|
| Thread: WWII : Who Saved The World |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted June 22, 2004 03:36 PM |
|
|
Well having read an excellent work on Berlin and being in the midst of reading another by the same author on Stalingrad, I guess I can comment a little on this…
One very important aspect to remember when dealing with the Eastern Front was that it was quite literally like nothing in the west. A good example of this is, upon being told of Oradur Sur-Glene (a place in France were the SS massacred an entire village and burnt it to the ground in reprisals for a resistance attack), a Russian commented that it was nothing, there were hundreds of Russian villages like that. The Russian was right, unlike the Western Front were fighting was to some degree orderly and without atrocities (compared to the east that is) the Eastern Front was quite literally a war were there were just two options, survival or annihilation. The Germans made this clear before even invading Russia in their opening orders, reinforced by their actions afterwards. The Russians made it clear in their treatment of virtually everyone after they began the long drive to Berlin.
It’s correct to say that for the Russians, the war began as one of defending “Mother Russia”. Even Stalin at his most pompous recognised that the common Russian no longer cared for socialism, but rather their homes and their families, above all their country. However, towards the turning point of the war with the conclusion of Stalingrad and Kursk a distinct mixture of hatred and revenge became a leading factor in Russian propaganda and soldiers desires. This came about long before Berlin though, during the fighting in East Prussia and Poland the raping, looting and slaughtering of POWs and civilians reached enormous heights. Nor was this restricted to mere revenge, Russian soldiers raped tens of thousands of Poles, Russian civilians who had been removed there by the Germans and others, none of whom had done anything to the Russian army in the past. Numerically, of the some 2 million people of German descent living (or had fled there) in what was then Eastern Prussia at the start of 1945, less than 200,000 were left in 1948, most of these were killed or died in Gulags or as a result of Russian mistreatment.
Revenge became paramount. When Auschwitz was liberated the Soviet authorities closed down all information on it, refusing to admit that Jews had been the principle target. Other atrocities were reported as being “Russian” losses, when often the casualties were Polish, French or other nationalities. Stalin, Beria and their propaganda machine drove their soldiers into a frenzy of hate filled “justice” against those who had done the same to their country 3 or 4 years earlier. NKVD units and officers did next to nothing to prevent the raping and looting, officers looted for their seniors, soldiers raping women sometimes a dozen at a time on one woman. The suicide rate in Berlin alone amongst young women reached tens of thousands in the aftermath of the war. It’s a little talked about subject amongst veterans, those who admit that it even went on talk of it as happening “elsewhere” or by others in their unit who got drunk (that bit is true, most of the raping went on when Russian soldiers got drunk). The minority that do talk about it, generally brag.
Ultimately, it happened because the West were too lenient with Stalin, Churchill wanted to take Berlin, Roosevelt trusted Stalin when the Soviet leader promised that Berlin would not be a priority of his. The allies halted on the Elba even though they knew without a shadow of a doubt that the Germans would not have resisted anywhere near as much against them as against the Russians. A genuine fear of Stalin and naivety left the Russians to act as they pleased and they did too. Figures are hard to work out due to the immense numbers of refugees and displaced people in Germany and Poland, but casualties, both civilian and military were massive.
Not even Russians were immune from this, when the Russian’s recaptured their POWs from earlier in the war their treatment was little better. Many tens of thousands were brutally interrogated and “re-educated”. The lucky ones went on to be reintroduced to the army to serve in Berlin… only to find that their service still left them open to question by the NKVD and treated as traitors for having surrendered. The common accusation was that anyone who did not die for the motherland in the army should have either died trying to escape, or joined the Partisans.
I find it hard to equate blame to the soldiers involved in that period entirely, the eastern front was brutal and near to being beyond our comprehension now in the west. The rhetoric and mood in the war there was entirely different to ours in the west. What was frowned upon and people arrested for in the west was not even controlled in the east until very late in the war. Even then official orders spoke of it merely being “detrimental to our post-war relations with the germans” rather than it being immoral. I have no doubt that the Russian soldiers fought very valiantly during the war, but we should also have no mistake about the nature of the war there or the people that fought in it. As essential as it was to defeat Facism, we should be also aware of the terrible consequences of that victory for some.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 24, 2004 09:10 AM |
|
|
it was all australia 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
drlucifer
Adventuring Hero
The Surgeon of Death
|
|
posted August 24, 2004 05:33 PM |
|
|
Who won WW2 for the Allies? I dunno, do Hitler and Mussolini count?
1. They invaded the Soviet Union before Britain got beat.
2. Hitler barely tried to reinforce Rommel's tanks when they could have catpured Egypt, the Suez Canal, maybe whole Middle East.
3. Mussolini attacked Balkans and later Greece, got in big trouble and Hitler and to send German troops away from USSR to save him.
4. Relied on the labor of people they were brutally suppressing- sabotage was HUGE.
5. They didn't try to keep Japan from attacking Pearl Harbor and getting America into war.
There are probably more...
____________
Doctors are not necessarily your friends.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 24, 2004 10:30 PM |
|
|
drlucifer: a couple of points to consider.
Re-inforcing Rommel was reliant a lot more on decent supply lines than it was on Hitler, though it's true Hitler was reluctant to commit forces to Africa. What hampered Rommel more than lack of troops was lack of supplies, supplies that they relied on the Italian navy to transport to Africa and then were transported to the front via long desert roads (the nearest major port to the front was more often than not hundreds of miles away in Libya). With the British dominating the Mediteranian once air-superiority was achieved, supplying Rommel was almost impossible due to the strong British presence at Malta and the work of the Long Range Desert Group, the forunners of the SAS. More troops without a subsequent commital of naval elements to back this up was not going to achieve a huge amount to be frank. It's because of this that the Axis powers that be considered capturing or besieging the British naval bases in the med, the attacks on Malta for example, and the attempts to draw Spain into the war, thus tying down or capturing Gibraltar.
