U.S. side, though he emmigrated from Dresden in '38.
lucky man;)
If he just a had a little wait till the febriary of 1945 he did not need to emigrate.
What was the reason the Chamberlian was sure about Hitler 
May be he promised him to stop in the Sudetenland?
And why on your mind were the Chzech no in the position to resist?
Becouse the Britain notified them if they only will tryed to get the support of USSR the both Britain and France will support to the side of Germany.The Britain simply forced the Czech to the political isolation and they really had no choice.
I wouldn’t say that no one helped Poland after the German invasion. The Allies weren’t ready for a war. France and the United Kingdom had both signed mutual-defense treaties with Poland, and they thought these would be enough to deter a German invasion. The French tried to aid Poland with the Saar Offensive, but the Germans defeated them and there really wasn’t much else they could do but retreat.
And why the allies was not ready for the war? May be they did not see the agressive plans of Hitler or did not see the quick German army reforme in the 1935-39?
The problem of allies was not the war but the dirty political games befor the ww2.
They simply could not to creat a powerfull political anti-german coalition with France , Poland, Britain and USSR -in this case Hitler had never disided to begin the new war.
Every side just tryed to siolve its own particular interests and Hitler knowing its political egoism easy destroid them separately.
I didn’t say Hitler still considered the Soviet Union an ally, but the Russians considered Germany an ally, they were still supplying it with oil, and the British had no knowledge of any rifts in their partnership. Chamberlain, nor Churchill, knew anything about Hitler’s plan to invade the Soviet Union.
And who did say you the Stalin considered the Hitler as ally?
Are you so naive to think the soviet jews in the Stalins gov was to stopid don’t notice the danger of fascism personaly for them?In fact till the end of 1940yy the jews in the USSR were in the most importaint places in gov. and even nearest environment of Stalin.
So to called the Nazy and Stalin as allies is too mistaken.
Signing the pakt with Hitler Stalin just wish to steal time and more territory before the future war( and push the Britain and France to the Germany BEFORE the Germany attack the USSR). And he was right fom his side ( although it sound cinically).Stalin was dictator but he never was idiot.
You hold no monopoly on family who died in the war.
As for mocking, most of your comments mock the deceased and the cause they fought for a veritable cocktail of contradictions.
Albert Speer
The difficulty I have with your arguments is that they reflect the Nazi justifications for the war, with occasional Marxist undertones.
As insights into how some Germans thought they’re useful, but as historical analyses of the real causes of the war they’re neither useful nor correct.
You ignore German expansionist ideas leading into WWI and the rampant expansionism and aggression inherent in lebensraum under the Nazis.
Nazi ideology caused WWII in Europe. The war was solely the result of a unilateral act of aggression and expansionism initiated by Nazi theories of racial supremacy which gave Germany racial entitlement to take what it wanted by military might. It was a brutal and inhumane ideology in all its ideas, and in its execution in every respect. That is what got Germany into the war and that is what brought all the suffering to the German people and millions of deaths in Germany and elsewhere.
Rather than blaming external factors and conspiracies, as Hitler and his ilk did to avoid Germany’s responsibility for initiating and losing WWI, you should look into where the real responsibility lies: the Germans who supported Hitler and all the evils he and his Nazis represented. Hitler didn’t come to power with a few score of like-minded loonies getting pissed in beer halls in Munich and making big noises with little parades and inconsequential brawls with communists. He rode to power on the crest of a wave of widespread support by Germans at all levels of society. They are the people who could have and should have stopped the process leading to war. Instead they cheered him on and when the war was going their way they celebrated their great victories as confirmation of just what supreme human beings they were.
Your arguments seek to portray Germans as innocent victims before and during WWII. There were undoubtedly many innocent German victims, most killed by their fellow Germans in Nazi activities and enterprises before and during the war, and a good many who didn’t support the Nazis but who nonetheless died in Allied assaults on Germany. Both groups died because the Nazis started a war the world didn’t need to have and only the Nazis wanted.
