thats funny coming from you who tries to make elaborate, pathetic excuses for the actions of the Nazis, are you a big fan of David Irving by any chance?

I am intelligent enough to judge each segment of history in its own right,

and not try to lump it all together as you have done above.

The British Government of 1930's - 1945 were not responsible for the happenings of the previous administration going back to the year the British first colonized other countries, or the treatment of the native populations.

The same way that the Nazis could not be held accountable for what was done in Prussia's African Colonies in the late 1800's to early 1900's.

But this topic IS about what happened between the years immediate post WW1, and I do not see the British occupying any countries in that period in a bid to extend colonial expansion, in fact I do not see any country at that period being involved in a land-grab on the scale the Nazis tried to implement.

Connaught Ranger.

[Red-Phos]

That depends on you and if you consider the british to be such a stupid people that when you declare on someone, he may actually take up that offer, or that Germany, as the morally naturally evil nation simply can't be allowed to bomb british cities, but the british, knights in shining armor, certainly have every right in the world to kill civilians?

Or are you going to tell stories about the UK saving western Europe from the Nazis and thus beeing in a different position to judge? Like it did with the communists when they marched into Poland when the war stated and finished? Or the planned invasion of Norway, which the germans topped only by a couple hours? Maybe you want to tell me that the british empire had a legacy of treating minorities or people in her colonies exactly like their own citizens which gives this country the moral superiority to present itself as the keeper of human rights as it loves to do nowadays, despite countless examples to the contrary before and after WW2? Or thesaviours of the jews, whom the british neither helped before, during or after the war?

You see Connor, on a personal level, I very much appreciate the allied sacrifice. I have the deepest respect before the american, british, french, russian, whatever grunt who fought in this war in the firm believe of beeing on the good side. I consider the Nazis scum and the greatest traitors to the german people and Europe as a whole and very much enjoy having the ability to talk and debate with people all over the world. I even go so far to say that the germans ultimately deserved their fate for not stepping up wo what happend. If you don't condemn that, it's a free ticket for the next people to sit back and do nothing.

This respect, however, does not extend to these countries leaderships or these nations present folks who have nothing better to do then to whitewash their history in the name of fighting the atrocities of world war 2, which no source or no comment of the people back alive back when it happend even remotely mentioned. What you try is to generalise prejudices and traits to a whole people as a singular mass which is equally responsible for everything blameworthy, without taking into account that WW2 was very much a death circle of ever bloodier battles, related to the actions of "all" participants of this war. Even the "final solution" was part of this ever increasing escalation, to which the allies contributed their fair share.

The ulitmate fault is for Germany to carry simply for starting this awar and all the atrocious injustices commited to all those people. But when I listen to garbage like yours, crass simplifications, generalisition and a view of the world that perfectly resembles Hollywood, then you may want to ask yourself what it is that you learned from all this. Because, so far, you show a mindset and a civilisationary maturity that would have fitted right back into these times.
You need Bombing for the amount of ****e you come out with.

[Steak-Sauce]

But this topic IS about what happened between the years immediate post WW1, and I do not see the British occupying any countries in that period in a bid to extend colonial expansion, in fact I do not see any country at that period being involved in a land-grab on the scale the Nazis tried to implement.

Connaught Ranger.

Ehm, not at all. The topic is originally about this:


On the 16th of december 1944 a V2 struck a cinema complex, the death toll was 567 casualties,2 96 of the dead & 194 of the injured were U.S., British, & Canadian soldiers. This was the single highest death total from one rocket attack during the war in Europe

However, there are very interesting points in this thread, especially made by Gammelpreusse. Thanks for posting!

[CMNot]

...1920, thus setting a historic precedent in deliberatly bombing civilians.

I think the precedent of deliberately bombing civilians might have been set by some balloon riding sausage chompers a little before your appended event.

[Connaught Ranger]

I think the precedent of deliberately bombing civilians might have been set by some balloon riding sausage chompers a little before your appended event.

Or even the Legion Condors actions in Guernica Spain, he seems to have conveniently forgotten that one too.:roll:

[Connaught Ranger]

Ehm, not at all. The topic is originally about this:


Perhaps I could have worded it better,

but my points are still moot in reply to Gammelpreuse statements.

[saturnin]

Perhpas its just me, but it seems a bit like the usual accusing fingerpointing. Please keep in mind that the Western Allies were mercilessly annihilating one German city after the other at the time with the suffering of the civilian population being worse. That also happened 65 years ago.

It´s just you. Should we stop posting all articles etc. about world war II or any other historical period because somebody might feel offended? It is better according to you just slowly forget because somebody´s grandfather participated (not speaking particularly about you here)? Is this concrete starting post realy fingerpointing to you with some clear message you can´t stand?

No matter how complicated post world war I situation in Germany was - it was german nation who decided to start war. It was their free will. All this: we didn´t know, we had no choice, we just followed, etc. do not change fact that without general support among regular germans there wouldn´t be any war. Germans went throug rough times in 20´s and 30´s but then all western nations did just as well (impact of great depression differs country to country and Germany was among most affected). They wanted saviour, ilussion of better future where one "weak" nation once again became "strong" and respected. There were willing to put all their failures on jews, versails, west dictate, democracy, market economy etc. (I am exagerating here but generally it worked this way). Germans were able to "start" hate many nations, religions groups and later comments like: we didn´t know about hollocaust, occupation policy in east - is laughlably, they were during war openly screaming death to them, they wanted their land because they thought that they deserve it. They were in contact with soldires, they saw how it worked in 1933 and later on germans streets. - they just opted to look other side because believed that it is needed for better future, they accepted this as collateral demage or even welcomed such behave.

It was nazic Germany who started with bombing cities and general terror against enemies population. Would they had win, they wouldn´t even for second regret such actions. But war created new atmosphere - hate among their opponents. Total war "just" striked back.

I am sorry for all civil losses during world war II. I know many germans and have good friends among them. I respect their country and progress (both economical and social) they achieved since WWII. But I can´t condemn allies bombing campaing later in war. I have read a lot about subject and am familiar with range of damage, politics and different views among allies generals and politicans with respect to the issue, different interpretation of impact on war effort of nazic... - but then again - it was german nation (yes nation, not only few politics) who started war and bring new level of brutallity and terror into it - they can´t blame nobody else but themselves for suffering in WWII. They wanted war and got it, just not in way they would prefered.

Germans as nation is absolutely different entity to what existed in WWII. They are not responsible for what their grandparents did back in time and they shouldn´t see all mention of history as personal attack on them.