Secondly, the attack into the Balkans by Italy worked out badly for the allies also. When Mussolini invaded, his forces in Africa were then without German support and were... well being thrashed soundly to be blunt. They invaded Egypt from Lybia with over 300,000 men, only to be driven back by barely 40,000. Soon afterwards, the British under O'Connor had smashed their lines into dust and were driving them from Lybia also, in the process of which over 100,000 Italians were captured! Within sight of victory, and the whole of Africa nearly secured (bar vichy-french Tunisia and Morroco who were technically neutral) Churchill insisted on withdrawing the bulk of this fine group of men. The reason? Mussolini's invasion had stirred Churchill into believing that with British support, the Greeks could destroy the invading Italians. The fact that the Greeks were doing a damned fine job of that by themselves already didn't seem to occur to Churchill, who spent a lot of WWII dreaming about a Balkan alliance against Hitler. At first the Greeks rejected all offers of support, but when their leader died, the new one agreed.
Unfortunately the departure of the core of O'Connor's force meant a halt to the advances in the Desert, well within sight of victory. Soon after this, Hitler agreed to committ what would become the Afrika Corps, and Rommel arrived with it. The chance to defeat this force was gone, the recruits that replaced O'Connor's men were no match for Rommel and soon all of the gains O'Connor had made were wiped off the map. The troops sent to Greece met the German forces sent to support the Italians and were rapidly outnumbered, cut off and those that did not escape were forced to surrender. The bulk of this experienced bunch of troops were wasted in a campaign that was mostly not needed, Greece was destined to fall anyway due to German intervention, the use of the British forces merely made things much worse. Had Churchill permitted O'Connor to continue, Africa would have fallen to the British in 1941, avoiding 2 years of relentless conflict there and ruining Rommel's main chance for glory.
That might not seem as important at first glance in the long run as the other effect, slowing the invasion of Russia, but other factors also did that. Barbarossa was delayed because of the Balkan fighting, but also because the Germans needed time to redeploy their air force and supplies, and also the rains in Russia would have meant that an early invasion would have bogged down in mud. So the Balkan conflict was not nearly so vital to the allied war effort as it may sometimes seem.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 12, 2004 06:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You said that the Japanese enslaved and murdered people. I disagree because I think the Japanese were behaving like a historic empirical country. I think the term "empire" is a more closely related term when describing the Japan of prior WWII. If you look at other empires you will see that they too would have questionable military engagements in which the world at large would question their motives while the people being attacked would call them only the most harsh of words.
My point is that I find the Japanese (of prior WWII) no more "murdering & enslaving"(as you say) than that of many other historic countries expanding their empires as well.
Quote:
I sorry, I cant let this stand uncorrected. In 1937 Japanese troops conquered Shanghai. This was immediatly followed by massacre of a little more than 250.000 civilians. And yes it was all civilians. The chinese had withdrawn from Shanghai and declared it for an open city, hoping the japanese wouldnt bomb the city. They didnt bomb it, instead mass executions and gang rapes where the order of the day for allmost 2 months.
Incidently it was the the german consul who was the hero in these dark days.
He put on his full Nazi uniform and marched around ordering the japanese troops to stop the killings whereever he saw it going on. Then he marched the chinese civilians into the embassy quarters forbidding japanese troops to come there.
Strangely enough (Or more likely, yhe fact that japanese troops are known to be very submissive to authority) they complied with his orders.
After the war it was estimated that his actions saved around 10.000 lives.
This is just one of many examples of the atrocities Japan commited prior and during WW2. This is still a major point of contestation between Japan and both Korea and China. (Korean girls was conscripted during the whole war to serve as snows for the japanese army. This was certainly not of their choise).
Concerning the Finno-Russian Winter war, it took place during WW2 it commenced 30. October 1939 and ended with a conditional finnish surrender 13 March 1940.
The fact that Finland got a conditional surrender was mainly due to their heroic defence of Karelia. Where the finnish general Mannerheim wrote himself into the history books as one of the ablest commanders in WW2.
Incidently the Allies (At that point France and GB was supporting Finland).
Finland did enter the war against Russia on the German side, but much to the consternation of the Germans, they adamantly refused to attack Russia beyond the 1939 borders.
This was a main factor in Russias succesfull defence of Leningrad. As a joint finnish german attack from the north on the city in 1941 would have led the city to fall.
Concerning Svarog and PH debate about the Russo-japanese negotiations in the last days of the war. Im afraid Svarog, that PH is completely correct in his assesment that Russia was just playing the Japanese. I have read the transcripts from the Japanese archives, but unfortunately I dont have them here at home.
They also clearly shows that when the US dropped the bomb, the War side of the japanese council was winning the internal powerstruggle, which would have lead to a continuation of the war. The reason they didnt win was the bomb.
This is shown by testimony by leading Japanese officials after the war, aswell as the transcripts I was refering to.
As to the original topic of this thread, I must say its a question of what came first. The hen or the egg?
If Britain had dropped out of the war in 1940. Germany would have won.
If Russia had crumbled in 1941. Germany would have won.
If Germany hadnt declared war on the US 11. December 1941. Germany would have won.
So all in all, those three countries have an equal share in the downfall of Germany. ¨
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 18, 2004 01:51 AM |
|
|
I don’t know why we insist on smearing historical facts and reinventing motives, especially about periods of human history that should clearly oblige us with a strong responsibility. This last post has so many points I don’t agree with, but I’ll just quickly respond to them, without further elaborating on something so clear that doesn’t deserve any more attention.
Quote:
In my opinion, they also fought for freedom, liberty and for their fatherland.
Nazi soldiers neither fought for freedom, nor for liberty. They did however fought for their fatherland, which at the time was identified with the Third Reich, an evil concept that cant under any circumstances bear the glory and honor of what is today recognized as patriotism and love for one’s own country.
Quote:
No, these men and women were not nazis, they were Germans before and after Hitler. He could never rob them of their heritage, no one can dispute this.
They were Nazi Germans. Face the facts, Consis. They believed in their superiority (not all of them, of course), and their right to rule the “less worthy” nations. Simply being Germans cant excuse them for their Nazi identity.
Quote:
Soldiers are soldiers, if they follow orders then they should be respected as a hero for their country.
