Political correctness in SH5

[Drifter]

Anyone notice the political correctness in SH5? I am talking about in the crew descriptions. How none of them are 'true' Nazis.

What say you? :ping:

[Ducimus]

Don't get me started. :har:

[Drifter]

Don't get me started. :har:

Revisionist history sucks. Lol :haha:

[Letum]

Especially at the start of the war, some claim that the KM was less
political, although I have seen no hard evidence, good arguments could be
made to support this case.
Towards the end of the war, efforts where made to increase political affiliation in the KM.

[mookiemookie]

Are we reading the same things?

Your XO: Erich is extremely loyal to his father and Dönitz and very pro Nazi. He also of course wants to prove himself.

Watch officer: He is somehow opportunistic and also a bit racist.

The cook: Olaf is pro Germany, perhaps a bit pro Nazi and wants payback.

Your navigator: He identifies with Hitler’s vision of punishing the victors of WWI for what they had done to the Germans.

[Méo]

1) 1933, the nazi party got 43.9% in election (not even the half of population)

2) Not everyone who voted for this party were nazi neither (nazi = member of the party)

3) The german navy was less affected by nazi ideology than the wehrmacht and the luftwaffe.

[Juliano]

Especially at the start of the war, some claim that the navy was less
political, although I have seen no hard evidence, good arguments could be
made to support this case.


Some time ago I´ve been reading something about the KM having some sort of "moral/honor/apolitical code" or something, kinda different form the other branches of the armed forces. Guess that could be the main reason.
I´m not a history expert, so I´m probably wrong :O:

[Justin Case]

Anyone notice the political correctness in SH5? I am talking about in the crew descriptions. How none of them are 'true' Nazis.

What say you? :ping:


Also maybe UbiSoft wants to sell this game (sim) in Germany, where there are laws that might prohibit such things...:o

[Drifter]

Also maybe UbiSoft wants to sell this game (sim) in Germany, where there are laws that might prohibit such things...:o

Yeah, there was a recent SH5 game recall there because it accidentally shipped with swastikas. Their laws prohibit it. Ooops. :doh:

[Nordmann]

The NSDAP were not as popular or universally supported as people have been led to believe. The only reason why the population went along with Hitler's vision, is because they had little choice in the matter; one wrong word, and you would be getting a midnight visit from the Gestapo.

A system built on fear, generally has no problem 'convincing' the populous that a certain course of action is the correct one to take. The average citizen can do little to change the state of affairs exhibited by said government, if it can be called such, and thus must make the best of a bad situation.

Now, that being said, there were those who fervently supported Hitler's ideology. This is not surprising, given the pre-war promises made by the NSDAP, and the lighting fast recovery Germany made during this early period.

But let us not forget, that there are always those opposed, regardless of how hard the regime attempts to suppress them. Not all soldiers, sailors and airmen would have blindly supported Hitler, but they had a duty to perform, and as such were in no position to question the morals of their leader.

[Ducimus]

Drifter, you must be looking for a forum boxing match.. I know where your coming from, but trust me man, you won't convince anyone, especially here. There's years worth of revisionism, romance and mythology that are accepted as fact, that makes this topic about as much of a dead end, as hitting a reinforced concrete wall at 60 MPH. It's just not going to give, and will go on for another 2 or 3 pages before its run its course.

[Safe-Keeper]

Far as I know, only 10% of the German population were members of the Nazi party, and the u-boat weapon was one of the places were disillusionment and illoyalty to the party and Hitler ran the most rampant. I guess you laugh at the "political correctness" in Das Boot, too.

Revisionist history sucks. Lol :haha:
Drifter, you must be looking for a forum boxing match.. I know where your coming from, but trust me man, you won't convince anyone, especially here. There's years worth of revisionism, romance and mythology that are accepted as fact, that makes this topic about as much of a dead end, as hitting a reinforced concrete wall at 60 MPH. It's just not going to give, and will go on for another 2 or 3 pages before its run its course. ...and one-liners and New Ager-style "if you disagree with me, you're narrow-minded and not worth talking to"... is not going to convince me:nope:.

[Drifter]

Drifter, you must be looking for a forum boxing match.. I know where your coming from, but trust me man, you won't convince anyone, especially here. There's years worth of revisionism, romance and mythology that are accepted as fact, that makes this topic about as much of a dead end, as hitting a reinforced concrete wall at 60 MPH. It's just not going to give, and will go on for another 2 or 3 pages before its run its course.

Correct. From all the personal accounts of the German side that I have read, I have come to the conclusion that many German civilians and military personel were indeed very hard-core Nazis. They truly believed in Hitler and the system. But try convincing the millions of young people who get their versions of 'history' from movies like Pearl Harbor and U-571. :88)

[Nordmann]

Correct. From all the personal accounts of the German side that I have read, I have come to the conclusion that many German civilians and military personel were indeed very hard-core Nazis. They truly believed in Hitler and the system. But try convincing the millions of young people who get their versions of 'history' from movies like Pearl Harbor and U-571. :88)

Many, but not all. Do not tar the entire population with the same brush. In any case, most WW2 movies (especially Hollywood) tend to portray every German as an evil Nazi, when this was not actually the case at all. But try telling some of the people on here that, they've got too much America F' Yeah! in their veins.

[Ducimus]

...and one-liners and New Ager-style "if you disagree with me, you're narrow-minded and not worth talking to"... is not going to convince me:nope:.

I wasn't addressing you was I? Furthermore, i wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I know nothing will ever disuade you from your own beliefs on the subject, so why bother? It's pointless. There is no discussion here, only a topic that will go around in circles. So believe what you want, your going to anyway, and i'll do the same. :woot:

[Trublion]

Most of the nazis where in the SS divisions and Gestapo.
The wermacht, luftwaffe and navy were professional soldiers for most. Of course you had a few fanatical like everywhere, but not all of them were evil.

Regarding the political correctness, this game needs to sell in Germany where you cannot show swastikas and talk to nazis :).

If you like the sight of the swastika, there is a mod already for this.

[Drifter]

Many, but not all. Do not tar the entire population with the same brush. In any case, most WW2 movies (especially Hollywood) tend to portray every German as an evil Nazi, when this was not actually the case at all. But try telling some of the people on here that, they've got too much America F' Yeah! in their veins.

That's why I used the word 'many', instead of 'all'. Not all Germans were hard-core Nazis. Of course not. I hate stereotypes.

[Safe-Keeper]

I wasn't addressing you was I? Furthermore, i wasn't trying to convince you of anything, because i know nothing will ever disuade you from your own beliefs on the subject, so why bother? It's pointless. There is no discussion here, only a topic that will go around in circles. So believe what you want, your going to anyway, and i'll do the same. Excuse you:shifty:?

As a sceptical person who loves to have his views changed and improved by factual evidence, I find this prejudiced idea of yours deeply offensive. How, pray tell, do you know this about me? Does everyone else have to have a closed mind just because you do?

I wasn't addressing you was I?Didn't say you were. Doesn't really matter anyway, considering the rest of your post, does it?

[Méo]

In any case, most WW2 movies (especially Hollywood) tend to portray every German as an evil Nazi, when this was not actually the case at all.

I rarely agree with you Nordmann, but on this I couldn't agree more! :up:

Most of the nazis where in the SS divisions and Gestapo.
The wermacht, luftwaffe and navy were professional soldiers for most. Of course you had a few fanatical like everywhere, but not all of them were evil.

+1

[Ducimus]

Does everyone else have to have a closed mind just because you do?


Here's where i return the 1 fingered salute. I am anything but close minded. I played and modded SH3, even though it wasn't my perferred theater. Was starting to do the same for SH5. I probably know about as much about uboats and the ATO as i do about fleet boats the PTO because i am open minded. That is helluva lot more then what can be said about many people who didn't even try to learn anything new because it wasn't part of the mythology their so attached to, and that you seem to be defending.

Welcome to ignore land. Since 2005 i have only added two people to my ignore list. You make number 3. Congradulations!

[Drifter]

Here's where i return the 1 fingered salute. I am anything but close minded. I played and modded SH3, even though it wasn't my perferred theater. Was starting to do the same for SH5. I probably know about as much about uboats and the ATO as i do about fleet boats the PTO because i am open minded. That is helluva lot more then what can be said about many people who didn't even try to learn anything new because it wasn't part of the mythology their so attached to, and that you seem to be defending.

Welcome to ignore land. Since 2005 i have only added two people to my ignore list. You make number 3. Congradulations!

Don't mess with the Deuce. :rotfl2:

[mookiemookie]

Tricky subject. There's been so much muddying of the waters over the years. National Socialist thought was indeed part of the training as a Seekadett. But then again, so were books like All Quiet on the Western Front.

There's probably just as many instances of anti-Nazism as there are pro-Nazism in the KM. Werner Henke had his famous clashes with the Gestapo - Doenitz himself had to smooth things over for one of his Aces when Henke stood up for one of his friends when the Gestapo and local party members harrassed them. But then there's the case of Oskar Kusch who was reported by his crew for making "defeatest" remarks and not hanging a picture of Hitler in the boat, calling it "idolatry." He was sentenced to death by a military tribunal in 1944. Though, one may argue this had more to do with demonstrating that bucking the system would not be tolerated and preventing another naval mutiny like the one that took place in November 1918.

Mulligan devotes an entire chapter to the question in "Neither Sharks Nor Wolves." His conclusions are that a lot of the evidence for the belief that all U-boat men were crazed Nazis was from wartime POW interrogators who branded any POW who refused to give anything more than name, rank and serial number a "fanatical Nazi." There also is a bunch of out and out falsehoods - one allegation with no evidence to support it is that Doenitz implemented political commissars on the boats.

Many U-boat men came from working-class families, skilled laborers and tradesmen. And while this was a group that was very supportive of the Nazi party, looking at the characteristics of U-boat men and Waffen SS, there exists a huge difference. Mulligan finds that in comparison, U-boat officers were disproportionately northern German, Protestant and well educated. So you can extrapolate that coming from a different background than the true "dyed in the wool" Nazi Waffen SS, U-boat officers most likely would have held different political beliefs.

While casual anti-semitism was seen in the navy, it wasn't hard core Nazism in the early days - Raeder protested the Kristallnacht violence to Hitler directly. Raeder butted heads with Hitler on a number of issues - officers choices of spouses, and the role of naval chaplains that the Nazis wanted reduced. Mulligan argues that National Socialist teaching was used a lot by older officers in order to more effectively command a younger generation who really didn't know anything other than Nazi Germany as a government. It appears that Rader was using the Nazi ideals as a way of furthering the KM's own interests.

Once Donitz took over, there was a shift. The American psychiatrist who interviewed both men at the Nuremburg trials said "Raeder was a schemer who planned to use Hitler for the navy. Doenitz was a disciple who wanted to serve Hitler with the navy." Now we all have probably heard lots of Doenitz's famous quotes - the one about anyone who thinks he can do better than the fuhrer is a fool, etc, etc but it doesn't appear that his personal beliefs were adopted completely through the rank and file. Mulligan did a survey of U-boat vets - one vet said "politics was no subject for us." and another said "discussing politics was usually avoided as a most unpleasant subject." Another said that "Any attempt to introduce political ideology into our lives was met with deep resentment. The very rare young Nazi fanatic who appeared onboard was looked at with benevolent amusement and otherwise ignored." But there's no denying that the message from the top, especially as the war turned against them, was that fanaticism and dedication were to be highly valued. Whether or not that worked in practice is not very clear. From the available evidence, it appears that many wrote it off as rhetoric.

So, making statements like "most/all U-boat men were fanatical Nazis" or "the Kriegsmarine weren't very Nazi" is oversimplifying and missing the true nuances of the actual situation. They're both wrong statements.

Just my $0.02.

[Ducimus]

Don't mess with the Deuce. :rotfl2:

I don't recall picking a fight. I probably should have just PMed you, but regardless i did NOT call him or anyone else out. People say things others don't like all the time. Sad fact of life. People say things on subsim that pisses me off all the time. Sometimes i jump on it, most of the time i don't. If i publicly jumped on every post that pissed me off in some way, shape or form, over the last few years, it would absolutely amaze you. He just happen to have a chip on his shoulder, at the same time i got a burr up my ass. Bad combo.

C'est la vie

[Der_Meister]

Shooting the War, Otto Giese page 131: First Patrol

"Also, I was glad to be among men who like myself cared little about politics. U-boatmen were seamen first and foremost, concerned with fighting the elements and an unrelenting enemy. I remember once hearing a humorous story that perhaps sums up our feelings regarding the political situation. One of the U-boat aces was approaching the pier in a French base port and a successful cruise. The pier was crowded with people of all sorts. There was a band, a reception committee, party members, and so forth. The boat was running with E-motors towards the pier. When he was within calling distance, the commandant asked through his megaphone, "Are the Nazis still in power?" The good folks answered, "Yes, Yes!" At this time the boat was close to the pier, and the commandant ordered in a voice loud enough for all to hear, 'Full astern, both engines!" Of course, the order was given to avoid hitting the pier, but we still had a lot of fun telling the story in U-boat circles"


I think the above quote speaks for itself ;)

Would anyone happen to know the ace Herr Giese was referring to?

[Nordmann]

I rarely agree with you Nordmann, but on this I couldn't agree more! :up:

Heh, I'd be the first to admit that I'm not always right, but it's nice to see someone agreeing with me for a change!


*Snip*

Great post, I think that sums the whole issue up very nicely.

[Drifter]

I don't recall picking a fight. I probably should have just PMed you, but regardless i did NOT call him or anyone else out. People say things others don't like all the time. Sad fact of life. People say things on subsim that pisses me off all the time. Sometimes i jump on it, most of the time i don't. If i publicly jumped on every post that pissed me off in some way, shape or form, over the last few years, it would absolutely amaze you. He just happen to have a chip on his shoulder, at the same time i got a burr up my ass. Bad combo.

C'est la vie

I should have been more clear. I was actually defending you in that post. ;)

[Méo]

Interesting read mookie, thanks.

Unfortunately, we see a lot of this

oversimplifying and missing the true nuances of the actual situation.On every subject.

[mookiemookie]

Would anyone happen to know the ace Herr Giese was referring to?

Reinhard "Teddy" Suhren.

[Der_Meister]

Danke! Yet another ace to study up on :salute:

[jazman]

Anyone notice the political correctness in SH5? I am talking about in the crew descriptions. How none of them are 'true' Nazis.