[Gammelpreusse]

It´s just you. Should we stop posting all articles etc. about world war II or any other historical period because somebody might feel offended? It is better according to you just slowly forget because somebody´s grandfather participated (not speaking particularly about you here)? Is this concrete starting post realy fingerpointing to you with some clear message you can´t stand?

No matter how complicated post world war I situation in Germany was - it was german nation who decided to start war. It was their free will. All this: we didn´t know, we had no choice, we just followed, etc. do not change fact that without general support among regular germans there wouldn´t be any war. Germans went throug rough times in 20´s and 30´s but then all western nations did just as well (impact of great depression differs country to country and Germany was among most affected). They wanted saviour, ilussion of better future where one "weak" nation once again became "strong" and respected. There were willing to put all their failures on jews, versails, west dictate, democracy, market economy etc. (I am exagerating here but generally it worked this way). Germans were able to "start" hate many nations, religions groups and later comments like: we didn´t know about hollocaust, occupation policy in east - is laughlably, they were during war openly screaming death to them, they wanted their land because they thought that they deserve it. They were in contact with soldires, they saw how it worked in 1933 and later on germans streets. - they just opted to look other side because believed that it is needed for better future, they accepted this as collateral demage or even welcomed such behave.

It was nazic Germany who started with bombing cities and general terror against enemies population. Would they had win, they wouldn´t even for second regret such actions. But war created new atmosphere - hate among their opponents. Total war "just" striked back.

I am sorry for all civil losses during world war II. I know many germans and have good friends among them. I respect their country and progress (both economical and social) they achieved since WWII. But I can´t condemn allies bombing campaing later in war. I have read a lot about subject and am familiar with range of damage, politics and different views among allies generals and politicans with respect to the issue, different interpretation of impact on war effort of nazic... - but then again - it was german nation (yes nation, not only few politics) who started war and bring new level of brutallity and terror into it - they can´t blame nobody else but themselves for suffering in WWII. They wanted war and got it, just not in way they would prefered.

Germans as nation is absolutely different entity to what existed in WWII. They are not responsible for what their grandparents did back in time and they shouldn´t see all mention of history as personal attack on them.

I completly agree to most of your entry. The problem is, todays debates and generations obviously can't be botheres to a mature niveau in which all participants just name the stuff the way it was, without an agenda. Everything is so emotional that a lot of truth that also has to be taken into consideration is bent and warped to make it appear as if the War never stopped and the current generation has to be blamed and blamed back from all sides involved. It's the very same mindset that brought Europe into this situation in the first place.

When now ppl blame Germany on everything not based on absolute values and rules, but based on "you started it and you killed the jews, that justifies everything" then this leads to the conclusion that you can do everything as you please as long you win, even more so given these countries own backstory considering minorites, colonies, human rights and so on. This completly undermines any attempt to deal with the past as one that delivers examples not to compete and repeat, but to learn and avoid.

This whole discussion would have a completly different backdrop if Germany did not do everything to make good for what it did, while no other country even remotely took a similiar course. From a modern german POV this speaks of very crass double standarts, a huge gap between claims and deeds on which basis all judgement by former allied countries is done. When a current generation british puts a finger at a current generation german with pretty much the "you are to blame!" premise, its nothing but a bad joke. These people did nothing back in WW2, they were not even born yet, they did even less nowadays. They rest on the achievements of their forefathers without ever doing anything themselves but support governments showing practices they themselves condemn the Nazis for. Bush, Blair, Putin, you name these bunch of governments which got elected by their population as well. I still see not a single american citizen beeing made responsible for Abu Ghuraib or Guantanamo, for example. Different scope, but the same underlying mechanics. It simply is hypcritical to blame a people for failings one owns people does not show any sign to make better or even values.

And we now speak about current generations, not past ones. The more I learn about these people, the less inclined I am to show respect or even take them serious anymore. They don't care about fairness, so what gives. And there we are again at the beginning.

[Connaught Ranger]

I completly agree to most of your entry. The problem is, todays debates and generations obviously can't be botheres to a mature niveau in which all participants just name the stuff the way it was, without an agenda. Everything is so emotional that a lot of truth that also has to be taken into consideration is bent and warped to make it appear as if the War never stopped and the current generation has to be blamed and blamed back from all sides involved. It's the very same mindset that brought Europe into this situation in the first place.

When now ppl blame Germany on everything not based on absolute values and rules, but based on "you started it and you killed the jews, that justifies everything" then this leads to the conclusion that you can do everything as you please as long you win, even more so given these countries own backstory considering minorites, colonies, human rights and so on. This completly undermines any attempt to deal with the past as one that delivers examples not to compete and repeat, but to learn and avoid.

This whole discussion would have a completly different backdrop if Germany did not do everything to make good for what it did, while no other country even remotely took a similiar course. From a modern german POV this speaks of very crass double standarts, a huge gap between claims and deeds on which basis all judgement by former allied countries is done. When a current generation british puts a finger at a current generation german with pretty much the "you are to blame!" premise, its nothing but a bad joke. These people did nothing back in WW2, they were not even born yet, they did even less nowadays. They rest on the achievements of their forefathers without ever doing anything themselves but support governments showing practices they themselves condemn the Nazis for. Bush, Blair, Putin, you name these bunch of governments which got elected by their population as well. I still see not a single american citizen beeing made responsible for Abu Ghuraib or Guantanamo, for example. Different scope, but the same underlying mechanics. It simply is hypcritical to blame a people for failings one owns people does not show any sign to make better or even values.

And we now speak about current generations, not past ones. The more I learn about these people, the less inclined I am to show respect or even take them serious anymore. They don't care about fairness, so what gives. And there we are again at the beginning.

Only on your tiny mind sunshine, we now see the real reason for your posts, YOU seem to feel Germany has been mistreated for their actions in WW2, you are no doubt of the ilk, that feel unfairly put upon having to pay reparation to the Jewish people, the slave laborers, the damage inflicted in the name of Nazi Germany on the countries they invaded.

By the way who brought the subject of Jews into this thread?

Why you did.

Who said the British were to blame for the bombing of German cities and their populations?

You did.

Who tries to use past history and colonialism as an excuse to justify what the Nazi's did?

You win again.

If anything your posts come across very two faced, you claim to condemn the Nazis, and then you condemn anybody who dare state that they (Germany) got their just rewards for starting a war.

What fairness?, how do you calculate whats fair about a war,

that was started by a country against so many other nations,

A war that cost those other nations much in men,and material,

A war that cost those countries so many of their civil population.

And now YOU have the gall to whinge about how the decedents of those

who fought, and even died in defeating Nazi Germany

a, Comment on what happened,

b, Refuse to accept your beliefs in what "really happened".