No they shouldn’t! That’s one bloody fascist totalitarian logic. A hero is not made by following orders, but by following ideals and beliefs, when they are right.
Can you call a hero the guy who carried out the order to gas 1000 Jewish kids in the death camps?!
Quote:
Germany did not win the second world war and rightly so, but this does not give anyone the right to dishonor the sacrifice they gave for their people.
The sacrifice wasn’t given for their people, but for Nazist values and beliefs. True, some of the soldiers were thrown in the midst of a war, and distinction between their families and the country they belonged to couldn’t have been made. However, only neo-Nazi scums could recognize the millions of dead Nazi soldiers as sacrifice for the people. Because for most of the soldiers who died, the nation, the people, Hitler, Fascism was all one indivisible entity, and here rests the ugliness of such ideology.
I’m confused, as much as I’m upset, why would someone voluntarily compose such a shameful post, especially because so far I haven’t thought of Consis as a prominent skinhead or something. Maybe it’s just lack of insight, or maybe there’s more reasoning behind it. Nonetheless, I think it’s necessary for us to look in the eyes of history, recognize and decisively condemn our mistakes from the past, at the same time, doing our best not to repeat them.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 18, 2004 05:15 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 17 Nov 2004
|
I Beg Forgiveness
I see this is very personal for you Svarog. Let me try and explain my logic.
Before I joined the military for this country I hated life at home, hated my parents, and still do hate them. When I joined the military I found confidence, dignity, and honor that I never thought I had. Before my service to my country I was a punk kid who didn't like to be told what to do by anyone. I thought absolutely nothing about saving the world or some larger principle like freeing enslaved people, etc. I only wanted to leave the yolk of my parents because I felt trapped. When I joined the airforce I felt liberated and told myself that I would never return home while working hard to earn respect from the new people I met. I did exactly that. I was a soldier and I obeyed orders as any good soldier should.
I understand your logic. I understand that you think people should not be like the nazis with their horrible ideals. But ask yourself who sets down the ideals? Is it the 18 year old young man who is looking to make a name for himself or is it the leaders of his country?
I must argue that a soldier's job is not to make a stand for his principles but to do his job and follow orders whether they be evil or good. The time for punishment will be after the job is done but this does not take away the dignity of the common soldier. I find it odd that you would quickly disagree with my german soldiers post while saying nothing about my russian soldiers post. The russian soldiers raped and plundered so horrifically when they reached Berlin that roughly 10,000 suicides were reported.
My point is that I too was a soldier and so I give a soldier's respect to another soldier doing his best and following orders as he should. I agree to punish those who committed the atrocities but I do not lay blame on the common soldier. I lay blame on the lawmakers, representatives, and government leaders. I do not support any Nazi or fascist ideals and seek to help punish those that do.
I apologize if I seemed to support that evil thinking. I was not. I was merely passing on a soldier's respect to those of the past that did nothing more than fight and follow orders as I have fought and followed orders. I say punish the acts and forgive the man.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 18, 2004 01:52 PM |
|
|
A comment:
The overwhelming majority of Germans fighting in WWII were conscripts, with no more choice about their service than your average Russian, American or British soldier. The enormous majority of them were fighting because they had no choice in the matter, not out of some ideological belief in the Third Reich or Hitler. What most of them did believe in was fighting to defend their country, especially against what they saw as the evils of communist Russia, a fear borne out in the end by justified by the events at the end of the war.
The majority of Germans did not even vote for Hitler in the first place, though it's true that he was at least initially very popular. He never won more than 50% of the vote before he began rigging the elections, and twice at least lost presidential votes to Hindenberg. Nazi party membership was not very high, even in the SS before a certain date (when it was changed so that joining the SS meant you joined the party anyway) the level was very low. Of the millions of dead Germans in WWII, the majority were not nazis, officially or otherwise. For that matter, it's nice to talk with hindsight now about the evils of the regime, another thing entirely to have to live through those years and know about them.
There's millions of Germans that fought in WWII that believed neither in Nazi ideology or Hitler. There's officers who deliberately disobeyed orders, civilians who protected Jews, soldiers who were caught up in the mess, volksturm (German militia formed in 1944) officers who refused to fight in the chaos at the end of the war. We should quite rightly decry the scum who lead the Nazi ideology during WWII whoever they may be, but we should not decry people who's only crime was to be forced to fight for a bad regime.
One last thing, at the end of WWII, the Germans fought fanatically in the east, men died and officers ordered their men to fight on, for one main reason. Read any book on the 1945 campaign about the eastern front and you'll find out what it is. Having fought a war in Russia like the Wermacht and SS did, they fought on to stop the Russians. Every General said the same thing, had the Western allies attacked Berlin, the Wermacht would not have tried to stop them. So at the end, yes you can say the Germans were fighting for their country, their people
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 18, 2004 03:59 PM |
|
|
Hmm....
PrivateHudson, you are correct about the facts(as always) but I also agree with Svarog that I should not have said they fought for 'liberty' and 'freedom'. I think I was wrong to say that. In the end, as it were, was when they finally fought for such things. As I think about it, that ideology seemed after the fact of invading neighboring countries. I do believe it was a war they had began on the offensive. It also sort of reminds me how the Japanese ended by declaring to defend their home from the evil americans. I suppose it's all very relative.
I say again, I should not have said they fought for freedom. I should have said they fought to clean up the mess that a fascist Hitler had led and helped create. It happened toward the end and I think they deserve dignity in attempting to do so. Attempting to assassinate Hitler was clear evidence that they were trying everything they could to unseat the powerful fascist Nazi leader.
My purpose is to try and find the good of the common soldier amongst the many different countries involved in the war. I plan to make my next post about the common French soldier.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted November 18, 2004 04:26 PM |
|
|
To privatehudson, my favourite smart alec  :
Quote:
For that matter, it's nice to talk with hindsight now about the evils of the regime, another thing entirely to have to live through those years and know about them.
I had been living under a fascist regime for ten years and know that there is always a choice.
