Defeat of the Luftwaffe

[parsifal]

They are hardly the only nation to have done that,though "world domination" was not really a nazi objective. Even a nation as young as yours should be wary of casting the first stone. There are many less than edifying episodes in most of our histories,including attempts at genocide,the use of slave labour and many more.Do I need to go on?
The kind of savagery perpetrated by the nazis is part of human nature,not specifically German.
I can see no conceivable reason why a young German today should feel responsible for,or guilty about,the sins of his grandfathers.

Hi Steve

And i have attempted to blame post war germans where in any part of my argument? If you read my posts carefully, at no point do i do that. But in 1945, as a nation, every man, woman and child who was German was found guilty of waging an aggressive war. That was a national crime, that the nation was guilty of, not just the few leaders at the top, or the SS thugs, or just the armed forces. the whole nation was guilty. From that position of national culpability sprang the idea of bringing the criminals that orchestrated that descent into madness to some sort of justice. Some of the perpetrators, the most notorious ones were brought to justice, others escaped unfortunately.

I also never suggested that any nation was completely without guilt. But the nations themselves were not morally bankrupt, individual acts of bastardry in places like England or Austrralia could be dealt with by the internal justice system. in Germany it could not be dealt with. The nation itself had forfeited its morals, its sense of right and wrong so badly that it could not function as a nation without supervision for several years. neither could nations that surounded the germans bring themselves to trust the germans after thjeir experiences with them

 

[Tante Ju]

I think it was the criminally deliberate consigning of a class of people to starvation and death as the Russians preferred to industrialise rather than give resources to mitigate a famine (and yes I am aware of the outrageous murderous demands the Soviet state made on the starving to supply foodstuffs and yes I will agree that this may - accepting that it is subject to debate - qualify as an act of genocide against some of the Ukrainian people).

Thank you. Part I do not understand - 'may'? It targeted Ukrainian people specific. It was planned and constructed by men, not by nature. Millions died. So - 'may'?

It also has its equivelant in WW2 in the way the nazi regime systematically starved people on numerous occasions on a large scale too.

...... but it is still not the same Auschwitz etc etc.

My (and most scholar) definition of genocide is intentional mass killing (direct or indirect) of a group. Method of killing (forcing into living conditions leading to death, starvation, direct killing, sterilizing etc.), selection method of group (racial, national, class, tribal, age, religion etc.) is not relevant for decide if its genocide or not. What sets apart Holodomor and Holocaust is method of killing, the HC was industrilized though but both showed groups forced into inhabitable conditions (sickness, famine). So it is a matter of question wheter you think a genocide by modern/industrial methods (poison gas) is really different from a genocide with 'more tradiatonal' methods (clubs, machetes, good old 7.62 in back of head, famine, disease).

.....and again, nothing the British ever did compares in any serious way to Auschwitz etc etc. Not even the Boer war concentration camps.

I think you miss the point - I was making reference to so-called World Domination plans, not comparing the level of attorcities commited by British or German Empires. I was pointing out that if ever there was such as a 'world domination plan' (I think Alexander the Great was the only person with such BTW), it is certain to see such accusation and moralism come from anyone in the former British Empire.. ironical. The notion is subject of irony portrayed by Cpt. Blackadder 'how did the war start' satire.

 

[DonL]

As far as im concerned, germany was, and always will be a morally bankrupt state that can never be allowed to forget its past..... I am not referring to the people, the current generation is blameless. i am referring to the concept that is Germany. no matter how hard it tries, it will always be tainted by that spectre

@ parsifal

I don't want to be offensive and this is no post to get on with our past.

I agree with you and I'm with your opinion that we (german people but all other people around the world too) never forget the Holocaust or be allowed to forget the Holocaust and do all in our power that this will never happen again!

But I disagree with all my heart that germany as state/concept always will be a morally bankrupt state.
A state/concept will be always defined about it's peoples behaviour and the politics of the government and the individual political parties.

Your statement implied that the state and government of germany will have always minor/less rights, requirements or importance then other states and I think that is the wrong way.

The german people and government had now shown for nearly 70 years that they could be a reliable partner to other states or countries and that we have no world or other domination plans. But the german country has as all other countries it's own agenda and goals and I think it has the same rights to "fight" for this as all other countries of the world.