FACT:- Abu Graib & Guantanamo does not equal a Nazi Concentration or Extermination Camp.

FACT:- Bush, Blair, Putin, cannot be compared to what Hitler and is cronies were.

The war in Iraq, Afghanistan, on terror has no comparison with the events started by Germany in the early 1930's until their defeat in May 1945.

Connaught Ranger.

[CMNot]

I don't in anyway blame your average German for the War. The overwhelming majority were not even born.

The problem with your argument was when you seemed to intimate that you could compare the scope (and nature) of Nazi (or for that matter, Stalinist) brutality to British (or Allied) conduct. The odd false claim (vis-a-vis) bombing does nothing to sway me (for what that is worth) into a dignified response.

I take your point. 'Popular' history is not authorative nor definitive and in no way compares to academic investigation. However, it does get the main point across - that Nazis = Bad. If anything, with the "rise" of rightwing politics in recent times, we could do with having the point hammered home.

[Gammelpreusse]

Only on your tiny mind sunshine, we now see the real reason for your posts, YOU seem to feel Germany has been mistreated for their actions in WW2, you are no doubt of the ilk, that feel unfairly put upon having to pay reparation to the Jewish people, the slave laborers, the damage inflicted in the name of Nazi Germany on the countries they invaded.

By the way who brought the subject of Jews into this thread?

Why you did.

Who said the British were to blame for the bombing of German cities and their populations?

You did.

Who tries to use past history and colonialism as an excuse to justify what the Nazi's did?

You win again.

If anything your posts come across very two faced, you claim to condemn the Nazis, and then you condemn anybody who dare state that they (Germany) got their just rewards for starting a war.

What fairness?, how do you calculate whats fair about a war,

that was started by a country against so many other nations,

A war that cost those other nations much in men,and material,

A war that cost those countries so many of their civil population.

And now YOU have the gall to whinge about how the decedents of those

who fought, and even died in defeating Nazi Germany

a, Comment on what happened,

b, Refuse to accept your beliefs in what "really happened".

FACT:- Abu Graib & Guantanamo does not equal a Nazi Concentration or Extermination Camp.

FACT:- Bush, Blair, Putin, cannot be compared to what Hitler and is cronies were.

The war in Iraq, Afghanistan, on terror has no comparison with the events started by Germany in the early 1930's until their defeat in May 1945.

Connaught Ranger.


Topic fail, F, sit down. I am sorry, but I am not responsible for what you want to see and how you percieve this debate. You try to push this into an ideological direction I am not willing to play along with.

[Gammelpreusse]

I don't in anyway blame your average German for the War. The overwhelming majority were not even born.

The problem with your argument was when you seemed to intimate that you could compare the scope (and nature) of Nazi (or for that matter, Stalinist) brutality to British (or Allied) conduct. The odd false claim (vis-a-vis) bombing does nothing to sway me (for what that is worth) into a dignified response.

I take your point. 'Popular' history is not authorative nor definitive and in no way compares to academic investigation. However, it does get the main point across - that Nazis = Bad. If anything, with the "rise" of rightwing politics in recent times, we could do with having the point hammered home.

I repeatingly wrote in my entries that scopes are not comparable, but mechanics. For one reason or another this was and is overlooked. PPL here compare results, not how it happend, that is the problem and that is why there is no consenus.
It's like comparing clocks from the outside without checking how they are build up and to understand how they work. And that most clocks have pretty much the same basics , no matter their size.

And why this is important is exactly that....everybody nowadays knows why Nazis are bad. But history never repeats itself in the same way, ppl like these come up within their era through topics relevant in these eras. And you only recognize what happens when you understand that. And when I come up with examples contradicting statements made here not on a event basis (in ww2, that and that happend, everything before does not count), then this does not relate to who did what in WW2, but if something is ok or not ok in the very first place. Do you have absolute morales, that clearly state something is wrong? or relatve morales, shifting good and bad per fashion and how you like it. Like, in times of evil, less evil becomes good?

If you apply the latter, then everything is relative, and then you can just do as you like anyways, without of fear of judgement but your victims.

The circumstance of beeing agrrevated of the arrogance and ignorance shown here in regards to this topic does not help the topic either.

I mean what do you expect? A people that forever whistles itself in self pity and eternal shame when this topic comes up and the righteous rise? That won't happen, I am afraid, the worlds not becoming a better place through that and bowing and stepping away is not something even Germany can do forever, especially given that we have hardly anything to blame ourselves for within the last 60 years, quite to the contrary. And this debate is much more about the current generation then the past.

[Connaught Ranger]

Topic fail, F, sit down. I am sorry, but I am not responsible for what you want to see and how you percieve this debate. You try to push this into an ideological direction I am not willing to play along with.

Whats up, GP, somebody rattle your cage because they dare oppose your revisionist views.

There is no ideological direction being pushed by me here

but the people in the real world know the truth about what happened.

But feel free to bury your head in the sand.

[Gammelpreusse]

Whats up, GP, somebody rattle your cage because they dare oppose your revisionist views.

There is no ideological direction being pushed by me here

but the people in the real world know the truth about what happened.

But feel free to bury your head in the sand.

Don't project again, it's getting repetitive.
Your ongoing ignorance to more intrusive issues at hand and sole concentration on examples given to prove that point just to blame me of revisionism makes your stance perfectly clear.

[Connaught Ranger]

Don't project again, it's getting repetitive.
Your ongoing ignorance to more intrusive issues at hand and sole concentration on examples given to prove that point just to blame me of revisionism makes your stance perfectly clear.

Thats the great thing about a Public Forum I do not have to take orders from people whose views I oppose. :roll:

Hows this for a sole concentration of an example:-

Nazi Germany sowed the seeds of its own destruction.

Nazi Germany started something it could not finish.

Nazi Germany lost,

so its up to you get over it.

Connaught Ranger.p-)

[Gammelpreusse]

Thats the great thing about a Public Forum I do not have to take orders from people whose views I oppose. :roll:

Hows this for a sole concentration of an example:-

Nazi Germany sowed the seeds of its own destruction.

Nazi Germany started something it could not finish.

Nazi Germany lost,

so its up to you get over it.

Connaught Ranger.p-)

Agreed on all points but a completly different discussion. Once again. :bash:

[StukaJr]

Besides, there was only one accidental bombing by german bombers of London who got some navigation wrong. It was the british who then intentionally kicked of the bombeing wars against civilians between those countries as an answer to that. Pretty much the same story about the U-Boat war, which the germans sticking to the rules in the beginning. You may want to check q-ships and the Laconia incident for some reasons why that changed.


