Which side would you fly for?.......

[Tante Ju]

I do not believe that countries should be easily forgiven for that kind of crime, or allowed to explain away or discount the misdeeds done in the name of their nation. Germany has many misdeeds that she must be held to account for, and for a very long time because of the magnitude of her crimes , but unlike some I dont allow that murderous past to be forgotten or denied. Forgiven, yes, forgotten not for 1000 years, as long as the claims made by some of its leaders to dominate and terrorize the rest of Europe.

I think you are pointing finger because until you do so, you feel that you do not have to talk about your own country misdeeds. When you start talking about those things too, I believe you. Not until. Its always the most guilty one who is loudest.

Are other countries guilty of waging aggressive wars? you bet. Has Britain and france waged aggressive wars, yes of course they have, but not so much in recent history. Its a question of degree, however. Just because france has aspirations for European dominance is a world away from actually attempting to carry it out using illegal means, or means likley to cause mass destruction. Looking after national interests is acceptable. Using limited force to achieve a greater good is acceptabl;e. Using maximum force to counter pure evil is acceptable. But using your states power to initiat evil, or mass murder, or aggressive war, is not acceptable. and there lies the difference. When your national interests are perceived to be total domination of your neighbours, mass murder on an industrial scale, the instigation of aggressive offensive wars, thats where i draw the line.

And your point is? Justify why you ruin thread after thread with this guilty nonsense? Who asked you to do this? I see thread after thread taken off topic, the common nominator is always you. That is bad enough, but to me, continue hate propaganda and this 'how much I want to destroy Germany like Roman did to Carthage' is where you VERY stepped over the line. This must stop. Do not cry for your democratic rights,

Were the french responsible for waging offensive wars of mass destruction against other european nations, were the british since 1900? no, and No.

Why only "other european nations" and why only from 1900? Waging offensive wars of mass destruction in other places against other people do not count? Or do you consider these people not to have the same rights as europeans?

Were the Germans responsible for waging wars of aggression and mass destruction in the 20thcentury. Yes, twice in fact. Should they be allowed to forget that. No. Should we forget that. No.

Yes. We should also not let others to cover behind these historic facts.

I am not vilifying the germans as a people when I remind them of their forefathers crimes or the crimes committed in the name of their nation. I am standing for the truth about what Germany, as a nation is guilty of, and will never resile from that position.

In simple terms, you are set out to provoke trouble, play a role nobody asked you to do so. And derail treads, again and again.

That kind of clarity and truthfulness is actually healthy for the modern Germany, because as a nation they will never make the same mistake again whilst they are not allowed to forget or rewrite their past.

My opinion that modern Germany go into lenght like no other not to forget into past. What I say to you, is when your country does even half that to face its own past, then we might talk about you having any moral right to judge others or play their 'mentor'. Because right now, it is somebody who cannot write try to teach is how to write.. so no thank you. And hate speech is not tolerated. Be it against German, French, whoever. If you expect people stand by and watch you communicate hate speech, you are very wrong, sir.

ps. I am sorry to take this long reply, but this hate drivel really makes me angry. I do not tolerate hate ideology in any form, directed for anyone.. hate ideology is reason for all suffering. If parsifal wants to discuss his, he can take to private message.

 

[parsifal]

All I can suggest tante, is that if you feel so offended by the contents of my posts, then dont read them, dont respond to them. Its not up to you judge what i say, you are welcome to post your own comments and facts as you see them. i am not going to back away or change the way i post, some people enjoy them, some people think they are quite reasonable. So if im not going to change, and you find them offensive, perhaps you shouldnt put yourself in that position in the first place.

 

[Tante Ju]

@parsifal. I think it is good suggestion. I put you on ignore. Then I save myself the trouble of your very greatly concerning speech. It seems waste of time to spend time reading badly biased, badly research and hateful posts. I keep seeing that more and more people start to come to this conclusion. Thank you for making it easier decision for me, too.

Complete fabrication.

Germany suffered worse from the blockade than the UK ever did. See Chickering's history of the German Army on how rationing affected front line soldiers from 1917 onwards.

