vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I think the first significant killing of POWS/Civilians occured in 1940 by the Russians, "Katyn Massacre".
Ordinary German's Responsibility for the Holocaust? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Negative Creep
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You have it the other way around. The revenge killings started because the Germans were killing the Russian POWs. Don't church it up.
That about sums it up. Very well said.
While I agree with you on most accounts of your post, I feel you are very wrong in judging people for electing Hitler. They did not know what he was going to do when they elected them. Also condemning normal soldiers for doing there job (those that did not commit savage acts; and I am sure the majority of 8 million did not do so) is also wrong and quite insulting to the honor of a fighting solder.
Like I said I am proud of what my Grandfather did in the Wehrmacht. He served honorably, as any soldier should do for there country.
I think you fail at looking at the overall picture and how these events happen. It is easy to judge every man, woman and child when you were not there...
I am in no way trying to downplay what happened. Germany committed the worst atrocities that mankind has ever seen. We should never forget these things, but we should not shoulder the blame on everyone for it. That would be like saying all Brits should shoulder the blame for treatment of the Scots (that is just plain obsured and ignorant).
If someone did not commit a crime, they have nothing to answer for.
If they were born after 1933, they have nothing to answer for.
Last edited:
I agree with everything said by Rabid Alien about the reasons Hitler came to power and was so popular except one. It was not a srtrong economy, it only gave the appearance of being so but it was in reality a house of cards that by 1939 faced imminent collapse, guess what happened next.
That is the reason the war began when it did despite Hitler having promised his generals, in accordance with their forward planning, that there would be no war until 1944, he simply could not afford to wait.
Ironically, we are in the same boat with our own economy now, Al Quaeda/Muslim threat anyone? Or maybe I'm being paranoid, it has been known
edit to add, I am in no way trying to deny the threat posed by murderous extremist nutters, only the extent and scale of the threat as promoted by our leaders to keep us scared.
That is the reason the war began when it did despite Hitler having promised his generals, in accordance with their forward planning, that there would be no war until 1944, he simply could not afford to wait.
Ironically, we are in the same boat with our own economy now, Al Quaeda/Muslim threat anyone? Or maybe I'm being paranoid, it has been known
edit to add, I am in no way trying to deny the threat posed by murderous extremist nutters, only the extent and scale of the threat as promoted by our leaders to keep us scared.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
Chris
My position is uncompromising on this issue because I am also conscious of the allied contribution to this descent into barbarism. Instead of presenting a strong and uncompromising front to the Nazis, they instead allowed things to slide, things like Czechoslovakia, and the Anschluss. WE sold our souls as well. So what if a few Jews got roughed up every once in a while.....who cares about the Czechs, and Austria, isnt that really part of Germany anyway???? We wanted peace so badly that we were prepared to make sacrifices to our own morality to do that.
The only way to counter a thing like the Nazis is to be uncompromising in the defence of the morally right thing to do. Germany started down the road to oblivion the first time someone looked the other way. We are just as guilty of that.
So if we want to learn from history, the first thing we as individuals have to do is call a spade a spade. The Nazis were evil, they got there in part because of German support and Allied complicity. We, two generations removed from it all do the fallen, and anybody who suffered at the hands of the Nazis a great disservice if we try to approach this issue with good manners foremost in our minds. I believe it important to say "this was evil" "it happened because we let it happen" When it comes to looking for blame, we like to say "it was them, not us" when in this case, it really was us. If we do that, face our own collective failures, we make sure it wont happen again, and 50 million people did not die for nothing
My position is uncompromising on this issue because I am also conscious of the allied contribution to this descent into barbarism. Instead of presenting a strong and uncompromising front to the Nazis, they instead allowed things to slide, things like Czechoslovakia, and the Anschluss. WE sold our souls as well. So what if a few Jews got roughed up every once in a while.....who cares about the Czechs, and Austria, isnt that really part of Germany anyway???? We wanted peace so badly that we were prepared to make sacrifices to our own morality to do that.
The only way to counter a thing like the Nazis is to be uncompromising in the defence of the morally right thing to do. Germany started down the road to oblivion the first time someone looked the other way. We are just as guilty of that.