And nowadays many countries want support from germany and the help from it's money, but this is only functioning if germany is a fully equitable member of the world community, that can't be automaticly (as always bankrupt state) morally attacked with it's past, if some decisions from the german government are not popular at other countries.

Nowaday we have a very good example with Greek. The german goverment decisions about the "Eurocrises" are not popular at greek. I don't want to judge or discuss the decisions of the german or greek government at the "Eurocrises", but the greek medias attack the german state/people and goverment a lot with the Nazi time and with the Holocaust, because they think they have the moral right.
But the Eurocrises has nothing to do with the Nazi time, WWII or the Holocaust. And german people are not very happy to get attacked with this past but at the same time should spend some of their money to this people.

So I think your statement doesn't work in this harsh form. Never forget this past, I agree with you, but please don't show the moral finger and that germany always will be a morally bankrupt state. That isn't functioning!

 

[Gixxerman]

Thank you. Part I do not understand - 'may'? It targeted Ukrainian people specific. It was planned and constructed by men, not by nature. Millions died. So - 'may'?

The reason I put the 'may' in there is that, to the best of my knowledge, the question of whether this was genuinely an attempt at genocide is open to question and still being argued over by historians.

My (and most scholar) definition of genocide is intentional mass killing (direct or indirect) of a group.

.....and it is on this point that the question arises.
Yes a dreadfully enormous number of Ukrainians died but I do not think one can say that Stalin attempted to wipe out the Ukrainian people, otherwise why stop at all?

Method of killing (forcing into living conditions leading to death, starvation, direct killing, sterilizing etc.), selection method of group (racial, national, class, tribal, age, religion etc.) is not relevant for decide if its genocide or not.

I agree to an extent on that........but I do think that the industrial international effort that was the nazi Halocaust places it well beyond anything seen before.
It must also be remembered that the nazi regime was also responsible for millions who died of disease starvation through the collapse of society in the areas they fought over for so long and not just those transported away to the death camps or the starved-and-worked-to-death camps.

What sets apart Holodomor and Holocaust is method of killing

Well we shall have to disagree here.
Intent is the difference.
I do not think one can say Stalin attempted the genocide of the Ukrainian people.
Not even the collapse of the USSR the opening up of the Soviet archive produced evidence that was a deliberate attempt to destroy the Ukrainian people.
The nazis did attempt the genocide of entire peoples.

I think you miss the point - I was making reference to so-called World Domination plans, not comparing the level of attorcities commited by British or German Empires.

My mistake my apologies.

I was pointing out that if ever there was such as a 'world domination plan' (I think Alexander the Great was the only person with such BTW), it is certain to see such accusation and moralism come from anyone in the former British Empire.. ironical.

.....and yet I am quite sure that I have seen Hitler quoted as talking about a state of perpetual war being 'good' for the (German) nation's men to keep them strong stop them going soft.
That smacks to me of a plan for endless war by logical extension global domination......besides, in the event of success what would anyone call a Germany which had cut Britain off from Europe to deal with her Empire in decline, that had come to dominate all of Europe, annexed all of European Russia, gained control of North Africa?
Hardly a 'regional power' surely?

The notion is subject of irony portrayed by Cpt. Blackadder 'how did the war start' satire.

Indeed.
Most of us are not blind to the red or pink coloured globe of the BE verses the "small sausage factory in Tanganyika"?

I disagree with all my heart that germany as state/concept always will be a morally bankrupt state.

I think that is fair comment.....but like it or not thanks to the nazi regime Germany has a special responsibility to bear here and will have to do so for many decades if not centuries to come.
It could have been any number of nations which fell for that racial purity/national eugenics garbage but sadly events conspired such that it was nazi Germany that did and only nazi Germany acted on it that way.
It is the special dimension to WW2 which seperates it entirely from WW1, regardless of the obvious linkage.

 

[parsifal]

Hi donl

Good post. i didnt mean to imply that modern germany is in some way morally bankrupt, rather that at some point in its recent history it was. That point was in 1945, and the event that led to it. What i should say is that the experiences for the nation were so terrible in that period that it reached a point of moral bankruptcy. if i am reading your posts correctly, i think you are agreeing with me. Since then germany has rejoined the world communit, embraced the principals of democracy and the rule of law.....and they have propepered as a result of that, and the efforts and toils of its people. all good and all positive.