I am not knowledgable of writings of Chikering. Perhaps you can highlight what facts he has. Maybe then it will be more clear what you call 'complete fabriqueation'. As for UK - nation relied on import of food. Germany not. By 1917, British food stock was down to few weeks of reserve. Well known fact.

Your buying into the widely discredited stab-in-the-back myth, much repeated in Germany in 1919, again in the mids 20s, again in 1933 and then by far-right elements post 1945.

No. You try to mix up stab-in-the-back myth, which goes simply that jews, bolshewiks etc. undermined Germany by conspiracy etc. This is myth of course. But it is fact that German collapsed politcally (both foreign, ie. Allies lost, and internal). Internal problems did not help war making capacity, nor did mutiny of navy. I do not think they are sole reason, but in already bad situation - Allies giving up, hope for a victorious conclusion of war was went, it may have been final push on scale. That is said, Army was still intact and well capable of effective resistance - to seek peace was political decision.

Also warning. DO NOT TRY TO LINK ME to far right elements again. It is underhand tactic and will have consequence.

The Allied final offensive pushed back the German front line 40-60 miles in two weeks, with little indication that Germany could stop it.

So did the German advance so much in spring 1918 offensive. There was little indication that Entente could stop it. Then German reached end of supply line, and offensive gradual halted. It simple nature of non-motorized warfare. There was simply nothing suggest that German army was about to collapse in 1918. All it was done to push it back a bit. 40-60 miles advance may seem a lot to generals of trench warfare, but in practical side? German were retreating toward supply, Entente from it, and frontline shortened. You also seem to forget they were still in Belgium - France border. Territory could be traded any time - it had no importance for German. Problem was that march forward 50 miles was not going to change anything in big picture of things. What parsifal suggest, that march into Germany and force unconditional surrender was simple pipe dream for Entente or anybody else.

The German army was crippled in terms of morale (offensive spirit particularly) as well as suffering material deficiencies. Simply put, Germany could not sustain its army in the field and the high command knew it. Germany's allies vanished over the four months prior to armistice. First the Bulgarians, then the Ottomans, then the Austro-Hungarians.

You can present a source, too? Quote German general who said..

What German high command (Luddendorf) knew was that war could not be won, but there was no doubt on the other hand that peace could be made. The suffering of morale is true, but at same time it is noted that Entente morale for offensive was already crippeld two years ago. We know French soliders simply refuse to attack. Mass executions were ordered by Petain to restore order. In short, the German were at the end of their will to make offensive, but so were the Entente. I completely agree with you about importance of German allies falling out. This was imho most important part that German throw in towel, too.

Which English colonies were affected or even threatened by Germany? England entered the war to satisfy her European treaty obligations, which in turn satisfied her Europe strategy of the previous 250 years: to maintain the balance of power in continental Europe.

Balance of power is just another way of say: so nobody can fiddle with our imperial interest, divide and rule etc. Britain prime interest was exploiting the colonies, their resources, and maintain cheep resource and sea links for trade. German naval buildup was seen as a real threat to this, I find it odd you deny this - English German naval race - being reason stand against between German and British Empires. Its a given. This is why French - British stand against and rivaling slowly stopped and become an Allience. "satisfy her European treaty obligations" yes sounds very nice, but everybody know this was pretext for war between alliance blocks.

Ah, truth by repetition.

The Dolchstoss legend has been so widely discredited its a wonder that you'd bring it up at all.

Stop ad hominem, final warning. Nobody believes Dolchstoss, you simply misconstruct it, a silly nazi theory about jews and bolshewiks being to blame to dismiss a fact, that forcing out a total victory over German by military means was pipe dream, even if things were starting to look bad and worse for German. Entente knew this full well, most of French entente leaders would want a LOT more. Why do you think they gave up those dreams? Because they were practical possibility?

Ummm.
France had her imperial aspirations ended at Waterloo.