You are arguing semantics of some kind of a sterile war, where the only civilian casualties are unintended and chivalrous military actions play out like a continuation of foreign policy and etiquette (read Clausewitz much?). You are arguing that declaring total war against a nation (which Germany did first against every single Allied Nation) did not include the plan of demoralization and submission of civilian population (because that was one of the major key elements in the plan, in the words of its planners). Also, take the non-existent accuracy of WWII high altitude bomber pretty much covering any population center and your war crimes against Civilians start applying the moment bombers are given targets near a major city.

To further pick peanuts out of poop - there was no apology for the bombing runs over entirely living quarters of London nor would there be one (let's be fair, plenty of civilians occupied "strategically bombed" areas of London prior to the "accident"). So small caveat there... British singular retaliatory raid had Hitler ordering for obliteration of entire London - so let's not play the great humanitarian card, as there was a lot more of bombing of London in the London Blitz than of Berlin early on in the War.

And the main one - Axis Germany declared war on every single Ally, not the other way around... The "Germany" and "didn't start ..." do not go in the WWII responsibilities argument, but whatever Germany started - Allies finished.


Agreed on all points but a completly different discussion. Once again. :bash:

If you agree with the points, then they are quite contradictory to yours... Your versions of the events do not pass a basic litmus test - save that stick for yourself.

[Indiana Jones]

O tempora, o mores.

[Gammelpreusse]

I think I start to understand what this debate comes down to and why there is a persistent problem in communications.

It simply boils down to one question. Was the UK back then a proud and independant nation, in control of it's own destiny, voluntarily deciding to wage war on Germany for its values and even taking into account all the crimes comitteted on their side as a terrible but required price to pay for the greater good?

Or was it a country driven by events, incapable of any other descisions but to wage war, as such a victim to Germany like the rest of Europe and bound in it's fate to Germanys rule?

I for one reason always considered the first to be true, and the responsebility coming with that beeing up for debate not as a means for guilt tripping, but for acceptance and moving on. This is a requirement to be accepted as a keeper of values and fundemental rights and morales, the way the UK loves to present itself and it's reasons for this war, especially in such discussions here.

If the second is true, and reactions here suggest that to be mainly the case, then I have to aplogize for what this nation did to you guys, as the rest of Europe, you have my full compassion and a promise to never let it happen again.

You can't just just mix those two up, it's like China swtiching between the roles of a development country and a superpower depending on the issue.

[Kaplanr]

Or was it somewhere between the two, relying on three very mistaken assumptions.

1. The credibility and strength of the French armed forces, French will to fight, and strategic/tactical competence of the French high command.

2. Level and quality of German arms production.

3. Underestimating the isolationist sentiment of the United States.

[StukaJr]

It simply boils down to one question. Was the UK back then a proud and independant nation, in control of it's own destiny, voluntarily deciding to wage war on Germany for its values and even taking into account all the crimes comitteted on their side as a terrible but required price to pay for the greater good?

Or was it a country driven by events, incapable of any other descisions but to wage war, as such a victim to Germany like the rest of Europe and bound in it's fate to Germanys rule?

I for one reason always considered the first to be true, and the responsebility coming with that beeing up for debate not as a means for guilt tripping, but for acceptance and moving on. This is a requirement to be accepted as a keeper of values and fundemental rights and morales, the way the UK loves to present itself and it's reasons for this war, especially in such discussions here.


You can start with UK stopping to kill civilians once Germany Capitulated, with Germany killing tens of millions of civilians in the occupied nations after capitulation and for years to come - even in its mildest occupation zones like France and Belgium (never mind Poland or even Soviet Union)... That kinda stops the revisionist comparison at the point one - what was done, had to be done and world is a better place because it was done.

Done.

[Gammelpreusse]

You can start with UK stopping to kill civilians once Germany Capitulated, with Germany killing tens of millions of civilians in the occupied nations after capitulation and for years to come - even in its mildest occupation zones like France and Belgium (never mind Poland or even Soviet Union)... That kinda stops the revisionist comparison at the point one - what was done, had to be done and world is a better place because it was done.

Done.

Well, I think I learned enough over certain attitutes here, reinforced by this last entry.

Merry christmas nevertheless

[LineDoggie]

I must have missed reading about the US & UK Einsatzgruppen working in liberated Europe in 1944-45 then?

Thats a Difference

or the Dropping of Anti-Personnel Butterfly Bombs(Sprengbombe ****wandig) on non-military civil targets like a German version of Ipswich, Grimsby, and Cleethorpe?


Your milegage may vary

[Gammelpreusse]

I must have missed reading about the US & UK Einsatzgruppen working in liberated Europe in 1944-45 then?

Thats a Difference

or the Dropping of Anti-Personnel Butterfly Bombs(Sprengbombe ****wandig) on non-military civil targets like a German version of Ipswich, Grimsby, and Cleethorpe?


Your milegage may vary

Oh, there were german Einsatzgruppen active in the UK or the US? And I assume you never heared about the firestom bombing concept?
http://www.mediamanual.at/mediamanual/workshop/visual/image/unendlich.png

And so we start right back where it began.

But another lesson here: A murderer fighting a mass murderer, allieing himself with and accepting another mass murderer, becomes a saint.

So much for morale relativism.

You know what the difference really is? I can admit to the crimes of this nation's forefathers, all of them, without trying to justify them. You guys can't, not even the smallest one, without coming up with excuses and other ppls suffering which did not play any role in allied reasons and thinking for the war back in those times. You hide behind hindsight and relativism.

And that is why I can't take your blames seriously.

[Atlantic Friend]

Even the "final solution" was part of this ever increasing escalation, to which the allies contributed their fair share..

I disagree. While the industrialization of the "Final Solution" were cobbled together in late 1941, Nazi Germany certainly hadn't waited for a conflict to develop with its neighbors to start killing Jews...

Blaming the extermination camps on the escalation of WWII by the Allies is akin to blaming violent crime on the cops because they made petty crime more difficult for would-be delinquents.

[Gammelpreusse]

I disagree. While the industrialization of the "Final Solution" were cobbled together in late 1941, Nazi Germany certainly hadn't waited for a conflict to develop with its neighbors to start killing Jews...

Blaming the extermination camps on the escalation of WWII by the Allies is akin to blaming violent crime on the cops because they made petty crime more difficult for would-be delinquents.

The "final solution" was the result of the Wannsee Conference in 1942. Before that mass discrimination and atrocities on a wide scale already took place, but were not the result of an aimed policy but simple leeway given to the ideoligic overpowered second line troops and parts of the Wehrmacht and a guarantee no punishment for such crimes would have to be feared. The initial goal of the Nazis to settle the "jewish question" was a reolcation of these people to Ceylon. That itself sounds rather surreal and would have been a great inustice. It does not change the fact however, that an ever greate escalation of the war itself is directly responsible for the eventual gas chambers, especially as the Nazi ****s considered the jews directly responsible for UK and US politics.