But still, deep within the psyche of the nation are a lot of ghosts. My point with regard to the post war experience is those ghosts ought not be forgotten, least of all by the germans themselves.

Trying to pass off the nazi experience as something of a nations 'business as usual" perhaps a little rqadical, the result of a few at the top is dangerous and wrong. in that sense (an illdefined concept at best) the nation at least, in the dark corners of its consciousness retains a sense of moral bankruptcy, betrayed by its own past, and its own experiences. We are all affected by it

This is not a tirade against things german. it is intended to be a reminder, a call not to betray our grandfathers, and try and forget or minimise what happened. My father is german, fought for hitler, is proud of his german heritage. but he is conscious of what happened and the evil that descended onto the country, and thence, the whole world. he doesnt deny it, or belitle it. he doesnt try to make it a grand and noble adventure. He admits his shame and guilt, confronts it, and gets on with his life. he does not try and forget, but he does try to progress....even at 90 years of age

 

[Ratsel]

Gixxerman, just a question here, no disrespect implied or intended, but in your opinion how much of the WWII Germans goverment aggression was atributed to the Treaty of Versailles? Do you think that it was one of the main causes of Germany invading France (aside from France declaring war on Germany)? Many Thanks.

 

[pbfoot]

The Treaty of Vesailles was without doubt unfair to Germany but how long were all the middle european powers unfair to Poland pre 1918 , there are many treaties that are unfair in some sense or another but having an unfair treaty is what kind of reason to attack Netherlands or Denmark which as far as I know had nothing to do with the Treaty Of Versailles . Using the unfairness of the Treat of Versaille to back up any thing Nazi Germany did is a cheesey excuse.

 

[Ratsel]

Using the unfairness of the Treat of Versaille to back up any thing Nazi Germany did is a cheesey excuse.

I was asking a question, NOT making an excuse. Hence the 'question mark' Instead of a 'period'.

 

[DonL]

@ Parsifal

Good post!

I agree with your last post.

I think I/we have misunderstood your other statement, because to me, I have understood that the german state will be always morally bankrupt.

And this was/is for me a dangerous opinion, because many persons/people/countries will always think they can employ this morally bankruption to criticize or comment german government decisions.

 

[DonL]

The Treaty of Vesailles was without doubt unfair to Germany but how long were all the middle european powers unfair to Poland pre 1918 , there are many treaties that are unfair in some sense or another but having an unfair treaty is what kind of reason to attack Netherlands or Denmark which as far as I know had nothing to do with the Treaty Of Versailles . Using the unfairness of the Treat of Versaille to back up any thing Nazi Germany did is a cheesey excuse.

No pbfoot, it is one reason and explanation but no back up, so I agree with you.

But one hint from history not law. It is very different to treat a large and strong/powerful country unfair compare to a small and not so strong country.

The "real" consequences are mostly fundemental differnet!
That's not fair but the reality from history.

Edit:
This is my personal opinion and not offensive but Poland has/had the ****.. worst geographic place on this earth.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... Since then germany has rejoined the world community, embraced the principals of democracy and the rule of law.....and they have prospered as a result of that, and the efforts and toils of its people. all good and all positive...."

And now the German Banks own western Europe - or at least Western Europe's debts .

This moral bankruptcy bogey-man-thingy .... its roots are way deeper than Versailles. Catholic, Imperial, France screwed with German principalities during the 100 Years War ..... the payback was the FrancoPrussian humiliation of the French Army and of France. From that point on it became about revenge between the two -- with Germany almost always possessing the superior armed forces and weapons .

MM

 

[Gixxerman]

Gixxerman, just a question here, no disrespect implied or intended, but in your opinion how much of the WWII Germans goverment aggression was atributed to the Treaty of Versailles?

An interesting question.
My own view is that what could have been a lasting piece had the original Wilson fourteen points principles was blown drastically off course by the French determination to make Germany pay for WW1.

......and that goes back to the fall-out of 1870, just as undoubtedly if we are stupid enough to do it some sort of society survives it a historian will point to the roots of WW3 going back to WW2.

Versailles dealt the world a huge problem......but as events were to show (even with Hitler and his crowd in charge of Germany) the USA, UK and others were inclined to this view and were prepared to revise revisit some of what had been done.
I'd also say that WW1 itself was a huge part of the problem, with millions of brutalised men taking back harsh attitudes home with them, it's a wonder the idea of inflexible dictatorship wasn't successful elsewhere (although Britain did have the Hitler admiring Mosley his blackshirts).