Thousands of young men had left Serbia in order to avoid fighting a war that wasn't theirs. Thousands of others joined the opposition movement, fighting Milosevic's police in the streets of Belgrade. Some people got beaten, some lost their jobs, some even their lives...
Millions of Serbs never voted for Milosevic. They didn't do anything against him either. They..."had no choice". There is a worse thing than death: sitting at home and watching the news... being an accomplice in crime.
Quote:
There's officers who deliberately disobeyed orders, civilians who protected Jews, soldiers who were caught up in the mess, volksturm ...
Not nearly enough, it seems. Just like in Serbia in the 1990s - a silent majority supported the regime. When 5,000 Muslim men were killed in Srebrenica in one single day, there were no anti-war protests organized by Milosevic's supporters.
Germans didn't bother either...
(A general note: It is not the facts, but real people's choices behind those facts what I've always found fascinating about history.)
To Consis:
Quote:
I understand that you think people should not be like the nazis with their horrible ideals. But ask yourself who sets down the ideals? Is it the 18 year old young man who is looking to make a name for himself or is it the leaders of his country?
I'm not so sure that the young are more easily influenced, for my experience tells me the opposite. No matter what, an 18-year-old should think for himself. When I was 18 I, for one, knew that killing innocent civilians is wrong.
Quote:
I must argue that a soldier's job is not to make a stand for his principles but to do his job and follow orders whether they be evil or good. The time for punishment will be after the job is done but this does not take away the dignity of the common soldier.
Wait a minute, is this your personal opinion or your army's regulation?! Being fresh from the army myself, I seem to recall a soldier should not follow his orders in case he is ordered to commit a crime... According to the law in my country, both the officer who had given the order and the soldier who commited a war crime are guilty.
Quote:
Soldiers are soldiers, if they follow orders then they should be respected as a hero for their country.Germany did not win the second world war and rightly so, but this does not give anyone the right to dishonor the sacrifice they gave for their people.
I know web forums where people are banned for less than this. Do your homework, Consis.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 18, 2004 04:49 PM |
|
|
Thousands left Germany before the war refusing to work for or live under Hitler's regime, many of these of course being Jewish, but many others also left. There were serious resistance movements in Germany during the war, notably through the Wermacht*, but also through many branches of German society. There was even a students resistance during the war which was ruthlessly stamped out by the Nazis when it was betrayed.
On the other hand, idealistically I'm sure we'd all like to think that we would do this. Realistically we are looking at the events of the 1930s and 1940s through hindsight and wondering why the Germans voted for Hitler and then "allowed" the regime to commit those crimes. Hitler was politically intelligent, he knew what buttons to press to get people to vote for him, he knew how to inspire fear and anger in order to divert attention from his hatred-based policies. When a man with such political intelligence combines this with a horrid plan for the country and the backing of the army and police, it becomes almost impossible to oppose him.
I'm sure we'd all like to think that we would have opposed Hitler if we had been German, however that IMO is an idealistic view of the world. Not nearly enough? What could the majority of them do then? You're talking about unrealistic solutions to the problem those people faced, they did what they could and what they thought was right by their country.
For that matter, on the subject of soldier's from a country comitting warcrimes, we must address the allied armies in this case. Russian soldiers looted, raped and murdered across east prussia and Germany in 1945. American and British air forces levelled cities, sometimes specifically targetting civilians. If we are to decry German soldiers as a whole for the warcrimes committed by the few, should we not be fair and attach similar thoughts to allied soldiers? I think not, I think we should as far as possible judge by the soldier, not the group of soldiers. Individual German soldiers do have a right to be remembered with pride for their fight in WWII, anything else is just silly.
* It's to be noted though that the majority of the Wermacht officers involved in the July bomb plot at least were only against Hitler because they felt that the war was lost and he would have to die for peace to happen. They had little interest in opposing him on morality in the main.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 18, 2004 08:18 PM |
|
|
What?
I should do my homework? Listen to what you are saying! If your people had done such back then, they would have been crushed and forgotten as some small insignificant clique. Those were different times. Nowadays, one single man dies in the middle of Tienamen square and the world at large feels a shock of horror and outrage. This is the age of information, need I remind you.
Principles and ideals had much less probability to take flight back then without some sort of political/financial support of the wealthy.
I think that your ideology of damning the entire German peoples leaves no room for forgiveness. With the idea that they are all guilty you would have to throw them all in prison, even the women and children! What kind of extremist are you?
Don't get me started(i.e. doing my homework) on what my country did to allow your protestors to do what they did. You know as well as I do that President Clinton gave your people the opportunity to break free of Milosevic's grasp. Had he not, you and I might not be talking today.
I do not argue against your logic of starting within yourself to be more proactive and not sit idly by to let evil men to their bidding but how can you be so judgmental to every man and woman in that country? Are you so much better? Do you think everyone should be like you? Remember that many people weren't thinking about saving the jews, stopping the nazis, or defending against a revenging russian onslaught. Some people simply wanted to make enough money to feed their wife and small children staying behind while they went off to fight in a war they knew nothing about.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 19, 2004 05:08 AM |
|
|
I hate when posts accumulate in a day, and so many points are spared from a reply. Where do i start?
Quote:
I must argue that a soldier's job is not to make a stand for his principles but to do his job and follow orders whether they be evil or good.
True. And from a soldier’s point of view, they did the right thing – they followed orders. But, the moral of the soldier, as I said, would praise also the man who carried out the order to gas thousands of Jews.
No German soldier has the right to be remembered with pride, PH! What for? What for!? The only thing is what Consis said, and I think is very unwise, following orders. Bravery, determance, faithful service hold no value if they don’t work for a worthy goal. According to your logic, we should praise Hitler as well.
I can only give credit to those soldiers who hated Hitler, but were too weak to change anything or voice their opinion, who unfortunately were a small minority.
Trying to stay politically correct in this debate is in nobody's interest.
Quote:
We should quite rightly decry the scum who lead the Nazi ideology during WWII whoever they may be, but we should not decry people who's only crime was to be forced to fight for a bad regime.
One man cannot force a nation to fight for his nutcase ideas, no matter now crazy he may be. The entire nation has to be in a sort of craze too to follow such a leader.