So if we want to learn from history, the first thing we as individuals have to do is call a spade a spade. The Nazis were evil, they got there in part because of German support and Allied complicity. We, two generations removed from it all do the fallen, and anybody who suffered at the hands of the Nazis a great disservice if we try to approach this issue with good manners foremost in our minds. I believe it important to say "this was evil" "it happened because we let it happen" When it comes to looking for blame, we like to say "it was them, not us" when in this case, it really was us. If we do that, face our own collective failures, we make sure it wont happen again, and 50 million people did not die for nothing
The thing about appeasement is that while this was going on, at the same time we embarked on the biggest arms programme in history. The shadow factory scheme was set up, fighter command was created and radar developed and installed at the highest priority. We ALWAYS knew we would go to war against Hitler, but we had to be ready. We made the mistake of assuming Germany had greater strength than it really did, and it is the case that had we made a stand against the reoccupation of the Rhineland Hitler would have turned round and gone home. There are two points to be made however. 1. This would not have prevented war, only delayed it, prolonging the suffering of German jews while strengthening Germany's position and 2. This was a miscalculation, not a criminal act.
Britain and France *could not* go to war any earlier than they did with the intelligence that was available. France fell quickly anyway. A combined British and French capitulation in 1936/7 would have acheived what? A clear conscience? I am glad things panned out the way they did overall.
Britain and France *could not* go to war any earlier than they did with the intelligence that was available. France fell quickly anyway. A combined British and French capitulation in 1936/7 would have acheived what? A clear conscience? I am glad things panned out the way they did overall.
Last edited:
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
how about Denmark
parsifal
Colonel
Capitulating to the enemy without even firing a shot in resistance is not honourable. The Danes thought they would escape Nazi mistreatment if they collaborated. They were mistaken, and in 1943 they paid an even higher price
The Germans must have known. My grandparents did know at that time (1943-1945) and they were Dutch, being occupied by Germany, so I cannot imagine the majority of the Germans not knowing what happened.
Remember, in a war, especially WWII, honour is a myth. I would not judge the Danish on this fact.
Remember, in a war, especially WWII, honour is a myth. I would not judge the Danish on this fact.
parsifal
Colonel
Appeasement was not part of some grander , cunning plan to fool Hitler whilst we busily rearmed ourselves. It was a idealistic dream of achieving peace at any cost . It represents a near total abrogation of our responsibilities as guardians of freedom. far from achieving peace, or re-armament, it nearly cost us our freedom, and costs millions of lives to right a wrong that should have been fixed 10 years earlier (from 1945)
We should have acted at the first legal opportunity to intervene. Likely triggers could have been the repudiation of the Versailles treaty, the remilitarization of the Rhineland. There was a not ashortage of material or intelligence, just a shortage of the necessary will to do the right thing.
Churchill was about the only prominant figure who was seriously calling for a united stand against the Germans. Others were far less honourable, and in fact I consider them to be all but traitors. Stalin, for all his malevolence saw that as well. He had wanted to re-constitute the old entente with the allies, but they were so weak (in character), and so indecisive at the time that he knew he could not trust them.
But the thing that really stands out for me, with regard to the holocaust has nothing to do with the high events of the time. It has to do with a little boatload of Jewish refugees trying to escape Hitlers Germany just before the war. About 500 Jews chartered a liner and departed hamburg, trying to escape the Nazi tyranny. They went to France, Britain, the US, even Mexico, in a desperate bid to be given assylum. Each country shamefully refused them entry, until at last they were forced to return to Germany, wher I believe most of them were incarcerated in Dachau, where they perished. This one little incident, so insignificant to the world stage says volumes about the depths of moral decay the western democracies had sunk to
So the western nations cannot hide behind the veil of appeasement as some grandiose plan to buy time. In the lead up to the war every day that went by saw the Germans pull ever more ahead in the military arms race that was occurring. The allies were set to overtake the germans by 1941 in military production, but that was because of initiatives that followed the fall of Czechoslovakia....what were the allies doing before that. I venture to accuse that they were selling their souls to obtain peace at any cost.......
