Thanks Rising Sun for seeing what I mean to say. I was already beginning to doubt my English.
mkenny, if you actually are as well informed about the entire subject as you claim to be, I’m sorry. From the way I read your post they sounded a lot like heavily biased and disrespectful, but maybe I just couldn’t understand your point the same way you don’t seem to be able to get mine.
And with that, I think this debate is over, I already said what I had to say about Churchill a bit ago, and everything else was just extremely off-topic.
Tell me what the gas was that WSC wanted to drop on the Iraqis; Dresden was not only bombed by the RAF but also by the USAF as requested by the USSR.
Anyway the Germans started targeting the British Civilian from 1914 through to 1945, both at sea and in the air (If you throw a punch, expect to take one).
As I see it Germany 'especially in 1940, were 'as a nation, up to their neck in the misery and suffering of others and were all too enthusiastic that the German war machine was destroying other civilisations in the East in 1941. Very few Germans saw the Nazis as tyrants, the rest were as culpable as the evil filth that ran the Country.
WSC for all his faults, and ‘as with everyone else, he had his’ saw what Germany was all about, and that was murder, suffering and subjugation on an international scale.
And again where is your evidence that Churchill (I think you have an axe to grind with the family) 'lets not say hated; say, disliked the Germans?
WSC quote ‘I hate nobody but Hitler’
General Wilhelm von Thoma, after being captured by the 8th Army, was invited to dine with Montgomery in his GHQ trailer. The news got back to the UK where many people where horrified, but WSC said. ‘I sympathize with General von Thoma. Defeated, humiliated, in captivity, and… (Long dramatic pause)… dinner with Montgomery.:rolleyes:
See the final paragraph of my last post. That aspect of this thread was going nowhere and is off limits.
That’s one perception, and one that Churchill himself liked to present, but it ignores the reality that he was fighting primarily for Britain’s survival, as one would expect of any British leader. As politicians do to encourage international support for their cause, he dressed that fight up into a bigger fight against evil upon which the free world’s survival depended.
This wasn’t without its own ironies and hypocrisy. For example, when Germany attacked the USSR he said in a radio broadcast:
Hitler is a monster of wickedness, insatiable in his lust for blood and plunder. Not content with having all Europe under his heel or else terrorized into various forms of abject submission, he must now carry his work of butchery and desolation among the vast multitudes of Russia and of Asia. The terrible military machine which we and the rest of the civilized world so foolishly, so supinely, so insensately allowed the Nazi gangsters to build up year by year from almost nothing-this machine cannot stand idle, lest it rust or fall to pieces. It must be in continual motion, grinding up human lives and trampling down the homes and the rights of hundreds of millions of men.
Moreover, it must be fed not only with flesh but with oil. So now this bloodthirsty guttersnipe must launch his mechanized armies upon new fields of slaughter, pillage and devastation. Poor as are the Russian peasants, workmen and soldiers, he must steal from them their daily bread. He must devour their harvests. He must rob them of the oil which drives their ploughs and thus produce a famine without example in human history.
And even the carnage and ruin which his victory, should he gain it-though he’s not gained it yet-will bring upon the Russian people, will itself be only a stepping stone to the attempt to plunge four or five hundred millions who live in China and the 350,000,000 who live in India into that bottomless pit of human degradation over which the diabolic emblem of the swastika flaunts itself. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/410622d.html
The reference to the insatiable Nazi demand for oil does not sit well with Britain’s conquest of Burma and holding it as an oil producing colony until Japan took it.
The sudden concern for Soviet peasants and the reference to a famine without precedent in human history ignores the 1932-33 Ukrainian famine induced by Stalin’s policies which killed millions, which was not an event which encouraged Britain to consider rallying the world to defeat Stalin as the evil monster he was. Apparently a threatened famine by the Nazis was an evil which required military action to defeat Hitler to protect the peasants Stalin hadn’t managed to starve to death.
The final paragraph is rather hypocritical given the British conquest of India and Britain’s various interferences in China, notably the Opium Wars fought to allow Britain to continue to profit from “the bottomless pit of human degradation” from the use of opium it was importing to China against Chinese imperial government laws, and continuing interference in China between the world wars. Apparently it was alright for Britain to take over India and grab bits of China, such as Hong Kong, by military means and to subject China’s population to degradation, but it became evil only when Germany might do it
The “diabolical emblem of the swastika” flying over India would have been just as repugnant to the Indian nationalists as was the diabolical emblem of the Union Jack flying over India.
