Foreword: Another long one gents, I would like to thank those of you atleast being civil and contributing intellectually to the debate. Again to keep things brief I will only be responding to those individuals that are making a valid intellectual contribution. I segment these posts so you only need read as much of, or as little of, what you want to read. Thanks.
@Kissaki
Again, about surrendering. I do mean to imply that soldiers that go to war for their country should not want quarter. If it is not requested it does not, in my mind, need to be offered. I will say that it is more noble to fight to the death, but take prisoners, but I do not see it as ignoble to apply the same standards to both sides. Ergo, if the "red flag" of no quarter asked/none given is raised and known to both sides - another key factor. Than neither side can, or should, expect any mercy. So I guess that would be my biggest stipulation then? As long as ROE and consistent and the enemy knows, I see them as fair.
@Kissaki
The unspoken agreement, was a metaphor, there were instances of Japanese putting grenades under their armpits when surrendering only to drop them at the feet of their captors. A book you would be interested in is Deadly Brotherhood, it's a wealth of interviews with US WWII veterans. In which they talk about the fact many US units would should Japenese soldiers without 2nd thought.
@Kissaki
You neversaid thatmost European countries were Nazi's, you said they weren't which I argue. Poland, Norway, Austria, Belgium, France, and a few others willingly capitulated with the Nazi regime. Infact, I forget the names of the ships, but I do believe that two French destroyers were sunk of the coast of Normandy by British ships in/around 1940.
@Kassaki
The Holocaust was only part of what people accuse the Nazi's of. If that's the bulk of their crimes, than only a minority of the Nazi's actually took part. Either way such is my point - but when you look at their "crimes" in field many were reprisals. Which are, quite, justified regardless of their severity. If a village harbors combatants whether regulars or militia, they have committed an act of war and are thus, armed or not, are valid military targets.
@Xabba
El Alamein, he beat an enemy that had grossly over extended himself while chasing a fleeing coward. It's more accurate to say his men beat an enemy, you know the rest. Anyways, I say that not soley based on performance but because his egotism was responsable for Market Garden, he was told about the 2nd SS in and around drop zones, but because he wanted to be the first to Berlin refused to acknowledge. This total lack of concern for his men and his arrogance, not to mention his lack of actual success in the latter of the war are what lead me to say he was the worst (Allied) General of the war if not the worst General over all.
@Xabba
First of all, Churchill ordered one of the largest single attrocities of the war. How can you defend that with an attitude that seems like "well he was one of us?"
Also, as for the formation of the SS, this is again the division between the SchutzSchtaffel and the Waffen SS. The SS was Hitlers personal body guard, the Waffen SS were not. Bear in mind the SS wore black and was mostly in camps and stationed at home, where as the Waffen SS operated abroad.
@August
So, intent defines crime? It was ok for Churchill to order the destruction of a defenseless city operating as a hospital city, recognized in the Genevea convention as a non-military target and then actively cover it up, because he was doing it to break the German people - since they started the war? As Kissaki has pointed out you have a misconception on why the war was started. But please, explain to me how Allied war crimes, such as Dresden (which occured months before the end of the war, not durring) are any less appaling than the proposed Nazi crimes? (I am not refering to the Holocaust, I am refering only to "crimes" commited infield in response to attacks on German interests - I do not deny the Holocaust and am quite against it as well. Interestingly enough, Joseph Stalin was accountable for far more genocidal deaths than Hitler, yet the U.S. and the rest of the world did nothing - infact we're the ones who armed him and put him in power... funny how you all ignore this along with Churchill's disgraceful acts)
Also: As Kissaki mentioned the camps built early in the war were not part of the Holocaust, the Holocaust began much later and only applies to what happend to the Jews after Allied nations refused to accept any more deported refugees. Perhaps history books don't bother to mention that because certain nations have a sense of guilt? Have you seen Shindler's List? Perhaps at the end of the war the Allies realized they had let those millions die.
@August
I believe you refer to Pangermanism, the belief that Germans should rule the world. It's not an expressly Nazi belief and is the same by definition as the American Manifest Destiny.
@August
The white "slaves" you reference were usually political prisoners, not just thrown in for the hell of it. Is it right to take political prisoners, nope, but they were not just overbroad as you suggest.
@August
Communists in their early days were usually terroristic anyways. Explain perhaps the post war McCarthy era? Also, some may argue that the brutality and cruelty in those camps, since never actually ordered by Hitler would parallel with current issues with POW camps.
@August
Why do you think the SS is so hated by todays generation? Because fear breeds hate. If they were not feared they would simply be forgoten. Care to argue that point further?
@August
You realize that the Grossdeutschland had just as many politicaly influenced members and was, aside from name, practically an SS unit correct? Also that the paratroopers and Afrika Korp were lead by Nazi's and the only difference between them and the SS was that they had soldiers with braun heair and eyes correct? They were comprised of practically the same mentality. The SS had some ****ty units, but units like the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd scared Allies ****less from the start of the war, not to mention the Hitlerjugend. Hey let's talk about the Allied policy of executing SS men on sight at the end of the war! Same deal as Nazi reprisals, unarmed men, I do not complain about it, but I ask if you are going to demonize one side, view the other with equal contempt when it commited the self-same crimes.