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Soren, I would not be so quick to throw a Catholic grace upon the German army or Hitler. One of the tenets of National Socialism, as stated in 'Mein Kampf" was that along with Jews and Communists was also to rid the Catholics. But there were far too many complications with that so for a large part, it was ignored. Catholics were another group of people that Hitler wanted to get rid of.
I did not seek to portray appeasement as a cunning plan. rather an act of desperation following years of neglect and decay that began as soon as WW1 was finished, leaving us in no state to make a stand against anybody.
It is true that Chamberlain hoped to avoid a war, as everyone did at that time, but it is equally true that the work to create the tools to beat Germany, that we made such vital use of when the time came, began then and was largely instigated by the likes of Chamberlain who we so comfortably lambast from our modern position blessed with 100% hindsight.
I think that to understand the decisions made at that time one has to place oneself firmly in the mindset of the time. After all, is it so hard to understand the real desperation to avoid a war that existed when the biggest and most horrific killing spree that man had ever known had ended only a decade and a bit before? This was a fresh horror, not a history lesson like it is to us. And yet, despite this, the preparations were being made, because it was accepted that we would have to make that stand.
I asked the question earlier, what would a total capitulation in the mid 30's (let us not forget, to the total disinterest of the USA) have achieved? Ifind the position of those who seek to criminalise anyone and everyone who did not actively seek to put a stop to Nazism in its early days a little too simplistic a view for my taste. I do not mean that in a derogatory way to any individual person, but I just find the standpoint too easy an option to take.
It is true that Chamberlain hoped to avoid a war, as everyone did at that time, but it is equally true that the work to create the tools to beat Germany, that we made such vital use of when the time came, began then and was largely instigated by the likes of Chamberlain who we so comfortably lambast from our modern position blessed with 100% hindsight.
I think that to understand the decisions made at that time one has to place oneself firmly in the mindset of the time. After all, is it so hard to understand the real desperation to avoid a war that existed when the biggest and most horrific killing spree that man had ever known had ended only a decade and a bit before? This was a fresh horror, not a history lesson like it is to us. And yet, despite this, the preparations were being made, because it was accepted that we would have to make that stand.
I asked the question earlier, what would a total capitulation in the mid 30's (let us not forget, to the total disinterest of the USA) have achieved? Ifind the position of those who seek to criminalise anyone and everyone who did not actively seek to put a stop to Nazism in its early days a little too simplistic a view for my taste. I do not mean that in a derogatory way to any individual person, but I just find the standpoint too easy an option to take.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
read your history please , 16 Danes died although not a lot I don't believe they had a chance to react it was over before they knew about it
By 1943 to 1945 the truth was certainly coming out. I completely agree with that. My grandparents even said the same thing. By the later stages of the war it impossible to not know what was going on.
The question though is, what could they have done about it?
Well, what the Dutch did about it, almost nothing.
Of course, quite a number of Jews and other "undesirable" went "under water" here, hiding with non-jewish families. But it was dangerous for the host families and many people didn't have the guts to do this, which is quite understandable if you see what happened to the people that were caught.
Yeap, and I think a lot of people fail to realize that today.
parsifal
Colonel
I agree that it was difficult and futile, however, i also believe that most Danes beleved that collaboration would make it easier and better for their country. In other words, sacrifice some of the nations moral fibre in order to make life easier. Rememeber your original question, was Denmarks war honourable.
The 1939 election in Denmark had a campaign slogan "Whats the Point?" meaning we should collaborate. Danes came to regret the decision to collaborate.
There were also Danes who served in the SS, and I believe Danes who reported Jews to the SD for deportation. Not many.....I think only about 50 (I should check, I cant remembe the exact numberr), but enough to taint the nations honour
Just before the war, ther was a bloc of nations, the neutrals, that signed an agreement called the Oslo Accords. Essentially this group of nations wanted to stay out of the war at any cost, siding with neither side. I dont remeber all of the member countries, but the ones I do remember include Belgium, Holland Denmeark, and Norway. All of these nations ended up under Nazi domination, and by electing to adopt a "neutral" status in fact assisted the Nazis. Belgium, for example, refused to allow the allies to enter Belgium before the 1940 invasion, and paid a very heavy price for it....what might have happened if the belgians had joined the alliesas they should and allowed the passage of the french army into the Ruhr in 1939. Perhaps the fate of Poland might not have been so pointless if they had. In Norway, the intransigence and passive support of the Nazis was exposed with the Altmark affair.....Norwegians saying they had boarded and searched the ship, saying they found nothing, only to have their complicity exposed by Captain Vian, boarding and releasing over 300 allied sailors held captive.