Rather than standing up for Indian and Chinese liberty, which plainly he could not be when Britain held India as a possession and held various possessions and concessions in China, it is more likely that Churchill was really arguing for action to retain those possessions for Britain’s continuing benefit.
My point is, as I think Schuultz is arguing in part, that there can be more than just one rational and historically supportable interpretation of Churchill and his motives and actions; that Churchill’s words are not the only source of such interpretations; and that one’s interpretation often depends upon one’s standpoint in forming it.
As indeed the standpoints of the various leaders on each side in WWII formed their motives and actions, which naturally were based primarily on what was best for their individual nations rather than the common cause, although this was much more the case on the Axis than the Allied side.
What you’re doing is likening the War Crimes committed by all nations as essentially the same, and implying the Germans were no worse…
I tend to find this offensive. There is no correlation between the actions of US, British, Canadian troops to what the German occupation forces inflicted…
And to those inflicted by the Soviets, well; “you reap what you sow.”
An army tends to commit more war crimes against a population that dislikes them (as with the Wehrmacht, who were obvious aggressors) opposed to a population that welcomes them (as with the allies, who were liberators).
This theory is probably more accurate on the western front than the eastern front, but still, I think it has a very true core.
And this explains how the Germans had widespread support of segments of the Ukrainian and Russian populations who hated Stalinism, and were indeed welcomed - then proceeded to starve and freeze them to death as an “inferior race?”
And to get to your “the SS did it” - I said this in relation to the Holocaust. I count unjustified reprisal killings of civilians into the without a doubt horrible war crimes they committed. But guess what other army did that in a famous war in the 1970s… you’re not going to go around and call the entire US Army murderers, are you?
The difference being scale and modus operandi…
The US Army also prosecuted its own War Criminals and a free press actively criticized the War in Vietnam and there was a loud and public Anti-War movement. Even those serving within the US military were well aware of the controversies and many came home to protest against it…
Where were the Germans? There was a kernel of resistance in Army Group Centre. But they were hesitant, timid, and ultimately carried out many of Hitler’s illegal orders themselves…
BTW, I never said all German soldiers were War Criminals. I merely said they were at least aware of outrageous and atrocities carried out by their side - and were also aware that those atrocities were codified under occupation law…such as the policy of reprisals for partisan actions.
We’re getting into the issue of “Command Responsibility” here…
And to do pdf a favor and return on topic:
Many people like to call negative assessments of Churchill “revisionist” history, whereas the “revisionist” seems to be used as a depreciation. This is ridiculous, as I believe modern historians to be much more capable of getting the history of WW2 right, with new archives being opened and a certain distance to the events which allows for less bias. If you don’t like a new, possibly more neutral and realistic assessment of things, and can’t accept it just because you’re happy with the way you see things right now, I cannot help you.
And if I’ve noticed one thing in my studies of early modern English history (believe it or not, I actually like England), than that if you want a realistic and neutral perspective of English history, don’t use English historians. The Duke of Marlborough is the perfect example.
Because I know the fewest of you are actually interested in him, and I want to spare pdf from a ‘off-topic post’ caused mental breakdown, I’ll only tell you about him on PM request.
I’ve gotten many of my opinions of Churchill from post-war AMERICAN historians who are hardly fanbois nor are they gentle with him and were very critical of the previously mentioned “soft underbelly” policy of folly. Yet to somehow compare him to Hitler on any any sort of moral level is appalling and completely disingenuous. You can say what you like about his failings, but his motivations were clear and he saw Hitler for the prick he was from the beginning…
I didn’t say they were the same, did I? I just wanted to point out that the Germans weren’t the only ones.
And this explains how the Germans had widespread support of segments of the Ukrainian and Russian populations who hated Stalinism, and were indeed welcomed - then proceeded to starve and freeze them to death as an “inferior race?”
I thought I said it was different on the Eastern Front with the “Untermensch” sentiment. Read my posts people…
The difference being scale and modus operandi…
The US Army also prosecuted its own War Criminals and a free press actively criticized the War in Vietnam and there was a loud and public Anti-War movement. Even those serving within the US military were well aware of the controversies and many came home to protest against it…
Of course it was different! But according to mkenny’s argument, the actions of these few soldiers would condemn the entire US Army!