@Bellman
I am not a revisionist, they disgust me as much as they do you. Nor I am not denying what happend in WWII in any way shape or form and many of you are taking my statements as broad sweeping about all Nazi action. I am refering only to that which happend in combat zones. If you cannot seperate that from the Holocaust, please refer to previous postings on the difference between the Totenkopf and regular SS (something you previously mocked)
@Abraham
First and foremost, I will not apologize for my beliefs. I will however say that I hope you do not think I am taking them only to offend and I would also ask you acknowledge, as I have stated previously, that I apply these standards to more than the Nazi's and WWII that infact I apply them to all countries. I also ask you acknowledge that I have never once denied or supported the Holocaust and have spoken against it as a disgrace to Germany.
I am not whinning about carpet bombing, I am illustrating the double standard in this thread. You whine about the Germans, particularly the SS, but say that it's ok for the Allies?? Also I illustrate how the SS were acting in reprisal to attacks, not attacking hospitals and churches at the very end of the war in totally unarmed cities.
I also take note that you have nothing against infact almost celebrate nuclear weapons in your post, weapons which have never once been turned on a military target. If I applied the same standards you apply to me, I would call you a Nazi. However I have yet to discuss political idealogy with you so I wouln't jump to conclusions as to your ethnicity and political beliefs. Also, Churchill helped walk down to the darkages, I again cite Eugenics that he actively supported the chemical castration of mentally handicaped as did FDR - the Nazi's infact learned their first methods of sterilization from the British and U.S.
In the German eyes your country was liberated, not attacked.
Quote:
|
They choose to be the iron fist of the Nazi party.
|
That opinion, generalized at it is, is of the SS being the elite and feared unit(s) in the German military. Bear in mind I'm not refering to the Turkish SS regiment that was a joke and if I recal executed after a falled attempt at mutiny.
@Abraham
When you surrender, you give up fighting and throw yourself at your enemies feet. There is nothing stopping them from kicking you and by putting yourself in that position you are only a dog, not a man. Frankly I would die before I knelt before any man.
@Abraham
Actually, honor applies to acting in a fashion you would not normally act in the for the sake of country. Honor, is keeping your word, as a soldier, that means not questioning orders. You sacrifice yourself for the whole. You do not debate with your commanding officer whether it is right.
@Abraham
I am largely, in favor of totalitarian government. If that's what you mean by fasictoid. But that is not of much relevance to the current conversation. Also, quit involving the Holocaust with things I condone. I do not condone mass murder of innocents. Look at it this way, the Jews did not actively decide to be born where they were born. Thus making them innocent, if a soldier enters the field of battle he has actively decided to take up arms - and is not innocent. If a peasant village hides local partisans they actively decide to risk retribution - and are not innocent. Do you see the difference between active and passive? It is dishonorable in my eyes to kill someone that has not yet had the choice. But if they are given the choice and choose to risk death, they have no right to complain when they die.
@Abraham
No intellegent Nazi's? No upperclass Nazi's? I hate to tell you the Nazi party also appealed to the upper crust of society. But no "smart" Nazi's? Are you daft? Explain the U-Boats, V-1 rocket which was deployed with the first wire and radar guided systems, V-2 rocket which was the first vehicle to leave Earth's atmosphere, the Panther and Tiger series tanks, the various small arms developements, the accuracy of German artillery, and the various jet aircraft. Along with Germany's nuclear program which was ahead of ours but lacked resources. Infact, while not Nazi's, expatriated Germans in America were responsable for the atomic bomb. Get your history straight, except for the application of radar the Allies were behind the technological curve almost the entire time. I also credit them for better long range bombers, which were used extensively to kill only civilians, even in your country. Also, and I realize many of you will fly of the handle on this, Hitler is undeniably one of the greatest political minds to have existed - he was evil yes but he rose from peasent to dictator and to deny that shows your inabilty to objectively look at this subject and largely invaldiates your arguement, Heinz Guderian's Blitzkrieg is employed by all the major world armies today including the US, Erwin Rommel's armor tactics are employeed, and German U-boat inovations were the basis of the nuclear standoff we have today, not to mention that the V-2 was the grandfather of our space program, the RAM jet from the V-1 has been modified to produce various missles and aircraft in US employment and has recently evolved into the SCRAM jet, German engineers were bought up by many governments to improve their weaponry, heck even the M1942 helmet design is used almost universaly but hey - they had no great minds. A mind is not great upon your approval of its idealogy, a mind is proven to be great by the legacy it leaves.
**Though, to give credit where it's due, there is a cigar named after Winston Churchill.**
@Abraham
I would hope, that emotion does not rule your intellect and this could perhaps be continued. If not, I would extend the proposition that this should atleast not end on hostile terms. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree but there is enough hostility that hopefully can be kept from the online world.
@Kissaki
Schlecht = bad
It's irrelevant but I understand (and speak a limited amount) of high German and can understand almost all German dialects excepting Swebish... *shudder* they don't enunciate or seem to breathe when they talk... good for a lager though... I prefer darker beer, but eh.
**Edit: Now looking at the fact you ask: Was ist schlecht? - and your nationality is listed as Norweigan I'm going to assume you knew that.... Es tut mir leid, ich bin American aber ich glaube im deutsch sehr oft.
(I think that's proper, bear in mind I read and listen to more German than I have oppurtuninty to speak, I know several German immigrants that speak partial English and are kind enough to tolerate my lack of a German vocabulary, though they tell me that what I do know I speak very well.)