What say you? :ping:

What bothers me is the anachronism. "So and so is a cool dude." OK, I'm just shooting from the hip, but the profiles should have been written in 1940 style writing, not 2010. It would have been, like, you know, TOTALLY more elegant.

[jerm138]

It would have been, like, you know, TOTALLY more elegant.

:haha:

Totally...

[Ducimus]

As PC goes, I have never thought there was anything wrong with a Uboat sim, in and of itself. When you start expanding into that umm.. shall we say, "extended universe" does the slope get slippery... really slippery.

As the swaztika goes, i've been of two thoughts. On one hand, including it feels like an endorsement. Uboats did fight for, and under the flag of the 3rd reich, you can't rationalize that fact away. That flag continues to have meaning to this day, all of it bad. Sailing for that flag, even virtually in a video game, makes me feel dirty, and is contrary to everything i was brought up to believe.

On the other hand, not including it, while most certainly making me feel better, seems like a white washing of history, to intentionally take everything out of the context things were really in, and perhaps make them into something their not? .I'm not all that crazy about that idea either, to really simplify and understate that last sentence.

I solved that delimna for myself, by focusing only on the submarine as a weapon of war, and the tactical picture they were involved in.

[Pablo]

What bothers me is the anachronism. "So and so is a cool dude." OK, I'm just shooting from the hip, but the profiles should have been written in 1940 style writing, not 2010. It would have been, like, you know, TOTALLY more elegant.

OK, how's this?
"It was about eleven hundred hours, mid-September, with the sun not shining and a look of hard wet rain in the clearness of the foothills. I was wearing my dark blues uniform, with a white shirt, blue tie and Iron Cross Second Class pin, black brogues, black wool socks. I was neat, clean, shaved, and sober, and didn't care who knew it. I was everything the well dressed U-boat commander should be, and I was inspecting the crew.

"Tell me about yourself, Olaf"

"I'm thirty-three years old, went to school once and can still speak German if there's any demand for it. There isn't much in my trade, other than asking people if they want any soup. I voted for the NSDAP because I want a strong leader who will avenge the Dolchstoß that cost us the last war, like General Ludendorff talked about. I'm unmarried because I don't like officers' wives."
That is in the style of Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep, published in 1939.

Pablo

[Laffertytig]

Drifter, you must be looking for a forum boxing match.. I know where your coming from, but trust me man, you won't convince anyone, especially here. There's years worth of revisionism, romance and mythology that are accepted as fact, that makes this topic about as much of a dead end, as hitting a reinforced concrete wall at 60 MPH. It's just not going to give, and will go on for another 2 or 3 pages before its run its course.

ducumus,

did you even read the post directly above your post that i just quoted?

the guy makes a valid point but you then seem to rubbush it by yours:down:

[Ducimus]

ducumus,

did you even read the post directly above your post that i just quoted?

the guy makes a valid point but you then seem to rubbush it by yours:down:

Nope, i was talking to Drifter. Mainly because i couldn't believe he started the topic. I agree with his sentiment, but I've been in these dicussions before, and i find it tantamount to beating a dead horse. So I didn't care to read the usual rationalizations one way or the other so i glossed over them. I figure whatever it is, ive read it before. Then this fella with a chip on his shoulder seems to think im talking to him, which i wasn't. Whatever. At the end I offered my 2 cents on the original subject out of some stupid sense of vanity, and was letting it go at that. Then you called me out, and here i post.

[Méo]

Sailing for that flag, even virtually in a video game, makes me feel dirty

I see what you mean Ducimus, and I felt the same before.

But the more I've learned from history, the more I understood that things were much more complex than it looks like.

[Mondaiji]

I see what you mean Ducimus, and I felt the same before.

But the more I've learned from history, the more I understood that things were much more complex than it looks like.

Or maybe some want it to look like ;)

my two cent

[karamazovnew]

Already posted by someone, but deserves a relink:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=947243EF75A31B44&search_query=this+is+germany

I found this to be a very well made movie about WW2 Germans (not Nazis). Yes it's a propaganda movie made by the victors, but it's very well made and it might give you something new to think about. I might've dismissed it if I hadn't seen the first version (pre ww2) of "Nothing new on the western front". Plus, the "tips" at the end of the movie were actually put into practice and they DID work and now allow Germans to spit on the Swastika without being hypocrites.

However even after watching this movie, never forget that there were many Germans that opposed the Nazis and ended up in death camps. There were also others that loved the Nazi ideals but became horrified when those ideals became a nightmarish reality.

Also, thanks to BBC2, I've seen a recent documentary which might even shed some light into why the Final Solution was implemented, linked to why Hitler decided to open up the second front on Russia. One can't help thinking that if it wasn't for good old fat Churchill(love that guy), we'd be calling ourselves Nazis right now and be proud about it.

The point is that playing WW1 German subs is no different than playing WW2 German subs. Wilhelm was no better than Hitler by any means. However we do honor both sides of the Atlantic War, which is why not being able to "die" in 44 or 45 is such a missed feature in SH5.

[Coldcall]

I think the big facination with U-boats and their commanders is that it is the one facet of the German war machine which has a glamorous appeal even from the eyes of the Allies, as is so well demonstrated by so many Silent Hunter fans - regardless of nationality, or religion/race for that matter.

The point being that not all Germans were Nazis and when one gets called upon to do their duty as a soldier/mariner/sub-mariner then one is not necessarily responsible/guilty for some of the horrendous crimes commited by the top echelons in government.

I thought Das Boot handled it well with a mixture of pro- and anti types which is normal in any society. For instance just because Hitler is maybe sending messages of encouragment and congrgulations to u-boat fleets and commaders does not make the recipients of those messages NAZIs.

So I'd like to see some modding with a bit more honest background information which would include comuniques and messages to and from German high command and the Navy re U-boat fleet. Whats always bothered me about SH games is that lack of background immersion and i guess the PC thing is the culprit.

I thought GWX went some way to filling up the background noise better giving a flavour of what it was like on the inside of the u-boat fleet.

[Catfish]

Hello Karamazovnew,
(hope i still spelt that right ;))
while i think this group of films is really interesting and deserves credit as a historical piece, its content has a lot of propaganda in it - yes i know you already said that.
It is not even wrong, surely the history of Germany has its roots in wars and imperial behaviour, but: it does not really divert so much from british, french or even belgian history (thinking of imperialism and the colonies here, but not only).
So the question should be why especially Germany of all, with Mr. Hitler, behaved in such a way - surely the roots go back to WW1 and its end, but even this does not explain it.

England did, as far as i know, not declare war to Germany out of sympathy for the jews or their fate - this is a fitting justification of "figthing for the right thing" after the war.
That it was the right thing to end the dictatorship, cannot be doubted.
However when England declared war to Germany a second time in the 20ieth century, the reaction in the german armed forces was indeed one of disgust, and revenge. Just of all Hitler was completely surprised, he saw his future in a fight against Bolshevism, and the "living space" in the east, and he did not understand that another anglo-saxon germanic race like this "perfidious Albion" (as he said ahem) would hinder the 3rd Reich to go for the east, for a "scrap of paper" of a treaty with Poland - just like the chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg had misunderstood England in the beginning of WW1, with Belgium. (I still wonder what England would have done in WW1, had France violated Belgium's neutrality instead of Germany - they had the same plan as Germany in taking the frontline close to the enemy).

The saying in Germany was "we have a Prussian army, a Kaiser's Navy, and a Nazi-Airforce", but this is certainly too easy again ..

Interesting read, but in german:
http://books.google.de/books?id=SqUdoNMN9NIC&pg=PA343&lpg=PA343&dq=kaiserliche+Marine+nationalsozialistische+Luftw affe&source=bl&ots=OIVz6zD8zK&sig=IvDzuzDfuAGmOq1f29lp0c66FjA&hl=de&ei=IICbS9zBB4OssAbusvGQDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Greetings,
Catfish

[Drifter]

Seems I really opened up a can of worms with this thread. Perhaps many of the German soldiers/sailors were fighting to protect their families- their towns, and not for the greater glory of the Third Reich.

[AngusJS]

Wilhelm was no better than Hitler by any means.:o

I can think of many reasons why the Kaiser was better than Hitler, not sanctioning genocide being one of them.

Already posted by someone, but deserves a relink:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...his+is+germany (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=947243EF75A31B44&search_query=this+is+germany)"Just as our will for freedom is born of an historic tradition, so the Germans' thirst for power springs from their historic past."

"...a quiet, decent people, who prepared for 20 years to bring war to the world"

History fail.

Give me a break.

[Gammelpreusse]

Already posted by someone, but deserves a relink:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=947243EF75A31B44&search_query=this+is+germany

I found this to be a very well made movie about WW2 Germans (not Nazis). Yes it's a propaganda movie made by the victors, but it's very well made and it might give you something new to think about. I might've dismissed it if I hadn't seen the first version (pre ww2) of "Nothing new on the western front". Plus, the "tips" at the end of the movie were actually put into practice and they DID work and now allow Germans to spit on the Swastika without being hypocrites.

However even after watching this movie, never forget that there were many Germans that opposed the Nazis and ended up in death camps. There were also others that loved the Nazi ideals but became horrified when those ideals became a nightmarish reality.

Also, thanks to BBC2, I've seen a recent documentary which might even shed some light into why the Final Solution was implemented, linked to why Hitler decided to open up the second front on Russia. One can't help thinking that if it wasn't for good old fat Churchill(love that guy), we'd be calling ourselves Nazis right now and be proud about it.

The point is that playing WW1 German subs is no different than playing WW2 German subs. Wilhelm was no better than Hitler by any means. However we do honor both sides of the Atlantic War, which is why not being able to "die" in 44 or 45 is such a missed feature in SH5.

Hm, it is an interesting debate, but equalling Wilhelm and Adolf really does not do both men any justice. Their backgrounds, their motives, their political situatiosn both domestic and international were completly different, as were their aims at the beginning of each war. Wilhem also was relieved of power during the course of the war and replaced by a military dictatorship lead by Hindenburg and Luddendorf.

Hitler wanted war, he drove the happenings of his time, Willhem merely reacted, was driven by events. As a german, I would have zero problems playing the german side during WW1, especially given the conduct and behaviour patters of the Entente. It gets more complicated for WW2, but even there the picture is not as black and white and oversimplified as often presented. Though given the complexity of the topic, of all the different basics that have to be applied to the Nazis, the germans, and the nations involved in the happenings during these times possible makes it impossible to avoid this simplification unless all folks are required to spend years of studying the backgrounds of all the events and motivations relevant back then. When everything is said, it really comes down to psychology, basic human behaviour patterns and how embedded humanity is in civilisation and how easy morales and ethics break down when their boundaries are removed.

This is something to ponder for everywone who wants to prevent such happenings in the future. It should also be pondered why so many people still have such a fascination for war, and games on war, despite the knowledge that all it causes to is suffering, ultimately only serving morales and goals that are nothing more then a fashion of their respective times and people.

Actually, I still ask myself why I enjoy these games despite better knowledge.

[karamazovnew]

Hello Karamazovnew,
(hope i still spelt that right ;))
while i think this group of films is really interesting and deserves credit as a historical piece, its content has a lot of propaganda in it - yes i know you already said that.
It is not even wrong, surely the history of Germany has its roots in wars and imperial behaviour, but: it does not really divert so much from british, french or even belgian history (thinking of imperialism and the colonies here, but not only).
So the question should be why especially Germany of all, with Mr. Hitler, behaved in such a way - surely the roots go back to WW1 and its end, but even this does not explain it.

England did, as far as i know, not declare war to Germany out of sympathy for the jews or their fate - this is a fitting justification of "figthing for the right thing" after the war.
That it was the right thing to end the dictatorship, cannot be doubted.
However when England declared war to Germany a second time in the 20ieth century, the reaction in the german armed forces was indeed one of disgust, and revenge. Just of all Hitler was completely surprised, he saw his future in a fight against Bolshevism, and the "living space" in the east, and he did not understand that another anglo-saxon germanic race like this "perfidious Albion" (as he said ahem) would hinder the 3rd Reich to go for the east, for a "scrap of paper" of a treaty with Poland - just like the chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg had misunderstood England in the beginning of WW1, with Belgium. (I still wonder what England would have done in WW1, had France violated Belgium's neutrality instead of Germany - they had the same plan as Germany in taking the frontline close to the enemy).

The saying in Germany was "we have a Prussian army, a Kaiser's Navy, and a Nazi-Airforce", but this is certainly too easy again ..

Interesting read, but in german:
http://books.google.de/books?id=SqUdoNMN9NIC&pg=PA343&lpg=PA343&dq=kaiserliche+Marine+nationalsozialistische+Luftw affe&source=bl&ots=OIVz6zD8zK&sig=IvDzuzDfuAGmOq1f29lp0c66FjA&hl=de&ei=IICbS9zBB4OssAbusvGQDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Greetings,
Catfish

Churchill himself is guilty of trying to hold on to imperial power while America is guilty of almost enjoying seeing England fall. Stalin counted on a long battle between capitalist powers to spread the "joy" of communism into western Europe. Quite horrible to see how millions of lives can be affected by the willpower of such few men. Current world events might not be so "global" as we might think and still the result of just a few chess players sacrificing their pawns.

What I liked about that movie, shot in an era when the Holocaust was pretty much unknown and Hitler was considered more of a war-monger than a mass murderer, is that it shows 3 important things:
1. A man such as Hitler does not come to power through HIS will alone. In simple terms, he was put there and then the dog let loose his leash.
2. A man such as Hitler can not stay in power through torture alone. As with Stalin, he needs to be loved by his people, as result of vicious propaganda and a strong crackdown on liberty, but also with "visible" results in life quality.
3. A man such as Hitler could only have come to power in Germany alone (at that time).