Where were the Germans? There was a kernel of resistance in Army Group Centre. But they were hesitant, timid, and ultimately carried out many of Hitler’s illegal orders themselves…
This is where we get into Cultural differences. As Americanized as Germans are today, back then they weren’t. When Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they were taking over a well oiled authoritarian nation. The United States had been independent and democratic for centuries, France had a tendencies for Revolutions and (more or less successful) Republics, anyway, and England had a parliamentarian monarchy. Germany, on the other hand, was Authoritarian (Monarchist) in one form or another for the last 1000 years! Do you think 15 years democracy are going to change that a lot, without any significant cultural influence coming from other Democracies, such as after the WW2 from the stationed soldiers? Germans were brought up with the sentiment that there was a strong leader who you were going to follow.
Also keep in mind that the Nazis created a detailed system to keep any opposition as weak as possible, from intimidation to the early indoctrination of Hitler Youths, the actions of the Gestapo against opponents of the regime and a detailed line of command in civil life comparable to that of the Army.
Of course this doesn’t remove their guilt for the War Crimes they committed, but please keep that in mind when you wonder why not as many people dared to speak out against them as there probably should have.
BTW, I never said all German soldiers were War Criminals. I merely said they were at least aware of outrageous and atrocities carried out by their side - and were also aware that those atrocities were codified under occupation law…such as the policy of reprisals for partisan actions.
We’re getting into the issue of “Command Responsibility” here…
True, and I do not disagree with you on that. But I doubt all of them knew for sure that these atrocities actually happened - they might have thought of them as rumors.
I’ve gotten many of my opinions of Churchill from post-war AMERICAN historians who are hardly fanbois nor are they gentle with him and were very critical of the previously mentioned “soft underbelly” policy of folly. Yet to somehow compare him to Hitler on any any sort of moral level is appalling and completely disingenuous. You can say what you like about his failings, but his motivations were clear and he saw Hitler for the prick he was from the beginning…
I don’t say he was like Hitler - in any comparison to that bastard Churchill would look like Virgin Mary. Comparison doesn’t mean Equation.
I have the feeling that some people think of Germany as a country like the US that somehow let itself turn into a Dictatorship without any resistance. I hope that my little - if very simplified - history lesson cleared up a few things for you, even though I do NOT want to say that it excuses the German People from letting the Nazis get to power and - worse yet - remain there until the bitter end.
But you’re completely decontextualizing everything and ignoring the sheer scales of things…there is no real comparison. It’s one thing to understand the difficult situation of those in the Heer during WWII. But understanding them is one thing. Being an apologist is another, and I think you’re confusing the two…
I thought I said it was different on the Eastern Front with the “Untermensch” sentiment. Read my posts people…
So you undermined and contradicted your own point by trying to qualify it?
Of course it was different! But according to mkenny’s argument, the actions of these few soldiers would condemn the entire US Army!
But it wasn’t the action of a “few soldiers.” It was the action of large segments of the Heer. And even those that were not directly involved in atrocities were still fighting on with the knowledge that their military was waging a brutal kind of warfare. One without pity. One which discarded any sort of ‘nicety’ according to the Geneva Convention…
This is where we get into Cultural differences. As Americanized as Germans are today, back then they weren’t. When Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they were taking over a well oiled authoritarian nation.
Um, they took over the Wiemar Republic…
The United States had been independent and democratic for centuries, France had a tendencies for Revolutions and (more or less successful) Republics, anyway, and England had a parliamentarian monarchy. Germany, on the other hand, was Authoritarian (Monarchist) in one form or another for the last 1000 years! Do you think 15 years democracy are going to change that a lot, without any significant cultural influence coming from other Democracies, such as after the WW2 from the stationed soldiers? Germans were brought up with the sentiment that there was a strong leader who you were going to follow.
Um, I think this is also a vast oversimplification. In fact, there was a longstanding democratic tradition in Germany that dated to the 18th century. I think it was British Historian John Keegan that wrote that in fact many young German soldiers in WWI would have had a greater experience in a semi-democratic, egalitarian society than their British enemies…
Yes they were under of the Kaiser, but there were in fact elections held. Secondly, there was a very real difference between the officers of the Reichswehr and the new breed raised under Nazism.
Also keep in mind that the Nazis created a detailed system to keep any opposition as weak as possible, from intimidation to the early indoctrination of Hitler Youths, the actions of the Gestapo against opponents of the regime and a detailed line of command in civil life comparable to that of the Army.