The mass genocide of whole people, like the Poles and pretty much all slavs in the long run, on the other hand, was part of the plan from the very beginning, but hardly a concern for allied planning and motivation before and during this war. I am readily willing to be proven wrong here, but I yet have to see a single source stating otherwise.

That you make a blame out of this story you obviously percieve as directed at you or the former allies is the core of this debates problem, repeated again and again.

[Indiana Jones]

The "final solution" was the result of the Wannsee Conference in 1942. Before that mass discrimination and atrocities on a wide scale already took place, but were not the result of an aimed policy but simple leeway given to the ideoligic overpowered second line troops and parts of the Wehrmacht and a guarantee no punishment for such crimes would have to be feared. The initial goal of the Nazis to settle the "jewish question" was a reolcation of these people to Ceylon.
"The" Nazis actually intended very little in this regard; contrary to popular narratives, there was hardly a politically consistant approach to the so-called "Jewish question" pre Wannsee. The RSHA briefly ventilated to resettle the European jewry in Madagaskar, as had been suggested in European discourse before.

The mass genocide of whole people, like the Poles and pretty much all slavs in the long run, on the other hand, was part of the plan from the very beginning,
Hardly. Again, in analogy to the "Judenfrage", and without going into the intentionalist vs functionalist debate, it is actually unsound to speak of a monolithic or even broadly coherent planning or policy vis these questions. What may very well be said with something approaching certainty is that the Polish nation as a political and cultural entity was to be destroyed. This was to include systematic and wholesale murder of the intelligentsija as a means to prevent the rejuvenation of a distinct Polish identity. It did not entail the physical destruction of the Polish people in its entirety, though. As for slavdom itself, what sources we have, including what is commonly identified as "Generalplan Ost" do not indicate that its eradication per se was envisaged. The murder and deportation of tens of millions however, was.

It does not change the fact however, that an ever greate escalation of the war itself is directly responsible for the eventual gas chambers, especially as the Nazi ****s considered the jews directly responsible for UK and US politics.
Naja. There is little reason to believe that the Western Allies' agency in 41/42 in particular played in a prominent role in the perceptions of the NS functionnaries and their eventual decisionmaking process regarding the Shoah. The role of Lemberg/L'vov etc as both catalyst and pretext for the brutalisation of warfare in the East have been documented in recent research.
Best regards,
IJ.

[Atlantic Friend]

It does not change the fact however, that an ever greate escalation of the war itself is directly responsible for the eventual gas chambers, especially as the Nazi ****s considered the jews directly responsible for UK and US politics.

That's where we cannot agree, for I do not see anything establishing what you claim as a 'fact' here.

You say the escalation of the war is directly responsible for the gas chambers. The logical prolongation of this premise would be that had the UK and the US waged a 'softer' war on Nazi Germany, then Hitler and his fellow criminals would not have sent millions of Jews to death camps, and that the Holocaust was therefore some kind of (perceived) necessary means toward victory.

I honestly don't see a smidgeon of historical fact backing this theory. The racial theories of the Third Reich had been laid down as part of the ideological corpus, and the extermination of the untermenschen did not pop up after this raid or that lost battle. Even a victorious Reich would have killed millions, just as it was killing all the misfits in Germany. Because it was that kind of regime, and because it could.

I don't like "chicken and egg" arguments, as we'll always find some dastardly act that is or can be presented as an excuse for another equally dastardly act, but if it must come to a "who came first", Nazi Germany's concentration camps predated the very first Allied raids over Germany (the Anglo-French ones, dropping leaflets). Nazi Germany's extermination policy predated the first Allied campaigns of strategic bombing German cities. And so did the Luftwaffe's terror bombing raids of Warsaw and Rotterdam, now that I think of it.

That doesn't make the deaths of hundreds of thousands German civilians any more palatable, particularly when the bombing campaign deliberately targeted them. To read about the incineration of Hambrug, Lübeck or Dresden does leave a really bad aftertaste. Whenever I visit Normandy's beaches or some other place in France that was used by the Wehrmacht, it's hard enough thinking of the average Feldgrau that occupied this bunker or that requisitioned house as "The Enemy", even though he was by simpple consequence of his uniform. So when it comes to German wives, widows, children, or grandfathers, even if I'm pretty sure some of them were frothing-at-the-mouth harcore Nazis their heads crammed full of Herrenrasse BS, nope, I cannot see their deaths as anything but a tragedy, and I wish that the powers that were at the time had decided the war could be won without throwing them into the cauldron.


That you make a blame out of this story you obviously percieve as directed at you or the former allies is the core of this debates problem, repeated again and again.

I'm not making a blame out of the story - but a blame there must be, if we as men are to be responsible for our actions I guess there's some answering for to be done. And when it comes to the slaughtering of unarmed multitudes within these damned camps, I don't think the blame lies anywhere but in Berlin.

[Mastermind]

Maybe you should check your history books. The war when it started was met with huge nervousness and Angst in Germany by the general population. The threat scenario put up by Hitler of "polish agression, Poland attacking Germany, Poland mistreating german minorities in Poland" and so on was not aimed at foreign nations only. The expiriences of WWI were still stuck in their bones. Hitlers popularity build up up until 39 was precisely because he manged to get all those gains for Germany without war.
Or do you actually believe in the "Aryan" theories, giving the germans some überhuman psychological advantages not shared by other nations?

As Göring put it:

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."

For recent references how this works, look at Bush and the Iraq war.

You may also want to check what country used chemical weapons delivered by airplanes to bomb certain iraqi tribes into submission in 1920, thus setting a historic precedent in deliberatly bombing civilians.

Ah, yes. Relativism...of course, all things are equal in the mind of a "Relativist". All arguments are equally valid...there really is no right, no wrong. Evil is as acceptable as good in the mind of the Relativist.

Funny thing abut Relativists...they always have these profound equivalent arguments so long as the subject never affects them personally. However, the moment they are the target of some "evil" antagonist, they discard all their relativist notions and can immediately identify the thing that is evil.

In other words, the Relativist is nothing but a simple minded proponent of pure bovine scatology.

Here is the truth: I do not care that thousands of Germans were being immolated at the same time. Their government, which they failed to stop, was evil and had visited the utmost degree of horror upon the rest of Europe and Asia...These brave people who died in the attack from the German people's government army were decent peace loving men and women who were doing all they could to bring on a destruction against that evil regime. They paid the ultimate sacrifice in that struggle...God bless them.

