Hiatusss... *dun dun dun*

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

People who fought against the "Nazis" have mostly respect for their combat capability. During the D-Day celebrations I saw many veterans from both sides shaking hands and talking. There was no bitterness, despite the fact one of the men could have shot the other's friends.

Not all the Germans were fighting for Nazism. Not all were Nazis. And even for those that were, I give credit where credit is due. I admire the bravery, fighting skill and technology of Nazi Germany's forces. It's quite obvious that Pips admires the skill and bravery of Marseille. No harm in that.

And for his political orientation - "You cannot be a soldier and a politician. You can only be one or the other, never both."
 
And I also disagree Pisis. My family were not Nazis.

Are you are and your families comunists because they lived in a comunist country and some may have served in a communist army? You see it can go both ways.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Are you are and your families comunists because they lived in a comunist country and some may have served in a communist army? You see it can go both ways.
My family was persecuated by both Nazis and Communists...


plan_D said:
And for his political orientation - "You cannot be a soldier and a politician. You can only be one or the other, never both."
Hmmm, that's maybe how you did he feel but in fact he was fighting for Nazionalsozialismus. To defeat the "Underhumans", to gain "life territory for the Aryian white race", etc, etc, etc... I don't dishonour the bravery. But this is an argument of lefties - you could easily say that the Islamic suicide bombers are brave that they "sacrifice their lives for what they believe to"...

For me, the effect is important. and their goal was the same as their politics announced. and for that they invaded tens of countries and killed millions of people.
 
Pisis said:
you could easily say that the Islamic suicide bombers are brave that they "sacrifice their lives for what they believe to"...

Noooo! They're cowards. These guys hit soft targets with underhand methods - women, children, passers-by, and are utterly brainwashed into thinking that they'll get eternal reward at the right hand of Allah.

If you were a Nazi you would say that Kubis and Gabcik were terrorists, but I doubt anyone, anywhere - even Heydrich himself, would say that they weren't brave. They fought a fair fight by honest means, and went after a totally legitimate target.
 
Comparing the German military and Islamic extremists is laughable. Germany declared itself an enemy and wore it's uniform as an enemy, as a true fighting spirit would. They never expected anything but to be fought as an enemy.

What makes Islamics cowards and terrorists is the fact that they don't wear the banner of their force. They don't declare war. They aren't an army with colours, rules and regulations ...like all German military uniforms were. All those that fought in a German uniform fought for either national pride, hatred, political following, excitement or ...they were just there at the time when the government called. Possibly a combination of a few.

Just think back to what happened to Germany after World War I. I'm not going to deny that something like that wouldn't enrage me.
 
plan_D said:
Comparing the German military and Islamic extremists is laughable. Germany declared itself an enemy and wore it's uniform as an enemy, as a true fighting spirit would. They never expected anything but to be fought as an enemy.

What makes Islamics cowards and terrorists is the fact that they don't wear the banner of their force. They don't declare war. They aren't an army with colours, rules and regulations ...like all German military uniforms were. All those that fought in a German uniform fought for either national pride, hatred, political following, excitement or ...they were just there at the time when the government called. Possibly a combination of a few.

Just think back to what happened to Germany after World War I. I'm not going to deny that something like that wouldn't enrage me.
Well said pD, I totally agree with that.
 
Oh... You allways think about the line soldiers... Think about all those Kappo's in the KL's...

And invading 10+ countries isn't fighting for homeland...

OK, enough of this discussion, it doesn't lead anywhere. I just tried to explain what Reich 1933-1945 represents for me.
 
I don't want to drag on the discussion, and start something stupid but Marseille wasn't involved with any of the Camp guards, so why do the atrocities have to end up in the conversation about a Luftwaffe ace's death anniversary? It just seems to complicate everything and start disputes... :| Sure, the Third Reich is the Third Reich, all connected through the government, but it just makes the conversation tense when there's disputes. And that kind of thing makes me uncomfortable, personally. (Though maybe I started this by mentioning Marseille. I don't know. This is just my two cents... )
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back