Of course this doesn’t remove their guilt for the War Crimes they committed, but please keep that in mind when you wonder why not as many people dared to speak out against them as there probably should have.
I don’t disagree…
True, and I do not disagree with you on that. But I doubt all of them knew for sure that these atrocities actually happened - they might have thought of them as rumors.
I’m sure they were aware to an extent. And the expectations varied mostly according to the local command as some officers refused to carry out such actions.
I don’t say he was like Hitler - in any comparison to that bastard Churchill would look like Virgin Mary. Comparison doesn’t mean Equation.
I have the feeling that some people think of Germany as a country like the US that somehow let itself turn into a Dictatorship without any resistance. I hope that my little - if very simplified - history lesson cleared up a few things for you, even though I do NOT want to say that it excuses the German People from letting the Nazis get to power and - worse yet - remain there until the bitter end.
Well, thanks for the “lesson.” But I’m not condemning the German people nor am I saying that they are any more moral/immoral than say Americans or Britains. What I am saying is that there is a realistic expectation of institutional guilt associated with the German Army during WWII for its officers to prevent or reverse Hitler’s ascension. Other facts that are often considered embarrassing was that Hitler remained popular and there was little in the way of widespread resistance even has his Reich began to crumble. Even the children of Von Stauffenberg and the other Valkyrie coup plotters were called sons of “traitors” by their teachers and those that worked for Allied intelligence were never really accepted back into German society. It wasn’t really until the late 1950s that Germany came to any sort of terms with its Nazi past. And any rational discussion begins with the acknowledgment that the German Army itself helped create the vast, “overwhelming odds” against it. I also realize that there were many factors which led to the rise of fascism in German such as the Versailles Treaty (which ironically served to make the Reichswehr/Wehrmacht only more effective in the long run), and crippling depression, etc. In the end, those in the German Army, whether they were Christian Democrats that hated Hitler, but feared the Red Army conquest, or where ardent careerist Nazis in the SS bear some guilt for serving the most evil regime in history…But I never said it was simple matter…
Looking back at my posts, I notice that it seems like I did bringout of context the scale of the war crimes committed by the German Army in order to make a different point. I apologize for that.
So you undermined and contradicted your own point by trying to qualify it?
I still think my original statement isn’t undermined, only because I admitted that because of the Untermensch-factor, it didn’t apply to the Eastern Front the way it did to the Non-Hate-Driven (Is that even a word?) fronts.
But it wasn’t the action of a “few soldiers.” It was the action of large segments of the Heer. And even those that were not directly involved in atrocities were still fighting on with the knowledge that their military was waging a brutal kind of warfare. One without pity. One which discarded any sort of ‘nicety’ according to the Geneva Convention…
Again, I apologize for bringing things out of context in order to show my point of mkenny’s questionable reasoning.
Um, they took over the Wiemar Republic…
The 15 years of Democracy I referred to.
Um, I think this is also a vast oversimplification. In fact, there was a longstanding democratic tradition in Germany that dated to the 18th century. I think it was British Historian John Keegan that wrote that in fact many young German soldiers in WWI would have had a greater experience in a semi-democratic, egalitarian society than their British enemies…
Of course I oversimplified it, if I went into too much detail it would’ve taken too long, and I probably would’ve lost track of my original point, anyway:D
Yes they were under of the Kaiser, but there were in fact elections held. Secondly, there was a very real difference between the officers of the Reichswehr and the new breed raised under Nazism.
I definitely didn’t mean to equal the Reichswehr to the Wehrmacht. And even though elections were held, the final word, and many of the major decisions lay with the Kaiser - whereas IIRC the British monarchy politically has become not much more than glorified Signatories of decisions made elsewhere.
I don’t disagree…
That makes me happy:D
I’m sure they were aware to an extent. And the expectations varied mostly according to the local command as some officers refused to carry out such actions.
They probably did to an extent - depending on how much they conversed with veterans, and how much they believed in the system.
Well, thanks for the “lesson.”
I spent quite some time looking for a better word, but in the end I just thought ‘f*ck it’. Didn’t mean to seem like I was talking down on you, nickdfresh.
[/Quote]But I’m not condemning the German people nor am I saying that they are any more moral/immoral than say Americans or Britains. [/Quote]
Which makes me respect you, opposed to mkenny.
What I am saying is that there is a realistic expectation of institutional guilt associated with the German Army during WWII for its officers to prevent or reverse Hitler’s ascension.
Of course there is. But this institutional guilt should not automatically be transfused to equal parts into every member of it, either.