And quite a big "To Hell" with the dead Hitler worshiping Germans is well worth saying at this time in the discussion.

We can all thank God to this day that the Germans of that time were permanently and utterly crushed in their evil enterprise.

[Gammelpreusse]

Ok, before we go on, and after reading three large posts all going into a comparable direction I never claimed and a couple premises that appears to be the number one priority for everybody coming from an ex allied nation here, as this develops more and more into a balkans style thread, some clearing up
I am simply getting tired to talk over something that I see a huge psychological wall preventing any objective discussion, though I thank Indiana Jones and Atlantic friend for at least keeping the tone civil. Still, discussing such argumentation despite 4 pages of completely different arguments that get completely ignored here on a constant basis becomes bothersome. Seriously, if the only arguments ever luring people in here is so called revisionist statements towards established WW2 views, what is the discussion about? Dogma you can have in churches.

But to make something clear which appears to be a rub in the wrong way

You say the escalation of the war is directly responsible for the gas chambers. The logical prolongation of this premise would be that had the UK and the US waged a 'softer' war on Nazi Germany, then Hitler and his fellow criminals would not have sent millions of Jews to death camps, and that the Holocaust was therefore some kind of (perceived) necessary means toward victory.

No, that is not what I say. The Holocaust was crime, fair and simple, and that whole process of killing millions, if at all, contributed to the Nazis losing the war. It also does not take away "any" of the guilt of those responsible. The Allied waged their war in a believe to fight a greater evil, at least I think the common people from these countries thought so, and that is what counts in the overall picture.

What I say is that those ppl alive back then, and that includes the Nazis and the germans themselves, were human beings and bound to the same basic physiological
rules every other human being is bound to, not machines that at one time started working and never changed their attitudes no matter the circumstances. Escalation and ever greater violence is a nature of war and a human problem in general. To dismiss this on the basis of ideological and political black and white views does nothing to address this problem, even less is denial to that.

It really is not me making this a "Germany vs. the Allies V.2.0" thread and its neither me making this an apologist spree. On the opposite, I am feeling forced into this as some people simply reject reality for good feeling and to maintain the ability to point fingers.

Crimes are crimes. If you start to justify them you ask for a repetition. And in this thread I am not considering myself as much as a german, but a human being that had enough of all this cr*p from all countries involved. I had comparable debates with wood headed germans in this regard, just in the opposite direction.

Finally, if you have rules of what defines crime, you can't built them upon relativism. And here we come to Mastermind.

What is relative, hm? Let's see

from here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relative

relative
- 5 dictionary results
rel⋅a⋅tiveShow Spelled ****unciation [rel-uh-tiv]
–noun
1.
a person who is connected with another or others by blood or marriage.

2.
something having, or standing in, some relation to something else.

3.
something dependent upon external conditions for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to absolute (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=absolute&db=luna) ).

4.
Grammar. a relative ****oun, adjective, or adverb.

So, let's see
1945, the bombing of german cities because the allies could, not because it served any war winning achievements anymore. A huge destruction of cultural values and countless lives eradicated. Seen all by itself the matter is pretty clear. In absolute terms, it is a crime, fair and simple, as it made no distinction between opportunists and opponents of the Nazis, folks that just wanted to survive and live on and fanatics.
Seen in the greater picture of WW2, there are a lot more reasons for justification, at least from an outsiders view. But only if you compare it with everything that happened before. THAT makes it "relative".
Judgment here is not based on absolute values applicable to the individual case and those responsible, but related to mass dynamics and a greater picture. That is understandable, but do not blame me of relativism. I am a huge friend of individual responsibility, that means bringing people to justice that are, factual and measureable, at fault. If others are killed in this process you can either call it collateral damage or you can call it a crime, depending on your stance towards humanity as a whole. How you deal with that will leave an impression of how serious you are with values and how serious you are taken with others. It's comparable to the death sentence...are you rather willing to let murderers alive to prevent potential innocents to get killed through wrong investigation or do you prioritize revenge, taking innocents losing their lives into account?
Everybody is bound to his opinion, that has to be respected, but all in all I really can't see a reason to respect blames from folks ignoring the "other" side. And given certain countries conduct since WW2, their actions and reactions to what are events that in WW2 were used to justify their way of waging war in regards to Nazi Germany back then this stance becomes even more lacking integrity. There is lot of spin doctoring going on without people even noticing, a huge gap between entitlement and actual action, always brushed away with some "greater" crimes of the opposition.
If looking into such issues even 65 years later is such an impossibility, what are the conclusions to take out of that, what has changed in all countries involved back then? Or do you really think Nazi Germany was that different from all others, not a child of its time but completely removed from reality, in this form able to pop up anywhere anytime and sporting characteristics not observable anywhere else?

[StukaJr]

Oh, there were german Einsatzgruppen active in the UK or the US? And I assume you never heared about the firestom bombing concept?
http://www.mediamanual.at/mediamanual/workshop/visual/image/unendlich.png

And so we start right back where it began.



You should look up "Take lives to Save Lives" concept - victory of Axis were to ensure that more lives were to be lost (in total) than victory of Allies (in respective total). History (in hind sight) has proven that concept to be valid and in fact a lot more humans are alive today because Germany's foreign adventure was met with greater opposing reaction... For German citizen to complain about anything that took place in WWII is like the YouTube video of a teen smashing a burning gasoline filled pumpkin with a baseball bat - don't let it happen the third time...

Japan was brought to complete surrender by crushing toll to its citizens and complete public humiliation of its god-like emperor. Germany was brought to complete surrender by placing Allied boots on the ground, following failed attempt to crush its citizens by aerial bombardment and slower progress of Manhattan project only softened the blow (which saved major resistance points from becoming irradiated wasteland).

I will be the first to point out that individual life loss is tragic, but the blame lays on the government starting the hostilities, not the government defending its own citizens from a delusional schizophrenic... The number of assassination attempt at Fuhrer's life were of a small comfort - short of a full revolt, Germany was doomed to systematic annihilation as long as its regime prevailed. And let's not even start to draw parralel of successful Third Reich and modern Europe of today - a small price to pay (in German or non-German civilian life)

[Gammelpreusse]

You should look up "Take lives to Save Lives" concept - victory of Axis were to ensure that more lives were to be lost (in total) than victory of Allies (in respective total). History (in hind sight) has proven that concept to be valid and in fact a lot more humans are alive today because Germany's foreign adventure was met with greater opposing reaction... For German citizen to complain about anything that took place in WWII is like the YouTube video of a teen smashing a burning gasoline filled pumpkin with a baseball bat - don't let it happen the third time...