Are you sure it was France and Napoleon? Napoleon's - or I should say: Napoleon I - imperial aspirations were ended at Waterloo, not France. The Bourbon were restored again, but then came another Napoleon, who had anything but not imperial aspirations. I suggest little reading on him. He went on to touch everything from Russia, Mexico, US civili war, Northern Africa, entered arms race with Britain until he finnaly burned himself and miscalculated with the Prussian. Wikipedia is good start, good article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_III

Every European country was ambitious, its just that some were more successful in Empire creation than others.
The French were leading figures in the post war Treaty of Rome and have chosen to live within Europe in peace.
If you look at all the alliances / treaties within Europe over the centuries we have all been in bed with each other at some stage.
That's the biggest irony of all.

Yes I agree. This complex relationship I think tend to confuse overseas students of European history. I believe if you study European history, you quickly learn that yesterdays enemy is tomorrow ally. Which makes difficult to see things very black and white.

 

[Njaco]

I think you are simply a German-hater. Why, I do not know. But words like "plough salt into the very earth on which the city stood" shows you are little more than a hate filled man, spilling out hate on this board. I am not sure why moderators allow it. I tried to look at it different, as different opinion, perhaps different culture, but it seems you are only hear to give room to such feeling of your, no matter what the topic.. I cannot read any topic interests me because of this display of hate anymore... I try to read up artylerry, some very good posts, actually, but only parsifal keep going on how uttless idiots German were because of their 17 cm long distance gun.. I keep readin Erich Hartman topic, again you parsifal starts tirade about how every German soldier was without honor.. now I read this topic, again it get side lead by your trolling and World War I propaganda repeat about "Hun" and Hun evil ways. I am very bored with this. You simply seem to exist because of your hatred, and this board is your vessel of channel this hatred. My ancestor fought German, for liberty, but I do not understand such hate even. Yet I can see history - which I love - in balanced way. Understand why country this or that did this or that. I like to understand the reason. I like to discuss. But then, always same guy, come and posts:

"Because they are evil, do not you get it?"

I see again and again that you have nothing more to communicate, than hate speech, put into various forms, rationalised in various matter. What is the reason, parsifal, why are you behaving so hateful? Actual, I am more interesting hearing of this reason than your dreams of doing something that will never more than pipe dream of few extremeist nationalist. There are such in every country. But lucky, very few. There is Klu Klux Klan in US, British "defence" nazis now in UK streets, neo nazi rallies in Germany, Russia, Slovakia.. I think you are one of them, those who spread hatered, and incite hate, place blame and downplay long enemy nation. But I can find only one thing common in these people. Not ideology. But frustration.

Thankfully, nations of Europe reconciled, and learned not to step on each other feet by now..

Tante Ju you just recieved an infraction for this. You will not call other members names or insult them in such a way. When you start to attack the member, you lose all credibility in your argument. Keep to the topic without personal attacks.

 

[parsifal]

I think it is good suggestion. I put you on ignore. Then I save myself the trouble of your very greatly concerning speech. It seems waste of time to spend time reading badly biased, badly research and hateful posts. I keep seeing that more and more people start to come to this conclusion. Thank you for making it easier decision for me, too.

Thats a good decision Tante. Just remember, however, that i am unconcerned by your comments, and made no such agreement in return


So did the German advance so much in spring 1918 offensive. There was little indication that Entente could stop it. Then German reached end of supply line, and offensive gradual halted. It simple nature of non-motorized warfare. There was simply nothing suggest that German army was about to collapse in 1918. All it was done to push it back a bit. 40-60 miles advance may seem a lot to generals of trench warfare, but in practical side? German were retreating toward supply, Entente from it, and frontline shortened. You also seem to forget they were still in Belgium - France border. Territory could be traded any time - it had no importance for German. Problem was that march forward 50 miles was not going to change anything in big picture of things. What parsifal suggest, that march into Germany and force unconditional surrender was simple pipe dream for Entente or anybody else.

According to the Deuxieme Bureau the germans were calculated on the 27 March to posses 85 divisions for their offensive. of which 62 were considered combat ready. A contemporay German high command corroborates this assessment, and further reports that of the remaining divisions, approximatrely half could not be considered combat ready because of malnourishment. They were starving and considered unable to stand up to the rigours of an offensive battle. So much for Germany being self sufficient in food in 1918.