I can't help myself be amazed by Stalin's ruthless intelligence, Hitler's mad determination and Churchill monumental courage and ability to understand the present and future world of politics and war. How fortunate are we to live in an age of coming to terms with the past, of trying to understand it, not living in fear of death squads, raping parties, mass hunger and extermination camps. How fortunate am I to have Jewish and Russian blood, having a grandfather saved by a German officer and a grandmother saved from rape by a Russian officer. Here I am playing Germany in WW2, cursing that the British battleships don't sink properly from my first torpedo and that my Nazi cook doesn't just cook by himself every 12 hours :haha:

Not exactly sure what I wanted to say here but... uhmm... :yawn:

EDIT: @Angus: I only meant that they were both willing to send millions to their deaths.
@Gammel: nobody is fascinated with WAR. We're fascinated with sacrifice, duty, courage and integrity. All sides of the war had ample proportions of those. Those are values that one can also put into practice during peacetime. On the other hand that doesn't explain why I played the "Airport" mission in MW2 100 times :D Oh well... At least now I have more sympathy for airport guards :D

[Nippelspanner]

SH5 pissed me off for the first time as I entered the bridge and spoke to the cpatain - the FIRST thing he said was something like: "uuuhhh bad nazis! me no nazi! me good, me do not like this war thing! bad nazis!"

At this moment I thought: cool, let´s run the un-installer!

I did not - not yet, due to lazyness.

I hope no one get me wrong here? It is definatley not the case that I want them to act like the 1.WO in Das Boot, but I strive for realism. And it is just STUPID to roar out your opinion about the bad ol´ Führer and Nazi-Germany while in a small tin-can with some convinced nazis, don´t you think? :yeah:

:nope:

[Gammelpreusse]

SH5 pissed me off for the first time as I entered the bridge and spoke to the cpatain - the FIRST thing he said was something like: "uuuhhh bad nazis! me no nazi! me good, me do not like this war thing! bad nazis!"

At this moment I thought: cool, let´s run the un-installer!

I did not - not yet, due to lazyness.

I hope no one get me wrong here? It is definatley not the case that I want them to act like the 1.WO in Das Boot, but I strive for realism. And it is just STUPID to roar out your opinion about the bad ol´ Führer and Nazi-Germany while in a small tin-can with some convinced nazis, don´t you think? :yeah:

:nope:


Yep. That kinda put me off myself. Whatever the ppl were like back then, even those resisting the Nazis, and especially at the start of the war against Poland where a World War was not a set piece yet, such behaviour would not have shown. That's simply unprofessional in a time where there was no strain on the psyche yet in the military.

[AngusJS]

EDIT: @Angus: I only meant that they were both willing to send millions to their deaths. Ok, but then you'd have to say that David Lloyd George, Clemenceau, Nicholas II and Franz Joseph I were no better than Hitler either, which makes the comparison kind of silly.

And that's still only if you're considering military deaths.

[Catfish]

Hello,
as said before, interesting thread - i agree with almost all, but i just became aware of Karamazovnew saying :

" ... The point is that playing WW1 German subs is no different than playing WW2 German subs. Wilhelm was no better than Hitler by any means ..."

Sorry, but I do not agree at all here.

There are differences indeed, I recently read a new book "Die U-Boote des Kaisers" (The U-Boats of the Kaiser). What was completely new to me was that those WW1 boats did lead "unrestricted Warfare" only for a very short time, and that the tonnage sunk in this time (a month) was much less, than what they did by bringing up prizes, and sinking them via deck-gun under the internationally accepted prize regulation in that time ! Mind you, sinking them after the crew had left the ship, strictly under prize regulation treaties.
That the crews were even pulled to the english shore by the U-boats, and that this was seen as self-evident by the U-boat crews has not been mentioned properly before or so i think.

When the civil merchant ships were equipped with guns, this prize-regulation war against merchants became impossible to do for U-boats, just like it did in WW2. This equipping with guns of civilian ships was indeed against international law and treaties.
This is even more true for the british introduction of the "Q-ships", used as U-boat traps looking like civilian ships running false ensigns, but dropping their camouflage and shooting at U-boats who stopped them for searching the freigth, and papers.
They were certainly trying to make the german prize regulation war impossible, which then meant the whole war getting a lot harder.

They certainly wanted Germany to begin an unrestricted U-boat war, to have a justification for their blockade, and convincing the US of Germany being a violator of international treaties, luring them into war on their side.

This was indeed an act of despair, because England did not know how to counter this new U-boat threat. Indeed Churchill under-estimated the U-boats, and had to resign after the catastrophy at Gallipoli, Turkey, with more than 10 battle cruisers sunk by U-boats, and the whole campaign failed.

But even doing so England did not succeed, instead Germany went back to prize regulation after only a month of unrestricted warfare, and doing so by direct order from the Kaiser, and his chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg.
Kaiser Bill also restricted the bombing of the english cities by Zeppelins abd the later Gotha-bombers, to military targets (it did not work, but more due to bad navigation, non-existant targeting devices, or releasing bombs to get out of there asap).

That England tried to persuade the USA, how Germany was violating international law all the time was just propaganda, and it was not even believed in the US. But then Germany buried its own grave by "acidentally" sinking the "Lusitania", and by sending this "Zimmermann"-telegram :dead:, which then gave "some reason" for joining the war - on the british side.

Under other circumstances, the US might as well have entered the war at the german side - this is no joke, the resentment against England during WW1 in the US was high, not only because of so much germans living in the US and president Wilson and the US government fearing a national uproar or even civil war, but because as a democracy (propagating free speech) they resented the british propaganda bureau, and first of all because England was violating international law by practicing the naval blockade of Germany. The US had always said they would support free sea trade under all circumstances, and Wilson was on the brink of vetoing against british practice, almost to a point of military action.
(Cynics say the US only entered the war on the british side, because England would only be able to pay back its war debts to the US, by winning the war against Germany ahem.)

William 2nd again was guilty of not making his prize regulation and holding on to international law heard in the US, he was unable to communicate this - it certainly did not help that the german population was definitely pro unrestricted U-boat war, after millions of civilian deaths due to blockade and famine in the winter 1915/16. William was in an awkward predicament (here the hungering population demanding an unrestricted war, and there his own directive of keeping to the prize regulation and telling this to the rest of the world), and as soon the military block recognized this, they used it against him and he was more or less neutralized until the end of the war.

William 2nd was, even if being a flaring monarch, like his closely related british relatives of the House of Sachsen-Coburg Gotha in England, a well educated and "humanistic" sovereign - not at all a man like Hitler
(b.t.w. the british House of Sachsen-Coburg Gotha renamed themselves to "Windsor", to not be swept away by the anti-royal resentments in England against William, after the war, due to the WPB (war propaganda bureau).
William made at least one tired joke about it, like he would propose to rename Shakespeare's "Merry wives of Windsor", to "Merry Wives of Sachsen-Coburg Gotha" ;)).

Fact is the british propaganda bureau was so "good" that the events were developing out-of-hand into a self-dynamical effect, the initial goal was overshot and the WPB was not able to stop it anymore. They were not in the position to admit after the war, that they had grossly overstated Germany's guilt, or better: plain belied their own population. Not that they were the only ones ..
This is b.t.w. why the USA hesitated so long, to really help England right from the beginning in WW2. They thought it was all propaganda again. Well they indeed did help, but not officially (what again upset the german U-bat crews), and not with the full support that would have been possible earlier in the war.

People still believe a lot of WW1 prpaganda today, it i still printed in schoolboks since even the private publishers printed wrong information for the war effort.
But you cannot - never - compare William 2nd, to Hitler !
WW2 certainly overshadows WW1, but WW1 was completely different in almost all - with the exception of millions killed.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Méo]

Ok, this thread is about political correctness in SH5.

Why not talk about political correctness in Hollywood movies?

They always describe the Germans like racist...

But why don't they talk about racism in the history of their own nation?

Why don't they talk about racism in the American army of that time (******s regiments?:hmmm:)

And even racism in the U.S. 10 years after the war (where black people were ordered to give up their seat to make room for white passenger)

Why don't they talk about the African slave trade that made millions of victims?

Why don't they talk about antisemitism in history (which is far beyond the German borders)

----

Ok, the Germans were culpable of war crimes, we all know that.

Now why don't we take a look at all war crimes committed by all nations...(Russia, Japan, U.K., U.S., France, South Africa, etc.)

----

That's what I meant by ''things were much more complex than it looks like''.

[Sailor Steve]

Why not talk about political correctness in Hollywood movies?

They always describe the Germans like racist...

But why don't they talk about racism in the history of their own nation?

Why don't they talk about racism in the American army of that time (******s regiments?:hmmm:)
Not to disagree in general, but you might want to see this TV movie sometime. It's a good one.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099391/

Why don't they talk about the African slave trade that made millions of victims?
Roots?

Why don't they talk about antisemitism in history (which is far beyond the German borders)
I can't think of the titles offhand, but there have been several movies dealing with anti-semitism in America.

My only point is that a lot of filmmakers are more liberal than not, and gladly confront any kind of instituted (or not) bigotry. But your main point is a good one, and I agree - people truly do need to look at the evil in their own backyards before jumping on everyone elses.

[Leandros]

Drifter, you must be looking for a forum boxing match.. I know where your coming from, but trust me man, you won't convince anyone, especially here. There's years worth of revisionism, romance and mythology that are accepted as fact, that makes this topic about as much of a dead end, as hitting a reinforced concrete wall at 60 MPH. It's just not going to give, and will go on for another 2 or 3 pages before its run its course.
If you ask me revisionism has been performed much less than anti-revisionism. The last being a core in the socalled Holocaust Industry and Israel's use of the Holocaust as an excuse for their own atrocities. Finkelstein, himself a jew, has written a very insigthful book on this. I recommend it even if it is very depressing. At least I think so.

Having for a time worked on a historically project I have found more and more signs of quite canted history writing. Stemming all the way from WW1. As we know, the victors write the history. Much as they like, I am afraid.

[stabiz]

Oh great, this topic again. People have no problem being hitmen or run over prostitutes with cars, but sailing uboats makes you evil.

[Gammelpreusse]

Oh great, this topic again. People have no problem being hitmen or run over prostitutes with cars, but sailing uboats makes you evil.


Eh, I think it's better such questions are asked then quitely ignored, even if it spoils the fun for some. If people are bothered by that or not is still their own descision.

[Commie]

Hello,
as said before, interesting thread - i agree with almost all, but i just became aware of Karamazovnew saying :

" ... The point is that playing WW1 German subs is no different than playing WW2 German subs. Wilhelm was no better than Hitler by any means ..."

Sorry, but I do not agree at all here.

There are differences indeed, I recently read a new book "Die U-Boote des Kaisers" (The U-Boats of the Kaiser). What was completely new to me was that those WW1 boats did lead "unrestricted Warfare" only for a very short time, and that the tonnage sunk in this time (a month) was much less, than what they did by bringing up prizes, and sinking them via deck-gun under the internationally accepted prize regulation in that time ! Mind you, sinking them after the crew had left the ship, strictly under prize regulation treaties.
That the crews were even pulled to the english shore by the U-boats, and that this was seen as self-evident by the U-boat crews has not been mentioned properly before or so i think.

When the civil merchant ships were equipped with guns, this prize-regulation war against merchants became impossible to do for U-boats, just like it did in WW2. This equipping with guns of civilian ships was indeed against international law and treaties.
This is even more true for the british introduction of the "Q-ships", used as U-boat traps looking like civilian ships running false ensigns, but dropping their camouflage and shooting at U-boats who stopped them for searching the freigth, and papers.
They were certainly trying to make the german prize regulation war impossible, which then meant the whole war getting a lot harder.

They certainly wanted Germany to begin an unrestricted U-boat war, to have a justification for their blockade, and convincing the US of Germany being a violator of international treaties, luring them into war on their side.

This was indeed an act of despair, because England did not know how to counter this new U-boat threat. Indeed Churchill under-estimated the U-boats, and had to resign after the catastrophy at Gallipoli, Turkey, with more than 10 battle cruisers sunk by U-boats, and the whole campaign failed.

But even doing so England did not succeed, instead Germany went back to prize regulation after only a month of unrestricted warfare, and doing so by direct order from the Kaiser, and his chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg.
Kaiser Bill also restricted the bombing of the english cities by Zeppelins abd the later Gotha-bombers, to military targets (it did not work, but more due to bad navigation, non-existant targeting devices, or releasing bombs to get out of there asap).

That England tried to persuade the USA, how Germany was violating international law all the time was just propaganda, and it was not even believed in the US. But then Germany buried its own grave by "acidentally" sinking the "Lusitania", and by sending this "Zimmermann"-telegram :dead:, which then gave "some reason" for joining the war - on the british side.

Under other circumstances, the US might as well have entered the war at the german side - this is no joke, the resentment against England during WW1 in the US was high, not only because of so much germans living in the US and president Wilson and the US government fearing a national uproar or even civil war, but because as a democracy (propagating free speech) they resented the british propaganda bureau, and first of all because England was violating international law by practicing the naval blockade of Germany. The US had always said they would support free sea trade under all circumstances, and Wilson was on the brink of vetoing against british practice, almost to a point of military action.
(Cynics say the US only entered the war on the british side, because England would only be able to pay back its war debts to the US, by winning the war against Germany ahem.)

William 2nd again was guilty of not making his prize regulation and holding on to international law heard in the US, he was unable to communicate this - it certainly did not help that the german population was definitely pro unrestricted U-boat war, after millions of civilian deaths due to blockade and famine in the winter 1915/16. William was in an awkward predicament (here the hungering population demanding an unrestricted war, and there his own directive of keeping to the prize regulation and telling this to the rest of the world), and as soon the military block recognized this, they used it against him and he was more or less neutralized until the end of the war.

William 2nd was, even if being a flaring monarch, like his closely related british relatives of the House of Sachsen-Coburg Gotha in England, a well educated and "humanistic" sovereign - not at all a man like Hitler
(b.t.w. the british House of Sachsen-Coburg Gotha renamed themselves to "Windsor", to not be swept away by the anti-royal resentments in England against William, after the war, due to the WPB (war propaganda bureau).
William made at least one tired joke about it, like he would propose to rename Shakespeare's "Merry wives of Windsor", to "Merry Wives of Sachsen-Coburg Gotha" ;)).

Fact is the british propaganda bureau was so "good" that the events were developing out-of-hand into a self-dynamical effect, the initial goal was overshot and the WPB was not able to stop it anymore. They were not in the position to admit after the war, that they had grossly overstated Germany's guilt, or better: plain belied their own population. Not that they were the only ones ..
This is b.t.w. why the USA hesitated so long, to really help England right from the beginning in WW2. They thought it was all propaganda again. Well they indeed did help, but not officially (what again upset the german U-bat crews), and not with the full support that would have been possible earlier in the war.