Germany was and is fully responsible for getting itself and Europe into WWII and no amount of quasi-Nazi arguments can change that.
While there were people in leadership positions who realized the dangers of Facism and Nazism, there were at times little their countries could do.
France in particular was war weary, had lost a generation of young men and would be reliant on the Maginot Line to contain Germany.
WWI cost Great Britain dearly in men, materials, money and her position in the world. Much time in the post war years was spent in recovering from the war and with the advent of the Great Depression there was little in the way of spare money to spend on the military, especially when millions were jobless, homeless and hungry.
On the eve of war, the situation was slowly improving, but the large scale expansion of the military to meet the new threat was only sluggishly gaining pace. This is why Great Britain in particular was trying to buy time.
They succeeded. Just.
Regards digger.
No, maybe you are uncomfortable because you are realizing that you can no longer throw sides into a pillbox and classify them as “good” and “evil”.
First, it’s obvious that this is a biased/pro-Anglo view of things. Yes, some of Germany’s actions led to the war, as did some of Italy’s, Japan’s, Russia’s, Britain’s, France’s, and the United States’s. And most of the so-called German aggression that is so demonized was a direct result of bitter vengeance sought from London and Paris after the first World War.
So yes, “victims” are exactly what many of the German people were; victims of circumstance, victims of aggression, and victims of an unfair destiny that was laid out for them after the Allied savagery of WWI.
Germany unfortunately lost two World Wars, but I’m not trying to portray the nation as inpenetrable. You can rail against the German leadership all you wish, but those who abolished the weak Weimar Republic were acting on the will of the German people.
Hitler was never voted into power. He gained power by disruption of the parliament, social unrest and pressure on a dithering, sick old president.
Regards digger.
Hitler may have manipulated the political scene, but that’s politics for you. He was elected because he stood up for the German majority.
I repeat, Hitler was never elected to power by the German people. Whether he enjoyed total popular support is open to question as investigations during the war in particular by the Gestapo indicated somewhat less than popular support for the regime.
The sticking point Hitler was reasonably popular with the majority of German people, even when things were going pear shaped. But of course the majority of the German people did not know what was really going on either.
Even when rumours of the atrocities in the east began to be common knowledge, people preferred to lay the blame elsewhere. An example is, today people still claim Hitler never knew of the holocaust or gave any orders to set it in motion.
Regards digger.
He did win popular support as chancellor of Germany. After Communists torched the Reichstag, he was forced to combine the offices of president and chancellor, and become somewhat authoritarian.
43% of the vote is not popular support.
Regards digger.
Wrong. I’m anti-Nazi. Not from unthinking prejudice but because it was an evil ideology and it perpetrated so much evil.
Yes, some of Germany’s actions led to the war, as did some of Italy’s, Japan’s, Russia’s, Britain’s, France’s, and the United States’s. And most of the so-called German aggression that is so demonized was a direct result of bitter vengeance sought from London and Paris after the first World War.
So Germany, being upset with its treatment by England, France and the US, was justified in grabbing Czechoslavakia and invading Poland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, and Greece.? Not to mention invading the USSR, contrary to the non-aggression pact?
So Germany embarks upon slaughtering its own people and people in countries other than Britain and France as a direct result of bitter vengeance sought from London and Paris after the First World War?
Your position makes even less sense, and has much less evidence to support it, than Nazi phrenology.
So yes, “victims” are exactly what many of the German people were; victims of circumstance, victims of aggression, and victims of an unfair destiny that was laid out for them after the Allied savagery of WWI.
I hate to labour the point, but the German people who supported the Nazis were the architects of their own suffering, and of the suffering of everyone else who suffered under the Nazis‘ aggression inside and outside Germany. The only unfair part of that destiny is that the bastards who were Nazis didn’t suffer enough.
Germany unfortunately lost two World Wars
Delete ‘un’ in ‘unfortunately’ and I agree.
Substitute ’started’ for ‘lost’ and I agree.