By 27 June, the numbers of combat ready divisions on the western front had fallen to just 39 divisions, and the French intelligence service noted thatmany of these formations had lost their most experienced troops, including the stosstruppen. Replacements were insufficient to fill all gaps in the ranks and consisted mostly of underaged, inadequately trained replacements.

According to martin Marix Evans (1918, year of victories), "the germans were becoming increasingly anxious at the level of allied resistance and the casualties they (the Germans) were suffering. The army high command determined that they could not recommence offensive action until the 20 july but in the end this proved an impossible target, and the offensive was not restarted.

Moreover sickness rates per division in the German army were very high, about twice as high as in the british army, due mostly to systemic malnourishment in the German Army at this time."

Part II of this excellent book is entitled "The Allied counteroffensive - the German army destroyed. The ANZAC Corps was involved in these counterattacks at this time, and represented one of the elite formations used to spearhaed and destroy the rearguards of the retreating Germans. Just as an example, lets look at one smal counterattack In the counterattack at Hamel. The Australian commander, John Monash demonstrtrated how well and how complete the Australians now understood the principals of warfare. Monash put his plan to his army commander Rawlinson in June. He requested and received a tank Brigade for support, the 5th tank Brigade to support the single division committed. The assault Infantry battalions rehearsed and trained for several weeks with the Tank Corps men, so that the tanks and the infantry worked as a close knit team and had a good understanding of each other. The 5th Tank Brigade, equipped with the new and far more reliable new MkV tanks far more reliable than those used at bullecourt, and now adequately supported by proper maintenance. Monash arranged to to use his artillery in counterbattery fire assisted by observation balloons and FOOs. The command structure for thje attack was simple and efficient. The artillery was to be used also as a smokescreen and as a creeping barrage to support the attack. The Infantry were detailed to support the armour, not the other way round. Each Infantry Company was to advance independantly, behind the cover of an tank. The Infantry were carrying machine guns and grenades and a heavy amount of ammunition.

The battle went ahead on the 4 July, with some 8 companies of American troops also participating (with reluctant agreement from Pershing). The battle was a complete success. Despite some stiff resistance from the german defenders (2 VCs were won that day), the ANZACs killed or captured 4310 Germans in less than 93 minutes. Australian casualties were 731 killed, and 319 wounded. It was a marked demonstration of just how far the Australians had developed their fighting techniues. The British published the battle plan in a brochure and used it for the remaineder of the war as a model for a set piece battle. Gains of territory unheard of previously had been achieved....close to 6 miles in places. The best appraisal possibly can be found in the records of the enemy. The German second army HQ commented on the allied success that day, and how the germans had proven unable to counter the offensive effectively. It was the beginning of the end for the German army.


What German high command (Luddendorf) knew was that war could not be won, but there was no doubt on the other hand that peace could be made. The suffering of morale is true, but at same time it is noted that Entente morale for offensive was already crippeld two years ago. We know French soliders simply refuse to attack. Mass executions were ordered by Petain to restore order. In short, the German were at the end of their will to make offensive, but so were the Entente. I completely agree with you about importance of German allies falling out. This was imho most important part that German throw in towel, too.

Err no, by the second half of 1918, the french had staged a recovery, and were counterattacking effectively. For example, Foch used the french XX Corps of the 10 army to counterattack after 2nd Marne to recapture Soissons, and trhen clear the Germans entrencehed along the river. The frenchmen performed very well in this operation, before being relieved and rested by the American forces. The Germans were essentially kicked from pillar to Post by this series of attacks, delivered in rapid succession to each other.



]

 

[BikerBabe]

...arguing on the internet is like trying to nail a fart to the wall:
You spend an awful lot of energy on nothing, and in the end you've gotten nowhere.

 

[Ratsel]

parsifal my friend,

why punish the entire German population for the actions of a few radical politicians the waffen SS?