People still believe a lot of WW1 prpaganda today, it i still printed in schoolboks since even the private publishers printed wrong information for the war effort.
But you cannot - never - compare William 2nd, to Hitler !
WW2 certainly overshadows WW1, but WW1 was completely different in almost all - with the exception of millions killed.

Greetings,
Catfish

Good post, well reasoned, interesting points.


On the topic, there is a tendency in games to make the Germans 'whiter' and more politically correct than they were. Even in films like Das Doot and Stalingrad, there is such an obvious attempt to make all the Germans hate the war, hate the Nazis, kill people reluctantly etc. even when it's totally silly and ahistorical such as when the Germans are upset they have to be in the firing squad to shoot partisans in Stalingrad. Reality is that ALL nations would have no problem with this as Geneva conventions do not protect irregular forces especially ones that identify themselves as civilian. After being shot at and killed by people posing as civilians they also understandably wouldn't be in a mood to easily forgive. It was also annoying in Das Boot how despite it being 1941 and Germany still winning everywhere, there is such an exaggerated defeatism and cynicism among the Captain and crew that really seems far fetched for the time.

[Dimitrius07]

Seems like author miss his friends from SS devision :haha::har::har:. I can recommend you our self hating left wing for starters, they don`t wear swastika but we can fix that, your t-shirt will do just fine, jajaja :salute:.

иронкросик разбушевалса :rock:

[Méo]

My only point is that a lot of filmmakers are more liberal than not, and gladly confront any kind of instituted (or not) bigotry. But your main point is a good one, and I agree - people truly do need to look at the evil in their own backyards before jumping on everyone elses.

Yes, a lot of filmmakers are more liberal. But nevertheless (I think you understood what I meant) too often in movies about WW2, they don't put anything in context and oversimplify everything into a struggle between good and evil...

BTW, I just I saw the first seconds of the inglorious bastards trailer ...and that was enough for me to turn off the tv.

----

Oh great, this topic again. People have no problem being hitmen or run over prostitutes with cars, but sailing uboats makes you evil.

:yeah:

[Noren]

The swastika had another meaning in the ancient times, it came from India and stood for good values (cant remember) but the nazists thought it look cool and made it their own.

[Dimitrius07]

stood for good values
It was Symbol of victory, didn`t help very much as ussual, jaja :|\\

[GFC Christian]

The swastika had another meaning in the ancient times, it came from India and stood for good values (cant remember) but the nazists thought it look cool and made it their own.

Simply explained but utterly correct ! The swastika stands for the evil as the Nazis abused it for their human-dispensing interests. All symbols are related and connected to human acting, in good or bad sense. I'm glad and grateful to have the choice using the "accurate german flag" mod or not......'cause having the choice is what really counts !

@Dimitrius07

Talking about symbols; the shield of David on the blue and white banner in your signature is a symbol too...... also connected to human acting, in good or bad sense. ;)

[ShadowWolf Kell]

Correct. From all the personal accounts of the German side that I have read, I have come to the conclusion that many German civilians and military personel were indeed very hard-core Nazis. They truly believed in Hitler and the system. But try convincing the millions of young people who get their versions of 'history' from movies like Pearl Harbor and U-571. :88)


There are quite a few historical documentaries and facts to prove otherwise. And lets not forget, Donitz himself succeeded Hitler in the end and was never charged with being a Nazi. In fact, he was one of the few to escape Nuremberg relatively unscathed.

I think many are confusing enthusiasm for being patriotic and defending their country with zealous Naziism.

Historically, both the Kreigsmarine and the Luftwaffe deliberately butted heads against the Nazis on multiple occassions. You might want to read up on Adolf Galland, who likewise was never charged with being a Nazi, nor for war crimes.

Now I'm not saying there weren't many who subscribed to the Nazi point of view. I'm sure plenty did. But there were quite a few who didn't. The Kreigsmarine and the Luftwaffe were nothing like the Wermacht, who did little to nothing to resist the SS and orders handed down from High Command.

At any rate, I'd definitely NOT use the movie Das Boot as any kind of realistic comparison. Heck, it's not even true to the actual book. :down:

[Pablo]

The swastika had another meaning in the ancient times, it came from India and stood for good values (cant remember) but the nazists thought it look cool and made it their own.
Hi!

The word "swastika" comes from the Sanskrit word "svastika", meaning a "lucky object." The symbol was around for about 10,000 years before it was appropriated by the NSDAP: folks in India and elsewhere refuse to stop using it since it was theirs to begin with, so it regularly appears on documents that mark auspicious occasions, such as wedding announcements.

Pablo

[Dimitrius07]

Talking about symbols; the shield of David on the blue and white banner in your signature is a symbol too...... also connected to human acting, in good or bad sense.

That is correct, its suppose to protect us from our enemy, i personally believe more in UZI maybe cause i am an atheist.

Back to the topic.

Anyone notice the political correctness in SH5? I am talking about in the crew descriptions. How none of them are 'true' Nazis.

What say you?
Revisionist history sucks. Lol

I really like to know how to make NPCs in SH5 look like real and true nazis, maybe a mod :hmmm:? Lets change "wife and Bismark" dialogue to something like "lets hunt jews". Will that do the trick? We can give a original name to a mod as well, something like "Silent conspiracy- jackass edition". Sounds fun :woot: were is my popcorn :cool:

[Hanomag]

I really like to know how to make NPCs in SH5 look like real and true nazis, maybe a mod :hmmm:? Lets change "wife and Bismark" dialogue to something like "lets hunt jews". Will that do the trick? We can give a original name to a mod as well, something like "Silent conspiracy- jackass edition". Sounds fun :woot: were is my popcorn :cool:

Gasp... :o

[mookiemookie]

There are quite a few historical documentaries and facts to prove otherwise. And lets not forget, Donitz himself succeeded Hitler in the end and was never charged with being a Nazi. In fact, he was one of the few to escape Nuremberg relatively unscathed.

Make no mistake, Doenitz was as hardcore as it got. He may not have joined the party until 1944, but he was definitely under Hitler's spell. As I said in my previous post, it doesn't appear that his attitude spread down to the rank and file. I'm sure that with the tide of the war turning so heavily against them, he needed to put on a face of zealotry and faith in the Fuhrer in order to inspire confidence in the men.

[GFC Christian]

Make no mistake, Doenitz was as hardcore as it got. He may not have joined the party until 1944, but he was definitely under Hitler's spell. As I said in my previous post, it doesn't appear that his attitude spread down to the rank and file. I'm sure that with the tide of the war turning so heavily against them, he needed to put on a face of zealotry and faith in the Fuhrer in order to inspire confidence in the men.

.....and he was Hitlers successor by will.

[Nafod81]

I'd suggest some reading if we wish to believe the wehrmacht was pro-nazi, and the kriegsmarine not so much.

All the conspirators who attempted to remove hitler from power between 1936-1940 were in the general staff of the army. Although Admiral Raeder wasn't happy that hostilities were opening when the Germans were ridiculously outgunned on the sea.

I'd suggest reading the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Schriber. He takes a viewpoint that I believe Germans would find offensive (seems to think they are bent on war, even leaving a cautionary note in the afterword in 1990 about the risks of a united Germany). But he does describe in great detail the complete and total lack of response to the outbreak of hostilities in 1939. No one was cheering the troops on, as they did in 1914.

Hitler's Germany was guilty of far more crimes than the "final solution." Just consider that the 3rd Reich only declared war on the United States of America prior to commencing hostilities. This forced me to re-evaluate the military accomplishments of the germans.

[Gilbou]

You had countries and people around Germany in Europe.
Bunch of faggots that saw all of it come, and did nothing.
Isn't that a lack of responsability ?

Europe does not have the balls you need to do what they
want themselves to do.

They go their asses stuffed during WW2 and they saw all of
it coming and did nothing. From the stupid English prime
minister waving a paper out of the plane to the stupid
French morons who designed a defense line but because
they had good relations with Belgium did stop this defense
line and when the German army attacked, they use Belgium
because there was no defense line on its side.

The very same thing happened with Bosnia-Herzegovina
in Europe. We all saw it coming. A French general, Morillon,
was there and sent alert messages for weeks, monthes and
he even came to talk and yell at the European council to
warn about what was going on in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
They did nothing until war was on and civilians dying by
hundreds and thousands with ethnical cleaning.

Europe is a bag of full hot air since 1930s with illusions
of grandeur and no balls when it comes to put into acts
your beliefs.

Europe is as guilty. And it keeps repeating the same mistakes
again and again.

[Gilbou]

We have dirty hands in the Allied camp too.

Secret and classified documents have been released years ago.
We today know that the English had concentration camps
for german soldiers, where they were abused, beaten, put to
famine, and the pictures show people looking exactly like what
the Russians found when they discovered the concentration
camps in Poland and Germany...

The English government ordered secrecy to be kept and most
of the pictures have been destroyed, but not all.
They were beaten to death. Died of famine, under conditions
closely shadowing those of the worst German camps.
Is this teached in schools ? You bet not.

Those who lose wars get judged. Not those who win who
can rewrite history to portray the bad guys as really bad guys,
and keeping the silence on what we did that was exactly the
same thing in the end.

We have written copies of Eisenhower orders that specifically
asked for harsh treatment of POW under their control

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/17/secondworldwar.topstories3

This is what war is really about.
We kill people. The enemy.
And God bless, you don't want to be on the side of those
who lose.

A funny thing to do is compare school books about wars, between
countries that did fight wars from the beginning of our war-inclined
species. The way country A says the war went on, compared to
country B. You will see that those who win occult what they did wrong,
because it happens. Sometimes you shoot on guys on your own
side, or civilians. Mistakes happen, catastrophic errors. That's life.

We all ****ed up. Both the Allied and the Axis powers.
For the sake of history and, if possible, not repeating those
mistakes, we should lay everything down for History and try
to be as honest as possible. Historians are not here to judge,
but to relate what did happen, in the most real way possible,
based on facts and records and testiomonies.

No one comes out of a war with clean hands where the enemy
got what he deserved and only them did wrong things...

[Commie]

Make no mistake, Doenitz was as hardcore as it got. He may not have joined the party until 1944, but he was definitely under Hitler's spell. As I said in my previous post, it doesn't appear that his attitude spread down to the rank and file. I'm sure that with the tide of the war turning so heavily against them, he needed to put on a face of zealotry and faith in the Fuhrer in order to inspire confidence in the men.


Well I always wondered why the U-boat campaign was continued after 1943. Sure it would have made sense to try and delay D-day somehow, but when every sub you send out comes home empty handed or doesn't come home at all it seems almost criminal to keep going with it. The sailors were like kamikazes almost. Hitler turned off the support for many weapon systems when they seemed to be useless (Luftwaffe suffered a lot when Hitler lost faith in it), but the Kriegsmarine kept getting their U-boats, even when it was pointless to continue!Why? Could it be that Doenitz was a real Hitler adherent and old Adolf wanted to reward this fanaticism? Probably.

Seems idiotic though. You could train 11-12 tank crews and mechanics from a sub crew, and make many tanks and aircraft from the resources for one u-boat. Tanks and tank destroyers were especially effective for Germany in 1944-45.

[mookiemookie]

Well I always wondered why the U-boat campaign was continued after 1943.

He had to keep sending the boats out because he knew that by doing so, the Allies were devoting resources to fighting them that could have been used elsewhere. That's why they tried so hard to send boats far south to Freetown, the Caribbean and even the Far East - the more they spread out, the more the Allies had to spread their defenses. The thinking was that if they could keep the Allies spread out, they could possibly hold on until new technologies like the Type XXI's and such would be ready. Doenitz needed the fanaticism and the morale high, in order to have his force continue to head to sea in the face of these long odds.

[GFC Christian]

Well I always wondered why the U-boat campaign was continued after 1943. Sure it would have made sense to try and delay D-day somehow, but when every sub you send out comes home empty handed or doesn't come home at all it seems almost criminal to keep going with it.

It was simply too late. In my opinion Hitler made two epic mistakes already in 1940 that decided the war.

1) He failed to defeat the BEF (British Expedition Forces) at Dunkirk as he expected british sympathy for his mercy and a chance for a separat peace with UK.

2) The battle over Britain was close, very close but Hitler hesitated to defeat the RAF finally as he worried the loss of man and material already included in his plans to attack Russia. In result "Operation Sealion" was postponed and later on cancelled. -> epic fail !

Thanks god Hitler was a delayer and a laggard. Take your time and imagine a scenario when U.K. lost the Battle over Britain and Operation Sealion succeeded........a nightmare !

[Gammelpreusse]

Well I always wondered why the U-boat campaign was continued after 1943. Sure it would have made sense to try and delay D-day somehow, but when every sub you send out comes home empty handed or doesn't come home at all it seems almost criminal to keep going with it. The sailors were like kamikazes almost. Hitler turned off the support for many weapon systems when they seemed to be useless (Luftwaffe suffered a lot when Hitler lost faith in it), but the Kriegsmarine kept getting their U-boats, even when it was pointless to continue!Why? Could it be that Doenitz was a real Hitler adherent and old Adolf wanted to reward this fanaticism? Probably.

Seems idiotic though. You could train 11-12 tank crews and mechanics from a sub crew, and make many tanks and aircraft from the resources for one u-boat. Tanks and tank destroyers were especially effective for Germany in 1944-45.

You have to see it from a strategic point. Despite their losses, the U-Boats were capable to bind vast allied ressources. The allied material going into ASW far surpassed those of the U-Boats, both in men and material. By sending boats out to the last day these allied ressources could not be applied somewhere else.

It's comparable to the efforts of the 8th airforce, which despite not succeeding in crippling the german industry, managed to wear down the Luftwaffe and achieve complete air superiourity. In that a secondary goal is more important then the obvious goal suggests.

[Faamecanic]

Read Karl Doenitz auto-biography "Ten Years and Twenty Days".

The KM were the least supportive of the Nazi party. To the point that they would not adopt the Nazi salute. After the attempt on Hitlers life he demanded all military salute in the Nazi salute to show loyalty....but Karl Doenitz convinced him otherwise.

Karl Doenitz also makes a convincing argument that those men in the KM were fighting for thier COUNTRY...not a Party.

[Catfish]

Hello,

i cannot adress all single posters, however i will quote statements, and comment as good as i'm able to ..