Japan was brought to complete surrender by crushing toll to its citizens and complete public humiliation of its god-like emperor. Germany was brought to complete surrender by placing Allied boots on the ground, following failed attempt to crush its citizens by aerial bombardment and slower progress of Manhattan project only softened the blow (which saved major resistance points from becoming irradiated wasteland).

I will be the first to point out that individual life loss is tragic, but the blame lays on the government starting the hostilities, not the government defending its own citizens from a delusional schizophrenic... The number of assassination attempt at Fuhrer's life were of a small comfort - short of a full revolt, Germany was doomed to systematic annihilation as long as its regime prevailed. And let's not even start to draw parralel of successful Third Reich and modern Europe of today - a small price to pay (in German or non-German civilian life)

I agree to you when you base your argument on a basic emotional level. But as you may have seen in this thread, I never ever doubted Germany's faults. I am also of the opinion a people deserves the government it has, so you won't hear any complaints from me in this regard, either.
In fact I wrote that so often I am at a loss why this is brought up again and again. It's like a reflex, critique results in instant counter attack/argument instead of reflection and honesty.

Probably a matter of a different discussion culture.

[Mastermind]

Gammel brings up some very valid points in a much wider concept than just the brutality of the 2nd World War in Europe. We find our discussion has become an examination of what war really is relative what war ought to be. War between animals is merely foguht to the death over the conflict of the moment without emotion. Once the goal is won, the fight ends and no one comes away holding grudges...it is what it is.

However, this is not so with war between emotional creatures such as we are. I must say, anyone who would support, on it's face value, the utter destruction of non-combatants is a monster...plain and simple. Even to do such a thing in the aftermath of your own citizens being turned to charcoal is an act of savagry without excuse.

Yet...we are discussing a war in which one side was facing complete dissolution and it's citizens would be subject to not only enslavement, but also the very real possibility of organized, systematic murder. Such a prospect will make even the most devout humanitarian fight like hell and without much mercy...that is, to fight with a determination that there will be no possibility at the end but death or total victory.

Hitler's and Tojo's regimes were brutal in the extreme. Their stated and demonstrated goals were the absolute domination of all the people in the world. Their methods of warfare were so devoid of any examples of humanity they and their supporting population were quite easily viewed by the resisting populations as animalistic and inhumanly savage. Such savagery is today, unthinkable. Our young have been raised by a brutalized society to reject forever all such forms of behavior. We simply can not imagine there could come a day when the mass destruction of millions of fellow human beings would be necessary.

I argue such thinking is merely wishful thinking...and I base my argument on the proven...well proven...historical nature of human beings themselves. People are so easily led down the path of savage behavior there is a very real possibility that some day in the future another group of hundreds of millions will rise up again with the single minded thought to destroy the rest of us...we must be prepared in all forms, mentally and materially to resist this.

There will always be some throwback human...a Genghis Khan, an Adolph Hitler, a Tojo, who charms his people and convinces them they are "God Blessed" to rule the world. They will come again with unthinkable brutality to achieve their aims. How we decide to resist them will determine the outcome of their effort. When they present us with their savage means...that is cold blooded murder of our people, will we merely turn the other cheek and hope they come to their senses before we are laid bare before them? Or will we again resist with all means possible at our disposal, setting our humanity on the shelf for a time, as did the victors of World War Two?

No one can say what the true outcome for civilization would have been had Tojo and Hitler actually achieved victory over us in 1945 instead of the way it did turn out. I can not believe such monsters would have been as magnanimous.

I do not try to justify such savagery as the allies displayed in that horrible war. I do not believe all of it was pertinent toward winning the conflict. I do know it was the Axis powers who initiated it. The degeneration of humanity was inevitable in the face of such brutal opponents. However, I do not believe we could have won if we had let humanitarians, rule of law (lawyers) and people who were conscientiously opposed to violence lead our armies against such brutes. We just had to do what we had to do. If some levels of monstrosity overflowed, that was simply inevitable.

[Scoobz187]

again and again germany is god damn, we are the bad asses of the world no one likes us.

Hitler said "The german reich will excist 1000 years" And he had spoken really true words. It still excist in the heads of the worlds people and will be there for a long time.

I am sick of all this WWII bla bla. Germany started a war, allies didnt care. Germany run over Europe, british start to care when their citys got attacked. Germany attacked Afrika and Russia, USA cares. If anyone of the Allies had done something more in the first weeks of war... If Britain and France had given their help to Poland like they promised to them... Then maybe a lot of lifes could have been saved. But its easier to just put it in one word "Germany".

But dont forget to look into your own cellars to count the bodys!!!

Nothing more nothing less to say.

post scriptum: i know that this is written as easy as can be. And there are not all aspects of WWII but i didnt found it enjoying to write down a 5000 paged book^^

[Mastermind]

again and again germany is god damn, we are the bad asses of the world no one likes us.

Hitler said "The german reich will excist 1000 years" And he had spoken really true words. It still excist in the heads of the worlds people and will be there for a long time.

I am sick of all this WWII bla bla. Germany started a war, allies didnt care. Germany run over Europe, british start to care when their citys got attacked. Germany attacked Afrika and Russia, USA cares. If anyone of the Allies had done something more in the first weeks of war... If Britain and France had given their help to Poland like they promised to them... Then maybe a lot of lifes could have been saved. But its easier to just put it in one word "Germany".

But dont forget to look into your own cellars to count the bodys!!!

Nothing more nothing less to say.

post scriptum: i know that this is written as easy as can be. And there are not all aspects of WWII but i didnt found it enjoying to write down a 5000 paged book^^

"Germany" as a nation today has absolutely nothing in common with the Germany of WWI or WWII...it would be like saying Italy of today is the same as Italy of 105 BC...people change. I personally have never advocated condemnation of a people for the fault of their ancestors. Even America of today is nothing at all like the America that created the Declaration of Independance...in fact, to our shame, few Americans today have the slightest association with the very document that gives us the start of our freedom and even fewer respect the meaning of the word "freedom".

We are discussing Hitler's Germany...and the commonality Germans have with all of the other humans...we are quite easily led astray. Hitler could just as easily have contaminated the Poles or the Russians....and in fact was well on his way to capturing the hearts and minds of many Englishmen of the day.

Could anyone argue the militant Japanese of 1920-1945 resemble in any fashion the Japanese of today?

People need to put these argument in perspective and understand them for the mental masturbation they are. No one is trying to disrespect any other nation or people...we are merely discussing various interpretations of history. So, please, try to not get offended or be so sensitive...nothing personal is meant by any of these comments.