 

[Messy1]

parsifal my friend,

why punish the entire German population for the actions of a few radical politicians the waffen SS?

I would say the people are represented by their heads of government. Politicians are usually elected by the people they serve.

 

[Readie]

parsifal my friend,

why punish the entire German population for the actions of a few radical politicians the waffen SS?

We were discussing WW1 Ratsel.

John

 

[Readie]

...arguing on the internet is like trying to nail a fart to the wall:
You spend an awful lot of energy on nothing, and in the end you've gotten nowhere.

Yep, quite right BB, trying to get a point across to those who refuse to listen is equally futile.
Collective denial is a great way to deal with very uncomfortable issues isn't it.
Cheers
John

 

[Ratsel]

We were discussing WW1 Ratsel.

John

why punish the entire German population for the actions of a few radical politicians.

 

[Messy1]

But Ratsel, who put the politicians in power?

 

[Ratsel]

the people. based on whatever the politics stated at the time. are the people resposible for the politics actions later? Think back to your own US history before an answer.

 

[parsifal]

Because ultimately it is the people who are responsible for the government they select. The Nazis, or the Kaiser could do little without the support of their people.

Moreover this shoe fits everybody. Why did 4 million common Poles have to die because and milions more suffer because of the actions of the germans, or Holland, or Russia. This is a defence tried many times and failed many times. The root cause of the suffering is because an agressive and violent war had been initiated. By whom?????? The taboo "G" country

 

[Ratsel]

my friend, that makes no sense. its like saying becouse of past American goverment actions all the victoms of the 9/11 terror attacks got what was coming to them. for others, please I only use that as an example. every single person who died (except fot the terrorists) were heros in my book.

 

[Tante Ju]

But Ratsel, who put the politicians in power?

I gave it some idea.. elections put politicans to power. But if I start to wonder.. Hitler party union I think got around 35% of the votes. That is with participation of probably 50-60-70% of votable population. This is how election works.. of course system are different in many countries, I do not know exact German voting system in Weimar, but I suppose - 21 years plus voting limit sounds right? Even voting system is different, none require 100% votes to get a place of representative, they all "help" and distort a bit for candidate who got most votes. Typical in Anglo Saxon countries he gets effect of all votes (Winner takes all theory), even if he just got half of votes plus one. In contental, typical it less favours winner of votes, but it also distorts. I am not aware exact system in Weimar Germany.

How many people in Germany of ca. 60 million had over 21? Say - 2/3 if I assume year tree is equal in spread?

So you have about third of two thirds of two thirds. what is that - 14 % of population perhaps? And how many were die hard nazi of that, who would vote Hitler to get war, and how many disillusioned democrats, socialist, worker party etc who voted to get a job?

Then I gave some more though. Who fought WW2? 18-25 years old are chief draft into typical army.. at least in early war. If they were 25 in 1940 when drafted into army, this means they were 18 or less when Hitler came power 1933. They could not vote about Hitler or other lead German at all. Yet there is some who blame them for fighting a war they had no political choice in. Tsk tsk. And it reminds me of saying, war is fight by naive young for greedy old men..

ps. I do not even touch who "elected" Stalin, Mao Ze Dong or Pol Pot, or Ghaddafi etc.

ps2. Apply this to WW1 and it gets even more funny. Half the population (woman) did not even have vote about things at all.

So, I have "mild" issue with how whole population is responsible for actions of political leaders. It is same idea Hitler followed, when he placed blame for example for all jews because of the seen wrongdoings of a handful of bolshewik jews. People who agitate for collective guilt just follow the same ideological trap as this Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Stalin and co. did. Collective guilt is wrong, and it only leads to suffering and injustice, period. It is stample of most dark times and most backward states, and most cruelty in human history.

 

[Erich]

WARNUNG ! get back on topic

 

[parsifal]

Looking a little further at events in late 1918, and whether the German Army was effectively resisting allied offensives...