That Doenitz continued to send boats out still in 1943, despite the odds, was due to the assumption that the presence of U-boats alone would bind enemy forces, until better boats like the Walter and XXI electric boats would be available.
He said this openly to his U-boat commanders, something like "even if you do not sink one ship, your presence alone ties down enemy forces like ships and bombers, which will not be available to bomb Germany - think of that, and survive until we get the new boats".

As well - since the break into the Enigma was still not understood in Germany, as well as the new airborne centimeter radar, Doenitz sent out some of his special "aces" to find out what was going on, as a means to understand why the losses had gone up so badly.


(This would b.t.w. make a wonderful single mission, for SH 5! "You are to go to xyz and find out why the U-boat losses have increased recently - do not risk anything, find out and report!"


The breaking into Enigma in Bletchley Park was not realized in Germany until after the war, instead the climate became very bad because the high staff believed in one or more traitors, working for the british. The Engima coding system was considered as unbreakable. As well as the installation of a centimeter radar in planes was considered to be impossible due to its size.


"... and he [Doenitz] was Hitlers successor by will. ..."

Yes, Goering wanted to be H.'s successor, and also Himmler showed up to take control. However in an earlier state of events Hitler had advised Doenitz to take control, if something happened to him. When Himmler showed up and said he would be the "Fuehrer's official succesor" he was actually immediately thrown out by Doenitz' guards.
I guess (!) this was because Doenitz was the only man who dared to talk business to Hitler, without sweet-talking to keep him calm, or gain any advantages. Additionally Doenitz talked to the western allies in march 1945 about to prolong the war in a way to save as most as possible people from then eastern Germany, from the Russian army. It was one good action within a lot of bad, to evacuate ten-thousands of people, from eastern Germany, by all kinds of ships over the baltic sea. The western allies agreed to, and supported, this plan.


" ... Hitler's Germany was guilty of far more crimes than the "final solution." Just consider that the 3rd Reich only declared war on the United States of America prior to commencing hostilities. This forced me to re-evaluate the military accomplishments of the germans. ..."

I do not quite understand - surely Germany was guilty of more war crimes and violating international law, than of the "final solution" - but Germany did declare war to the USA before attacking the USA (!), unlike Japan (see Pearl Harbour).

Another thing is the lend-lease contract of giving some 20 old US destroyers to England, which helped England at least a bit. But also US destroyers of the US Navy reported positions of german U-boats to british escorts, long before the USA and Germany were at war with each other, and also accompanied and protected british convoys.
The USA also enlarged its own national waters to the mid-atlantic, so every U-boat cruising west of the Azores, was technically violating US territorial waters - by US definition, that is.
The "mid-ocean-meeting point (or "MOMP") was the border where US destroyers stopped to accompany british convoys etc .. the accidental sinking of the US destroyer "Reuben James" happened in that time. After the USS Reuben James had chased and pinged Erich Topp's boat (mind you - before the US and Germany were at war), Topp fired some torpedoes at british merchants and accidentally hit the Reuben James. When the destroyer sank, its armed depth charges exploded, killing almost its whole crew already perishing in the icy waters.
Let's say Germany had some doubts about US "neutrality", long before the "hot war" started.

Germany then declared war to the USA after Pearl Harbour because after the japanese agression Hitler hoped that the USA would be too much under pressure to win the war in the Pacific, than to be a real help for England at the eastern theatre of war. He was wrong in the long run, but at first the east coast of the US was something like the second "Happy Times" for the U-boats, because the USA did not react to this declaration of war of Germany at all.
Even after 30 and more ships were sunk by U-boats, some in visual range of the beaches and bathing people.
Hardegen wrote in his autobiography how he manouevered to not kill the spectators on the beach, when he sank a tanker with bis deck gun in broad daylight. He, of all, found it irresponsible how the US government "handled" the situation.
At night all lights were on, buoys anchored as in peace time, the lighthouses working and guiding the U-boats (!), no civilian ship informed to take another course a.s.o..
It was indeed almost a crime to underestimate the threat in such a way. As Hitler had hoped, Mr. King, the US admiral for naval defense (? don't know the exact title) indeed concentrated on the Pacific and did nothing against the rising sinkings at the east coast - at first.


Doenitz and war crimes: He was not judged as guilty at the Nuremburg trials, after the war. Indeed german U-boat crews never gunned down civilian or military survivors or castaways, as it happened with US boats in the Pacific. Instead german U-boats had reportedly helped a lot of crews, to reach the coast or give them advice which course to take with their lifeboats.
After the Laconia incident, it was officially forbidden to act in such a way by Doenitz, because of direct official order from Hitler - however inofficially he encouraged his crews to still have mercy and help - if there was no imminent danger for boat and crew.

The only one who did gun down survivors after a sinking, was Kapitaenleutnant Eck, and he was hung by the allies, after being plead guilty of gunning down survivors of a greek vessel after sinking it. This story is indeed very special, and very controversial.

@Gilbou
I have heard about those atrocities against german prisoners before, but i admit i did not believe it. In another forum someone told me his Dad had be involved in the torturing and killing of german prisoners of war, but i did not believe him as well, apart maybe as i thought from isolated events during special espionage interrogations. This is very sad.

Greetings,
Catfish

[PortoFerro]

Additionally Doenitz talked to the western allies in march 1945 about to prolong the war in a way to save as most as possible people from then eastern Germany, from the Russian army. It was one good action within a lot of bad, to evacuate ten-thousands of people, from eastern Germany, by all kinds of ships over the baltic sea.

3 Ships were sunk by Russian subs (made in Germany) during these efforts causing about 20000 casualties.
On the Gustloff alone 9000 went down.

[Nordmann]

3 Ships were sunk by Russian subs (made in Germany) during these efforts causing about 20000 casualties.
On the Gustloff alone 9000 went down.

Imagine the outcry if it had been the other way around. Hypocrisy, such a common occurrence in history.

[PortoFerro]

Well, at least the Gustloff had soldiers and a some deckguns on board, so it was basically a warship.
However, the sub captain demanded to become "Hero of the Soviet Union" which was denied initially but given after his death by M. Gorbatschow.

Compared to these events the Titanic looks like a minor disaster.
Let's just do everything we can to never ever shoot at each other again.

[pythos]

"Let's just do everything we can to never ever shoot at each other again"

I so wish we silly humans would take hold and act on such a statement. WWII should have been the last war. We just should have put down our weapons, stop weapons development, and work for the good of human kind.

It is because of this belief and wish the only combat sims I play are WWII or before.

I dislike modern killing games.

[GFC Christian]

"Let's just do everything we can to never ever shoot at each other again"

I so wish we silly humans would take hold and act on such a statement. WWII should have been the last war. We just should have put down our weapons, stop weapons development, and work for the good of human kind.....


I fully agree with you !

Respect and tolerance prevent wars. We should reconceive our attiude towards other religions, ethics and and systems instead of bombing them back to stoneage or sending troops distibuting our way of life they don't really want. Day by day it makes me very sad to see our soldiers far away from home fighting the so called "equitable war on terror" way down in Afghanistan.

[Commie]

Thanks all who replied to my query! Am much more familiar with the land and air wars than the u-boat/naval war which nonetheless always had me fascinated.

Thinking about it, it does actually make sense to send out u-boats to tie down allied forces, and to be brutally honest, the u-boat service despite suffering massive casualties, when compared to the rest of the German military they suffered very little in exchange for the damage they did and the resources they tied down. Losing 24,000 odd in 6 years with most losses in the last year and half is a small price relatively for Germany to pay.

Have to take issue with a couple of points by GFC Christian though. Although good, I don't think that Dunkirk or Battle of Britain were decisive in anyway. Britain lost twice as many troops in WW1 and didn't surrender so even the loss of 300,000 at Dunkirk wouldn't have been decisive. The British still lost all their military equipment, and were not really in a position to challenge the Germans anywhere on land until 1942, even with the troops saved. Monty might have had a harder time in the desert, but the problem for the Germans in North Africa was less to do with the British and more to do with lack of resources for their own military. Had Germany held off on Barbarossa, then they could have easily swept away the British in the Middle East, with or without the Brits having the Dunkirk troops in play. Secondly, even if the Germans managed to beat down the RAF for a few weeks in 1940, they'd still have to face the RN and even with air superiority, it's doubtful whether they could reduce the threat quickly enough in order to risk an invasion with their feeble barge fleet.

The real strategic mistakes for Germany were starting the war too early, not getting ready for total war production wise until 1942, and of course attacking the Soviet Union without ample reserves.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I'm going to offer my own little pieces of information to this quite interesting discussion. I don't claim to be always correct - I'm almost sure I do mistakes. If I do mistake please correct me. I'm happy to learn new! :DL

At first about RMS Lusitania which Catfish told about. RMS Lusitania and it's sister - RMS Mauretania - were built before war under deal with British government. Ships owner Cunard received financing for building those ships by agreeing to equip them so that they could be easily be converted to merchant raiders. They had deckgun mounts installed but they were camouflaged from passengers by rope. They also had magazines to carry ammo for their intended wartime deckguns. However doctrine changed before war to use not so high profile ships as merchant raiders.

Germans were aware about Lusitania's status and technically it was (despite not having guns installed) under rules of war warship and therefore legal target.

There was also suspicion/intelligence that Lusitania was carrying war material to UK and this again made it legal target.

During WWII Germany gave order to not help survivors after Laconia incident. However Dönitz was not convicted from this because he pointed out that allied had done same especially in Pacific theatre. Convicting Dönitz would have made several US admirals also war criminals.

EDIT: I forgot to comment U-boats effect in tieing up allied resources which could have been used to other war material. Same applied to Kriegsmarine's surface fleet. It was totally unmatched to British Royal Navy but it worked as fleet-in-beeing. Only existence of those battleship, cruisers and destroyers forced RN to keep heavy forces like battleships in Atlantic theatre.

Last but not least I would like to point out that swastika used in Finland before and during WWII was NOT anyway connected to nazi insignia. Finnish swastika's history comes from Finnish Civil War when White Guards got their first aircraft as donation from Sweden. At my understanding swastika was used in request of donating Swedish count although I'm no longer sure about that last statement. I readed this information about decade ago.

EDIT #2: How all this is connected to "political correcteness"? When this thread derailed that bad...? :oops: Not complaining though. :D

Thanks for your attention gentlemen.

Now it's time to put torpedos into water! :D

[Faamecanic]

There are quite a few historical documentaries and facts to prove otherwise. And lets not forget, Donitz himself succeeded Hitler in the end and was never charged with being a Nazi. In fact, he was one of the few to escape Nuremberg relatively unscathed.

I think many are confusing enthusiasm for being patriotic and defending their country with zealous Naziism.

Historically, both the Kreigsmarine and the Luftwaffe deliberately butted heads against the Nazis on multiple occassions. You might want to read up on Adolf Galland, who likewise was never charged with being a Nazi, nor for war crimes.

Now I'm not saying there weren't many who subscribed to the Nazi point of view. I'm sure plenty did. But there were quite a few who didn't. The Kreigsmarine and the Luftwaffe were nothing like the Wermacht, who did little to nothing to resist the SS and orders handed down from High Command.

At any rate, I'd definitely NOT use the movie Das Boot as any kind of realistic comparison. Heck, it's not even true to the actual book. :down:

I hardly find serving 10 years and 20 days in prison being "relatively unscathed". Donitz WAS found guilty of Warcrimes (torpedo'ing unarmed Merchant vessels was basically the charge) even AFTER Adm. Chester Nimitz testified for Donitz saying "ADm. Donitz did NOTHING that the US NAVY did to Japan".

Donitz being made leader after Hitlers death is a mystery. Most thought Himmler or Goering would have got the title. Most feel that maybe in a last moment of sanity, Hitler knew Donitz was the ONLY leader that would bring about a peaceful end to the war, without total annhilation of the German people (ala Japan's end).

The KM and Luftwaffe butted heads because Goering was so far up Hitlers rear end and Goering was sucking away all the metal and resources needed to produce U boats that Adm. Raeder and especially Donitz were always fighting him. Then to add insult to injury Goering would fight the KM on supplying Condors for Recon missions.

Its all in Donitz's book "Ten years and Twenty days"

[Gilbou]

Hello,

i cannot adress all single posters, however i will quote statements, and comment as good as i'm able to ..

That Doenitz continued to send boats out still in 1943, despite the odds, was due to the assumption that the presence of U-boats alone would bind enemy forces, until better boats like the Walter and XXI electric boats would be available.
He said this openly to his U-boat commanders, something like "even if you do not sink one ship, your presence alone ties down enemy forces like ships and bombers, which will not be available to bomb Germany - think of that, and survive until we get the new boats".

As well - since the break into the Enigma was still not understood in Germany, as well as the new airborne centimeter radar, Doenitz sent out some of his special "aces" to find out what was going on, as a means to understand why the losses had gone up so badly.


(This would b.t.w. make a wonderful single mission, for SH 5! "You are to go to xyz and find out why the U-boat losses have increased recently - do not risk anything, find out and report!"


The breaking into Enigma in Bletchley Park was not realized in Germany until after the war, instead the climate became very bad because the high staff believed in one or more traitors, working for the british. The Engima coding system was considered as unbreakable. As well as the installation of a centimeter radar in planes was considered to be impossible due to its size.


"... and he [Doenitz] was Hitlers successor by will. ..."

Yes, Goering wanted to be H.'s successor, and also Himmler showed up to take control. However in an earlier state of events Hitler had advised Doenitz to take control, if something happened to him. When Himmler showed up and said he would be the "Fuehrer's official succesor" he was actually immediately thrown out by Doenitz' guards.
I guess (!) this was because Doenitz was the only man who dared to talk business to Hitler, without sweet-talking to keep him calm, or gain any advantages. Additionally Doenitz talked to the western allies in march 1945 about to prolong the war in a way to save as most as possible people from then eastern Germany, from the Russian army. It was one good action within a lot of bad, to evacuate ten-thousands of people, from eastern Germany, by all kinds of ships over the baltic sea. The western allies agreed to, and supported, this plan.


" ... Hitler's Germany was guilty of far more crimes than the "final solution." Just consider that the 3rd Reich only declared war on the United States of America prior to commencing hostilities. This forced me to re-evaluate the military accomplishments of the germans. ..."