So I would agree that the French were not very smart in what they did and undoubtedly it provoked German hostility but even so at the end of the day it was Germany that knowing started the war with the invasion of Poland, knowing the guarantees France Britain had given.
In fact Hitler is on record as saying that he had wanted the war to begin in 1938.
He was an opportunist cynic to the core and he brought nothing but horror to Germany and the German people he claimed to love so much.

Do you think that it was one of the main causes of Germany invading France (aside from France declaring war on Germany)? Many Thanks.

As a main reason for the German invasion of France itself I'd have to say no, I don't think so.

Yes, it was no doubt in there as a chance to settle a score amongst that generation and I don't think one can forget the effect of what was seen as the repeated humiliation on the German middle-classes who not only suffered the WW1 defeat but economic catastrophe shortly after (and some of that in large part due to French reparations demands).

My view is that the real main reason for invading France was to attempt to knock the French and British out of the war before Hitler turned towards Russia which was always his chief goal.
His recorded comments about a 2-front war and so on being prime.
The fact that the Germans were more successful in France in 1940 - even more so than they had dared hope - was simply an unexpected bonus.

(although I have to say, given that they were so successful and as we saw events transpire I just wonder what on earth they would have done had they not been so successful as they themselves expected?
Had a situation akin to the WW1 stalemate arisen with the British and French still operating in a partially occupied divided France how could that have been a 'platform' to operate freely against the Russians or anywhere else?
That's one I find difficult to understand.)

 

[Gixxerman]

Edit:
This is my personal opinion and not offensive but Poland has/had the ****.. worst geographic place on this earth.

This is an aspect of the nazi ideal I always wondered at.
The notion that large sections of modern 1930's German society was just itching to go off to eastern Europe and European Russia to be some kind of yeoman farmers.
Nevermind all the stuff about being recent invaders (with itinerant bands of surviving locals not surprisingly looking for revenge etc) but stuck out in what they planned to be sparsly populated huge farming regions, and often freezing cold places!?

Maybe I'm just some soft western European type but it seems like a bit of a nightmarish vision to me.

 

[DonL]

Very good post Gixxerman!

I totaly agree with you.

Also I want to say that Hitler "needed" the war against Poland and France to get the support from most or all german people and so he could fog his real pretension at the east to the german people.

Edit:
@ gixxerman

Edit:
This is my personal opinion and not offensive but Poland has/had the ****.. worst geographic place on this earth.

This comment from me refer to the geographic place between Germany/Prussia and Russia/UDSSR.
I think for any country all around the world it is the worst thing to sit right between two very very strong countries. That's a very worst place and not a place you will always be treat very fair.

 

[Ratsel]

Very good post Gixxerman!

I totaly agree with you.

+1

A+++++++ Gixxerman!

 

[Readie]

I don't believe that modern Germany will ever forget the 2 WW's and the Holocaust.
We all have to learn from history and few countries have a whiter than white past.
'Smoke and mirrors' arguments are not convincing.
Hypocrisy is the worse crime of all.

John

 

[michaelmaltby]

Not "hypocrisy", John. Denial. All of us are hypocrites about some things, but when a nation side-steps inconvenient historical fact ( e.g. biological warfare experiments by Imperial Japan in China) then that is a very disturbing symptom. Japan will have to deal with it sooner or later, IMHO, and they are a strong, resilient culture .. they will.

MM

 

[Readie]

Not "hypocrisy", John. Denial. All of us are are hypocrites about some things, but when a nation side-steps inconvenient historical fact ( e.g. biological warfare experiments by Imperial Japan in China) then that is a very disturbing symptom. Japan will have to deal with it sooner or later, IMHO, and they are a strong, resilient culture .. they will.

MM

You are right Michael.
I think we could say both words in 2012 and apply them to many countries...
John

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well it is rather obvious that this thread has run its course. People have been asked to get back on topic.

One more post that does not have to do with the Defeat of the Luftwaffe, and this thread is closed.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... post that does not have to do with the Defeat of the Luftwaffe"

How can you take an organization seriously that was run by an overweight, morphine-addicted, egomaniacal mobster ..... (he personally 'owned' Austria after the take-over)

Right, CrewChief ...

MM