It was only by getting the tripe belted out of them the second time around, and having a proper democracy imposed upon them by Britain, France and the US that the misguided German people in the Western zone were cured of their dangerous political and militaristic tendencies. The USSR achieved a similar result in the Eastern zone by different methods. I say “misguided German people” as, magically, there weren’t any Nazis or even any former Nazis left in Germany after May 1945, except those tried for war crimes. Makes you wonder just how committed those people were to Nazi ideology, doesn’t it?
You can rail against the German leadership all you wish, but those who abolished the weak Weimar Republic were acting on the will of the German people.
Evidence?
As Digger mentioned, only 43% of Germans who voted actually voted for the Nazis in the last Weimar election. Was abolition of the Republic part of the Nazis’ platform? If it was such a unanimously popular move, why did Hitler have to do it by dishonest and unconstitutional methods? And why was it followed by vigorous Nazi political repression if it was the will of the whole people?
There is no doubt that the Nazis were popular with a lot of Germans, but it’s stretching things to present them and their conduct as synonymous with the will of all Germans.
That’s plain silly.
The Reichstag fire has long been known as a charade.
Linking that to ‘forcing’ Hitler to combine president and chancellor and to ‘become somewhat authoritarian’ is absurd. Why did he have to do that? To preserve the democracy he was busily dismantling?
It was a grab for dictatorial power based on a personality cult centred on Hitler. Which contradicts your claim that he was carrying out the will of the German people.
No! I am not at all uncomfortable! On the contrary, my dear fellow, you have said nothing that I would feel uncomfortable with as I recognise nonsense when I see it. 
I do object to being ordered about though. :mrgreen:
I don’t suppose you consider anything to be good or evil, black or white, just various shades of grey?
Are we to have a grown up conversation or are you going to continue to make shallow, insubstantial comments about cowards, barabarians and the vicitimisation of a tyrant?
I see that you remain intoxicated by half-truths and contradictions. I had believed that to be a thing of the past and that with the luxury of hind-sight and the release of many revealing histories, that the world was a wiser place. However, we are all different and I would not like to see your little bubble burst.
Was it not an American president that said something about being able to fool some of the people all of the time?
I trust you’re not brainwashing your children with this nonsense? :roll:
Wrong. I’m anti-Nazi. Not from unthinking prejudice but because it was an evil ideology and it perpetrated so much evil.
It took actions that may have been unneccessarily destructive, but just remember why it did what it did.
So Germany, being upset with its treatment by England, France and the US, was justified in grabbing Czechoslavakia and invading Poland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, and Greece.? Not to mention invading the USSR, contrary to the non-aggression pact?
First, it’s not about being “upset”. It’s about being put into an uncomfortable position by France, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Germany had a right to re-claim its lost territory and protect Germans living in Czechoslovakia and Poland. Belgium and Denmark were pro-British and Luxembourg was a stepping stone to France(as was Belgium).
You can’t really refer to the Netherlands as “neutral” either, as it was working with the United Kingdom and the United States to place oil embargoes on Germany’s ally, Japan.
Germany needed Norway for strategic reasons, and the Allies were preparing to invade anyway, so if you’re going to condemn Hitler then why not condemn the Allied aggressors?
Greece was unneccessary, but it wasn’t Germany’s fault. Italy and Mussolini invaded Greece without even warning Hitler first. Was Hitler to just allow his ally to get massacred and pursued all the way through Albania, and for the British to gain a strategic position in southern Europe? Italy created the mess in Greece, and Germany did what was neccessary to finish it.
Yugoslavia was attempting to leave the Axis, contrary to its previous obligations, which did justify things such as the German bombing raids on Belgrade. If you are going to condemn Germany for breaking its treaty with the Soviets, then why not condemn Yugoslavia for its actions?
Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in order to isolate the United Kingdom, and because Stalin’s territorial claims in Europe were becoming a strategic threat to German interests. A clash was inevitable; Hitler and Stalin were just buying time.
Also, ideologically, Germany sought to destroy Soviet Bolshevism, a concept supported by the British long before they were trapped in a corner by German superiority.