I do not quite understand - surely Germany was guilty of more war crimes and violating international law, than of the "final solution" - but Germany did declare war to the USA before attacking the USA (!), unlike Japan (see Pearl Harbour).

Another thing is the lend-lease contract of giving some 20 old US destroyers to England, which helped England at least a bit. But also US destroyers of the US Navy reported positions of german U-boats to british escorts, long before the USA and Germany were at war with each other, and also accompanied and protected british convoys.
The USA also enlarged its own national waters to the mid-atlantic, so every U-boat cruising west of the Azores, was technically violating US territorial waters - by US definition, that is.
The "mid-ocean-meeting point (or "MOMP") was the border where US destroyers stopped to accompany british convoys etc .. the accidental sinking of the US destroyer "Reuben James" happened in that time. After the USS Reuben James had chased and pinged Erich Topp's boat (mind you - before the US and Germany were at war), Topp fired some torpedoes at british merchants and accidentally hit the Reuben James. When the destroyer sank, its armed depth charges exploded, killing almost its whole crew already perishing in the icy waters.
Let's say Germany had some doubts about US "neutrality", long before the "hot war" started.

Germany then declared war to the USA after Pearl Harbour because after the japanese agression Hitler hoped that the USA would be too much under pressure to win the war in the Pacific, than to be a real help for England at the eastern theatre of war. He was wrong in the long run, but at first the east coast of the US was something like the second "Happy Times" for the U-boats, because the USA did not react to this declaration of war of Germany at all.
Even after 30 and more ships were sunk by U-boats, some in visual range of the beaches and bathing people.
Hardegen wrote in his autobiography how he manouevered to not kill the spectators on the beach, when he sank a tanker with bis deck gun in broad daylight. He, of all, found it irresponsible how the US government "handled" the situation.
At night all lights were on, buoys anchored as in peace time, the lighthouses working and guiding the U-boats (!), no civilian ship informed to take another course a.s.o..
It was indeed almost a crime to underestimate the threat in such a way. As Hitler had hoped, Mr. King, the US admiral for naval defense (? don't know the exact title) indeed concentrated on the Pacific and did nothing against the rising sinkings at the east coast - at first.


Doenitz and war crimes: He was not judged as guilty at the Nuremburg trials, after the war. Indeed german U-boat crews never gunned down civilian or military survivors or castaways, as it happened with US boats in the Pacific. Instead german U-boats had reportedly helped a lot of crews, to reach the coast or give them advice which course to take with their lifeboats.
After the Laconia incident, it was officially forbidden to act in such a way by Doenitz, because of direct official order from Hitler - however inofficially he encouraged his crews to still have mercy and help - if there was no imminent danger for boat and crew.

The only one who did gun down survivors after a sinking, was Kapitaenleutnant Eck, and he was hung by the allies, after being plead guilty of gunning down survivors of a greek vessel after sinking it. This story is indeed very special, and very controversial.

@Gilbou
I have heard about those atrocities against german prisoners before, but i admit i did not believe it. In another forum someone told me his Dad had be involved in the torturing and killing of german prisoners of war, but i did not believe him as well, apart maybe as i thought from isolated events during special espionage interrogations. This is very sad.

Greetings,
Catfish

It becomes hard not to "believe it" when pictures get published and secret documents declassified.

Some people, even when told the truth and shown proof, still prefer to put their heads in sand.

War is a dirty business.

[gmccabe01]

All sides done the dirt it's just that the winner's write history!

On another note , I decided to go into Cork harbour in southern Ireland
(I'm from there) and could'ent get in due to English destroyers and even the Irish merchants showed red on the map.
Now I know for a fact that the English were not allowed near southern
Ireland (into harbours and such) they would be interned like the
German and English airmen who crashed here during wwII because
Ireland was neutral.
Just wondering if anyone else noticed neutral harbours being patroled
by the R.N. with ships they had'ent got (could'ent even escort all convoys)
and neutral ships red on the map (thus enemy)?

[Juliano]

Heck, I´ve even seen polish ships traveling through Kiel channel :o
It was fun to see the LW bomb them tho... :har:

[bigboywooly]

Just wondering if anyone else noticed neutral harbours being patroled
by the R.N. with ships they had'ent got (could'ent even escort all convoys)
and neutral ships red on the map (thus enemy)?

Bergen is patrolled by Br warships in Oct 39

Yes wondered where all these destroyers are coming from as regulary see up to 6 in a group patrolling plus all the ones I spot in convoys

And am only in 40 when they were real short

[GFC Christian]

Thinking about it, it does actually make sense to send out u-boats to tie down allied forces, and to be brutally honest, the u-boat service despite suffering massive casualties, when compared to the rest of the German military they suffered very little in exchange for the damage they did and the resources they tied down. Losing 24,000 odd in 6 years with most losses in the last year and half is a small price relatively for Germany to pay.

We lost 784 subs of 863 (on duty) with about 30.000 of 40.000 men.... more than 90% of the subs and their crews ! Sure, they sunk 2.882 merchants and 175 warships, but in my opinion the effect on the devolution of war in Europe was in no proportion. In the end a "realitvely high price" for an unsuccessful mission.

The real strategic mistakes for Germany were starting the war too early, not getting ready for total war production wise until 1942, and of course attacking the Soviet Union without ample reserves.

Well, I think no country in Europe was better prepared for war as Germany was in 1939. The disastrous apeacement policy of Neville Chamberlain was a clear statement of weakness. The raid on Denmark and Norway caused cabinet crises in U.K. and France. The "Blitzkrieg" successes later on in the low countries (The Netherlands, Luxemburg and Belgium) but especially in France (subdued in about 6 weeks) showed the imbalance of power very clear.

No, it was not too early, it was inconsequent ! All involved on the German side agreed to avoid a war on two fronts cause they were fully aware that the military and industrial power was not strong enough two stand a war on two fronts. So after capturing France it was a logical step to raid and subdue U.K.I stick to it; the day Operation Sealion was postponed (17th September 1940) was the day Germany lost the war.....

Have to take issue with a couple of points by GFC Christian though. Although good, I don't think that Dunkirk or Battle of Britain were decisive in anyway. Britain lost twice as many troops in WW1 and didn't surrender so even the loss of 300,000 at Dunkirk wouldn't have been decisive. The British still lost all their military equipment, and were not really in a position to challenge the Germans anywhere on land until 1942, even with the troops saved. Monty might have had a harder time in the desert, but the problem for the Germans in North Africa was less to do with the British and more to do with lack of resources for their own military. Had Germany held off on Barbarossa, then they could have easily swept away the British in the Middle East, with or without the Brits having the Dunkirk troops in play. Secondly, even if the Germans managed to beat down the RAF for a few weeks in 1940, they'd still have to face the RN and even with air superiority, it's doubtful whether they could reduce the threat quickly enough in order to risk an invasion with their feeble barge fleet.

The loss of 300.000 German soldiers at Stalingrad, sacrified by "the greatest General of all times" was the point of inflection in view of the sympathy Hitler still relished in big parts of the german population at that time. As for the battle of Dunkirk; I'm convinced that the total destruction of the BEF, would have had (grottenschlechtes Englisch, ich weiß) a more than decisive psychological effect on the british population and democracy....and not a good one.

I don't know whether there was chance to succeed Operation Sealion or not, but it was the major mistake to postpone/cancelling it, because

- no war in nothern Africa as U.K. surrendered (troops available for a postponed raid on Russia)
- Monty retired..... ;)
- more and more subs and fleet controlling the Atlantic (incl. Bismarck etc.)
- therefore no need to defend western Europe from Norway to France (Westwall)
- no combat troops tied up in western europe (troops available for a postponed raid on Russia)
- no USAF and RAF bombings on Germany military industry and civillian targets
- full german industrial power to prepare the postponed raid on Russia
- no chance for an allied invasion in Europe or Africa across the atlantic
- etc. etc. etc.

As I already said; a nightmare.

[Nafod81]

Gilbou,

My point is: Germany did not formally declare war on Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, or the USSR prior to the commencement of hostilities.

France and the UK went to war with Germany. Greece was mobilized and enetered the war against Italy.

That leaves one instance where Germany declared war prior to commencing hostile actions, the USA.

Further the Aschluss of Austria and Czechoslovakia although peaceful (no shots fired) weren't exactly carried out with the best wishes of these two nations, and generally their leaders and delegates were under extreme duress at the Wilhelmstrasse or Berchtesgaden.

[Commie]

Well, I think no country in Europe was better prepared for war as Germany was in 1939. The disastrous apeacement policy of Neville Chamberlain was a clear statement of weakness. The raid on Denmark and Norway caused cabinet crises in U.K. and France. The "Blitzkrieg" successes later on in the low countries (The Netherlands, Luxemburg and Belgium) but especially in France (subdued in about 6 weeks) showed the imbalance of power very clear.

Don't agree, Germany has few reserves of supplies and low morale when invading Poland. Many German commanders complained or reported about the lack of aggressiveness and many instances of insubordination were reported. Blitzkrieg was in fact an answer to the general unpreparedness of the German army of 1939. The Germans used over 4 million horses in WW2 compared to 2 million in WW1, so they had a very small level of mechanization, which again meant that the Blitzkrieg was the only real way the Germans could hope to achieve victories.

Britain wasn't in anyway the reason the Germans lost the war, as really failure to defeat Britain in 1940 still didn't result in a 2 front war. That only happened with Barbarossa. I understand that for you being beaten by 'untermenschen' from the East is a hard fact to accept and so that's why you prefer to believe that it was brother Anglo-Saxons with their tea and scones and stiff upper lip that won the war, but it wasn't so. ;)

I also disagree that it was of no consequence that Germany started the war too early. Instead of 20 u-boats, they may have had 200 ready in 1942 and a concerted onslaught by them against Britain would almost certainly have been far more successful and damaging than some half-arsed raids against Britain in 1940.


No, it was not too early, it was inconsequent ! All involved on the German side agreed to avoid a war on two fronts cause they were fully aware that the military and industrial power was not strong enough two stand a war on two fronts. So after capturing France it was a logical step to raid and subdue U.K.I stick to it; the day Operation Sealion was postponed (17th September 1940) was the day Germany lost the war.....
The loss of 300.000 German soldiers at Stalingrad, sacrified by "the greatest General of all times" was the point of inflection in view of the sympathy Hitler still relished in big parts of the german population at that time. As for the battle of Dunkirk; I'm convinced that the total destruction of the BEF, would have had (grottenschlechtes Englisch, ich weiß) a more than decisive psychological effect on the british population and democracy....and not a good one.
And to answer your points:

"I don't know whether there was chance to succeed Operation Sealion or not, but it was the major mistake to postpone/cancelling it, because

- no war in nothern Africa as U.K. surrendered (troops available for a postponed raid on Russia)"

There were only a few divisions of German troops in North Africa, 3 or so for most of 1941-42, while there were 150+ in the Soviet Union, but had the Soviets not been attacked Germany could have sent many more to North Africa.

"- Monty retired..... ;)"

Monty retiring wouldn't have made any difference either. Anyone could have done as 'well' as him: Amassing a 10 to 1 numerical advantage and slugging it out directly with a half dead Afrika Korps is hardly a great feat. The only other thing he really did was Market Garden and we all know how that went.

"- more and more subs and fleet controlling the Atlantic (incl. Bismarck etc.)"

If Britain surrendered what would be the point of having all these subs in the atlantic anyway?

"- therefore no need to defend western Europe from Norway to France (Westwall)"

Germans hardly defended it anyway, but still would need to keep troops in France

"- no combat troops tied up in western europe (troops available for a postponed raid on Russia)"

The few third rate units left in the west as occupation troops would still have to have been there whether Britain was conquered or not, and indeed, even more troops would have been needed to occupy the British Isles, so failure to defeat Britain didn't really adversely affect the Germans' ability to attack Russia.

"- no USAF and RAF bombings on Germany military industry and civillian targets"

Raids only started to be effective from mid 1943, so failure to defeat Britain in 1940 wouldn't have had much effect, and had Germany not attacked the Soviets they would have had ample resources to deal with them.

"- full german industrial power to prepare the postponed raid on Russia"

Germany only mobilised fully for war in 1942, so even without defeating Britain in 1940, they didn't bother increasing production for 2 years which shows how much they thought of the British threat.

"- no chance for an allied invasion in Europe or Africa across the atlantic"

Allies didn't even invade until 1944 and only because the Soviets were looking like they would take over all of Europe.

All your points pretty much actually back me up that failure to defeat Britain in 1940 didn't make any difference to the course of the war. Britain couldn't by itself invade Germany or defeat it. Germany had to first commit hari-kiri by invading the Soviet Union. Even this would have been manageable had Germany built up sufficient strategic force reserves before the outbreak of the war.
- etc. etc. etc.

[GFC Christian]

That only happened with Barbarossa. I understand that for you being beaten by 'untermenschen' from the East is a hard fact to accept and so that's why you prefer to believe that it was brother Anglo-Saxons with their tea and scones and stiff upper lip that won the war, but it wasn't so. ;)

:o..... I was not beaten by anybody and I do not have to accept anything because I was incidentally born in Germany in 1968 and YOU were just lucky.

Sorry, I'm really shocked and not interested to comment or continue in any way.

[Catfish]

Hello Nafod81, and Commie (further south),

" ... My point is: Germany did not formally declare war on Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, or the USSR prior to the commencement of hostilities. ..."

Yes, however Germany could not sit and wait to let british and french forces build up a defense line (or make better use of the Maginot Line), like they did in WW1, after England's declaration of war. So it makes tactically sense, if certainly violating existing treaties and neutrality.
If you wanted, you could say:
England declares war, after the german attack on Poland.
France declares war.
Germany strives to "neutralize" France before things got out of hand like in WW1, and went west regardless which countries were in its way.
Next try was to invade England, however Hitler hesitated.
England now intended to use Norway as a base, and sent ships to invade it itself. It was certainly called "helping Norway", or protecting its population from Germany.
Realizing this threat and the loss of the norvegian iron mines in Narvik, Germany went north invading Denmark, and then Norway - only a glimpse before England could act likewise. Germany lost almost all destroyers in the Narvik fjord, but England was not able to set foot on norvegian soil, or only for a short time.
Then as a military necessity, England should have been invaded, to not let it become an aircraft carrier for british or (later) US planes, close to the Reich.