This is an extract, a summary from the Official Australian War Memorial archives in Canberra


"On 14 July 1918, the German Army launched its last great attack on the French in the area of the Marne River, east of Paris and on either side of the major city of Rheims. The French had anticipated this move and had held their front line lightly. Then, as the Germans went forward, they encountered strong French reserves and were repulsed. On 18 July the French, accompanied by fresh American divisions, counter-attacked. This Franco-American advance drove the enemy back towards his main supply railhead. Taken by surprise, the Germans began to pull back and a major offensive against the British in Flanders was called off as reinforcements were sent south. It was a turning point on the Western Front. The great German offensive had faltered and was not resumed. The initiative now passed back to the Allies and it was decided that a major British attack would be made east of Villers-Bretonneux. It was thought that because of constant Australian harassment there, the Germans' morale was low and their fortifications weak.

The Battle of Amiens, fought between 8 and 11 August 1918, marked the beginning of the British advance that culminated in the Armistice of 11 November 1918. The preparations for the battle included unprecedented security in order to achieve maximum surprise. The Canadian Corps was secretly moved to the Somme area and took over the southern half of the Australian front line. The Australia Corps was concentrated between the Canadians and the Somme River while the British held the line north of the river. The infantry moved into their assembly positions in the small hours of 8 August. A dense fog gathered and unseen aeroplanes droning above drowned out the noise of the tanks that would support the infantry. The fog was still dense at 4.20 am when the artillery barrage opened fire and the advance began.

These early attacks were carried out in dense fog with infantry and tanks moving in what they hoped was the right direction. The first objective was seized by 7.30 and some German positions were bypassed and then attacked in the rear. Most of the German field artillery was overrun and quickly captured. By 8.20 the fog had began to thin and fresh troops resumed the advance".


Charles Bean, the Australian official historian wrote:

"A little later the mist suddenly cleared, and for a moment all eyes on the battlefield took in the astonishing scene: infantry in lines of hundreds of little section-columns all moving forward – with tanks, guns, battery after battery, the teams tossing their manes".

Charles Bean, Anzacs to Amiens, Canberra, 1948, p.471


When the fog lifted German guns opened up at the tanks and put many out of action, but the Australian infantry kept going and soon overran most of the guns. The greater part of the final objective for the day, the old outer line of the Amiens defence system, was captured. The Canadian and French attacks had gone as well as those of the Australians and penetrations of up to 25 kilometres of the German front south of the Somme had been achieved within a few days of the offensive as the german defences were swept away in dramatic fashion.

This was a victory that far surpassed any previous success of the British Army on the Western Front. The Allies had inflicted over 75000 unrecoverable casualties on the totally demoralized german forces. 4th Australian Division alone had captured more than 13,000 Germans were made prisoners and more than 200 guns captured. The French had taken 3500 prisoners.

General Eric von Ludendorff, the German commander, later wrote of 8 August 1918:

[It] was the black day of the German Army in this war. ... The 8th of August put the decline of that [German] fighting power beyond all doubt. ... The war must be ended.

Ludendorff, quoted by Charles Bean, Anzac to Amiens, Canberra, 1948, p.473

The advance continued on the following days with the Australians taking Etinehem, Lihons and Proyart. Australian casualties for the offensive, mainly from 9–12 August, were 6,000 killed and wounded with total Allied casualties (some of whom later returned to battle) of just 22000.

I fail to see how it can be said the german army by this stage was effectively resisting the allied counteroffensive. Sure they may have staged a partial recovery in the latter stages of 1918 as the winter weather set in, and some manpower previously wounded was returned to units, but as ludendorf states, from the 8th August on there was no recovery for the germans.

The allies should never have accepted the weak treaty of versailles. Pershing was absolutely right. Unconditional surrender should have been the allied terms. nothing less. That and the full occupation of germany itself in 1919 (the modern equivalent the romans ploughing salt into the soil of carthage) would have left no doubt as to who had won, and prevented the myths that led to Hitlers rise from ever gaining traction.

What a lost opportunity......

 

[Erich]

I am wondering if you guys even know what the original poster posted ? get back on topic or this thread is history

 

[parsifal]

sorry erich did not see your warning until after i had posted