So Germany embarks upon slaughtering its own people and people in countries other than Britain and France as a direct result of bitter vengeance sought from London and Paris after the First World War?
Your position makes even less sense, and has much less evidence to support it, than Nazi phrenology.
Germany’s actions in WWII are directly attributed to British, French, and American actions after WWI. It’s amazing that even today, the Allies can not look back at the mistakes they made, and how they wronged innocent Germans.
I hate to labour the point, but the German people who supported the Nazis were the architects of their own suffering, and of the suffering of everyone else who suffered under the Nazis‘ aggression inside and outside Germany. The only unfair part of that destiny is that the bastards who were Nazis didn’t suffer enough.
Yes, of course. Blame it all on those “evil Nazis”. Haven’t heard this one before :rolleyes:
Delete ‘un’ in ‘unfortunately’ and I agree.
Substitute ’started’ for ‘lost’ and I agree.
Historical revisionism at its finest.
It was only by getting the tripe belted out of them the second time around, and having a proper democracy imposed upon them by Britain, France and the US that the misguided German people in the Western zone were cured of their dangerous political and militaristic tendencies. The USSR achieved a similar result in the Eastern zone by different methods. I say “misguided German people” as, magically, there weren’t any Nazis or even any former Nazis left in Germany after May 1945, except those tried for war crimes. Makes you wonder just how committed those people were to Nazi ideology, doesn’t it?
Right, like the “proper democracy” imposed on them after World War I, which left German men, women, and children starving in the streets? No, what the Allies did after WWII was reprehensible. They crushed the spirit of the German people, eliminated our capacity to defend ourselves, and brought it from a great power to another whiny liberal nation of the European Union. The liberalism shoved down Germany’s throat was and is the scourge of the German people.
Evidence?
As Digger mentioned, only 43% of Germans who voted actually voted for the Nazis in the last Weimar election. Was abolition of the Republic part of the Nazis’ platform? If it was such a unanimously popular move, why did Hitler have to do it by dishonest and unconstitutional methods? And why was it followed by vigorous Nazi political repression if it was the will of the whole people?
There is no doubt that the Nazis were popular with a lot of Germans, but it’s stretching things to present them and their conduct as synonymous with the will of all Germans.
You can speculate all you wish, but you don’t understand the atmosphere of Germany at the time. Yes, to some extent, the Nazis took advantage of the wave of populism in Germany at the time.
The Constitution under Weimar and virtually forced by the actions of the Allies during WWI was illegitimate and irrelevant, so whether what Hitler did under this false regime was unconstitutional is completely irrelevant. The Weimar Republic was a symbol of the oppression and degradation of Germany, so why would abolition be unpopular? Hitler simply did what was neccessary for the destiny of Deutschland, and in so doing, was putting his finger on the pulse of the German masses.
No, you seem to have a blind view of morality.
And my grandson has no care for history, so I’m not “brainwashing” anyone with anything.
Whatever you say, old boy. I am accustomed to recognising the visually impaired.
I learned a long time ago that one can take a horse to water but one can’t make it drink.
I leave you in peace to enjoy your regression and your cup of vitriol.
Your inability to recognise the evils of the Nazis, whose baseless justifications for WWII you have repeatedly and shamelessly espoused in this thread, and your contemptuous use of the rolleyes emoticon with reference to 'those “evil Nazis”’, reveals both your true allegiance and your contempt for anyone who disagrees with the Nazi interpretation of history. Your posts confirm my view that you are, at heart and as shown by the repugnant opinions you have repeatedly expressed here, a despicable Nazi.
They crushed the spirit of the German people, eliminated our capacity to defend ourselves.
These are not the words of a loyal American upholding American values while living in Albany, New York all these years since your father left Germany in 1938 and died fighting for America in WWII.
If your father died fighting for America, he must in heaven be profoundly disappointed with his son espousing and defending Nazi ideas against which America fought and against which your father fought, and in which good fight he died.