It’s a fact that the vast majority of Germans supported Hitler, knew what they were doing when they invaded countries and believed in their supremacy. A fact, PH. The moral in the army and among the common people was so high, that they fought hard until the very last days of the war.
I’m not saying the Germans didn’t have a reason for that, but that doesn’t erase the fact that they did believe in the Third Reich. In history, often dictators have a solid popular support, through lies and propaganda, but they still obtain it.
Quote:
Having fought a war in Russia like the Wermacht and SS did, they fought on to stop the Russians. Every General said the same thing, had the Western allies attacked Berlin, the Wermacht would not have tried to stop them.
Yeah, right. Now blame it on the Russians. I bet they also fought to stop the Russians when they invaded Poland, conquered Central and Eastern Europe, invaded France and bombed Britain. It takes a lot of guts to do that, and I ensure you it was not fear of the Russians that made the poor terrified Nazis do that.
I’m not trying to defend anyone, and the Russians and the Allies were guilty for their revengeful actions. However, don’t forget it was the Germans who attacked USSR, not the other way around. The Germans werent frenzy about them due only to the Russian brutality, but also because of their personal frustration for the casualties they took, the hatred towards Communist and Slavs alike.
Quote:
There was even a students resistance during the war which was ruthlessly stamped out by the Nazis when it was betrayed.
Why don’t you mention the biggest resistance to Fascism?
The communists were the most prosecuted and murdered by the Nazis. They were considered even as “dangerous” as the Jews.
Quote:
I had been living under a fascist regime for ten years and know that there is always a choice.
Those are some very harsh words there. You could imagine the impression uninformed people could get when they hear that.
Milosevic was an extreme nationalist, true, and used some undemocratic methods to deal with the opposition, but nothing near to fascist regime.
Quote:
Just like in Serbia in the 1990s - a silent majority supported the regime.
Mind you, I large majority supported Milosevic in the beginning of the 90’s, and even later, he still had the majority of popular support.
Quote:
You know as well as I do that President Clinton gave your people the opportunity to break free of Milosevic's grasp. Had he not, you and I might not be talking today.
There. What I told you, Vlaad. I’m not in the mood to open this issue, so I’ll leave it at that.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 19, 2004 07:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No German soldier has the right to be remembered with pride, PH! What for? What for!?
1) The enormous majority of them were no more involved in warcrimes than the British, American and Russian soldiers. It seems two faced to suggest that they have no right to remember their sacrifice because of the minority that did. One migh as well refuse to honour the British air force men for what Harris ordered at Dresden.
2) A good proportion of them weren't even old enough before the war to take part in bringing Hitler to power. The last true elections in Germany were in the early 1930s, someone would have to be around 24 in 1939, or 30 in 1945 to have possibly voted for Hitler and fought in WWII.
3) There were "good" actions done by the Germans during WWII, and bad done by the allies. Ignoring this is pointless and blinkered.
Quote:
According to your logic, we should praise Hitler as well
Interesting theory, pity you didn't read my post properly. Confusing how you could come to this conclusion given that you quoted later on the words We should quite rightly decry the scum who lead the Nazi ideology during WWII whoever they may be. I do not support remembering Hitler, the majority of the SS, members of the Military, or civilians who sided with Hitler willingly in his crimes. I do on the other hand recognise that there was a good few million people in Germany with no support for him.
Quote:
I can only give credit to those soldiers who hated Hitler, but were too weak to change anything or voice their opinion, who unfortunately were a small minority.
I'd like to see you prove this to be the case. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of soldiers accounts from the war speak volumes about just how little support Hitler and his cronies did have amongst the rank and file of the army. Don't just make accusations, back them up.
Quote:
One man cannot force a nation to fight for his nutcase ideas, no matter now crazy he may be.
He can though disguise his intentions and turn people to his cause through concentrating on other matters such as rebuilding the country, regaining lost land and so on. It takes a politically intelligent person to do it, but Hitler was unfortunately very capable of this. Diverting the people's eyes from what you don't want them to see politically whilst showing them the good things about your rule is what every politician does, just that the extreme situation in Germany meant it was easier to make those things extreme.
Quote:
It’s a fact that the vast majority of Germans supported Hitler, knew what they were doing when they invaded countries and believed in their supremacy.
Simplified argument. They supported him before WWII because he made Germany great again and at least for a short while recovered her economy. Again, a sweeping statement about if they "knew" about the holocaust and the atrocities in Russia need proof, not just saying it. They probably did believe Germany and Germans were superior, so did the British for that matter, your point being?
Quote:
A fact, PH. The moral in the army and among the common people was so high, that they fought hard until the very last days of the war.
Uhmmm... look into the campaigns in the west from 1944 onwards and you'll find that the common soldier was often more than willing to surrender sometimes, and especially during 1945. They fought hard true, but so would anyone in the position of "fight hard and maybe live through the battle, or I shoot you know, choose". Civilian moral was largely a counter-reaction to the bombing raids the allies launched.
Quote:
Yeah, right. Now blame it on the Russians. I bet they also fought to stop the Russians when they invaded Poland, conquered Central and Eastern Europe, invaded France and bombed Britain. It takes a lot of guts to do that, and I ensure you it was not fear of the Russians that made the poor terrified Nazis do that.
Actually I blame the Germans as much for helping to make the Eastern Front a war of anhialation rather than anything else. The point remains though, the Germans feared what Russia would do when she finally arrived. Whether the civilian whipped up by Goebbels, or the soldier remembering the front and Russia, they knew the Russian invasion would be brutal, and Stalin's soldiers hardly seemed interested in disapointing them. Again though, you talk about the "nazi" soldiers. In 1945 the majority weren't even nazis, more civilians with guns and A/T rockets thrown into the front. The solid fighting core of the SS weren't even in Berlin or Prussia at the time. The Wermacht had long since lost any pretence of Nazi belief, hell even the SS and Nazis themselves were surrendering or deserting the cause by the end. Was it entirely fear of the Russians that caused the Germans to fight so hard? Probably not, but in the east it was probably the single biggest thing. Motives at the start of the war are entirely a different thing, the situation in terms of knowledge of the regime's evil for that matter was not the same either.