But you could say apart fom invading Poland to get to the border of the Soviet Union, Hitler in a way only "reacted" to the declarations of war, from England, and France. I know this sounds cynical, and it most probably is, but it makes sense from a military viewpoint. Hitler was completely surprised to learn England had declared war to Germany, "just because" the attack on Poland. Doenitz literally said after the "Total Germany" radio message from England: "Das mir das nochmal passieren muss !", translated "That this has to happen to me, again!"

" ... Further the Anschluss of Austria and Czechoslovakia although peaceful (no shots fired) weren't exactly carried out with the best wishes of these two nations, and generally their leaders and delegates were under extreme duress at the Wilhelmstrasse or Berchtesgaden. ..."

Yes, the "Anschluss" was not so voluntarily and wanted, as the german propaganda made it look like.


@Commie,
good points, even this is not what i learned at school ;)
Especially what you said in the very last paragraph, makes sense:

" ... Germany had to first commit hara-kiri by invading the Soviet Union. Even this would have been manageable had Germany built up sufficient strategic force reserves before the outbreak of the war. ..."

There was an old inofficial voice record found recently, where Hitler was talking to some generals (the only one that exists, apart from his ofiicially recorded hate speeches etc.) about the war with Russia, where he said " ... we would certainly not have attacked the Soviet Union, had we known in advance that they have so many tanks."
And this was early in the war, before major allied convoys helping their "good friend" and also-mass-murderer Stalin.

Greetings,
Catfish


Edit: Found the recording, not audio:
The recording, which lasts for 18 minutes, ends abruptly in mid-sentence as Hitler explains why it had been difficult to help Finland more in their common war against Stalin.
"We didn't know ourselves just how monstrous this powerful beast was," Hitler says. "Had I known, I would have been more reluctant, but I had already made the decision then, and there would be no other possibility," he added.
It is here ("a monster's private voice"):
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1360379,00.html

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

There was an old inofficial voice record found recently, where Hitler was talking to some generals (the only one that exists, apart from his ofiicially recorded hate speeches etc.) about the war with Russia, where he said " ... we would certainly not have attacked the Soviet Union, had we known in advance that they have so many tanks."
And this was early in the war, before major allied convoys helping their "good friend" and also-mass-murderer Stalin.

Greetings,
Catfish


Edit: Found the recording, not audio:
The recording, which lasts for 18 minutes, ends abruptly in mid-sentence as Hitler explains why it had been difficult to help Finland more in their common war against Stalin.
"We didn't know ourselves just how monstrous this powerful beast was," Hitler says. "Had I known, I would have been more reluctant, but I had already made the decision then, and there would be no other possibility," he added.
It is here ("a monster's private voice"):
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1360379,00.html

Speaking with Field Marshal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim commander of Finnish forces during WWII. Former Russian general, commander of Whites during Finnish Civil War, regent and post-WWII president. Co-founder of Mannerheimin lastensuojeluliitto (quick translation "Mannerheim child protection union" charity).

Don't know about others but when I first time heard that recording (few years ago) for me it was hard to believe that it really is Hitler who is talking.

Here is racording Catfish mentioned:
http://www.yle.fi/player/player.jsp?actionpage=3&id=22014&locale=

I don't know will it work outside from Finland. Good luck with it! :)

[Nordmann]

:o..... I was not beaten by anybody and I do not have to accept anything because I was incidentally born in Germany in 1968 and YOU were just lucky.

Sorry, I'm really shocked and not interested to comment or continue in any way.

Don't worry, some people here still think in terms of nationality, even though none of us were alive 70 years ago! It wasn't 'our' war, because we had no part in it.

To address the comment made by the poster you were responding to, Germany lost the war because they were fighting a war on multiple fronts. If Hitler had been able to turn his attention fully on the Soviets, I doubt they would have achieved victory as easily, if at all. Britain's continued participation in the war was one of the deciding factors, because without it, the Russians would have borne the full brunt of the German war machine, and the Americans would of course have had nowhere from which to launch an attack.

As I said earlier in the thread, it was a team effort, no one nation could have triumphed on their own. Like it or not, that's a fact.

[Dimitrius07]

In any case, most WW2 movies (especially Hollywood) tend to portray every German as an evil Nazi, when this was not actually the case at all.

I already know the hidden message in this one, hint: "If anything goes wrong its somehow my fault".

I can tell you little secret.

Russian old ww2 movies (for examp.) are the worst on this topic,even maybe worse that your all mighty Hollywood my dear comrade :D.

some people here still think in terms of nationality
Fashism doesn`t have nationality, that is my opinion.

As I said earlier in the thread, it was a team effort, no one nation could have triumphed on their own. Like it or not, that's a fact.
Fully agree on this one, Hitler took to much on himself and just like any good nazi he lost, because NAZIS ARE LOOSERS. jajaja:rock:

Have a great day :salute:

[Commie]

:o..... I was not beaten by anybody and I do not have to accept anything because I was incidentally born in Germany in 1968 and YOU were just lucky.

Sorry, I'm really shocked and not interested to comment or continue in any way.


Lucky?? I was born in Poland, the place where your ancestors did more damage percentage wise than any other! I can get over the war, never had a problem with Germans and can examine history objectively. If you have some chip on your shoulder about the war then it's your problem. Cheers.

[mookiemookie]

:o..... I was not beaten by anybody and I do not have to accept anything because I was incidentally born in Germany in 1968 and YOU were just lucky.

Sorry, I'm really shocked and not interested to comment or continue in any way.

I don't think that unwarranted personal attack on you deserves one, either. :yep:

[krupp_88mm]

Germany was reacting because she was being unfairly punished and scapegoated for things that wern't her fault and being overrun with immigrants and had massive debt problems.. and was being held hostage by elite bankers, forced into literal financial slavery.. and the people reacted violently and overreacted ....actually 1930's Germany is a lot like 2010/2011 USA

[PortoFerro]

NAZIS ARE LOOSERS. jajaja:rock:

Yes, I (we all hopefully) agree on that. Now, a Nazi would also be described as an extreme Nationalist, way beyond the "right wing" which every country in this world would have. From your nick and the waving David Star flags I guess you have a Russian (or similar) background, living in Israel and being jewish.
Why do you need all these "jajaja's" and kind of agressive comments regarding this issue?
So far I did not find any Neo-Nazi members on this platform, trying to get their "brown" messages heard, instead it seems to me regular people try to express their insights on this, triggered by a video game of that period. This forum brings people of all colors together and actually raises interest in history for some of us. Which is one of the positive things the Interweb has to offer.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to argue or pick a fight, it's just that some responses of yours sound kind of eery to me.

[LiveGoat]

Ducimus was right. It's getting hot in here! :)

[MH]

Yes, I (we all hopefully) agree on that. Now, a Nazi would also be described as an extreme Nationalist, way beyond the "right wing" which every country in this world would have. From your nick and the waving David Star flags I guess you have a Russian (or similar) background, living in Israel and being jewish.
Why do you need all these "jajaja's" and kind of agressive comments regarding this issue?
So far I did not find any Neo-Nazi members on this platform, trying to get their "brown" messages heard, instead it seems to me regular people try to express their insights on this, triggered by a video game of that period. This forum brings people of all colors together and actually raises interest in history for some of us. Which is one of the positive things the Interweb has to offer.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to argue or pick a fight, it's just that some responses of yours sound kind of eery to me.


As someone who lives in Israel too i must agree on that above....

One thing is certain that hitler could not have done what he done without majority on his side.
He really started benign doubted after starting losing on eastern front.Till that German PPL where in euphoria toward hiltler.They did not have to be members of nazi party or concentration camp guards to be supporters of this aggression and nazi ideology.
Well..its sad but natural so many years after the war Germany crimes during the war are benign slowly brushed under carpet. Have seen even SS fighting units are benign glorified on history channels.
Who know hitler might rise to be next Alexander the great or Napoleon in 100 years-all crimes forgotten or justified.

[Steeltrap]

There was an old inofficial voice record found recently, where Hitler was talking to some generals (the only one that exists, apart from his ofiicially recorded hate speeches etc.) about the war with Russia, where he said " ... we would certainly not have attacked the Soviet Union, had we known in advance that they have so many tanks."
And this was early in the war, before major allied convoys helping their "good friend" and also-mass-murderer Stalin.


Edit: Found the recording, not audio:
The recording, which lasts for 18 minutes, ends abruptly in mid-sentence as Hitler explains why it had been difficult to help Finland more in their common war against Stalin.
"We didn't know ourselves just how monstrous this powerful beast was," Hitler says. "Had I known, I would have been more reluctant, but I had already made the decision then, and there would be no other possibility," he added.
It is here ("a monster's private voice"):
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1360379,00.html

Trouble with that is it's crap (Hitler might have said it, but he was lying; he was a compulsive liar and even admitted it. A fascinating book is The Psychopathic God (1977) by R.G.L.Waite, republished 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York...it's a 'psychohistorical' study of Hitler and a very interesting, if sad and disturbing, read).

The German Abwehr did a very fine job of estimating Russian strength and deployment leading up to Barbarossa. Trouble was it showed that such an operation against the revealed strength was at best a huge gamble and, at worst, sheer folly. So the estimates were 'revised' until they made Barbarossa seem feasible. There are several credible reference books that address this point (but I can't remember them and am at work). Worth reading as a study in 'wishful thinking' with disasterous consequences!

[jazman]

But why don't they talk about racism in the history of their own nation?


Here in America all I hear about is the racism of whites, the racism of whites, and the racism of whites. I'm sick of this anti-white drumbeat, and I reject it.

[Happy Times]

Correct. From all the personal accounts of the German side that I have read, I have come to the conclusion that many German civilians and military personel were indeed very hard-core Nazis. They truly believed in Hitler and the system. But try convincing the millions of young people who get their versions of 'history' from movies like Pearl Harbor and U-571. :88)

Or many of the supporters didnt support Hitler and National Socialism as such and where indefrent about their policies.
But probably supported anyone that would save the country from economic catastrophy and from a peace treaty wiewed as unfair and responsible for Germanys humiliation.
That would make them Nationalists, plentifull in every country in Europe.

The steps to what led to Third Reich are largely the making of France and Britain, by the peace treaty of Versaille and then doing nothing when things started to go wrong in Germany.

[Nordmann]

Frankly, we're all to blame for WW2, we let things get out of hand, and then attempted to solve the resultant hostilities with the typical violent reaction. Certainly the Nazis were a bad bunch, but no worse than Stalin's regime, or any of the other totalitarian states in existence at that time (and today).

The reason Hitler's party gained popularity, was that they gave the people pride in themselves and in their nation. Something taken away with the close of WW1, and the over the top recriminations imposed on them with the treaty of Versailles. Had they not been bankrupted, and made to feel worthless, we may well not have seen the surge of nationalism in the 30s.

Sadly, too many people still buy the old "Germany's to blame!" line, when it is actually much more complex. At the end of the day, we removed one tyranny, while quite happily accepting another in it's place (Soviet Union).

[Commie]

Frankly, we're all to blame for WW2, we let things get out of hand, and then attempted to solve the resultant hostilities with the typical violent reaction. Certainly the Nazis were a bad bunch, but no worse than Stalin's regime, or any of the other totalitarian states in existence at that time (and today).

The reason Hitler's party gained popularity, was that they gave the people pride in themselves and in their nation. Something taken away with the close of WW1, and the over the top recriminations imposed on them with the treaty of Versailles. Had they not been bankrupted, and made to feel worthless, we may well not have seen the surge of nationalism in the 30s.

Sadly, too many people still buy the old "Germany's to blame!" line, when it is actually much more complex. At the end of the day, we removed one tyranny, while quite happily accepting another in it's place (Soviet Union).

Hear, hear!

Though getting back onto the topic it kind of still links with the political correctness in games theme as the Germans themselves now try to blame some mythical race called the 'Nazis' that they were 'forced' to endure. Germans are now trying to portray themselves as victims of these Nazis just like the Poles and Soviets and Jews among others. How they forget the cheering in 1940 when France fell or their initial victories in the USSR! Then the Nazis weren't bad to them eh? In games we have good peaceloving hippie Germans against evil Nazis (This is laughable in Wolfenstein where the Nazis are like some other race and the Germans are the good guys. Same thing in the Saboteur where you fight the 'Nazi army').

It's not about forcing the Germans to accept guilt. God knows they've done it enough for the last 60 years. It's just about a rational analysis and acceptance of how it was at the time. Most Germans supported the Nazis or were at the least patriotic and nationalistic either openly or tacitly, and had no small pride in their nations' victories at the beginning of the war, so why not accept this and move on? Why the need for political correctness and shifting of the blame?

[Gammelpreusse]

Hear, hear!

Though getting back onto the topic it kind of still links with the political correctness in games theme as the Germans themselves now try to blame some mythical race called the 'Nazis' that they were 'forced' to endure. Germans are now trying to portray themselves as victims of these Nazis just like the Poles and Soviets and Jews among others. How they forget the cheering in 1940 when France fell or their initial victories in the USSR! Then the Nazis weren't bad to them eh? In games we have good peaceloving hippie Germans against evil Nazis (This is laughable in Wolfenstein where the Nazis are like some other race and the Germans are the good guys. Same thing in the Saboteur where you fight the 'Nazi army').

It's not about forcing the Germans to accept guilt. God knows they've done it enough for the last 60 years. It's just about a rational analysis and acceptance of how it was at the time. Most Germans supported the Nazis or were at the least patriotic and nationalistic either openly or tacitly, and had no small pride in their nations' victories at the beginning of the war, so why not accept this and move on? Why the need for political correctness and shifting of the blame?

So do I get that right, your critique evolves around the fact that todays germans in general despise the Nazis, see them as traitors to their history and people and generally do not want to have anything to do with them? That actually is your problem?

Well I suppose we could use a different approach and get back to the Nazi loving, though I fail to see where the sense is in that.

And please, define "most" people, and list up who was a hardcore Nazi, who supported Nazis on a general basis, who simply didnt care and did his duty, who actually did care but did his duty nevertheless, who looked away, those who just wanted to get on with life regardless of the political party in power, those that actually resisted on a small level, those that resisted on a hiigh level, those that reisisted simply by ignoring orders, those that went beyond orders to commit teven more crimes and suffering, and so on. Those that went along, did they do it for political, racist, economic or military reasons? Were those that followed for ecomic reasons also racists ? Were those wishing for a strong state automaticly advocates of war and conquest? As you appear to be a real specialist, I am curious about your in depths analysis that make you reach your conclusions.