These are the actions of a morally bankrupt regime. If the members of the oslo alliance had sided with the allies rather than play games in the middle, they might not have all survived, but they would have emerged with a less tarnished reputation. And honour for nations remains a very important commodity.
I agree with Churchill...."the enemy of my enemy is my friend" he also was very critical of the neutrals, threatening at one stage of the war to declare war on Turkey because of its continued complicity with the Nazis. There is only one way to deal with phenomena like the Nazis, and that is to be uncompromising in the stand that you take
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Yes Denmarks war was admirable
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
I think that the figures are too large as to a how many died in the consentration camps or in the war as a whole, only very rough estimates are possible despite the documentation that was uncovered at the end of the conflict. As for how many knew what was going on again this will only ever be an estimate. We will never know for sure how many knew but would never admit to having known. I can only speculate that IMHO the numbers of camps in exsistance must have meant that many thousands of non camp running Germans probably did know of their exsistance and what was happening behind the wire.
About the catholic church and the Germany army; Christianity in Europe during WWII
Adler,
I am not churching anything up, the Wehrmacht didn't start off executing Soviet POW's, this started after the partisan attacks and mutilation of captured Wehrmacht troops. But the Soviet POWs were neglected from start to finish, and simply because there was no way of feeding them.
The murder of soviet POW's was mainly carried out by the shooting squads the Gestapo. They started it, and the Soviets followed up on it by murdering and mutilating what ever Germans they could capture, and this often meant Wehrmacht soldiers. And so the Wehrmacht carried out their own reprisals, which remarkably weren't worse than they were. Seeing ones buddy mutilated in the manner that some of the captured Wehrmacht soldiers were would send nearly any soldier into a bloodlusting rage.
Parsifal,
You should really read up on Denmarks part in WW2. If anyone was honourable, Denmark was. Denmark's intelligence service was quoted by Churchill as "second to none" and vital to a lot of Allied successes.
Denmark also made sure that nearly no jews were handed over to the Germans, with nearly all being safely sailed to Sweden.
Adler,
I am not churching anything up, the Wehrmacht didn't start off executing Soviet POW's, this started after the partisan attacks and mutilation of captured Wehrmacht troops. But the Soviet POWs were neglected from start to finish, and simply because there was no way of feeding them.
The murder of soviet POW's was mainly carried out by the shooting squads the Gestapo. They started it, and the Soviets followed up on it by murdering and mutilating what ever Germans they could capture, and this often meant Wehrmacht soldiers. And so the Wehrmacht carried out their own reprisals, which remarkably weren't worse than they were. Seeing ones buddy mutilated in the manner that some of the captured Wehrmacht soldiers were would send nearly any soldier into a bloodlusting rage.
Parsifal,
You should really read up on Denmarks part in WW2. If anyone was honourable, Denmark was. Denmark's intelligence service was quoted by Churchill as "second to none" and vital to a lot of Allied successes.
Denmark also made sure that nearly no jews were handed over to the Germans, with nearly all being safely sailed to Sweden.
Last edited:
syscom3
Pacific Historian
In 1943, if someone had told me that their were going to be camps set up that were going to be atrocities committed upon political prisoners that would shock the soul; I would have believed it possible.
If someone in 1943 told me there were going to be death camps established where men, woman and children would go in and executed the same day, I would never have believed it possible.
At a certain point, the mind just shuts down and refuses to accept that atrocities are being committed in ones name. Not to excuse any of the Germans who were old enough to understand what was happening, but the events of the time make "normal" people refuse to acknowledge evil deeds being done.
If someone in 1943 told me there were going to be death camps established where men, woman and children would go in and executed the same day, I would never have believed it possible.
At a certain point, the mind just shuts down and refuses to accept that atrocities are being committed in ones name. Not to excuse any of the Germans who were old enough to understand what was happening, but the events of the time make "normal" people refuse to acknowledge evil deeds being done.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