Quote:
However, don’t forget it was the Germans who attacked USSR, not the other way around.
Why say you won't defend it then try? The Russian high command only stopped the soldier's actions when finally they decided that it was unwise because they figured out that raping, looting and killing across your soon to be allies was not a clever idea. Do yourself a favour and read Berlin 1945 by Beevor to get a decent idea of German/Russian mindsets back then. For that matter, consider that Russian crimes in 1945 had just about damn all to do with retribution against Germans, the targets of the rapes, murders and deportations were as often as not Russians, Poles, Czechs and other nationalities. Their army was out of control on a drunken rampage across eastern europe, it was little to do with remembering what happened in Russia and everything to do with lack of control.
Which is why the Germans wanted the Western Allies to take Berlin, the soldiers and civilians were left in no doubt that Russia occupying Berlin and/or Germany would at minimum lead to anarchy, if not destruction that would make the end of WWI and it's aftermath look like a golden age.
Quote:
Why don’t you mention the biggest resistance to Fascism?
I forgot, so sue me. It's kind of assumed they would resist it anyway given how persecuted they were. That and the fact that they had no realistic chance of taking out Hitler during the war, Coincidentally, the few Communists who did survive in Germany were treated with utmost suspicion by the Russians when they did "liberate" the country alongside the Russians who were lucky enough to survive time in a POW camp. One historian points to the fact that 5 million Russians were captured by the Germans in WWII, virtually none of them survived. Only 4 million died in German camps, the other million died after being "Liberated" whereupon they came under paranoid scrutiny.
Frankly, you seek to generalise virtually every German soldier and civilian as a "nazi" and therefore they have no rights. It's not a far step from here to the kind of attitude that prevailed in America and Britain during WWII and lead to Dresden for example, something I seem to recall you arguing against. If you're going down this road, I'd like to see you support your assertion that the majority would support say the holocaust and Hitler's other insane theories. Anything else is just hypocritical, when a German solider asks simply to be remembered, you say no because of what his regime did, when an allied one asks, you say yes despite what his regime did. Not comparing like for like here, obviously the Allied crimes are not even remotely as bad, but still.
Oh and there's nothing politically correct about recognising a basic truth.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 19, 2004 03:58 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 19 Nov 2004
|
A Few Points
Vlaad,
I want to give credit to all the people who courageously resisted Milosevic. Even with outside/foreign aid and support, they still had a good chance of being persecuted. If you were one of these persons then I salute you. I think it takes a strong person to stand up for what you believe in. Sometimes though, we must consider what to do after a war has been fought, an exit strategy if you will. Can we so simply group all of a country's population in the same category of the those that did the evil acts against humanity? I would say that we must hold a lawfully ordered court proceeding to prosecute each person whose story comes under question. If we do not then we risk genocidal persecution. That is to say, 'death by association' yes?
What I am trying to do is to give the respect and honor due a soldier whose only crimes were following orders. Along these lines, you asked me if a soldier could be guilty of disobeying the orders of his superior in battle. The answer is yes here in the U.S. Here in the U.S. it is a more serious crime for a soldier to not follow the orders of your commanding officers, even if it was because the soldier was ordered to perform illegal acts. Our military has very strict and clear guidelines on this matter. To commit a crime will lead to official punishment by the courts but only to the individuals that act illegally. If an individual inspires batallion-wide chaos/rebellion then this will lead to a much larger scale of uncontrollable mayhem. It is believed( and practiced)that the ultimate purpose of a soldier is to perform his duty/follow orders to the best of his abilities. If he is neglegent then he is guilty of such, but if he does exactly as he is told then he can and will be admonished(set free) of the crime his superior ordered him to commit.
Simply put, the soldier is legally innocent of any crime he is ordered to commit by his superior officers especially if those officers are in his direct chain of command.
Here in the U.S. it is a greater crime to be lawless and disobedient. I agree with this philosophy on the basis that many 18 year old soldiers do not yet have the capability to make the sound judgments that an adult would. Legally, these people have the right to vote but historically they by and large do not exercise this right.
Svarog,
I don't have much to say to you, I think I know your opinions of my country and I have seen nothing that would alter your direction of thought.
I do still agree with PrivateHudson though, I think you are generalizing an entire people and associating them with their oppressors. In this logic, if you were supreme allied commander, you would punish them all, leaving no person left to innocence even if the only thing they did was make bread during the war.
PrivateHudson,
The fight goes on to broaden one's own horizons and expound upon the truth. I applaud your effort though I think Svarog is def to the sound of an innocent crying baby whose only act was to take its first breath. According to his philosophy all Germans were guilty of Nazism.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 20, 2004 06:09 AM |
|
|
@PH
Concerning your reasons for honoring German soldiers:
1. Not being involved in war crimes, doesn’t give them any right to be honored. Just as fighting for an evil cause, prevents them.
2. Irrelevant. They still supported their leader and did his bidding.
3. There were bad actions done by the allies, true. However, there werent “good” actions done by the Germans. There may have been such actions on an individual basis, outside the symbolism of their uniform. But these can only contribute for their praise as persons, not in any way as soldiers, because whenever they acted as soldiers of the Wermacht, they didnt do anything good, or at least what they did, was by far far outweighed by the evil.
Quote:
In my experience, the overwhelming majority of soldiers accounts from the war speak volumes about just how little support Hitler and his cronies did have amongst the rank and file of the army. Don't just make accusations, back them up.
You don’t expect me to come up with a list of the soldiers names, do you?
In your experience (how authentic  ), the overwhelming majority of soldiers (the dozens of those who’ve come to speak in front of TV, or write their memoirs), happen to voice their opinion after the war and the clear Allied victory. You don’t expect those who supported Hitler to come in public and say: “Oh, yeah! I believed that the Jews should be exterminated. Hitler! Sure, he was a nice guy!” Or do you?