[Connaught Ranger]

again and again germany is god damn, we are the bad asses of the world no one likes us.

Hitler said "The german reich will excist 1000 years" And he had spoken really true words. It still excist in the heads of the worlds people and will be there for a long time.

Yeah like the neo-nazis.p-)

I am sick of all this WWII bla bla. Germany started a war, allies didnt care. Germany run over Europe, british start to care when their citys got attacked.

Really the British Expeditionary Force was in France / Belgium long before a single bomb fell on the U.K.

Germany attacked Afrika and Russia, USA cares.

The US in fact only brought their Army into the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, up until that point they were happy to contribute supplies to the British.

If anyone of the Allies had done something more in the first weeks of war... If Britain and France had given their help to Poland like they promised to them... Then maybe a lot of lifes could have been saved. But its easier to just put it in one word "Germany".

Who crossed their border into Poland? I dont think it was France or Britain sonny boy:bash:

But dont forget to look into your own cellars to count the bodys!!!

Nothing more nothing less to say.

post scriptum: i know that this is written as easy as can be. And there are not all aspects of WWII but i didnt found it enjoying to write down a 5000 paged book^^

Dont bother it would only be revisionist s h i t e anyway.:roll:

You need to get some good history reference books and read them.

[Hollis]

Dont bother it would only be revisionist s h i t e anyway.:roll:

You need to get some good history reference books and read them.


Hopefully he does that before posting again.

[Scoobz187]

OK you got me with that British Exp. But with the border crossing your not right. Shure germany crossed the Border but if France and the UK had fullfilled their promisses to help em then some things might had not been that worse. Even if the expdetionary where in France/Belgium they didt not react. Churchill himself wrote in his WWII memorys that it was a failure to not react. He also wrote that all Allies had made themselfs guilty to not do anything again Hitler instead of knowing about the possible threats. Ok that one with the US didnt matched the truth. Im sorry. But i was a bit angry and i didnt really tought about my writing. But dont blame my wisdom. I got so much books about WWII and i read them all from first to last page. But this theme pisses me off already. Im fed up with it. There is no day here in germany without a epic documentary about this dark time. Its like getting it rubbed under the nose to stay with the total debt. Today its more clearly then ever that not only the axis made much faults to let WWII happen.

[Gammelpreusse]

sorry guys, got an infringment here for posting. have fun debating with yourselves.

[Connaught Ranger]

OK you got me with that British Exp. But with the border crossing your not right. Shure germany crossed the Border but if France and the UK had fullfilled their promisses to help em then some things might had not been that worse. Even if the expdetionary where in France/Belgium they didt not react. Churchill himself wrote in his WWII memorys that it was a failure to not react. He also wrote that all Allies had made themselfs guilty to not do anything again Hitler instead of knowing about the possible threats. Ok that one with the US didnt matched the truth. Im sorry. But i was a bit angry and i didnt really tought about my writing. But dont blame my wisdom. I got so much books about WWII and i read them all from first to last page. But this theme pisses me off already. Im fed up with it. There is no day here in germany without a epic documentary about this dark time. Its like getting it rubbed under the nose to stay with the total debt. Today its more clearly then ever that not only the axis made much faults to let WWII happen.

What melodrama :roll:, what wisdom? you fail to display any.

So Germany did not cross into Poland?

Do you even know the size of the British Military of that period that was available to go to France and fight?

Do you realise that post WW1, the British Military, particularly the Army were mainly on garrison duties in far off parts of the Empire, and the forces in the U.K. were very small garrisons indeed.

Do you also realise many British & French were veterans of the slaughter of WW1 or if not directly veterans they had some member of their families a casualty in that war.

The French under Petain had little stomach for war after their terrible casualties in WW1.

And promises made on paper have very little meaning when you do not have a way to move troops, equipment, supplies etc etc hundreds of miles from where they are located in home depots to an area where you hope to engage the enemy, I say hope to engage the enemy because even the B.E.F. could not maintain positions all along the France-Belgium border, (and lets not forget the Germans also launched an advance through the impassable Ardennes (sp?) Forest area.

So only so much man-power can cover so much area, when the Germans launched their attacks it was highly mobile warfare and with massive fighter, bomber air cover, something the British had little luck in stopping.

I would ask you to go back and re-read your books and take a while to digest the information contained there-in.

Connaught Ranger.

[Stormz_STA]

Seems to me germans (at least some of them) really forgot who started WWII. It's a shame.

[Scoobz187]

I didnt mean they didt not, i only meant that even if britain and france had not that much troops they even not tried to do anything. I believe Poland was not interessting enough for them, so they´ll let it happen.

StormzSTA

no one had forgotten who started the war and know one said something like this.

Greetz

nothing more to say

[StukaJr]

OK you got me with that British Exp. But with the border crossing your not right. Shure germany crossed the Border but if France and the UK had fullfilled their promisses to help em then some things might had not been that worse. Even if the expdetionary where in France/Belgium they didt not react. Churchill himself wrote in his WWII memorys that it was a failure to not react. He also wrote that all Allies had made themselfs guilty to not do anything again Hitler instead of knowing about the possible threats.

You need to acquaint yourself with best possible mobilization time for a Peacetime Army of the era and compare it to the timeframe of the actions to which you are referring. You'll find that the best and optimal time required for a frontline division to relocate from one area of the front to another is greater or equal to the timefrom of Polish or French Campaigns - nevermind mounting an Intervention into foreign countries that seized to exist. It's fine to have books, but it's important to also have deductive reasoning skills and ability to put things into perspective. There are also very illustrative examples of reckless rushes of unprepared armies to the aide of allied countries only to lose millions for no gain - only 20+ years prior to WWII.


I agree to you when you base your argument on a basic emotional level. But as you may have seen in this thread, I never ever doubted Germany's faults. I am also of the opinion a people deserves the government it has, so you won't hear any complaints from me in this regard, either.
In fact I wrote that so often I am at a loss why this is brought up again and again. It's like a reflex, critique results in instant counter attack/argument instead of reflection and honesty.

Probably a matter of a different discussion culture.

I'm not sure what "emotional level" has to do with argument, especially when your points are in disagreement with others - argue your points with facts and don't mistaken it for a popularity contest.

As for discussion culture - cold facts, they either fit or they don't. History is repeated if it's not learned and allowing for any small revision to History that's based on political climate (and not new historical evidence) is absolute bovine excrement. Maybe if your posts did not hint on revisionism - you wouldn't be corrected over and over. I'm sorry you came here for hippy love fest and instead got corrected when you are wrong (or potentially, can't formulate your points) - such is life... When someone disagrees with you - they argue! If you can't prove your point - you get dismissed...