And any rational discussion begins with the acknowledgment that the German Army itself helped create the vast, “overwhelming odds” against it.
Did the Army or did the Politicians do that? Hair-splitting aside, of course Nazi Germany caused it’s own downfall by completely overwhelming itself.
I also realize that there were many factors which led to the rise of fascism in German such as the Versailles Treaty (which ironically served to make the Reichswehr/Wehrmacht only more effective in the long run), and crippling depression, etc.
If there ever was one true definition of Irony, then it is this.
In the end, those in the German Army, whether they were Christian Democrats that hated Hitler, but feared the Red Army conquest, or where ardent careerist Nazis in the SS bear some guilt for serving the most evil regime in history…But I never said it was simple matter…
You left out the people that were bullied into service and fought to survive.
You can not divorce the German Army from the consequences of its actions in the occupied nations. Without the ‘ordinary decent German Soldier’ the Nazis would have been unable to carry out their crimes. Lets not get carried away here and remember that people (GERMAN people) were being murdered long before 1939. It isn’t as if the Nazis never explained (in advance of the invasion) exactly the fate that awaited the Russian people.
If an ‘ordinary decent German’ was troubled by the actions of the SS then one could ask why he fought so well in defence of the same murderers.
It’s all well and good to start worrying about the consequences in 1944/45. Knowing you are likely to suffer at the hands of those you tortured and murdered in their millions for 3 years surely will make you fight harder. It is hardly an excuse when the reason why you have to fight harder is directly linked to your own earlier criminality.
The link I provided earlier has a number of examples where Army Units comitted crimes just as horrific as anything the SS carried out.
Was every German soldier individualy responsible for the actions of the Nazis? Hardly, but as an organisation the Army surely was.
I leave the excuse making for those who fit the modern term ‘bleeding hearts’.
Maverick, keep drinking Goebbels’ Kool-Aid when you refer to “that drunkard” Churchill. Goebbels assumed Churchill was drunk because he drank a lot, but quite frankly, in all the biographies and histories I have read that treated of Churchill, I do not recall a one that ever claimed Churchill was drunk on anything other than the sound of his own eloquent ramblings. It could be that Goebbels by 1943 was baffled at how such a man was probably going to do him and Hitler in. No wonder he said, at the end, that “history is a whore”, when in fact, he and Hitler had prostituted a whole nation in the service of murder and deliberate slaughter.
So it must really have stung to realise Churchill did much better as a leader
Seriously, Churchill made some massive blunders - as did all leaders. We were just fortunate they weren’t big enough to lose us either war. I’d still take him over Lloyd George any day. And remember who said History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it…
:mrgreen: Right! Just like Hitler was a turnip-munching, quarter-Jew Austrian too weak to hold his liquor…
Seriously, Churchill made some massive blunders - as did all leaders. We were just fortunate they weren’t big enough to lose us either war. I’d still take him over Lloyd George any day. And remember who said History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it…
He did, but he had Brooke, and to a lessor extent Ike and Marshall, to assuage him from the more grievance ones…
One thing Churchill did do better than Hitler, & that was to accept defeat…
…although they were both keen on the ‘Fight to the last man/last bullet’ rant…
At least the British voters got the chance to shift him along in `45,
… unlike the subjects of Stalin in Eastern Europe…
Actually, that isn’t true. I’m not aware of any such orders being given by Churchill, and I suspect they would have been ignored in any case. Indeed, his “we will fight them on the beaches” speech contains the following statement:
“We will never surrender” is not an order to fight to the last man or bullet - indeed he qualifies it later by saying that even if the British Isles were occupied the fight would be continued by the Empire, protected by the Royal Navy.
And those of Hitler throughout the continent 1939-45 had that opportunity, right? :rolleyes:
I can’t give a source at the moment as this is off the top of my pointy head, but in the closing stages of the Malaya / Singapore disaster Churchill realised he was facing what would become the greatest defeat of British arms (courtesy of his usual arrogant refusal to recognise and give effect to sound advice from his military advisers by denying that command the aircraft it needed to resist the Japanese despite aircraft being available) and sent a panicky cable to Percival to fight to, roughly verbatim, “the last man and the last round”.
Yes, fortunately they were.
Percival surrendered rather than follow Churchill’s willingness to sacrifice tens of thousands of British, Australian and Indian troops to no purpose, except inflating the magnitude of the Japanese victory.