And to support my claim, which is based on pure logic (obvious indications). As I said, a vast support from the population, and the army (amazing degree of control, morale, and carrying out orders without objecting) were all present, and that was absolutely necessary for Hitler to stay in power until the very last days of his downfall, which was the case.
Quote:
They probably did believe Germany and Germans were superior, so did the British for that matter, your point being?
They believed entirely in the ideology of Nazism. Period. Hitler didn’t hide his aims, but rather he clearly portrayed them in his “Mein Kampf”. If that’s a normal political situation for you, where the bad things are hidden from the public, then good for you.
Quote:
Motives at the start of the war are entirely a different thing, the situation in terms of knowledge of the regime's evil for that matter was not the same either.
It’s not “an entirely different thing”! You’re a master at avoiding points.
Now, what you’re suggesting is to overlook the German aggressive behavior and belief in Nazism, and have in mind the last days in 1945, when the poor guys were overrun by avenging Soviet troops, whose families were killed by German soldiers. With something that happened in 1945, you try to justify something that happened before then, which I find entirely ridiculous.
Also, you sound like: “Oh, they had to fight till the last man, because the Soviets were coming. Otherwise they would’ve surrendered, because they hated Hitler so much.” Cant you see yourself the absurdity of your claim?
Quote:
Frankly, you seek to generalize virtually every German soldier and civilian as a "nazi" and therefore they have no rights.
Not true. I said the vast majority. Maybe not all of them were “nazis”, but even vaguely believing and following such ideas, is effectively no different from a real nazi. Also, I’m not denying their rights as humans (civilians), but I’m saying it’s not their “right” to be praised for their actions.
Quote:
Anything else is just hypocritical, when a German solider asks simply to be remembered, you say no because of what his regime did, when an allied one asks, you say yes despite what his regime did.
If you paraphrase that nicely, you’d get an idea of what I say.
A German soldier cant be remembered because of what they fought for. Exceptions: when some went against what they fought for.
An Allied soldier should be remembered because his goals were noble and just. Exceptions: when they went against these goals (equality, liberty, destroying nazism, and preventing nazi crimes)
And finally, do you even realize what you and Consis are claiming here? To honor the soldiers who fought under Hitler. In your country you can be sentenced for that, I believe (if not Britain, then some other civilized one). That would mean seeing someone putting flowers and singing odes praising Nazi soldiers, would be an important public event, when all people would have to stand in respect of the fallen men who ravaged across Europe and were responsible for the biggest conflict in the history of mankind. God bless them. And happy new 1933 for you.
Quote:
I applaud your effort though I think Svarog is def to the sound of an innocent crying baby whose only act was to take its first breath. According to his philosophy all Germans were guilty of Nazism.
sniff, sniff… 
Think as you will, Consis. I see you didn’t understand a word from what I wrote.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 20, 2004 06:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Not being involved in war crimes, doesn�t give them any right to be honored. Just as fighting for an evil cause, prevents them.
Which requires blindness to their lack of choice in the matter.
Quote:
Irrelevant. They still supported their leader and did his bidding.
Not irrelevant. Dictatorships do not require support (except military), they thrive on fear, military power and violence, not choice, support and love.
Quote:
However, there werent �good� actions done by the Germans.
I heartily suggest you bother to investigate WWII outside of the Balkans before suggesting such worn out propaganda.
Quote:
But these can only contribute for their praise as persons, not in any way as soldiers, because whenever they acted as soldiers of the Wermacht, they didnt do anything good, or at least what they did, was by far far outweighed by the evil.
As I have mentioned, and something you repeatedly ignore, the majority lacked choice in their actions. You want to blame the Wermacht? Blame the high ranking officers, Blame Jodl and Kietl, blame the yes men of the Wermacht, blame the SS. Quit blaming soldiers who had no choice in fighting and little choice in who their leader was.
Quote:
In your experience (how authentic ), the overwhelming majority of soldiers (the dozens of those who�ve come to speak in front of TV, or write their memoirs), happen to voice their opinion after the war and the clear Allied victory. You don�t expect those who supported Hitler to come in public and say: �Oh, yeah! I believed that the Jews should be exterminated. Hitler! Sure, he was a nice guy!� Or do you?Quote:
Actually, I'm basing my thoughts on journals and accounts written during the war by soldiers who did not live to see the end also. Balanced against these must be the few from absolute nutjobs who were still blaming the Wermacht and the west for betraying Hitler and europe, but given that I'm extensively read on this subject, yes I could say that the majority of accounts, during and after WWII suggest a lack of support. In a similar way, you don't read much in British soldiers accounts praising the king or Churchill. They talk about all sorts of things, love of their leaders is not usually one of them.
Quote:
And to support my claim, which is based on pure logic (obvious indications). As I said, a vast support from the population, and the army (amazing degree of control, morale, and carrying out orders without objecting) were all present, and that was absolutely necessary for Hitler to stay in power until the very last days of his downfall, which was the case.
Dictatorships do not rely on people but on muscle. In those days, information was not as widespread as today. Details of what was happening 50 miles away was often alien to people, let alone in Russia or Poland. This is true in any country back then. You mistake a will to see Germany strong and powerful with support for something most people didn't even know for sure was happening.
Quote:
They believed entirely in the ideology of Nazism. Period.
Proof would be interesting
Quote:
Hitler didn�t hide his aims, but rather he clearly portrayed them in his �Mein Kampf�. If that�s a normal political situation for you, where the bad things are hidden from the public, then good for you.
Please do not twist my point and leave parts out. I stated that the extreme situation in the country permitted people to ignore Mein Kampf (which to be frank was barely read even in Germany) and concentrate on the good aspects. In modern society we see this, but the less extreme problems mean there is rarely a similar level of ignorance of the candidates hatred. Even so, look at Iraq where some still prefer the dictatorship and evil of Hussain to the uncertainty and current chaos of American/British control. People have a remarkable ability to concentrate on what they consider important and ignore that does not affect them.
Quote:
It�s not �an entirely different thing�! You�re a master at avoiding points.