The only point where I agree is the simple black and white views displayed by Hollywood and lately, the games industry. Good germans vs evil Nazis and that kinda stuff, which in real life was much more subtle and by far not as black and white as displayed here.

Lastly, I stopped posting here in this thread initially because of your rather cheap "untermenschen" provocation. Nobody had a go at you here, nevertheless you saw it fit to offend folks without any obvious reason. If you want to stick to times over 60 years ago, feel free to do so, but do not expect much credit for that.

[PortoFerro]

I think both of you have very good points, making this thread an interesting read.

It's not about forcing the Germans to accept guilt. God knows they've done it enough for the last 60 years. It's just about a rational analysis and acceptance of how it was at the time.

This is spot on in my opinion.

The only point where I agree is the simple black and white views displayed by Hollywood and lately, the games industry. Good germans vs evil Nazis and that kinda stuff, which in real life was much more subtle and by far not as black and white as displayed here.

How else could it be portrayed?
Putting "real" Nazis into a game would make it
- impossible to be sold in Germany/Austria
- probably attract Neo-Nazis (however better have them playing than marching)
- drive regular people away, because they are no Nazis.

Imagine the crew talking real NS propaganda, would I play Silent Hunter?
Definitely not!

[Gilbou]

About this guilt, there is something that has always annoyed me.

In our societies, it would be morally and ethically wrong to punish
the children for the crimes of their fathers.

If a man is a murderer, should we punish his son and his daughter
too and send them to prison ? Since they are their children,
why not ?

This, which is shocking, is somewhat what is expected from
Germans.

Some germans of today were born year if not decades after
all this messy war and horrible atrocities.

It is wrong to tell them they are guilty. Guilty of what ?
That's a whole load of bull popo.

We are all responsible if we ever let anything like that happen
in the years to come. Yes. We, as a human race, have gone
far down the pit of horrors and it is time we evolve into a race
that would never allow such horrors to happen again. There
will be wars, perhaps, but we must fight and strive to keep in
mind that we are all in the same species, and that there is always
a day when the war is over and we have to look upon ourselves
as a whole.

But the guilt crap has to stop.

I was born over 30 years after that WW2. No one in my family
participated in this war. No one. And of course, no one in my
family did come close to anything that happened to Jews,
Communists, Gays and any other poor person that died in those
horrible concentration camps.

I do realize and I do believe that I will never accept to see
such things happen again. It's insane.

But at school and as an adult, I have never accepted any
kind of guilt and at school I had to vocally and seriously
say it quite loud to all those stupid teachers and politicians.
You do not accuse children and people that came
one or several generations after you of crimes that either
you, or previous generations did commit. No fracking way.

Responsability ? Yes. Never again.

Guilt ? My ass.

I feel no guilt. I will not let anyone come tell me I have to
feel guilt or whatever load of sentimental crap about what
some stupid *******s did during WW2 to civilians and
people because of their religion, sexual orientation or
whatever crap they accused those people of.

And all my german friends do feel the same way. They are
bored to death with this nonsense. We are in 2010.
How much YEARS since this WW2 has ended ? How much
generations are going to be recalled and annoyed each
year and asked to feel guilt and whatever crap for generations
that did seriously frack up ?

You don't send children of murderers to prison just because
they are murderers. Each person, each generation that
fracked up has to FACE their guilt, responsabilites and
deal with it.

Not us. That's too easy to ask us to share all that crap
we didn't do. I live in the present, I look up to the future
and I'm sick of all those old people and politicians that
keep blocked in 1945. All those stupid movies about 1945
and that damn nazis we are loaded each year. I can't stand
it anymore.

We have genocides in our modern era : Rwanda, between
the Hutu and the Tutsis. We had a war in Europe in
Bosnia-Herzegovina and all europeans watched the other
side and closed their ears to people suffering. I would
like to see movies with real people's names of all those
who did frack up there.

[Gammelpreusse]

How else could it be portrayed?
Putting "real" Nazis into a game would make it
- impossible to be sold in Germany/Austria
- probably attract Neo-Nazis (however better have them playing than marching)
- drive regular people away, because they are no Nazis.

Imagine the crew talking real NS propaganda, would I play Silent Hunter?
Definitely not!

However, that is how it was. And people should be aware of that when playing a german submarine during the Nazi era. Propaganda was all there was, and it only got worse during the course of the war.

The computer game genre is not exactly the best medium for mature treatment of historical topics (Wolfenstein anyone?), that is true, so it's either

a) concentrate on the submarine and leave political topics out of it
b) develop a whole new genre that displays everything propperly, but also explains context. A scope too large for a submarine simulation imho.

SHIII worked because everything onboard, the crew especially, was abstract. SHV does not work in this regard because the devs chose to mimic Das Boot, which has its problematic share in showing reality (Captain ranting), but doing exactly that at the beginning of the war already, which is very much nonsense.

[GFC Christian]

Lastly, I stopped posting here in this thread initially because of your rather cheap "untermenschen" provocation. Nobody had a go at you here, nevertheless you saw it fit to offend folks without any obvious reason. If you want to stick to times over 60 years ago, feel free to do so, but do not expect much credit for that.

Same here. I can't believe in his flimsy statement "never had a problem with Germans and can examine history objectively". I doubt both ! With all respect commie, you should not insult anybody with NAZI terms just because he has a different opinion or nationality......

Over and out ! ;)

[Commie]

Same here. I can't believe in his flimsy statement "never had a problem with Germans and can examine history objectively". I doubt both ! With all respect commie, you should not insult anybody with NAZI terms just because he has a different opinion or nationality......

Over and out ! ;)

Hey it was a joke. Sorry for the offense. I forget that not everyone is as thick skinned as I(had to be with all the racists in Australia where I was growing up). Oh and since you haven't read any of my works, then you are in no position to judge my historical bias. I had a German friend in school and we'd joke about 'goosestepping krauts' and 'Polish army being good for nothing except surrendering' etc. All in good fun, but I guess Basil Fawlty was right when he said that Germans have no sense of humour!(JOKE).

Seriously though, if I have offended anyone here then I sincerely apologise, as it was not meant to be offensive.



And please, define "most" people, and list up who was a hardcore Nazi, who supported Nazis on a general basis, who simply didnt care and did his duty, who actually did care but did his duty nevertheless, who looked away, those who just wanted to get on with life regardless of the political party in power, those that actually resisted on a small level, those that resisted on a hiigh level, those that reisisted simply by ignoring orders, those that went beyond orders to commit even more crimes and suffering, and so on. Those that went along, did they do it for political, racist, economic or military reasons? Were those that followed for ecomic reasons also racists ? Were those wishing for a strong state automaticly advocates of war and conquest? As you appear to be a real specialist, I am curious about your in depths analysis that make you reatch your conclusions.


Well the fact that Nazi with it's allies got over 50% of the vote while the Social Democrats could muster 18% pretty much shows the initial support of the majority to Nazi policies. Also if you actually read my posts you'd see that I mentioned nationalists, patriots etc. as well. These do not have to have been Nazis, but once was was declared they still de facto supported the Nazis' war by carrying out their 'duty' for their fatherland. You also miss the point that it doesn't matter WHY they did this, the fact is they DID do it. Just like the Wehrmacht soldiers who's duty was to round up and execute Jews and partisans just as the SS units. There was no threat of execution if a soldier refused this duty but as a German soldier said once," it was a duty to do as why should you wash your hands and let someone else have to do it?" There is an 'automatic' level of support for the nation regardless of it's faults that is PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE.

This is what annoys me with the political correctness displayed these days where Germans try and rewrite the past making it seem that Nazis were some unwanted group that forced every German to go to war and no German ever wanted or cheered any German victory etc.
Why don't they accept that Germans supported Adolf and his mates until times got bad when they all of a sudden became like: 'me no likey the war'.

This is my beef with history as is portrayed these days in mass media. I have no problem with the Germans not liking their past, in fact it's essential that they not like it or want to go back to it! If you actually read what I wrote you'd see that my problem is that they try to re imagine those times in a way that is totally unhistorical.

So by 'most' I mean all the tens of millions of Germans that supported the war effort.

Oh and I never said I was a specialist.

There is a saying about people and glass houses though the irony; like humour; is most probably lost on you.

[MH]

During 30s and 40s it was mass hysteria that surrounded hitlers regime but today its looked upon as if some small crazy bunch took over Germany and force them to do whatever they did.
French and Brits are also to blame because they screw Germany up in the WWI so its justified to go and conquer whole ******** europe....and how stupid of them that they did not go just for Russia-who cares about Russia and those uncivilized drunken commies who where no better than natzis...
It was a war- **** happens...they twisted history and washed their brains.
The others just did their duty fighting fanaticly to bitter end.

***Just wrap the above in nice English.
B.W
I don"t think that anyone wants today Germans to carry any guilt about the past.
It is all about softening certain aspects of history when they are not convenient and glorifying others.
Its about selective remembrance of history.

[GFC Christian]

Hey it was a joke. Sorry for the offense. I forget that not everyone is as thick skinned as I(had to be with all the racists in Australia where I was growing up). Oh and since you haven't read any of my works, then you are in no position to judge my historical bias. I had a German friend in school and we'd joke about 'goosestepping krauts' and 'Polish army being good for nothing except surrendering' etc. All in good fun, but I guess Basil Fawlty was right when he said that Germans have no sense of humour!(JOKE).

Seriously though, if I have offended anyone here then I sincerely apologise, as it was not meant to be offensive.


Commie, I was 15 when I read "Arbeit macht frei" at the gate in Oświęcim, my stomach churns and the blood freezed in my veins. It was my mother tongue and everthing in me ruffled to accept that all the incredible crimes behind that gate were ordered in my language and done by my compatriots a long time ago. It took me years to realize it and to understand that I'm not guilty, but more than others responsible that it will never happen again ! You are right; I'm still "thin skinned" and I can't laugh about those kind of "jokes" as the all topic is too serious.

I hope that you don't understand this as another cheap attempt to "portray the Germans as victims".

Anyway, no need to apologize and I'm glad that we are back to normal. :up:

[Gammelpreusse]

Hey it was a joke. Sorry for the offense. I forget that not everyone is as thick skinned as I(had to be with all the racists in Australia where I was growing up). Oh and since you haven't read any of my works, then you are in no position to judge my historical bias. I had a German friend in school and we'd joke about 'goosestepping krauts' and 'Polish army being good for nothing except surrendering' etc. All in good fun, but I guess Basil Fawlty was right when he said that Germans have no sense of humour!(JOKE).

Seriously though, if I have offended anyone here then I sincerely apologise, as it was not meant to be offensive.

Every joke gets tiresome when its repeated for a hundret times. And especially the british have a tendency to make these "jokes". When ppl react offended, they loudly declare it was a jaoke and you are humorless. If ppl actually laugh, they give you the evil stare and tell you how out of line you are for laughing about such serious matters, especially as a german. No offense taken, it's just getting a rolling eyes by now.

Also, it is interesting you bring up that special Faulty Towers episode.
This is what the man, John Cleese, had to say to this episode

In 2008, John Cleese confirmed that he has been learning German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language) for a while and described himself as "speaking simple German fluently now". Referring to the Fawlty Towers episode "The Germans", he explained "Everybody thinks that was a joke about the Germans but they missed it. It was a joke about English attitudes to the war and the fact that some people were still hanging on to that rubbish" :|\\

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Germans


Well the fact that Nazi with it's allies got over 50% of the vote while the Social Democrats could muster 18% pretty much shows the initial support of the majority to Nazi policies. Also if you actually read my posts you'd see that I mentioned nationalists, patriots etc. as well. These do not have to have been Nazis, but once was was declared they still de facto supported the Nazis' war by carrying out their 'duty' for their fatherland. You also miss the point that it doesn't matter WHY they did this, the fact is they DID do it. Just like the Wehrmacht soldiers who's duty was to round up and execute Jews and partisans just as the SS units. There was no threat of execution if a soldier refused this duty but as a German soldier said once," it was a duty to do as why should you wash your hands and let someone else have to do it?" There is an 'automatic' level of support for the nation regardless of it's faults that is PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE.

This is what annoys me with the political correctness displayed these days where Germans try and rewrite the past making it seem that Nazis were some unwanted group that forced every German to go to war and no German ever wanted or cheered any German victory etc.
Why don't they accept that Germans supported Adolf and his mates until times got bad when they all of a sudden became like: 'me no likey the war'.

This is my beef with history as is portrayed these days in mass media. I have no problem with the Germans not liking their past, in fact it's essential that they not like it or want to go back to it! If you actually read what I wrote you'd see that my problem is that they try to re imagine those times in a way that is totally unhistorical.

So by 'most' I mean all the tens of millions of Germans that supported the war effort.

Oh and I never said I was a specialist.

There is a saying about people and glass houses though the irony; like humour; is most probably lost on you.I initially wrote down a pretty long post here supporting some of your points, disputing others. But that's just inviting a 20 page thread with no solution at the end.

Another proposal. Check german after war history. It's all pretty important what happend there but a real focus is 1968. This year probably changed Germany and the germans more then 1945. Do that, and if you really grasp what happend to this country, the pros and cons of that, we can discuss further. Until then I do not think you will really be able to understand why most of these blames the likes of yours will more possibly cause frutration and a rethinking of current attitudes to the worse then to start a rethinking of time period that actually has been thoroughly done to death several times over.

What Germany does right at this moment is not to dismiss it's past or ignore what happend 33-45, but rediscover everything else overshadowed by these events. This covers pretty much everything from roman times to 1945, including a more fair apporach to the people, taking the situation into account and lift the blame of some. in comparison, before everybody during the third reich was automaticly guilty no matter the circumstances for just beeing alive and not in an active, high profile resistance group. Such a cut was in this country after the Nazis. If you confuse that with ignorance, then I am sorry, and all I can do is say your fears and blames are unfounded till the point of the natural behaviour of a country coming to terms with its past acting with self interest in mind.

And with that I do not mean something like a german U-Boat captain talking rubbish, developed by the romanian software branch of a french publisher. I think that caters more to what the people want to hear playing a german u-boat, especially given the Nazi background, and as such sales.