Yes it is. At the start the Germans looked to Hitler to provide the strength of the Kaiser and bring Germany back to the power she had been. They supported him because he restored Germany to what they saw as their rightful role, restoring land containing mostly German peoples and shaking off the hated versailles treaty. Support during the later part of the war from the people and the majority of the army (ie the sane ones) came more out of fear/hatred of Russia and anger at the bombing raids. People had ceased to want to restore land and began to simply want to survive.
Quote:
Now, what you�re suggesting is to overlook the German aggressive behavior and belief in Nazism,
Nope. I specifically stated that the Germans helped cause their own problems in 1945 because of what they had done in Russia.
Quote:
and have in mind the last days in 1945, when the poor guys were overrun by avenging Soviet troops, whose families were killed by German soldiers.
Ha, I don't think so, a good proportion of the Russian soldiers then came from Asia and the Urals region and their homes and families had never even seen a German soldier, much less been attacked by one. Even so, defending Russian brutality based on what Germans did doesn't strike me as a particularly sensible thing.
Quote:
With something that happened in 1945, you try to justify something that happened before then, which I find entirely ridiculous.
Again no, never said or indicated this. I would again suggest you read up on this subject as you will note that Russian attacks were not specifically targetting Germans but virtually everyone, including Russians. This is important as it throws the whole "revenge" theory right out.
Quote:
Also, you sound like: �Oh, they had to fight till the last man, because the Soviets were coming. Otherwise they would�ve surrendered, because they hated Hitler so much.� Cant you see yourself the absurdity of your claim?
Not what I intended to say at all More like "They* fought because they had no choice, they fought harder against the Russians because they feared their arrival."
Quote:
Maybe not all of them were �nazis�, but even vaguely believing and following such ideas, is effectively no different from a real nazi.
Which again assumes choice or say in the matter. Unfortunately I find this assumption rather naieve.
Quote:
Also, I�m not denying their rights as humans (civilians), but I�m saying it�s not their �right� to be praised for their actions.
I believe the term I used was "remembered" and with pride if their actions deserve it. Thousands of allied veterans have come to accept this because they recognised in the common German soldier the same lack of choice, the same fears, the same hopes. It marvels me that you cannot accept such a concept that comes so readily to those that have much more experience in the matter.
Quote:
A German soldier cant be remembered because of what they fought for. Exceptions: when some went against what they fought for.
An Allied soldier should be remembered because his goals were noble and just. Exceptions: when they went against these goals (equality, liberty, destroying nazism, and preventing nazi crimes)
The majority of whom on both sides had no choice in the matter. I defer judgement on people who had no great choice in their actions to someone capable of judging each soldier.
Quote:
And finally, do you even realize what you and Consis are claiming here? To honor the soldiers who fought under Hitler. In your country you can be sentenced for that, I believe (if not Britain, then some other civilized one).
Again, my term was remember, not honour. And no we cannot be sentenced, perhaps because we in our country do not posess the hatred of Germany back then necessary to condemn virtually all of her soldiers and people as evil simply because of bad luck.
Quote:
That would mean seeing someone putting flowers and singing odes praising Nazi soldiers, would be an important public event, when all people would have to stand in respect of the fallen men who ravaged across Europe and were responsible for the biggest conflict in the history of mankind
You probably aren't keeping up to date with current affairs then. People have been placing flowers on the grave of German (my defenition since I tend to make one) soldiers for quite some time. I believe the German chancellor was even allowed to take part in the D-Day commemorations. It's called moving with the times.
* ie the bulk of the Wermacht and Volksturrm.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted November 20, 2004 11:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You know as well as I do that President Clinton gave your people the opportunity to break free of Milosevic's grasp. Had he not, you and I might not be talking today.
There. What I told you, Vlaad. I’m not in the mood to open this issue, so I’ll leave it at that.
Svarog, now I know what you mean! 
____________
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted November 20, 2004 02:45 PM |
|
|
A bit further back in the debate
Quote:
One man cannot force a nation to fight for his nutcase ideas, no matter now crazy he may be.
What about WMD's in Iraq?
Honestly PH, I think Remembrance Day has went to your head.
I know if I suggested in my group of friends, or even to random strangers on the street that the German soldiers should be remembered and honoured that I'd get some funny looks.
Depending on who I said it to I might get a smack in the mouth.
Are we then to honour the Iraqi troops that invaded Kuwait?
The North Vietnamese that fought the US? I'm sure if you told a few US army vets to honour them you'd get more than a smack in the mouth.
Fact remains, they were part of an army that tried to conquer other free nations and set up a superstate based on racism and imperialism. Just because a few got a conscience after the fact to cover their tracks during post war interviews means nothing.
I'm not usually given to broad generalisations like this but imo the German army from that period of time should only remembered as an example of what not to do/be/turn out like.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 20, 2004 03:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Honestly PH, I think Remembrance Day has went to your head.
Not really, I just tend to hold the opinion that conscripted soldiers should not be made to pay for something they had little to no choice in. Volunteers are another matter entirely, but since the majority of those fighting in WWII in the major nations were conscripts I tend not to judge them for being unfortunate enough to be born in Germany at that time rather than in Russia or Britain. Bad luck really for that soldier, and I tend not to deny someone the right to be remembered for the sake of bad luck and not offending people, most of whom who weren't even alive when the war was fought. I quite despise most of the officers under Hitler of high rank, and especially those "yes men" and SS who supported some of his more ridiculous schemes. I think they don't deserve much right to be remembered at all, let alone with pride no matter their actions. They are the ones with real influence, real ability to change the problem, and they're the ones that did nothing.
Sorry, but I have a tendency to seperate those where the real blame lies and who had influence from those that were forced into the situation with none. It is us in the UK and US that need to examine our attitude if we seek to lay blame on common soldiers when many of our own soldiers from WWII no longer do so. Blame the high ranking officers, blame the institution of the armed forces, blame the civilians supporting the regime, but to blame a bunch of people with no choice and minute influence on the matter is just ridiculous. You might as well blame a peasant from Russia for permitting Stalin and Lenin to come to power. You seek to deny German soldiers the right to be remembered for their countrie's crimes, and yet would you deny a Russian for Stalin's?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
| |
|
|
